How Sega can fix Sonic

[StarStreak]

8 minutes ago, Gabe said:

You haven't actually given any hard sources and/or presented a credible argument to back up your statement. You're only tossing out a list of vague sources and then handwaving an excuse as to why you're not giving any concrete evidence. I might as well claim the majority of fans also want a sequel to Sonic Labyrinth based on the same "sources" you have.

Except we both know that's a ridiculous comparison. We all know most people don't like Adventure anymore or 3D Sonic games in general and want 2D Sonic games. We also all know that everyone thinks Sonic Labyrinth sucks. If people like Adventure I don't mind but they know they are in the minority. 

I'm not providing sources for such an obvious statement in my free time on a Sonic fan site.

[Milo]

43 minutes ago, StarStreak said:

Except we both know that's a ridiculous comparison. We all know most people don't like Adventure anymore or 3D Sonic games in general and want 2D Sonic games. We also all know that everyone thinks Sonic Labyrinth sucks. If people like Adventure I don't mind but they know they are in the minority. 

I'm not providing sources for such an obvious statement in my free time on a Sonic fan site.

I'd also argue that claiming that 3D fans are a minority is ridiculous, considering that the series has had roughly two-thirds of 3D games as there are 2D games (and I'm counting the handheld titles when I say this-strictly considering console releases, the 2D titles have been vastly outnumbered by the 3D titles). I also don't have any reason to believe any of what you've said because you've still refused to give any legitimate arguments or sources as to why I should, and claiming "it's so obvious, why should I waste my time doing so" as to why you still haven't is a weak cop-out out over a point you've been pushing ever since you entered the thread.

If you're not going to actually provide anecdotal evidence to your claims and carry on with this patronizing attitude that you shouldn't be obligated to do so when questioned about it, I'll be blunt and say you and your argument doesn't hold anything of value to the topic.

[Diogenes]

27 minutes ago, StarStreak said:

Except we both know that's a ridiculous comparison. We all know most people don't like Adventure anymore or 3D Sonic games in general and want 2D Sonic games. We also all know that everyone thinks Sonic Labyrinth sucks. If people like Adventure I don't mind but they know they are in the minority. 

I'm not providing sources for such an obvious statement in my free time on a Sonic fan site.

We don't "all know" this stuff, man. That's why people are asking for sources. You may have seen a bunch of people wanting just 2D Sonics, but that doesn't qualify as a source, and it doesn't counter all the people we've seen that do want more 3D Sonics.

[Badnik Mechanic]

58 minutes ago, StarStreak said:

I'm not providing sources for such an obvious statement in my free time on a Sonic fan site.

Just admit you can't back up anything you'll said.

 

... I really need a button which auto types that for me these days.

[Nepenthe]

.... Okay, I already see this and no. We're not going down this road again because every time we get on this kick about people providing evidence, it just derails the thread because the person being asked isn't ever willing to provide any.

So until statistical evidence or Word from God is actually provided for the viewpoint that 3D fans are an extreme minority, consider the relevant claims non-existent and just ignore them.

[Lord-Dreamerz]

5 hours ago, StarStreak said:

= Only have Sonic and Dr Robotnik. The other characters are all fluff and are not as good as Sonic, with some like Shadow being a complete embarrassment. Thankfully, we haven't had to play as these friends lately (aside from the terrible Sonic Boom) but it would be even better to return to the roots of Sonic 1. Let's just have Sonic and Robotnik.

...How about no? Many of us actually like/prefer many of the other characters. And a LOT of fans have badly been wanting the return of other playable characters in the main series for ages. And while I personally may not be a huge Shadow fan, at least I can still admit many find him cool. Honestly I think this whole "Sonic & Eggman are the only good characters" nonsense is just hurting the series and torments a huge portion of the fan base. If you don't like them that's fine, but don't pretend everybody shares that opinion.

[StarStreak]

I really don't think it's controversial to say that the vast majority of gamers think 3D Sonic games suck and that Sonic is much better suited to 2D. It's fucking obvious and everyone knows it, why on earth do I need evidence to back it up? Do I need to back the theory that the Classic Devil May Cry Dante is more popular than the DmC one? Do I need evidence to prove Mario Galaxy is more popular than Sunshine?

