That's kinda what the author is saying in an annoyingly roundabout way. My issue is that he ignores all of the times where it does use the standard mold to back up his point, not realizing this is part of the reason why "it just works"
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why Sonic the Hedgehog is 'incorrect' game design
- Thread starter oni-link
- Start date
That's kinda what the author is saying in an annoyingly roundabout way. My issue is that he ignores all of the times where it does use the standard mold to back up his point, not realizing this is part of the reason why "it just works"
James Scott
Banned
Hear Forces is making them very hard to recollect which sounds bad.
I feel the worst part of the original games is the length and the special stages to extend it.
The special stages are so bad in 2 that it ruined any gameplay advancements from the first
Length is a big issues with most Sonic games, actually.
Sonic goes fast which means more levels which means more time and money needed to make a game. If SEGA wants length but doesn't want to put time and money then the game will be bloated and unpolished.
Or you get a game like Generations which is around 5 hours and you have to replay the levels with gimmicks to extend it
I don't mind the short stages in Sonic 1 or 2. They're short and easily memorized and the stages can often be beaten in under 2 minutes with few exceptions. But they give you enough time to actually explore the levels too. Time limit goes up rather than down and gives you 10 minutes to look through an entire stage. It's possible (and I've almost done it) to collect all the chaos emeralds in act 1 and 2 of Emerald Hill Zone in Sonic 2 because there's an over abundance of rings to find and a lot of check points to get all seven chaos emeralds.
I don't think the special stages are meant to artificially extend the game. You can even ignore them and play casually. It's a bonus and adds replay value to those that want to get better, see the true end, and unlock Super Sonic (who you can't even use for the final boss in Sonic 2). Sonic 3 has the biggest unlocks with true ends and multiple characters and ways to explore with each character. Sonic 3 also has a save feature too so that helps a lot.
As for special stages themselves, 1 is still the worst for me, but a favorite for others. Sonic 2 is mixed, but I still enjoy it (definitely easier with 2 players). Sonic 3 is the best.
I don't know much about Forces though. If it's too much like CD, then I'm gonna be upset because CD just felt all over the place with its level design.
Dane_gerClose
Member
The Art of Game Design comes pretty close. But, hmm, something something guidelines and not rules.
"It is correct because it works" is pretty much perfect. Well said.
Chronospherics
Member
Ironic example, as I feel lords greenlight is pretty god damn generic. It's not strange or unusual at all - if anything there's too much music that's similar.
Not really feeling the analogy to Sonic. I think in general sonic does tend to give the player enough time to react. Sonic is actually pretty slow in-game, it's mostly a false perception of speed influenced by things like the graphics. However, sonic is usually pretty forgiving for those long running sections. It doesn't - generally, just put an enemy in front of you, at least not one you can't curl into a ball to kill.
Not really feeling the analogy to Sonic. I think in general sonic does tend to give the player enough time to react. Sonic is actually pretty slow in-game, it's mostly a false perception of speed influenced by things like the graphics. However, sonic is usually pretty forgiving for those long running sections. It doesn't - generally, just put an enemy in front of you, at least not one you can't curl into a ball to kill.
I'd argue Sonic 2 in a couple of stages with bad enemy placement. But Sonic 1 and 3 are much better about that.
Neff
Member
I think that's a big pile of shit.
Sonic the Hedgehog 1 is literally a faster, more vertical, sexed-up SMB1.
Christ, that entire notion of "incorrect" songwriting is completely farcical to begin with. I think what he's basically trying to say is that it simply doesn't conform to the extremly rigid and narrow standards of modern pop music, and there's really nothing strange or unique about that. I'd expect someone like Max Martin to have a more informed grasp and perspective on music than that.
Making some analogy to game design by describing it as some kind of universal truth just doesn't work.
Making some analogy to game design by describing it as some kind of universal truth just doesn't work.
Man Called Aerodynamics
Member
Lol, as a big Lorde fan I saw the word "incorrect" and guessed right away at what the article might be getting at. It's an insightful read, and (as all too often happens) it's sad to see people's hackles get raised and respond defensively before digesting what it had to say.
"incorrect" definitely reads as a flashier "unconventional" in this case, and in that sense sure I guess. Sonic has a really good flow in the original games that I like a lot. It's a bit harder to get into platformers like Shantae where the character just stops on a dime the second I let go of the d-pad.
that's not the argument of the article; in fact, it argues the opposite.
The unconventional nature of Sonic is probably what drew me into the series in the first place. I see the point he's trying to make by calling it "incorrect" even it's made awkwardly. I really hate when people try to maintain there is such a thing as objectively correct game design(with platformers this is usually Mario) and throw out the idea that alternative approaches can work also and may appeal more to certain people.
