Is Mania's "philosophy" of speed and player control worse than the classics'?

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

I know this probably won't be an popular opinion here, but I just played a bit of Sonic 2 with my sister and even from that small amount, it really drove home to me how much better that game is than Mania to me. Sonic 2 has an amazing sense of speed, probably the most of the classics. Mania is also very speedy, but it's nowhere near as satisfying as Sonic 2's since the levels are designed to frequently throw you around all over the place, not only giving you speed you haven't "earned" but giving you speed even when you don't even want it. It's frenetic and honestly kind of tiring and not as fun to me. In the real classics, it feels you have more control over your speed and you can actually take responsibility for it, making it more enjoyable. It's both a reward for playing well and something that can enable you to play better, but going fast without care, discernment and good reflexes can get you in trouble, which makes it all the more satisfying when you can use it right and burst through a level. A lot of the time, Mania seems more oriented around the idea of speed just being a given, which is nowhere near as interesting or fun.

(For what it's worth, Sonic 2 isn't perfect, though I am a bit surprised at the fact that it seems relatively unpopular here. There are so many things it did so right. It's definitely one of my favorites.)

I really like Mania, it's brilliant in many ways, but as far as my personal preferences go, I've realized I definitely still prefer the actual classics for multiple reasons, but this one, a matter of level design and overall philosophy, is probably the biggest.

I'm probably not the best person to talk since, for various reasons, I haven't actually played these games nearly as much as many of y'all (especially Mania due to being busy with school). Is this just crazy talk? It just seems there are quite a few times in Mania where the level design forces you to go fast and you have much less control. It makes the game feel perhaps more shallow and just not as interesting or fun to me. Going really fast in the actual classics always feels great to me, while in Mania it often feels frenetic and unsatisfying.

Having control feels empowering, while the opposite does not, and it also risks making the game less interesting to play. I can't think of an exhaustive list of times in Mania where it feels like there's not as much control, but it feels like something that happens a lot. Metallic Madness' launching you into those springer-things all the time and Titanic Monarch constantly forcing you into those Sonic-3K-bonus-stage-tribute-electric-spheres are two examples that come to mind very readily, because both of them border on forcing you into a different kind of gameplay, shifting it to more of a solely reflexed-and-timing-based thing without the many other elements that make up Sonic platforming.

Mania's more "speed is a given" style of gameplay can definitely be fun, but overall my preferences definitely guide me to favoring the classics with their greater platforming emphasis and perhaps a more multidimensional view of speed.

[StaticMania]

There's definitely a feeling of Mania having a few too many sections where you're just holding a direction while Sonic speeds along. For the old games that was quite rare actually and while it happened more often per game it was just to show off the processing power of the Genesis and look cool. 

Something like that isn't really necessary in Mania because it doesn't have the technical limits and isn't really as impressive as a result. It also makes the shift in level design seem not as natural when the platforming gets really slow.

[Blacklightning]

I'd hate to admit it, but there were a few points throughout Mania which essentially boiled down to "hold down and let the level design carry you". I'm just not particularly bitter about it because even that level of depth is still better than what we'd have otherwise, because that at least requires you to read the level design and decide where best a strategic roll will benefit you. That's still downright heavenly when the alternative is "hold one button down and the game practically plays itself".

[Maxtiis]

2 hours ago, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

I know this probably won't be an popular opinion here, but I just played a bit of Sonic 2 with my sister and even from that small amount, it really drove home to me how much better that game is than Mania to me. Sonic 2 has an amazing sense of speed, probably the most of the classics. Mania is also very speedy, but it's nowhere near as satisfying as Sonic 2's since the levels are designed to frequently throw you around all over the place, not only giving you speed you haven't "earned" but giving you speed even when you don't even want it. It's frenetic and honestly kind of tiring and not as fun to me. In the real classics, it feels you have more control over your speed and you can actually take responsibility for it, making it more enjoyable. It's both a reward for playing well and something that can enable you to play better, but going fast without care, discernment and good reflexes can get you in trouble, which makes it all the more satisfying when you can use it right and burst through a level. A lot of the time, Mania seems more oriented around the idea of speed just being a given, which is nowhere near as interesting or fun.

