Sonic Forces - Space Port Gameplay

[Sonikko]

7 minutes ago, FriesWithoutKetchup said:

 

I.. don't agree that THAT makes a game bad, but hey, that's your opinion. I also don't think that everything that's been shown has been bland and uninteresting at all.

And I don't really think Forces is getting a free pass on anything  - people are ripping it to shreds, which they have every right to do as do the people who defend and praise the game while criticising the critisisms levied at it. I think that it's more that it doesn't look uninteresting to everyone, y'know? The general consensus around the game isn't really one way or the other, at least from what I've been able to see - it looks pretty mixed, maybe with a slight bit more on the positive side.

Take a look outside the fanbase though. The Sonic community itself isn't enough to support the series anymore, and most of the latest releases proved that.

People don't like Forces. There's a side of this fanbase that does, but that's not saying much. Anything with Sonic's face slapped on it will sell at least 100k copies, Sonic Boom proved that. And even RoL has a cult following.

Heck, even Lost World wasn't as divisive during it's pre-launch promotion. Forces looks like the same old stuff, just with a worse execution. I don't need to wait for other footage, or play the game to know how it plays like.

I've played Generations, Colours, Unleashed and Lost World to recognize how the physics are gonna play out in this one, what's the level design approach, how the character handles.

They aren't doing anything new.

EDIT:

You can personally not agree that having a game composed of 70% lame stages is bad, but it doesn't magically make the game good lol.

Let's say you're eating a pie, the crust is made of the most delicious dough you've ever had in your life, but the stuffing is made of mud. Is it a good pie?

'Cause that's what that split is like.

[Whatever the WhoCares]

Honestly, I'm not seeing what's so bad about this. I see a deeply atmospheric level with great music and a decent helping of alternate pathways. The mid-level cinematic sequence reminds me of the awesome Sonic Adventure moments such as the Orca and the helicopters. 

This is the best level we've seen so far. 

[Milo]

Dunno if this has been posted, but a GameSpot video on the "Space Port" gameplay has been posted (followed by Casino Forest gameplay with Classic Sonic). The GameSpot video calls the level... *drumroll* ...Chemical Plant.

Don't think there's anything else for me about the level design that hasn't been covered by most people already. More linear routes on flat terrain, with only springs, dash panels, and same stock "stand and do nothing" groups of enemies to chew through, in both 2D and 3D gameplay. The QTE section is just a long cutscene that seems to have what, only one button press in the whole thing, which is incredibly shallow even for QTE standards. And that Drill Wisp just looks like an even jankier version of Sonic's standard Boost, propelling characters forward with seemingly minimal control. @Diogenes is absolutely right in commenting how it looks very easy to end up causing unintended player deaths with how instant it operates. It's mostly rubbish.

58 minutes ago, FriesWithoutKetchup said:

...no, I didn't say that I couldn't see why some people don't like it.

I just wondered why it's considered this inherently bad or wrong thing, because I don't see it that way. On it's own... it's neither good nor bad, it just *is*. What each person takes away from it is entirely subjective.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

So when people give an argument as to why Shark Tale is a worse film than Finding Dory, their reasons for saying so aren't objective? Are people referring to their favorite colors when they criticize the Werehog gameplay in Unleashed as being a giant shift away from traditional Sonic gameplay?

People don't give judgements about things in a complete vacuum of no references, expectations, standards, or awareness. The level design critiques here have been made based on past experiences with other games, Sonic and otherwise. Nobody's referring to preferences in their complaints. If complaints about the level design are wrong, that's exactly what they are--they're not subjective, they're wrong.

If you don't agree with any of the statements given about Forces' gameplay here--not good, not bad, not mediocre, not engaging, not repetitive, etc.--than give an rebuttal if you can. But citing subjectivity isn't one.

[Nicky Nicardo]

2 minutes ago, Sonikko said:

Take a look outside the fanbase though. The Sonic community itself isn't enough to support the series anymore, and most of the latest releases proved that.

People don't like Forces. There's a side of this fanbase that does, but that's not saying much. Anything with Sonic's face slapped on it will sell at least 100k copies, Sonic Boom proved that. And even RoL has a cult following.

Heck, even Lost World wasn't as divisive during it's pre-launch promotion. Forces looks like the same old stuff, just with a worse execution. I don't need to wait for other footage, or play the game to know how it plays like.

