Sonic the Hedgehog Community |OT| There’s no end to this franchise!

Kazooie

Member
Jul 17, 2019
128
Also you know chao world in hd and shit
"Shit" is a good word to accompany Chao World.

I really do not see the point in a Sonic Adventure remake. The game is bloated with absolute trash (overworld, Chao, Big), bad stuff (Amy, Knuckles) and unexciting stuff (E-102, Tails), why remake such a messy game?

I feel the best approach would be to faithfully port the Sonic Mania physics to the Hedgehog engine and then offer three playstyles: Mania-style classic, boost and Adventure-style 3D. Every Sonic fan should find one playstyle to love and it would allow for reuse of assets between three fundamentally different levels each. They could use fan favourite characters for each style: Sonic for boost, Knuckles for Adventure-style and Tails for Mania-style
 

Setsune

Member
Oct 27, 2017
633
The question is how much would you remake. Adventure series is ambitious in scope, graphics, and story. You could do obvious fixes like get the physics right, remove bugs, fix the radar in SA2, stuff like that. But what aboutcutscenes and voice acting? Gonna keep all 6 stories? It's so much work. And it's a shame they stopped putting that much effort in their games. (Besides unleashed)
It was an ambitious game, but it was also 1998 ambitious. They were still learning a lot about even designing 3D action games back then.

In my mind it's basically a new game, but built with the old blueprints. The level layouts are generally the same, but don't match polygon-for-polygon. Everything just feels like it has a more modern polish on it.

As a bonus, you include a port of SA PC, preferably with the community fixes for optional widescreen, missing details, bugs, lighting, etc. PkR has been busy recently fixing all sorts of transparency bugs I didn't even realize existed: https://twitter.com/pkr_sadx
 

ckareset

Member
Feb 2, 2018
3,764
Uh I'll try and do both then. Oh boy get ready for lotta words

SA1:

So like my main issue with SA1 is the level designs. So the levels are designed in segments , you do a segment you load up do another segments. Its what made sonic's level feel incredibly long. The issue with it is not all of these segments were good and were often just other characters levels so they felt bad playing through them depending on which character you were.
And I get why, the story is supposed to feel like everything is happening at the same time , all these characters converging at these points, and I value that as a feeling I think its one of the best parts of sa1. It feels like the characters were just missing each other you know? So instead of designing a giant track cut off into sections that also need to be designed for other characters like a loaf of bread. I would make Big/wide levels split into sections like a pizza. This would result in some shorter levels but I feel like those sections would be specifically designed for each character.

Like for example the amusement park level right, instead of being one track that all the characters share. Each character would start in a different section of the amusement park. Their sections for the most part wouldn't be shared, maybe if you wanna steal something from DMC5 of all things maybe there are like some parts of the corse where you can see the other characters doing their thing. And maybe you can insentivise playing good because maybe if you get there fast enough or slow enough you catch the character and they help you do something. But the sections of the levels would be specifically designed for each character. Shorter but better. There were plenty of times where I felt like sonic's levels went on way to long and stopped being fun and this sort of puts a stop to that.

As far as story goes, you keep it the same. Its fine, 2 is what need corrections and i'll get to that. The only advice I would give is, you don't really need big playable. Just have fishing and occasionally whoever you are playing as can go talk to him.

Back on some gameplay stuff though there is two people I wanna adress in particular gamma and amy.

This is a bit vague but make gamma's game play a bit more involved. Gamma's story might be the best 1 in one so loosing him would be really bad but do something interesting with his gameplay to justify keeping him around. Maybe something with a combo counter or something? Honestly I haven't thought to hard about this.

Amy's a bit more intricate. In the year of lord 2019 or whenever this hypothetical game would release. It would kinda suck that the only two girls would be a ghost and one who's entire gameplay cosists of running away. It would be really cool if amy was more action oriented , the story being told through her gameplay isn't a girl running away but bashing her way through eggman robots. It would make her look cool and capable and honestly a lot more interesting than her previous gameplay. And with the big green robot I think it would be an interesting dynamic that instead of the robot wanting the animal and she's just kind of running. The cool part of that robot in the first game is when it would just show up out of nowhere. So the previous levels would consist of amy casually beating the shit out of that robot and it just kept coming back in theme with whatever level you are playing. Instead of it being kind of scary amy was just...kinda annoyed about it. You could even have a cool seen where it does a reverse terminator and comes out of the lava in red mountain after amy knocked it in on the previous level.

