What if big could use his fishing rod to grab stuff like in the chaos 6 fight? That way big can leave the fishing behind and adopt a new platforming gameplay style, while still taking that slower, methodical approach that makes use of his fishing rod. Imagine swimming around in water and pulling stuff around (quickly with the rod) to reach places you can't normally so you can get to foggy at the end. I mean, big spent the entire story chasing the frog, so why not build that into the gameplay? Just a random thought.
Dunno if I agree with that. Most people I speak with say they couldn't figure out how to actually catch Froggy once he got on their hooks, less so than they couldn't figure out they were supposed to. Outside of that, at least in my eyes, the weakest part of his game is just actually playing as him and having to get to the actual fishing spot itself. He's not particularly fun to control in SA1. I do agree with Azookara thought that his swimming was actually some of the best times you are controlling him though. In a theoretical remake, I would make Big more fun to actually control. Maybe have him swing on some hooks with hsi Pole and make it all a more involved act to getting to the fishing spot. Then the act of Catching Froggy becomes more of a capstone to his gameplay than the beginning and end of it. But perhaps that's just me.
At the risk of going off topic, i can't really agree with this. Mario 64s core controls and gameplay mechanics are radically different from how he was is Mario 1, Lost levels, 3 and World. Those games had a lot more focus on precision platforming, bouncing shells and using power ups to traverse the levels and interact with its geometry, psrticularly on the blocks that made up a great deal of the level design. 64 doesn't really have that. It has a lot more emphasis on more intricate movement options that are used for exploration. Really, it's only on a surface level examination that the character you are physically playing as is "mario" that it can be called the same. At its core, Mario 64 really could be argued to resemble the Super Mario games of old in visuals only. More on topic though Is I don't see why this really matters. Rarely is the criticism of say Donkey Kong 64 from what I see really ever brought about its different characters with different controls, or a game like say Neir Automata ever chastised for its shifting variety of gameplay styles. I find it really odd to simply use Super Mario 64, a game that was trying to accomplish a specific and quite frankly unorthodox thing as a consequence of the time it came out, and use it as a face value blueprint of what Sonic Adventure probably should have been more like in these respects, especially on the basis that seem to be given as if deviation from its structure of choice is evident of inherent flaws.
Sonic Adventure has a lot of fundamental issues with every character other then Sonic (if we are being generous). Amy's level are conceptually just annoying because you are constantly running away from an irritating but mostly harmless enemy. Knuckles and Tails' levels are half-baked, incredibly easy, and over in minutes. Gamma's levels are fun but shallow by today's standards. Big's levels are just awful. To make these levels better, which is over half of the game, you are reaching re-imagining land. You are thinking about fundamental changes to controls, move mechanics, goals, and level design which goes past the Crash and Spyro remakes. It's more similar to Resident Evil 2, I guess, but the changes made to that game in terms of gun combat, enemy AI are already controversial in the hardcore fandom. And Resident Evil 2's level design didn't need to be fundamentally changed in the way that Sonic Adventure's does. It's not a problem unique to Sonic Adventure either. I didn't like Crash 3 in the N Sane Trilogy very much because I thought the gimmick stages were awful and they didn't make fundamental changes to them. I think a Sonic Adventure remake in the style of Crash and Spyro would resemble Crash 3. There's only so much tinkering and tampering you can do to fundamentally flawed ideas. And maybe some people wouldn't mind how dated and archaic Sonic Adventure often is just like some didn't mind Crash 3, but I wouldn't like it at all. If anything I think the best example is Hitman 2016. It went back to what Hitman 2, Contracts, and Blood Money did, but made it in a completely new game. Take what's good about both Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2 and just make a new game out of it. That way you are doing less nostalgia pandering and aren't anchored down to the poor design decisions of the original Adventure games. And as an aside, I wouldn't want a Sonic Adventure Reimagining because I don't get the point of it. I hated FF7 Remake primarily because the new story was worse than the old one, but also because I don't see the point of reimagining a classic when you can just make a new game that is fully dedicated to the new conceptual idea. And I'm speaking here not only in terms of story but also gameplay and art direction. If you re-imagined Sonic Adventure in the style of FF7 Remake not only would most the fans probably hate it but it would be better served by just making a new game (ala Hitman).
