Name three 3D platformers thats better than the Sonic Boost Trilogy that isn't Mario.

Also to everyone saying Gex. Nah that shit's Knack tier. I had most of the Gex games growing up. And while the Mike Myers parody was funny for that time, shit was really mediocre. I even knew that as a kid.
I can actually understand the thought process behind it. They would have received criticisms for both of their main 3D templates for Sonic from fans. These would have been that in the Adventure games Sonic is easily controllable at slower speeds, and becomes increasingly difficult to control as he gets faster, whilst in the "Boost Trilogy" Sonic is easily controllable at high speeds, but becomes less responsive as you slow down. The most immediately obvious solution would be to allow the player to control two different "modes" of speed for Sonic, making him more controllable when slow, whilst restricting his higher speed levels unless the player confirms they're in a situation that calls for it. Purely analog speed gains are very difficult for a player to control (especially when changing directions).
Indeed. After playing it for yourself it makes a lot of sense, and has room for improvement. I could see this being a thing alongside Boost games, or I would at least like to. Lost World was pretty much expected: the rough concept. Though I do doubt Sonic Team's ability to follow up on design despite the Boost Trilogy.
Plus, it's something that Mario's incorporated in the majority of his games... and if there's one thing Sonic Team would have heard a lot of, it's that they should fashion Sonic's 3D movement more off Mario's.
Which you usually hear nonstop here on GAF. Funny how many turned against it, after hyping it up so much despite the fact I even called it out to be an average game back then. (Mostly due to standards incorporated by Boost Trilogy.)
 
Okay, except:

1. Sonic Rush and Sonic Generations were done by completely different companies. One was Sega contracting out to Dimps, the other was done by Sonic Team internally.

2. Sonic Unleashed/Colors/Generations borrow one feature from Sonic Rush: boost. Every other element of them is completely different.

3. Sonic Rush existed along side "mainline" Sonic games. It's not like 3D Land came out next to Super Mario Galaxy 2. After finishing SMG2, that team went on to work on SM3DL and then SM3DW. There's a logical work progression there that you don't get with Rush vs. Unleashed/etc.

My point is you're going to lump Colours with Generation/Unleashed you have to get Lost World in because it's no closer or farther to both Hedgehog games than Colours.
I do get that the boosting element is the only thing ripped from the Dimps games but really the boosting is way more prevalent in the dimps games than in the others.
IIRC Colours wasn't made by the Unleashed/Generation team anyway and shows more in common with the Story book games.
So again why lump these 3 together arbitrarily and left the 4th one like a red headed stepchild?
Colours and Lost World have way way more in common than any of the 2 being close to Unleashed/Generation.
At this point lumping the 3 together is just saying "Recent Sonic games that weren't dogpoop"

I'm saying that when those two games were released they were highly praised.

Not really, they were praised but no highly.
The highest of them is hovering at something like high 7 low 8.
that's basically NSMB2 level, the best Sonic accomplished on a good day is pretty much the worst Mario ever did in 3 decades.
Or to put it in perspective lower than Halo Wars.
Critics didn't shit on it but it was nowhere critical acclaim.

First off Mael don't speak for people and don't assume, there's something you want to know or address you should ask.

Sorry I should have ask I came off as an ass here.
I'll do better in the future.

Identity is the game design format. They successfully built a unique game centered around the asset that Sonic is known for: Speed. This is the identity of those games. My tastes aren't relevant. Which I could swore I wrote about in the OP, but strawmanning is just as good y'know.

I don't agree with that, actually.
While Identity is indeed important for the overall coherence of the franchise, it's not something that is universally more important than say controls which Sonic games usually fail at in 3D.

Yes there's polish. Since you mentioned 06, you should be able to acknowledge the polish in the design of the Boost Trilogy. I hope you're not letting your feelings get ahead of you man. I know it's cool to diss Sonic, but it's alright to give him credit sometime. I won't judge you I promise. If you need proof, play around with those games, interact with the environment, try special mechanics and see how responsive and functional they are. That is polish, even the lock-on allows players to choose their target quick and properly. Most misfortunes are in their hands.

I played 2 of the 3 (and that's why you won't see me comment on Generation) and while it's clearly better (as in OMG it actually passed bug testing this time?).
It is nowhere near the level of pretty much everything with a Nintendo label on it, there's collision detection issues, inconsistencies on the controls and plethora of stuffs to iron out better.
It certainly didn't look or feel as polished as anything like Mirror's Edge or your usual Rare game from the 90's.

Lack of replay value and depth makes a game weak. As a developer you want your audience to experience as much as possible out of the game and to last a period of time while avoiding the bargain bin. (Lemme guess, then what about all of the Sonic games? Don't be predictable.)

Actually here I agree it's important, it's not top of the list but actually important. It's pretty much why I'm overly fond of 3D World even.
Sonic is usually pretty good at that even in the worst cases like 06 (heck it's what made SR way better)

Also what does 06 has to do with anything in this thread?

Well Unleashed is the sequel to 06 and Colours is Unleashed sequel so...

Sorry Synth I feel like my reply Arc covered your point if you disagree I can edit or post a longer reply
Does the choice of term really matter that much? It simply saves on specifying Unleashed/Colors/Generations each and every time. They don't have an easy moniker like the "Adventure" games, or the "New" Super Mario games. Suggest a name of your own if you like. If it's good, we'll call them that instead.

And Colors would be considered part of it because the boost mechanic functions in the same vein as the others, and remains a core ability for Sonic. Lost World's run/boost button (do they call it boost in that?) is completely different in execution, effect and requirements. It's also so slow I hesitate to actually consider it a boost for a character like Sonic. It's more like without it the character refuses to run.
I'm ok with lumping post 06/non story book games together because the philosophy behind them is similar.
Colours and Lost World can't really be separated unless you mean to say one is shit and the other is not.
But seriously just saying that Unleashed/Colours/Generation is one unit when we have Lost World that is now actually old news is pretty much like saying that Star Wars is only the OT trilogy + Clone Wars miniseries that didn't suck balls.
 
