Are Sonic fans too critical of linearity?

[Regulus]

I've seen a lot of Sonic fans criticise Sonic Adventure 2's linear level design as if this makes them objectively bad. Not, oh I prefer Adventure 1's more open designs (which I personally think is overblown anyway), but actually say the stages are objectively better. 

Now, I think Adventure 2's Speed Stages are actually excellently designed, they are concise, focused and well paced. 

I personally prefer the most complex Sonic stages have ever been, that being Sky Sanctuary and Seaside Hill Modern in Generations. The best levels in Generations are far more complex and sophisticated than any other 3D Sonic Stages. I also like levels like Windy Hill 1, Silent Forest 1 and Tropical Coast 1 from Lost World that are elaborate and branching. But that said, I wouldn't claim that the well-designed linear levels from the franchise are somehow inferior. 

What do you guys think?

[Alienrun]

A lot of people just don't take the time to look at the games as a whole, from a designers perspective. That's not to say you can't have your own tastes, but seeing it this way allows you to differentiate what purpose said level design has in conjunction with the rest of the game. As for why linearity is brought up, mainly 2 reasons.

1. Given the low difficulty floor the games have, people tend to expect some other impressive factor to give them enjoyment/increase replayabilty. Granted not everyone expects these games to be hard, and to different extents, this causes multiple different opinions to be formed.

2. People's "dream" sonic game usually involve being able to go where ever they want in the most stylish way possible. Thus people see no reason that the games shouldn't be designed in such a way, esspecially since the games being fast paced, usually imply that the games are also short. Now as interesting as this is, I feel its been discused to death, even if my favorite in the series is CD.

3. What interests me more is whether Sonic should be so exploration based like a metroidvania. Problem here is people forget that the original classic games were realeased really quickly so that it wouldn't get stale, you could only design games like these so quickly before the same thing happens. I personally feel the bigger problem is that sonic as a whole needs to be rethought out in order to be sufficient. The concept of speed and exploration is not balanced with the current gameplay tropes the series has going on. 

But yeah, more Sonic 3 like level design would be fine by me, even if that game has been over prasied to death. Plus I feel SA2's sonic's level design was linear in order to balance out kunckles's open level design anyways so...not really to much of a problem for a 1 game thing really :/

[Cyrus]

I'm guessing linearity is a problem in Sonic games because the "good" Sonic's not just defined by speed and physics, there's also the branching paths that made Sonic 1 through 3&K the most open 2D point-A-to-B platformers of their time, same for other well received Sonic games, 2D or 3D. Sonic 3 is such a fan favorite because of many things among the best part, how open and layered the levels are. Linearity can be good, like in Crash Bandicoot, and I and many others do like even the most straightforward levels in games like Sonic Unleashed and SA2, but I because, a big part of why those levels get slack is because they're so lacking in comparison to how much past games allow exploration, like some recent FF games have gotten criticism for having hallways that betray the free roaming RPG aspect of past games in the series and other memorable RPGS (from what I've heard, I've honestly only played FF3). That and in recent games, most levels have at least two straight forward paths that are either just boosting forward or watching Sonic run on his own for a few seconds, which I personally don't mind, but most see these as "watching an in-game cutscene" or something like that.

[Regulus]

I get that Sonic games always had branching levels from the outset, but they also had more linear levels too, such as Emerald Hill Zone, that were enjoyable, and Adventure 1 in particular had enjoyable linear levels, such as Emerald Coast and Speed Highway. 

I don't think linear levels are objectively worse or inappropriate is what I'm getting at.

[Hyp3hat]

You just hit the nail on the head - SA2's levels seem more linear, but they are about the same as SA1. SA1's levels are big open spaces, with huge vistas to run around in, like Emerald Coast, but the path is pretty straightforward. You can't explore in Emerald Coast, there are no 'branching paths', only short cuts to get you to loading zones faster. Red Mountain is probably the closest to true exploration, but it still forces you to get to one platform to go inside. Speed Highway has a couple of shortcuts, but it forces you to that set piece. But the corridors are all in open space, which gives the illusion of non-linearity.

SA2's levels, on the other hand, are far more boxy and corridor like in their presentation. Lots of them are just walking through literal corridors to set pieces, like Pyramid Cave or Crazy Gadget. 

