March Genesis Madness: Championship

[Gaia Gensouki | 1,076]

Hot take incoming: Sonic has never been particularly good and is a total mess of a game that only got famous because of very strong marketing and Sega fanboys wanting to stick it to Nintendo. It's the ultimate example of style over substance. Sega fans were starving for anything that could rival the Mario platformers and would latch on to anything even remotely decent and Sonic was at least a better game and character than the absolute joke that is Alex Kid.

As for the game itself, it's an overly frustrating mess that doesn't know what it wants to be. On the one hand, it had to be a fast game so that it can be cooler than Mario. On the other hand, they also wanted complex, almost maze-like level layouts with multiple paths and all kinds of secrets, just like Mario. However, this clashes fundamentally. If you want your players to go fast and just speed through the game, then including all these alternate paths and secrets that require careful exploration, are like antitheses to one another.

So you could just be like, fuck it, I'm just speeding through the level. But then it gets so fast, that you can't react to enemies or stage hazards anymore and just run or jump into them. However, if you go too slow, then you can't make it past many of the obstacles. So you're either slow as a snail where you can't even make it past certain obstacles or you get ridiculously fast. There's little in-between. This also makes the precision platforming in later stages very annoying. Other games get blasted into oblivion for having such sluggish or bad controls, but Sonic somehow gets away with it.

What's even more frustrating, however, is that they on the one hand want you to go fast, but at the same time you should collect a lot of rings and make it through the level unscathed to the checkpoints or so, so that you can get the chaos emeralds. Nothing is more frustrating than carefully collecting the stupid rings, only to get hit by an enemy, that you can sometimes not even see beforehand, and then to lose almost all of your precious rings. Who in their right mind thought that this would be a good idea? It's absolutely infruriating! Imagine in Mario 64, when you're collecting 100 coins to get a star and for every hit that you take, ALL of your coins fly around the screen and you have to collect them again with some of them even being gone foever, so that you have to either redo the level or have to give up on that star. This is ridiculous! I can't believe that nonsense like this gets defended as good game design or as peak Genesis game.

I could go on and on about what is so truly awful about Sonic, but I'll just leave you with this: Do you know what's a similar, but much better platformer than Sonic that's also been developed by Sega? Ristar. It has the same level design philosophy with the complex levels and hidden secrets, but a slower and more deliberate pace with very tight controls. It's also visually and thematically much more creative than Sonic with some creative and wild levels. On top of that, you're not forced to collect stupid rings and then lose them with a single hit. It's so much better than the mediocre mess that is called Sonic, but somehow it never caught on with the wider public. This just goes to show that Sonic as a franchise is not famous because of its quality, but only because of the unparalleled marketing by Sega and Sonic's place in Sega's rivalry with Nintendo.

[Sumez | 2,970]

42 minutes ago, Gaia Gensouki said:

Hot take incoming: Sonic has never been particularly good and is a total mess of a game that only got famous because of very strong marketing and Sega fanboys wanting to stick it to Nintendo. It's the ultimate example of style over substance. Sega fans were starving for anything that could rival the Mario platformers and would latch on to anything even remotely decent and Sonic was at least a better game and character than the absolute joke that is Alex Kid.

On one hand I agree, but on the other hand I really love Sonic 3!

Style is definitely a big part of the equation, but it's also a big part of why the game just feels so good!

Can't agree on Ristar at all. It's not a particularly good game, and some of the stages are way more infuriating than Sonic ever got. But I do love hearing takes like this

Edited April 5 by Sumez

[Reed Rothchild | 9,558]

To paraphrase myself

It's a series that endlessly pushes you to go fast, fast, fast, and then endlessly punishes you for doing exactly that.

[RH | 4,932]

49 minutes ago, Gaia Gensouki said:

Hot take incoming: Sonic has never been particularly good and is a total mess of a game that only got famous because of very strong marketing and Sega fanboys wanting to stick it to Nintendo. It's the ultimate example of style over substance. Sega fans were starving for anything that could rival the Mario platformers and would latch on to anything even remotely decent and Sonic was at least a better game and character than the absolute joke that is Alex Kid.

