Sonic Forces - Space Port Gameplay

[Sonikko]

2 hours ago, Cakito said:

But what makes a good game a quality game? 

What is quality in a video game context? Having fun equals having quality? And what if it has quality and it isn't fun? Why a fun game isn't a quality game since having fun is the primordial point of any game? Fun is subjective. Why quality isn't? What does "having quality" even mean?

(I am pretty much asking stuff because I was just wondering about this)

Honestly? Those two things intertwine. A quality game is going to be enjoyable by most people. Something like Mania/Cuphead/Nier Automata/Zelda BOTW/Mario Odissey/Rayman Legends. Those are games that the 90% of the gaming community has fun with. And in those games (they're obviously not the only ones, I'm just citing some as examples) you'll find what are the characteristics of a good game.

In Forces' case, I think saying it's a bad game is not that out there.

What's the main point of a platformer game?

Is it simply "jumping"? Is it simply "moving the character around"?

The answer to those questions is no. Any universally loved platformer has some characteristics in common:

1) The ability to move the character around in an organic way, a moveset that complements the basic character movements and enhance the experience, they set a higher skill ceiling. Look at Mario 64, Mario Sunshine, Banjo & Kazooie, A Hat in Time, Mario Odissey. Look at how well those character interact with the environment, they always do what you expect them to. There are plenty of options to approach the terrain, and each of them will give you a different result.

If you're a great player, you can blast through the stages and take advantage of any little variation in terrain, if you're an average player, you'll get the basic experience of strolling through the game, while still having fun with it. This brings me to point N°2

2) Accessible skill floor, high skill ceiling. This is a very common quality for higly rated titles. Beginners can have fun with the game, not being forced through excessive challenges, but the more experienced the player is, the more fun he can get out of the game. (classic Sonic games, Mania, heck even SA1 is like that!, Mario games, etc).

3) Good level design. Now this one's a tough one. What is good level design? What is bad level design? Does good level design depend on how much fun I have with it? What if you don't like it?

Alright. Let's tackle this. 

A good stage, no matter if it's the first stage or the last one in the game, must be engaging. It must be interesting from start to finish, it should need some thought on the player's side.

You should always be thinking ahead, "How do I approach this?" "What do I do with that piece of terrain?" "Should I do this like this, or should I do it like that?".

Now, let's take a look at a couple of examples:

See how many options you have in just one single section of the stage? Look at the lower path that intertwines with the higher path. Look at how many opportunities the terrain gives you to approach the stage in different ways.

Now compare this to Forces:

Sure, there are 3 different pathways here, arguably more than I've shown in that Mania section. But... does this look as interesting? Are there as many opportunities?

Designing that stage doesn't take much. The top path is literally 3 platforms one after the other, which is the most basic form of designing a stage.

The middle pathway is completely automated and it's a straight line with a loop in the middle anyway, which btw doesn't serve a purpose anymore and is located right before a sudden drop, something the player would not expect at all during a fast sequence like that (the Mania developers have a cool interview out with stuff like that pointed out).

The bottom path is... a straight line with two spikes and you can see a robot in the screenshot too. That's it. 

Now. Is this broken? No, of course it isn't. The game works. It's playable. But how engaging is that? Especially compared to the Mania level map? 

From your perspective, do you like more being restricted in doing very basic actions when the game decides you have to, or would you like to experiment with the game yourself and find your own way to play it?

 

I think those are the main points that define a good platformer game. 

Now take a look at Forces. The Space Port footage for example. I have a post in this very thread where I counted how many seconds of gameplay were either very very restricted or required no player input at all.

The whole footage was 1:28 minutes long. You can go 51 seconds without requiring any meaningful input.

And the rest? A couple of platforms one on top of the others you have to jump on and two homing attack chains. Oh and a drill boost/lightspeed dash section in which you just press a button and the game plays itself.

Does that sound engaging?

On 17/10/2017 at 9:57 PM, Sonikko said:

00:00-00:06 hallway with homing attack chain

00:06-00:12 3 springs camouflaged as a grappling hook thing

00:12-00:19 hallway with rows of uninteresting enemies that just stand there, you can one-shot them

00:19-00:22 the most basic form of platforming in existence 

00:22-00:32 a 10 seconds long completely automated sections, 3 boostpads one after the other

00:32-00:34 oh hey an hallway with enemies, where have I seen that again?