The first Jak is very much a platformer. It's definitely not a distant thought that's for sure. You could maybe make a case against the sequels but not Jak 1

The second game is just as much a platformer as the first. Almost all of the missions that take place outside the city are focused heavily on platforming. Having guns doesn't mean it's not a platformer.
 
Not really, they were praised but no highly.
The highest of them is hovering at something like high 7 low 8.
that's basically NSMB2 level, the best Sonic accomplished on a good day is pretty much the worst Mario ever did in 3 decades.
Or to put it in perspective lower than Halo Wars.
Critics didn't shit on it but it was nowhere critical acclaim.
Keep in mind due to the past of Sonic entries you really couldn't rank it too highly. Reputation can damage score.

Sorry I should have ask I came off as an ass here.
I'll do better in the future.
It's cool. Didn't mean to be so harsh.

I don't agree with that, actually.
While Identity is indeed important for the overall coherence of the franchise, it's not something that is universally more important than say controls which Sonic games usually fail at in 3D.
The importance of identity is what attracts the consumers to the gameplay, also what makes it unique. You would want your game to have some form of recognition in order to have it seen a decent or an attractive title. When you have nothing to form design from, you end up with a painfully bland game. When you don't establish a design identity for a game, you wind up with games like Sonic Boom or Knack.
I played 2 of the 3 (and that's why you won't see me comment on Generation) and while it's clearly better (as in OMG it actually passed bug testing this time?).
It is nowhere near the level of pretty much everything with a Nintendo label on it, there's collision detection issues, inconsistencies on the controls and plethora of stuffs to iron out better.
It certainly didn't look or feel as polished as anything like Mirror's Edge or your usual Rare game from the 90's.
While not Nintendo level , it's alright, very few developers are on that level of polish. The goal here is that everything is functional, responsive, and that the character responds to the environment in a natural way. However I do disagree in the polish level compared to Mirror's Edge or a Rare game. Hell I'd even go far enough to say that Rare releases more janky games than people care to admit. Bless their souls.

Actually here I agree it's important, it's not top of the list but actually important. It's pretty much why I'm overly fond of 3D World even.
Sonic is usually pretty good at that even in the worst cases like 06 (heck it's what made SR way better)
The reason I state re-playability is because multiple playthroughs are tests of design and mechanics. It solidifies the quality in design, hence possibly the same reasons you may enjoy 3D World, and if that's the case, I totally agree, especially in Champion's Road. Also replayability does help increase your appreciation of a game's design. Did it for me in SA2... Can't say the same for Heroes, Shadow, and 06.

Heroes I got fatigued due to heavy recycling to begin with.

Shadow because it was terrible, and as much as I hate to admit, I was just playing for the story. Gave it away to a classmate a week after beating the true story.

06, same reasons as Shadow, but was the first and last game I ever traded to Gamestop.

and despite the replayability these three really lacked the polish. But if you look closely, there's a design lesson in each when considering what was flawed about the execution [Not discussing concept.]

Well Unleashed is the sequel to 06 and Colours is Unleashed sequel so...
Yeeeee........not really..... -headscratch- I mean it happens afterwards but Unleashed is more of a new direction than anything.
 
Sorry Synth I feel like my reply Arc covered your point if you disagree I can edit or post a longer reply

I'm ok with lumping post 06/non story book games together because the philosophy behind them is similar.
Colours and Lost World can't really be separated unless you mean to say one is shit and the other is not.
But seriously just saying that Unleashed/Colours/Generation is one unit when we have Lost World that is now actually old news is pretty much like saying that Star Wars is only the OT trilogy + Clone Wars miniseries that didn't suck balls.

Nah, no need to make a longer reply. I generally just respond to things I disagree with, I don't need am elaborate response all nicely wrapped up and addressed to me. :P

I honestly do struggle to see the natural link between something like Sonic '06 (which has very clear and obvious ties to the Adventure games mechanically) and Unleashed/Generations (Unleashed basically rebooting the foundations of how Sonic controls in 3D). Outside of the wisps (which were even included in Generations slightly), there's not really anything that Colors/Lost World seem to share, or the Colors/Generation are differentiated by. Everything from the boosts, to the drifts, side-shifting, water running, trick system, and so on is shared commonly between these games, yet not with '06 or with Lost World.

Consider that Sonic Colors levels can be modded into the PC port of Generations, much like Unleashed's were, and Sonic's navigation of these levels still works (with a few caveats obviously due to wisps). Now try and imagine doing this with Sonic '06 or Lost World? That's why we lump them together.

EDIT: Another comparison I just thought of actually is Call of Duty. Modern Warfare was done by Infinity Ward, who previously created CoD2. Does that make CoD2 more comparable to Modern Warfare than the Treyarch developed Black Ops?
 
Keep in mind due to the past of Sonic entries you really couldn't rank it too highly. Reputation can damage score.

Yeah no I'm not so sure.
Then again something like Other M should have gotten the treatement Sonic 06 got.
Still I played Colours it's a really big step in the right direction.
People claiming that it was great enough to shatter the cycle are generally correct (because Unleashed fit it to a T).
It could have done better but not that much better. In 2010, there were better platformers available (and most of them on Wii?)

It's cool. Didn't mean to be so harsh.
That's ok, on a more hot topic I should have been banned for that (or at least that's how I view moderation here).

The importance of identity is what attracts the consumers to the gameplay, also what makes it unique. You would want your game to have some form of recognition in order to have it seen a decent or an attractive title. When you have nothing to form design from, you end up with a painfully bland game. When you don't establish a design identity for a game, you wind up with games like Sonic Boom or Knack.

