fire_alchemist
loading
Now ladies and gentlemen, I bring to you… my essay, don’t pay attention to punctuation flaws, I didn’t do this with an specific objective, I just had the idea at night and I literally didn’t sleep well because I had to wait to write it.
I know you are there, you are about to contradict me, go on… I will be waiting ): |
Sonic game design based on sonic 3&k and sonic CD:
By: Fire_Alchemist / Andres Navas
As I have mentioned before, in a past work speaking of why sonic 4 is good in mobile, I stated how the core mechanic of sonic is not speed, I will explain. We will firstly see a regular example of a classic game design: a track composed of a plain field followed by a ramp that takes to a short elevated surface, then a ramp, if you jump on the highest point of the ramp you reach an even higher area with a loop, while if you don’t jump you will follow a small field interrupted by 2 consecutive -pits. Visual representation:
____@_____
_/<. \_____End
__/ ____ _ _____/
U U
In this course many things could happen, for example, if you build enough speed you might end up going over the second ramp and land on the lower second surface, or you could reach the upper surface and go through the loop, you could also take the lower rout and try to jump over the U-pits and maybe jumping over them in one jump, or you might fall in one of the U-pits so to get back you would have to build speed and land correctly; This all is what I mean by speed is not the core of sonic, because the game design is not based on speed but in physics, sonic physics, because the objective is to go fast but the core of he gameplay is the tool you use to go fast.
Now that we have clear the thesis that sonic core is physics and not speed itself, we can start checking in the two games I want to analyze. Sonic 2 and sonic Cd are the two examples of the ways this “sonic core” can be implemented, while sonic 3&k is a sort of combination of both implementations. Sonic 2 could be described as the “linear” formula, the way sonic two successfully applies sonic core idea to game design is based on reflexes and branching paths, but all with the same objective: go from point A to point B. We all should know well how the upper rout promotes keeping speed while the lower rout puts more obstacles so the player gets more familiar with the physics with a slower pace, so this formula works, adding the reaction time and speed conservation to the sonic core makes solid levels… except water levels but those are something else.
Now, sonic CD does something quite different; with very few and occasional exceptions, sonic cd game design is more linear, there’s one route and then the end of the level, and that works… but then you decide to deviate a bit. Sonic cd game design could be described as the “exploration” formula, a treasure hunt combined with the sonic core, yes there is a point A to point B, but if you want you can explore the level and then come back to the main route, this means that the main route can hide and some deviations can become part of the main rout, and all this is intensified with the different maps due to the time travel. given that here are 2 objectives in each level, with its exceptions, there is a certain devaluation of the speed factor and rather a fight against the physics to achieve the 2 objectives… or the smart use of the physics to accomplish both objectives, regardless of which ways you choose, sonic cd has shorter levels to emphasize this explanation part, meaning hat in sacrifice of speed you can get different focuses to the sonic core, making use of momentum or fighting against the unique movement of sonic and it’s physics.
Nowm concluding this part of the essay, in summary, in classic sonic game design the core is physics, and the game design revolves around the concept that the player enjoys the physics. Sonic 2 is a natural evolution of sonic 1 in terms of level design while sonic cd experiments with exploration. Now it is time to speak about sonic 3&k, in 3&k we see certain implementation of both “linear” and “exploration” formulas, making a level with branching paths and secret finding without leaving linearity behind, in sonic 3&k the levels solve the problem of cd, that is that levels in cd can become confusing if the player isn’t familiar with these concepts, and sonic 3&k expands on the idea of branching paths. Sonic 3&k proved to be an almost perfect combination of exploration, sonic core implementation, linearity and in many other aspects that we haven’t analyzed. Now, this doesn’t mean that sonic 3&k is better than cd or than sonic 2, it is an almost perfect combination, not a perfect game, sonic 3&k commits its own mistakes just as cd and sonic 2.
In conclusion, and apologizing for the very short space I dedicated to sonic 3, in my opinion sonic core can be derived to 2 kinds, linear and exploration formulas, sonic cd and sonic 2 are the first examples of them in their pure state, and sonic 3&k is a fusion that went very well. This you might use as a way to determine if a classic sonic game has good level design or to start your own analysis based on it, in fact I would love you to write an answer of the same or greater length proving me wrong in case you disagree with me.