As for the game itself, it's an overly frustrating mess that doesn't know what it wants to be. On the one hand, it had to be a fast game so that it can be cooler than Mario. On the other hand, they also wanted complex, almost maze-like level layouts with multiple paths and all kinds of secrets, just like Mario. However, this clashes fundamentally. If you want your players to go fast and just speed through the game, then including all these alternate paths and secrets that require careful exploration, are like antitheses to one another.

So you could just be like, fuck it, I'm just speeding through the level. But then it gets so fast, that you can't react to enemies or stage hazards anymore and just run or jump into them. However, if you go too slow, then you can't make it past many of the obstacles. So you're either slow as a snail where you can't even make it past certain obstacles or you get ridiculously fast. There's little in-between. This also makes the precision platforming in later stages very annoying. Other games get blasted into oblivion for having such sluggish or bad controls, but Sonic somehow gets away with it.

What's even more frustrating, however, is that they on the one hand want you to go fast, but at the same time you should collect a lot of rings and make it through the level unscathed to the checkpoints or so, so that you can get the chaos emeralds. Nothing is more frustrating than carefully collecting the stupid rings, only to get hit by an enemy, that you can sometimes not even see beforehand, and then to lose almost all of your precious rings. Who in their right mind thought that this would be a good idea? It's absolutely infruriating! Imagine in Mario 64, when you're collecting 100 coins to get a star and for every hit that you take, ALL of your coins fly around the screen and you have to collect them again with some of them even being gone foever, so that you have to either redo the level or have to give up on that star. This is ridiculous! I can't believe that nonsense like this gets defended as good game design or as peak Genesis game.

I could go on and on about what is so truly awful about Sonic, but I'll just leave you with this: Do you know what's a similar, but much better platformer than Sonic that's also been developed by Sega? Ristar. It has the same level design philosophy with the complex levels and hidden secrets, but a slower and more deliberate pace with very tight controls. It's also visually and thematically much more creative than Sonic with some creative and wild levels. On top of that, you're not forced to collect stupid rings and then lose them with a single hit. It's so much better than the mediocre mess that is called Sonic, but somehow it never caught on with the wider public. This just goes to show that Sonic as a franchise is not famous because of its quality, but only because of the unparalleled marketing by Sega and Sonic's place in Sega's rivalry with Nintendo.

I can't disagree with this any more.  Your personal opinions are your own, and that's fine but let's be clear--I was a "Nintendo" kid.

After the Atari 2600, I got a NES.  Loved it, and I loved Mario 1 and 3.  Hands-down, Mario 3 is my favorite 2D Mario game and it's a masterpiece.  I played it a bunch as a kid and I enjoyed it.  After the NES, I got a Game Boy.  Since it was several years after the that time that I finally got a TV in my room, I spent a TON of time on my Game Boy.  Every Mario game got better and my Metroid II was probably my favorite first party title, and Metroid for the NES was also probably my second or third favorite title on the NES.

Of course, time went on and I managed to get a PSX and an N64.  The only Sega system I had as a kid was a Game Gear.

The Genesis was relegated to playing with friends and family when I went to their homes. My dad would rent a Genesis about once a quarter when my brother and I went to his house and if we got one game, it was Sonic 2.  Later, I'd go over to a cousins house and we spent countless hours playing the Genesis and a large part of that time was playing Sonic   Knuckles.

I say that to say this--I love Mario and I love Sonic, but the experiences are vastly different.  As a kid, I found myself liking the Sonic experience far better.  Your criticisms aren't entirely fair because they are misinterpretations.  Most games start with an "easy mode" and that what you get with waves 1-1 to 1-3 in Sonic 2.  It's easy to go fast and it establishes that it's partly a desired goal.  So why does it get difficult after that?  Does Sonic as a game lose it's way?  No, part of the difficulty is struggling through the levels as if they are any platformer but the ADDED benefit is once you can navigate the level, you can further improve your game by learning optimized paths that allow you to blaze through the game, but you have to EARN that.  This is not broken, but intentional game design.

