Devil's Advocate: Sonic Unleashed is MUCH better then Sonic Adventure

[Aquaslash]

Ok, so like, I own Unleashed (360) but I have yet to get to EggmanLand because I've been spending all my time leveling up and as I hear it's brutal, I'm not going there until I S rank every other stage.

Am I informed enough to post in this topic?

[Blacklightning]

I'm going to defend this one - the segment before this involves dodging bombs with quick-step. If you were boosting through that, or boost after every single obstacle is passed, then I have no sympathy for your death. While I don't remember all of my first playthrough, I vividly remember never messing that up first time.

This isn't exactly the first time the "quick step through gigantic mines at machspeed" gimmick has been used in the game, and this is definently the first time in it that the game actually throws instant death at you within seconds of leaving it, least of all on a curve that looks as though you can easily boost-slide through.

Stop getting so worked up. Ok so even taking the scientific breakdown into consideration, I still don't see such a glaring flaw that makes SA a better game. Basically you said that scientifically speaking there isn't enough time to react. Ok fine, so that means you're going to hit something, or fall in a pit. What I'M saying is that the fact that I'm very likely to die because of that during my first playthrough (it's a non-issue now, with everything memorized) is not enough to say SA is a better game. I feel like you're making it too complicated, and as I've said before I've ALWAYS seen Sonic games in this way.

But only now is it that Sonic games regularly kill you for it. KILL you. Key word. Getting hit is pretty much a slap on the wrist considering you can just pick up most of your rings again. Dying altogether often means getting backtracked through a significant portion of the level, losing all your rings and points, and any possible hope of getting a decent rank apon finish. This is just common sense, man. When the game forces you to die repeatedly and unavoidably just to teach you how the levels are supposed to work you should know that it's a serious problem.

Christ, I miss the days where dying was actually my fault, not just because I hadn't spent half an hour and a dozen lives per stage just trying to memorize exactly what you're supposed to do at certain points. It's like a game of Simon Says that kills you. I've already mentioned before that Unleashed actually has something going for it once you know what you're doing - the problem is that it shouldn't have to cause the player unbearable frustration in the first place, and dying from unforseeable hazards is not. Fun.

I have made every attempt to answer each and every response to my points.

No, you have not. Hell, I'm the only one you've even addressed directly at all, and even then it only resulted in multi-paragraph versions of "NO U" with no real rebuttal and completely, completely irrelevant rambling that isn't even reinforced in any way, shape or form. Now, I understand this thing you may know as reading might possibly be too much for you, so let's collect all the argument so far in handy footnote form:

- Unleashed makes you die repeatedly and unavoidably for the sake of memorizing the level well enough to avoid said deaths, thus making the initial playthrough at the very least, needlessly frustrating, unintuitive and un-entertaining to play. Beyond simple denial, no attempt has been made to dispute this.

- A full level walkthrough has been made detailing exact instances of the game punishing you for using the boost even responsibly. Neither the walkthrough itself or any of its listed instances have even been mentioned by you or your party, and has flat-out been ignored even despite it having genuine credibility of note. Several smaller examples of instances of fake difficulty have also been mentioned in similar manner, albiet not in full level walkthrough manner, and while some others have actually attempted to argue them, you have not.

- A scientific experiment with realistic parameters was made, in a previous topic that you had already ignored it in, and brought back to this thread, which again, you more or less ignored. And even under the assumption that there is only a single obstacle to deal with at a time, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that even where the game doesn't outright overtake the limits of human reaction times, it certaintly stretches them unreasonably thin for a prolonged period of time. Again I'll mention, that's under the assumption there's only one problem to deal with - there's almost universally others, including motion blur, bottomless pits, spikes, mines, alternate routes etc that you're also forced to deal with, and they distract you from each other, outright ruining most chances of a reasonable reaction beyond a plain lucky guess. You have not referenced it at all, despite you making two posts since it was brought up (3-4, if you count Tornado hotlinking to it first), and without making any attempt to debunk it at all, labelled it quite simply, as "false". It doesn't work that way, Kintor, you actually have to, you know, say why it's false? Especially when it's as educated and realistic as how Phos did it.

