Replaying Sonic the Hedgehog reveals it was kind of bad
- Thread starter Cindi Mayweather
- Start date
Cindi Mayweather
Member
Hm.
True.
That's a really good point. But thinking about it, I don't think it's really true, especially with games like Super Meat Boy existing. And Meat Boy is still about providing a direct challenge. Do you mean 3d speed platformers? Sega has the genre on lock between JSR, Nights, and Sonic.
The 3d games aren't physics based, but you're confusing gameplay for goal. I didn't say the 3d games are 1:1 similar to the 2d games. I did stress that they have the same goal: going fast in the level as possible.
Sonic is iconic because of his character design. Sonic's a popular mascot, but I don't think he's a good mascot. As a mascot, his sun set at least around the release of Sonic Adventure 2 and hasn't been particularly relevant until maybe the reveal of Mania. Also, popularity has nothing to do with quality.
Really fantastic post here.
Usually my goal in Sonic is to at least get 100 rings in a stage. That's why I'm always hoarding lives when I play them. I think those are very reasonable objectives, but the game doesn't even record your times, does it? If the games were structured around beating times, that'd be pretty fun, and while I do create my own rules and games (game within a game) when I play some titles, I think that's bit of a reach for the Genesis titles. There is no time attack mode in the original non-ios releases. Playing for score doesn't mean much either. Since when does Sonic record score? You're creating these self made objectives because of Sonic's own limited scope, I think. This is nothing like not using the Tanooki suit. Mario 3 clearly gives you the option of the suit. You hit a box and a leaf flies out. You can not hit that box and go cold turkey if you choose. The game gives you this option. It doesn't force you to do anything. But Sonic? Sonic's own limitations mean you're racing and beating times that the game doesn't even bother recording. Is this not a bit simple for a game series released in the 90's? In Mega Man, you can do a p shot run, and sure, the game makes no difference on whether or not you use a p shooter or a boss weapon, but the reality is that it's direct challenge the player can create for themselves. What objectives like that is possible in Sonic besides the basic no hit or no game over or no chaos emeralds? Staying on the top doesn't seem as equal a challenge, and finding the fastest time also feels arbitrary.
I'll agree spin dash requires knowing a level to make good use of it. But knowing the level makes the move feel over powered. While it does have weaknesses and you have less control, it's also a good way to brute force your way through the game. It's true that takes some amount of skill, but when I play it doesn't feel skillful to me even though it probably should. You do have to be mindful about how you spin dash so I do give you credit for that.
Thanks for explaining why you like Sonic. You're literally the first person in the thread who has explained why they think they're good games rather than explaining what Sonic is about. I can see that as a soft punishment when you fall from the top levels in Sonic, but JSR also has people chasing you and you have to make plans and tag order and stuff. I like planning out strategies ahead of time on how I'm going to approach a stage. I think I'd like Sonic more if there more to it than just speed and staying on the top level. I really enjoy a lot of the trademark Sega pizazz, like running on water in Chemical Plant, for instance. Or balancing on the edge of the thing at the victory screen. Or the opening to Hydrocity Act 2 which is still the best thing ever. But I wish there were more to it. I like a lot of games where they have that feeling where it just feels right that you explained, but Sonic feels like it only has to that to offers.
Are the 3d games always so linear though? I recall many branching paths in some of the 3d Sonic games I've played.
continuing reply later.
I read the long post you made last night and.....I strongly disagree. Sonic isn't just about speed; its exploration through speed. Using the speed you built up to get to new parts of the levels and exploring what is around you. Sonic doesn't suck now, and never sucked either. Sure, he fell flat on his face HARD a number of times over the years but the series is more consistent than many give it credit.
I get the impression that you just don't like the series, but I respect you spent time, energy and effort to play through the 2D games before making your detailed comments; have a lot of respect for that honestly, so thank you for having a fair, honest negative opinion on the series. It's damn refreshing compared to hearing 'Sonic just sucks man'.
I'm sorry you can't get into the series and I disagree with your view point on the franchise, but I am thankful you spent the time and effort to create your points after playing through the games. Long story short, I respect you a lot for making points and backed them up through your claims after playing the games. Have a great night and thank you for taking the time to make your points, rather then just stating the series sucks for no good reason.
I get the impression that you just don't like the series, but I respect you spent time, energy and effort to play through the 2D games before making your detailed comments; have a lot of respect for that honestly, so thank you for having a fair, honest negative opinion on the series. It's damn refreshing compared to hearing 'Sonic just sucks man'.
