-
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.
I don't understand how you're supposed to play Sonic games.
- Thread starter digitalrelic
- Start date
Play it the way you want, basically. In the beginning, just getting through the levels is difficult enough because of the speed, but later on you will discover new routes, new paths and new ways to get a new highscore.
It is not very intuitive, but I loved it as a child and right now even more. #SonicIsBack
It is not very intuitive, but I loved it as a child and right now even more. #SonicIsBack
PaperFlame
Member
First time playing Sonic it took me awhile to get the flow of the game down.
You just got to keep playing the stages over and over again until you remember the route then you have a lot of control of the game.
There's section in the stage where you got to go fast and there's sections where you have to slow down and explore. Once you figure out when to speed up and slow down and to be able to memories where everything is, the game becomes a blast..
However, I can totally seeing that as an issue because not everyone wants to play a stage over and over again especially if they beat it once already. I feel like it's an acquired taste.
You just got to keep playing the stages over and over again until you remember the route then you have a lot of control of the game.
There's section in the stage where you got to go fast and there's sections where you have to slow down and explore. Once you figure out when to speed up and slow down and to be able to memories where everything is, the game becomes a blast..
However, I can totally seeing that as an issue because not everyone wants to play a stage over and over again especially if they beat it once already. I feel like it's an acquired taste.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
A lot of this is spot on, but the problem is that the platforming on sonic isn't challenging enough and the game is too short. With Mario 1, the game was hard, and you'd die a LOT, so you kept replaying. Sonic wasn't hard enough for that. And even after you beat mario, you'd beat it again a few more times just to prove you got it, with shortcuts and without.
Sonic didn't have that. I beat it once, but never really died enough to organically cruise through earlier levels like Sonic wants you to do. And when I beat it, I didn't really want to keep playing it so I could cruise through the levels.
So that's where your explanation fails. If Sonic was say, Ninja Gaiden for the NES, the smooth speed timing aspect could really shine through, because you're going to die a lot, and you do end up getting a rhythm going as it is. But with Sonic you really only learn that stuff when you wan to learn it. Never out of necessity cause you die so much.
Also, by the time Sonic came out, Mario was using save points for its last two games.
Acquiescence
Member
17 pages for a thread on how to play Sonic... how?
It's a platformer. You go from left to right. Collect 100 rings and gain a life.
It's a platformer. You go from left to right. Collect 100 rings and gain a life.
IronicSonic
Member
That was hilarious. And a multipage thread like this on gaf it is aswell
Never underestimate the lengths people will go to to tell you that one of gamings most beloved franchises has secretly always been awful and no one realised.
Ruud_Luiten
Member
I dont understand Mario. Is it the coins, or is it the goal finishing the levels? What does the time thing means in the top corner?
Why is it ok to kill turtles in mario?
Why is it ok to kill turtles in mario?
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
Y cant metroid crawl?
Refreshment.01
Member
Because people turned it into yet another system/game wars so page count increases.
Because while great games, the Genesis ones mainly, people began to see beyond the illusion of marketing and superficial aspects. This took some shine out of Sonic in retrospective.
In regards to the topic, you can play Sonic in many ways. However, some people might find it confusing or contradictory that the way the game is sold is not friendly to a beginner, sprinting through the stages is not easy for first time or inexperienced players, for that you need practice.
And in this day and age demanding perseverance, practice and dedication from a player is almost a sin. Other worthwhile games that demanded a level of involvement beyond "one and done!" have seen it perception affected by that quality.
Rickenslacker
Banned
I don't understand how it's possible to not know? It's a platformer. You avoid the pits, grab as much of the litter in the stage that you have the patience for, fight or evade the enemies, get to the end of the levels, beat the bosses, finish the game. The only thing really unique to Sonic here are the special stages for getting emeralds to get the good endings.
TwiztidElf
Member
I just explained this thread to my kids. I read the OP in a funny voice. They laughed.
I read some of the sensible posts in the last two pages (particularly the putting on pants one). They laughed.
