Unpopular Sonic opinions!

[Dummy Bear]

Behold more of my awesome opinions!:

- I think Eggman should be given a smoking hot female assisitant.

While I don't want a smoking hot assistant, I would like to see a female assistant for Eggman in the vein of Shego from Kim Possible. Hell, I'd even have her voiced by Nicole Sullivan.

[Kuzu]

Well the moment they plan to make use of the other characters is sketchy at best, and I can highly assume that they won't get a major role anytime soon outside the spin-offs and Storybooks. One can only hope the writers are reading these message boards and get a feel of what we want.

Well the line is starting to blur, Tails may not be fully playable, but he is playable in Episode II, and if there is an episode III, I'm pretty sure Knuckles is bound to follow.

-I think the Chaotix are three of the best characters added to the franchise, why? Because unlike most of the other heroes, they're more interested in trying to make a living than being the good guys. They're dynamics are hilarious(Seriously a hyperactive Bee, a stoic nonsense Ninja, and a Loud mouthed Crocodile), and I think its a damn shame they regularly get the shaft in the games.

[Dummy Bear]

I liked Sonic Shuffle even though the CPU was a massive asshole and would like to see Sega re-release the game with online multiplayer.

[Solly]

- I want to actually see Sonic punch Eggman in the face, been looking forward for this since the intro to Colo(u)rs and they didn't deliver it.

Actually looking at the Sonic Unleashed intro and the way Eggman has run away from Sonic on foot on several occasions, I'm willing to bet at least Eggman is afraid of getting beaten up by him.

But what if she was shaped like an omelette and named Omelettewoman?

well now you guys are just asking for it

i'm so sorry

Edited May 29, 2012 by Solly

[Tylky]

I actually enjoyed Knuckles' Chaotix. (Though I only played it on an emulator, just can't get my hands on the actual game >.>)

I want Mighty The Armadillo and Ray The Squirrel to come back to the main series, expanding on a Chaotix storyline.

[KrazyBean]

I do not like Sonic Adventure and I think it's very overrated. I played the XBLA version (I was born in 1994, I have no nostalgia for Sonic Adventure and I guess that makes me a MAUDERN FAGGET).

I found it boring to play. After I finished of Sonic's story I didn't want to come back to it at all and I felt like I wasted £10. It had some good moments but overall, I didn't enjoy it.

I haven't played Adventure 2 but I've watched some Walkthrough's of it. The Sonic/Shadow levels look like they play like a slower Unleashed and the alternate characters look even worse to play as compared to Adventure...but hey, that's just me.

Ooooh-oooooh! Let me add another one to my list:

I never seemed to have this "slipperyness" problem that everyone seemed to have with Heroes.

Same here man...same here! I can play Heroes just fine.

Edited May 29, 2012 by KrazyBean14

[Scar]

- Gameplay time is overrated. I don't understand why people are clamoring for Sonic games to be longer. I understand, yes perhaps a little more content, i.e 9-12 stages per game (2 acts per stage and Generations-style mini-acts), but even that won't be that long. Given how fast Sonic moves, creating just a single act of a given stage would take fucking ages because of the mass of level geometry within the stage. This would take even longer, if the scope and depth of the level design were to be expanded to the level which people desire, on top of that,they have to apply collision to all (or most) of the geometry they created and make sure that it doesn't cause the game to spazz the fuck out.

Sonic games built themselves upon replay value, and that, along side some moderate difficulty, was where the extra gameplay time arose. You cannot expect Sonic Team to deliver a Sonic game which is 25 hours long - its just ridiculous. Sure you could reach 25 hours just from playing and playing and exploring the stages over and over (as you do with the classics or whatever your favorite Sonic game is), but 25 hours of content? No.

[ArtFenix]

I think no one is asking for a game with 25 hours of content.. People just want things like secrets, alternate routes, unlockables, more of stories and stuff like that - something that could increase replay value.

I still think most of Generations levels are too short and most of Colors levels are just criminally short.

