Sonic vs Mario Bros. (1983)

:specialed:
No this isn't an oldschool Sonic vs Mario argument.

What would happen if we took Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, or Super Mario World and then removed:
· the well balanced life system
· the well balanced power ups system
· the strategically positioned, completely non-mandatory, rewarding collectibles (coins)
· the deliberate focus on consistently fair level design
· the secrets in plain sight (pipes)

Sounds terrible! As if we're deliberately stripping Mario of all the fundamentals that make his games so solid. But the truth is that even after ditching all of the above, we still have this:




Once can spend a lot of time talking about how critical Mario's fundamentals have been to the ongoing quality and integrity of his games. However until we were given large and progressive stages to run through, most of those fundamentals did not and could not even exist. But Mario already had it. Before such fundamentals became possible, before long stages, even before the NES was real, Mario already had it. In the original Mario Bros. of 1983 he's headbutting, aiming, and dodging, it's already compelling, and it's just one screen.

So now take away Sonic's large and progressive stages.
Does Sonic already have it?


I dwell on the principles of 2D Mario all the time in the interest of making a Sonic fangame, but I never thought of taking my comparisons right back to the original Mario that had so little. Yet now it seems so obvious that part of Mario's gameplay appeal comes from from his ability to generate compelling play even on just one screen, so that if you grab that Mario by his greasy pixelated Italian hair and drop him straight into Super Mario Bros. 3, the first thing the player is going to do - is going to want to do - is still headbutt, jump on baddies, and actively not-die.

Does Sonic have the same ability?


If he does, then one should be able to design a single-screen Sonic game that generates comparable levels of compulsion.

To assist with the design of one aspect of gameplay in a full-level fangame I would like to build, I am looking for discussion on what Sonic already has that makes him compelling to play even in a small space. Or discussion, as the case may be, on what Sonic doesn't have. What's typically happening, or what could happen, right there on the screen/in the controller/in the immediate area, that compels the player?

I am not trying to discuss ideas for a single-screen Sonic game. But if you are able to imagine a compelling single-screen Sonic game whose gameplay and compulsion continues to function in a full-level Sonic game, you have an answer to this post. (Just don't confuse that approach for a discussion of neat single-screen-game ideas, because that isn't what this is and would be off-topic.)


______

 

Not at all Iceknight, and thanks for dragging my topic down from the get-go.

I said at the start that I'm looking for discussion on one aspect of design. One among many, some of which I listed also. I'm not thinking about creating a single-screen Sonic game if that's what confused you. That challenge is simply a good way to get people to really think about the questions I asked. Well I thought it was a good way; apparently not.

Sawhog, I agreed about the Sonic 1 factor initially but then I found myself thinking no, the spin dash could work well on a single screen as could the shields. Actually Tails and especially Knuckles would be difficult to work into such a game.

Regarding the badniks and bosses, yep could be fun in a single screen thing but remember I'm trying to think of things that would then still be fun when carried across to a full zone. That's what Mario managed to pull off all those years ago. Mario is indeed about enemy negotiation quite a lot, but Sonic... not so much.

One trick Sonic does have up his sleeve that is exploited so rarely is his any-direction attack in the air. At first it sounds like it would only make things less interactive for the player and maybe at first it does. But it also means that badnik weak spots can be defined in any way the designer wants. However this too is probably more focus on enemies than you could get away with for a full zone.

 

To clarify, I'm hoping for discussion on one aspect of gameplay, not all of them.
I'm hoping to discuss ideas that would provide compelling play in a full zone.

I am not asking for ideas on making a single-screen Sonic game. I'm asking for thoughts/perspectives on one piece of the gameplay design for a full game. In order to bring focus to that particular piece, I presented the idea of a single-screen Sonic game which, I repeat, is not about making a single-screen Sonic game. It's about throwing down ideas that can then be asked "Would you work in a full game?"

Sawhog's badniks idea would not, unless the focus of said full game was shifted to that of a game where killing badniks and surviving is why you play it. That could be discussed; I shot it down but someone could come along and say "Well how much can we shift that focus, maybe it could work?" This the whole idea... use single-screen thinking to chuck something on the table, then full game thinking to tear it apart because that's what I'm trying to apply it to.

I'm not even sure it really is a case of Mario having something Sonic doesn't, or if it's just me not feeling it regarding Sonic gameplay. Hence the request for perspectives.

But if the challenge of a single-screen game is distracting the focus of the topic, I should probably scrub it.


@InvisibleSun
I can agree with all of that. (To clarify what I meant earlier for Sawhog's sake, yeah I do think Sonic 1's bare elements would play a big part.)

Good point about changing geometries. Geometry would have to factor into things since motion is a strength of the gameplay, so what you're saying is either:
- we couldn't keep the same geometry without the player losing interest, or
- keeping the same geometry would be a waste of potential since we couldn't possibly put all of Sonic's tricks on 1 screen.

What makes a Mario Bros. player keep playing? They want to keep testing their skill, no? Their skill at working the map and the POW, and their skill at control. The game ramps up the difficulty while the player keeps believing that when he dies, it was his fault.