Chao world in sa1: make it more like 2's 2's is better.

That's my sa1 thoughts if you wanna hear 2, i can do that. But due to my interest in that game... might be a lotta words

Edit: I have one hot take.

Humans in sonic kinda always sucked , and I dunno it would be cooler if instead sa1 took place in animal land and there were cool animal NPC's. You could give em neat designs and it would be fine. Also from a businessman perspective there's a pretty high likely hood that one of those background characters might catch on and you could sell toys of em and stuff
Never really agreed with the idea the levels in sonic can be too long. There are only 10 levels in this game.
 

Supaidaman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
362
In day 0 make it play like revengence but with witch time
One of the things I want are more spin off like that. I would LOVE a game like that with Shadow or, as I said in the discord, a Chaotix Detective game by RGG. Hell, make a Chao Garden only game with Cream/Vanilla as the main characters just to give it some context.

even though I hate the Chao Garden

A sequel to fighters could be great too but even VF6 seems impossible right now.
 

Village

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,400
I feel the best approach would be to faithfully port the Sonic Mania physics to the Hedgehog engine and then offer three playstyles: Mania-style classic, boost and Adventure-style 3D. Every Sonic fan should find one playstyle to love and it would allow for reuse of assets between three fundamentally different levels each. They could use fan favourite characters for each style: Sonic for boost, Knuckles for Adventure-style and Tails for Mania-style
The issue with this is , I feel mania proves that that's the worst thing you can do. The thing they have been doing is trying is trying to do different era gameplay styles and themes at once ruininig it for other fans. Those are different fans ,they want different things. The classic fans don't want that shit in 3d, they want mania. The adventure fans don't want this big adventure with multiple playable characters and forcing classic style into that ruins that. Also if anyone is an adventure rep.. .its shadow, strait up. He's the adventure guy.

Its not just gameplay its aesthetic, its story. Classic fans like sonic being cute spunky silent him and his friends just kinda doing doing. Adventure fans want dumb anime horseshit. And that's been the issue with trying to combine that stuff after generations, those are two very different aesthetics. Even modern sonic fans with their wisps and snarkey fourth wall-ey sonic is a different sonic. You can't just go " this is satisfactory " You will fail in the same way sega has.

I feel like your suggestion is ignoring the room.

So when you say "I don't see the purpose in an adventure remake " the puprose is a bunch of people loved those games and remaking them, possibly with another studio not onlyshows like mania that you can infact make games like that. But also you can have a studio make games like that for the future for those fans. Those are different fans.

Sonic doesn't need to throw that shit into one game, its purposeless making different products for different people is much more effective
 
Last edited:

Berordn

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,745
Orlando, FL
I'm still skeptical of the current team still being the same with the whole restructured news regarding SoJ post-release of Forces. It wouldn't surprise me if the staff leading the next Sonic project for 2021 are different.
The actual studio staff will be different, because they haven't been consistent since Colors and Generations. It's part of the reason why there's such an identity crisis in 3D Sonic, new team with different ideas comes onboard, they don't get enough time or support to flesh it out and iterate the design (Lost World) or a completely different team is forced to follow the design of another (Forces).

All the surefire good ideas were supposed to be in Forces, and... they kinda sucked.
 

Village

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,400
Never really agreed with the idea the levels in sonic can be too long. There are only 10 levels in this game.
I personally think there is a point in SA1 levels espically with sonic where it gets not fun because that section was made to not be ran around with not sonic and itt bcomes very unfun and getting rid of that for me would be much better. All that said , that is a game from 1998 and hypothetically this game would be made in now times, so this version of a " shorter " level would most likely be longer and more involved than a level made in 98
 

Kazooie

Member
Jul 17, 2019
128
It's just the objective truth ;).


