Replaying Sonic the Hedgehog reveals it was kind of bad

Good, bad, it's all opinions anyway. Everyone is entitled to theirs. Who cares

Yup, we should never have a discussion about anything.

....

I was just playing Sonic 2 3D on the 3DS. Yeah, the games definitely aren't as fun as the Mario's. Mario has a sense of flow I can easily fall into. With Sonic I feel like there is this learning curve every damn time. The controls are really fidgety. I hate trying to change directions/momentum and underwater movement blows.
 
The moment I saw the Star Light Zone gif described as not well designed or fun, I've realized that we've hit a new level of bad discussion.

Incredible.
 
yikes, this mess is still going eh

"No one else says this about other classic games!"

My conspiracy and paranoia thing is a joke in itself on the hilarious "why do people only say this about Sonic and Sega games?!?!" in this thread. Your post was just convenient because it was one of the latest ones. I don't actually think there's a conspiracy or actual paranoia but I do find the reactions to people having different opinions about Sonic to be extremely funny. It's almost as if people really think there's a conspiracy against Sega and Sonic. Nintendo have bought posters on neogaf and YouTube to bad mouth Sonic!

you're on a whole other thing here, but it's worth pointing out that in the retro scene, yeah, sega gets criminally slept on more often than not...even by some of the more "professionals" doing YT retrospectives/etc. ive even had retronauts contributors on about the timelessness of nintendo's first party lineup but trash sega's stuff, and for better or worse, yeah, sonic often becomes a symbol of that (as many can scarcely name stuff beyond him, altered beast and streets of rage).

it happens, and it rightfully gets called out. i guess it's better than TG16, neo-geo and other scenes that often get left out entirely, despite their classics/influence/etc.

Rings shouldn't act as a health system because they're too easy to gather and make playing the game inconsequential. Who cares if you get hit if you can get that one single ring? Rings are a poorly thought out mechanic.

you may've covered this, but i couldn't disagree more - they allow you to explore the different ways to complete a level. risk/reward is balanced out by having the player feel less "punished" for new enemies getting them...sure, you lose rings, but not progress. and you get to keep them & speed through next time if you learn the stage, as well. naka was onto something there.

"I lorded my opinions over everyone else and now everyone is disagreeing with me ;((("

haha, also a bit've this
 
Alternatively, people can stop trying to convince me it's a good game. But this is a discussion forum and the entire point of it is to talk. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I don't even care. I'm just rebutting arguments I disagree with, because that's the entire point of this board. It's funny how you and others keep saying to "stop trying to convince people it's bad" like I'm doing a door to door Jehovah Witness campaign on why Sonic the Hedgehog is trash. All we're doing is talking in a thread, about why I think it's bad, with people trying to convince me it's good. The entire point of NeoGaf has seemed to escape you.

The problem is that why you think it's bad is borderline trolling at this point. You have compared it to games that are guilty of the very same things you dislike, that are not only dated and mechanically weaker (being NES games), but that also have even worse level design and core design. Take Duck Tales. Great game. Very dated though. Full of trial and error moments, where you basically have to die and come back once you figure out how to pass the "obstacles". Re-spawning enemies (always a great design choice). This game is littered with "obstacles" designed to take your lives away so you can come back and try again, very, very much akin to an arcade game. Yet the Rings system is arcade like and unnecessary? Dude, come on.

I'm not even gonna go into the other games because it's not worth my time. You don't like them, that's fine. But surely the scores of people that are quite literally telling you that your opinions are crazy town, should give you a bit of a hint - you're not saying it's bad, you're shitting on it for insane reasons.

You posted a GIF of a dude playing the game correctly, which they would have had to practice to pull off, with ramps that you land on perfectly as a reward - and tried to spin it as a bad thing? And then you posted a GIF from Sonic Mania - a game that, while currently bearing resemblance to the games in question, isn't actually even OUT yet and will be released 25 years later - as an example of why Sonic 1 is shit. How is that reasonable discussion?
 
It's not only a different type of platformer. I think these reasons make it a bad platformer as it betrays the entire point of the genre.
The idea that all platformers must have the same point in what they ask of the player and what they offer to them is absurd and, I feel, a bit pretentious. Like, Quake 3 Arena and Counter-Strike are both multiplayer first-person shooters but beyond that they're extremely different. The one big thing they have in common is that they both ask you to point and shoot at other players in order to defeat them in the same way that both Sonic and your preferred platformers both ask you to reach the end of various stages.
 
I think your comparison is flawed because Sonic offers far more choice on a moment-to-moment basis than Mario does. The wide-open levels that have been crafted in such an way to allow for choice to manifest itself in almost every action on every playthrough. "Choice" is absolutely the single word I'd use to describe why Sonic works. Choice is why the games are popular and successful.

Sonic was never trying to be Mario. It's different and that's a good thing.