The fuck is this?

[Marioandsonic123]

Can we all agree to lock this topic?

[azoo]

Did someone seriously come in here and make the "No friends, 2D Sonic only, Green Hill Destination" statement unironically? Come on kids, I know we've hit some lows, but we've got to be better than that, right? Okay not really because our community hits some serious lows at times, but come on.

19 minutes ago, StarStreak said:

I really don't think it's controversial to say that the vast majority of gamers think 3D Sonic games suck and Sonic is much better suited to 2D. It's fucking obvious and everyone knows it, why on earth do I need evidence to back it up? Do I need to back the theory that the Classic Devil May Cry Dante is more popular than the DmC one? Do I need evidence to prove Mario Galaxy is more popular than Sunshine?

The fuck is this?

Okay I was going to let this go and continue on my way but you're gonna keep going so here goes nothing.

The problem with your argument isn't that most 3D Sonic games don't suck and that most 2D Sonics aren't pretty alright, but you're missing something (blatantly I might add): just because it hasn't completely worked before doesn't mean it can never work properly, and that games that aren't considered as good anymore can't still have good ideas and foundations. 

Sonic Adventure, for example, is a game that has aged like a nice glass of milk. Does that mean it's shoddy by today's standards and definitely not as good as it used t be? Yes. But does that mean it's foundations for the gameplay, storytelling, etc aren't good ideas? No!

You're putting things on a binary of "good" and "bad" and trying to shove everything into one or the other whenever everyone and their mamma should know it's a spectrum, much like just about everything else in the world. It doesn't help move along discussion, it doesn't contribute any nice counter-points to think about, and it certainly does no favors to making friends either by being so arrogant and abrasive about it.

And if trying to back up your info on a Sonic fan forum is useless, then what are you doing on a Sonic fan forum anyways? Wouldn't discussing these sort of things be useless to you if the concept of posting on a forum like this is so pointless?

.......

Anyways. Continuing my original post.

As tiring as these kind of topics get since this discussion is had at least once a day with a group of people who regularly talk about Sonic (especially in a drought like this), I'm just gonna be frank about this.

Sonic will only be "fixed" whenever it feels like the majority of the development team loved the idea of making the game, and the end-product of that work isn't riddled with problems. Super ultra extra points if it actually remembers Sonic's original mechanics and pulls them off well, but don't push your luck little buddies.

Also,

9 minutes ago, Marioandsonic123 said:

Can we all agree to lock this topic?

No. Running from bad arguments fixes nothing. :v

[Nepenthe]

7 minutes ago, StarStreak said:

I really don't think it's controversial to say that the vast majority of gamers think 3D Sonic games suck and that Sonic is much better suited to 2D. It's fucking obvious and everyone knows it, why on earth do I need evidence to back it up? Do I need to back the theory that the Classic Devil May Cry Dante is more popular than the DmC one? Do I need evidence to prove Mario Galaxy is more popular than Sunshine?

The fuck is this?

Because you're operating from your own anecdotal experiences in order to make a very specific claims and implications about how the franchise should be going forward, which is an ignorant way of going about, well, anything. For example, the claim that most gamers think 3D Sonic games suck- even if this were true- is baseless without pinpointing why. Perhaps the games are just terribly-made which isn't solved by going 2D if the same bad programmers are running the show (Hello Sonic 4), meaning you are side-stepping the issue entirely without any tangible benefit towards anyone. All because you couldn't be assed to look beyond your own limited viewpoint.

This isn't like any other Sonic fansite where you'll be taken seriously just because you word your posts strongly and drop some F-bombs. This is a debate site. You want people to actually listen to your claims? Bring evidence. If you're not willing to or can't find any, just simply admit this is your own opinion. Either would be very respectful.

But my point stands that we're not about to derail the thread simply because you're trying to brute-force your viewpoints onto others by claiming factual bases where there are none. So you have one of two options for continuing on this tangent: bring evidence or simply go back on the claim being truth. Everyone else is still obliged to ignore these claims. Again, we're not about to have this circus.