Never really agreed with the idea the levels in sonic can be too long. There are only 10 levels in this game.
Sonic levels can easily be too long, because those long levels (e.g. in Sonic Lost Word on 3DS!) do not lend themselves well to speedrunning. Better make three levels in the same style but really well orchestrated, than bloated giant levels.
The thing they have been doing is trying is trying to do different era gameplay styles and themes at once ruininig it for other fans. Those are different fans ,they want different things.
There are fans who are only fans of one or two of such styles, but the solution is simple: Style it like Sonic Adventure with three distinct stories for the three playstyles. Many Sonic fans like two or all three styles though. And having them in one game has the advantage of being able to reuse assets among the three different styles.
The adventure fans don't want this big adventure with multiple playable characters and forcing classic style into that ruins that.
(I assume the don't was a mistake) How does classic style as one playstyle ruin this? Do "Adventure fans" want more Big and Amy? Would they prefer that over a classic style branch?
Also if anyone is an adventure rep.. .its shadow, strait up.
In that case modern Sonic for boost, Shadow for Adventure and classic Sonic for Mega Drive style would of course also be an option.
Its not just gameplay its aesthetic, its story. Classic fans like sonic being cute spunky silent him and his friends just kinda doing doing. Adventure fans want dumb anime horseshit. And that's been the issue with trying to combine that stuff after generations, those are two very different aesthetics. Even modern sonic fans with their wisps and snarkey fourth wall-ey sonic is a different sonic. You can't just go " this is satisfactory " You will fail in the same way sega has.
The aesthtics and story are not major issues with either if the three styles though.
So when you say "I don't see the purpose in an adventure remake " the puprose is a bunch of people loved those games and remaking them, possibly with another studio not onlyshows like mania that you can infact make games like that. But also you can have a studio make games like that for the future for those fans. Those are different fans.
I am among the, City Escape, for instance, is my single favourite level in any game ever made. But why remake fundamentally flawed games rather than making good new ones in a similar style? Adventure 1 in particular contains so much terrible gameplay, why would they limit themselves to recreating junk like Big, Amy and Chao Garden?
 

ckareset

Member
Feb 2, 2018
3,764
I personally think there is a point in SA1 levels espically with sonic where it gets not fun because that section was made to not be ran around with not sonic and itt bcomes very unfun and getting rid of that for me would be much better. All that said , that is a game from 1998 and hypothetically this game would be made in now times, so this version of a " shorter " level would most likely be longer and more involved than a level made in 98
Yeah, I disagree. Not a single Sonic level felt like this.

And I don't think they would touch Sonics levels much outside ofor physics and bugs
 

Village

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,400
It's just the objective truth ;).
You are a monster and much like beef needs be stopped




There are fans who are only fans of one or two of such styles, but the solution is simple: Style it like Sonic Adventure with three distinct stories for the three playstyles. Many Sonic fans like two or all three styles though. And having them in one game has the advantage of being able to reuse assets among the three different styles.

(I assume the don't was a mistake) How does classic style as one playstyle ruin this? Do "Adventure fans" want more Big and Amy? Would they prefer that over a classic style branch?
Yeah, because mania exists. Why do i give a cold shit about classic sonic in 3d if mania exists and a potential for more mania exists. Just make mania 2, I don't want an approximation of classic sonic just make more. And because of that I don't need it being put into other shit, now that the classic sonic fans can get what they want. Unaltered, unfiltered. The adventure fans in this hypothetical scenario should get an adventure ass adventure game. Mania exists, that's the problem. I like Sonic adventure sonic ( particularly 2 ) as a seperate thing mechanically from classic. I also enjoy other adventure playstyles and while some of them may not aged the best... we have like 20+ years of game deisgn learning as an industry to fix a lot of that.



The aesthtics and story are not major issues with either if the three styles though.
I am among the, City Escape, for instance, is my single favourite level in any game ever made. But why remake fundamentally flawed games rather than making good new ones in a similar style? Adventure 1 in particular contains so much terrible gameplay, why would they limit themselves to recreating junk like Big, Amy and Chao Garden?
Yes yes, it is. The story in sonic adventure 2 is a about a secret government orgination commiting mass murderes and shadow comitting other murders to try and get back at them. Its a simplification but sa2's story is weird and conveluded as fuck , but is that anime bullshit is what endeared people to that era of sonic. That's not classic sonic ...ey. That's not the game play you associate with that era, the aesthetic of that started leaning into being inpsired by real places , san fran scottland stuff like that. Where a lot of the classic era is quite fantastical in its construction. And while adventure era does lean in with the fantastical with its future cities in heroes and the arc there's a clear difference in style and aesthetic in how they are executed.

But to answer your question of " why remake fundamentally flawed games " The answer to that is very simple and comes into parts

1) No offense, people like those games, you not liking them is kinda irrelevant and for both consumer and creator involved it benefits both parties.

2) You could remake em better. Sa1 was made in 98 and 2 in 01. we have multiple decades of game design experience as an industry we have learned so much and games have become so much better. I would totally love a studio being hired to remake those games I want to see the stuff you can do with those games with a modern understanding of game design, that sounds facinating for me. And incredible for the player, and lucrative for the company who owns sonic.
 
