Jump to content
Awoo.

Sonic Forces - Space Port Gameplay


Patron

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, FriesWithoutKetchup said:

Objectively bad and objectively wrong are two very different things. I'd say that it's a lot easier to prove that something is objectively wrong than to prove something is objectively bad, if we're talking about 'wrong' in the sense of being false. The dash panels in Forces are BAD is not a correct or incorrect statement, it's a subjective opinion. There are no dash panels in Forces at all is an incorrect, veritably false statement. I don't think there's anything subjective about 'all chairs are made of out steel' as a statement.

There should be more to the sentence.

The dash panels in Forces are BAD because they essentially substitute the player input (in context, that´s why the second part is omitted as it´s self-explaining). And that is a correct statement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Whatever the WhoCares said:

You might be right, but I still find that hard to believe. Unless this game is packed with content and it's a quantity over quality situation. 

Believe me, I want there to be a bigger, more impressive Sonic game in development besides this one, but I think those days of multiple Sonic games coming out within a year or two are over and they have been since 2009 or 2010. =[

9 minutes ago, nilesdobbs said:

Wait. It did?

Yeaaaahhh I believe Capcom expected it to sell over 2 million in just a few months and after more than a year it’s sold...more than a million. I think it’s almost at 2 million now, but still. SFV definitely didn’t end up being a big hit sales wise like SFIV before it, and it looks like MvsC:I will end up the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, superman43 said:

There should be more to the sentence.

The dash panels in Forces are BAD because they essentially substitute the player input (in context, that´s why the second part is omitted as it´s self-explaining). And that is a correct statement. 

But... it's not a *correct* statement. Correct implies that it's the absolute truth, and it's not. It's just a subjective opinion.

That, right there, is giving an opinion and then giving evidence to support why someone has that opinion. It's not stating an absolute truth.

Maybe our definitions about these words are just different or something.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gabz Girl said:

Believe me, I want there to be a bigger, more impressive Sonic game in development besides this one, but I think those days of multiple Sonic games coming out within a year or two are over and they have been since 2009 or 2010. =[

Yeaaaahhh I believe Capcom expected it to sell over 2 million in just a few months and after more than a year it’s sold...more than a million. I think it’s almost at 2 million now, but still. SFV definitely didn’t end up being a big hit sales wise like SFIV before it, and it looks like MvsC:I will end up the same. 

What I'm thinking of is Colors and then Generations, some kind of scenario like that. With Lost World being the Colors team game and this one being another Colors team game while the big whammy gets ironed out in secret. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FriesWithoutKetchup said:

But... it's not a *correct* statement. Correct implies that it's the absolute truth, and it's not. It's just a subjective opinion.

That, right there, is giving an opinion and then giving evidence to support why someone has that opinion. It's not stating an absolute truth.

Maybe our definitions about these words are just different or something.

Ehm... what is good about substituting player input, tell me. Isn´t it a key thing for a platformer ?

And it´s inherently BAD because there is, as said before, very high percentage of automated sections. It´s ok in stages like Generations´ Chemical Plant or whatever before, because it was probably one of the very few things automated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, superman43 said:

Ehm... what is good about substituting player input, tell me. Isn´t it a key thing for a platformer ?

My argument isn't that it's GOOD. It's just that it's neither good nor BAD on it's own, and that when people claim it to be that way, they're giving an opinion rather than stating a fact.

I'm not trying to argue for either side. I have my own opinions about what I think is good or bad about Sonic Forces, but I don't believe that just because I have these opinions and reasons for having them... that my opinions are somehow more 'correct' or more 'right' than someone else who may disagree with me.

Does that make sense? Because I'm not used to this kind of back-and-forth debating online, to be honest. I wonder if I'm being clear enough about what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FriesWithoutKetchup said:

My argument isn't that it's GOOD. It's just that it's neither good nor BAD on it's own, and that when people claim it to be that way, they're giving an opinion rather than stating a fact.

