Sonic Forces | PS4, Xbox One, Switch, PC "The Next Generations"

[Tara]

11 minutes ago, Lord-Dreamerz said:

Glad I’m not the only one who enjoys some variety in their games! Seriously sometimes I feel like I’m a rainbow polka dot alien among other gamers nowadays. =P

Lol yeah, I always used to look forward to seeing all the different kinds of things that a game could throw at me, and now it's treated like a bad thing when they do and (unless it's something glaringly obvious like a sudden marriage of Call of Duty and Sonic), then I just don't get it. XD

[Shade Vortex]

Personally, when I want variety... I play other games? Like, when I wanna play a specific kind of game, that's the kind of game I want to play. So when I want to play a Sonic game, what I expect is a speed-based platformer. When I play a Pokemon game, I expect an RPG. This is specifically main-series oriented btw, spinoffs can be whatever they want to be, but I expect at least some level of consistency between main titles. Sadly, Sonic hasn't had that since before Adventure, so here we are, with people divided over what they want and what they expect. Everyone has a different idea for what they like in Sonic.

Sonic's problem is that it throws something completely different at you all the time, like not only between every game, but it used to be you didn't know what to expect while playing the same game (although Lost World kinda brought that back with basically every level being a different gimmick entirely). One moment you're doing physics-based ball puzzle as Silver, the next you're stealthily moving around and having to hit things super closely and slowly with Amy (06). It is too wildly different, to say nothing about how Silver's slow and methodical play was also wildly different than Sonic's- at least Shadow's and Blaze's had a lot of similarities.

[Tara]

Playing another game would defeat the purpose that I want to see Sonic and friends in that particular scenario.  I'm not advocating that Sonic go from platformer to RPG or some other completely unrelated genre, and given the examples you listed later, I don't think it's a very apt comparison.  Seeing how, for example, kart racing or flying a fighter plane, can work in the context of a Sonic platformer is what I find interesting.  The same way the James Bond games used to have shooting sections, car sections, and then on-rail sections.  It was a nice little change from time to time that made the game interesting.

When it goes out of bounds is when it either, 1) changes the genre entirely (which has never really happened), or 2) introduces new mechanics extremely late in the game (especially if those new mechanics will never be used again), which is often where Sonic Lost World fell a little short.  A good comparison would be Splinter Cell: Blacklist, I think, which randomly goes too first person shooter when playing as one character later on in the game for absolutely no reason and plays completely different.

[Lord-Dreamerz]

32 minutes ago, Shade Vortex said:

Personally, when I want variety... I play other games?

I always see this line thrown around, and no I don’t agree with it. You of course can like anything you want. But I personally don’t care for 1 trick pony games nearly as much. When I play these kinds of games I like a epic adventure… and while the word adventure can mean different thing to different people, but to me it means a variety of events and quests and good old playing around. Games like Sly Cooper would be nothing to me if it didn’t have it’s variety, You wouldn’t jump into a plane and get into a dogfight, you wouldn’t have to dance your way out of trouble in a silly scene. You wouldn’t enter a hacking minigame when you need to hack a safe full of treasures…. The game just wouldn’t be a epic adventure without all these things and the rest. Same goes for LittleBigPlanet, Ratchet, FF7.  and many others. I guess what I prefer is a interactive story & world game more then a mere simple straight forward game.

And besides you can't get the same characters & whatnot by playing other games.

[Shade Vortex]

Each to their own really. If anything it's proving my point, one which I am also part of. Some people want a straight up platformer, others want "genre roulette", then there's in betweens and other styles entirely, including things like entirely different genres. To say nothing about how there's also divided groups for the stories, music, art and other aspects of the franchise.

I remember how they said going forward they are going to lose some fans. Honestly that's an unavoidable necessity for a franchise this fractured, if it's going to piece itself together to form a new identity, although it's arguable whether or not it even has had one past the Classic era.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

I have to agree with Shade on this. Sonic was meant to be a speed/platformer type of game and if they had playable characters, they would need to follow the same formula as Sonic. Sonic Advance and Sonic 3&K did it the best. I also want to highlight that even Amy who played different than the others followed the Sonic formula in Sonic Advance, fast pace and momentum physics. 

