It's not. It just got off on the wrong foot with SA1 and never recovered. If they made 3d sonic games that were more like Sonic R with ball-rolling physics like Super Monkey Ball, or Marble Madness, Or Glover, or Morph Ball Samus from Metroid Prime, or the Mario Galaxy mini-game where he balances on a ball, they could have made a fun action-packed Sonic game. They didn't. They fricked it up, and autistic 3D Sonic zoomers won't let it change, or even acknowledged that there is better way.
>Saturn game released in 1994 or 1995 >fully 3D models >first stage is 2D side scrolling per usual >you do one of the loop de loop and now put into a tunnel >camera switches behind Sonic's back like Crash bandicoot >next stage is another 2D level >stage after that starts 2D but then another loop de loop transition to an open field, like Sonic Jam's 3D sections
How hard is this to do? This isn't far from what Crash did. If they released this around 1995 it would be seen as a classic.
>How hard is this to do? This isn't far from what Crash did. If they released this around 1995 it would be seen as a classic.
Sega fans believe Sonic wasn't needed.
i think the genesis sonic games are fine. are they as good as mario? no. the "hold right to win" criticism gets close to what the actual problem is. while you're zooming, you're not timing jumps or anything like that, most of the time. you zoom until you stop, then you might go in the air and in order to get 1ups, shields, more rings, you're trying to make sure you land in the right place.
despite this, the music is great, the visuals are cool, and sonic's 'tude is a nice change from mario. a problem i had with nintendo back in the day is they were way too conservative with their values. in the end, they had the right idea as far as making their games memorable, truly fun, and stand the test of time. you couldn't PAY me to replay sonic 1 and pretend i enjoy it now.
there are a lot of things you could do to make sonic's fundamental gameplay fun. see: freedom planet. i don't approve of furshit, but i believe that game started out as a sonic game, but due to copyright bullshit it wasn't able continue being a sonic game. but that kind of gameplay with sonic is a good place to start.
after you hammer out the core gameplay of what sonic is, i think the rest would be much easier to translate into 3d. i think the sonic adventure games are massively overrated, but hey--the visuals and the music and the "overall vibe" was appealing back then, so people like it. notretro, but i think games like sonic generations play adequately. great? hell no. but for a 5 dollar steam game? why not?
>you couldn't PAY me to replay sonic 1 and pretend i enjoy it now.
Holy cope on a koopa troopah. You sound moronic. I'm convinced everyone who can't grasp the concept of sonic levels also struggle to use tank controls and they all happen to be nintendrones
>What's there to grasp.
You mean you forgot already? It's literally 2 posts above mine. The level design is to hard for you to grasp. You gotta go fast, sure but even race cars slowdown to take turns and you need to know what your doing.
You're basically saying >"sonic sucks because I can't master it's speede mechanics on my first playthrough, or subsequent playthroughs, because I refuse to learn how the game works, therefore it's shit
That's what you sound like. And tank controls always filter the midwits.
yes, you have to master the speed mechanics in sonic, but my argument is about versatility/strategic depth in gameplay. we're not talking about difficulty, skill. we're talking about the nature of the game design itself.
mario gives you more options and isn't as linear. like i said, sonic is fine, but i find mario gives you more variety throughout the levels. and i think that makes most mario games better than most sonic games.
>mario gives you more options and isn't as linear.
Not him but how you can possibly think this. The physics in Sonic are hugely more complex, every zone has a completely new set of gimmicks and enemies, zone change every two levels unlike Mario which will happily repeat a world (usually just a background theme) 10 or so times, and those levels typically do a lot less and are much more square platformer style levels. The only thing I can really say in favor of Mario here is some like SMW have hidden exits and things that don't really have a parallel in Sonic, except maybe 3 with hidden rings.
But honesetly, in what world does Mario have more depth in its physics/gameplay/level design than Sonic? Most of the games have three or four basic level categories that the entire game follows and just reuse hazards/gimmicks. World 8 is just a harder version of World 1 most of the time.
7 months ago
Anonymous
i think it's a perfectly valid point that sonic wins in terms of stage variety. and yeah, you could boil it down to mario "recycling" the same gameplay with increasing difficulty.
but, let's talk about the gameplay. and we'll go with smw since it's in the same era. defeat an enemy in sonic, and the enemy is just done. defeat an enemy in smw, and you can pick up the shell/enemy and throw it at others. do this in a specific way, and you get rewarded by multiple kills in a row. you can also use enemies as platforms to jump off of. sonic also has nothing like bricks in mario--so there's no situation where rings become platforms, nor can they ever be used to throw at enemies. i'm not saying sonic has to play exactly like mario, just that i think mario fundamentally has more varied and interesting gameplay.
sonic COULD have this kind of gameplay, perhaps focused around movement, but that just wasn't what sega was doing.
