ITT: Games that don't hold up

Ratchet and Clank 1 is better than the reboot all the original Ratchet fans would probably agree that Going Commando was the peak but 1 was still a great game.It was an essential stepping stolen for the series Going Commando would nt have been as good had the rough entry to the series not happened.

You can't call it a platformer, and then have every other surface that looks like you can grab it be slippery so you slide off and fall to your death, or have modeled structures that look like you can jump on but then just clip through. I've been playing the series since it fucking launched. I mean, fuck, Insomniac outright wouldn't call it a platformer while they were developing it AND after it launched. Everyone else called it a platformer.

alright everyone:
>best shotgun
>best pistol
>best bomb glove/launcher
>best sniper rifle
>best rocket launcher
>best melee weapon
>best transformation gun
>best gimmick weapon
>best assist weapon (aka robots/turrets)
>best final weapon/ultimate weapon
>overall favorite weapon

It's definitely the worst in the series. Almost unplayable if you even touched 2 and onward.

>every other weapon is a glove

meme

>no-lock on

not needed

>no strafe

double tap r1 while equipping thruster pack (not needed)

>too punishing for dog shit the controls are

git gud, this game actually lets you do no damage wrench runs

>forces you to spend bolts for story progression

GC also did this

>no tournament

and? doesn't fit the first game at all

>O2 mask, water jets, and jet pack are all story points

yeah? where do you think they got them from in the sequels? you don't even need hydro pack to finish the game fyi

>useless gadgets like the metal detector

is the next complaint going to be "muh multiplier"?

>terrible enemy variety. Every planet has: one small swarm enemy, one larger ranged enemy, and one flying enemy

GC rehashed some enemies, UYA basically all of them, at least in 1 every level had its own enemies.

>weapons start with half ammo, and ammo drops give you basically nothing so you barely get to use the weapons you do buy

false, and sucks to be an inaccurate ammo wasting casual

>golden bolts are useless until your second playthrough

there's a gold weapon vendor in gemlik base you absolute retard, gold bolts are not useless because finding hidden areas is fun and collectathons don't even expect you to use the stuff you find

>no insomniac museum

this indeed sucks, but there's enough stuff in the later games imo, although they didn't have textures

>but the first one is objectively the worst

Except when it's objectively the best in plot, level/art design, music and inventive weapons and gadgets.

The controls are fine you casual shit. Jesus christ I can't believe we've reached the age when faggots think something like R&C is too clunky and hard.

But it did aside from 2 which the series high water mark. 2 was an improvement over 1 definitly, but from there on it just got worse with each title pretty much except for A Crack in Time which was surprisingly good because it had good platforming.

It's a platformer with some guns in it. The later games turned it into a third person shooter with some jumping in it.

R&C is better as a platformer than a shooter because lock on strafe is a shit mechanic.

>it's unplayable because the sequel streamlined it

I fucking hate people like you. I played 1, 2 then 3 then went back to 1 and found it better than 3.

>m-muh favorite game can't be bad or flawed in any way possible!
The only person your fooling is yourself.

I played them when they came out.

3 is the best hands down, retard

I bought the "HD" collection for Vita and I started with 1, its the Vita port or the controls had noticeable input lag?

This only happens with 1, 2 and 3 play perfectly.

It sounds to me like you like R&C for a lot of reasons other people don't.

The platforming wasn't anything that particularly interested me. If I wanted that, I'd stick to Mario. Ratchet's biggest appeal has always been its hybrid shooter gameplay, and the fact is, it just felt the worst in the first game.

Strafing was a big thing, but the fact that there was not leveling really brought the incentive to use different weapons down. With the first, you could just pick your favorites, and coast, while with every other, you had a reason to switch up and explore mechanics, because you were rewarded for using different items.

I'm sorry you have to experience the games like that (although having them on the go is okay, I guess), remasters are a bane only second to Silent HIll's HD collection. I didn't have any problems with the PS2 version, so it's probably the port.

That's why they remade it. Going Commando is such an improvement that it's impossible to go back.