You know what Sonic with a health bar is? Bubsy 2. ;)

I'm not saying that Sonic being different from Mario is bad. Not everything has to be like Mario. I'm saying that your argument that rings are good because it means little kids can beat it is poor, because other games like Mario 3 already have options that make the games easier without sacrificing their inherent challenge. If Sonic were a good game, it would be something little kids can enjoy but also something experienced players can enjoy without getting bored. It doesn't. By your own argument, there were numerous platformers that make themselves more beatable for little kids without necessarily having something like rings. You can offer ways to make the game potentially easier without actually making the game easier. Sonic has no such balance.

Yup, we should never have a discussion about anything.

....

I was just playing Sonic 2 3D on the 3DS. Yeah, the games definitely aren't as fun as the Mario's. Mario has a sense of flow I can easily fall into. With Sonic I feel like there is this learning curve every damn time. The controls are really fidgety. I hate trying to change directions/momentum and underwater movement blows.

I hate Sonic's floaty jump.

Be careful there, lest you lord over your opinion, HotHam.
 
Yup, we should never have a discussion about anything.

I think this discussion has played itself out and people are just throwing jabs at one another at this point. When you're having a debate and both sides stubbornly refuse to see things from the other's perspective, you just end up with shitflinging.

Some people feel Sonic is a great game. Others don't.

And that's OK.
 
Sonic 1 is very similar to Mario 1, in the sense that lt lakd the foundation for much greater games to come. They're both games that were great for the time and still have good qualities, but also have issues that date them and make them far inferior to their sequels.

Exactly this and both 2D series peaked with their 3rd entry. S3&K is a fantastic game with great level design that Sonic Team has not been able to replicate in any Sonic game since.
 
I'm not saying that Sonic being different from Mario is bad. Not everything has to be like Mario. I'm saying that your argument that rings are good because it means little kids can beat it is poor, because other games like Mario 3 already have options that make the games easier without sacrificing their inherent challenge. If Sonic were a good game, it would be something little kids can enjoy but also something experienced players can enjoy without getting bored. It doesn't.

I direct you to the enormous fandom and the speed-run scene, which consists entirely of veteran players pushing their game further and further. The skill ceiling for these games is astronomical.
 
I'm not saying that Sonic being different from Mario is bad. Not everything has to be like Mario. I'm saying that your argument that rings are good because it means little kids can beat it is poor, because other games like Mario 3 already have options that make the games easier without sacrificing their inherent challenge. If Sonic were a good game, it would be something little kids can enjoy but also something experienced players can enjoy without getting bored. It doesn't. By your own argument, there were numerous platformers that make themselves more beatable for little kids without necessarily having something like rings. You can offer ways to make the game potentially easier without actually making the game easier. Sonic has no such balance.

This is only true if you think the only challenge in Sonic should be in getting to the end of the level alive, which it's not, it's about time attacking and execution, but I've said that already, and I don't know why I'm even bothering to post this, because it's pretty obvious you've created a very rigid and arbitrary box for what constitutes a "good" platformer and refuse to even entertain the notion that anything that doesn't fit precisely in that box might be something people enjoy, which renders all further discussion in this thread pointless.
 
The idea that all platformers must have the same point in what they ask of the player and what they offer to them is absurd and, I feel, a bit pretentious. Like, Quake 3 Arena and Counter-Strike are both multiplayer first-person shooters but beyond that they're extremely different. The one big thing they have in common is that they both ask you to point and shoot at other players in order to defeat them in the same way that both Sonic and your preferred platformers both ask you to reach the end of various stages.

Not all platformers have the same point or goal but Sonic's ring mechanic combined with its tiered levels where falling from platforms doesn't necessarily mean a game over results in an overly coddled, boring platformer experience. The 16 bit era made their games easier for players, but Sonic takes it a bit too far sometimes. The result something that's not very interesting beyond amazing stages like Metropolis Zone. These elements by themselves aren't bad. But combined I feel makes a very bad platformer.
 
There's lots of posts and I'm doing something. Your reply speaks more about you than it does me. I'm not ignoring you at all.

Yeah, it shows I'm good at exposing people.

Thread is no longer worth replying to, but what can you expect when it's started with an excellent title like "Game X is kind of bad" - sure to generate excellent "discussion".
 
Not all platformers have the same point or goal but Sonic's ring mechanic combined with its tiered levels where falling from platforms doesn't necessarily mean a game over results in an overly coddled, boring platformer experience. The 16 bit era made their games easier for players, but Sonic takes it a bit too far sometimes. The result something that's not very interesting beyond amazing stages like Metropolis Zone. These elements by themselves aren't bad. But combined I feel makes a very bad platformer.

The thing about this thread is that you're making these walls of text like the one I just quoted as if these were objective reasons why Sonic is not good. And it's okay for you not to like it, but it's never "I don't like it because X", it's "Sonic sucks, and that's objective and true, because these arbitrary elements are arranged in a way that I particularly don't care for." I mean, other people explaining why the way the game is designed works for them doesn't make them wrong, yet you're not even entertaining the notion that just because you personally don't like thing doesn't mean thing is bad. That's why the thread is going in circles.
 
