[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/vr/ - Retro Games

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1634158556284.jpg (51 KB, 464x660)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
Does it take until the second game for R&C to become as fun as people say? The first game is just an average 3D platformer with guns so far. Also is Size Matters truly bad and why? It was the only game I played back then and I enjoyed it a lot.
>>
>>8233065
I don't think you'll magically find the gameplay fun in 2 if you didn't like 1, but I believe the general consensus is that 2 is the best. Though people will argue whether 2 or 3 deserves the title.
The first is fun, though. The only thing you have to lose is an hour of your life.
>>
2 is a noticeable improvement but the best R&C games are still average 3D platformers with guns, except deadlocked where they removed the platforming
>>
>>8233286
t.tendie
>>
>>8233065
>The first game is just an average 3D platformer with guns so far.

first game is awesome, you mong
>>
>>8233065
Second game crams a LOT in it,
Third game was really fun, but if you play it immediately after 2 you might be disappointed in how short it feels in comparison
>>
>>8233065
The first game is the best and most soulful one easily.
>>
>>8233065
first game has a lot of technical platforming with some real nuance to its design, it's really great overall
>>
>>8233065
i mean they were just off the heels of spyro, so dont expect them to really take advantage of the series until a bit later. 1 feels simple but tight, with a bit of awkward controls, later games tighten things up a bit but focus less on the platforming, which isnt necessarily bad. hoverboards still suck balls.
>>
>yet another awkward as fuck to control 3d platformer people goddamn praise for some fucking stupid reason
If Mario 64 didn't sour you on videogames forever, something is wrong with you.
>>
>>8234430
>If Mario 64 didn't sour you on videogames forever, something is wrong with you.
I agree, SM64 is THAT bad.
>>
>>8233065
1 is the most soulful, 2 is the best, 3 has the best mechanics but is just a bit soulless, 4 is shit. ToD is great, ACiT is decent but soulless.
>>
File: file.png (8 KB, 624x122)
8 KB
8 KB PNG
>>8234530
It's true. I've long regretted every stupid coin I've ever collected. If you don't feel this way you're simply an immature gamer.
>>
The first one is the best one, OP. It's just easier for people to like the later games because they introduced more numbers going up and made the combat "smoother" (necessitating changing the entire design of the game until it becomes mostly a third person horde shooter with all overpowered weapons)
>>
>>8233065
2 is better than 1 in terms of gameplay, 1 is slightly better storywise.
Size matters is pretty meh compared to the first 3 games.
>>
>>8234718
>2 is better than 1 in terms of gameplay
People only say this because it "feels" more fluid, in all actuality 2 is unpolished as hell and the level designs aren't always great. 1 is a more polished experience overall which had more thought put into its design. 2 feels like it was priming us for a really based 3, which ended up being similarly rushed and unfinished although feeling a bit more polished.
1's level designs are actually pretty great.
>>
>>8234563
This is accurate except gladiator isn't shit and ToD is decent, ACiT was better.

>>8234724
2 was basically the same except they polished the gameplay up a bit, the most noticable being strafing and weapons being upgradable.
3 is where it went down hill, the level design was completely different and it became even more of a tps, with those awful wave based levels.
1 would be better than 2 if it had the polished gameplay, but for more it's 2 > 1 > 3, but 2 is only very slightly better than 1.
>>
>>8234731
>2 was basically the same except they polished the gameplay up a bit
I honestly don't know how you could come to this conclusion if you've played both games. They're fundamentally different experiences.
>the most noticable being strafing
You could strafe in 1, although it was limited.
>1 would be better than 2 if it had the polished gameplay
2's changes weren't just a lateral 'it's more polished' move, the game feels totally different to play and control. Weapons were given a totally different kind of use because of how easy it is to use them and position yourself now. 2 fundamentally changes a lot about how the game works.
>>
>>8234764
>I honestly don't know how you could come to this conclusion if you've played both games.
I've been playing these games since I was a kid, probably played each one over 5 times.
What exactly do you think they took away from 2 that 1 did better gameplay wise?
>You could strafe in 1
No you couldn't. It was introduced in 2.
>2 fundamentally changes a lot about how the game works.
In what way? For the most part they are the same except 2 adds more stuff, basically.
1 was barebones compared to 2, which isn't a bad thing, adding stuff isn't always better, but I enjoyed everything they added in 2.
>>
>>8234790
>>You could strafe in 1
>No you couldn't. It was introduced in 2.
There isn't any reason for me to reply when you don't even know that much
>>
>>8234804
Go look it up, then after you've apologized, you can reply to me.
>>
1 and 2 are very different, 2 is basically an action-packed shooter whereas 1 was mostly a platformer with cool weapons with many uses, jumping is defintiely de-emphasized on 2, it's mostly gauntlets of enemies. The weapons are mostly made to be daka-daka-daka fun and spammable in 2, which is a lot of fun, but I honestly prefer how specialized they were in 1, you needed to use them with how limited you were. The levels are also much more distinct in 1, the NPCs, variety of missions, gimmicks and enemies... story's better too.