Well you certainly make a strong case with Boom and Knack but I feel like that's something closer to simply saying graphics and presentation.
Really for I care about how the game play 1rst and foremost, the lore or the content is pretty important (like how the lore is what made Zelda sooo so great with the timelines and everything).
Stuffs like Bubsy was really interesting because of the millions of way the character interacted with the environment (otherwise it wasn't that good).
To me it's not unimportant but it would never take precedence, that's why NSMB is the superior series to the Galaxy games.
While not Nintendo level , it's alright, very few developers are on that level of polish. The goal here is that everything is functional, responsive, and that the character responds to the environment in a natural way. However I do disagree in the polish level compared to Mirror's Edge or a Rare game. Hell I'd even go far enough to say that Rare releases more janky games than people care to admit. Bless their souls.
I still need to play Banjo Tooie but what I've seen of Rare is more than enough to say that they made very solid and polished stuffs.
Heck Banjo wreck Mario on a superficial level pretty hard, it's a game that's so well made an argument saying Banjo Kazooie is a better game than Mario 64 wasnot utterly ridiculous then and still isn't.
DKR was similarly pretty solid.
Rare had to deal with Nintendo's insane standard for bugs that Sega clearly never gave 2 shits about.
Now evidently you can break the games in a millions of ways but heh that's happens to every single game out there given time.
There's a fundamental issue for Sonic between low and high speed that make the games way more jank by design.
Colours is a very polished game for a Sonic game (seriously coming off Sonic 06, that's surreal) but it's not less polished than say your typical Monster Hunter or something, I'm guess I'm not used to jank games :p

The reason I state re-playability is because multiple playthroughs are tests of design and mechanics. It solidifies the quality in design, hence possibly the same reasons you may enjoy 3D World, and if that's the case, I totally agree, especially in Champion's Road. Also replayability does help increase your appreciation of a game's design. Did it for me in SA2... Can't say the same for Heroes, Shadow, and 06.

I was bored of 3D World before going to the last level.
As far as replayability goes I prefer replaying games where there's choice in how I tackle a challenge like say Halo over something more linear like the special level of SMG2.
Shadow was incredible in concept (multiple roads and ending that is) but everything else was shite.
Heroes was pretty boring and 06...lol
i know that something like Metroid Prime is one of my fav games ever, it's as replayable as Metroid 2 so it rates highly but doesn't trump all I'd say.


Heroes I got fatigued due to heavy recycling to begin with.

Shadow because it was terrible, and as much as I hate to admit, I was just playing for the story. Gave it away to a classmate a week after beating the true story.

06, same reasons as Shadow, but was the first and last game I ever traded to Gamestop.
I bought 06 for the thread I made here....What a POS.
I have all these games and access to most Sonic games till Generation that I totally missed and Lost Word that missed my radar (and shit WiiU games are expensive).
and despite the replayability these three really lacked the polish. But if you look closely, there's a design lesson in each when considering what was flawed about the execution [Not discussing concept.]
no argument here.

Yeeeee........not really..... -headscratch- I mean it happens afterwards but Unleashed is more of a new direction than anything.

Well Sonic and timeline...lol
Unleashed is after 06, 06 never happened anyway.

Nah, no need to make a longer reply. I generally just respond to things I disagree with, I don't need am elaborate response all nicely wrapped up and addressed to me. :P

It makes it special :p

I honestly do struggle to see the natural link between something like Sonic '06 (which has very clear and obvious ties to the Adventure games mechanically) and Unleashed/Generations (Unleashed basically rebooting the foundations of how Sonic controls in 3D). Outside of the wisps (which were even included in Generations slightly), there's not really anything that Colors/Lost World seem to share, or the Colors/Generation are differentiated by. Everything from the boosts, to the drifts, side-shifting, water running, trick system, and so on is shared commonly between these games, yet not with '06 or with Lost World.

There's a clear cut before/after Sonic 06.
Everything after it seems linked as far as Sonic games goes, I guess the controls sucked in Lost World gyro portion but apart from that it's pretty close to Colors, it's pretty much a direct sequel trying to be all Mario galaxy that people liked.

Consider that Sonic Colors levels can be modded into the PC port of Generations, much like Unleashed's were, and Sonic's navigation of these levels still works (with a few caveats obviously due to wisps). Now try and imagine doing this with Sonic '06 or Lost World? That's why we lump them together.

That I didnt know.
Since Colors shouldn't use the Hedgehog engine it should be harder than that.
Then again I guess they ditched everything they did with Black Knight and started fresh with Unleashed and had something working for Wii/PS2 that they reused for Colors
 
My point is you're going to lump Colours with Generation/Unleashed you have to get Lost World in because it's no closer or farther to both Hedgehog games than Colours.
I do get that the boosting element is the only thing ripped from the Dimps games but really the boosting is way more prevalent in the dimps games than in the others.
IIRC Colours wasn't made by the Unleashed/Generation team anyway and shows more in common with the Story book games.
So again why lump these 3 together arbitrarily and left the 4th one like a red headed stepchild?
Colours and Lost World have way way more in common than any of the 2 being close to Unleashed/Generation.
At this point lumping the 3 together is just saying "Recent Sonic games that weren't dogpoop"
Colors is the odd one there, sure, but it shares a lot with the other two. Sonic has basically the same moves, except for double jump replacing jump dash, and the odd fact of quick-step and drift being time gated because of Wii Remote. Lost World has many more differences (although it is closer to these games than, say, 2k6).
 
There's a clear cut before/after Sonic 06.
Everything after it seems linked as far as Sonic games goes, I guess the controls sucked in Lost World gyro portion but apart from that it's pretty close to Colors, it's pretty much a direct sequel trying to be all Mario galaxy that people liked.