(For what it's worth, Sonic 2 isn't perfect, though I am a bit surprised at the fact that it seems relatively unpopular here. There are so many things it did so right. It's definitely one of my favorites.)

I really like Mania, it's brilliant in many ways, but as far as my personal preferences go, I've realized I definitely still prefer the actual classics for multiple reasons, but this one, a matter of level design and overall philosophy, is probably the biggest.

I'm probably not the best person to talk since, for various reasons, I haven't actually played these games nearly as much as many of y'all (especially Mania due to being busy with school). Is this just crazy talk? It just seems there are quite a few times in Mania where the level design forces you to go fast and you have much less control. It makes the game feel perhaps more shallow and just not as interesting or fun to me. Going really fast in the actual classics always feels great to me, while in Mania it often feels frenetic and unsatisfying.

Having control feels empowering, while the opposite does not, and it also risks making the game less interesting to play. I can't think of an exhaustive list of times in Mania where it feels like there's not as much control, but it feels like something that happens a lot. Metallic Madness' launching you into those springer-things all the time and Titanic Monarch constantly forcing you into those Sonic-3K-bonus-stage-tribute-electric-spheres are two examples that come to mind very readily, because both of them border on forcing you into a different kind of gameplay, shifting it to more of a solely reflexed-and-timing-based thing without the many other elements that make up Sonic platforming.

Mania's more "speed is a given" style of gameplay can definitely be fun, but overall my preferences definitely guide me to favoring the classics with their greater platforming emphasis and perhaps a more multidimensional view of speed.

When I first played Mania I also had similar thoughts about this, especially in regards to levels like Studiopolis; then I started trying my hand at the time trials and those gave me a much greater perspective of how Mania was designed. Sonic 2 is one of my favorite games in existence so you're not alone in thinking it deserves its praises, but that game has a very different structure to its level design to Mania: Sonic 2 is constructed in way that there's very little intermingling with level layers with exception to zones like Chemical Plant Act 2 and Aquatic Ruin, in contrast to Mania where the level layers are constantly intersecting. Just to clarify, when I say level layers I'm referring to the invisible triggers that when stepped on make the characters suddenly able to walk on level design in either the foreground or background such as this spot in Chemical Plant Act 2:

Mania is full of instances like this and it makes learning how to speedrun it a very thrilling, and admittedly confusing, exercise of skill. I say this because learning the routes through some of Mania's levels is fairly challenging due to how often they intersect between one another, which doesn't even take into account some of the advanced strategies like slope jumping which can allow you to traverse between routes in ways the developers may not have expected (but I'm sure they anticipated). Hell, sometimes the routes are so interconnected you may end up switching between them without even realizing it (I believe Hydrocity and Oil Ocean are good examples of this). If you haven't already, I'd recommend watching a few of Werster's time trial runs of Mania to see some of this in action, he makes great use of it much to my aggravation when I've tried to replicate what he does (screw you Stardust Speedway).

Regardless, I think we can both agree that Sonic 2 and Mania are masterclasses of their genre and deserve all the acclaim they get.

[Sean]

I think Mania feels different from the classics because it took all the good stuff from them and condensed them into a single game. I believe it's better designed than any classic game, even though I would still rank S3K higher than it due to personal preference.

Sonic 2 is actually one of my least liked Sonic games so I can't say I agree on that part; I consider its design to be overly punishing (not dissimilar to the Advance games' design) and there are way too many not-fun parts of that game for me even when I am going fast. This is coming from someone who thinks Sonic 1 is more brilliant than most people give it credit for and I actually don't mind Marble or Labyrinth Zones at all.

