quote: Original post by Boku San
Or...black people.

And what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

quote: Original post by Oluseyi

quote: Original post by Boku San
Or...black people.

And what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

In addition to advocating for The Specialists at every opportunity I also advocate for black people at every opportunity because I am, indeed, black. And because I couldn''t think of a name for a new genre...not too creative until I start to fall asleep.


"TV IS bad Meatwad...but we f***in need it"

If you''re a girl under the age of 12, and you''re high on marijuana...don''t ride your bike. -TRUTH

quote: Original post by Boku San
In addition to advocating for The Specialists at every opportunity I also advocate for black people at every opportunity because I am, indeed, black.

You have a weird way of going about it.

Are you saying that a combination adventure/platformer game could be anything other than a good thing?

I''d say an adventure game is what most computer ''RPGs'' should be called, excepting real RPG games like Neverwinter Nights. I''m thinking games like Little Big Adventure, Twinsen''s Oddyssey, The Ultima games (at least the early ones), maybe even Flashback (remember, it was Prince of Persia but with more colours, a gun, and a cooler story? )

''Adventure'' is more a type of gameplay than a type of game. It should be grouped in with simulation, shoot''em''up, RPG etc. and not platformer, FPS, top down shooter.

quote: Original post by Boku San
Are we finally getting to the point where we could re-establish the basic genres of video games? I think that platformers and adventure games should be combined and called...plaidventures. Or...black people. (...Ok, I tried)

Odd comments aside, why would you want to re-establish the basic genres? They stifle creativity and I can''t think of any compelling reasons to keep them around.

Admitedly few ''new'' genres are appearing, but more and more games are encorporating ideas from different sources. And I for one am getting fed up of all the marketing speak of "Its an exciting action adventure with old school platforming elements!" It doesn''t mean jack.

[S-Type] [V-Script]

The advantage of having recognised genres is that it provides a framework both for designers to elaborate upon and for gamers to hang their expectations. If I play a game advertised as a "top-down vertically-scrolling shooter" I immediately have a set of expectations before I even play the game once. If the game turned out to be Zelda: Ocarina say, then I would be upset, even though it''s a great game, because it isn''t the type of game I wanted to play at that point.

Creativity thrives on restrictions - having guidelines there, even if you decide to break them, gives you something to work from.

As for what makes a platformer, I''d have to go with: "a game where jumping between platforms is a major feature of the gameplay" Prince of Persia: Sands of Time is a good example, though you could also class it as an action adventure.

Platform- has platforms that you jump on

+Games that can be in that category-Mario, bubble bobble, Zelda2, donkey kong, Mario 64, q’bert, load runner, Castlevania, GTA3

-Games that are not in that category- street fighter games, Zelda1, pong, gunsmoke, gradius, tetris, space shooter games, tennis and other major sport games, race car games(but games like Mario cart64 can be considered a bit of a platform game)

The point is that games have a % of other genres
For example the original Mario brothers was just a platform game, super Mario became a platform adventure and other games back then were kind of like it like Castlevania, then castlevania for the psx became a platform/adventure/rpg which mix every element at the same time.

Sometimes companies don''t know what they are saying and categorize their games in a category that don’t belong, and then newbie’s don''t know what to categorize what anymore.

If this doesn’t explain it to you then you need to know what the other categories are as well to get a better understanding of the original content.

"Profanity is for those who lack intelligence and imagination to otherwise express them selves." "You are what you repeatedly do; Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." Aristotle

I think that "platform game" is a sub-category. Castlevania was undeniably a platform game, but it was more essentially an adventure game. There are platform shooters, like Contra, platform arcade games, like Mario Brothers and Joust, platform puzzle games, like Bubble Bobble, platform survival horror games, like Clocktower, and even platform RPGs, like Ys III and Zelda 2. Games can have non-platform levels and platform levels, like Battletoads.

Platform games are defined by the feel and environment. GTA3 is only very rarely a platformer, as when you''re doing tough motorcycle jumps or running from rooftop to rooftop. Armored Core has some obvious platforming elements, but in a fight, when the "platforms" are just rooftops that serve as vantage points for firing missiles, the platform element is far overshadowed by the FPS aspect.

I think that "platform" gameplay is something that can be identified within a game, but not something that can often define a game.

Platform games are real-time games designed as "obstacle courses," where traversing the level comprises most of the challenge, and players navigate their avatars through them safely by making use of special powers, including but not necessarily limited to running and jumping.

Under this one games can be primarily or purely platformers, or they can occasionally make use of the "platform theme" for certain areas, like with parts of some FPS games. But I tried to avoid letting the setting get into the picture, except when it comes to the actual motion; one jumps in a platform game. Flying, wall climbing/jumping, etc., all of those are "additional powers." You could argue that some platforms use vehicles and they don''t run, but the end result is nearly the same.

My three cents (due to inflation)

Platformers should involve running in just about a straight line from the beginning of the level to the end with some stuff in the middle to make it interesting, a few deviations are ok, eg high route/low route and in 3D left route/right route. I would say that Mario 64 is not a ''classic'' platformer game for this reason, in many levels you are out on an open ground and it''s more of a case of searching for the exit rather than following a clearly obvious path with no room for deviation. Compare it to Crash Bandicoot for instance, that is a real platformer with 3D tacked on. I even remember some parts of some levels (might have been on Crash 2) it was just a 2D side-on platformer that was using 3D graphics.

Another place where Mario 64 deviates from the classic model is that there were several sub-missions to levels that involved going back and forth around the level, say, looking for those red coins.

So really platformers should just be no-brainer games, and somebody running through the whole game should never have to go past the same bit twice (unless they lose a life), or at least not as part of the main game. Mario Bros. DX had a find the red coins sub-mission but that was completely separate from the main game.