Part of this is probably due to the multi-character thing - lots of the level assets are shared between Sonic/Shadow and a slower, less mobile character, like the mechs, so that may have limited their scope. 

As to whether it's a problem... no? A true non linear level Sonic level looks like Shadow The Hedgehog's ARK sections or something from 06, which is to say, NOT FUN. Loads of games are linear, and given how Sonic's control has changed, it's essentially impossible to make Sonic move at 200mph in a non linear fashion - you'd need to make HUGE levels with no structure.

[Milo]

Yes and no. I say yes, because as in you can have levels that are mostly or entirely linear in their level structure and still be fun. But I also say no, because going for a linear or non-linear approach for levels also plays a huge part on how the level's design and identity, and in the case of Sonic (primarily concerning 3D levels, though it applies to 2D as well thanks to Advance 2 and Rush), there's a relatively high ratio of the former rather than the latter--not so much because it fits Sonic gameplay, but more because the designers involved are on the train of thought that speed is the only thing that hold up Sonic gameplay as a whole. Though in the case of Sonic as a whole, I think the general content of the levels itself is the bigger problem with the content and pacing of those levels, rather than just their linearity. And in all instances, I think Adventure 1 beats Adventure 2 by a large margin.

When I think of Adventure 1's levels I can recall a fair amount of neat setpieces and level gimmicks that help each level be creative and unique in its own way. Ice Cap had climbing around icicles and a snowboarding segment; Red Mountain had skull-shaped flamethrowers, giant hammers, and large pools of lava; Lost World had a segment adjusting mirrors to light a path along in a dark room and moving panels with selected gravity that can be arranged by switches; Sky Deck had fighter jets, giant turrets, and machine guns to avoid and grabbing onto rotating hooks to be swung around to another portion of a level; Final Egg had lots of moving elevator platforms and sequences of maneuvering from one hallway to another by floating above giant rotating fans suspended over whirlpools. Adventure 1 has a fair amount of stuff like this that keeps it as an engaging experience, even on repeat playthroughs. And this has nothing to do with whether the levels are linear of those levels-at least not inherently, anyway (will touch on that in a bit).

When I think of Adventure 2's Sonic/Shadow levels I mostly recall running, rail grinding, and homing attacks chains over bottomless pits despite the different level themes the levels have. Metal Harbor, Radical Highway, White Jungle, Sky Rail, Final Rush...I really can't think of much that helps these levels stand out from each other, aside from the level theme itself and some token gimmicks/setpieces (like bungee-jumping off vines in Green Forest or placing some statue-objects in slots to open timed gates in Cave Pyramid). All the Sonic/Shadow levels in the game were seemingly to channeling Speed Highway by proxy in regards to level design: if you're not effectively playing the game as if you're trying to pull off a speedrun, there's nothing else to see or remember it by.

But with that said, having non-linear level design / structures can help prevent some monotony that can occur from having linear level design / structures take up the bulk of your stages. Having multiple paths gives the player more options to play the level and encourages exploration. It can also help better define the certain theme the designer is going with for the level in question and keep level structures unique. Having a linear level structure can apply if you're in some sort of location of high or low altitude, like on top of a ship or in the lowest ebbs of a cave. There's not exactly a lot of ground in question one can go, though exceptions can be made. But what about a desert or a valley? Again, exceptions can be made, but when you think of an example of either of these two level themes, are restricted locations, small platforms, and bottomless pits really the first thing that come to mind?

Again, going back to Adventure 1, it has levels that are both restricted and open in their general design, with some levels alternating between the two on quite a few locations. Sky Deck in particular changes small corridors (the railings around the large pillars) to open space (the top of the ship and the gravity-screw room).

With Adventure 2, there is a relatively high ratio of small platforms or rails surrounded by bottomless pits with the majority of Sonic and Shadow's levels--and it most cases, it seems there's no context as to why. Even with levels where this isn't entirely the case like City Escape and Cave Pyramid, the space isn't noticeably large and is usually closed off by walls or buildings, which combined with aforementioned pacing and lack of gimmicks of the levels just provides a relatively small play environment in most cases. In regards to structure and pacing, the levels in SA2 (and by extension, those in Heroes, Shadow the Hedgehog, and Sonic 2006, as they all largely follow on this groundwork IMO) they're virtually a precursor to the levels from the Unleashed era.