[Marioandsonic123]

4 minutes ago, Azoo said:

Did someone seriously come in here and make the "No friends, 2D Sonic only, Green Hill Destination" statement unironically? Come on kids, I know we've hit some lows, but we've got to be better than that, right? Okay not really because our community hits some serious lows at times, but come on.

Okay I was going to let this go and continue on my way but you're gonna keep going so here goes nothing.

The problem with your argument isn't that most 3D Sonic games don't suck and that most 2D Sonics aren't pretty alright, but you're missing something (blatantly I might add): just because it hasn't completely worked before doesn't mean it can never work properly, and that games that aren't considered as good anymore can still have good ideas and foundations. 

Sonic Adventure, for example, is a game that has aged like a nice glass of milk. Does that mean it's shoddy by today's standards and definitely not as good as it used t be? Yes. But does that mean it's foundations for the gameplay, storytelling, etc aren't good ideas? No!

You're putting things on a binary of "good" and "bad" and trying to shove everything into one or the other whenever everyone and their mamma should know it's a spectrum, much like just about everything else in the world. It doesn't help move along discussion, it doesn't contribute any nice counter-points to think about, and it certainly does no favors to making friends either by being so arrogant and abrasive about it.

And if trying to back up your info on a Sonic fan forum is useless, then what are you doing on a Sonic fan forum anyways? Wouldn't discussing these sort of things be useless to you if the concept of posting on a forum like this is so pointless?

.......

Anyways. Continuing my original post.

As tiring as these kind of topics get since this discussion is had at least once a day with a group of people who regularly talk about Sonic (especially in a drought like this), I'm just gonna be frank about this.

Sonic will only be "fixed" whenever it feels like the majority of the development team loved the idea of making the game, and the end-product of that work isn't riddled with problems. Super ultra extra points if it actually remembers Sonic's original mechanics and pulls them off well, but don't push your luck little buddies.

Also,

No. Running from bad arguments fixes nothing. :v

I mean to lock it because it has no purpose. WE can't fix sonic,SEGA doesn't care enough to fix sonic. Let's please move on!

[StarStreak]

Okay, I have no empirical evidence to prove what I'm saying is true, so it's technically just my opinion.

11 minutes ago, Azoo said:

Sonic Adventure, for example, is a game that has aged like a nice glass of milk. Does that mean it's shoddy by today's standards and definitely not as good as it used t be? Yes. But does that mean it's foundations for the gameplay, storytelling, etc aren't good ideas? No!

What does Sonic Adventure do that could be learned from? Everything about Adventure is terrible. Horrible story, writing, voice acting, controls, hub world, camera and alternate character levels. The only thing that is passable is Sonic's stage design, which is marred by terrible controls. Even then, the Sonic levels don't work particularly well anyway since the homing attack interrupts the pace to a halt and the stages have to be very automated to be playable.

I'd rather see SEGA go back to the drawing board.

7 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

For example, the claim that most gamers think 3D Sonic games suck- even if this were true- is baseless without pinpointing why. Perhaps the games are just terribly-made which isn't solved by going 2D if the same bad programmers are running the show (Hello Sonic 4), meaning you are side-stepping the issue entirely without any tangible benefit towards anyone.

Whilst Sonic 4 was much weaker than the Classic titles it was still better than anything since 1998 and a massive step in the right direction compared to those titles.

[Kuzu]

Just now, StarStreak said:

Okay, I have no empirical evidence to prove what I'm saying is true, so it's technically just my opinion.

What does Sonic Adventure do that could be learned from? Everything about Adventure is terrible. Horrible story, writing, voice acting, controls, hub world, camera and alternate character levels. The only thing that is passable is Sonic's stage design, which is marred by terrible controls. Even then, the Sonic levels don't work particularly well anyway since the homing attack interrupts the pace to a halt and the stages have to be very automated to be playable.

I'd rather see SEGA go back to the drawing board.

Whilst Sonic 4 was much weaker than the Classic titles it was still better than anything since 1998 and a massive step in the right direction.

Its not "technically" an opinion, it is an opinion.

[azoo]

14 minutes ago, Marioandsonic123 said:

I mean to lock it because it has no purpose. WE can't fix sonic,SEGA doesn't care enough to fix sonic. Let's please move on!

