Sonic Generations: Two Years Later

[Diogenes]

Generations' Modern Sonic feels a little gimped and thus less fun, and I think it's because they have a lot more of that uninteresting platforming that plagued Colors so much. Unleashed's Day levels are completely committed to the arcade-y, reaction time aspects that make it so fun and are thus more successful at what they do, while Generations sacrifices some of that a bit for level design that just doesn't flow right.

In a certain way, I agree with this...

[Mr. Awesomest]

This type of simplification makes for a bad argument, because this only works if you assume all components of a work of art and their ultimate effect on the work as will be perceived by every audience member is perfectly equal to one another, and also if you assume that each component of work is, somehow, mutually exclusive from one another as well. This is a totally unrealistic way to judge art.

Case in point: Wasted potential in the story impacted my enjoyment of Generations because I was expecting all of the stages and characters to be utilized in some manner more significant than they were, thus I was disappointed. I also don't care so much about the soundtrack because it's composed almost entirely of remixes; it's music I've heard before, and the few original tracks that are there don't really stand out to me as being amazing. Presentation also suffers as a result because of the story's absolute terribleness. So no, the story getting an F while the other four components you listed get an A doesn't realistically mean Generations' Goodness Meter is only affected by 20% and thus it gets a B.

You expected more, but were let down due to hype and bias toward the parts of the work that it didn't quite excel in. Instead of basing your opinions on what it is, you are comparing Sonic Generations to the Sonic Generations it had the potential to be; an expectation based on what you thought would be great in your own subjective view. The Sonic Generations you wanted. It's okay that you wanted the game, and wanted it to be great in all aspects you find interest in, but could you expect a masterpiece in your image, especially when there are other people to please and profits to make?

I didn't want to delve into a grading system, but since you went there, I'll just go ahead. Say you have a test, and it includes multiple choice questions, short answers questions, and an essay. The score values of each question varies depending on its complexity; the essay being worth the most, the short answers worth a fair amount, and the multiple choice being not much. While they all are meant to ensure you grasp the subject of the test, the smaller things are overshadowed by the larger, more pressing matters, such as making a good essay. In this metaphor, the gameplay would be the essay, the field that matters the most, takes up the most of the time, and the one Sonic Team really wanted to get better at. Looking at the recent trends, Sonic Team decided to play it safe, and make the story a single hardly significant multiple choice question. Needless to say, they got it wrong. But that wouldn't matter as much as messing up the essay, now would it?

Sonic Generations is a fine game. To say it was not lacking in some areas is a lie. To say that it matters so much that it makes the whole game meh/lacking/unsatisfying is an exaggeration or a radical statement.

[Milo]

Generations I think is exceedingly excellent in terms of graphics and faithful aesthetics, soundtrack, and (the biggest one) nostalgia fanservice. Everything else it does ranges from above average to terrible, with the overall product being mostly so okay it's average at best.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Zinos

[Carbo]

Mario's formula isn't purposed to overburden the actual game play of the game, because every main-line Mario game has always had a consistent set of rules built around core principles: Mario runs, he jumps and he stomps on enemies to get to a goal. 3D Land was said to be the closest thing a 3D Mario got to a "classic experience", but the truth is that was only because of the design that was built around a formula that never changed. Sometimes he would get a power-up, or a water dispenser, or fly into space. But the formula has always remained the same despite actual physic changes and the like in each game play. The important part isn't that it played like the same game - it's that it felt like the same game.

On the other hand, Sonic never managed to shift as gracefully and part of that was much thanks to his speed and handling the depth in 3D environment. Compromises had to be made in every single game to find a solid formula. It never actually felt like the same game despite Sonic having some core moves. The one formula that some people actually find good, the modern one, is one that you can barely add things onto because of one mechanic that purposefully destroys any sense of expansion. Generations wasn't an evolution, nor did it feel like a continuation. It was the same game which we've already had twice before. Colors only added to manage powerups in favor for a more obtuse, un-Soniccy level design.

As shallow as it is to admit; it's just too fast and too narrow. The games end up at their worst being nothing but memory and twitch-reaction games. Any more additional gimmicks on top of that heavily hampers the design of something that is already unwieldy and hard to get into when the game actively is trying to encourage you to go fast.

Settling into a merely decent style just because it worked once doesn't mean it's going to work again, and this kind of attitude is pretty lazy and obvious in Generations just because of how the game was touted to work.

[Vertekins]

You expected more, but were let down due to hype and bias toward the parts of the work that it didn't quite excel in.

