Jump to content
Awoo.

Sonic Generations 2 Discussion Thread: Wishes and Hopes


Diamond Sonic

Recommended Posts

Who ever said a remake is obligated to be structured in the exact same way? Simply turning Big's levels into minor optional minigames scattered around the world and making him a comic relief recurring character in the other stories would be totally fine. Or even going back to the original idea of giving him more traditional style levels.

 

I disagree with the premise that a full blown remake has to be faithful to the game design decisions of a game that came out over fifteen years ago on hardware dozens of times weaker than my phone.

 

That kind of defeats the purpose of it being called a "remake", if it almost barely resembles the original product its supposed to be succeeding. Like, I would definitely be on board with them getting rid of all of the things that made SA1 meeeehh, but then it wouldn't really be SA1 anymore outside of maybe a few levels and plot points. 

 

 

Note, I'd be totally on board with an SA1 being updated, but I don't really think it would resemble the SA1 from back in the day. Part of the motivation for a remake is to play to the audience's nostalgia.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the premise that a full blown remake has to be faithful to the game design decisions of a game that came out over fifteen years ago on hardware dozens of times weaker than my phone.

 

Then it's not a remake, it's a spiritual successor.

 

That's like asking for a Final Fantasy 7 remake without turn based combat, a Rayman 1 remake without the power-charge punch or a Crash Bandicoot remake without it being a corridor platformer. 

 

If you are going to remake Sonic Adventure without staying faithful to its conceptual roots then you might as well just not bother and make a new game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treasure Hunting as Knuckles is boring whatever way you spin it,

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conceptual roots are one thing, hard game design is a different thing altogether. All that needs to be lifted is the plot, locales, and core design concepts for the main gameplay style. It'll be running on a completely different engine, built well over a decade after the original game was released. To suggest that it should be shackled to the design decisions made that long ago in order to be a faithful remake is really regressive thinking.

A proper remake reimagines the game with modern design. That's the whole point.

  • Thumbs Up 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Sami has a point here. If a remake comes about, I hope it improves it.

 

I also hope it's not like the GoldenEye "remake" where everything is too linear for even my tastes. I would hope they'd at least try to give it the same spark while still providing a fresh experience.

 

Anyways, what would I hope for out of a Sonic Generations 2? Well, I would hope it has a more elaborate story. Say what you want about Pontac and Graff's writing, but it had less story than Colors and Lost World.

 

Also, more representation of the spin-offs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conceptual roots are one thing, hard game design is a different thing altogether. All that needs to be lifted is the plot, locales, and core design concepts for the main gameplay style. It'll be running on a completely different engine, built well over a decade after the original game was released. To suggest that it should be shackled to the design decisions made that long ago in order to be a faithful remake is really regressive thinking.

A proper remake reimagines the game with modern design. That's the whole point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about how old the game is. I know the camera, controls and the rest of its problems due to hardware ageing will be improved. But, for example, to say that removing all the alternate playstyles aside from Sonic and Tails is being faithful to the original game is just flat out wrong. As much as Knuckles, Amy, Gamma and Big suck in Sonic Adventure they are still very much part of the game and its identity. Throwing them out or radically overhauling them, which would be the sensible thing to do, is to take out or make major revisions to a key component of the game. 

 

At that point it wouldn't be a remake, it would be a spiritual successor.

Except overhauling the the alternate playstyles (because people actually like these characters, so let's drop the suggestion of throwing them out) wouldn't take out key components of the game. Unless you're saying that Genre Roulette is a key component, in which case I say so what? It would actually serve to standardize things a lot better and make it consistent without running counter to the main platforming that actually attracts people more.

 

That's the shackling to the decade old designs Sami is talking about. And it would still be a remake considering you're flat out remaking the game.

 

That kind of defeats the purpose of it being called a "remake", if it almost barely resembles the original product its supposed to be succeeding. Like, I would definitely be on board with them getting rid of all of the things that made SA1 meeeehh, but then it wouldn't really be SA1 anymore outside of maybe a few levels and plot points. 

