Does Sonic really work as a game?

[Catallena]

1 hour ago, Plasme said:

Is bad game design equal to good game design.

yes they are all practices that may or may not be useful for a certain audience within a certain context

take a shooting range at a fair or a festival for example the shooting range is made to be unfair but in that particular context that would be good game design sinc ethe game was not made to be beaten but rather to be dumb fun for which you gain small prizes and exchange tickets so you can buy food

it's all really a lot more trivial than high and mighty game design gurus who actually have nothing important to say (like anyone who makes these "sonic was always bad" videos or matthewmatosis or, god help me, extra credits) liketo make it seem

[Diogenes]

33 minutes ago, Catallena said:

take a shooting range at a fair or a festival for example the shooting range is made to be unfair but in that particular context that would be good game design sinc ethe game was not made to be beaten but rather to be dumb fun for which you gain small prizes and exchange tickets so you can buy food

Uh, no, that's shit game design, intended to exploit people's assumptions that the games are fair to squeeze more money out of them.

[Catallena]

Just now, Diogenes said:

Uh, no, that's shit game design, intended to exploit people's assumptions that the games are fair to squeeze more money out of them.

and yet no one seems to care much why would that be

[Tarnish]

6 hours ago, Plasme said:

Trial and error promotes memorisation, it isn't a test of skill or a true challenge, but forces the player to play through the game until they know what to expect. I don't consider this good game design.

That literally applies to say every racing game in existence. You have to memorize the track, know where the shortcuts are, learn how sharp every turn is, learn how fast you should be taking every turn, at what angle you should be taking every turn to get the best time.

"Does Sonic really work as a game?"
It used to.

[Tornado]

9 hours ago, Plasme said:

Sonic 3 does have a lot of trial and error though,

No it doesn't.

Quote

it isn't the holy grail of perfection that a lot of fans bewilderingly claim it is.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Quote

Marble Garden has swinging spikes which are virtually impossible to predict,

Stop GOTTA GO FAST in what are obviously slow paced levels.

Quote

Hydrocity has fly badniks which appear from nowhere,

The fly enemies that appear like twice in only the first act and don't attack for over a second after you've come on screen and entered their attack space? I'm sorry your reaction times are so poor so as to give you such issue to write the whole venture off as trial and error.

Quote

Lava Reef has those falling blocks and moving platforms which appear from nowhere and crush you when you are running at full speed.

 

Stop GOTTA GO FAST in what are obviously slow paced levels.

Quote

The problem here is that I find your definition of trial and error unsatisfactory. To me, trial and error doesn't have to be as egregious as a death and especially a game over.

I know that this is something you struggle with, but actually read my posts or don't bother responding to them. I don't care what you "find my definition" to be when you didn't put in the effort to find what it was before you took issue with it.

Quote

In levels such as Lave Reef, you are discouraged from going fast so as to avoid crushing deaths. This is a dreadful trial and error problem, because it actively directs you to go slowly and so betrays what makes Sonic fun.

No, it's a dreadful "Plasme doesn't understand that classic Sonic games were not hold right to win" problem.

Quote

But this applies to Sonic's core design too. A lot of badniks are completely impossible to predict by the nature of speeding through a level quickly.

Stop GOTTA GO FAST in what are obviously slow paced levels and/or sections, or stop playing Sonic 2.

Quote

It doesn't matter how well the enemies are telegraphed if you don't have the human reaction time to avoid them or jump into them.

Actually those two halves of that sentence are the literal opposite of each other, but again actually read my posts or don't bother responding to them because I wasn't talking about individual enemies.

Quote

And it isn't even just about taking damage, it makes the game have a stop-start pace and greatly hurts the game's flow. That you can only really 'go fast' by memorising the levels is a problem.

If you're actively playing the game to get through them as fast as possible, such as in the time attack mode or as an actual speedrun, it behooves you to memorize the levels, yes. That's literally the case as it is in all games where you are trying to get through them as fast as possible.

But if you get to Scrap Brain and you GOTTA GO FAST through it like it is Starlight because you think all Sonic games should be all fast all the time even when the level is signposted as otherwise and you keep getting crushed or falling into pits, that's not a problem with the game. There's only so much the developer can do to try and get their intentions across if the player doesn't care what they are.

 

Quote

Additionally, your point that Sonic must have been good to be a success is also wrong.

