Replaying Sonic the Hedgehog reveals it was kind of bad
- Thread starter Cindi Mayweather
- Start date
Cindi Mayweather
Member
Over reliance of bottomless pits is a bad design, but my main issue isn't only a lack of bottomless pits. Sonic's free form stages don't allow such level design like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmNld1_bAfY or world 8 in Mario 3.
Your actions can not matter without being respawned. The fact Sonic gives you infinite chances, so long as you have a ring, proves this. Sonic stages are badly designed.
I recorded myself playing Green Hill. This is me mostly not giving a shit and I ignore most of my preferred routes. I accidentally went into a special stage so I decided to skip it, but throughout this, despite playing the game with my attention at half, the game doesn't deliver much in the way of not only challenge, but also engagement.
https://youtu.be/kcYho7MGEyE
Either it's this style of brain dead platforming that I recorded, or tediously slow stuff like Marble Zone and Labyrinth. Either it's Sonic 2 style fare with the spin dash and watching cutscenes with Sonic spinning inside a tube or an oil drum. If the games branching paths lead to the same areas where all players are forced to go, like the end of Chemical Plant, I think I'd like the games more. I like the parts where you're forced into an area, like most of Metropolis, or Sky Chase, or Wing Fortress. As a platformer I just fail to see anything interesting. I think what makes a great platformer is being put into situations you have to overcome. Now, granted, in some certain games you can avoid them, like in Mario with its cape or tanuki suit, but those are completely optional choices. In Sonic, that lack of engagement is a core of its design.
And that's just the first stage.
Compared to its peers I find it has less level of engagement. Multiple times, I'm just doing what the fuck ever and I'm bouncing on enemies and shit, and I fall and I'm good. There's a complete lack of focus and the stage is designed to have as much shit in it as possible even if you don't actively seek it. It's the purest definition of quantity not necessarily being better than quality. Everything feels safe except what the developers deem unsafe such as obstacles and that's if you encounter them to begin with. In Act 3, I go through some of the "tougher" sections deliberately, just to show em. I don't feel like my actions matter when playing it. Other platformer first levels can be just as easy as Sonic 1's, but I still feel like my actions matter. Maybe one guy was right about me knowing the games too well now and for that reason they bore me because it feels routine and I played them too much as a kid?
Sonic games are not hard.
Mario Bros 3's Worlds 7 and 8 are still challenging to me. I can't say the same for Scrap Brain or Metropolis or whatever.
*Scratches head* I don't know what to tell you then :l.
Sonic just isn't for you, but that doesn't make the level design bad or weak. Sonic is designed with upper/lower/middle paths in mind and once you find a path you want to go down, each one offers different rewards and goodies.
Sonic is NOT Mario or Mega Man; very different games and mechanics. I find it odd you pick Mega Man and Mario as examples of better level design....when they are completely different types of games. Sonic is about speed, maintaining your speed and exploring the three-tired levels.
Mario is about careful platforming. Mega Man is a cautionary platformer where you CAN go fast but are more at risk of getting killed but if you are careful, you have a much easier time going through levels.
Sonic can jump and roll; that is it. Mario has power ups and Mega Man has the robot master abilities, Rush abilities & basic shooting. Sonic is more simple by nature but his simple gameplay is pushed by level design and later games do this a lot more then Sonic 1.
Again, I am sorry you dislike the Sonic series, but that doesn't make it 'Bad'. It makes it 'different'. I think you should change the title of the thread OP or at least put opinion at the end of the title. Sonic 1 isn't 'bad', its just not like the other platformers you seem to enjoy more.
Sorry if my post sounds passive aggressive or bitter, but the Classic games hold up very well. They have issues (Sonic 1 and 2 do for sure) but all four games (Sonic 1, 2, CD, 3&K) are great too fantastic games that accomplish a lot.
Scrap Brain is plenty hard, as is Metropolis. No lieing, please.
Alot of what you said is actually not true. Sonic is full of sawtooth design where youre forced to deal with a situation before proceeding, and the "cutscene tubes" you mentioned often represent split paths. In oil ocean youre literally given a decision of which path to take based on which tube you pop into.
Tanooki in Mario 3 is as "optional" as getting a ring. Its a base mechanic that they build into the stages. (It also gives you another hit of damage you can take)
One thing i dont think you realise is that re-collected rings have a deterioration quality. If you just recollect a ring multiple times it'll scatter farther each time you're hit again and have a bigger likelihood of falling through the floor on an earlier bounce. (Try it out in Knuckles' last stage on Metal Sonic mk2 in Sonic and Knuckles, the rings become harder to recollect after a few hits)
Mario 3 gives you plenty of shortcuts around difficulty in its powerups, letting you skip stages on the world map, or othermeans. In sonic you're forced into the challenge unless you get super sonic. Sonic stages are also longer, whereas mario stages are always short, spread out over a "world" level design in mario also tends to repeat throughout the game, rather than be localized to a single spot.
Playing green hill zone mindlessly isnt much of a point, the early levels are built to be easy places to wrack up extra lives and rings to get into special stages. That secondary quest is one of the more interesting things in sonic games for higher level players to challenge themselves with.
I'm not saying its as hard as megaman or castlevani, but sonic does expect more out of you in general than mario does. Mario world is very casual friendly and the majority of mario 3 is, too. (smb3 has hard parts but gives you a ton of free ways out, and mario world gives you the second item box mechanic as well as yoshi, and the cape is ridiculously powerful, almost being a p-wing in some cases)
Are you me? Nice avatar.
Polioliolio
Member
Rereading op's opinion confirms it's kind of bad.
But that being your opinion is fine. I just don't share it. I think most people agree the sequels are better, but they build upon the fun stuff in the first game. The running, the rolling, the gathering rings and hanging onto them as long as you can, the cool graphics style, the funny badniks, the unique boss fights, etc.
Plus the character is iconic of Sega Genesis. It's a solid game, as solid or more solid than most games at the time, and it still holds up imo. Visually it was remarkable, and I'd say, still is.
Edit: funny thought.. Anyone else thought as a kid you had to hold the A button to run? Thanks Mario
But that being your opinion is fine. I just don't share it. I think most people agree the sequels are better, but they build upon the fun stuff in the first game. The running, the rolling, the gathering rings and hanging onto them as long as you can, the cool graphics style, the funny badniks, the unique boss fights, etc.
Plus the character is iconic of Sega Genesis. It's a solid game, as solid or more solid than most games at the time, and it still holds up imo. Visually it was remarkable, and I'd say, still is.
Edit: funny thought.. Anyone else thought as a kid you had to hold the A button to run? Thanks Mario
Cindi Mayweather
Member
Since people want me to be fair. Rating Sonic games:
Sonic 1
Positives:
+ music, easily.
+ bright, colorful hues and palette. Spring Yard, Marble Zone, and Green Hill are all beautiful stages.
+ controls for the most part.
+ momentum and physics system can be pretty fun.
+ Star Light Zone, some parts of Scrap Brain.
- weird game pacing. Going from Green Hill to Marble Zone is odd. Going from Spring Hill to Labyrinth is even more odd.
- regular stages like Green Hill and Spring Yard are poor and all over the place in terms of approach.
- more slower stages like Labyrinth and Marble Zone are just really not fun. In Marble you have to wait for slow, moving spike platforms. Hurry the fuck up with it. As a kid, it's tolerable. As an adult, it's terribly slow paced and I can't think of any platformer of that era that has such a boring stage. It's not bad, just boring and complete mediocre. Labyrinth Zone is awful. Bad "boss fight", the concept of Sonic's limitations under water are poorly thought out even in spite of the physics systems that make it reasonable and understandable to implement. It's just not fun.
- bad boss design in general. I've always hated how, despite being billed as a fast game, Sonic's boss fights were slow and tedious as fuck to play. Waiting for Robotnik to use his spike thing on Spring Yard is maddening because of how slow it is.
- knowing the game makes the game too easy and routine. The level design is presented in a way to reward speed runs and little else.
- the games feels extremely limited and shallow for a 1991 platformer. This is one year after Super Mario World came out and its scope is as grandiose as Super Mario Brother's. A game that came out in 1985. Ecco the Dolphin, also released on Sega hardware around the same time, feels far more ambitious and interesting. People keep saying the judge the game for its time, but even for 1991 this feels shallow and lacking. As it is, Sonic is just one giant experiment that paid off.
- bad special stages.
Best Stage: Star Light Zone. The idea of not being able to hurt any of the Robotniks in this stage makes platforming actually interesting and carry an actual notion of risk. Wow, how novel. Amazing music. The see saw gimmick is simple, but fun due to how Sonic can go. Solid level.
Stage ranking:
Green Hill - okay-ish
Marble - bad
Spring Yard - boring
Labyrinth - awful
Star Light - solid
Scrap Brain - okay to bad. Starts well, has bad trap placement and visuals. For example, the fire pipes are very small and only noticeable if you have memorized the level, or a flame is coming out. Looking at the Master System version of Sonic 1 shows that the fire pipes have a large grate which makes them easily identifiable. Act 3 is a retread of Labyrinth and feels like the developers ran out of time so they said "fuck it, let's ship the game." So it's actually only half a stage.