>like i said, sonic is fine, but i find mario gives you more variety throughout the levels. and i think that makes most mario games better than most sonic games. >you couldn't PAY me to replay sonic 1 and pretend i enjoy it now.
eh. It's subjective. I don't think I'd replay mario 1 today, I'd much rather enjoy sonic 1 which has better music and free-er levels and you jumping on blocks and goomba is kinda repetitive.
I guess I could accept that mario has more potential. Sonic has the fun of exploring level routes and stuff, but ultimately the gameplay of sonic caps at freedom planet. It's that. mario1 is simple but by smw you have clouds, climbing plants, yoshi... The gameplay isn't about physics meaning you could add anything to it and it works. Base sonic is complex but to add something you first consider if it goes well with the existing physics.
tldr; just my ramblings. The games are different and its apples and oranges.
The gameplay runs circles around 2D Mario. You lost me in the second sentence. They are good but comparatively much more basic and your criticism of the gameplay seems to stem from a personal issue of being bad at it rather than a design problem.
Because "going fast" was a reward for being good at the 2d games. "Going fast" is cinematic in the 3d games.
The 2d games were designed to frick you over, if all you did was hold right. You had to know when to jump, and when to run. The 3d games have long stretches of just running, for the cinematic "feel" of "going fast". There's only a few times that I can remember where the 3d games managed to create the "going fast" feeling, and it was usually during sections that they restricted an axis of movement.
>it was the peak of the 3D craze >yet 3D was new thing for devs >turns out sonic team sucks at it >and the arrogance of sega in general which led to most of their failures
Japanese people perceive the world as flat 2D space. This is evidenced in their art and games—they always gravitate to 2D, be it anime or manga. Japanese language doesn't even have the word for "depth", this is an alien concept to them. PS1 literally didn't have Z-buffer for this reason. Nintendo had Argonaut explain to them how 3D space worked to create Mario 64. Sega didn't have these resources, so they just imagined what 3D space would feel like to a person.
The truth is. Sega had given up on sonic by the Saturn and sonic adventure was a last ditch effort from sonic team to lure in as many customers as possible, not just sonic fans. By doing so they destroyed the legacy of sonic and I tried the cancer of nu-sonic. Similar to final fantasy.
In theory, it isn't. Sonic Team aren't good at their job.
Super Monkey Ball is a much better proof of concept. Any level in that game where you accelerate down hill completely captures the feel of what Sonic aught to be in 3D. They should have taken that engine, and done something with it.
>want to go fast >this means either designing long stretches of runway like the wind tornado where youre jsut running down a track, or fixed angles like running down a building or running from the truck where you cant see whats in front of you >also ruins combat because if youre going fast and theres plenty of space around you(as opposed to restricted to a 2D plane) you can just blow by the enemy by simply circumventing it or jumping over it. So the enemies become an obstacle rather than a threat, and you either try and fail horribly to fix it by giving them huge healthbars(heroes) or line them in a row(colors/unleashed/generations)
Along the way some real fricking idiots started making big decisions for the series.
Like I don't know why the hell thought that mechanics like enemy lockon or rail grinding would be good ideas, it's like someone didn't get the idea that the players should be made to feel like they're meaningfully participating in gameplay.
Also the melodramaic plots, cringe voice acting, furry pandering and all the other anime bullshit.
>enemy lockon
because fighting enemies in 3D otherwise is terrible. It was blatantly obvious in 3D blast and should be obvious to anyone with even the smallest understanding of depth perception
>give enemies large hitboxes >let Sonic build up speed, drop into a ball, and blow through them like bowling pins
Literally why would that not have worked, and been fun as hell?
nothing
Was about to say. There's no reason why 3D Sonic shouldn't be better than 2D.
Being fast.
Sonic barely worked in 2D to begin with.
It's not. It just got off on the wrong foot with SA1 and never recovered. If they made 3d sonic games that were more like Sonic R with ball-rolling physics like Super Monkey Ball, or Marble Madness, Or Glover, or Morph Ball Samus from Metroid Prime, or the Mario Galaxy mini-game where he balances on a ball, they could have made a fun action-packed Sonic game. They didn't. They fricked it up, and autistic 3D Sonic zoomers won't let it change, or even acknowledged that there is better way.
SA1 has dogshit "physics" and you know it.
thats not a platformer though
You add a jump button.