The problem was that they kept trying to experiment with different styles so much so that Sonic has lost his identity. We don't know what Sonic is. They keep trying to go in so many different directions that no one knows! As much fun as I found the Werehog and Silver's gameplay to be, it is not a Sonic gameplay at all and has no place in the series. This is why people are hyped for Sonic Mania, because it is a game that returns back to what Sonic originally was supposed to be. 

[Diogenes]

5 hours ago, ChikoLad said:

I was also making the point that I feel all of the three core "styles" of Sonic aren't as different as people make them out to be, because they all carry the core fundamentals of what makes a Sonic game, a Sonic game.

If that was true, I'd be happy with games like Unleashed and Generations.

But I'm not.

Either my complaints are completely spurious, or there is actually some fundamental difference between them that lets me continue to have fun with 3&K even today while Generations burns me out within a couple of levels.

[Tara]

39 minutes ago, Mikyeong said:

The problem was that they kept trying to experiment with different styles so much so that Sonic has lost his identity. We don't know what Sonic is. They keep trying to go in so many different directions that no one knows! As much fun as I found the Werehog and Silver's gameplay to be, it is not a Sonic gameplay at all and has no place in the series. This is why people are hyped for Sonic Mania, because it is a game that returns back to what Sonic originally was supposed to be. 

The Werehog and Silver had nothing to do with Sonic's confused identity.  Pretty much everyone recognizes those as secondary additions to the main mechanics of their respective games, not the core, defining feature.

[VolatileMike]

 

1 hour ago, Diogenes said:

If that was true, I'd be happy with games like Unleashed and Generations.

But I'm not.

Either my complaints are completely spurious, or there is actually some fundamental difference between them that lets me continue to have fun with 3&K even today while Generations burns me out within a couple of levels.

Generations is basically a perfection of what Unleashed's gameplay was getting at (weak story and final boss notwithstanding). But fundamentally, in the way it was designed, it just isn't working with everyone. And it never will unless something changes to meet the more physics and exploration-based demands of fans like Diogenes here. 

And I'm someone who prefers Generations to 3&K, any day of the week. And while I personally would be perfectly content with a game that continues the typical boost formula, I have to step back and look at the bigger picture. There is room for change. There is a way to change the formula so that Sonic gameplay is thoroughly fast, exhilarating, empowering, skill-rewarding, and explorative all at once, in every level. I know it because I've seen fleeting glimpses of this potential in every Sonic game I've ever played. 

You don't have to accept Diogene's every suggestion for better gameplay. I don't. But imagine a Sonic game where levels are just as fast or faster than Generations, but only after careful player mastery of the gameplay mechanics and finding all the best routes. That's an ideal that absolutely can be reached. 

Edit: no idea why the text is this big. 

[Milo]

7 hours ago, ChikoLad said:

I was also making the point that I feel all of the three core "styles" of Sonic aren't as different as people make them out to be, because they all carry the core fundamentals of what makes a Sonic game, a Sonic game. I noted how even a lot of the new moves like Boost and Slide, are simply evolutions or deviations of the moves from past games like Spin Dash and Rolling, because they serve the same core roles, they just handle it a bit differently (and how useful or useless you feel the Slide may be, is irrelevant to the point that it's still based off the same general idea as the rolling - rolling itself wasn't necessary to completing the Classic games most of the time, appropriately enough).

Have you not noticed the problem with this? With calling these features described in this manner as being conceptually the same as others?

"The Hover Wisp and Drill Wisp are extensions of playable characters Tails and Knuckles, because they have the same core roles, but handled a bit differently."

"Sonic games that have monsters as final bosses are an evolution of the Adventure games' stories, because they share the same general idea."

"Any Sonic game that has a mix of speed and platforming is a deviation of Genesis Sonic gameplay, because they all carry the core fundamentals."

