Why Platformers struggle today

We're living through a golden age of high-quality platformers, but they'll never be consistent million sellers because they are a now a niche product.

Seriously, since the past gen started we've had:

New Super Mario Bros. series
Super Mario Galaxy series
Super Mario 3D Land/World

Yeah I know Mario might be an exception but these sold gangbusters on the Wii, and even on the Wii U they've hit at least 2 mil each on a console on life support. I also expect Tropical Freeze to at least sell 1 million, maybe more but I could be wrong.

IMO Rayman's tepid sales are solely Ubisoft's fault. If they had orgiinally released the Wii U version in February, they probably would've sold at least a little more, because there was absolutely nothing to play on the Wii U. Then, they could've used that revenue to continue multiplatform releases. Instead, they push it to September, where there were probably more platformers on the Wii U coming out than shooters on Xbox/Sony. Plus, they decided to release all versions in GTA V month, so they kinda shot themselves in the foot.

I won't go through the rest of your list since there's too much there but I somewhat agree with you otherwise. I don't agree platforming is niche, just that there's so many good ones (as your list shows), that the market isn't big enough to support them all. It's not the shooter or sports genre but if there were fewer platformers a year I think they could each be at least million sellers. The problem is again, there's too many, even though most of them are excellent.

As a side note, slightly controversial opinion, but there are probably so many platformers because they are easier to make than most other genres. They don't require sophisticated enemy design or multiple weapon/abilities or even enemies at all, and require less resources. Platformers can succeed based solely on interaction with the environment.

HOWEVER, that means that the controls have to be fluid and precise, and the level and environmental design have to really wow people. The design has to be difficult, so the players don't get bored, but fair so they don't quit out of frustration. So making a GOOD platformer is very difficult, and is even more difficult to design than other genres in some cases.
 
My opinion is that they're too long and in need of editing. Most platforming games would be better if they were pared down to just the best ideas, last about 8-10 hours and sold at a price of $20-$30.
 
Every day I hear people lamenting how newer games are too easy and nothing like the old NES/SMS, SNES/Genesis days when games were hard and finishing them "felt like an accomplishment". So which is it? They're flopping because the games are too hard (and please, compared to games of old, those three titles you listed are cake) or because they're too easy?

Tropical Freeze and Returns are harder than the original trilogy. Much, much harder; the level that pissed me off most in DKC2 was a bramble level that drained eight lives in a row. The level that pissed me off most in Returns was a temple level that took upwards of twenty.
 
I think platformers would be more popular if somebody bothered releasing some 3D ones again. I can't remember any other than 3D world and the Galaxies in the last decade. I miss that genre.
 
2d platformers aren't really struggling.

3d platformers are pretty much dead outside of the "big boys" Ratchet, Mario and Sonic. Indie scene is all about 2d, but let's see how projects like Pliver and Spike and Last Tinker will do
 
It's partially a perception issue. Why should I pay $60 when I can buy these indie platformers for much less. It's difficult to convey the difference in quality through marketing, why a platformer made by a studio of 50 is worth more than one that 2 guys made in their garage.

Why are the 7 dungeons in Skyward Sword of higher quality and preferred over the 100 in Skyrim? It's almost impossible to convey this, most people don't see a difference between generic caves and outstanding level design. Hence why open world is a thing, more equals better to the masses, even if it generally means less quality in terms of level design and gameplay substance. This is because we play games for different reasons, those who play in a dim lit room on their huge HDTV want to "experience" an immersive world couldn't care less about gameplay compromise.
 
Since when are platformers in trouble?

The beautiful thing today about a platformer is that pretty much EVERYONE (except for people that are over 40) played games like Super Mario Bros growing up. Everyone can grasp the concept of going left and right and jumping.

I see a WAY bigger issue with all the other games that expect the player to actually also control the camera - most 'casual' people have a huge problem with that and really don't think any of that is intuitive, yet, if you give them a sidescroller, they usually can get into it pretty quickly and enjoy their time.

I bet that's also why NSMB sold so many more units than Galaxy, etc. - 3d games due to their nature (3d camera) are always going to be 'more complex' to play than 2d platformers.
 
More mobility options is a great way to move. Mario added wall jumps, and I honestly can't go back to older Mario games because wall jumping is so much fun.