I'm sorry you can't get into the series and I disagree with your view point on the franchise, but I am thankful you spent the time and effort to create your points after playing through the games. Long story short, I respect you a lot for making points and backed them up through your claims after playing the games. Have a great night and thank you for taking the time to make your points, rather then just stating the series sucks for no good reason.
petran79
Banned
Also notice that the game had an arcade release (Sega Mega Play). Only difference was that bonus stages were missing. Ever since I saw and played the cab of Sonic 2, I always felt this belonged in a ruthless arcade environment rather than the comfort of your home, without pause.
Check out Sonic Pocket Adventure on the Neo Geo Pocket Color. It's like a downgraded remix of Sonic 2 and has graded time trials (two versions, one where you have to finish with 50 rings). It also has puzzle pieces hidden around the levels to collect - some require some tricky platforming to get.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6I9bOyzjQ
I watched a playthrough by Jon from Nomcomms today and the game is a lot more vertical than I remember, that's pretty standard in every sonic game but in the original there aren't a whole lot of opportunities to build speed and the stages aren't built in a way that help you build that speed either. There are a lot of areas in which there should be ramps or loops instead of ledges that make you slow down and you have to wait a lot of times for stuff to happen (the moving squares in the lava, vertical platforms, those sections in Marble Garden Zone where one square moves in a different direction of the squares next to it) which break the pace of the game, yet the game still has a lot of charm even with these problems and as the foundation of it's mega drive legacy it's a damn good starting point in my opinion.
Lord British
Member
This is weird. You're talking about self-imposed challenges - you even stated one (get 100 rings) and then you say both that there aren't any you can come up with in Sonic, and that ones you've, erm, come up with (?) are dismissed as "arbitrary". Why are they arbitrary to compared to any other self-imposed challenge in any other game, including the ones you've already stated?
I played Sonic 2 today, and aimed to get 200 rings in each stage before I moved on. It was a lot of fun! That was a self-imposed challenge. It was as arbitrary as any other.
Beating Mega Man 2 buster only. Somehow less arbitary? I don't see it.
Jonneh3003
Banned
Partly because of Sonic Mania and partly because of this thread I gave the game a complete playthrough earlier today, some of your complaints are valid but I don't think they result in the game being bad. For instance level designs get copy and pasted from act to act, 3 acts per zone can make the theme a little tedious, water based levels are very intense and there certainly is quite a lot of vertical platforming where if you fall you have to repeat sections.
However the mechanics are solid, the game understands that it's a platformer and doesn't just focus on Sonic being as fast as possible and it's a very rewarding game. I had to use the level select code in the last few zones, the game is a lot more challenge than I remember.
I'll be playing Sonic 2 tomorrow so we'll see how that goes but I don't think Sonic 1 should be considered bad by any means, its flaws have always existed but they aren't enough to make the game unenjoyable.
However the mechanics are solid, the game understands that it's a platformer and doesn't just focus on Sonic being as fast as possible and it's a very rewarding game. I had to use the level select code in the last few zones, the game is a lot more challenge than I remember.
I'll be playing Sonic 2 tomorrow so we'll see how that goes but I don't think Sonic 1 should be considered bad by any means, its flaws have always existed but they aren't enough to make the game unenjoyable.
Paul_Str337
Member
I think this post hits the nail on the head for the majority of this topic, when applied to the classic games anyway. Everyone has their personal preferences. If you don't like the games now then fine, but that doesn't make them retroactively poor.
Things like the branching paths are the reason the game stands out over everything else at ťhe time. This only gets better in later 2D Sonic games. I had giant posters showing off the whole map for every level in Sonic 3 and spent hours trying to track down every nook and cranny (they were especially useful for finding the giant rings!).
It seems a lot of things you cite as an issue with Sonic 1 are reasons why I think it still holds up. Labyrinth Zone is this brooding oppressive maze like structure that forces you to be cautious but also to laser focus air bubbles. I don't remember anything more tense than the drowning music, it still makes me uncomfortable 25 years later. Your reward for conquering your fear of water? An awesome adrenaline rush of a level in the Starlight Zone, the genesis for Chemical Plant, with some of the fastest roller coaster sections of the game feeling especially liberating after methodically navigating water in the previous zone. It also teaches you the seesaw along the way which you have to use to beat the boss.
