Also using level 1 of anything as a test is a bad idea. It's level 1, it shouldn't be complex. Go do this experiment on Planet Wisp Generations and see how that goes.
-or Skyscraper Scamper or Eggmanland If someone doesn't like or see the positive qualities in something, it doesn't mean that others can't or shouldn't. The content of this topic is looping isn't it?
What gets me with that vid posted is that you see multiple inputs were still needed to be done to complete the level, such as jumping/homing attacks, ducking under objects, side stepping, etc That's a really bad choice to show boost gameplay as being bad, since it mostly just showed how you was bad as a player.
I feel like this is striving to be Sonic 4 Mega Thread levels of shitposting, but it just comes up short. Just give up, man, nothing's gonna top that thread.
This, to be honest, you used a shit ton of inputs for course-correction. This is nowhere near "one to two buttons". You used at least four, by my count, in addition to frequently fiddling with the analog stick when you hit a wall. Not a very good roller-coaster, is it? :v: Ultimately, this is just infinite conversational ping-pong between people who vociferously hate boost and people who like it. I feel like agreeing to disagree here would be far more productive than continued posturing, as some of us clearly believe themselves to be objectively correct when that clearly isn't the case.
Not wanting this to sound as obnoxious as it will, I'd say I was more than half right. I think it's a pretty safe bet that -and Naka's quote makes no difference to this- if you took all the instances of people replaying classic Sonic levels, the very easy majority of them would not have been for time/score-attacking/run-perfecting. (I lump all these together as "score attacking", since "result attacking" sounds awkward.) I'm not sure if I was misinterpreted either so I'll just clear something up: I wasn't saying score attacking was a crutch the classics used and didn't need. I was saying that score attacking in general is often leaned on as a crutch, and the classics didn't do this. Being completely satisfied with all of the classic Sonics without ever score attacking anything was a completely normal thing. Meanwhile, discussing score attacking in the same conversation as ways to generate replay value, deliberately seeking something cheap to implement to fake longevity, that's when it's a crutch. Now if I've misinterpreted your interpretation you can ignore all that.
To break the jerkloop for a moment, assuming the argument is still whether or not the boost games have any intrinsic merit of their own, I wanna try taking a more systematic approach to analyzing this. I'm pretty sure I've gone down this route before, but I have to redefine my terms every time so we're all on the same page. This is purely a thought experiment, and a work in progress at that, so work with me if you spot any gaps in my logic: One of my pet projects lately has been trying to redefine our genre definitions for games to try to break down the ambiguity in classifying games that appear to be genre hybrids, with the potential side effect of establishing a firmer framework for making qualitative judgments within genres. The idea is that every game should be reducible to just one overarching genre, and every genre should be defined by a "primary action", which is the single verb by which players meet the conditions for winning that game (this presupposes that a game is only a game if you can win or lose- indie walking simulators need not apply because they have no failure state, and therefore have no genre, either). The primary action also happens to be the main mechanism for generating Fun in these games. Universally, "fun" is a byproduct of tension: it's a controlled dose of adrenaline, a biological response to overcoming stress. Tension is why we're taught that every good story needs an antagonist to pose a conflict. Roller coasters are fun because they're sandboxing our discomfort under g-force. Games are fun for teasing us with the stress and uncertainty of imminent failure. Boost Sonic sits somewhere between Platformer and Racing, so I'll focus on those two genres. The primary action of the Platformer is "traversal", maneuvering about an environment to get from point A to point B. The stressor in the platformer is the environment. Environmental hazards pose outs for the failure state. The tension comes from the fight against gravity (or inertia, in the absence of gravity- I'm sure there's a zero gravity platformer on Steam somewhere), which is why so many platformers rely on jumping, as that's the most immediate counteracting force to gravity, but it's not a requirement. This is why Super Monkey Ball is a platformer, and certainly not a puzzle game, a popular misconception that I only assume is due to the mechanical similarity to Labyrinth, with physical games just generally being referred to as puzzles. The primary action of racing games is- drumroll- "racing". The two genres are similar in that they both involve navigating an environment to get from point A to B, but racers differ in that the win state is abstracted to placement relative to a moving target, whether that's other racers on the track or a record time to beat. Ranking is the stressor. Boost Sonic is a platformer with racing elements. It's pretty squarely a platformer because victory is tied to your ability to get from point A to B without dying- the time and score attack elements provide another layer of stress for fun, but they're not linked to the win state, which makes them inherently less stressful (and