That I didnt know.
Since Colors shouldn't use the Hedgehog engine it should be harder than that.
Then again I guess they ditched everything they did with Black Knight and started fresh with Unleashed and had something working for Wii/PS2 that they reused for Colors

Well, the boosting mechanic is gone from Lost World (hence "Boost Trilogy"), and there's all the added parkour. Then there's the run/jog button toggle, and the mentioned gravity alterations. I can see how Lost World can be considered a progression from Colors, but I don't think the end result is a very similar game at all, whereas I could probably see a few moments of Colors running through Dolphin, and assume I was looking at Sonic Generations during the modern era.

I actually didn't know about the Colors levels in Generations PC either. I was going to ask you to just imagine it, then decided to do a quick Google search before assuming it didn't exist. You can tell it's not like Unleashed where it's the same engine, as there's a lot of graphical differences (especially textures and lighting)... but the stage layouts work, and appear to be generally playable, as Sonic himself obeys pretty much all the physics laws of Sonic Colors still.

Also, as you probably missed my edit before. Here it is again.

EDIT: Another comparison I just thought of actually is Call of Duty. Modern Warfare was done by Infinity Ward, who previously created CoD2. Does that make CoD2 more comparable to Modern Warfare than the Treyarch developed Black Ops?
 
Jak & Daxter: The Precursor Legacy
Jak II
Jak III
Ratchet & Clank
Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal
Ratchet & Clank: Goin' Commando
Crash Bandicoot
Crash Bandicoot 2: Cortex Strikes Back
Crash 3: WARPED
Banjo-Kazooie
Banjo-Tooie
Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts (markedly worse than the other two, but as good or better than the Sonic games you mentioned)
Ape Escape
Ape Escape 2
Ape Escape 3 (very obvious reasons why Ape Escape is a better 3D platform series than Sonic. It's not only an engaging and interesting game that puts a fun twist on the mission-based 3D platformer, but it does it in a unique way by using the dual analog to control both movement and aiming, which was unusual for platformers)
 
So you made a thread and asked people's a opinion, they give it and then you laugh it off? So what exactly was the point if your qualifiers are the only ones that matter?

As far as the thread.

Prince Of Persia
Prince of Persia 2008
and Jak and Daxter

Thank you for pointing this out. The hell is OP's deal. Why ask this question if all he's gonna throw out is "HA!"?
 
Oh, and I just realized that I read it as "trilogy vs. trilogy" so

Psychonauts
Rayman 2: The Great Escape
Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc
A Hat in Time (judging by the demos, it seems really, really solid with a ton of potential)
LittleBigPlanet
LittleBigPlanet 2
LittleBigPlanet 3
Spyro the Dragon
Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage
Tearaway
Spyro: Year of the Dragon
Conker's Bad Fur Day
Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus
Sly 2: Band of Thieves
Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves
Sly 4: Thieves in Time
Daxter
Maximo: Ghosts to Glory
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Sorry OP, but that's what happens when you ask a silly question, smile smugly about how everyone's going to get pwn't, and then have everyone come at you for not engaging in any discussion about why you think that Sonic bests the examples given.
 
For me personally? None, and I'd play any Boost Trilogy game over any Mario platformer.

I really like Rayman 2, Tearaway, and Conker on the Xbox, but I dont like any of them as much as the the good half of Unleashed, Colors, or Generations. The boost gameplay resonated with me greatly.
 
It was a pretty good run for Sonic, no doubt. It's hard to think of three other non-Mario games that are as satisfying as platformers without stretching the definition of the genre a bit (to include things like Jumping Flash, Prince of Persia, Tomb Raider, etc.). B-K is decidedly worse than the "Boost Trilogy" as a platformer, as most of its levels aren't focused on platforming at all.

Now I'm interested in how far a game is allowed to deviate from the Mario template before it becomes "not a platformer." Is it acceptable to call Ico a platformer? Portal? Tony Hawk 2?
 
It was a pretty good run for Sonic, no doubt. It's hard to think of three other non-Mario games that are as satisfying as platformers without stretching the definition of the genre a bit (to include things like Jumping Flash, Prince of Persia, Tomb Raider, etc.). B-K is decidedly worse than the "Boost Trilogy" as a platformer, as most of its levels aren't focused on platforming at all.

Now I'm interested in how far a game is allowed to deviate from the Mario template before it becomes "not a platformer." Is it acceptable to call Ico a platformer? Portal? Tony Hawk 2?

But Mario itself deviates. Mario 64, for many of its levels, is not about platforming but about exploration.
 
Tearaway!!!!!
Kameo
Enaslaved

Just to be different, I actually really enjoyed all of these. Also this thread makes me angry all over again for what happened to rare, grrrr
 
Oh, and I just realized that I read it as "trilogy vs. trilogy" so

Psychonauts
Rayman 2: The Great Escape
Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc
A Hat in Time (judging by the demos, it seems really, really solid with a ton of potential)
LittleBigPlanet
LittleBigPlanet 2
LittleBigPlanet 3
Spyro the Dragon
Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage
Tearaway
Spyro: Year of the Dragon
Conker's Bad Fur Day
Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus
Sly 2: Band of Thieves
Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves
Sly 4: Thieves in Time
Daxter
Maximo: Ghosts to Glory
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Sorry OP, but that's what happens when you ask a silly question, smile smugly about how everyone's going to get pwn't, and then have everyone come at you for not engaging in any discussion about why you think that Sonic bests the examples given.
Ha! I leave the PC for a minute to chill with some friends and that's enough for you to think you actually made a point?
 
Ha! I leave the PC for a minute to chill with some friends and that's enough for you to think you actually made a point?

This post demonstrates that you very obviously weren't making this thread to engage with people, but in fact created for you to try to make a point that you thought was iron clad. I'm sorry that you're so utterly wrong in your point, and I'm even sorrier that you can't defend your point or even cop to being wrong in your point. The fact that your first reply was disrespectful and dismissive should have been enough to tell people that this was a shitty self-assurance fanboy thread.