00:34-00:41 grinding section where nothing is going on, literally nothing. Grappling Hook Spring at the end.

00:41-00:44 drill boost, one button press

00:44-00:48 again, a 3 platforms vertical jump. Wow. Such depth.

00:48-01:08 20 seconds of cutscene with one button prompt in the middle

01:08-01:11 Grappling Hook, again, completely automated, it's like a spring.

01:11-01:14 hallway with enemies, again

01:14-01:19 automated section with 5 boostpads, one after the other

01:19-01:19 Homing attack

01:19-01:28 either very basic platforming or automated drill boost

Literally everything about this is wrong. Let's count how many seconds are automated and don't require player input: 51 if you don't count the last bit, 1 whole minute if you include the drill boost.

1 minute out of a 1:28 minutes footage.

In conclusion, Sonic Forces fails to deliver in the most basic departments of platformer games.

It doesn't live up to the standards other Sonic games have set before, and it definitely doesn't live up to the standards platformers set in the 90s and early 2000s, let alone modern platformers.

[Roger_van_der_weide]

Agreed with all the observations.

Where it becomes muddy is.... I don't think Sonic Team is trying to follow your rules and expectations of a good platformer, and instead is trying something entirely new.
I mean, I don't think they refer to Sonic Forces as a platform game. They usually call it a 3d high speed action game.
Which, considering the laughable 3d, is still a shakey description. But it does suggest they're aproaching this diffrently.

Thing is, I replayed Sonic 4 episode 1 a bit lately and I learned that the game becomes a lot more enjoyable and clever when you stop approaching it as a Classic Sonic game and try to follow Sonic Team's new crazy logic. Like it or not, homing attacks are the heart and soul of that game, not anything resembling pinball physics.
Now granted, calling it Sonic 4 and constant using Classic Sonic imagary has caused Sonic Team to dig their own grave here, so I won't defend their decisions or judge people for fighting against the inner logic of the game, but just saying when it comes to modern Sonic Team... They're kind of expecting you to have a more abstract and loose mindset when you aproach their games.
Gotta take it on face value and go with the flow, rather then violently force your preconceived experience into the experience. (Which makes their constant reliance on Nostalgia much more frustrating.)

Back to Forces.
At the very least we can all agree they're not even TRYING to uphold any of the qualities you guys want, right? At this point it's meaningless to expect miracles to happen and later levels to suddenly have a drastic change in direction. This game is designed like a Cheap Thrill Ride, not anything resembling traditional Sonic gameplay. Which was more a...Well, an Expensive Thrill Ride, I suppose.

And it's probably This why some people do come out of the woodwork to say the game looks amazing and exciting to them. It's hitting diffrent marks.
And funny enough, with the power of hindsight, I can see that Sonic Team's 2d level design was already evolving (Or De-evolving if you prefer) into this direction from the beginning (Err, I count Sonic 4 as the beginning here).
From Sonic 4 being a more or less gutted version of the classics, Colors a more linair experience with occasional optional paths for coins, Lost world (The Wii U 2d sections) being very linair and flat, and now Forces being the culimination of this direction.

With Only Generations being a mild exception, probably because the better level design and actual 3d from there was a one time only gimmick related to the celebration of the past rather then a genuine upgrade of their game design. Yeah that's right, I'm starting to get the impression that the genuine 3d parts and genuine Sonic level design from Generations where a one time only special celebration gimmick, and not a legitimate part of Sonic Team's vision for 3d Sonic. Because...Sonic Team.

You can already see each game cutting away layers of complexity and streamlining the level design into the flat paths we now behold. Evidently it's a direction they've been growing into for a while now, so I have to assume there's something there. Even if most of us can't see it.
It's possible it's a matter of Sonic Team being concerned Classic Sonic gameplay is just too complicated for modern audiences and children. And is now simplifying it.
Makes me wish we had more cold hard numbers on how well Sonic Mania is doing and how well it's received by "Sonic Virgins", so to speak.
Those who can't recite Classic Sonic's space maths physics to pixel perfection in their sleep. Mania being a succes with new players and children might be the biggest wake up call for Sonic Team to go back to a more complex gameplay structure.