[Wraith]

Mania definitely likes to lean harder on speed as a spectacle thing, which Sonic 2 surprisingly doesn't do very often when you think about it, but I think that's just because it's more of a Sonic 3 type game Sonic 3 also liked it's flashy sequences a lot more than people let on when you look at things like the hills in marble garden and the speed boosters in carnival night. 

Sonic 2 liked to punish people who didn't know the game very well, while Mania usually goes out of it's way to keep even lower paths entertaining and give them a few secrets to find of their own. It's very hard to die on the lower end of a stage in Mania while Sonic 2 actively punishes you for not being able to stay higher up with water sections, blocky level design, or flat out death. I think Mania's approach is better if we're taking about making a universally enjoyable game, but as someone who likes Unleashed over other boost games at least partially for difficulty reasons, i can understand where you're coming from by preferring the game that rewards the time investment.

[MetalSkulkBane]

In brief I think Mania is less punishing, more accessible and 'fun', then challenge of Sonic 2. I can easily score 20+ lives in Mania, raaaaaarely in  S2. It's not worse, just different style of thinking. (Then again, I didn't play those games with analytic mind set. It's just my theory.)

[TheOcelot]

You know, it's actually quite difficult to define Mania's gameplay style compared to the classics. When I first played the demo at Summer of Sonic (GH & Studiopiolis) I got the impression of a cross between Sonic CD & Sonic 2 level design, by which I mean lots of close intersecting routes, very cleverly laid-out, if a tad confusing at times and also very fast fluid level design with occasional cheap enemy placement. Mania has very large stages but the very-open expensive level design which is the trade-mark of Sonic 3 doesn't really happen that often in Mania, because like I said Mania's stages are more closely-nit routes. This isn't a bad thing. I never wanted a Sonic 3 clone, I wanted a game with a unique style which is what we get with Mania.

I'm not a fan of speed-running but I can understand why Mania's stages were designed with this in mind. What I am not a fan of, however, is automation which Mania has way too much of. Automation becomes apparent in Chemical Plant act2, Studiopolis and Flying Battery Act 2. Studiopolis gets a free pass because it's a unique zone with a terrific balance of platforming and fast routes, but by the time I get to FB Act2 it becomes annoying. I want to be in control of Sonic, I don't want the game to do the work for me.

Automation doesn't happen all the time and there is some outstanding level design in Mania make no mistake, but when I get to the final stage of the game, Titanic Monarch which has a ridiculous amount of automation for a final stage in a 2d Sonic game, it leaves me frustrated.

5 hours ago, Sean said:

Sonic 2 is actually one of my least liked Sonic games so I can't say I agree on that part; I consider its design to be overly punishing (not dissimilar to the Advance games' design) and there are way too many not-fun parts of that game for me even when I am going fast. This is coming from someone who thinks Sonic 1 is more brilliant than most people give it credit for and I actually don't mind Marble or Labyrinth Zones at all.

I completely agree with Sean on this. Sonic 2's level design at times has poor enemy placement. The controls are a tad slippery, the level design is often not challenging enough, not broken up with good platforming sections. Whilst there are multiple routes the level design and controls make the game feel like it's constantly pushing you forward and discourages exploration/back-tracking. Plus Tails couldn't fly in the original version of Sonic 2 which was a really stupid decision.

I actually find Stealth & Taxman's Hidden Palace (from the mobile version) to be one of my favorite designed stages in Sonic 2 and there are similarities in Hidden Palace to Mania's level design.

Sonic 2 is an easy game and I find it very boring. Sonic 2 has less shitty boss fights compared to Mania and both games have a fantastic 2-player vs mode, but I much prefer Mania over Sonic 2 because overall the level design is more challenging and Mania's physics are spot-on.

[superman43]

For me, personally, as I feel Mania was.