Game rating: 2 out of 5.
Sonic 2
Takes a successful experiment and makes a slightly better game out of it. The game of my childhood.
Positives:
+ MUSIC. Easily. Been stuck in my head for days. God. Fuck yes.
+ the colors and graphics.
+ 2 player modes.
+ more realized concept in gulps.
+ two different playable characters even if they play the same.
+ Metropolis zone, Sky Chase, and that one final level whose name I forgot.
+ the final boss is an actual final boss this time and not whatever was Sonic 1's. Metal Sonic is pretty good.
Mixed:
+/- I'm mixed on spin dash. It's not as bad a feature as the buster shot in Mega Man, but it does create its own problems such as making stages a blur if you know what you're doing.
+/- Death Egg. The final bosses are really good, especially Metal Sonic, but no rings is lame as fuck and factors into my previous criticisms of Sonic's ring system.
Negatives:
- bad bosses, some are worse than 1's.
- level design is all over the place and extremely boring until Metropolis. Metropolis is when the game gets interesting and it's at the end of the game.
- many of the same issues as Sonic 1 like speed and speed running being the main motivation for the games without many obstacles in your way. Once again, the complete absence of risk as a design element is here besides Metropolis.
- the game still feels kind of shallow.
Best stage: Metropolis. Has numerous gimmicks, hazards, things that can kill you, great enemies with interesting attack patterns that require reflex and skill to avoid, amazing atmosphere, and platforming. Sonic's potential realized that the series sees never again. The only great stage in the game and pushes Sonic 2 above 1 easily.
Stage rankings:
Emerald - poor due to being a rehash of Green Hill and offering nothing new.
Chemical - bright spots include the tail end where you're underwater and the always tricky platforms that lead to a chemical pit if missed. Sonic having risk like a well designed game???? Of course, I just speed through and run on the water like Platform Jesus because I have paid my dues. Unfortunately the only good part in another wise boring as fuck level.
Aquatic Ruin - meh. Another water level. It's a typical Sonic level.
Casino Night - boring. standard ass sonic level.
Hill Top - okay, but but really simple for the most part.
Mystic Cave - this stage was my sworn enemy as a kid. If you don't pay attention to the vines you can get a death easy. I give it points for that, but playing it as an adult is pretty standard shit and 8 year old me needs toughen the fuck up because it's pretty boring for the most part.
Oil ocean - easy, boring, plain. Like the oil gimmick but it's not a big deal if you stay on the top part of the level, which is easy to do. Easy to speed through and very little reward. Always liked the boss though.
Metropolis - amazing. make sonic like this instead of fancy boring speed games.
Sky chase - best music in the series. Fun and lightweight reward before end game and for completing the best stage.
Zone whose name I forgot - easy and kind of boring but that one platform part at the end is still the business and even I died at that part once.
Death Egg - lame there's no rings against two boss fights but whatever. It's fun to play now because I've memorized every jump and every spin dash but I remember when I was a kid I'd die because I accidentally hit Metal Sonic 1 pixel too far to the left, hitting his spikes, and dying as a result. It's pretty lame and trial and error learning to fight these bosses but it never stops feeling good when you wreck their shit on the first try through pure muscle memory even though you hadn't played the games since the late 90's.
Game rating: 2 1/2 out of 5. Much better than 1 but still not what I would call a good game based on the low interaction it requires of the player in most stages. It's just boring and on playing in auto. Could be because I know the game like the back of my hand but it doesn't really hold up to my memories of it, if the rest of the game were the quality of Metropolis it would be great. As it is, it's just an average game.
I'll probably finish Sonic 3 and Knuckles tomorrow before work, but given my progress so far I'm not expecting much. Game is even more of a bore than 2.
Oh, I understand the context all right. I understand that they punish you by putting you on a slow path but that's not exactly punishment. A good game punishes players more directly. Losing health in a fighting game when hit, losing stamina in Monster Hunter by abusing button mashing and running, and more. A good game punishes you by telling you directly not to do it as a lesson. Being dropped to another tier on the level - which you can escape from if you choose - is not a punishment. For this reason, you can't say Sonic games are good. I'm not saying you should abuse bottomless pits, but you there should be more of a deterrent than "punishing" the player to play more slowly. That's a really dumb punishment now that I think about it.
I think for these reasons Sonic games are lean between completely mediocre to completely bad.
Sonic's jump is floaty depending on the level, the jump direction, and the jump arc. In some of the more slow levels it's clear Sonic's design is not designed for that type of gameplay. If you're going fast it doesn't feel floaty at all. Going slower, on a slower stage like Ice Cap or something just feels off. While moving, Sonic's jump feels good. But at a standstill the controls feel more limited and floaty. It truly feels like the game was designed purely to be kept moving at all times. It's not like it's Castlevania floaty and I'll give Sonic's controls the benefit there, but I don't always find them as consistently smooth as Mario or Ecco or Shinobi III.
Played Sonic 2 and half of Sonic 3 and Knuckles. Sonic 2 is better than Sonic 1 but not by much. 3 and Knuckles put me to sleep and I couldn't complete it. I'll do it later. 3 and Knuckles has far too much bloat so far. Overly long levels with poor gimmicks like Ice Cap and Marble Garden. An elemental barrier system that, while seeming novel, feels like a poor interpretation on Mario power ups. The bubble being the best one due to your ability to go through water without drowning.
I didn't have an NES or SNES until I was an adult. I grew up with all of these games and beat them multiple times. I don't think this has to do with what you grew up with at a all because o certainly didn't grow up with a lot of the games I think are better than the Sonic series.
Sonic 1
Positives:
+ music, easily.
+ bright, colorful hues and palette. Spring Yard, Marble Zone, and Green Hill are all beautiful stages.
+ controls for the most part.
+ momentum and physics system can be pretty fun.
+ Star Light Zone, some parts of Scrap Brain.
- weird game pacing. Going from Green Hill to Marble Zone is odd. Going from Spring Hill to Labyrinth is even more odd.
- regular stages like Green Hill and Spring Yard are poor and all over the place in terms of approach.
- more slower stages like Labyrinth and Marble Zone are just really not fun. In Marble you have to wait for slow, moving spike platforms. Hurry the fuck up with it. As a kid, it's tolerable. As an adult, it's terribly slow paced and I can't think of any platformer of that era that has such a boring stage. It's not bad, just boring and complete mediocre. Labyrinth Zone is awful. Bad "boss fight", the concept of Sonic's limitations under water are poorly thought out even in spite of the physics systems that make it reasonable and understandable to implement. It's just not fun.
- bad boss design in general. I've always hated how, despite being billed as a fast game, Sonic's boss fights were slow and tedious as fuck to play. Waiting for Robotnik to use his spike thing on Spring Yard is maddening because of how slow it is.
- knowing the game makes the game too easy and routine. The level design is presented in a way to reward speed runs and little else.
- the games feels extremely limited and shallow for a 1991 platformer. This is one year after Super Mario World came out and its scope is as grandiose as Super Mario Brother's. A game that came out in 1985. Ecco the Dolphin, also released on Sega hardware around the same time, feels far more ambitious and interesting. People keep saying the judge the game for its time, but even for 1991 this feels shallow and lacking. As it is, Sonic is just one giant experiment that paid off.
- bad special stages.
Best Stage: Star Light Zone. The idea of not being able to hurt any of the Robotniks in this stage makes platforming actually interesting and carry an actual notion of risk. Wow, how novel. Amazing music. The see saw gimmick is simple, but fun due to how Sonic can go. Solid level.
Stage ranking:
Green Hill - okay-ish
Marble - bad
Spring Yard - boring
Labyrinth - awful
Star Light - solid
Scrap Brain - okay to bad. Starts well, has bad trap placement and visuals. For example, the fire pipes are very small and only noticeable if you have memorized the level, or a flame is coming out. Looking at the Master System version of Sonic 1 shows that the fire pipes have a large grate which makes them easily identifiable. Act 3 is a retread of Labyrinth and feels like the developers ran out of time so they said "fuck it, let's ship the game." So it's actually only half a stage.
Game rating: 2 out of 5.
Sonic 2
Takes a successful experiment and makes a slightly better game out of it. The game of my childhood.
Positives:
+ MUSIC. Easily. Been stuck in my head for days. God. Fuck yes.
+ the colors and graphics.
+ 2 player modes.
+ more realized concept in gulps.
+ two different playable characters even if they play the same.
+ Metropolis zone, Sky Chase, and that one final level whose name I forgot.
+ the final boss is an actual final boss this time and not whatever was Sonic 1's. Metal Sonic is pretty good.
Mixed:
+/- I'm mixed on spin dash. It's not as bad a feature as the buster shot in Mega Man, but it does create its own problems such as making stages a blur if you know what you're doing.
+/- Death Egg. The final bosses are really good, especially Metal Sonic, but no rings is lame as fuck and factors into my previous criticisms of Sonic's ring system.
Negatives:
- bad bosses, some are worse than 1's.
- level design is all over the place and extremely boring until Metropolis. Metropolis is when the game gets interesting and it's at the end of the game.
