Sonic X Shadow Generations announced, releases Autumn 2024

That's the thing, autonomy is by definition about freedom.

"the ability to make your own decisions without being controlled by anyone else"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/autonomy
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/autonomy

If one has no freedom of choice, they have no autonomy.


I agree that the choices have to be meaningful, though. That's what I addressed in the second part of my post. Sonic levels shine when they give the player reason to explore their various routes.

 

Well, not in games. The dictionary definition does have the important element in it, though: the ability to make your own decisions, without being controlled by anyone else. The amount of options isn't as crucial as the idea that the choice was your own.

 

I haven't watched much of the footage since I want to keep the level design a surprise, but what little I've seen looks pretty good, and as long as the alternate routes provide distinct visuals and have some kind of gameplay bonus (like rare collectibles, a lot of rings, a powerup, etc) I'll be happy.

 

I honestly don't understand why that guy is trying to argue against the very definition of the word and basically pass it off as a synonym for volition, when it's not. Volition and autonomy are different words and concepts.

In terms of level design, giving the player only one path to take is by definition not giving them autonomy. They don't get the freedom of choosing their path, they must follow a set one.

Many platformers give the player autonomy in other areas, like powerups to pick from, but Sonic games tend to be more limited in that area. The most you get is the shields in the 2d games. Wisps in the 3d games are more often than not mandatory and situational, unlike the powerups in Kirby or 2d Mario, giving the player little freedom in that area. That's why many of us view alternate paths as an important part of Sonic games.

 

He's not arguing against the definition of the word. He's drawing from self-determination theory, specifically the proposed human basic needs, which is a theory of motivation that sees a lot of use in game design. He's not conjuring words from thin air.

And in terms of level design, what decreases a sense of autonomy is not giving less paths but making choices feel like they are driven by external rewards, like you're being puppeteered. It's exactly how I feel in Sonic Colors: I have many options of paths to take in each stage, but I know the game really wants me to take all of them at some point or another to get red rings. Many choices, tangible rewards, replayability, everything you're asking for -- but a severely decreased sense of autonomy because, in the end, it doesn't feel like I'm the one calling the shots. So building autonomy is not a very simple process, and more options of paths, specifically and alone, don't have all that much to do with building that.

Going back to that fairly linear stage in Sonic 1, the sense of autonomy there isn't driven by choosing different paths or using different powerups, but by the huge amount of choices one has to make to balance out immediate survival, progress and future/sustained progress. Like in how, by noticing you put yourself at risk to get that life monitor, a choice is created in the player's mind that has nothing to do with which path to take but which action to do. What will determine the choice a player makes, and how much they buy into their own choice, is contextual and explored by other aspects of the theory (specifically, applied organismic integration theory studies the degree to which a game can make the player integrate their own values to the game's propositions). That's why you can't say more paths = more freedom = more autonomy. It doesn't work like that, never did.

 

'Autonomy' doesn't feel too good of a term for a conversation about level design and it's interactive elements - I'd argue that autonomy is the varied degree of control the player is given in relation to it's subject at all. Controlling a character in a platformer for example tends to be wholly different than controlling a character in a godsim. Sonic requires direct control, the Sims and MvDK:MLM basically has you managing the control if what should be happening, if that makes any sense. For the former, the act of play comes from your ability to wield your character, while the latter has you sort of slaving them into a controllable submission.

Getting back on track, the fact that Sonic is able to go anywhere is autonomy. The blessing of decent, vaguely-discernible variety that spirals off from that given autonomy is what's most important. I'm convinced a studio could most certainly make one path a freeing experience were they to design it proper, and I'd say that's where the majority of shooters typically benefit from post-Modern Warfare... And screw it, Shadow the Hedgehog with its dumb fun looping levels and the ability to change directive and context with the press of a button, if you try not to think about it too hard.

And note, I'm not disagreeing that alternate paths are an important part. They're a good method! It'd just be way nicer if the illusion of choice wasn't a spell casted to begin with.

Edit: Racing games!! Racing games somehow fit into this! No idea how, someone more competent than me can pick up that odd thread if they so desire.

 

i'm glad you brought up the red rings because i've had a thought similar to this for a while but i've been unable to articulate it.

i've recently gotten my roommate to play sonic mania for the first time (their first sonic game and their first 2D action platformer as well, i think) and one of the things that i noticed about its level design is that you don't really "choose" your routes through the levels on a normal first playthrough. instead the routes "choose' you, based on what level obstacles you're able to clear at your skill level. i think the gratification people get from multi-path levels is largely just the process of them getting good enough at the game to make a meaningful choice about which path to take at any given moment, armed with the knowledge of item locations and level layouts that you can only really get from repeat playthroughs.

there are certainly paths that diverge based on skill level in the boost games, but in most cases the paths just diverge to force you to replay the level for red rings, which imo is worse than just having a more densely-packed linear design style. in sa2, if you perform well on the quicktime event in green forest, you get an extra life, and then you're promptly shunted back onto the critical path. if green forest was in generations, there would be a little hallway with a red ring down there instead, forcing you to replay the level again for completion's sake. if given the choice between the two, i think sa2's approach is more satisfying, even though it is technically "more linear."