That's completely missed the point entirely. It's a single gameplay style, so all they have to develop *is a single gameplay style*. Sonic Adventure is 6 gameplay styles. The focus of Mario 64 *is* Mario's control scheme. The focus of Sonic Adventure is the 6 different gameplay styles. Your entire post is completely misreading and misinterpreting what I wrote. In fact, Laura already replied directly to what I meant, and elaborated on it; The fact is, Mario 64 focused on nailing the control scheme for one character, before future installments added additional elements to shake up the formula. Sonic Adventure is 6 play styles, none of which ever got fleshed out. I don't even know how you got the interpretation you did, it's nowhere near. Nowhere in my post did I say Mario 64 controls like he did in 2D. Nowhere did I say Sonic Adventure should control like he does in 2D. I said that Mario 64 is a single play style that focused on the movement first and foremost, and then fleshed that out with maps only, rather than superfluous elements like SA1. To be fair, ideally I'd like a brand new Sonic game, rather than a reimagining, but if we're getting anything, I'd prefer it to actually fix the gripes that I (and many others) have with it, rather than just copying huge chunks verbatim. A spiritual successor to that play style would be nice, with the same amount of ambition, but hopefully with the focus on the play styles that we actually care about lol :P Tbf, I'd be happy with a remake, reimagining, new game inspired by it, so long as it's *good*. I can forgive it not being exactly what I would've done, so long as the game is good. If it's good, I can see them using it as a foundation for future games, so at least there'd be something to look forward to... it's just Sonic Team hasn't instilled hope that they'd make a good game next time around lol
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EFLgHmFanCyEKNGzFy1-xsBvxJpS3oeEQ9AQ-s5Fwt8/mobilebasic I have an entire document here going over my changes for a hypothetical remake (titled “SONIC ADVENTURE REMIX”). It’s more than I’d like to put in a post, so go ahead and read it if you’d like. It’s not finished or anything, but it’s a solid enough proof of concept.
I mean, Mario did get a way to kill Goombas outside of jumping on them in 3D. In 64, he can punch and kick. In Sunshine, he has the FLUDD. In both Galaxy's, he has the spin attack (which also has a homing attack function ). In Odyssey, he has Cappy. In every 3D Mario game outside of 3D Land/World (which are stuck at an isometric perspective, and some would consider them not truly 3D), Mario has had alternate ways of taking on enemies because it's hard to precisely jump on enemies. I think the current version of the homing attack isn't great: it should just be a way to get you towards the enemies. If it didn't stop your forward momentum in the air when you hit an enemy, and you could hold the jump button to go higher/lower when bouncing off an enemy, I think it'd work. Ironically, the modern games do have this in the game - balloons act like how the homing attack should function by default. Unfortunately, it's relegated to a gimmick. I do agree with you otherwise - I just feel like ignoring that Mario did have other means of taking on enemies in his 3D games was a bit disingenuous.
Mario does have ground based attacks as alternatives to jumping, just as rolling/spin dash would be Sonic's alternative to jumping. It would take a lot of experimenting to give the player more freedom than the current homing attack, but it would hopefully be worth the effort, rather than sticking with a 1998 solution as the only possibility.
The homing attack isn’t “outdated”. It’s a more than valid way to hit enemies in 3D when you’re too fast to reliably hit anything, no matter it’s size or radius towards you. I feel like it makes a nice tradeoff if fleshed out; jumping on an enemy could grant more forward speed or height while a HA guarantees a strike but with a more stiff rebound. Anyways this is what I was getting at. lol We keep looking at game design decisions from this game as if they’re outdated or inherently flawed, which is where my annoyance in rewriting the whole book comes from.
What I'd like to see is probably closer to a "remaster" than a remake, but there are a few bigger changes involved as well. Ideally, this release would have the option to play the "classic" and "new" versions of the game. The "classic" mode would include: -select either the Dreamcast or GCN graphics -optional 60fps for both -optional widescreen for both -Dreamcast online content unlockable -Beta Windy Valley unlockable -Super Sonic in action stages unlockable -various unlockable "museum" content (art, development screenshots, commercials, etc.) The game itself would play exactly the same in this mode. In the "new" mode, I would like to see: -brand new visuals -optional arranged soundtrack -optional rerecorded script with the current cast -new cutscenes -Sonic's SA2 moveset -SA2's scoring system -remove the random ring capsules -Big's gameplay reworked to be closer to Sega Bass Fishing, with a faster pace and more movement of the rod after hooking -improved Chao Garden -absolutely no unlocks or achievements/trophies connected to the Chao Garden -general control/movement improvements -online ranking for score and time, as well as new online Chao functions The idea would be to provide both the best way to play the original game as well as a notably different new version.
He clearly was talking about the implementation of the homing attack being outdated, not the idea of the homing attack. I'm starting to think you're just looking for reason to get angry.