The main route in Green Hill was basically the original stages (Act 1 and Act 2 in S1 for Mania Act 1 and Act 3 for Act 2)... but, after the "end" of the section taken from originals you can smell more of automation up to the end.

Chemical Plant was always automated. The Act 1 again takes original designs, most of the time. Act 2... well... it is hold some button to proceed, but at least you get rewarded for the timing, which wasn´t done in any stage. (And if so, name one.)

Studiopolis is automated mainly in lower route. But again there is sense of right timing done well.

Flying Battery feels like Flying Battery. This is million times better than the original, as Taxman, Stealth and co. clearly knew that the elevator kind of thing was just shit. Again there was a huge amount of automation even in S&K.

Press Garden is good. Yes, there is a bit of automation and I can clearly say where and how much time it takes.

Stardust Speedway is way better than CD. In Sonic CD you couldn´t get the timing right, never. 

Hydrocity has basically the same amount of automation as in S3, if not less.

Mirage Saloon besides having the Sky Chase Zone for Sonic and Tails stage is ok.

Oil Ocean is basically as in S2 with the addition of Sandopolis gimmick to Act 2.

Lava Reef - same as S&K.

Metallic Madness - original was very blocky

Titanic Monarch - I can agree with it being the most automated final stage. But it´s still better final stage than Scrap Brain and Death Egg combined.

 

Nothing more to say. 

 

 

[Lord-Dreamerz]

Mania despite a few small problems I have with it, is my new fave classic style title. Yeah I like it more then Sonic 3&K, you heard me. I Don't feel Mania takes away control from the player to much. And I prefer the more flashy animated feeling of everything compared to the other classics excluding Sonic 3&K which wasn't to bad in that area too. And I love how interesting the boss battles are in Mania... many of the other classic game bosses normally felt to overly simple and dull to me. I like Mania's higher degree of speed & spectacle myself, and feel Sonic 1/2/CD by comparison were to punishing and just plan stingy with speed to the point only people who played the game loads of times and memorized the levels near perfectly can have the most fun with it... which isn't the best game design IMO. I'm differently not the type who enjoys replaying a game tons of times, I prefer to have my first couple times of playing a game being fairly enjoyable as it can be.

Speed as a reward for playing greatly is nice and whatnot... But took to far the game becomes more dull and or becomes more exclusive to expert players where casual players can't have as much fun. I believe Mania has a nice balance in challenge and levels itself to modern game standards better.

[Jar Jar Analysis 1138]

(On a broken phone so I don't have much to work with).

I don't personally have an issue with Mania's design philosophy as they clearly wanted to make it more speedy based ala Sonic 2 rather than being a little bit too bloated like Sonic 3k. I just wish they didn't butcher some levels with CD inspired design. For example;

Hydrocity Act 2/Chemical Plant Act 2's sense of flow and speed felt diminished with those added gimmicks that are occasionally pace breaking or in general not building upon the levels(except for the wall ooze you could jump off of. That was cool). Mania for all intents and purposes; Is a more accessible, easier to pick up and play Sonic game while still retaining some level of challenge for the more hardcore players. This style of level design is unique yet I say it needs refinement in my eyes. 

"Mania's more "speed is a given" style of gameplay can definitely be fun, but overall my preferences definitely guide me to favoring the classics with their greater platforming emphasis and perhaps a more multidimensional view of speed."

Ehh..I think people over emphasize some of the "automation" in Mania although I can see the criticism on it. You still have to make the desired inputs if you want to speed run the levels effectively and even The older games had it where certain stages are less taxing on platforming and reaction. 

"Speed is a given"

It's been a given since Sonic 2 with the spin dash mechanic(Sonic 1 was all about earning speed imo. That game was truly challenging in this regard). Now do the stages tend to throw you around constantly too much? Yes..Absoultely yes:/

 

On November 24, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

Metallic Madness' launching you into those springer-things all the time and Titanic Monarch constantly forcing you into those Sonic-3K-bonus-stage-tribute-electric-spheres are two examples that come to mind very readily, because both of them border on forcing you into a different kind of gameplay, shifting it to more of a solely reflexed-and-timing-based thing without the many other elements that make up Sonic platforming.