Last edited:

Kazooie

Member
Jul 17, 2019
128
1) No offense, people like those games, you not liking them is kinda irrelevant and for both consumer and creator involved it benefits both parties.
Me not liking the games? Are you shitting me? I have played Sonic Adventure 2 for 180 hours, Sonic Adventure 1 for 120 hours on GameCube each and have 100%ed them both an Dreamcast and Xbox 360 as well. And played additional playthroughs on GameCube. I love Sonic, I love Sonic Adventure (2 much more so than 1 though). But that does not mean I cannot see a turd in a game I love for the turd it is.
2) You could remake em better. Sa1 was made in 98 and 2 in 01. we have multiple decades of game design experience as an industry we have learned so much and games have become so much better. I would totally love a studio being hired to remake those games I want to see the stuff you can do with those games with a modern understanding of game design, that sounds facinating for me. And incredible for the player, and lucrative for the company who owns sonic.
I would contest the notion that games are so much better now than 98-01. But anyway, to make a consistently great game out of Sonic Adventure would necessitate completely ditching Chao World, Big, Amy, arguably even the overworld and Knuckles. And on top of that heavily reworking Tails as well. When a remake would necessitate basically doing almost everything from scratch, what is the benefit over just making a new game?
 

Village

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,400
Me not liking the games? Are you shitting me? I have played Sonic Adventure 2 for 180 hours, Sonic Adventure 1 for 120 hours on GameCube each and have 100%ed them both an Dreamcast and Xbox 360 as well. And played additional playthroughs on GameCube. I love Sonic, I love Sonic Adventure (2 much more so than 1 though). But that does not mean I cannot see a turd in a game I love for the turd it is.
I mean that's neat , but that just sounds like you don't like the game now. And that's... largely irrelevant. If you don't like the game now and don't see the value in a remake , this hypothetical remake isn't for you and its no real point having a conversation with you. Strait up. And the reason it keeps coming up because good sonic adventure remakes would work out for everyone. People clearly want, your desire to not have it is again...irrelevant.

I would contest the notion that games are so much better now than 98-01.
.. In what way, in all ways video games are better. The standard for video games has risen in general. Even the shittiest sonic game now , isn't at least on a technical level nowhere near as bad as something like 06. When games do get that bad , it is spectacle and made note of or some sort of asset flip on steam in the bowels of their library.
I can point to so many genre's that have a better standard of quality now than back in 01 its baffeling that you would suggest its not the case.

But anyway, to make a consistently great game out of Sonic Adventure would necessitate completely ditching Chao World, Big, Amy, arguably even the overworld and Knuckles. And on top of that heavily reworking Tails as well. When a remake would necessitate basically doing almost everything from scratch, what is the benefit over just making a new game?
That's what you think would make a good remake, all I think it would need is getting rid of big. And reworking the gameplay of those parts. You don't want a sonic adventure remake you don't like the game now you have made that clear. But that's irrelevant. There plenty of games I wouldn't care to be remade or I would want to basically be a different game, but like... I dunno who gives a shit what I think? People clearly desire this because they really like these games. And trying to suggest you need to remove the soul of that game to make it work, just seems pointless.
 
Last edited:

Kazooie

Member
Jul 17, 2019
128
I mean that's neat , but that just sounds like you don't like the game now.
It's great that you give yourself the authority to decide which games I like. But I can assure you, I like both Sonic Adventures (and especially 2) a lot. For the same things I liked them back then: Sonic's / Shadow's / Tails' gameplay and level design, great music, nice presentation.

If you don't like the game now and don't see the value in a remake , this hypothetical remake isn't for you and its no real point having a conversation with you. Strait up. And the reason it keeps coming up because good sonic adventure remakes would work out for everyone. People clearly want, your desire to not have it is again...irrelevant.
I do not see value in the hypothetical remake not because I dislike the original, but because I think that the original has so many rough edges on a fundamental level that a remake would either not be well-received, or would be at least as much work as a new game. And in that case, making a new game in the same style is just clearly preferrable. As a Sonic Adventure fan. I am pretty sure most Sonic Adventure fans would prefer getting Sonic Adventure 3 over Sonic Adventure 1 with better graphics.
.. In what way, in all ways video games are better. The standard for video games has risen in general. Even the shittiest sonic game now , isn't at least on a technical level nowhere near as bad as something like 06. When games do get that bad , it is spectacle and made note of or some sort of asset flip on steam in the bowels of their library.
I can point to so many genre's that have a better standard of quality now than back in 01 its baffeling that you would suggest its not the case.
In terms of the technical base level and minimum playability, games have improved yes, but at the same time
- copious amounts of busy work mechanics have been introduced everywhere (XP-based mechanics)
- predatory monetisation techniques have been added (e.g. loot boxes)
- games release in questionable states because the day one patch may (or may not) fix most major issues
- gigantism has lead to enormous amounts of bloated open worlds in place of more tighter design
 

