Is Sonic's Game Design WRONG

This is a stupid article.

There's my thoughts.

 

The 6 million people that rushed out to buy Sonic 2 at Sonic's height of popularity in the Megadrive days seem to disagree.

That was my first thought. Then I read the article and it's worth noting that:

He concludes by saying that Sonic's game design is "incorrect" but ultimately a "masterpiece" - so this article isn't as critically negative as you'd think.

As for further thoughts, The Guardian, and yes even the games section, is a top-tier well-respected publication so this article isn't automatically trash. It's actually quite well-reasoned and elegantly written. Note that his conclusion is more that Sonic's game design is masterful and subversive and at no point does he deduct that it's therefore outright bad, as many would assume without reaching his conclusion.

Just checked out Lorde's Green Light as a result of this and Christ - what a fucking amazing "incorrect" track. As Sonic is. And always will be.

 

It's not a critical article, but it's an idiotic statement that can't even be backed up or supported. There's nothing incorrect in Sonic 1's design. The game absolutely teaches you everything you need to know like any good game would in its first level. Shit to collect, enemies to avoid, power ups to hit, how going up a hill, down a hill, and up a ramp behaves. The only time Green Hill Zone throws you into a fast paced segment is the first Loop into the tunnels. Everything after that follows a very well constructed path that insures the gameplay flow remains at a decent pace. The "speed" aspect doesn't even fully kick in until Star Light Zone, 15 full stages into the game, and even that whole section is slow. And that's coming off the trails of Labyrinth and Marble Zone.

This is someone describing a Sonic game design from second hand experience. You don't even have to play more than 10 seconds to see the statement "all it establishes at the beginning is that speed is important" is a straight up lie.

 

It's clickbait, nothing more.

 

But that's just a theory. A GAME theory.

Also

There's so much wrong with this statement, I don't even know where to begin.
Not that I disagree that Sonic 2 is a good game but that definitely not a good argument to defend anything ever.

 

The classic games had a "science" to their speed. The problem with speed is that the player quickly gets used to it and loses it thrill. So the classic games would frequently have slow moving sections. These not only stopped the player getting used to the speed, but they would also allow the speed to act as reward (for completing the obstacles), thus making it even more enjoyable.

This is where the majority of the 3D games went wrong. They were all about continually increasing the speed, which resulted in the games turning into an unenjoyable memory test (as the obstacles often came with no time to react resulting in death).

This article is clueless.

 

Well-written, sure. Well-reasoned, nah. I'll disregard anyone trying to definitively assert what does and does not constitute correct game design in an industry this young, where nobody outside Japan has any demonstrably consistent method for success in game design, and we can't even confirm whether that's a product of deliberate intention or an incidental design pattern of theirs that just happens to work. That they're not passing this knowledge on suggests the latter. Until we have an agreed upon list of codified game design principles like visual design, animation, and whatever constitutes music theory, I'm calling bullshit.

His cited frame of reference for "correct" game design is a game that debuted six years prior to Sonic- too short a time frame to be calling any of the rules a lock- and a single book with no pedigree by a guy who's only known for working on MMORPGs, a genre that de-emphasizes interactivity to mitigate latency (compromised game design). If he was going to cite a book for clout, I would've accepted Game Feel, which does present a solid step towards a more objective game design framework. Assuming he's not misrepresenting the author as badly as he did this game, I'm immediately skeptical if he thinks the essence of game design is "teaching." That would be true if the goal of a game were to teach you something, but the goal of a game is to entertain. The essence of game design is fun. Any sufficiently simple game is easily taught. Tic-tac-toe is almost self-explainatory, but that simplicity also makes it a boring game.

That aside, Chimpo's right on the money, the big problem with this article is that the guy is writing about how he thinks Sonic plays, like every hack on a reputable editorial site with a fresh new games section who thinks he's got something smart to say about Sonic:

The implication here is that Sonic's interactions are random, but every slope and object that propels the player does so in a consistent and reproducible manner. Most of these interactions can be influenced by player controls. Chimpo covered the rest. It's the same "Sonic is all about speed" and "the level design is bad because you run into things you can't see" angles we've all heard before with an intellectual veneer. And Lorde.

 

Actually it is. A product made to be sold to the masses justifies its existence by being profitable. Yes video games are art but selling a video game is business. Clearly the market has shown favor to the design sentiments which hold up to the present day (see Sonic Mania) ergo this article exists as nothing but clickbait. It's the type of thing written by kids in college who don't understand why their avantgarde masterpeace isn't selling because they are too invested into their own opinion to realize that they've made a product only they would want (Google a video game called "Sunset"). Couple this with standard Armchair game designers being critical without any experience or education to temper said criticism and you have a worthless pile of words.

I was a playtester for Destructive Creations (the guys behind Hatred) for those who don't know. I learned quite a bit from the devs who are currently working on a new game called Ancestors.

 

I only read half of it I can easily say if that was posted by a trial member here they would never get full membership for the complete and utter tripe that it is. I'm not even bothered/salty/seething about the criticism he does bring alight to, it's more about his thought process that left me thinking "WAT DAFUQ YA TALKIN BOUT!" it almost makes me think he needed something to write to get paid so got stoned off his rocker that evening and wrote whatever shit came to mind.

