Even Yuji Naka didnt want a cutesy funny Sonic

[Kazhnuz]

Most of the problem here is in the definition : what define what or what not should be in the flaws that doesn't make them accomplish (especially as in what you say they accomplish, you are being pretty vague). I mean : Sonic 1 have a shitty final boss, is sometimes tedious without spindash/dropdash, and have some level that doesn't event exploit the gameplay. Sure, I personally decide to not really hate it for that - it's the first game, it's kinda normal that it's not really perfect yet. My question is more in "how should be decide what flaws are or not fatal". And what are flaws that come to the I like, and what are into the "recognize that they are bad". Especially as some of your arguments fall highly into the first side (basically when arguments are coming to "unfun", "unenjoyable" and "it's a chore", you are often getting more into the "i like" part, except if you have well defined definition of what it should be)

TBH, there are a lot of game that I wouldn't call unfinished. Sure, stuff like Adventure, maybe Heroes, 2006, Forces… but most of the other ? I would call them more on the "they have flaws, but manage to create something".

 

That's the biggest problem with defining the quality of something. Nearly everybody is able to find flaws and problem in a game, the problem is mostly defining how they are important, and what they affect. And then we have to know in what paradigm we are - because nobody have total objectivity about these topics, as quality doesn't exist in itself but only in a paradigm that define them and the condition that are meant to be met - what are the condition, and define them rigorously. (that's why too much tests and "critiques" are pointless and boring games of "find all the problems").

 

Or we can just say that Wacky Workbench is just shitty and that this level alone made microprocessor a mistake, we should rather live in a society without technology than in a society where this level have been created (/s). Saying that help us being hip and stuff like that.

[Multikaris]

On 8/23/2019 at 1:16 PM, DabigRG said:

This is somewhat true as well: with the exception of Shadow and the Eclipse Cannon, every other thing Eggman has attempted to take advantage of is a monster, diety, alien, or cryptid with ties to a particular ecosystem.

Even Shadow and the Biolizard are created from various organisms, at least partially alien. The Phantom Ruby is another example of a non-natural object being exploited, and one could argue the Ark of the Cosmos counts too, as it wasn’t tied to an ecosystem. 

[DabigRG]

1 hour ago, Miragnarok said:

Even Shadow and the Biolizard are created from various organisms, at least partially alien. 

one could argue the Ark of the Cosmos counts too, as it wasn’t tied to an ecosystem. 

Ah yeah, I guess in that sense. I didn't count them because they were created through technology.

1 hour ago, Miragnarok said:

 The Phantom Ruby is another example of a non-natural object being exploited, 

Mm...perhaps? I mean it feel from space, didn't it? Which implies it came from somewhere, though that's dependent on whether it is "natural" by that place's standards.

[Wraith]

Sonic CD being considered a finished game that executed on It's vision is a little laughable to me. It's not a bad game but it and Sonic 1 are pretty unrefined and almost every classic game has clear signs of being affected by harsh deadlines.

[Plasme]

6 minutes ago, Wraith said:

Sonic CD being considered a finished game that executed on It's vision is a little laughable to me. It's not a bad game but it and Sonic 1 are pretty unrefined and almost every classic game has clear signs of being affected by harsh deadlines.

Sonic CD is very well polished and complete. Every time zone has individual art, music remixes and level layouts. The time travel gimmick is very poorly implemented, but that's probably a product of design rather than it being unfinished. The spin dash is a mess, but otherwise it's very well made.

Sonic 1 is also well crafted without any glaring design problems other than that some levels are too slow, which, again, is a design decision, albeit probably a poor one. 

Sonic 1 and 2 both have incomplete elements, such as the spike bug and unfinished levels, but they pale in comparison to how utterly broken Sonic Adventure and, to a lesser extent Sonic Heroes, are.

[Wraith]

1 minute ago, Plasme said:

Sonic CD is very well polished and complete. Every time zone has individual art, music remixes and level layouts. The time travel gimmick is very poorly implemented, but that's probably a product of design rather than it being unfinished. The spin dash is a mess, but otherwise it's very well made.