Now, if you want to engage with me in discussion of why the games I've listed are not superior to the Sonic Boost Trilogy, go ahead. Or, if you want to wiggle your ePenis about as if you've made any greater point than I have, you can do that too. It's just that one of these choices further reinforces why the point of this thread is so weak and bad.

To many, Psychonauts is among the greatest of video games, let alone its genre. Psychonauts has excellent writing, awesome overworlds that introduce new mechanics constantly, wonderful graphics, and solid gameplay. It was innovative and people are going to remember it whenever people talk about games of this era in the future.

Ape Escape was an excellent game because it featured tight controls that were also innovative. Where a second stick would normally be thought of as an ideal camera system, the game uses it to allow players to have full control of their inventory equipment. Honestly, it was one of the earliest showcases of what developers could do with the second stick beyond camera control.

Banjo-Kazooie built on the platforming styles of Super Mario 64 - exploration-based over platforming-based - and really took it to new levels. It had really tight controls, fun new ideas, and for people who enjoy the idea of a collectathon, few if any games have come anywhere near it with respect to matching the fun of collection.

There, three games that are better than Sonic Boost Trilogy. Refutation please, if you aren't busy wafting in your inflated ego~.
 
The Sonic Adventure games
Rayman 2

I need to play all of Sony's first-party platformers from the PS1/2 era. Grew up without those consoles so never got to play them. I feel like Crash 3 and maybe the Spyro/Ratchet games are probably better.
 
Stop defending Sonic, even without Mario, there are many platorm games better than Sonic Unleashed/Colors/Generations. The last time Sonic mattered in this genre was in 1999.

Anyway

Jak and Daxter
Medievil
Legend of Kay
 
Not sure if it's considered a platformer but for me it is. Not to mention it's also the best Nintendo 64 game ever made not made by Nintendo or Rare:

Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon
 
Thank you for pointing this out. The hell is OP's deal. Why ask this question if all he's gonna throw out is "HA!"?
Yup. That what you'd think if you only read the first page. A lot of discussion happened that you skimmed over. So, ha it is.
None but that doesnt mean i like the boost titles.
That's perfectly fine tho.
This post demonstrates that you very obviously weren't making this thread to engage with people, but in fact created for you to try to make a point that you thought was iron clad. I'm sorry that you're so utterly wrong in your point, and I'm even sorrier that you can't defend your point or even cop to being wrong in your point. The fact that your first reply was disrespectful and dismissive should have been enough to tell people that this was a shitty self-assurance fanboy thread.

Now, if you want to engage with me in discussion of why the games I've listed are not superior to the Sonic Boost Trilogy, go ahead. Or, if you want to wiggle your ePenis about as if you've made any greater point than I have, you can do that too. It's just that one of these choices further reinforces why the point of this thread is so weak and bad.

Just started off with the high and mighty. Filled with assumptions and insults, e-penis wagging and whatnot. Glad to meet you, so I'm gonna ignore your first two paragraphs with all the huff and puff. If my OP sets you off so badly, there's atleast 6 pages of discussion to follow up from and get a decent gauge of what's really being discussed. Or you can strawman. Your opinions of me really irrelevant.


To many, Psychonauts is among the greatest of video games, let alone its genre. Psychonauts has excellent writing, awesome overworlds that introduce new mechanics constantly, wonderful graphics, and solid gameplay. It was innovative and people are going to remember it whenever people talk about games of this era in the future.

Ape Escape was an excellent game because it featured tight controls that were also innovative. Where a second stick would normally be thought of as an ideal camera system, the game uses it to allow players to have full control of their inventory equipment. Honestly, it was one of the earliest showcases of what developers could do with the second stick beyond camera control.

Banjo-Kazooie built on the platforming styles of Super Mario 64 - exploration-based over platforming-based - and really took it to new levels. It had really tight controls, fun new ideas, and for people who enjoy the idea of a collectathon, few if any games have come anywhere near it with respect to matching the fun of collection.
I really sat down and read all of these, but I don't even know if I can consider them arguments. Are you recommending these to play or are you stating why they're better? Make a comparison.
There, three games that are better than Sonic Boost Trilogy. Refutation please, if you aren't busy wafting in your inflated ego~.

You really might want to calm down a bit, and actually think of a counter argument, instead of just praising things you like. Perhaps consider the true strengths of these games compared to the Boost Trilogy and where they succeed in where it has failed.

You wrote three paragraphs of fluff man.

Shoutouts to my ego.

----------------------------------------
@Mael- Sorry I overlooked your post, I'm typing up a response now. Really taking some time into it.
 
This is a silly, silly thread.

Seeing some people decry Jak and Daxter in a pale attempt to push modern 3D Sonic games... pretty face-palm worthy.
 
Banjo-Kazooie
Ratchet & Clank
Jak & Daxter

I haven't played R&C or J&D since back when I owned a PS2, but I replayed Banjo-Kazooie on the 360 and it's still a great game.

Generations and Colours are great games though. I'm still angry at Sega for not making a sequel to Generations. : /
 
What happened that suddenly made everyone think Sonic Unleashed was a good game?

Even if you consider the boost to win sections good (which I don't) half of the game is boring Werehog sections.

You must've played the dimpsed Wii version

edit: people getting 2006 in just to say "lol sonic" are embarassing, but hey, it's a Sonic thread. Kinda surprised I haven't seen the Sonic cycle randomly posted yet
 
I'm not here to present an argument. Rather, I'd like to add to the discussion.

