|
|
Post by kirbychu on Sept 15, 2011 12:03:43 GMT -5
The problem is that Sonic games are built on physics. Mario is about running around and jumping, Sonic is about using the game's physics engine to build momentum. Not possible if the physics don't work.
DIMPS' physics engine has Sonic come to a complete hault if he's rolling on a slope. The exact opposite of what's supposed to happen. He's also able to stop and stand upside down inside a loop. If Mario games had physics that bad, you can bet Mario fans would be complaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nester the Lark on Sept 15, 2011 12:23:06 GMT -5
We're opening up a big can of worms here, so let's be careful, eh? I think it's a little disingenuous to insinuate that Mario isn't built on physics. In fact, Super Mario Bros. is arguably one of the first platform games to have consistent physics. Otherwise, you had games with stiff control, awkward jumping, and characters who dropped like rocks if they stepped off a platform. (Castlevania, Ghosts 'N Goblins and even the original Mega Man had issues with this.) The original Sonic the Hedgehog (and a great many other platform games) was built on Mario's example, and took it to the next level (so to speak  ) by emphasizing his momentum. Kirbychu and I have had this discussion before. Sonic 4.1 does not have the same consistent physics as the previous games (at least, not without player involvement), but I don't consider it broken, because I think the levels were designed around the behavior of those mechanics, and in that regard, the game works the way it's supposed to. Except for standing on the wall of a loop, but why would you want to do that? I will not argue, however, that Yuji Naka was a much better programmer.  |
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Sept 15, 2011 13:48:56 GMT -5
I never said the Mario games didn't have physics. I said that the physics don't need to be set in stone for the game to work in the way Sonic does. Mario's physics can be completely different between games and it doesn't hurt the game any. That's not true of Sonic, because the physics are the foundation of the gameplay. Take them away and you don't have a Sonic game any more. You just have a platformer.
Sorry, Nester, but I still don't agree that the physics work at all for Sonic 4. The game was designed entirely to appeal to fans of the first three games. For fans of the first three games it's second nature to start rolling at the top of a loop to build speed. However, in Sonic 4, this causes you to quickly stop instead. It is broken and insane. Rolling is the cornerstone of Sonic's gameplay. It's the reason he was designed as a hedgehog. To have it so ridiculously broken is completely inexcusable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nester the Lark on Sept 15, 2011 15:05:04 GMT -5
I misinterpreted your statement about Mario. Sorry about that.
And I do think you make good points about Sonic 4.1, but what can I say? I enjoyed the game, and it worked for me.
Would it be fair to say that the physics in Sonic 4.1 are similar to the reversed buttons in the Mega Man Anniversary Collection on the GameCube (which I know wasn't released in Europe, but for sake of argument) in that the games worked as they were supposed to, but simply went against the instincts of long-time players?
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Sept 15, 2011 16:02:08 GMT -5
Would it be fair to say that the physics in Sonic 4.1 are similar to the reversed buttons in the Mega Man Anniversary Collection on the GameCube (which I know wasn't released in Europe, but for sake of argument) in that the games worked as they were supposed to, but simply went against the instincts of long-time players? I think, if the Mega Buster caused Mega Man to take damage rather than deal it, it would be a fair comparison.  The problem is more that an actual game feature functions in the opposite way than intended rather than the controls just being confusing. I can't really think of anything else similar in another game... It'd be like Mario's jump causing him to go underground instead of up, or Kirby's inhale pushing enemies away instead of sucking them in. I'm pretty sure I said this last time we talked about this, but... as a stand-alone game, taken entirely out of context, I do think Sonic 4 was a good game. I enjoyed it on that level. However, by calling itself Sonic 4, it is telling us that we must view it in context. And in context it is a horrible mess of a sequel, which takes all the best things about the previous games and thoroughly and mercilessly destroys them. With its title and through its marketing it promises us an adventure to surpass Sonic 1, 2 and 3. What it delivered, in my opinion, was a very souless product, copying scenery and enemies directly from the old games in an attempt to ride a wave of nostalgia to success without effort. Luckily, from what I've played of Generations, it's surpassing all the expectations Sonic 4 failed to live up to. So I now have high hopes for Episode 2. Especially knowing that they're making more effort to tie it into the classic games' stories next time. Rant over, and I apologise in advance. |
|
|
|
Post by Nester the Lark on Sept 15, 2011 16:29:52 GMT -5
No, I understand what you're saying, and it's valid.