Greatness
MegaManTrigger
Banned
The gameplay was based on the idea that speed was a reward for good platforming skills. This wasn't a braindead Temple Run game where you just autorun your way to the finish line.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
I think there's different reasons for it. For one thing, Sonic has a physics system that's hard to mimic due to the talents of Yuji Naka and Sonic Team's programmers. Sonic has a unique flavor due to its physics system that no other 2d platformer really attempts. But I think you're wrong on your point. Ninja Gaiden is for all intents and purposes is a fast paced Castlevania clone. It even has virtually the same lifebar. But more importantly, I don't think there being a lot of successful clones of a game means much. Street Fighter II is one of the most copied games of all time. Metroid (and by extension, Castlevania) has influenced an entire genres creation. Zelda II basically popularized the side scroller RPG. Ys III, Faxanadu, and more owe their existence to that game and that game is still controversial. My point is, influencing (or not influencing) successful copycats doesn't mean a thing regarding the subject of a games quality. I think Sonic's case is due to that it's not only so un-copyable thanks to its physics, but its approach to platforming isn't something a lot of designers are interested in due to the expectations of the genre. Most 2d platformers find tight platforming more important than exploration.
I get that different games can be up to different peoples taste. I also think Future is an inferior sequel. But some people love it while I think it's just above average. I know a lot of people who would argue it's a bad game or mediocre game and you know what? Despite being a game I like I wouldn't bat an eye.
I mentioned this earlier but the argument that you cannot argue something is bad because it's not your taste is kind of insulting and limits viewpoints. You think Shenmue is terrible and I don't a know a single fan who wouldn't understand why you feel that way.
Thanks for the support. But I want to make my position clear. I'm not being objectivist when I made that post about Sonic sucking now. My post was directed at people who feel that way. I think in some cases their cases are genuine but from what I've played this week, I have the same problems with 2d Sonic as I do with 3d Sonic. I think people who can enjoy both are the most honest people in the room, and that people who claim Sonic has gone to shit should seriously, critically examine the Genesis Sonic games. You will find many similarities between both, and while it's not a 1:1 comparison I think people are being too hard on many of the 3d games on part of their nostalgia for the Genesis games.
I remember playing the arcade cab back in the day! It wasn't common around my parts but it was fun to see. And yes, its arcade roots are clear.
I'll look into it...
They're arbitrary because the games are obviously not made for that purpose.
In the old days in the arcade, when you had a score, you'd enter your initials and there would be a score board page during the demo mode. These games made it clear that's what they were about and actually bothered to record times and score. Sonic does neither. Am I supposed to write down my time every time I beat a stage? 100 rings is a challenge that isn't arbitrary because the game is designed to reward you for accomplishing it via a 1 up.
Too many people have said what they think Sonic is about in this thread. "It's about speed and flow" "it's about exploration" "it's about score and beating your times". No one can agree on one thing, and that's fine, but it feels like this is all due to Sonic's limited gameplay so people have to get more enjoyment out of it. While every game has this, making a self imposed challenge of "I'm not going to fall of the top section" feels pointless to me, but beating Mega Man 2 and 3 with just the p shooter takes far more skill. Oh don't get me wrong. It's still arbitrary but it also presents a level of game mastery that is more than interesting to me than beating your score in a game that doesn't even record it. 200 rings a stage is a lot. I just don't find a challenge like that as interesting as beating Mega Man with p shooter or a no hit Mega Man run, because the enemies - besides bosses - are far too simple in their patterns to even appreciate such a feat if you know what you're doing. But we have established that Sonic is a more simple game.
I think that Sonic's simplicity is both its strength and its weakness.
I think it's fine saying you think they're bad though, even if you feel that way. I think people have this mindset in this thread because they feel it's a classic and shouldn't be criticized and a classic, obviously, can't be bad!
I feel that way because I played through these games without much if anything opposing me. Sonic gives you too many options for success, whether it's the open ended levels, the ring system, or going Super Sonic. Did you see me get hit once in my Green Hill video. My experience has largely like that, and in that video I'm just fucking around. I'm not even playing seriously. I like the flash, I like pizazz, but I don't think a good game allows you that amount of leeway.
That's fair. When I was a kid I found them harder but as an adult it's not the case. You're right exploration is a large part of Sonic but I don't feel like it's exactly a plus beyond replay value. It adds to the experience when you play them again to see what goes where, but I don't think it adds much to the game as a whole.
What's interesting is how many people think Sonic is so many things. People are saying Sonic isn't about tight platforming. But others prefer beating times. You prefer exploring. I dunno, I've tried all of that and can't get into it. Oh well!
I think that's all I have to say. The thread has been fun!