And speaking of which, what exactly, to you, constitutes as the "core fundamentals" of what makes a Sonic game? How exactly does a game like Sonic Adventure have the "core fundamentals" of Sonic, in the same way Sonic Generations and Sonic 2 also have the "core fundamentals" of Sonic?

This is me challenging you to list something that you think defines the core fundamentals that is present in all Sonic games of these styles, that isn't something in Sonic games that don't have these playstyles (aka virtually any other game that sports Sonic's name on it). Please, describe these elements that make these styles conceptually bound to each other - if you think the styles are conceptually bound that is - and point to these elements in Sonic games outside these three styles, since you think the Classic, Adventure, and Boost styles all have the fundamentals down pat. Tell us what about Sonic CD, Sonic Adventure 2, and Sonic Colors all collectively have the "core fundamentals" of Sonic in a way Sonic Runners, Sonic Shuffle, and Sonic Free Riders collectively don't have them.

I think you're missing the difference between "these two elements have the same groundwork" and "these two elements share some traits, but are otherwise different in theory/practice".

[ChikoLad]

1 hour ago, Diogenes said:

If that was true, I'd be happy with games like Unleashed and Generations.

But I'm not.

Either my complaints are completely spurious, or there is actually some fundamental difference between them that lets me continue to have fun with 3&K even today while Generations burns me out within a couple of levels.

Not necessarily. They all share the same core fundamentals, they just handle them differently or distribute them to different degrees, which even applies to games within the same trilogy.

For example, Sonic 1 has way more straight platforming than it's two sequels, Sonic 2 is the most purely speedy experience of the trilogy (which is also why it's the most popular one, since most casual players just care about the sense of speed more than anything), and Sonic 3 & Knuckles has by far more exploration than it's predecessors.

While the Classic trilogy shares the same fundamentals, they are used differently and to varying degrees from game to game. Which actually causes some people to like a certain game in the trilogy, and not another.

The same applies to every other main title, they share the same fundamental elements as the Classics, they just use those fundamental elements in a different way or distribute them differently.

19 minutes ago, Gabe said:

Have you not noticed the problem with this? With calling these features described in this manner as being conceptually the same as others?

"The Hover Wisp and Drill Wisp are extensions of playable characters Tails and Knuckles, because they have the same core roles, but handled a bit differently."

"Sonic games that have monsters as final bosses are an evolution of the Adventure games' stories, because they share the same general idea."

"Any Sonic game that has a mix of speed and platforming is a deviation of Genesis Sonic gameplay, because they all carry the core fundamentals."

And speaking of which, what exactly, to you, constitutes as the "core fundamentals" of what makes a Sonic game? How exactly does a game like Sonic Adventure have the "core fundamentals" of Sonic, in the same way Sonic Generations and Sonic 2 have the "core fundamentals" of Sonic?

This is me challenging you to list something that you think defines the core fundamentals that is present in all Sonic games of these styles, that isn't something that could be found in virtually any other game that sports Sonic's name on it. Please, describe these elements that make these styles conceptually bound to each other - if you think the styles are conceptually bound that is - and point to these elements in games that don't have these playstyles, since you think the Classic, Adventure, and Boost playstyles are all getting the fundamentals down so well. Tell us what about Sonic CD, Sonic Adventure 2, and Sonic Colors all collectively have the "core fundamentals" in a way Sonic Runners, Sonic Shuffle, and Sonic Free Riders didn't have them.

I think you're missing the difference between "these two elements have the same groundwork" and "these two elements share some traits in theory but are otherwise different in practice".