Edited May 29, 2012 by ArtFenix

[Solly]

- Gameplay time is overrated. I don't understand why people are clamoring for Sonic games to be longer. I understand, yes perhaps a little more content, i.e 9-12 stages per game (2 acts per stage and Generations-style mini-acts), but even that won't be that long. Given how fast Sonic moves, creating just a single act of a given stage would take fucking ages because of the mass of level geometry within the stage.

The real solution would probably be to slow Sonic down so they aren't putting so much time and effort into something the player is just going to whiz by with little input. Sonic's supposed to be fast, but he doesn't have to be Generations/Unleashed fast. That way they could design deeper, denser levels that take longer. And more of them.

This would take even longer, if the scope and depth of the level design were to be expanded to the level which people desire,

Are there actually people saying the levels should be larger? Can't say I've seen that. Now if we're talking about the amount of time it takes to get through a level, that's a different story.

on top of that,they have to apply collision to all (or most) of the geometry they created and make sure that it doesn't cause the game to spazz the fuck out.

Considering all the Generations/Unleashed speedruns that involve huge exploits, I'd say SEGA's already pretty bad at handling this.

Sonic games built themselves upon replay value, and that, along side some moderate difficulty, was where the extra gameplay time arose.

So did Mario, and pretty much every other classic franchise. That's the way games were back then. Difference is, Mario found a way to adapt and actually give the players a lot of content.

You cannot expect Sonic Team to deliver a Sonic game which is 25 hours long - its just ridiculous. Sure you could reach 25 hours just from playing and playing and exploring the stages over and over (as you do with the classics or whatever your favorite Sonic game is), but 25 hours of content? No.

I'll agree, 25 hours is a lot to expect from a platformer, Sonic or otherwise, but current Sonic games are basically 3-5 hours long tops, not including replaying/missions.

[SilentDoom]

Adding onto what Scar said, Sonic games have NEVER been long when you get into the meat of it. When you exclude alternate gameplay styles and additional padding, all of them only last for a max of around 5 hours, probably less in most cases. I'd rather have a good short game I can replay over and over to find hidden goodies and content than a game padded out with loads of unnecessary crap that drags out the main story.

[Nepenthe]

Jeebus. Everyone wants a game that's fun than a game that one that's padded with crap, but a game that is longer does not necessarily have to be bad in the first place. This terrible dichotomy needs to be nuked from the communal discourse forever.

[Komodin]

I'd rather have a good short game I can replay over and over to find hidden goodies and content than a game padded out with loads of unnecessary crap that drags out the main story.

Who would actually want a game that's like the latter description?

[Scar]

I think no one is asking a game with 25 hours of content.. People just want things like secrets, alternate routes, unlockables, more of stories and stuff like that - something that could increase replay value.

That is what I'm trying to say. Sonic has never been abundant on sheer content, like Mario games have been recently. They are relatively tight experiences, never exceeding 5-6 hours of total 1st run gameplay time (at the most). The additional hours are spent doing speedruns and finding hidden stuff, if its there.

I still think most of Generations levels are too short and most of Colors levels are just criminally short.

How short is too short? 3-4 minutes per stage is the sweet spot. 5-6 minutes at the most. Any longer than that, and the level design starts thinning out or repeating itself (see Sonic Heroes) and becomes an excercise.

Generations stages are about 3-4 minutes long, save for a few of the later ones. I'm not sure how much longer you could realistically make Sonic levels....

The real solution would probably be to slow Sonic down so they aren't putting so much time and effort into something the player is just going to whiz by with little input. Sonic's supposed to be fast, but he doesn't have to be Generations/Unleashed fast. That way they could design deeper, denser levels that take longer. And more of them.

So you scale down the speed. OK, say Sonic's top speed when not boosting. That seems reasonable to me. Now what. Deeper and denser levels still require lots of time, but in different ways. Unlike say, Unleashed, the levels then can be shorter in terms of total length, but then you'd need to fill it out sideways. You'll need much more lateral level design. Now instead of having a lot of geometry that exists purely to look pretty, that same area will need to be filled with actual level design and interactable stage geometry instead.