No, 2 is where they got the formula down perfectly. 3 was way to much of a shooter and the level design took a major hit. The only way that 3 improved objectively was the weapon upgrade system.

The level design in 1 and 2 is much better than in any of the later games including 3. 3 is good but it has way to many straight combat levels in boring arena type levels.

Casual faggot.

>playing 2 before 1

Why would you even do this, and even then, going back to 1 isn't hard since 1 is a fantastic game.

3 is not the best. It's way to combat focused, not enough platforming at all.

>Why would you even do this

Yeah man, it's a fucking sin. We all need to be invested in the deep and rich Ratchet & Clank lore.

>It's way to combat focused

The combat was best in UYA, and that's the most enjoyable part of the franchise.

>If I wanted that, I'd stick to Mario.

Ratchet took a lot of pages from Mario and it fucking shows, the jumping mechanics are the bastard child of Mario 64 and Tomb Raider and they're fucking tight, exploitable and lots of fun. You can get in almost any place by abusing them. It wasn't until Deadlocked that they were considerably nerfed and completely thrown away in the Future series.

I am not denying that there were improvements added to the series after 1, but there were devolvments too. The weapon upgrade system was fantastic, in fact I already stated that 2 is the best in the series, 2 has the great level design and platforming of 1, while having perfected the shooting mechanics, but not overly relying on it like 3. 3 has too much shooting and not enough good level design and platforming.

And no a lot of other people appreciate R&C's good level design and platforming and exploration and collecting shit.

But even as a shooter, R&C1 isn't that bad. In fact, it isn't bad at all. It just plays different to later titles. The problem is faggots play the newer ones then go back and play the original expecting something similar, and they get a slower more methodical system.

>With the first, you could just pick your favorites, and coast, while with every other, you had a reason to switch up and explore mechanics

No this is wrong. R&C1 is like Doom. You need to use the right weapon in the right situation or you are going to fuck up. It was the later games you could use any weapon you want so you could level every gun, though I think 2 balanced it well, 3 went to far in the leveling almost and there was no point to use weapons aside from leveling.

In 1, depending on the enemy, you either had to use the Pyrociter, the rocket launcher, the bomb glove, etc. Each situation was designed with a certain weapon in mind to get through it. It was great.

First Ratchet game I played was Up Your Arsenal and I still think it's the best. Perfect weapon/armor upgrade system, great characters, plenty of replayability. Of the PS2 titles,
1. Up Your Arsenal
2. Going Commando
3. Deadlocked
4. Size Matters
5. Ratchet & Clank 1

GLOVES LIVES MATTER

R&C is still a solid first game, I don't give a fuck what anyone else says.

>a change in series mechanic means it's impossible to go back to the old one

This idea is cancer. Anyone who holds this idea is an idiot.

I don't think there is a game in history that "improved" so much it made it's predecessor unplayable.

This is why every game gets streamlined to the point it loses it's identity. You dumb faggots just hate complexity and anything that is the tiniest bit difficult. You want every game to be a fucking clone of each other.

>R&C1 is like Doom

More like Blood/Duke3D (there's even a fucking HoloRatchet, which was originally called Inflato-Ratchet to account for the Duke reference). Doom doesn't have that much strategy with its weapons I think. Anyway you're right, and even better: enemies were not cheap bullet sponges.

You are really overselling how the situations were 'designed' for specific weapons. They totally fucking weren't, since you went ahead and bought most of them. With the exception of items given directly to you, they couldn't rightly tune the levels of individual weapons.

There's also a reason third person shooters aren't made like R&C1 nowadays- it just simply doesn't fucking feel good. Using an analog stick and praying that the auto-aim has your back kills it for most people, and is why the first is the black sheep.

And while 2 has the most overall improvements, it still had a much shallower weapons system than later games, which let you upgrade and modify things even further.

The game assumed you aren't a blithering fucking retard and were able to buy the weapons. This is a game made in 2002 not 2012.

Smaller enemies are taken out by the Pyrociter at close range or bomb glove at medium range for example. Each enemy type has a weapon made to take them out.

