Sonic: The Core Design and Beyond pt.1

For those who have been following the critical-gaming blog, you know that I've been trying to write an article on the 2D Sonic games for about half a year now. When I had originally revisited the games, I was simply trying to remind myself of why I liked Sonic so much when I was a kid. At some point in my investigation, I became curious to get to the bottom of the Sonic vs. Mario debate. Last year I analyzed the core 2D Mario design and applied what I learned to the other games in the series. Now, after having played every 2D side scrolling Sonic platform game I could get my hand on, I think I've figured out the essence of Sonic.

In this three part series I'll examine the core design of the 2D Sonic games, explain in full detail why the Sonic Rush games are the best Sonic games, and consider the design paths that Sonic should take to to make a quality, next-gen game.

The following is a look at the core design of the 2D Sonic games that is largely consistent between Sonic 1, 2, 3, Sonic & Knuckles, Sonic Rush, and Sonic Rush Adventure. Througout this section, I will compare the design of Sonic to the design of anlogous elements from Super Mario Brothers.

Core Mechanics

• There's not much to say about the design of Sonic's core mechanics. His JUMP is quick and springy. His DUCK while moving turns into a ROLL mechanic that works well with the game's physics especially on hills and other slanted surfaces. The SPIN DASH that was added after Sonic 1, gives players the ability to burst forward at high speeds from a standing position.
• The core mechanics and controls are solidly designed. From here, it's up to the designers to create levels that make use of the core player mechanics.

Ring Design

• Though I along with many others have mistakenly called rings coins, it is ironic that the functional parallel between rings and coins mirror their visual parallel. Though both are shiny pieces of gold suspended in the air, the coins in Super Mario Brothers are designed to encourage and reward the player for diverse and challenging platforming. Each coin in Super Mario Brothers is arranged so that they can be obtained without having to play through the level again. Every 100 coins, players earn extra lives. These design features make coins in Super Mario Brothers solidly designed. You can read more about Mario coins here.
• The rings in Sonic, on the other hand, have a large gaping hole in the middle of their function when compared to coins. Rings aren't arranged so that players can grab all the rings they see. There are moments when the rings are arranged in large groups that the player can pass through only once. Because some rings can't be obtained in one play through, the encouraging function of the rings becomes diminished. For these rings, instead of saying "you can do it. keep trying," they say, "too bad you missed. better luck next time." 
• Every coin in Super Mario Brothers was carefully arranged so that they weren't put in the path that the player must go through to progress. Coins are a reward for going out of one's way, not taking the only path available. This design makes each coin earned and well valued. In Sonic, rings are placed in areas that players must go through including on platforms, over springs, and around loops. These rings feel like pity offerings.
• Because the ring count isn't carried over from level to level, suspension isn't created. In Mario, players can develop strategies around collecting rings across multiple levels to earn extra lives. In Sonic, all efforts to collect rings to earn extra lives must be completed before the end of each level. If you reach the end with 99 rings, that's just too bad. You'll start with 0 rings at the beginning of the next level. 
• In Super Mario Brothers Mario can only take a maximum of 2 hits before dying. Sonic, on the other hand, can survive all types of hits (except for being crushed and falling into pits) as long as he has one ring. Instead of being an optional layer of influence on top of the core gameplay like coins, rings are integral to the players survival. Players need rings to survive, and when Sonic gets hit, all of the rings that have been collected scatter out from the player. This design creates a type of dependency on rings not to mention a degree of static space that is functionally equivalent to attack-attach-heal. As long as the player has rings and can pick up at least one after being hit, they're free to play recklessly. This static gameplay generally occurs during boss fights because of the enclose fighting area.

Enemy Design

•   Sonic is much more aggressive than Mario. With the ability to curl up into a spiky ball, sonic can destroy enemies while rolling along the ground or traveling through the air. While in the air Sonic can attack enemies from above, below, or from the sides. This design reduces the amount of influence a single enemy has on the player when compared to the Mario enemies. Instead of forcing the player to jump on top of the enemies to defeat them thus engaging the game's core dynamic (gravity), Sonic can barrel through enemies in so many ways that the enemies hardly influence players at all. As long as Sonic is in ball form, for the most part, he's safe.
• The enemies in Sonic don't feature much interplay. They're either slowly moving about, throwing/shooting projectiles, and/or exposing their spikes. The enemies are are either alive or completely destroyed. The enemies aren't typically arranged to layer together or positioned in a way to influence the player to maneuver in unique ways. As players zoom through each level, the enemies are either destroyed in the process or left behind and forgotten. You can read more about the interplay of Mario enemies here.
• Sonic enemy elements also don't telegraph themselves to give the player enough time to effectively react to them. The fireballs and Piranha Plants in Super Mario Brothers reveal themselves on screen before Mario has a chance to run unexpectedly into them even when moving at top speeds. Many hazards and enemies in Sonic are positioned in a way that players have to memorize their whereabouts to avoid them safely. The more memorization these elements force on the player, the less play exists in the gameplay experience.
• For these reasons the enemies in Sonic aren't designed to carefully shape, influence, and develop the platforming/action gameplay experience. More so, the Sonic enemies simply add an occasional annoyance/threat that increases the amount of memorization in the game rather than play.

