Jump to content
knuckles20

I never cared about game physics.

Recommended Posts

I've seen this a lot in the fandom where if a game doesn't have 100% of the game physics of the Classic era it automatically sucks.

I don't share this mindset because I barely notice it and if I do I just adapt to the changes made.

"Oh no Sonic's jump in Sonic 4 is 2% higher than it was in Sonic CD! This game is the worst".

And while I do prefer 3D games I do like Sonic Rush and Rush Adventure. I don't know how the physics work and if it isn't a pure clone of the Sonic 1 when it comes to game physics I don't care.

If that's the only way Sonic games can be considered "good"' then the Classic era is more overrated than people want to admit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you got it all wrong. Let me explain:

  • Sonic 4 was initially "Sonic Mobile".
  • Someone at Sega of America saw it and said "Hey! Let's call this Sonic 4 and we'll earn millions thanks to nostalgia!". They thought we wouldn't notice it wasn't Sonic *4* at all.
  • They marketed this with sentences like "This is the game you've been waiting for for 20 years" (not at all).
  • Sonic Mobile could have been an only decent title.
  • Calling it Sonic 4 and not being Sonic 4 at all (if you want more info about why just ask) made classic Sonic fans really angry.
  • Sonic 4 sucked at being Sonic FOUR, a game that was supposed to evolve from Sonic 3 & Knuckles. Sonic 4, as a Sonic game, is only mediocre.

 

Sega showed so little knowledge about their mascot, their main franchise, and the classic games (which made Sega what it is... or what it was in the 90's) that it was really embarassing.

On the other hand, for many fans, modern Sonic games are not as fun and good as the classic ones. We'll agree that this is something acceptable, as it's a matter of tastes, right?

So, take thousands of classic Sonic fans who don't like modern Sonic and have been waiting decades for a sequel to Sonic 3 & Knuckles (and have seen Sega humilliating Sonic with games like Sonic 06), give them the game they decided to call Sonic 4, and what do you get? That's the story.

On the other hand, the classic era is not overrated. Think about it: thanks to the classic Sonic games, Sega became a giant. Nintendo dominated the market with the NES, then Sega came with Mega Drive and had some success, but it wasn't until Sonic The Hedgehog that THE WORLD knew about Sega.

Of course you can think whatever you want, but you seem to need more info than what you seem to have ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, knuckles20 said:

I've seen this a lot in the fandom where if a game doesn't have 100% of the game physics of the Classic era it automatically sucks.

Do you have examples or links?

6 minutes ago, knuckles20 said:

"Oh no Sonic's jump in Sonic 4 is 2% higher than it was in Sonic CD! This game is the worst".

Why does Sonic uncurl when he rolls up a ramp?

Why isn't he getting faster when he rolls down hill?

Why did they claim Sonic 4 as a Classic Sonic experience but use a Sonic Rush physics engine without the Boost?

7 minutes ago, knuckles20 said:

And while I do prefer 3D games I do like Sonic Rush and Rush Adventure. I don't know how the physics work and if it isn't a pure clone of the Sonic 1 when it comes to game physics I don't care.

I have never seen anyone say any of the Rush Games are bad because the physics aren't like the Classic Trilogy.

That's like if someone bashed Sonic Mania because Sonic can'tr Boost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short: Sega tried to lie many old customers/fans and they got what they deserved. 

I don't like Sonic Rush but I don't say it's shit because it's not like the classics. Marketing a game as a classic and not being a classic at all, that's the problem.

Get it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, molul said:

In short: Sega tried to lie many old customers/fans and they got what they deserved. 

I don't like Sonic Rush but I don't say it's shit because it's not like the classics. Marketing a game as a classic and not being a classic at all, that's the problem.

Get it now?

Was the difference that freaking bad? The response to Sonic 4 gameplay mechanics were like Competitive Smash players whining about Brawl having slight differences from Melee.

You make it sound like the game was Hong Kong 97.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, knuckles20 said:

Was the difference that freaking bad?

May I ask:

-How many times have you played Sonic 1, 2, and 3&K?

-Do you have a game that you love and you've played it so much that you could write all the game's details without having to replay it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, knuckles20 said:

Was the difference that freaking bad? The response to Sonic 4 gameplay mechanics were like Competitive Smash players whining about Brawl having slight differences from Melee.

You make it sound like the game was Hong Kong 97.

You just lost all credibility with that sentence. If you think the differences between Brawl and Melee were only "slight" then you have no idea what you are talking about! The people who complained about that crap are the people who actually sat down and played melee for more than 60 hours...

If you don't care about the physics, then you don't care about the game, because the physics ARE THE GAME! Thinking otherwise is just a sign of lower standards, if it doesn't bother you that's one thing, but saying it doesn't matter is entirely different.

