Topic: Does the Platforming Genre Need a Shake Up?

So this stems from discussion on the front page article on 10 Essential Wii U and 3DS platformers, but I think it warrants a separate discussion. A lot of the platformers, if you notice, have a lot of similarities to each other. They're all linear platformers, all but one of them are in 2D, many of them follow their IP's formula and put emphasis on new levels instead of gameplay mechanics. Does it seem like the genre is getting stale? What do you think can be done to reinvigorate the genre?

Nope. Have nine of the ten games on that list, have finished seven, and the only one I I didn't think much of was Shovel Knight. I don't mind if people want to change things about to see what works, but the current system is still enjoyable.

3d platformers need a resurgence!

Two of them are 3d platformers.

I think the games on that list are pretty distinct from each other. Sure, many of them are true to their older entries, but you still have a multitude of different flavours.
But this is also true for sequels in other genres. I stopped playing shooters when every game started to feel the same. Heck, every weapon mapped to the same buttons, regardless of developer.

The only 2D platformers I've played that I really enjoyed were Little Big Planet 1 and 2. Other than that, the whole genre is pretty stale IMO. They're all more or less the same thing. I suppose the same can be said for any genre, though. I just prefer games with a little more variety in how they can be played.

I haven't played many of the games on that list, but in my opinion the problem isn't so much the genre getting stale but the fact that too high of a percentage of the good AAA releases on the Wii U were platformers, especially after how many the Wii had. It wasn't so much of a problem for the Wii since it had decent 3rd party support that could supply games from other genres.
I guess my point is I don't think there are too many platformers or that platformers are stale, but relative to the size of the "Good Wii U games" list, too high a percentage of them were platformers.

No. I mean, for one thing: they only covered retail games. I don't know if that was on purpose, or just their bias, but with that in mind, things were heavily skewed towards heavily-established series like Mario, Donkey Kong, and Mega Man. Heck, Shovel Knight was the only newer IP on there. Does that mean no else is making platformers?

NO!

Seriously, c'mon, if you really want things to be "shaken up," there are already 30+ games I can think of that are available for the Wii U and 3DS that, if nothing else, play significantly differently from Mario, Sonic, and the like. You shouldn't demand things to be shaken up until you're sure you've exhausted all the possibilites. You did not even scratch the surface. Hell, you didn't even pick up the shovel!

That list includes a few good but not groundbreaking releases for sure. But it also includes Super Mario Maker which is probably the first game I know of that has a simple level creator, decent feedback for creations and decent game physics. You can have someone play a game between edits. Then there's Shovel Knight which is a genre bending nostalgia trip. Or 3D World which got a lot of crap but is a co-op platformer that doesn't suck. Or even Rayman Legends which has a competitive mode that forces you to learn how to speedrun.

There's no Mario Galaxy on that list and there are also games like New SMB U which was good but not fantastic. But most of the other stuff on that list is moving the genre forward. So I don't know where you're coming from.

Oh yeah, I forgot the second thing: None of the games on the list are bad. Hell, most of them aren't even really "stale". NSMB maybe? But then again, I've tried most of those games, and the Wii U entry takes the cake in terms of fun and fair level design. So, yeah, I think platformers are a genre that is not only highly varied, but one that is still being utilized creatively. There are plenty of other staple genres that are far more rigid, either in concept or simply in terms of what actually winds up being successful lately - Shooters (not just FPS, either), Fighting games, pretty much anything with an open world setup lately...

I don't think this is a battle worth pursuing, in all honesty.

I think if we're honest the really big innovations in 2d platformers happened 20+ years ago. Yoshis Island was the last big and important statement on the genre - almost a postscript to all of the creativity and design of the previous decade.

That doesn't mean the genre is stale though. As others have already noted, indies have taken the 2d platformer into some very interesting directions. Terraria and Rouge Legacy to name just two.

I also think it's unfair to say that all Nintendo in particular has done has been to make new levels and refine within well established series. On the face of it that's all they've done but if you look beneath the surface they've reconsidered what the genre needs in an age of YouTube.

NSMBU and Yoshis Woolly World for instance have very good Miiverse integration. They're not online games but they're games that know they exist in an online saturated world.

The same goes for DKTF and NSLU. There were loads of rock hard NES and SNES platformers but they had a few crutches that would be anathema today. Limited lives (go back to the start if you die), cheap unavoidable enemies, leaps of faith, 'that level' etc. Without these the games were often really short.

DKTF and Luigi U got around this through great design on a core level - it's more than just level design or tinkering at the edges.

Likewise a pure collectathon is a waste of time when you can see everything on YouTube. Yoshi I think understood this well.

Is it a genre that sells millions of consoles? I don't think so in this day and age but I do think there's plenty of room for the genre to grow and it's still important - particularly because it's the most accessible entry point for new gamers.

3D platformers are a bit of a different story.

Ori and the Blind Forest is worth a mention. That was a unique and interesting way to handle the genre. Super Meat Boy as well, I wouldn't think they're templates for others to follow but if you're tired of Mario/Donkey Kong/Yoshi and want a different kind of 2D platformer I would recommend those 2.

Mario Galaxy is more along the lines of what I'm thinking though. Something that puts a twist on level design, moves and abilities, progression, we really don't have those kinds of twists.

I don't see how you can really say NSMB are different from some of the other games really. They all share the same mentality, the only thing NSMB has over the others is quantity of releases (there's been 4 NSMB games whereas most of these have only had 1 or 2 consecutive games of them).

