What makes a good platformer? What IS a platformer?
I read the article in the link, and it seemed to delve into the esoteric side of game design, but I'm not sure it's the whole story.
The truth is, I don't have a clue what makes a good platformer, but I know "good" when I see it (or play it).
The article seems to concentrate exclusively on the "scrolling" platformers, but what about Donkey Kong? Lode Runner? Jumpman? Pharaoh's Curse? Impossible Mission? And there were countless other non-scrolling platformers that were great.
The term "Platformer" seems to cover a lot of varied ground. How do you compare Donkey Kong, Flashback, Lode Runner, Prince of Persia, Metroid, Super Mario Bros., Contra, and Mario 64? Heck, even "Frogger" might be considered a platform game if you break it down to its basic elements.
What makes a great platform game? I think the bottom line is ease of controls, great atmosphere, and compelling "story" that makes you want to get to the end. I think all platformers, done right, compels the player to see the ending. Somehow, you MUST get to the end, because during the journey, there's always more to see, more to play, higher challenges, and more to discover. You must BEAT the game.
A few flaws that many platformers fall into are pixel-perfect jumps, clunky controls, and samey levels. There should be some leeway in the jumps, so I don't fall 5000 feet and have to climb all the way back to where I was (or die in the process). That's not fun, that's torture. But then again, I found myself playing "Rick Dangerous" on the Amiga endlessly, and it is all about killing you if you don't play it 100% correctly!
And if I make it past a level, I want to see a NEW level, and not just the same level rearranged. Keep my interest by rewarding my perseverance! I guess this advice holds true for just about any game. Then again, how do I explain "Lode Runner" with its samey levels? I don't know.
All that being said, game design isn't just a science, it's an art. Some things leap beyond mathematical subroutines and into the realm of the human intuition. How do you quantify Super Mario Bros or Lode Runner? Yes, you can break them down logically, but when you play them, they're just fun. It works, and I don't think anyone can completely explain it over other similar games.
What makes a good platformer? A good platformer is fun. I know that sounds overtly simplistic, but how else can you quantify it? A=(X+Y/Z)??? There doesn't seem to be many rules that apply, or can't be broken. A good platformer can be defined as a good platformer, not by analysis, but by intuition. I suspect that rule holds true for any game genre.
I read the article in the link, and it seemed to delve into the esoteric side of game design, but I'm not sure it's the whole story.
The truth is, I don't have a clue what makes a good platformer, but I know "good" when I see it (or play it).
The article seems to concentrate exclusively on the "scrolling" platformers, but what about Donkey Kong? Lode Runner? Jumpman? Pharaoh's Curse? Impossible Mission? And there were countless other non-scrolling platformers that were great.
The term "Platformer" seems to cover a lot of varied ground. How do you compare Donkey Kong, Flashback, Lode Runner, Prince of Persia, Metroid, Super Mario Bros., Contra, and Mario 64? Heck, even "Frogger" might be considered a platform game if you break it down to its basic elements.
What makes a great platform game? I think the bottom line is ease of controls, great atmosphere, and compelling "story" that makes you want to get to the end. I think all platformers, done right, compels the player to see the ending. Somehow, you MUST get to the end, because during the journey, there's always more to see, more to play, higher challenges, and more to discover. You must BEAT the game.
A few flaws that many platformers fall into are pixel-perfect jumps, clunky controls, and samey levels. There should be some leeway in the jumps, so I don't fall 5000 feet and have to climb all the way back to where I was (or die in the process). That's not fun, that's torture. But then again, I found myself playing "Rick Dangerous" on the Amiga endlessly, and it is all about killing you if you don't play it 100% correctly!
And if I make it past a level, I want to see a NEW level, and not just the same level rearranged. Keep my interest by rewarding my perseverance! I guess this advice holds true for just about any game. Then again, how do I explain "Lode Runner" with its samey levels? I don't know.
All that being said, game design isn't just a science, it's an art. Some things leap beyond mathematical subroutines and into the realm of the human intuition. How do you quantify Super Mario Bros or Lode Runner? Yes, you can break them down logically, but when you play them, they're just fun. It works, and I don't think anyone can completely explain it over other similar games.
What makes a good platformer? A good platformer is fun. I know that sounds overtly simplistic, but how else can you quantify it? A=(X+Y/Z)??? There doesn't seem to be many rules that apply, or can't be broken. A good platformer can be defined as a good platformer, not by analysis, but by intuition. I suspect that rule holds true for any game genre.
"Don't think. Feel!" - Bruce Lee
qoj hpmoj o+ 6uo73q 3Jv 3svq jnoh 77V