- many of the same issues as Sonic 1 like speed and speed running being the main motivation for the games without many obstacles in your way. Once again, the complete absence of risk as a design element is here besides Metropolis.
- the game still feels kind of shallow.
Best stage: Metropolis. Has numerous gimmicks, hazards, things that can kill you, great enemies with interesting attack patterns that require reflex and skill to avoid, amazing atmosphere, and platforming. Sonic's potential realized that the series sees never again. The only great stage in the game and pushes Sonic 2 above 1 easily.
Stage rankings:
Emerald - poor due to being a rehash of Green Hill and offering nothing new.
Chemical - bright spots include the tail end where you're underwater and the always tricky platforms that lead to a chemical pit if missed. Sonic having risk like a well designed game???? Of course, I just speed through and run on the water like Platform Jesus because I have paid my dues. Unfortunately the only good part in another wise boring as fuck level.
Aquatic Ruin - meh. Another water level. It's a typical Sonic level.
Casino Night - boring. standard ass sonic level.
Hill Top - okay, but but really simple for the most part.
Mystic Cave - this stage was my sworn enemy as a kid. If you don't pay attention to the vines you can get a death easy. I give it points for that, but playing it as an adult is pretty standard shit and 8 year old me needs toughen the fuck up because it's pretty boring for the most part.
Oil ocean - easy, boring, plain. Like the oil gimmick but it's not a big deal if you stay on the top part of the level, which is easy to do. Easy to speed through and very little reward. Always liked the boss though.
Metropolis - amazing. make sonic like this instead of fancy boring speed games.
Sky chase - best music in the series. Fun and lightweight reward before end game and for completing the best stage.
Zone whose name I forgot - easy and kind of boring but that one platform part at the end is still the business and even I died at that part once.
Death Egg - lame there's no rings against two boss fights but whatever. It's fun to play now because I've memorized every jump and every spin dash but I remember when I was a kid I'd die because I accidentally hit Metal Sonic 1 pixel too far to the left, hitting his spikes, and dying as a result. It's pretty lame and trial and error learning to fight these bosses but it never stops feeling good when you wreck their shit on the first try through pure muscle memory even though you hadn't played the games since the late 90's.
Game rating: 2 1/2 out of 5. Much better than 1 but still not what I would call a good game based on the low interaction it requires of the player in most stages. It's just boring and on playing in auto. Could be because I know the game like the back of my hand but it doesn't really hold up to my memories of it, if the rest of the game were the quality of Metropolis it would be great. As it is, it's just an average game.
I'll probably finish Sonic 3 and Knuckles tomorrow before work, but given my progress so far I'm not expecting much. Game is even more of a bore than 2.
Oh, I understand the context all right. I understand that they punish you by putting you on a slow path but that's not exactly punishment. A good game punishes players more directly. Losing health in a fighting game when hit, losing stamina in Monster Hunter by abusing button mashing and running, and more. A good game punishes you by telling you directly not to do it as a lesson. Being dropped to another tier on the level - which you can escape from if you choose - is not a punishment. For this reason, you can't say Sonic games are good. I'm not saying you should abuse bottomless pits, but you there should be more of a deterrent than "punishing" the player to play more slowly. That's a really dumb punishment now that I think about it.
I think for these reasons Sonic games are lean between completely mediocre to completely bad.
Sonic's jump is floaty depending on the level, the jump direction, and the jump arc. In some of the more slow levels it's clear Sonic's design is not designed for that type of gameplay. If you're going fast it doesn't feel floaty at all. Going slower, on a slower stage like Ice Cap or something just feels off. While moving, Sonic's jump feels good. But at a standstill the controls feel more limited and floaty. It truly feels like the game was designed purely to be kept moving at all times. It's not like it's Castlevania floaty and I'll give Sonic's controls the benefit there, but I don't always find them as consistently smooth as Mario or Ecco or Shinobi III.
I don't think it's a bad game, but sure, it's the first game in a well established series, so of course it isn't the best. It had a great unique concept which the sequels built on and fleshed out with far superior level design.
Sonic 3 and Knuckles is one of the best platformers ever made imo. Ridiculous number of well designed levels, fantastic music, excellent art direction, immense replayability with the different characters and the chaos emeralds, and the save system to really top it all off as a huge game you can keep going back to. If you want to remember why the Genesis / Mega Drive Sonic games were so great, you know what you have to do:
Played Sonic 2 and half of Sonic 3 and Knuckles. Sonic 2 is better than Sonic 1 but not by much. 3 and Knuckles put me to sleep and I couldn't complete it. I'll do it later. 3 and Knuckles has far too much bloat so far. Overly long levels with poor gimmicks like Ice Cap and Marble Garden. An elemental barrier system that, while seeming novel, feels like a poor interpretation on Mario power ups. The bubble being the best one due to your ability to go through water without drowning.
I didn't have an NES or SNES until I was an adult. I grew up with all of these games and beat them multiple times. I don't think this has to do with what you grew up with at a all because o certainly didn't grow up with a lot of the games I think are better than the Sonic series.
Solid SOAP
Member
Yeah, Sonic 1 ain't too hot after Green Hill Zone. It's like they full conceptualized Sonic with that one level, and gave up after and threw in tons of slow and unfitting gimmicks for each level. You literally have to wait on a brick in Marble Garden, fuck that! Sonic 2 onward rules though. Recently bought it on the 3DS eshop actually, still good! Special Stages are still lame and unforgiving, but whatever, game rules.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
Also, my hot take on why Sonic sucks now:
Besides the obvious like investor and executive meddling, reading this thread on what Sonic is "really about" from its defenders shows how little the games have actually changed. If not in terms of concept but at least goal. 2d Sonic doesn't play too much like 3d Sonic. At least from a glance. But both interpretations goal is to clear the stage as efficiently and as fast as you can. Modern Sonic games even have a ranking system that considers time into the equation for ranking. Essentially, I have the same problem with the 2d Genesis Sonic's as much as I do 3d Sonic games. They suffer from the same issues.
I think a lot of (read: most) people, when they say Sonic sucks now, they're wanting something as well made as a 3d Mario. Like people want Sonic Team to make a game as good as Mario Galaxy or Mario 64. But this will never happen because those games take the basic 2d platformer principles of execution, quick reflexes, and tight level design and put them in 3d. But, as we have established in this thread, Sonic isn't about any of these three things, even as far back as the Genesis games. Sonic will never offer these things because Sonic has never been about these things.
The 3d games, while varying in quality, carry Sonic's spirit. They're still about what Sonic has always been about. I think we were just kids and didn't care then.
You can interpret this as "Sonic has always sucked" if you want to but what I'm getting at is that if you enjoy the Genesis Sonic games there's almost no reason you shouldn't enjoy the 3d games. That tight platformer Sonic game you want is never going to happen because it doesn't exist. I think reception to 3d Sonic's a mix of nostalgia; which blinds people from accepting that Sonic has always been a simplistic series that doesn't emphasize the same focus as other platformers. I also think it's due to the ultimately harmful expectation that Sonic should have as good games as other 3d platformers even though we've established that Sonic has never played like a traditional platformer. Sega's expectation of making Sonic fast had become a double edge sword. On one hand, you've got this ultra cool (TM) mascot but on the other hand this limits the type of games Sonic can have because of fan expectation and the limited definition of what Sonic is.
Limited definition of what Sonic is limits what you can do with him and what his games are like. That's because Sonic isn't that great of a mascot. So you won't see Sonic take a tropical vacation to an island with talking pears and wear a cool water jet pack nozzle thing because Sonic is supposed to be fast (TM). You won't ever get that outer space adventure because Sonic has to be fast (R). Most 3d games realize tight platforming is sometimes hard to achieve in 3d and (with rare cases) will never be as tight as a 2d platformer. So many 3d platformers change the question. The question is no longer "how do I make this jump?" because in 3d that's usually obvious. The question is now "how do I get there?" So you've got all these ways to get to different places: the triple jump in Mario, wall rides in Jet Set Radio Future, sneaking around in Sly Cooper, chasing monkeys in Ape Escape. 3d platformers are more exploratory than 2d platformers.
But let's look at Sonic. People, including Sega, have decided Sonic's about speed runs and beating your time and shit and being a fast mother fucker. There's no time for exploration in a 3d Sonic game, I wanna go fast! Look at the reaction to the Knuckles treasure hunting stages in Adventure to see that I'm right. I don't have time for Knuckles' exploration stages, I wanna go fast!
The truth is that playing these games again shows me Sonic has always been too simple a concept, too limited a character.
When will 3d Sonic not suck? If you don't like them now, probably never. But the most interesting thing is the revelation that honestly, 2d Sonic isn't that far off. With 3d Sonic, the apple fell pretty damn close to the tree. The argument that Sonic has always sucked has merit but only if you are willing to admit that Sonic is the same it's always been, and if you are chasing Sonic being good again, you should probably stop. If you don't like 3d Sonic already you probably never will.