- You have said that every situation has an obvious and intuitive counter, yet made little to no effort to prove it. Most of your attempts to reinforce it are complete bullcrap - tidbits of advice the game itself makes no attempt to teach effectively (so really, a lot of what you're saying is instantly moot because the game itself makes no reference at all), and if anything a fair bit of what you've said is outright contradictary of what the game lets you believe is perfectly okay to do (IE: boost mindlessly without retribution). Furthermore, after the game starts killing you for things you got away with perfectly fine for the first three continents, it makes no attempt to reinforce that what you're doing is "the wrong way to play" (this is going by your definition, mind you).

- You've repeatedly made arguments to points that nobody else is making in the first place, such as the boost being "difficult to use". Whoops.

- You've made arguments that Unleashed shouldn't be judged by one trait or a small group of traits, completely ignoring all arguments to the contrary regardless of whatever credibility they hold - primarily, that gameplay makes most other traits completely meaningless if the game doesn't play well - and even outright lying in some circumstances despite strong evidence to the contrary ("everything about this game is well made" probably being the crowning trophy of them all, which can't realistically be applied to any game, let alone Unleashed). Pretty much, you're judging a game based on principles that don't really make a game. Apparently making a game that looks pretty is somehow more important.

Now lookie here. I've given you a goddamned checklist to save you the trouble of re-reading 3-4 pages of absolute garbage. If it is somehow too hard for you to address all of these even in abridged form, I'll honestly be convinced that you're either a troll, or a complete disgrace. Please don't make a mockery of yourself any more than you already have - even for me it's simply unbearable to look at.

I maintain that Sonic Unleashed is free of the flaws attributed to it here. Conversely, I think that the ‘facts’ presented here have been anything but. This so called objective view of Sonic Unleashed is wrong, as analysis it is fundamentally flawed. It fails to take into account individual experiences, the idea that people are not the same – they will have different experiences.

"Individual experiences" isn't exactly a good point when you consider the people who don't have issues are in the minority (before you debate that, bear in mind the actual fandom is only a small portion of the people who actually bought and played the game, and you know what the remainder's opinion is, I'm sure). Even disregarding that, Phos' scientific experiment, probably the element that holds the most credibility out of everything thus far, used an average reaction time spread across a large sample size, so that argument doesn't really hold any water.

This is an approach that looks at single parts in isolation, unable to see how they contribute to the whole.

They "contribute to the whole" by making the first playthough absolute hell, desensitizing the player to the raw speed much quicker than it deserves to, making the graphical power of the game almost null when most of the scenery is onscreen for even less time than the actual hazards (save for the specatcular view at the top of Spagonia), and ultimately, frustrating many players to the point they aren't keen on a second playthrough. Happy?

This difference of perceptions holds true when considering Sonic Unleashed directly. I’ve said before that new element can stand on its own

Umm, no it can't, otherwise the Boost-centric gameplay wouldn't even have been a problem in the first place, given that it literally does stand on its own for minutes at a time.

The rest is again, unrelated garbage and bias that doesn't explain anything relevant to criticisms directed at your party. PLEASE stop doing that and just answer the bloody questions plain and simple, please.

They can't enjoy the level design as a whole because certain parts of it ruin the other parts. You forget, all the stuff they AREN'T criticising here? That stuff they (presumebly) enjoyed! It's just the specific things they are talking about. It's not that they are only focusing on the negative, but if you're saying why you don't like a game, you're not going to list through every feature and say what you liked and disliked. You're only going to focus on the dislikes.

Just chirping in here to clarify my part, at least. I've probably mentioned it before, but Unleashed is actually a genuinely fun and twitchy game once you know how the levels work. The only issue is that the method for learning said levels is absolute ass, and playing for the first time is either unsatisfying or outright irritating because of all the fake difficulty it throws at you (trial and error, namely).

I never said the game didn't have flaws, i'm saying it's a better game than SA. The main thing i'm calling opinion on is whether the game is cheap and badly designed. It's already been proven that you're going to run into something/die while playing the first time. How you feel about that changes from person to person.

