Jump to content
Awoo.

Are you happy with the current direction of the series?


Chaos Warp

Recommended Posts

Not directly, maybe, but the way the physics and momentum tie things together adds some continuity to the gameplay. The trajectory of your jumps are in part dependent on your speed, and your speed is dependent on how you've run, rolled, jumped, etc through the obstacles just prior.

This is roughly equivalent to how the modern games' system of speed and momentum works. The biggest difference I see between it and the classics' is how Sonic accelerates and decelerates, but this is merely a facet of two completely different systems and not a make-or-break facet in and of itself.

Option 4: you slow down/stop, because the terrain's too flat or too uphill. And I don't think the player needs to be sternly punished for doing the wrong thing (honestly that's more like the modern games' attempt at balance, flinging you into the void for boosting in the wrong place), just that there's a reasonable balance between the mechanics.

Being flung into a bottomless pit too many times in the modern games is comparatively less stern compared to the same mistake in a classic game. Take into account that in the former, you have more and easier attempts at gaining lives, more checkpoints to pass through, recovery from death is quicker, and you will never be required to start the entire game over for dying one too many times (or worse, taking too long); just the stage. In this specific context, it's not as inherently stressful a system as you make it out to be. Furthermore, the pit problem is really only as rampant as people say it is in Unleashed anyway; Sonic Team has long since taken this issue into account by adding vertical pathways to fall onto as well as big bright orange signs outright screaming at you about where the pits are now.

I think Sonic Adventure and Generations Classic disprove this pretty solidly...you can spend large portions of the levels spamming the spindash since there's almost no consequence to it, but I can't imagine playing like that in the Genesis games.

You can't play like that because the levels aren't designed for it, but this isn't my point at all. The outright negative consequence(s) for Spin Dashing in the classics is roughly the same as rolling. The worst thing that will happen is that you will ram into something that can actually hurt you in ball form such as projectiles, spikes, or a crushing mechanism, but I reiterate is quite a rare happening in the grand scheme of things anyway because it would be cheap and - apparently aside from S2- Sonic Team deliberately designed against this happening.

I have to say, I really don't feel powerful playing modern Sonic games. At least, I haven't since I adjusted to the high speeds (which...I'm not sure was actually feeling powerful in the first place, as much as it was feeling overwhelmed) and after the first few times I plowed through a group of Egg Fighters. The problem is that I can't really do anything that they didn't specifically design for me to do; it doesn't feel like I'm using Sonic's abilities to forge my own path, but that I'm just pressing the right things at the right times to stick to the path they laid out for me. And I realize that every game is designed, and that even in the Genesis games I spend most of the game following paths laid out for me, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to make games so completely rigid as the modern ones. I can go into Stardust Speedway and launch myself from all kinds of curves and hills, and I may not always land somewhere beneficial, but I know I won't be unduly punished for daring to try something I wasn't told to do. And when I do end up launching myself somewhere beneficial? That feels powerful.

The difference between you and me is that I have no desire when playing Sonic games to do things that the developers didn't expect which is ultimately a symptom of my general apathy at the kind of "exploration" people champion in the classic games. I get no personal benefit from fooling around in this manner because it doesn't facilitate my movement towards the goal or even my chances at success to any noticeable degree, and in that way it gets boring in the way that using the Bubble Shield's bounce mechanic over and over did. There merely being paths and all of these unique ways to move does not I am obligated to use them or even pat the developers on the back for providing them if I, as the player, feel no inclination to take advantage of them in the first place, especially when I can simply succeed and gain roughly the same tangible rewards as a better player would by doing far, far less.

This ultimately helps explain why I feel no ill-will towards the higher level of restriction itself in the modern games because it caters directly to the way I play platformers anyway- getting from point A to point B. The leaner, speed run-based design coupled with the expanded move set Sonic has ensures that I have the kind of replay value I need for myself: that being a focus on perfecting my performance and completely dominating the course that the developers laid out for me. Getting noticeably better and better at the task at hand, actually being rewarded for it, and being competitive does indeed make me feel powerful. I don't need the entire world handed to me to get that satisfaction.

