ProJared reviews Sonic Adventure 2

[Mauro Fonseca]

Probably kind of a primitive mindset, but sue me, that's just how I think.

[Solkia]

Yea, but the treasure hunting and shooting stages don't take up anywhere near as much of the game as they do in SA1; You only had five Knuckles stages and three Gamma stages compared to Sonic's 10. And that's adding the fact that the treasure hunting was much more intuitive in Sa1 as well. 

 

So yea, I don't think its unreasonable people wouldn't be ok with how Sonic Adventure 2 did things, even if they are technically the same as its predecessor, if the execution was much worse in the former's regard.

[Mauro Fonseca]

Knuckles and Gamma play better in SA, also worth mentioning. Surely that counts to something

[Nepenthe]

While we can hash out the differences between SA1 and SA2's implementation of alternate characters, I've never liked how Sonic fans talk about large gameplay decisions that are non-optional as some sort of negative, boot-to-the-neck "force" that automatically makes a game worse, simply because I feel it flies in the face of potential design opportunities, not just for the franchise but for gaming in general, to automatically decry a developer for not merely giving you a game that is simply composed of one gameplay style (or to more extremes one gameplay goal). There's nothing wrong with a game featuring small or large differing decisions that add up to its own specific or singular experience, like action adventure games or more cinematic FPS games, than there is having a gameplay that's as tightly designed and focused as something like Super Hexagon. 

 

I don't know, the general tone surrounding "being forced" to do something in Sonic-centric discussions just automatically comes across as an ironic attempt to stifle how games can be developed.

[Solkia]

I'd consider Big and Amy worse than anything in SA2 so I think it balances out.

[Kuzu]

and how many big and amy stages?

 

Sonic's portion is about half of the game. maybe less.

At that point, it really depends on what you liked or not. Tails has less stages than Sonic and pretty much function the same, getting to the goal as fast as possible. Knuckles also has five stages, but the radar was a lot more helpful like I said and the emeralds themselves are pretty easy to spot as opposed to Adventure 2 where you'd know idea where they are unless find one by random and they're pretty hard to spot due to being smaller and blending in with the game environment. Amy is pretty much a slower version of Sonic, with three stages, less than Tails and Knuckles, who also have less than Sonic. Playing with gamma was pretty clunky, but he also only had three stages and most of it is cutscenes. Big is by far the worst and I don't think I need to tell you how much nobody likes his gameplay style.

 

 

 

While we can hash out the differences between SA1 and SA2's implementation of alternate characters, I've never liked how Sonic fans talk about large gameplay decisions that are non-optional as some sort of negative, boot-to-the-neck "force" that automatically makes a game worse, simply because I feel it flies in the face of potential design opportunities, not just for the franchise but for gaming in general, to automatically decry a developer for not merely giving you a game that is simply one gameplay (or to more extremes one gameplay goal). There's nothing wrong with a game featuring small or large design decisions that add up to its own specific or singular experience, like action adventure games or more cinematic FPS games, than there is having a gameplay that's as tightly designed and focused as something like Super Hexagon. 

 

I don't know, the general tone surrounding "being forced" to do something in Sonic-centric discussions just automatically comes across as an ironic attempt to stifle how games can be developed.

 

I don't mind being forced to play something in a video game, but if you're gonna force me to play a different game, make that part actually good and fun. I didn't mind the minigames in SA1 despite being forced to play them because they were short and sweet.

[Nepenthe]

I don't mind being forced to play something in a video game, but if you're gonna force me to play a different game, make that part actually good and fun. I didn't mind the minigames in SA1 despite being forced to play them because they were short and sweet.

 

It's a given that every part of a game should be fun. I'm discussing the implied sentiment that doing anything other than running to a goal as fast as possible is automatically seen as a detriment to a Sonic game without consideration that a single Sonic experience can be made up of alternate goals under the game's general architecture by labeling these kinds of things as a negative "force."

[Mauro Fonseca]

Would help if those goals weren't as divergent as the genre roulette we've had, though. More Sonic and Tails in SA, less Sonic and Big.

[Kuzu]

It's a given that every part of a game should be fun. I'm discussing the implied sentiment that doing anything other than running to a goal as fast as possible is automatically seen as a detriment to a Sonic game without consideration that a single Sonic experience can be made up of alternate goals under the game's general architecture by labeling these kinds of things as a negative "force."

 

I've never really been against the idea of deviating from "constantly running" with Sonic like so many fans claim, I was more against how these deviations were handled. Even Mario games have more to them than "Jumping and running" and there's no reason why Sonic can't have more than just "Running" as well. I'm open-minded enough to accept such breaks.

 

The underlying problem here though is that these breaks are not particularly well-handled in the slightest, you can't expect people to accept something they never asked for, particularly when what you're trying to sell them isn't very good. Its the same issue I see with the Wisps, nobody is particularly against the idea of them being as power ups, but rather their implementation in the stages themselves.

 

If you keep trying to sell something, but don't take the time to actually make sure what  you're selling is of actual quality, then of course the obvious reaction from the consumer is to rebel and demand something, in this case, the Sonic gameplay that is significantly less flawed than the others.

[MegasonicZX]

I'd consider Big and Amy worse than anything in SA2 so I think it balances out.

I thought amy's levels were alright, honestly I think the only character I actually hate playing as in SA1 is big, the others are fun though.

[Nepenthe]

Would help if those goals weren't as divergent as the genre roulette we've had, though. More Sonic and Tails in SA, less Sonic and Big.