Since that's not what I said, ADDITIONALLY I'm going to suggest you try comprehension before response since it's something you've shown a pattern of; and that you (once again) actually read my posts or don't bother responding to them. Hell, that post was part of an ongoing conversation, and you seem to have missed all of that context too.

Quote

My best friend hates Sonic games because he thinks the game has horrible pacing and forces him to keep stopping and starting.

So give him a later boost game if he wants to shoot through levels with no obstacles or platforming or variation or challenge.

 

 

 

 

I'll spell it out for you, since I'm assuming you'll just misread all this as well otherwise: Not every level of every game in this series is Sonic Advance 2 or Rush Adventure. Not a single one of the classic games, not even Sonic 2 at it's fastest, was a pure "speed through the levels" adventure. All of the classic games were mixed platforming, generally done so certain levels are more obviously slow paced in their design than others but occasionally mixing and matching to keep things fresh within. That came to a head in Sonic 2 where you were frequently punished for sticking to the script that the level had started writing, but it is far from a frequent occurrence in the other two main titles which had much better signposting for how the level was designed.

If you want to call that pacing problems that's good for you, but I doubt terribly many people would jump to your defense when you are the one tear-assing into a giant spike ball because you GOTTA GO FAST through a level like Marble Garden where the entire point is vertical platforming to the point where there were multiple different level gimmicks in support of it.

[Plasme]

1 hour ago, Tornado said:

I'll spell it out for you, since I'm assuming you'll just misread all this as well: Not every fucking level of every game in this series is Sonic Advance 2 or Rush Adventure. Not a single one of the classic games, not even Sonic 2 at it's fastest, was a pure "speed through the levels" adventure. All of the classic games were mixed platforming, generally done so certain levels are more obviously slow paced in their design than others but occasionally mixing and matching to keep things fresh within. That came to a head in Sonic 2 where you were frequently punished for sticking to the script that the level had started writing, but it is far from a frequent occurrence in the other two main titles which had much better signposting for how the level would generally be designed.

If you want to call that pacing problems that's good for you, but I doubt terribly many people would jump to your defense when you are the one tear-assing into a giant spike ball because you GOTTA GO FAST through a level like Marble Garden where the entire point is vertical platforming to the point where there were multiple different level gimmicks in support of it.

Disagreeing isn't misunderstanding, you don't need to be so aggressive in your posts.

I'm a PhD student, so I find it pretty hilarious when you start insulting my intelligence by claiming I can't read.

Sonic isn't very good as a slow paced platformer. His jump is floaty and hard to control when trying to make methodical precise jumps; it's easy to overshoot or undershoot platforms. If I wamted to play a good slow paced platformer I would play Mario or Kirby.

Sonic was defined around and plays best when going quickly. You can repeat 'just play Sonic Advance 2' as much as you want but it doesn't change that key fact.

[Tornado]

2 hours ago, Plasme said:

Disagreeing isn't misunderstanding, you don't need to be so aggressive in your posts.

I'm a PhD student, so I find it pretty hilarious when you start insulting my intelligence by claiming I can't read.

If you aren't misunderstanding posts in this thread than you are either misrepresenting them deliberately so you have something you can more easily argue with, or you just don't care what they actually say before you start typing up your reply. There's no fourth explanation for how there can be a conversation that goes like this:

16 hours ago, StaticMania said:

Trial and Error in video games will most certainly kill you.

And dying is da punishment.

Nobody likes dying.

16 hours ago, Tornado said:

I don't agree with that. Some of even the classic games have level design that is a problem even though it rarely goes so far as to kill you for it.

Where your response is this:

11 hours ago, Plasme said:

The problem here is that I find your definition of trial and error unsatisfactory. To me, trial and error doesn't have to be as egregious as a death and especially a game over.

 

 

 

Also, for the record, "I've got a degree" is not a measure of your ability to understand things you are trying to debate; nor is pointing out that you're not responding to what people are actually saying an insult of your intelligence.

Quote

Sonic isn't very good as a slow paced platformer. His jump is floaty and hard to control when trying to make methodical precise jumps; it's easy to overshoot or undershoot platforms.

According to who? You? I understand aerial momentum, thank you. The only Sonic games where actually responding to it to do traditional platforming is a problem are the ones where the momentum itself is inconsistent and illogical (Sonic CD and Spinball being the most obvious examples of this era in question). This is also a new, separate argument from the ones about trial and error gameplay.