I've played Generations, Colours, Unleashed and Lost World to recognize how the physics are gonna play out in this one, what's the level design approach, how the character handles.

They aren't doing anything new.

Oh, I know that outside of the fanbase, most people don't really care about Sonic anymore. I think the guys behind Sonic Forces are really trying to appeal to a broader, possibly more casual audience with the stuff they're doing, like the custom character - that's what got me really interested in and excited about Forces.

[UpCDownCLeftCRightC]

Forces definitely isn't universally hated. I'm not even convinced it'll be universally panned upon release because many mainstream critics don't distinguish the modern gameplay from classic as much as more aware fans do, outside of the acknowledgement that the genesis games were all received very well.

This game has been about as lukewarm as one can get pre-release. Exciting the target audience (the OC crowd) to high levels, severely disappointing the traditional fans, the general audience is down the middle. So no, not going to be a record breaker in either or positive or negative sense. It is a little surprising that we're here given that SEGA has seemed to refresh their efforts to restore Sonic as a global brand; I really thought, even if this were just strictly Generations 2, that Forces would be a sure hit that is received mostly positively, at least on the level of Generations. But it seems obvious that it won't reach that level in terms of reception.

It may possibly sell more than Gens, but Gens didn't exactly sell like hot cakes either.

[KHCast]

3 minutes ago, Whatever the WhoCares said:

Honestly, I'm not seeing what's so bad about this. I see a deeply atmospheric level with great music and a decent helping of alternate pathways. The mid-level cinematic sequence reminds me of the awesome Sonic Adventure moments such as the Orca and the helicopters. 

This is the best level we've seen so far. 

I'm convinced there won't be a level in this game everyone can agree on in one way or the other at this point. 

[Razule]

12 minutes ago, Sonikko said:

Take a look outside the fanbase though. The Sonic community itself isn't enough to support the series anymore, and most of the latest releases proved that.

People don't like Forces. There's a side of this fanbase that does, but that's not saying much

I dunno, I'm seeing a lot of people that like Forces on YouTube and reddit and twitter, basically not Sonic specific forums. And plenty of the usual "you can't please the Sonic fanbase" comments.

[Sonikko]

1 minute ago, Whatever the WhoCares said:

Honestly, I'm not seeing what's so bad about this. I see a deeply atmospheric level with great music and a decent helping of alternate pathways. The mid-level cinematic sequence reminds me of the awesome Sonic Adventure moments such as the Orca and the helicopters. 

This is the best level we've seen so far. 

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.

[Nicky Nicardo]

2 minutes ago, Yeow said:

Dunno if this has been posted, but a GameSpot video on the "Space Port" gameplay has been posted (followed by Casino Forest gameplay with Classic Sonic). The GameSpot video calls the level... *drumroll* ...Chemical Plant.

Don't think there's anything else for me about the level design that hasn't been covered by most people already. More linear routes on flat terrain, with only springs, dash panels, and same stock "stand and do nothing" groups of enemies to chew through, in both 2D and 3D gameplay. The QTE section is just a long cutscene that seems to have what, only one button press in the whole thing, which is incredibly shallow even for QTE standards. And that Drill Wisp just looks like an even jankier version of Sonic's standard Boost, propelling characters forward with seemingly minimal control. @Diogenes is absolutely right in commenting how it looks very easy to end up causing unintended player deaths with how instant it operates. It's mostly rubbish.

So when people give an argument as to why Shark Tale is a worse film than Finding Dory, their reasons for saying so aren't objective? Are people referring to their favorite colors when they criticize the Werehog gameplay in Unleashed as being a giant shift away from what people expect from Sonic gameplay?

People don't give judgements about things in a complete vacuum of no references, expectations, standards, or awareness. The level design critiques here have been made based on past experiences with other games, Sonic and otherwise. Nobody's referring to preferences in their complaints. If complaints about the level design are wrong, that's exactly what they are--they're not subjective, they're wrong.

If you don't agree with any of the statements given about Forces' gameplay here--not good, not bad, not mediocre, not engaging, not repetitive, etc.--than give an objection if you can. But citing subjectivity isn't one.

I'd say that it depends on the type of arguments they use, but when it comes to things being 'good' or 'bad'... yes, I think that all of that is entirely subjective.

And I know that the critiques given here are based on past experiences, and that everyone comes in with references, expectations, standards, and awareness. I come into Forces with my own sets of.. well, all of those. xD And complaints about a level *can* be subjective. I think maybe we just have different interpretations about subjectivity and objectivity.