If you don't feel in the least bit annoyed or cheated that you die from factors that genuinely aren't your fault, then I honestly feel sorry for you. Edited January 17, 2010 by Blacklightning

[Kintor]

I’m sorry to disappoint you but there are no simple answers here. The only constant is that what we are saying here is just a matter of opinion and not objective fact. I say this because your methods of analysis are flawed, any insights you gain from such worthless methods are in themselves worthless. I do not seek to offend you here; I’m surprised that you would pollute this thread with such an offensive tone. My advice to you is simple, separate yourself from the arguments you propose. Your argument may be disproven, a faulty product of faulty reasoning, this is still no reason to be angry at me. Debate is about the exchange of ideas, sometimes one idea is shown to no longer hold value, you should be prepared for this when going into any thread. So, calm yourself and listen again to why I say. At the very least you should find what I say interesting.

You reasoning is without merit for one basic reason, you do not treat gamers as human. You and I are not alike and neither will anyone else ever be similar to you. Sure, some people may share personality trait but at the end of the day each has a unique mind of their own, we are all individuals. People are imperfect, what we think and what we do are shaped by how we view the world. You think of reality as something immutable, something that is and always will be, in other words something you can hold on to; this may very well be true. However, humans do not necessarily view reality objectively, but rather though the lens of our own bias and prejudices. Annoying as you may find much of what we will ever experience comes down to our perception of reality.

This truth is further complicated by the subject matter we are discussing. Let me make one thing clear to you – video games aren’t real. You seek to discuss reality but fail to realise that what you are looking at is not reality. Most games do not try to mimic reality, they instead offer surreal tales with impossible elements, just look at the fantastic powers wielded by any hero. People play video games because they are not reality, call it escapism if you must but I think that an old-fashioned good vs. evil morality play is just a lot of fun to watch. We are not talking about the flow of a river or the size of a building, we are talking about a form of entertainment. Deciding what fun is always comes down to our own individual perceptions, it’s just a matter of opinion.

By now I hope you realise that there is no objective truth to be found here. You sought to claim that your argument was absolute, that what you’ve said was representative or reality. However, you did not comprehend that other people may hold a different set of beliefs to your own. Claiming objectivity here is simply wrong, the incorrect approach when considering a video game. A person’s mind is their own domain, you cannot say that what they experienced never really happened. Some people have played a video and like it while you did not, their outlook on a game holds as much value as your own. No amount of literary browbeating will ever make these experiences anything less then true. You wanted to find reality, too bad! This is about metaphysic and ethics more then anything else. Face it, this thread took a turn for the philosophical. The metaphorical headaches are only going to get worse from here.

[JezMM]

This isn't exactly the first time the "quick step through gigantic mines at machspeed" gimmick has been used in the game, and this is definently the first time in it that the game actually throws instant death at you within seconds of leaving it, least of all on a curve that looks as though you can easily boost-slide through.

I'm afraid I am once again flummoxed by what most players apparently do on their first runthrough. I didn't even KNOW you could slide and boost at the same time until DLC Savannah Citadel Act 1-2 forced me to slide and boost through robot hordes at the start. I learnt through the unsatisfaction of hitting the rails on Spagonia or generally sliding up against a wall to control my drifting to make it perfect before it reached the point that I could be killed for failing. And yeah, I did that without even thinking about it. That's just me though. All I'm saying is I'm surprised because I always considered boost/sliding to be a pretty advanced and dangerous technique.

[Blacklightning]

You reasoning is without merit for one basic reason, you do not treat gamers as human. You and I are not alike and neither will anyone else ever be similar to you.

Your reasoning loses all merit simply by the fact that just because some people can tolerate broken game design better than others does not change the fact that the game design is still broken. The majority of your argument is that everyone will experience the game differently, but does that mean all of them are right? No. In fact, knowing this fandom, it goes without saying that a great many of them are, to put it bluntly, complete fucking idiots.

That said, we have gone to great lengths to prove that there is in fact a problem here, and proven it we have, ranging from personal experiences to, I'll reiterate, the scientific experiment with a reaction time averaged across a large sample size and NOT one single person. So even if I were to take into account your insanely silly rambling, we've already gotten proof that applies to the majority anyway, so what's your point? It doesn't change anything at all. It's simply pointless, laughable sidestepping of the actual argument at hand, a blatant scapegoat to avoid actually making a decent point at all.