Level design

incredible image by UpaUpa on Deviantart

• Contrary to what many believe, the classic Sonic games (Sonic 1, 2, and 3) aren't so much about speed as they are about flow. However, moving between one game idea and the next smoothly isn't a quality exclusive to Sonic. Even Mario and Mega Man have the ability to go from the beginning of a level to the end without stopping. At their best, the Sonic games create a strong sense of forward momentum. At their worst, the player is stopped frequently and slowed to a crawl progressing through gameplay ideas that aren't very interesting.
• The 2D Sonic games have always wrestled with the limitations of the screen display. The faster Sonic moves, the harder it is for players to see upcoming hazards in time to make informed decisions. If you can't see that bump or rock coming, they become jarring stops in the flowing action. Mario was carefully designed so that players can always make accurate decisions about the upcoming challenges. Read more about Mario's design here.
• The amount of breaks in Sonic's flow increase with speed of Sonic's movements. This is especially troublesome. The better/faster a player gets at the game, the more likely they'll come to an abrupt stop. Being slowed by enemies or bumps is easy enough to deal with. But when you can't see an upcoming pit in time, it could cost you a life. Most players resort to memorizing deadly parts of a level to progress safely.
• Many of the branching paths that Sonic is so well known for aren't very different from each other. Often times, the difference between one path and a branching path is merely a couple of steps before the paths recombine.
• The amount of level transformation is low, and even these examples don't influence the core gameplay significantly. In other words, the occasional push block or breakaway wall are either required for progression or they open up access to a branched path.Without enough level transformative abilities, players move through the level instead of expressing themselves by actively changing it.
• What's worth noting about Sonic's level design isn't the mechanics, how the elements influence gameplay, the interplay (or lack thereof), or the layered counterpoint (which it doesn't have). What works with Sonic's level design is that it's functionally similar to a roller coaster or amusement park ride. The lack of significant variation due to the shallow level and enemy design puts the emphasis on the game "experience" rather than the game "play." Sonic is all about experiencing the "ride" that's composed of the strong forward momentum. The more cool looking obstacles, jumps, loops, secrets, and enemies the designers can put into a level regardless of how well these elements shape the gameplay, the better.The more elements the player can zoom past, the more they feel like they're outracing even if these elements are basic or shallow. 

The 2D Sonic games are perhaps the most popular example of this roller coaster design. Tomorrow, I'll explain in full detail how the core design in Sonic Rush has refined the core roller coaster Sonic design and why the two are my favorite Sonic games.

Comments

[Bryan Rosander]

Why didn't you mention Sonic's attacks in the primary game mechanics? Its covered elsewhere, I know.

Sonic has had powerups since the first game, right? How did those affect the game? I know the air bubble changed the game at least a bit. I think the others mostly just gave you another hit before you lost your rings.

How did the water levels compare to Mario's Water levels?

I really like this so far. The best part I remember about Sonic was the complicated spring platforming. While I do enjoy them, I find the level design confusing and requires a lot of memorization. I can't wait to see your repairs.

Also, will you address comparisons of Sonic games to the Sonic Riders racing games?

[Richard Terrell (KirbyKid)]

@ Bryan

I do intend on covering the Sonic vs. Mario angle in a bit more detail including talking about powerups, the water levels, and other specifics.

Thanks for the comment. I tried preparing some Sonic level maps for diagrams.Some of them are very confusing. I think I need to hook up my media capture equipment to the root of the matter.

I haven't played Sonic Riders, and I don't have access to the game right now. But I'll see what I can do.

[Dan]

I mentioned that I agree with your comments on the rings, but that's not completely true.
They definitely do make themselves appear worthless when you are forced to accept that you can't collect some, only to be force-fed them in the next loop you encounter. If one were to design a new 2D Sonic I would indeed like those points (your 2nd and 3rd points) addressed.

There's a lot to say about your 4th point though.