Besides the obvious like investor and executive meddling, reading this thread on what Sonic is "really about" from its defenders shows how little the games have actually changed. If not in terms of concept but at least goal. 2d Sonic doesn't play too much like 3d Sonic. At least from a glance. But both interpretations goal is to clear the stage as efficiently and as fast as you can. Modern Sonic games even have a ranking system that considers time into the equation for ranking. Essentially, I have the same problem with the 2d Genesis Sonic's as much as I do 3d Sonic games. They suffer from the same issues.
I think a lot of (read: most) people, when they say Sonic sucks now, they're wanting something as well made as a 3d Mario. Like people want Sonic Team to make a game as good as Mario Galaxy or Mario 64. But this will never happen because those games take the basic 2d platformer principles of execution, quick reflexes, and tight level design and put them in 3d. But, as we have established in this thread, Sonic isn't about any of these three things, even as far back as the Genesis games. Sonic will never offer these things because Sonic has never been about these things.
The 3d games, while varying in quality, carry Sonic's spirit. They're still about what Sonic has always been about. I think we were just kids and didn't care then.
You can interpret this as "Sonic has always sucked" if you want to but what I'm getting at is that if you enjoy the Genesis Sonic games there's almost no reason you shouldn't enjoy the 3d games. That tight platformer Sonic game you want is never going to happen because it doesn't exist. I think reception to 3d Sonic's a mix of nostalgia; which blinds people from accepting that Sonic has always been a simplistic series that doesn't emphasize the same focus as other platformers. I also think it's due to the ultimately harmful expectation that Sonic should have as good games as other 3d platformers even though we've established that Sonic has never played like a traditional platformer. Sega's expectation of making Sonic fast had become a double edge sword. On one hand, you've got this ultra cool (TM) mascot but on the other hand this limits the type of games Sonic can have because of fan expectation and the limited definition of what Sonic is.
Limited definition of what Sonic is limits what you can do with him and what his games are like. That's because Sonic isn't that great of a mascot. So you won't see Sonic take a tropical vacation to an island with talking pears and wear a cool water jet pack nozzle thing because Sonic is supposed to be fast (TM). You won't ever get that outer space adventure because Sonic has to be fast (R). Most 3d games realize tight platforming is sometimes hard to achieve in 3d and (with rare cases) will never be as tight as a 2d platformer. So many 3d platformers change the question. The question is no longer "how do I make this jump?" because in 3d that's usually obvious. The question is now "how do I get there?" So you've got all these ways to get to different places: the triple jump in Mario, wall rides in Jet Set Radio Future, sneaking around in Sly Cooper, chasing monkeys in Ape Escape. 3d platformers are more exploratory than 2d platformers.
But let's look at Sonic. People, including Sega, have decided Sonic's about speed runs and beating your time and shit and being a fast mother fucker. There's no time for exploration in a 3d Sonic game, I wanna go fast! Look at the reaction to the Knuckles treasure hunting stages in Adventure to see that I'm right. I don't have time for Knuckles' exploration stages, I wanna go fast!
The truth is that playing these games again shows me Sonic has always been too simple a concept, too limited a character.
When will 3d Sonic not suck? If you don't like them now, probably never. But the most interesting thing is the revelation that honestly, 2d Sonic isn't that far off. With 3d Sonic, the apple fell pretty damn close to the tree. The argument that Sonic has always sucked has merit but only if you are willing to admit that Sonic is the same it's always been, and if you are chasing Sonic being good again, you should probably stop. If you don't like 3d Sonic already you probably never will.
It seems like you simply don't appreciate the open-ended exhibitionist gameplay that Sonic offers and many seem to take to.
You seem to prefer more linear, deliberate challenges.
The 3D games are far more rote than the 2D games, but because your preference lies in rote gameplay you aren't able to parse what makes the classic games so much fun. There's a lot of liberty to be taken in the 2D gameplay that I don't think you're utilizing and simply isn't offered in 3D. They're about excess and whimsy. The harder you push, the harder the games push back, but in fairly surmountable ways that don't break up the flow of the game as much as losing a life in Mario or Megaman does. It's very addictive and encourages the player to fuck around more and take things at the pace they feel like taking.
You seem to prefer stages that many Sonic fans don't. You seem to think being good at a game and finishing it quickly (concerning the spin-dash) is a fault. I suppose you meant to say it's over powered?
In a way, what you're saying isn't so different to preferring JRPGs to WRPGs. Some people just think WRPGs are terrible because what they value in JRPGs isn't represented as well or focused on as much. While this may or may not apply to you, I'm sure you've seen these types of discussions.
No, Sonic games aren't some masterclass of a 2D platforming skill challenge, but there literally is nothing that plays like them. Except maybe Freedom Planet, but not really. They scratch a very unique, and widely lauded, itch. It's entirely okay if you're not itching there, and if you're not itching, the scratch is just going to be an entirely understandable inconvenience.
You seem to prefer more linear, deliberate challenges.
The 3D games are far more rote than the 2D games, but because your preference lies in rote gameplay you aren't able to parse what makes the classic games so much fun. There's a lot of liberty to be taken in the 2D gameplay that I don't think you're utilizing and simply isn't offered in 3D. They're about excess and whimsy. The harder you push, the harder the games push back, but in fairly surmountable ways that don't break up the flow of the game as much as losing a life in Mario or Megaman does. It's very addictive and encourages the player to fuck around more and take things at the pace they feel like taking.
You seem to prefer stages that many Sonic fans don't. You seem to think being good at a game and finishing it quickly (concerning the spin-dash) is a fault. I suppose you meant to say it's over powered?
In a way, what you're saying isn't so different to preferring JRPGs to WRPGs. Some people just think WRPGs are terrible because what they value in JRPGs isn't represented as well or focused on as much. While this may or may not apply to you, I'm sure you've seen these types of discussions.
No, Sonic games aren't some masterclass of a 2D platforming skill challenge, but there literally is nothing that plays like them. Except maybe Freedom Planet, but not really. They scratch a very unique, and widely lauded, itch. It's entirely okay if you're not itching there, and if you're not itching, the scratch is just going to be an entirely understandable inconvenience.
you do know that sonic colors is one of the best received sonic games in recent times and is literally an outer space adventure right
also
What dlauv said seems to be the root of your issues. You keep comparing Sonic to games like Mario and Mega Man as though it's trying to achieve anything remotely similar to those games when it's not. Your idea of good Sonic levels seem to be the ones most people don't like that much because they're annoying enemy gauntlets. It's not that you don't like Sonic games because they're bad, it's that your gaming tastes are entirely removed from the type of gameplay Sonic offers, which negates most of your criticism of the series as it's like listening to a hardcore FPS player complain that Tetris doesn't have enough action for him.
Planeswalker
Neo Member
Sonic is a game where the game introduces you to unfamiliar mechanics that you need to try to figure out (how the mechanics interact, etc).
The difference between Sonic and all those games you listed is that those other games don't really have any exploration of mechanics.
Those games, as soon as you play the game, the familiarizes yourself with the mechanics within the first minute or so of game. That's not bad but Sonic is a different type of game from those games.
For example, you mentioned Mega Man and winning against a boss as feeling better than Sonic. The thing with Mega Man is that almost all the games (including the X series), you can learn the mechanics within a minute of playing (or a minute of getting a new ability).
With Sonic, there's lots of random mechanics (how the things in the stage interact as well and how your abilities interact with the stage) that can interact with each other in interesting ways that you may not be able to figure out right away.
You said Shemnue are your favorite games (and the games you listed, you like better than Sonic). Those games are the type of games where you can explore more of the game world but the game world itself doesn't have too many mechanics that you need to explore.
Sonic is a type of a game where you may try to complete a stage the fastest way possible, then you have someone over and tell them to see how they complete that stage the fastest way. It's a more interesting game for speed runs (at least back then) than those other games.
As you play Sonic, you'll find out all the ways the mechanics can interact with each other.
A good comparison is fighting games. In a fighting game like Street Fighter, there's lots of stuff you need to figure out. It's true that you can play the game no problem but understanding all the mechanics and how to interact can allow you to play much more better.
Sonic is similar in that way (if you are speed running or trying to do a run or something else similar that is).
Those other games you listed do not have that same type of thing going for them.
To be fair, Sonic doesn't do the best job of showing this but it is one of the selling points compared to Mario or those other games you mentioned. I wouldn't say it's a bad game but they way they could have presented this or integrated in the game could have been better.
For me, I don't rate games based on whether it's decent or better than decent. Honestly, I don't think there's much of a difference between all those games you listed. I play mostly PC games and I am usually not that impressed with console games in terms of gameplay compared to PC games (except fighting games which are probably one of the few genres that actually are good on PC or console). Even though I don't like console games that much, I wouldn't label them as bad or anything.
Generally, I rate games based on whether it is the best (or trying to be best), when it works, and finally whether it does a good job of presenting new to games in general. When I play a game, and if it's not the best in its genre, it doesn't matter if it's 10% better or 10% worse than other games in the genre, I'll just move on to the next point of interest for the game which is whether it has at a mechanic or more that introduces something new (or if the game has something new to offer that other games do not have, and it works).
For that, I think Sonic is at least a decent game.
The difference between Sonic and all those games you listed is that those other games don't really have any exploration of mechanics.