And that my friend is the mindset of a defeatist.

If Sega can't fix Sonic nor care enough to fix him, then why are we still here? Do we really believe there is no hope? Because if we didn't, then we would've all been gone a long time ago.

But we're not, which shows that we still have determination that they'll do it someday. Does that keep making us talk about things in circles? Yes. Does it seem a bit sad that we keep letting ourselves ride the wheel of pain like this? Yeah. But Sonic's such a big series, and the darkest always shows a glimmer of hope on the other end, from someone who cared, so people keep going anyways.

As is the life of being in this community. It's been a bumpy ride, but it has it's good results now and then.

9 minutes ago, StarStreak said:

What does Sonic Adventure do that could be learned from? Everything about Adventure is terrible. Horrible story, writing, voice acting, controls, hub world, camera and alternate character levels. The only thing that is passable is Sonic's stage design, which is marred by terrible controls. Even then, the Sonic levels don't work particularly well anyway since the homing attack interrupts the pace to a halt and the stages have to be very automated to be playable.

You seem to want to emphasize this is your opinion, but spout this out in a way that makes it out that you're simply stating the facts.

So as long as you do that I or somebody else is gonna call you out on your bullshit.

9 minutes ago, StarStreak said:

Whilst Sonic 4 was much weaker than the Classic titles it was still better than anything since 1998 and a massive step in the right direction.

Like this for example! Wow! 

If someone can seriously try to tell me Sonic 4 was a better effort and overall game than Unleashed, Colors, Generations then I'm sorry but this is all I got for you.

[StarStreak]

1 minute ago, Azoo said:

You seem to want to emphasize this is your opinion, but spout this out in a way that makes it out that you're simply stating the facts.

So as long as you do that I or somebody else is gonna call you out on your bullshit.

Well I'm not going to preface everything with 'in my opinion' am I?

1 minute ago, Azoo said:

If someone can seriously try to tell me Sonic 4 was a better effort and overall game than Unleashed, Colors, Generations then I'm sorry but this is all I got for you.

Sonic 4 is on another league to Unleashed. Unleashed is terrible. Colours and Generations are good efforts but they have big control problems and they don't really play like Sonic games, more like fun racing titles.

[azoo]

No you don't have to lace everything with 'in my opinion'. You just have to not be an ass.

It also doesn't help whenever you put games on a higher league to others not based on their quality but by how many superficial things they knock off your checklist for an ideal Sonic game. "Ah yes, Sonic & Robuttnik only, check. 2D, check. No story, check. Classic, check. Looks like the best Sonic game in decades".

Viewing things like that don't help anyone understand your viewpoint unless you're some sort of gaming journalist/critic, which is a joke in itself for almost the exact same reasons. 

[StarStreak]

3 minutes ago, Azoo said:

It also doesn't help whenever you put games on a higher league to others not based on their quality but by how many superficial things they knock off your checklist for an ideal Sonic game.

Why do you make that assumption?

[Kuzu]

Just now, StarStreak said:

Why do you make that assumption?

You're judging a game not based on its own merits, but on qualities that are only appealing to you and a select few people. 

[Marioandsonic123]

17 minutes ago, Azoo said:

And that my friend is the mindset of a defeatist.

If Sega can't fix Sonic nor care enough to fix him, then why are we still here? Do we really believe there is no hope? Because if we didn't, then we would've all been gone a long time ago.

But we're not, which shows that we still have determination that they'll do it someday. Does that keep making us talk about things in circles? Yes. Does it seem a bit sad that we keep letting ourselves ride the wheel of pain like this? Yeah. But Sonic's such a big series, and the darkest always shows a glimmer of hope on the other end, from someone who cared, so people keep going anyways.

As is the life of being in this community. It's been a bumpy ride, but it has it's good results now and then.

You seem to want to emphasize this is your opinion, but spout this out in a way that makes it out that you're simply stating the facts.

So as long as you do that I or somebody else is gonna call you out on your bullshit.

Like this for example! Wow! 

If someone can seriously try to tell me Sonic 4 was a better effort and overall game than Unleashed, Colors, Generations then I'm sorry but this is all I got for you.

Yes.