You're gravely over-simplifying what I said though, and applying it to completely different contexts (i.e. whole characters and story ideas). Of course that principle sounds silly when slapped onto other contexts at random, that's because it doesn't apply to those. It does apply to the examples I used in relation to Sonic's moves, though. The Spin Dash and Boost DO serve more or less the same in-game purpose. That's why Classic Sonic doesn't have the boost and vice versa, in Generations. Sure, they could give Sonic a form of Spin Dash instead of the boost, but it would still serve the same overall purpose, because they were both designed for the similar purpose of instantly gaining speed from a stand still, so rather than giving Modern Sonic the same move as Classic Sonic, they give him one that's similar but different at the same time, so it tastes like a different flavour, without being something completely unfamiliar. It's the same framework, two derivatives of a common idea. They're both like ice-cream, just one is strawberry flavoured and the other is chocolate flavoured. Even though they serve the same purpose, not everyone likes one flavour in comparison to the other.

And I already mentioned what I consider the core fundamentals of a main series Sonic game to be, but I'll do it again:

-Sense of Speed (i.e. not simply going fast, but the game has to make you FEEL like you are moving fast, and make you feel an urge to go fast at points)

-Exploration

-Platforming

-Sonic's speed being used as a super power (i.e. for more than simply just running fast)

-Some degree of dynamic physics to how Sonic moves

-Progression is either a traditional level-by-level progression or with hub worlds in between levels

-It plays in real time (i.e. not Sonic Shuffle)

-Sonic doesn't use a vehicle as his primary mode of transportation (since using one would require he have a different moveset)

-And most of these elements have to remain consistently present throughout the game

All of the core games have all of these. They do them in different ways, and to varying degrees (for example, the boost games still have dynamic physics, but they aren't as essential there as in the Classics. But they are there, and are useful), but they do utilise them.

Sonic Runners doesn't have Exploration or a traditional progression system, Sonic Shuffle...pretty much has none of these, except for maybe platforming to a small degree in some mini-games, and Sonic Free Riders doesn't have Platforming and Sonic uses a vehicle as his primary mode of transformation. It should go without saying those are clear spin-offs that put Sonic in a different genre for the whole game.

3 hours ago, Tara said:

I must be the only one in the world who thinks Amy's gameplay was perfectly fine for the time.  It wasn't super fast like Sonic's, but it was hardly the snail's pace people make it out to be.  It was just a simple and relatively standard platformer to contrast with the high speed of Sonic's and everyone else's (Big notwithstanding).  I do think that witih modern sensibilities, the technical aspects and the level design are a little wonky, but conceptually speaking, I didn't mind them.

But then, I'm also not only tolerant, but extremely accepting of variety in video games and find the term "genre roulette" to be misused often, so I wouldn't have even minded Big's stages if not for the way they were programmed.

I don't personally mind Amy or Big's gameplay that much, especially since their campaigns are so short.

But they don't add anything of real worth to the game and are really counter-intuitive in a Sonic game. And aren't very well programmed to boot. So for many people, they are a stain on the game.

I like variety just fine myself (*coughmyavatarcough*), but it's not always essential to a game and sometimes it's best to be modest with the amount of variety.

 

[Diogenes]

2 minutes ago, ChikoLad said:

Not necessarily. They all share the same core fundamentals, they just handle them differently or distribute them to different degrees, which even applies to games within the same trilogy.

The variation within the Genesis games is not even comparable to the variation between them and modern Sonic games. The differences between the Genesis games largely come down to level design; Sonic himself controls and plays almost identically, save for a couple of different moves and some under-the-hood tweaks. Even given the level design differences there are levels that could be transplanted across the games while still being functional and feeling natural. Even ignoring the 2D/3D divide you're not going to get that between classic games, Adventure-era games, and boost games.

2 minutes ago, ChikoLad said:

The Spin Dash and Boost DO serve more or less the same in-game purpose.

They absolutely do not. The boost gives you instant, constant speed, and is meant to be maintained for as long as possible. The spindash requires you to stop and charge it, meaning you cannot use it constantly, for a single burst of speed which you can only maintain through other mechanics (I'm ignoring the spammability of SA and Gens Classic's spindash because they break the fundamental balance of the move, and Lost World's spindash because it exists as some weird middle ground between the boost and the original spindash; they aren't the same move even if they go by the same name). They may have the most basic similarity of "make character go fast" but their actual mechanics and how they are used could hardly be more different. You fundamentally cannot use the spindash like you use the boost, and you can only use the boost similarly to the spindash by intentionally playing against the game's design.