2 hours ago, Alienrun said:

Problem here is people forget that the original classic games were realeased really quickly so that it wouldn't get stale, you could only design games like these so quickly before the same thing happens.

If you're going by the argument that every classic Sonic game was basically Sonic 1 but with a level palette swap, then sure. Does Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze coming out four years after DKC: Returns suddenly make the game inherently stale, regardless of what differences do exist between the two titles? Did Super Mario Galaxy render 3D Mario old hat on the pure basis of the game being released five years after Super Mario Sunshine?

[Regulus]

Seaside Hill from Sonic Heroes, Windy Hill 1, Tropical Coast 1 and Silent Forest 1 from Lost World and Seaside Hill and Sky Sanctuary from Generations are more open levels with more branching paths than any level from Sonic Adventure 1, just throwing that out there.

The expansiveness of Sonic Adventure 1 has been massively exaggerated in recent years. And this isn't me attacking Adventure 1, I like it, but it's a lot more linear than people make out. In fact, linearity was kind of the goal, in direct contrast to games like Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie and Spyro e.t.c.

 

[Milo]

1 hour ago, Regulus said:

Seaside Hill from Sonic Heroes, Windy Hill 1, Tropical Coast 1 and Silent Forest 1 from Lost World and Seaside Hill and Sky Sanctuary from Generations are more open levels with more branching paths than any level from Sonic Adventure 1, just throwing that out there.

The expansiveness of Sonic Adventure 1 has been massively exaggerated in recent years. And this isn't me attacking Adventure 1, I like it, but it's a lot more linear than people make out. In fact, linearity was kind of the goal, in direct contrast to games like Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie and Spyro e.t.c.

Not sure if you read my post correctly. I wasn't arguing that Adventure 1's levels are more nonlinear than other Sonic games. If anything I pointed out the levels had linear and nonlinear aspects to them, and made an argument how that benefited Adventure in terms of having unique level design.

[azoo]

Of course Sonic is more linear than other platformers. It's about getting to the end goal, and using your speed and flow to get there.

The argument has never really been against that as much as wanting choice. As in, choice to stop and search around corners and find goodies. Choice to take your own pace through the level; whether that's a scenic stroll or a speed run, or anything in between. Choice to take on a chunk of terrain more than one way, and use that versatility to reach other areas, move faster, or both, or neither! Choice to find alternate paths and diverge from the main one, no matter how small, and find out where it goes and how to get back on track, without the game punishing you for it. Choice to roll and launch off of stuff as much as you want, or just run and jump like a regular platformer, or use both and take the most advantage of the controls.

Choice has been something that was an integral part of Sonic, and was nerfed significantly in 3D Sonic games, starting with Adventure and only getting worse with Adventure 2 and onward. And while games like Generations (modern) started to introduce alternate routes to the maps, they didn't do much for changing the pace or amount of choices you made, as both paths you take are going to have you pigeonholed into sequences of "hit this, now dodge that, now go fast here, and turn here", et cetera, and then throws you back on course only 6-10 seconds later, making some of the different routes not too terribly rewarding even in comparison to Adventure. 

And as for Sonic Lost World, it gives you little choice to control at all, despite it's alternate routes. Even if they give you four different routes to use at almost all times, you're gonna be spending half of those options either moving straight forward and jumping some (or trying to get good at shoddy parkour controls), and then spend the other half of the options (such as in Windy Hill 1) hitting long strings of dash pads and springs that remove control altogether and throw you on a scripted path for entire 20+ second chunks. So yeah, not even as good as the boost games with what it offers, even if it too gives more routes than Adventure.

Which Adventure, despite having significantly less alt routes to take than either LW or Generations, gives you significantly more room to make a choice on how you play, and rewards you more for it. Not an incredible amount better in comparison, but I'd say it's much better nonetheless. And I guess that's the point of the argument: it's about how much choice the game gives you.