The point is, the majority of players are going to realize that there's a glaring problem here, and pretending it doesn't exist over something as stupid as "everyone's experience is different" is a blatant form of bias in itself. We've asked you simply to give legitmate reasons as to how these problems somehow don't exist, and not only have you completely ignored them on every count, you've also made yourself into a complete laughing stock in the process over an argument that doesn't even work in any context, and doesn't have any relation whatsoever to the issue of learning curves, level design and the boost. So if it's not too much to ask, stop derailing the thread with this bullcrap and either just give some straight answers (honestly, if it were really THAT hard, JezMM probably wouldn't have posted here) or just plain stop wasting our time here.

EDIT:

I'm afraid I am once again flummoxed by what most players apparently do on their first runthrough. I didn't even KNOW you could slide and boost at the same time until DLC Savannah Citadel Act 1-2 forced me to slide and boost through robot hordes at the start. I learnt through the unsatisfaction of hitting the rails on Spagonia or generally sliding up against a wall to control my drifting to make it perfect before it reached the point that I could be killed for failing. And yeah, I did that without even thinking about it. That's just me though. All I'm saying is I'm surprised because I always considered boost/sliding to be a pretty advanced and dangerous technique.

My bad, I wasn't thinking far enough back. As it turns out, the first time I attempted that bit, I didn't know you could either, but the momentum you maintain just after the minefield is still pretty fast even if you cut the boost while drifting, and more often than not it results in death unless you start the drift extremely early. As in, "before the curve is even visible" early. Edited January 17, 2010 by Blacklightning

[Phos]

I'd like to mention that when I first hit that curve, my though process was essentially, "No problem, I'll just ride the wall the whole way around". It also doesn't help that there's little contrast between the walls and the building behind it, making the hole hard to see. It is also very easy to still slide off anyway because the drift speeds you up comared to Sonic's unboosted top speed and the Unleashed physics model seems to "store" speed when you're up against a wall. Basically, you can be screwed for starting the drift too late or being at the wrong angle.

And I instinctivly boosted while drifting thanks to that bein the right way to do the curves at the start of Mazuri, and because the whole point of the move is to be able to turn while going fast. It's still the silliest god damn concept to me to have a button to turn in addition to the control stick.

I'd also like to mention how broken a platformer is when a curve in the road is seen as a valid obstacle by it's designers. I mean, really, it's a freaking turn.

[Cortez]

Kintor, I won't lie, your last post is complete and utter irrelevent bollocks. At the very least ADDRESS THE POINTS YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO ADDRESS RATHER THAN DISREGARDING THEM AS 'WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT SO YOU'RE WRONG'. You have been asked time and time again to at least comment on them but still you choose to ignor them, declaring them as false without any actual counter. Why are you still posting in this topic if all you're doing is antagonising other members and sending the debate into an endless cycle of 'evidence' > 'you're wrong' > 'more evidence' > 'you're still wrong'?

[Kintor]

I’m sorry but what you want me to answer isn’t a very simple question at all. You have tried to provide evidence in support of your arguments, safe in the belief that what you think is true of reality. However, as I have tried to explain to you before – we are not talking about reality. We are talking about how different people feel about something, the individual emotions and biases that have either brought us joy or loathing from a video game. You must understand that this is an entirely theoretical subject; this is best discussed by comparing the soundness of our ideas and not a vain search for some sort of objective truth. How people view a video game will always be a matter of opinion, nothing more.

Let me rephrase things again, people are not always going to be quantifiable. I have a mind which is my own, it can’t be copied or replicated and parts of it can’t be shared with another person. At the same time, everyone else also has a unique mind, which can't be copied or replicated or shared in any way. People are different; we will all experience something differently from one another. It is impossible to claim you have objective knowledge of how a game is played; others in the world will play that same game differently to you. These experiences may be totally different from your own but they are still right, no amount argument after the even can change this. These experiences have already happened, they exist! Well, as much as a thought can anyway.