Those games, as soon as you play the game, the familiarizes yourself with the mechanics within the first minute or so of game. That's not bad but Sonic is a different type of game from those games.
For example, you mentioned Mega Man and winning against a boss as feeling better than Sonic. The thing with Mega Man is that almost all the games (including the X series), you can learn the mechanics within a minute of playing (or a minute of getting a new ability).
With Sonic, there's lots of random mechanics (how the things in the stage interact as well and how your abilities interact with the stage) that can interact with each other in interesting ways that you may not be able to figure out right away.
You said Shemnue are your favorite games (and the games you listed, you like better than Sonic). Those games are the type of games where you can explore more of the game world but the game world itself doesn't have too many mechanics that you need to explore.
Sonic is a type of a game where you may try to complete a stage the fastest way possible, then you have someone over and tell them to see how they complete that stage the fastest way. It's a more interesting game for speed runs (at least back then) than those other games.
As you play Sonic, you'll find out all the ways the mechanics can interact with each other.
A good comparison is fighting games. In a fighting game like Street Fighter, there's lots of stuff you need to figure out. It's true that you can play the game no problem but understanding all the mechanics and how to interact can allow you to play much more better.
Sonic is similar in that way (if you are speed running or trying to do a run or something else similar that is).
Those other games you listed do not have that same type of thing going for them.
To be fair, Sonic doesn't do the best job of showing this but it is one of the selling points compared to Mario or those other games you mentioned. I wouldn't say it's a bad game but they way they could have presented this or integrated in the game could have been better.
For me, I don't rate games based on whether it's decent or better than decent. Honestly, I don't think there's much of a difference between all those games you listed. I play mostly PC games and I am usually not that impressed with console games in terms of gameplay compared to PC games (except fighting games which are probably one of the few genres that actually are good on PC or console). Even though I don't like console games that much, I wouldn't label them as bad or anything.
Generally, I rate games based on whether it is the best (or trying to be best), when it works, and finally whether it does a good job of presenting new to games in general. When I play a game, and if it's not the best in its genre, it doesn't matter if it's 10% better or 10% worse than other games in the genre, I'll just move on to the next point of interest for the game which is whether it has at a mechanic or more that introduces something new (or if the game has something new to offer that other games do not have, and it works).
For that, I think Sonic is at least a decent game.
This is such a weird thread now because after the initial vague OP Cindi is doing an exceptionally thorough job explaining why she doesn't like Sonic in a well-thought out way while using specific examples. At the same time she's doing a hopelessly terrible job trying to explain why Sonic is a bad game.
Honestly OP, I just don't think Sonic is for you. It doesn't cater to your wants, and that's fair enough. At least you gave it a fair shot.
Your insistence on calling Sonic 1 bad - and now it would seem, the entire series - for this reason seems narrow-minded however. It feels like unnecessary escalation.
Your insistence on calling Sonic 1 bad - and now it would seem, the entire series - for this reason seems narrow-minded however. It feels like unnecessary escalation.
BladeoftheImmortal
Member
Some opinions are wrong, OP. This is one of them. Sonic Genesis games are some of the best games ever.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
I'm sorry but I just don't buy "that doesn't make it bad, that just means it's not for you" as a good argument because it feels like you're placing your experience above mine. It feels condescending in a passive aggressive way, I guess? As if nothing can be bad you disagree with. You can use that line for anything you disagree with, and you can do far better than that. You even admit that Sonic is more simplistic and limited, but somehow don't think this can make the games bad to someone. Although you argue that doesn't make it bad, no one has told me why a platformer that's only about maintaining speed makes Sonic a good platformer. Compare it to top tier platformers, and it just doesn't stack up. Either Sonic is a different kind of platformer and is on the same level as top tier platformers, or it's a series that has coasted on name brand and is not a top tier platformer franchise. I'm not seeing why this makes Sonic worth more than Earthworm Jim or other mascots during that era. Certainly Sonic should be able to balance careful platforming with speed? People have argued "that's not the type of platformer Sonic is and that doesn't make it bad" but why does it make it good if every great platformer is about careful platforming?
I can see your point all of that is optional in Mario. Also, how I'm playing Green Hill is generally how I'm playing the rest of the stages that aren't really slow like Marble Zone, Hill Top, or Labyrinth. How I played Green Hill is how I played most of Sonic 2 and all of Sonic 3. You say tanooki suit isn't optional, and yeah, it kind of is. I think Mario offers a better medium between allowing you to abuse the game and cheese it, and a legitimate challenge. I think Sonic has no such balance, and it's nothing but straight cheesing it. Green Hill is the prototypical Sonic stage. Saying playing Green Hill mindlessly doesn't mean much is very incorrect because Green Hill is the base that most Sonic stages are built upon. The fact that it's the most iconic and all of the Genesis Sonic games start with a Green Hill-like stage proves this.
Also, while I'd call Metropolis challenging, I wouldn't call it "saw tooth".
My comparison to 3d Sonic games is because the point of 3d Sonic is to get the highest score you can to get a good ranking. 2d Sonic works very similarly. You agree it's not about tight platforming, you agree it's not about deliberate challenges. Genesis Sonic is about learning a stage so you can clear it as fast as possible, enemies, traps, be damned. 3d Sonic is virtually the same thing. You're thinking of the mechanics, but the core goals remain the same.
You answered your own question regarding the spin dash. Getting through levels as quickly as possible is a good thing, but unless the game has deliberate challenges in your way, it's an empty victory. Any good game balances difficulty and the ability to speed through it. The appeal of most good games is mastering it to the point where you can speed through it, but the game shouldn't become mindless in the process. This is why I bring up Mega Man. Not because I want Sonic to be like Mega Man but because Mega Man provides the perfect template for comparison of a game series that is about getting through as fast and efficiently as you can. Mega Man Zero games even include score. But no one would say Mega Man games are easy. They're no Ghosts and Goblins, but they're not slouches either. Sonic games aren't like that. When you get to the point where you can complete the stage in seconds, everything about the stage barely matters. It completely goes against any basic idea of good game design.
I agree that there's nothing that plays like Sonic games and I think there's a reason for that, and I've articulated why I think that is.
It's true that not everything needs to scratch your itch, but my stance is that Sonic's position as a gaming icon is probably undeserved past the 90's. I think his time has passed, and I think the Genesis Sonic's are a good look as to why. Something controversial to say, but how I feel.
I haven't played Colors. But I'm looking on YouTube and I'm not seeing a space faring adventure that turns the concept of Sonic on its head like Mario Galaxy. It's just standard Sonic and proves my point. When I talk about space adventure, I'm talking about gameplay, not setting. I'm not seeing much if any change to Sonic's core gameplay since Sonic Adventure here. There are side scroller sections, but that's hardly anything Crash Bandicoot and Mario haven't done already.
I keep comparing Sonic to Mario and Mega Man only in this thread, but in my head, I'm also comparing it to any good 2d platformer. I'm comparing it to Mario and Mega Man but also Spelunky, Cave Story, Castlevania, Rocket Knight Adventures, Ninja Gaiden, Shinobi series, Bonk, Wonder Boy, Adventure Island, Ecco the Dolphin, Ghost n Goblins, Ducktales. If my idea of a good Sonic level goes against what most people consider a good Sonic level because they're "enemy gauntlets" I think that says a lot about Sonic fans. Do you find enemies in the way of the "action"? Why are "enemy gauntlets" bad? My taste being removed from the gameplay Sonic offers does not negate my criticisms. That's bullshit and you know it. This is not comparing FPS games to Tetris. That's an absurd non-sequitur and I'm actually laughing and how silly it is. I'm comparing Sonic to top of the top platformers and my criticisms have all been quite fair.
Good argument because it's not just "these games aren't just for you". I disagree though. What exactly is complicated about Sonic besides its momentum? Granted its physics require getting handling, but so does flying through an entire stage with a cape in Mario. So does using only the p shooter against Air Man with pixel perfect accuracy without a hit. My problem with this argument is that it assumes Sonic games are the only games that are like this. Do you realize there are many games that allow both? All those other games have stuff to do on top of being able to speed run it. Isn't speed running being the only goal in mind kind of limited? How is Sonic emphasizing speed running and nothing but that a point in its favor? Again, what mechanics are deep in Sonic?
Are they deeper than in Jet Set Radio? In Jet Set Radio, you have a specific amount of cans for each character. Each tag requires a specific amount of cans. So if you're using Gum, who can only hold 15 cans, you're going to count each time you spray a tag. Otherwise, you'll end up with a half sprayed tag, and have to go search for cans mid-tag because you ran out. That's the game requiring the player being actually involved with the game systems. Specific number of tags brings enemies out. You not only have to count how many cans you use on a tag, but how many tags you've sprayed. Because if you haven't sprayed as many big tags as you can before enemy henchmen come out and chase after you, you're going to have a bad time. That's just a few examples, from one game, that requires you to be present and gauge risk and reward while balancing speed and efficiency. It's also a platformer and a Sega game for those keeping count. It also has hidden paths and a high replay value and score and that Sega flashiness. You can view an example of play here. If Sonic were really that deep in terms of mechanics like you said, I wouldn't be able to zip through these games without any prejudice or pressure like I have been.
