What do you look for in a 2d platformer?

[Magix]

Talking about non-combat platformers, more precision based. So basically I'm a beginner programmer working on a basic platformer for learning purposes, and while I don't intend to actually make anything good or even releasable to the public, I'm still curious to know and want to be on the right track.

For people that actually like those kinds of platformers, what do you find the most important? As far as physics, level design, aesthetics, anything. Do you want the challenge to be in completing the level as fast as possible, or in actually being able to complete the level to begin with? How about level size, random elements, etc? When thinking back at the games that have really stuck with you, what was the key element there? What compelled you to keep playing?

 

[shrekfan246]

Exploration.

Whether it's Sonic or Mickey Mouse or Kirby or Mark of the Ninja or Donkey Kong, I want to have the opportunity to find secret items and areas, alternate paths, maybe even alternate levels entirely, shortcuts, vertical movement, etc.

Fast or not, I like being rewarded for looking around.

But if you're going to hide the paths with the Mario method of running on top of a level to find warp pipes, then there should be some sort of indication that the player should try that, however slight the suggestion is. Don't shove it in their face, but maybe show that there's an area they can't reach normally and have a power-up in the game that would give them the ability to reach it. It's the internet era, once the first person stumbles across your magnificently-hidden secret, the whole world is going to know about it anyway.

 

[Bad Jim]

Personally, I rate the old Sonic games as about the best.

Do you want the challenge to be in completing the level as fast as possible, or in actually being able to complete the level to begin with?

It should be hard enough that you need to learn the layout, but not so hard when you have explored and learned the enemy patterns. That way, it feels like a challenge to beat it, but also has potential for speedrunning. It should be noted that even absurdly difficult games will have someone doing speedruns, but games like Sonic are easy enough for most people after a bit of practise to start playing for speed.

How about level size, random elements, etc?

I like large levels, full of secrets. This is also why I prefer the limited lives of oldschool games -you can put extra lives all over the place and the player will feel rewarded every time they find one.

When thinking back at the games that have really stuck with you, what was the key element there? What compelled you to keep playing?

In all honesty, I think the ones I have played most have simply been the ones I have been forced to play due to lack of other options. I finished Robocod because I got it the same time I got an Amiga, and had few other games. I had a Game Gear as well, which just had Sonic 1, Sonic 2 and Columns, so I got good at the Sonic games while my brother was playing on the Amiga. I also played the Megadrive/Genesis Sonic games a lot when I got my 3DS, and didn't have many games for that either.

The one exception I can think of is Turrican, for the Commodore 64, which I played extensively but had over a hundred other C64 games when I got it.

 

[LadyLightning]

I know you said non-combat platformers specifically, but I really feel like the exploration and the sense of a persistent map in games like the Metroid series, and later Castlevania games (like, Symphony of the Night onward), make for a very fun game. I love having to do wall kicks and timing-based acrobatics to reach secret areas, I love the sense of "yes, it's a platformer, but it's also part dungeon crawler," and I love the idea of the only thing separating different "sections" of the game being the fact that you can't jump high enough to get there until you get the hi-jump boots. The days of platformers being separated by arbitrary levels and stages should be long gone.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

The days of platformers being separated by arbitrary levels and stages should be long gone.

I couldn't disagree more. Even though I love open world platformers (Super Metroid is one of my favourite games of all time) you just don't get that tight level design or the challenging difficulty that you see in linear platformers like Castlevania (the first one) or Mega Man or, if you want a more modern example, Super Meat Boy.

On topic, controls have got to be tight. I've already mentioned Mega Man and Super Meat Boy and they are two great examples. Apart from that it's all about the level design for me. I had a bunch of stuff I was going to write but then I realised I was just parroting Egoraptor's Mega Man X Sequelitis video. But mainly it's about teaching the player how to play the game via the level design and doing things like introducing elements (objects/obstacles/enemies) one at a time then combining them to make more challenging situations.

As far as level size goes it's really dependant on the difficulty and if you plan on having any kind of checkpoint system

Random elements? No. Unless you're going totally random (i.e. procedural generation) like Spelunky or Rogue Legacy but I assume that's not the case.

I like the challenge to be beating the level rather than doing it as quickly as possible. That doesn't mean you can't have some kind of grading system based on completion time since people seem to love that.

 

[LadyLightning]

I understand, really I do. I'm a MegaMan fangirl myself. But let's just say there's a reason I liked MegaMan ZX and ZX Advent so much.

 

[gunny1993]

A 3rd dimension.