Actually, that's the point of a remake, to remake the game to potentially be better than it was previously. And changing such aspects fall in line with that.

 

Yes, it wouldn't really be the same SA1 we had previously, but you're talking a recrafted new version of it that fixes the weaker areas of the original game. I think the benefit of a remake out weights its detriments by a long shot (in so far as you can even call it a detriment).

  • Thumbs Up 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That kind of speaks for itself. You're not remastering the game, you're not modifying it or emulating it, you're literally making it again. I mean, shit, look at movie remakes. They've got different scripts, different actors, sometimes even different settings - but they have the same title, same general themes, and same characters (or at least character archetypes). 

 

Changing or cutting shit that didn't work the first time and improving what did is the whole point of a remake. All these years later we can have much larger levels, larger hub worlds, more (and better integrated) NPCs, faster gameplay with vastly better graphics and so on all while keeping true to what the essence of Sonic Adventure is at its core.

Ah kind of like the upcoming Ratchet and Clank game. Even though it's going to have a slightly different plot to the original and even perhaps different level design, it's still being considered a remake of the original PS2 game.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah kind of like the upcoming Ratchet and Clank game. Even though it's going to have a slightly different plot to the original and even perhaps different level design, it's still being considered a remake of the original PS2 game.

Pretty much.

 

It's almost synonymous with the term "reboot" in a way,  but in either case you're going back to a previous installment or point in time and recrafting it to be better than it was.

 

You could theoretically do this for any game: SA2, Heroes, ShTH, even Sonic 06. Hell, you could also do this for Generations. Although usually enough time has to pass by for it to be viable, mainly in how to research and refine the elements they've introduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DiamondSonic, what you're talking about is pretty much a "remaster". Remasters take the basic game and add/change little things while fixing bugs and problems that were limited by the hardware and standards of the time. Just look at the StealthTax versions of the classic games. They added some cool new stuff and also took out some problems and bugs.

 

What Sami and everyone else is talking about is "remaking" the game from the ground up. It'll keep the core of the game (the basic Adventure gameplay formula, alternate characters [not necessarily playstyles], and the story) but make it in a way where it's up to modern day quality standards. Basically, they'll take the bad/sub-standard stuff out (or change it to actually make it work), while making the decent/good stuff up to snuff. That's what we call a "remake".

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were to be a Generations 2, I want more zones per era.  The more levels the better I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'd like if its another annivesary game :)

 

maybe for a 30th or 40th  .. but maybe it should be like a "remastered" complete game more than one with an own story and with just one zone to each game..(actually i would like to see a Sonic Riders remastered version XD ) besides time traveling comes with time paradox and confusion  :lol:

 

i say this not just because of the nostalgia.. is because the new generations of Sonic Fans maybe don't know too much about SA1 or SA2 ;by example, (and i'm not saying they don't know a thing... but there is always people who doesn't know these great games...)

but thanks to generations.. some new fans were introduced to Sonic franchise.. :)

 

it would be nice they re-make some game from the good ones that could call the attention from new fans ...

though i say this knowing that is very far to happend... at least we'll have games with retro stuff like 2d gameplay, and good music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think with Generations, it was a really good idea and imo a great way of celebrating the past 20 years of Sonic, even the bad games, but honestly I think it's something you can only do once, or at least once in a very long ass time. Especially with the nostalgia whoring of both epsiodes of Sonic 4 and a lot of Lost World's level tropes.

 

I'd rather see something new that people can have nostalgia over in 10-20 years time personally.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Semi-colon. I don't particularly want a Generations 2 nor do I think it would do the series any good. As enjoyable as Gens may be, it's the definition of playing it safe, it brought extremely little that was new to the table, instead being composed of rehash. We need fresh stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wish if Generations 2 happens at all: Give us momentum based speed instead of "HOLD *BUTTON* TO GO FAST!", levels that are actually challenging, better LOGICAL control over Sonic, no idiotic padding (Completing side missions to get chaos emeralds? WHY?), give us old school special stages to complete for each emerald, incorporate more levels (hell even DLC levels after its released would be better then nothing), simple plot that makes sense, no big monster of the week, time lord or dimension splitting crap (Give us save the flickies Sonic, that'd work fine).