Village

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,400
It's great that you give yourself the authority to decide which games I like. But I can assure you, I like both Sonic Adventures (and especially 2) a lot. For the same things I liked them back then: Sonic's / Shadow's / Tails' gameplay and level design, great music, nice presentation.


I do not see value in the hypothetical remake not because I dislike the original, but because I think that the original has so many rough edges on a fundamental level that a remake would either not be well-received, or would be at least as much work as a new game. And in that case, making a new game in the same style is just clearly preferrable. As a Sonic Adventure fan. I am pretty sure most Sonic Adventure fans would prefer getting Sonic Adventure 3 over Sonic Adventure 1 with better graphics.
For to the top, part again. Cool, but again it ain't anywehere else we can go with this.


In terms of the technical base level and minimum playability, games have improved yes, but at the same time
- copious amounts of busy work mechanics have been introduced everywhere (XP-based mechanics)
- predatory monetisation techniques have been added (e.g. loot boxes)
- games release in questionable states because the day one patch may (or may not) fix most major issues
- gigantism has lead to enormous amounts of bloated open worlds in place of more tighter design
For this though the only outright thing you listed that's outright bad is monetization . Day one patches are an annoyance at best and the other things you listed are things people like. Games in general are like... factually better in how they are produced than they ever have been in the history of the medium. Game design , how we make games has gotten better as time goes on, just like how film, writing has generally gotten better as time goes on because we discover new and better ways to execute these things. Does that make old things awful? No. Does that mean an old things can't be better than new things? Hell no. But that does mean the general quality of what is being made is better as a whole.

The initial example was 98-01. Third person shooters didn't get decent controls until like 2005 with resident evil 4. And then that games controls are kinda shit and was iterated on again with gears of war. I can go on a whole thing about how fighting games in general are largely better now than they ever have been. Yes monitization is bad, really bad, like horrible late stage capitalism bad. Folks are out here trying to lobby governments to sell gambling to children. But .... day 1 patches? That's worse than decades of game design improvements that have brought he level of game design up? Are you serious? Are you reading what you are writing. You need to sit down and like look outside yourself, play some different games look how games have improved over the years.
 
Last edited:

Kazooie

Member
Jul 17, 2019
128
For this though the only outright thing you listed that's outright bad is monetization .
Before I continue with the other points: Video games have become better is a pretty subjective statement, so arguments beyond technical issues will inherently be subjective / personal.
Day one patches are an annoyance at best
No, they are not. Day one patches have two distinct negative consequences:
1. Longevity of the product is jeopardised, because publishers intentionally ship products that are not in a good state yet. As soon as the download services cease to exist, availability of patches is reduced or outright impossible (usually I would say impossible, but I am aware that Nintendo Switch actually has a system in place that allows you to share patches offline with other Switches nearby, which, indeed is neat).
2. The quality of the product is in the air, because publishers just guesstimate what major issues can still be fixed between print and release. If they miscalculate, then subpar products are released. Worse, yet, if the game fails to meet expectation some or all errors may persist indefinitely.