And I believe citing subjectivity is an objection, when the criticisms being made are that things are objectively bad or wrong. A lot of this *is* preference because two people are looking at the same thing, and coming away from it with totally different opinions. I look at the footage of Sonic Forces and I see linearity for sure, levels that seem way too short, and enemies that seem too easy... but I also know that that's just how I personally see it. While saying that the stages are linear is definitely pretty objective, whether or not that's good or bad is subjective.

I hope this is making sense as I type it all out, and that I don't sound confusing.

[Sonikko]

It's not subjective.

Quality is not subjective. Is Sonic Boom RoL a good game?

No it's not. It's a dull, uninspired, bad game. It's bad. No excuses. It's not subjective.

Is ET Atari a good game? No, it's not. It's bad. Why is that? Because standards exist.

Edit:
And before someone comes for my head saying "but those were broken game, they're jokes blah blah blah". I went to the extreme with those games, but there's a reason the general consensus on some games is better than on some other games.

There's a reason why a Super Mario Odissey Defense Squad doesn't exist.

There's a reason why everyone loves Rayman Legends.

There's a reason why nobody had negative things to say about Mania.

There's a reason why Street Fighter V tanked.

There's a reason why Cuphead sold 1 million copies in one week.

And that reason is that quality is not subjective.

[Whatever the WhoCares]

1 minute ago, Sonikko said:

It's not subjective.

Quality is not subjective. Is Sonic Boom RoL a good game?

No it's not. It's a dull, uninspired, bad game. It's bad. No excuses. It's not subjective.

Is ET Atari a good game? No, it's not. It's bad. Why is that? Because standards exist.

This game is obviously leagues ahead of those examples and you know that.

All I'm saying is that Sonic Forces looks fun and shallow at the same time, and it's on a trajectory to warrant a 7/10 from me. It annoys me that Sonic Team isn't doing better here, especially since they've done just that with Generations. But this game still looks fun. 

[Sonikko]

2 minutes ago, Whatever the WhoCares said:

This game is obviously leagues ahead of those examples and you know that.

All I'm saying is that Sonic Forces looks fun and shallow at the same time, and it's on a trajectory to warrant a 7/10 from me. It annoys me that Sonic Team isn't doing better here, especially since they've done just that with Generations. But this game still looks fun. 

 

6 minutes ago, Sonikko said:

Edit:
And before someone comes for my head saying "but those were broken game, they're jokes blah blah blah". I went to the extreme with those games, but there's a reason the general consensus on some games is better than on some other games.

There's a reason why a Super Mario Odissey Defense Squad doesn't exist.

There's a reason why everyone loves Rayman Legends.

There's a reason why nobody had negative things to say about Mania.

There's a reason why Street Fighter V tanked.

There's a reason why Cuphead sold 1 million copies in one week.

And that reason is that quality is not subjective.

It's a 7/10 to you. That doesn't make it a good product in itself. That's what I'm debating here.

[MudHunter]

So IGN and Gamespot gave their impression

https://www.gamespot.com/amp-articles/watch-sonic-forces-new-chemical-plant-zone-level-i/1100-6454108/

http://m.ign.com/articles/2017/10/17/sonic-forces-lightning-whip-is-super-satisfying

Overall I think Sonic Forces is gonna be in between Lost World and Generations regarding reviews (something like lots of 7/10)

[Roger_van_der_weide]

Well, I was hoping for a 3d Action game and since then I had to come to terms this is a 2d platform game.
And since then I had to come to terms this isn't a 2d platform game, it's a vaguely interactive themepark ride.
I mean, I'll still enjoy myself, I like spectacle themepark ride thingies. But yeah, I think we can quietly disqualify this game as a serious platform game.


It's a shame, when I saw the OC jumping on the train, with the music suddenly being dramatic, I was really hoping for a cool level set piece, like Uncharted 2 or at least Sonic Triple trouble zone's train boss. Oh well...


Oh, as for "Still no modern Sonic gameplay?!" comments, uh, yeah. Modern Sonic has been captured.
I think at this point it's safe to assume it takes a whole bunch of levels before he's saved and back into action.
So Sega's going the Yakuza way here? Spend the first half of the game with new / side characters before the main character finally shows up.
Not a smart idea considering everyone's hatred for when side characters take over Sonic's place, but hey...The side character is Also Sonic, so no problem then.