I read some of the sensible posts in the last two pages (particularly the putting on pants one). They laughed.
ResidentDante
Member
Still bitter that the Genesis took away that 90% Nintendo monopoly and moved the market over to 16-bit?
Just play it however you want.
If you want to go fast you can but you'll probably end up missing stuff if you don't already know it's there. That or quickly coming to your death or just losing a bunch of rings.
If I ever get put in a speed loop I usually end up rolling up into a ball just so I have extra protection.
If you want to go fast you can but you'll probably end up missing stuff if you don't already know it's there. That or quickly coming to your death or just losing a bunch of rings.
If I ever get put in a speed loop I usually end up rolling up into a ball just so I have extra protection.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
Here's the trick:
Don't wear pants.
Jill Sandwich
the turds of Optimus Prime
You know you're getting old when threads like this appear.
QuixoticNeutral
Member
I'm from the camp that asserts Sonic was never great (I'll give you good, but not great), so take this as you will, but the shoot-from-the-hip defensiveness and condescension in this thread has gone a long, long way towards persuading me that maybe people aren't joking when they say the fan base is the worst thing about this series.
Since many of you clearly decided to read the thread title as uncharitably as possible and hit Reply without thinking—gotta go fast, right?—I think it's worth emphasizing that a lot of scepticism or befuddlement towards Sonic comes from players who are otherwise very experienced at 2D platformers, particularly from the Nintendo school of design. In a way it's not all that helpful to lump all of them into a single genre (a mistake people still make in spades with "Metroidvania") and I think the diversity of side-scroller design, and the unique design personality afforded each distinct IP, was a lot clearer in the SNES/Genesis era when this format was the biggest game in town. The question here isn't how to get through the stages from left to right, but how to have fun doing it, and I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking that Sonic sends mixed messages about how to get the most out of reading the stages and exploring them. That's certainly how I felt on returning to the Genesis games on the Wii VC as a significantly more experienced and design-literate player than I was back when the Nintendo/Sega rivalry was at its peak.
With this in mind, I appreciate the posts that actually try to break down the arcade design philosophy underlying Sonic and answer the question of what kind of mindset it takes to not only play the games but enjoy them. The thing about Sonic is that there is this massive discontinuity between the two separate experiences of speeding through the environment and plodding around if you run into spikes, a lack of gradation along a spectrum from one end to the other that makes these experiences feel like one game instead of two (with one of them, the slow one, leaving a strong and encumbering impression that you are doing it wrong). It's like the Baby Mario sequences in Yoshi's Island, except all the time—either you're in the flow or you're stumbling. So it's illuminating, and important for the sake of conversation, to look into whether Sonic benefits from a different approach in terms of how to read the stage, because forming a mental map of the layout certainly doesn't work the same way it does in a Mario game, where you can do it all in one brisk pass.
DKC is a good point of comparison here, not least because the original game's reputation has faded in its own right, only for the series to come back in exceptional form. DKCTF is the game I hold up as the king of speedy momentum-driven platformers, and a lot of it comes down to two things: (a) the mechanical continuity between the slow, exploratory experience with your eyes peeled for every secret and the frantic speed-run route where every enemy and stage element is like a boost pad; and (b) the quality, shared with Mario, that if your mastery of the mechanics is good, you always, always have a chance to read the screen and react no matter how fast you are going, even in an apparent move-or-die stage like the notorious Bopopolis. In my experience with the original Sonic games, you don't really get that same window of reaction conjoining the fast and slow game and letting you swap smoothly from one to the other. The skills at mentally mapping out a stage layout that you might cultivate in a Nintendo platformer aren't really transferable.
So either you bounce off the design philosophy—I sure did, and so have many others by the looks of it—or you find another way into it, like an RPG packrat adjusting to a game designed around aggressively spending consumables or breaking weapons. And if there is another way into Sonic, a more pleasurable way, it's useful to know what that is. I'm surely not the only one here in the position of contemplating taking a chance on Sonic Mania despite never really clicking with the series before, and this is practically the only way to inform the decision.
