Popular and unpopular Sonic opinions you agree and disagree with!

[Shikushi]

I never understood why people have to be scared of which games they like? Lots of people thin Unleashed is the better of the three games and many think it is one of the other two in that list. Different people will agree with you and others will disagree. Everyone has their own preference of which one they like the most, because I do agree that I lie Unleashed the most of all three of them.

I was just trying to make a dumb joke, but I agree with you.

[Mogtaki]

I kinda wish there was more Werehog or at least that sort of element still left, I really liked the different Sonic thing going on with a slightly more developed storyline and characters. I didn't mind Chip either, even though his voice didn't suit him sometimes.

 

Unleashed was a good game, people just got fed up with the platforming (which was a little long and could had been split up a bit more to allow some more speedy elements like everyone seemed to want).

[Jet Prower]

I kinda wish there was more Werehog or at least that sort of element still left, I really liked the different Sonic thing going on with a slightly more developed storyline and characters. I didn't mind Chip either, even though his voice didn't suit him sometimes.

 

Unleashed was a good game, people just got fed up with the platforming (which was a little long and could had been split up a bit more to allow some more speedy elements like everyone seemed to want).

 

I do think the Werehog sections may have been a little longer than they may have needed to be, but having a different element definitely helped the game I feel. I had always enjoyed the element and do wish a little of it was still in Sonic instead of it all being sucked out in the end. It would be neat to know that it could pop up at random times some nights and he would never know when it was going to ever occur again.

 

Though I do wonder why people seem to dislike there being platforming in Sonic games these days? It seems so often people just want to run run run, and whenever there are platforming sections, people dislike them?

[Tara]

I kinda wish there was more Werehog or at least that sort of element still left, I really liked the different Sonic thing going on with a slightly more developed storyline and characters. I didn't mind Chip either, even though his voice didn't suit him sometimes.

I actually really wouldn't mind if they patched up some of the problems with the werehog and adjusted him to work with another character like Knuckles or someone combat-oriented.  I know there are some arguments against the use of the Werehog engine for other characters, but honestly I don't see it as a problem.

[E-122-Psi]

I don't think the werehog was bad in concept, but they put so little effort into his levels, mostly the same routine over and over again, and for a very lengthy amount of time. Ten to twenty minutes of 'button bashing and door puzzles' just gets monotonous after a while, especially since those bosses can easily result in a Game Over. Had they been versatile with the werehog and developed the slower puzzle based platforming more it could have been a fun experience.

Edited November 7, 2013 by E-122-Psi

[Tara]

I don't think the werehog was bad in concept, but they put so little effort into his levels, mostly the same routine over and over again, and for a very lengthy amount of time. Ten to twenty minutes of 'button bashing and door puzzles' just gets monotonous after a while, especially since those bosses can easily result in a Game Over. Had they been versatile with the werehog and developed the slower puzzle based platforming more it could have been a fun experience.

I disagree with that to an extent   While the level design in the Werehog stages were far from perfect, I think they were pretty well designed, but they were very poorly placed in a Sonic game.  That and they clearly didn't design the levels based on the Werehog's slippery and often times finicky controls, so naturally there would be far too many instances where you'd jump on a platform and then run straight off because the platform is so small that it leaves next to no room for error.

[Jet Prower]

I disagree with that to an extent   While the level design in the Werehog stages were far from perfect, I think they were pretty well designed, but they were very poorly placed in a Sonic game.  That and they clearly didn't design the levels based on the Werehog's slippery and often times finicky controls, so naturally there would be far too many instances where you'd jump on a platform and then run straight off because the platform is so small that it leaves next to no room for error.

 

So, would that mean you think either the two sections, day and nights should have been separate instead of all mixed together. Or are you saying that the two sections would be better if they were two separate games from each other?

[Tara]

So, would that mean you think either the two sections, day and nights should have been separate instead of all mixed together. Or are you saying that the two sections would be better if they were two separate games from each other?

i'm saying that as is, it would probably be better if it were the latter, but with a bit more balance and fixes to the controls, it could be made to work better.  I'm always in favor of giving the player the choice of who they want to play as, so if you could instead simply choose between Sonic or the Werehog or whomever would serve the Werehog's role as you can between Sonic and Blaze in Sonic Rush Adventure, that would be the overall best option, in my opinion.