2 is a little homogenized in comparison and yeah, still fun, but I prefer 1, so far in the frnachise. What's wrong with 3 and Deadlocked?
>>
File: john-cena-562300-1-402.jpg (177 KB, 1200x1200)
177 KB
177 KB JPG
>>8234812
This is just embarrassing now
Here's a hint champ, it isn't a default move you always have. That you don't know about it at all implies to me there may be a reason why you personally can't tell why 1 and 2 are so different in terms of gameplay. Maybe you just aren't paying attention.
>>
>>8234814
>What's wrong with 3 and Deadlocked?
3 is 2 but worse (but with more numbers going up) and Deadlocked is what 3 wanted to be (mostly a third person bullet hell shooter against tons of enemies) but it's actually good, albeit so far removed from Ratchet 1 at that point that it makes sense to hardly call it a "Ratchet & Clank" game
And I still like 3
>>
>>8234819
So you count that 'strafing' you get with the hover pack?
How about you start the game from the start and strafe for me bro, which button are you pressing exactly?
>>
>>8234835
>So you count that 'strafing' you get with the hover pack?
Yes, it is in fact strafing.
>How about you start the game from the start and strafe for me bro, which button are you pressing exactly?
Is this just cope?
>>
>>8234836
>Yes, it is in fact strafing.
And how far into the game do you get it?
Surely it's in the first level right?
>>
>>8234842
>And how far into the game do you get it?
>Surely it's in the first level right?
This is a weird goalpost to move. You said strafing doesn't exist in 1. I said it did. Now you're trying to gaslight me into thinking you said "strafing as a default move doesn't exist in 1"?
>>
>>8234850
It's an unlockable move that you have to go out of your way to use (need to be in the air).
In 2 you get it from the start as a part of your move set.
You obviously knew what I meant when I said you couldn't strafe, yet you felt the need to win some retarded argument.
Now please concede, I've clearly won this argument...
>>
>>8234856
>You obviously knew what I meant when I said you couldn't strafe
Yes, you meant "you can't strafe". You objectively can. There's a move in the game that allows you to strafe. This isn't going to change no matter how many goalposts you want to move.
If your point was truly "the strafe in 1 is bad and doesn't even count", then why didn't you just say that to begin with? I don't even think the strafe in 1 is bad or worthless, if you never used it in 1 you missed out on some places where it's pretty great.
You want to know the best part, though?
>In 2 you get it from the start as a part of your move set.
Yes, and that's part of why 2 is fundamentally different designwise from 1. (this guy is right >>8234814) It's like you're proving all my points for me.
>>
>>8234861
Fine, at a later point in the game you can unlock the ability to hover from side to side in a way you could consider strafing.
You've won on a technicality.
Enjoy this moment, for the next time you dare challenge me to an internet fight, I shan't be so easy to defeat...
>>
>>8234874
This is a fine enough concession, I appreciate it
>>
>>8234885
It's a shame, we could have had a nice conversation about one of my favourite game series, but instead you wanted to belittle me because I don't consider hover strafing as real strafing.
And for the record, only virgins hover strafe, real chads shoot while sideflip jumping.
>>
>>8233065
I found out I had a demo for this recently. It was actually pretty long but I couldn't get into it, and I'm the type that not only loves platformers but tend to also love the beginnings as well.