So finally we understand why Classic Sonic is in this game. To quell the anger people would have if there was no Sonic period for the first half of this game, or however long it'll take to rescue modern Sonic. Not that I think it'll work, but eh, they tried?


Oh, and BTW, not sure if it's smart to use sales and reviews as an indication of the quality of a product being subjectivly good.
Sometimes a product just furfills a need people have, even if it does it poorly. In the land of the blind, one-eye is king.
And sometimes it can be a matter of marketing. There's plenty of examples of media being considered terrible to be hugely succesful with sales, and media praised by fans and reviews but failing to get more then a cult status. It's a slippery slope.
 

[Nicky Nicardo]

Just now, Sonikko said:

It's not subjective.

Quality is not subjective. Is Sonic Boom RoL a good game?

No it's not. It's a dull, uninspired, bad game. It's bad. No excuses. It's not subjective.

Is ET Atari a good game? No, it's not. It's bad. Why is that? Because standards exist.

I have to disagree. Quality is subjective because there's no such thing as universal standards for anything. To some people, yes, RoL is a good game. To others, it isn't. Neither is right or wrong in the grand scheme of things - there's just a general consensus that becomes accepted as the 'real' or 'true' way to think.

Everything you just said... is an opinion. Dull, uninspired, bad... those are subjective opinions about something.

And yes, standards exist... and were put into place by people. And people are not perfect, nor are their interpretations of things.

Take movies, for example. I'm sure there are movies out there that you love that critics/audiences hated and ripped to shreds. Does that mean that you just happen to love a bad movie, or does it mean that whether the movie is good or bad all depends on personal, subjective opinions from individuals and that there's no real objective 'standard' for what determines a good or bad movie?

[Shadowlax]

9 minutes ago, Sonikko said:

It's not subjective.

 

Those games didn't sell

 

Quote

There's a reason why Street Fighter V tanked.

 

 

Quote

And that reason is that quality is not subjective.

Quality is subjective, people care about what they care about

There are plenty of amazing fighting games that don't sell. SFV didn't tank, guilty gear did, guilty gear has been doing extremely poorly, and SFV has made a bunch of money on off costumes. They don't care about the quality of guilty gear, they want to play street fighter

 

what people like about a game is compltely subjective, there are games that I hate that I don't think are quality that do well, and there are games that I like , like kingdom hearts that people argue were never good. Quality is completely subjective the audience decides that, and the general audience has often decided games that i perceive as low quality , as quality

[Whatever the WhoCares]

3 minutes ago, Sonikko said:

 

It's a 7/10 to you. That doesn't make it a good product in itself. That's what I'm debating here.

I would argue it's good, and that your notion of objectivity doesn't stretch far enough to encompass this game. You can say that Uncharted 2 is objectively good, and that Big Rigs is objectively bad, but games like Sonic Forces are going to have a wide range of opinions. 

[Sonikko]

4 minutes ago, FriesWithoutKetchup said:

I have to disagree. Quality is subjective because there's no such thing as universal standards for anything. To some people, yes, RoL is a good game. To others, it isn't. Neither is right or wrong in the grand scheme of things - there's just a general consensus that becomes accepted as the 'real' or 'true' way to think.

Everything you just said... is an opinion. Dull, uninspired, bad... those are subjective opinions about something.

And yes, standards exist... and were put into place by people. And people are not perfect, nor are their interpretations of things.

Take movies, for example. I'm sure there are movies out there that you love that critics/audiences hated and ripped to shreds. Does that mean that you just happen to love a bad movie, or does it mean that whether the movie is good or bad all depends on personal, subjective opinions from individuals and that there's no real objective 'standard' for what determines a good or bad movie?

Oh alright, then let's make pizzas out of mud, every game with the same quality standards of Superman 64 and RoL, 'cause some people might like it.

 

4 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

Those games didn't sell

But they were good and they're universally loved and praised, and you completely ignored Super Mario Odissey.

I would also like to know which of those games didn't sell, 'cause Mania sold pretty well, Rayman Legends is getting a new remaster, Super Mario Odissey is likely to sell like hot cakes and Cuphead already broke the 1m mark.

