Lange: Nah our point is more "constantly criticizing something for something it isn't instead of criticizing it for what it is is just annoying af" Also it's okay for games in one franchise to be different from one another. 3D Mario completely changed from being big levels with a lot of stuff to explore in Mario 64 to linear levels with bits of hidden stuff in Mario 3D World. That change in direction doesn't make Mario 3D World a bad game, just different. And criticizing it for not being Mario 64 would just make you look silly. Blue Blood: You're missing my point. I'm not saying you're wrong for thinking the games are mediocre.
But what I'm actually getting at is that I think people allow have allowed their standards to fall to the point where things are getting routinely overrated. It really bothers me that people are happy to accept more of the same without improvements and don't see these problems that are so apparent. Generations was a step in the right direction, not the goal.
So you mean it's okay to criticise Mario Kart for not being a platformer? Sure. It's called business. Imagine getting upset over Donkey Kong Country because you play as Donkey Kong in it instead of Mario Jumpman, and now it's a side-scrolling platformer that doesn't play anything like the original Donkey Kong. Imagine getting upset over Mario no longer being a "race to the end" sidestroller, but instead giving you objectives and puzzles to solve in your own time, and changing your main method of attack from "jump on things" to "punch things in the face". Imagine getting upset over Need for Speed taking a break from simulation track racing to be an arcade street racing game instead. Imagine getting upset over Pac-Man becoming a platformer instead of a maze game. All of these things happened. Franchises change. They have to, because audiences change. Your posts boil down to "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE".
I'm just saying people just enjoy certain things in the games more than you do. And I'm not saying Generations is the goal, like I said already I think there's plenty to improve.
And I've already said that people are entitled to like what they like. I wasn't talking about you specifically. Rather, comments like "Generations was great and Forces looks like Generations 2 so I'm happy". I just wonder... are they seriously okay with the obvious lack of improvements?
They liked Generations are getting more of that, so of course they're happy. Doesn't mean they don't think there shouldn't be improvements, just that they're a fan of this sort of game and are happy to get more of it. Which they haven't really had since five years ago.
I think any fan of Colors and Generations will say that this game looks like an improvement over Lost World. It doesn't matter if the game doesn't significantly step up from Colors and Generations as long as it's better than what Lost World gave us. Which has some of the most poorly designed levels I've ever seen.
I know how much people love being told what they think, so here I go...Timmit and DigitalDuck seem to think that because they personally enjoy Boost they can get away with deflecting all criticism as merely opinion. What they don't seem to be absorbing is that there are not enough people with the same opinion as their own to carry the franchise beyond, at best, mediocrity, and at worst, its slow demise. As an example, do you both realize that Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze outsold Sonic Generations? Donkey Kong doesn't even have a permanent fanbase because they release a game so rarely. It was on 1 console (which sold horribly) and it still outsold Generations. You both seem to be missing the grand point here, that if Sega can't come up with a less superficial play style there could eventually be NO SONIC games at all. And all this talk about how nothing matters because everyone gets an opinion (admittedly oversimplified but not by much) will fall flat on its ass.
Just about every first party Nintendo game sells well. Cause guess what Nintendo fans buy Nintendo consoles for. And if you really want Sega to have Sonic head into a direction that'd make them the most money, chances are that that direction would be low budget simplistic mobile games. Cause that's the platform Sonic seems to be most successful on. Also, please stop with the ad hominem "you just don't want us to criticise Sonic!!!!" arguments. Especially when I have made it pretty clear at this point that that's not what I'm saying.
Actually, Nintendo hasn't released any data for DKC:TF. Sales analysts at NeoGAF however put it at 1.12M units worldwide as of December 2014, which is considerably lower than Generations' 1.85M. ...which really, really sucks because Tropical Freeze is one hell of an incredible game. Its soundtrack, world locations/graphics, and especially its level design are absolutely phenomenal. Aside from the Wii U installbase (as Retro's previous DKC Returns on the Wii sold at least 5-6M), I personally blame its poor sales on the release date (February 2014 release, after being delayed from a December 2013 release; IIRC this was done to avoid overlap with Mario 3D World's November release) and Nintendo hardly playing up the fact that 2014 was the 20th anniversary of Rare's original DKC (though Donkey Kong celebrating his birthday in the game was a nice subtle touch). However, Tropical Freeze made that 1.12M on just one platform, as opposed to Generations' 1.85M over three/four (which includes both the ST console and Dimps handheld versions of the game). So I presume the profit margins/ROI for TF would at least be moderately higher.