Cindi Mayweather
Member
I grew up recording Sonic's cartoon on UPN everyday and getting up every Saturday to watch his cartoon on ABC. I got the comics. I bought the Game Gear games. I highly respect the series, and such a simplistic argument would be an insult not only to the Sonic fanbase but also the amount of time and energy I have put into this series in the past three decades.
One last thing - do you think Mania has the potential to change your mind? Being the first proper sequel to the Genesis titles, perhaps the devs share some of your problems with those games.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
I'd...look forward to that but I just doubt it. If it could be communicated that'd be great but the point of Sonic Mania is to be as close an experience to the Genesis games as possible and I'd feel bad spoiling that parade because it's supposed to be a celebration of that.
What would get me back on the Sonic train isn't Mania but Sonic Team doing an earnest overhaul on 3d Sonic. My dream Sonic has been one that combines 3d exploration with tight platforming, with an emphasis on finesse, style, and speed. I always felt Smilebit would have made a great Sonic game. To me, JSR games ARE Sonic games in the third dimension and offer a fantastic template for 3d Sonic. I think 3d Sonic is possible.
To interest me in Sonic again I'd have to see a legitimate approach to looking towards the future for the character rather than embracing his past. His past is storied and everything, but I refuse to believe a 3d Sonic that is praised as much as Mario is impossible if Sega put their best effort on the work. Unfortunately, the old Sega teams like Andromeda and Smilebit have been merged and are in limbo making endless Ryu Ga Gotoku games now.
The code and properties for Yuji Naka's physics engine have been readily available online to everyone since the '90s, just as fans have replicated the physics in their own engines since the mid-aughts and probably before then.
Ninja Gaiden was well liked, but was a drop in the ocean compared to its 3D iteration's impact and success. Think about OG Ninja Gaiden's popularity compared to Shinobi's. And even then, it had some important differences to Castlevania: speed, wall-jumping, climbing, less importance placed onto committing an attack (not only is your attack speed fast, but you can even move while attacking), and you're even able to control your jump to some degree (you have to commit to a jump arc in Castlevania). Freedom Planet was well-received in spite of borrowing a lot from Sonic. Street Fighter clones were never lauded in the same way unless they took a dramatically different direction. This is not unlike the different attempts to craft a tight, linear platformer. Art of Fighting was a Street Fighter clone that never at all took off in the same way, but it had its quirks, such as the dynamic scaling/camera, four attack buttons, and inventing the super meter. MK had four attack buttons and a dedicated block button. It featured juggling, unique special attack inputs, an entirely different aesthetic, finishers, emphasis on story, and of course the violence factor. It went on to create the dial-a-combo system. MK had its fair share of clones too in its day, but they weren't successful. Primal Rage, Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game, Way of the Warrior. I could go on and on, because I love fighters.
But you may be correct in that there is a lack of interest. If making a linear platformer is just as well received, then why do the extra work? Why spend countless hours making sprawling, multi-tiered stages designed around a complex, highly variable physics engine? Especially if, by otherwise, your blood, sweat and tears is considered little more than a Sonic clone? Which is probably an intensifier due to how rarefied the mechanics are.
I don't mean to be patronizing. I think people should share their reasons as to why they don't like a game. "It's wonderful to explore why that is," after all. I think it's important to understand others' perspectives. I was just saying the fundamental problem is ascribing a formula to what constitutes a "good game." There's nothing objectively fallible about long animations or goofy voice acting as problematic as they can be, just as there isn't in a game being designed around open-ended stages with a complex physics engine. We all understand why you don't like Sonic. We just don't buy how you're attempting to sell its gameplay as "bad," because it doesn't quite make objective sense and is conversely totally fun for us. You're welcome to take that approach if you want to, of course. I'm just trying to explain why it isn't working and you've been repeating yourself for pages and pages. There is no objective victory there. After people have disagreed with your initial, completely understandable viewpoint in the OP for their various reasons, it just becomes a contentious impasse.
Edit: to answer your question about why the 3D games are limited in comparison: The physics are completely gimped, allowing less play and experimentation; the level design is far more linear, and there is an over-reliance on very scripted sequences that are impossible to deviate from lest you risk a glitchy death. You constantly have to wrestle the camera to explore. There are alternative paths, but they're very short and there is no interweaving; if there is, it's far less seamless than the classics. To its credit, Sonic Adventure 1 had a lot more play and exploration going on that they kind of ditched in favor of shuttling the player down their choose-a-path. I really liked tricking out the spin-dash to sequence break or explore parts of the level outside of the main path. Some of that kind of play was cut out of the DX version. And to its credit, some of the boost gameplay has brought back the interweaving. Bounce chains in the originals were about calculating momentum and distance, and there's nothing really satisfying about mashing the homing attack button. Honestly, I agree that JGR is closer to what I want in a 3D Sonic than the 3D Sonics we got.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
I thought it was an obvious choice: putting Smilebit on Sonic.