I don't deny that 2 improved on it. But 3 just felt like too much of a shooter and it neglected the level design, exploration and platforming elements (though not as much as later games in the series)

I don't know why you say there aren't games like R&C1 made anymore, there aren't games made like R&C2 and 3 either. Seriously, name one other platformer shooter hybrid game still being made. R&C series is the only one still alive.

1 is not the black sheep BTW, that game is Gladiator/Deadlocked, or the PSP spin offs. 1 was a valued game in the community that everyone loved until fucking shitter newfags entered the community after the HD re-release happened. Just calling it a blacksheep is showing your new to the series.

>There's also a reason third person shooters aren't made like R&C1 nowadays

It's not a third person shooter. It's a platformer with fantasy guns replacing spin, jump, dash attacks, and flame/powerups. The reason it feels """clunky""" is because it's literally just platformer combat mechanics expanded.

>it just simply doesn't fucking feel good.

Except it does. If you play R&C1 as a platformer instead of thinking it's a TPS like the later games are. You will have fun. The problem is with your mindset and your expectations.

Ratchet and Clank 1 is NOT a third person shooter. Get this into your head. Accept it. Now you can have fun playing a classic platformer game that has an actual decent combat system build into it.

The shift to TPS came with R&C2, but it was the jack of all trades master of none game in the series, it still retained it's platforming roots while having a new combat system. 3 is when the game embraced the idea of becoming a TPS.

That fucking reboot, though. Jesus Christ. I just picked it up 3 days ago and my jaw hit the fucking floor.

>Dat upbeat music
>Dem graphics
>Opening the hangar door and basking in all that everything
>Ratchet having a smile perpetually on his face
>Shit nigga I'm in a good-looking game

I fucking love it. Restored my love for the series in 5 seconds flat. I hope it gets a sequel. It also makes me want a rebooted Jak and Daxter so fucking badly--or, by god, a Jak 4.

>1 is not the black sheep BTW, that game is Gladiator/Deadlocked

I'm pretty much the other guy here defending 1, but I kinda like Deadlocked/Gladiator in a spin-off way. It had the absolutely best combat and it's one of the god tier TPS in the genre, no question. It's far from the black sheep imo, it's just different. No Insomniac PS2 games is really bad. I think weakest one is GC, please don't hit me.

>best shotgun
Blitz Cannon
>best pistol
Shock Blaster (pretty satisfying)
>best bomb glove/launcher
Agents of Doom
>best sniper rifle
Pulse Rifle
>best rocket launcher
Gold Devestator
>best melee weapon
Walloper
>best transformation gun
Size matters farm gun
>best gimmick weapon

>best assist weapon (aka robots/turrets)
Miniturret glove
>best final weapon/ultimate weapon
Rhyno 3
>overall favorite weapon
Plasma Coil or Quantom Whip

>Smaller enemies are taken out by the Pyrociter at close range or bomb glove at medium range for example. Each enemy type has a weapon made to take them out.

Oh no. That's really fucking overselling it. There were general things like, swarms of smaller enemies more easily being able to be taken out by stuff like bombs, but nothing was built around specific weapons, just a blanket of potential scenarios.

>I don't know why you say there aren't games like R&C1 made anymore, there aren't games made like R&C2 and 3 either.

Leveling systems being incorporated into action games has become a huge industry trend, to the point of where some people are sick that they have to grind to unlock abilities that they think should be standard.

>Accept it. Now you can have fun playing a classic platformer game that has an actual decent combat system build into it.

Oh I've tried buddy, but it is just so fucking unpolished compared to a game that came out just a year later. the weapons and abilities are farm more boring and mundane, the characters are sometimes outright annoying.

You say the first Ratchet took its roots heavily from Mario, but Mario 64 didn't emphasize combat like Ratchet did, and it did fucking emphasize combat, and that's where it falls flat. It's clunkier than every game after it, it's more boring with much less interesting weapons (seriously, you have to actually buy a generic blaster, and that's all it is. Just point and shoot.), and it doesn't reward you for utilizing new tools and thinking up new strategies.

