Does Sonic really work as a game?

[thumbs13]

4 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

I still don't get what people hate about Heroes that much. It wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a good game. I had waaaaaaaaaay more fun with it than Sonic Colors, Generations and Lost World put together.

I like it, but the combat, Chaotix levels, rails sucking, and the character types never letting you actually pick your preferred character all sour the experience.

[StaticMania]

It's just long, that's all.

[Tarnish]

7 hours ago, Diogenes said:

The fact that almost any action with any measure of speed risks throwing you to your death on all but the earliest levels, primarily.

Strange, I don't recall running into that problem.

7 hours ago, thumbs13 said:

I like it, but the combat, Chaotix levels, rails sucking, and the character types never letting you actually pick your preferred character all sour the experience.

It definitely could be have been improved, but at least it had more varried combat in 1 single game than we had for like 10 years worth of games, the rails weren't just 100% conveyor belts like they are now and some of the missions encouraged exploration instead of speeding by as fast as you can and ignoring everything.

[Wraith]

I remember running into a lot of things

[StaticMania]

The rails were conveyor belts, don't kid.

Balancing was a non-thing, that's why they got rid of it.

[Tarnish]

17 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

The rails were conveyor belts, don't kid.

Balancing was a non-thing, that's why they got rid of it.

They weren't conveyor belts as they are is say Generations.

In Sonic Heroes, you land on a rail with no starting momentum, you're not going anywhere. You gotta work up your momentum with that spinning move. Now, I think that looks stupid and is a stupid way to work up momentum, but at least you had to work for it.
In Generations, you land on a rail with no starting momentum and off you go at a stupidly fast, set pace.

True, balancing was a non-thing, tho I will say even in Adventure 2, it was weird that in some stages you had to use it to maintain balance (and thus speed) in turns, in other stages you could just crouch without balancing in even sharper turns without any issue. Still, I prefer the Adventure 2 approach. And I will always prefer the quick 'hop' from rail to rail instead of the modern fancy, way over-the-top front-flip/back-flip solution. It's just for show instead of functionality, takes longer than it really needs to.

[StaticMania]

1 hour ago, Tarnish said:

...the quick 'hop' from rail...

2 problems: Diagonal and/or curving rails as well as holding right or left while trying to jump from a rail still quick switching (the latter isn't much of a problem really).

The tech is improved, it can come back better, skill based, and actually functional.

 

[Sega DogTagz]

14 hours ago, Diogenes said:

Jesus christ are you serious

Are you next going to argue that literally stealing from people is good behavior because it serves its purpose of enriching yourself at the expense of other people?

 

13 hours ago, KHCast said:

That’s not fun, that’s exploitation and psychological manipulation, something people actually get addicted to and struggle with, which if that’s your intent and “Art”, then no, that isn’t good design meant to benefit the consumer 

 

 

Your missing the point. You don't judge game design via morality or any other sliding scale measuring stick. A games worth and quality is ultimately determined by if it intentionally accomplishes what it set out to do. Well designed games encapsulate the original mission objective - whatever it may be - and create an experience that people value or repeatedly return to. It doesn't matter if that game is designed to entertain the masses, or separate them from their money, the game is just rules and/or coding. Its sole value can only be measured in if it unironically completes the mission.

 

Its hard to measure some Sonic games as "good games", because the original mission objective has been so blurred over the years. In many cases, its hard to tell what the developers were aiming for when they made some of these games. As a speedrunning exercise, Unleashed's daytime stages are near masterstroke of exhilaration, timing and memorization, but as a pick up and play platformer it doesn't reach those same heights. Sonic isn't the type of game to be a sandbox and cater to both sides of the aisle. In many ways, one vision can be a detriment to another. Before we can start crafting a better Sonic game, we honestly need a new mission statement of what the game wants to be, so that we can build up consistency and cater to those expectations. Without that, devs are doing little more than throwing things against the wall and hoping to god players will find their own fun with it.

[Tarnish]

14 hours ago, Wraith said:

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

Well, I probably hate (or just don't like) a lot more of the Sonic games than I actually like at this point.