Quote

If I wamted to play a good slow paced platformer I would play Mario or Kirby.

And you're perfectly free to do so. I'm more than capable of playing those games as well as Sonic, and recognizing what an actually poorly designed game with a similar ethos to the classic Sonic titles looks like.

Sonic Advance 3 is a poorly designed game because it uses the same deliberately sluggish slow speed controls as Sonic Advance 2 but forces you to perform slow platforming with them; completely detached from the level design issues it also has where it kills you for going fast after a section where it implies you should be going fast Bubsy and especially Bubsy 2 are poorly designed games because it gives you character momentum, in the case of the first game far moreso than any Sonic game, but no way to easily control it; completely detached from the level design issues they have. Jazz Jackrabbit is a poorly designed game because it give you a bit of momentum and lets you go very fast, but it is an action platformer with guns and even if you are just standing there the enemies move fast enough that you will possibly take damage before killing them.

Quote

Sonic was defined around and plays best when going quickly.

That's a different statement from it playing poorly when you aren't doing so. Sonic absolutely benefits from having speed built up. Momentum, or pinball physics, or whatever you want to call it, is the inherent point behind the games whether you are going slow or fast.  His jump is higher and is able to go further horizontally as well; with the inherent risk that now you are more committed to your direction at that point. This is signposted best by Sonic Team in Green Hill Act 3, where if you have some momentum you can reach the Invincibility monitor right before the boss. This is (infamously) signposted worst in Carnival Night 2, where it seems like character momentum is the solution to the barrel puzzle; but it's actually just that you should press up and down on the D-Pad to create momentum on of thin air.

 

Sonic still builds up speed at a fast enough rate in all but the most extreme situations even before the spin dash (which is not a gimme for platformers of this era to do, because neither Bubsy game does); and working to maintain speed for the greater mobility it brings is still not "GO FULL SPEED AT ALL TIMES."

Quote

You can repeat 'just play Sonic Advance 2' as much as you want but it doesn't change that key fact.

What key fact is that exactly? Because based on some of your arguments so far, at this point we're approaching "Why does Half Life have these puzzles I have to solve when I just want to shoot more Cacodemons" levels of understanding of the design of these titles.

 

The actual facts are that the classic games were not designed to be played all fast all the time. They were designed to be played quickly, but the the only game that didn't actively reward exploration was the first, and roughly half of that game's levels still focused on platforming. The levels where platforming was a greater focus also were generally designed to make it known that was the case early on; and when the slower levels had speedy sections to wow the player they still generally worked to slow the player down before throwing obstacles at them. The most glaring exception to this is Sonic 2, which frequently punished the player for going fast through levels in levels where it was clear you should be going fast. Whether or not you think those games control acceptably when you are going slow is also fairly unrelated to whether or not the challenge presented by the level design is fair when you are going as fast as possible above all else; because it isn't an either/or scenario.

[Tarnish]

2 hours ago, Plasme said:

His jump is floaty and hard to control when trying to make methodical precise jumps; it's easy to overshoot or undershoot platforms.

Dunno which games you were playing but the only games I had trouble with the jumping were those fancy new 'fast paced' Sonic games where Sonic is useless without the boost and his homing dash is a piece of crap.

[tailsBOOM!]

2 hours ago, Plasme said:

His jump is floaty and hard to control when trying to make methodical precise jumps; it's easy to overshoot or undershoot platforms.

The only two games I can think of off the top of my head in which he has a "floaty jump" are Smash 4 and Smash Ultimate with equipment or Spirits on, respectively.  I honestly can't think of what else he'd be talking about

[Wraith]

4 hours ago, Plasme said:

 

Sonic isn't very good as a slow paced platformer. His jump is floaty and hard to control when trying to make methodical precise jumps; it's easy to overshoot or undershoot platforms. If I wamted to play a good slow paced platformer I would play Mario or Kirby.

 

The platforms are generally wider than they are in other games to accommodate for this along with the layered design acting as a safety net. 

[Tarnish]

27 minutes ago, Wraith said:

The platforms are generally wider than they are in other games to accommodate for this along with the layered design acting as a safety net. 

That is, when there was a layered design in the games.

