Sonic the Hedgehog 4

[Nester the Lark]

I liked it quite a bit.

I honestly don't think the controls and physics are "broken" (and the way the term is thrown around leads me to suspect that a lot of people don't understand what it means in regards to software). Granted, they do kind of work against the instincts of Sonic veterans, but on its own, Sonic 4 plays very well. It simply requires the player to learn new skills and reflexes.

Case in point:


What really struck me as odd with the game, tho, is the choices of what elements Sonic Team/Dimps decided to update versus those they decided keep retro. For instance, I think a lot of people wanted it to play like the Genesis/Mega Drive games, but with new level themes. Instead, we got the opposite, which does seem like a strange direction to go in.

[Manspeed]

Yeah um, that's basically what I was trying to say a page ago. The title Sonic 4 implies that it's a continuation of the first three games, not a new game with a bunch of recycled level art.

[kirbychu]

Yes, that's what I was saying back there, too.

Rolling is definitely broken physics, though. There's no other word for it. In Sonic 4, if you roll, you will always quickly come to a stop, even if you're on a slope. That's broken physics - it is impossible for a ball to stop rolling on a slope. There's also the fact that if you spin dash off of a ledge, you will instantly come to a complete stop when you leave the ground. That's ridiculous. I refuse to believe either of those were deliberate design choices. They're just broken physics.

The game plays exactly like Sonic Rush without the boost, which isn't necessarily bad, but isn't what they told us we were getting. They went on at length about this game being a return to the mometum-based gameplay of the original games, but in fact it's just a return to the stages of them. It's impossible to build and maintain momentum in Sonic 4, because the physics glitch out too often.

Of course, there's no actual need to build any momentum, since any areas you'd expect to need speed to get through are actually easily possible to get through slowly anyway, to the point that you can actually stop and stand around on vertical surfaces and loops.

[8bitretroshit]

Ha! It's Sonic 360 all over again

[Nester the Lark]

Oct 23, 2010 5:48:08 GMT -5 kirbychu said:

Yes, that's what I was saying back there, too.

Rolling is definitely broken physics, though. There's no other word for it. In Sonic 4, if you roll, you will always quickly come to a stop, even if you're on a slope. That's broken physics - it is impossible for a ball to stop rolling on a slope. There's also the fact that if you spin dash off of a ledge, you will instantly come to a complete stop when you leave the ground. That's ridiculous. I refuse to believe either of those were deliberate design choices. They're just broken physics.

The game plays exactly like Sonic Rush without the boost, which isn't necessarily bad, but isn't what they told us we were getting. They went on at length about this game being a return to the mometum-based gameplay of the original games, but in fact it's just a return to the stages of them. It's impossible to build and maintain momentum in Sonic 4, because the physics glitch out too often.

Of course, there's no actual need to build any momentum, since any areas you'd expect to need speed to get through are actually easily possible to get through slowly anyway, to the point that you can actually stop and stand around on vertical surfaces and loops.

I've never played Sonic Rush, so I can't make a comparison. But haven't you kind of addressed your own point? Rolling doesn't have the momentum that it did before (unless you count the way Super Sonic handled in old games), yet concessions were made with leniency in Sonic's running.

To me, "broken" means that thru either faulty programming or design, the game is unable to be played the way it was intended to be played, but I never felt that was the case with Sonic 4. The levels seemed pretty clearly designed around the controls.

It behaves differently than the original games, to be sure, but I don't think that makes it bad or broken. It's just not what fans are used to. I don't know if this is a good comparison, but it reminds me of the reversed button controls in the GameCube version of Mega Man Anniversary Collection. Many fans called it "broken," but the games actually play just fine. It just wasn't what they were used to, and they either couldn't (or wouldn't) adjust. Same difference with Sonic 4, perhaps. I think it just requires a different set of skills than the original games did, yet fans have a tendency to want to play it as if it were Sonic 3.

In other words, the game isn't broken; you are.

Whether it was a good design choice is another matter. But I very much enjoyed Sonic 4 for what it is.

[kirbychu]

It was intended to be played the same way as the classics, which is impossible.

I'll quote one of the Sonic Stadium editors:

"The game brings a new meaning to the phrase “hold right to win.” While that phrase embodied minimal player input due to lame, speed-based level design with games like Sonic Rush, Sonic 4 redefines it as “hold right to not glitch the game.”"

I wouldn't say it requires a different skillset than the old games... I wouldn't say it requires a skillset at all. I got through the game having only died twice (both times because I dared to leave the set path and ran into a glitch), and with 138 lives. The game was insanely easy.

The point is, the game is supposed to be "Sonic the Hedgehog 4", not "Sonic Rush 3". They've attempted to reconstruct the engine from Sonic 1-3, but they've failed pretty miserably. It's amazing it was okayed by the QA testers with the sheer number of issues in there.

If you think it's great that you can have Sonic fall asleep on the ceiling, or that skidding while in a loop gets you stuck skidding in the loop, or that rolling actually literally does nothing useful any more, then more power to you. But it's pretty ignorant to suggest that these glitches are the fans' fault, or that they're just "a different way to play". They're glitches, and they're bad ones.

