- Member: Members
- Active Posts:
- 80 (0.05 per day)
- Most Active In:
- General Sonic Discussion (46 posts)
- 28-March 09
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Jul 22 2012 03:37 PM
- 22 years old
- October 29, 1990
- Louisville, KY
- The deep mysteries of Sonic Xtreme, and the Sonic 2 'Nick Arcade' proto.
- National Flag:
Posts I've Made
24 May 2012 - 10:20 AMNot quite. Quality is one thing, but there is no absolute standpoint to compare. Therefore, what's important is not how good a game really is - if we try to discuss it, we'll never reach a consensus based on a parameter of "quality" - but how people perceive quality.
Gaaaaah. What a roundabout way of saying that. First off, yes, actual technical quality is objective and measurable. It's easy to come up with certain qualities and measure how well a game meets those. For example, if you wanted to say that the graphics of a game are of sufficient quality, you could point out that it uses DX 11, and PhysX and so on. No one can argue those.
In the very next sentence you are equivocating by introducing a new definition of the word - quality is something about a game that makes it enjoyable for a player. This is objective as well. Just ask the player if he liked X or Y or not. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you there, just let me explain.
Good games are those that provide interactive entertainment to a player. That is all. Things that are of great quality can often make a game good, but not always. It always boils down to how much the player enjoys playing. If the game "sucks" by quality standards, but still entertains and is worth the player's time and money, then it doesn't really suck at all. It's a good game.
QuoteWhy is rehash better accepted on some franchises than on others?
Because those particular rehash games are fun.
QuoteAnd, even then, I don't think Sonic Unleashed/Colors/Generations are an actual improvement, in the end of the day.Even if they are technically better, they've sold less, not more. Not even comparatively.
Point being? If the players didn't find it enjoyable (or worth their time/money), they won't buy.
QuoteAs for Sonic 3D Blast, there were many more problems about it: its release was not properly handled, so much so that it was released in 2 SEGA consoles. It was not good enough for the time. It's also important to look how the game is doing in face of its time, naturally.
Technical excellence is obviously important - but, then again, it's the least a game must do. This and providing fun. A game being fun is like a book being readable. The essence, or, if you will, the magic is the "something else" that makes an icon out of a game. I do take the point of Sonic SatAM and AoStH making it more difficult to identify why people like Sonic, but some points can also be raised about different mediums etc. - more importantly, it makes me wonder that so many people liked Sonic from different starting points and all, supposedly without the fissure in the fanbase. You see, it bugs me that people think the fanbase has to be "fixed", as if, for example, Sonic Retro was an endogenous phenomenon that could happen within any fanbase if people were crazy enough.
I didn't mean to imply that simply making games coherent with one another would raise sales (even though I believe it would help a lot), because releasing the right game at the right time is just as crucial. This, too, constitutes essence. Which games are automatically relevant and which ones are not - even though I can't really say what's the cause and what's the consequence in this process. Metal Man's statement about correlation could be applied here, I suppose.
And I do agree with Black Squirrel in that it's difficult to keep the rush of a cultural phenomenon. But it's possible to keep it iconic, without messing up with what people regard as important to them.
EDIT: It's difficult to present a tangible solution having this in mind. The possibilities are unlimited; one can do basically anything with Sonic, as long as it's done well. What I intend is to specify as much as I can what is it to do it "well".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm getting from this whole thing is "Sonic isn't doing well, and I know why. [insert problem here]". I appreciate the extensive research and thought, but how is this any different from the very "subjective quality" argument that you say is unmeasurable? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
1st argument: Things that make a game good are undefinable
2nd argument: Something definable ("essence" of Sonic) makes a good game
19 October 2011 - 09:23 PMThe Sonic 2 demos sound sluggishly slow, glad they got changed later.
03 August 2011 - 06:16 PMWell actually Hodgy's right. It only happens when I use the "preview" program to hear everything before I convert and build in the song, so yeah, that's where the confusion is. It works just fine when converted and all that, thanks though.
03 August 2011 - 03:23 PMWell the problem isn't that the notes aren't long enough, it's that they play instead of resting whenever I call a rest. For example, if I do this:
== (starts playing C#4 again. When playing this note, it sounds like it's quieter than before and is fading, like it's been playing the note the whole time and was just muted for a second)
== (same deal as above)
And so on. Again, this doesn't apply to any of the FM channels, they rest correctly as many times as I put down rests, this only occurs with the PSGs.
I've also tried adjusting the tempo in different ways, I.e. 02xx and 04xx to no avail.
01 July 2011 - 03:31 PMThere's a glitch in the Master System version of Sonic 1, the last Robotnik fight (where he's behind a glass shield). It's possible to get behind the shield by hitting him once and then doing a short jump toward him. You can damage him this way, and it does make the fight easier, but if you fail to get it right the first time around you'll die by the lightning thing. I saw used in a TAS of the Game Gear version as well.
wazkatango hasn't added any friends yet.