It says that everything it does it's incorrect which is true, then it says that somehow the game clicks anyway which is bananas.
Begininning to admit that does everything wrong is a step in the right direction!
Salty Rice
Member
Sonic always gonna be the hedgehogs people pretend to care about but nobody really looks after them.
The car gonna hit them every time.
The car gonna hit them every time.
I love how we get a rare article that actually treats games as art without being condescending or hyperbolic - simply by wanting to talk about game design and how it can be related to critique and commentary for music theory, and many gamers are only interested in using it as a platform to argue whether something is good or bad, or defending what they perceive to be a slight. It's really sad.
This is a really fun article, and it has really interesting things to say. It saws a genuine interest in game design theory, and uses a classic game to illustrate that much like music, game design is ultimately about how the player experiences it and not a fixed set of rules, and yet we can also clearly identify traditional rulesets in the process of game design, like we can in music. It makes you think about how game critique can be approached, and the different angles there are in determining whether something is 'right' or 'wrong'.
Sonic is fascinating because it is absolutely true that the tempo of the game and how it guides the player through levels is completely against the preconceived notions one might have for a platformer. It's one of the reasons why Mario is so influential and Sonic is so unique - because Mario presents very clear rules which can be copied safely with expected results even in different types of games with different enemies, attacks, etc. Sonic on the other hand only works because the sum of the parts for Sonic somehow work. Trying to copy what it does is difficult because without that exact combination the parts don't work very well on their own and the results are unpredictable.
Fuck off Modbot!
This is a really fun article, and it has really interesting things to say. It saws a genuine interest in game design theory, and uses a classic game to illustrate that much like music, game design is ultimately about how the player experiences it and not a fixed set of rules, and yet we can also clearly identify traditional rulesets in the process of game design, like we can in music. It makes you think about how game critique can be approached, and the different angles there are in determining whether something is 'right' or 'wrong'.
Sonic is fascinating because it is absolutely true that the tempo of the game and how it guides the player through levels is completely against the preconceived notions one might have for a platformer. It's one of the reasons why Mario is so influential and Sonic is so unique - because Mario presents very clear rules which can be copied safely with expected results even in different types of games with different enemies, attacks, etc. Sonic on the other hand only works because the sum of the parts for Sonic somehow work. Trying to copy what it does is difficult because without that exact combination the parts don't work very well on their own and the results are unpredictable.
Fuck off Modbot!
Oh, thread got reopened.
I kinda had a post on the level design of Sonic 1's Green Hill Zone and how it takes some cues from Mario but ultimately in it's own way, especially by the mid-point of the stage but it's gone now. It does well to slow you down in a fair way to teach you about Sonic's speed, the rings and ring boxes, enemies, and how to use the momentum from inclines and ramps. Also obstacles like rocks which deliberately stop you from jumping into long falls or hitting an enemy on a bridge in the first section of the game. By the mid-point the level is gradually introducing you to 2 routes, and the last half 3 routes to take giving you options to explore or race through as you get the handle of things.
Everything has their place and is carefully thought out.
I kinda had a post on the level design of Sonic 1's Green Hill Zone and how it takes some cues from Mario but ultimately in it's own way, especially by the mid-point of the stage but it's gone now. It does well to slow you down in a fair way to teach you about Sonic's speed, the rings and ring boxes, enemies, and how to use the momentum from inclines and ramps. Also obstacles like rocks which deliberately stop you from jumping into long falls or hitting an enemy on a bridge in the first section of the game. By the mid-point the level is gradually introducing you to 2 routes, and the last half 3 routes to take giving you options to explore or race through as you get the handle of things.
Everything has their place and is carefully thought out.
Aww this would have been a much better read than the article here. Was the thread you posted in nuked?
Also thank you duckroll for being awesome.
Xist2inspire
Member
It's a somewhat poorly worded article with a title that screams "hot take", but I definitely agree with the basic premise that Sonic is an unconventional series that works despite having many elements that often clash with each other. Those clashing elements are what the "Sonic was never good" crowd tend to harp upon, mostly because they're comparing Sonic gameplay to traditional (and far more common) gaming philosophy. And under that criteria, Sonic doesn't quite hold up...especially in a modern market that tends to demean or shun unconventional games. That's also why I don't totally agree with the "Sonic isn't about speed" crowd, because when you lessen or take away Sonic's speed...what do you really have left?
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
I thought the Green Light comparison was belaboured, but broadcasting the "okay, it's like jazz -- know the rules deeply so that when you break them the statement you make it intentional and striking" point more is nice.
Sonic at its best is primarily about the joy of discovery: of routes, of traps, of secrets, and in the long term, of the possibilities afforded by mastery of the mechanics. They're games you play again and again and again and find some new wrinkle in every time. A more streamlined, carefully curated experience would kill that.
