...I miss their old games... Page 2

Started by Yukari June 1st, 2014 8:37 AM
  • 1718 views
  • 30 replies
Sonic hasn't been terrible since 2006. The only ones close to that are Sonic 4, and those were outsourced, not developed by the main team, and they're not really terrible as they are more mediocre. Everything after ranges from good (Sonic Rush, Unleashed) to excellent. (Generations, Color and the All Stars Racing games.)

Lost World had the right idea, but lacked focus. It is one game. Sonic Boom is more side project than a main game. Also, Sonic 2 and Sonic 3 & Knuckles are the only "excellent" games from the older Sonic games.

Sonic is just as good now as he was before, in terms of game design. He just doesn't have the same impact, but that's more due to platforming mascots dying than actually something related to the quality of the games.
Mmm... After some though I guess I would agree. Most of the complaints I've heard are something along the lines of "The new sonic games don't capture that sense of speed that the old games had." I really don't get that. And really: '06 and Shadow the Hedgehog are 8 years old now. The two other games that frequently get a lot of flak (Sonic and the secret rings which was simply average and Sonic and the Black knight which was met with rather mixed reception) are 7 and 5 years old respectively. Personally I think that the newer games made up for the faults of their predecessors.

Spinosaurus

Seen May 27th, 2019
Posted June 7th, 2018
4,569 posts
14.1 Years
Mmm... After some though I guess I would agree. Most of the complaints I've heard are something along the lines of "The new sonic games don't capture that sense of speed that the old games had." I really don't get that. And really: '06 and Shadow the Hedgehog are 8 years old now. The two other games that frequently get a lot of flak (Sonic and the secret rings which was simply average and Sonic and the Black knight which was met with rather mixed reception) are 7 and 5 years old respectively. Personally I think that the newer games made up for the faults of their predecessors.
To reply specifically to the bolded, that is a lie. Compare:
Sonic 3 and Knuckles
Sonic Generations

Sonic Generations has a significantly faster sense of speed than S3&K, plus it's harder to keep up with. (Not a bad thing necessarily, mind you.) The genesis games (and even the classic Sonic portions in Generations) don't have the same sense of speed the boost modern Sonic games have.
Age 35
Male
Dream World
Seen December 21st, 2016
Posted October 8th, 2016
1,638 posts
10.8 Years
Sonic hasn't been terrible since 2006. The only ones close to that are Sonic 4, and those were outsourced, not developed by the main team, and they're not really terrible as they are more mediocre. Everything after ranges from good (Sonic Rush, Unleashed) to excellent. (Generations, Color and the All Stars Racing games.)

Lost World had the right idea, but lacked focus. It is one game. Sonic Boom is more side project than a main game. (And we still don't know if it's even good or bad). Also, Sonic 2 and Sonic 3 & Knuckles are the only "excellent" games from the older Sonic games.

Sonic is just as good now as he was before, in terms of game design. He just doesn't have the same impact, but that's more due to platforming mascots dying than actually something related to the quality of the games.
I wouldn't say the first Sonic is "not excellent". For its time, it was. However, it didn't age as nicely as its sequels, and is riddled with punishing level design.

To people complaining about glitches... Super Mario 64 is a glitchfest and it's an excellent game.


Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire, the day Pokémon pulled a Dallas and jumped the shark.
Male
Colorado
Seen June 20th, 2014
Posted June 9th, 2014
4 posts
9 Years
LM1 and LM2 suffer the same problems. Neither is inherently better than the other, it's all preferences. I don't really know where you're getting at especially when it's so easy to say a game is "so amazing and hard to top".
what problems are you referring to?

And backing up my statement, LM1 was a very innovative game in the feeling of progress at which it brought forth. Rather than seeing a percentage on your screen, you actively start to light up the mansion, making it more safe and giving aesthetic progress to the player.

With LM2, not only are the areas more complex, the overall goal seems less important, and lights turn on and off in rooms, in my opinion, that it kind of lacks that visual progress that the first brought.

Don't get me wrong, they're both great games. Nostalgia of course plays into my liking of LM1, I just think it's a better game overall.

Spinosaurus

Seen May 27th, 2019
Posted June 7th, 2018
4,569 posts
14.1 Years
what problems are you referring to?

And backing up my statement, LM1 was a very innovative game in the feeling of progress at which it brought forth. Rather than seeing a percentage on your screen, you actively start to light up the mansion, making it more safe and giving aesthetic progress to the player.

With LM2, not only are the areas more complex, the overall goal seems less important, and lights turn on and off in rooms, in my opinion, that it kind of lacks that visual progress that the first brought.

Don't get me wrong, they're both great games. Nostalgia of course plays into my liking of LM1, I just think it's a better game overall.
I'm not sure I follow. Is visual progression the reason you think LM1 is better? That's it?

I personally think the level design is stronger in LM2. The mansions all have a great sense of cohesiveness and dynamics that keeps it consistently fresh and exciting. No room is the same, and ghosts interact with the every room better and bring a new gimmick with that, which is the biggest problem I felt with LM1 as it lacked that. It lacked variety, where for the most part the rooms are just a different coat of paint. Your objective in them are mostly the same. It makes up for it with the boss ghosts, I suppose.

Their biggest issue is the lack of polish though. LM1 was a rushed launch title, and LM2 was too bloated. Neither are "amazing", they're both just "great". They have problems that hold them back from being masterpieces. I love both of them, though.