You notice how I said MAIN series games and it's obvious I'm not talking about spinoffs because that would be a stupid point to make but then again you don't pay attention to what I say anyway. Donkey Kong Country and the platformer Pac Mans are practically spinoffs that became their own series. These are based on very old arcade games that only had a couple major huzzahs in the early 80s. On top of this, games like Donkey Kong Country are far more mechanically rich than their primitive arcade origins, not some kind of weird bastardization of an already fleshed out game. Many of the people who played those arcade games did not dedicate themselves to them or even video games in general, and thought little of leaving behind those games with the arcade era. It was a sound move to repurpose those franchises (it was also on the tail of an era that had no shame in putting anything popular into anything else regardless of how much sense it made). The Sonic games however, made a series of consistent, extraordinary successful games with a huge loyal fanbase, and had their expectations smashed again and again. In Sonic's case, it's not so much that the audience changed, rather that Sega was forcibly trying to eliminate that audience and crudely target entirely different ones because lol marketing, which largely accomplished alienating every demographic at once (existing Sonic fans are disappointed, target demographic is not interested in either Sonic or something inferior to what they're already interested in, ie Big's fishing game vs actual fishing games). Eventually they hooked a new audience but the original audience didn't just disappear and forget everything that Sonic was and all that happened to it. Otherwise Mania would already be a flop, yet it's the opposite, already extremely popular and hyped. Mario's jump into 3d is virtually unanimously agreed to be the ideal translation of Mario's 2d gameplay, and the shift of things such as end goal to objectives, is a fair shift in gameplay to accommodate the new perspective and challenges. The fundamentals of Mario are intact and are a logical extrapolation into 3d, and in many ways greatly expand what you can do with Mario. Along with that, they have done a good job of returning to Mario's 2d gameplay in the main series with multiple entries, being given dedicated console games with faithful mechanics and modern art and sound. Sonic is lucky to get some kind of halfhearted handheld or mobile 2d spinoff with butchered gameplay, going so far as to ruin what was supposed to be the next entry in their most monumentally important line of games in the entire franchise. Even Mario 3D World has seen a mixed bag of criticism for watering down the mechanics and being too linear. It's hardly surprising they're going back to the original 3d gameplay with Mario Odyssey, much to the cheers of Mario fans. But frankly I can narrow this down to: "So again they could make Sonic Tetris four main games in a row, and this should not be criticized because then it would be a perfectly valid gameplay style." "Sure." And this is why the franchise is in shambles. There are just enough people who will be mindlessly compliant with radical nonsensical changes to the series, including when they're bad, and defend these decisions as if it's perfectly fine and anyone who criticizes this is somehow a stupid lunatic. It raises the question, what are you even a fan of? If they can just make literally anything that happens to feature the Sonic character in it, then is all you care about the character? The word "Sonic" itself? How are you even a fan of Sonic games, if there's no definition at all for what Sonic games are? Spinoffs are appealing because it's interesting to see how characters and gameplay elements would be outside of their established context, but if there's no context to begin with, what's the point? They could cancel the game series tomorrow and turn Sonic into a cereal mascot from now on, and it would make no difference to you. Again you're pretty much pulling this out of thin air despite everything I've said. I've given clear logical arguments as to how the changes in formula are out of place for Sonic and not good for the franchise that apply regardless of my preferences, and all you read is "hurdur I only like classic games so there". Gene's quote in Yeow's sig is relevant at this point.