The simple existence a single person who disagrees with you is enough to refute any claims of objectivity here. This is not about deciding who is right or wrong, this is about allowing other views to be heard. I understand that some people may not like a game, this is all just a matter of opinion like anything else when it comes to video games. However, claiming that one view is the only and right way to think is obscene, opinions cannot become objective fact. A diverse set of views must be encouraged, if indeed anybody truly professes to be reasonable. Do not look for objectivity because you are not even talking about reality, you’ll never find the real world in a video game. We are talking about different way to have fun and I’m afraid to say, that will always remain a matter of opinion.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Kintor

[Cortez]

Your reasoning would apply if we were discussing something like say, religion but we're discussing the good and bad points of a videogame, something that is very much real (the world portrayed in the game is obviously fiction but we're discussing the fundamental mechanics of the game, something you seemingly cannot comprehend). Using your logic games like Ninjabread Man and Imagine Babiez are masterpieces because 'they aren't real and we're all different'.

[XavierRussell]

IMO these flaws do not make the game worse than SA. SA had tons of problems as we all know and I find Unleashed more fun. I still say it's no contest.

if you don't feel in the least bit annoyed or cheated that you die from factors that genuinely aren't your fault, then I honestly feel sorry for you.

Don't, I had a blast.

Edited January 17, 2010 by XavierRussell

[Arrow]

I’m sorry but what you want me to answer isn’t a very simple question at all. You have tried to provide evidence in support of your arguments, safe in the belief that what you think is true of reality. However, as I have tried to explain to you before – we are not talking about reality. We are talking about how different people feel about something, the individual emotions and biases that have either brought us joy or loathing from a video game. You must understand that this is an entirely theoretical subject; this is best discussed by comparing the soundness of our ideas and not a vain search for some sort of objective truth. How people view a video game will always be a matter of opinion, nothing more.

Let me rephrase things again, people are not always going to be quantifiable. I have a mind which is my own, it can’t be copied or replicated and parts of it can’t be shared with another person. At the same time, everyone else also has a unique mind, which can't be copied or replicated or shared in any way. People are different; we will all experience something differently from one another. It is impossible to claim you have objective knowledge of how a game is played; others in the world will play that same game differently to you. These experiences may be totally different from your own but they are still right, no amount argument after the even can change this. These experiences have already happened, they exist! Well, as much as a thought can anyway.

The simple existence a single person who disagrees with you is enough to refute any claims of objectivity here. This is not about deciding who is right or wrong, this is about allowing other views to be heard. I understand that some people may not like a game, this is all just a matter of opinion like anything else when it comes to video games. However, claiming that one view is the only and right way to think is obscene, opinions cannot become objective fact. A diverse set of views must be encouraged, if indeed anybody truly professes to be reasonable. Do not look for objectivity because you are not even talking about reality, you’ll never find the real world in a video game. We are talking about different way to have fun and I’m afraid to say, that will always remain a matter of opinion.

The problem with your logic is that I can say the sky is red, and because I exist and I have said this it transforms the fact that the sky is blue into opinion because one individual disagrees. It fails to take into account reasons why I may disagree.

You also fail to realise that it is possible to enjoy things that are "bad" or have bad qualities, and that this is where personal preference, taste and opinion come in. I'm eating a Chinese take away right now, reheated from last night. I'm enjoying it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is of poor quality. I accept that it is poor quality, but I can still enjoy elements of it.

[Candescence]

SA had flaws, but I draw the line at terrible game design, which is basically what Unleashed was full of. Unleashed, for me, was no fun whatsoever. Well, the 360 version, at any rate. The Wii version was actually fair.

Also, Kintor, echoing sentients from here, stop making a laughing stock of yourself. A great deal of your posts are basically mostly composed of Big Lipped Alligator Moments, large sections that have nothing to do with this argument and you rarely, if at all, address the points we've made, and you dismiss FACTS with nothing constructive to back up your claims. It is extremely difficult to take you seriously at this point.

Bloody 'ell, JezMM is probably the only person sticking up for Unleashed in this argument who is actually being reasonable.

Edit: Okay, maybe Arrow as well.