I did get the arena game off ebay a long time ago disappointed thinking it was a full fledged game. But that ended up being decently fun though I'd never touch it again.
>>
>>8234890
Anyway, the actual point is that 1 and 2 have very different design in execution brought about by the fluidity of controls and combat. 1's combat and weapons are better described as 'tactical' than 'run in and circle strafe and shoot everything with the massive kill everything bomb'. Both are great games of course but it's pretty apparent to me how different they are for this part alone.
1's gameplay mechanics lend themselves more to a methodical romp through action platforming worlds that feel like lived in planets, 2's gameplay mechanics lend themselves more to running in and fighting lots of powerful enemies while nimbly evading their attacks with a lesser emphasis on the platforming. Insomniac designed both games accordingly. That being said on a superficial level they share a lot in common, travel to different planets which usually have 2 or 3 separate paths to follow, you buy weapons and ammo from little shops, go through levels which are mostly gauntlets that challenge your skill, acquire items or upgrades which allow you to do unlocking minigames, etc.
>>
>>8234902
I agree with what you are saying, but I just don't think it's as big a difference as you make it out to be.
Fundamentally they are very similar games, but 2 has had the gameplay tweaked to feel better.
In 1, you 'run in and fight lots of enemies' just like you do in 2.
And in 2, there is plenty of platforming like in 1.
Is there more fighting and less platforming in 2 than in 1? Yes.
But not a huge difference, this is why I say that 2 is just 1 but more polished. Because truthfully, the 'fighting' was the only thing from 1 that needed polishing, everything else was great.
Though I admit that 1 had a better story and less 'gimmicks', it was more of a simple adventure compared to 2, which isn't a bad thing.
>>
>>8234902
Also, I'd say your points apply moreso to 3 than 2, if you were comparing 1 and 3, I'd agree 100%
>>
>>8234918
>>8234935
>I just don't think it's as big a difference as you make it out to be.
We have different interpretations on this. That's not a problem.
>Also, I'd say your points apply moreso to 3 than 2, if you were comparing 1 and 3, I'd agree 100%
I see 2 as Ratchet becoming more like 3. It set into motion the changes which would become even more apparent by the time of 3's release. I guess you could describe 2 as sort of an unsteady middle ground between 1 and 3 in this way. Even so I'd say 2 would lean closer to 3 than 1 in terms of design
>>
>>8234946
I'd argue that 2 is closer to 1 and that 3 is, like you say, 'designed differently'.
To me it feels like you are thinking of 3 when you talk about 2, because all your points would be spot on in that regard.
But to me, 2 is simply 1 with added features, the core design of the game is basically the same.
Then with 3 they changed it, while still keeping the gameplay improvements from 2.
>>
>>8234959
The disconnect is basically just that you consider the 'gameplay improvements' from 2 to not be a change to the core design of the game.
>>
>>8234967
Yeah pretty much, I don't really see why you think it was such a huge difference that you could consider them changes to the core design of the game.
Where as with 3, I would say they are core design changes. Example: All the wave based areas where you stand around and shoot wave after wave of enemies, that's a core design change.
You don't have that in 2, it's still just an adventure where you go from non linear level to non linear level shooting and platforming.
3 on the other hand is all linear, mostly shooting.
>>
>>8235021
>Example: All the wave based areas where you stand around and shoot wave after wave of enemies, that's a core design change.
>You don't have that in 2, it's still just an adventure where you go from non linear level to non linear level shooting and platforming.
This isn't always the case across 2. The last few levels get very gauntlet-y with constantly spamming these dudes who just soak up attacks like sponges and respawn multiple times.
>>
>>8235086
So then only the last few levels change the core design of the game?
Even 1 had areas like that near the end, where it was just fighting tons of enemies.
So I think that just proves my point that 1 and 2 share a fundamental game design with some slight differences, while 3 changes it a lot more.
>>
>>8235101
>>So then only the last few levels change the core design of the game?
>>So I think that just proves my point
>previously said "It's a shame, we could have had a nice conversation about one of my favourite game series"
>still thinks this is an argument to 'win'
Alright, there's nothing more I can get out of this one
>>
>>8235107
So it's okay when you win an argument, but when I do you decide to cry and run away?
>So I think that just proves my point
>>8234861
>It's like you're proving all my points for me.
It's okay when you do it though, I guess?
>>
>>8235117
At this point >>8234902 I had stopped considering it an 'argument' to 'win'
>>
>>8235120
I never did consider it an 'argument to win', I was just fucking with you lol.
Thought that was obvious, but I guess not...
We are both just giving our opinions, there is no 'winning'.
>>
First game is more of a platformer, the guns are cool but the combat isn't presented like a third person shooter. Later games are heavier on the action and throw more enemies with more accurate attacks at you.
Both are fine for what they are.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.