I don't know everything about game design, but I'm pretty sure it would take even longer to make a more densely packed and deeper stage. Not only do you need to model the additional geometry, but you need to add collision so Sonic can actually walk on it and interact with it. Then you have to get the game designers to design levels, which then need to be tested, then modified, then tested and so on, until they're happy with the result and its of sufficient quality.

So even if Sonic is slower, and the levels are slightly smaller in terms of physical size. The complexity and depth of the design will end up making the level just as long to make (if not longer) while being much harder to make in and of itself.

Are there actually people saying the levels should be larger? Can't say I've seen that. Now if we're talking about the amount of time it takes to get through a level, that's a different story.

To be honest, even the more expansive stages in Generations weren't that wide. Wider than Unleashed, but that's not saying much. In order to add the depth and complexity we all so desperately want, you're going to need to expand laterally. The lateral expansion will compensate (in terms of workload) for the longitudinal contraction. Instead of a long, thin set of spaghetti, you'll have a shorter, but wider interactable space, which in the end, will probably end up needing just as much work.

Considering all the Generations/Unleashed speedruns that involve huge exploits, I'd say SEGA's already pretty bad at handling this.

Yeah, well stuff they've designed to just look pretty won't often work properly. Once that extra space is a part of the level, they'll have to do additional bug testing.

So did Mario, and pretty much every other classic franchise. That's the way games were back then. Difference is, Mario found a way to adapt and actually give the players a lot of content.

Mario isn't Sonic. Mario adapted by doing things the SMB3 way. Having a lot of fairly small stages, each with numerous objectives within them (i.e power stars). 3D Mario ends up with a completely different design philosophy to 2D Mario.

I'll agree, 25 hours is a lot to expect from a platformer, Sonic or otherwise, but current Sonic games are basically 3-5 hours long tops, not including replaying/missions.

Honestly, does it need to be much longer than that? 7 hours seems the best to me.

Besides, how many 3-6 minute long acts (7 mins max), 2-4 minute long Generations-style bonus stages, 3-6 minute long bosses, will be needed to form a 10 hour Sonic game on content alone.

Jeebus. Everyone wants a game that's fun than a game that one that's padded with crap, but a game that is longer does not necessarily have to be bad in the first place.

Nobody every said it was bad. My question is, how long does a Sonic game need to be, based on content alone? What is reasonable development time to achieve such a result?

This terrible dichotomy needs to be nuked from the communal discourse forever.

EDIT:

I should rephrase.

I'm not saying a Sonic game can't be long and fun (or short and padded for that matter). I'm not trying to imply a false dichotomy.

I'm questioning the Chandrashekhar limit of Sonic games so to speak. How long can a Sonic game be, before it will feel like its being padded? To a lesser extent, is a Sonic game of said length, economically and temporally feasible for SEGA?

Edited May 29, 2012 by Scar

[Thigolf]

Why do I want longer Sonic games? Cause I don't wanna pay 50 bucks for a game I beat in 3 hours, that's why.

[Nepenthe]

Nobody every said it was bad. My question is, how long does a Sonic game need to be, based on content alone? What is reasonable development time to achieve such a result?

What dichotomy?

Its either short and fun or long and padded? I honestly never implied it. I was considering it from a necessity (how long does a Sonic game need to be to be satisfying) and a development (how long are you willing to wait till the next Sonic game/is it financially and temporally feasible?) point of view.

It is extremely disingenuous to say no one- in this topic or elsewhere- has ever said that longer Sonic games are less fun than shorter ones because they're padded with crap. I wouldn't put it past you to have said that in the past, and besides, did you read Silent's post, (the only one I meant to respond to)? It blatantly invokes both that sentiment and that false dichotomy in one fell swoop.

Anyway, I think the developmental angle you're looking at this in is fairly flawed. We don't know the financial and developmental details of making a Sonic game, and coupled with the fact that Sonic Team is a professional developer, it says nothing for your argument to paint them as incapable of making a campaign that can't be blazed through in an afternoon.