But headbutting thin air or a block with nothing on it doesn't make the player feel good, so ok, rewards are in order.

Can Sonic gameplay have a rewards system that is more than finding new places or gaining ground?
Or can rewarding with "You reached position X" be made to work even on one screen, without any more acknowledgement than Mario's turtle provides?

 

@Chilly Willy
Stifling is totally apt heh.

Maybe it's simply true that Sonic gameplay can't exist without the player experiencing the desire to move ahead and find moar ways to mess with his motion. Maybe.

@Winterhell
It's all good. And you reminded me of a not quite a halfpipe but a sort of exploitable valley segment I was messing around with in Hydrocity yesterday. I don't even know how much this helps the topic, but I threw this together. You can see I spent some time on it. :v:



It's just a little game where the player has to work a bit to reach the big ring up top. Obviously there's all sorts of problems with this, such as how far out the camera is, how repetitive it might get, the fact that it has an end that skilled players aren't delayed from reaching very quickly, plus the question of what happens next (the changing geometry question).

But what it does offer is a prolonged bit of Soniccy gaming as the player tries to reach that big ring without stuffing up. (They have to keep timing their jumps, their insta-shields, and positioning their landings.)

You would have other shenanigans going on in the meantime, such as 2 or 3 badniks roaming around the sky, perhaps the leaves randomly reveal a temporary spring to aid your height, etc etc. These shenanigans would work to keep things dynamic basically, similar to new enemies spawning in Mario Bros. Rings trickle in from the sides perhaps, which, combined with the badniks bring some survival aspect into it.

The point is, if this was prettied up then dropped in front of a potential player's face with the basics of motion on display... that could make them want to grab it and play it. Unlike Mario Bros., the player isn't interested in racking up a lot of kills or score; they're interested in dominating this land. Rolling, bouncing, springs and insta-shields would all be enjoyable elements.

Transferring that across to a full zone then, the player is eager to bust out the moves, like a Mario player is eager to get headbutting and stomping turtles in a level that stretches before him.
The problem is, the classic Sonic games didn't focus on the kind of play that my picture does. They certainly supported it, as we all know of fun ways to mess with curves and physics and Bouncing Challenges and wotnot... but they didn't focus on it.

So I wonder to myself, could I exploit the kind of fun that could be squeezed out of the image above, in a full zone, without burning the player out? And at the same time, without spreading it out so thin that the player forgets it? And with such a close camera? Just swirling stuff around.

 

Hmm.

So Mario Bros. is about timing headbutts, jumping on things, and dodging for survival.
Your suggestion would be about perfecting motion, and dodging things for survival.

The rings idea I do love; that jumps out at me because it puts emphasis on geometry. Plus the idea of such sharp focus on your every move not just for the sake of finishing things quickly, but also for the sake of maintaining momentum, of course complements Sonic gameplay very well.

Transferring that to a full zone means finding a way to transfer that enjoyment of skill at momentum management. It can be said that Sonic games are already about this, but not with the focus that would exist with your idea on a single screen. Speed runs excepted. So the idea does suggest a direction of designing all levels to have a much, much stronger focus on how well the player manages their motion.

It would really be reshaping the game a fair bit, but maybe that could be compensated for enough by not forcing it, but merely pushing it heavily. As in, there would be always be the possibility to complete the level and to explore somewhat, but really this would only be the zones showing what they've got at an entry level of play. Very soon, probably before completing all the zones in the game, a good player will find desire to push their understanding of motion and break off from the easy route/s. That's why I say "pushing it heavily". Levels could be constructed in a way that simply refuse to let the player get far off the typical path/s if they're not actively focussing on what they're doing.

Designing for this would have to manage how much concentration the player has to apply, as well as offer rests and, importantly, it would want to provide some sweet rewards. OR, shifting your idea across verbatim could also contribute hugely on its own. That is, just by placing all rings very strategically the designer could significantly push the player into really watching how they move in order to reach them. The problem is that rings being rings, the player wouldn't have enough compulsion to work for them once they have a few, unless the system of rings is also played with.

Messing about with how rings work is not something I'm against, but in this situation.... it would be tricky. Rings are already a bit of a screwed up mess I think; it's hard enough trying to iron out their kinks without adding more conditions.

Anyway I think it's a good suggestion, rings or no, but it does mean quite a heavy reshape of the game. It goes with the other geometry comments raised earlier, since those comments and this idea of yours both having me realising that 2D classic Sonic gameplay could really be made a lot more concentrated than we are accustomed to. And perhaps that is what I was picking up on when I thought of making this thread. Sonic's core, playful abilities are not squeezed out of every screen. A lot of classic Sonic gaming is the act of relaxing. You often cruise; that's part of it. Mario gaming simply is not like that; there is no period of cruising between obstacles.