>Saturn game released in 1994 or 1995
>fully 3D models
>first stage is 2D side scrolling per usual
>you do one of the loop de loop and now put into a tunnel
>camera switches behind Sonic's back like Crash bandicoot
>next stage is another 2D level
>stage after that starts 2D but then another loop de loop transition to an open field, like Sonic Jam's 3D sections
How hard is this to do? This isn't far from what Crash did. If they released this around 1995 it would be seen as a classic.
>How hard is this to do? This isn't far from what Crash did. If they released this around 1995 it would be seen as a classic.
Sega fans believe Sonic wasn't needed.
Being bad
that took too long
site needs a sonic autism containment board.
we need /fast/
/vp/ is garbage and didn't contain shit.
It's a walking groomer board now.
They got it right the first time and then for some reason kept starting over with worse formulas and level design
Sega doesn't have marketing as good as nintendo to trick people into thinking the games are good
SEGA didn't hire european space sim dev to make it.
only answer ITT
>Argonaut Sonic
VGH
what could have been
What are you talking about?
They should have put this on the 32X
Literally the perfect system for it.
I know what made it easier.
>Toilet """""humor"""""
She makes me HARDER though, get it? Haha.
Because there were rough trannies into the third dimension
here's my thing.
i think the genesis sonic games are fine. are they as good as mario? no. the "hold right to win" criticism gets close to what the actual problem is. while you're zooming, you're not timing jumps or anything like that, most of the time. you zoom until you stop, then you might go in the air and in order to get 1ups, shields, more rings, you're trying to make sure you land in the right place.
despite this, the music is great, the visuals are cool, and sonic's 'tude is a nice change from mario. a problem i had with nintendo back in the day is they were way too conservative with their values. in the end, they had the right idea as far as making their games memorable, truly fun, and stand the test of time. you couldn't PAY me to replay sonic 1 and pretend i enjoy it now.
there are a lot of things you could do to make sonic's fundamental gameplay fun. see: freedom planet. i don't approve of furshit, but i believe that game started out as a sonic game, but due to copyright bullshit it wasn't able continue being a sonic game. but that kind of gameplay with sonic is a good place to start.
after you hammer out the core gameplay of what sonic is, i think the rest would be much easier to translate into 3d. i think the sonic adventure games are massively overrated, but hey--the visuals and the music and the "overall vibe" was appealing back then, so people like it. notretro, but i think games like sonic generations play adequately. great? hell no. but for a 5 dollar steam game? why not?
>you couldn't PAY me to replay sonic 1 and pretend i enjoy it now.
Holy cope on a koopa troopah. You sound moronic. I'm convinced everyone who can't grasp the concept of sonic levels also struggle to use tank controls and they all happen to be nintendrones
what's there to grasp? and tank controls suck.
>What's there to grasp.
You mean you forgot already? It's literally 2 posts above mine. The level design is to hard for you to grasp. You gotta go fast, sure but even race cars slowdown to take turns and you need to know what your doing.
You're basically saying
>"sonic sucks because I can't master it's speede mechanics on my first playthrough, or subsequent playthroughs, because I refuse to learn how the game works, therefore it's shit
That's what you sound like. And tank controls always filter the midwits.
yes, you have to master the speed mechanics in sonic, but my argument is about versatility/strategic depth in gameplay. we're not talking about difficulty, skill. we're talking about the nature of the game design itself.
mario gives you more options and isn't as linear. like i said, sonic is fine, but i find mario gives you more variety throughout the levels. and i think that makes most mario games better than most sonic games.
mario doesn't have slope jumping
>mario gives you more options and isn't as linear.
Not him but how you can possibly think this. The physics in Sonic are hugely more complex, every zone has a completely new set of gimmicks and enemies, zone change every two levels unlike Mario which will happily repeat a world (usually just a background theme) 10 or so times, and those levels typically do a lot less and are much more square platformer style levels. The only thing I can really say in favor of Mario here is some like SMW have hidden exits and things that don't really have a parallel in Sonic, except maybe 3 with hidden rings.
But honesetly, in what world does Mario have more depth in its physics/gameplay/level design than Sonic? Most of the games have three or four basic level categories that the entire game follows and just reuse hazards/gimmicks. World 8 is just a harder version of World 1 most of the time.
i think it's a perfectly valid point that sonic wins in terms of stage variety. and yeah, you could boil it down to mario "recycling" the same gameplay with increasing difficulty.
but, let's talk about the gameplay. and we'll go with smw since it's in the same era. defeat an enemy in sonic, and the enemy is just done. defeat an enemy in smw, and you can pick up the shell/enemy and throw it at others. do this in a specific way, and you get rewarded by multiple kills in a row. you can also use enemies as platforms to jump off of. sonic also has nothing like bricks in mario--so there's no situation where rings become platforms, nor can they ever be used to throw at enemies. i'm not saying sonic has to play exactly like mario, just that i think mario fundamentally has more varied and interesting gameplay.
sonic COULD have this kind of gameplay, perhaps focused around movement, but that just wasn't what sega was doing.