[Jet Prower]

i'm saying that as is, it would probably be better if it were the latter, but with a bit more balance and fixes to the controls, it could be made to work better.  I'm always in favor of giving the player the choice of who they want to play as, so if you could instead simply choose between Sonic or the Werehog or whomever would serve the Werehog's role as you can between Sonic and Blaze in Sonic Rush Adventure, that would be the overall best option, in my opinion.

 

Ah I see. Well yeah, I think a lot of people these days seem to want the other characters to come back but for it to be more optional. Almost like how it is in that little phone game Dash where it doesn't really matter who they play as since it is the same game in most instance. I see so often where people complain about SA1 in this way where you had to play as everyone and everyone's gameplay was unique to them. While it didn't bug me, I know others don't like this method at all.

[Tara]

Ah I see. Well yeah, I think a lot of people these days seem to want the other characters to come back but for it to be more optional. Almost like how it is in that little phone game Dash where it doesn't really matter who they play as since it is the same game in most instance. I see so often where people complain about SA1 in this way where you had to play as everyone and everyone's gameplay was unique to them. While it didn't bug me, I know others don't like this method at all.

That is a big downside to SA1 when you have a character who deviates enormously from the rest of the game (Big).  A game can be good despite of it, but I always feel you should be encouraged to play the game over again, not forced into it.  That's why Shadow the Hedgehog is such a horrible sin in terms of replay value.  The replay value is artificially created by forcing you to replay the same stages over and over to the point where even if you enjoyed them before, you'll quickly grow tired of them all so you can get the "true" ending.

[MegasonicZX]

Yeah, I think if they just brought back the were hog and made him optional (but still with some unlocks so you have more reason to use him) it would be fine but the problem would be the reviewers cause even if they did perfect the gameplay for him (and most likely they would given the criticisms from before) the reviewers would still try and cross him out so that he is never used again and most likely get alot of people against the game just because of it. Not trying to say that the reviewers have a biased view of this but its the one thing I could easily see happening.

[Jet Prower]

That is a big downside to SA1 when you have a character who deviates enormously from the rest of the game (Big).  A game can be good despite of it, but I always feel you should be encouraged to play the game over again, not forced into it.  That's why Shadow the Hedgehog is such a horrible sin in terms of replay value.  The replay value is artificially created by forcing you to replay the same stages over and over to the point where even if you enjoyed them before, you'll quickly grow tired of them all so you can get the "true" ending.

 

Yeah, I know not everyone is going to be into Big's fishing gameplay. Likely that could have been improved a bit I'm sure, but it didn't bug me at the time of first play because I think I had been playing Sega Bass Fishing as one of my other first Sega Dreamcast games. Fishing games didn't bug me that much at the time.

 

As for Shadow, yeah playing the same stages over and over again could get a little dull sometimes. There likely needed to be more stages spread out over a wider map array to avoid this. The array was just so compressed that it was unavoidable you were going to end up playing the same levels over and over again with little difference between them even with the different choices you made. I do think I may just have a higher tolerance for things others may not be able to live with, because I don't mind either game honestly.

[Nepenthe]

Yeah, I think if they just brought back the were hog and made him optional (but still with some unlocks so you have more reason to use him) it would be fine but the problem would be the reviewers cause even if they did perfect the gameplay for him (and most likely they would given the criticisms from before) the reviewers would still try and cross him out so that he is never used again and most likely get alot of people against the game just because of it. Not trying to say that the reviewers have a biased view of this but its the one thing I could easily see happening.

It would be a waste of developmental resources and time to make something as code heavy and narrative significant as the Werehog optional. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with elements in video games that are required to have the full experience of the game. That's the point of designing anything. However, I see no reason why there's any inherent parts of the Werehog that could not have been capitalized on for a better initial experience. Allow him to move around more- and faster- with his arms and simply lower the significance of combat.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Nepenthe

[Tara]

Yeah, I know not everyone is going to be into Big's fishing gameplay. Likely that could have been improved a bit I'm sure, but it didn't bug me at the time of first play because I think I had been playing Sega Bass Fishing as one of my other first Sega Dreamcast games. Fishing games didn't bug me that much at the time.