And actually, the way you put it, the Mega Man comparison is accurate. Players were used to A=jump and B=shoot, but when those functions switched positions, suddenly those players were shooting when they intended to jump, and vice versa, causing a lot of unintended actions, such as jumping into enemies and running into pits (while shooting). Some people couldn't adjust to that and called the controls "broken."
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Sept 15, 2011 17:06:41 GMT -5
I suppose, but Sonic 4's roll is broken whether you're used to the old controls or not. It also, obviously, affects the Spin Dash negatively, making the move pretty pointless. Talking about Sonic 4 is very strange for me. I'm so used to defending Sonic games. |
|
Beau Skunk
Pikpik Carrot
Do a barrel roll!
Posts: 38 
|
Post by Beau Skunk on Sept 17, 2011 12:38:46 GMT -5
I don't know, I think Sonic-fans obsess to much over things like "physics," and "green eyes" personally. (Yes, people seriously have used "green eyes" as a complaint about Sonic games.) Before Sonic 4 came out, I saw some of them complain about how the springs work for cryin' out loud, (just by looking at video) wich I think is a bit overdoing it.
I don't think DIMPS are bad developers though. (In fact, if you ask me, they made some of the more enjoyable Sonic games in the past 5 years.)
"Sonic Advance" for GBA is proof that DIMPS can recreate a simular physics engine to the original Sega Genesis Sonic games. So I suppose it is baffling that they couldn't do it with Sonic 4. (Though, keep in mind Sega & Sonic Team are involved with the games, as well. So DIMPS isn't the only one to blame.)
Sure the physics arn't perfect, but I think people who say Sonic 4:Ep.1 is "unplayable" are overreacting.
In terms of physics, I felt Mario didn't move around as smoothly in NewSMB(DS) & NewSMBWii as he did in SMB3 & SMW personally, but I still loved those game personally.
If Sonic fans could get out of their "rose-colored nostalgia" goggles for one second, then maybe they would enjoy Sonic 4. (Do they want Sega to go back to making gimmicky games like "Black Knight" instead? Not saying, I don't enjoy some of them BTW.)
Still, with the critiques/complaints, I'm sure Sega & DIMPS will use them to make Episode 2 better.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Sept 17, 2011 14:37:44 GMT -5
The dislike over Sonic 4 has nothing to do with nostalgia... from a nostalgia point of view, Sonic 4 was exactly what Sonic fans wanted - a game that contains nothing created after 1994.
Unfortunately Sonic 4 is to the 2D games what Sonic 2006 is to the 3D ones. A rush job that was never properly finished. People dislike it because it's poorly programmed, not because they hate green eyes (although there are still people who dislike the eyes, but they've mostly become a joke these days).
It seems like Sonic fans are more obssessive over it than Mario fans because Mario fans have no reason to complain. Nintendo doesn't let low quality games on the market. Mario games are consistantly the most polished games available on any format.
|
|
Beau Skunk
Pikpik Carrot
Do a barrel roll!
Posts: 38
|
Post by Beau Skunk on Sept 18, 2011 0:32:01 GMT -5
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean every Mario game is great, or well-loved either. I've seen people say they hate certain Mario games to. (Like Super Mario Sunshine for instance, wich I liked personally.) Doesn't make them bad though, and Nintendo has also been guilty of rushing some games to market. In England they had to recall a bunch of copies of Super Paper Mario, due to a freeze-up glitche in them.
And actually, you'd be surprised. I've seen Sonic fans nit-pick very subtle-pointless things about Sonic 4 unrelated to the gameplay itself. I've seen them complain about the graphics not being a rehash of the 16-bit games, and such before. Some even hate-on the game without ever playing it, and just go off of low-quality internet videos.
But I wouldn't say Sonic 4 is as "universally-hated" as Sonic 2006 is. (And nowhere near as bad, if you ask me.)