Check the boxes:
- large open levels with various paths
- momentum based platforming
- platforming that's not so much reflex based but exploration based with a sense of flow
- score, arcade based gameplay
- Sega swag and style
- you collect rings (cans)
- lots of characters
Jet Set Radio is a viable template for 3d Sonic. If you replaced the characters with Sonic characters, tightened the controls a bit to be more user friendly, added some badniks, a bigger speed boost (but not as big as Future's), and a spin, you'd be halfway there. This has been so obvious to me ever since I first played them and I'm shocked that there hasn't been something that offers this for Sonic. I'm not doing the whole "this is the right way to do Sonic" thing, I hope, but I feel like anyone who has opined that 3d Sonic is never good should give these games a try. I think if Sega wanted a JSR revival, they should use it as an opportunity to base it as a template for a new type of 3d Sonic.
I'm fucking telling you. You could even make it open world like Future.
I have a confession. I sort of like Sonic Adventure. My biggest problems with it are world map. I also like Sonic Adventure 2. I like Knuckles' stages. 😔😇
Check the boxes:
- large open levels with various paths
- momentum based platforming
- platforming that's not so much reflex based but exploration based with a sense of flow
- score, arcade based gameplay
- Sega swag and style
- you collect rings (cans)
- lots of characters
Jet Set Radio is a viable template for 3d Sonic. If you replaced the characters with Sonic characters, tightened the controls a bit to be more user friendly, added some badniks, a bigger speed boost (but not as big as Future's), and a spin, you'd be halfway there. This has been so obvious to me ever since I first played them and I'm shocked that there hasn't been something that offers this for Sonic. I'm not doing the whole "this is the right way to do Sonic" thing, I hope, but I feel like anyone who has opined that 3d Sonic is never good should give these games a try. I think if Sega wanted a JSR revival, they should use it as an opportunity to base it as a template for a new type of 3d Sonic.
I'm fucking telling you. You could even make it open world like Future.
I have a confession. I sort of like Sonic Adventure. My biggest problems with it are world map. I also like Sonic Adventure 2. I like Knuckles' stages. 😔😇
onken
Member
I went back to play it thanks to this thread. The heavy physics and no spin dash definitely make for a unique Sonic experience. Just finished Spring Yard Zone and I think my biggest problem so far is that there's just too much time waiting around for stuff, like floating on along the lava pool or slowwwwllly making your way up those moving blocks in SYZ. Apart from that I don't really have many complaints. It looks great, legendary music, controls are reliable.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
JSR is even political and rebellious. It's hard for me to not think of pre 3d Sonic games as political rebel statements. The DiC Saturday morning cartoon and comics seal this feeling further. JSR is a game where you're being chased by helicopters and tanks for spraying graffiti. In JSR, you can jump in the air, tag a copters mirror and blind them, and then watch it twist and plummet to the ground, exploding, while platforming and doing tricks.
JSR is 3d Sonic.
If you take away the art style and music (which aren't really like Sonic to begin with) you have a 3/10 game. JSR's gameplay is not that good. This coming from someone who loves JSR.
The two are not even comparable.
Edit: and before you say "but neither were actual 3D sonic", those games are fast and play like Sonic unlike JSR
Cindi Mayweather
Member
Future is really fast. The comparison is on the dot. JSR is a fast game. Honestly, Sonic doesn't need to be that fast, just a sense of speed. In JSR you have boost, make boost faster but not Future levels.
Play the Master System Sonic 1 instead.
This.
Future is fast but not fast enough to be considered Sonic. The way they've achieved that sense of speed is by making him actually fast.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
I much prefer Future to JSR. The core of JSR is figuring out the best way to cut away from the cops to do a really tedious QTE except with an analog stick.
Future gets rid of that and just focuses on the joy of platforming, and it's really good at being a platformer. I consider it to be the best game of that whole generation, and that generation was absurdly great.
Future gets rid of that and just focuses on the joy of platforming, and it's really good at being a platformer. I consider it to be the best game of that whole generation, and that generation was absurdly great.
I prefer Future as well. The JSR QTE's stopped the momentum whereas the graffiti in Future was just passing them and you didn't have to stop.
Ok, maybe they are comparable...
Cindi Mayweather
Member
Prefer the original to Future and nothing can convince me otherwise. Future is a very stripped down sequel.