  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't intentionally design a game which allows you to do things that the developer may not have intended.

Accomodating for every single possible method a player can traverse a given area is nearly impossible, without there being significant portions of the stage being largely devoid of actual level design components, and are just stretches of empty space speed-runners exploit to get stupidly fast times.

In a way restricting where you go, forces you to interact with the level that the developer spent ages designing. Not saying the current method is the pinnacle of level design, far from it. But restricting the player to a series of intertwining corridors isn't a bad thing, as long as you make it feel as big and spacious as possible. Phos you endlessly go on about how you want a traversable area or region, rather than a series of connected corridors, but is all that actually possible in a platformer? Its fine in an RPG, where the whole point is wandering around aimlessly looking for people to fight to level up your character (Sorry if that's a butchering of the modern day RPG, but that's what I see and feel when I play one), with little more than a narrative that loosely connects the large area together. Sonic is a platformer and one that has been built upon the idea of rapid transit from point A to point B. In that sense, the idea of bottlenecking the player through a series of discrete routes will mean that they will experience more of the level design the developers spent designing, rather than fucking with the masses of geometry and just cheesing past all the platforming, this invalidating all the effort put into designing that very platforming.

Designing a platformer in which you "forge your own path" is almost impossible.

Besides, I always thought that the linearity and descrete routes and paths weren't even the main problems. I thought it was the lack of curvy topography and "complex" platforming which was the problem.

Edited by Scar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linearity isn't bad in itself, its what's used in said linearity, in the Modern games case(at least to me) its nothing, nothing is there to make running through the levels interesting, you're essentially running down the same corridor but in a different context of the level. I mean look at Eggmanland, there's so much shit going on that its hard to describe, and despite its balls difficulty, I still find it the best possible level in the Modern gameplay because of how much there is to do and I think that's what ST should be striving for when it comes to this style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on the whole linearity thing:

The Classics were, in fact, linear. You followed a path to the goal, there was just a lot of them (especially in 3k) and they almost constantly intertwined with each other. You had upper paths, lower paths, and in-between paths. Levels like SH Modern and SS Modern do this quite well, though we have not quite reached the expansiveness of 3k yet. Now, this does not mean that the paths have to be super narrow. SA1 did a good job of this by having a path, but making it fairly wide to give you a little bit of explore room within the path.

So, lots of paths, near constant intertwining, and SA1-ish wider paths=great.

Edited by Chaos Warp
  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is roughly equivalent to how the modern games' system of speed and momentum works.
I really don't see how your speed is dependent on how you passed previous obstacles when all you need to do to get to top speed is press a button.

Being flung into a bottomless pit too many times in the modern games is comparatively less stern compared to the same mistake in a classic game. Take into account that in the former, you have more and easier attempts at gaining lives, more checkpoints to pass through, recovery from death is quicker, and you will never be required to start the entire game over for dying one too many times (or worse, taking too long); just the stage. In this specific context, it's not as inherently stressful a system as you make it out to be.
These are all a matter of the Genesis Sonics being old games, not anything specific to classic Sonic gameplay. Were they made today, I'd imagine they'd have all the same conveniences as the modern Sonic games.

Furthermore, the pit problem is really only as rampant as people say it is in Unleashed anyway; Sonic Team has long since taken this issue into account by adding vertical pathways to fall onto
Not nearly enough, IMO; the 2D sections are generally alright, but the 3D sections still have you launching yourself into the void if you step past the guidelines.

as well as big bright orange signs outright screaming at you about where the pits are now.
While these are helpful, they're little more than an indicator of where you must stick to your rote memorization to not die, as opposed to where it's just the best option to do so. Telling me when there are pits doesn't mean they stop limiting what I can do.

You can't play like that because the levels aren't designed for it, but this isn't my point at all. The outright negative consequence(s) for Spin Dashing in the classics is roughly the same as rolling. The worst thing that will happen is that you will ram into something that can actually hurt you in ball form such as projectiles, spikes, or a crushing mechanism, but I reiterate is quite a rare happening in the grand scheme of things anyway because it would be cheap and - apparently aside from S2- Sonic Team deliberately designed against this happening.
More things affect balance than The Worst Thing Possible. Players are dissuaded from using the spindash if they're already moving at a fair speed because it takes more time (given they have to come to a stop first) for less of an increase in speed, compared to using it from a standstill (or nearly so).