Sonic 1 is also well crafted without any glaring design problems other than that some levels are too slow, which, again, is a design decision, albeit probably a poor one. 

Sonic 1 and 2 both have incomplete elements, such as the spike bug and unfinished levels, but they pale in comparison to how utterly broken Sonic Adventure and, to a lesser extent Sonic Heroes, are.

Aesthetically Sonic CD is doing a lot of heavy lifting but what Sonic game isn't? The level design is a jumbled mess and the physics had to be altered in rereleases. These are the most important part of the classic Sonic experience to me.

Games are always getting crushed by deadlines and human limitation. It's rare that I play something that couldnt use a little more love here and there. Your preferences always come down to whether the concession the game designers made affect your interests. It's not that wild that some people would prefer the 3d games when you consider all of that. Sonic CD's levels just aren't fun to me.

[Plasme]

1 minute ago, Wraith said:

Aesthetically Sonic CD is doing a lot of heavy lifting but what Sonic game isn't? The level design is a jumbled mess and the physics had to be altered in rereleases. These are the most important part of the classic Sonic experience to me.

Games are always getting crushed by deadlines and human limitation. It's rare that I play something that couldnt use a little more love here and there. Your preferences always come down to whether the concession the game designers made affect your interests. It's not that wild that some people would prefer the 3d games when you consider all of that. Sonic CD's levels just aren't fun to me.

I don't argue that Sonic CD is a very flawed game. I agree that the level design can be a miss and the physics are wonky. Some of the bosses are also absolutely awful. I would say it's worth a 7/10. It's just that Sonic CD also does a lot really well, such as its music, art, atmosphere, and the fact its just unique and doing something different with exploration. But it's certainly not some masterpiece.

And while I like games such as Sonic Adventure, they have far bigger problems and aren't close to a 7/10. They have utterly broken physics and collision for a start. But putting that to the side, the 3D games typically have really broken level design that can be awkward (outside of Adventure 2), tons of content which is totally irrelevant and boring and really bad stories and presentation. 

I'm not saying you aren't allowed to like the 3D Sonic games, I like games which are far worse than them like Sonic R. It's just that I think it's undeniable that Sonic 1, CD and 2 are better games than them, despite their own shortcomings.

[Splash the Otter]

21 hours ago, Plasme said:

I love Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2. I played both games on the Dreamcast and they are close to my heart. I often go back to them on Steam and replay them. I even like Heroes, despite it being much more unenjoyable. And I think Gens is a great game, so that's definitely not true.

Really? Could have fooled me.

[Plasme]

1 hour ago, Splash the Otter said:

Really? Could have fooled me.

I'll say it again: you can really like a game while being aware that it's not very good. Terrible even.

Case in point, I love Sonic R. How many people who like Sonic R would actually seriously entertain the idea that it's good?

[StaticMania]

22 minutes ago, Plasme said:

How many people who like Sonic R would actually seriously entertain the idea that it's good?

I would.

But I'm on the lower half of 10 people.

[UpCDownCLeftCRightC]

24 minutes ago, Plasme said:

I'll say it again: you can really like a game while being aware that it's not very good. Terrible even.

Case in point, I love Sonic R. How many people who like Sonic R would actually seriously entertain the idea that it's good?

And to add: I love sonic 3D blast. It's a memorable part of the classic era for me. The soundtrack and the general aesthetic and vibe were all pluses in my book and it was like an experiment into a very bare bones 3D classic sonic. However that game was hot trash, theres no debate about it. There was nothing broken about it, it's just that the isometric concept was not a very good one for that gameplay. You get basically none of the payoff of the momentum based gameplay in terms skill mastery, the physics are too slippery and all the spectacle is fully automated and unremarkable to look at.

[Mark_The_Dephiles]

6 hours ago, Plasme said:

I'll say it again: you can really like a game while being aware that it's not very good. Terrible even.