Mischief Makers was a platformer from the N64 that added a small jetpack onto its main character, and you could propel yourself very little to influence jump arcs.

Rocket Knight Adventures added the chargeable jetpack to send you around.

2D Metroid games add a lot of mobility options.

Basically, one way to move the genre forward is to integrate new ways of controlling your character. The virtue of the platformer is that it is (if well-made) fun to simply move.

Then there are other platformers, like Megaman, which tried to evolve through self-made content, but failed. LBP also tried this, but the physics were wonky.

NSMBWii added multi-player, which was a great innovation. That's why it sold so well. Then NSMBU added nothing, and underperformed.

Gunstar Heroes had multiplayer and combinative weapons for creative play.

I can't tell you what the next big innovation will be (unless you want to hire me ;-)), but there's clearly a lot that can be done out there based on past examples. Mario is, in terms of platforming mechanics, rather bare. As is Donkey Kong. I love platformers, but even I feel a little apathetic when I hear about a new one releasing.

Also: open world 3D Mario. I promise it will sell megatons if done right. Traverse the mushroom kingdom! The next Mario game needs to be the true successor to SM64. Then it will change the platforming world.

Great points! You reminded me of games like Earthworm Jim that added a 3D mini game between their levels and even then the normal levels had a lot of variety and ways the player could use the character to complete the level.

I'll even go as far back to Vectorman for the genesis (which was the counter to SNES Donkey Kong Country) where the character was designed in such a way that it could be used in a plethora of ways for the player.

Vectorman_cover.jpg
 
Because (ironically) kiddos consider them too kiddy. It if isn't a sports title, or doesn't have copious amounts of violence, it probably won't top any charts. Which makes me sad because I really, really have a platformer itch that needs scratching right now.
 
Wait, so your argument is "platformers are struggling because they're too hard to finish compared to "old hardcore" games?

Wait, what?

Every day I hear people lamenting how newer games are too easy and nothing like the old NES/SMS, SNES/Genesis days when games were hard and finishing them "felt like an accomplishment". So which is it? They're flopping because the games are too hard (and please, compared to games of old, those three titles you listed are cake) or because they're too easy?

nope, my point is that they are hard, as games used to be. while other "core" gamers (core intended as "what today often is called core) is way easier

plus, my main point is to understand if the clash between hard play patterns and cartoon style is the main reason why platformers are (with exceptions of course) a niche product
 
Since when are platformers in trouble?

The beautiful thing today about a platformer is that pretty much EVERYONE (except for people that are over 40) played games like Super Mario Bros growing up. Everyone can grasp the concept of going left and right and jumping.

I see a WAY bigger issue with all the other games that expect the player to actually also control the camera - most 'casual' people have a huge problem with that and really don't think any of that is intuitive, yet, if you give them a sidescroller, they usually can get into it pretty quickly and enjoy their time.

I bet that's also why NSMB sold so many more units than Galaxy, etc. - 3d games due to their nature (3d camera) are always going to be 'more complex' to play than 2d platformers.

Yeah, it's pretty telling that nsmb and 3d land sold so similarly on the 3ds. Nintendo had to pour a ton of effort into the 3d game while delegating the 2d game to a minor team in order to get the 2 to sell equally. They'd really be better off if they didn't treat 2d mario as an afterthought. Doesn't have to mean they abandon 3d mario.
 
- no "difficulty" level: you can't tone down the difficulty of the game at the beginning nor have the chance to tone it down during a particular segment

Wat?
Just give out more hitpoints. Or have the option to "Super-Guide".

- no "hints" hud-text: the games don't "talk to you" in any way; you have to understand them on your own

Do you want "Follow Me" signs over NPCs heads, who do the platforming for you and you just have to follow?

- no "regenerating health bar" or other helps used in other genres (you have to fight for an additional "hearts" or "ring" for example)

oh my.
DKCR had additional hearts that you could purchase
 
I think platformers would be more popular if somebody bothered releasing some 3D ones again. I can't remember any other than 3D world and the Galaxies in the last decade. I miss that genre.

yep. I think the problem is that they are incredibly difficult games to make. The hit detection and collision detection have to be perfect. The controls need to be precise and intuitive. The camera has to be fully controllable and not annoying. The world has to be interactive and interesting. And the gameplay mechanics have to complement the level design to create fluidity while at the same time being challenging. I honestly just dont think many devs are talented enough to pull this off.
 