What a pointless essay… oh well
I know you are there, you are about to contradict me, go on… I will be waiting ): |
Sonic game design based on sonic 3&k and sonic CD:
By: Fire_Alchemist / Andres Navas
As I have mentioned before, in a past work speaking of why sonic 4 is good in mobile, I stated how the core mechanic of sonic is not speed, I will explain. We will firstly see a regular example of a classic game design: a track composed of a plain field followed by a ramp that takes to a short elevated surface, then a ramp, if you jump on the highest point of the ramp you reach an even higher area with a loop, while if you don’t jump you will follow a small field interrupted by 2 consecutive -pits. Visual representation:
____@_____
_/<. \_____End
__/ ____ _ _____/
U U
In this course many things could happen, for example, if you build enough speed you might end up going over the second ramp and land on the lower second surface, or you could reach the upper surface and go through the loop, you could also take the lower rout and try to jump over the U-pits and maybe jumping over them in one jump, or you might fall in one of the U-pits so to get back you would have to build speed and land correctly; This all is what I mean by speed is not the core of sonic, because the game design is not based on speed but in physics, sonic physics, because the objective is to go fast but the core of he gameplay is the tool you use to go fast.
Now that we have clear the thesis that sonic core is physics and not speed itself, we can start checking in the two games I want to analyze. Sonic 2 and sonic Cd are the two examples of the ways this “sonic core” can be implemented, while sonic 3&k is a sort of combination of both implementations. Sonic 2 could be described as the “linear” formula, the way sonic two successfully applies sonic core idea to game design is based on reflexes and branching paths, but all with the same objective: go from point A to point B. We all should know well how the upper rout promotes keeping speed while the lower rout puts more obstacles so the player gets more familiar with the physics with a slower pace, so this formula works, adding the reaction time and speed conservation to the sonic core makes solid levels… except water levels but those are something else.
Now, sonic CD does something quite different; with very few and occasional exceptions, sonic cd game design is more linear, there’s one route and then the end of the level, and that works… but then you decide to deviate a bit. Sonic cd game design could be described as the “exploration” formula, a treasure hunt combined with the sonic core, yes there is a point A to point B, but if you want you can explore the level and then come back to the main route, this means that the main route can hide and some deviations can become part of the main rout, and all this is intensified with the different maps due to the time travel. given that here are 2 objectives in each level, with its exceptions, there is a certain devaluation of the speed factor and rather a fight against the physics to achieve the 2 objectives… or the smart use of the physics to accomplish both objectives, regardless of which ways you choose, sonic cd has shorter levels to emphasize this explanation part, meaning hat in sacrifice of speed you can get different focuses to the sonic core, making use of momentum or fighting against the unique movement of sonic and it’s physics.
Nowm concluding this part of the essay, in summary, in classic sonic game design the core is physics, and the game design revolves around the concept that the player enjoys the physics. Sonic 2 is a natural evolution of sonic 1 in terms of level design while sonic cd experiments with exploration. Now it is time to speak about sonic 3&k, in 3&k we see certain implementation of both “linear” and “exploration” formulas, making a level with branching paths and secret finding without leaving linearity behind, in sonic 3&k the levels solve the problem of cd, that is that levels in cd can become confusing if the player isn’t familiar with these concepts, and sonic 3&k expands on the idea of branching paths. Sonic 3&k proved to be an almost perfect combination of exploration, sonic core implementation, linearity and in many other aspects that we haven’t analyzed. Now, this doesn’t mean that sonic 3&k is better than cd or than sonic 2, it is an almost perfect combination, not a perfect game, sonic 3&k commits its own mistakes just as cd and sonic 2.
In conclusion, and apologizing for the very short space I dedicated to sonic 3, in my opinion sonic core can be derived to 2 kinds, linear and exploration formulas, sonic cd and sonic 2 are the first examples of them in their pure state, and sonic 3&k is a fusion that went very well. This you might use as a way to determine if a classic sonic game has good level design or to start your own analysis based on it, in fact I would love you to write an answer of the same or greater length proving me wrong in case you disagree with me.
What a pointless essay… oh well