Spyro in 1998 had no precision jump and no memorable villain. It had 12,000 gems and a glide that forgave almost everything. Is that what puts it above many “serious” 3D platformers?
Spyro in 1998 had no precision jump and no memorable villain. It had 12,000 gems and a glide that forgave almost everything. Is that what puts it above many “serious” 3D platformers?
That’s a pretty big claim considering Super Mario 64 predates Spyro by 2 years. I’ll admit I’m biased, since I had an N64 and not a PS1 growing up. However, when I went to play Spyro recently, the levels just seemed bare and collecting the gems and freeing the dragons felt very inconsequential. In comparison, collecting a star in SM64 felt like a real task that you were rewarded for completing by further unlocking doors in the castle. It’s possible that I did not let the game “settle in” before dropping it, but the game just didn’t seem to have an alluring gameplay loop.
You might like the sequels more since they lean more into the objective based structure of Mario 64. Spyro 1 was more a kind of vibes game that was fun to just run around in while grabbing stuff. It felt a lot more like a sandbox compared to the sequels which feel more tightened up and give more definitive goals.