Those stages are what I want to call "horrible" but I'm going to give them grace for now until my honey moon phase is over. Monarch reeks of Sonic CD and 3k's worst aspects when it comes to level design. Long, bland and unfocused. 

Relfex and timing should be apart of Sonic's gameplay. Although those stages didn't handle them very well so I'll agree with you here. 

I still don't see why Mania gets put up as "3k quality". As amazing as it wants to be, there is a lot holding it back in my view.  

[PKGaming]

20 hours ago, Sean said:

I think Mania feels different from the classics because it took all the good stuff from them and condensed them into a single game. I believe it's better designed than any classic game, even though I would still rank S3K higher than it due to personal preference.

Sonic 2 is actually one of my least liked Sonic games so I can't say I agree on that part; I consider its design to be overly punishing (not dissimilar to the Advance games' design) and there are way too many not-fun parts of that game for me even when I am going fast. This is coming from someone who thinks Sonic 1 is more brilliant than most people give it credit for and I actually don't mind Marble or Labyrinth Zones at all.

Definitely agree. Sonic 2 is also one of my least favorites because I feel parts of the level design past Chemical Plant is too punishing. Shitty enemy and trap placement actually discourages me from going fast in that game. In Mania, whenever there's an obvious speed or bouncing section, I go into it knowing I can trust Mania not to send me hurling into an enemy, spikes, wall, or bottomless pit. The fact that it's widescreen also helps so I can see what's ahead of me in enough time to react.

[BlueFlare]

To this day Sonic 3 has held my favorite flavor of levels in any Sonic game, Angel Island and Launch Base being my personal favorites. Anyhow, Sonic CD has always been my personal favorite classic Sonic game, so far. CD has great music and very absorbing aesthetics, but block-ish level design that many don't prefer. I still like 'em.

 Sonic Mania changed things, though, it made a huge impression on me. It has all that Sonic 3 and CD have, but did it slightly better. I never thought any Sonic game would top Sonic 3's levels and CD's music, but for me, Mania did it. Even though Mania does not have my dream selection of returning levels, I still enjoy all of them. There's a good balance in laid-back, fluid, speedy sections and more challenging, block-ish platforming sections. When I say Mania also has automation, it definitely means it isn't bad in any way. It's the type of automation that flows perfectly with your own playing and how you time your actions.

 Mania is great in many things and would be even greater with more original and creative take on re-imagining the old levels.

[Rummy]

Here's my say in this, I think we've all grown up playing the classics almost daily for most of our lives, it impacted our ideals of game design and how things should play. So i leave you this.

Do you have a sibling or relative that seems to be into gaming? Hand them Mania and see how they play. Trust me it really does open your eyes because eventually after playing the Classics for so long you start sorta growing a tunnel vision of level design, We learn the best route, the best way to move around and how we can go at our fastest in these games so by the time Mania fell into our laps it was very easy to swift though the game because we had Experience. 

While i do love Mania and while i have my bias towards 3&K's Gameplay and CD's visual aesthetic, I do agree that Mania can be too easy, But why is it too easy? My answer is that we've all gotten really good at playing Sonic.

At least that's what i believe.

[PKGaming]

3 hours ago, Rummy said:

Here's my say in this, I think we've all grown up playing the classics almost daily for most of our lives, it impacted our ideals of game design and how things should play. So i leave you this.

Do you have a sibling or relative that seems to be into gaming? Hand them Mania and see how they play. Trust me it really does open your eyes because eventually after playing the Classics for so long you start sorta growing a tunnel vision of level design, We learn the best route, the best way to move around and how we can go at our fastest in these games so by the time Mania fell into our laps it was very easy to swift though the game because we had Experience. 