Somebody mentioned the Old Tomb Raider games. I would like to propose that Tomb Raider Anniversary (the remake of the original Tomb Raider) really did the original game justice. I wouldn't say that Tomb Raider Anniversary is better than any of the Sonic Trilogy games. Heck, they're not even comparable. Instead, I'd say it's a very different game design than the Sonic games and it does a few things very well compared to the Sonic games.

For instance, while the Sonic games did have multiple paths to run along to reach the end of the level, Tomb Raider Anniversary very rarely gives you more than 1 (true) path to reach the goal. In fact, when it shows you multiple paths, it is because the game is trying to lead you into completely different places within the level. This is nice to me because you really get to explore the whole level with intended consequences. What I mean is - while the different paths lead you to different places, they all have purpose. One room might show a mechanism that opens up a trap door that's located at the opposite end of the level. It might be 6 stories up, or maybe you hafta swim through quite a few caverns to find out what exactly it is that you triggered. Its game design really does cater to the player's sense of exploration.

One thing I notice about Sonic games is that the levels can be played over a large area. I think Sonic and friend's abilities to run fast, fly, or glide really work well to cover a lot of ground within the levels. And because Sonic can run so fast, it makes sense that there are quite a few obstacles within the levels to impede the player. There are pit falls, spikes, and of course some enemies that have certain patrol patterns that the player has to recognize in order to either avoid or subdue. The speed at which Sonic runs might even impede the player's ability to recognize danger in a timely manner because you simply can't see what's off the screen. I'd feel confident in saying that while Sonic runs, the level is moving at a great pace as well.

In contrast, Tomb Raider Anniversary is generally very slow and static. There are very few enemy encounters, and the player has ample time to recognize what dangers lie before Lara. Of course there are pit falls, spikes, and there are other kinds of boobie traps as well. While the game plays out very slowly, I feel that the level designs are just as well thought-out as the Sonic games, but they are built with very different ideas in mind. Sometimes, the level design seems so complex that the player has no choice but to stop and explore. The player is forced to slowly take note of the surroundings and think about what mechanisms might be in-play, or what alleys are closed/open/one-way, etc. As mentioned before, while there is always one true path to take, the game starts out with one or two paths, and then as the player progresses - the levels branch into many isolated sections, and many paths within the sections. It becomes a steady challenge that builds up until the levels become extremely hairy and intimidating. All of the sudden, failure means much more than restarting a level - it means losing progress on that puzzle that you have already forgotten parts of. So then you'll literally have to solve it all over again.

Another thing that Anniversary does well is challenge the player's understanding of what Lara can or cannot do. I've mentioned that the level designs progressively become more challenging and complex. The design also starts becoming hairy as the platforms or gaps become further and further away. Early in the game, you clear many of the jumps with ease and clearance. As the levels progress, the player will start to question what is clear-able and what is not. Some platforms are deliberately placed just out of reach, which leads to Lara's death. You might not know that it's unreachable even after dying and might try several attempts to make that clearing with certain adjustments until you finally concede that you're not on the right path.

This same concept also applies to other things like angle-of-approach. In the beginning, the platforms are wide and Lara has plenty of room for error. As the player progresses, the platforming becomes tighter and narrower. Not only that, but the angles start to shift away from straight 90 degree angles and straight lines. The end result is that by the near-end, the levels look and feel so organic that it just seems like the ruins (tombs) that Lara explores were naturally aged with that very placement/decay/manner/whatever. Platforming becomes a test of recognition of what is possible and what is not - and it's done in a very clever way to deceive you and cast doubt. You really are exploring tombs before you reach the last level.

I don't really feel that Sonic games were meant to challenge players in the same way that Tomb Raider Anniversary was. Even in 3D, the level designs were carried out with very different purposes in mind. One might have been well-made for a blistering faster-paced experience, while the other was meant to be cautiously explored with trepidation.

Anyways, I dunno where I'm going with this. Seriously. Shoot me.
 
This is a silly, silly thread.

Seeing some people decry Jak and Daxter in a pale attempt to push modern 3D Sonic games... pretty face-palm worthy.

Jax and Daxter was always crap much like Sly, Ratchet & Clank, etc. It's pretty low hanging fruit to try and prop the shittier Sonic games. It's kind of pointless since none of them are worth playing to begin with.
 
I'm not here to present an argument. Rather, I'd like to add to the discussion.

Somebody mentioned the Old Tomb Raider games. I would like to propose that Tomb Raider Anniversary (the remake of the original Tomb Raider) really did the original game justice. I wouldn't say that Tomb Raider Anniversary is better than any of the Sonic Trilogy games. Heck, they're not even comparable. Instead, I'd say it's a very different game design than the Sonic games and it does a few things very well compared to the Sonic games.

For instance, while the Sonic games did have multiple paths to run along to reach the end of the level, Tomb Raider Anniversary very rarely gives you more than 1 (true) path to reach the goal. In fact, when it shows you multiple paths, it is because the game is trying to lead you into completely different places within the level. This is nice to me because you really get to explore the whole level with intended consequences. What I mean is - while the different paths lead you to different places, they all have purpose. One room might show a mechanism that opens up a trap door that's located at the opposite end of the level. It might be 6 stories up, or maybe you hafta swim through quite a few caverns to find out what exactly it is that you triggered. Its game design really does cater to the player's sense of exploration.

One thing I notice about Sonic games is that the levels can be played over a large area. I think Sonic and friend's abilities to run fast, fly, or glide really work well to cover a lot of ground within the levels. And because Sonic can run so fast, it makes sense that there are quite a few obstacles within the levels to impede the player. There are pit falls, spikes, and of course some enemies that have certain patrol patterns that the player has to recognize in order to either avoid or subdue. The speed at which Sonic runs might even impede the player's ability to recognize danger in a timely manner because you simply can't see what's off the screen. I'd feel confident in saying that while Sonic runs, the level is moving at a great pace as well.

