Because designing a character first and building a game around that limits the design of the game. You're not creatively bound in your design if you design the game first and then create a character that fits into the design of the game. That doesn't mean that every game build around a character is bad, far from it. Otherwise every game build around an already exisiting non - gaming IP would be bad and that's definitely not the case. But this does clearly create a problem for Sonic because the design of the game doesn't match the design of the character at all. It's clear that the character was already designed and meant to go fast long before they figured out how to make that work and how to design a game around that.
I would disagree. I would say that starting out with a clear idea for a concept is much easier than starting in a totally freeform way. But we can agree to disagree - which might become a theme here.
I'm going to address these 4 parts as one because it's all related and its really about the same topic: The momentum/speed of Sonic and the level design build around it. The game does have hills and slopes and loops and whatnot for getting you up to speed, and this is exactly why the games are not very good and why all classic sonic games break down because of it. If you're going into one of those sections which are specifically designed to get you up to speed you will, almost without fail, be punished for it by an enemy, spikes or spring to push you backwards that you had almost no chance to react to unless you already know exactly where it is.
I'm by no means a seasoned Sonic speedrunner, but being a fan I suppose you'll have to take what I say with a pinch of salt. In my experience, there are genuinely very few moments were you're moving at such blinding speed that you're totally unable to react to anything that is oncoming - certainly not many that can't be ploughed through by curling into a ball and rolling. Moments like the first major downhill slope in Chemical Plant or some of the faster moments in the likes of Hydrocity, are designed in a way to act as a level break between some of the slower paced platforming elements, and consequently do not have random shit in the way to punish you.
If you don't want to play the game, just look up any playthrough of Sonic 2 done by someone who hasn't played it (much) before. In the vast majority of the playthrough, like 90% of it, Sonic won't actually be going fast. There will be a small section here and there, sure, but most of it is him going slow because the game actively punishes you for it if you don't. Perhaps Sonic Mania has solved that issue, I haven't played that particular title, but the classic Sonic Games definitely have that issue baked into every single one of them.
This is what a normal, non - speedrun/Sonic Expert run looks like.
And yet when you take away the speed of Sonic, what do you have left? Mediocrity. That's what. Sonic has no special abilities, the jumping is incredibly imprecise and he's not fun to control when he's not going fast. Comparing this to a Super Mario World or Super Mario Brothers 3 and the difference in quality should become apparent to anyone who isn't sucked into the marketing of it.
Sonic has no fewer special abilities in his base form than Mario has in his base form. Both can run and jump. Mario has more powerups to be sure, but does that really matter? Sonic 3&K introduces the insta-shield that allows you to protect yourself and get a hit in on enemies with spikes mid-jump. That game(s) also introduced elemental shields that each give Sonic some unique ability and passive buff. Sure its perhaps not as extensive as Mario games, but is that really needed? They're not the same type of game.
And hard disagree on the jumping. That I suppose is down to taste. But the jumping in my opinion is not imprecise, it takes a bit of getting used to compared with a Mario game where you have the ability to change Marios direction mid-flight with ease. But that's because those games are designed differently. I've never felt more or less able to control where Sonic lands based on a jump, than I have in a Mario game. Yes, from a standstill, you can't jump as far as Mario can, but as I've said the games are designed differently, so you shouldn't expect the same type of control.
And its funny you should mention Super Mario Bros 3. Now I'm a big fan of World, and I respect SMB3 immensely, but that game is fucking hard. Its well designed, but ridiculously challenging.
And for that reason, I imagine watching a first-time run through of that game, by anyone who isn't a seasoned sidescrolling platformer player, is going to get their shit kicked in. Deaths galore. Punishment for being unable to land jumps, or not being able to react to shit flying at you potentially from offscreen - especially in the autoscrolling Airship levels, where you have no choice but to play at the speed the level dictates. You're not allowed to take your time. Why is that more fair? Why is that better design? Especially when taking a single hit can end your life and lead to a gameover.
That is punishment.