Firstly I'll say that yes, it is a good thing that the value of a coin extends past the level.
But it's also a good thing that the reward of 100 rings is limited by the end of the level. Especially because rings come and rings go. The effect on life-gathering is very clear to the player. Rings are what's happening right now. You lose them and it's about running and grabbing. You win the life and there's a fanfare. Reaching the act end with 99 rings is a fun tease. This could only be a disappointment if gathering rings was pushed onto the player, which it isn't.

So both have their merits. I will say that I believe extending the meaning of something past the level serves the gameplay greatly and this should always be considered in a game. But Sonic's style is a very good thing in a Sonic game - the life system is not a negative and should not be changed. The rings don't have a gaping hole in functionality; they simply aren't trying to serve the same purpose as Mario's coins. Similary, the rings bring a great deal to the game that coins can't. So I think it would be better to use something else to address suspension. Why are you focussing on the rings specifically? You could just say that suspension is lacking; not that the rings are broken. Meanwhile, do the Chaos Emeralds not fill this gap excellently? More significant and fun than the occasional, farmable free life I think. If you feel the emeralds are too uncommon I will say Fair enough, but still, leave Sonic's rings alone instead of fixing something that is already working very well.

Off that - I think your argument about strategising for coins is a mistake. I'm actually not sure what you mean when you say the player can strategise their approach to collecting free lives, because this is nothing more than restarting the most efficient Mario level available. Just farming. There are also faster, easier ways to farm than counting coins. So while I nod along to the notion of coin count meaning something outside the level, SMW's/NSMB's non-strategic extra-life system is no justification for that. Mario 3's style is preferable; the player can only try their best in each level as they progress through the game, knowing that it all adds up.

I still agree that coins feel more worth-the-bother than rings. However I also feel that rings are simply better as a game item, since they do affect the game and are more involved with the current action. Coins aren't, not at all. I'll clarify and say that given nothing to do with no other consequences, grabbing a coin feels like you've gained more. But in terms of the game as it plays, rings are more fun. Collecting up to about 20 or 30 rings matters; that affects my game and I like that. After that amount has been collected, THEN they become second-rate coins. I'll grab them when there's nothing else to do. Really the only downer about the rings is, as in your points 2 and 3, their quantities and positions.

Finally, your point 5. I agree and would be happy to see that addressed.

[Richard Terrell (KirbyKid)]

@ Dan

Just because I made a comparison between coins and rings that isn't so favorable to rings doesn't mean that I think the ring design is broken. I tried not to make negative comments, but rather, specific comments that detail how the core gameplay of Sonic is shaped by smaller design decisions. Most of the things I point out are for the purpose of bringing to light details about the various features in Sonic's design. For example, there are a bunch of different ways to add more suspension to Sonic. One could change the ring design or not. I just tried to point out that compared to coins they don't create cross-level suspension.

Here at Critical-Gaming I frequently compare game to Mario as a reference point. When I reference Mario, for the most part, I specifically refer to the original Super Mario Brothers. You're right. The Mario design has changed from game to game making some of the newer Mario games less applicable examples. When you can't go back to old levels like in SMB and SMB3 (as you mentioned) grabbing coins as you go along make the player evaluate the risk/reward of coin collection against their long term plans/goals.

I think I see what you mean about the rings. Your detailed comments are much appreciated. I anticipate your comments when you get to the end of this Sonic series.

[Dan]

I disagree that the Rush Sonics are the best Sonics. The classics and the Rush games have large fundamental differences and the Rush games are just part of the present day situation of classic gameplay being destroyed. However, for what they are, Sonic Rush and Rush Adventure are at least very solid examples.

I have written about your comments on the rings before. Of your 5 paragraphs, I completely agree with the first 3.

I think resetting the ring count only makes a ring more critical and is a good thing. However suspension with collectables is a great thing too and I would like to see that in a Sonic, but with a better reward system. Once you know you can get a coin, it's existence is pointless and I believe the lives were simply the quickest justification they could think of.

The fifth paragraph says a few things. I agree that when it comes to influence with suspension and rewards, optional is better, but the rings aren't about this. You explain why they aren't optional and that this creates dependency. You seem to imply that this is a bad thing but don't provide any reasons either way. To repeat myself, the rings aren't about being suspension-creating collectables but you criticise them on this point. It simply isn't their purpose. Their purpose is to be Sonic's mushroom. But you can play with rings. Collect one and drop it and hopefully you'll catch it again, collect many and drop many, bouncing everywhere as you chase them around. That's fun. Later on you even attract them, run away from them if you want, and dash through them. Sonic Adventure 2 sees you falling off cliffs then dashing along the mere collectable you depend on, a trail of collectables that has been following you for the last 20 seconds, chasing you over the cliff's edge creating a last-minute dynamic path back to safety. Compare this to coins, which is what you are doing, and coins just don't compare. This is only possible because of that dependency. To a "native Sonic player", coins feel pointless. Almost "What do we do with them?" The rings don't fail because of misplaced dependency, they succeed because of playful, dynamic dependency.