The only reason DKCTF, NSMBU and SM3DW are struggling is that they were released on a failed system.

NSMB2 and SM3DL each sold 8 million copies.
 
I think it's mostly that the genre has not evolved. They might be more polished, but they're still similar experiences to their predecessors.

Different platform games over the last generation did many things different than their predecessors. Whether it was shifting the camera perspective, how space functions in perspective to the character, time, how the puzzles are laid out, combat, how environment exploration is handled, etc, there are few genres as diverse within such a narrow parameter as platform games.

Take for example just one developer, Smudged Cat Games. The Adventures of Shuggy contains multiple different mechanics within just the one game and levels to play with those mechanics, whether that's with time/space, rotating an entire level, swinging around on a rope, teleportation and so on. That can't be confused with his game Growing Pains, a 2D platformer where the player character continues to expand and has to keep moving into larger areas in order not to die. Or Gateways, more of a metroidvania style game but with a professor who traverses levels and solves puzzles with the help of different portal guns.

I grew up playing 2D platformers and while there are various games that do homage to those titles, either mechanically or with referentially, they aren't similar to those past games other than to build upon the foundation they laid down.
 
I like platformers but tired of 2D ones. I want to see more 3D ones. Ratchet and Clank is tired now, Jak is dead, and I never liked Sly Cooper. Nintendo hasn't done a decent one since Mario 64 if you dont count the Banjo games that Rare did. Mario Galaxy was great but the levels were so small and restricting that I wont count it as open world. We need a replacement.
 
I like platformers but tired of 2D ones. I want to see more 3D ones. Ratchet and Clank is tired now, Jak is dead, and I never liked Sly Cooper. Nintendo hasn't done a decent one since Mario 64 if you dont count the Banjo games that Rare did. Mario Galaxy was great but the levels were so small and restricting that I wont count it as open world. We need a replacement.

Bring Jak back. Jak 2 is the SM64 of ps2 era
 
DKCReturns and Tropical Freeze are two of the most enjoyable games I've played in a long while. I caught myself smiling this morning for seemingly no reason other than the fact that I was just having a lot of fun playing TF. Hope it does really well.
 
Wat?
Just give out more hitpoints. Or have the option to "Super-Guide".



Do you want "Follow Me" signs over NPCs heads, who do the platforming for you and you just have to follow?



oh my.
DKCR had additional hearts that you could purchase

I dont want those modifies, I was comparing different habits among different genres
 
yep. I think the problem is that they are incredibly difficult games to make. The hit detection and collision detection have to be perfect. The controls need to be precise and intuitive. The camera has to be fully controllable and not annoying. The world has to be interactive and interesting. And the gameplay mechanics have to complement the level design to create fluidity while at the same time being challenging. I honestly just dont think many devs are talented enough to pull this off.

A shame but I think you may be right. I love 3D platformers, but 2D ones do nothing for me. I'm somehow very aware that I'm just constantly holding right on the analogue stick and occasionally pressing the jump button.
 
Are they really struggling? You'd think there wouldn't be so many of them constantly coming out from indies or larger studios if they were all struggling to find an audience.
 
Or you just have pretty bad taste. But I don't want to go through this discussion again.

Sure. I just don't like platformers that rely on mashing square as the main mechanic, or awful 30fps float jumps that have to rely on user generated content to provide decent levels. Sony platformers are ass.

If you guys want to mash square in your platformer, buy Puppeteer! I know about 850 other people did.
 
Because (ironically) kiddos consider them too kiddy. It if isn't a sports title, or doesn't have copious amounts of violence, it probably won't top any charts. Which makes me sad because I really, really have a platformer itch that needs scratching right now.

I think there's some truth to this. When my little cousin once came over and wanted to play on the PS3 one of the games I suggested to him was Rayman Origins but he simply said "this is a game for children" and demanded I put in COD, which I did.

By Nintendo's own numbers (http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/sales/software/index.html) , NSMB DS did 30 million and NSMB Wii did 27 million. That's 57 million across just two games. Platformers are doing fine.

They're more an exception, though. Problem is that their's hardly any other game to compare them to, and most of them bombed.
 