I didn't say Gladiator was bad. I enjoyed it. But as a pure TPS it's definitly the black sheep. It doesn't even try to hide the fact it's a shooter. At least it did away with the lock on auto aim and you could manually aim this time.

Also why do you think 2 is the weakest? Surely it's better than ToD? That is the most formulaic lazy game in the series.

I know 2 doesn't have the best shooting, 3 improved on it there, and 2 doesn't have as good platforming as 1. But it's the perfect balance of everything, it's the RE2 of the R&C series. It has the most diversity mechanics wise out of the whole series.

>best shotgun
>Blitz Cannon

You

I like you

The game gets kinda shitty when stuff from the movie starts to get forced in

>Oh no. That's really fucking overselling it

It's not though.

>Leveling systems being incorporated into action games

I'm not talking about leveling up. I already admited that is an improvement that 2 did over 1. And I said 2 is the best in the series multiple times already for it's multiple improvements. I am saying 1 is the second best in the series because it has strong level design and exploration and platforming, while the games that came after 2 where way to much focused on platforming.

I am one of the people sick of fucking grinding to unlock shit btw, a little bit is okay but I hate it's in every game or when it's overused,and later R&C games did overuse it to much to the point where the game did feel a bit grindy. I like that R&C1 isn't as grindy.

>t is just so fucking unpolished compared to a game that came out just a year later.

Holy shit fuck off. So it's unpolished because you don't like it's combat system. Wow, I guess you can never play Spyro the Dragon or Crash Bandicoot again either. The flame attack or Crash's Bazooka is just too shit.

Can't you get it into your head that R&C1 has platformer combat. The focus of R&C1 was on CREATIVE weapons, not rooty tooty point and shooty gun shooting game you fucking faggot. It was meant to be a platformer where you had all these really cool creative weapons that do interesting things. It is not a fucking third person shooter. It is polished as fuck, and it is mechanically sound. You are trying to judge is as a shooter which it is not. Fucking hell.

ALso what is bad about having to buy a blaster? You made this point before about him buying jetpack upgrades. Don't you get that this is the starting point, and it's about an average mechanic going on an adventure and finding all these cool as fuck gadgets. It was fantastic. The military stuff in the later games was okay but not as cool. Mechanic Ratchet was the best.

>and it doesn't reward you for utilizing new tools and thinking up new strategies.

This is a lie.

Also it's totally obvious you only played R&C1 after already playing the later games, and you went in expecting a shooter and then couldn't adjust to the fact it was a platformer.

Just accept the game isn't a fucking shooter, readjust your mental image of what it's meant to be, then go back and play it again in a year and have fun playing an amazing platformer game. Think of it like Spyro, Crash, or Jak 1, because that's what Ratchet and Clank 1 is. A pure platformer game that just developed the combat a little more in depth than other platformers, while still remaining a platformer and not a shooter like the later games turned into.

The fact that you don't start with a gun should alert you to the fact the game isn't a shooter numbnuts.

The fact that you don't get a gun until a few levels in, and are presented with a melee based weapon for the first level, with maybe a bomb glove by the end of it, should alert you to the fact you are playing a platformer that has a combat gimmick mechanic.

I was actually a little bit disappointed that you start out with a gun and bomb glove right away in R&C2. I wanted to start with nothing but my wrench again and work my way up.

>It's not though.

You totally are, dude, but if you don't want to argue me, whatever. There were even points where you could visit multiple planets at different times. They could not realistically plan for you to need to fight certain enemies with certain levels. It wasn't tightly linear enough for that kind of approach.

>I am one of the people sick of fucking grinding to unlock shit btw, a little bit is okay but I hate it's in every game or when it's overused,and later R&C games did overuse it to much to the point where the game did feel a bit grindy

Well I think this is where our opinions are going to have to disagree. The later games set up a level of momentum that I don't think ever felt grindy. You were practically being drip fed new upgrades, be it higher level weapons, more nano, or suit upgrades.