But yeah. So Sonic Forces. The question is  that whatever Sonic Team is doing enjoyable on it's own terms. And if we keep aproaching the game in the ways it's diffrent from past games, you can never find out.
So far I'm baffled. But at least I haven't seen anything that's an outright turn off or bad thing yet. It's just...Weirdly poinless so far. But harmless and fun pointless, so I'll take it. Game's still worth it for the thrill ride aspect of it. I'm a simple guy, and I think Sonic Mania has scratched the itch for a complexer Sonic game now.But it fell short when it came to being a big grand adventure, so now here's Forces for those needs. If anything, Sonic Forces is the Yang to Sonic Mania's Ying. If only we could splice em up and have Sonic Mania's gameplay with forces' presentation.

[Jango]

Bottomline: it is an inherently bad designed game.

It's OK if you like it tho'. I liked a lot of stuff back then and I strongly believe most of you will look at Forces in a few years and see just how bland and forgettable it is. I got hand it to some, if I was young I'd be all over this game too, fact. That's strictly its target demography. Don't fool yourself thinking Classic Sonic is there to appeal at veterans, BTW. The target audience for this game is younger/new players, not all ages. Like Sonic should be.

It's Sonic and it's new right now, so why am I picking, right? Why all those flaws @Sonikko pointed out should be taken account, I'm too nitpicky. It's just a game, let's have fun.

[Sonikko]

@Roger_van_der_weide

What you just said is entirely correct, it's obvious that Sonic Team is going in a different direction and they're not failing at replicating 2D Sonic gameplay, they're doing something entirely different.

Now, as you said, the point is... is this entirely different thing good or not?

And honestly... I think it isn't. 'Cause it's supposed to be an high-speed action game, but the only high speed part of the game is automated.

Sonic Advance 2 and Sonic Rush did a much better job (the former especially) at that.

SAdv2 is an high speed action game, it's a rollercoaster ride that requires constant attention and thought from the player, it's engaging from start to end, and doesn't once take away control. It still applies some of the classic Sonic games rules, but adapts them in this new scenario that ideally boost Sonic is going for.

The question is, why restrict the actual gameplay to "blocky platforms floating on air" or "kill 15 enemies on platform - jump - repeat" when you can have that kind of rollecoaster ride (assuming this direction is here to stay, obviously)?

It's failing at being a Sonic game, it's failing at being an high speed action game since it's constantly stopping the players in their place to perform some arbitrary and slow task (be it pointless combat or shallow platforming). And it has to keep the flow going in a natural way, not by forcing the player through miriads of scripted events.

I'm ok with adapting to a different mentality, I'm ok with having a modern version of Sonic that isn't exactly how it was in the past... but it has to make some sense. This simply doesn't.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

13 minutes ago, Jango said:

Bottomline: it is an inherently bad designed game.

We'll agree to disagree on that, and likely debate it further.

[Scar]

Its a 'back to the drawing board' situation for Sonic Team at this point. 

I'd tell them to throw everything they've done recently in the bin, and go back and play the classics. Understand what they were about - what they did bad, what they did good, what they improved on etc. Then play every other Sonic game and try and identify where shit went wrong. After all that, they should spend a whole damn year (or longer) making a gameplay engine, they think captures that Sonic magic. Then when that's down, then and only then get started on making a game.

[Jango]

20 minutes ago, Jovahexeon Cala Maria said:

We'll agree to disagree on that, and likely debate it further.

I'll make @Sonikko's words mine, then. We share the same opinion.

Now what are yours? Why is this a good game? 

[Zaysho]

1 hour ago, Jango said:

It's OK if you like it tho'. I liked a lot of stuff back then and I strongly believe most of you will look at Forces in a few years and see just how bland and forgettable it is. I got hand it to some, if I was young I'd be all over this game too, fact. That's strictly its target demography. Don't fool yourself thinking Classic Sonic is there to appeal at veterans, BTW. The target audience for this game is younger/new players, not all ages. Like Sonic should be.

What does the game's target audience, and people on the periphery of it being into it as well, have to do with actually criticizing the game? I don't understand why you continue to hammer away at this, especially in light of the fact you already got struck today for basically insulting a portion of the fanbase just for liking it. Like, bruh, this is completely unnecessary.

