Should Sonic Forces be delayed until 2018?

[The Deleter]

Just because level design isn't memorable doesn't mean it's outright bad. It's definitely a factor in goes into making the best levels possible, yeah, and compared to Rush Adventure and other games, Rush's levels blend in with one another quite a bit in their course design, and relatively background noise gimmicks to the gameplay, yeah. (e.g. while Rush's forest level had a few vines and a slingshot bugiee thing, Adventure's had vines, bouncy mushrooms, swinging vines, plant tubes, and sentient trees. While I wouldn't say all of those made the level design itself any better or functionally fun than Rush's, it definitely made the level feel more distinct and memorable than not)
 

That's not the only aspect of level design, though, and certainly not the most important imo.

There's the overall intended flow of the stage, which is important to create a unique experience when the player does "well". Rush has a rapidfire, reaction-based, and nonstop sense of flow to it, which lends itself well to the speed the boost is built around, and the metagame that is appropriate for such an instantaneous and effortless move as the boost, as an ability.

Rush also uses it's enemy placement intelligently, such as placing them in front of the brief pauses when the player isn't boosting any longer, and is wide open to attack, giving them a sense of threat and challenge that the other boost games don't really have.

There's the way the game teaches you how to behave when faced with alternate paths at a moment's notice with a designed consistency, which is to aim for the high route whenever possible for the fastest times and safest route, or to just ignore them and keep moving if you miss them, with how they're never accessible after you missed the window of opportunity on your first try. Gives the players solid and immediate reasoning when faced with the quandary of "up or down" in a split second, while also keeping the flow up regardless of your performance.

And then there's the factor of tricks and stunts making automated sections actually desirable and engaging in the game, as what's typically bare of any engagement once you hit it and let the script play out, especially in a 2D plane, now provide "windows" that the player actively seeks out for the sake of boost energy, and attempts to utilize in the most efficient manner possible, all while hammering away at buttons and then ending it with a finisher to cap it all off. It takes a piece of design in Sonic games that is typically undesirable and predictable, and turns it into a metaphorical skater's half pipe that you see and pull off constantly throughout the level.

Then of course you've got the precision platforming in Altitude Limit and some other stages, like Indigo said, accompanied with the unfair bottomless pits of doom, and that's pretty unfair and jarring level design, yeah. But like he said, it also provides a contrast to see why the level design in Rush is that good in comparison, with how much better it complements the mechanics it was designed around, and the overall end result.

 

Despite all that I'd only say the level design was good, though. It's the best overall design for the Boost games, definitely, since it doesn't outright step on the boost's toes and try to make it something that it's not, because it's what the fans want, without changing much to make the gameplay more appropriate for it all... (e.g. Colors' platforming)

But there are a lot more factors to level design in general that I feel like it's missing, as well. Level design variation, level design's environmental implementation, balanced difficulty curves, good, memorable, and fun stage gimmicks and mechanics, a good sense of purpose in the game itself, etc...

It does what the game was designed around with a nice and solid structure, though, so it's good enough for me at the end of the day. Not the absolute best it could be, but definitely better than what Sonic team has done for Colors, and from the looks of it, Forces as well, yeah

[Chris Knopps]

2 hours ago, The Deleter said:

Just because level design isn't memorable doesn't mean it's outright bad. It's definitely a factor in goes into making the best levels possible, yeah, and compared to Rush Adventure and other games, Rush's levels blend in with one another quite a bit in their course design, and relatively background noise gimmicks to the gameplay, yeah. (e.g. while Rush's forest level had a few vines and a slingshot bugiee thing, Adventure's had vines, bouncy mushrooms, swinging vines, plant tubes, and sentient trees. While I wouldn't say all of those made the level design itself any better or functionally fun than Rush's, it definitely made the level feel more distinct and memorable than not)
 

That's not the only aspect of level design, though, and certainly not the most important imo.