I'd like to fall for a Sonic game for once, and this one looks like it has a real shot, but from my lukewarm experience with the originals, it's hard to tell. The people selling Mania the hardest are the incredibly Nintendo-literate players who had the same reservations about Sonic's core paradigm but tell me the level design has markedly improved in the execution. But I'm still on the fence for a reason, and those of you here who are quick to assume this position must be disingenuous are too busy revealing yourselves as either poor readers or poor players to offer much in the way of insight.
It's not that people who can't get into Sonic don't know how to play platformers; it's that there has long been reason to suspect that, much like a lot of films or books I can name, Sonic might fall into the category of things that are paradoxically harder to appreciate the deeper you get into a medium. The snots and boors in this thread scrambling to announce that Sonic's priorities are obvious aren't doing the series any favours. Nobody's asking for hand-holding tutorials; what they're asking for is a sense of conceptual elegance. If you think it's obvious, you had better be prepared to make the case.
Since many of you clearly decided to read the thread title as uncharitably as possible and hit Reply without thinking—gotta go fast, right?—I think it's worth emphasizing that a lot of scepticism or befuddlement towards Sonic comes from players who are otherwise very experienced at 2D platformers, particularly from the Nintendo school of design. In a way it's not all that helpful to lump all of them into a single genre (a mistake people still make in spades with "Metroidvania") and I think the diversity of side-scroller design, and the unique design personality afforded each distinct IP, was a lot clearer in the SNES/Genesis era when this format was the biggest game in town. The question here isn't how to get through the stages from left to right, but how to have fun doing it, and I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking that Sonic sends mixed messages about how to get the most out of reading the stages and exploring them. That's certainly how I felt on returning to the Genesis games on the Wii VC as a significantly more experienced and design-literate player than I was back when the Nintendo/Sega rivalry was at its peak.
With this in mind, I appreciate the posts that actually try to break down the arcade design philosophy underlying Sonic and answer the question of what kind of mindset it takes to not only play the games but enjoy them. The thing about Sonic is that there is this massive discontinuity between the two separate experiences of speeding through the environment and plodding around if you run into spikes, a lack of gradation along a spectrum from one end to the other that makes these experiences feel like one game instead of two (with one of them, the slow one, leaving a strong and encumbering impression that you are doing it wrong). It's like the Baby Mario sequences in Yoshi's Island, except all the time—either you're in the flow or you're stumbling. So it's illuminating, and important for the sake of conversation, to look into whether Sonic benefits from a different approach in terms of how to read the stage, because forming a mental map of the layout certainly doesn't work the same way it does in a Mario game, where you can do it all in one brisk pass.
DKC is a good point of comparison here, not least because the original game's reputation has faded in its own right, only for the series to come back in exceptional form. DKCTF is the game I hold up as the king of speedy momentum-driven platformers, and a lot of it comes down to two things: (a) the mechanical continuity between the slow, exploratory experience with your eyes peeled for every secret and the frantic speed-run route where every enemy and stage element is like a boost pad; and (b) the quality, shared with Mario, that if your mastery of the mechanics is good, you always, always have a chance to read the screen and react no matter how fast you are going, even in an apparent move-or-die stage like the notorious Bopopolis. In my experience with the original Sonic games, you don't really get that same window of reaction conjoining the fast and slow game and letting you swap smoothly from one to the other. The skills at mentally mapping out a stage layout that you might cultivate in a Nintendo platformer aren't really transferable.
So either you bounce off the design philosophy—I sure did, and so have many others by the looks of it—or you find another way into it, like an RPG packrat adjusting to a game designed around aggressively spending consumables or breaking weapons. And if there is another way into Sonic, a more pleasurable way, it's useful to know what that is. I'm surely not the only one here in the position of contemplating taking a chance on Sonic Mania despite never really clicking with the series before, and this is practically the only way to inform the decision.