 

Both of those examples sound like the bare minimum degree of autonomy to me. Sections where you can take extra risks to grab an 1-up? Being able to control the character directly and go anywhere allowable? Those are pretty much the norm in platformers (at least in the ones that still use 1-ups). I'd think Sonic games (and games in general) should strive to do more than the bare minimum to service players and enrichen their experience.

It's the exact opposite for me. I like being rewarded for exploring the levels with something more concise and permanent than lives or shields. Finding a collectible is much more rewarding to me and gives me more incentive to replay and explore the levels.

I don't agree that hiding the red star rings behind alternate paths takes away freedom and makes them feel mandatory, seeing how the RSR themselves are completely optional. Even in Colors where they're needed to get the Chaos Emeralds. The emeralds and Super Sonic aren't required to access the final boss or get the best ending; they're pretty much just a reward for completing a sidequest, not unlike Green Hill in SA2. The emeralds don't even figure in the plot.

 

So you say, but this isn't so simple. Taking risks for a 1-Up only matters where lives are important. I took that challenge many times in that game, but I would never take a similar challenge for a medal in Sonic Superstars, for example; even so, I might take a risk for one single ring in a similar situation if I have 0 rings in any game, especially if I think I'm in danger. Again, it's contextual, not the bare minimum. Not every player will feel enticed by the same kind of options offered or challenge provided, but the context and their personal preferences will inform how they will react. Again, that's why a stage isn't automatically enriched by alternate paths just because they are there.

Congratulations! Your values align with these boost games deal with reward, options and punishment. You have no problem understanding these kinds of choices as self-actualizing and fulfilling. Good for you. A lot of people agree with you. This doesn't mean there is an automatic vector from the presence of multiple paths to an inherent value in level design.

(If anyone is interested there are quite a few studies applying self-determination theory to video games (1, 2, 3). It's not the only possible approach, and it's always difficult to do controlled studies about voluntary behaviors, but I think it has important insights.

One thing that corroborates @Blue Blood's point is that the notion of "presence", or the idea that the world around feels real, is important and correlated with autonomy, so in the stages where multiple paths make sense for world-building or story reasons, the choices can make you feel like you belong there. That's an important usage of paths, even if they're otherwise unimportant. The sheer feeling that you are in a place so much bigger than you is, I think, one of the things that makes Green Hill so cool to a first-time player. Even if you normally won't even register all the possibilities that a level offers, just noticing there are many of them can make a place feel more real in a way)

 

Well, that's yet another reason to be underwhelmed by how alternate paths are handled in the 3D games.
But in a minor way.

A level like Kingdom Valley has the opportunity to do so with entering the old castle (outside of those tiny one room areas) and seeing stuff we never would've seen in the old game.

But very few SA2 levels can manage this with their 'highway in the sky' geometry, but Generations still managed to solve such a thing with Speed Highway.

 

Spot on. Sonic Unleashed is such an underrated gem of a game to and U really loved the art direction too with that Mediterranean look to the early daytime stages,even to this day the graphics engine is impressive. I've always loved Windy Valley on Sonic Adv even if it's very simple and more like a rollercoaster in parts. It's just a blast to play it and watch the action on screen.


So looking forward to the game now and it's not too long. With this and Astrobot is great to have some nice big budget AAA 3D platformers.

 

Jungle Joyride isn’t really that much of a straightshot. The water segments and other shortcuts are really cool. I agree it’s probably the best level sans frame dips on the original platforms.

Emerald Coast has neat skips, but yep, I wouldn’t say there are really any significant alternative routes. Maybe just the wall run in part 2.

 

Interview w/ Iizuka-san.

 

something I really liked about the Generations version of Speed Highway is how it more strongly incorporated the skyscraper setting into the level, as opposed to the buildings just being things to hang floating roads on. Things like parts of the level being inside the skyscrapers themselves and such.

 

He says the title without pronouncing the “X.” Why on Earth did he tell IGN to pronounce it? I had a strong feeling the Japanese side of Sega wouldn’t say it that way so the “reveal” that it’s spoken never sat well with me lol.

 

New keyart looks really interesting, what in the world are they cooking with Black Doom in this

 

Classic Sonic really is getting completely shafted in the marketing this time around. Lol

 

So I guess this is our new mystery character on that Japanese site?

 

It's not really surprising, though - after all, one of the biggest draws for the original release was the return of the classic-styled Sonic and (an approximation of) the classic-styled gameplay, so that was reflected in the marketing. This time around Sonic Generations is just a re-release of an older game with a few extra bells and whistles, so the big draw in this release is the brand-new content, the Shadow Generations side-game. So it makes sense that the marketing for this re-release would have shifted from focusing on "New Sonic meets CLASSIC SONIC!" to "Here's a well-remembered Sonic game plus an ALL-NEW SHADOW GAME!".