[Nepenthe]

The argument about "linearity" (and on many similar planes the boost) is one that is far more mired in people's philosophical differences about the word and what it means than in any actual demonstrations or reasonably convincing arguments that it, as an isolated variable on its own, has actually been this big-ass liability for the franchise as all the squabbling would make it out to be, and as a result I can't bother to give two shits about talking about it with anyone anymore beyond this post I'm about to write. It's a single variable in the many variables that define Sonic's play style in any incarnation, and on top of that its overall effect is dependent upon both the surrounding context of the game and simply how people are feeling any particular year, to say nothing of the ironic defeatist arguments that happen on the side where people start arguing that Sonic would do good to take pages out of the playbooks of platformer franchises that have been more successful at being linear A-to-B platformers than not. 

Honestly, to try to make an argument about it is nothing more than the epitome of the kind of disagreement for disagreement's sake that has marred the fandom's reputation. You might as well at this point isolate Sonic's jump height and make a whole bunch of noise about that for all the fucking good that's come out of it. To me, it honestly doesn't really matter that much whether or not a platform character is constricted to a rail or has a Minecraft-esque world to explore. It matters how the character actually feels to play and how the levels are constructed around the character's parameters to get the most out of them. The objective and comparative amount of room you have to move around ceases to actually matter in light of this. I mean hell, Crash Bandicoot 3 practically puts you on a goddamn rail and it's still more fun than most Sonic games that have more room to breathe in them. Seriously, I just don't see why it became such a big deal beyond cynical and popular people around here making it a big deal.

[Regulus]

It's not that I have a problem with people who personally prefer non-linear gameplay, I personally prefer the non-linear design. The people I have a problem with or the ones who say linearity is somehow objectively worse as if it's a fact in design. I wouldn't say the problem originated here though, a lot of people on the web generally have shared the same views for years.

14 hours ago, Supt. Gabe said:

Not sure if you read my post correctly. I wasn't arguing that Adventure 1's levels are more nonlinear than other Sonic games. If anything I pointed out the levels had linear and nonlinear aspects to them, and made an argument how that benefited Adventure in terms of having unique level design.

I'm not really trying to disagree with you, I like Adventure 1  . I'm just trying to point out to people generally.

14 hours ago, Azoo said:

OThe argument has never really been against that as much as wanting choice. As in, choice to stop and search around corners and find goodies. 

Choice has been something that was an integral part of Sonic, and was nerfed significantly in 3D Sonic games, starting with Adventure and only getting worse with Adventure 2 and onward. And while games like Generations (modern) started to introduce alternate routes to the maps, they didn't do much for changing the pace or amount of choices you made, as both paths you take are going to have you pigeonholed into sequences of "hit this, now dodge that, now go fast here, and turn here", et cetera, and then throws you back on course only 6-10 seconds later, making some of the different routes not too terribly rewarding even in comparison to Adventure. 

And as for Sonic Lost World, it gives you little choice to control at all, despite it's alternate routes.

Which Adventure, despite having significantly less alt routes to take than either LW or Generations, gives you significantly more room to make a choice on how you play, and rewards you more for it. Not an incredible amount better in comparison, but I'd say it's much better nonetheless. And I guess that's the point of the argument: it's about how much choice the game gives you.

Not sure how much I agree with this. You are right that the Adventure games gave you more control in movement and flexibiliy e.t.c. but it's not the point I'm getting at. I'm talking strictly about the linearity in level design, and you say that it's not really about that but I disagree. Many fans criticise the Sonic levels in Adventure 2, despite being excellent and controlling better than Adventure 1, because levels like Metal harbour and Pyramid Cave are linear e.t.c.. That's my problem. It's really got very little to do with control.

[Kuzu]

4 hours ago, Regulus said:

It's not that I have a problem with people who personally prefer non-linear gameplay, I personally prefer the non-linear design. The people I have a problem with or the ones who say linearity is somehow objectively worse as if it's a fact in design. I wouldn't say the problem originated here though, a lot of people on the web generally have shared the same views for years.

This is one of the (many, many) arguments that people just kind of go in circles about for years on end but never actually reach a definitive conclusion about. So the whole spiel about if linearity is objectively worse or better kinda rings hollow for me. 

I don't care either way; Sonic could literally have levels like Crash Bandicoot 1 and I'd be ok with that as long as the levels were well designed in their own right. I've been saying this for years, but Sonic gets held to an almost fanatical standard that doesn't seem to exist within other, similar franchises. He can't do this, he can't do that, he has to do this, he has to do that. Its just led to more in-fighting and fandom civil wars than brainstorming game ideas. 