[azoo]

4 minutes ago, StarStreak said:

Why do you make that assumption?

Because whenever you base things upon a binary of "this = good, that = bad" and make bold claims that certain things just don't work, even going as far to say that something as haphazardly designed as Sonic 4 wins over recent games because it reigns closer to your checklist rather than quality reasons, you kind of come to a conclusion on what the mindset is behind your argument.

And if you think that I shouldn't jump to that assumption, then maybe I think that because you felt like you had no need to back up your arguments with reasons why you have these opinions. This is what happens when you try to just throw out your 'opinions' every which way without tact, and the extra negative reaction combined with it is only because you hold your statements high enough above everyone else's that you don't feel like you need to explain yourself.

Do you get what we're saying now?

3 minutes ago, Marioandsonic123 said:

Yes.

Also, I'm glad you agree dude, but let's not make one-sentence / one-liner posts. Keep that in mind on these forums and you're good. :j

[Marioandsonic123]

2 minutes ago, Azoo said:

Because whenever you base things upon a binary of "this = good, that = bad" and make bold claims that certain things just don't work, even going as far to say that something as haphazardly designed as Sonic 4 wins over recent games because it reigns closer to your checklist rather than quality reasons, you kind of come to a conclusion on what the mindset is behind your argument.

And if you think that I shouldn't jump to that assumption, then maybe I think that because you felt like you had no need to back up your arguments with reasons why you have these opinions. This is what happens when you try to just throw out your 'opinions' every which way without tact, and the extra negative reaction combined with it is only because you hold your statements high enough above everyone else's that you don't feel like you need to explain yourself.

Do you get what we're saying now?

Also, I'm glad you agree dude, but let's not make one-sentence / one-liner posts. Keep that in mind on these forums and you're good. :j

I didn't agree. I was talking about the give up hope part.

[The Deleter]

30 minutes ago, StarStreak said:

What does Sonic Adventure do that could be learned from? Everything about Adventure is terrible. Horrible story, writing, voice acting, controls, hub world, camera and alternate character levels. The only thing that is passable is Sonic's stage design, which is marred by terrible controls. Even then, the Sonic levels don't work particularly well anyway since the homing attack interrupts the pace to a halt and the stages have to be very automated to be playable.

That's the overall execution, though, not the fundamental foundation. Nothing is perfect in Adventure but you'd have to be pretty narrowminded if you honestly think a small 2D plane is an indisputable best-case-scenario for a character that's able to move at the speed of sound.

Whilst Sonic 4 was much weaker than the Classic titles it was still better than anything since 1998 and a massive step in the right direction compared to those titles.

How is a step towards half-hearted gameplay efforts, recycled content, total regression and zero ambition a massive step in the right direction? Because it's the closest thing that resembles the more polished Sonic games to the naked, nostalgia-seeking eye?

A massive step in the right direction would be Sonic Team finally going back to pushing limits, hardware, concepts, or what need be, to create the best and most polished version of a Sonic game possible, with a grand adventure on the side, as it was during the Genesis days. 2D, 3D, it doesn't matter. Just give it effort and produce results, and Sonic will be golden once again. Basic fundamentals.

 

Edit: Also what about the Advance games

Do they not exist or?

[Indigo Rush]

Jimminy Christmas Pancake Cracker Zone Act 7, what the hades.

*stands up, shuffling papers*

Whenever these topics are made, (or bumped), it just consists of people listing off ideas with reckless abandon, and they're never even all that well thought out, or at the very least non-specific enough that they've already been attempted in practice and have failed on technicality; "Only Sonic and Eggman," being my favorite farce here.

Details such as what kind of level tropes to use, which characters to feature, whether or not it's in 2 or 3 dimensions, etc: are all irrelevant, because there's more than one way to make a successful Sonic game. Even if we find a correlation where 2D Sonic games are better received or are built better than 3D Sonic games, that doesn't make a lick of difference when both can be good or bad, and both are perfectly capable of missing the point of delivering that unique "Sonic" experience in equal measure.