I'm not trying to argue for either side. I have my own opinions about what I think is good or bad about Sonic Forces, but I don't believe that just because I have these opinions and reasons for having them... that my opinions are somehow more 'correct' or more 'right' than someone else who may disagree with me.

Does that make sense? Because I'm not used to this kind of back-and-forth debating online, to be honest. I wonder if I'm being clear enough about what I mean.

Hm... well there are only two ways... either the things substituting the player input are there or not. That´s the first point. Second point, you can share opinion how much of the gameplay should be automated. Because it was definitely less than 1/5 of all movement in previous games and in Forces, well, some have 30% of gameplay, whilst this one particularly has like 60%+.

It´s too late where I live, so let´s go to sleep. -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Razule said:

Not assumed, we were told.

Where? I don't think we were.

During these four years since Lost World, Sonic Team will of course have been working on the series, but that obviously wasn't all spent on Project Sonic 2017/Sonic Forces. A great deal of time will have been spent developing the Hedgehog Engine 2, researching and learning the new hardware (originally just the PS4 and XB1, later the Switch as well). But even beyond that, this level of asset reuse is very out of character for Sonic games. Forces almost feels like it's being built right off Generations. The fact that so little has changed gameplay wise, particularly for Classic who's levels are so much easier to build than Modern or the Avatar's, it's obvious that this game has had a stifled development somehow. @Mayor D claims to have some degree of insider info about the development of this game and "something that happened" in the middle of production. I think he's reliable enough a source to take seriously even if he can't disclose that information right now.

This game is categorically not the result of four years work. I'd struggle to say that it's barely two years work and the game was mostly cobbled together from around the time it was teased last year, but that's complete guesswork. I have to wonder if the game was in development as one project and then had to be dramatically reworked because of "reasons".

EDIT: Quadruple post holy crap 

  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Diogenes said:

Maybe let's put it this way.

Red is a warm color. This is not an absolute fact baked into the universe; "red" does not have an inherent temperature, it's just part of how humans tend to perceive, and make associations regarding, color. The strength of this association can vary from person to person and some people may not perceive red as being warm at all, but the association is strong enough and consistent enough that we consider "red is a warm color" to be a true statement.

Now imagine that, but for elements of game design.

You could actually apply this to anything that isn't absolute fact but is thought to be true by a majority of people, which is one of the things I dislike about "good or bad" arguments in general.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Diogenes said:

Maybe let's put it this way.

Red is a warm color. This is not an absolute fact baked into the universe; "red" does not have an inherent temperature, it's just part of how humans tend to perceive, and make associations regarding, color. The strength of this association can vary from person to person and some people may not perceive red as being warm at all, but the association is strong enough and consistent enough that we consider "red is a warm color" to be a true statement.

Now imagine that, but for elements of game design.

Hm... in that case, I agree with the opinion that red is, indeed, a warm color. I just... I don't see that as making it a *true* statement, I just see it as being the commonly-agreed-upon way to think of the color. And there's nothing wrong with that.

And with game design, I pretty much feel the same way - the general consensus agreeing that something is good or bad game design is fine, and chances are I probably share the same opinions 99% of the time.

I just don't agree that THAT constitutes an absolute truth about something.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, nilesdobbs said:

Huh, IGN has been oddly positive about Sonic Forces. It's strange and ironic.

IGN is not one person, or a hivemind, that's why. Someone at IGN who wrote the article likes Sonic Forces, and whoever ends up doing the review for the game might hate it into oblivion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FriesWithoutKetchup said:

Hm... in that case, I agree with the opinion that red is, indeed, a warm color. I just... I don't see that as making it a *true* statement, I just see it as being the commonly-agreed-upon way to think of the color. And there's nothing wrong with that.

And with game design, I pretty much feel the same way - the general consensus agreeing that something is good or bad game design is fine, and chances are I probably share the same opinions 99% of the time.