Yeah, Sonic has always been bad. The gimmick is speed, but the level design clashes entirely against your ability to actually speed through them. He's always been a half-asleep marketing pitch that ballooned despite any actual quality, and it's still floundering around 30 years later.
 
Yeah, Sonic has always been bad. The gimmick is speed, but the level design clashes entirely against your ability to actually speed through them. He's always been a half-asleep marketing pitch that ballooned despite any actual quality, and it's still floundering around 30 years later.

No, this only happens if you're bad at the game, as it was already explained many, MANY times in this thread.

"Street Fighter 2 is a terrible game, because the fact that you have to hit your enemies clashes entirely against the fact that you have to account for them hitting you too."
 
sonic is a game about going as fast as you can, but there are things in the level trying to stop you from going as fast as you can, and that's bullshit, because when have games ever put obstacles in the path of the player that try to stop the player from accomplishing their goal

also sonic is too easy
 
I always viewed and played sonic as a time trial game, the timer counts up not down

trying to beat my old times was a big part of my childhood
 
The problem is that why you think it's bad is borderline trolling at this point. You have compared it to games that are guilty of the very same things you dislike, that are not only dated and mechanically weaker (being NES games), but that also have even worse level design and core design. Take Duck Tales. Great game. Very dated though. Full of trial and error moments, where you basically have to die and come back once you figure out how to pass the "obstacles". Re-spawning enemies (always a great design choice). This game is littered with "obstacles" designed to take your lives away so you can come back and try again, very, very much akin to an arcade game. Yet the Rings system is arcade like and unnecessary? Dude, come on.

I'm not even gonna go into the other games because it's not worth my time. You don't like them, that's fine. But surely the scores of people that are quite literally telling you that your opinions are crazy town, should give you a bit of a hint - you're not saying it's bad, you're shitting on it for insane reasons.

You posted a GIF of a dude playing the game correctly, which they would have had to practice to pull off, with ramps that you land on perfectly as a reward - and tried to spin it as a bad thing? And then you posted a GIF from Sonic Mania - a game that, while currently bearing resemblance to the games in question, isn't actually even OUT yet and will be released 25 years later - as an example of why Sonic 1 is shit. How is that reasonable discussion?

Nothing I've posted is trolling. How am I trolling? Because I don't like rings? Because I don't like open levels?

1. Ducktales is a great game and respawning enemies is definitely a great design choice depending on the goals of the game. We have established that a lot of games have trial and error. Trial and error isn't necessarily a bad thing. I said that earlier. A lot of 2d platformers have trial and error. Big whoop. But in some games it's pretty fun. Like figuring out a Mega Man bosses weakness. Or trying to beat Castlevania III with all characters. But you know, I have fun with that. I don't find Sonic's brand of trial and error fun. Even then, Sonic's trial and error moments are mostly fluff and aren't majorly big deals for a veteran. I don't have any problems with Sonic's trial and error while playing it. It's not a big deal to me, but because it's not a big deal to me doesn't make it actually good. For instance, I can beat Death Egg Zone no problem on my first try through pure muscle memory. But last night after playing it for the first time in years, I realized it gives you 0 rings. The game is inconsistent with its own logic. A poster earlier said that rings makes the games easier for little kids to beat, but you have to beat the final boss (two bosses actually) without getting hit once. A game like Ducktales at least has a meter. Because Ducktales has consistent game logic and Sonic doesn't. That's why Ducktales is a great game whereas Sonic is bad.

2. Scores of people telling my opinions are crazy doesn't give those accusations merit. Just as many people have agreed, even people who disagree with me. People have said I'm flat out right, but that doesn't make Sonic bad per se. I disagree. I'm not shitting on it for insane reasons at all. You haven't paid attention to this thread at all, and my reasoning are very grounded and realistic.

3. Since you haven't bothered reading this thread, I posted the Sonic Mania gif after beating Sonic 2. The Mania gif has nothing to do with Sonic 1. It's just an example of one of my many issues with Sonic. Sonic 2 is also a bad game, but for different reasons than Sonic 1.That Mania gif is a great encapsulation on why and I won't be purchasing it.

Yeah, Sonic has always been bad. The gimmick is speed, but the level design clashes entirely against your ability to actually speed through them. He's always been a half-asleep marketing pitch that ballooned despite any actual quality, and it's still floundering around 30 years later.

This has never been the issue with Sonic.
 
You posted a GIF of a dude playing the game correctly, which they would have had to practice to pull off, with ramps that you land on perfectly as a reward - and tried to spin it as a bad thing? And then you posted a GIF from Sonic Mania - a game that, while currently bearing resemblance to the games in question, isn't actually even OUT yet and will be released 25 years later - as an example of why Sonic 1 is shit. How is that reasonable discussion?

Think she just meant it should have been done it like this instead -

In188WJ.gif
 
Just played the Android version on bluestacks it held up for me. The Genesis version is fine as well. Play the Android/IOS one with a game pad if you need the extra help.
 