Wait...expecting a decent story like those of the games that came before Generations is bias now?

I think 'Penthe was, at the very least, expecting a story that competently makes use of it's plot points and characters, of which Generations does neither.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Vertekins

[PerfectChaos]

I don't have any urge to go back to the modern games because I'd just end up pressing the same sequence of buttons with the same timing to see the same things happening.

In what way were the classics different, other than branching paths which both the modern and classic gameplay includes?Really, I want an answer. I fail to see how each playthrough of S3+K sees the game magically transform or randomly generate new level design each time.

[azoo]

@Carbo: Yeah, I realize that the statement I made on the matter wasn't really a good comparison to give. Still, you managed to sum up what I think on the matter much better than I did.

[Wraith]

It's already stale, and I don't see the gameplay meshing well with other gimmicks. It's not built for anything other than high-speed dodging.

Because this gameplay is shallow. Do you understand that different kinds of gameplay can stay interesting for different lengths of time? The reason people are burning out on the modern gameplay is because it doesn't offer much. I don't have any urge to go back to the modern games because I'd just end up pressing the same sequence of buttons with the same timing to see the same things happening. There's only one real way to play them, so there's no room to play with them.

Well how about finding ways to fix it instead of scrapping everything? Why not slow things down like Colors did so you can add things in if speed is such a problem? If things are going too fast, they can slow it down. It's not that hard.

[Kuzu]

You expected more, but were let down due to hype and bias toward the parts of the work that it didn't quite excel in. Instead of basing your opinions on what it is, you are comparing Sonic Generations to the Sonic Generations it had the potential to be; an expectation based on what you thought would be great in your own subjective view. The Sonic Generations you wanted. It's okay that you wanted the game, and wanted it to be great in all aspects you find interest in, but could you expect a masterpiece in your image, especially when there are other people to please and profits to make?

I didn't want to delve into a grading system, but since you went there, I'll just go ahead. Say you have a test, and it includes multiple choice questions, short answers questions, and an essay. The score values of each question varies depending on its complexity; the essay being worth the most, the short answers worth a fair amount, and the multiple choice being not much. While they all are meant to ensure you grasp the subject of the test, the smaller things are overshadowed by the larger, more pressing matters, such as making a good essay. In this metaphor, the gameplay would be the essay, the field that matters the most, takes up the most of the time, and the one Sonic Team really wanted to get better at. Looking at the recent trends, Sonic Team decided to play it safe, and make the story a single hardly significant multiple choice question. Needless to say, they got it wrong. But that wouldn't matter as much as messing up the essay, now would it?

Sonic Generations is a fine game. To say it was not lacking in some areas is a lie. To say that it matters so much that it makes the whole game meh/lacking/unsatisfying is an exaggeration or a radical statement.

Oh, as somebody who's used to taking a lot of tests; The essay and short answer questions are but one part that make up the whole test, they may yield more points, but you're not going to pass on that a lone, the Multiple choice questions may yield smaller points, but any amount of points help get you that better grade. I'd rather do decently in all aspects than neglect one while focus on another.

Think about it this way:

Multiple choice is 2 points per question, and there are 30 of them.

Short Answer is 20%

and Essay is another 20%

Now let's say you neglect the Multiple choice and only get 15 out the 30 right, you only get 30%, and provided you get the short answers and essay absolutely flawless(which is damn near impossible), at most you'll only get a final grade of 70%, now had you not neglected the Multiple choice portion, you could have came out with at least an 85%.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Ragna the Bloodedge

[Diogenes]

In what way were the classics different, other than branching paths which both the modern and classic gameplay includes?Really, I want an answer. I fail to see how each playthrough of S3+K sees the game magically transform or randomly generate new level design each time.

The mechanics are fun in themselves. The game isn't designed solely around beating levels at top speed. You want to grab a lot of rings, or bop robots, or explore, or even if you just want to take the level at a jog rather than a full run, the mechanics are robust enough to support it. With the modern games, it's all about the speedrun-style gameplay. You're supposed to find the one sequence of actions that completes the level super-fast. There's not really anything else to it.

Well how about finding ways to fix it instead of scrapping everything? Why not slow things down like Colors did so you can add things in if speed is such a problem? If things are going too fast, they can slow it down. It's not that hard.

What is it that you think I'd be tearing down that we shouldn't be? Be specific. Because the more I hear about "tearing down", the more I feel this is an argument stuck in sematics.