The difference between you and me is that I have no desire when playing Sonic games to do things that the developers didn't expect which is ultimately a symptom of my general apathy at the kind of "exploration" people champion in the classic games.
I don't consider it exploration so much as I do freedom. Like...I've got Megaman on the brain, so I'll use that; take a level on its own and it's basically the most linear thing possible; rarely will you find a room with more than one exit. But there are so many different options available to you; if you want to avoid something, do you run, jump, slide, use Rush/an Item? If you want to kill something, do you use pellets, charge shots, one of the 8 robot master weapons? There are still "best" choices if you want to look for them, but there's also a great variety of valid options that can fit your preferences and whims.

I get no personal benefit from fooling around in this manner because it doesn't facilitate my movement towards the goal or even my chances at success to any noticeable degree, and in that way it gets boring in the way that using the Bubble Shield's bounce mechanic over and over did.
To me, "boring repetition" describes the modern gameplay far more than the classic. You find a route that works, you stick with it. You wanna speed run, you find the best route, you stick with it. You wanna innovate while speedrunning, you find a better route, you stick with it. In the end it just becomes a matter of repeating the same actions over and over again, maybe tweaking one or two to shave a half second off your time.

I'll admit I'm not a speedrunner or anything of the sort; I'll do the challenges the game lays out for me, but I don't find much joy in repeating the same actions a hundred times for fractional improvements.

You can't intentionally design a game which allows you to do things that the developer may not have intended.
You can design games that are robust enough for the player to succeed in ways other than the explicitly designed obstacle course.

In a way restricting where you go, forces you to interact with the level that the developer spent ages designing.
In no way do I want players to wander around meaningless filler geometry rather than in a space the designers have made. But that space doesn't need to be just a series of corridors filled with obstacles.

What you need to do, I think, is design "the space the level is in" first. This is anywhere the camera could potentially scroll, anywhere that level geometry could go, anywhere that Sonic could potentially go. There are walls (invisible or otherwise) on the far left and right. Even if there's no ceiling, gravity prevents Sonic from flying away off the top of the screen. And as there is gravity, levels are designed to mostly consist of "floor", with a death line marking the absolute bottommost point. And crossing this death line should be looked at as an intentional obstacle rather than a default. In 3D this is a bit more nebulous than simply defining a rectangle, but the way I see it is you'd want to carve a wide path from point A to point B, something with a floor and walls and maybe a ceiling, and then design the level within it. If you want to add a death pit, punch a hole; this means it has to be intentional, rather than just leaving all that empty space around. And if the player falls, they're going to land somewhere, at least unless it's in one of those defined pits.

But restricting the player to a series of intertwining corridors isn't a bad thing, as long as you make it feel as big and spacious as possible.
Well in that they have failed utterly.

Phos you endlessly go on about how you want a traversable area or region, rather than a series of connected corridors, but is all that actually possible in a platformer?
Sonics 1, 2, 3, &K, CD...the idea isn't a directionless open world, but one that has room to explore and experiment rather than one where there is no choice but to do exactly what you are told.

Besides, I always thought that the linearity and descrete routes and paths weren't even the main problems. I thought it was the lack of curvy topography and "complex" platforming which was the problem.
They are both problems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't intentionally design a game which allows you to do things that the developer may not have intended.

That is true, but I think the developers should aim to produce levels that make you feel like you are doing things the developers didn't take into account. Radical Highway is a good example of that. The level is extremely linear, but there's one bit which absolutely blew my mind. If you jump to the left of that spring-infested tube, it would seem like you would just fall to your death. But with a well timed jump you can skip that building and land safely to the other side. Now this would seem like something the developers didn't expect anyone to do, but on your way down you actually see an item balloon. That showed me how ingenious level designers can be. Some of the giant rings in S3&K are also hidden in places you would never even think about exploring. These are things you will miss if you just run through the levels, but when you figure these things out, it feels extremely rewarding.