 

I stopped reading when the writer said that Naoto Oshima "filled each stage with pinball flippers". I thought it was common courtesy to actually play a game before calling it sexist critiquing it in any way. Guess that's unnecessary because lolvideogames.

On a less-snarky note, the author starts on bad footing assuming that Sonic is designed 'wrong' because it doesn't teach the player what to expect. Well, Keith, you clearly just weren't paying any fucking attention.

 

The article is nearly a year old, so I wouldn't advise anyone to get upset or annoyed over it, it can serve no purpose other than to make yourself feel angry.

I personally do like the comments on the bottom though:

Hahaha, well OK then!

 

Definitely confused, since the conclusion at the end is more or less "Despite all the above it's actually brilliant, so there". So who knows, maybe it's all just one big backhanded compliment after all? :thinking:

 

And it's spreading into message boards one year later, so I'd call it a big success.

 

Well the best way to deal with click bait is to deny them the clicks.

Here I've copy paste it so there's zero need for anyone to click the link.

 

For reference, there's sites like DoNotLink for situations like this. Denies them clicks, and, if you use adblock, revenue.

 

Not sure if we're reading the same article. While he makes some wrong statements, or statements that are right only a handful of times, he's actually saying great things about the game.

For starters, maybe "incorrect" isn't the best word to use, or maybe what he's trying to say isn't as clear as he thinks, but he's using that word as a compliment. A music theory teacher I had told me that, to make good music, you have to master all the rules, and then, learn how to break them. It's not really breaking the rules, of course, it's more like going out of the straight way and start using the rules in unexpected creative ways that don't seem to make sense at first glance, but, yet, you listen to the track and everything fits. Not sure if Lorde's songs are something I'd use as an example, as I don't like her music, but I've felt that with progressive rock and metal, and that happens.

In Sonic's case, I've felt that feeling of ramps being a hard to beat and frustrating enemy, yet a fun challenge to overcome. The typical example would be those "U" shaped pits with high walls where you have to run a bit to the ramp on one side, take advantage of the inertia when you start going down to gain momentum and repeat the same on the opposite ramp, and to that a few times until you gain enough height to become a ball and use all that momentum to run up the wall at high speed and escape the trap. It's actully the kind of things I like from Sonic, and the kind of things no one would have tried to do at that time save for the original Sonic Team.

So, basically, "incorrect" and "breaking the rules" expressions are linked here to that revolutionary train of thoughts that led to a game like Sonic. And yes, there are times when, if you go careless and fast, you'll hit a badnik or a spiked ball, and knowing where you are tells you when you could go careless and when not. And, yes too, most of the time I play careless to enjoy said speed even if Iknow I'm gonna miss something important because that sensation is fun. later, of course, I go slow to learn about alternate paths and secrets, but usually not on the first run. I agree that telling that about Green Hill is quite wrong, since I spent a lot of time there in my first Sonic gameplay ever just to get used to the physics. That's the "incorrect" thing in this game, having realistic physics and innovative level layouts to take advantage of them.

Bear in mind that, even if you end up memorizing a level (I honestly usually don't in classic games), Sonic is a game usually played by instinct, and that's what he's complimenting when he says that somehow every jump starts being right and all that stuff. As I told you before, I don't agree with all he's saying, he's evidently wrong with some of his statements, but he's ultimately how good is that they designed the game against the stream, doing things that no one would have dared to do, and they succeeded because they made the right combination, the right composition.

That's what I've read, at least.

 

Yeah - HedgeHayes basically informatively and elegantly just posted what I was trying to convey far better than I did or potentially could, so thanks for the excellent post dude. Agreed a hundred percent.

I think you have to listen to Lorde's Green Light and have an idea of electronic-pop music you can compare it to, to ultimately get his point. I mean it's the main example he's using here. Green Light is the most randomly constructed and unconventionally made track I think I've ever heard, that breaks all the rules, of which the structure is all over the place, of which electronic music production/composition and accepted theory is thrown out of the window - and yet in its final, beautiful minute or so it all comes together and it sings and soars in brilliant music euphoria and becomes almost magically excellent.

And this is what he means by that comparison. Sonic flew in the face of convention, but when it works (and I'm basically quoting him here) "holy fuck it fucking works".

 

You're welcome!

This is the first time I get one of your thanking posts, I think. It feels great.

 

What are you talking about? As Ritz previously mentioned, the industry was (and still is) young. There's no such thing as grounded rules or a guidebook and experimentation was still happening in the platforming genre. Again, this article isn't critical of the end result, but his entire argument is centered around the idea that platforming as a genre was perfected, set in stone and everything that diverted from Mario Bros.'s design is "incorrect". This is his argument, not that Sonic is good despite it's "faults". That's a straight up uninformed and retarded statement because not a damn thing he says to support it is correct. His poorly researched article with a throwaway feel good message at the end is irrelevant to what is ultimately true about the article.

This is a stupid article and so is Keith Stuart.