What mechanics? Good response, but very vague.
I haven't been vague at all. I've deconstructed these games down to their health systems.
Okay, that's fine and good.
That doesn't really address the idea that you're doing a terrible job of explaining why Sonic is a bad game but okay.
And you wonder why we're being so defensive?
Cindi Mayweather
Member
If someone said that about Shenmue, I'd tear apart their argument rather than get super defensive.
Seriously though, it begs the question. Sonic has been coasting on the coattails of his games in the 90's - the Genesis games and Sonic Asventure. The games still play like Sonic Asventure and that game came out almost twenty years ago. They just announced a new Sonic game that's like a long lost Genesis game. What has Sonic earned to continue to exist whereas other games like Earthworm Jim and Bonk haven't? I mean, besides being Sega's mascot. I think it's a legitimate question despite the bluntness. Sales are the main thing keeping Sonic afloat but quality, game variety? That's tougher. When unveiling their new 3d Sonic game, Sonic Team opted to make another Sonic's Greatest Hits (Generations). Another Sonic game to coast on a legacy that should have never survived the 90's. You may find this harsh but it doesn't take away its truth for many people.
old manatee
Banned
Sonic 2 / 3 / Knuckles were great games when they came out. Sonic Spinball was also kind of fun. The rest of it can BURN IN THE FLAMES OF HELL.
Completely independent of quality, there is effectively no competition in the series' specific niche of speed platformer. Sega caters to a captive audience.
Most of this is pretty wrong, considering the 3D games were never really physics based.
Sonic isn't that great of a mascot?
Mario, Pikachu, Pacman, Donkey Kong? Those are the only guys who can be named up there with him as far popularity goes.
I don't think this is necessarily true. The overall goal of Sonic games is to get from A-to-B, but it doesn't presume much about your method of getting there. There is a score counter, and a time counter, and a ring counter; but, you aren't punished with a low rank for poor performance. A better score, a higher ring count, and a faster time are all very optional objectives you could impose on yourself, not unlike your prior Tanooki suit argument concerning Mario's difficulty. You're imposing an objective system that came along 10 years later, from a largely different development team no less, onto a game that has nothing of the sort. I shouldn't have to tell you that's a bit of a reach.
I'm not sure how this is correlated to the spin dash inherently, but the spin dash does have weaknesses. You sacrifice control and sustained speed for a quick burst of it. It's easy to use, but too challenging to master to consider overpowered. If we were speaking of Sonic Generations' spin dash, I would be inclined to agree. It's only as powerful as your own mastery of the stage is, I should say. There are many opportunities to bungle up by haphazardly spin-dashing. If you theoretically "get good" with the spin dash, then that implies skill involved, which implies mindfulness. I don't see what your problem is.
I would say this is the difference between the more open-ended and more closed gameplay. I enjoy Megaman. I enjoy Sonic more. Megaman is a tight, linear challenge and can be appreciated for being one. It's always the same path no matter how many different times you play it. I enjoy Sonic for the challenge of staying on the top road and fighting my way from the bottom road after falling from the top road. I enjoy chaining together my movement seamlessly without stopping and seeing what moves I'll make for the sake of maintaining that speed. I enjoy seeing where those moves lead me, and if I was able to perform at the level I wanted to. Was I able to make it to the exact path I wanted to get to? Maybe I'll reach a path I hadn't been on before simply by mistake or because the level design looked suspicious in an instance and I decided to experiment. If a platform seems out of reach, I enjoy attempting to find things to spin-dash off of to reach it. Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't. I enjoy attempting to manipulate the physics back into my favor after I've attained such a speed that I've overstepped my current limit of reaction time. I enjoy attempting to manipulate the physics to platform in a far less standard way: making a jump that is normally too far away. It's far more open-ended than Megaman and even more than Mario, which has plenty of experimentation on offer as well. This is not unlike trying to find a sweet trick loop/string in Jet Grind Radio. They're oh-so-satisfying to nail and extremely easy to fail, but the punishment for failing is far from harsh.
The 3D games follow your formula for "most good games" far more closely than the 2D games do with their linearity and ranking system, and I'm not sure too many would go down that road.
I propose alternative reasons. Classic Sonic's gameplay is something Sonic Team can't even replicate accurately it in their own games in spite of their proposed goals to do so. Classic Sonic's gameplay is so trademark that to take from it wholly would be criticized as a shameless rip-off. There are many spins you can put on tight, linear platforming. Mario does it one way, Castlevania does it another way, and Megaman manages to find another. None of these games have had rip offs that have been cherished or found significant financial success; do you have reasons for that too? I think it would be very hard to justify appropriating Sonic's momentum/pinball-based platformer gameplay as a wholly new IP.
I think the big deal here is, you're looking at successful games and ascribing a formula based on common denominators as to the reason for their success. Sonic doesn't abide by this formula, and you don't enjoy Sonic. Unfortunately, your formula is partially based around a craft concerned with subjective enjoyment. Game design isn't hard science. Sometimes things click with people and sometimes they don't. I absolutely hate Shenmue; I think the fighting mechanics are far too messy when fighting groups, the hints for progression far too vague, and every single animation too time-consuming. The dialogue and voice acting is comically abysmal -- probably my favorite part. I admire its ambition. I love Jet Set Radio and find Jet Set Radio Future a massive disappointment. I think the Uncharted series is largely garbage and I enjoy TLOU, even though they share a lot of their gameplay with one of my favorite games of all time, Resident Evil 4. To apply a formula as to why such and so is a good game compared to a bad one is a minefield, because people simply enjoy different approaches to "playing a game." If something clicks with a ton of people and makes a lot of money, it's safe to say it's "a good game" although perhaps not to yourself. It's wonderful to explore why that is.
It's not obviously not as cut and dry a truth when one considers the reaction to Sonic Mania - a game which directly takes on from that legacy in a much stronger fashion. There's a lot of excitement, even from people who aren't necessarily core Sonic fans.
That alone must speak volumes about that very legacy that you're decrying. It's unfortunate that you've gone back and disliked the experience, but you shouldn't project that as gospel, because it's not.
You just described classic Sonic...when you don't play it like a Mario game
If you mean that Sonic is still a score/time attack based game, then sure.
The problem with the 3D games is that:
1. They're usually very unpolished.
2. They usually offer lots of, awful, filler content.
3. They use gameplay formulas that, at least from my perspective, are far less fun and engaging compared to what the classic games used to offer. I'm not saying that stuff like Sonic Generations can't be fun, but blasting through physics-based playgrounds, with fluid controls and momentum-based gameplay, is simply a far superior formula for me.
Well, most people don't have time for low-effort fillers that try to artificially increase the game's length.
Give me something that plays like SM64 or Jak 1 and I'm in.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Well, I don't think Sonic sucks now, nor do I think Sonic sucked back then, even though I agree on your first part ina sense: Sonic has always been about speed, the way it is achieved is different though. Some people value the way it is done in the Mega Drive games, but don't like the way it is done in (numerous aproaches of) 3D Sonic. So, if you are like that you might enjoy Sonic Mania for instance, even though you don't like any of the 3D games. Personally, I like both, and I don't think either makes the other approach redundant.
Something as good as the best 3D game ever made is quite the high expectation. Yes, Sonic will probably not match Super Mario Galaxy, but that is because Super Mario Galaxy is gameplay perfection and puts almost anything to shame. Not just of different sub-genres, but different genres as well. This cannot be the point.
There is a difference between being different and being worse. The Last of Us or GTA5 (not my cup of tea) are also not about these principles at all. Yet, (strangeley, from my perspective) there exist people who still claim these games are fantastic. And the reason for that is, that the goal is a different one but that goal is also reached rather well. Yes, Sonic will never offer what Super Mario does, but that's a good thing. I don't need a blue Mario, I want Mario and Sonic to be very different as they are now. It does not make either a bad game.
The first & second sentence I could sign, but the third sentence is outrageous. Maybe some people did not like earlier Sonic games because they "did not care", but because they actually like what Sonic is about and DO care, that Sonic does THAT well.
The thing is, people who demand tight platforming in the Mario sense are out of their mind. This level of tightness cannot be achieved at Sonic's speed, it becomes impossible at lower speeds already, as evident even with Mario himself (Yoshi in SMG2 - awesome, but use a Chili and you will see, it's not a game about absolute precision anymore).
But being as good as other platformers and being different at the same time is absolutely not a contradiction. Sonic has not been quite as good as Mario, but Mario is an outstanding series with a lot of care that is unmatched by almost anything. Sonic Generations and Unleashed, I'd argue, are as good as Mario in places, they just lack some care in execution, with their filler material or secondary objectives, as well as some more precision with the slide.
Yes, Sonic games are not about exploration and when they are, they suck. That is not to say that Sonic games suck in general, because there can be good executions of concepts that do not involve exploration. Matter of fact: SMG and SMG2 are way less about exploration than previous Marios and if you really predominantly care about exploration in a platformer (your right, but you are not right in saying that this is somehow an objectively superior approach) you are best served with Banjo-Kazooie actually. And very likely Yooka-Laylee soon.