 

Now, if you're looking to earn yourself a vacation courtesy of the staff, we can accommodate, but maybe just knock off this condescending attitude and criticize the game.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

47 minutes ago, Jango said:

I'll make @Sonikko's words mine then. We share the same opinion.

Now what are yours? Why is this a good game?

Did I even say this was already a good game?

How should I even know if it's a good game when I haven't seen enough to fully judge?

If this is truly how Sonikko thinks in tandem with you, then I see the problem. You operate on the idea that anyone who likes what they see in this game as having already judged it to be good. Which is a grave folly to make, and a cheap means of instigating arguments over arguing which view is subjective or objective. Stop coming at people with that mentality and leave them be if you've only got rude stuff to say.

I don't bother much in these threads, because even with the most well-written out explanation, people are going to just go on a spiel about being "objectively wrong" about there being any good in the game, and I really could care less at this point what people consider to be subjective or objective. But using that to try and make any argument for or against the game seem worthless is wrong.

Granted, I appreciate the cinematics, what little of Modern Sonic's gameplay I've seen is apparently tighter and more responsive than his Generations gameplay style, the story is enticing, I actually like the avatar's play style,  the bosses like nice from what I've seen so far, and I can't say I'm really bugged by the level design if when I play it, the game feels fun enough, etc.  What I've seen of the game that I've like, which is pretty much most things except for the abundance of boosters in Classic Green Hill Zone, lack of enemies in Casino Forest, and some bits of the game being a bit flat. I was once worried by the bout with the rings, but seeing how they appear to be tied to difficulty, that fear of mine has been taken care of.

That's how I see it and you're free to feel about the game however you want so long as you don't needle the people who themselves like it.

Of course, soon after that comes the part where someone comes in saying I'm either wrong about something, I'm helping make the franchise worse by liking it, I'm supposedly a blind defender, or I'm guilty of some bias. Lather, rinse and repeat.

So feel free to say you disagree, but don't come at me or anyone else with what's "objectively wrong" unless we're arguing our own opinion to be objective in the first place.

Bashing the game is annoying enough, but doing so to fans or non-fans that support it so far is despicable.

[Jango]

1 hour ago, Jovahexeon Cala Maria said:

Did I even say this was already a good game?

You said:

2 hours ago, Jovahexeon Cala Maria said:

We'll agree to disagree

So if I said it's bad, then you're saying it's good, right? Or what, half decent? Okay? Meh? Forgettable? Underwhelming? 

This "how can I judge a game if it's not even out yet" is bollocks. How many, seriously, how many time this same situation has repeated itself? It's always the other way around: everything looks fucking awesome before release and then BAM, game's actually mediocre or bad. I have never seen a game presented so poorly, magically become good or great when it's out. 

 

1 hour ago, Jovahexeon Cala Maria said:

haven't seen enough

Same franchise: from the moment I saw that very first Mania trailer on July 22, I knew, along with thousands, that it was going to be good. And guess what, it was. 

1 hour ago, Jovahexeon Cala Maria said:

I don't bother much in these threads, because even with the most well-written out explanation,

 Okay then, there's really nothing else I can do.

[Gabz Girl]

Even if you like the look of the game, you cannot deny that the level design and some of the gameplay is all kinds of mediocre from what we have seen (I doubt it will improve and I’ll be shocked if it does!) and that Classic Sonic was a completely unnecessary gameplay style. It’s these things that put me off Sonic Forces the most actually, not the Avatar, Infinite or the more serious story.

Hell I’m waiting for reviews to be good and if that happens I might buy the game day one, but not getting my hopes up. 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

4 minutes ago, Jango said:

1 hour ago, Jovahexeon Cala Maria said:

haven't seen enough

Same franchise: from the moment I saw that very first Mania trailer on July 22, I knew, along with thousands, that it was going to be good. And guess what, it was. 

Now you're cherry picking my statements. I was clearly speaking for myself,

1 hour ago, Jovahexeon Cala Maria said:

How should I even know if it's a good game when I haven't seen enough to fully judge?

and never once said you were obligated to operate on the same thought pattern. Don't you try and sully me like that.

 

7 minutes ago, Jango said:

1 hour ago, Jovahexeon Cala Maria said:

Did I even say this was already a good game?

You said:

2 hours ago, Jovahexeon Cala Maria said:

We'll agree to disagree

So if I said it's bad, then you're saying it's good, right? Or what, half decent? Okay? Meh? Forgettable? Underwhelming? 