 

That about covers it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these years later we can have much larger levels, larger hub worlds, more (and better integrated) NPCs, faster gameplay with vastly better graphics and so on all while keeping true to what the essence of Sonic Adventure is at its core. 

 

Here's the problem though and I don't think it's something people here don't seem to see considering how popular your post was. Sonic Adventure, to put it very bluntly, is a bad game at it's conceptual core. You can't remake Sonic Adventure as a good game whilst (as you say) still keeping it true to it's essence.

 

As you may well already know, all game's have to pass three stages: Proof of Concept, Alpha and Beta. Many games never get it past the Proof of Concept because whilst the ideas may be good on paper in practice they just aren't that fun. Sonic Adventure should never have gotten past Proof of Concept. The game is fatally flawed by how rubbish the alternate gamestyles are. The only ones that should have gotten past the concept stages were Sonic and Tails because they are actually very good. There's only so much revision you can do with Knuckles, Amy, Gamma and Big because, at their conceptual core, their levels are completely hopeless. 

 

I don't want to draw to much attention to Big, because we all know he had terrible levels and everyone who wants to criticise Adventure always just points to him, as though it completely invalidates the game. Sure, he could be reduced to a mini-game or something in a remake because he was never that important and seemed like somewhat of an afterthought in the original Adventure. But what about all the other characters who actually were very important and had a real impact on the narrative? You can polish, redesign and reimagine these gamestlyes as much as you like but you are never going to make the Emerald Hunting, Amy's Stealth or Gamma's Shooting anywhere near as fun as Sonic's gameplay, and that is a fatal flaw of the original game design. Even Tails, who's way better than everyone else, still doesn't have levels as enjoyable as Sonic. 

 

Now, I don't want to criticise the original Adventure too much. It was the first 3D Platformer to attempt these belting-fast stages and also the first to have the crazy Sonic-esque level geometry. Sonic Adventure was very experimental and the failed alternate gamestyles were a by-product of that. However, I really don't think an actual remake of Sonic Adventure is a good idea at all because of this. The Genre Roulette (as ChaosSupremeSonic puts it), whether you liked it or not, was a key component of the Adventure titles and if you were to remove this then you aren't remaking Sonic Adventure, you are making a spiritual successor to the Sonic Stages, simple as. I simply do not think there is any way you can make the alternate gamestyles anywhere near as enjoyable as Sonic's (and I don't think they have the same potential for re-imagining as Sonic's levels anyway). This is incidently why I also don't want a Sonic Adventure 3, because without that genre-roulette it's simply straying too far away from the original Adventure design philosophy and is starting to take on an identity of its own. 

 

I'd like a spiritual successor to Adventure that only included Sonic's Levels and greatly expanded on them and fixed them, from a controls and camera perspective. But I really don't want a Sonic Adventure remake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sonic Adventure, a bad game at its core? I find that nonsensical. What particularly makes the idea of different playstyles inherently bad? The execution may be clumsy at times yes, but by no means is out destined to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What particularly makes the idea of different playstyles inherently bad? The execution may be clumsy at times yes, but by no means is out destined to fail.

 

It isn't just the bad execution. It's that the ideas themselves are bad conceptually and aren't as enjoyable as Sonic's levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people want a remake of Sonic Adventure? If you're going to change so much from the original experience why not spend that effort developing a new game that features the same elements everyone enjoyed from SA1?

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people want a remake of Sonic Adventure? If you're going to change so much from the original experience why not spend that effort developing a new game that features the same elements everyone enjoyed from SA1?

 

I assume for the plot and general nostalgia marketability for the game. It's not a ridiculous idea in itself, it probably would sell well, but I don't think it's the best course of action personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the problem though and I don't think it's something people here don't seem to see considering how popular your post was. Sonic Adventure, to put it very bluntly, is a bad game at it's conceptual core. You can't remake Sonic Adventure as a good game whilst (as you say) still keeping it true to it's essence.