4 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

Quality is subjective, people care about what they care about

There are plenty of amazing fighting games that don't sell. SFV didn't tank, guilty gear did, guilty gear has been doing extremely poorly, and SFV has made a bunch of money on off costumes. They don't care about the quality of guilty gear, they want to play street fighter

what people like about a game is compltely subjective, there are games that I hate that I don't think are quality that do well, and there are games that I like , like kingdom hearts that people argue were never good. Quality is completely subjective the audience decides that, and the general audience has often decided games that i perceive as low quality , as quality

SFV is one of the worst selling entries in the franchise and it bombed for the first year 'cause the launch version was bad.

And again there needs to be a clear division between what you like and what is a quality product.

I might like to eat plastic bags, but that doesn't make it a good meal.

[Diogenes]

There's room for subjectivity in discussing quality, but saying that it's entirely subjective means killing off any actual discussion and never actually understanding anything about any kind of art or creative work.

Not everyone is going to have the same feelings about everything, but some things very clearly "work" and others very clearly don't, and it's worth actually discussing and examining things to figure out why. Constantly bringing up subjectivity and freedom of opinions is an obstacle to that.

[Whatever the WhoCares]

2 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

There's room for subjectivity in discussing quality, but saying that it's entirely subjective means killing off any actual discussion and never actually understanding anything about any kind of art or creative work.

Not everyone is going to have the same feelings about everything, but some things very clearly "work" and others very clearly don't, and it's worth actually discussing and examining things to figure out why. Constantly bringing up subjectivity and freedom of opinions is an obstacle to that.

Right, I'm just saying you can't call it objectively bad, because that's just not the level of what we're seeing. 

[Shadowlax]

4 minutes ago, Sonikko said:

 

I might like to eat plastic bags, but that doesn't make it a good meal.

This isn't you eating something, nutrients can be studied determined, you can determine that eating plastic is bad for you. 

Someone enjoying a video game is subjective and people will like what they like. SFV didn't bomb also , it didn't do that well, i'm not making excuses for it, game had issues missing modes, ect ect ect, but it still did okish, and that's still better than better games like guilty gear. Which is my point, Guilty Gear this new one is one of the best fighting games, period, its amazing. No one is buying it, No one is buying it or blazblue anymore. And DBFZ might be their first massive large scale success simply because DBZ is the frame work. People didn't care about all the good stuff in guilty gear, they care about DBFZ because it looks good and its a DBZ game. 

Quality, peoples interest, is subjective, and that's just the reality of the situation. And you being condecedning about it, instead of actually arguing a point is only going to serve people who might be willing to listen to you away

[Sonikko]

Just now, Shadowlax said:

This isn't you eating something, nutrients can be studied determined, you can determine that eating plastic is bad for you. 

Right, 'cause there aren't schools where they teach you how to design a game. This stuff isn't studied, no.

[Wraith]

1 hour ago, Soniman said:

Its a very common thing you see in the fandom nowadays, some Sonic fans want brownie points for dislking the "the good Sonic game". Im not saying its perfect or even a great game, its just something ive been noticing a lot lately.

And with Forces looking like hot garbagio, people can just shift the blame on Colors for its bad level design when the problems run much MUCH deeper then that. It's a lazy scape goat 

I don't think people ever blamed Colors for anything. They're just saying "this is where the problems started." Which is a fair assertion to make. Kishimoto's design quirks are present in all the games he directed including that one. It's the same as people noticing trends in SA2 that got more prominent in other games. You ironically aren't really reading into what people are saying about Sonic Colors.

[Shadowlax]

3 minutes ago, Sonikko said:

Right, 'cause there aren't schools where they teach you how to design a game. This stuff isn't studied, no.

There is,  I went to one. I learned things, about video game design an art in general. 

Sometimes people would bring in some shit they shatted up last minute and they would get better responses than someone I know worked hard on theirs and looked better, them's the breaks. No one is obligated to appreciate what you perceive as quality or the work you put in, and no one is obligated to not indulge in things you don't think have quality. 

Its up the beholder, life is hard, thems the breaks

[Nicky Nicardo]

6 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

There's room for subjectivity in discussing quality, but saying that it's entirely subjective means killing off any actual discussion and never actually understanding anything about any kind of art or creative work.

Not everyone is going to have the same feelings about everything, but some things very clearly "work" and others very clearly don't, and it's worth actually discussing and examining things to figure out why. Constantly bringing up subjectivity and freedom of opinions is an obstacle to that.

Well, when it comes to what sells and what resonates more with the current market, I can agree on that - some things work MORE according the market and the standards at the time. What I was talking about was more 'in general' when talking about things being 'good' or 'bad' and subjectivity.