The other aspect of your suggestion, dodging for survival, is not one I'm so keen on. I think mainly because badniks come across to me pretty much as the dots in Pacman. They're there, you eat them, they're gone. A fair few obvious exceptions do exist yes, but largely I find that Sonic badniks do one thing really well, and that is to not pose a threat. Especially because the insta-shield is really ingrained into the way I play; I find myself trying to use it all the time in Sonic 2. (Respect for Sonic Classic Heroes here.) So when someone says "badnik threat/challenge" I find myself picturing Sonic munching effortlessly through a screen full of popping badniks.

To bring badniks into a more involved role would mean reshaping how they have always worked too. Again, something I'm open to doing (pretty happy to actually, I very much want badniks that make you work). But it would also mean reshaping how the game works, again, in order to turn its focus more onto survival. And this one I'm not so sure about. I don't know if I can picture a nice mid-point between badniks that do and don't let you relax. Not sure. Maybe.

Anyway both good for swirling around in my head. Thanks for the thought, it's exactly what I am after; little comments to get the inspiration going.



_

 

Regarding a single-screen game, no. I seem to have confused the whole thread with that from the first post. :/

Regarding badniks for points, ah. So to rephrase, your idea focusses the gameplay on perfecting motion, and not much else.
What I mean by that is that the score attack drives what the player is doing, same as with Mario Bros., and the same as with a rings-only goal, but it does not define what the player is doing. In Mario Bros. the score attack provides reason for the headbutting play and the jumping-on-top play, while survival motivates the dodging play.

But if badniks are just there for points and their threat is seen as negligible, then they again are only motivating the manage-your-motion play that the rings are already doing. They're just another shape with a different value for their reward.

So I think they need to affect how the player plays in a different way. Since the gameplay of score attacking is a generic thing (it comes after the play, it can't create compulsion by itself as it needs other score attacks to compete with, etc.), it's not an aspect of the design I would focus on while I'm still working out the very basics. It could definitely come in later and work well, but personally I doubt I would support score attacking at all in a Sonic fan game if I were to complete one.

In what other ways can badniks create enough of an effect on the player to compel another aspect of gameplay? As we mentioned, threat is one.

Perhaps strategising is another. That could be milked from badniks, giving the player the joy of quickly forming plans, executing them, and seeing how well they pay off. I can think of two ways to bring that into it that are Soniccy. One is something you mentioned anyway, which is new bonuses. Not score rewards though, but bonuses that have a strategic effect such as powerups that don't increase your score but increase your abilities. For example, imagine the shields from Sonic 3 come with a timer. A badnik appears with an indication that killing him will grant you a lightning shield, which, in this rings game you suggested would be a little bit of god mode. The player could choose to wait until the rings start getting harder to reach before he kills this badnik. Well, that's a really simple example, my brain is too tired to think of something that's more involved right now.. 2 hours of sleep. Combo 5 badniks for a bonus stage perhaps, etc. The point is that now the player is playing 2 things: trying to maintain their motion as best as possible, and also forming and executing strategies on the fly. In this case both pieces of play are still motivated by the score attack, not survival, but that doesn't matter.

Oh yeah, and the second way to push strategy with badniks is just the obvious: use them as stepping stones. If 2 badniks hover around an area the player might recognise that as a makeshift bridge that he will be able to use later, and thus avoid them currently for the sake of getting out of what could be otherwise a real pain in the arse jump later.

The strategy aspect needs a bit more thought I think, in terms of full-game application. But yeah... brain wants sleep...

To leave the question lingering since maybe there's more that can be said on it, I'll just copy and paste:
In what other ways can badniks create enough of an effect on the player to compel another aspect of gameplay?



Edit: Oh boy writing so badly too.. apologies.. but meh.

_

 

Not sure how this would bring fun to a full game.

I don't want to keep the 1983 style though. Don't worry, it wasn't just you making this mistake and I've updated the OP to be more clear. Changing geometry/gimmicks is a valid point but has been raised already (well at least the geometry anyway). It's also probably the only thing that does transfer cleanly into a full game.

The focus of this paragraph is confusing; it doesn't seem to be talking about single-screen, in-your-hands gameplay, but rather just stuff to explore. Gradually growing walls is an idea I'll take from it though.

Bit confused. But the gist of what you're saying is "focus on playful gimmicks and happenings external to the character".

This is already a non-issue in full Sonic games, where ring totals exist for their own reasons and are reset in ways already accepted. From what I interpreted, the merit of the ring collecting single-screen idea was that it focusses gameplay on motion management. I never actually thought "Hey lets put respawning rings in the full game." So thinking about that now... well there might be something fun in it, but apart from the merit of rings just mentioned I'm having trouble making more out of this. But I haven't managed to explain it away entirely so I'm going to let it stew in the back of my mind and see if later I might recognise something relevant to immediate gameplay/the control the player feels purely from the act of respawning items.



Wow the multiquote formatting here is kinda shabby. :|


So yeah not really feeling it there with those posts guys, but thank for the thoughts anyway. Please correct me if I'm missing something you're trying to express about enhancing/purifying the single-screen gameplay of a full game.