I'd like to fall for a Sonic game for once, and this one looks like it has a real shot, but from my lukewarm experience with the originals, it's hard to tell. The people selling Mania the hardest are the incredibly Nintendo-literate players who had the same reservations about Sonic's core paradigm but tell me the level design has markedly improved in the execution. But I'm still on the fence for a reason, and those of you here who are quick to assume this position must be disingenuous are too busy revealing yourselves as either poor readers or poor players to offer much in the way of insight.
It's not that people who can't get into Sonic don't know how to play platformers; it's that there has long been reason to suspect that, much like a lot of films or books I can name, Sonic might fall into the category of things that are paradoxically harder to appreciate the deeper you get into a medium. The snots and boors in this thread scrambling to announce that Sonic's priorities are obvious aren't doing the series any favours. Nobody's asking for hand-holding tutorials; what they're asking for is a sense of conceptual elegance. If you think it's obvious, you had better be prepared to make the case.
Chû Totoro
Member
I think people are trying to find "goals" when the only goal is here to finish the levels while having fun. If you can't have fun while doing one of the things I've listed before (or many at the same times if you're good at Sonic games) then don't bother. It's the same for many old school games with many more freedom for player than people imagine.
Less buttons to press or less complicated layout than today's games doesn't mean the game is simple or doesn't have a complex/deep gameplay.
- Simplest way to play is trying to finish the level going from left to right without dying.
- Hardest way (in my opinion) would be to take the hardest route, going the fastest possible, collecting everything on your way to the end of the level while not dying of course.
For those who are "lost", just search for Sonic levels on Google and you'll see what is available here for you to have fun (see it as a "fun park") and if nothing is enjoyable for you then this "park" is not for you
Less buttons to press or less complicated layout than today's games doesn't mean the game is simple or doesn't have a complex/deep gameplay.
- Simplest way to play is trying to finish the level going from left to right without dying.
- Hardest way (in my opinion) would be to take the hardest route, going the fastest possible, collecting everything on your way to the end of the level while not dying of course.
For those who are "lost", just search for Sonic levels on Google and you'll see what is available here for you to have fun (see it as a "fun park") and if nothing is enjoyable for you then this "park" is not for you
Polioliolio
Member
What is going on in this thread.
This is how video games worked. Certainly no one is going to beat the game in one play through, sonny. By nature of the challenge of beating a game, you would end up playing it many times. At some point, you'd be familiar enough with all the stages, hazards, secrets, that you'd be able to successfully move through all the stages to the end of the game. It's possible you may never beat the game.
Waluigilicious
Member
It's not about beating the game though. It's about just speeding through and missing everything because the game is designed for you to go fast but explore at the same time so it's like a conflict within itself.
It was always fun to do both on different playthroughs for me. Added replay value to what are fairly short games. Plus you do need to build up speed to actually reach some areas so I wouldn't call that a conflict.
Panaphonics
Banned
Just run as fast as you can
LinkSlayer64
Member
Glass Shark
Banned
Thank you for the whole post, but particularly this part.
The conclusion I'm coming to from this thread, thanks to the handful of Sonic fans who actually decided to answer in a helpful way instead of being rude and dismissive, is that the core of what people love about the Sonic series does not align at all with the way I enjoy games. I had honestly never considered that Sonic games are about "rewarding you with speed" and replaying over and over again to master levels by getting through them as fast as possible.
When I'm playing a platformer, I want to get through a level with all the collectibles and then move on. I have little to no desire to go back to something I've already beaten. Hell, I think Super Mario World is probably my favorite game of all time, but I've only beaten it once and have very rarely gone back to it since then. Even for my favorite games ever, I just don't believe in going back and playing things over and over.
Score attacks and time trials in games never appealed to me in the slightest. The score counter in Mario games is almost completely vestigal at this point, but I can't imagine ever caring about it even in the old games. Those areas of the screen are practically a blank in my mind. Same for the timer. As long as I beat a level within the time allotted, I'm happy. I couldn't care less what spot I hold on a leaderboard.