and the other things you listed are things people like.
Well and I (as well as others) do not. You may personally like these developments, I dislike them, either way, such a broad statement as "games have become better", in terms of design, is invalid. I would argue, for instance, that Banjo-Kazooie in 1998 has had the most well-designed open levels because of a clever natural player navigation and the perfect balance between providing enough room for exploration and keeping everything overseeable. At the same time it has a super dense interaction ratio, with unique content.
Game design , how we make games has gotten better as time goes on, just like how film, writing has generally gotten better as time goes on because we discover new and better ways to execute these things.
Do not mix up new trends with "better". In particular when it comes to writing, I am pretty sure a whole scientific discipline would chastise you for that statement. Of course, there is technological progress and there are more mature best practices, but in the end, game design is an artform and all the best practices will not help you if your creative output is not in place. Old games had the advantage of smaller team sizes and less extreme financial pressure, so that design by commitee was less common and unique strong ideas could be developed in full "AAA" capacity (for the time). For your time frame, consider e.g. NiGHTS into Dreams, Super Monkey Ball, Crazy Taxi and Blast Corps to find examples that demonstrate the fruitful effects of the more creatively open design approaches of the time.
The initial example was 98-01. Third person shooters didn't get decent controls until like 2005 with resident evil 4.
Resident Evil 4 has (basically) the same controls as Resident Evil 1-3. What it changed was the perspective. Which was a fundamental step in the development of modern day third person shooters, yes. But genre-specific control and camera innovation in the third person shooter space is pretty much irrelevant for the discussion of arcade-style platformers such as the Sonic series. Same for fighting games (which I cannot really judge one way or the other; I am not good enough a fighting game player to be able to judge the nuances here).
But .... day 1 patches? That's worse than decades of game design improvements that have brought he level of game design up? Are you serious?
I am serious and you just dismissed the other two points, which are relevant to my position as well. The stronger focus on busy work mechanics and repeat content to keep engagement high is, in my view, damaging to game design. It is a particularly damning trend for arcade-style games such as Sonic.
 

Village

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,400
Resident Evil 4 has (basically) the same controls as Resident Evil 1-3.)
.
So like there is like whole parts of your posts I wanna gonna adress. Part of your statement is " I don't like that there is less or more of this particular thing " and my statement of " That's irrelevant " still stands. And there are other parts too, but I saw something.

But I wanna address this

Ok, to down play the gameplay innovations of what RE4 did. We aren't even talking about the level design or whatever but how good it feels to play and interact with that environment. Makes me think that you have no idea what you are talking about in this regard. Or are even understanding the core of my argument for how game design has gotten better. And I have no interest in this conversation. We are ether talking past eachother, or have a fundamental disagreement on the value of game design and its innovations that we are just not gonna agree. That is like suggesting that mario's analog controls or golden eye and subsequently halo 1's innovation on console shooters are nothing. Resident evils 4's controls and feel has completely changed not just tps but third person games in general since its creation. games TO THIS DAY are strait up lifting and innovating on how it feels to play that style of game from that game. The new GOW is a child of that games control and level design but that's another discussion.

I respect you and your opinion, but i'm done. Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:

Kazooie

Member
Jul 17, 2019
128
So like there is like whole parts of your posts I wanna gonna adress. Part of your statement is " I don't like that there is less or more of this particular thing " and my statement of " That's irrelevant " still stands. And there are other parts too, but I saw something.
Sorry, I do not quite understand, do you plan on answering to the rest at a later point?

Ok, to down play the gameplay innovations of what RE4 did. We aren't even talking about the level design or whatever but how good it feels to play and interact with that environment. Makes me think that you have no idea what you are talking about in this regard.
Please consider the reductive nature of your quote, I went on to say:
What it changed was the perspective. Which was a fundamental step in the development of modern day third person shooters, yes.
I was just saying that the point of innovation from Resident Evil 4 was the camera / over-shoulder perspective, not the controls, which were basically the same as Resident Evil 0-3. They felt better because of the much more convenient perspective, which is a perspective that managed to marry cinematic presentation and practical viewpoint in an elegant and easily reproducable way. It was a major innovation for the TPS genre. But the controls were still the old Resident Evil tank controls. Later games, in particular Gears of War, which you mentioned, then paired the perspective with dual analog fps-style controls, which then lead to a new basic structural blueprint for TPS. I can only repeat, Resident Evil 4 was a major innovator in that regard. It's just that it is a camera innovation, not a controls innovation.
 

Village

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,400
Sorry, I do not quite understand, do you plan on answering to the rest at a later point?


Please consider the reductive nature of your quote, I went on to say:

I was just saying that the point of innovation from Resident Evil 4 was the camera / over-shoulder perspective, not the controls, which were basically the same as Resident Evil 0-3. They felt better because of the much more convenient perspective, which is a perspective that managed to marry cinematic presentation and practical viewpoint in an elegant and easily reproducable way. It was a major innovation for the TPS genre. But the controls were still the old Resident Evil tank controls. Later games, in particular Gears of War, which you mentioned, then paired the perspective with dual analog fps-style controls, which then lead to a new basic structural blueprint for TPS. I can only repeat, Resident Evil 4 was a major innovator in that regard. It's just that it is a camera innovation, not a controls innovation.
I think there's a lot more innovation in the controls in combination with the camera and what you can do in that game. But again we dissagree with so many things , I don't even wish to continue.