In contrast, Tomb Raider Anniversary is generally very slow and static. There are very few enemy encounters, and the player has ample time to recognize what dangers lie before Lara. Of course there are pit falls, spikes, and there are other kinds of boobie traps as well. While the game plays out very slowly, I feel that the level designs are just as well thought-out as the Sonic games, but they are built with very different ideas in mind. Sometimes, the level design seems so complex that the player has no choice but to stop and explore. The player is forced to slowly take note of the surroundings and think about what mechanisms might be in-play, or what alleys are closed/open/one-way, etc. As mentioned before, while there is always one true path to take, the game starts out with one or two paths, and then as the player progresses - the levels branch into many isolated sections, and many paths within the sections. It becomes a steady challenge that builds up until the levels become extremely hairy and intimidating. All of the sudden, failure means much more than restarting a level - it means losing progress on that puzzle that you have already forgotten parts of. So then you'll literally have to solve it all over again.

Another thing that Anniversary does well is challenge the player's understanding of what Lara can or cannot do. I've mentioned that the level designs progressively become more challenging and complex. The design also starts becoming hairy as the platforms or gaps become further and further away. Early in the game, you clear many of the jumps with ease and clearance. As the levels progress, the player will start to question what is clear-able and what is not. Some platforms are deliberately placed just out of reach, which leads to Lara's death. You might not know that it's unreachable even after dying and might try several attempts to make that clearing with certain adjustments until you finally concede that you're not on the right path.

This same concept also applies to other things like angle-of-approach. In the beginning, the platforms are wide and Lara has plenty of room for error. As the player progresses, the platforming becomes tighter and narrower. Not only that, but the angles start to shift away from straight 90 degree angles and straight lines. The end result is that by the near-end, the levels look and feel so organic that it just seems like the ruins (tombs) that Lara explores were naturally aged with that very placement/decay/manner/whatever. Platforming becomes a test of recognition of what is possible and what is not - and it's done in a very clever way to deceive you and cast doubt. You really are exploring tombs before you reach the last level.

I don't really feel that Sonic games were meant to challenge players in the same way that Tomb Raider Anniversary was. Even in 3D, the level designs were carried out with very different purposes in mind. One might have been well-made for a blistering faster-paced experience, while the other was meant to be cautiously explored with trepidation.

Anyways, I dunno where I'm going with this. Seriously. Shoot me.
This was a good analysis. You mind if I include it in the OP?

I'm glad people in this thread remember Rayman 2 exists at least. Easily my favorite 3D platformer from that era.

Sometimes I wish there was a like button on GAF. I like the return to 2D, but Rayman 2 always left the greatest impression on me.
 
Sometimes I wish there was a like button on GAF. I like the return to 2D, but Rayman 2 always left the greatest impression on me.
Origins and Legends are excellent, but Rayman 2 is possibly the best reboot I've ever seen of a series. The original game is charming enough but jesus is Rayman 2's world beautiful, even today. I also feel it managed to reach a nice blend between Crash-style 'Go through the obstacle course level to the next one' and Mario 64's style of exploration, since often you had to go back to a previous level with a new ability or story element to uncover a completely different part of the level.

Fantastic game, and while Rayman 3 was alright despite not having Ancel (I hate how 'self-aware' it is though), really wish we'd get a proper Rayman 4 directed by him at some point.
 
Jax and Daxter was always crap much like Sly, Ratchet & Clank, etc. It's pretty low hanging fruit to try and prop the shittier Sonic games. It's kind of pointless since none of them are worth playing to begin with.

I wonder if you have actually played those and can provide a valid argument to support such an opinion. It sounds a lot like drive by trolling, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt
 
So if I'm reading the OP correctly, he is saying that the controls of the 3D sonic games are one of their strong points?!? One of the biggest reasons these games are bad are the sometimes twitchy, sometimes autopilot controls.
 
Sure, I do not mind. I thought I was making a tangent, but if it helps you then why not? Haha.

Well I can see where you were going with it, you compared and contrasted the differences and design. I think in a sense you made an argument about why the two cannot be compared in terms of quality due to the different direction and pacing in design.

I actually agree with this as well, it's kinda like what (I think was Lijik who said it), design of the Boost Trilogy does fill a niche that not many games are comparable to. They're very arcade-like in nature.

Origins and Legends are excellent, but Rayman 2 is possibly the best reboot I've ever seen of a series. The original game is charming enough but jesus is Rayman 2's world beautiful, even today. I also feel it managed to reach a nice blend between Crash-style 'Go through the obstacle course level to the next one' and Mario 64's style of exploration, since often you had to go back to a previous level with a new ability or story element to uncover a completely different part of the level.

Fantastic game, and while Rayman 3 was alright despite not having Ancel (I hate how 'self-aware' it is though), really wish we'd get a proper Rayman 4 directed by him at some point.
Hell yeah, the backtracking and exploration was what I loved the most. All the stages felt so big and even overwhelming and mysterious. Dark as hell too.
 
Origins and Legends are excellent, but Rayman 2 is possibly the best reboot I've ever seen of a series. The original game is charming enough but jesus is Rayman 2's world beautiful, even today. I also feel it managed to reach a nice blend between Crash-style 'Go through the obstacle course level to the next one' and Mario 64's style of exploration, since often you had to go back to a previous level with a new ability or story element to uncover a completely different part of the level.

Fantastic game, and while Rayman 3 was alright despite not having Ancel (I hate how 'self-aware' it is though), really wish we'd get a proper Rayman 4 directed by him at some point.
Rayman 2 is for some bits the spiritual prequel to Ratchet and Clank; the core levels are linear, but the exploration is there and it's a blending of metroidvania and collectathon. So good.

I need to replay Rayman 2 and 3 asap. Luckily, 2 got a 3ds port. I would have loved a Vita port of Hoodlum Havoc...
 