You claimed that Forces was

2 hours ago, Jango said:

Bottomline: it is an inherently bad designed game

and I disagreed with the notion based off of what I've seen and what my interests are as did you in the first place. Why does that haunt you so much?

9 minutes ago, Jango said:

This "how can I judge a game if it's not even out yet" is bollocks. How many, seriously, how many time this same situation has repeated itself? It's always the other way around: everything looks fucking awesome before release and then BAM, game's actually mediocre or bad. I have never seen a game presented so poorly, magically become good or great when it's out. 

That's good for you. I don't care. You're making it out as if I'm telling you how to think. I described how I'm judging the game and now you're lambasting me for it. This is exactly the kind of trouble that's almost made me leave SSMB, if it weren't for the RP.

Leave. It. Be. And please exert your focus on critiquing the game instead of trying to get a hit back at me.

[RedFox99]

@Jango Just stop alright. No one wants to hear you repeat yourself. You're really becoming desperate at this point and the fact that you are acting stubborn isn't helping your case. The fact that you seem to try and bring others done who are excited for the game is very groan inducing as if you want to make yourself feel better. It's like you want the mods to ban you. Stop acting like fans of Forces have low standards.

[Zaysho]

3 minutes ago, RedFox99 said:

@Jango Just stop alright. No one wants to hear you repeat yourself. You're really becoming desperate at this point and the fact that you are acting stubborn isn't helping your case. The fact that you seem to try and bring others done who are excited for the game is very groan inducing as if you want to make yourself feel better. It's like you want the mods to ban you.

I'd appreciate you not trying to play mediator when you can either A.) report the offending post B.) actually address the user's arguments and/or C.) put the user on your ignore list if their posts annoy you to that degree and move on with the topic. Don't do this again.

[RedFox99]

Just now, Zaysho said:

I'd appreciate you not trying to play mediator when you can either A.) report the offending post B.) actually address the user's arguments and/or C.) put the user on your ignore list if their posts annoy you to that degree and move on with the topic. Don't do this again.

I apologize.

[Nix]

1 hour ago, Jovahexeon Cala Maria said:

How should I even know if it's a good game when I haven't seen enough to fully judge?

Don't necessarily want to single you out on this particular point because you're definitely more than welcome to hold off judgement until release, but I've seen reasoning like this being used a disturbingly large amount as an effort to defend this game and others from criticism on this forum, other enthusiast forums, and at the school I go to.  The idea that we can't judge the content that the developers/publishers specifically put out for us to see is rather silly.  I understand there's reason to err on the side of caution whenever it's just a teaser trailer and we have little info to go on (hell, I'm probably one of the few who is reserving judgement on the new Mega Man cartoon until we get something substantial to work with), but we're about three weeks away from the game's launch and Sega/Sonic Team have shown us numerous gameplay videos from a variety of this game's zones, have given us a fair slice of the game's story, and have given us music, separate from gameplay, for us to listen to.  Not to mention all the smaller tidbits we've been getting from social media like Twitter.

There's certainly a chance that this game will be just fine, sure, but we've been given a lot of information to work off of, and we also have Sonic Team's extensive history to use as a point of reference as well.  The idea that we can't make a judgement on the game based on all of that is a bit dumb, and even if the rest of the game turns out to be absolutely phenomenal, it still won't change how poor their initial showing has been for many.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

1 minute ago, Nix said:

Don't necessarily want to single you out on this particular point because you're definitely more than welcome to hold off judgement until release, but I've seen reasoning like this being used a disturbingly large amount as an effort to defend this game and others from criticism on this forum, other enthusiast forums, and at the school I go to.  The idea that we can't judge the content that the developers/publishers specifically put out for us to see is rather silly.  I understand there's reason to err on the side of caution whenever it's just a teaser trailer and we have little info to go on (hell, I'm probably one of the few who is reserving judgement on the new Mega Man cartoon until we get something substantial to work with), but we're about three weeks away from the game's launch and Sega/Sonic Team have shown us numerous gameplay videos from a variety of this game's zones, have given us a fair slice of the game's story, and have given us music, separate from gameplay, for us to listen to.  Not to mention all the smaller tidbits we've been getting from social media like Twitter.