I also think it's worth noting that the exact discussion posed by the OP with this thread happened on yesterday's episode of the Giant Bombcast. When people who have been playing and writing about games in a professional sense for decades recognize the dichotomy of gameplay in the Sonic series, it's clearly not just something that "dumb people who grew up with tutorials" are whining about.
BattleScar
Member
I get that the marketing which focuses on Sonic's speed, and the level design that encourages exploration and makes going fast difficult seem at odds with each other.
But let me put it like this. If there were no obstacles and enemies and spikes that got in the way and slowed you down, attaining a high speed would be pointlessly easy. Levels would effectively play themselves and after 2 or 3 levels it would get boring. If this were the case the franchise would be derided for being too shallow.
The obstacles exist precisely to make going fast difficult, so that when you attain a level of competency in using the game's rather complex physics and manage to avoid those obstacles and still go fast, it feels rewarding. Cause you know, it takes skill to go fast.
Now the exploration. That's there for replayability. Before S3K introduced the level select/save feature, if you died and lost all your continues, you'd have to go through all the levels again. Having a design where there are multiple routes and hidden collectibles at least means that each new playthrough offers something new.
If you think that exploration and going fast are at odds with each other, know one thing. You don't need to do both at once. You can blitz through the game as fast as you can and skip all the bullshit just to get to the end on your first run-through. But then on your second playthrough you can try explore a bit. Find those Giant rings so you can unlock the chaos emeralds and get Super Sonic, or unlock the secret ending.
Then later you can try speedrunning. Playing through each level and determining the optimal route and the exact places you need to jump to exploit the physics in exactly the right way to shave those extra few seconds off the level. Mania as a time-attack mode designed for you to do exactly that.
Its all about replayability. The levels are designed to make each replay different to the last. Sure eventually you'll learn all the levels have to offer and know the perfect way to get the fastest time, and at that point you can put the game down forever. But it takes time and skill to do that.
Of course you don't even need to see all those things. You could beat the game once and call it a day. Its up to you. Its nice having the extra options though.
EDIT:
To answer the OP's question. All of those ways of playing are the correct way of playing. You just don't have to do them all at the same time. Play it 2 or 3 or more times and play it differently each time (if you are so inclined) and see which you prefer. Most importantly, try to have fun and you'll get better at it with each successive run.
But let me put it like this. If there were no obstacles and enemies and spikes that got in the way and slowed you down, attaining a high speed would be pointlessly easy. Levels would effectively play themselves and after 2 or 3 levels it would get boring. If this were the case the franchise would be derided for being too shallow.
The obstacles exist precisely to make going fast difficult, so that when you attain a level of competency in using the game's rather complex physics and manage to avoid those obstacles and still go fast, it feels rewarding. Cause you know, it takes skill to go fast.
Now the exploration. That's there for replayability. Before S3K introduced the level select/save feature, if you died and lost all your continues, you'd have to go through all the levels again. Having a design where there are multiple routes and hidden collectibles at least means that each new playthrough offers something new.
If you think that exploration and going fast are at odds with each other, know one thing. You don't need to do both at once. You can blitz through the game as fast as you can and skip all the bullshit just to get to the end on your first run-through. But then on your second playthrough you can try explore a bit. Find those Giant rings so you can unlock the chaos emeralds and get Super Sonic, or unlock the secret ending.
Then later you can try speedrunning. Playing through each level and determining the optimal route and the exact places you need to jump to exploit the physics in exactly the right way to shave those extra few seconds off the level. Mania as a time-attack mode designed for you to do exactly that.
Its all about replayability. The levels are designed to make each replay different to the last. Sure eventually you'll learn all the levels have to offer and know the perfect way to get the fastest time, and at that point you can put the game down forever. But it takes time and skill to do that.
Of course you don't even need to see all those things. You could beat the game once and call it a day. Its up to you. Its nice having the extra options though.