Things like these have been mostly absent during the recent Sonic games. Though some of the red rings in Colors and Generations have been pretty cleverly hidden. Still, the level designs haven't given enough options for exploration recently. Going fast is fun, but not very rewarding or interesting if there's no room for you to experiment and come up with new paths or shortcuts. In fact, I think DIMPS has done a better job in hiding some cool shortcuts and secrets for the advanced players which more casual gamers might miss. Well, at least until they started producing lame ports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider it exploration so much as I do freedom. Like...I've got Megaman on the brain, so I'll use that; take a level on its own and it's basically the most linear thing possible; rarely will you find a room with more than one exit. But there are so many different options available to you; if you want to avoid something, do you run, jump, slide, use Rush/an Item? If you want to kill something, do you use pellets, charge shots, one of the 8 robot master weapons? There are still "best" choices if you want to look for them, but there's also a great variety of valid options that can fit your preferences and whims.

To me, "boring repetition" describes the modern gameplay far more than the classic. You find a route that works, you stick with it. You wanna speed run, you find the best route, you stick with it. You wanna innovate while speedrunning, you find a better route, you stick with it. In the end it just becomes a matter of repeating the same actions over and over again, maybe tweaking one or two to shave a half second off your time.

The same thing applies with the classics too though, at least when speedrunning. If you want the fastest time possible, you are going to find the fastest possible route and stick with it, irrespective of whether you're playing Unleashed, Generations, Sonic 2, 3 and Knuckles, CD and so on.

Generally speaking in Generations, if you don't want to speed run there are plenty of different places to go, especially in Seaside Hill. Sure there should be more with perhaps a little less rigidity, each offering different experiences on your way through, but the idea exists in principal. Eggmanland, despite its bottomless pit overload, had a fuckload of different places you could go with several diverging and converging paths. In fact, if it weren't for the blatant speed-running rails 45 seconds into the stage, it would probably be the best Sonic level in terms of overall scale and variety of different locations within the same space.

I'll admit I'm not a speedrunner or anything of the sort; I'll do the challenges the game lays out for me, but I don't find much joy in repeating the same actions a hundred times for fractional improvements.

Yeah, well repeating the same actions are boring regardless of whether you do them in the classics or in the newer games. Speedrunning involves this, and there is so much more than just speedrunning.

You can design games that are robust enough for the player to succeed in ways other than the explicitly designed obstacle course.

In no way do I want players to wander around meaningless filler geometry rather than in a space the designers have made. But that space doesn't need to be just a series of corridors filled with obstacles.

It doesn't have to be just obstacles, and the corridors don't need to be so narrow and restricing. Each "corridor" can have a semi-large terrain within in, which in and of itself has a number of smaller possible options within in. It just doesn't have to stretch across the entire map, rather over the smaller sections or "corridors" within the map. It would certainly ease up the workload and allow for more effective concentration of level design whilst minimising wasted space.

What you need to do, I think, is design "the space the level is in" first. This is anywhere the camera could potentially scroll, anywhere that level geometry could go, anywhere that Sonic could potentially go. There are walls (invisible or otherwise) on the far left and right. Even if there's no ceiling, gravity prevents Sonic from flying away off the top of the screen. And as there is gravity, levels are designed to mostly consist of "floor", with a death line marking the absolute bottommost point. And crossing this death line should be looked at as an intentional obstacle rather than a default. In 3D this is a bit more nebulous than simply defining a rectangle, but the way I see it is you'd want to carve a wide path from point A to point B, something with a floor and walls and maybe a ceiling, and then design the level within it. If you want to add a death pit, punch a hole; this means it has to be intentional, rather than just leaving all that empty space around. And if the player falls, they're going to land somewhere, at least unless it's in one of those defined pits.

Sounds like a good idea, but somehow I don't quite think its quite as simple as that.

Well in that they have failed utterly.

