First, please, cool down. I don't know this guy so this is the first thing I've read from him, but I've already said not everything he's telling is right or valid. Now, about the age of the industry, 1991 was the oldest the industry has reached back then, and the games of those times would set the standard at least for that time in some way or another. Picking Mario is an easy choice because how successful that franchise was and of course it was Sonic's direct rival in stores. Now, the real thing about the article is this guy's impression about Sonic and how "weird" it was compared to other games of its time. Sure, it was better, we know, but I was explaining why he compared that game with Lorde's song and the comments about that track. Sonic was innovative for the time, and that clashes, even if there was still such a big room to evolve and try new things. That's the kind of use of "incorrect" he's doing, not the typical "Sonic is fundamentally flawed" or any shit like that. The guy won't win the best choice of words award, and should rethink some of his ideas, but he's praising the game through the whole article for how it changed the young and rough standards of the platforming genre, even if that doesn't seem that important because the industry was young. I understand that those quoted words aren't perfect either, but, please, choose a better way to disagree with them, and, more important, give me a chance to be right, because you missed the real goal of my post, which was that we understood fully different things from that article, and you don't seem to have re-read it again having my words in mind to see if another point of view about that text is possible.
That Lorde song isn't even that weird, though. Static 4/4 time signature in a pop-friendly key with piano. The unusual part is her cadence and that shrill vocal layering effect, but she's not exactly creating a new genre, here. And yeah, he's clearly praising the game, but it's hollow, useless praise. "This thing breaks the rules, but is brilliant regardless" is an open admission that the initial ruleset was incomplete, so why hold it up like it still means something?
Settle down dude. It ain't a personal assault. Just bustin' your balls a little. That's debatable. The only thing Sonic did to inspire the genre during the era is make a bunch of copy cats. Sonic 1 is also hardly "weird", even for its time. You had games like Umihare Kawase and Bionic Commando which were platformers that nerfed the jump action or completely ignored it altogether. Flashback, Prince of Persia and Another World took the genre into a much slower pace and "cinematic" form. You had all the high action variations like Contra, Ghost'n'Goblins and Castlevania coming in and ignoring what Mario establish outside of "jump on platforms". The article presents an idea that isn't true and then tries to sweep it all way with "none of it matters cause it's good guys!". It's a completely pointless drivel. I've re-read the article plenty and it simply doesn't have any concrete evidence to support the idea he's trying to push.
It isn't clickbait, it's just someone sharing an opinion. If someone shares an opinion you don't like that doesn't make it clikbait. And as some have pointed out, it's actually a well-reasoned article.
While the article's not worth much, I learned of DoNotLink today so that's a plus! Edit: Several posts in this very topic have deconstructed the article and shown that no, it's not well-reasoned. If someone shares an opinion that you like, that doesn't make it well-reasoned.
Why this article sucks: It fails to adequately or fully define "incorrect" and "correct" game design. Even the vague definitions given for "incorrect" and "correct" are not adequately backed up, relying on largely irrelevant sources, and not enough of them. It shows unfamiliarity with the games, making misstatements about their level layouts and treating all stages like Casino Night Zone. It makes unfair assumptions about innate player skill and reflexes, suggesting that jumps must be memorized individually to succeed rather than achieved through ability to gauge distances and understanding of the game's physics, and implying that players can never walk backwards and re-attempt failed jumps onto upper paths. Most significantly, it's confusingly enough written that it started an argument because several people struggled to understand what the article's message even was, thanks to flipfloppy and intentionally misleading language. Ultimately, I agree with this article's conclusion, that Sonic's successes both in design and at market come from "breaking the rules", but I cannot say that I agree with any of the reasoning that led to that conclusion. There are countless articles and videos out there that do a far better job making their point.
Well, I wasn't defending it was a good article, just saying it was an article that wanted to say good things about Sonic compared to other games of that time or prior to it. It wasn't confusing to me, but I understand that throwing so many wrong statements out of his ignorance or misinformation can lead a lot of misinterpretation. I didn't consider it a personal assault, but I felt the way you expressed your opinion wasn't adequate and reacted accordingly. There's a difference between saying "I don't understand the same thing as you" and "WTF are you talking about!?". My apologies if I also went too far.
The author seems to think Sonic is "wrong" because it commits the faux pas of trial-and-error game play. I don't think trolly design patterns like that make a game wrong, but annoying--and something that a sufficiently skilled first-time player may not be able to beat. In all of my time playing hacks on this site, the best games were the ones that didn't troll with is-it-over-if-I-go-down-here-type layouts. But then again, knowing which variants are trolly and which ones have a good sense of community by not requiring the player to gamble is a matter of experience. The average tabloid columnist isn't steeped in that kind of knowledge.
