Sonic Adventure's Place in History

Reference: The Sonic Cycle

I've since completed my research on the history of Sonic's public image. Posting about it on this blog is the last priority. Fortunately, there's a little bit of breather room in my immediate schedule, so I'd like to share a small part of my findings.

My all-time favorite game, Sonic Adventure for the Dreamcast, has a very interesting place in the history of Sonic. It is, in fact, where the Sonic controversy all began. But it's not quite as simple as that.

As I've said before, the so-called Sonic Cycle has a grain of truth to it - Sonic games have a tendency to create massive amounts of hype that are followed by unusually negative backlash post-release. This was the case for Sonic Adventure. Previews of the game were more than a little optimistic, and many critics tied the fate of the game to the fate of the entire Dreamcast console. Everyone looking into the next console generation was looking at Sonic Adventure.

Response to the game was overwhelmingly positive... but tinged by disappointment. All of the reviews, both positive and negative, point to a bewildering paradox of quality. Sonic Adventure was both really great and really frustrating. The high-octane gameplay and gorgeous graphics (for the time) impressed everybody that played, but there was also a lot to dislike. The finicky camera threw players to their deaths. Slower-paced sections of gameplay (like fetch quests in the exploration zones) felt out of place and annoying (which made Knuckles and Big the least liked characters of the game) And yet, reviewers stressed, the game was truly amazing when it got going. It was both amazing AND flawed, and it all depended on how much you could tolerate.

So this created the fanbase's first schism. Sonic Adventure's paradox split the fanbase into different camps: the majority who loved the game, and the significant minority who couldn't stand the game and wanted to go back to 2D. Sound familiar?

The story doesn't end there, though. There's a lot more to this. And it starts with Sonic Adventure 2. All told, a vast improvement on the first Sonic Adventure - better pacing, smoother animation and storytelling, faster gameplay, and better graphics. But it also retained some controversial features, namely the argumentative camera and Knuckles' hunting gameplay. Sonic Adventure 2 is a lot less controversial as a result, but the people sticking to the "3D sucks" argument still had some ammunition to work with moving forward.

And at this point, we come to what might have been the great strategic error on Sega's part.

As the industry moved into the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox console generation and Sega's Dreamcast dropped out, Sega promised to keep the Sonic franchise going with new titles. So Sonic fans were forced to wait until the next major installment. Unfortunately, that didn't happen for another three years. And what did Sega bridge the gap with? Handheld titles and Gamecube remakes: Sonic Adventure DX and Sonic Adventure 2: Battle.

Now let's back up and crunch a couple of numbers. Sonic Adventure came out in 1998. Sonic Heroes was released in 2004. That means that, between the originals and its remakes, Sonic Adventure completely defined the nature of Sonic games for SIX YEARS. Six years of Knuckles' hunting gameplay. Six years of story-based structure. Six years of Sonic Adventure.

Whatever frustrations that Sonic Adventure created in the fanbase, those wounds were allowed to fester through the three year drought following Sonic Adventure 2. After nothing but the same things to complain about, the naysayers were rock-solid in their negative opinion.

Sonic Heroes, Shadow the Hedgehog, and Sonic 2006 didn't help to change those opinions. Sonic Heroes was more classically inspired (read: like the Genesis games), but was a mediocre game overall. Shadow the Hedgehog was clearly a cash-in that didn't play well. Sonic 2006... speaks for itself. But as much as these games did to undermine Sonic's standing in the public eye, this whole controversy started with Sonic Adventure.

And this more or less explains the state of the Sonic fanbase today. Complaints that were created 13 years ago still linger around today, embedded deeper into the fanbase by repeatedly lackluster games. From there, it's interesting to postulate what would happen if things had gone differently at this turning point. What if Sega hadn't waited three years and filled the gap with remakes? What if a better game had come sooner? Would we still be dealing with this controversy today?

But that's just speculation. Regardless of how bad it may be, it's necessary to understand exactly where these criticisms originated from. There's a lot of negative opinion running around, and it's important to know which parts are relevant and which parts are just echoes from the past.