Not sure what you mean....If you mean they haven't done this yet, then yes, they haven't. Its just the next benchmark I think they should aim for. Not necessarily the peak or pinnacle, just another benchmark to reach before aiming even higher. A corridor that feels like an area, or a place, rather than a corridor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't see how your speed is dependent on how you passed previous obstacles when all you need to do to get to top speed is press a button.

Your point was literally that the trajectory of your jumps was dependent upon your performance through the level prior which is also true of the modern games as well regardless of the fact that there's a Boost button at your disposal; you can always fuck up during boosting, and it will limit your speed and ability to react for a second or two.

These are all a matter of the Genesis Sonics being old games, not anything specific to classic Sonic gameplay. Were they made today, I'd imagine they'd have all the same conveniences as the modern Sonic games.

Just because they are not inherent to the way classic games work doesn't mean they aren't nonetheless characteristics of the games as they actually exist. The differences I pointed out subsequently have an effect on the extent of the consequences of dying between the two styles of play.

Not nearly enough, IMO; the 2D sections are generally alright, but the 3D sections still have you launching yourself into the void if you step past the guidelines.

Which I argue isn't as god-awful a consequence as you make it out to be, but we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

While these are helpful, they're little more than an indicator of where you must stick to your rote memorization to not die, as opposed to where it's just the best option to do so. Telling me when there are pits doesn't mean they stop limiting what I can do.

The problem with pits as you described it earlier was that they punished you unfairly for boosting mindlessly [i'm assuming by being abundant and awfully placed]. I reiterate, the signs and the level design do successfully address this issue; the complaints about this have noticeably dwindled since Colors. But what seems to be the tangent you're arguing about now is that you have a problem with pits as they are inherently used in this style of play, which I now feel is subsequently a tangent we'll have to agree to disagree on.

More things affect balance than The Worst Thing Possible. Players are dissuaded from using the spindash if they're already moving at a fair speed because it takes more time (given they have to come to a stop first) for less of an increase in speed, compared to using it from a standstill (or nearly so).

I don't get what you're refuting. Of course most players don't use the Spin Dash when they're already moving at a fast enough pace (at least in games where it's difficult to do otherwise anyway); that's half the point of the entire maneuver- to get you moving immediately. I'm not stating that the worst thing possible only affects balance. I'm attempting to point out that rolling in all its forms is actually an extremely powerful thing within the classic system of gameplay and is in many ways more comparable to boosting than people are willing to admit.

I don't consider it exploration so much as I do freedom. Like...I've got Megaman on the brain, so I'll use that; take a level on its own and it's basically the most linear thing possible; rarely will you find a room with more than one exit. But there are so many different options available to you; if you want to avoid something, do you run, jump, slide, use Rush/an Item? If you want to kill something, do you use pellets, charge shots, one of the 8 robot master weapons? There are still "best" choices if you want to look for them, but there's also a great variety of valid options that can fit your preferences and whims.

As I've said in topics long past, freedom for freedom's sake doesn't interest me because rarely do I ever feel the need to take advantage of that freedom in games where it's not directly relevant to my main objectives in the first place. I have no philosophical qualms with the developer giving me a tightly-knit experience where I have fewer options and choices at my disposal to finish the game because there are indeed advantages to linearity, the big one being that you can indeed get some of the absolute best, tightest, and polished work out of a platformer designer when he has to design for a few specific paths instead of even more, or worse, an over-world; subsequently, I don't find different ranges of freedom objectively better or worse than others, although I have to admit- my favorite platform games over the past few years have been comparatively linear as hell. The Galaxy games, Donkey Kong Country: Returns, and Rayman Origins? These are just as fun, if not more so, than the classic Sonic games as well despite the fact that the latter two's level design is based around speed-running.

To me, "boring repetition" describes the modern gameplay far more than the classic. You find a route that works, you stick with it. You wanna speed run, you find the best route, you stick with it. You wanna innovate while speedrunning, you find a better route, you stick with it. In the end it just becomes a matter of repeating the same actions over and over again, maybe tweaking one or two to shave a half second off your time.

I'll admit I'm not a speedrunner or anything of the sort; I'll do the challenges the game lays out for me, but I don't find much joy in repeating the same actions a hundred times for fractional improvements.