While i do love Mania and while i have my bias towards 3&K's Gameplay and CD's visual aesthetic, I do agree that Mania can be too easy, But why is it too easy? My answer is that we've all gotten really good at playing Sonic.

At least that's what i believe.

Yeah, I also think Mania is, while amazing, pretty easy. But I think it's just because I'm an experienced Sonic player. I can say it's pretty easy and forgiving, but then I watch someone like ZackScott struggle with the game and call it difficult because he's not familiar with Sonic. 

[Polkadi~☆]

3 hours ago, Rummy said:

Here's my say in this, I think we've all grown up playing the classics almost daily for most of our lives, it impacted our ideals of game design and how things should play. So i leave you this.

Do you have a sibling or relative that seems to be into gaming? Hand them Mania and see how they play. Trust me it really does open your eyes because eventually after playing the Classics for so long you start sorta growing a tunnel vision of level design, We learn the best route, the best way to move around and how we can go at our fastest in these games so by the time Mania fell into our laps it was very easy to swift though the game because we had Experience. 

While i do love Mania and while i have my bias towards 3&K's Gameplay and CD's visual aesthetic, I do agree that Mania can be too easy, But why is it too easy? My answer is that we've all gotten really good at playing Sonic.

At least that's what i believe.

I got my little sister to play Mania, and it really is a surprising, eye-opening experience.

For one, of course, she was stuck to the lower paths. Two, she seemed to fight against the speed in favour of exploration. Three, she got fed up rather soon, as she felt the stages went a little too long (though this is more on her account of screwing up a few times in some areas, extending the time played.). Four, she did not die once when playing through the stages, even when she wasn't very good.

But some things in the game were very confusing to her, like the Hyper Ring powerup (though I believe this is because the game never actually explains these things).

She even struggled in the special stages, because the game never tells you to pick up rings to increase your time, or that picking up blue spheres speeds you up. I even had to tell her about spindashing in the stages, which the game never tells you about, and she suddenly opened up way more paths. She still doesn't understand the dropdash, either.

She also despises the Studiopolis mini-boss, because of how cluttered and confusing it is.

What it tells me is that the level design is definitely accomodating for new players. But what the rest of the game fails in is also accomodating everything else for the new players. I had to tell my sister many key aspects, because the game itself doesn't.

[Maxtiis]

18 minutes ago, Polkadi said:

I got my little sister to play Mania, and it really is a surprising, eye-opening experience.

For one, of course, she was stuck to the lower paths. Two, she seemed to fight against the speed in favour of exploration. Three, she got fed up rather soon, as she felt the stages went a little too long (though this is more on her account of screwing up a few times in some areas, extending the time played.). Four, she did not die once when playing through the stages, even when she wasn't very good.

But some things in the game were very confusing to her, like the Hyper Ring powerup (though I believe this is because the game never actually explains these things).

She even struggled in the special stages, because the game never tells you to pick up rings to increase your time, or that picking up blue spheres speeds you up. I even had to tell her about spindashing in the stages, which the game never tells you about, and she suddenly opened up way more paths. She still doesn't understand the dropdash, either.

She also despises the Studiopolis mini-boss, because of how cluttered and confusing it is.

What it tells me is that the level design is definitely accomodating for new players. But what the rest of the game fails in is also accomodating everything else for the new players. I had to tell my sister many key aspects, because the game itself doesn't.

Just to add a little more perspective to this, does your sister happen to play video games often or not much at all?

[Polkadi~☆]

33 minutes ago, Maxtiis said:

Just to add a little more perspective to this, does your sister happen to play video games often or not much at all?

Quite often, she runs her own gaming YouTube channel. She's more of a casual gamer, but she definitely plays video games.

[Salamander]

11 hours ago, Polkadi said:

I got my little sister to play Mania, and it really is a surprising, eye-opening experience.