There's the overall intended flow of the stage, which is important to create a unique experience when the player does "well". Rush has a rapidfire, reaction-based, and nonstop sense of flow to it, which lends itself well to the speed the boost is built around, and the metagame that is appropriate for such an instantaneous and effortless move as the boost, as an ability.

Rush also uses it's enemy placement intelligently, such as placing them in front of the brief pauses when the player isn't boosting any longer, and is wide open to attack, giving them a sense of threat and challenge that the other boost games don't really have.

There's the way the game teaches you how to behave when faced with alternate paths at a moment's notice with a designed consistency, which is to aim for the high route whenever possible for the fastest times and safest route, or to just ignore them and keep moving if you miss them, with how they're never accessible after you missed the window of opportunity on your first try. Gives the players solid and immediate reasoning when faced with the quandary of "up or down" in a split second, while also keeping the flow up regardless of your performance.

And then there's the factor of tricks and stunts making automated sections actually desirable and engaging in the game, as what's typically bare of any engagement once you hit it and let the script play out, especially in a 2D plane, now provide "windows" that the player actively seeks out for the sake of boost energy, and attempts to utilize in the most efficient manner possible, all while hammering away at buttons and then ending it with a finisher to cap it all off. It takes a piece of design in Sonic games that is typically undesirable and predictable, and turns it into a metaphorical skater's half pipe that you see and pull off constantly throughout the level.

Then of course you've got the precision platforming in Altitude Limit and some other stages, like Indigo said, accompanied with the unfair bottomless pits of doom, and that's pretty unfair and jarring level design, yeah. But like he said, it also provides a contrast to see why the level design in Rush is that good in comparison, with how much better it complements the mechanics it was designed around, and the overall end result.

 

Despite all that I'd only say the level design was good, though. It's the best overall design for the Boost games, definitely, since it doesn't outright step on the boost's toes and try to make it something that it's not, because it's what the fans want, without changing much to make the gameplay more appropriate for it all... (e.g. Colors' platforming)

But there are a lot more factors to level design in general that I feel like it's missing, as well. Level design variation, level design's environmental implementation, balanced difficulty curves, good, memorable, and fun stage gimmicks and mechanics, a good sense of purpose in the game itself, etc...

It does what the game was designed around with a nice and solid structure, though, so it's good enough for me at the end of the day. Not the absolute best it could be, but definitely better than what Sonic team has done for Colors, and from the looks of it, Forces as well, yeah

You know... All these arguments and debates about the way the stages are being done the way they are in Forces...

And despite how it annoys folks...

I have to say it again, they're probably trying to make another boost game on a lower budget.

It's not going to be pretty.

[Nuggets]

4 hours ago, Chris Knopps said:

You know... All these arguments and debates about the way the stages are being done the way they are in Forces...

And despite how it annoys folks...

I have to say it again, they're probably trying to make another boost game on a lower budget.

It's not going to be pretty.

Concerning a game that's been in development for 3-4 years and looks to have more content, an additional gameplay style, and better graphics than Generations or Colors, I'm curious as to what makes you think this is being done on a smaller budget than those. 

[Chris Knopps]

Just now, Nuggets said:

Concerning a game that's been in development for 3-4 years and looks to have more content, an additional gameplay style, and better graphics than Generations or Colors, I'm curious as to what makes you think this is being done on a smaller budget than those. 

I don't know...

Somehow I feel a vast majority of the budget is going too much toward the cinematic elements of the game and the voice acting with too little going towards expanding the actual stages, leaving them shortened and consisting of vastly more 2D than 3D even compared to Colors at the moment.

Though some argue the budget spent is the same for both 3D and 2D when it comes to stage design, I still feel 2D is a cheaper alternative, and with my assumptions on the budget having dwindled for this title, it's how I rationalize all the 2D happening this theory in mind.

[ChikaBoing]

Forces level design will always be better than Rush, because the first level of the former actually asks you to be mindful and jump over a couple spikes in the first level while running...In Rush you could beat the first level only holding right, there is no other Sonic game that does that.