Sonic games are intended to be fast, but that expectation comes with a price.  First you learn your levels, then you master those levels.  When you've mastered them, that's when you can blaze through them.  IMHO, it's a master class in creating game replayability.  People use to, and still do, cry that "NES games are too hard".  I'd argue this was partly intentional because most platform based NES games can be beaten in 20 minutes once you master them.  Cartridges were smaller so adding high-degrees of challenge added value.  However, once you beat a game, usually there wasn't much replay value unless you wanted to truly master a game.

Sonic takes that same mechanic, makes it's games modestly difficult (compared to old NES games) and highly incentivizes the desire to come back to the game.  Finding those optimized paths and gaining that speed run speed, back in the early 90s, WAS rewarding unlike other platforms on the NES or Genesis.

I thought Sonic was better than Mario as a kid. Comparing the eras, I still do, although at this point Mario has so much amazing 2D IP, it's no longer apples to apples.  I'm not saying you have to love Sonic.  Everybody has their preferences, but you're misreading the room.  What you're seeing isn't broken game design--it's different game design.  But that difference is intentional, and I don't think the kid that grew up strictly on NES/Mario platformers are too prone to give Sonic a chance for what it is.

Edited April 5 by RH

[Reed Rothchild | 9,558]

To me that's like saying every level in a Mario game should be designed with a speed runner primarily in mind.  That you should sink 50 hours hobbling through levels with wonky pacing, conflicting mechanics, memorizing the entire game so that you can work towards experiencing it in an optimal fashion.

That sounds like a terrible idea, and a terrible Mario game.

I think it's a deeply flawed concept from a deeply flawed creator, that is still living off of going viral before going viral was a thing.

Feel free to swap out Mario for the platformer of your choice.  Pretend I said Celeste, and it still works.  The best games work both ways.

[Gaia Gensouki | 1,076]

10 minutes ago, RH said:

No, part of the difficulty is struggling through the levels as if they are any platformer but the ADDED benefit is once you can navigate the level, you can further improve your game by learning optimized paths that allow you to blaze through the game, buy you have to EARN that.  This is not broken, but intentional game design.

To me this sounds like the retro gaming equivalent of a modern gamer saying "It gets good after 20 hours." So you basically have to play through the game over and over again until you memorize everything only to blast through the game? I can do this with every other game and basically speedrun it, too. The only thing lacking is, that it doesn't have the same sense of speed, but at least with certain other games I have fun playing them from the getgo without having to go through loads of frustration.

If you want a similar experience, try Kid Kool on the NES. It gets crazy fast, too. Problem with running into enemies? Well, just learn the whole game by heart so that you can speedrun through it. The developers even encourage it, because the longer you take, the worse your ending gets. But somehow I don't see die-hard fan communities around this game despite similar game design and even predating Sonic by about 3 years in Japan and over 1 year in the US. Maybe it's because Kid Kool isn't cool? Basically, I can't imagine Sonic getting as popular as it is, if it wasn't for marketing and its place in video game history.

And regarding cartridge sizes: Mario 3 had ~385KB and Super Mario World 512 KB compared to Sonic's 512 KB and Sonic 2's 1024 KB. Despite Sonic games being slightly larger in file size, the amount of content is rather small compared to what a good Mario game offered you. The levels also felt more distinct with plenty of variety and different mechanics thrown at you.

[RH | 4,932]

6 minutes ago, Gaia Gensouki said:

To me this sounds like the retro gaming equivalent of a modern gamer saying "It gets good after 20 hours." So you basically have to play through the game over and over again until you memorize everything only to blast through the game? I can do this with every other game and basically speedrun it, too. The only thing lacking is, that it doesn't have the same sense of speed, but at least with certain other games I have fun playing them from the getgo without having to go through loads of frustration.