Speaking of which, that's what I want: a campaign that cannot be blazed through in an afternoon. I don't know why you'd conflate that to mean I want 25 full hours of content either. :/

[Scar]

It is extremely disingenuous to say no one- in this topic or elsewhere- has ever said that longer Sonic games are less fun than shorter ones because they're padded with crap. I wouldn't put it past you to have said that in the past, and besides, did you read Silent's post, (the only one I meant to respond to)? It blatantly invokes both that sentiment and that false dichotomy in one fell swoop.

I guess I didn't see it.

Anyway, I think the developmental angle you're looking at this in is fairly flawed. We don't know the financial and developmental details of making a Sonic game, and coupled with the fact that Sonic Team is a professional developer, it says nothing for your argument to paint them as incapable of making a campaign that can't be blazed through in an afternoon.

Yeah, I grant you, its a pretty flawed angle to look at things. However, it is an important factor. I'm no industry pro, but its just something I want to consider.

Speaking of which, that's what I want: a campaign that cannot be blazed through in an afternoon. I don't know why you'd conflate that to mean I want 25 full hours of content either. :/

I recall around when Colours was released (which is one of the few actually short Sonic games I've played - beat near half of it in 2 and a half hours), some article mentioned that they'd managed to extract 25 hours of enjoyment from the game (that is replay value and that). That led to a few people saying that they wished that Sonic games were much longer - perhaps in the region of 25 hours - as mentioned in the article. Certainly, when you look outside of this site, you have people complaining that Sonic games - even if good - were far too short and they would want games as long as a Mario Galaxy game (which can push 20 hours of total gameplay time).

Perhaps it was poor phrasing or a issue I may have completely overlooked when writing my original post.

[SilentDoom]

Sega/Sonic Team have to have considered making longer games. It's something people have wanted for ages. A pure experience but longer. But if this is the case, why hasn't it happened (or even EVIDENCE of it happening)? There's has to be a decent reason why NOT A SINGLE 3D Sonic game has felt long and not padded. Sega and Sonic Team has had a history of padding their games with crap to lengthen them. It's hardly a "terrible dichotomy" when a company consistently makes their longer games in this fashion. If they can prove me wrong and actually make a longer game that still offers a good pure Sonic platforming experience with good vast level design, interesting and unique platforming gimmicks and still with plenty of speed then I'll be more than happy to retract my statements. But since they're still able to barely pull this off with a shorter length game, then it's even less likely they'll pull it off with a longer one.

Really, I'd much rather them focus on making the games better, more varied and more interesting than longer. As I'd said before, I want more level specific gimmicks, more unique platforming arrangements, more alternate routes that run into each other, more slope arrangements that allow me to make use of momentum based physics. All the things that made the classics so fun, transferred and expanded into 3D and as enjoyable as I found parts of Unleashed, most of Colours and most of Generations Sonic's 3D gameplay could be so much more. Once they truly nail the gameplay, then they can focus on optimising and expanding it. This again, basically would help follow what made the classics so good. Sonic 1 established the gameplay, Sonic 2 refined and optimised it and Sonic 3&K expanded upon it.

[Random Rhyme]

Sonic and Classic Sonics jump height is too low when compared to the other games which pissed me off during gameplay.

[Nepenthe]

Yeah, I grant you, its a pretty flawed angle to look at things. However, it is an important factor. I'm no industry pro, but its just something I want to consider.

I recall around when Colours was released (which is one of the few actually short Sonic games I've played - beat near half of it in 2 and a half hours), some article mentioned that they'd managed to extract 25 hours of enjoyment from the game (that is replay value and that). That led to a few people saying that they wished that Sonic games were much longer - perhaps in the region of 25 hours - as mentioned in the article. Certainly, when you look outside of this site, you have people complaining that Sonic games - even if good - were far too short and they would want games as long as a Mario Galaxy game (which can push 20 hours of total gameplay time).