 

As for Shadow, yeah playing the same stages over and over again could get a little dull sometimes. There likely needed to be more stages spread out over a wider map array to avoid this. The array was just so compressed that it was unavoidable you were going to end up playing the same levels over and over again with little difference between them even with the different choices you made. I do think I may just have a higher tolerance for things others may not be able to live with, because I don't mind either game honestly.

I like SA1 and Shadow isn't so bad that it can't be enjoyed at all.  But after fighting the Egg Dealer about five times in a row in my most recent playthrough, I felt like throwing it out the window. XD - Even though many of the stages were recycled in SA1, they at least had the decency to give a different experience for each character.  I have a fairly high tolerance for most things in games as well, but having to defeat a filler boss that won't even affect the game's ultimate ending is a tad vexing, among other issues in the game but those have already been discussed to death.

 

there's nothing wrong with elements in video games that are required to have the full experience of the game. That's the point of designing anything. 

While there's nothing inherently wrong with forcing a certain design mechanic to an extent, there isn't anything right about it, either.  Look at Turtles in Time, for example.  You're not required to play as all four of the characters, but the quality of the game makes you want to play as them.  Sure, they mostly controlled the same way so it hardly mattered which turtle you chose, but even if they didn't, it wouldn't affect the game's replay value.

[Nepenthe]

I wasn't necessarily arguing that forcing an element is "right;" I merely like to make the point that it isn't wrong because that's how such elements are usually framed. "I should be able to play however I want!" "I don't want to do this!" and on and on; just no thought for the designer and their vision at all. As an art, game design is what it is. Developers should be allowed to run the whole gamut of innumerable possible design decisions without that being opposed on a level that says that some parameters are always wrong only on the basis that they're essentially an inherent part of the experience, e.g. "forced." After all, different games have different needs. Sometimes, you need a particular element to work for the overall experience.

 

But in general, there was nothing "wrong" with "forcing" the Werehog, especially since his potential problems would've persisted if they somehow truly separated him from everything else yet kept him the same. In that way, the "forcing" argument is actually completely unhelpful in terms of discussing and discerning how he could've been better. And besides, if he was more fun than he's generally deemed, the complaints about the "forcing" would severely be lessened. After all, "that's what games are about." Fun right? I would wager for most people that if they something fun in a game, they're not going to complain much that said thing may be required to experience the game.

[Jet Prower]

I like SA1 and Shadow isn't so bad that it can't be enjoyed at all.  But after fighting the Egg Dealer about five times in a row in my most recent playthrough, I felt like throwing it out the window. XD - Even though many of the stages were recycled in SA1, they at least had the decency to give a different experience for each character.  I have a fairly high tolerance for most things in games as well, but having to defeat a filler boss that won't even affect the game's ultimate ending is a tad vexing, among other issues in the game but those have already been discussed to death.

 

 

With Shadow, even though you were making some choices in the game, it just often didn't seem like you were making enough choices that changed what was happening. Getting to a level one way, wasn't any different from getting it from another way. You would think if Shadow had been bad before but now is sort of nuetral, that the story or reactions would be slightly different than if he started out good and then started doing bad things. You end up at the same level in both cases, but there are really no differences between the way you got there. The little description you get for the over 300 or so different combinations may be different after completing a game, but that was it. I still liked Shadow of course. It was a game where I got to be around both Tails and even more so, Espio, someone I rarely get to see anymore and I rather like him, even Vector, despite the compute room jokes and such.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I wasn't necessarily arguing that forcing an element is "right;" I merely like to make the point that it isn't wrong because that's how such elements are usually framed. "I should be able to play however I want!" "I don't want to do this!" and on and on; just no thought for the designer and their vision at all. As an art, game design is what it is. Developers should be allowed to run the whole gamut of innumerable possible design decisions without that being opposed on a level that says that some parameters are always wrong only on the basis that they're essentially an inherent part of the experience, e.g. "forced." After all, different games have different needs. Sometimes, you need a particular element to work for the overall experience.