I just don't agree that THAT constitutes an absolute truth about something.

I would have to agree with you. Only facts about the level itself that we can see so far is that it doesn't have alternate routes so far (from what we have seen, anyway), there are some instances where the player may not be in control, the enemies are very easy to kill, doesn't seem to be much platforming, the level looks straight, and such. That doesn't mean it is bad. It is all a matter of perspective. Aside from what I listed, the rest is up to point of view, opinion and judgement, which itself is varied and does not constitute truth. Quality is part of how a person sees it, so in all fairness, it is subjective. Saying it is bad is just opinion, and not more truee than one saying otherwise. Nothing factual about that. And I believe it is silly to say subjectivity can't work for an argument when it is the basis of all or many arguments.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Blue Blood said:

Where? I don't think we were.

Iizuka claimed in a Famitsu interview that Forces has been in development since 2013. (quickest reference I could find)

Of course, I say "claimed" because I think it's obvious at this point that whatever project Sonic Team started after Lost World was either thrown out or heavily reworked into what we now have with Forces. I mean, I think most people (even those looking forward to the game) can agree that there's nothing about this project that screams "This was our plan the whole time! All four years have accumulated into this! Enjoy!"

The whole thing's a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Clewis said:

Iizuka claimed in a Famitsu interview that Forces has been in development since 2013. (quickest reference I could find)

Of course, I say "claimed" because I think it's obvious at this point that whatever project Sonic Team started after Lost World was either thrown out or heavily reworked into what we now have with Forces. I mean, I think most people (even those looking forward to the game) can agree that there's nothing about this project that screams "This was our plan the whole time! All four years have accumulated into this! Enjoy!"

The whole thing's a mess.

Thanks, but that doesn't cut it. Is like to see the original quote and a direct translation of it. I know where to look now though. I would expect that Iizuka said something more akin to "we started working on the next Sonic project immediately after Lost World", which would include everything from experiments to research before the game itself started. And the game would have a lot more to distinguish itself from Generations if they were working on it for so long.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't wait for the level that's just a straight flat line, cause we sure seem to be inching closer to it.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CleverSonicUsername said:

Can't wait for the level that's just a straight flat line, cause we sure seem to be inching closer to it.

Its called Terminal Velocity....

 

and it actually wasn't half bad lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

Its called Terminal Velocity....

 

and it actually wasn't half bad lol

Wasn't that also a boss fight and not like, a proper level in what's ostensibly a platformer?

edit: Nevermind I forgot this was multiple acts, it's been years since I touched Colors. Also I dunno this still doesn't seem great, even though I overall enjoyed Colors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a fun distraction. Not bad for a literal "Straight Line Zone" that we all joke about ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FriesWithoutKetchup said:

Objectively bad and objectively wrong are two very different things. I'd say that it's a lot easier to prove that something is objectively wrong than to prove something is objectively bad, if we're talking about 'wrong' in the sense of being false. The dash panels in Forces are BAD is not a correct or incorrect statement, it's a subjective opinion. There are no dash panels in Forces at all is an incorrect, veritably false statement. I don't think there's anything subjective about 'all chairs are made of out steel' as a statement.

But... it's *not* dismissing anything. It's just offering a different opinion about something. If one person says they like something, and another says they dislike something, I dont' see how that's dismissing an argument.

Honestly, this whole thing is starting to become very confusing to me...

I've never seen Raider's of the Lost Ark, so I can't really say one way or another if I think it's a good movie or not. I'm talking more generally. Everything pointing in one direction doesn't make something objectively good or bad, it just means that the general consensus about it is one way. I don't believe that movies, games, songs, etc. are inherently, objectively bad or good. They just exist, and then people come along and place value judgements on them. If enough people happen to agree one way or another about something, then it creates a general consensus... but that doesn't create real, actual objectivity. It's still a consensus made up of people's personal opinions.