Again I respect your opinion. You seem like a nice person, despite your love of banjo kazooie but we on different wave lengths.
 

Samemind

Member
Oct 25, 2017
387
Sorry, I do not quite understand, do you plan on answering to the rest at a later point?


Please consider the reductive nature of your quote, I went on to say:

I was just saying that the point of innovation from Resident Evil 4 was the camera / over-shoulder perspective, not the controls, which were basically the same as Resident Evil 0-3. They felt better because of the much more convenient perspective, which is a perspective that managed to marry cinematic presentation and practical viewpoint in an elegant and easily reproducable way. It was a major innovation for the TPS genre. But the controls were still the old Resident Evil tank controls. Later games, in particular Gears of War, which you mentioned, then paired the perspective with dual analog fps-style controls, which then lead to a new basic structural blueprint for TPS. I can only repeat, Resident Evil 4 was a major innovator in that regard. It's just that it is a camera innovation, not a controls innovation.
Thing is, it's not just the camera that changed. Shooting is also radically different; vertical aiming is no longer restricted to 3 different levels. You can freely target any body part, leading to a multitude of new options (disarming, tripping, setting up melee strikes, lining up piercing shots, aiming for weak points). You're also opened up to unprecedented* environmental interaction: searching for secrets that can appear anywhere, triggering traps and switches, destructible objects. The shooting gallery minigame is basically the case study for how the camera's position isn't the only noteworthy difference.

Also the Attache Case is dope af, hardly a wonder why someone made an entire video game out of that alone.
 

BlazeHedgehog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
298
Oh wow, Jack and Casie was a Kickstarter game? I followed the dev a couple years ago (I guess before the Kickstarter) as they were posting WIP gifs and videos on Tumblr. I liked the art style and thought the banter was fun

I unfollowed them because of a string of grumpy posts about... I actually don't even remember, but I just know they were annoying enough that I kind of went "screw this" and decided to write them and their game off. Skimming their old (and basically dead) tumblr now I don't see anything particularly egregious outside of some salty posts about "the right way to do pixel art" so I don't know
 

Village

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,400
God I'm so tired of Youtube (and Twitter) wanting me to watch that one racist jackoff's overanimated redraw of the Sonic movie trailer. So, so tired.
I'm glad are pointing out that he tried to rebrand himself, but yeah homie is racist and an asshole. And it sucks his rebrand was middly sucessful in the sense some people are not privy to who he is
 

Rocha

Member
Jul 5, 2019
95
Brazil
Any tips for the sonic 1 special stages? God they are so frustrating, but this can be said about almost every special stage in the series, CD being one of the exceptions.
 

Rocha

Member
Jul 5, 2019
95
Brazil
Avoid them entirely and forget they ever existed.
You know, I've been thinking if i should even finish sonic 1. While not a bad game by any means, the game peaks at green hill zone and it never recovers again, and the entire existence of labyrinth zone makes me think it's better to just jump straight to sonic 2 (Wich is really tempting considering I'm playing the Mega Collection and sonic 2 is right there alongside 3 and knuckles)
 

Baladium

Member
Apr 18, 2018
2,090
Carbonated Chemical Zone
You know, I've been thinking if i should even finish sonic 1. While not a bad game by any means, the game peaks at green hill zone and it never recovers again, and the entire existence of labyrinth zone makes me think it's better to just jump straight to sonic 2 (Wich is really tempting considering I'm playing the Mega Collection and sonic 2 is right there alongside 3 and knuckles)
If you’ve never beaten Sonic 1 before, I say just try to power on through to the end, even if it’s not all that enjoyable for you. Do it once and then you never have to do it again. I’m not a big fan of it and I’m always thinking “gee, I’d much rather be playing Sonic 2 right now” whenever I do my mandatory run through whatever the newest port was that just released (the SEGA AGES Switch port is one of the best out there, btw).

But ultimately, Sonic 1 is one of the most historically significant games SEGA has ever released (quite possibly THE most significant) and deserves to be played through to completion if only for that fact. There’s a certain reverence I can’t help but give to it despite its many flaws and how utterly inferior it is to its sequels.

Oh, and yes, Labyrinth Zone does indeed suck. I think we can all agree on that. lol
 

Rurouni

Member
Dec 25, 2017
535
Sonic 1 is one of those games i respect to a degree but have zero desire to ever replay it again. Like straight up i never thought this way for CD or even early the 3D games regardless of their pitfalls, but Sonic 1 is just too aggressively uneven for me to find any legitimate enjoyment out of it which hurts.
 