Oh hey you mentioned 3D Mario games, which I used as an example here: And I'm not sure where you're getting "Mario 3D World has seen a mixed bag of criticism" from. Cause critically Mario 3D World was incredibly well received: Not just that, the two 3D Mario games that began being more focused on linear levels and "watered down" are the most critically well received Mario games ever: I'm not saying it's bad Nintendo is going back to the Mario 64-style with Mario Odyssey here. I'm glad they are and it's the kind of game I've wanted to see again for quite some time. But at the same time: Mario Odyssey is kind of another example of going for something different with the franchise. They seem to be mostly ditching the regular Mario art style for that game, and instead are giving each world a different art style. And that's really cool. Also, another example of how doing something completely different with a franchise isn't a bad thing: Breath of the Wild is critically the most well received Zelda game since Ocarina of Time because of it completely changing things up. It did go back to some of what Zelda 1 was trying to be, but even then it changes so much from that that it's barely comparable to that besides its core concept of exploring a world. Anyway, I'm not doing a "positive campaign" here. I think there's plenty to criticise about Boost Sonic. The levels are way too scripted, the boost pads sucks, too much control is taken away from the player etc. But your "solution" to fixing those criticisms is bullshit. Instead of saying it should be improving on those aspects, you're saying the game should stop bothering to try and be the completely different game you want it to be instead. To use the report card example: this is like giving a kid an F in math class cause they're bad at English.
"It's just different" is not a valid excuse. Not all things are equal just because they are different. Some things are better and worse than others and for different reasons. I'm glad you brought up Breath of the Wild because that's an example of a game I consider that makes changes for the better. If my mentality were simply "it's bad because it's different/not like the originals" then I would automatically dislike it, but I'm glad with its changes despite it changing some major basic things, because they add so much more to the gameplay and in ways that make good sense for it. My problem with boost games is not that "they're different than the classics". It's that they haphazardly follow some of what the classics establish in gameplay, but severely butcher it and water it down in a lot of negative ways, and also introduce a lot of nonsense that doesn't fit. It can't just be improved as is, unless it literally just moves back towards how the classics function, because to improve it would be to restore the elements that are weakened and missing and cutting out the fat. The aspects that make the boost formula what it is, like the boost itself, are fundamentally flawed and little can be done to improve it. You can't really improve a QTE, especially in the context of a Sonic game where it doesn't belong at all as a core mechanic. You can't improve on a mechanic that neutralizes all of the core gameplay (unless you radically change it until it's something else anyway). You can't improve on a fully automated sequence. Boost formula is improved by giving the player more substantial controls, by making the physics a more essential part of the gameplay, by eliminating the automation, and... well then it's just getting closer to the classics. I use the classics as the default example because it's what defined Sonic and it was excellent and on point. Everything since has not been an evolution, but awkward mutations and regressions. Until Sonic has a Breath of the Wild so to speak, the classics are still the series prime and the starting point from which a Sonic game should be conceived, whether it's a pure experience like Mania, a full 3d game, or something radically new like BotW that truly evolves the series in positive ways that make sense or at least finds a decent equilibrium. If Sonic Boom Rise of Lyric were bug free and a main series game, it would still be regarded poorly because it's thoroughly out of place. Being different itself can be a detriment if it's too different and nonsensical. It betrays the audience. It's largely why the werehog is so controversial and disliked, because it makes no sense and has no place in a Sonic game, because we have at least on some level an idea of what a Sonic game is. If there wasn't any definition of Sonic games at all, then Sonic would have no business existing as a game series, as it would just be a mascot.
If Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric was bug-free then it would still be a bad game, yeah, but not because it wouldn't be a Sonic game. It would be bad because it's a badly designed game that fails to achieve what it tries to do. Maybe people would criticise it for going too far away from what Sonic is, but that doesn't make it a bad game. Besides that, "not being Sonic" isn't even really something boost Sonic is generally criticised for. Because boost Sonic has never actually moved away from what people consider Sonic's defining feature: going fast. You might consider there's more to Sonic, that stuff like physics and gaining momentum are defining features as well. Yet Sonic has existed for way longer without those feature than it has existed without them. And maybe boost Sonic isn't what you wanted Sonic to become. And if you disagree about that that's the direction the games should be heading in, then that's cool. I can easily see why other people won't enjoy the games. But constantly complaining that it isn't what you want it to be is just obnoxious. Especially when you are already getting the game you want with Sonic Mania. Like yeah dude, I get it, you think 3D Sonic would be better if it was more like the classics. it's not the thing you wanted Sonic to become. Doesn't mean you have to convince me that I'm wrong for enjoying boost Sonic. Doesn't mean that you have to convince me that because you can't think of ways a game you strongly dislike can be improved, it can't be improved.