Nah, even after that you had Mario 64, which was the defining formula for 3D platformers for years and offered a greater sense of freedom and variety than any platformer before it. And after that, I'd put Galaxy in there as well, the planetoid system really opened up new types of level design.

Social media integration is nice and all but it's not really a game changer. Posting messages relating to the game isn't really a gameplay mechanic, it just enhances discussion surrounding the game. It's pretty much just a multimedia bonus as opposed to something that changes the way the genre functions.

Watching a collectathon on Youtube is like spoiling the story, you're taking all of the fun out of something that's meant to be experienced firsthand. If your first instinct in a collectathon is to go on Youtube, you're missing the entire point. It's supposed to basically be like the platforming equivalent of BotW, something that encourages the player to go where they want, play the way they want, come up with ways to get through the game, and make their own discoveries. That style of gameplay is definitely missing from recent platformers, all of which dictate what you have to do to progress the game.

I wasn't, I was just saying that it's still fun to play. In fact, I don't even want to use the word "still". I don't usually like 2D Mario platformers. I've tried all the other NSMB games, and the Wii U one was the only one that consistantly entertained me. It clearly doesn't change things up on a huge scale, but it doesn't need to. They have a good foundation, they just needed to refine it. Granted, now that they have, yeah, I'd rather they give it a break, maybe not make NSMB Switch a day one (unless that name implies some SMB2 elements, in which case, I now a certain oscellating adolescant who would be utterly undulating over the anticipation for such an occasion, and thus would require its deliverance post-haste. Also, I think Waveboy would want it).

I just feel like...I can't really get behind the idea of change for the sake of change. You know? I just need good, fun games. If it works, why fix it? The problem with Mega Man's frequent itterations wasn't necessarily that it was same-y. It just wasn't that fun after a while, there wasn't as much attention to detail, the levels weren't as well-laid out and interesting - the devs just didn't seem to be into it anymore. So, I can agree that they need new ideas to keep that spark going, but maybe not quite as much or as big as you're implying.

You know, now that I think about it, Kirby: Planet Robotot is one of the games on the list, and that was a pretty big change up for a series that, in itself, never seems to run out of clever ideas and ways to reinvent itself. Granted, not always for the better (Rainbow/Canvas Curse!!!), but still, if you really want to look at a series that can change itself without ever losing what made it so appealing in the first place, you got one of the best examples staring you right in the face.

Thing is that if you do something over and over again it gets repetitive and predictable and that diminishes the fun factor. So games need a healthy dose of change every once in a while. Additionally, if the games don't evolve along with the industry they're seen as archaic and they start to lose support.

And really, you could say the same thing about NSMB and the 3D series, they don't seem as fun, they don't have as much effort put into their settings, they've recycled level gimmicks, and in general they just seem so phoned in, like they just want a Mario game for the sake of a Mario game.

Yeah, Kirby Planet Robobot is one of the few exceptions here and it's a good example of what a sequel should be like. Still though, it's not really what I'd call "shaking things up", it's an evolution of what Kirby's already doing. I'd like to see another platforming game that does something different, but in this case go a little further and start to buck genre conventions.

I won't say you're entirely wrong about wanting that - I mean, I'm buying a kirby game for the first time in a while because of the changes its made, so clearly it can be a good thing to change things up, since it tends to turn some heads.

However...buck genre conventions? That's...not what sequels are for. I mean, they can do it, but only if it makes sense. A sequel always builds on the legacy of what came before it. Unless what you had before really didn't work, it's...not a good idea to tear that down. If you're genuinely tired of Mario, don't make the new releases of it a priority. Clearly it seems like the problem isn't with the actual games. Maybe you're just burnt out? I know I was like that with Ratchet & Clank. The new ones are clearly still good. Maybe not quite as good as the old ones, but I stopped enjoying the newer ones just because I was tired of the formula. So I stepped away from it, and well...we'll see how that goes in a few minutes, now that I bought the latest game, as well as a collection of the old games.

A sequel doesn't need to be exactly like its predecessor, it can be anything it wants so long as it follows up on the original.

Also, what we have really isn't working. Or at least not for everyone. There's a definite conflict between linear platforming and collectathon platforming, with recent games fully in the direction of the former, that's caused a rift in the market. Finding ways to mix the two styles together would be a good basis for some larger scale change in the genre.

It's not just me. The design philosophy of platformers has definitely changed since 2D linear platformers have made a comeback. The games are all pretty simplistic and dumbed down in multiple aspects of the gameplay, mechanics, settings, storyline. It's all just too minimalist.

I think that 2D platformers are branching out to different added genres and are having pretty good success at staying original in my opinion. 3D platformers are also making a resurgence with games like A Hat in Time, and Yooka-Laylee. They aren't being completely original but people don't care about that right now since it has been so long since relevant 3D platformers have been around. That being said, 2D mario games definitely need to be revitalized, because Super Mario Maker was the freshest 2D Mario game I have played in years, and it isn't even a true Mario game. It's better honestly.

@Bolt_Strike Okay, just we're entirely clear: Are we talking specifically about Nintendo platformers in this topic, and/or tangent? Or the genre as a whole in recent years?

The genre as a whole, but I'm much more familiar with Nintendo platformers.

...Okay, I just wanted to be clear. Then I go back to my first statement: I think you outta spend a lot more time branching out. Honestly, I don't feel like Nintendo's platformers are a good representation of the genre anymore, and haven't for at least a decade. That isn't to say you'll wind up with a completely different take on things by playing some off-brand games, but if nothing else, I think discussing exactly what needs to change and/or improve would be a lot easier once you've had a more broad experience in the genre you're discussing. I know I went through that a lot as a teenager.