[Kuzu]

Yea, I really don't see what's so particularly bad about Amy's levels; Big's levels have the worst controls for fishing and trying to hook Froggy is pretty much a luck-based mission as you prey he grabs your lure and then prey some more that you don't break your line. Gamma controls like ass with how clunky he is and how floaty his jump tends to be.

 

 

Amy controls perfectly fine for the most part, the only real issue I could name with her is her lack of a spin jump. Which I'd honestly call a nitpick.

[Mauro Fonseca]

The pet sim is a complete side game, though. It'd be a stupid use of resources, but so far as you confine the entire story, the majority of content, to being related to completing Sonic, no-one'll care much about fishing- it'll still be a stupid use of resources, but hey, at least you completed the game!

There's also the point is also that Sonic is a bit more than just "a platforming game". It's why Gamma's shooting (shoot fast, race against the time) flows a bit better than Eggman and Tails' clunky slow nonsense. Can you really combine "fast platformer" with "collectathon"?

[Nepenthe]

We've done it before: Red Rings all over the place, Chaos Emeralds in general, Sonic 2 Special Stages wherein you have to collect and hold on to a set number of rings. Sonic being a "fast platformer" doesn't mean much towards the implementation of longer or more thoughtful game characteristics in other platformers unless you believe "fast" means nothing but Boosty and that he can never slow down (which in itself doesn't matter much either now that I think about it, since a lot of the diversions and paths in Daytime stages led to finding medals anyway).

Edited April 18, 2015 by Nepenthe

[Mauro Fonseca]

We're working on different ideas of collectathons then, because the Red Rings are the only thing there I'd consider even close to it, and then the question becomes "can you build Knuckles' gameplay all around finding red rings without breaking pace"? They work as extras, again, a sidegame not needed for full completion. If instead you force the game into "no, your game is now about these", I'd bet you'd start to see a lot more backlash against them.

[Diogenes]

Whatever kinds of gameplay a game has should all (or at least mostly, you can get away with a few outlying minigames) tie into a single coherent concept. Zelda can have combat and exploration and puzzles and sidequests and they all fit together because they all work together to create a D&D-esque "Epic Adventure" sort of game. And that's the kind of experience Zelda games have always tried to achieve.

Sonic games don't do that. Sonic games just dump random platformer game ideas into a pile. And they rarely have even the slightest resemblance to the things that define Sonic as a series. If they could actually come up with some gameplay that actually supports the same ideals as whatever they had Sonic doing then sure, whatever, but they're working within a narrower range than some other games.

[Nepenthe]

The problem with forging ground on this conversation is that no one has defined the ideal pace of a Sonic game, and I imagine it would be hard to do because there are many different examples either as individual portions of stages, levels themselves, and entire Sonic games where the pacing is different and alters the feel of the game and subsequently the bounds of what would be more tolerable.

 

Also, I don't understand framing the question around Knuckles collecting red rings (if it wasn't clear, I meant "collectathon" to refer to any gameplay where gathering something is necessary to achieve a win state, a la Knuckles' Adventure gameplay). Knuckles collecting the same three Emerald shards in slightly open more platforming stages with his classic speed and abilities intact and a radar that works properly to facilitate linear, Sonic-esque progression and movement through a level is probably not going to piss off anyone except for the most ardent purist who'll have an emotional breakdown on Youtube because he's being "forced" (there's that word again) to collect something versus gotta go fast. Let's not assume the absolute worst-case scenario here.

[Mauro Fonseca]

Collectathon to me doesn't mean just "collect a few things for win state"- the "athon" part implies Marathon. We're talking "collect 80 jiggies, 120 bananas, 350 red rings for the ending"- it's pretty much an antithesis to any decently fast Sonic game, I'd imagine, hence my confusion at mentioning that as a gameplay style that'd fit in :V

[Nepenthe]

tbf, if we're examining this from a more traditional angle, simply placing things to collect along routes, within enemies, and within bonus games can essentially guarantee you a collectathon slant. Like, does anyone have an issue on principle of Lost World turning the animals as essentially a collectable? Again, I'm not seeing how we're walking some sort of fine line here between Daytime gameplay and Banjo-Kazooie. And note that I'm not advocating that we absolutely need to start collecting stuff within Sonic games; rather, I don't think Sonic games are all that narrow to design and develop for, simply because I don't see the logic in the argument that the mere the ability to attain speed is an automatic inhibitor to slower or more thoughtful gameplay. The classic games could be pretty slow at times and I don't think anyone complained that every level wasn't Chemical Plant.

[Mauro Fonseca]

They do generally complain about Marble Zone, though

I've seen constant complaints about having to grind for the small animals in Lost World, for that matter

[Nepenthe]

They do generally complain about Marble Zone, though

[Mauro Fonseca]

I said Marble Zone, not Marble Garden :V

In theory nothing, but again, it's a question of is it a side thing you can go for if you want, or is the focus of your gameplay itself to find them?

[Nepenthe]

I said Marble Zone, not Marble Garden :V

[Mauro Fonseca]

I don't think it's pessimism to say "you can have divergence, but you can't force it because a good number of players will be wanting one thing specifically"

[Nepenthe]

I feel that conclusion depends entirely upon the quality of a game in question. If you make a good game that also happens to defy traditional expectations of what is expected of a series or genre, then what is lost by having gamers experience something they technically "never asked for?" Indeed, the passiveness of not asking for something seems irrelevant to me in these kinds of conversations, as it's the whole idea behind "people not knowing what they want." People are always willing to consume media that is enjoyable to them regardless of its oddities, limitations, or its sounding stupid or contradictory on the surface. It's frankly how new fads, titles, and genres are born.