Crasher has the right idea, about the homing attack being something to help direct the player to the enemy, while keeping Sonic's momentum. But it shouldn't be the one and only viable form of attack and engaging with enemies shouldn't feel like a single-button QTE. We talk about the over-automation in recent Sonic games a lot, and I don't think the homing attack should be excluded from that conversation. Everything that takes autonomy away from the player should be re-examined, because there might be a better way.
I'm fine with the characters keeping their playstyles, but refining and adding to them really. Like keep Big's fishing minigame, but add a fuller level transitioning to it. Don't make the minigame the whole thing. Make the fishing controls better so they aren't as tedious (maybe ditch the whole 'press down to catch' just for Froggy thing since it threw a lot of players off) and give Big some extra moves to make his platforming more enjoyable. Like give him his Heroes body slam and make him marginally faster (though he doesn't have to be Sonic speed, just regular tolerable platformer level, same for Amy). I think level design is sometimes the key factor here. Like I said Big's levels are pretty bare besides the fishing minigame, Gamma's are fun but too short most of the time, and Tails' are just shortened takes on Sonic that you cheese and break. Knuckles' are okay as hubs to search but the hiding spots are too limited and obvious (though I prefer that over the tedium of some of SA2's puzzles, talk about going too far into the opposite extreme). Only Sonic and Amy's feel fully developed. Like say for Tails' levels, he can work around Sonic's paths but instead of just boost rings there's actual short cuts and exclusive routes to find high up, this gives way more intuition to his playthrough. I'd also love if they added some of the planned extra levels, which might have bulked up the story and made the others' campaigns more on level with Sonic. The proposed stage names sound a lot like an Angel Island themed level and a platformer section for Sand Hill. There's also other level themes that could work well as transitional parts of the story to make the cutscene time less excessive. Say a "Launch Base" section where you enter Egg Carrier either in its secret base (for Knuckles and Big) or at its downed area in the sea (for Amy and Gamma) or a level where Sonic treks through the Chaos destroyed Station Square to pad some action between the excessive build up to the Perfect Chaos boss. Also add more secret minigames. Adding an addictive Big's Fishing Derby type minigame to his campaign would likely redeem it a good deal.
Not to be rude, but I don't think I did? I pretty clearly opened the question regarding the merit of Multiple gameplay styles and whether they should be treated as a flaw in the first place. I even brought up examples like Neir: Automata.
Again, that isn't the point that was being made. Nobody said having multiple gameplay styles is a *flaw*, in fact I enjoy games with a fair bit of variety. I enjoy Sonic 06, a game which not only has multiple characters, but has varied gameplay styles as well throughout each campaign. The flaw in SA1's case is those gameplay styles aren't fleshed out enough to really warrant their inclusion, and you could even argue it's detrimental as not every gameplay style is enjoyable in SA1 (whilst, say, in Sonic 06 they're pretty similar across the board). People like to meme Big the Cat, but if you *really* don't like Big the Cat, then you still have a campaign to finish of him before you can finish the game. You could argue that if they didn't have to implement Big the Cat, more focus could have been given to the other campaigns. My point was that the only reason to remake SA1 is to make a "definitive" version that achieves everything the original wanted to do, but to a higher standard with less compromises. If you want a remaster that just updates the graphics, that's fine, but it's not a remake. SA1 is a game that had a lot of compromises during development. Nobody said that there wasn't merit to multiple play styles, an example would be generally even though everyone is sick of him in 2020, Classic Sonic was generally well received in Sonic Generations. But, the issue with SA1 is that a remake would have to significantly overhaul and flesh out some of the campaigns which didn't get enough focus during development. Nothing I said was a critique of the concept of multiple gameplay styles. What *is* a flaw is how it is executed, and in SA1 it's not fleshed out. The point of bringing up Mario 64 is to compare how a hypothetical remake would be achieved. Mario 64 would be a lot easier to remake than SA1. That's just a fact. You pointed out that Mario controlled differently in the previous games, but that actively misses the point as to why I brought up his control scheme. I brought it up, because SA1 requires you to develop 6 control schemes and polish them all. It's not a question of whether varied gameplay styles should be in Sonic games (I think they should personally), it's a question of how it's implemented and how that affects development focus. Which, in SA1, development focus went to Sonic, but his campaign still is short, and not acceptable by a 2020 standard.