The only grindy one I cant actually think of is arguably 2, because there was only one major level up per weapon- also that one part with the slime monsters. That sucked. I know there was something similar to that in UYA, but I remember it sucking a lot less.

>Wow, I guess you can never play Spyro the Dragon or Crash Bandicoot again either. The flame attack or Crash's Bazooka is just too shit.

Oh please. Those games are designed nothing like R&C, which set up plenty of open arenas for combat, even in the first game. Shooting was always a core mechanic no matter what. The problem was, that shooting was limited by a lack of strafing options, and a reliance on auto-aim. Jak II held a similar approach, and that game wasn't known for having strong gunplay mechanics.

>ALso what is bad about having to buy a blaster?

It's least fun thing you could buy. There's a reason every game after this one featured it as a standard. No one looks forward to getting a generic point and shoot pistol. All the games after it even let you upgrade it further, and modify it, so it wasn't as generic. It's about not feeling good as a reward.

>Just accept the game isn't a fucking shooter

I would if there wasn't so much fucking shooting.

It is not Spyro, Crash, or Jak 1, because none of those were built around you having a large arsenal of weapons, which was ingrained into the core concept of the franchise, and felt needlessly janky in the first installment, and then promptly a year later, was fixed.

>R&C is my favorite series
>can't remember most planets and guns names

I don't know how you guys do it.

>But as a pure TPS it's definitly the black sheep. It doesn't even try to hide the fact it's a shooter.

You know, it's pretty hard to hide the fact it's a shooter when TPS literally means Third Person Shooter. Gladiator definitely surpasses the rest of the games on that front alone, so I can't think of it as a black sheep, or maybe I could, but you have to give it a bit of red so it can be the edgy sheep.

>Also why do you think 2 is the weakest?

It's the one I replay with less enthsiasm, the characters are good but the plot is uninspiring, jokes are pretty tired (3 did much better), the levels mostly barren (R&C2 started using desaturated tones for its levels, and if pic related is of any advice they also toned down the cartoony feel the first game had). Weapon balancing is all over the place, to the point the earlier guns are utterly useless by the end game, a complete 180° turn from 1.

It's basically the way I think you like Gladiator. Because I do like the game very much (albeit more right now that when it first came out) and I gets me all kinds of vibes and nostalgia while playing it again, but at gun point I'll say it's the oddest one out of the 4, even though the minigames were really good.

>Surely it's better than ToD? That is the most formulaic lazy game in the series.

I was talking in terms of (Insomniac) PS2 games.

I mostly agree with you, my only real complaint is platinuming this game, the bolt multiplier in the later games are a godsend since you have to find 150000 bolts to buy the god damn RYNO. It was kinda worth it, but I know I'm not playing that game any time soon

Did you even use the wrench. R&C1 was as much about melee combat as it was about shooting. It was balanced for both. It's not a shooter, plain and simple. I don't care if you tried to run and gun everything like a fucking moron. It's a not a shooter. A game having guns does not make it a shooter.

It was not aiming to be a shooter either. It wanted to be a platformer with a weapon gimmick where every weapon was some cool gadget.

>hating on Jak 2's shooting

Kill yourself. Jak 2 and 3 have perfect shooting mechanics. I bet you are one of the casual fags that wanted it to have shitty lock on and strafe which would have completely ruined the speed and fluidity of the combat in that game.

Both R&C and Jak are games were you are meant to go in and out of melee and ranged shooting at a moments notice, the later R&C's forgot this and became way to much of a shooter. All the weapon upgrades disincentived using the wrench except for boxes. The wrench was fun for combat though.

>it was not fun to unlock a blaster

Why? I enjoyed it. Again you are comparing it to later sequels, maybe you shouldn't play things out of order. But even still, why should it be unfun. I think you have some sort of big bias against this game to bring up irrelevant things like this. There is nothing wrong with the blaster.

>muh jankyness

Just fuck off for fucks sake. Accept it's not a shooter, it's a platformer, and it's just not for you since you are a closed minded faggot who can't fucking wrap his small mind around the fact that the shooting mechanics in a fucking PLATFORMER game aren't up the the standards of the later titles which switched genre's to become actual shooters. Wow who would have thunk it. But as I said, being a pure platformer, it's platforming parts are better than the small platforming parts in the later games. 1 has the best level design in the series by far.