 

 

[The Deleter]

Technically, Leaf Storm can't be completed by holding right, as there's a boost pad that gates the player at the 35 second mark they have to learn to jump over. And anything past that, when disregarding the jumps, stomps, and other moves in favor of just focusing on the single direction mostly held down... yeah? If you're wanting a game where moving in more than one direction on a 2D plane constitutes as the best game design for the game itself, the boost as a mechanic isn't for you, lol. It is, as a concept, focused on moving in a single direction for as long as possible, as fast as possible. (tho Rush is one of the few games that allows you to keep your boost energy if you turn around towards the opposite direction, funnily enough)

If you don't want that kind of design in Sonic games as a whole, that's fine, that's personal preference, and one that I agree with for the overall direction for the series tbh. And if you'll enjoy even the most basic implementation of throwing the boost engine in a platformer level design and nerfing it to work, more power to you. But elements constantly at war in purpose, as blocky platforming and the boost are regularly, does not a solid and concise game design make.

If the beginning levels of a game like Rush have minimal required blockades to clear compared to other games (in this case, Forces and it's spikes), I'd argue that that is not an egregious decision at all. The concept of the boost is instantaneous top speed meant to be retained for as long as possible, and in a situation where a player is learning how the game functions, thrusting upon them blocky blockades that they'll never see coming at that point, and killing their flow and rhythm, basically sets them up the same way a basic platformer does. It expects them to jump at every obstacle in order to progress, and expects them to encounter them often, with the cost of flow, progression, or worse on the line. This puts the player at odds with the boost as a concept, and turns it into a "will I, won't I..." situation. Boost gives speed but is inherently more dangerous and risky in a 2D game like this, can be more unpleasent than not when abruptly halted so often, and isn't even that satisfying to pull off in short bursts that you may know you can make, due to the entire nature of it's design. It's good introductory design for a platformer, but that isn't what the boost lends itself to in the first place.

In comparison, a constantly flowing and forward-moving tutorial stage, and overall design formula throughout the game, does not fully punish the use of boost on the outset in the slightest. Rather than blocks that stop you outright, pits let you fall to a lower path and enemies hurt you if you're careless. If you fail at the former, you get stopped in your tracks and lose boost altogether, but if you fail at the latter, you merely get inconvenienced or injured; and if constantly failed, eventually die. But most importantly, it keeps the flow of the game up, and retains the core purpose of the boost as a designed game mechanic: To use it to run as fast and as far as possible, and to develop and use your reaction times to retain and enhance it to be as fast as possible.

A relatively flat stage with horizontal and non-intrusive platforming challenges offers a safe, playground-styled environment for a new player to work in with the mechanics they need to learn, while retaining the purpose of the boost in the first place, I'd argue. It's not like the game is going to be devoid of actual threats and requirements past the basic act of jumping when ideal, but for a stage that is supposed to indoctrinate the player into the core ideas and mechanics they're supposed to use without hesitation and to their benefit, I'd say it teaches the player exactly as they should be.

 

Now whether that focus on speedy, flowing, and binary gameplay with an emphasis on twitch reaction times is more or less inherently valuable than analog, deliberate platforming with an emphasis on observable challenges to overcome, that I can't say. That's down to the individual and their preferences, tbh. So while Sonic Rush may have appropriate level design for those who want what it is, it can be boring as sin for those who went in expecting a platforming game of another variety, really. *shrug*

Difference is that Rush is well designed and realized around it's mechanics and core gameplay ideas, in a similar way the classics were. Forces on the other hand is still shoehorning the boost into a blocky platformer, for no other reason than for the sake of it. It can still maybe be a decent platformer, as if you could take the move away, it'd be legitimate for the sake of the analog platforming itself, and 3D can offset the problems of not seeing obstacles in time to clear them, but as a boost game, focused on the boost move and formula? Nope. It'll either be a game with a move/mechanic without a purpose, or a game which uses that mechanic clumsily and trivially, possibly at the detriment of the analog and skill-based nature of platformers in the first place. Probably somewhere inbetween the two. And that's... not really good game design.