Sonic 4:Ep.1 is actually among the top selling WiiWare games.
|
|
|
|
Post by 8bitretroshit on Sept 18, 2011 5:06:12 GMT -5
This article's ontopicIt's a bit dramatic but the point it's making is how a lot of nitpicky fans have different ideas what makes Sonic 'good again' And I have to admit, I never really bothered with the handheld games either despite the good reviews they've been getting (mostly because I thought Sonic Advance 2 was kind of crap), so maybe I should give those a second chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Sept 18, 2011 6:13:23 GMT -5
I'm well aware of how terrible the Sonic fanbase is. That's why I don't actually talk to anybody who's part of it. Sonic 4 is actually one of the few games where the main complaints are actually completely justified, though. I've played every game with the Sonic name on it (including that arcade one that nobody else seems to have played), and of all of them it's the only one I couldn't enjoy at all. Even Sonic 2006, as bad a game as it is, had a fairly decent story and some interesting stages. Sonic 4 has no story, no interesting places, and subpar gameplay. Those things all add up to a giant "meh" to me. It's actually probably the only time in Sonic history that the pro-game people seem to be grasping at straws more than the anti-game people. We always hear "The game isn't meant to be like the classics, it's meant to be a new game!" while the game is named for the classics, contains no stages, enemies or bosses that aren't taken straight from the classics, and has the tagline "The sequel you've waited 16 years to see!". You can try your best to make excuses, but the game is trying very, very, very hard to be like the classics. It just failed. Also, Sonic 4 recently passed 1 million units sold. Sonic 2006 sold almost 2 million. And that's not counting second-hand sales, which don't exist for Sonic 4. So... sales are not really linked to quality. |
|
Beau Skunk
Pikpik Carrot
Do a barrel roll!
Posts: 38
|
Post by Beau Skunk on Sept 18, 2011 12:59:50 GMT -5
I dunno, you act like everyone hates this game when they don't. Even some critics/naysayers of the game admitted it's better then some other Sonic games we've had on the market lately, and it had some nice homages to the old games. (Like the bosses, and stuff.) But if you can't enjoy the game at all, then suit yourself. I couldn't enjoy anything about "Sonic and the Secret Rings" personally, aside from the Mario Party-esc multiplayer mode.
I'm not saying Sonic 4:Ep.1 is "perfect," I admit it's flawed, (not to mention, overpriced for such a short game, you can get longer VC/WiiWare games for a third of the price) but I just don't think it's "the worst game ever made," and flaws aside, it's a step in the right direction, I felt.
The whole purpose to making it "episodic" was because Sega, is taking fan critiques/complaints into consideration, use them to make "Episode 2" much better.
(And hopefully not as rushed. Sega has a bad habit of rushing games, even back in the Genesis days. That's partially the reason why Sonic 3 was split into 2 separate games Sonic 3 and S&K.)
Actually, I thought the "lack of story" was one of the strong points personally. I like "story," and cinama scenes as much as anyone, but when there's tons of them, or you have to sit through an unskippable 15-minute one before you can start playing the game, then it gets kinda tedious. (Especially in a more "fast-paced" game like Sonic.) Back when it first happened in "Sonic Adventure 1 & 2," it was cool to have a Sonic game with a more progressing story, cinama-scenes, and voice-acting, (sense it wasn't done before that) but now it's starting to feel done to often when they do it in every game. (And it's actually soured some long-time fans to.)
After having so many Sonic games lately rely so heavily on story, and a cinamatic presentation, it was kinda a nice change of pace to have a more simple story like the older games.
Sonic 1 had no story or story cinama-scenes aside from "Sonic must stop Dr. Robotnik from taking over the world," and it's still a popular game to this day. It's as simple as the Mario series' "save the Princess/Mushroom Kingdom" plots.
So I never really liked using "story" as a viable critique on a game personally.