[Frogging101]

Great post Soniman. It grabbed my attention from the first paragraph and I read through the whole thing. Some people stay this game only stands up because of nostalgia alone. This is simply not true; when I played Generations, I had never played a Sonic game before in my life. And I still loved it. The only things I didn't like were the mediocre plot and the shitty final boss battle (Which I'll get to in a second), and the game was a bit too short. Even without the nostalgia glasses, I still loved the game and I'm looking forward to seeing what SEGA has in store for us in terms of Sonic games in the future.

So, about the final boss battle: There are two things I would improve the most. Firstly, the game plunges the player into a totally new game mechanic without explaining jack shit about how it works. It took me a long time to figure out how it worked; the fact that I needed to collect rings or I die, the fact that when I switch with the Y button, it puts me on another "layer" outside the main circular tube, and stuff like that. Really, they could have done a much better job of making the mechanics clear. If you're going to introduce a totally new gameplay style out of nowhere, that's fine with me; but only if you explain it to me so I know what the hell I'm doing.

The other problem with the boss battle was that the other characters wouldn't shut up and it was fucking annoying. I like how they are there supporting me and all in the cutscene, but when I start fighting the boss, shut the fuck up. I really didn't need the quote spam of "HOMING SHOT! HOMING SHOT! HOMING SHOT!" or "Be careful, Mr. Sonic, Be careful Sonic!, Be careful!". If they gave me a few triggered and well-timed hints about what to do next, that's fine. But pointing out every single thing the boss is doing is useless and annoying. If they must speak, then they should just inform me "Those shots track you" and only do it once.

[Autosaver]

Why exactly do Sonic games use different gameplay styles for final bosses?

I think a perfect boss is use everything you learned and connect it all together to defeat the final boss (Mario, Zelda, Any RPG, Kingdom Hearts, Any FPS, etc). Sonic just seems to throw in a (poorly made) game mechanic. If it was extremely simple like Sonic & Knuckles or Sonic Rush, I doubt anyone would care. Especially with both of those games not being too different. I had no idea what to do for Generations.

[Emmett L. Brown]

Why exactly do Sonic games use different gameplay styles for final bosses?

I think a perfect boss is use everything you learned and connect it all together to defeat the final boss (Mario, Zelda, Any RPG, Kingdom Hearts, Any FPS, etc). Sonic just seems to throw in a (poorly made) game mechanic. If it was extremely simple like Sonic & Knuckles or Sonic Rush, I doubt anyone would care. Especially with both of those games not being too different. I had no idea what to do for Generations.

Isn't it sad that the only Super Sonic boss that kept your controls identical to the rest of the game was in Sonic Heroes?

[Diogenes]

Why exactly do Sonic games use different gameplay styles for final bosses?

Because it's cool and exciting, who cares how it plays.

Same reason they do half the stuff they do anymore.

Isn't it sad that the only Super Sonic boss that kept your controls identical to the rest of the game was in Sonic Heroes?

Well, SA is fairly close... Edited October 27, 2012 by hella jeff

[Emmett L. Brown]

Well, SA is fairly close...

Actually, now that I think about it, the Sonic Heroes boss let's you use light speed attack whenever you want, so I guess it and Sonic Adventure are about equal on that point.

[Kuzu]

Why exactly do Sonic games use different gameplay styles for final bosses?

Cuz fuck logic.

[Rinzler]

It's a fun game.

I think that's the main problem. SG is enjoyable, but that's it. There is no sense of fulfilment, no sense of progression, immersion, accomplishment, difficulty; the package as a whole just feels really bland and dissapointing especially for an anniversary game.

The lack of a story and/or a hub world ensured that I didn't care about the characters or the setting. Say what you will about the hubs in Unleashed but at least there it gave me the feeling that I was on a grand adventure and I cared about not just the main characters but quite a few of the various NPC's as well. Generations has none of that and essentially throws all of the aforementioned hubs away and replaces it with an uninteresting playable level list and a plot that seems more of an excuse to play re-imagined levels instead of an actual story.

To summarize SG is a good game, but feels pretty empty.

[Komodin]

Isn't it sad that the only Super Sonic boss that kept your controls identical to the rest of the game was in Sonic Heroes?

You forgot Sonic Adventure, mon. Not only did Super Sonic control exactly like his normal self sans spin dash, but you can also stick around if you run out of rings while on one of the floating highway strips.

Edit: Darn, DiUTTLEronijeff beat me to it. Ah well...