therefore less fun than they otherwise would have been in a pure racing game). This dismisses the earlier notion that the "Hold boost to win" video is disingenuous because the end result is a poor run that doesn't satisfy the game's racing elements- that isn't what Sonic Unleashed is actually about. Since we're locked into Platformer, let's assess the game on its relative merits as a platformer. Classic Sonic succeeds as a platformer because gravity is such an integral aspect of the environment. Every incidental change in angle has a cascading effect on the player's inertia and the trajectory of every jump. I'll even assert that Sonic is fundamentally a better platformer than Mario, because Sonic at its best is invoking the primary action of the platformer and stimulating the core stressor of that genre at every given moment with every interaction the player can have with that environment- unlike Mario, where the player retains all inertial control, except in special cases where gimmicks like moving platforms impose an external influence. Now, it's not fair to call Boost Sonic a bad platformer when jumping takes a backseat to all of the game's other actions- the game has more in common with that hypothetical zero gravity platformer where your own inertia is the stressor. Gravity is horizontal, the fun is in maintaining your speed in an environment that threatens to reduce that speed. But on a moment-to-moment basis, with a primary mechanic that makes inertia binary, in an engine that barely even recognizes environmental influence, at a speed that discourages fine platforming, with design that explicitly wrests control from the player to keep them from having to deal with the stress of traversing a complicated environment? You can't tell me that's an engaging platformer. And I wouldn't call it a good racer either, when the time attack element is largely an afterthought. I'd hesitate to even call it a decent game when the design is so thoroughly dependent on automation, bearing in mind that depriving the player of control is a cardinal sin of game design, transcending all genres, when the principle that delineates this media from all other art forms is player interaction. It contradicts the very nature of a Game. So why are we pretending this branch of the series has merit? If it isn't a good platformer or a good racer, what is it? Since Boost Sonic mechanically has more in common with racing games, the way to make Boost Sonic work would be to fully subject it to all of the prerequisites and stressors of the racing genre. Even without automation, it's only a half-baked platformer.
You're not breaking up the circle jerk, you're feeding into the same thing that's been discussed since we saw the Green Hill footage. Until we get some actual new information about the game there's nothing to talk about. If you like boost great, if you don't, great. This isn't like Mania where the developers care about our analyses of whatever. Agree to disagree and move on.
I presented my own thoughts to no one in particular instead of singling out another poster with my grievances. I consider that breaking the circle. What's more, I'm taking the discussion in a different direction by posing a philosophy that I will now attempt to substantiate if challenged. This method has implications beyond this one discussion about this one specific game. You can't just up and disagree with a philosophy without presenting a counterargument.
Here's my hot take: (EDIT: MisterSparkly said some of the stuff I wanted to say way better also) - A video game shouldn't be judged for what it is as part of one single genre. Media combines genres all the time. Besides that, video games haven't even really figured out which genres it really has yet anyway. We still call a whole lot of games that focus more on narrative than gameplay "walking simulators". - Video games don't have to be fun to be good, the only reasoning I've seen for that they have to be is cause they're still called "games". Which is more an indication that video games have grown so much since their conception that their current name might not be entirely appropriate anymore. Video games can be thought provoking, frightening, emotional, all kinds of things and can't just be judged by how fun they are anymore. That being said, the main thing Sonic games are supposed to be is fun so that doesn't really apply here. But still, it's an old way of thinking about a medium that has grown a lot over the decades. - You're confusing stress relieve with fun. - Something in a game doesn't have to be linked to the game's main win state to be fun. Maybe that's where you get your enjoyment out of games, but it's ridiculous to say it has to be a factor for a game to be fun to someone. Ask the people who instead of doing the main plot, explore and just fuck around in games like GTA or Breath of the Wild. The main appeal of Minecraft, the second best selling game of all time, isn't even achieving its main win state. Neither is that the case in tons of popular mobile games, which often don't even have a win state and instead focus on getting a good score. - Yes, Boost Sonic has problems. I think there's plenty of stuff to improve. But its problems aren't irremovable, and they're not so bad that they make the games unenjoyable for me nor the other fans of the gameplay style. It's something that's nothing like any other game, and even if it wasn't enjoyable to a lot of people, that alone gives it merit. And yeah, you're not breaking up the circle jerk. You're not the first here to try to argue that boost Sonic doesn't have merit to no one in particular.