For one, of course, she was stuck to the lower paths. Two, she seemed to fight against the speed in favour of exploration. Three, she got fed up rather soon, as she felt the stages went a little too long (though this is more on her account of screwing up a few times in some areas, extending the time played.). Four, she did not die once when playing through the stages, even when she wasn't very good.

But some things in the game were very confusing to her, like the Hyper Ring powerup (though I believe this is because the game never actually explains these things).

She even struggled in the special stages, because the game never tells you to pick up rings to increase your time, or that picking up blue spheres speeds you up. I even had to tell her about spindashing in the stages, which the game never tells you about, and she suddenly opened up way more paths. She still doesn't understand the dropdash, either.

She also despises the Studiopolis mini-boss, because of how cluttered and confusing it is.

What it tells me is that the level design is definitely accomodating for new players. But what the rest of the game fails in is also accomodating everything else for the new players. I had to tell my sister many key aspects, because the game itself doesn't.

This is very interesting, and highlights a couple of issues with strict Classic design: One is the tutorial aspect, and another is the speed aspect.  Mania is very much a Classic title in that it doesn't tell you what the buttons do unless you read the manual, but for a modern gamer then the expectation is that you'll be told in-game how things work.  That's not right or wrong, it's just a different approach, but it's something future titles might wish to bear in mind; you could argue that the games are asking players to experiment, but it's more accurate to say that they don't actually ask, they just expect it to happen spontaneously.  Modern gamers really expect to be told what their abilities are, and for the experimentation to come from applying those abilities - not discovering them.  I think people have been opposed to this before, but maybe some kind of very short tutorial stage with actual signboards telling you how stuff works (via floating text that doesn't interrupt gameplay, I'd suggest) wouldn't be a bad idea.  (Edit: Actually, didn't Rush Adventure have just such a tutorial?  So that's 2D precedent.)  Could flash up something similar when you get a Hyper Ring powerup, or try to convey the change graphically in a more explicit way.  So far as special stages go, the first special stage I think does its best to ease you in gently to its systems, but in practice, are there going to be a lot of people who just fasten their eyes on the UFO and miss the stuff that's happening across the screen?  I don't think it'd be necessarily too much to ask to add four more words to the intro text - "Rings = Time, Spheres = Speed," something like that.

The thing about fighting against speed, though!  This ties into something I've been thinking about lately, and that is that the nature of momentum physics requires you to relinquish control.  When you're in ball form rolling down a hill, there isn't much control you have over Sonic, and that loss of control can be a worrying thing - if you don't know yet that you can trust the level designer.  That trust is absolutely vital to momentum physics; the player needs to be able to trust the level designer that speed won't just cannonball them into spikes or a pit, and the level designer needs to trust the player not to seek speed in obviously dangerous places.  It's a delicate balance and it's all too easy to feel betrayed - or to never gain that trust in the first place.  One of the advantages of 3D Sonic is that you can actually see where you're going.  In 2D, you can only go on faith.  I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem.  Ease the player much more gently into the consequences of speed, perhaps?  But it also requires you to always, always be a careful level designer, and that's a high bar to reach.  I'll say this in Sonic Team's defence: In the Classics, they managed to create a form of platforming gameplay which is not easy to design for.

[PKGaming]

On 11/27/2017 at 7:31 PM, Polkadi said:

I got my little sister to play Mania, and it really is a surprising, eye-opening experience.

For one, of course, she was stuck to the lower paths. Two, she seemed to fight against the speed in favour of exploration. Three, she got fed up rather soon, as she felt the stages went a little too long (though this is more on her account of screwing up a few times in some areas, extending the time played.). Four, she did not die once when playing through the stages, even when she wasn't very good.

But some things in the game were very confusing to her, like the Hyper Ring powerup (though I believe this is because the game never actually explains these things).

She even struggled in the special stages, because the game never tells you to pick up rings to increase your time, or that picking up blue spheres speeds you up. I even had to tell her about spindashing in the stages, which the game never tells you about, and she suddenly opened up way more paths. She still doesn't understand the dropdash, either.