The coins do a lot right that rings don't, but the main reason a ring exists is something that coins just don't relate to.

You continue on to the static gameplay issue, which I agree with but is a separate problem.

On the topic of enemies, there's nothing to disagree with. Sonic is very aggressive, the enemies are typically barely an influence and rarely seemed to be positioned in a way that demands attention or, as you said, factors in Sonic's speed. I would like to see more interesting badniks in areas where Sonic is platforming around at normal speeds, plus vulnerable badniks in areas where you typically blast through. I like the idea of the player being pressured into rolling because their speed is too unsafe for running.

But it's important to notice that a Sonic game isn't about the enemies. I definitely would like to see them be more interactive and challenging, but the limit would approach quickly before they become too interactive and too challenging. Except for bosses, Sonic isn't about negotiating enemies. I think running away must always be an option. Badniks that appear to be deliberately blocking your way would seem out of place in a Sonic game.

Regarding your comments on level design, I think the first thing to say is that the zoomed-in (to some) feel of the classic Sonics was deliberate. The designers wanted this limited feel. I think this isn't as bad as you make it sound. The player just keeps going where they can handle while missing out on the alternate routes they could have explored. It's very rare for the speed and smaller view to actually frustrate the player. More like dazzle. Rings are forgiving, instant deaths due to unforeseen obstacles aren't common, and you miss routes. In my opinion this is more about play and react, as opposed to Mario's see-plan-do. I see what you mean about flow interruption the faster you get, but personally I didn't play to deliberately flow.

"When you can't see an upcoming pit in time, it could cost you a life."

This statement is superfluous. In time for what? You could say the same for driving a car. It isn't followed up with anything specifically Sonic. I will go so far as to say this problem is more common in a Mario title, where bottomless pits are plentiful. If you want to Mario to belt along they become a real problem unless you know they're coming. The above quote seems deliberately misleading. Of course defined problem X could cost you a life, that is the definition of X.

Your comment on branching paths seems a little short too. Often a branch is very small... well, yes. And often a branch is very big. Especially after Sonic 2, many levels have branches as big as the levels. The branching paths in Sonic are a huge part of the game and not just in terms of geometry. In fact they would have to be the largest contributor to how free and do-what-you-want the classics feel. Consider Launch Base with Knuckles. Imagine trying to cover all those paths in one game. You seem to acknowledge the branching paths, yet dismiss them. Are you criticising here? The classic Sonics don't have enough paths? And the classic Marios do? In my opinion, the classic Sonics demonstrate branching that is excellent in the world of 2D platformers. The way you give this point 3 lines of discussion, criticising at that, does stand out.

On the subject of transformation, I agree that level transformation is a good thing. I also think that the level design in a Sonic title blindingly outshines the level design in a Mario title. Transformation isn't the only thing. NSMBWii is a good example of how they really need to step it up in my opinion, as Mario levels have always been more about puzzle design than level design. I guess I am separating the concept into design of the world you play in, and design of the elements you play. Sonic was better at the former, Mario the latter, in my opinion.

The point here is that, like the rings, you are again criticising what it isn't. Sonic level design just doesn't relate to Mario level design. Level transformation would be nice, but it can't do anything more than complement the main design without redefining the game. You don't need transformation to fix it, you need to focus on what clearly worked with Sonic levels in the first place and build on that. You mention flow but I would have liked to see more discussion on that, because I honestly want to know more about it. Labyrinth is obviously a fail. Carnival Night is a win I believe, a massive one. Hydrocity flows too easily, pardon the pun, while Aquatic Ruin is the best example of a balanced water level for me. Death Egg is as mechanical as it gets yet this is one metal level that feels right. You don't talk at all about what makes a Sonic level a good or bad Sonic level.

Finally, and probably the most interesting point of all, is the way you see a Sonic game as "experience" more than "play". No wonder you think the Rush games are the best, because yes I agree they are the best when it comes to blasting through a zone. The classic Sonics, the best Sonics in the minds of many (and myself), are definitely not about experience over play. It is so interesting that you say this because, in my opinion, this focus on experience is exactly what has killed Sonic. Sonic Adventure 1 gave us a sniff of it, Adventure 2 was a three course meal, and it has all been horribly downhill since then.