I'll take a crack at it. Your definition of genre and what a game is is quite skewed if you ask me, as is the place where you derive enjoyment from games. I'll begin with you views on genre. A game's genre is, and should be classified by the type of content the player will be experiencing throughout. By your logic, Bayonetta would be a fighting game, and Final Fantasy would be a "menu navigator with adventure game elements". On your view of what constitutes a game, I must ask why is a failure state a requirement, and why is it so important? Game is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary first and foremost as "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement" and goes on to define a video game as "an electronic game played by means of images on a video screen and often emphasizing fast action". A video game is defined by it's being electronic, interactive, entertainment. Now that it's been established that a game needs not a failure state, I can state that I personally feel that the fun of a game comes from a variety of sources. In Sonic games (especially the boost games), the fun comes from clearing obstacles at as high a speed as you can muster, collecting rings and emeralds, racking up big chains bouncing off badniks, backed by a killer soundtrack to keep you pumped and colorful graphics to hold your attention. While the modern games have certainly toned down the complexity, the boost games hold true to the standards of a platformer quite well. The boost games still require traversing obstacle courses and defeating opponents in order to reach the goal, with lots of jumping involved. I don't see how Boost gameplay fits the bill of racing at all. While ranking is a feature included in Sonic games for quite some time, it has never been the focus. The end goal of a Sonic game is to simply get through the level. Ranking is an afterthought. If anything, I would classify the boost games as action/platformer as the focus is shifted more towards executing actions in setpieces. The issue with automation that you mentioned is a small one, as the boost does not automatically conquer every obstacle the game throws at you. As you yourself stated, "Press boost to win" is disingenuous. The automated segments don't subtract from the present challenge. In the end, the merit of boost gameplay comes from its fulfillment of the standards of a platformer, as well as its ability to provide players with an exciting, action-packed gameplay experience. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it has merit, and this is why the boost games are as successful as they are today.
Sonic Mania is the natural evolution of Sonic games. Boost Sonic is the natural evolution or Dragon's Lair. :v:
I wouldn't quite say evolution when presumably five zones are revisits of other levels, but Mania is almost there. Besides, we know why those levels are there anyway. :v:
Mania is an evolution because it manages to improve the core gameplay, fix bugs, expand on level design in positive ways, offers more content per stage, and ramps up the quality of the assets, without making major compromises if any at all.
Damn, you're right. It's not as if Sega put that footage out in an attempt to showcase what we could expect from the game. It's not like they expect us to build preconceived notions based on what they chose to show us. It's not like the point of this forum is to discuss said notions and things we've seen. Nah, they just put that footage out there so that we could stare at the pretty colors. Like it or not everyone is going to have an opinion of something regardless of how early it is. Don't pull the, "we've barely seen any footage", card when Sega had the opportunity to dazzle and wow us with something great, and just kind of showed us more of the same. And this isn't just from the video, places like IGN and Polygon have talked about what they've seen of Forces so far, and it all rings familiar bells. And who says we're even analyzing all of this shit for the developers sake? It's painfully obvious that Sonic Team isn't even listening to their fanbase, so why waste our breath. Ever stop to think that people dig so deep into this shit because they're passionate about the series and want to present their ideas in the most concise way possible? But nope, people can't talk about the game because it's not out yet, so there's no basis to anyone's argument because your opinion doesn't matter until you play the game. Because I'm sure AFTER people play the game and still don't like it, then them deeply analyzing the game and bashing it will be all fine and dandy yeah? Get the stick out of your ass man. This is a web forum, people are prone to speaking their mind here, regardless if the circumstances are appropriate. That's what forums are for. Why not follow your own advice and Agree to disagree, instead of shitting on everyone for daring to share their thoughts, positive, negative, justified, or not on a subject manner just because it rustles your jimmies. http://youtu.be/zKp_Sg39nJU
It's funny how often people in this thread play the "but we are just saying our opinion!!" card, when nobody is actually telling people they're not allowed to share theirs. Usually how it seems to go is person A goes "hey I think boost Sonic sucks". Then person B says they'll disagree in one way or another, usually not saying they're wrong for disliking boost Sonic. Then person B doesn't actually argue with whatever argument was brought up, and goes "yeah well you can't stop me from sharing my opinion, by the way did you hear my opinion here is my opinion again about how you're wrong for liking boost Sonic!!". Then the last two steps repeat again and again. We get it at this point, you don't think boost Sonic is good game design. Y'all have probably told us the same bunch of reasons why boost Sonic sucks a dozen or so times over the last few pages. It's like y'all are worried people don't care enough about your complaints and feel the need to justify yourselves even when nobody is actually saying they disagree with your criticisms. As if the topic has to revolve around how right your opinion is. Meanwhile all this discussion has only been about one third of Sonic Forces, a part of which we've only seen about 40 seconds of gameplay of. Said discussion hasn't even really been about what said part is like in this game, but more about what said part was like in previous Sonic games.