SkylineRKR
Member
I love Genesis Sonic games and he was a good mascot at the time, Sonic was cocky and brash, exactly like Sega themselves as they had to battle good kid Nintendo.
But it fell apart on Dreamcast, and I started to understand why Saturn didn't get a proper Sonic game. This was 1995, and 2D was an absolute no go. The industry wanted it to die. Sega would insta fail with a 2D sonic game, opposed to Crash and Mario 64. A 3D sonic would... you see, I think Sonic absolutely doesn't work in 3D. SA looked awesome at first, next-gen graphics and all. But underneath was a broken ass game that wasn't even fun to play (and a fuck ton of it was auto pilot, or at the mercy of homing attacks.. which found their way into a fucking 2D Sonic 4). Rayman 2 on DC opened my eyes; it was a MUCH better 3D platform game than the mascot game. Mario 64 etc were much better already, but they looked like shit compared to Sonic Adventure so it took me some time.
If you look at the history of this franchise, you can easily see it struggles with 3D since forever. Mario doesn't have that problem, its transition to 3D went perfect. Sonic could work if you take away everything that makes it Sonic. And thats the problem. That speed fucks it all up, and the obligatory loopings make it auto pilot. And slow Sonic thats not about speed isn't going to cut it either. So stick to 2D.
But it fell apart on Dreamcast, and I started to understand why Saturn didn't get a proper Sonic game. This was 1995, and 2D was an absolute no go. The industry wanted it to die. Sega would insta fail with a 2D sonic game, opposed to Crash and Mario 64. A 3D sonic would... you see, I think Sonic absolutely doesn't work in 3D. SA looked awesome at first, next-gen graphics and all. But underneath was a broken ass game that wasn't even fun to play (and a fuck ton of it was auto pilot, or at the mercy of homing attacks.. which found their way into a fucking 2D Sonic 4). Rayman 2 on DC opened my eyes; it was a MUCH better 3D platform game than the mascot game. Mario 64 etc were much better already, but they looked like shit compared to Sonic Adventure so it took me some time.
If you look at the history of this franchise, you can easily see it struggles with 3D since forever. Mario doesn't have that problem, its transition to 3D went perfect. Sonic could work if you take away everything that makes it Sonic. And thats the problem. That speed fucks it all up, and the obligatory loopings make it auto pilot. And slow Sonic thats not about speed isn't going to cut it either. So stick to 2D.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Sonic unleashed/colors/generations are far far from auto pilot
They require fast judgement, memorization, and many very very fast inputs to play them well.
Hardly anyone plays them to the game's limits
They require fast judgement, memorization, and many very very fast inputs to play them well.
Hardly anyone plays them to the game's limits
out of bounds stuff is sad to see though
NoctisVsStar
Member
Holy shit
Paul_Str337
Member
It's become apparent from reading the last few pages of this thread that a lot of people who are saying that the classic Sonic games are bad are just not good at them.
Criticising the levels for having too many branching paths is madness; getting through a level on the top/fastest/most challenging path is a skill. The lower easier paths are designed for just about everyone to stumble through.
Criticising the levels for having too many branching paths is madness; getting through a level on the top/fastest/most challenging path is a skill. The lower easier paths are designed for just about everyone to stumble through.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Finished a playthrough of Sonic 3 & Knuckles last night.
Game is as good as ever. Physics feel great, level design is awesome, and it has the best special zones of them all. Enjoyed it so much I'm going to do a second playthrough as knuckles.
Game is as good as ever. Physics feel great, level design is awesome, and it has the best special zones of them all. Enjoyed it so much I'm going to do a second playthrough as knuckles.
Diablohead
Member
A lot of those runs are using the story mode skills, which IMO were silly and either locked classic moves behind a power up or made sonic super fast compared to normal in modern stages.
the androgyne
Member
The old games are fun, but they're full of polarising bits of design all over imo. Like Emerald Hill Zone 2: The monkeys don't belong on a first world stage at all... they're the very definition of annoying. I'd bet almost everyone hits one off the very first spring on their first few goes (why doesn't he stay rolled up in a ball?). Take them from the top, monkey shit, take em from the bottom, monkey shit. From standing, directly underneath, Sonic can barely reach half of them.
Then they've got secrets you have to be going a certain speed to get into. There's really nothing to tell you but having it happen by accident. The first hidden wall is like a kick in the face, "here take these rings oh and have a spring shooting you right back into the spikes!". The second throws you out right beneath the arc of another monkey's doo doo.
Other levels are packed with horizontal spikes that come out of nondescript walls they pretty much ran you into by design. Honestly, who hasn't got frustrated at his inability to jump UP a slope? Or walk up it without a run up? I know why it's that way but damn, other platform characters be scooting past Sonic on slopes from a stand still. Oh they put a spin dash, just what you need on that slope... except half the time he can't stand still to start it. They'd almost have been better off not letting you walk back to the left at all. You got all these paths that seem to encourage exploration but ... you're pretty much never supposed to right? It's a pita traversing back and forth if you want to get everything.
If there's one thing you could say in their favour, it's that they certainly encourage repeat play throughs. But you can easily see why someone coming from stuff like Mario (that's pretty much fair to the player the entire game) wouldn't have the patience for Sonic. I think people put in the time back then not because of the level design, but because they liked the character, the visuals, and the music. These days no one has the patience and all Sonic is now is old.
Having said all that, of course i want to play Sonic Mania... i want most for them release it packaged as a Saturn game... crank those SH-2s!
Then they've got secrets you have to be going a certain speed to get into. There's really nothing to tell you but having it happen by accident. The first hidden wall is like a kick in the face, "here take these rings oh and have a spring shooting you right back into the spikes!". The second throws you out right beneath the arc of another monkey's doo doo.
Other levels are packed with horizontal spikes that come out of nondescript walls they pretty much ran you into by design. Honestly, who hasn't got frustrated at his inability to jump UP a slope? Or walk up it without a run up? I know why it's that way but damn, other platform characters be scooting past Sonic on slopes from a stand still. Oh they put a spin dash, just what you need on that slope... except half the time he can't stand still to start it. They'd almost have been better off not letting you walk back to the left at all. You got all these paths that seem to encourage exploration but ... you're pretty much never supposed to right? It's a pita traversing back and forth if you want to get everything.
If there's one thing you could say in their favour, it's that they certainly encourage repeat play throughs. But you can easily see why someone coming from stuff like Mario (that's pretty much fair to the player the entire game) wouldn't have the patience for Sonic. I think people put in the time back then not because of the level design, but because they liked the character, the visuals, and the music. These days no one has the patience and all Sonic is now is old.
Having said all that, of course i want to play Sonic Mania... i want most for them release it packaged as a Saturn game... crank those SH-2s!
Lord British
Member
It seems as though you've contrived an extremely rigid notion of what constitutes a significant consequence and then stated that the stages are badly designed because they don't adhere to it. That's not a reasonable standard for debate.
Your idea of good game design seems pretty nebulous, to be honest. Sonic is as close as it gets to a 2D platformer with an unlimited skill ceiling.
"It completely goes against any basic idea of good game design" is a statement that ludicrously positions you as the arbiter of what constitutes "good game design". I think you've made good and interesting points (even when I disagree
) but broader claims like this should probably be avoided if you want your opinion to be taken seriously and not immediately dogpiled. And, incidentally, I apologise for any dogpiling, that wasn't my intention at all. ---
In my opinion, the reason Sonic has gone downhill now is because, as of Sonic Adventure, they stopped prioritising accessibility. Seriously, compare the number of inputs in that game to the Mega Drive stuff. Think of the amount of cool, athletic shit you can do in the Mega Drive games. And that's on one button.
Adventure is five or six disparate playstyles, relatively complex controls, and cutscenes out the ass. It's nonsense.
an argument consisting of strawman players who supposedly disliked the treasure hunting stages because they couldn't comprehend slower pacing and not because they were unfun and clumsily designed even by 3d-era sonic standards is a new and unique one for sure
Sonic the hedgehog is one the best games ever made. The music, level and character design are almost perfection. It's the game that spawned a franchise so strong that even survives bad games because of how GOOD these games were.
Saying you liked Sonic the hedgehog but the first game is bad is like saying you like hamburgers but don't like the classic all american hamburger. It's kinda of an oxymoron type statement. You just don't like hamburgers.
Thread came conveniently came out the blue when Sonic hype is at an all time high....
Saying you liked Sonic the hedgehog but the first game is bad is like saying you like hamburgers but don't like the classic all american hamburger. It's kinda of an oxymoron type statement. You just don't like hamburgers.
Thread came conveniently came out the blue when Sonic hype is at an all time high....
Cindi Mayweather
Member
Before anyone accuses me of ignoring their posts because I was "exposed" *giggle* I'm taking these posts first because I'm about to clean my place and they're short and sweet.
I don't think the 3d games are on auto pilot, but there's nothing to them except "I wanna go fast!" They just seem limited and boring. I actually think after playing the Genesis Sonic's that the 3d games are actually probably better because of exactly you said. But I don't think that makes them good games either.
