I still think Sonic 1 is among the best in the series.
Sonic CD ranks the highest for me, then I like them in the order they were released.
I do agree that the Labyrinth Zone is a pretty awful world - but with a little practice, it's something you can get through with as little pain as possible.
I replay Sonic 1 once per year and I feel that -with the exception of Labyrinth Zone- the game has aged very well.
Green Hill
It's still one of the best Zones in the series for me, simple for casual playthroughs and an absolute blast for score attack runs.
Marble Zone
It definitely feels out of place with the rest of the game, but I think that it doesn't deserve all the hate it gets. Sure, it tries to offer a more "traditional" platforming experience compared to the other levels but, in my opinion, it does it reasonably well. It inevitably feels more "mundane" and slow, but it's in no way a bad level.
I also like it much more than Oli Ocean or...Marble Garden.
Spring Yard
My favorite "pinball themed" level behind Casino Night. I love the "chains" you can perform here by taking advantage of the enemy placement.
Star Light
This is easily one of my favorite levels in the entire series. Fantastic level design that is a blast for time attack runs.
Scrap Brain
This is the weakest Zone in the game behind Labyrinth IMO. I like Act 1 a lot, but Act 2 can become very frustrating. I don't mind the challenge and the slower pace, but there are many moments where the design feels very cheap and random. Also, no one wanted a Labyrinth Zone reject for Act 3.
Sonic 1 is definitely a very "experimental" game in terms of level design. But, while it's true that Sonic 2 and 3 offer a more focused and refined experience, the best parts of Sonic 1 are still some of my favorite in the entire series.
I liked it. It used to terrify me when you started running out of air and the DundundundunDUNDUNDUNDUN music drove you desperately to find an air bubble.
Sonic 1 still holds up for me. It makes a few missteps, sure, and Sonic 2 and especially 3&K perfected the formula, but it's still good. Maybe just shy of great.
I replay the original trilogy every year and I still find the first one great. Cool level and art design, brilliant soundtrack and it oozes personality.
I remember getting the sonic collection on gamecube and being so excited until I played the games. Sonic 1 has nothing on Mario level design but it is not really a terrible game either. Just underwhelming.
In general they are just average games. Sonic 2 is a a big step up from the first game but 3 Knuckles is still a pretty decent game. Sonic CD was just weird but did enjoy it as a kid. As people have said when the physics and gameplay feels tight the Sonic games are a lot of fun. Speed has something to do with it too. People like to ignore that what makes Sonic games unique at that time is the multiple paths (hidden or not) to rush through a level; especially while keeping the momentum. I am not the biggest Sonic fan but I can see their value and unique gameplay.
Is Sonic 1 the worst of the MD games? Sure. Do most Sonic games fall apart in the final third? Sure they do, but that doesn't make them "bad" in my book. Sonic 1 is a fun game despite a few crappy zones. Sonic 2 is a fantastic game despite a few crappy zones. Nothing's perfect. I played Super Mario World on the Wii VC and it infuriated me, so maybe that was never good? We're all different, man.
Does anyone else think it's weird that these threads seem to pop up almost weekly (if not daily) whereas someone making a thread about the Mario NES trilogy sucking would be rightly shat on?
Well... as someone who grew up loving Sega during the 90s and only transitioned to Nintendo/Mario in the GBA years I imagine the reason for that is the Mario games are unquestionably better than the sonic games. Sonic 3&K is classic Sonic at it's best and it's still nowhere near the level in quality found in SMB3/SMW/Yoshi's Island.
Then maybe the newer Sonic games, starting from Adventure 2, are better for you, because they actually give you a grade at the end of a level. The best grade typically is associated with a consistently good performance.
To me, it is not the way it looks, it is the fact that you nail a sequence of very tight and difficult steps required to have a certain quality of your run. It's like the beauty of a well executed combo in Bayonetta or a fighting game. There is joy to be had in the act of playing, not just in the formal outcome. As someone not really enjoying achievements, I'd even say "more so".
Sonic Adventure games are awful janky trash. No thanks.
I think comparing it to executing a combo in Bayo or a fighter is a bit much.
I can understand the appeal in finding doing the "perfect sequence", but doing the "perfect sequence" is only fun to me, if the game presents challenge. Spinning through a loop, hitting a spring and then running in the air really fast is basic fucking Sonic the Hedgehog.
It's not impressive to me. There's zero enemies in the way. Zero obstacles. Zero challenging. Just spinning through a loop, and then running at high speed. This is the definition of shallow.
Thread is ridiculous. Sonic 1 is an amazing game with very good gameplay and graphics that haven't aged at all.
Tiered platforming is like gambling: you can take a chance to try and find a secret on a lower platform or risk losing a life.
Generally, the strategy is usually to go to the highest tier for the best rewards. But, that's also what makes it fun. Every single path can kill you if you're not careful.
P.S. I do agree with those who say the series is a step down from 8-bit Mario and MegaMan. But that's not saying much, really considering those games are like royalty.
"A big accomplishment"? It's not about that, it's about the feeling of satisfaction you get when chaining that type of play together across an entire level. Being able to move through each stage effortlessly while avoiding hazards and taking the fastest route. It's not about the end result, rather, the feeling you get while performing those actions.
When combined with the eye catching visuals and excellent upbeat music, it just FEELS great. That's really all there is to it.
What is exactly satisfying about jumping from block to block? What is satisfying about perfectly chaining attacks together in a game? I enjoy the speed and quick reflexes that are required from Sonic, even levels just as Chemical Planet rewards you with blazing speed but without reacting to where the path takes you you could easily miss extra lives or faster routes.
Besides unless you build the sufficient momentum and unless you jump to the red spring at the right time you will be unable to access the higher platform that leads you to the higher path. That to me is excellent design and makes use of Sonic's core gameplay.
This stage also follows Labyrinth Zone so I don't see anything wrong with it being faster paced.
Yes, I was blown away visually when I first saw Sonic 1 displayed at a department store's electronics section when I was a kid, but once I finally spent some time with it I didn't have a lot of fun.
That said, I had a brief period of fun playing co-op in Sonic 2 at a friend's house. That's the fondest memory I have of the Sonic series.
Beyond that... never my thing. I have much better memories of the Mario series.
I guess this is my problem. I actively held back playing Sonic 1 this time. Every time I try playing Sonic in the past results in me blazing through like this and I don't find it very fun. When I tone it down, I'm still not having fun. I think watching tells me the core problem I have with Sonic's design is the open ended levels. If it were more structured and linear, I'd probably like it. But instead, depending on route, you can miss entire obstacles. To me it's a bungled mess and ruins why I like platformers. The entire concept is broken to me. The result are speed runs without adversity. Dude doesn't even deal with an enemy in Star Light. If pressed, and good enough, and I am, you can ignore entire enemies on a Sonic stage. To me that is not good design.
I can see your perspective, but personally I think that it's part and parcel of what makes the games so good. Every approach is valid, and every time I play the experience differs. I love that about the Sonic games - whenever I play I find something different. Hell, I must have played through Sonic 3/Knuckles 400 times, and I still stumble across new secrets and routes.
Then perhaps it's just not for you? I don't see how appealing Megaman games are with its harsh difficulty as he just does not have the level of maneuverability that matches the level design (like Megaman Zero generously matches) but people enjoy them so power to them.
And you're acting like this is the majority of Star Light Zone, the next section after requires you to dodge an incoming flame projectile whilst jumping along rotating platform. Earlier in the thread you claimed that Star Light and Green Hill were the only good stages in the game, now you dislike how automated sections are in these levels, so why do you dislike Marble Zone or Scrap Brain that offers more hazard and slower paced platforming.
A game does not need to be one or the other consistently, that to me would get boring and repetitive.
I guess this is my problem. I actively held back playing Sonic 1 this time. Every time I try playing Sonic in the past results in me blazing through like this and I don't find it very fun. When I tone it down, I'm still not having fun. I think watching tells me the core problem I have with Sonic's design is the open ended levels. If it were more structured and linear, I'd probably like it. But instead, depending on route, you can miss entire obstacles. To me it's a bungled mess and ruins why I like platformers. The entire concept is broken to me. The result are speed runs without adversity. Dude doesn't even deal with an enemy in Star Light. If pressed, and good enough, and I am, you can ignore entire enemies on a Sonic stage. To me that is not good design.
This has to be one of the most bizarre criticisms of a Sonic game that I've ever seen. You hate Sonic 1 because you aren't forced to destroy every Badnik? Just think about what you're saying for a minute. Sonic the Hedgehog is known for his speed, the ability to run circles around obstacles and enemies alike. That's part of the appeal of Sonic games; you have a choice in how you want to complete each level. One hand you can smash a Badnik for a few points or avoid that enemy entirely if you're aiming for the best time bonus.
This has to be one of the most bizarre criticisms of a Sonic game that I've ever seen. You hate Sonic 1 because you aren't forced to destroy every Badnik? Just think about what you're saying for a minute. Sonic the Hedgehog is known for his speed, the ability to run circles around obstacles and enemies alike. That's part of the appeal of Sonic games; you have a choice in how you want to complete each level. One hand you can smash a Badnik for a few points or avoid that enemy entirely if you're aiming for the best time bonus.
Yep. There's a reason that Sonic is frequently in an invincible state. The jump, the roll. Barreling through enemies is a huge part of the fun for me. That's why Sonic Heroes fails so utterly - every enemy, even the most basic grunt, has multiple hit points.
Trying to blaze through a stage as fast as possible has always been the funnest thing about Sonic to me. Ever since I was like 5 years over, it's pretty much been my favorite thing to do.
I honestly think the Sonic tities are just not going to be appealing to you Cindi. A lot of the things you dislike are elements of the classic titles that people enjoy. The dude who described Sonic as something akin to a slide was very right. Even 20 years on, the simple act of going through a loop is still incredibly satisfying to me.
I remember getting the sonic collection on gamecube and being so excited until I played the games. Sonic 1 has nothing on Mario level design but it is not really a terrible game either. Just underwhelming.
In general they are just average games. Sonic 2 is a a big step up from the first game but 3 Knuckles is still a pretty decent game. Sonic CD was just weird but did enjoy it as a kid. As people have said when the physics and gameplay feels tight the Sonic games are a lot of fun. Speed has something to do with it too. People like to ignore that what makes Sonic games unique at that time is the multiple paths (hidden or not) to rush through a level; especially while keeping the momentum. I am not the biggest Sonic fan but I can see their value and unique gameplay.
I guess this is my problem. I actively held back playing Sonic 1 this time. Every time I try playing Sonic in the past results in me blazing through like this and I don't find it very fun. When I tone it down, I'm still not having fun. I think watching tells me the core problem I have with Sonic's design is the open ended levels. If it were more structured and linear, I'd probably like it. But instead, depending on route, you can miss entire obstacles. To me it's a bungled mess and ruins why I like platformers. The entire concept is broken to me. The result are speed runs without adversity. Dude doesn't even deal with an enemy in Star Light. If pressed, and good enough, and I am, you can ignore entire enemies on a Sonic stage. To me that is not good design.
It's funny but you kinda explain here why I like Sonic more then most other platformers. If it was more linear and had less open levels then I just wouldn't like it so much. Overly structured platformers can bore me as there's only one way to play them and after a playthrough you feel you've seen it all. I would constantly replay Sonic as I'd be thinking "how do you get to that ledge" so next playthrough I'd try and work that out. And the times where you felt you'd broken the level by abusing the physics where possibly the most fun of all. That was fun to me, sounds like it isn't fun to you though which is fair enough.
We have very different definitions of "playground" I see the ability to use interactions in a SMB level to not just clear areas but also well play around with them make it far more the playground, with things like setting up a Koopa shell bouncing back and forth between two block and then luring a Lakitu to throw spines into the death zone to get some 1-ups is far more an example of "play" then just clearing an area.
Almost every Mario game has most levels with areas that encourage you to slow down and just mess around with the level, even if it's just giving you a bunch of blocks to destroy, or like the beginning of SMB3 2-3, with the pyramids made of one way platforms patrolled by Fire Snakes and Koopas. the easiest thing to do is just run past them, but you can jump around those pyramids avoiding enemies to get coins, a power up and even a starman. If you're small you can get the goodies by using the koopas to break the brick blocks blocking you from the ? blocks. You can also use the koopas to take out the fire snakes, or just avoid thee snakes, or if you have it use your raccoon tail.
That one area in one level gives you a lot of ways to play and mess around. A pure obstacle course platformer would be more something like Mega man.
I just beat Sonic CD, which is the only game in the series I've completed. It was alright. The biggest problem I have with Sonic is that you're going so fast that its almost impossible to get things right the first time. I know speed is the key reason to play these games, but I never felt like I was getting better at the game by the time it ended.
The problem really is this is the latest in a long line of Sonic is bad threads that have been springing up in regular intervals and people are responding more to that trend then you personally. Many are just sick of defending a series of game they still love from a constant barrage of insinuations of "your wrong for liking this game". Not saying you personally are trying to say that though. As for Sega in general it seems to happen a lot on this forum that people like to come out and say nothing was worth playing on the Mega Drive.
At the end of the day I feel this debate always just comes down to "I find this style of gameplay fun" vs "I don't" most of the time with added exaggerations. Directly comparing with Mario is pointless as both series have entirely different appeal.
I just beat Sonic CD, which is the only game in the series I've completed. It was alright. The biggest problem I have with Sonic is that you're going so fast that its almost impossible to get things right the first time. I know speed is the key reason to play these games, but I never felt like I was getting better at the game by the time it ended.
Yeah, seriously. Sonic 1 was always bad.
It was rushed to have something in time to make the SNES look bad at SNES launch in US.
Rushed games tend to be mediocre, and all the first game needed to do was look faster than Mario, when displayed on adjacent televisions.
Sonic 2 has significantly better level design, and actual good music.
To all of those reading this thread, who are considering replaying old Sonic: Go ahead and skip Sonic 1.
We have very different definitions of "playground" I see the ability to use interactions in a SMB level to not just clear areas but also well play around with them make it far more the playground, with things like setting up a Koopa shell bouncing back and forth between two block and then luring a Lakitu to throw spines into the death zone to get some 1-ups is far more an example of "play" then just clearing an area.
Almost every Mario game has most levels with areas that encourage you to slow down and just mess around with the level, even if it's just giving you a bunch of blocks to destroy, or like the beginning of SMB3 2-3, with the pyramids made of one way platforms patrolled by Fire Snakes and Koopas. the easiest thing to do is just run past them, but you can jump around those pyramids avoiding enemies to get coins, a power up and even a starman. If you're small you can get the goodies by using the koopas to break the brick blocks blocking you from the ? blocks. You can also use the koopas to take out the fire snakes, or just avoid thee snakes, or if you have it use your raccoon tail.
That one area in one level gives you a lot of ways to play and mess around. A pure obstacle course platformer would be more something like Mega man.
Right? Im amazed people don't see Mario, the game where you destroy all the blocks to find something secret, or the game where you have to hold down on the white box to fall into the screen as a playground. In Mario 64 you can spend all your time jumping and platforming all the place just because.
I love sushi. If someone doesn't like sushi, they have the right to express they think sushi tastes bad. It's their opinion that it's bad, and while I disagree, I won't catch feels over it. "Sushi isn't bad, you just don't like it" is such a holier than thou and pretentious statement.
Sonic 1 was great, its just old but has never been a bad game. I played it to death back in the day, until Sonic 2 came out, then I played that to death too.
I love sushi. If someone doesn't like sushi, they have the right to express they think sushi tastes bad. It's their opinion that it's bad, and while I disagree, I won't catch feels over it. "Sushi isn't bad, you just don't like it" is such a holier than thou and pretentious statement.
Ehh, I wouldn't say it's pretentious. If anything it's eminently reasonable and I wish online communities would adopt it more. "I don't like x and here is why" rather than "x is bad and here's why". The latter is inherently more antagonistic to fans of x than the former.
On a related note, I really, really want some sushi now. And some seafood miso spicy soup...
The problem really is this is the latest in a long line of Sonic is bad threads that have been springing up in regular intervals and people are responding more to that trend then you personally. Many are just sick of defending a series of game they still love from a constant barrage of insinuations of "your wrong for liking this game". Not saying you personally are trying to say that though. As for Sega in general it seems to happen a lot on this forum that people like to come out and say nothing was worth playing on the Mega Drive.
At the end of the day I feel this debate always just comes down to "I find this style of gameplay fun" vs "I don't" most of the time with added exaggerations. Directly comparing with Mario is pointless as both series have entirely different appeal.
If you could get it right first time Sonic would lose a lot of appeal for me.
They should chin the fuck up then and take it. I love Sega. I think from the 80's on to the early 2000's they were the best game developer. IMO Sega's catalogue is the one to beat. But some of their fans....Hahahaha, wow. And this is from someone who gave Shenmue III 200 dollars. Too many threads about Sonic being bad must mean there's a conspiracy to destroy Sega's legacy!
It's much more pretentious to project your viewpoint on something as if it is the standard viewpoint. Sushi is not objectively bad, and the subjective viewpoint of someone who doesn't like it is not some objective standard.
Part of the problem with discussion (and I do it to) is that people discuss topics like books, movies, or video games as if their subjective viewpoint is an objective truth. If you (not YOU you, people in general) pitch your argument like that, there's no surprise when you get pushback.
Couldn't agree more. If there are any "traps" in Sonic 1, they are hinted at before hand or with visual cues. The part I bolded is true. Sonic 1 is a game you can trust and 99% of the time you'll be fine.
Also, I don't understand how someone can say Megaman didn't have trial and error. That series has a lot of infamous bull, and unlike Sonic, Megaman gives you very few lives if you're inexperienced. There's a reason stuff like Quick Man's stage or the floating platforms in Ice Man's stage are so infamous.
Let's be honest. There's a lot of hysterical "too many Sonic is bad threads and this hurts my feelings and clearly this means people will start going after Sega next" posts in this thread.
People cannot handle others not liking Sonic.
It's kind of pathetic.
I don't have to find fanboyism and paranoia when there's plenty to sample, and enough for seconds.
I think Donkey Kong Country 1 is a pretty meh game and 2 is the real classic. Some people do bring up Donkey Kong Country. Ask a famous judoka about it.
You can easily see how well designed the levels from Sonic 1/2/3/K/CD/Chaotix are built by playing the GBA/DS games. Those are poorly built and have a lot of totally unfair/unavoidable enemies.
Genesis Sonic games are up there in terms of level-design. Great games that stand the test of time.
It's a pretty slow zone and I can see why people dislike it, but, despite that, I somehow don't dislike labyrinth zone, I dislike sonic 2's metropolis zone more than any sonic 1 zone even.
The fuck are you on about bah? Sonic is a hold right to win automated platformer man. Come on dude, stop posting this slow nonsense that requires patience and timing. What the fuck dude?
"trail and error" is probably the most useless video game criticism in popular lexicon.
In what universe are there video games where you don't try things, they don't work out, so you try again or try something else to succeed? Can you name even one well-regarded platformer that isn't you trying things, an error occurs, and then you try again? Even visual novels like Phoenix Wright gives you evidence you can try, and if doesn't work, you try agian.
Let's be honest. There's a lot of hysterical "too many Sonic is bad threads and this hurts my feelings and clearly this means people will start going after Sega next" posts in this thread.
People cannot handle others not liking Sonic.
It's kind of pathetic.
I don't have to find fanboyism and paranoia when there's plenty to sample, and enough for seconds.
Well, I dunno. I think the example quote you posted is a pretty dry, humorous bit of cynicism that personally didn't take seriously. "It's the natural evolution", come on, that's pretty funny!