[ChikoLad]

7 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

The variation within the Genesis games is not even comparable to the variation between them and modern Sonic games. The differences between the Genesis games largely come down to level design; Sonic himself controls and plays almost identically, save for a couple of different moves and some under-the-hood tweaks. Even given the level design differences there are levels that could be transplanted across the games while still being functional and feeling natural. Even ignoring the 2D/3D divide you're not going to get that between classic games, Adventure-era games, and boost games.

But the games beyond the Classics still have those same fundamentals I mentioned from the Classics (speed, exploration, and platforming, in that case I mentioned), they just execute them in different ways. It's fine if you don't like how they are utilised in later games, but those fundamentals are utilised in those later games.

7 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

They absolutely do not. The boost gives you instant, constant speed, and is meant to be maintained for as long as possible. The spindash requires you to stop and charge it, meaning you cannot use it constantly, for a single burst of speed which you can only maintain through other mechanics (I'm ignoring the spammability of SA and Gens Classic's spindash because they break the fundamental balance of the move, and Lost World's spindash because it exists as some weird middle ground between the boost and the original spindash; they aren't the same move even if they go by the same name). They may have the most basic similarity of "make character go fast" but their actual mechanics and how they are used could hardly be more different. You fundamentally cannot use the spindash like you use the boost, and you can only use the boost similarly to the spindash by intentionally playing against the game's design.

But they both still gave you an instant burst of speed (you don't HAVE to charge a Spin Dash, it just makes it more powerful, like how holding where you want to go when you boost makes it accelerate a bit quicker). Same fundamental idea, executed differently. It's fine if you prefer one over the other, that's why they are different, but don't use that to deny any similarity they have when the similarities are clear. For all intents and purposes, the Boost is just an overpowered Spin Dash.

[Diogenes]

1 minute ago, ChikoLad said:

But the games beyond the Classics still have those same fundamentals I mentioned from the Classics (speed, exploration, and platforming, in that case I mentioned), they just execute them in different ways. It's fine if you don't like how they are utilised in later games, but those fundamentals are utilised in those later games.

If having speed, exploration, and platforming mean they have the same fundamentals, then Metroid becomes a Sonic game once you get the speed booster.

1 minute ago, ChikoLad said:

But they both still gave you an instant burst of speed (you don't HAVE to charge a Spin Dash, it just makes it more powerful, like how holding where you want to go when you boost makes it accelerate a bit quicker). Same fundamental idea, executed differently.

No, dude. Even if you leave out fully charging the spindash, you still need to come to a stop before you can crouch, tap the button once, and release. It is not instant. This helps balance the ability; you need to decide if it's worth the time it takes to activate the move or if you're better off continuing to run and gaining/maintaining your speed some other way. That doesn't exist with the boost, it is instant massive acceleration at the press of a button, already moving or not, and it is always the best way to gain and maintain your speed.

1 minute ago, ChikoLad said:

It's fine if you prefer one over the other, that's why they are different, but don't use that to deny any similarity they have when the similarities are clear.

There are similarities, yes, but you can draw similarities between practically any games. And you can't ignore how the differences have been great enough to tear this fanbase into pieces. The state of the fanbase is proof enough of the differences between the games.

[Nepenthe]

I think people are disagreeing with you on what is to be concluded about "the franchise's core fundamentals being applied in different ways" at the end of the day, partly because you're arguing this from two different angles. You're citing extremely broad design decisions (to the point that I could argue that Rayman Origins and Super Mario 3D World are Sonic games under your definitions) as indicative of some level of franchise harmony most people don't feel is really present anymore, while you also played up minor differences between games of similar design principles and eras as more meaningful diversions than what they really are or what anyone ever argued they were in the first place.