I dunno, man. IMO it just boils down to opinions. Colors was my favorite game since S3K and hands down my favorite 3D Sonic game. There are certainly ways to improve it (not shitty plot, better bosses, more "main" levels instead of gimmicky mini-stages). Still I had a blast with it and replay it from times to times (thanks for the shuttle mode). Maybe I'm just the niche player but I don't care, I love that game.
At what point does it stop being a spinoff? There have been nearly three times as many Mario Kart games as Boost Sonic games. That's odd, I thought Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, and Pac-Mania were all major successes, and the platformer Pac-Mans were basically a flop. And a spinoff that became its own series? Does that not describe the Sonic Rush->Sonic Unleashed transition? Wrong. The classic Sonic games were two (2) successful titles followed by two flops, and that's not even counting CD. Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles pretty much failed commercially, with many of the complaints being that it's too similar to the older games. It's hardly surprising they changed the formula. Also we have no idea how popular Mania is going to be. It's getting positive reception in Sonic Retro, but outside of this place most people I see simply don't care. Then why have they been linear since Galaxy again? Literally only Mario 64 and Sunshine used that formula. Except the part where jumping on enemies to kill them isn't even your main method of attack anymore. The New Super Mario Bros. games are not in the main series. They're spinoff titles. Even more so than Mario Kart. So Mario went back to its roots in a main-series title, and the Mario fanbase complained, so they stuck with the new formula. I noticed you ignored Need for Speed. Need for Speed started out as a track racing game, had a few street circuits in one game, and then when full arcade street racing in Need for Speed Underground. It stayed as full arcade street racing for a while until Need for Speed Shift, when they tried to go back to track racing. It was a flop. Need for Speed went back to its roots in a main-series title, and the Need for Speed fanbase complained, so they stuck with the new formula. And you're saying Sonic should go back to its roots in a main-series title? What do you think the Sonic fanbase will do? The fanbase famed for complaining about everything? And what do you think will happen then? If you ask me, making a main-series Classic game sounds like a sure-fire way to kill off Classic Sonic for good. What am I a fan of? Fun games. The franchise is not in shambles because I want fun games. I'm not "mindlessly compliant with nonsensical changes to the series". I'm not happy with "literally anything that happens to feature the Sonic character in it". If the best Classic Sonic game current Sonic Team can do is Sonic 4, I want them to stick with Boost Sonic games. I want them to make fun games, not un-fun games. And if they cancelled the game series tomorrow and turned Sonic into a cereal mascot I'd be upset because I'm not getting fun games. And you accuse me of misrepresenting your argument. Yeah, but you started it.
So...your problems with the boost formula lie mostly in level design? Because these games are about speedrunning. You can already use the terrain to your benefit to go faster. Not in the same way as the classics, but yes you can exploit the terrain. Taking away some of the automation would also require more skill from the player to get around curves and bends as fast as possible too. Trying to figure out what you can get away with boosting over in pursuit of a better time is a blast. It's a similar thrill to what I got out of trying to figure out what I can spindash-jump over in the classics. The answer in both cases is "not a whole lot" but it's still fun to try. Boost games take one aspect of the classic experience and pulls it into 3D, and I like that.
I did this for a friend a while back showing him how the game would act without those objects that keep the player physics . Those jump physics at the end of ramps and all. https://youtu.be/ccbXxk78oaY Levels get broken pretty bad. Basically they put the object there to make sure the boost isn't broken. And set the boost to go to only a certain height but then they have to do a certain height for normal speed as well. Which makes it look odd when it pushes you. I'm fine with what they have now as long as they don't keep up this hidden spring stuff for level design.