If you want a similar experience, try Kid Kool on the NES. It gets crazy fast, too. Problem with running into enemies? Well, just learn the whole game by heart so that you can speedrun through it. The developers even encourage it, because the longer you take, the worse your ending gets. But somehow I don't see die-hard fan communities around this game despite similar game design and even predating Sonic by about 3 years in Japan and over 1 year in the US. Maybe it's because Kid Kool isn't cool? Basically, I can't imagine Sonic getting as popular as it is, if it wasn't for marketing and its place in video game history.

And regarding cartridge sizes: Mario 3 had ~385KB and Super Mario World 512 KB compared to Sonic's 512 KB and Sonic 2's 1024 KB. Despite Sonic games being slightly larger in file size, the amount of content is rather small compared to what a good Mario game offered you. The levels also felt more distinct with plenty of variety and different mechanics thrown at you.

Two points--you don't have to like the game design, but what I am saying is what you are calling "broken" I'm saying is by design and some of us enjoy that--it comes down to preference.  Plus, in there own way, I never found Sonic games to be harder than Mario games back in the day.  In fact, I've beaten Sonic 2 and I got pretty far in both Sonic 3 and Sonic and Knuckles.  I didn't beat SMB1 or SMB3 until I was an adult on an honest, no-cheats playthrough. 

And regarding game size and replayability, SMB3 was at the end of Nintendo's personal support of the NES and cartridges were a lot bigger then than when they started.  My reference point of making games hard to add value was a mindset that started in the developers in those older, earlier days but it carried on for a while as the system matured because that's what they were use to doing.

I'd argue that even some SNES games are "hard" but yes, as RAM size increased, dev studios could become more recreative in how they added content and value to their games.

[Brickman | 4,000]

I haven’t voted in these but I have to come into support Sonic.

I’m a Treasure fan but I have always found gunstar heroes to be just ok.

Sonic 2 on the other hand is amazing, only to be beaten by Sonic 3. Those who keep losing their rings need to get good, it’s not Sonics fault you failed 

[Kguillemette | 1,547]

Here's my take on Sonic 2 since I have a few minutes: 

I agree with everyone else that says 3&K is the best entry on the system. But that's not what made it to the finals.

Sonic 2 is a platformer that does so many things right. It has areas that require speed and precision. It has areas that require complex platforming, but not overly so. The game rewards speed running by offering time bonuses at the end of each act that add up to extra lives. The game also rewards slow exploration by hiding power ups, rings that add up to extra lives and special stage access, and extra lives themselves across each act. This is excellent game design in my opinion.

The presentation is outstanding. The zones across the game are all colorful, unique, fun to look at, and have incredible music. Some of the best music of the 16 bit era is found here. Sonic 2 is a game that is remarkably fun just on how good it looks, sounds, and feels.

We've all played Sonic. I assume we all know how the physics work. I personally think they work great. The spin dash nullifies some of the more frustrating parts of the original game where the physics worked against it, like going up a steep hill or ramp from a stopping position.

Where Sonic 2 has a weakness is the special stage. I do not enjoy the half pipe stages of Sonic 2. It's too difficult to react to and some of the later ones can only be beaten with attrition and memorization. And the idea to start at 0 rings was not a good one, making you recollect or search out 50 more before you can have a chance at the next emerald. It feels like work. Personally, when I play Sonic 2, I just skip the special stages. Its more fun that way. 

 

I admittedly have not spent as much time with Gunstar Heroes. It is indeed an excellent run and gun. The music is great, the weapons are inventive, and bosses are usually pretty fun and intense. But that board game stage... if I have to critique Sonic 2 for at times feeling like work to unlock the best ending, I can't forgive Gunstar Heroes for having an entire stage required to beat the game that feels like a long chore. It doesn't make the game bad, far from it. It is, however, a flaw that has kept me from returning to it countless times like I have for Sonic 2. If I had to make the desert island choice between Sonic 2 and Gunstar Heroes, choosing Sonic 2 is a no brainer. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,558]

45 minutes ago, Brickman said:

I haven’t voted in these but I have to come into support Sonic.