I've given up on threads like these just because the gaming community/media industry will never give the recent, better games the time of day because they want to keep Sonic as an idiot mascot to make fun of, lol Sonic 06 mirite guys

Granted the 'hog has been on a bit of a downswing with Sonic Boom being a miserable pile of shit, but that wasn't developed by Sonic Team. Lost World wasn't great but as long as it remains a misstep rather than the start of a permanent decline the series should be in good shape.

As far as the question the OP posed goes, I would make an argument for the original Banjo and Spyro games. Banjo is very Mario-ish in its design (and imo bests Mario 64) and as a collectathon does a very good job at making the collecting feel fun and satisfactory before getting tedious. One thing I actually liked in Sonic Unleashed was the world building which seemed to harken back to that era of game design, but the entire experience is brought down by Werehog and other annoyances. So in comparison to that Banjo wins. I like games that build a cohesive world rather than dumping you on a map screen, with the hub worlds in Generations and Mario 3D World representing something of a compromise between level select and a giant ass hub world.

I was just thinking the other day about the Tree Tops level in Spyro which demands mastery of the super charge, and that's the closest thing I can think of to "boost" in Sonic.

It's true that there really isn't any other platforming game (or game with platforming elements) that attempts to do the same thing that the modern Sonic series does so I don't know how much value you'll get out of comparing it to other 3D platformers which tend to be more methodically paced.
 
Yeah no I'm not so sure.
Then again something like Other M should have gotten the treatement Sonic 06 got.
Still I played Colours it's a really big step in the right direction.
People claiming that it was great enough to shatter the cycle are generally correct (because Unleashed fit it to a T).
It could have done better but not that much better. In 2010, there were better platformers available (and most of them on Wii?)
I usually don't expect most people to agree about Unleashed, and it's understandable due to the Werehog itself. One of the reasons I include it when speaking of the Boost games is because despite the end result it still set the foundation for future games, and itself was a sign of progress. While things like the Werehog was kinda basic. Imagine if they really phoned it in. To an extent I actually feel like they took some thought and care into it. Which is kinda nice considering for what it was: filler. Also it was a sign that they understood the importance of design and execution imo, this was shown in later games. Even Lost World, which in my opinion is pretty average, is well designed in terms of controls and detail. Which for most arcade focused platformers like Sonic would demand some good levels of response.



Well you certainly make a strong case with Boom and Knack but I feel like that's something closer to simply saying graphics and presentation.
Really for I care about how the game play 1rst and foremost, the lore or the content is pretty important (like how the lore is what made Zelda sooo so great with the timelines and everything).
Stuffs like Bubsy was really interesting because of the millions of way the character interacted with the environment (otherwise it wasn't that good).
To me it's not unimportant but it would never take precedence, that's why NSMB is the superior series to the Galaxy games.

I'd say that all of those games themselves have an identity, in the case of Zelda, the top down playstyle and the 3-D Z-Targeting were great cores that was used to established the design of the games. Same with the base concepts of NSMB which were like a unique mixture of the 2D base concepts with the added 3D concepts (Wall Jumping, Triple Jump, etc) Sadly I missed out on Galaxy and 2, since I have a Wii U, I plan to pick them up eventually. But I think the best example would be with Sonic. Back in 2003-2006 I liked the Sonic franchise, and the Universe, but each game was like a burn, no matter how much of the

I still need to play Banjo Tooie but what I've seen of Rare is more than enough to say that they made very solid and polished stuffs.
Heck Banjo wreck Mario on a superficial level pretty hard, it's a game that's so well made an argument saying Banjo Kazooie is a better game than Mario 64 wasnot utterly ridiculous then and still isn't.
DKR was similarly pretty solid.
Rare had to deal with Nintendo's insane standard for bugs that Sega clearly never gave 2 shits about.
Now evidently you can break the games in a millions of ways but heh that's happens to every single game out there given time.
There's a fundamental issue for Sonic between low and high speed that make the games way more jank by design.
Colours is a very polished game for a Sonic game (seriously coming off Sonic 06, that's surreal) but it's not less polished than say your typical Monster Hunter or something, I'm guess I'm not used to jank games :p
lol That's because Unleashed had to happen. While isn't wasn't perfect, it helped build a format for later entries to improve. One of the few times Sonic Team focused on refinement instead of starting over.

I was bored of 3D World before going to the last level.
As far as replayability goes I prefer replaying games where there's choice in how I tackle a challenge like say Halo over something more linear like the special level of SMG2.
Shadow was incredible in concept (multiple roads and ending that is) but everything else was shite.
Heroes was pretty boring and 06...lol
i know that something like Metroid Prime is one of my fav games ever, it's as replayable as Metroid 2 so it rates highly but doesn't trump all I'd say.
lol back when I was a younger and Shadow was coming out. I wanted to believe so much. The cliffhanger of the Heroes storyline had me so hype back then. So many lessons. Metroid Prime is definitely a great adventure game. Which also have become rare to find nowadays.

I have all these games and access to most Sonic games till Generation that I totally missed and Lost Word that missed my radar (and shit WiiU games are expensive).
Despite the fact I knew it was going to be average, still gonna pick up Lost World to temporarily scratch that itch. I guess its easier since I had low expectations.


Well Sonic and timeline...lol
Unleashed is after 06, 06 never happened anyway.

Reminds me when I visited a SEGA Forum and they were actually trying to place 06 in the timeline, and then you had the bigger mindfuck from the fact that in Generations he knew Silver and even recalled the events from Solara. Plotholes OP.


@Aaron - There are a couple of genuine posters here, more than usual. Which I'm happy for and gladly discuss with. Sometimes you just gotta ignore the simple drive-bys.

EDIT: btw I read your edit, and I can see where you're coming from. That sentiment's been echoed a lot actually.
 
Top Bottom