Rocha

Member
Jul 5, 2019
95
Brazil
Thing is, Sonic 2 improves a lot of the first game flaws, so when you already know that the next entries in the series are far superior to the one you are currently playing the experience really becomes a slog, but i think i will finish the game. It's been a long time since i finished sonic 1, so by beating again i can at least articulate better on why the game fails to me.
 

Sami

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,447
Honestly I enjoy Sonic 1 more than 2 just for the absence of levels that annoy the shit out of me like Oil Ocean, Metropolis, and Sky Chase. Sonic 2 is infinitely more frustrating in its second half than any other good Sonic game for me.
 

Rocha

Member
Jul 5, 2019
95
Brazil
Yeah. While I've come to appreciate most of Metropolis over time, I do think Oil Ocean is way more bullshit than any of the levels in Sonic 1.
For some reason i thought Oil Ocean was a Sonic CD Stage. But what makes it a worse zone than Metropolis in your opinion? Because i remember Metropolis and boy, it ain't a good memorie lol
 

muteKi

Member
Oct 22, 2018
7,902
a sunken pirate ship
All the god damn projectiles. The seahorses fire crap at you. The octopodes fire crap at you. Those platforms fire themselves at you, and are not only able to crush you on the way down but are surrounded by obstacles in most cases. Plus the damn fans, which take away your ability to jump out of the way of crap. And the moving spike things.

Metropolis has some nasty obstacles like the crabs and especially the ambush starfish, but they're much more predictable and don't get in your way nearly as often.
 

Rocha

Member
Jul 5, 2019
95
Brazil
Yikes, that doesn't look fun. Is there a Sonic game without a really bad stage? It seems that even the good games have a bad stage to keep things balanced
 
OP
OP
Professor Beef

Professor Beef

Official ResetEra™ Chao Puncher
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,649
The Digital World
I like Sonic 1, but I won't go out of my way to play the vanilla version.
Yikes, that doesn't look fun. Is there a Sonic game without a really bad stage? It seems that even the good games have a bad stage to keep things balanced
Sonic & Knuckles's only bad stage is Sandopolis Act 2, and that's largely because of how stupidly maze-like it is.
 

Baladium

Member
Apr 18, 2018
2,090
Carbonated Chemical Zone
Yikes, that doesn't look fun. Is there a Sonic game without a really bad stage? It seems that even the good games have a bad stage to keep things balanced
If we’re talking just the 2D stuff, for me, Sonic Mania was that game. There’s not a single Act I disliked. All of them ranged from good to incredible. I think Sonic Rush could be eligible too. As far as the classic 16-bit series goes:

• Sonic 2’s Metropolis Zone is too bloated and the final boss in Death Egg takes too many hits to bring down
• CD is a great example of “quantity over quality” with its smattering of very poor level design in many of its Acts
• 3 has “the barrel” in Carnival Night
• S&K has the easiest Zone in the classic series to “time over” in, Sandopolis
• It’s been well over a decade since I played Knuckles’ Chaotix but I vaguely remember much of its level design being suspect, or at least it felt off to me at the time (I still desperately want a rerelease eventually though)
 

Rocha

Member
Jul 5, 2019
95
Brazil
I like Sonic 1, but I won't go out of my way to play the vanilla version.

Sonic & Knuckles's only bad stage is Sandopolis Act 2, and that's largely because of how stupidly maze-like it is.
I don't know, people seem to really dislike Carnival Night and Flying Battery.
If we’re talking just the 2D stuff, for me, Sonic Mania was that game. There’s not a single Act I disliked. All of them ranged from good to incredible. I think Sonic Rush could be eligible too. As far as the classic 16-bit series goes:

• Sonic 2’s Metropolis Zone is too bloated and the final boss in Death Egg takes too many hits to bring down
• CD is a great example of “quantity over quality” with its smattering of very poor level design in many of its Acts
• 3 has “the barrel” in Carnival Night
• S&K has the easiest Zone in the classic series to “time over” in, Sandopolis
• It’s been well over a decade since I played Knuckles’ Chaotix but I vaguely remember much of its level design being suspect, or at least it felt off to me at the time (I still desperately want a rerelease eventually though)
Can't wait to finish my Sonic Retrospective, there are lots of things i forgot about the series.
 
Last edited: