What it is that has drawn me to Luigi

I've reflected as to what it is that has drawn me to Luigi, my strong identification with it, is not something I decided. It was almost like an innate connection and call, it's a unique phenomenon many people like me also experience. Luigi's design and mannerisms seems to be the manifestation of Ni, in it's purest form, 

what you experience as a child before you develop as into a thinker or feeler. Shy, sensitive unsure, but filled with wonder, 

The truth about Ni dominates is that there's an intense shyness, and bashfulness that we overcome in our personal development and when we do or say anything, 

We only seem so strong at times because of our sense of purpose, we believe in our vision so strongly, we block out any fear, but ultimately we do struggle greatly with courage, we by default can be very weak, but that's what makes it remarkable when an Ni user is brave, it is something we consider to be deeply important.

I know I can come across as very intense at times, but I hope people can see that it's from a pure soul reacting to an impure world. When I was young I was a truth speaker, as a child I would speak truth to adults, I would speak out when I felt like my dad was abusing my mom. I would call out when my family wasn't following the rules. I never imagined my truth speaking nature would end up with me speaking truth to the world. I've never come to terms with it, I'm sorry to those I've interreacted with on my platform as if my position that I've had is natural and nothing unusual, but I'd like to try. I'd like to be formally known, not just in secret. I'd like to be able to share my view with any who need it. It's what I'd like to do in life. but I'm happy if I can reach even one person, even one life changed. At times I felt like I wish I could be super successful in the world sense, but what truly activates my fulfillment and joy is the souls I've saved. Nothing makes me happier than someone be rescued from their pain,

Gameplay Defined: Why We Play Games

First, What is Gameplay?

Gameplay: The gameplay of a video game usually refers to the thing that is the main focus of the project outside of the story.
The source of the fun from gameplay can be broken down into 3 categories: pleasure, need fulfillment, and information. All of this are important and valuable components of a game. All of these elements help serve the higher interesting of serving and enriching the lives of the consumer. So let’s go through each of this one by one and explain how and why each of these elements cause us to have fun.

First off is the experience: The sensory pleasure we get from a game is almost universally the initial factor of it that we find “fun.” The sense pleasure is definitely important. Sensory pleasure, is pure intrinsic fun; it’s something we desire in and of itself, rather than desiring it as a means to an end. It’s a great and very important aspect of the game, but it’s  importance tapers off as we continue to progress through the experience of a game. Once we’ve had our thrill and pleasure from the taste of the game’s visuals, sounds, and mechanical controls, our minds begin to crave more. Our brains don’t want to just play and interact with the game world. The novelty of our very actions affecting this world wears off and doesn’t last forever. The superficial appeal fades with use and time. So quickly after our initial experience and thrill of playing a game we want more depth.

To give a concrete example: Whacking things to death in Kingdom Hearts is initially fun because of the sensory input that we’re receiving from the screen and controller. It’s pleasant and fun to rhythmically press the buttons on the controller. As we play the game and watch the screen, lights, sounds, and noises, project and come forth from it. When Sora hit’s defeats a heartless a “WHOOSH”ing sound is made. When we pound a heartless once,  visual  flares makes spread across the screen. As Sora attacks and rolls around the screen he grunts and yells things. All of these give us sensory pleasure; a.k.a. fun; Yes, “Fun” at it’s most basic and rudimentary level is simple minded, mindless, sensory pleasure. Fun at this level is nothing striking or extravagant, but it doesn’t have to be. After all the sensory level is the initial basis and draw for nearly all things, not just games. Sensory pleasure is an important tool for distinguishing things that will help us or things that will hurt us. It’s okay to expect some level of pleasantness at the surface level of a game. But while it is okay, it can get carried away, and it won’t last. This is where the the need fulfillment side of the argument comes into play.

The colorful, interesting sights, and sound we see begin to fulfill our needs and contain greater philosophical value to us when our brains begin to realize that WE'RE doing that. YOU’'RE making all of these awesome, amazing things happen. You! The gamer! The man outside the magic box and screen! You’re doing this! You’re making these “radical” and “narly” things happen! Now you’re brain is content to just watch the screen smiling stupidly, now it wants to interact with the screen. It want to “play” with it. It wants to experiment and act in all sort of different ways to test it and find out the limits of what “my” actions can do. This mode and level of the game is the level that someone like Roger Van Der Weide, and myself personally, extremely enjoys. His Sonic Adventure “In Minutes” clip of Sonic yelling, “WHEEEE!!!” Is highly appropriate for this stage of the gameplay experience, in fact it’s perfect for it. Once a person get's over the high of affecting the game world, the next step of enjoyment is qualifying good effects from bad, thus challenge is born.

When challenges arise, morals and psyche come into play, "Not only did I effect this game world, but I had a positive impact, and I did something difficult that possibly few others could do!." It fulfills are need to feel powerful strong, heroic, courageous, brave, BA, and/or many others. One of the biggest needs that games consistently fulfill for hardcore, “gameplay” gamers, is the need for achievement. This need grants a player a feeling of emotional validation and esteem. This is why trophies and in game achievements are so widely loved, praised, and adored/abhored amongst gamers.  In the case of trophies, it's the need to prove yourself to others, and society at large. Trophies are external to the self. They’re set by others; thus, they prove your worth in a somewhat objective and large scale way. At least, it feels like it is. That’s the mental-psychological trap and what it promises. Just because standards are external to yourself, that doesn’t mean they’re automatically valid. Does some absurd and arbitrary act in some made up system, really and truly prove anything about you as a person? What if you fail the challenge? Then it’s a doubled edged sword and worse for you. It lowers your self esteem. If everyone else could do it but not you, then you feel horrible about yourself and may even begin to hate yourself. And for what? Now being able to jump through a hoop? It's a horrible manipulation and lie; a mental trap, which is why I hate it so much.
At work, we have have goals to meet, and that's a good use of this type of gamification,brain exploit, as it's something of true value to society to work and produce goods. A person has every right to feel good about themselves if they work hard and make accomplishments at their job. A person does not have the same right to feel good about themselves in the same sense for overcoming some arbitrary task, yet people act like the two hold the same weight and importance which is frustrating to me.. That's as dumb and foolish as teenagers, jumping over a lit fire. To me that’s saying, "Dee Hee Hee, Hey everyone look at me! Look how awesome I am for accomplishing this dangerous and stupid act that could permanently scar me.”

So other than fulfilling our need to achieve and accomplish difficult,practical, or socially valuable tasks what else can games provide? This is where the story element comes into play.

Narrative:
As interactive simulations, games, actually, have the potential to be the most advanced, immersive, thorough, and engaging way of conveying information. If you go back to earlier times before written language was in common use, people would have to rely on word of mouth to hear a story. A guy could come running in to his tribe, sweating and bloody, and he would have to be able to explain to them purely with words what happened and how he felt during it. Today, with gaming technology, people don't have to simply explain what their experiences and ideas are like through metaphorical analogy, instead they can craft a simulated reality to almost directly convey to others what they perceive. So, the enjoyment of stories is relevant and pertinent to both the sensory and hypothetical parts of our brains, but the stories in games should, in general, appeal to people preferring to get an experience out of it, than someone hoping to get some clever connections out of it. Kingdom Hearts is a crappy hypothetical story because it doesn't make any sense on a larger scale. It pretends to be deep and meaningful without actually containing any depth, or meaning. If you take it literally at the surface level rather than impressionistically and poetically, then it doesn’t satisfy the need and desire to here clever, witty ideas and perspectives. It fails to satisfy the desire for idea novelty; it fails to satisfy the hypothetical, abstract mind. While having a game with a great and perfect story is a worthwhile ideal and goal. It’s also important to understand how expensive and time consuming that process can be. While games are indeed amazing and thorough storytelling devices, how extremely difficult and hard it is to tell a good, well thought story with a good flow to it when you have multitude of other factors to consider as a developer. This is why I ultimately still love the Kingdom Hearts series, and forgive it for it’s flaws. However bad, it may seem when you piece together in a direct literal manner, when it comes down to it all, it’s quite an impressive feat that it’s been so consistently committ to it’s, characters, game world, and story. The same can not be said of the Sonic series not matter how great we can find Sonic Adventure 1 and 2’s world to be.