For me, a big part of why I'm still 'fixated' on the series is because it started out so promising on such a unique concept, then they just straight out threw that into the garbage when I still think there's still so much more life and possibilities in that concept. And they just ignore it in favor of a subpar concept.

[KHCast]

57 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

Your missing the point. You don't judge game design via morality or any other sliding scale measuring stick

As humans I’d say that’s a load. Pretty sure if we feel certain ways about things it’s gonna effect our overall opinions on whatever, be it the game design, visuals, etc. and if the majority feel it’s bad, well, doesn’t matter to the consumer what the original intent was

57 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

A games worth and quality is ultimately determined by if it intentionally accomplishes what it set out to do. Well designed games encapsulate the original mission objective - whatever it may be -

Yep, Star Wars Battlefront 2 and any guff EA/Activision/etc release I guess if we went by the standard of what they want, are masterpieces. I mean, they clearly make tons from loot boxes/microtransactions 

 

57 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

It doesn't matter if that game is designed to entertain the masses, or separate them from their money, the game is just rules and/or coding. Its sole value can only be measured in if it unironically completes the mission.

That’s a pretty apologetic way to look at companies when they exploit audiences. It’s value has a lot of factors that can determine its worth and success. Games end of the day are supposed to entertain the audience, not constantly beg for more money, it’s not fucking crack which is just meant to hook people and get them spending unreasonable amounts. There’s a reason EA stocks are down and why they had to retract and change Battlefront 2 to be more player friendly. Because their vision was a failure and it’s value was deemed low. If the measure of success was like you said, why backtrack on your vision.

 

the basic gist of all this is, we can judge it’s value on other factors aside from what the creators intent or want out of it was. Sonic team wanting for example a barely passable classic sonic in Forces doesn’t get a pass in people’s minds whether they always intended for him to be like that or not. End of the day, it wasn’t fun, and people felt ripped off by his forced inclusion and lazy feeling design. EA wanting to make tons of money out of Star Wars,(and making it), resulting in a intentionally designed grindy experience meant to push players towards the loot boxes and microtransactions, doesn’t matter as what they wanted and their measure of success didn’t counter the fact that the backlash created a situation where they got landed in hot water. 

Yes, there are examples where the creators vision/goal is realized and pays off, but that’s usually because it’s perceived as good to the public and has actual care put into it. From software’s projects being difficult and frustrating complements the world and tone of the atmosphere, driving the player to continue and get back up. It rarely ever actually feels “cheap” and “hard for the sake of it”. 

[Sega DogTagz]

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

As humans I’d say that’s a load. Pretty sure if we feel certain ways about things it’s gonna effect our overall opinions on whatever, be it the game design, visuals, etc. and if the majority feel it’s bad, well, doesn’t matter to the consumer what the original intent was

That line of though is a discredit to the effectiveness of the game itself. The game surrounding Casnino's is well documented and well established. Everything from the flashing lights to the temperature of the room is manipulated and controlled to create an optimal environment to ensure the success of the games. Everyone knows this, and yet day in and day out these venues rake in money by the truckload. I don't think anyone is happy that the lack of windows, clocks and copious free drinks are all being done in predatory and manipulative fashion - but that just goes to show that a good game transcends such grievances.

You can appreciate the science behind greed without glorifying it. How they designed the game and the meta-game around it is so effective that consumers walk in knowing of the dangers and still fall prey to them. That's like a grifter telling you that he is going to scam you out of your birthday money, invites you into his place of business and then doing it right in front of your face. Consumer sentiment or morality be damned, that is all an example of good game design.

 

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

Yep, Star Wars Battlefront 2 and any guff EA/Activision/etc release I guess if we went by the standard of what they want, are masterpieces. I mean, they clearly make tons from loot boxes/microtransactions 

 

That's just twisting the logic. It shouldn't be implied, nor was it my intention to state that you can blanket apply cashflow as the end all be all, especially in this scenario. Casino's have operated for so long, and are still an in-demand part of our culture because people accept and yearn for that risk. The same can't be said for Battlefront, because the masses revolted against it almost instantly.