Sonic 4 Episode I followed that tired, bludgeoned old checklist that people have been screaming at SEGA for years almost perfectly; Sonic vs Eggman alone, non-existent story, level to level, colorful classic tropes and level gimmicks, 2D, unlockable Super Sonic, the spin-dash, loop-de-loops, ramps and slopes. And guess what? It ended up being the most disappointing Sonic game in recent memory, because despite following those traditions, it only did so superficially. Unfortunately, these lists almost never seem to contain "nuanced level design" and "mechanics/physics to compliment said level design."

Then you have the opposite spectrum, where all that's said is "make a good game." Well, sure. That's granted. But I don't care how polished, glitch-free and cleverly designed it is, a God of War "E-10+" edition with fur texturing and stretchy arms does not exactly make for a successful "Sonic" game. (That isn't anything against the visual design or inherent appeal of the concept or those who enjoy it, but let's be fair here, what on earth?)

But back to my main point - it's not practical to just list off ideas that may have worked in the past without further explaining how they'd work in tandem with each other or detailing why those concepts are inherently necessary to creating the one Sonic game to bring the franchise back to it's early-mid 90's heyday. For starters, Sonic the Hedgehog was a case of bottled lightning; there's absolutely no way for Sonic to drum up the same amount of hype he did back in the Mega Drive/Genesis era, y'know, when he was new and fresh, and untainted by the 32X. However, Sonic does have his legacy to ride off of, and it speaks volumes that despite disaster after disaster (with a few gems here and there) Sonic is still relevant, live and kicking in some capacity. Sonic's notoriety isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The only thing that we can never really hope to "fix" is Sonic's wide-spread appeal, at least in the same context in which he was introduced. Sonic is ultimately a child of the 90s, and what was impressive back then isn't always going to be impressive.

All the same, that doesn't mean that the gameplay mechanics and concepts are dead in the water, either, and I do think this is where we need to focus these sorts of discussions. Sonic as a game is a convoluted mess. As I've beaten to death at this point, despite one's good intentions, simply writing a list of variables that were present when the series was universally praised isn't enough. What qualities then, should SEGA and Sonic Team focus on to make Sonic "good" again?

I'm not going to go too in-depth on the flowing nature of Speed, Platforming and Exploration this time. This is a given. Some Sonic games have a slightly larger emphasis on one over the other from time to time, and still manage to come out above average, if not excellent. Rather, I want to focus on the qualities of the development process.

1. Consistency and Time
Sonic games have varied a fair amount from the late 90s until... well, now. Not just in terms of 2D to 3D, but we all know that at this point. One game, Sonic is sharing the spotlight with different gameplay mechanics that just don't mesh, the next he's a bullet on ice on a linear racetrack with occasional sidescrolling platforming bits, and most recently he's a gravity defying parkour-expert wannabe, and when he does try to go back and do what used to work for him, he forgets how inertia works. The issue, therefore, is twofold: too many ideas, not enough time developing one of them. Develop one or two (maybe even three) solid gameplay styles, and stick with them for an extended period of time to iron out the kinks each entry. Imagine how Sonic 4 could have improved if they kept working on it. (Taxman was considered for Episode 3, IIRC). Jim Sterling did a good presentation on this issue, and I think it's extremely relevant. But it's not the only issue.

2. Quality and Effort
So, SEGA have decided to make the next Sonic game a 2D sidescroller with callbacks to traditional tropes from days gone-by: colorful levels based off of tropical paradises to mechanical nightmares and bright, casino-inspired pinball tables, along with mechanics that blend fast-paced platforming with a sense of freedom to explore alternate paths along terrain that curve, slope and allow the speed to be dictated by the players interaction with said paths on whether or not they're running or rolling. Maybe Tails and Knuckles are playable, too. Excellent. That doesn't mean anything if the game isn't finished, if the presentation is overshadowed, or otherwise any other imbalance between those variables. One of my favorite go-to examples is Sonic and the Black Knight: A beatuifully-crafted visual masterpiece, one of the best looking and sounding games on the Wii, with a surprisingly deep but generally good-hearted story - all ruined by gameplay mechanics and coding that puts it on the list of one of the worst Sonic games out there. In short, if you're going to put effort into anything in the game, put effort into all of it.