There's certainly a chance that this game will be just fine, sure, but we've been given a lot of information to work off of, and we also have Sonic Team's extensive history to use as a point of reference as well.  The idea that we can't make a judgement on the game based on all of that is a bit dumb, and even if the rest of the game turns out to be absolutely phenomenal, it still won't change how poor their initial showing has been for many.

Oh that's alright. Again, I'm clarifying that I myself feel I can't judge the game with my complete judgement.

I've judged stuff that I've seen yes, but I'm withholding my final judgement for the actual release. And again, I'm not saying that others can't judge the game differently. I'm just stating how I myself am approaching the situation.

[LongcrierCat]

You know what I don't appreciate right now here in the reactions to Sonic Forces? The use of hyperbole that's been going around from people who don't like the game. 

Okay, look. I know it doesn't look that great but that's still an opinion. Are there people overblowing the game as being good? Sure. But there's still something of a level of interaction regardless of how little there is. But I'm also feeling like we haven't yet nailed down what it is about this game and its genre that would clarify why the game is being designed this way. This is a cinematic platformer.

_{(You know. Like Another World/Heart of the Alien.)}

 

What this means is that it's focused more on telling the story it's about. There's some interaction still but it's primarily focused on telling the story. 

So what does this mean? Sonic Forces is mostly about its story while the gameplay is the vehicle to tell the story. The game hinges on the story and the cinematics that drive it. And while this is linear even by Sonic game standards it's not wrong by cinematic platformer standards. 

It may not be your cup of tea, but I'm not going to fault the people who enjoy it because it certainly has its place. What place it has in Sonic can be debated but videogames have been in between the cinematic and the interactive for some time. This was bound to happen. 

I mean yes. I'd love a more interactive Sonic game, don't get me wrong. But linearity in games has never been as huge a problem as it has been lately perceived among players. Crash Bandicoot made a killing off of being a linear 3D platformer with minor detours through Bonus Areas and hidden areas that would show up on subsequent playthroughs via earning crystals. That and in retrospect Crash Bandicoot is a pretty blatant Sonic Knockoff (Animal fights roboticist/scientist for crystals? The third game is even about time travel and that's far from subtly being Sonic CD) but it sure was a really good one I'll say. It sure was a lot more fun than Bubsy until Sonic Adventure came around. It was a 2D game shaped in a 3D mold. 

And you know? Critics still really love Crash Bandicoot with the N-Sane Trilogy release. 

So I want to know. What if you're wrong? What if the critics actually like Sonic Forces and it does well? What happens if this game proves to be a success instead of a failure? There will be no lessons to learn if they succeed. Failure is the best teacher after all. I'm not saying this will happen. I'm saying if it does happen and it very well could. Because as much as gamers have a fetish for challenge and difficulty you know what performs better?

Accessibility. 

And this game sure looks accessible. And its because of technical gameplay simplicity. It may not be hard but it's accessible and that matters more over challenge. 

Though. Those software problems of load times and poor graphics sure will hurt the Switch version of the game. Point still stands. 

It''s easy to argue about design. I don't think of this game as high art but I do think it shows competence at appealing to a lot of the want for a storied Sonic game. Well you have it now. I look forward to the story but I think that's going to be it for me since I kind of lost the Sonic Comics and have to wait until April (or tomorrow for our next installment of the Sonic Forces Prequel). 

------------------------------------------------------

Tl;dr: The game is cinematic. The specifics of this sub genre justify its design and the complaints are possibly overblown. It will be mediocre at worst. And if that sounds like Sonic Team won't fail this time and have to reevaluate their design to you then you're free to worry and make an open proposal about Sonic and how it could be instead of arguing with each other. 

[Whatever the WhoCares]

I think the very existence of a "where do we go next?" thread is a testament to this problem I've been seeing of people assuming way too much about the overall game. Even in my posts critical of the game, I've always kept my assumptions within reason. "IF the rest of the game turns out this way, etc." 

Again, I'm seeing none of that. I'm seeing people so downright certain about things they haven't even seen yet, from story to characters to gameplay. Arguments are never presented in the form of "if this game turns out the way it's looking..." but instead "now that we know this game is..." and it's incredibly irritating to witness. 