Now I'm not denying the quality, because it is there. The quality comes in the challenge as well as how dialled in Mario's movement is. But why is that design approach better? You talk about Sonic not being fun to control when he's moving slow - okay that's fair enough. So instantly you are encouraged to build up some speed, so you can jump that bit higher and farther. The challenge in building and maintaining that speed, where Sonic controls the best is to me, no different than the challenge of landing your jumps properly in a Mario game. Its no different to understanding when you need a running jump to cover a pit, or knowing a walking jump is fine. Its no different to making sure you're standing in the right spot during the auto-scrolling airship levels so you can avoid a projectile that will imminently appear as its cannon is drawn on-screen. Incidentally some of these obstacles and projectiles are extraordinarily difficult to avoid without having some semblance of knowledge of a given levels layout. You often will learn how to beat those levels through trial and error.
I want to understand why you think this is better than the learning curve in a Sonic game. Its a totally different gameplay design. And I contest, that Sonic games are not mediocre in their execution. I'm not saying you have to like them, all I'm saying is that the design approach is different and that difference is not inherently worse than in a traditional sidescroller.
Sonic is not a racecar. There is no way to limit your speed in a Sonic game properly. Yes there is build up but that doesn't mean that you have full control over the exact speed you play. You either go fast or you go slow. Again, I point to the Lets Play video that I posted above. That is what an actual playthrough of Sonic 2 looks like. The vast majority of players will have to play through the game slowly.
Its actually quite easy to slow down. You hold the opposite direction on the d-pad if you're running or you lightly tap the jump button while holding the opposite direction while rolling. Its not really any different to slowing down in any other sidescroller.
I've addressed this above. The game doesn't give you any real way to limit your speed and the level design itself primarily dictates how fast you can go. I'm sorry but this whole "You can play how you want to" is utter nonsense as far as I am concerned. I can't help but feel that there is a clear difference between how you would like to remember these games to be vs what they actually are like.
Its not really a question of what I remember them being like, because I can go and play them right now.
And you quite literally can play the game how you like. Moreso in Sonic 3 and Knuckles - which is widely considered to be the pinnacle of the series amongst fans. In said game(s) you can barrel through each level, or you can take your time and explore the levels - and believe me they are rather vertical and have plenty of hidden goodies. Yeah the marketing doesn't talk about exploring levels for hidden goodies, but the fact that they're there means they were intended to be found and is therefore considered a valid way to play the game.
Every route in Sonic has the same issue where the game will punish you for going fast. At no point in the classic trilogy (Though you can add Sonic & Knuckles and Sonic CD to that list as well) has this been solved. The different routes add replayability (very much needed for a game that is like 1 hour long) but none of the routes solve any of the issues that the game has.
Sonic and Knuckles and Sonic 3 are two halves of the same game. The very first DLC if you will. And again I disagree. Maintaining the speed is the challenge, not just beating the level. Whether or not you find it fun to master the movement mechanics and replay the levels to flow through them as quickly and smoothly as possible is strictly a matter of taste.
But even in a racing game I will be able to go fast in most of the race. Not as fast as possible, sure, but you can still enjoy the essence of the racing game even without perfecting it. That is not the case in a classic Sonic game. The "Gimmick" of the game is to go fast yet the level design stops you at every turn doing so.
Stops you how? With obstacles? What is it supposed to do? Just let you fun free without any challenge whatsoever?
This is like complaining about corners in a racing game punishing you for going fast. Or the presence of other cars in the race, preventing you from taking the optimal racing line. It isn't fun to go slow in a racing game. You want to go as fast as possible, because you want to win the race. But that's just the way it is. Controlling a given car requires you to understand how it accelerates, brakes, oversteers/understeers. Each car is different. You can have a preference - a car that accelerates hard and fast on a straight, but requires you to brake earlier and take corners slower. Or a nimbler car that isn't as fast on the straights, but can hold its speed in the bends much more readily. Each is valid, neither is bad. Which you prefer is a matter of choice.
Sonic games do not discourage you from going fast - the fact that you can, and many people do, go fast is evidence enough of this. They do, however, make it a challenge to go fast. Otherwise it would be pointless.
The first playthrough, heck probably this first few playthroughs of Sonic, will have the player go slowly through the levels and only going fast when the game demands it. That brings us back to the core issue of Sonic: There is nothing special about these games if you don't go fast. The jumping is imprecise, the "momentum" aspect means that Sonic is awkward to control when he doesn't go fast and there...really isn't anything special about it. There's no power ups or anything interesting about it that makes it rise above mediocrity besides its excellent visuals and music.