If it were a masterwork of game design, then the enjoyment gotten out of the games would have trumped the whiplash of negativity from the overabundance of loot boxes. They weren't so society demanded change. The game wasn't good enough, the environment wasn't controlled enough and the development wasn't strong enough for people to accept that same kind of tom foolery. If we are to assume that the main goal of Battlefront 2 was to market itself and its microtransactions, then it was an abstract failure as a game because of the cascade of backlash and changes said backlash forced.

 

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

That’s a pretty apologetic way to look at companies when they exploit audiences.

Its not really. Nothing I said disputes the ethical pursuit of exploiting an audience. I too think that is an appalling behavior that should be discouraged at every turn.

That being said, I can still look at the engineering behind such decisions and appreciate them as independent mechanisms. Thats still science and art and wisdom in application. Understanding how people get taken advantage of is an important step in protecting people from similar attempts in the future after all.

I guess the best way to sum it up is.... Don't hate the game, hate the dirtbag who designed it to leverage everything against you.

 

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

It’s value has a lot of factors that can determine its worth and success. Games end of the day are supposed to entertain the audience, not constantly beg for more money, it’s not fucking crack which is just meant to hook people and get them spending unreasonable amounts. There’s a reason EA stocks are down and why they had to retract and change Battlefront 2 to be more player friendly. Because their vision was a failure and it’s value was deemed low. If the measure of success was like you said, why backtrack on your vision.

Unless the core goal of battlefront was to piss of a whole lot of people, than the game was a failure. If it was designed properly - or in a manner in which people were willing to accept the terms, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

 

the basic gist of all this is, we can judge it’s value on other factors aside from what the creators intent or want out of it was. Sonic team wanting for example a barely passable classic sonic in Forces doesn’t get a pass in people’s minds whether they always intended for him to be like that or not. End of the day, it wasn’t fun, and people felt ripped off by his forced inclusion and lazy feeling design. EA wanting to make tons of money out of Star Wars,(and making it), resulting in a intentionally designed grindy experience meant to push players towards the loot boxes and microtransactions, doesn’t matter as what they wanted and their measure of success didn’t counter the fact that the backlash created a situation where they got landed in hot water. 

Yes, there are examples where the creators vision/goal is realized and pays off, but that’s usually because it’s perceived as good to the public and has actual care put into it. From software’s projects being difficult and frustrating complements the world and tone of the atmosphere, driving the player to continue and get back up. It rarely ever actually feels “cheap” and “hard for the sake of it”. 

Do we even know what ST was aiming for with Classic in Forces? Because from where I am sitting, they just wanted to put his face on the box and took the shortest possible route to do so. Sonic games are hard to judge, because the intent is all over the place.

[StaticMania]

26 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

Don't hate the game, hate the dirtbag who designed it to leverage everything against you.

It seems like they already do.

[Tara]

I think this conversation is confusing "effective marketing" with "good design."  For that matter, this topic has gotten way off course so I'm going to ask we dial it back to Sonic.  

[Catallena]

15 hours ago, StaticMania said:

Turn on the skill cap, become a fun hater.

That's the true secret to enjoying video games.

i don't follow but looks like you agree with me so thanks 

[BlueFlare]

Sonic has always been more about video games than anything else to me. I also loved some of the comics I had in 90s and when I was introduced to Sonic 1 on Genesis. Sonic has some of my favorite (and some of the worst) gaming moments of my life. While I think Sonic games could do better, I love some grand pieces (Genesis era, CD, Rush, Generations, Mania) from my heart. 

[Tornado]

On 3/18/2019 at 5:40 PM, Catallena said:

i don't get it. does sonic advance 3 strap your fingers to the buttons you're not supposed to press at any given time and slowly injects poison into your blood vessels unless you force yourself to die or something.

No. It does literally have booster/ramp combos that shoot you directly into spikes and occasionally even crushing hazards, though. It's pretty god-damned bad, even if your deliberately chosen example of one of the terrible GameBoy Megaman games is also bad.