And to those users who jump the gun with every new bit of info, you guys do realize that there are over TEN Modern Sonic stages we haven't seen yet, right? And that we've seen a fraction of a cutscene plus some radio dialogue? In context of the 2017 gaming industry, we don't know jack shit about this game. 

Im not saying you can't predict what this game will be like. I have my predictions myself. But you can't sit there and talk about this thing like it's already been out for a week and you've played the damn thing. Jeez. 

[Sonikko]

13 minutes ago, LongcrierCat said:

You know what I don't appreciate right now here in the reactions to Sonic Forces? The use of hyperbole that's been going around from people who don't like the game. 

Okay, look. I know it doesn't look that great but that's still an opinion. Are there people overblowing the game as being good? Sure. But there's still something of a level of interaction regardless of how little there is. But I'm also feeling like we haven't yet nailed down what it is about this game and its genre that would clarify why the game is being designed this way. This is a cinematic platformer.

_{(You know. Like Another World/Heart of the Alien.)}

 

What this means is that it's focused more on telling the story it's about. There's some interaction still but it's primarily focused on telling the story. 

So what does this mean? Sonic Forces is mostly about its story while the gameplay is the vehicle to tell the story. The game hinges on the story and the cinematics that drive it. And while this is linear even by Sonic game standards it's not wrong by cinematic platformer standards. 

It may not be your cup of tea, but I'm not going to fault the people who enjoy it because it certainly has its place. What place it has in Sonic can be debated but videogames have been in between the cinematic and the interactive for some time. This was bound to happen. 

I mean yes. I'd love a more interactive Sonic game, don't get me wrong. But linearity in games has never been as huge a problem as it has been lately perceived among players. Crash Bandicoot made a killing off of being a linear 3D platformer with minor detours through Bonus Areas and hidden areas that would show up on subsequent playthroughs via earning crystals. That and in retrospect Crash Bandicoot is a pretty blatant Sonic Knockoff (Animal fights roboticist/scientist for crystals? The third game is even about time travel and that's far from subtly being Sonic CD) but it sure was a really good one I'll say. It sure was a lot more fun than Bubsy until Sonic Adventure came around. It was a 2D game shaped in a 3D mold. 

And you know? Critics still really love Crash Bandicoot with the N-Sane Trilogy release. 

So I want to know. What if you're wrong? What if the critics actually like Sonic Forces and it does well? What happens if this game proves to be a success instead of a failure? There will be no lessons to learn if they succeed. Failure is the best teacher after all. I'm not saying this will happen. I'm saying if it does happen and it very well could. Because as much as gamers have a fetish for challenge and difficulty you know what performs better?

Accessibility. 

And this game sure looks accessible. And its because of technical gameplay simplicity. It may not be hard but it's accessible and that matters more over challenge. 

Though. Those software problems of load times and poor graphics sure will hurt the Switch version of the game. Point still stands. 

It''s easy to argue about design. I don't think of this game as high art but I do think it shows competence at appealing to a lot of the want for a storied Sonic game. Well you have it now. I look forward to the story but I think that's going to be it for me since I kind of lost the Sonic Comics and have to wait until April (or tomorrow for our next installment of the Sonic Forces Prequel). 

------------------------------------------------------

Tl;dr: The game is cinematic. The specifics of this sub genre justify its design and the complaints are possibly overblown. It will be mediocre at worst. And if that sounds like Sonic Team won't fail this time and have to reevaluate their design to you then you're free to worry and make an open proposal about Sonic and how it could be instead of arguing with each other. 

I feel like this is grasping at straws. I get where you're coming from, but Forces isn't a cinematic platformer.

The "cinematic" stuff we're complaining about, they're trying to pass it as actual gameplay. And it has nothing to do with the story of the game, it's not a vehicle through which they're telling a story.

[Diogenes]

Forces isn't even good at being cinematic. Most of it is as boring to watch as it is to play and tells no more of a story than "*character* went from point A to point B, smashing robots and collecting rings along the way".

[Lord-Dreamerz]

36 minutes ago, LongcrierCat said:

This is a cinematic platformer.

Err... I don't think so. Sonic has never really focused to strongly on story telling over gameplay and Forces doesn't look to be very different really. It has little more focus on story then normal, but not by much I say. Looks to be roughly around Sonic Adventure 2 level of story focus.