But that's almost saying the input of the gamers that the developer is marketing the game to doesn't matter, and as much of an art game design is, it's also a business in creating a product. The developer can frame their vision however they want, but they're doing so with the intent of having other people experience it as well. And if said people don't enjoy the developer's vision, then said vision means nothing to anyone but the developer, which as far as game design goes, is not a good thing unless the developer was the sole audience, which is hardly the case.

 

That's not saying that you should always appeal fully to audience's interest, especially gamers given their rep as massive entitled bastards who can be very greedy towards not just the game but among each other. But let's be real here, the developer isn't the only person that matters as far as that vision goes. I wouldn't (always) say the way they take the vision is "wrong", but that it may either be an unwise direction or a risky one.

 

Of course, given how people look at the problems in this franchise, they automatically target the entire concept overall instead of the problems in implementing it. Rather than leaving it at just the problems of how the way werehog didn't mesh well with them, they blame the werehog entirely for being a part of it.

Edited November 7, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Nepenthe]

My views don't waive away fan input at all. Of course games are a business that rely upon an active audience consuming the product, but those truths really say very little about how any game ideally "should" be designed, in the sense of which design decisions, if any, are objectively "right" and "wrong" to "force" upon a player when creating a game. Really, what is the difference between "forcing" something and making something an "integral part of the game experience?" It's an unanswerable question because it's different for everybody. None of this is to say that any game is free from criticism, because the fact is a game can be bad in execution anyway. But failing at execution isn't a defense for the argument that forcing any specific game design element on the player is always and forever bad; if nothing else, it's generally irrelevant to the problems of a game, at least without further elaboration.

Essentially, when people say that it's "wrong" to "force" them to use a mechanic, character, weapon, device, or whatever else they don't like, I generally always disagree. It's not "wrong." It's just that, well, they didn't like the mechanic! Which is fine, but attaching any hint of morality or ethics or objectivity to the decisions undermines the idea of game design as an art form because it blatantly says "you cannot do this," which is antithetical to the existence of art. Ultimately, all game design ideas and decisions are neutral entities, neither "right" or "wrong"; they're just tools in a toolbox.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I don't really think it's unanswerable to distinguish between "forced" and "intergral" depending on what experience you're delivering, though they can blur for better or worse. If, for example, people are playing a game designed for them to run and jump around it and you throw in a fishing game required for them to progress to the final story, I think people are more inclined to call that "forced" for a variety of reasons, a predominant one being that it is almost completely counter and outlandish from everything else they've played in the game. Not exactly a good idea to have around so people can unlock the better parts they want to play.

 

Now it being "wrong" is a different matter that I can agree to being unanswerable. I won't entirely say there are things that "you cannot do" or what "should" be done in a game, it's just a matter of how something will work out when you put it in for people to play, or a matter of how you use the tools in the box; you may be able to use a wrench to hammer a nail in place, but it's still a better idea to use the hammer for that purpose instead unless you have no other choice but to use the wrench.

Edited November 7, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Tara]

But in general, there was nothing "wrong" with "forcing" the Werehog, especially since his potential problems would've persisted if they somehow truly separated him from everything else yet kept him the same. In that way, the "forcing" argument is actually completely unhelpful in terms of discussing and discerning how he could've been better. And besides, if he was more fun than he's generally deemed, the complaints about the "forcing" would severely be lessened. After all, "that's what games are about." Fun right? I would wager for most people that if they something fun in a game, they're not going to complain much that said thing may be required to experience the game.

Saying that the player wouldn't complain much if it were fun is essentially the same as saying, "Well, it's not horrible but it could be worse."  I actually liked the Werehog stages (*prepares riot shield*) and would go so far as to consider them fun (*prepares helment*) despite its flaws (*locks and barricades the doors and windows*) but being forced to do something which radically deviates from what I bought the game for is hardly an ideal experience, even if it is fun.

 

Of course, in that instant, it was probably more of an issue of balancing the two different mechanics out.  Also, I know you can't give a choice between the Werehog due to both plot and gameplay-related issues.  If it were balanced out better, I'd probably give the game a begrudging pass on that one.  Making him optional wouldn't work, but if modified properly, having another character which uses the Werehog (with fixed controls, hopefully) as a template who is completely optional, but has a balanced array of advantages and disadvantages over Sonic could still work.