You say the Boost and Spin Dash were both designed to move Sonic quickly from a standstill (although Boost was designed to be activated at any time Sonic was in a non-damage state on the ground while the Spin Dash, well, wasn't) and thus they're nothing more than different flavors of the same exact thing, but this is such an oversimplification because it ignores the control and physical limitations of each, the level design that each was designed to fit in, the context that the rest of the control scheme and physics engines imparts on the viability and enjoyment these two maneuvers bring to players of all skill levels, and subsequently the attitude that the player is to approach their respective games with when playing that you're just torturing the point immensely.

But earlier than that, you were arguing with people who were saying casually (not literally) that the classic games had the same set of physics as one another, which in turn were different from what was present titles from later eras, on the basis of minute differences that didn't really betray the point or feel of the games to any degree that couldn't be helped due to inevitably polishing the formula, and from there we were left with a dangling conclusion. Even if we agreed with this, what was anyone supposed to take away from it? That the classics were in fact so different based on these small differences that you named (and again, no one else actually argued against as existing) as to undermine their grouping as "Classic Sonic games" and the connotations that label entails?

And indeed, what is the ultimate conclusion of what you're now arguing for? That we all should be happy because we've all been getting what we wanted all along because "all of the core mechanics" have been in every single Sonic game? Really, what is anyone even supposed to take away from this, because I can't help but feel this whole thing is less about anything particularly notable or true about the consistency of the games over the years and more about pedantry on how people have worded their views about how each game/era functions.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Nepenthe

[Indigo Rush]

21 minutes ago, ChikoLad said:

But they both still gave you an instant burst of speed (you don't HAVE to charge a Spin Dash, it just makes it more powerful, like how holding where you want to go when you boost makes it accelerate a bit quicker). Same fundamental idea, executed differently. It's fine if you prefer one over the other, that's why they are different, but don't use that to deny any similarity they have when the similarities are clear. For all intents and purposes, the Boost is just an overpowered Spin Dash.

 

2

This is something else, haha

You need to come to a complete stop to spindash. You don't need to do that with the boost. The boost can maintain its velocity as long as you have energy. The spindash is active in regards to the terrain and will slow down eventually.

They both go fast, but the boost always goes fast instantly, and the spindash starts off fast after coming to a complete stop, then slows down unless you're going downhill.

[ChikoLad]

37 minutes ago, Indigo Rush said:

This is something else, haha

You need to come to a complete stop to spindash. You don't need to do that with the boost. The boost can maintain its velocity as long as you have energy. The spindash is active in regards to the terrain and will slow down eventually.

They both go fast, but the boost always goes fast instantly, and the spindash starts off fast after coming to a complete stop, then slows down unless you're going downhill.

Thank you for explaining exactly what I said before - they are the same core principle, handled differently.

I even used that exact description earlier in the topic!

Anyway, I'm about done with this. It's fine if you guys feel the Classics are worlds apart from later games, but I personally feel all of the main series Sonic games share enough fundamentals for me to always feel a sense of familiarity between all three of the core styles. I don't feel like I have to adapt much between games, because they all feel similar enough to me to where I don't need to adapt much. Generations sort of proved that to me without a shadow of a doubt, because I could jump between Classic and Modern Sonic (and Sonic 1) with no problems.

@Nepenthe

There is no "ultimate conclusion" here. My initial post was just me stating I personally felt like all three core styles of Sonic are similar enough to where I don't find adaptability to be a problem with Sonic, between styles. And how I feel the changes are less drastic than the changes in Mario's gameplay styles, as an example. And I said that, as long as Project 2017 held the same fundamentals that the three core styles of Sonic had, whether it used one of them or had a new style, and was technically polished too, I would probably enjoy it at the least.

It was everyone else that jumped on that statement as if that was a completely wrong opinion to hold. I just defended my opinion.

Then again, I should have known SSMB wasn't the best place to have an opinion on. I was warned of that! 

[Nepenthe]

No one is saying it takes significant adaptation or skill to play two different Sonic games, as if you're going from two completely different genres of games entirely. All anyone has said is that some of the games are different enough in design to understandably be cordoned off into different eras or groups (all under the same franchise/genre) and to reasonably have subgroups of fans form around each as a result. Why is this contentious to you?