Stimulating Design

So we've disappeared for a while. Part of that's because we've been busy at DigiPen. But part of that's also because my perspective on game design has undergone quite the metamorphosis over the last few months.

I previously thought game design could exist in a vacuum. That's what this blog was about. I thought I could simply come up with the perfect idea and the rest would fall into place. Obviously, that line of thinking has changed drastically.

You see, while game design is more teachable now than it was decades ago, there's still no substitute for research, experimentation, and experience. I've designed a few games for school projects now, just barely getting onto my feet. The curriculum is slow, spending lots of time covering basic fundamentals before gradually building and combining usable concepts. But iterating upon those simple projects has taught me far more about my chosen field than many of the lectures I've been to. And that seems to be the point.

Game design requires outside stimuli, more so than any other creative field. Designs need to be tested over and over again. It's good to test them on oneself first, but the insight of peers and total strangers is highly valuable data. I've learned this through experience. I've had prototypes I liked broken down again and again, before finally I find a dynamic that makes a game somewhat enjoyable and nuanced. If things worked like I thought they did, I would've just found a great dynamic and made the game in a minute. You don't find the perfect idea, you work towards the perfect idea.

The semester's not even over yet, and my view on game design has already been broken down and rebuilt. The change has been for the better. And now that I've found some confidence to stand on my own and take risks, the Sonic Project is cast in a new light.

First, we need to break down the design to the mechanics and dynamics we want to build the core game experience around. Then we need to find a way to implement those ideas, a way to make something playable. Then, once we have a working prototype, we need to have other people play it so that we can get feedback to improve it. Once we get to that point where we can implement and design freely, we can make real progress toward exploring game design concepts for the Sonic universe.

So here's what's on the agenda. Most importantly, we need to find an engine or some such thing where we can implement our ideas without too much technical hassle (since we're both beginning programmers, after all). But while the search is on, we should give some serious thought to what mechanics should be at our core gameplay.

This will all have to take a backseat to our work at DigiPen, of course. But we can still plan for the future.

The Sonic Cycle

I've been taking advantage of a long-term school research project to brush up on my history of the Sonic franchise. And not just the official history - what games were released when, who the developers were, stuff like that - but the history of public opinion towards Sonic. I've hunted down a great number of articles from magazines, newspapers, and (of course) internet sites, all reacting to a Sonic game in one way or another - either speculating in the buildup before a game's release, or reviewing the game after the fact.

I've learned a few things, to say the least.

For instance, Sonic Heroes was far more significant a game than I had ever believed. I've always brushed it off as an okay game with a minimalist structure, but this game was big freaking news when it was announced. This was the first core Sonic game since the Dreamcast era - the only bone Sonic fans had been thrown before then were Gamecube remakes of the Sonic Adventures. So when Sega announced a new Sonic game that featured team-based gameplay and minimal story, everyone got excited.

If one thing's obvious from my research, it's that Sonic is and has always been an incredible marketing force. Sega has a long history of using Sonic to push their hardware, ranging from the Sega CD to the Dreamcast. Point is, Sonic has a way of stirring up attention. Announcing a new Sonic game these days is a big freaking deal.

Of course, when something's extremely hyped up like that, there's always a bit of backlash. Sometimes it's small and sometimes it's violent, but there are always a few complaints after the hyped product doesn't lived up to its over-hyped expectations.

It's a process so familiar to the fanbase that there's an image going around about one aspect of it - I'm sure you've seen it - describing the so-called "Sonic Cycle."

Alternate version:
1) Discussion about a new Sonic game
2) Sonic Cycle is posted
3) Nobody cares

This infamous image is more a jab at specific trends in new Sonic games that the creator had a bias against. However, there's the tiniest grain of truth to this image. If you strip out the personal bias...

This cycle of hype and backlash is the one constant that has followed Sonic over the years. It always happens. Always. Sonic creates hype - that's just how it goes.