[KHCast]

2 hours ago, tailsBOOM! said:

The only two games I can think of off the top of my head in which he has a "floaty jump" are Smash 4 and Smash Ultimate with equipment or Spirits on, respectively.  I honestly can't think of what else he'd be talking about

I’d assume Colors, Gens and Forces, which  focus on the boost more than anything. Though I wouldn’t say they’re terribly difficult either way to get through those platforming sections. 

Don’t exactly agree that the franchise was never good as a slow platforming game. The only classic level I felt this annoyed most in was labyrinth zone, which clashed majorly with the rest of the game, but the actual platforming wasn’t not doable. The classics, and to a degree adventure titles are usually praised for being able to mix speed and platforming together, but that doesn’t mean people expect constantly moving forward at all times(at least the first few runs through a stage).

[Marco9966]

The only gameplay that is good is Sonic Adventure.

Better than the classics.

Why bother being a fan at this point? The games are getting worse, the stories worse, even the comics are boring.

Why not go to franchises that respect themselves like the MCU or Game of Thrones, or Rick and Morty, or any other game series or comic series.

Why stay here? I don't know... I guess because I liked this amazing game back in the day with a great story called Sonic Adventure... Other than that, no reasons.

[Wraith]

How do dudes who only like 3 sonic games from 20+ years ago get so fixated on this series

[Marco9966]

1 minute ago, Wraith said:

How do dudes who only like 3 sonic games from 20+ years ago get so fixated on this series

Maybe  because we want more games like the the games we liked, and we didn't get a good "Modern" Sonic game since 2005.

The ones who like the first 3 have mania.

The ones who likes the 4 after the first 3 are still waiting.

[Tracker_TD]

2 minutes ago, Marco9966 said:

Maybe  because we want more games like the the games we liked, and we didn't get a good "Modern" Sonic game since 2005.

If you're considering something as broken as Heroes or tedious as Shadow as the good ones then maybe it's for the better of the series you're not being sated 

[Wraith]

10 minutes ago, Marco9966 said:

Maybe  because we want more games like the the games we liked, and we didn't get a good "Modern" Sonic game since 2005.

The ones who like the first 3 have mania.

The ones who likes the 4 after the first 3 are still waiting.

I include classic fans in that statement 

Sonic Mania was good but I can't comprehend it being worth 15 years of being angry at everything else

[Marco9966]

2 minutes ago, Tracker_TD said:

If you're considering something as broken as Heroes or tedious as Shadow as the good ones then maybe it's for the better of the series you're not being sated 

What about Sonic Adventure 1 and 2?

The only good Sonic games story-wise are Sonic 3,SA1,SA2,Sonic Riders, and Sonic Riders Zero Gravity.

[StaticMania]

4 hours ago, tailsBOOM! said:

The only two games I can think of off the top of my head in which he has a "floaty jump" are Smash 4 and Smash Ultimate with equipment or Spirits on, respectively.  I honestly can't think of what else he'd be talking about

Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 are pretty floaty, jumping wise...

But that's for the purpose of making platforming easier...

[Sega DogTagz]

13 hours ago, Diogenes said:

Uh, no, that's shit game design, intended to exploit people's assumptions that the games are fair to squeeze more money out of them.

If the name of the game is to make a profit, then wouldn't that make such carnival games a bastion of design due to their ability to acheive their intended purpose? 

Also who goes in thinking those games are fair? Everyone knows they are rigged and half the fun is trying to be the guy who beats the system for ultimate justice. 

No one would ever accuse Casio games and slot machines of being poorly designed. A lot goes into those as an art of separating chumps from their money. They acheive their goal and keep people coming back for more. No matter how nefarious, that is a Hallmark of good game design. 

[Marco9966]

1 minute ago, StaticMania said:

Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 are pretty floaty, jumping wise...

But that's for the purpose of making platforming easier...

Better than the new games.

[StaticMania]

What does that have to do with what I said?

[Marco9966]

Just now, StaticMania said:

What does that have to do with what I said?

Do you consider the jump of Sonic Adventure better or Sonic Forces better?

4 hours ago, Tarnish said:

Dunno which games you were playing but the only games I had trouble with the jumping were those fancy new 'fast paced' Sonic games where Sonic is useless without the boost and his homing dash is a piece of crap.

This.

[StaticMania]

Never played Forces, but again...that's unrelated.

[Marco9966]

I wish SEGA would just hire this guy and give us a "Sonic Mania" for the Sonic Adventure gameplay