EDIT:
To answer the OP's question. All of those ways of playing are the correct way of playing. You just don't have to do them all at the same time. Play it 2 or 3 or more times and play it differently each time (if you are so inclined) and see which you prefer. Most importantly, try to have fun and you'll get better at it with each successive run.
feint_ruled
Member
It's striking to me that the long thoughtful posts trying to deconstruct the nature of Sonic keep coming up with new angles and theories, whereas the "duh move left to right" brigade are still parroting the exact same one liners as page one.
This
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=246254358&postcount=819
Is a fantastic, wonderful post and provides the kind of deep videogames analysis I have only ever really seen on NeoGAF (and sometimes Eurogamer at its best).
This
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=246254358&postcount=819
Is a fantastic, wonderful post and provides the kind of deep videogames analysis I have only ever really seen on NeoGAF (and sometimes Eurogamer at its best).
A good friend of mine hates Sonic with a passion. He says: "all you do is move to the right and jump". While I don't agree with him on this, I do see where he's coming from.
That said, I bought Mania and realized I had never played as Knuckles - LTTP, I know - and his play style is really different.
That said, I bought Mania and realized I had never played as Knuckles - LTTP, I know - and his play style is really different.
friskykillface
Banned
Does mania have a save feature? That's the only thing I hate about 1 and 2, can't save and need to beat the game in one sitting
I play the game like a baby, I go super slow and try to avoid every enemy x spike because I don't want to lose my rings, I always go for the special stage bonus
I play the game like a baby, I go super slow and try to avoid every enemy x spike because I don't want to lose my rings, I always go for the special stage bonus
LizardKing
Member
The problem with the level design in Sonic games is that the first time you play through a level in a platformer should be the most fun you have playing that level. Having to memorize what is coming next or what path to utilize is not good game design.
Even people defending Sonic in this thread are basically saying, if you want to get the most enjoyment out of it, and want to be able to go fast, you need to practice and learn the levels. That's not good design. Fun games are intuitive not memorized or made fun through repetition.
Even people defending Sonic in this thread are basically saying, if you want to get the most enjoyment out of it, and want to be able to go fast, you need to practice and learn the levels. That's not good design. Fun games are intuitive not memorized or made fun through repetition.
Darkstorne
Member
Exactly what I was thinking. What is this thread?
Personally, I take things slow in 2D Sonic games on my first play throughs of the levels, but consider speed the goal on repeat play throughs once I've learned the tricks, dangers, and shortcuts. I adored Mirror's Edge in 2008 for giving me that original Sonic playstyle for the first time since the Mega Drive days, speed platforming through levels once you've learned them.
There is no specific way to play though. Take it fast or slow, up to you. Play for the story, play for the level design and exploration, play for the speed runs, play for the chaos emerald bonus stages (with an awesome gameplay reward for collecting them all), or play for a specific character's playstyle. You aren't doing it wrong whatever you choose. But complaining about this is literally as dumb as all the "but what do you do in this game?" comments surrounding No Man's Sky.
It's simple: you play it like literally every single other 2D platformer ever.
You go through the level how you see fit on the first run through. If you are a completionist then try to get all the items and kill all the enemies (otherwise just skip those out of the way) and if you like exploration then try to explore as much of the map as possible (otherwise just try to find the critical path). Once you are familiar with the level, usually after beating it a few times (or even once) then you generally start trying to rush through the maps as fast as possible.
After Super Mario Bros. 1, 2D platformers added the ability to sometimes go backwards(!) so make sure you head back now and again whenever you think you might have missed something.
And just like the NES Super Mario Bros. games, there is a timer so make sure you finish the map before that expires.
Just play it like every single other classic 2D platformer. A bunch of us figured this out before we were 10.
You go through the level how you see fit on the first run through. If you are a completionist then try to get all the items and kill all the enemies (otherwise just skip those out of the way) and if you like exploration then try to explore as much of the map as possible (otherwise just try to find the critical path). Once you are familiar with the level, usually after beating it a few times (or even once) then you generally start trying to rush through the maps as fast as possible.