Yes, I'm bad at Sonic games. Based on what exactly? Criticizing the branching paths is madness why exactly? Because its core to the Sonic design to you and criticizing that would mean that Sonic is a highly flawed game series and concept?
I don't think the 3d games are on auto pilot, but there's nothing to them except "I wanna go fast!" They just seem limited and boring. I actually think after playing the Genesis Sonic's that the 3d games are actually probably better because of exactly you said. But I don't think that makes them good games either.
Yes, I'm bad at Sonic games. Based on what exactly? Criticizing the branching paths is madness why exactly? Because its core to the Sonic design to you and criticizing that would mean that Sonic is a highly flawed game series and concept?
Cindi Mayweather
Member
It seems as though you've contrived an extremely rigid notion of what constitutes a significant consequence and then stated that the stages are badly designed because they don't adhere to it. That's not a reasonable standard for debate.
Your idea of good game design seems pretty nebulous, to be honest. Sonic is as close as it gets to a 2D platformer with an unlimited skill ceiling.
"It completely goes against any basic idea of good game design" is a statement that ludicrously positions you as the arbiter of what constitutes "good game design". I think you've made good and interesting points (even when I disagree
---
In my opinion, the reason Sonic has gone downhill now is because, as of Sonic Adventure, they stopped prioritising accessibility. Seriously, compare the number of inputs in that game to the Mega Drive stuff. Think of the amount of cool, athletic shit you can do in the Mega Drive games. And that's on one button.
Adventure is five or six disparate playstyles, relatively complex controls, and cutscenes out the ass. It's nonsense.
My definition of consequences isn't rigid at all. I literally played through half of S3&K and played through the game exactly how I'm playing Green Hill in my video. I have over 20 lives and all of the chaos emeralds. I'm halfway through the game and I'm bored to death because of the games own limitations and mediocrity. Nothing matters if I'm just spinning and doing my shit through stages with barely any cognitive input from me. There's no challenge. There's no sweeping level design. It's just a bunch of bad level gimmicks in a game full of flash and zero substance.
I'll agree that Adventure is too complicated for its own good. But if Sonic's gameplay were as good as you people say it would have made the transition well. There's a way to make a good 3d Sonic game. It's possible. But it also means limiting what speed means, which for many changes what Sonic means. Which shows the problems with the series to begin with. Because Sonic isn't timeless. Sonic is a product of the 90's and about speed and gimmicks. So let's see how fast I can beat this level.
Don't take this personally but throughout this thread you've continuously voiced your frustrations at being unable to complete certain goals within Sonic games; which inadvertently does make you sound like a bad player. In respone, I must again explain that mastery of Sonic games doesn't happen overnight. Most of the people arguing against you in this thread have been playing Sonic games for years if not decades, myself included. So please take to heart the idea that it will simply take time your to internalise the gameplay mechanics before you preform any death-defying tricks. Seriously, you need to 'feel' the flow of the gameplay, Sonic games are as much about intuition as any amount of forward planning.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
When have I complained about not being able to complete certain goals? I have no idea what you're talking about. Also, I've been playing Sonic games since 92.
Honestly, you don't seem like someone who has been playing Sonic games since the old days. The kind of criticisms you've been raising in this thread are unheard-of. Which is to say, in 25 years of Sonic games I've never heard of anyone citing 'branching paths', 'flexible gameplay style', 'great sense of spped' and 'challenging difficultly' as bad things. Such qualties are part of the reason why Sonic games, especially the 16-bit games, continue to have such a devoted following to this day. Thus, your hatred for Sonic games is not an objective truth but instead may have more to do with your apparent inexperience.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
Like I said many times, I beat the shit out of all of these as a kid. I loved all of them then. This is not my first Sonic rodeo. This isn't due to inexperience (lol) at all. Muscle memory is ingrained. I'm going at Sonic from the vantage point of a fresh pair of eyes. I don't care about my nostalgia. I don't care if I liked the sense of speed and branching paths as a kid. I'm going at them on how I feel about them now, today. I don't give a shit if they're "unheard" of. You say I struggled with things and have failed to bring them up.
capylikesgames
Banned
Really? I can get through Mario 3's World 7 and 8 without using continues, but the later Zones in Sonic 1 are a pain, and I've only gotten through them a few times due to sheer luck. Not to say that makes it better, the difficulty feels really cheap, but I don't think you can compare the difficulty of those two.
...granted I have played through Mario 3 several times, while I usually abandon Sonic 1 playthroughs due to frustration, so it may just be muscle memory at this point. I'd honestly compare Sonic 1's difficulty to Mario 1 more than any other Mario platformer. World 8 in that game is something that I still struggle with to this day.
If you had any degree of muscle memory when it comes to Sonic games then you never would have made this thread in the first place. An intuitive grasp of how to beat each level in a Sonic game begisn with understanding you have a great deal of choice. Sure, you must reach the signpost at the end (or defeat Dr. Robotnik) but everything before that is entirely up to you. With skill you can take the high route and find greater rewards or you can take the low route if smashing more badniks is your thing. Either way the point is that I (along with many others in thread) shouldn't have to explain this idea to you, it's a concept that the game itself will teach you as you replay each level.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
This logic is so circular.
"Only people who are good can critique Sonic games but if you were good at Sonic games you wouldn't critique them!"
In the politest terms possible - I don't consider your arguments to be a valid criticism of Sonic games. The kind of problems you've been experiencing (and subsequent venting in this thread) can only be absolved through perseverance. It will simply take time to develop the skills needed to master Sonic's gameplay and that's all there is to it.
I think you are being a tad rigid OP. For example you meep using the words 'punishment" and "engagement" but when others provide examples of both in Sonic, you disagree because it doesn't fill your own notions.
Then when people say; "Maybe Sonic ism't for you?", you instead declare the series to be bad and a fad - again because it doesn't fit your own defined set of criteria.
I think this thread might have reached an impasse in all honesty.
EDIT: For goodness sake - the OP has made ot clear that they are experienced. It's silly to try and invalidate their critique in this way.
Then when people say; "Maybe Sonic ism't for you?", you instead declare the series to be bad and a fad - again because it doesn't fit your own defined set of criteria.
I think this thread might have reached an impasse in all honesty.
EDIT: For goodness sake - the OP has made ot clear that they are experienced. It's silly to try and invalidate their critique in this way.
I played a lot of Sonic as a kid and didn't like their design even then. I didn't care about the routes and went on whatever route mostly by chance. I didn't care if I got hit bc I just needed a ring to keep charging forward. I just rushed each stage bc Sonic is about speed, or at least the design made it seem like that.
This design just felt hollow compared to more deliberately paced platforms of those generations. Even those more deliberately paced platforms could be done quickly, but you got far fewer second chances randomly handed to you through a level thats for sure.
Are Sonic games bad? No. Are they for me? No.
This design just felt hollow compared to more deliberately paced platforms of those generations. Even those more deliberately paced platforms could be done quickly, but you got far fewer second chances randomly handed to you through a level thats for sure.
Are Sonic games bad? No. Are they for me? No.
Lord British
Member
The problem here is, you stated that your definition of consequences (pertaining to the games in question) wasn't rigid, but rather than explaining why you just said the same thing again with a larger word count.
Your exact words before were "Your actions can not matter without being respawned".
Why not? And, more important, how does that make the games - your (almost) exact words again - "(Go) against any basic idea of good game design"? How is that not a incredibly rigid criteria?
Feel free to ignore this. I just wanted to state what I feel is being communicated here.
Polioliolio
Member
But Sonic isn't just about maintaining speed.. That's not how I play.. I never cared for the 'break your record' gameplay that the new games focus on. And the slower nature of the classic games, prove that.
I mean, you get 10 entire minutes on the clock before it kills you. That's a lot of exploration time for a single act. When I played as a kid, I'd spend a lot of time exploring, finding rings, doing things differently. Oh, if I go up here, there are loop dee loops, but if I go down here, I can crash through this wall and there's a stash of rings.
Sonic 3 might have more 'bloat' but it also has a battery save. You're definitely expected to be spending more time with it, which is fine by me.
And you might be a savant, but I always thought Sonic games were difficult. As a kid, I'd typically get about 3/4 through the game and get a game over, and I played a ton of games back then, not exactly a pushover.
I mean, you get 10 entire minutes on the clock before it kills you. That's a lot of exploration time for a single act. When I played as a kid, I'd spend a lot of time exploring, finding rings, doing things differently. Oh, if I go up here, there are loop dee loops, but if I go down here, I can crash through this wall and there's a stash of rings.
Sonic 3 might have more 'bloat' but it also has a battery save. You're definitely expected to be spending more time with it, which is fine by me.
And you might be a savant, but I always thought Sonic games were difficult. As a kid, I'd typically get about 3/4 through the game and get a game over, and I played a ton of games back then, not exactly a pushover.
Yeah, I completed my first emerald run and was 7+ mins on most levels, just exploring and gathering rings/shields etc.
I can't imagine speeding through and risking a hit towards the end of a level if you're going for them, you don't have many chances to screw up especially if you fail a bonus stage or two.