Have you tried this? youtu.be/4jOVCR6Yy2g

>Weapon balancing is all over the place, to the point the earlier guns are utterly useless by the end game, a complete 180° turn from 1.

Well I agree with you here, but I think that is a problem with the upgrade system more than anything. I think this is why the weapon upgrade system isn't a total gain.

The negatives of the weapon upgrade system are as I stated before, deincentivising the wrench in combat, being too grindy in some cases, incentivising you to use your current grind weapon until it's upgraded and you forget about it for the next weapon to upgrade (as opposed to using each weapon in the situation you most need it) and also early guns become useless in favor of later ones, a problem I don't recall was as bad in R&C1.

But if you are only including the PS2 games I can accept you thinking it's the weakest. I disagree, but at least I can accept. All the PS2 R&C games are fucking classic games anyways even 3, it might seem like I dislike it, but I really enjoy 3 as well despite it's small flaws. I just can't see how OP can actually likelike R&C1.

The PS3 R&C games where still made by insomniac though, but aside from A Crack in Time they weren't really up to standard.

>no lock on
>no stafe

Why are these negatives?

hell yeah one my favorite guns from going commando
>that satisfying boom
>enemies getting pushed way the fuck back

>A game having guns does not make it a shooter.

Dude... Don't go full retard on me, here. Like, okay, there's an argument to be made if there's like, only one or two mini power up guns, but there's a whole arsenal of weapons that was one of the main appeals they tried to sell you with in the advertising, and on the box.

You see this cover art? That's Ratchet holding a huge blaster, with a bunch of weapons and gadgets as wallpaper in the background. He's not fucking around with a wrench.

>Jak 2 and 3 have perfect shooting mechanics

Oh. Oh fucking NO, man.

>Jak II

Jump. Spin. Shoot. That's how you win. That's how you got around the jank of the auto-aim. If you spin and shoot, your bullets go in all directions, meaning you're bound to hit something, and that's required, since you're bombarded with enemies.

The enemies themselves were also several levels of fucked, because they used like, a light form of hitscan. They'd shoot some things at you that you could dodge a couple of times, but if you didn't land anything on them, their fire would turn into hitscan. It was screwy.

>Jak III

You take a nap, because everything just ricochets everywhere, and you don't have to aim.

>Why? I enjoyed it

it's just a little thing, but in a game selling itself on having wacky weapons, having to buy the blandest one is just lame.

Anyway, you don't seem to be addressing the fact that it is much less of a platformer than you'd like to think. It's not Spyro, and not Crash. There were wide open spaces where gunplay was intended. It was very heavy on the shooting aspect since the very beginning, and it failed in a lot of ways.

It doesn't hold up in comparison to later entries.

Which makes sense.

But on its own merits, R&C1 is still a very good game.

If you played R&C1 for the first time today and you hadn't played the later games, you'd have a blast guaranteed.

To emphasize with Jak II, cause you got me rolling, the smartest strategy was to spin plates with the enemies, because if you didn't down them fast enough, they'd basically automatically eat at your health, so rather than focus one down, and go for the next, the best thing to do, was jump, spin, and shoot, this ricochets your fire, and hopefully hits multiple enemies, thus resetting how long it takes for them to start using hitscan on you.

It was not very well done.

>Jak 2 and 3 have perfect shooting mechanics
LOL im a huge Jak and daxter fan but even i cant agree with that.If we want to compare fucking Ratchet and Clank 1 does shooting mechanics better.Morph gun takes a lot of getting used to in order to do well with it.

>and it failed in a lot of ways.

Yeah I can see that by how badly the series went, oh wait R&C is the only surviving platformer aside from Mario and is still getting sequels to this day, and R&C1 was heavily praised by both critics and fans on release, and was loved by fans continually for years to come despite the sequels besting in in lots of ways.