 

On 3/18/2019 at 5:50 PM, Catallena said:

how can the chaos emerald system be counter intuitive to how the levels are designed if they are the reason to how they are designed the way they are.

"The levels are designed that way because that is how they were designed" is not an argument.

[Catallena]

59 minutes ago, Tornado said:

No. It does literally have booster/ramp combos that shoot you directly into spikes and occasionally even crushing hazards, though. It's pretty god-damned bad, even if your deliberately chosen example of one of the terrible GameBoy Megaman games is also bad.

well tell that to the boy who thinks megaman isn't cheap or whatever then not to me because as i said i don't mind traps like these and you are all having a hard time convincing me i should

Quote

"The levels are designed that way because that is how they were designed" is not an argument.

it very much is though because the whole game is very chill about its own exploration aspects what with the zone maps and the team switching on the fly all so you can explore if and whenever and however you want (remember it's also a portable game which might affect your experience) so at this point if you think it's counter intuitive then it's your intuition that is wrong and like i said that's fine too because we come to the game expecting differnt things just don't spout holier than thou bullshit as if intuition was somehow objective and unified all across the player spectrum. you said as much when defending sonic 3 and i agree with those points so don't be hypocritical

[Tornado]

46 minutes ago, Catallena said:

well tell that to the boy who thinks megaman isn't cheap or whatever then not to me because as i said i don't mind traps like these and you are all having a hard time convincing me i should

Nope. I'm not the one showing off a 9 second Youtube video of a specific hazard from a subseries of games that are known to be garbage as if they are representative of an entire franchise's concepts of game difficulty/level design. Shockingly, people also have problems with unfair difficulty in the bad Mega Man games that happen to rely on it.

Quote

it very much is though

No it's not. That a developer deliberately does something has no bearing on whether or not it actually works well. That's so absolutely absurd of an statement that even in the context of this "discussion" where you've been making up interpretations of posts to suit your arguments that it still stands out as disingenuous.

Quote

because the whole game is very chill about its own exploration aspects

Speed boosters into spikes = "very chill about its own exploration aspects"? Just like in the previous game, you "explore" in Advance 3 when you make a point to break out from the Automatic Mario levels that were constructed by Dimps at just the right time to get to some other tier. Just like in the previous game, the "exploration" is frequently "did I hit the right button at the right time while flying through the level at max speed." The main difference is that Advance 3 also has some slow speed platforming that controls terribly with the Advance 2 physics engine, which Advance 2 to its definite credit didn't even pretend was the focus.

Quote

so you can explore if and whenever and however you want

Unless you chose the wrong (usually lower) path early at the first fork in the road and are completely cut off from getting back to it at any point.

 

 

But hey there's a level map so you can just restart it!

Quote

if you think it's counter intuitive then it's your intuition that is wrong and like i said that's fine too because we come to the game expecting differnt things just don't spout holier than thou bullshit as if intuition was somehow objective and unified all across the player spectrum.

Oh. Well excuse me all to hell. Let's all bow down to the guy who doesn't know what a capital letter is and believes tautologies are rebuttals. We've got level design cracked, guys; since if Sonic Team did it on purpose it can't be flawed!

Quote

you said as much when defending sonic 3 and i agree with those points so don't be hypocritical

Actually, no, I said much the opposite. The earlier debate was about whether or not Sonic 3 was riddled with trial and error gameplay (apparently defined in that context as "the player took damage at any point from an enemy/obstacle when they were going as fast as possible at all times"), and I was noting that Sonic 3 (just like Sonic 1) are exceedingly good about signposting how a level will be designed from the beginning of each act when they focus extensively on one or the other. Meaning they largely didn't have unfair difficult like Sonic 2 suffers from after Hill Top (and Advance 3 is absolutely loaded with, hence why DreamSaturn brought it up in the first place) unless you paid no attention to your level surroundings because SANIC GOTTA GO FAST.