I think you're misconstruing "disagreement" as "not seeing", because many do not agree that Sonic Adventure is a bad game than a poorly aged one. This was the main game to get a Dreamcast for, and holds memories that people enjoy despite seeing how flawed it currently is. And I think we know what its essence there is to keep while remaking it, given they're willing to change everything that didn't work entirely so that its remade version fixes where it fell flat. For example, Genre Roulette is not something they want to keep, but the multiple characters are and to them are the essence of SA1 - a remake it without the Genre Roulette is still a remake, and that is by definition.

So to put this bluntly: do not present your opinion as a fact. Besides, you're not even bothering to consider the time period this game was released.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the problem though and I don't think it's something people here don't seem to see considering how popular your post was. Sonic Adventure, to put it very bluntly, is a bad game at it's conceptual core. You can't remake Sonic Adventure as a good game whilst (as you say) still keeping it true to it's essence.

That depends on what core concepts you're looking at.

Like, what's the "essence" of Amy's gameplay? Is it specifically the plodding pseudo-stealth that she ended up having, or is it the more general idea of having to escape from an enemy that can't be beaten? Couldn't the latter be used as the basis for a better, more Sonic-appropriate type of gameplay than what they did with it in SA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're misconstruing "disagreement" as "not seeing".

 

I used the phrase 'not seeing' because no one here seems to be talking about how Sonic Adventure has a bunch of very questionable design choices, such as the poorly thought out genre roulette. People are bringing up very good points about how the good concepts could be improved, especially Sami, but this one key point, like many others, seems to be getting overlooked. 

 

 

And I think we know what its essence there is to keep while remaking it, given they're willing to change everything that didn't work entirely so that its remade version fixes where it fell flat. For example, Genre Roulette is not something they want to keep, but the multiple characters are and to them are the essence of SA1 - a remake it without the Genre Roulette is still a remake, and that is by definition.

 

Genre Roulette is key to both Sonic Adventure titles because the Adventure formula was designed with multiple gamestyles at is core concept, removing it is removing a key component of the game and is drastically redesigning it, which is fine, but it's not being faithful to the original title whatsoever. It's like if you removed turn based combat from Classic Final Fantasies or got rid of the turn based campaign map of Total War. 

 

 

Like, what's the "essence" of Amy's gameplay? Is it specifically the plodding pseudo-stealth that she ended up having, or is it the more general idea of having to escape from an enemy that can't be beaten? Couldn't the latter be used as the basis for a better, more Sonic-appropriate type of gameplay than what they did with it in SA?

 

Amy's gameplay was intentionally designed to be slower than Sonic so the player could enjoy slowing down. Her slow pseudo-stealth was a deliberate move to make her feel powerless compared to the more capable Sonic. This was despite giving her a big hammer to show her inner strength when she was in a pinch, but  this was carefully designed so she couldn't abuse it on Zero, (since too much damage made him invincible) or else the design decision would be compromised. It was a bad move in hindsight. Moving away from this design philosophy is to move away from what Amy's gameplay was always intended to be and would be going against the original vision of Sonic Adventure. 

 

Besides, you're not even bothering to consider the time period this game was released.

 

Totally wrong. I actually have considered the time period this game was released in multiple times and including on this page, and only a few posts above yours at that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amy's gameplay was intentionally designed to be slower than Sonic so the player could enjoy slowing down. Her slow pseudo-stealth was a deliberate move to make her feel powerless compared to the more capable Sonic. This was despite giving her a big hammer to show her inner strength when she was in a pinch, but  this was carefully designed so she couldn't abuse it on Zero, (since too much damage made him invincible) or else the design decision would be compromised. It was a bad move in hindsight. Moving away from this design philosophy is to move away from what Amy's gameplay was always intended to be and would be going against the original vision of Sonic Adventure.

Amy could be slower than Sonic without being as slow as she was in SA. And Zero could be an unstoppable threat in any number of ways. You're sticking to this strict, absolute interpretation, but it doesn't need to be exactly that way.
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.