Anyway, games are great on all three levels, the sensory experience, the need fulfillment, and the plot, but what truly makes a game grand is when it perfectly blends and adjusts all three of this elements together. No game has achieved this, but few have come close. Let’s be thankful for those, and hope for more good, well rounded games to come in the future, inside and outside of the Sonic community.

For additional information here are some more relevant resources on the matter. Check out
Extra Credits focuses on the more clerical, pragmatic aspect while Game Theory focuses on the philosophical and psychological approach.. What mental muscles does the game use and work? They claim all games are designed to test and use three different mental skills in varying degrees: Planning skills, Practice skills, and Improvisation skills.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9xkfPLJWf0
Game Theory It focuses on the need fulfillment aspects I discussed.  Why do you play games? A; To meet your needs. They attribute it to three main needs, but I definitely think there are more. They basically say that you're trying to fulfill your 1. social need to interact with others
2. Need for achievement; a.k.a. and external/ personal validation
3. Need for Autonomy; a.k.a, the need to feel secure, via  power, and control your external surrounding/ and or self which protects you if things should begin to go wrong; If you have power over yourself, and you're environment, you can feel safe. Basically it fulfills our need for certainty and security. The main motivating force for people who argue for gun control laws is a place of genuine human need and fear. They're aren't looking at the matter purely objective from an outside perspective, but from personal need

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyUC_28HIvA

Sonic's Future/Sonic Has No "True" Roots

One thing I hear a lot and want to bring up is the concept of what the "true" Sonic identity is, and "how" Sonic "should be."  We can't say that the "true" Sonic is inspired by Action B movies, or Adventure Inspiration because the "true" Sonic, Sega's Sonic, has no "true" identity. He has no one pure and true source of cultural influence he draws from. Sega makes him to reflect and mimick whatever is popular at the time. I have a friend who told me when he was in school he would wear hats or play yugioh just to copy his friend. Sonic Team is the same way with Sonic. They aren't the ones to move the helm of culture and societal influence, they simply  are bandwagoners trying to get in on the next big thing.  

Sonic 1 first was made to cash in on the popularity of Mario, but it was also inspired by the competitive egotism of the 90's as it sought to be better and "cooler." 
Sonic 3 was based on absurd B movies because that's what was popular at the time. 
Sonic Adventure 1 was inspired by Super Mario 64, other early 3d collectathons, and the rising popularity of anime.
Sonic Adventure 2 was inspired by the skate boarding fad and Tony Hawk games. It used "Cool, Radical, etc." when skate boarding off of a jump.
Shadow was inspired by grandtheft auto, call of duty, and halo.
Sonic 06 was inspired by realistic Playstation and Xbox games.
Sonic Unleashed was inspired by Pixar, Dreamworks, and the rise of 3d animation companys like them.
Sonic Colors was inspired by the success of casual Wii games like De Blob.
Sonic 4 and Generations were inspired by the success of New Super Mario Bros. Wii and PS3 HD remakes.
Lost World:  a result of a resurgence of the interest in simple platformers again. Rayman Legends, Donkey Kong Returns, New Super Mario Bros U, etc.

Sonic Boom: is odd because at it's core it reflects the old age of  and shows how behind the times the developers were, when initial creating it, but in terms of writing it's gained it's cultural influence from recent internet meme culture. I'm the leader to local 11 year old scouts and yep, I can definitely say they have the same awkward passion for internet meme culture that Sonic Boom has, so it's actually perfectly toned for the rising generation. It's just that the rising generation's internet meme/ viral youtube videos culture is a cess pool of obnoxiousness.