People have said I'm flat out right, but that doesn't make Sonic bad per se. I disagree.
This sentence makes it pretty clear that this discussion is a vortex. People enjoy a thing you don't like for many of the very reasons you don't like it. Those reasons you don't like it are things that the game sets out to do, and things it generally does pretty well (and very well in its sequels). So if the design attempts and succeeds at something that has clearly been well-received for a pretty long time by a large amount of people, saying "it's bad" is nothing more than painting your opinion as the correct one.
Really, I think you're going to have to get used to the idea that you don't like some games that happen to be considered good by a large amount of people for legitimate reasons.
 
Playing it on a iPhone is not ideal. touch screen controls are just terrible IMO for this kind of thing. regardless of the quality of the port (which i hear is quite good), try giving it a shot with a proper D-PAD and buttons. It still won't be as good as you remember, but I think it would be a much better experience than a phone.
 
you're on a whole other thing here, but it's worth pointing out that in the retro scene, yeah, sega gets criminally slept on more often than not...even by some of the more "professionals" doing YT retrospectives/etc. ive even had retronauts contributors on about the timelessness of nintendo's first party lineup but trash sega's stuff, and for better or worse, yeah, sonic often becomes a symbol of that (as many can scarcely name stuff beyond him, altered beast and streets of rage).

it happens, and it rightfully gets called out. i guess it's better than TG16, neo-geo and other scenes that often get left out entirely, despite their classics/influence/etc.

I think there's a reason for that and, as much as it hates me to admit it because I was a Sega kid, NES and Super Nintendo are better systems than the Master System and Genesis. I agree that there's a lot of bias for Nintendo in the retro scene, but I do feel that the Super Nintendo is the better system these days. It takes a lot to admit, but it's how I feel.

Now people who trash Genesis entirely are something else I think. I think a lot of people don't give Sega enough credit, especially the Saturn and Dreamcast. But people are going to have biases. History is written by the winners, after all. But Genesis still gets plenty of love I think, and I think you're going at this through the wrong lens. I think any retro writer or critic worth any salt would be able to admit Sega was one of the best developers if not the best during that time period. Anyone who knows a modicum of game history recognizesSega arcade Model 2 and Model 3 games were the graphical proving grounds of their era and that no one could make a game as out there or as inventive as Sega. No one that wasn't Nintendo at least.

I think Sonic "hate" is a little column A, and a bit of column B. I think there definitely are a lot of people who critique Sonic games with...very weird complaints such as the idea that you're supposed to go fast, when anyone who has played a Sonic game knows that's not true until you've memorized the game to front and back. But I also think there are legitimate criticisms toward Sonic games and I think funneling all critiques into one category without considering them isn't fair nor intellectually honest.

you may've covered this, but i couldn't disagree more - they allow you to explore the different ways to complete a level. risk/reward is balanced out by having the player feel less "punished" for new enemies getting them...sure, you lose rings, but not progress. and you get to keep them & speed through next time if you learn the stage, as well. naka was onto something there.

I just don't like it. I prefer other ways of implementing different ways to complete levels. In Mega Man 2, I can take on those giant robots in Flash Man's stage or go through different routes to the same goal and I find myself preferring that or Mario's way of doing it to Sonic's. I love different paths, but I don't find Sonic's way of handling them to be the most elegant.

I find Nights a better implementation of Sonic's game style. In my view, there are a lot of similarities between the two despite their differences and I greatly prefer Nights. I'd say the formula in general is a Sega staple, and I feel many Sega games have done what the Genesis Sonic's set out to do in much better ways.
 
This thread kinda reminds me of all those ppl in fighting game who whine about nerfs/buffs.

Instead of getting better at the game they just say the game is bad. I personally dont think its just about blind speed , but if you do nail a section with timing it feels good.

Yeah, Sonic has always been bad. The gimmick is speed, but the level design clashes entirely against your ability to actually speed through them. He's always been a half-asleep marketing pitch that ballooned despite any actual quality, and it's still floundering around 30 years later.

lol
 
I just played Sonic 1 for the first time (on the 360/Xbox One for those curious). It was good! I had some issues with it (didn't anticipate so many surprise death traps), but when I was running around getting rings it felt really great!

I'm excited for Sonic 2, and am interested in seeing how it addresses the issues I had with 1 (and how it expands upon what I enjoyed).
 