Future is fast enough and Sonic being that fast is silly and why his games are so limited in scope, because they must appease his speed. Slow Sonic down but still make the gameplay fast.
No it's about doing stuff in an order. If you're spraying big tags when you're being chased then you've fucked up and just sprayed whatever and aren't cognizant of what you're spraying.
Future is good tho.
Future is fast enough and Sonic being that fast is silly and why his games are so limited in scope, because they must appease his speed. Slow Sonic down but still make the gameplay fast.
No it's about doing stuff in an order. If you're spraying big tags when you're being chased then you've fucked up and just sprayed whatever and aren't cognizant of what you're spraying.
Future is good tho.
Lord British
Member
Hold on a sec. You said that most honest people are the ones who say they enjoy both 2D and 3D Sonic. So to state otherwise, or to have the opinion that I have, which is that Sonic lost its way as soon as it hit Dreamcast - that's dishonest on some level?
You are essentially saying that people who don't share your perspective must be, on some level, disingenuous. That's not really fair.
You are essentially saying that people who don't share your perspective must be, on some level, disingenuous. That's not really fair.
Super agree with this. Still a dope game though. They all are, even CD which I like the least. To say you disliked some areas of Sonic 1 is fine, but to say it's a bad game is crazy.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
No. I'm saying 2d Sonic and 3d Sonic's similarities are there and ever since Unleashed the 3d games have been solid so ignoring the 3d games makes no sense. People have dismissed them as "we need to save Sonic!" or "where did Sonic go wrong?" or "Sonic Boom is the end of Sonic". 3d Sonic's could use more exploration but the core of learning levels to get the fastest time you can is still present in the 3d games, namely Unleashed, Generations, and presumably Colors (haven't played it). So as a Sonic game, someone who likes the 2d games should be able to enjoy the 3d ones.
Also, when I say 2d games, I'm mostly talking about the Genesis games. All of this hubbub about Mania when Advance and Rush games did exist after all. But for some reason they don't count.
I think people put the Genesis games on an unhealthy pedestal because Sonic skipped a generation so they had to latch onto them. Me though? I moved on. I hadn't played them in years. When Shadow the Hedgehog and Sonic 06 came out I think people latched on the Genny games even further because they were now "the foundation" or "how to do Sonic right" when Sonic Adventure games were seen as pretty good when they came out. Now that's revisionist history. *finger wag*
I think that looking at the Genesis games reveals they have more similarities with the 3d ones than people admit and for that reason, people who say Sonic has sucked since the Genesis (while ignoring the Advance titles at the same time) shows how demanding the fanbase is. The people who enjoy both 2d and 3d Sonic are the most honest people in the room because they haven't put the Genesis games on a pedestal to the point where people can no longer critique them, as per this thread. You can't even say Sonic 3's levels are boring even though at the time of release, Sonic 3's levels were seen as a step down from Sonic 2's and the far inferior game.
I humbly suggest anyone who hasn't liked 2d Sonic game since the Genesis games play the Advance games. If you're more about speed, play 1. If you're more about exploration (my favorite part of Sonic as a kid) play 2. I haven't replayed them because I'm scared I will no longer like them. I recently played the Adventure games and I didn't like them as much either. I think the concept of the series makes it so that they age and are not timeless. They're good games at their time of release but not after. "Good" Sonic games always seem to be the result of market demands, rather than the pursuit of quality. This makes them age more than something like Mario. But at the time I really liked them. I think Genesis Sonic fans should check their love for those games and see if it's an earnest love. Do you feel the same way about the 3d games as you do the Genny ones? Because from what I've played, there's more similarities between the two than others would admit. Just be honest with yourself, nostalgia be damned.
Lord British
Member
Thanks for clarifying!
Why are you so insistent on the idea that anyone who doesn't share your perspective on these games must be lying to themselves? "I think people put the Genesis games on an unhealthy pedestal because Sonic skipped a generation so they had to latch onto them?" "The people who enjoy both 2d and 3d Sonic are the most honest people in the room?" "Be honest with yourself, nostalgia be damned?" Where the heck do you get off making presumptions about how and why I or others enjoy our video games? I don't know if you're doing it on purpose but this kind of sanctimonious condescension is incredibly annoying.