First of all I'm surprised that you found coellecting in Rayman Legends to be difficult. I thought the barriers for collecting enough whatever-they-were-calleds to get to the next world was quite low every time. I could understand the complaint with Origins but not with Legends.

Anyways, I think this may be part of the reason why platformers struggle to appeal to children (I can imagine a child playing some of a game like DKCR, getting frustrated, and then wanting to play something less stressful like Minecraft, Skylanders, or CoD), but honestly, I don't think this is necessarily the reason why the genre isn't as popular as it once was. I mean, they used to be more popular, and people of all ages used to play them. I think a lot of it has to do with brand recognition and market fatigue. I feel like Rayman didn't do well just because the Rayman brand has sort of been diluted and is no longer extremely successful. Same for most other non-Nintendo platformers. The Mario and Sonic games (and I guess DKCTF) not doing well is more of a problem with the Wii U. The console itself is doing poorly and it has a low install base. 3D World and DKCTF are great but not enough to sell the console to the general public.
 
We have came to a point where older people say "These looks like the same game I played on SNES" and "Another 2D Mario ? Nothing will beat my favorite Mario" and stuffs like these .... while the younger people who usualy know much less platformers are like "mario is too kiddy" and "wtf ? rayman has too low polygons" and they are too busy cursing on call of duty to have time to some good old platforming
 
2D platformers are absolutely fine....there are so many of them these days...3d platformers are dead as a doornail though
 
At least with Nintendo's games, platformers tend to have long legs when it comes to sales, as long as they're good. They also tend to perform best on Nintendo consoles (Rayman Legends sold the most on the Wii U if my memory serves me correct).

There definitely is an audience for platformers, myself included. I'm enjoying DKC: Tropical Freeze, played the crap out of Super Mario 3D World, Sonic Lost World, & NSMBU, & will definitely get around to playing Rayman Legends & Sonic Boom (when that comes out).
 
Your theory is partially correct: it's the casual gamers (calladoody) that have made cartoony looking games "uncool". To these people, a game is expected to look realistic, and anything that doesn't is childish and something you shouldn't play. Platformers happen to have more "cartoony" art styles. Hence they have decreased in popularity as this style of art direction is no longer as culturally accepted in the west.

Nintendo games are an anomaly due to the brand power and nostalgic factors.
 
I agree with you OP, that's a good analysis. There is definitely a disconnect between the high level of challenge and the more cartoon-like aesthetic of the best platformers these days Not that there is anything wrong with that dichotomy, but I can see how it can be confusing to consumers.

Most mainstream consumers probably see the box art for Tropical Freeze and think cartoon-like = kiddie = easy. Whereas they'd look at Titan Fall and think dark/gritty = mature = challenging. It's just logical association, you'd think that so-called "kiddie" games would be easier because children don't have as much coordination yet. But it's really the opposite because most older gamers have much less time to dedicate to mastering a game, so instead they'll buy a bad-ass simulator with auto-save, way points, QTEs, etc...

I think the issue is a lack of balance between cartoony and more mature-themed platformers. I love bright, cartoony platformers, but back in the 80s/90s you also had more mature-themed entries. Games like Castlevania and Contra were the mature-themed titles of their day. Or think about something like Blackthorne for SNES, developed by Blizzard. It's a mature, gritty, cinematic 2D platformer with advanced weapon play. Something like that could be a major seller today, but no one is willing to make it. Imagine Drink Box making a 2D platformer Assassin's Creed or Retro Studios making Super Metroid 2.
 
I agree with you OP, that's a good analysis. There is definitely a disconnect between the high level of challenge and the more cartoon-like aesthetic of the best platformers these days Not that there is anything wrong with that dichotomy, but I can see how it can be confusing to consumers.

What is the evidence of this disconnect? Its obviously not sales...
 
There are plenty of indie platformers but a true AAA platformer is a hard sell to many gamers.

It's the same story with many oldschool arcade genres, Indies and HD remakes will always undercut a traditional studio and most gamers seem to be wilfully ignorant or just don't care to pay £30-£40 for quality when £10 will get them something similar.

Platformers have gotten off lightly compared to other arcade genres, probably due to Nintendo putting out Mario, although Nintendo's systems seem to buck the trend for other genres too.

Hmm now that indies are moving into action FPS I wonder if that genre will follow suit.
 