And if someone puts those two games as equal in their own eyes... it doesn't really matter, because that's their opinion. It only really matters if they put themselves in a position where they have to justify and explain why they think that way.

I don't really understand what issue you're taking with what I've said. Could you please tell me what, in the simplest possible terms, you object to that I've said about Sonic Forces? I'm having trouble keeping up with everything, since this has gotten extremely philosophical and gone way past just stating opinions.

The current topic of debate --the one you and ScaryCrystalSkull have raised in the thread-- is that you don't agree with the various complaints levied against Forces aren't negatives--not because you don't think those arguments are wrong, but because you say they are subjective. My responses and overreaching line of rebuttal is in disagreement with your narrative, on the basis that the arguments presented against Forces are based on demonstrable/factual evidence about the game, rather than personal tastes (which would make those arguments subjective). I feel my posts about the dash panels, and subjectivity/dismissing arguments, and comparison of Rayman/Mighty are in line with that. If you go back and check my responses, I said neither dash panels in Forces are bad, or that saying someone not liking something someone they like is dismissing their arguments, or stating Rayman/Mighty No. 9 as equals as an opinion. I don't really think I'm exactly being vague or unclear with the points I'm saying in my previous posts.

A subjective complaint against Forces would be me saying Forces is worse because it doesn't have Crash's visual artstyle, or Mario's control scheme and moveset, on the basis that I like both of those properties. But the dash panels, enemies, level design, QTE business; this is me (and others) saying the game is worse because it uses and repeats pieces of bad design, and we have given explanations as to why we describe them as bad design that are outside things we personally like or don't like (emphasis on this--few, if any, people here are saying Forces is a worse game just because it has dash panels, or just because it has a QTE sequence).

As for objectively bad and objectively wrong are two "very different" things...not sure where you're getting this from? An adjective definition for wrong specifically states "not in accordance with what is morally right or good", and "bad" is a synonym term to wrong. They may not specifically mean the exact same thing, but the descriptive terms they carry are visibly similar to each other. You actually used both of those terms to refer to the complaints regarding Forces a few pages ago.

Edited by Yeow
Edited post for clarity
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Yeow said:

The current topic of debate --the one you and ScaryCrystalSkull have raised in the thread-- is that you don't agree with the various complaints levied against Forces aren't negatives--not because you don't think those arguments are wrong, but because you say they are subjective. My responses and overreaching line of rebuttal is in disagreement with your narrative, on the basis that the arguments presented against Forces are based on demonstrable/factual evidence about the game, rather than personal tastes (which would make those arguments subjective). I feel my posts about the dash panels, and subjectivity/dismissing arguments, and comparison of Rayman/Mighty are in line with that. If you go back and check my responses, I said neither dash panels in Forces are bad, or that saying someone not liking something someone they like is dismissing their arguments, or stating Rayman/Mighty No. 9 as equals as an opinion. I don't really think I'm exactly being vague or unclear with the points I'm saying in my previous posts.

A subjective complaint against Forces would be me saying Forces is worse because it doesn't have Crash's visual artstyle, or Mario's control scheme and moveset (both of which are things I like). But the dash panels, enemies, level design, QTE business; this is me (and others) saying the game is worse because it uses and repeats pieces of bad design, and we have given explanations as to why we describe them as bad design (emphasis on this--few, if any, people here are saying Forces is a worse game just because it has dash panels, or just because it has a QTE sequence).

As for objectively bad and objectively wrong are two "very different" things...not sure where you're getting this from? An adjective definition for wrong specifically states "not in accordance with what is morally right or good", and "bad" is a synonym term to wrong. They may not specifically mean the exact same thing, but the descriptive terms they carry are visibly similar to each other. You actually used both of those terms to refer to the complaints regarding Forces a few pages ago.

You're right - I did use both of those terms back then, and looking back at it now, I definitely should've worded things differently.

I don't think there's any way for us to proceed forward other than agreeing to disagree, because I feel like I've said the same things over and over again.

Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.