By the way, I love Sonic Adventure 1 and 2, liked Colors, liked Generations, greatly enjoy Sonic Advance 1 and 3, liked Sonic Rush and Sonic Rush Adventure despite how different they were, and will probably end up enjoying Project 2017 if it's like Generations, even if my hype for Sonic Mania overshadows it at the moment. Also the Genesis Sonics are a still better than all of those games.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
It's not a presumption. It's more of a hypothesis and me thinking out loud. I'm not judging you at all. Cool your jets. I don't think every Sonic fan is like this, but I do think a lot of people do put the Genesis Sonic's on a pedestal and I'm not sure how that reads as condescension.
GreatestHits
Member
Sonic 1 was grounbreaking, but rough. Definitely not a protoype, but a prototype for the series. Sonic 2,3,&Knuckles is where its at foo
And lol@ OP openening the geates of hell
And lol@ OP openening the geates of hell
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
I actually really like rush, game is probably the only hard 2d sonic imo, for reasons people hate on it. Death pits all over lol
Also has my favorite sonic boss fight
Never got to play rush adventure
Also has my favorite sonic boss fight
Never got to play rush adventure
No. it offers a different kind of openness then Mario, but certainly not more. Sonic's openness mostly comes from the routes, you can find different ways to get to different parts of the level, but each area will in exchange be shallow. They won't have the tightness and forcing you to responded to ever rising challenges like a Mega Man or classic Castlevania.
They also however don't offer the interactivity of a Mario, you won't be punching holes in blocks to create new ways to move through the level, or garbing shell carrying them a bit further ahead were you can use it to take out a whole bunch of enemies. Sonic reacts and plays less with level elements (almost no destructible blocks, enemies only interactivity is destroying and bouncing off of them) instead he's more about interacting with the terrain, using slops to alter jumps and such.
Before I continue, the bolded isn't really a direct rebuttal in terms of open-endedness. You're just saying Sonic isn't as inherently difficult as Mario or Megaman, which I've said several times.
Mario has plenty. I've given it credit several times in the thread, and, without stating explicitly, for the reasons you describe. Mario's stages have a lot of interactivity, yes. I'm not really about to start a tally war, which is about the only way I see this disagreement being solved, because they're open-ended in such different ways. However, I think the physics engine and level design cater to many more styles of and opportunities for movement in Sonic. It's sort of like the difference in depth between the fighting systems in Street Fighter and the the depth of the fighting system in Super Smash Bros. Melee. The depth comes from the open-ended movement mechanics rather than the more linear, likely more intentional depth. You can push the movement system in Sonic about as far as you want to, and the elemental shields can completely change how you traverse a level. You can't really do that in Mario so much, but you can do some pretty cool trick runs which are along similar lines.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
I've been playing Sonic 2 lately on my Android tablet, and I think Sonic games can get pretty difficult, actually. I mean, Sonic 1 is inherently pretty difficult (probably the cheapest of the three, not counting Sonic CD), but a major goal of the 16-bit Sonic games is to basically do "the perfect run" without ever letting yourself take damage even once.
In order to see the "true" ending you need to unlock Super Sonic. In order to access Super Sonic, you need all of the Chaos Emeralds. In order to get all of the Chaos Emeralds, you need 50 rings, which means you need to avoid taking damage at all costs, as one late-level fuck up can be a disaster.
Avoiding death in a Sonic game is really easy as collecting dropped rings doesn't take a lot of effort, but if you're going for Chaos Emeralds, that doesn't matter as Sonic never drops enough rings (you drop a maximum of 20 after being damaged, less than half of what's needed for a special stage).
It's definitely tense when you're intentionally going for Chaos Emeralds and you start approaching the 50 ring limit. Most Sonic 2 levels seem to top out at around 200 rings or less, so realistically, if you mess up, you only have two more chances to make up for it. And that's not even considering how levels are tiered. That's 200 rings total spread out across two or three paths, meaning any given route for a level has 100 rings or less. In a level like Aquatic Ruin, that can be a lot of backtracking/poking around in order to switch routes to mine for rings.
Puts the Dimps Sonic games in a new light, given they started making Sonic drop 50+ rings on damage in Sonic Advance (not that it mattered, I guess, given their obtuse Special Stage mechanics).
In order to see the "true" ending you need to unlock Super Sonic. In order to access Super Sonic, you need all of the Chaos Emeralds. In order to get all of the Chaos Emeralds, you need 50 rings, which means you need to avoid taking damage at all costs, as one late-level fuck up can be a disaster.
Avoiding death in a Sonic game is really easy as collecting dropped rings doesn't take a lot of effort, but if you're going for Chaos Emeralds, that doesn't matter as Sonic never drops enough rings (you drop a maximum of 20 after being damaged, less than half of what's needed for a special stage).