Edited October 27, 2012 by Komodin

[Mr. Taxi]

[Kuzu]

Since I think we're scaring the kids away with our "negative" comments, let's talk about shit we actually like from this game.

I think the Hedgehog Engine manages to render the stages pretty damn well this time around, as the visuals are fucking gorgeous.

[Nepenthe]

You expected more, but were let down due to hype and bias toward the parts of the work that it didn't quite excel in. Instead of basing your opinions on what it is, you are comparing Sonic Generations to the Sonic Generations it had the potential to be; an expectation based on what you thought would be great in your own subjective view. The Sonic Generations you wanted. It's okay that you wanted the game, and wanted it to be great in all aspects you find interest in, but could you expect a masterpiece in your image, especially when there are other people to please and profits to make?

I've based my opinion of Generations as much on the fact that the story is indeed utter crap as I have its wasted potential. Even if didn't meet some of my fanatical expectations, that doesn't excuse the fact that the story is still tripe in its own right which invariably hurts the game.

This misrepresentation of my argument is even worse when you pair it with whole "Wow, you expected Sonic Team to write a good story to please you?" strawman. Writing a decent story is not bending over backwards to some extremist demographic. To suggest as such once again legitimizes this strange idea that everything else in a game can be bad so long as the gameplay's okay which in turn hurts the collective quality of games as a whole.

It also simultaneously devalues everyone involved in creating these stories as being completely irrelevant to the process and experience which I think is short-sighted: the scenario planners, the script writers, Roger and the rest of the actors, the entire studio(s) responsible for the cut scenes. They're important. If nothing else, they're all getting paid to do a single job. The least I can expect of all of them, regardless of my self-described status as a fan, is to do that single job decently. I don't even need Shakespearean material; Black Knight levels of storytelling would suffice.

I didn't want to delve into a grading system, but since you went there, I'll just go ahead. Say you have a test, and it includes multiple choice questions, short answers questions, and an essay. The score values of each question varies depending on its complexity; the essay being worth the most, the short answers worth a fair amount, and the multiple choice being not much. While they all are meant to ensure you grasp the subject of the test, the smaller things are overshadowed by the larger, more pressing matters, such as making a good essay. In this metaphor, the gameplay would be the essay, the field that matters the most, takes up the most of the time, and the one Sonic Team really wanted to get better at. Looking at the recent trends, Sonic Team decided to play it safe, and make the story a single hardly significant multiple choice question. Needless to say, they got it wrong. But that wouldn't matter as much as messing up the essay, now would it?

You completely missed the point I made that the analogy you're making is fundamentally flawed at the core, thus it doesn't matter how much you try to further elaborate upon it; it's still a bad analogy.

A work of art is not a school test because a school test relies on some sort of objective universal standard in order to determine whether or not the answers across a range of performances are "right" or "wrong," and subsequently which percentage of "right" and "wrong" answers gives which specific letter grade. Art actually does have some sort of objective standards, but rather these are called "principles" (dialogue goes into quotation marks, orange is a warm color, the player should not be able to fall through a solid surface), and the quality of the work in question does not rely upon them exclusively (in other words, you can break a principle if it helps your artwork in some way). It relies much more on the collective subjective experience of the audience in question and whatever their own metrics for "good" and "bad" are, not necessarily "right" and "wrong."

In other words, if a person finds a story to be very important to experience of a game, their opinion on its own is just as valid as a person who believes the story is not very important. But there's only one damn correct answer on a multiple choice test.

I mean, there's just so much wrong with saying a game, or any other work of art, can be directly analogous to a school test that I can't even seriously entertain answering your idea directly that the story of a game, even a Sonic game, is directly comparable to one single multiple choice question beyond calling it absolutely bonkers.

To say that it matters so much that it makes the whole game meh/lacking/unsatisfying is an exaggeration or a radical statement.

The fuck?

[Kuzu]

Hey, this guy made "Sonic Dissected", sweeet.

[Wraith]

Since I think we're scaring the kids away with our "negative" comments, let's talk about shit we actually like from this game..

Stop generalizing. It just makes you look immature.

[Kuzu]

Stop generalizing. It just makes you look immature.

Well if you and a few other people didn't do such a good job at legitimizing that opinion, then I wouldn't have it. The latest topic kind of speaks for itself.

[Mr. Taxi]

Hey, this guy made "Sonic Dissected", sweeet.

Yes, I like him very much. He would certainly have something to say in this thread.