This is how I played and still do play the Classic games anyway. I've beaten the games just fine with rote memorization and I've gotten everything I've ever needed out of them; unless there's completely hidden levels I don't know about that can only be found otherwise, I find no need to conquer them with anything but. Subsequently, I don't feel limited when the modern games proceeded to strip that away. I found it useless to my enjoyment of the classics anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

although I have to admit- my favorite platform games over the past few years have been comparatively linear as hell. The Galaxy games

To me the Galaxy games were the complete opposite. I made sure I had collected every coin in the stage before I completed it. There were some linear bits, but there were also those wide expanding areas that allowed for lots of exploration. See, that is the genius behind those games. The stages could either be cleared in a matter of minutes or then you could spend half an hour on one stage trying to find the comet medals and hidden goodies, thus making it an enjoyable experience for everyone. The classic Sonic games had that too and to some extent the Adventure titles. The recent Sonic games though mostly focus on just getting through the stage as quickly as possible and leave some of the fans unsatisfied.

This is how I played and still do play the Classic games anyway. I've beaten the games just fine with rote memorization and I've gotten everything I've ever needed out of them; unless there's completely hidden levels I don't know about that can only be found otherwise, I find no need to conquer them with anything but. Subsequently, I don't feel limited when the modern games proceeded to strip that away. I found it useless to my enjoyment of the classics anyway.

Exactly, the classic games give you the option to play as you like without forcing you to stick to either exploring the levels to find something or not give you enough room to explore and experiment on your own. That's exactly what made the level design in classic games so amazing. I just can't see how this is so hard to pull off in modern games. :/

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst linear level design is a complaint for S4 Ep1 its not necessarily the case all the time in that game. Take Splash Hil Act 3 for example. It's actually a big level with lots of routes to explore. The problem is with the physics. I played S4 Ep1 the other day and.even after just 15 minutes Sonic I was getting frustrated with the physics.

Not only that, I didn't like the graphics engine for Ep1 much either. Also the music could have been better. I do love Sonic 2d games and I think it's great that they are doing Sonic 4. I hope its successful enough that SEGA decided to do a proper £40.00 box product with a decent budget to really compliment the genesis games.

With the success of Sonic 4 split amongst fans and modern Sonic or the new modern Sonic uncertain who knows where the series should go next. How about a good old fashioned isometric Sonic game? Actually All stars racing 2 maybe the perfect distraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the Galaxy games were the complete opposite. I made sure I had collected every coin in the stage before I completed it. There were some linear bits, but there were also those wide expanding areas that allowed for lots of exploration. See, that is the genius behind those games. The stages could either be cleared in a matter of minutes or then you could spend half an hour on one stage trying to find the comet medals and hidden goodies, thus making it an enjoyable experience for everyone. The classic Sonic games had that too and to some extent the Adventure titles. The recent Sonic games though mostly focus on just getting through the stage as quickly as possible and leave some of the fans unsatisfied.

Compared to Super Mario 64 where the levels were outright hub worlds, I find the Galaxy series far more linear in comparison, especially Galaxy 2 in looking back on it. There is a lot of things to collect within the levels, of course, but I felt the objectives and subsequently the level design of multiple missions on the planets were more focused on getting from the beginning to the end of the level, and the skill necessary in conquering the platforming, than in 3D Mario games past. I think there is enough of a notable difference; the changes in level design the Galaxies wrought on the franchise have seemingly been a point of contention in the fanbase and amongst gamers.

I also disagree with your point about the Adventures, specifically Adventure 2. The most commonly championed part of the game- the Racing stages- are significantly more linear than the last game, and the focus on moving forward is further reinforced by the strict grading scale. But nonetheless, what about the other two games I named: Rayman Origins and Donkey Kong Country: Returns? Or how about the early Crash Bandicoot games? And let me throw in Super Meat Boy as well. Are these games any less brilliant simply because their level design focuses more on linearity than offering the player the option to also meaningfully explore large swathes of the levels as well?