Super Mario World is my favorite Mario title for similar reasons. Nothing else in the series has the same laser focus on secret-riddled level design and raw mechanical complexity, and it happily sacrifices difficulty to get there.
Super Mario World is my favorite Mario title for similar reasons. Nothing else in the series has the same laser focus on secret-riddled level design and raw mechanical complexity, and it happily sacrifices difficulty to get there.
People are too hung up on the idea that the author doesn't like the game when they say it's "incorrect."
It's like when a pitcher has an "incorrect" delivery and leads the league in wins, or when a batter has an "incorrect" swing and hits .350. What that means is that if you look at the component parts in isolation basic design rules are ignored, but despite that, the game achieves a balance that is successful because of a harmonious marriage between disparate parts. Like the proverbial athlete with the imperfect anatomy, the "wrong" sized hands and the oddly proportioned limbs that can only succeed when they ignore their childhood coaches that attempted to make them move the "right" way.
It's like when a pitcher has an "incorrect" delivery and leads the league in wins, or when a batter has an "incorrect" swing and hits .350. What that means is that if you look at the component parts in isolation basic design rules are ignored, but despite that, the game achieves a balance that is successful because of a harmonious marriage between disparate parts. Like the proverbial athlete with the imperfect anatomy, the "wrong" sized hands and the oddly proportioned limbs that can only succeed when they ignore their childhood coaches that attempted to make them move the "right" way.
Sonic is like pinball in its seemingly endless skill cap. It's great and unique appeal for a platformer, and it's a shame Sega forgot for so long.
For everyone hung up on the headline, it's not only clickbait but conceding to arbitrary standards in our status quo in an attempt to subvert them by reintroducing what it means to be correct or incorrect.
For everyone hung up on the headline, it's not only clickbait but conceding to arbitrary standards in our status quo in an attempt to subvert them by reintroducing what it means to be correct or incorrect.
So, in other words, according to some guy who wrote two of the poppiest songs in recent years, anything avant-garde, experimental, or progressive is incorrectly designed? Sonic the Hedgehog, Frank Zappa, Rush or the bulk of the weird shit I listen to, surreal art?
If those things are wrong, I don't wanna be right. They may be unconventional, but that doesn't mean they are inferior because of it, regardless of how they are received critically or commercially.
Granted, I've always thought Sonic does play better at a slower pace, with brief cinematic platforming moments interspersed.
If those things are wrong, I don't wanna be right. They may be unconventional, but that doesn't mean they are inferior because of it, regardless of how they are received critically or commercially.
Granted, I've always thought Sonic does play better at a slower pace, with brief cinematic platforming moments interspersed.
NipplesAndToes23
Member
Shit, I could've sworn I saw this shit get locked earlier. I haven't played any Sonic game, but I found reading this insightful.
I highly suggest you give Sonic 2 or Sonic 3 and Knuckles a try. Those games might give you an idea of what the author means by calling them "incorrect".
The original Sonic the Hedgehog is pretty bleh and has some rather traditional platforming levels, so I feel like this article applies less to that game and more to its sequels.
Dr. Buni
Member
No such thing as incorrect game design. Games like Darkest Dungeon are the proof you can design a game completely backwards and still have a good product on your hands.
Sonic isn't even a classic platformer, not sure why compare it with Super Mario or whatever.
Anyways.... Eeeeh, I hope devs keep making incorrectly designed games, those can be some of the most fun games. Be creative, who gives a fuck if it is correct or not.
Some would say Oxenfree is "incorrect game design" because it was designed with mechanics around the story and not vice-versa and the game is absolutely amazing, one of my favorites.
So yeah. Stop.
Sonic isn't even a classic platformer, not sure why compare it with Super Mario or whatever.
Anyways.... Eeeeh, I hope devs keep making incorrectly designed games, those can be some of the most fun games. Be creative, who gives a fuck if it is correct or not.
Some would say Oxenfree is "incorrect game design" because it was designed with mechanics around the story and not vice-versa and the game is absolutely amazing, one of my favorites.
So yeah. Stop.
Oh no, this thread got locked so I didn't get to make the post in here lol.
Sir Abacus
Member
Really? Have you ever actually played a Genesis Sonic game? Like ever? Seriously?
Spaced Harrier
Member
The answer that was being sought was A subpar platformer with good music, maybe.
Hitlersaurus Christ
Banned
The article even gets the designer wrong.
I get where it's coming from but a lot of it doesn't apply to the majority of the levels in the Genesis games.
I get where it's coming from but a lot of it doesn't apply to the majority of the levels in the Genesis games.
the_darkness
Banned
Wow, people really getting caught in their feelings without even reading the damn article.