[Indigo Rush]

11 minutes ago, ChikoLad said:

Thank you for explaining exactly what I said before - they are the same core principle, handled differently.

 

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a fine example of the beautiful combination of "putting words in someone's mouth" and the "oversimplification" fallacy. I never said it's the same 'core principle,' in fact I wrote that post to argue against that. Boost and Spindash are "instant gratification" and "give and take" mechanics respectively. In your world, are driving and jogging the same core principle of getting from one point to the other faster than walking with only minor differences? I mean, since we're generalizing things here. 

Quote

 Anyway, I'm about done with this.

Just like last time, then?

11 minutes ago, ChikoLad said:

Then again, I should have known SSMB wasn't the best place to have an opinion on. I was warned of that! 

 

It's moreso not the best place to have poor debating skills on. But I mean if attacking the conglomerate makes you feel better about not having everyone agree with you, then by all means have a blast talking about how awful we are elsewhere.

Here I thought there was more to a forum's community than opinions.

[azoo]

This all comes down to how they're games designed with different philosophies.

Classic/Adventure/Advance/etc gameplay is about mostly moderate speed platforming. Gameplay has heavy emphasis on gradual momentum building, level design covered (mostly) in slopes that work both for and against your movement, and the main ability (rolling / Spindashing) is what these mechanics center around.

Unleashed/Colors/Gens/Rush etc gameplay is about mostly extreme speed platforming. Gameplay is centered around using energy to blast forward as fast as possible, level design is made (mostly) of long stretches and obstacle course layout that work both for and against your movement, and the main ability (boosting) is what these mechanics center around.

They have their parallels and similarities at times (both games allow you to achieve a flow if you master the mechanics and git gud at reaction timing), but they're ultimately completely different things, or at least different enough to see clear differences. That's not even talking with personal preference to one or the other, that's just knowing the difference between one thing and the other. If that part in the parentheses above is all you need to see them as "close enough" then cool, but that's not a valid reason to pretend that anyone who disagrees is being too pedantic, or worse yet attacking you for having an opinion.

But yeah I'm pretty much done discussing this too, lol. Back to work on personal projects..

[ChikoLad]

1 minute ago, Indigo Rush said:

In your world, are driving and jogging the same core principle of getting from one point to the other faster than walking with only minor differences?

No, but that analogy doesn't even work for these two moves. Boost and Spin Dash are more comparable to the difference between sprinting with full force and control, and a relaxed, loose jog, respectively.

You're free to feel differently about the matter but you don't have to be condescending and act like I'm an exhibition over the fact I feel differently than you.

[Indigo Rush]

I thought you were done? 

Understanding how two different mechanics work isn't a matter of subjective 'feelings' but objective and provable analysis.

You can't keep writing everyone off as 'feeling differently' about a matter when feelings have nothing to do with it.

[Nepenthe]

11 minutes ago, ChikoLad said:

Then again, I should have known SSMB wasn't the best place to have an opinion on. I was warned of that! 

See; this kind of passive-aggressive, victim-complex bullshit is ruining this forum worse than any debates we could possibly have, and I include Sonic 06 debates in that determination. Maybe instead of blaming a discussion forum for engaging you pretty civilly in a discussion you could have opted out of at any time by just not posting anymore (this isn't the first time you said you were done), you maybe ask yourself why just about no one else agreed with you if you desire to foster understanding and mutual respect. Because showing your ass with this kind of attitude is the kind of shit that will get you striked and banned.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

You have to stop to spindash. When you spindash when running, you come to a complete stop (i can confirm this when playing SA2). Boosting you don't have to stop to gain extra speed.

[Nepenthe]

Furthermore, I'm cutting this shit now. Despite the conversation actually going smoothly, all things considered, it's devolved into a dogpile about an issue that's become specific enough to warrant being called irrelevant, and I'm not in the mood for the fucking hivemind accusations and anything else that will entail. Everyone drop the conversation now.