It was only recently that newshits got into the series with the HD collection and expected it to be a fucking TPS like the PS3 titles where did this sudden dislike of R&C1 pop up. I had literally never seen anyone talk bad about R&C1 until that HD collection brought in loads of newshits.

I fucking hate you all. You are so fucking unbelievably casual you can't even deal with a platformer from 2002 without having a sook that it's clunky and doesn't have auto aim and stafing to make your shooting more easy. Fuck you.

All your points are hot bullshit and I'm not even going to bother replying to you anymore since you don't seem to get the fact that this game is not a fucking shooter. I don't care how many guns are on the fucking cover. It's not a fucking third person shooter you stupid faggot. I was there when this game had adds on tv, I remember the previews in fucking magazines before it was out. It was very clearly meant to be a platformer game where you got to use wacky science fiction weapons.

I remember when 2 was unveiled and before release, all the previews stated they were completely overhauling it and there would be a much bigger focus on the combat in this one as opposed to the light combat found in the first game.

>muh big open segment.

So fucking what. Doesn't make it not a platformer. The gimmick was wacky creative weapons. It's gonna get used here and there. Spyro 3 literally had some levels that played out in first person and you had a laser gun. It's not a FPS though.

In those open areas you could still use the wrench too. There were open areas for combat in Jak 1 as well.

>Well I agree with you here, but I think that is a problem with the upgrade system more than anything.

3 had much better balancing though, that's why I bring this thing up as a con for 2.

>The PS3 R&C games where still made by insomniac though

I know, but PS2 also had the High Impact games, that are...mostly passable (if I wasn't a fan of the series I wouldn't be this kind), but they obviously don't compare with Insomniac's.

>LOL im a huge Jak and daxter fan

As if that means jak shit. The fact you called it Jak and Daxter and not Jak lets me know you are in the faggot portion of the fanbase who got super asshurt when you heard I'M GONNA KILL PRAXIS.

I love all 4 Jak games. I fucking hate the fanbase that complains about muh edge and muh guns and muh open world.

Jak 2 is the best in the series.

How is this bad at all? Jump and spin was a purposeful mechanic and it was fun and worked great. Also you are suppose to zip around on the hoverboard you stupid fuck. If you were trying to stand in one place and shooter you were playing it wrong.

Speed around then jump up spin shoot, speed around then shoot as your jumping off the board.

Only played all 4 one which people suck.

For ratchet, jak, crash, sly cooper and spyro, i imagine each individual game could be beateb in 8-12 hours.

Is that PS rental thing a good method to cheap play them alk or would it be cheaper to buy them on ebay or something

>who got super asshurt when you heard I'M GONNA KILL PRAXIS.
lol fuck no dude Jak 2 is what really got me pumped for the series , 1 was basically the spiritual successor of crash bandicoot 2 was when they really started developing an identity for the series.

You cant deny though that the gunplay was one of its weak points especially for the yellow gun that had a weird ass rate of fire cap

Woo buddy, I think you might be projecting a little. I've been playing the games since 2003. It's one of my absolute favorites. No, I didn't start with 1, I started with 2, but I definitely tried 1, and had the myriad of problems I've listed about it with you.

>So fucking what. Doesn't make it not a platformer.

That doesn't also make it not a shooter. Guns were a permanent fixture of the entire game. It was the major selling point- a third person shooter with platforming.

>In those open areas you could still use the wrench too

You can use the wrench in any of the games. It's always vaguely viable.

Rather than aim your gun (which, note, they specifically included a shooting gallery to train you how to do), the best thing was to jump, spin, and shoot, thus leaving a good chunk of it all up to chance.

I like the series, don't get me wrong, but the shooting was not 100% there.

>you don't start with a gun
>you don't even get a single gun in the whole first mission
>you have to buy it yourself later on in the 2nd/3rd mission

Yep, definitly a third person shooter and not a fucking platformer.

You are a fucking retard.

>only started gaming in 2003

At least you admit it but you are pretty new to this hobby. Maybe you are young and couldn't help it. But you also admit you started with 2. And as a little kid I can see you getting butthurt about 1 not being as easy as 2.