Case in point, I love Sonic R. How many people who like Sonic R would actually seriously entertain the idea that it's good?

Liking a game while also proclaiming to others that it's terrible I think is a symptom of the way the fanbase deals with opinions that deviate from the perceived norm.

[Plasme]

3 minutes ago, Mark_The_Dephiles said:

Liking a game while also proclaiming to others that it's terrible I think is a symptom of the way the fanbase deals with opinions that deviate from the perceived norm.

No it's not. You can like something while still acknowledging its bad. That's not even unique to Sonic. 

[StaticMania]

18 minutes ago, Mark_The_Dephiles said:

Liking a game while also proclaiming to others that it's terrible I think is a symptom of the way the fanbase deals with opinions that deviate from the perceived norm.

"Hey guys, this game is totally bad. Ha ha, it's funny to make fun of it, now I don't have to feel bad about liking it in earnest. Ha ha."

Oh man, oh man, this makes no sense.

"Oh but wait, I actually do like it, it's not just a joke. It's actually something I can join in pretty easily and know it's not true."

Like a true Scotsman.

[Mark_The_Dephiles]

22 minutes ago, Plasme said:

No it's not. You can like something while still acknowledging its bad. That's not even unique to Sonic. 

Sonic isn't the only fandom that is like this. You can find it in a lot of places on the internet in general.

[Tornado]

Spike bug wasn't a bug.

[Plasme]

 

4 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Spike bug wasn't a bug.

We have no way of knowing whether it was an intended feature or a bug. Either way, it's a really annoying feature.

[Tornado]

We've had reverse engineered disassemblies of the entire Sonic 1 codebase for probably 15 years now, so we in fact have a very good idea of how Sonic Team deliberately programmed an entirely different damage routine for spikes versus everything else that hurts Sonic in the game. That's not something that would have been done on accident (nevermind not caught by Naka when he reprogrammed much of the first game for the Japanese release), regardless of if they changed their mind about it a couple months before Sonic 2 released and certain later releases of the first game.

[Plasme]

1 minute ago, Tornado said:

We've had reverse engineered disassemblies of the entire Sonic 1 codebase for probably 15 years now, so we actually have a very good idea of how Sonic Team deliberately programmed an entirely different damage routine for spikes versus everything else that hurts Sonic in the game. That's not something that would have been done on accident, regardless of if they changed their mind about it a couple months before Sonic 2 released.

I'm not an expert in the programming of Sonic. Even if it is intended, it's still a bad design decision.

[StaticMania]

It is...intentional.

Mystery Solved.

 

[Mark_The_Dephiles]

I wouldn't mind the spike behavior for added difficulty if spikes weren't used so heavily in the first stage. Its in interesting concept especially since ring invincibility is so grossly abusable in the other classic games. 

[BaronGrackle]

1 hour ago, Mark_The_Dephiles said:

I wouldn't mind the spike behavior for added difficulty if spikes weren't used so heavily in the first stage. Its in interesting concept especially since ring invincibility is so grossly abusable in the other classic games. 

Young me would get frustrated in Green Hill Zone Act 3, after I got the invincibility monitor and could run over spikes at the section with the raising/lowering skinny bits of ground... only to discover that if I ran along the spikes I would fall through the skinny bits of ground because they were bottomless pits if you ran into them instead of landing on top.

I explained it poorly, but you guys know the section I mean.

[StaticMania]

They weren't solid.

They were semi solid.

Coined by: Super Mario Maker

[Splash the Otter]

22 hours ago, Plasme said:

I'll say it again: you can really like a game while being aware that it's not very good. Terrible even.

Case in point, I love Sonic R. How many people who like Sonic R would actually seriously entertain the idea that it's good?

Why would you like a game if you think it's terrible? That just doesn't make sense.

 

[StaticMania]

5 hours ago, Splash the Otter said:

Why would you like a game if you think it's terrible? That just doesn't make sense.

 

Trying to understand another person's opinion 101.

That right there is a basic mindset: Guilty Pleasure as most people would call it.