I’m a Treasure fan but I have always found gunstar heroes to be just ok.

Sonic 2 on the other hand is amazing, only to be beaten by Sonic 3. Those who keep losing their rings need to get good, it’s not Sonics fault you failed 

Maybe Sonic should git a gooder game 

[Kguillemette | 1,547]

@Brickman breaking the tie!

[G-type | 2,486]

I always viewed the "gotta go fast" as your reward for memorizing the levels and knowing what parts you can blaze through after having thoroughly explored it. Anyone trying to race through the level without knowing where they're going is doing it wrong. It's like trying to speedrun ANY game without having mastered it first.

Edited April 5 by G-type

[Brickman | 4,000]

3 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Maybe Sonic should git a gooder game 

Already are, you just need to improve your abilities 

23 minutes ago, G-type said:

I always viewed the "gotta go fast" as your reward for memorizing the levels and knowing what parts you can blaze through after having thoroughly explored it. Anyone trying to race through the level without knowing where they're going is doing it wrong. It's like trying to speedrun ANY game without having mastered it first.

Yep well said.

It’s like watching a kid play SMB for the first time and dying on the first goomba. They learn the levels and eventually are flying through the game.

Same goes with Sonic. Learn the levels and you’ll be flying through the levels and not losing rings. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,558]

44 minutes ago, Brickman said:

Already are, you just need to improve your abilities 

Some of the games on this list needed ability.  Certain ones did not 

That is, unless memorizing terrible level layouts is an ability 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,558]

By sheer coincidence my son is playing the copy of Sonic Colors Ultimate that I gave him for his birthday today, as we speak 

[elprincipe | 142]

Sonic 2 is an average game at best, but at least it's better than that trash Sonic 3.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,091]

4 hours ago, G-type said:

Anyone trying to race through the level without knowing where they're going is doing it wrong. It's like trying to speedrun ANY game without having mastered it first.

You don't get it: that's the flaw!  You're arguing that the game is great if you approach it from the perspective of a speedrunner learning the game for the first time who is hell-bent on mastering it... but what about the rest of us?!?  You're right, the game is great if you approach it as a speedrunner, because that's who the game was built for, but it sucks for everyone else.

As someone else already mentioned, go and play/master Kid Kool if you think this is such an epically awesome way to design a game, and report back with your comments...  

[Gaia Gensouki | 1,076]

9 hours ago, Brickman said:

It’s like watching a kid play SMB for the first time and dying on the first goomba. They learn the levels and eventually are flying through the game.

Same goes with Sonic. Learn the levels and you’ll be flying through the levels and not losing rings. 

The difference is that Sonic regularly forces you to go fast and doesn't give you enough time to react. This is cheap difficulty and any not-popular game would get flamed hard for this. By contrast, SMB gives you plenty of time to react to the first goomba and almost every other threat in the game. It doesn't feel cheap and you don't have to play the levels over and over again in order to memorize everything and to get by. However, if you do, you can also speed through the game like crazy. It's a game that rewards god playing while still being fun for beginners and intermediate players.

And the argument of "git gud" can be used for pretty much any game to disregard criticism about its flaws. It's not really constructive.

5 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

You don't get it: that's the flaw!  You're arguing that the game is great if you approach it from the perspective of a speedrunner learning the game for the first time who is hell-bent on mastering it... but what about the rest of us?!?  You're right, the game is great if you approach it as a speedrunner, because that's who the game was built for, but it sucks for everyone else.

As someone else already mentioned, go and play/master Kid Kool if you think this is such an epically awesome way to design a game, and report back with your comments...  

My point with Kid Kool was, that it has similar design elements (or flaws, in my opinion), but it's somehow regarded as one of the worst games on the NES that barely gets played even in the challenges on this site, whereas Sonic is widely regarded as one of the best, if not THE single best game on the entire Genesis/Mega Drive. So I must be missing something. My theory was, that this is because of clever marketing and Sonic's unique place in the history of the console war. But yeah, reading through RH's replies there must be something that I don't quite see or get at the moment.