No matter how "good" a game's story is, it can't make me enjoy a truelly bad game personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Sept 18, 2011 14:20:18 GMT -5
I dunno, you act like everyone hates this game when they don't. You're the second person I've ever heard of really liking it. The first being Nester. I guess we just move in different circles. but I just don't think it's "the worst game ever made," and flaws aside, it's a step in the right direction, I felt. Hey, I never said it was the worst game ever made. Don't put words in my mouth. It's not even the worst Sonic game, but it's the most soulless one, and that's why I can't enjoy it. I have to ask, though, what part of it was a step in the right direction? I honestly can't see anything new that Sega did with Sonic 4. Everything is just ripped straight from an older game and lazily slapped together. Or is that what you're into? Actually, I thought the "lack of story" was one of the strong points personally. I like "story," and cinama scenes as much as anyone, but when there's tons of them, or you have to sit through an unskippable 15-minute one before you can start playing the game, then it gets kinda tedious. (Especially in a more "fast-paced" game like Sonic.) Back when it first happened in "Sonic Adventure 1 & 2," it was cool to have a Sonic game with a more progressing story, cinama-scenes, and voice-acting, (sense it wasn't done before that) but now it's starting to feel done to often when they do it in every game. (And it's actually soured some long-time fans to.) Yes, I want 15-minute unskippable cutscenes in the game. That is exactly what I said. You've mastered that reading thing. I just wanted Sonic 4 to have a story. It's the only game in the entire series without one. Sonic 1 has the whole discovery of South Island and race for the Chaos Emeralds thing, Sonic 2 has Sonic's meeting with Tails and the launch and initial destruction of the Death Egg, Sonic 3 & Knuckles has the Death Egg's crash landing on Angel Island leading to Knuckles' deception, the panicked relaunching of the unfinished Death Egg, its crash on top of Lava Reef, the stealing of the Master Emerald, the showdown with Mecha Sonic and the eventual final destruction of the Death Egg. Whew! That's a lot of story! Sonic 4 has... I dunno, Eggman is there and Sonic fights him for undisclosed reasons? Whoa, epic. Sonic 4's story is, plain and simple, "You liked Sonic 1-3, and we like money! We slapped together this game on the Sonic Rush engine and filled it with nothing but things you've seen before. We know you're dumb enough to pay us for this. Please line our pockets with your dollars now." I think we should just end this conversation here because, to be perfectly honest, the more you try to convince me that Sonic 4 is a good game, the more I start to hate it. Sorry! I played the game to death, and this is the opinion I came away with. If you like it, more power to ya, but you're not going to change my mind. Sonic 4 was lazy, corporate-minded cash whoring, and I'm not falling for it. |
|
Beau Skunk
Pikpik Carrot
Do a barrel roll!
Posts: 38
|
Post by Beau Skunk on Sept 18, 2011 19:41:34 GMT -5
You're the second person I've ever heard of really liking it. The first being Nester. I guess we just move in different circles. When did I say I liked the game that much? Honestly I don't even own it, and I don't really wanna. I'd rather wait for Episode 2 to come out, and I can understand some of your reasons for disliking it. I'm just saying people nit-picked it to much, (even before it was released, or without ever playing it) and not just nit-picking things that need to be nit-picked. (Like people were saying the game is "ruined forever" for not using the old chubby Sonic design.) That's all, I wasn't targetting you, I guess I didn't make that clear enough. I'm not attacking your opinions, I'm not trying to convince you to love the game, I'm not saying it's the "bestest" Sonic game ever. I guess I didn't make that clear. I'm sorry. I said you're "acting" like it is, I didn't say you said you said it was. Calm down. Lessee, simple action game, with a mix of platforming, and speed segments. No lame gimmicks, no swords, no warehogs, or other gimmicks. (Though, some gimmicks were ok.) I admit though, it's not that great a game, and not as good as the older ones (or some newer ones for that matter.) I guess I didn't emphesize my negative opinions on it as well during our discussion. And like I said it was to short for a $15 game. I never accused you of saying that, you're misreading my posts, and getting waaay to defensive, dude. I was just saying I don't like that in games, and games don't need to rely to heavilly on story all the time, that's all. It has one, it goes, (according to Wiki) "After Sonic manages to destroy Doctor Eggman's space station, he decides it is time to take a much deserved break. After parting with his companions Tails and Knuckles, Sonic sets off to explore new territories alone.
However, unbeknownst to him, his nemesis, Dr. Eggman, has survived their last encounter, and has revisited and improved some of his very best robotic creations in another attempt to defeat Sonic.[1] Sonic must travel through a variety of zones to defeat Dr. Eggman once again."And like I said, story isn't the most important thing to a game. Most Mario games just rely on "Mario must save the Princess from Bowser" plots, and that's worked fine for them, while Sonic relies on "Sonic must save the world from Dr. Eggman, or the monster-of-the-week." Suit yourself, but I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just giving my opinions as well. Didn't I say several times it wasn't that great a game? Didn't I say I admit it was flawed to? You're being way to overly-sensative, no offense. Let's just end this discussion sense all it's doing is making you angry. I'm sorry if I have. |
|
) by emphasizing his momentum.
