Sonic 4: Episode 1 Is A Mediocre Classic Game

~Welcome to the Sonic Blast Community Forum~
Greetings stranger, it is an honor to have you as a visitor. Since we opened in 2006 our goal has been to offer the most authentic Sonic-themed community on the web for Sonic enthusiasts new and old. We do our best to provide the most unique features, best Sonic-themed designs, and have the latest news; always improving to cover all of your Sonic needs. Our community is full of friendly people and we hope you enjoy your brief stay but would be thrilled if you decided to join in on the fun. Being a part of our community is easy, quick, and absolutely free.

Click here to join our community and enter the land of Mobius as a =SB= citizen!
Citizens may log in to their account to participate in our land's conversations and access all of our features:

Sonic 4: Episode 1 Is A Mediocre Classic Game; Deal with it. ;)
Tweet Topic Started: Nov 7 2010, 07:05 PM (225 Views)
Lady BlizShadow	Nov 7 2010, 07:05 PM Post #1
I still can't use this. Posts: 6,546 Group: Former Monarchs Member #6,722 Joined: March 16, 2008	Yes, it's another one of my rants, which means there's a tl;dr warning. As a result, I would prefer if you read the whole thing before responding. The title might go without saying: Sonic 4 is the sequel to Sonic 3 & Knuckles, plagued with programming issues that inhibit its physics and a questionable sense of flow. However, in light of its self-fulfilling mediocrity, I've noticed a trend amongst its detractors to invalidate its identity as a classic game by citing that its inherent technical and philosophocal characteristics make it something else, at best some Advance-Rush hybrid that would've been better off marketed as "New Sonic The Hedgehog" and at worst a steaming pile of dog vomit. That's an understandable reaction for anyone who has significant-enough interest in the qualities of the classics to bother making the distinction, but in looking at how most of those who subscribe to the above consider the consistency of the 3D installments, to me it points out a startling hypocrisy that only serves to create a narrower definition of what constitutes a classic game for the sake of maintaining the status quo than it does to make a meaningful statement about the game in question. Right now, there's a strange dual-consensus for the 3D games. First, most are considered "Adventure-styled" games that take enough inspiration from the short-lived Sonic Adventure series to be considered spiritual successors, and second, all of them are also considered genre-roulette titles that incorporate wildly varying ideas in order to bring attention and diversity to the brand. Sonic The Hedgehog (2006) is commonly dubbed "Sonic Adventure 3" for its use of multiple campaigns, hub worlds, permanent item upgrades, and an involved storyline experienced from different characters' perspective. Yet it differs strongly from its "direct prequels" in that its campaigns feature very similar and grounded gameplay, levels interrupted by partner characters and brief switches in gameplay goals common to that respective campaign, it excludes the Chao Garden while it features Chaos Emerald collection, introduces stores, experiments with a unique, gravely realistic aesthetic, and finally possesses completely different physics and underlying engine architecture. In hindsight, it'd be easy to cite Sonic 2006 as more of some generic action-adventure game instead of one pertaining to a specific series in the franchise, but that's neither here nor there. Up to this point, I've been assuming that both Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2 are similar enough technically and philosophically to compare to the classics in that regard, but quick review designates otherwise: Sonic Adventure retains some consciousness of natural momentum and a pertinent focus on exploration, primarily in the form of hubs. It has six campaigns, each with a single character with a specific gameplay focus. Sonic Adventure 2 serves to strip everything down about Adventure for linearity's sake. The hubs have been trashed, the controls are far tighter and finely tuned for precision movement, subsequently scoring has been made a greater focus of the game by quality play being defined by more stringent standards, and the number of campaigns has been reduced to a mere third of its former self with a unique team of three taking part in each one. There's narrative and aesthetic differences too, with Adventure playing to a more friendlier, brighter organic aesthetic while its sequel is more metropolitan and slicked up with dark, futuristic stylings and foreboding science labs. Character models went from rounded and Disney-esque to leaner, more atheletic and anime-looking beings. Overall, there is a habit of calling 3D games both Adventure-styled games and irrelevant action titles at the same time by largely the same people. It not only cites a huge contradiction that calls into question the methodology by which we are categorizing these games as well as any consensus we manage to achieve from that categorization method, but it also sheds doubt on the ability to discredit the idea of Sonic 4 being a classic game on the merits of it differing in some technical and philosophical ways from the classics, because so do Heroes, ShtH, Sonic 2006, and Unleashed from the Adventures, and even Sonic Adventure 2 from Sonic Adventure 1! Generally, the high-road solution would be to simply call for a more accurate methodology by which we determine what the 3D games actually are, but frankly I think it's impossible, unnecessary, and ultimately besides the point. The fact that most people who tend to dismiss Sonic 4 as a classic game on the grounds that it has different physics will also, at the same time, call Sonic 2006 an Adventure game when it has far more differences from the Adventure series than just mere physics, is hypocritical. I believe that the distinction that has been created between the constitution of potential classic games and potential modern games is completely arbitrary, having been drummed up as nothing more than an attempt to maintain the silly ideal that near-perfection is an inherent quality of the classic games, and that anything less means a game would be something different. However, there can be mediocre classic games just as easily as there can be mediocre modern games, and in that regard, I'm quite pleased with how Sonic 4 turned out.
	Because staff made me do it. =P Art Topic ~ Drawing Tutorial ~ The Seven Chaos Forum


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Free Forums with no limits on posts or members. Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Act II: Sonic's Moonlit Realm · Next Topic »