As I said in another earlier comment (my reply to article 4), the classic Sonics are about exploration and freedom. Almost sandboxy. You play a classic Sonic, not trying to get to the end, but always on the lookout for what new thing you can do that isn't immediately obvious. Instead of trying to beat my opponents to the finish line in my Lancer sedan, I'm trying to land in a tractor's scoop because I can. Similarly, the classic Sonics for me were not about "What should I do and how do I do it?" but "What can I do and how can I do it?" Not quite open world, as you mentioned, but that's actually a good idea for a Sonic title.

[Richard Terrell (KirbyKid)]

@ Dan

First of all, you have to understand that this series is about Sonic as its core. I defined the core as consisting mainly of the similarities between the 6 Sonic games. Instead of giving a lot of specifics, I kept things general. Also, another point of the articles is to compare Sonic to Mario.

You've written a detailed response, however I need more supporting evidence from you to back up most of your points. Part of the problem is that you want to argue about design and technical features, yet you use feelings and vague concepts as your main support.

"I think resetting the ring count only makes a ring more critical and is a good thing."

I don't know what you mean by "more critical." To explain yourself, I would expect you to talk about how ring resetting develops the challenge of a given Sonic encounter.

"Once you know you can get a coin, it's existence is pointless and I believe the lives were simply the quickest justification they could think of."

If you want to know more about Mario's coin design, then check out my latest series The Measure of Mario. Coins have a specific function in the game because collecting them builds extra lives. They cannot be pointless. Also, collecting coins is a layer that makes the counterpoint and core gameplay richer. So it doesn't matter if you think earning extra lives was the "quickest" thing they could think of. The design is brilliant.

If you're forced to pick up rings in any particular section in Sonic, then player choice isn't involved. Having sections like this in the game is just a small part of ring design that shifts the action of collecting rings from one that is earned to one that is earned and forced.

"Their purpose is to be Sonic's mushroom. But you can play with rings. Collect one and drop it and hopefully you'll catch it again, collect many and drop many, bouncing everywhere as you chase them around. That's fun. "

You say rings are Sonic's mushroom. If so, then there are too many "mushrooms" in Sonic. If every brick or ?-block in Mario contained a mushroom, the game would be too easy and the value of each mushroom would be reduced because of their over saturation. Now imagine if every time Super Mario is hit, many mushrooms fly out for Mario to collect. If this were the case with Mario, then the only thing that would be threatening in the game would be pits. As much as you say playing with rings is fun, their function is undeniably repetitive and static. However much you gain for Sonic's ring design, you lose much more.

I never said rings are all bad. It's nice that you have neat stories about cool rings. But don't bother talking about the native Sonic player. Keep your points focused on Sonic's design.

"This is only possible because of that dependency. The rings don't fail because of misplaced dependency, they succeed because of playful, dynamic dependency."

I don't understand what you're saying here at all. It would be good if you could explain if collecting rings layers with the rest of the game's design to change the game challenges. If not, then your stories are just stories. After all, players playing a video game can be "playful" doing just about anything. That doesn't equal solid design.

"But it's important to notice that a Sonic game isn't about the enemies."

Focus on what the game IS about.

"Except for bosses, Sonic isn't about negotiating enemies."

I don't know how you can make a statement like this. This is why it doesn't do us any good to talk about what the game isn't about. Enemies are a part of Sonics design, therefore Sonic is about doing something in relation to the enemies.

"I think running away must always be an option. Badniks that appear to be deliberately blocking your way would seem out of place in a Sonic game."

Running away or avoiding enemies right? This is what Mario is like. You don't have to kill the enemies. You can just JUMP over them. You don't even have to confront Bowser directly.

"It's very rare for the speed and smaller view to actually frustrate the player."

I don't know where you're getting your data from, but Sonic players get hit by hidden spikes and tricky enemies all the time. This is an issue of screen view and enemy design. Another common complaint for Sonic games are the "instant death" pits that are very easy to fall into.

"In my opinion this is more about play and react, as opposed to Mario's see-plan-do."

Play and react is an understatement. If you can't see an enemy element in time to safely react or if you can't seen where you're jumping to because of the high speeds/screen view, then you're leaving things up to chance. Valuing player choice comes from allowing the player to make informed decisions.

"This statement is superfluous. In time for what?"

In time to make an informed decision. Classic Sonic gameplay is either filled with guessing, memorizing the level so you don't have to guess, or frequent starts and stops. Otherwise, you're locked into a roller coaster ride that you can't do much about anyway.