... When you have to resort to saying "Its not that bad", thats why people don't take your opinion seriously. That mindset is how mediocre games get a pass, nobody wants to play mediocre games in their right mind...especiallly if its tied to a franchise that used to be great one of the best in existence! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue here is that it's fine if you don't care about the physics - in one sense I guess I don't fully care either, since I enjoy both the classic games and Sonic 4 (but in another sense I DO care becuase I like them for different reasons - I like the classics as physics-based platformers, and I like Sonic 4 as just a regular ol' platformer).

The reason your opinion is going to be disregarded though is that basically you're saying "I also don't care that other people do care".  Which makes talking with you pointless - above are a bunch of arguments and explainations as why the physics do matter - either in general or just to the person posting - but already you're showing signs of disregarding them all because you don't care.  You say things like "Was it really that bad?" in a tone that suggests you'll refuse to accept "Yes, it was really that bad" as a legitimate answer.

So the question is... why make this thread at all other than to boast about your own apathy?  It's boring.  An interesting discussion might've been a more open or positive one, asking how much other people care about physics and/or what 2D Sonic games people enjoy that don't try to reproduce the classics and why, particularly if physics are important to them.

 

If I'm off the mark about you, I apologise, if not, I can only say really try to take in and appreciate the other points of view here, you'll learn why and it won't in the slightest harm your personal ability to enjoy games like Sonic 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, JezMM said:

The main issue here is that it's fine if you don't care about the physics - in one sense I guess I don't fully care either, since I enjoy both the classic games and Sonic 4 (but in another sense I DO care becuase I like them for different reasons - I like the classics as physics-based platformers, and I like Sonic 4 as just a regular ol' platformer).

The reason your opinion is going to be disregarded though is that basically you're saying "I also don't care that other people do care".  Which makes talking with you pointless - above are a bunch of arguments and explainations as why the physics do matter - either in general or just to the person posting - but already you're showing signs of disregarding them all because you don't care.  You say things like "Was it really that bad?" in a tone that suggests you'll refuse to accept "Yes, it was really that bad" as a legitimate answer.

So the question is... why make this thread at all other than to boast about your own apathy?  It's boring.  An interesting discussion might've been a more open or positive one, asking how much other people care about physics and/or what 2D Sonic games people enjoy that don't try to reproduce the classics and why, particularly if physics are important to them.

 

If I'm off the mark about you, I apologise, if not, I can only say really try to take in and appreciate the other points of view here, you'll learn why and it won't in the slightest harm your personal ability to enjoy games like Sonic 4.

I've seen this commentary about  gameplay physics so many times not just for Sonic 4 but pretty much every Sonic game.

I'll admit that this thread was made out of anger what with Mania being herald as the bringing back Sonic to the limelight and critics brushing off anything that isn't 100% duplicate of the classic gameplay, even to games that weren't even  set out to be a classic inspired game.

I don't see physics as a big deal because I believe that the gameplay mechanics of the Classic games are not the only way Sonic can be good. 

"But wait that's not true. Critics also like the boost formula" Some may reply. But I don't think it's that great either when it can make the games too easy and I find it ridiculous boost games like Generations gets to praised as one of the best "3D games" when at least 50% of the gameplay isn't in 3D.

In short I wanted to see if other felt the same way. I apologize to anyone who felt hurt by my initial post.

I should have been more understanding to those who value gameplay mechanics just as fans of the Adventure era want other to be more unstanding of why we have so much value on plot and characters outside of Sonic and Eggman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a genius when it come to physics, and I can even accept some games with somewhat off physics, such as many of the 8-bit games. But there comes a point when it gets far past "the physics aren't 1:1 accurate" - when it gets to the point of what I see as basic gameplay mechanics not working anymore. To me, how momentum works is just a basic aspect of the gameplay. I might be able to stand it being somewhat different or a little off, but not to the extent that rolling down hills doesn't make you gain momentum or other extreme examples that can be found in some games such as Sonic 4. When you get to that point, to me, it's just simply a gameplay mechanic that I've gotten used to and really really like being removed for no reason. And obviously, I don't like that.

If you don't care about the gameplay mechanics that much and mostly care about the characters or storyline, bully for you. But you have to accept that many people who care about a video game care a lot about the actual mechanics of playing the game, and there's obviously nothing remotely unreasonable about this.

1 hour ago, knuckles20 said:

I should have been more understanding to those who value gameplay mechanics just as fans of the Adventure era want other to be more unstanding of why we have so much value on plot and characters outside of Sonic and Eggman.

Thank you, I really think you hit the nail on the head here. This is no different than someone making a topic complaining that they never cared about story in Sonic and making ridiculous straw-men of those who do, essentially implying that those who do care are obsessive or at least highly devaluing their opinions for no reason, which I'm sure you would rightfully perceive as unfair.