Exactly, the classic games give you the option to play as you like without forcing you to stick to either exploring the levels to find something or not give you enough room to explore and experiment on your own. That's exactly what made the level design in classic games so amazing. I just can't see how this is so hard to pull off in modern games. :/

My hang-up is that I don't agree that there's an inherent flaw in "forcing" a player to play any game in a particular style, especially if the style it offers is so tightly designed that you would be in an uphill battle even deriding it for not letting you do everything you could possibly imagine its systems could let you do. If nothing else, I find the term "forcing" needlessly antagonistic and negative. It's no more wrong to focus your game's design on one aspect of game play- such as speed-running or exploration- than it is to offer both simultaneously.

Regardless, I'm of the opinion that the modern games are actually capable of doing this without sacrificing what makes them fun to me. However, some opponents to the style aren't, but I feel that's another conversation for another time. But I would say it doesn't boil down to Sonic Team or the games not being capable, but that they don't need to with what they have anyway.

Edited by Nepenthe
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to Super Mario 64 where the levels where outright hub worlds, I find the Galaxy series far more linear in comparison, especially Galaxy 2 in looking back on it. There is a lot of things to collect within the levels, of course, but I felt the objectives and subsequently the level design of multiple missions on the planets were more focused on getting from the beginning to the end of the level, and the skill necessary in conquering the platforming, than in 3D Mario games past. I think there is enough of a notable difference; the changes in level design the Galaxies wrought on the franchise have seemingly been a point of contention in the fanbase and amongst gamers.

I also disagree with your point about the Adventures, specifically Adventure 2. The most commonly championed part of the game- the Racing stages- are significantly more linear than the last game, and the focus on moving forward is further reinforced by the strict grading scale. But nonetheless, what about the other two games I named: Rayman Origins and Donkey Kong Country: Returns? Or how about the early Crash Bandicoot games? And let me throw in Super Meat Boy as well. Are these games any less brilliant simply because their level design focuses more on linearity than offering the player the option to also meaningfully explore large swathes of the levels as well?

There were lots of stages in the Galaxy games as well that were as expansive as the ones in SM64. My point wasn't to compare these games though. I wanted to point out that you can successfully include both the exploration element and the chance jump to the end of the level without searching every possible corner of it and that the same holds true for Sonic games as well. In Sonic Adventure you can run through the stages quickly if you want to. Do I want to do that? No. I'm taking my time, collecting rings, searching for 1up capsules and just experimenting. Since the Adventure titles, Sonic Colors was the first game to make me want to do that again, and that's mainly because of the wisps. But did that game have a problem with it? No. You can also ignore the wisps and just get through the level. I can't see why we can't see more of that, preferably without powerups this time.

My hang-up is that I don't agree that there's an inherent flaw in "forcing" a player to play any game in a particular style, especially if the style it offers is so tightly designed that you would be in an uphill battle even deriding it for not letting you do everything you could possibly imagine its systems could let you do. If nothing else, I find the term "forcing" needlessly antagonistic and negative. It's no more wrong to focus your game's design on one aspect of game play- such as speed-running or exploration- than it is to offer both simultaneously.

But if you can combine different elements together in a way that works and would satisfy more people, why not do it? I mean I have enjoyed the recent titles, but they're really not anything I would keep coming back to. Instead, I will usually end up playing some of the classics or the Adventure games. And it's simply because they just give me more things to experiment with. I also enjoyed the werehog in unleashed more since there was just so much more to see than in the daytime stages. I dunno. Maybe I'm just a tough one to please.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it's impossible to include both, and I've already admitted the modern games can do it. I'm primarily arguing that having a game that focuses on doing one thing well, or two or more things well, are both perfectly valid styles of game development, and that the stringent opposition to linearity itelf we've seen ever since Unleashed reared its head under the implied basis that a linear platformer is objectively inferior to one of optional exploration is absolute nonsense. Both schools of thought have given us some boss games in and out of this franchise that we can all name, games that everyone can actually enjoy, so I find it silly to target the much broader aspects of any game's design- like linearity- as being a problem that needs culling.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very glad with the direction the series is going right now. We can know now that Sonic Team can put effort into making good 3D games, and that they have something new for Sonic on the Wii U. Me excited. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.