That was my issue with Plasme's point: He brought up an example from a level where one act is so telegraphed that it is slow paced that it starts you off in a section in that you literally cannot get through without coming to a complete stop and having your fat ass dragged up a steep hill as proof of trial and error when you are going at max speed. That's the context I was arguing under; and that's the context you should have read before you tried to pull a gotcha with my posts.

 

For that matter, even if I was arguing the thing that would be convenient for you, Sonic 3 and Sonic Advance 3 could not be further away from each other in level design while still having what counts as "exploration," so get that "don't be hypocritical" shit out of my face.

[Catallena]

21 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Nope. I'm not the one showing off a 9 second Youtube video of a specific hazard from a subseries of games that are known to be garbage as if they are representative of an entire franchise's concepts of game difficulty/level design. Shockingly, people also have problems with unfair difficulty in the bad Mega Man games that happen to rely on it.

once again i was not the one making the argument that megaman isn't like that so why are you telling that to me. i was just showing that it's something that happens, and i don't mind it. you think you are replying to me but really you are not.

21 minutes ago, Tornado said:

No it's not. That a developer deliberately does something has no bearing on whether or not it actually works or whether it's actually good. That's so absolutely absurd of an argument that even in the context of this "discussion" where you've been pretty blatantly making up interpretations of posts to suit your arguments that it still stands out as disingenuous.

so what would be the measure of whether it works or not? i stated my reason to say it works in a previous, very heartfelt post you choose to ignore. that is my point of view. sonic advance 3, and basically most sonic games, work as games because of those reasons, and sadly since sonic's influence on what good game design is has fallen out of favor so that's why we keep having discussions like these when no one would question that years ago. you're the one making up strawmen just so you have something to point your anger towards, and quite frankly it makes me both creeped out and uncomfortable.

21 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Speed boosters into spikes = "very chill about its own exploration aspects"? Just like in the previous game, you "explore" in Advance 3 when you make a point to break out from the Automatic Mario levels that were constructed by Dimps at just the right time to get to some other tier. Just like in the previous game, the "exploration" is frequently "did I hit the right button at the right time while flying through the level at max speed." The main difference is that Advance 3 also has some slow speed platforming that controls terribly with the Advance 2 physics engine, which Advance 2 to its definite credit didn't even pretend was the focus.

you know the funny thing about it in relation to the next section of your post is that i might as well say, "that's the level telling you what it's about" but you'd come up with something to say it isn't, and it'd be yet another case of someone being creative about subjective thresholds of something that make them acceptable. when similar arguments were made about sonic 3 you went ahead and talked about how no they aren't but it comes down to the same principle. people who diss the old games say these exact,.very exact same things you're saying about sonic advance 3. "oh it's too fast how am i supposed to stop" "oh my god there's a speed booster and i don't really need it because i'm looking for somerhing else but let me use it anyway just so i can have something to complain about".

like you said stop going fast in what's obviously a slow section, or rather a slow facet of the same level because you're looking for something else now. but yeah even if you do, you can restart it, or you can finish the level you're at to get lives or whatever and keep playing some other time. it's not a big deal. you talk like it hurt you physically or took an insane amount of time but it dosn't, it's bite-sized and yes a bit of trial and error but again there's nothing wrong with that because you can and should try something new whenever you go at it again. and to me that's enough, that's fun.

21 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Oh. Well excuse me all to hell. Let's all bow down to the guy who doesn't know what a capital letter is and believes tautologies are rebuttals. We've got level design cracked, guys; since if Sonic Team did it on purpose it can't be flawed!

yeah you know i was going to report you right here because at no point did i make a comment so virulent towards you but then i saw that you are the staff so that really makes me uncomfortable. please stop doing this why would you get so worked up that i like something you don't like and for apparently the same reasons you like something you like

[Plasme]

3 hours ago, Tornado said:

Actually, no, I said much the opposite. The earlier debate was about whether or not Sonic 3 was riddled with trial and error gameplay (apparently defined in that context as "the player took damage at any point from an enemy/obstacle when they were going as fast as possible at all times"), and I was noting that Sonic 3 (just like Sonic 1) are exceedingly good about signposting how a level will be designed from the beginning of each act when they focus extensively on one or the other. Meaning they largely didn't have unfair difficult like Sonic 2 suffers from after Hill Top (and Advance 3 is absolutely loaded with, hence why DreamSaturn brought it up in the first place) unless you paid no attention to your level surroundings because SANIC GOTTA GO FAST.