This "Sonic 1 never was good" attitude has been around for some years now, and I've always disagreed with it. I liked both Sonic and Mario games back in the early '90s, and they both still hold up! I could go on, but I covered the first Sonic as a part of my Genesis game opinion summaries list that I did earlier this year, so it's probably easier to just quote myself...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1137386
A Black Falcon said:
Sonic the Hedgehog (1991) – 1 player, supports lock-on with Sonic & Knuckles (for a full Sonic 3 & Knuckles bonus-games mode called Blue Spheres, with passwords to access any possible level). Sega’s Sonic the Hedgehog released in 1991, and is one of the great, industry-changing titles, the kind of game that only comes along a couple of times a generation at most, and even most of those don’t turn into franchises as popular as Sonic’s has been. Sega made an incredible game, and then marketed it exceptionally well. The result was a phenomenon that continues to this day, as Sonic is still Sega’s mascot. Sonic created the humanoid-animal-mascot trend in character design, changed platformers with its focus on speed and attitude, and is one of the best-selling game of the 4th generation, too. And yes, I at least think that the game is still fantastic today! This game has some critics, but I love Sonic the Hedgehog. It isn’t the best platformer of the generation, and I do think that its nemesis Super Mario World is the better game and the best 2d platformer ever, but Sonic 1 is outstanding, and one of the next best 2d platformers, along with its sequels, the Donkey Kong Country trilogy, and a couple of Game Boy games (Wario Land 1, Kirby 2). Sonic is just exceptional in almost every way. The graphics are great, the music is iconic, the levels are fantastic beginning to end, the physics engine behind it all was unlike anything seen before in a platformer, and the large levels are a lot of fun to explore, too! The difficulty level is challenging, but it’s a fun challenge, not the crushing difficulty of some other Genesis games. This is a hard game and I only beat it for the first time last month [January 2016], but it’s extremely fun whether or not you complete it. It’s hard to think of much bad to say about this game, really.

But for the zero people reading this who don’t know the game, Sonic is a platformer. Sonic runs and jumps, and rolls in a ball when you jump or hit Down while running. Hitting enemies in normal form hurts you, but hitting them in ball form hurts them. It’s a simple but great system, though this first game doesn’t have the spin-in-place move that would later become a series staple. Your goal is to go to the right until you reach the end of each stage. Each world has three stages, and the last has a boss in it. Levels are huge, have multiple routes, and are better-designed than most in the genre. The physics system is great. You slow down as you run up hills, jump off a slope at the opposite angle, and such. This was a rarely-seen thing at the time, and Sonic’s physics are very solid and well-programmed. It is one of the cores of the experience. The levels are extremely well-designed as well, and the game has a great balance between exploration and challenge. Levels are designed around the physics, and are absolutely full of challenging jumps to optional areas, alternate paths easier than the main one, and more. There are also TVs with powerups in them, usually rings but sometimes invincibility or a shield. In these open-levels platformers blind jumps are a common issue, and they are an issue here, but the game has few instant-death pits. They are rare enough that usually when you jump into space you have confidence that you’ll land on ground… but once in a rare while, you won’t, that was a pit. They are not always marked, so this is one issue with the game, until you learn where the few pits are. Most of the time, though, your main obstacles will be spikes, spike-balls, and moving enemies. If Sonic touches any of these, he drops all of the rings he was holding, but if something hits you when you have no rings you die. Up to 20 rings will appear around you after yout get hit, and you need to try to collect at least one before they vanish. It’s a good mechanic, and the levels are designed to encourage memorization, but also to reward exploration. Some newer, post-Genesis Sonic games go way too far into the trap-heavy school of level design, an this adds to the challenge, but not the fun. The Genesis games are better-balanced: there are traps, but you don’t need to constantly stop in fear of enemies. You do need to be careful, but not inordinately so. Oh, and there are checkpoint posts, for when you die but it isn’t a game over. On game over you restart the level, so long as you have continues left of course.

There is one issue people have with the levels in this game, though, and that’s that later Sonic games emphasize speed much more than this game. Sonic is fast, but only the first world is entirely built around speed. After that the second world is a slow-paced underground stage, and then after that the game has a mixture of faster and slower elements. The water levels are the slowest, and some of the hardest, stages, as Sonic can drown if you go too long without getting an air bubble. I like good water levels in games, but Sonic’s can be frustrating. The water-world’s boss climb is one of the hardest parts of the game. Still, though, I like most of the slower parts of this game. The second world’s great fun, even if you’re not going full-speed most of the time! Maybe it was just including more conventional level-design elements out of uncertainty about how much people would like the speed the game starts with, but I like the results a lot. Each world looks different, and plays differently as well. All are fun. Yes, blasting through the first stage is great, but making your way through the lava pits in world 2 is also great! The one level-design element I will criticize is that you get no rings in the final boss fight, which makes it MUCH harder than it should be. Sadly, both of its sequels on the Genesis, and many of the Game Gear games, copy this particularly annoying design trait. You should not have to fight hard bosses without rings in Sonic, but most of the classic ones force this on you. It’ll cause many game overs right at the end of the game.

Your second goal in the game is to get all of the Chaos Emerald collectibles, which are in bonus stages. In this game, you get into bonus stages by reaching the end of the first or second stage in each world except for the last one with at least 50 rings, then jumping into the giant ring that appears, you will go into the bonus stage. Bonus stages are a rotating top-view maze, and you need to try to get to the center and get the Chaos Emerald in the middle, without running into an exit. In addition, if you get 50 rings in a bonus stage you get a continue. You start with no continues, so getting them in bonus stages is essential! There are ten opportunities to get into bonus stages in this game, and six chaos emeralds, so if you want to get them all and the special good ending screen, you need to do well. I’ve never quite managed to get all the emeralds in one run in a Genesis Sonic game, but it is a fun challenge. The bonus stages in this game aren’t the best in the series, but they are good, and a nice break from the main game. After the first world having to have 50 rings to get in is a real challenge and takes memorization, so it’s satisfying once you finally get into a bonus stage in later levels!