3. Sensible Design and Gimmicks
Look, I don't care how much effort you put into it, forcing the player to partake in a fishing mini-game in a series entry that's known for fast-paced platforming and freerunning is not a sensible design choice. Neither is clunky target-shooting, slow and dull stealth platforming, treasure hunting, QTE-filled brawling or waggle-based swordplay. The list could go on. If you're going to shake up the status-quo, let it compliment the core design. Super Mario Galaxy fared well as another entry in the Mario series because the gravity-bending mechanics complimented the traditional 3D platforming, and were carefully designed and crafted to do so. Sonic Lost World did not compliment the core design, because the controls and mechanics were not fine-tuned, and every other level threw a different mechanic into the mix without fine-tuning it in a complimentary way. Meanwhile, Sonic CD's time travel mechanic complimented the core design nearly perfectly, giving the player reasons to explore the level (find the signposts and badnik generators), gain speed and platform expertly (to initiate time travel), and all without actually changing how the character controls in a significant way. Leave the radical control changes to the Special Stages.

4. Respect for the Core Concept, Respect for the Roots
The Speed, Platforming and Exploration combo. We may disagree if it works best in 2D, 3D or 2.5D, spindash, roll or boost, homing attack or insta-shield, somersault or slide, but we can agree that there needs to be a sense of momentum and flow. That's what Sonic is best at. Play well, go fast, platform well, go fast, find secrets and shortcuts, go fast. Something about loops, ramps, slopes, springs and rings. Enough said.

So, there's my "list" of ideas for how SEGA can "fix" Sonic.

*sits back down*

[Lord-Dreamerz]

1 hour ago, Indigo Rush said:

3. Sensible Design and Gimmicks
Look, I don't care how much effort you put into it, forcing the player to partake in a fishing mini-game in a series entry that's known for fast-paced platforming and freerunning is not a sensible design choice. Neither is clunky target-shooting, slow and dull stealth platforming, treasure hunting, QTE-filled brawling or waggle-based swordplay. The list could go on. If you're going to shake up the status-quo, let it compliment the core design. Super Mario Galaxy fared well as another entry in the Mario series because the gravity-bending mechanics complimented the traditional 3D platforming, and were carefully designed and crafted to do so. Sonic Lost World did not compliment the core design, because the controls and mechanics were not fine-tuned, and every other level threw a different mechanic into the mix without fine-tuning it in a complimentary way. Meanwhile, Sonic CD's time travel mechanic complimented the core design nearly perfectly, giving the player reasons to explore the level (find the signposts and badnik generators), gain speed and platform expertly (to initiate time travel), and all without actually changing how the character controls in a significant way. Leave the radical control changes to the Special Stages.

The only part I don’t fully agree with. I just don’t agree with the mindset that a game should streamline & stick only to it’s 1 core gameplay style. Maybe I’m strange but games like FF7. Some Zelda titles and other games that try to be a true grand adventure and include tons of silly minigames & stuff are more fun to me then games that try hard to do only 1 thing. For example I dislike most RPGs where the only things you do are walk around maps. battle and collect items… I personally enjoy variety games far more. I actually even liked the snowball level & flying levels on Lost World… I’d agree they needed far more work and could had been done way better, but I still enjoyed them overall.

[Wraith]

14 minutes ago, Lord-Dreamerz said:

The only part I don’t fully agree with. I just don’t agree with the mindset that a game should streamline & stick only to it’s 1 core gameplay style. Maybe I’m strange but games like FF7. Some Zelda titles and other games that try to be a true grand adventure and include tons of silly minigames & stuff are more fun to me then games that try hard to do only 1 thing. For example I dislike most RPGs where the only things you do are walk around maps. battle and collect items… I personally enjoy variety games far more. I actually even liked the snowball level & flying levels on Lost World… I’d agree they needed far more work and could had been done way better, but I still enjoyed them overall.

There's a difference between the odd small minigame and a complete diversion that takes away hours of your time doing something that's NOT fast paced platforming. That's the kind of thing Indigo Rush is talking about avoiding. Nobody minded when Super Mario Galaxy or any of the Zelda games slowed down the pace and had you screw around in some minigame because it was still fun and would only take a few minutes at most. If Sonic can pull that off, then fine, but if he can't, then it's always better to stick to your element.