" I will go so far as to say this problem is more common in a Mario title, where bottomless pits are plentiful. If you want to Mario to belt along they become a real problem unless you know they're coming. "

It is not more common in Mario games. In my Mario Trio of Essays, I talk about how in Mario you can always see where you're going before you JUMP. In other words, you can always look before you leap. You can see the pits coming and JUMP over them. You can see the fireballs and the Piranha plants before you attempt to jump over a gap. Even moving at max speed, you can make informed decisions without memorizing levels. This is just how the Mario games are designed.

"The branching paths in Sonic are a huge part of the game and not just in terms of geometry. In fact they would have to be the largest contributor to how free and do-what-you-want the classics feel."

Pac-man has branching paths. They may all be visible on a single screen, but they're a crucial part of the gameplay. Ghosts weave in and out to try and trap you as you move across the whole map to collect all the pellets. Paths section off and reconnect, which is necessary to make the game interesting.

Sonic's branch design differs from game to game. I covered Sonic Rush's branch design in greater detail later, but for the classic Sonics there's not much to say. Branches are essentially different level sections or paths connected together. If any give Sonic path has a lack of counterpoint or layered design, then it doesn't really matter how much it branches into mediocrity. Sonic's branches aren't that bad. To be clear, it's not about the number of branches. It's how the branches are worked into the levels overall challenge.

"I guess I am separating the concept into design of the world you play in, and design of the elements you play. Sonic was better at the former, Mario the latter, in my opinion."

In other words, Sonic focuses on flashy, visual elements and simple challenges that don't layer together to develop challenges that empower the player and respect player choice. And Mario is all about solid gameplay where a few simple rules creates more gameplay possibilities than we can count all of which the player doesn't have to memorize level layouts to make informed decisions. Yeah, that about sums it up.

I don't want to come across as being condescending, but would you really rather put up with all of Sonic's problems just to experience exploring a large level? Because Sonic has a lot of cool things that I love. But Sonic doesn't play itself. When I play Sonic, I can't experience what I love without dealing with the problems.

Many often try to separate a game's experience from its "play." They're one in the same. The interactive experience (or the gameplay) is the experience of the game. Gamers who don't value gameplay over graphics/the "experience" value looking cool over being cool. I'll take doing neat things over faking it any day.

"the classic Sonics are about exploration and freedom."

Freedom is the power to do. It's player choice. Exploration is uncovering the unknown. Branched paths and secrets in Sonic have parallels to branched paths and secrets in Mario. Even though Mario looks more restricted, it has more secrets and possibilities to explore largely because of emergence. As much as the large levels makes Sonic "feel" like there's a lot to explore, there's less to find and less to do while you're looking than in Mario.

[Dan]

Before I even read, I'll just say thank you for your reply. The length of it means you have gone through my own post carefully, which is appreciated since I was a little harsh when writing it.

[Richard Terrell (KirbyKid)]

@ Dan

No problem. I thought I was being a bit harsh with my response. I'm hard to offend so say what you want/feel.

Peace.

[Jande]

I've read your article and your discussion with Dan and I must say I agree with Dan in several topics.

It's really hard to compare Sonic to Mario, not only because they are very different games but because of the history of rivalry between Sega and NIntendo fans. It's a bit like religion and politics: you never know who you're gonna offend, and it will always seem like you're taking sides. I know I do. As much as I love the Mario games, I think you're being overprotective.

Anyway.

I think you misunderstood what Dan meant about "rings as mushrooms". Sonic and Mario come from a time where platformers were all the rage in gaming, and it was very common for games to have "life bars", but there were a few games where the player would die in only one hit. Mario and Sonic included. It's just too frustrating to die with one hit, just look at how hard Alex Kidd in Miracle World is, or Shinobi, that was something restricted to arcade games, where the game should last just some minutes so players would pop quarters every now and then inside the machine.

So, Mario gets mushrooms, Sonic grabs rings.You say "then there are too many "mushrooms" in Sonic", but think of this: when you're hit, you lose all your rings. All of them. That means that having one ring is just as good as any other number. Now what happens in Mario? At the beginning of almost every level, you are able to get a mushroom, so you're practically automatically with that extra hit-point. Plus, you get to carry the mushrooms over from level to level, so in the end, the rings and the mushrooms give you practically the same amount of "life bar".

Sure, the more rings you have, the more likely you'll be able to catch at least one, so you still have a chance of having that one extra hit-point. But then think about how Super Mario World implemented the ability of holding on to a mushroom or item so you could use it in case you are hit. It's almost the same thing.