After Super Mario Bros. 1, 2D platformers added the ability to sometimes go backwards(!) so make sure you head back now and again whenever you think you might have missed something.
And just like the NES Super Mario Bros. games, there is a timer so make sure you finish the map before that expires.
Just play it like every single other classic 2D platformer. A bunch of us figured this out before we were 10.
User123456
Member
Literally every single question in the OP can be applied to Mario, Donkey Kong Country or basically any other standard 2D sidescroller.
And the answers are the same as in every single standard 2D sidescroller ever made: If you want to go fast, go fast. If you want to explore and go for collectibles and hidden goods, go for collectibles and hidden goods.
And the answers are the same as in every single standard 2D sidescroller ever made: If you want to go fast, go fast. If you want to explore and go for collectibles and hidden goods, go for collectibles and hidden goods.
Toadthemushroom
Member
I'm enjoying Sonic Mania thus far, and while I didn't play every 2D Sonic game (I've played 1, 2, CD, Advance, Advance 2, and Rush) I can see why some say Mania is basically classic Sonic on steroids. There are some levels which are truly a cut above the rest in their imagination. One level, sees Sonic be turned into stronger, momentum-gaining ice, of which you can break free with good timing.
But it'd be foolish to pretend that Sonic Mania doesn't have the same design hallmarks - both good and bad - of previous Sonics. It is, in essence, a supercharged throwback game, intentionally bringing back the Spirit of early-to-mid-90's Sonic. It does that well.
So yeah, those hallmarks. I've always played Sonic the way I like, which usually involves stumbling around a level to the goal at first, and then, when I do replay the games, trying to optimise that route.
But it's still never felt wholly satisfying to me because succeeding - and mastering - these levels is still a matter of brute-forcing them until you've got the optimum paths, trap/enemy locations and layouts nailed down. If you're trying to be *good* at a first playthrough, far too often are you thrown into peril for reasons outside of your control, despite your reactions and understanding of the physics.
Because Sonic levels tend to pinball you about between level chunk to level chunk at high speeds, you tend to only remember the core mechanics that define a zone (or an act if it's particularly different), than the whole. Levels with significant chunks of verticality and pathways feel particularly disconnected, and again, learning where everything lies and how it's connected is a case of trial-and-error, or brute-forcing the level via replays until you have it nailed down.
I'm sure that's fine for some people but it's not going to be for everyone.
This is why the quote (from a really good post) is particularly important in this context. The words "conceptual elegance" are important here. There's depth to Sonic, but attaining that depth doesn't feel particularly elegant and obvious when you look at platformers in general, particularly momentum-based ones.
But it'd be foolish to pretend that Sonic Mania doesn't have the same design hallmarks - both good and bad - of previous Sonics. It is, in essence, a supercharged throwback game, intentionally bringing back the Spirit of early-to-mid-90's Sonic. It does that well.
So yeah, those hallmarks. I've always played Sonic the way I like, which usually involves stumbling around a level to the goal at first, and then, when I do replay the games, trying to optimise that route.
But it's still never felt wholly satisfying to me because succeeding - and mastering - these levels is still a matter of brute-forcing them until you've got the optimum paths, trap/enemy locations and layouts nailed down. If you're trying to be *good* at a first playthrough, far too often are you thrown into peril for reasons outside of your control, despite your reactions and understanding of the physics.
Because Sonic levels tend to pinball you about between level chunk to level chunk at high speeds, you tend to only remember the core mechanics that define a zone (or an act if it's particularly different), than the whole. Levels with significant chunks of verticality and pathways feel particularly disconnected, and again, learning where everything lies and how it's connected is a case of trial-and-error, or brute-forcing the level via replays until you have it nailed down.
I'm sure that's fine for some people but it's not going to be for everyone.
This is why the quote (from a really good post) is particularly important in this context. The words "conceptual elegance" are important here. There's depth to Sonic, but attaining that depth doesn't feel particularly elegant and obvious when you look at platformers in general, particularly momentum-based ones.