So now the mystery of your bias against 1 has been discovered and the conversation is over.

There is no problem with the shooting or the yellow gun in Jak 2 at all.

The bullet goes pretty much in the direction you are pointing your analog stick with a little auto aim, or rather a "sticky aim". It's perfect. Jak 2 would be a worse game with any other aiming system. The current system allows seamless fluid transition between melee and shooting, and platforming and hoverboard riding.

>you don't start with a gun
>you don't even get a single gun in the whole first mission

...So like, the first 15 minutes? Seriously, the whole rest of the game heavily emphasizes the gunplay.

>only started gaming in 2003

No, my first R&C game was in 2003. My first game was Smurfs on the ColecoVision, along with Super Mario Bros., and The Goonies II on NES.

And honestly, I found some parts of 2 harder than 1. The space mission in GC were kind of tricky.

>The bullet goes pretty much in the direction you are pointing your analog stick with a little auto aim, or rather a "sticky aim". It's perfect

Not when you're only working with a not 100% pinpoint analog stick, and doubly so when you have a multitude of enemies who, if you don't take down fast enough, with essentially automatically start hitting you. Point and shooting was not the smartest move. It was all about spray and pray.

youtube.com/watch?v=BcoxH4QLcLo

Yeah motherfucker. Now THIS is a platformer.

Played it when I was a kid- what the hell are you smoking?

R&C's shtick has always been gunplay intertwined with platforming, trying to marry them.

It certainly is not platforming over gunplay.

It's still one of the best series ever made

I just love how this thread was made to talk about Games that didn't hold up, only to inadvertently turn into a Ratchet and Clank Thread.

Novalis
youtube.com/watch?v=cPYby0Rv6aE&list=PLD913041344F737E9

Maktar Arena
youtube.com/watch?v=W9MTbdYvy9I

Tyhrranosis - Korgon Base
youtube.com/watch?v=WD8hK1PBfrQ&list=PL40EC0886514E2E8A&index=24
Why did the original trilogy have such groovy tunes?

...

>objectively wrong
>i guess
>iguess
>git gud
>ground pound made for more entertaining combat, effective or not
>is this necessarily bad? like saying any collectathon game "doesnt hold up"
>arent tournament style methods of adding replay ability kind of dating a game? rather than not allowing it to hold up.
>opposed to throwing it at your face with no context?
>so many games have things that go unused, doesnt really date the game.
>games today struggle to have even that much variety
>forces you to use different weapons based on ammo you get =/= bad thing
>better way to increase replayability than JUST difficulty increase
>what games DO have cut-content museums nowadays? how does that not hold up?

You're retarded. It was the first game in the franchise, I don't know how you expect it to be finely tuned right out the gate.

As well, dont use "ITT: Games that dont hold up" as an excuse to make pointless complaints about a game thats potential wasnt fully realized until the sequels. This usually happens.

I've always found R&C's soundtracks to be pretty tense, even if they're also usually grooving pretty hard.

The thread is also about 2 fucking redditors going at it along with one of them saying it's not a shooter. It'd be nice if we could have the thread without reddit.

I don't know. I played through them all again n the remastered collection. the first game seemed a little more skill base in terms of playability: there were weapons and gadgets that were better or worse depending on the scenario. Overwhelming force was better fought with caution and planning than picking the most damaging choice. Platforming was taken more seriously. In addition to the tone (a jerk Ratchet should never have been done away with), I felt it held up, even if it's rough

>worst
>not Quest for Booty

>mfw I challenged myself to use as little bolts as possible, no health uprgrades, no ammo, no weapons aside from the ones you find.
>worked the metal detector like it was my bitch
>managed to get the rhino right as i reached the space station and blew everything to high hell
felt so fucking good using that and killing everything in sight

What makes something Reddit, user?

>qfb
>even being mentioned

He doesn't like it, apparently.

>It's okay to not play well because it's a platformer

Fuck you.

I played it earlier this year for the first time and thought it held up nicely.