[ChikaBoing]

To me there has to be some claustrophobic feelng so that a level feels fun, that is true for me since Sonic 1. I don't feel that in Rush.  I have no sense of anticipation, of danger, or punishment, unlike you described...it's long stretches of land upon land and also air which are just there to spam boost and spam tricks, so that the level does not feel completly empty. And it does not get better at all. Sonic 4 (slightly adjusted) with Boost would be alot more fun than Sonic Rush.

I feel like the Boost is more like the speed shoes/peel-out in the Classic games where it's something to make the level more thrilling.

And I feel you are totally overplaying the unnatural feeling of stop&go/analog platforming of Forces and Colors. There is some very intrusive stuff in Colors (staying on the button to rotate platforms and sticks, Cube Wisp), but it's not like a level is one half Green Hill and other other half is Marbe Zone. It flows well in the sense that you do different stuff every 10 seconds. It's more like a Spring Yard, Ice Cap Act 1 or Scrap Brain Zone kinda feeling with the amount of stop&go, and delibarate platforming. 

For what it tries to do, yes Rush is good. But I also think Colors and Forces are decent in what they do too. In a sense, neither Colors or Rush are absolutely ideal, and go too far of one end. Mania is the one game that truly is great in that balance, I feel Rush can stand equal to the Classics at all.

[The Deleter]

What do you mean by claustrophobia? A good portion of Rush's stages take place in narrow passageways later on in the game, so I'm a bit confused on what you mean there, tbh...

(I'd like to elaborate further on the rest of the points you brought up, btw, but I don't have the time, unfortunately. Spent way too long on that last post than I should have as-is, lol. I'll try to edit in a response and @ you once I've done so later on, though

Should point out that I don't think Rush is anywhere near the classics in terms of design though, lol, just trying to draw a comparison between Rush and another solid Sonic platformer which was well designed and understanding of its mechanics in the first place, 's all)

[ChikaBoing]

1 hour ago, The Deleter said:

What do you mean by claustrophobia? A good portion of Rush's stages take place in narrow passageways later on in the game, so I'm a bit confused on what you mean there, tbh...

Narrow? Does that description not only work for 3D? I think 2D level design for Sonic should not be too spacious or flat, Rush was very much so.

 

 

[Chris Knopps]

15 hours ago, ChikaBoing said:

Forces level design will always be better than Rush, because the first level of the former actually asks you to be mindful and jump over a couple spikes in the first level while running...In Rush you could beat the first level only holding right, there is no other Sonic game that does that.

I don't know...

In terms of the scenery and thematic stuff happening, yeah, Forces is way better.

In terms of the way the stage is laid out...

Eh... Both are simple as can be.

[Milo]

I'm not really hot on Rush's level design at all, but I do agree with the arguments being put forward that it's better than Forces in terms of gameplay coherence. At least with Rush, the level design is built around the game's boost mechanic, as largely linear and flat it is. There are some areas that require some awkward precise platforming, which are pretty tedious due to how they contrast with the past-paced gameplay; but they only take up small parts of the level from what I remember playing of the game. Whereas the SNES platformer-era design of Forces (as well as Colors and Lost World) are all about  platform-hopping affairs in their 2D levels/sections, and frequently break up the gameplay pace much more in comparison.

[Chris Knopps]

On 7/15/2017 at 2:34 AM, Yeow said:

I'm not really hot on Rush's level design at all, but I do agree with the arguments being put forward that it's better than Forces in terms of gameplay coherence. At least with Rush, the level design is built around the game's boost mechanic, as largely linear and flat it is. There are some areas that require some awkward precise platforming, which are pretty tedious due to how they contrast with the past-paced gameplay; but they only take up small parts of the level from what I remember playing of the game. Whereas the SNES platformer-era design of Forces (as well as Colors and Lost World) are all about  platform-hopping affairs in their 2D levels/sections, and frequently break up the gameplay pace much more in comparison.

I still believe the boost was created in 2D games because it was MEANT for 2D games.