What is the evidence of this disconnect? Its obviously not sales...

Circumstantial evidence. If 2D platformers are easier to develop, have lower costs, lower risks, and higher Return On Investment, then why aren't major 3rd party studios cranking them out as their main releases? Particularly in the Wii/DS era when the NSMB games sold over 30M a piece? When you point to sales, you're referring to a small handful of AAA 2D platformers released in a sea of FPS', cinematic action games, and licensed sports games. A couple of isolated data points. Clearly Activision, Capcom, and EA didn't look at NSMB Wii and think "there's our gold mine, forget Assassin's Creed and Madden, let's make our NSMB killer!"

That's the disconnect. Sure, Nintendo made a small handful of enormously successful 2D platformers with their legendary IP, but most publishers didn't think there was a bigger market there. There's a commercial perception that platformers = cartoony = kiddy and most major publishers today specialize in games with more mature themes. And until someone like Ubisoft challenges that perception with a AAA retail mature-themed platformer, then that perception will hold. For the record I think that they absolutely should go for it and try something like that. In the right hands that would be very successful.
 
2D Sidescrolling remains one of my favorite genres and I'm glad that indies have filled the niche, but I would love to see what a big-budget developer could do with one these days.
 
2D platformers are absolutely fine....there are so many of them these days...3d platformers are dead as a doornail though

I lie to myself that people look at Mario Galaxy 2 and say "what is the point ?" and then trow the idea for their 3d platformer in the trash
 
Because they are hardcore games.
Let me explain.
I've recently played:

Rayman Legends
Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze

I have to agree with these two. They focus more on the gaming audience than the general consumer. The fact that it requires such precision is why I enjoy these games though. It is a nice contrast versus Mario which tends to not get a difficulty curve.

Because they are hardcore games.
Sonic Lost World

As a Sonic fan, this is wrong. The game did not fail because it was difficult. The game had issues because it was trying to mimic other platformers rather than staying true to what made Sonic good: balance. Unleashed had a nice balance of platforming and sense of speed. Lost World decided to take away the speed and be more platform focused. However, Sonic does not have tight controls. So you undershoot because you did not hold R or you overdo it because you held R. The fact that slow is the default movement is mind boggling as a long time Sonic player. I felt the game was fine when I held R, but there was still way too many moments that kills the speed. That is why people think Sonic Lost World is a bad game. It has zero to do with difficulty.

Platformers are having issues gaining attention because the variety the genre has. If you play an RPG, you know you are going to hit things to gain EXP to go hit bigger things. Shooters you shoot guns. In a platformer, you have Sly Cooper, Ratchet, Jak, Mario, Sonic, Braid, Limbo, Oddworld, etc. None of these games play like each other. The only trait they have in common is you can run and jump. Platformer is such a loose term to describe the games that it is hard to get the audience that FPS or Sandbox games get.
 
2D platformers are absolutely fine....there are so many of them these days...3d platformers are dead as a doornail though

So the new Ratchet game that came out is not real? Granted, I do wish more 3D platformers come out. It seems 2.5D seems to be the safe bet. Why didn't people buy the new Sly game? *pouts*
 
are Sonic games profitable?

I think platformers are fine, I want more of them though.

Those games above are good sans Lost World, I'd say it's an ok game. I liked what they were trying to do, but they didn't quite nail it. There some great levels though..

They should experiment with this control option for Sonic, I feel like it can really work.
 
are Sonic games profitable?

I think platformers are fine, I want more of them though.

Those games above are good sans Lost World, I'd say it's an ok game. I liked what they were trying to do, but they didn't quite nail it. There some great levels though..

They should experiment with this control option for Sonic, I feel like it can really work.

image.php


I hope so for your sake, Sonic.
 
Also: open world 3D Mario. I promise it will sell megatons if done right. Traverse the mushroom kingdom! The next Mario game needs to be the true successor to SM64. Then it will change the platforming world.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this. Disappointed it's not happened yet. SM64 and BanjoKazooie are two of my favourite games ever.
 
2D platformers are absolutely fine....there are so many of them these days...3d platformers are dead as a doornail though

On a side note I wish more developers copied Super Mario Galaxy's formula for 3D platformers. IMO if they did that they'd probably at least stand out more to me.
 
Top Bottom