It's definitely tense when you're intentionally going for Chaos Emeralds and you start approaching the 50 ring limit. Most Sonic 2 levels seem to top out at around 200 rings or less, so realistically, if you mess up, you only have two more chances to make up for it. And that's not even considering how levels are tiered. That's 200 rings total spread out across two or three paths, meaning any given route for a level has 100 rings or less. In a level like Aquatic Ruin, that can be a lot of backtracking/poking around in order to switch routes to mine for rings.
Puts the Dimps Sonic games in a new light, given they started making Sonic drop 50+ rings on damage in Sonic Advance (not that it mattered, I guess, given their obtuse Special Stage mechanics).
Messofanego
Banned
For someone claiming this is the worst thread you've ever seen, not exactly refuting criticisms of the first game made by Cindi Mayweather.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
People are now pegging me as a Nintendo fan thing who is anti-Sega, anti-retro, who thinks all old games are shit because I don't like Genesis era Sonic.
Lol
petran79
Banned
While during the 80s and 90s I'd say there were more people who did play Mario games over Sonic, after 2000 I'd say the situation has been reversed. Sonic games, even the classics, are available to more platforms and people.
Mario games are only for Nintendo platforms or better played on PC through emulation.
I trust the comments and complaints of Sonic players, rather than the ones that praise Mario.
Mario games are only for Nintendo platforms or better played on PC through emulation.
I trust the comments and complaints of Sonic players, rather than the ones that praise Mario.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
What about people who grew up with Sonic, and has played every Sonic game to completion except 06, STH, Black Knight, Sonic and the Rings, Colors, Sonic 1 Master System, and Sonic the Hedgehog 1 Game Gear but still praises Mario? Don't most people, despite having played more Sonic games, praise Mario more than Sonic?
Cindi Mayweather
Member
Controversial statement:
I think Sonic Adventure is better than the Genesis Sonic's. I figured, since I've replayed the Genesis Sonic's to see how they stacked up, let's see how I like Adventure and purchased DX from Steam. Ended up playing it for an hour when I mean to go to bed.
There's just more meat to it. You've got lots of characters. You've got multiple paths in stages and it actually seems to matter because there's no tiers to make it feel like there's gaps in the design. There's trial mode which gives fun goals like "break the capsule within two minutes" or "break the capsule and have 50 rings". It's just more interesting and fun to me. The only problems I have with it are the camera and the slippery controls. I find the game more engaging. There are tremendous flaws in Genesis era Sonic design, and Adventure is coming away a lot better to me. It's not as polished, granted.
Can't wait to play more.
I think Sonic Adventure is better than the Genesis Sonic's. I figured, since I've replayed the Genesis Sonic's to see how they stacked up, let's see how I like Adventure and purchased DX from Steam. Ended up playing it for an hour when I mean to go to bed.
There's just more meat to it. You've got lots of characters. You've got multiple paths in stages and it actually seems to matter because there's no tiers to make it feel like there's gaps in the design. There's trial mode which gives fun goals like "break the capsule within two minutes" or "break the capsule and have 50 rings". It's just more interesting and fun to me. The only problems I have with it are the camera and the slippery controls. I find the game more engaging. There are tremendous flaws in Genesis era Sonic design, and Adventure is coming away a lot better to me. It's not as polished, granted.
Can't wait to play more.
The point is that Sonic games are more accessible. For example, Sonic 1 can be found on just about every platform imaginable. So regardless of whether you prefer to play on a console, PC or smartphone the fact is that Sonic game is never out of reach.
Conversly, Mario games are limited only to Nintendo consoles, which have seen a significent downturn in popularity in recent years. At the same time: mobile gaming exploded, the PS4 surged to dominate the home console market and steam breathed new life into PC gaming. There is now a whole generation of childern who've never even played a Mario games but they can (and do) play those accessible Sonic games.
I suppose it's ironic really, Sega's move to become a third-party publisher has insured that more people then ever have access to Sonic games. Allowing the Sonic franchise to endure and indeed thrive even in the face of disasters like Sonic 06 and Sonic Boom. That Sonic 1 remains a cornerstone expereince for young gamers, while Mario is reduced to a historical curio that few will ever play.
Which is exactly the point I was making, Yes Sonic lets you leap past things in a bunch of different ways, but is A kind of openness, and one that some can find shallow and unfulfilling in compassion to wither not being open and forcing you to buckle and deal with the challenges ala Mega Man, or playing around with level elements ala Mario.
Decelerating "lots of way to move around is more open then lots of ways to mess about" is really just saying "I prefer lots of ways to move around over lots of ways to interact."