 

[Magix]

On topic, controls have got to be tight. I've already mentioned Mega Man and Super Meat Boy and they are two great examples. Apart from that it's all about the level design for me. I had a bunch of stuff I was going to write but then I realised I was just parroting Egoraptor's Mega Man X Sequelitis video. But mainly it's about teaching the player how to play the game via the level design and doing things like introducing elements (objects/obstacles/enemies) one at a time then combining them to make more challenging situations.

Oh yeah, that was a brilliant video, I'll have to watch it a couple of times before I get to level design

In regards to controls being tight, I've heard people say that, but in the context of a keyboard/mouse game, what exactly defines "tight" controls? Could you give a couple of examples of games that don't have those tight controls?

 

[BarkBarker]

The games that have stuck with me provide a strong sense of control on the character, music that makes me enjoy taking my time in a genre that usually does so anyway, a visual aesthetic that shows great understanding of the areas strengths, and level design that is simple yet enjoyable, don't go doing a PUT MORE SPRINGS AND BOOST PADS kinda thing that Sonic 4 did, keep it inventive and creative, but don't make it anything other than that perfect balance.

 

[Ratty]

I know you said non-combat platformers but I'm having difficulty in thinking of a platformer that doesn't incorporate combat in some way or other, even if it's just a Mario jump.

But you also put an emphasis on "skill based". So I'll say just study Castlevania III. The level design is so gloriously tight it deserves to be recognized for the work of art that it is. And none of this "adjust your jump in mid-air" stuff, you decide where to jump before you do and commit to it. I understand I'm a minority in regards to jumping mechanics since most people seem to like a more Mega Man feeling game, but Castlevania 1/3's jumping scheme just feel so much better to me. For a more recent game you could look at Volgarr the Viking, that had some pretty good level design.

With these kinds of platformers the thing that keeps you playing is the challenge. Every stage you beat gives you more satisfaction than beating an entire easy game. And because the level design doesn't have random elements and you have unlimited continues it's totally fair. The only person to get mad at when you fail is yourself. And the only thing keeping you from winning are the limits of your own skill and determination.

For easier platformers like most Metroidvanias, the drive is really just a desire to explore. SOTN in particular seemed to be full of ideas, each area and even many of the individual rooms seemed like they had a story behind them, long forgotten in the ancient, supernatural and shifting walls of Castlevania. And the artwork was beautiful.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

On topic, controls have got to be tight. I've already mentioned Mega Man and Super Meat Boy and they are two great examples. Apart from that it's all about the level design for me. I had a bunch of stuff I was going to write but then I realised I was just parroting Egoraptor's Mega Man X Sequelitis video. But mainly it's about teaching the player how to play the game via the level design and doing things like introducing elements (objects/obstacles/enemies) one at a time then combining them to make more challenging situations.

Oh yeah, that was a brilliant video, I'll have to watch it a couple of times before I get to level design

In regards to controls being tight, I've heard people say that, but in the context of a keyboard/mouse game, what exactly defines "tight" controls? Could you give a couple of examples of games that don't have those tight controls?

Maybe I should use the word precise instead of tight. Something like Mega Man I would consider tight because Mega Man has virtually no momentum at all (apart from falling downwards). Mario, on the other hand (at least in his NES incarnations) is a bit weighty and carries some momentum so he can feel a bit floaty, but once you learn how he moves he controls very precisely. Games like Little Big Planet or Trine feel very imprecise. They have this kind of slippery feel, like all of the surfaces/platforms have rounded edges (well, in some cases they actually do but the point still stands). A couple of slightly lower profile games I'd use as examples are FEZ and And Yet It Moves. The controls don't matter so much in these games because FEZ doesn't really require much precision and in And Yet It Moves you can correct your mistakes by changing the direction of gravity. However, if you took they way those games controlled and put them into a standard platformer that required precision you'd be having a hard time with it.

 

[StriderShinryu]

That's an interesting question.

The most important thing for me in a platformer is control and physics. If that doesn't work, or doesn't feel right, the game is unplayable simply because there is pretty much nothing else to the platformer experience that doesn't rely on that.

Once that's right, I like a nice variety of levels with a solid challenge progression. The levels themselves should be fairly short but with some exploration and variety. Not too much exploration though as I don't find that works very well if what you're trying to create is more a platformer than an offshoot of the genre. Maybe just some hidden stuff or alternate exits with a soft 5 minute cap. The challenge for me is more to gauge progression through the game than to be the focus of the game (I'm not at all a hardcore Meatboy or worse platformer guy).

Visually I like creativity but find it needs to be more function than form. Platformers need to be clear and understandable on sight so any visual style that's used needs to clearly communicate what you can jump on, what's an enemy, what will kill you instantly, etc.