And there's just two things I want to say about that:

1. It's amazing that one character - one franchise - can create so much hype. Mario might be less controversial, but even he doesn't create this much attention when one of his new games is announced. (Mario Sports Mix? Where did that come from?) The fact that the Sonic franchise has this ability is a blessing on one side... even if it's a curse on the other.
2. The problem is, this cycle is still violent. If the hype backlash is strong enough (caused by, say, a particularly bad game), it can permanently scar a great number of fans, leaving the base divided against its own kin. Some people don't recover from those scars for a very long time, and they end up causing hurt and doubt throughout the base in the meantime.

As someone who wants to make a Sonic game someday, this is important knowledge to have. Research like this is always worthwhile, and I'm trying to make a habit of it as I continue to learn how to design games.

Learning How to Learn

Whoops! It's been more than a month since the last post. Don't worry, we haven't died or anything. DigiPen sure does try, but we aren't down for the count just yet.

The first semester of college is usually a wake-up call for everyone. We learn new concepts, get overwhelmed by challenges, and (hopefully) resolve to make ourselves better for the trials ahead. It's been no different with us. We keep busy to make sure we're skilled enough to do what we want to do.

With this first semester came a disheartening realization: Now that we've actually worked on games, how can we go back to just talking the talk? It hasn't gone anywhere in a year and a half, and it won't get much farther until we actually do something about it.

We want to provide something substantial with each update. So we usually don't have anything.

Still, it's just a matter of time and effort. If I've learned anything in the last five months, it's that I have a very specific learning curve when it comes to tough topics:

• Basic Grasp: In the beginning, when I approach a topic for the first time, I pretend to know what I'm looking at. I skim through and simplify it. "Oh, so it was made up of this and this, so this is what I should do." Of course, that knowledge doesn't really stick. The moment I try to apply that so-called knowledge, I'm completely overwhelmed.
• Severe Frustration: This is the phase I'm most familiar with, the "staring at the screen for two hours" phase (also known as the "banging my head against a brick wall" phase). I read, reread, then read again. I go over the information a million times, but it's just as much gibberish the five-millionth time as it was the fifth. I seriously cannot comprehend what I'm looking at, nor can I understand why I should find it at all interesting. I can't make progress because I don't understand what I need to know, and I can't B.S. my way out of it.
• Understanding: But eventually, there is a breakthrough. After double- and triple-checking the information, I finally get it. The relevant bits stick out. My mind restructures the information into a more manageable series of points. What was incomprehensible before is now something I can really use. I can finally get to work.
• Annoyance: I apply my understanding, and most of it goes pretty well. There are a few complications, though, as flaws appear in my technique and holes poke through my logic. Worst-case scenario, there is one serious bug that I need to work out before it starts to work.
• Enlightenment: As soon as I resolve the remaining knowledge issues, I come to an expert-level understanding of the topic. I can replicate it in a different project, and I can remember all the essential details even if I leave it alone for months at a time. This is the point where I have really learned something valuable.

I wrote "Time" on the x-axis of that chart, but it could also be read as "Effort." If I'm lucky and work on a problem all freaking day, I can go through the entire process on this chart within four to eight hours. On the other hand, if I get bogged down... If I can't do more research, or I become too lazy to work on the problem, I can be stuck for years.

A lot of the insight I've posted on this blog has come from the "Understanding" phase. I'd rather like to bring topics to the table that I know thoroughly. But that means getting off my lazy butt and getting some real research done. And research is my Achilles Heel.

But we get better with practice. So we don't give up, and we keep pushing ourselves.

Sonic Colors Strategy Guide

So I was doing my after-Christmas game shopping, and GameStop was having a sale on strategy guides, one of which was Sonic Colors. I normally don't bother with strategy guides - they're very nice and all, but they cost about as much money as a decent used game and don't offer as much as good ol' GameFAQs.

I was amused by the fact that there was a Sonic Colors guide for some reason, so I opened it up to take a glance. That's when I found another great use for strategy guides: direct insight into a game's design. The Sonic Colors guide has simplified maps of each level, maps that might hint at the philosophy behind the game's level design.

And hey, it was 50% off that day. I needed help finding the rest of those red coins rings, too...

So I now have maps of every level in Sonic Colors. I'm still going to make those maps for Sonic Adventure levels (I'll work hard on that next week, when I get back to Redmond), but it's nice that one game has already been done for us.