 

Overall, I still stand by my main point that player choice should always be considered when possible.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Or you could have the werehog move faster, not have the enemies have tedious health bars require so many hits, not clutter up each segment with so many enemies, and not have such frustrating puzzle elements in between the segments (well, I thought some of them were frustrating).

 

I wouldn't replace the Werehog with another character because that would ruin a lot of the game's narrative and gameplay theme on duality. Although if you're adding another character, that would be fine going along with the "world tour" aspect...but you'll have to do a lot of restructuring, planning, and implementation of how they would play in either style, and even then it could come off as jarring on how you do it.

 

Would be awkward if someone like Knux, Shadow, or Amy were playable and they could kill enemies in one hit on daytime stages while taking numerous hits to kill some of the same enemies at night, so I don't even think it's worth doing that.

Edited November 7, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Tara]

Well, I was mainly referring to having a different character take the Werehog position in a different game.  Unleashed can't do it for narrative and gameplay purposes, of course, but I wouldn't write the Werehog's control template off as a complete failure or something that should never be implemented later.

 

But yeah, I agree that the Werehog itself would have been improved with the things you listed, but again, unless it was implemented really well, that would only make playing as him less miserable.  He'd still an obstruction to the flow of gameplay.

[Nepenthe]

Saying that the player wouldn't complain much if it were fun is essentially the same as saying, "Well, it's not horrible but it could be worse."  I actually liked the Werehog stages (*prepares riot shield*) and would go so far as to consider them fun (*prepares helment*) despite its flaws (*locks and barricades the doors and windows*) but being forced to do something which radically deviates from what I bought the game for is hardly an ideal experience, even if it is fun.

 

Of course, in that instant, it was probably more of an issue of balancing the two different mechanics out.  Also, I know you can't give a choice between the Werehog due to both plot and gameplay-related issues.  If it were balanced out better, I'd probably give the game a begrudging pass on that one.  Making him optional wouldn't work, but if modified properly, having another character which uses the Werehog (with fixed controls, hopefully) as a template who is completely optional, but has a balanced array of advantages and disadvantages over Sonic could still work.

 

Overall, I still stand by my main point that player choice should always be considered when possible.

 

I disagree with that first point entirely. Players generally do not complain about "forced" elements in a game when they believe those elements add to an overall positive experience. People who love with their heart of hearts Wind Waker's sailing are not going to complain that it was "forced" in the sense that it was some egregious violation of consumer trust to have thrust upon the poor players, "taking away their choice." They're going to say it's "necessary" for full immersion into and enjoyment of that game, that to have taken it out or even made it skippable would have made the game lesser. This is, again, not to say sailing is something that needs to be dumped into every single game, that it is a "right" design choice. It's to say that a particular game was designed to work based on the idea of sailing thus it makes sense to make it mandatory, and there's absolutely nothing "wrong" with that, even if some people didn't end up liking it. And those people not liking it are not proof that you can never have mandatory sailing in any game ever. Overall, the difference between "forced" and "mandatory" is purely a subjective nuance dependent entirely on what you like, not what developers "should" objectively be doing. To say it's the latter treats game design like something of a factory-assembled product and not the art that it is, something that can only be done one way and one way only.  

 

(And frankly, how could you have bought Sonic Unleashed for just Daytime Sonic only? Every marketing effort, news article, preview, review, commercial, online conversation, and even the box art blatantly advertised the Werehog as a mandatory part of the experience. Saying you bought the game for one part with the implication that you were swindled somehow is dishonest, because the fact is you knew what you were getting into yet decided to spend your money on it anyway, unless you just went on the most amazing blackout known to mankind. =P That isn't Sonic Team's fault!)

 

Regardless, I do agree that the Werehog could have been better in many ways, (although I simply do not like the "replace the Werehog with another character" routine because it completely misses the point of some of the themes of the game, and as a result would either be extremely weird or unrecognizable with someone else in the role. No Bob, I don't like it at all). I also, ironically, think player choice is valuable. But I do not conflate the value of player choice to mean every single design decision that can possibly be made 100% optional must be made optional or else the game has done something wrong and violated your trust and freedom. It's silly to me.