Thinking of it now, when you said "If every brick or ?-block in Mario contained a mushroom, the game would be too easy and the value of each mushroom would be reduced because of their over saturation.", something similar actually happens on Super Mario World, with the yellow !-blocks, if I remember correctly.

About "exploration", Dan is right on every aspect of it. The classic Sonic games are nothing like Sonic Rush. Sonic Rush is about fast paced roller coaster race, yes, but Sonic 1 to Sonic & Knuckles, aren't. Imagine if the Sonic levels were all just one long path with no branches or possibilities. Just one long road. It would feel very dull. Sonic levels are always giving you choices, whether you keep going or you jump on a spring, you can loop the loop or board a platform and go above it, you can run through a spinning bridge or just fall and see what's in the bottom. The thing about Sonic levels is that the game mechanics give you a lot of possibilities to get to places, it could be with springs, floating platforms or, and this is the best part of it, through physics.

Physics. Even though you mentioned gravity once or twice, that was a very neglected aspect of Sonic gameplay in your article. I was very disappointed by how you didn't even mention it in the "Core mechanics" section. Sonic has a very well-polished "2d physics engine" (in lack of better words), and very well-used in its gameplay too. If Sonic runs downhill, he'll go fast, but if he ROLLS downhill, he goes even faster, and then you learn to use it to your advantage, not only to zoom through a level but also to get to high places where normal jumps or springs can't. A well placed jump during a ramp or bump in the field can make a big difference to where you're going, and that is something that you have to use very well if you want to find secret areas, items, rings, or simply to finish the level in a way you like better.

Now, it's very important to note that all this physics aspect of the game machanics and gameplay was completely stripped out in later games. Except for Sonic Adventure and the Advance series, this is practically inexistent in recent games.

Other thing that you completely neglected was the Chaos Emeralds, which are a very important part, especially since Sonic 2. As rewarding the player goes, you can't be more rewarding than giving Sonic super powers as you get when you grab all the Emeralds, and then a different ending. That's another part of how the rings are useful to the player. In Sonic 1 and 2, 50 rings meant a ticket to a Special Stage, which is already a reward itself, where you have the chance to get a Chaos Emerald. In Sonic 3 & Knuckles, the Chaos Emeralds add more to the "exploration" part, where you have to look up and down through the levels to find secret areas where you can get to the Special Stages. Of course, you can just zoom through the levels and not get any Emerald, but it's virtually impossible to finish the game without having visited at least one Special Stages, and these levels are always very different from the actual game experience, with warped gravity or in a 3d-fashion, almost like games within a game, very fun and intriguing, so, if you get on one of those, you'll probably want to get on it again.

About the enemies, I think you're being too harsh. They work as obstacles, also they give that tiny sense of accomplishment, not only because they make this sweet "poof" sound but because you actually free a small animal from it. They help to tell the story. Some enemies are different from the others so you have to attack them differently, some you can't attack at all. Sometimes you can even bop on them and use it as support for a higher jump, which is actually very nice. Also killing enemies in a combo gives you more points.

Reading your responses I'm thinking you should replay the Mega Drive/Genesis games. I think you have too much of Sonic Rush in you mind. I can see this when you talk about bottomless pits being a common complaint of Sonic players. That is true, but only recently. Older Sonic games had much less bottomless pits than Mario. Usually, the player's punishment for falling was getting on a path of the level with less rings and items. And sometimes it wasn't even that bad at all!

That's it. Feel free to fire away.

Oh, and that Green Hill Zone image you used on the Level Design bit is actually mine. I was very happy to see it there, but some credit would be nice.

[Richard Terrell (KirbyKid)]

@Jande

Thanks for keeping me on my toes as far as giving you credit for the picture. I try to link to artist's deviantart pages when I can.

So let's take this one point at a time.

In this discuss, it's best to stay as objective as possible. Most people can't compare or debate any two products, subjects, topics without referring to feelings or losing track of the facts. Whether or not I'm being "overprotective" is beside the point. So I'll move on.

" Now what happens in Mario? At the beginning of almost every level, you are able to get a mushroom, so you're practically automatically with that extra hit-point. Plus, you get to carry the mushrooms over from level to level, so in the end, the rings and the mushrooms give you practically the same amount of "life bar"."

You make a big exaggeration here. It's nice to generalize, but unless you either refer to a specific Mario game or you do the research, chances are you're missing some key details. Mushrooms aren't available at the beginning of every level. Even though the Mushroom stays from level to level (a feature called suspension), after you get hit once, you have to search for another one. This is completely different from picking up at least one more ring from the rings you lose or from the environment.