However, I think it's really nasty of you to ridicule an honest and civilized discussion, twisting the arguments and dragging it all through the mud with passive-aggressive comments.

[Brickman | 4,000]

59 minutes ago, Gaia Gensouki said:

The difference is that Sonic regularly forces you to go fast and doesn't give you enough time to react. This is cheap difficulty and any not-popular game would get flamed hard for this. By contrast, SMB gives you plenty of time to react to the first goomba and almost every other threat in the game. It doesn't feel cheap and you don't have to play the levels over and over again in order to memorize everything and to get by. However, if you do, you can also speed through the game like crazy. It's a game that rewards god playing while still being fun for beginners and intermediate players.

And the argument of "git gud" can be used for pretty much any game to disregard criticism about its flaws. It's not really constructive.

My point with Kid Kool was, that it has similar design elements (or flaws, in my opinion), but it's somehow regarded as one of the worst games on the NES that barely gets played even in the challenges on this site, whereas Sonic is widely regarded as one of the best, if not THE single best game on the entire Genesis/Mega Drive. So I must be missing something. My theory was, that this is because of clever marketing and Sonic's unique place in the history of the console war. But yeah, reading through RH's replies there must be something that I don't quite see or get at the moment.

However, I think it's really nasty of you to ridicule an honest and civilized discussion, twisting the arguments and dragging it all through the mud with passive-aggressive comments.

To me that’s what makes Sonic so good. You learn the game and enemy placements and are rewarded with speed. The reflex reaction to enemies keeps you alert and adds to the challenge. 

I love that one moment you can be speeding through a level and then it makes you slow it down with some platforming.

The style isn’t for everyone, those who like a more traditional platformer probably struggle with it more imo.

The git gud was just me and Reed messing around  

[sp1nz | 615]

I'll start by saying I really like the old school 2D Sonics, hell my first game was Sonic the Hedgehog at 4 years old, but Gunstar Heroes is actually my favorite Treasure title on Genesis without having any childhood nostalgia to it, it's almost in my top 10 for the system as it stands. Dynamite Headdy, Yu Yu Hakusho and Alien Soldier are not far off though and apples to oranges comparisons. I think the original Sonics suffer from too zoomed-in gameplay and centering of the character, yeah it rewards learning the game but it would only be a benefit to see more of the surrounding area no matter what (getting the high speed scrolling and beautiful graphics with more zoom-out would probably hamper performance which would kill the point though).

Compared to Gunstar Heroes, Sonic 2 definitely has way way inferior multiplayer modes; troll-your-sibling co-op and weird race mode that's a mere footnote in the game. A ton of Sonic games also suffer from very uneven difficulty, like in Sonic 2's case the common route you get into in Chemical Plant Zone Act 1 with the rising water, rotating blocks and subsequent platforms moving on deep water is one of the tougher spots in the game but comes very early. Not to mention the huge difficulty spike of the last boss compared to earlier game where your ring safety blanket is removed and boss hitboxes easily troll you. I'd still argue Sonic 1 is even weirder with its trudging Marble Zone as the second level. Still 2 is definitely better game than 1 and 3 & Knuckles is way better than 2 in my books. The Sonic 2 bonus levels are actually my favorite old school Sonic bonus levels but obviously somewhat flawed without memorization with their obscured turns and their subsequent bomb bs, if you're running on the in-line.

Sonic games also suffer from level progression/design "confusion" (compounded by the zoomed-in/centered camera), you often go up, left, right, down, often intuitively or on tracks so you progress if you just go for it but confusing on the mind all the same - still the alternate routes and exploration add to replay value. Sonic 2 zones overall are alternating hit or miss for me. The Sonic games are hard carried by style, banging tunes, nostalgia and the feel of speed when you hit an on-rails speed section or have learned the level to do it in most places.