Elfforkusu
Member
I like the article, but I think of it as subversive more than incorrect.
I completely agreed until the last sentence. It is, for the very reasons given it's broken to the core, to the point that whenever they make a game more slow and add more puzzles it quickly turns into a mess (Colors), while whenever they push the speed button (GBA games) it becomes a QTE game with two buttons.
Actually, the first Sonic was not bad, it had its charm in both the fast and slow sections, but what is argumented here could already be seen and only became worse later on.
Opinions, but the success of this series will always bug me.
Actually, the first Sonic was not bad, it had its charm in both the fast and slow sections, but what is argumented here could already be seen and only became worse later on.
Opinions, but the success of this series will always bug me.
I've always thought modern Sonic is actually incorrect game design.
The reason why (IMO) Sonic 1, 2, 3 and Knuckles worked so well is that while it was fast, there were also slow sections. It wasn't all hold right forever if you want to wiin.
Modern Sonic for some reason looks back at older Sonic games and thinks "gotta go fast" - that's what people want to do. There's never any exploration, they're always completely linear and that sucks.
The reason why (IMO) Sonic 1, 2, 3 and Knuckles worked so well is that while it was fast, there were also slow sections. It wasn't all hold right forever if you want to wiin.
Modern Sonic for some reason looks back at older Sonic games and thinks "gotta go fast" - that's what people want to do. There's never any exploration, they're always completely linear and that sucks.
I've always said that Runman "fixed" the Sonic formula. A Runman:RAtW sequel with a high budget and beautiful sprites would be amazing.
(To clarify, Runman never stops the player, it just reverses direction. The player CAN stop by letting go of the button, but it feels really bad to do so. That combined with the combo/speed meter creates an excellent feedback loop the makes you need-to-gotta-go-fast)
Seriously, my dudes, play this game. It's free and from before the indie boom (around the same time Knytt was big), so it never got much press. It's also short. If you're an aspiring designer you should play it just to see how it fixes Sonic.
KojiKnight
Member
I agree with this. It's always been ill conceived design at the very least. You can overcome the games 'incorrect' design and enjoy the final product just like you can look past any other shortcoming in a game... but it doesn't change the fact that they are indeed shortcomings.
Xist2inspire
Member
Yes, I grew up playing them. Speed may not be the only thing that Sonic has going for him (which is what a few newer games in the series suffer from), but it's the key element that ties everything together. Make no mistake, the primary goal in Sonic games is to learn how to get to the goal as fast as possible.
The levels are big to not only accommodate Sonic's speed, but to allow for the forgiving level design that doesn't often severely punish the player for failing at the platforming segments (hence why bottomless pits are considered a plague and bad design in Sonic games despite being a staple in practically every other 2D and 3D platformer). Those same alternate paths can also provide ways to get through the level faster. The exploration elements are a byproduct of the large levels and alternate paths, but not the main focus, as the rewards are usually minor. The platforming elements are there, but they're nowhere near as vital to the experience as say, Mario or Megaman. So take away the speed element, and you're left with a basic, rather easy platformer with large, yet somewhat empty environments.
And to me, it's quite telling that Sonic 1 and CD, which both have a slower pace and level design that doesn't allow the player to go fast at all unless they really take the time to learn the level design, are less popular than the faster-paced Sonic 2 and 3&K. It's telling that Sandopolis, a level that really emphasizes exploration and platforming, is nowhere near as fondly remembered as say, Ice Cap or Hydrocity. So yeah, let's not pretend that speed isn't a key component of Sonic's success, popularity, and gameplay.
The thing about Sonic 1 is that all of it's problems go away if you play a version with spindash. (Such as the Taxman or Saturn versions) because you gain the ability to go super fast right away or do cool shit in some of the shittier parts of the game like the big climb in scrap brain or the lava river in marble. You circumvent almost all of the bullshit in sonic 1 with JUST the spindash to the point where the game is actually as fun as the other genesis sonics. If we ever get console ports of the Taxman sonic remasters I think people will universally come around on it. Wide Screen, Spindash, and more accurate special stages basically make these games way more fun to play. It fixed sonic cd and it fixes sonic 1. It's such a simple fix but it really works and turns sonic 1 into a proper sonic game.
tl;dr: Sonic isn't about speed, it's about spindashing. Adding spindash to Sonic 1 fixes it and makes it great!
tl;dr: Sonic isn't about speed, it's about spindashing. Adding spindash to Sonic 1 fixes it and makes it great!
My opinion too. I think Sonic games are horrible and the opposite of fun.
Lord British
Member
Very good article that highlights what makes the original Sonic so compelling.