Overall Sonic the Hedgehog is a fantastic game. Innovative when it released and still fresh and fun today, the first Sonic game is a fantastic experience. The game has fantastic graphics, a really good, iconic soundtrack, extremely well-polished gameplay, great levels to explore, lots of replay value, fun bonus stages, difficulty that is just about right, and more! The game doesn’t have saving, and it is a lot shorter than Super Mario World and there are many fewer levels as well, but what it does have has all been done really well. The game doesn’t have Mario’s precision, as the speed and physics system makes things trickier, but what it does have is almost as great. Sonic the Hedgehog is one of the all-time great platformers. Its sequels are even better, but the first one is fantastic as well. This game is available in collections and digital re-releases of Sega’s Genesis games. Sonic 1 has lots of ports on newer systems.

Seriously, Sonic the Hedgehog is still a great game. It is different from its sequels, but it holds up very well despite that; I, at least, like the slower-paced parts like level two. The idea that "Sonic always must be moving fast" really isn't accurate. I do somewhat agree with the criticisms of the randomly placed death pits, but I think the Genesis games mostly do a good job with this; those things aren't a big issue on the Genesis games. In the Sonic Advance or Sonic Rush games, though, it's a much bigger issue... I don't care for those games that much. The Genesis games balance fun versus difficulty in a way that most Sonic games since mess up one way or the other.
 
Playing it on a iPhone is not ideal. touch screen controls are just terrible IMO for this kind of thing. regardless of the quality of the port (which i hear is quite good), try giving it a shot with a proper D-PAD and buttons. It still won't be as good as you remember, but I think it would be a much better experience than a phone.

I think Sonic games control pretty well on mobile devices. Not as well as it does with a controller, of course. But it adapts itself pretty well to mobile given it's very simple control scheme.
 
For instance, I can beat Death Egg Zone no problem on my first try through pure muscle memory. But last night after playing it for the first time in years, I realized it gives you 0 rings. The game is inconsistent with its own logic. A poster earlier said that rings makes the games easier for little kids to beat, but you have to beat the final boss (two bosses actually) without getting hit once. A game like Ducktales at least has a meter. Because Ducktales has consistent game logic and Sonic doesn't. That's why Ducktales is a great game whereas Sonic is bad.

You're going to have to run this one by me again. You are trained, through your own experiences through the game, that getting hit with zero rings equals death. This holds true in the final act of the game. That the Death Egg does not actually provide rings is in no way a betrayal of the game's logic.

or if you wanna go on some more about how the game is luck based that's fine too
 
You're going to have to run this one by me again. You are trained, through your own experiences through the game, that getting hit with zero rings equals death. This holds true in the final act of the game. That the Death Egg does not actually provide rings is in no way a betrayal of the game's logic.

or if you wanna go on some more about how the game is luck based that's fine too

Sonic is too braindead easy because you can live forever if you just have one ring!

Sonic 2 doesn't give you a single ring in the final, most difficult boss and now that's bullshit and inconsistent!!!
 
This "Sonic 1 never was good" attitude has been around for some years now, and I've always disagreed with it. I liked both Sonic and Mario games back in the early '90s, and they both still hold up! I could go on, but I covered the first Sonic as a part of my Genesis game opinion summaries list that I did earlier this year, so it's probably easier to just quote myself...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1137386

Excellent write-up, as is usually the case with you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who enjoys the slower bits in Sonic 1.
 
You're going to have to run this one by me again. You are trained, through your own experiences through the game, that getting hit with zero rings equals death. This holds true in the final act of the game. That the Death Egg does not actually provide rings is in no way a betrayal of the game's logic.

or if you wanna go on some more about how the game is luck based that's fine too

There is no balance in Sonic and this is due to its ring system. Either the game is too easy because you can gather rings any time you want, or you're pushed into a situation where there are no rings. I think something better would be something that doesn't allow you to abuse gathering rings after hit, but also something not putting you into a boss rush where you can't get hit.

The game giving you rings the entire game only to not give them to you during the final boss makes no sense and betrays the game logic. It's fine for me because I know all the patterns, but I don't think that makes it good, either.

A better game would be able to balance its health system. In Mega Man, you have to conserve your energy for the final boss after going through a boss rush. The final usually have multiple forms. If you conserved your energy, you should have no problem. The game design is made in a way where you're rewarded for playing well. You can easily do a no hit run through this. Sonic has no such leverage. You use rings the entire game only for them to not appear on the final level in the game. It makes no sense and yes, it betrays its own logic. It would be like there suddenly being no energy meter in Mega Man right when you get to Dr Wiley and you you die at one hit when you never had to play the rest of the game like this.

It's inconsistent and shows the flaw and limitation in Sonic's ring system: either it's an endless crutch that allows survival or you're subjected to one hit deaths.

Other platformers have much better and rewarding health systems.

Sonic is too braindead easy because you can live forever if you just have one ring!

Sonic 2 doesn't give you a single ring in the final, most difficult boss and now that's bullshit and inconsistent!!!

You can't see the problem with this? There is no balance. It's either too easy or too cheap. Rings are a flawed mechanic. I'd like Sonic so much more if there were a life bar system. Just two hits in a level are all you're afforded. Add a barrier for extra protection. Rings don't exist except for score. Fair and balanced.
 
I think it's fine for the final challenge to be a step up, personally. With Sonic, that's taking away your safety net. Rings are consistent throughout the game, then for the finale of the first two games, you don't get any. Adds tension.

I've already said why I think the Rings system is genius so I won't repeat myself. I think Sonic with a health bar would be a disaster. The game isn't built around caution, really, rather consistent progress and refining your method on replays.
 
I love how this post I made earlier:
The thing about this thread is that you're making these walls of text like the one I just quoted as if these were objective reasons why Sonic is not good. And it's okay for you not to like it, but it's never "I don't like it because X", it's "Sonic sucks, and that's objective and true, because these arbitrary elements are arranged in a way that I particularly don't care for." I mean, other people explaining why the way the game is designed works for them doesn't make them wrong, yet you're not even entertaining the notion that just because you personally don't like thing doesn't mean thing is bad. That's why the thread is going in circles.
and this post by GooeyHeat saying pretty much the same thing:
This sentence makes it pretty clear that this discussion is a vortex. People enjoy a thing you don't like for many of the very reasons you don't like it. Those reasons you don't like it are things that the game sets out to do, and things it generally does pretty well (and very well in its sequels). So if the design attempts and succeeds at something that has clearly been well-received for a pretty long time by a large amount of people, saying "it's bad" is nothing more than painting your opinion as the correct one.
Really, I think you're going to have to get used to the idea that you don't like some games that happen to be considered good by a large amount of people for legitimate reasons.

went totally unnoticed by the OP.
 
Sonic is too braindead easy because you can live forever if you just have one ring!

Sonic 2 doesn't give you a single ring in the final, most difficult boss and now that's bullshit and inconsistent!!!

Also, for Sonic 1 specifically, the rings are balanced out by the scarcity of extra lives. There's no lives given for time bonuses, unlike later games, and the only way to get continues is to get a lot of rings in the bonus stages, which themselves aren't that easy to access.
 
I love how this post I made earlier:

and this post by GooeyHeat saying pretty much the same thing:


went totally unnoticed by the OP.

I mean, what do you want me to say? If it's a vortex, why do you keep replying? We're having a pretty friendly discussion on game mechanics. Why is that an issue? I like that we all have different ideas. What's wrong with expressing ideas whether we disagree or not?

Also, for Sonic 1 specifically, the rings are balanced out by the scarcity of extra lives. There's no lives given for time bonuses, unlike later games, and the only way to get continues is to get a lot of rings in the bonus stages, which themselves aren't that easy to access.

Sonic 1 is better about this for sure. I beat Sonic 1 with 10 lives and Sonic 2 with 16.
 
Rings are there so you can make mistakes and learn the levels.

Just beating the game shouldn't be your goal, beating them as fast and fluidly as possible should be

like I said before the timer counts up not down
 
I think there's a reason for that and, as much as it hates me to admit it because I was a Sega kid, NES and Super Nintendo are better systems than the Master System and Genesis. I agree that there's a lot of bias for Nintendo in the retro scene, but I do feel that the Super Nintendo is the better system these days. It takes a lot to admit, but it's how I feel.

as the weird kid on the block with an SMS: i think they did some pretty amazing stuff (since they had next to no 3rd parties), but obviously the library can't hold a candle to the NES'. I don't agree with the SNES > Genny, but both have some great strengths to them.

Now people who trash Genesis entirely are something else I think. I think a lot of people don't give Sega enough credit, especially the Saturn and Dreamcast. But people are going to have biases. History is written by the winners, after all. But Genesis still gets plenty of love I think, and I think you're going at this through the wrong lens. I think any retro writer or critic worth any salt would be able to admit Sega was one of the best developers if not the best during that time period. Anyone who knows a modicum of game history recognizesSega arcade Model 2 and Model 3 games were the graphical proving grounds of their era and that no one could make a game as out there or as inventive as Sega. No one that wasn't Nintendo at least.

yeah, i get nintendo getting more shine (higher sales/still at it), but while we're in agreement on the greatness of model 2/3 and those system's libraries, i think you'd be surprised how much ignorance there is about them, sadly. some of the biggest YT retro channels barely seem to know or mention them, which part of me wants to understand since talking more LTTP/super metroid etc to death might get more hits, but man is it tired ground to cover.

i legit can't even enjoy dr sparkel's chronsega stuff for said biases, and it's a shame since i dig what he's going. game sack & some more knowledgeable past the most obvious SNES entries feel too few & far between, so yeah, that's the lens i'm coming from.

you're not wrong in saying that this overlaps too much with sonic critiques, but when the narrative is that the series was all marketing and no substance, you can kinda see where it bleeds over, to the uninformed (or those who just never really gave the library a try). they're absolutely not perfect games & should be broken down like any other, but the "sonic was never good" dimission usually does stem from that perspective.
 
Yeah, Sonic has always been bad. The gimmick is speed, but the level design clashes entirely against your ability to actually speed through them. He's always been a half-asleep marketing pitch that ballooned despite any actual quality, and it's still floundering around 30 years later.

So which is it? Sonic is too automated and hold right to win? Or the levels are designed to stop unskilled players from easily speeding through them?

I think they're designed to reward skilled players with speed but idk. You can go with your bullshit analysis lmao.
 
as the weird kid on the block with an SMS: i think they did some pretty amazing stuff (since they had next to no 3rd parties), but obviously the library can't hold a candle to the NES'. I don't agree with the SNES > Genny, but both have some great strengths to them.



yeah, i get nintendo getting more shine (higher sales/still at it), but while we're in agreement on the greatness of model 2/3 and those system's libraries, i think you'd be surprised how much ignorance there is about them, sadly. some of the biggest YT retro channels barely seem to know or mention them, which part of me wants to understand since talking more LTTP/super metroid etc to death might get more hits, but man is it tired ground to cover.

i legit can't even enjoy dr sparkel's chronsega stuff for said biases, and it's a shame since i dig what he's going. game sack & some more knowledgeable past the most obvious SNES entries feel too few & far between, so yeah, that's the lens i'm coming from.

you're not wrong in saying that this overlaps too much with sonic critiques, but when the narrative is that the series was all marketing and no substance, you can kinda see where it bleeds over, to the uninformed (or those who just never really gave the library a try). they're absolutely not perfect games & should be broken down like any other, but the "sonic was never good" dimission usually does stem from that perspective.

I obviously don't think Sonic "was never good." They were my most played games besides Street Fighter in the years 1992-1997.

I obviously found something in Sonic at the time. I'd beat Sonic 2, start a new game, and then beat it again just because. My cousins and I played 2 player mode all the time. Sonic 2 is easily my most played game of my childhood. And I don't think people understand what it's like for someone to not be able to enjoy something that they put so much time into and no long find it enjoyable. I actually find this thread very painful personally because Sonic meant a lot to me at one point in time. I think for its time, at the time, the games were amazing. I'm not going to say that some time wizard aged them and made them unplayable, but maybe my standards and what I expect is different now. But from where I'm sitting now I do find them to be bad games. I'm playing Sonic 3 and Knuckles tonight. It's the crowning achievement of Sonic's 16 bit era, so I'm looking forward to it.

Also, you have to remember a lot of this is the legacy of the 16 bit console wars. People see Sonic as the...general (?) or something of those wars in that he's representative of the Genesis. I think it cuts both ways, for both the Genesis kids and the SNES kids. To the SNES kids the Genesis just means Sonic. So if you don't like Sonic, obviously the Genesis sucks. Or something. But I think the Genesis kids feel somewhat similar. I think people are just weird about the 16 bit era in general.

As for SNES vs Genny, I find them to be complimentary systems like PSP vs DS. But I find SNES does what Genesis does great (fast paced action games) pretty well itself. But I don't think Genesis does what SNES great nearly as well.

10 lives? Are you counting continues with that?

I only know of like 3 extra lives in all of Sonic 1, and they're all hidden.

100 rings gives you a 1 up. That's my goal in a lot of the first act of stages, not always speed.

Rings are there so you can make mistakes and learn the levels.

Just beating the game shouldn't be your goal, beating them as fast and fluidly as possible should be

like I said before the timer counts up not down

True enough. Maybe I just want something completely different out of the games.
 
So which is it? Sonic is too automated and hold right to win? Or the levels are designed to stop unskilled players from easily speeding through them?

I think they're designed to reward skilled players with speed but idk. You can go with your bullshit analysis lmao.

Sonic is bad because you hold right to win.

Sonic is bad because when you hold right to win, it doesn't work.
 
Look, I actually played Sonic 1 again today because of this thread, and I don't really agree. So you're not going lightning-fast all the time, so what? The basic platforming mechanics are solid enough that I didn't care. I don't agree that the level design is unfair, either; just play with a bit of caution and just about any obstacle is avoidable without much trouble. The game is challenging but not cheap. Also, I appreciate that, unlike the later games (looking at you, Sonic 3), the levels don't drag on forever.

If there's a weak part of the game, I'd say it's the bonus stages. The movement feels awkward and luck seems to play a large role in them in a way that it doesn't in the rest of the game. Also, the last boss fight is pretty dull. Other than that I don't have much to complain about. Sonic is not my favorite Genesis game or even close to it, but "bad game" is hyperbole, full stop.
 
Top Bottom