I mean, seriously...is it that unusual that people would care about the gameplay of games?

Honestly, this whole thing comes across as you being upset other people's opinions differ from yours. I mean...that's life. I'm not saying it's not frustrating, but reacting in anger to others about it is pointless. Like what you like, care about what you care about, don't care about what you don't care about. No need to be dismissive of others who don't see things the same way just because you're frustrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured this kinda says it all.

https://giphy.com/gifs/hate-RyCxCdy1ay8yQ

Classic Sonic was built around physics, enough that it's perplexing Sonic Team would actually move away from them when it's such a huge buzzword in gaming today, and Sonic 4 feels like it ignores them entirely as it tries to claim its place as a successor.

Sonic 4 is fun in its own way, but definitely not the way the originals were meant to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, knuckles20 said:

I've seen this a lot in the fandom where if a game doesn't have 100% of the game physics of the Classic era it automatically sucks.

I don't share this mindset because I barely notice it and if I do I just adapt to the changes made.

"Oh no Sonic's jump in Sonic 4 is 2% higher than it was in Sonic CD! This game is the worst".

And while I do prefer 3D games I do like Sonic Rush and Rush Adventure. I don't know how the physics work and if it isn't a pure clone of the Sonic 1 when it comes to game physics I don't care.

If that's the only way Sonic games can be considered "good"' then the Classic era is more overrated than people want to admit.

Look, it's fine if you're not a fan of the classic Sonic games but you can't just jump onto a Sonic forum and start saying that maybe we're praising them more than we should. We've never asked for a 1:1 translation of the Genesis/Megadrive game's control, we just wanted Sonic games to be consistent to the gameplay he had since his inception, which was to place a heavy emphasis on momentum, the ability to use that momentum to go from point A to point B with a variety of applications, and the multitude of routes that would naturally stem from such a design philosophy. Maybe it isn't important that Sonic controls as precisely as he does in the classics for newer entries, but it does matter that he is fun to control.

You could design the most glorious levels ever devised in a 2-D platformer, but if your character isn't fun to move then it's a wasted effort. People love Sonic Adventure 1 & 2 to this day primarily because Sonic is very fun to run around with. Sonic is fun to play with in the Rush games because it was designed to take advantage of his boost; without it that would be a very different story, as is the case with Sonic 4. The point is Sonic 4 is bad not because it isn't a perfect recreation of classic Sonic, but it just isn't as fun to play by comparison, a comparison that is inseparable from Sonic 4's identity because it's what Sega wanted us to consider it as. Hell, I don't even consider Sonic 4 bad, just mediocre, and the fact that Mania does happen to have 1:1 classic Sonic control is almost superfluous, but welcomed because it's proven to be a fun way to control Sonic.

And people need to stop using 'overrated' when criticizing something that's popular. It's just a buzzword used to say, "I don't like this because it's popular yet it doesn't appeal to me, therefore it doesn't deserve its praise." I apologize if this sounds a bit dickish to say, but I've seen the word overrated thrown around so much, not just in the Sonic fandom, that it's become very aggravating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, knuckles20 said:

Was the difference that freaking bad?

Yes. Even I as somebody who rarely ever is worried about physics to strongly noticed how awful and missing the point Sonic 4 was. I also showed some family members who rarely play Sonic and they noticed very quickly too that the game was extremely off in quite a lot of ways.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called "I never cared about game physics" but it's really just "Why are people disliking Sonic 4".

Disappointing, I was really excited to see how you'd possibly justify thinking the way a game moves doesn't matter.

Anyway, nice strawman. Nobody's saying "You jump shorter than in Sonic CD". Pretty sure it's "you can stand on 90 degree angles, the acceleration is sluggish and unsatisfying, momentum hardly exists, the homing attack and over abundance of springs and boosters make the game practically play itself cuz the game's too broken to work otherwise."

Nice try tho.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, knuckles20 said:

I should have been more understanding to those who value gameplay mechanics just as fans of the Adventure era want other to be more unstanding of why we have so much value on plot and characters outside of Sonic and Eggman.

I honestly don't see why you couldn't be a fan of both?

I really don't like the direction of Unleashed, I feel its very "un-sonic" like. But that doesn't mean I think its a bad game, for all its faults it gets stuff right, really right sometimes.

I mean...this seems controdictory like...I don't think there exists many people who will tell you that Sonic 4 has an amazing story or anything. The reality is that Sonic 4 isn't made for anyone in mind, the only way you'd like it is if you didn't care about its flaws entirely (low standards) or if you actively TRIED to like it...for whatever reason...

I'm sorry if I missed it cause I just skimmed a lot of what you said but...what was the point of this topic again? Every fandom has fans saying dumb stuff sometimes, just ignore it and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×