Its no different to playing Mario Bros 3 though is it. Your first playthrough is going to be brutal. And believe me, it is massively frustrating when you're being bumrushed by hundreds of projectiles whilst being forced to navigate bottomless pits and in some cases auto-scrolling levels.
As for the movement, this is quite literally a matter of taste and has nothing to do with quality. You're saying that Sonic's "momentum"-based physics make him awkward to control. To you perhaps. Not to me, or indeed many other people - not that consensus necessarily strengthens an argument, but in the case of evaluating something nebulous like
fun, it certainly adds a lot of weight. The controls are different, because their purpose is different. Sonic is less able to alter is direction mid-air. This is intentional. It adds weight to the movement, the speed is not a frivolity, it has consequence. If you need to cover a large gap without the luxury of a long run-up you can spin-dash into a jump with the right timing to cover that distance. This takes skill. Understanding exactly how much of your aerial inertia you can change at a given speed is part of the skill-curve in the game design. Its no different really than understanding the mechanics and limitations of Mario's movement. Or Kirby's floaty movement. Or Donkey Kong Country.
And as I've mentioned there are power-ups in Sonic 3 and Knuckles. The fireshield makes you immune to fire and gives you a mid-air boost in a chosen direction sending you careening into a given direction. The thundershield gives you a double-jump and magnetically attract rings to you or even become magnetised to electrical environments. The bubble-shield allows you to breathe underwater and bounce on the spot - note this is great for totally arresting your momentum to come to a quick stop.
Nothing reality-shattering, but then is the fire flower an earth-shattering ability? Even the Tanuki suit is simplistic in what abilities it offers you.
I sorta see your point in the sense that you could somewhat argue that 3D Land and World are classic translations of Classic into 3D, but not entirely. 3D land was build specifically to be played in 3D and the pace is actually quite slower than Mario's 2D games. 3D world, on the other hand, is really made to be played co op and it has wide levels to accompany that. That said, that doesn't take away that Mario's initial jump to 3D was a reinvention of the formula and not a translation.
Yes, its not exactly 1:1, but evocative of that philosophy.
I don't see any reason to be insulted for simply stating that the praise for Classic Sonic games is based primarily on Nostalgia first and the actual quality of the games second. Sonic hasn't "Always been bad". What it has been is mediocre. Average. A platform game that doesn't utilize what sets it apart properly due to poor level design. It's unique, different and original for sure and I'm not going to pretend like these games are garbage and have no right to exist at all. But these were not a pinnacle of platforming during the 16 bit era and Sonic is ultimately a much better mascot than it is a game.
Its insulting, because it implies that my current experience in playing these games is entirely clouded by nostalgia and leaves me unable to critically evaluate the game design and accept that it is, as you say, mediocre.
I respect that you're not a fan and it is not to your taste. But I do not agree that it is mediocre at best. Whether or not you think any Sonic game stands up there with the pinnacle of the sidescrolling platformer genre is up to the individual.
You clearly don't think it is, but I do. Am I biased? Yep. No more or less than you are - that is, after all, the foundation of opinion.
At this point I am happy to agree to disagree in the interest of avoiding a quote-dissection-fest. However, I hope I've at least offered something of a coherent rebuttal to what you've said.
Should I have to go to such lengths to "defend" a gameplay style if it is good? Who knows. Nothing is perfect. Had Sonic games had as critically acclaimed passage into 3D as Mario, would we even be having this argument? Maybe?
Had Mario made as shite as a transition to 3D as Sonic and the same sequence of terrible games, would we be sat here retrospectively evaluating the quality of 2D Mario games? Maybe?
You say that perhaps nostalgia is adding a lovely shade of rose to how I view Sonic games gameplay, but you can just as easily say that the last 20 years (Christ) of mediocre to bad 3D Sonic games can cast a bile-coloured light on Sonic's 2D entries.
But also, play Sonic Mania. Its a really fun game. It has its issues of course, but nothing's perfect. Perhaps you might enjoy it more than you think.