[SpongicX]

So far, I've hated all the level music in this game,  yet I'm fine with the music in this level. I think it sounds nice. 

[LongcrierCat]

I don't disagree. It's automation heavy but the thing is that that isn't a Sonic only problem. 

See, I have a bit of trouble deciphering how much interaction people really want out of videogames. What I desire from a game is a good experience and that usually comes from really good game mechanics like parkour and physics. However some people are more interested in a ride. They want a roller coaster that's exhilarating to watch and accessible to get into. It's funny too. I remember once complaining about the final hit of the Death Egg Robo in Sonic Generations being a QTE and then Mania gave me a fight that had a similar setup with the robot flinging its arms out and you traversing the arm to hit its head 6 years later. It wasn't a bad idea by any means. 

Forces is not a great cinematic game. I didn't say it was. I was saying that it was merely indicative of that design philosophy. 

The story can be a ride. You know. Chase sequences in movies are really fun and as games proved can be fun if a little not as interactive still and even have little to no story substance. 

But boy it sure looks cool doesn't it? (Okay before you say it, I don't think it looks cool either but I know it does to someone. Alright?)

3 minutes ago, Lord-Dreamerz said:

Err... I don't think so. Sonic has never really focused to strongly on story telling over gameplay and Forces doesn't look to be any different really. It has little more focus on story then normal, but not by much IMO.

Okay, I'm not entirely sure how you don't see it as being more story driven over other Sonic games when they make it a point to make you the center of the story. You're the driving force of the story as your avatar. 

It's very easy to say that the in game storytelling is just weak and not as thought out as we'd like it to be. 

It's still very standard if not as good as we'd like it to be. 

I'm still not saying it's a good game. I'm just saying that it knows what it wants to be even if that thing isn't very good. It's certainly not Heart of the Alien in quality but it has the want to be a cinematic story. It hasn't made me feel anything like an experience like Undertale did but it has a story focus. 

And that gets me to another thing. I agree that there's room to critique the hell out of the game but every time someone brings up something to defend the game's design philosophy there's an instant push back. It makes it very hard to want to talk about Sonic Forces on this forum. As much as I agree, it's been tiring to read the overtly negative criticism. There's being right and then there's parading around and making a show about it. We get it, you watch Rick and Morty know about game design. That doesn't make you the authority on this game though. 

I probably won't like Forces as much as the thing that I feel inspired it (the comics). But ultimately I'm trying to give it a chance. I see the flaws. However, I feel like things here have gotten a little uncivil here. The tone and mood here has been unkind. It feels like a constant debate is going on about its qualities. That's frankly exhausting and reminds me why I've taken long breaks from the fandom. It gets exhausting to deal with having to explain yourself to someone who won't understand. 

Then again, I've also been online in Sonic Circles since 2006. I've been around way too long to see what would  divide the fanbase over and over again. This is just fairly common by now, not that that makes it right. I sure do feel old now though. 

[Swing]

I personally think at this point, that the main gimmick of Forces seems to be more the fanservice and presentation rather than the gameplay. The gameplay is not bad, but so far it seems really... bland. I do not think that this game will have any really memorable moments when it comes to the gameplay like the truck chase in SA2 or the race against Metal Sonic in Sonic CD. 

The fanservice on the other hand seems to be really the spotlight of this game. Character creation, which is a huge part of the Sonic fandom, all popular characters are back in a bigger role which we haven't seen since Sonic and the Black Knight. The only really popular character so far that is missing is surprisingly Blaze. But maybe Sonic Team and Sega do not consider her a "popular" character. The music is quit catchy and has some sort of a SA-feeling and the story is bigger this time around with a huge focus on this edgy factor that many Sonic fans like so much.

I'm not really sure if this is at the end a good thing for Sonic fans or a bad thing. A lot of Sonic fans even had fun with Sonic 06, not because of the gameplay, but more of the dark story and the edgy characters doing their usually edgy things. Same I can also say about games like Shadow the Hedgehog and Black Knight. I'm even one of those fans who enjoyed Black Knight, but mostly because of the really cool character of Merlina and the really good music and artwork. The gameplay really sucked but wanting to know how Merlina's story will turn out the game kept my playing.

Maybe Forces will fall into the same category. A game that is actually very beloved among Sonic fans, but more of the presentation and fanservice and not really of its gameplay.