The reason the homing attack doesn't do that and why I believe it shouldn't do that is because it makes engaging with enemies cumbersome. If Sonic is flying at the same speed as the homing atttack sends him, carrying all forward momentum, he will get sent all over the place in awkward ways. This is why I believe the balloons did carry it, because using them for purely platforming reasons was the whole point. In general, I believe the Homing Attack and its implementation not only gets put under too much of a microscope, but also isn't given enough credit, at least in regards to how it was implemented in this game and its sequel. How it works is that Sonic has a radius around him in the direction he is facing, so the player still has to properly position themselves and even apply some level of aiming to use it correctly. It has its own skill floor. Later games I feel would dumb it down by making its range too large or dynamically assigned based on the position of the player in a level This along with the reticle, gives it the QTE feeling I often see it compared to. There was a certain level of elegance and mechanical mastery that was required of the player to carry their forward air time from the homing attack to get closer to the next enemy to properly land the next homing attack that you just dont see in newer games as a result. Wouldn't the solution then in a remake where we are attempting to address its flaws be fleshing them out? I was pretty open about saying my bit about Mario was a tangent not necesarily relevant to the point proper. You started by saying his controls were what you expect so I just wanted to address that since its something I see said about the game often despite my disagreements. It was never supposed to be taken as adddressing the core point to begin with.
The first half of your reply tackled the statement "Mario 64 is a Mario control scheme" as if they were saying Mario 64's control scheme is characteristically "Mario". What they were actually saying was that the core of Mario 64's gameplay is just controlling Mario. Unlike Adventure where there are several different types of gameplay with different control schemes, Mario 64 has you control one character with one control scheme, and its consistency stems from that. Granted, the second half did tackle the actual subject after that but I think the going off-topic made it a bit confusing. Either way I do agree with you that Sonic Adventure's different gameplay modes wasn't its biggest problem. I think there are ways this could've been done that actually made characters other than Sonic less boring to play. But honestly I do think it was a tall order for Sonic Team, and trying to incorporate all those different gameplay styles certainly made it harder to have a more consistent product. Mario 64's one character scheme doesn't really make it a better game by default, but I can see how the limited scope made it a lot easier for Nintendo to make a polished product.
I dont disagree, but then I have to ask what the purpose of the comparison was. We aren't talking about theoretically going back in time and fixing the original with the limited resources and time the devs had at the time, right? For the purposes of a remake, we have modern tech and hindsight that wasn't available before.
lol I typed out a whole reply, and just didn't click the post button haha, here it is: Well yes, but no. There's been discussion in here about Big the Cat. Yes yes, he's a meme, blah blah, but some people want to keep him in the game, some people want to remove him. Both are valid options to take. But, fleshing him out wouldn't necessarily make the overall game better, if you still don't like his core gameplay style. That's what it comes down to, what do people count as the "core" of Sonic Adventure. Like, in our "perfect imaginary SA1 remake", I'm sure we'd want all the characters fully fleshed out, with the most beautiful campaigns ever, with all the gameplay as exciting and enjoyable as each other. But, if we're being realistic, the development time of a SA1 Remake if it was to actually happen wouldn't allow our dreams to come true. So it's about what you prioritise most of all. Add to that the fact that everyone has differing opinions of what they enjoy in the game, I don't really know the best way SEGA could actually remake it. I'd want the game to focus on Sonic/Tails/Knuckles, but then you could argue that it's not "Sonic Adventure" as it only features half the characters, even though it's clear the development time was mainly given to them in the original lol. It's like the argument for adding more levels... at what point does it just become a new game, with a few shared levels from the original? Because to get even Sonic's campaign up to a 2 hour-ish mark or more, that's going to be more new levels than old.
This doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling argument. I think from a more objective standpoint that yes, fleshing out his gameplay would in fact make the game better, since the alternative would be to leave it in its current more shallow state. If the requirement for this to not be the case is for the player to already have made up their mind they want nothing to do with it, I find that rather silly when discussing a remake. Generally speaking remakes arent exactly intended to be made to for people that already made up their mind they don't like the game, wouldn't you agree? I'd be like me telling a Mario 64 fan that Mario should lose his healthbar, have flagpoles and more linear design instead of collecting Power Stars in a Mario 64 remake, because I don't find collecting Power Stars in an open area fun. Sure, thats my opinion, but thats not the games' fault. You may feel compelled to say its different because its Mario 64s entire gameplay, but Big's campaign is whether one likes it or not just as much part of the game as Sonic, Tails, Knuckles or Amy's, as short as it is. As for the bit about dev time, I find this to be rather arbitrary. By which standard exactly are we claiming there isn't enough time to flesh anything of it out? Again, we have hindsight and modern tech at our disposal now. The N.Sane and Reignited Trilogies surely present the notion that its more than feasible, no?