It just doesn't do much of anything for 3D game play. There's less work you have to do to make it to the end of stages it feels when using boost in 3D compared to how much input it felt like YOU made to beat things in the Rush series.

It makes 3D games more cinematic I guess, but... It just never felt as right in 3D as it did in 2D, and that's likely why it started out as a 2D thing in the first place.

[Sonikko]

15 hours ago, Chris Knopps said:

I still believe the boost was created in 2D games because it was MEANT for 2D games.

It just doesn't do much of anything for 3D game play. There's less work you have to do to make it to the end of stages it feels when using boost in 3D compared to how much input it felt like YOU made to beat things in the Rush series.

It makes 3D games more cinematic I guess, but... It just never felt as right in 3D as it did in 2D, and that's likely why it started out as a 2D thing in the first place.

That's because their approach is mostly 2D than 3D. Even in the 3D sections they design the game like they would design a 2D one.

If they really expanded the boost formula in 3D it could be pretty good, not ideal, but pretty good. Some sections of Sky Sanctuary and Seaside Hill were great, I can't see why they can't have a whole game built out of that, a quality 3D product, instead of having a 2D game with a behind-the-shoulder perspective.

EDIT:

Proof:

 

[Chris Knopps]

Just now, Sonikko said:

That's because their approach is mostly 2D than 3D. Even in the 3D sections they design the game like they would design a 2D one.

If they really expanded the boost formula in 3D it could be pretty good, not ideal, but pretty good. Some sections of Sky Sanctuary and Seaside Hill were great, I can't see why they can't have a whole game built out of that, a quality 3D product, instead of having a 2D game with a behind-the-shoulder perspective.

Mmm...

See, the issue with expanding the boost formula is causing the player to lose a total sense of where to go. I've had this issue with every water themed stage I've played that had the boost in 3D environments. You just have to HOPE you're going in the right direction and land on the next island and/or part of the stage before you either run out of boost or die due to accidentally going past some border.

Sky Sanctuary was pretty good but... It would have felt better without the boost to me... I loved the zip-lines and those big chambers though. They were cool.

[Sonikko]

Just now, Chris Knopps said:

Mmm...

See, the issue with expanding the boost formula is causing the player to lose a total sense of where to go. I've had this issue with every water themed stage I've played that had the boost in 3D environments. You just have to HOPE you're going in the right direction and land on the next island and/or part of the stage before you either run out of boost or die due to accidentally going past some border.

Sky Sanctuary was pretty good but... It would have felt better without the boost to me... I loved the zip-lines and those big chambers though. They were cool.

The Zip-Lines were hardly the highlight for me in SS, what I loved was how the 3D sections could be approached with the Air Boost. It let you blast through the mandatory blocky platforming sections, and it's kinda the equivalent of what the classic games did. It's a pretty different way to achieve the same result, that's what I'd like to see out of the boost formula, if 3D physics based platforming isn't what they want to do.

Seaside Hill had a good beginning section, the later half isn't that great, but I love the first 10-15 seconds.

[UpCDownCLeftCRightC]

No. As said by many others, the game's problems are fundamental design issues. I also think this extends to the 'boost formula' in general as well. More time will not solve its fundamental problems. Release it and then get on with the next project. I actually think Forces will turn out 'ok' in both sales and critical reception overall but that obviously is far from SEGA's goal within their new mantra of quality and restoring Sonic as a global brand. This is a relative failure considering 4 years of development time, even though this game obviously is no '06 or boom. This game badly needed to be at least on par with Generations for them to reach that goal. And Generations was no masterpiece either.

 

I'm also an advocate for Modern Sonic to die off, for several reasons I won't get into since this isn't that thread. Modern Sonic =/= 3D Sonic, and I still think Sonic has his greatest potential in 3D as a videogame series. But perhaps SEGA should find fresh talent to take control of the big budget games. If 3D Sonic is to ever to reach the level of excellence like his heyday with the 2D games in the 90s, it will take a group other than the current Sonic Team to do it.