[Tara]

I disagree with that first point entirely. Players generally do not complain about "forced" elements in a game when they believe those elements add to an overall positive experience. People who love with their heart of hearts Wind Waker's sailing are not going to complain that it was "forced" in the sense that it was some egregious violation of consumer trust to have thrust upon the poor players, "taking away their choice." They're going to say it's "necessary" for full immersion into and enjoyment of that game, that to have taken it out or even made it skippable would have made the game lesser. This is, again, not to say sailing is something that needs to be dumped into every single game, that it is a "right" design choice. It's to say that a particular game was designed to work based on the idea of sailing thus it makes sense to make it mandatory, and there's absolutely nothing "wrong" with that, even if some people didn't end up liking it. And those people not liking it are not proof that you can never have mandatory sailing in any game ever. Overall, the difference between "forced" and "mandatory" is purely a subjective nuance dependent entirely on what you like, not what developers "should" objectively be doing. To say it's the latter treats game design like something of a factory-assembled product and not the art that it is, something that can only be done one way and one way only.  

 

I'd compare the Werehog more to Twilight Princess's forcing you to play as a wolf in several parts throughout the game.  I haven't played Wind Waker so I might be a total idiot in saying this, but at least with the sailing you're still Link... doing Linky things.  Even though I didn't have a problem with the wolf, I can understand the frustration of playing the game as human/elf/I don't know that much about Zelda I'm not sure if that's obvious Link and then suddenly you're thrust into being a wolf who controls drastically different and can't use any of the same abilities.  It's just an obstruction.

 

 

 

(And frankly, how could you have bought Sonic Unleashed for just Daytime Sonic only? Every marketing effort, news article, preview, review, commercial, online conversation, and even the box art blatantly advertised the Werehog as a mandatory part of the experience. Saying you bought the game for one part with the implication that you were swindled somehow is dishonest, because the fact is you knew what you were getting into yet decided to spend your money on it anyway, unless you just went on the most amazing blackout known to mankind. =P That isn't Sonic Team's fault!)

 

 

I wasn't saying that I bought the game solely for the daytime stages.  I knew very well that there would be night stages where you played as the Werehog and that it would be mandatory.  However, the daytime stages were my primary reasons for buying the game, and I bought the game with the expectations that the gimmick would enhance or otherwise modify the existing core gameplay, not completely take it over and transform it into something different.  Just like I knew that I'd have to play as the other characters in SA1 thanks to the box art and such, but I didn't know that I'd be hunting for Emeralds and fishing for frogs in order to progress through the game.

 

 

 

Regardless, I do agree that the Werehog could have been better in many ways, (although I simply do not like the "replace the Werehog with another character" routine because it completely misses the point of some of the themes of the game, and as a result would either be extremely weird or unrecognizable with someone else in the role. No Bob, I don't like it at all). I also, ironically, think player choice is valuable. But I do not conflate the value of player choice to mean every single design decision that can possibly be made 100% optional must be made optional or else the game has done something wrong and violated your trust and freedom. It's silly to me.

 

 

I wasn't so much saying that every game mechanic should be optional, but that player choice should always be considered, especially when it involves doing something drastically different or putting you deliberately outside your area of comfort.  (Not that removing the "comfort zone" is intrinsically bad, but feeling like you have absolutely no control in anything isn't exactly preferable)  I'll concede that Sonic Unleashed probably wouldn't benefit narratively from the werehog being an optional component, bu forcing it certainly doesn't enrich the gameplay either.

[Jet Prower]

Well how would you say the whole werehog thing should have been handled then? I know I'm one of those people that liked the werehog sections like some of you as well. I often still hear the things about how he breaks up the gameplay and makes things not as fun because you have to play as him to get the day time stuff. This is one of those things I've mentioned before where it seems people in Sonic games want to do nothing but run run run, they don't even want to platform that much anymore in the games. This is rather evident by how Colors and Generations get good scores since what do you do in them, run run run for the most part with very few platforming in some levels and what  platforming there is can be difficult due to how fast the characters are made to go.

 

I know one said that the day and night stages should always be two different games, but that does sound like it would result in one getting alot more copies sold than the other. I'm just wondering how the werehog could have been done to have gone over better then, since as I just mentioned, there are many people that seem to want run run run and nothing else.