Toadthemushroom
Member
I wouldn't say this applies to Mario at all - World 1-1 in 1985's Super Mario Bros nails down everything you need to know.
Design Club - Super Mario Bros: Level 1-1 - How Super Mario Mastered Level Design
LizardKing
Member
There are not many classic 2D platformers that you can't get the most enjoyment out of on the first play through of a level. Memorization and repetition is not a good basis for level design.
I seem to remember there being many one-time skippable items, events, and sections in Donkey Kong Country and a few in Mario 3.
Also, you're point isn't one that holds for the majority of players. If you want to get 100% then some games require playing a level multiple times. Most people don't give a shit, though.
lensoftruth
Member
Says who?
balladofwindfishes
Member
Rogue-likes are basically an entire genre of memorization and repetition... and there's also old arcade games like Donkey Kong, which are pattern based and essentially perfected via just memorizing layouts and repeating them over and over.
There's nothing inherently bad game design about repetition and memorization.
Dude rolls like a mofo.
Excuse you? Every single Megaman would like to have a word with you. Memorization and repetition are perfectly fine especially if they in cloud twists here and there to keep you on your toes, which mania does fantastically.
LizardKing
Member
Of course there are hidden things. But can you really say you couldn't play the level to the maximum enjoyment the first time? I can't know if I hit this spring and don't control myself I'll go flying into a row of spikes. That's a cheap death. It's not intuitive and you can't do anything about it other than memorizing that it's there. Mario and Donkey Kong are intuitive. You have the chance at surviving because it presents the challenge to you so you can react to it without having to memorize it was there.
Obviously it's an opinion that it's bad game design. But if someone feels that way it's clear to see why Sonic wouldn't be for them. And a lot of people feel that way. It's a legitimate opinion and baffling to see so many people so upset about it. But don't confuse perfecting a game or mastering it with playing through a level with the most enjoyment you are going to get out of it on the first play through. You don't have to be perfect for it to be fun. And banging into shit you can't see and taking the wrong paths even though you can force your way through a level the first time, is not the most enjoyment you can get from it.
Haunted
Member
great fucking post
Toadthemushroom
Member
It depends on how exacting a game's challenges can be. If you're just brute forcing a level or checkpoint until you've nailed down a very specific set of inputs that'll defeat a boss, then I'd argue that can deliver a hollow sense of satisfaction - let's call it relief.
But if the game is giving you a firm-but-fair challenge whereby you're giving enough leeway to be flexible about tackling a super-hard boss, and it's more about your own mastery of the physics and adapting to different situations, I think that's a lot more satisfying.
A good example would be to look at a "Nintendo-made" hard Mario level (let's say the special worlds in NSMB U or Wii) to one of those "super-hard" levels in Mario Maker. There was a good comment on Eurogamer about this actually:
Now as for Sonic, that's not the same thing of course. It's important to note that Sonic level design isn't exacting in the same context since it's not a linear route. You only brute-force a Sonic level to become proficient at it over time, which isn't the same thing. The question is whether players find that satisfying or not, or whether it's a hollow means of mastery.
CookedChocobo
Member
I don't know why there is so much condescending in this thread. 2D Sonic games can be a bit complex, especially to newcomers.
Obviously there's an easy way to play 2D Sonic games, going from point A to point B witbout dying, but there's more to 2D sonics games than that. There's getting the chaos emeralds which requires exploration to find the right/optimal routes to take, and also having a hefty amount of rings on Sonic. Getting the chaos emeralds and the best endings can be quite tedious I think, so let's not be condesending please.
Obviously there's an easy way to play 2D Sonic games, going from point A to point B witbout dying, but there's more to 2D sonics games than that. There's getting the chaos emeralds which requires exploration to find the right/optimal routes to take, and also having a hefty amount of rings on Sonic. Getting the chaos emeralds and the best endings can be quite tedious I think, so let's not be condesending please.