Edited January 17, 2010 by The Sniper

[Octarine]

You also fail to realise that it is possible to enjoy things that are "bad" or have bad qualities, and that this is where personal preference, taste and opinion come in. I'm eating a Chinese take away right now, reheated from last night. I'm enjoying it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is of poor quality. I accept that it is poor quality, but I can still enjoy elements of it.

This this this. It's a pretty important thing for people to realize. Hell, it's the main reason a lot of us are still Sonic fans at all... not because we're deluded and think that all of the games are still stellar, but because we accept them for what they are and enjoy them anyway. There's room for subjectivity in some places, but not all. There's nothing wrong with "guilty pleasures".

I enjoyed Unleashed more. I found its levels quite fun despite their flaws, and many of the other parts of the game -ones that aren't as important as the core gameplay, maybe, but parts that I value) were superior to their counterparts in Adventure. The problem is that the thread asks which game is better, not which game we liked more, and there's definitely a distinction. I'm still with Unleashed on that, though rather more tenuously. I've stated my reasons before.

...as an addendum, maybe it's because I'm considering both versions of the game. The Wii version's definitely more lenient about the cheap kills and spacing out the werehog fights, and perhaps it's balancing that out for me. I really wish the two teams designing each version could've worked in tandem: the results might have been superior.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Octarine

[Chooch]

Okay, I'll be frank. I didn't really feel like reading through all these walls of text so I skimmed and picked up on some things that I feel like responding to.

You can like the game all you want (I like Mario Kart Wii, and it is no better when it comes to such nonsense). But don't put it on a pedestal as the pinnacle of modern game design, because it quite frankly isn't.

It's not. I would never say it was. I'm not stupid. I just don't really understand a lot of the points people are making about Sonic Unleashed somehow being this horrible horrible game with awful level design. If it was that, I wouldn't like it. I don't like Sonic Advance 3!!

If you don't feel in the least bit annoyed or cheated that you die from factors that genuinely aren't your fault, then I honestly feel sorry for you.

The game can be unfair, yes. The game can be frustrating, yes. The game can be stupidly hard, yes. Now.. where's the part where suddenly it's different from hundreds of other games out there that people find enjoyable?

People argue that you shouldn't have to memorize things in order to eventually succeed, but this is shit that forced on you in tons of other games. I'll admit that most of the examples I can think of at the moment aren't in the same genre, but the point remains all the same. Memorization is a key skill that is required in pretty much every game in order to become better/very skilled at it. I find Sonic Unleashed hard and unfair sometimes, but after mastering the stages I find it a very fun and rewarding experience. It's arguable that the developers made the game purposefully unfair and for that many people are put off by it. It wouldn't be the first time in game history that's happened.

I don't know, maybe I'm just a masochist? lol

Edited January 17, 2010 by Chooch

[Aquaslash]

FFFFFFFFF

You can boost while drifting?!

This is new to me. I always tried to be at the right angles for the drifts.

[Solid SOAP]

I found Sonic Unleashed's speedy, twitch-based gameplay quite fun and exillerating, personally. When I first started playing a day level, I went through the majority of it without boosting, taking note of the existance or traps and bottomless pits. As I got better and better at each and every stage and managed to memorize them more and more, I used boosting more and more until I was able to boost through almost every stage in the game. The challenge with Unleashed isn't going as fast as possible the entire stage, it's learning when and where you should boost and learning each and every stage enough to feel confident enough to be able to boost through an entire stage as well as time jumps properly, master QTEs (Which, I will admit, are cheap and pretty unfair in Eggmanland), avoid traps like spikes and enemies, etc.

[JezMM]

^ Exactly how I feel too. I also agree with Chooch.

I think if ALL the traps were visible easily I would have found the game too easy. =\ The only way to change that is change how the game works in it's fundamentals, which I realise is what some Unleashed-haters are suggesting, but, meh, we'll have to just disagree and end the discussion in that case, as I think Unleashed's gameplay is perfectly suited for Sonic, and a very unique experience no platformer OR racing game (though frankly I only think the WiiS2 version is comparable to a racing game) can provide.