No matter how you look at it, if 1 ring = 1 Mushroom, there are roughly 30-100 per Sonic stage. There is not one single stage that even comes close to having this many Mushrooms or powerups in any Super Mario Bros game. Even the ability to hold an item in Super Mario World or NSMB comes no where close.

"Thinking of it now, when you said "If every brick or ?-block in Mario contained a mushroom, the game would be too easy and the value of each mushroom would be reduced because of their over saturation.", something similar actually happens on Super Mario World, with the yellow !-blocks, if I remember correctly."

I know the level that you refer to. It's not one of the best levels in the game. And the frequency of yellow bricks that contain Mushrooms are a rarity for that game.

"The classic Sonic games are nothing like Sonic Rush. Sonic Rush is about fast paced roller coaster race, yes, but Sonic 1 to Sonic & Knuckles, aren't."

You say this but...

"The thing about Sonic levels is that the game mechanics give you a lot of possibilities to get to places, it could be with springs, floating platforms or, and this is the best part of it, through physics."

...everything you say here applies to the Sonic Rush games. Sonic Rush has springs, floating platforms, and branching paths through the new aerial double jump and air kick mechanics. Same kinds of function but with different mechanics.

Yes, Sonic features tight platforming physics that give players the ability to jump perpendicularly from walls, roll down hill, and loop de loop. But everything you described about Sonic's physics is just normal gameplay interactions. In just about any platformer, the player can/will get more comfortable with the mechanics and learn to use them more precisely to explore more of what the game has to offer. This quality is the same with Mario, Sonic, Metroid, Mega Man, etc.

"Now, it's very important to note that all this physics aspect of the game machanics and gameplay was completely stripped out in later games. Except for Sonic Adventure and the Advance series, this is practically inexistent in recent games."

Such physics have been stripped out of Sonic Unleashed, but not Sonic Rush 1 and 2. Just as you described, you can roll down hill, jump off of walls and slanted surfaces, and have fun. It may be less pronounced in the game, but it's still there.

"Other thing that you completely neglected was the Chaos Emeralds, which are a very important part, especially since Sonic 2. As rewarding the player goes, you can't be more rewarding than giving Sonic super powers as you get when you grab all the Emeralds, and then a different ending."

What I mean by core design is the core element that make of the mandatory challenges of the game. Extra elements like secrets and Chaos Emeralds don't apply. So yes, I neglected them. But as far as rewarding goes, super powers are nice and all, but that's why Super Mario is so cool. The Super is built into the name. If you want cool powers, then the power to break bricks and hit taller targets is pretty awesome. Or the power to shoot fireballs. Or (pick just about any other Mario powerup). All Mario and Sonic powerups are rewarding to somebody.

"About the enemies, I think you're being too harsh. They work as obstacles, also they give that tiny sense of accomplishment, not only because they make this sweet "poof" sound but because you actually free a small animal from it. They help to tell the story. Some enemies are different from the others so you have to attack them differently, some you can't attack at all. Sometimes you can even bop on them and use it as support for a higher jump, which is actually very nice. Also killing enemies in a combo gives you more points."

Doing anything in a video game can give a player "a sense of accomplishment." Discussing it doesn't really get us anywhere. You described all the basic reasons why Sonic enemies are good. But how they're arranged tends to make them obstacles that unfairly surprise/attack the player. Factor in how getting hurt in Sonic is less significant than in Mario because of the ring design, and the enemy design as a whole drops.

"Reading your responses I'm thinking you should replay the Mega Drive/Genesis games. I think you have too much of Sonic Rush in you mind. I can see this when you talk about bottomless pits being a common complaint of Sonic players. That is true, but only recently. Older Sonic games had much less bottomless pits than Mario. Usually, the player's punishment for falling was getting on a path of the level with less rings and items. And sometimes it wasn't even that bad at all!"

I played through all the 2D Sonic games before writing these articles. Bottomless pits are not a recent complaint of Sonic games. Gamers have been complaining about these for a very long time. And even though Mario has lots of pits, the way the game is designed, you never have to question whether a pit will kill you or drop you to a lower area. All of the pits kill you. This makes Mario's pit design much clearer to the player than Sonic's pits.

I've done a lot of work defining and outlining how gameplay and good design is made up of smaller parts. Check out my Course 101 link or my archives. I'd love to explain myself completely in this response, but I feel like that's what I've been doing for the past 2 years.

You seem to have a lot of fond memories of Sonic. I do too. Understanding the game better does not destroy our memories, but puts them in perspective. If you have any more questions, please do ask.