Perhaps it was poor phrasing or a issue I may have completely overlooked when writing my original post.

I think the extent to which we can consider it in order to make a point is very minimal. The most we've had to go in was an interview from 2008 in which the art director lamented about the challenges in creating a Sonic level for Unleashed, which is fairly useless information. It was the first title using modern gameplay so it's an experience that cannot account for any streamlining and changes in the production processes that have undoubtedly happened that we don't know about. It also lacks a frame of reference for comparison, so for any one of us to say for certain whether a game that's longer than Generations is or isn't feasible going by the fact that it's "difficult to make Sonic stages" just isn't good evidence.

And overall, I can only speak for myself when I say I don't need a game in which all the content- when completed at an above-average pace- will equal 25 hours or more. Unleashed includes a fairly long campaign and I doubt you'd be able to squeeze even 12 hours total out of it not counting mere replay value, and I would prefer games to be in that length range. All in all though, I do think it's a fair point to lament about paying $50 for a game whose main campaign is terribly short. People made the complaint all the time that Episode 1 was too expensive to justify its price, so I'm not sure why the validity of this complaint is in question with the 3D games, (beyond the fact that people do indeed think a longer Sonic game means it includes unfun padding which ultimately means a long Sonic game is a crap game, of course).

It's hardly a "terrible dichotomy" when a company consistently makes their longer games in this fashion.

It is a terrible dichotomy because it makes a lot of assumptions like:

1) Any Sonic game that does not include lengthening is inherently more fun than one that doesn't. Taking that to it's most logical conclusion, we can easily come to the conclusion that Sonic 4 Episode 1 is a more fun and (if fun is the ultimate goal of a game) a better video game overall than Sonic Generations because the latter has hubs and missions, and hubs and missions are unnecessary lengthening.

2) Any padding has to be boring or tedious. It simply does not. Fuck, if you give Knuckles a campaign, you're technically padding the game because it doesn't need Knuckles as a playable character to logically function, but no one talks shit about S3&K simply because Sega had the sheer audacity to include a character that isn't Sonic.

3) Sonic gameplay inherently cannot be lengthened through creative uses of its own principles. Only the tip of the iceberg has been explored when it comes to the idea of having a fast, acrobatic platform character use the environment to his advantage. There's a lot of things you can do with Sonic gameplay outside of what we've seen, and new things will be done in the future. To ignore this is silly.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Scar]

I personally feel 5-7 hours of content (that is to say 5-7 hours to complete on an initial run-through) is about right for a Sonic game. Stuff like the 30 second challenges, and speedrunning leaderboards are enough to extend the actual time you play the game considerably. You could being playing that for months or even years to come.

Then there is the other point which I meant to address, and that is "how long is too long?"

However, I do think we've gone far enough off-topic in this instance.

[Kuzu]

I honestly never thought Sonic games needed to be that long, yeah $50 for 3-5 hours seems like a rip off, but has anyone ever considered how long a Sonic game would be if it wasn't padded out with crap? They're about the same length if you think about it.

Now granted we have no idea how Sonic Team make their games, but I think its pretty obvious they can't think of a way of artificially extending their gameplay without adding something unneeded. I'm ok with the current length of Sonic games to say the least.

So yeah how about that topic?

[Chaos Warp]

I feel they can use the tried-and-true game-extending strategy: online multiplayer. Adds practically infinite replay value, without adding as much more content then more traditional padding stuff.

Well, there's always the option of having more playable characters...

Or this. This too.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Chaos Warp

[Komodin]

Well, there's always the option of having more playable characters...

[Megabox!]

I like modern Sonic more than Classic Sonic both in terms of gameplay and design.

[KazunaRei]

Let's see what I've got . . .

I like Cream as a playable character. *snuggles Advance 2*

Because I'm a noob and a terrible player of most Sonic games, Boost > Spindash.

When it comes to voice actors I really don't care much about the way they act and whatnot if they sound fine to me I'm pleased.

Advance 2 > Advance 1 = Advance 3

You may banish me to hell when ready. =w=