[Azul]

Truth is, Sonic fans are critical about everything. Modern games don't have Classic physics? That's a problem. Different playing styles? That's a problem. Sonic having green eyes? That's the biggest problem of all time. I'm not kidding, some people credit Sonic's redesign to franchise's downward spiral. Generally, or at least what I've witnessed, Sonic fans are among the most nitpicky fans in all of Fandom Land. It's impossible for the developers to try anything without someone typing a paragraph about how much Sonic Generations' Act 1s aren't true Classic Sonic gameplay because he doesn't run and fall exactly like he does on a game made for a system that comparatively has processing power from the stone age.

So in Tl:DR terms, yes, Sonic fans are too critical about linearity in the games, just as much as they are with minute aesthetics and super specific physics.

[Alienrun]

1 hour ago, Azul said:

Truth is, Sonic fans are critical about everything. Modern games don't have Classic physics? That's a problem. Different playing styles? That's a problem. Sonic having green eyes? That's the biggest problem of all time. I'm not kidding, some people credit Sonic's redesign to franchise's downward spiral. Generally, or at least what I've witnessed, Sonic fans are among the most nitpicky fans in all of Fandom Land. It's impossible for the developers to try anything without someone typing a paragraph about how much Sonic Generations' Act 1s aren't true Classic Sonic gameplay because he doesn't run and fall exactly like he does on a game made for a system that comparatively has processing power from the stone age.

So in Tl:DR terms, yes, Sonic fans are too critical about linearity in the games, just as much as they are with minute aesthetics and super specific physics.

You know, I'm starting to think that these people aren't as numerous as people make them out to be, a loud minority if you will. The thing is, these complaints are natrual due to a non-consistent franchise. The problem isn't that these people are nitpicking, the problem is noone seems to care and as a result, doesn't point it out, cause its not worth the effort to defend something that most likely didn't make you feel like defending it. Sure there are exeptions, but these same exeptiong apply to the nay sayers as well. 

If anything, the number 1 thing that fans complain about IS consistency. Some people make a big deal about it, and some people don't, and as a result some people make a big deal of others who don't and vice-versa. It's important to understand the reasoning behind these complaints so that way an emotional mess isn't caused as a result.

For example, the green eyes thing can be linked to the fact that its scientifically impossible to change ones eye color. And since the game that started this controversy was called "Sonic 4", people were using this logic to complain that classic sonic would be a better fit. Only for sega to pull a complete 180 and say they are keeping the character design for consistency's sake. (Which is ironic since they said they ran out of ideas for new "classic" levels so they just reskined old ones...)

The point I'm trying to make is despite how stupid that might all sound, there is a logical reason behind these complaints. Basically educate rather than complain!

[Regulus]

3 hours ago, Kuzu the Boloedge said:

I don't care either way; Sonic could literally have levels like Crash Bandicoot 1 and I'd be ok with that as long as the levels were well designed in their own right.

I've been saying this for years, but Sonic gets held to an almost fanatical standard that doesn't seem to exist within other, similar franchises. He can't do this, he can't do that, he has to do this, he has to do that. Its just led to more in-fighting and fandom civil wars than brainstorming game ideas. 

That's what I'm saying too.

[Chaos Incarnate]

I may not mind linearity on initial playthroughs of a certain Sonic game, as long as I'm having fun and the level design keeps me on my toes. However, I like when there's more to explore, because it adds replay value. 

It's why I've gotten bored of the boost formula, to be honest. No matter how much I fun I had at first, it's hard for me to go back and play them without getting bored. 

[Milo]

3 hours ago, Azul said:

Truth is, Sonic fans are critical about everything. Modern games don't have Classic physics? That's a problem. Different playing styles? That's a problem. Sonic having green eyes? That's the biggest problem of all time. I'm not kidding, some people credit Sonic's redesign to franchise's downward spiral. Generally, or at least what I've witnessed, Sonic fans are among the most nitpicky fans in all of Fandom Land. It's impossible for the developers to try anything without someone typing a paragraph about how much Sonic Generations' Act 1s aren't true Classic Sonic gameplay because he doesn't run and fall exactly like he does on a game made for a system that comparatively has processing power from the stone age.

So in Tl:DR terms, yes, Sonic fans are too critical about linearity in the games, just as much as they are with minute aesthetics and super specific physics.