If I were to give an example of my perfect pure platformer, I'd say the closest you can get to it is Super Mario World. I also really like a lot of what they did in Super Mario Bros 2 with the way the game plays differently but just as well with any of the 4 characters.

 

[Lotet]

In regards to controls being tight, I've heard people say that, but in the context of a keyboard/mouse game, what exactly defines "tight" controls? Could you give a couple of examples of games that don't have those tight controls?

I can't remember the names of the games without tight controls, because they're all so awful. The Angry Video Game Nerd forces such games onto himself. Terrible stuff. You should watch his reviews of old games if you want to see bad games. A lot of them are 2D plat-formers.

Good games tend to give you leeway for what counts as standing on the platform. Bad games make you fall once you're half way over the ledge. Bad games force you to be precise with a slow jump, really bad ones even force you into a slow jump animation before lift off as well. A good game like Prince of Persia might have leaping animations but it's still somewhat forgiving with how the level is made, giving you a decent margin of error.

And hit boxes, oh god, games with bad hit boxes. It's something that can make the difference in quality. I despise when you get hit by an enemy because their hit box is bigger than they are.

 

[Evil Moo]

One thing I particularly like is physical feedback to the characters actions in the game environment. Limbo was quite good with this at points, like the way you push against movable crates, the buoyancy of logs and things in water, the way you ragdoll . Everything felt like it had a natural weight to it that really brought the world together, rarely making me think "Oh, it did that because it's in a game". Intrusion 2 also has some good environmental interaction in a similar way, with trees you could bend, bridges that would move as you walked on them, loads of crates junk to climb on and throw around. I think it would be good to see more of that in 2D platformers. In fact I intend to try and make my own platformer with a very physical basis and fine control over player movement, to the point that you can slide down a slope on your face if you desire (or happen to trip over).

 

[Exhuminator]

Number one thing I want with a platformer is super tight control. After that, I want a reliable and solid sense of physics to the game. Mario always perfectly nails those two things, hence the Mario platformers are the best in the world. Outside of that, the more imaginative the level design the better.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Aesthetics, challenge, a good central mechanic (or a few central mechanics, even better) and I tend to like them fast-paced (or at least with the possibility of speed).

 

[Bad Jim]

In regards to controls being tight, I've heard people say that, but in the context of a keyboard/mouse game, what exactly defines "tight" controls? Could you give a couple of examples of games that don't have those tight controls?

Basically, your character should do what you want them to.

One bad example is the Game Gear/Master System version of Sonic, specifically the platforms on the Jungle stages. There is a point on the sides where Sonic won't jump. Many a player has defeated the (pretty difficult) boss, attempted to jump off the platform towards the exit, then watched in horror as Sonic simply ran off the platform and fell to his death.

A more general example is having lots of momentum, such as on ice levels, where it is easy to slide into hazards. However, I do recommend having a little, just a tenth of a second or so to go from stop to full speed and vice versa. This lets you position yourself more precisely by tapping left or right, since the small taps will have less effect.

Another couple of things to be careful with are context sensitive buttons and similar inputs for different actions. In the old Tomb Raider games, for example, you can climb onto a block by pushing forward and pressing a button, or you can push the block by pushing forward and pressing the same button. The difference is which button you press first. It is quite easy to do the correct action if you are being careful, but when you are playing and trying to do it quickly, you will inevitably find yourself climbing onto a block you intended to push or vice versa.

 

[Vigormortis]

Good control mechanics[footnote]I can't STAND games with clunky controls and movement systems. Always takes me right out of the game.[/footnote]. Interested aesthetics and background/character/world designs. Easily defined, if not necessarily obviously solvable, objectives. And, being that this is in regards to a NON-combative side-scroller, exploration. Exploration is tantamount to a game like this. At least, for me it is.

If you're not tossing some amalgam of conflict in my direction; not presenting some challenging enemies for me to fight; then you'd better let me explore the world you've built.

Basically: if my character isn't fighting against a foe to protect the world, then he/she/it should be allowed to explore that world in the interim.

 

[EyeReaper]

Well, first of all, you need good controls. I want to feel like it was my fault when I die, because I jumped a little too early or too late, not any unpredictable trial and error "I wanna be the guy" bullshit. Next, a interesting aesthetic is key, I want the world I'm jumping through to look at least unique in some way, to stand out from the crowd. Following that? you throw in a nice difficulty curve, maybe some couch co-op, and it's good to go for me.

Alternatively, you know that bonus level from Rayman Origins, The Land of the Livid Dead? Make an entire game with levels like that. It's platforming perfection if you ask me, and a helluva good time with friends.