Sonic has badnik bouncing
>like i said, sonic is fine, but i find mario gives you more variety throughout the levels. and i think that makes most mario games better than most sonic games.
>you couldn't PAY me to replay sonic 1 and pretend i enjoy it now.
eh. It's subjective. I don't think I'd replay mario 1 today, I'd much rather enjoy sonic 1 which has better music and free-er levels and you jumping on blocks and goomba is kinda repetitive.
I guess I could accept that mario has more potential. Sonic has the fun of exploring level routes and stuff, but ultimately the gameplay of sonic caps at freedom planet. It's that. mario1 is simple but by smw you have clouds, climbing plants, yoshi... The gameplay isn't about physics meaning you could add anything to it and it works. Base sonic is complex but to add something you first consider if it goes well with the existing physics.
tldr; just my ramblings. The games are different and its apples and oranges.
The gameplay runs circles around 2D Mario. You lost me in the second sentence. They are good but comparatively much more basic and your criticism of the gameplay seems to stem from a personal issue of being bad at it rather than a design problem.
Because "going fast" was a reward for being good at the 2d games. "Going fast" is cinematic in the 3d games.
The 2d games were designed to frick you over, if all you did was hold right. You had to know when to jump, and when to run. The 3d games have long stretches of just running, for the cinematic "feel" of "going fast". There's only a few times that I can remember where the 3d games managed to create the "going fast" feeling, and it was usually during sections that they restricted an axis of movement.
>it was the peak of the 3D craze
>yet 3D was new thing for devs
>turns out sonic team sucks at it
>and the arrogance of sega in general which led to most of their failures
Japanese people perceive the world as flat 2D space. This is evidenced in their art and games—they always gravitate to 2D, be it anime or manga. Japanese language doesn't even have the word for "depth", this is an alien concept to them. PS1 literally didn't have Z-buffer for this reason. Nintendo had Argonaut explain to them how 3D space worked to create Mario 64. Sega didn't have these resources, so they just imagined what 3D space would feel like to a person.
The truth is. Sega had given up on sonic by the Saturn and sonic adventure was a last ditch effort from sonic team to lure in as many customers as possible, not just sonic fans. By doing so they destroyed the legacy of sonic and I tried the cancer of nu-sonic. Similar to final fantasy.
Injected*
I feel Sonic Adventure had the ideal approach to Sonic in 3D, the only real problem was a tempermental and sometimes uncontrollable camera.
Sega jank
>two good Sonic threads deleted
>this one stays up
I see you, mods
In theory, it isn't. Sonic Team aren't good at their job.
Super Monkey Ball is a much better proof of concept. Any level in that game where you accelerate down hill completely captures the feel of what Sonic aught to be in 3D. They should have taken that engine, and done something with it.
>Have to drive to work
>Have to take the Radical Highway
fml
They can do it sega is just incompetent
That's just Somic Adventure
>want to go fast
>this means either designing long stretches of runway like the wind tornado where youre jsut running down a track, or fixed angles like running down a building or running from the truck where you cant see whats in front of you
>also ruins combat because if youre going fast and theres plenty of space around you(as opposed to restricted to a 2D plane) you can just blow by the enemy by simply circumventing it or jumping over it. So the enemies become an obstacle rather than a threat, and you either try and fail horribly to fix it by giving them huge healthbars(heroes) or line them in a row(colors/unleashed/generations)
>want to go fast
Can't you just drop that gimmick and copy a normal title like Banjo or Mario Sunshine?
Along the way some real fricking idiots started making big decisions for the series.
Like I don't know why the hell thought that mechanics like enemy lockon or rail grinding would be good ideas, it's like someone didn't get the idea that the players should be made to feel like they're meaningfully participating in gameplay.
Also the melodramaic plots, cringe voice acting, furry pandering and all the other anime bullshit.
>enemy lockon
because fighting enemies in 3D otherwise is terrible. It was blatantly obvious in 3D blast and should be obvious to anyone with even the smallest understanding of depth perception
>give enemies large hitboxes
>let Sonic build up speed, drop into a ball, and blow through them like bowling pins
Literally why would that not have worked, and been fun as hell?
>drop into a ball, and blow through them like bowling pins
because that gets old very quickly
the fact that Sonic Team is a really poor development studio, helmed by a big headed moron.
Sonic Team
Posting THE Sonic 3D game!
Whoops, wrong version.