[Nester the Lark]

Well, I can only speak for myself. I never encountered any of those glitches. (Not that the classic Sonic games weren't loaded with glitches. The Sonic 3 instruction manual even mentions them and tries to excuse them. Getting stuck in a wall because you were running too fast or fell through the floor is bad no matter which Sonic game you're playing.)

Obviously fans are not responsible for the existence of glitches. I'm just saying I think Sonic 4 is intended to be played like Sonic 4, which is different than Sonic 1-K. Whether or not that's appropriate is another issue.

[kirbychu]

It'd be different if this game were Sonic Dash or something, but I think you're missing the entire point of this game. It's supposed to be the triumphunt return of the classic-style 2D gameplay. There is no confusion about this - it's called Sonic the Hedgehog 4. As the game's own product description says, it's "The sequel you've waited 16 years to see!" It should be judged alongside Sonic 1-3, because this is the claim the game is making. Sonic 1-3 were so popular (and remain so popular to this day) because of their amazing momentum physics, and the fans were promised a return to that.

What they've given us instead is the same momentum-free gameplay we've already seen in Sonic Advance 1-3, Sonic Rush, Sonic Rush Adventure and Sonic Rivals 1 & 2. So hardly the sequel we've been waiting 16 years for.

Honestly, I enjoyed the game originally, but I was aware that it's flaws were huge and glaring. People saying "the game has no flaws, it is just different!!!" is making me more and more hostile towards the game itself.

[Nester the Lark]

Well, I understand that the game can't (and never could) get away without being compared to the classic games, all because of the number in the title. The game does have flaws, (so do the classic games) and it's different. That's a double whammy. But even if the game were "flawless", being different would still be flaw enough because it's called "Sonic 4."

It's not unreasonable to take that context into consideration. Just be careful how much weight it gets. For me, I'd rather judge the game more than the title.

And please don't let my perspective sour you on the game. Honestly, I enjoy hearing your opinions as a Sonic fan. You always have an interesting perspective on the series. I didn't want to be the one that "tainted" you.

[Manspeed]

If you have to judge the game by itself, it could be considered equally bad since it's basically just four worlds of recycled level art, recycled enemies, recycled bosses, recycled power-ups, no difficulty progression (since you can pick any stage you want in any order), and music with grating MIDI instrumentals.

If you were to take all of that and combine it with the aforementioned flaws of backward physics, pointless boosters, automatic springs and Homing Attack chains, then compare it to the original trilogy that it claims to be built on, the whole thing looks like a goddamn mess. That is not worth 15 US dollars.

[kirbychu]

Oct 23, 2010 17:50:48 GMT -5 Nester the Lark said:

And please don't let my perspective sour you on the game. Honestly, I enjoy hearing your opinions as a Sonic fan. You always have an interesting perspective on the series. I didn't want to be the one that "tainted" you.

That was a stupid thing for me to say, and it's only half true. Apparently I wasn't thinking straight when I typed it.

The problem is that I have a foot in each camp. I like the game a lot, but it could be a lot better. And it should control a lot more like the originals, because really, the only difference it'd make if it did would be that the game would be more fun to play. And I'm hoping all the fan bitching gets through to Sega so that episode 2 might be a lot better.

But it's all the arguing that makes me feel bitter towards the game. That's how I always end up feeling, which is why I avoid Sonic forums these days.

[Nester the Lark]

Oct 23, 2010 18:53:32 GMT -5 kirbychu said:

But it's all the arguing that makes me feel bitter towards the game. That's how I always end up feeling, which is why I avoid Sonic forums these days.

I'm sorry. I didn't meant for this debate to rile you up. But I wouldn't have engaged it if I didn't respect your opinions.

[kirbychu]

No no, this one hasn't riled me up. I was still riled up from ones elsewhere. I was just trying to get across the reasons why a lot of the fans are so upset by this game, 'cause for once the reasons are actually pretty valid (in my opinion, anyway).

But I was being a total dick about it, so I apologise. I like the game for what it is, and I'm looking forward to episode 2 (Metal Sonic, woo!).

I'm looking forward to Sonic Colours more, though.

[Nester the Lark]

Well, we both liked it. I think we just disagree on whether it qualifies as "broken," but let's not restart that. It wouldn't make a difference.

I am wondering, tho, which platform you played the game on. I've played the Wii version since it came out, and I've never encountered any of the issues mentioned (other than how Sonic handles). So, I was wondering if, perhaps, there are glitches on one platform that aren't on another. That would be really weird, but the Wii version apparently has different music, so maybe there are other differences, too.

[kirbychu]

I played it on the 360, but I've seen all the major glitches recreated in the Wii version, too. You won't come across most of them if you rarely Spin Dash or roll, or if you just follow the path marked out by the booster pads.

Apparently the music is slightly different in the Wii version because it uses MIDI files to reduce the download size. I haven't heard any of it, so I don't know quite how different it is.