[Gamerguy21]

^ I agree with the three of you (JezMM, Solid SOAP, and Chooch)

I remember when I first ran through Arid Sands Day, I tried to get through it while boosting as much as possible. I ended up getting my ass kicked, and after a few lives, didn't have many problems running through the level while using the boost sparingly. Now after a lot of practice, I can boost through that level (and most other Day levels) without even getting hit.

Edited January 17, 2010 by gamerguy21

[Blacklightning]

The game can be unfair, yes. The game can be frustrating, yes. The game can be stupidly hard, yes. Now.. where's the part where suddenly it's different from hundreds of other games out there that people find enjoyable?

I don't remember saying it was different in any such sense in the first place. The closest I ever got to it was saying that Unleashed takes it to ridiculous extremes. In most other games, memorization is only needed for raping a level right up the ass for the most part, but in Unleashed it's practically a requirement of beating most levels, let alone doing well at them. Memorization is beneficial in most games, true fact indeed, but by no means should a level punish you with unforseeable death for not memorizing it.

Also, frankly just because other games do stuff of the same sort doesn't make it any less of a bad idea. I really don't understand the argument that it's okay to do certain things just because other games get away with it.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Blacklightning

[Chooch]

But that's when your points go from being logical to just sounding like gross exaggerations.

You don't have to painstakingly memorize every detail of the level to beat the level. It is not a requirement at all.

[Blacklightning]

Well fine, I'll give you that was a bit of an exaggeration, but all the same it still causes you to die from hazards you can't foresee, and for the life of me I just can't see how that can in any way be considered fun. Now don't get me wrong here, I HAVE said it's a fun game so long as you know how the levels work, but the actual method of learning how they work is simply inane and frustrating.

[XavierRussell]

Blacklighting so you think the flaws in Unleashed are worse than the flaws in SA? How about taking them both into consideration when it comes to multiple runs of the stages? Unleashed is very polished, SA not so much.

[Phos]

I can understand that some people went through the levels slow the first time, but I can't help but wonder why anyone would think to do that. Until you get to the second half of the game, the only real sticking points are a few water running sections, which unless you already figured out how to snake have to be boosted over anyway, and ascending the clock tower, which you obviously can't boost while on those platforms.

[Nepenthe]

People aren't going to or at least shouldn't overdo the boost in the beginning because they simply don't know the level layout; Illegality aside, you will be less willing to going to speed down a road you're unfamiliar with as opposed to one you drive everyday. We've more than established at this point that Sonic is exceedingly fast. Weighing this level of power against one's ability to react accordingly to obstacles the first time through should naturally steer people in a more cautious direction. Sure, obstacles are less inclined to kill you in the beginning, but when the ultimate goal is to keep your speed up as long as possible for at least the reward of catharsis, a forced stop can be as valid and severe and punishment as losing a life altogether because they ultimately do the same thing-- break flow. Case in point are the enclosed pathways in Apotos that you must slide under, or even that little piece of architecture after the first railing that'll make Sonic trip. They're not lethal obstacles, but the extent that they become aggravating when missed at top speed was more than enough to make me step off of the gas a little for the rest of the level. Ironically, this led to a greater amount of success in avoiding future obstacles, and it was only until I went back a few times to learn Apotos' layout that I became comfortable enough to hold X and win.

I believe this partly explains why there's a severe lack of indication of many of the upcoming obstacles throughout the game-- You should not be in a mindset where you want to play like a pro in the beginning anyways, because you will have undoubtedly hit obstacles throughout any attempt to do so, and those constant breaks in the flow of the level will eventually piss you off enough to stop spamming the boost.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Nepenthe

[Solid SOAP]

I can understand that some people went through the levels slow the first time, but I can't help but wonder why anyone would think to do that. Until you get to the second half of the game, the only real sticking points are a few water running sections, which unless you already figured out how to snake have to be boosted over anyway, and ascending the clock tower, which you obviously can't boost while on those platforms.

Pretty much the same reason why you don't blindly hold right and know exactly when to make jumps in the original Sonic games, you don't know the level layout so you don't try to beat the levels as fast as possible yet. Once you know what you're doing, that's when you pull out all the stops.