You're ignoring the obvious elephant in the room that not every fan is complaining or holds complaints about the same issue. Some people don't care about modern games not having classic physics or the character design; but they probably do complain about other issues, like musical direction or narrative. And if one looks at other series, this isn't exactly exclusive to the Sonic franchise in particular (though its one of the more notable cases of this). Do people holding a preference to earlier 3D Mario titles (mini-sandbox titles like 64 and Sunshine that emphasize exploration) to newer 3D Mario (linear titles Super Mario 3D Land/World that focus on platforming) titles mean the entire Mario fanbase is nitpicky too?

Even if were to assume that actually was the case and this doesn't happen in other fan, it would be ridiculous to assert this under the mindset that all of these complaints just came out of nowhere and the fandom is in a perpetual state of mass hysteria. That's just blatantly handwaving a lot of background of this particular franchise, just to paint everyone (analytical or no) with the same "baww we're unpleasable" brush.

[Azul]

2 hours ago, Alienrun said:

You know, I'm starting to think that these people aren't as numerous as people make them out to be, a loud minority if you will.

I'd say they're plentiful enough to make the Sonic fandom a very notorious place. But even if they're not, whatever they've done to bring down this fandom's reputation has been done enough times to make it very infamous.

2 hours ago, Alienrun said:

The thing is, these complaints are natrual due to a non-consistent franchise. The problem isn't that these people are nitpicking, the problem is noone seems to care and as a result, doesn't point it out, cause its not worth the effort to defend something that most likely didn't make you feel like defending it. Sure there are exeptions, but these same exeptiong apply to the nay sayers as well. 

Saying "green eyes destroyed the franchise" is not a natural complaint. That's arbitrarily placing stagnating quality on aesthetic which makes zero sense. That's a textbook example of nit picking. And what do you mean no one cared? About what? The direction of the franchise? Because I can point about a bunch of reasons why that's not not true like in spite of their screw ups, they've tried to cater to a fanbase that's practically impossible to please due to their very specifications and vehement disdain for anyone with a different view.

2 hours ago, Alienrun said:

For example, the green eyes thing can be linked to the fact that its scientifically impossible to change ones eye color. And since the game that started this controversy was called "Sonic 4", people were using this logic to complain that classic sonic would be a better fit. Only for sega to pull a complete 180 and say they are keeping the character design for consistency's sake. (Which is ironic since they said they ran out of ideas for new "classic" levels so they just reskined old ones...)

#1: Sonic is a work of fiction. For all intents and purposes, most real world rules don't apply.

#2: Even though there is surgery for turning brown eyes into blue, I'm sure in the significantly scientifically advanced world of Sonic, eye color surgery could quite possibly be a thing.

#3: Sonic was redesigned to better fit into a 3D environment (third paragraph of the Development section).  The green eyes controversy as far as I can tell could have started back in 1999 but I've only discovered people blaming it for the then depleting quality of the games as early as 2008.

#4: Sonic 4 staring Modern Sonic makes more sense when you consider it  canonically takes place right before Sonic Adventure.

2 hours ago, Alienrun said:

The point I'm trying to make is despite how stupid that might all sound, there is a logical reason behind these complaints. Basically educate rather than complain!

You haven't proved anything other than that Sonic fans will complain over anything no matter how trite.

44 minutes ago, Supt. Gabe said:

You're ignoring the obvious elephant in the room that not every fan is complaining or holds complaints about the same issue.

 

4 hours ago, Azul said:

Generally, or at least what I've witnessed, Sonic fans are among the most nitpicky fans in all of Fandom Land.

Generally ≠ every.

 

[Milo]

3 minutes ago, Azul said:

Generally ≠ every.

When you say:

4 hours ago, Azul said:

Truth is, Sonic fans are critical about everything. 

...that applies to something a little bit more than just general terms.

[Diogenes]

5 hours ago, Azul said:

Truth is, Sonic fans are critical about everything. Modern games don't have Classic physics? That's a problem. Different playing styles? That's a problem. Sonic having green eyes? That's the biggest problem of all time. I'm not kidding, some people credit Sonic's redesign to franchise's downward spiral. Generally, or at least what I've witnessed, Sonic fans are among the most nitpicky fans in all of Fandom Land. It's impossible for the developers to try anything without someone typing a paragraph about how much Sonic Generations' Act 1s aren't true Classic Sonic gameplay because he doesn't run and fall exactly like he does on a game made for a system that comparatively has processing power from the stone age.