Gunstar Heroes has fun difficulty levels, decent boss patterns, smooth co-op multiplayer, fun weapon combination mechanic, some gameplay tech/depth, a lot of personality and amazing soundtrack - and I happen to love the Dice Palace. Gunstar Heroes would be my pick to play like 75% of the time over Sonic 2. No amount of on-rails euphoria speed nuggets can make this an even fight when Gunstar has basically nothing I would criticize and Sonic 2 has quite large flaws even if I still like playing it. Also why Ristar isn't more popular is because it was a very late release, those don't usually do hot on any console.

I'm not unhappy with either game being a popular vote winner, but my favorite game on the system died in round 2 and many favorites died at random places, so this final is like semi-final quality battle for me at best.

[cj_robot | 545]

9 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

As someone else already mentioned, go and play/master Kid Kool if you think this is such an epically awesome way to design a game, and report back with your comments... 

Not fair at all. Controlling Sonic is infinitely more intuitive and manageable than controlling Kid Kool. Level design is far better in Sonic as well, and designed perfectly according to Sonic's abilities. Kid Kool is just crap.

This is like saying, "If you really believe Zelda is great game design, just go play Hydlide and tell me what you think!"

[Sumez | 2,970]

11 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

You don't get it: that's the flaw!  You're arguing that the game is great if you approach it from the perspective of a speedrunner learning the game for the first time who is hell-bent on mastering it... but what about the rest of us?!?

That's like... not what he said at all?

The game rewards someone who practices and knows the game well. That's not something only speedrunners do. That's something every decent action game should do. Didn't you claim you were a fan of arcade games once, or did I confuse you for someone else?

[spacepup | 2,405]

I understand the viewpoint from people who feel like Sonic wants you to go fast then punishes you, but honestly, the game doesn't HAVE to be played ridiculously fast for the most part.  

I LOVED Sonic 2 as a kid and probably beat the game over a dozen times (no exaggeration).  This was back in the day when we didn't have very many video games, so the ones we had we played over and over.  And yes, we got to the point where we did pretty much memorize the levels and then were able to blaze through them like crazy.  But even prior to that point, while still learning everything, I still really enjoyed the game and exploring the levels.  In most of my early playthroughs, I wasn't just running as fast as possible and then dying all the time.  I was being a bit more careful.  But I still really enjoyed the game.

And then later on, after playing the game a bunch, I was able to blaze through the levels.  I don't consider this a requirement to playing the game nor a requirement for having fun.  It's more like a benefit or added bonus that after you really know the levels, you can speed through them super quickly.

I don't know, I have always loved Sonic, esp 1-3 and CD.  Sonic 2 in particular will always have a special place in my heart as it was definitely a childhood game that we played a ton and loved.

[Sumez | 2,970]

I get the point, but honestly, in practice I very rarely run straight into stuff I didn't see in a Sonic game (Sonic 2 and 3 anyway) unless I felt that I was being reckless or could have done better.

Usually the stages are designed intuitively enough that things won't get in your way to downright hurt you if you are just following the layout.

 

That is, until Sonic Mania. I want to love that game, but I feel like it really is that thing people usually criticize older Sonic games for.

It's not hard, because you can always just pick up even a single ring and stay invincible - but just constantly running I to stuff you had no way of knowing was there really isn't fun.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,091]

13 hours ago, Sumez said:

That's like... not what he said at all?

Read for comprehension, bro!  I quoted exactly what he said; here, I'll type it again in bold for you:

"Anyone trying to race through the level without knowing where they're going is doing it wrong. It's like trying to speedrun ANY game without having mastered it first."

He literally said that racing through a level of Sonic 2 without knowing where you're going on your first time through is like trying to speedrun ANY game without having mastered it first.  He literally and actually said that.  Read it again - he explicitly states that you have to approach Sonic 2 as a speedrunner learning the game with the intention of mastering it.  Read it fifty more times if you have to.

PS- the Sonic games were advertised and designed for the player to speed through them; if you're supposed to be going slow from the get go until you're at God level tier, then that's false advertising, terrible game design, and certainly news to anyone who's playing a Sonic game for their first time...

Edited April 7 by Dr. Morbis