That was my issue with Plasme's point: He brought up an example from a level where one act is so telegraphed that it is slow paced that it starts you off in a section in that you literally cannot get through without coming to a complete stop and having your fat ass dragged up a steep hill as proof of trial and error when you are going at max speed. That's the context I was arguing under; and that's the context you should have read before you tried to pull a gotcha with my posts.

I'm aware that some levels in Sonic 3 are designed and clearly communicated as slower than others, Marble Garden is one and there are a few others you could name such as Sandopolis. Perhaps Launch Base could be counted as slower too.

My point is that Sonic isn't as fun when going slowly when compared to going fast. There's a reason why people prefer Sonic 1's Green Hill over Marble Zone. It's not that Marble Zone is badly designed; it pretty clearly communicates that it's a slow, Mario inspired level. Nevertheless, I don't think Sonic is fun for that kind of slow gameplay. His acceleration is much quicker than the likes of Mario and Kirby, which makes it really easy to overshoot platforms when jumping (I've covered this before). 

But additionally, it just doesn't play to Sonic's strengths. There are loads of 2D platformers which encourage a slow and methodical pace, and Sonic doesn't do that kind of gameplay better than its competition. I play Sonic because it does fast paced platforming better than everything else. There's a reason why Sonic 2 is the most widely loved of the franchise, because it's the one which focuses most on speed.

3 hours ago, Tornado said:

Oh. Well excuse me all to hell. Let's all bow down to the guy who doesn't know what a capital letter is and believes tautologies are rebuttals. We've got level design cracked, guys; since if Sonic Team did it on purpose it can't be flawed!

Pretty sure English isn't his first language. He doesn't seem to be an idiot like you are saying, more that he's intelligent but finds it hard to express himself.

[Tarnish]

16 hours ago, Plasme said:

My point is that Sonic isn't as fun when going slowly when compared to going fast. There's a reason why people prefer Sonic 1's Green Hill over Marble Zone. It's not that Marble Zone is badly designed; it pretty clearly communicates that it's a slow, Mario inspired level. Nevertheless, I don't think Sonic is fun for that kind of slow gameplay.

Even if the slow sections aren't as fun as the fast ones (I disagree personally but that's not the point), if every stage consisted 100% of fast sections it would become boring and repetitive quite fast, plus you wouldn't appreciate fast sections as much because that's all you're doing to begin with. You need something to break up the pace and make it more varied. Just like every racing game needs a track with a slower section with sharper turns and turns more often. Speeding constantly becomes boring eventually if that's all your're doing.

[StaticMania]

That's not exactly the worst example of this.

But any time I see something like that:

Quote

Nevertheless, I don't think Sonic is fun for that kind of slow gameplay. 

Can't help but feel that yet another soul has fell victim to the 90's marketing...or expectations of book covers.

[Iko]

I didn't read all the discussion so I don't have a clear idea of what's going on, but...

 

On 3/20/2019 at 4:01 PM, Tornado said:

Nope. I'm not the one showing off a 9 second Youtube video of a specific hazard from a subseries of games that are known to be garbage as if they are representative of an entire franchise's concepts of game difficulty/level design. Shockingly, people also have problems with unfair difficulty in the bad Mega Man games that happen to rely on it.

That specific hazard is also present in a main series Megaman game (for NES), Megaman 2 - Heatman stage, and as far as I know it's the most popular Megaman game.

You can argue that's not cheap because the game teaches you the behavior of the hazard in a safe environment first, though once you start following the path of appearing platforms, it's completely impossible to predict where they will appear and with what timing, unless you memorized it through trial and error.