So in Tl:DR terms, yes, Sonic fans are too critical about linearity in the games, just as much as they are with minute aesthetics and super specific physics.

I have trouble imagining a more dishonest way of framing the situation.

[Azul]

25 minutes ago, Supt. Gabe said:

When you say:

...that applies to something a little bit more than just general terms.

Again, you're misinterpreting me. In Layman's terms, I'm saying there's complaints about everything regarding the franchise. That's not an exaggeration. Every nook and cranny, no matter how insignificant or straight up irrelevant to gameplay, has been complained about by a noticeable amount of Sonic fans. And in many cases, there's been unjust criticism. I'm not saying every fan's guilty of it.

1 minute ago, Diogenes said:

I have trouble imagining a more dishonest way of framing the situation.

I don't like this baseless accusation. I'm not exaggerating anything. I've read many a comment regarding those very subjects. Have you seen a YouTube comments section on a video of Sonic game in the last 10 years?

[Milo]

27 minutes ago, Azul said:

Again, you're misinterpreting me. In Layman's terms, I'm saying there's complaints about everything regarding the franchise. That's not an exaggeration. Every nook and cranny, no matter how insignificant or straight up irrelevant to gameplay, has been complained about by a noticeable amount of Sonic fans. And in many cases, there's been unjust criticism. I'm not saying every fan's guilty of it.

You may not be saying "every Sonic fan is guilty", but at the same time you're haven't shown any interest in specifically pointing out said fans you're been citing as guilty either. None of your posts so far has made any specific reference about which fans --or group of fans-- you're holding accountable for making petty complaints. You're still taking the entire fanbase to task over this, you're just doing so indirectly.

[Diogenes]

14 minutes ago, Azul said:

I don't like this baseless accusation.

And I don't like the complaints the series has gotten being reduced to "nitpicking". No one cares about the games' physics not being pixel-for-pixel, frame-for-frame recreations of the Genesis game's physics. People do care about the physics being close enough to preserve the spirit of the Genesis physics, which is actually vitally important to how the game plays. And the only relevance in bringing up that the Genesis games ran on what is now incredibly dated hardware is to show how embarrassing it is that modern Sonic Team is incapable of recreating the concept in spite of how many advantages they have.

Quote

 I'm not exaggerating anything. I've read many a comment regarding those very subjects. Have you seen a YouTube comments section on a video of Sonic game in the last 10 years?

I try to avoid looking at trash, personally. No one expects anything but idiocy out of youtube comments regardless of the subject, they're no more an indication of the Sonic fanbase's nature than they are the nature of any other subject's fans.

[Regulus]

I can't help but feel we are getting a little de-railed here. I'm not interested in discussing whether the Sonic fandom whines too much about linearity or whatever else.

What I want to discuss is whether the Sonic fandom has maybe become too enamoured with non-linear gameplay and is reacting overly harshly against linear gameplay, something they subjectively don't prefer, and treat their personal bias towards non-linear gameplay as though it is somehow objectively better.

[Milo]

1 hour ago, Regulus said:

What I want to discuss is whether the Sonic fandom has maybe become too enamoured with non-linear gameplay and is reacting overly harshly against linear gameplay, something they subjectively don't prefer, and treat their personal bias towards non-linear gameplay as though it is somehow objectively better.

I don't think there's really much reason for discussion if you're not really interested in portraying the opposing side in question (those in favor of nonlinear levels) in a neutral light, let alone actually portraying their side of the argument.

I mean you're using Adventure 1 as the only example of a non-linear Sonic game that non-linear fans like, and you've point-blank called it overrated (regardless of you saying you like the game earlier) and made nothing but negative comparisons to other games (Adventure 2, Generations, Lost World). When added with your above remarks making the opposing side of the argument look like they're downright stiff-necked on the topic of linearity in Sonic games in general...from the looks of things, you're purely seeking arguments in agreement of your own viewpoint. In which case why would anyone who isn't in agreement bother responding?

Unless an echo chamber is specifically the atmosphere you were going for with this thread, there's really nothing much else to talk about.