She also despises the Studiopolis mini-boss, because of how cluttered and confusing it is.

What it tells me is that the level design is definitely accomodating for new players. But what the rest of the game fails in is also accomodating everything else for the new players. I had to tell my sister many key aspects, because the game itself doesn't.

This is why I've never been that harsh on tutorials and games with slow openings that ease the player in. I know there are tons of gamers like Egoraptor that hate tutorials and think they're treating you like an idiot, but that's only because they're experienced gamers. Some casual gamers need a tutorial. They won't just pick up on things through experimentation and observation. Not everyone works that way.

[Dr. Detective]

On 11/27/2017 at 6:31 PM, Polkadi said:

I got my little sister to play Mania, and it really is a surprising, eye-opening experience.

For one, of course, she was stuck to the lower paths. Two, she seemed to fight against the speed in favour of exploration. Three, she got fed up rather soon, as she felt the stages went a little too long (though this is more on her account of screwing up a few times in some areas, extending the time played.). Four, she did not die once when playing through the stages, even when she wasn't very good.

But some things in the game were very confusing to her, like the Hyper Ring powerup (though I believe this is because the game never actually explains these things).

She even struggled in the special stages, because the game never tells you to pick up rings to increase your time, or that picking up blue spheres speeds you up. I even had to tell her about spindashing in the stages, which the game never tells you about, and she suddenly opened up way more paths. She still doesn't understand the dropdash, either.

She also despises the Studiopolis mini-boss, because of how cluttered and confusing it is.

What it tells me is that the level design is definitely accomodating for new players. But what the rest of the game fails in is also accomodating everything else for the new players. I had to tell my sister many key aspects, because the game itself doesn't.

That doesn't bode well for me at all. I choke by the time I get to the second zone in the Classics.

[isCasted]

6 hours ago, PKGaming said:

This is why I've never been that harsh on tutorials and games with slow openings that ease the player in. I know there are tons of gamers like Egoraptor that hate tutorials and think they're treating you like an idiot, but that's only because they're experienced gamers. Some casual gamers need a tutorial. They won't just pick up on things through experimentation and observation. Not everyone works that way.

Actually, it's very difficult to call Arin an "experienced gamer", and it's precisely because he doesn't experiment, he doesn't try to understand games through experimentation. Yes, he ignores tutorials and button prompts, but he still expects the game to teach him things.

Some people see his Sequelitis about Megaman X as something genius, but the problem is that his example of "fantastic" design can still be described as a form of handholding, it's just that it's giving him an illusion that he figured things out on his own. Now, of course, it might not be nearly as "obnoxious" as tutorial prompts that completely break your flow, but for some games that kind of approach simply doesn't work.

Boost games, for example, give you lots of options to take out enemies. Jumping into them, sliding, homing attacking... But these games are only enjoyable for most people when they get to hold down the boost button majority of the time, and other options, despite leading to a success state eventually, are simply more boring. You can't make a kind of obstacle course that consists of the same elements as everywhere else in the game (without special gimmicks, that is) that'd also demand boost to teach people to boost all the time. You can, however, write a tip: "Boost as much as possible, the bar will go up anyway". But then you'll find some people boosting off cliffs where they could clearly see those cliffs but refused to stop boosting because the game told them to do so (I've legit seen this complaint on Sonic Generations subforum of SEGA Forums). And what's next? Write more tips? People will simply make dumber mistakes and expect more tips.

It's important to ease people in and give them extra information, but it's also important to teach people that experimentation is rewarding in itself. This is more so important for games like Mania that attract with their depth and not complexity. All games at a fundamental level of their gameplay are a combination of tests for both mechanical skill and task solving skill, in varying degree for each game (or, to put it more simply, something inbetween Simon Says and chess). Some games are just bound to not be appealing to some people, and that's ok.