 

On 3/20/2019 at 4:01 PM, Tornado said:

Speed boosters into spikes = "very chill about its own exploration aspects"? Just like in the previous game, you "explore" in Advance 3 when you make a point to break out from the Automatic Mario levels that were constructed by Dimps at just the right time to get to some other tier. Just like in the previous game, the "exploration" is frequently "did I hit the right button at the right time while flying through the level at max speed." The main difference is that Advance 3 also has some slow speed platforming that controls terribly with the Advance 2 physics engine, which Advance 2 to its definite credit didn't even pretend was the focus.

 

I like the Advance series, and I think that their flaws are overexagerated. Advance 3 is my least favorite and the one which I think has the most level design problems, though the levels of all the Advance games are not really automated. They are linear, but you have almost always full control on the character and you can change path/experiment whenever you want, even during a "spring chain", you can usually interrupt semi-automation by doing tricks or by using special moves/tag teams.

Also, as someone who replays the Advance games regularly, they are not as cheap as people say. There are some cheap traps, especially in Advance 3, offcourse, but most of the cheapness can be avoided (even without knowing the layout of the level) by playing good. All you have to know is that if you run at full speed you are vulnerable, so you have to be careful and watch the environment before running mindlessly. In Sonic Advance 2, many people confuse their unability to play careful, with cheap level design, where having played the game a lot of times, the actual cheap moments are just a few (there are some, indeed, but not much more than in any other Sonic game).

There are times when you run into a wall and a second later a spike appears from the ground (they are in all 3 the advance games and Advance 1 is the most affected by this) but they will almost never kill you as the ring mechanics in Sonic games makes getting damage very trivial as long as you can get some of them back... they are only cheap if you are aiming for a score record or something, but I doubt many players have that goal in mind when playing Sonic games. And by the way, after falling into the trap 3 to 5 times, you learn that when you run into a wall, you have to jump away from the ground near it because it's most likely a spike trap.

Also it's really not trial and error... speaking of Advance 2, if we exclude that specific place at the beginning of an act of Sky Canyon and unless you are very bad, the only place where the game forces trial and error on you are the bossfights, for the rest of the game, if you play decently you wil rarely die. Bottomless pits are a thing but they are predictable most of the times... the biggest problem of the game, before level design, is the small screen that makes impossible to see hazards in time if you run at full speed mindlessly;  with a better visual the game wouldn't be as cheap (same problem as some of the Game Gear games).

Also, Sonic Advance 3 has much worse physics than Advance 2, much worse. The acceleration is all messed up, and the bouncing mechanics is ruined too. Advance 2's gameplay is pretty precise and it would work well in a platforming section IMO (there are a couple of them hidden in the game, very short and a bit hard, but there's a way to test it).

[StaticMania]

1 hour ago, Iko said:

Also, Sonic Advance 3 has much worse physics than Advance 2...

It really does control a lot better doesn't it?

Now that accel isn't tied to rings, Sonic speeds up normally. And all B moves don't completely kill your momentum, while still remaining useless.

[Tarnish]

1 hour ago, StaticMania said:

And all B moves don't completely kill your momentum, while still remaining useless.

I never really understood the point of 90% of the moves in the Advance games.

All of the boost attacks are useless since the speed is so ludicrous you can barely react to anything, even if you know what's ahead (but that already requires memorization). The idle attacks usually cause more trouble than good they do. They're definitely useless against bosses for Sonic and Knuckles cause they just propel the character straight into the boss, resulting in taking damage, or make the character fall down if the enemy is close to a ledge. I guess it's decent for Amy and Tails, but for Cream you can just spam that Chao attack with zero skill required.

The 'trick' moves can easily screw you over if you have no prior knowledge of the stage layout, so again, memorization is a must, and even then I find it's not guaranteed to make the character reach what they're obviously supposed to reach.

I barely found any use for most of the tag-actions in Advance 3, usually only very few are actually useful to get to a place you need to get to, or very few attacks are practical. Not being able to roll when you have Amy as a partner..why the hell would you choose that nonsense?

Advance 3 in particular I feel they incorporated the moves first, then just never bothered to design stages/enemies/bosses in a way that actually takes advantage of those moves, but just left the moves in the game anyway.