Sonic Runners: Well if that is indeed going to be the next game from what I can tell of it, it looks like a 3d version of Sonic Dash meant to cash in on it's success. That would be almost prove my pattern because the next game to come out according to it is supposed to be a cheap, crapped out, cash in to take advantage of hype or popularity of some Sonic game that was made. That's actually not a bad strategy on their part. Sonic Dash undoubtedly has exposed a lot of people to Sonic due to it's free to play nature, but for that reason it can only get so much money out of people, so now Sonic Team is making a 50-60 dollar game resembling Sonic Dash and Jump in hopes people brought in by those games will recognize it and buy it. 

After that game, in 2016 we the most likely to get a second Sonic Boom game or Sonic Adventure game. A Boom sequel is still possible because the cartoon is doing well and will continue for most of next year at the very least. Sega didn't directly take the hit when Boom failed, After that and according to the pattern, Sega's going to try and reinvent Sonic once again in 2017 with whatever's popular then. The new Stars Wars movies are going to be very popular and all the rage then, and Toy Story 4 is coming out in 2017, perhaps, the 2017 reboot game will be the true Super Sonic Galaxy, or the aesthic and culture influence will be inspired by childlike imagination of playing with Toys like in Toy Story or the Lego Movie. By 2017 I'm expecting a sequel that movie, and Sega knows the best way to spread Sonic is through kids so there's a strong chance we'll see Sonic trying to make Sonic in that vain. Then again we are going to see the new Sonic movie come out and that's going to be PG-13, so perhaps there will finally be two different flavors of Sonic avaible. One for the younger audience and one for the older. So there could be two 2017 Sonic game or one shortly following the other into 2018. The younger one could be Toy Story inspired like I mentioned, and the older one could be inspired by modern day action thrillers like World War Z; so the tone would end up like modern action movie adaptations of old cartoons like the Rock's GI Joe Movie, Micheal Bay's TMNT and Transformers films, perhaps it may even draw inspiration from the success of Marvel and other Super Hero movies.

So what do you think? Does that seem to be accurate and make sense? Any counter observations or arguments? 

"Why Has Sega Suddenly Abandoned Me?" Sega's Marketing Strategy

Contrary to how it may seem Sega has not suddenly changed. They have not suddenly decided to abandon their fans. They've been this way the entire time. Sega's like the confident and aggressive player who covinces you to sleep with him by saying, "Show me your tits." He's different and in an odd way charming, so you give into his demands. After the fact you try to get a hold of him, but he doesn't respond, and if he does he's very rude about it. You then wonder why he suddenly became a jerk to you. In reality, he was always a jerk, you just didn't realize it until he left you, but your traumatized, and now you can't help but crave and desire bad boys. Why does Sega treat it's fans poorly, yet I still crave it? You wonder. Why do fans remain loyal? Others wonder. Why do we still crave the jerk when we have every reason to hate them. In both cases it's the same. It's the psychological response to loss. http://www.caregiverslibrary.org/caregivers-resources/grp-end-of-life-issues/hsgrp-grief-and-loss/psychological-responses-to-loss-article.aspx 

Let's face it. Sega' doesn't really care about any one particular type of Sonic. It doesn't favor any one particular type of fans over the other. They just want your money. Much like the player that just wants your body, but just as players are never contempt with one woman, Sega is never content with one group of fans. They have a systematically approach; a pattern for how they go about seducing new fans. Here's how Sega decides to market it's games. First, they make a game to attract new fans. For example Sonic 1. Next, they pump out a sequel as fast as they can to capture and capitilize on the hype of the new audience. For example Sonic 2. Then, they feast on their new found herd of cattle; draining them for every penny they've gone. Lastly, as they're now satisfied, bored of their old meal, and craving more, they go back to step one to once again go on the hunt and seek out new sheep to replenish their herd with fresh, new meat.

I name these 3 target markets:
1. New Potential fans
2. Hype Train People
3. Loyal fansIn my marketing classing I learned businesses actually think and identify groups like this, so I wouldn't be surprised if they actually had some sort of official targets like these. Anyway, here's how it looks when applied to the games.

Sonic 1: New Potential fans
Sonic 2: Hype Train People
Sonic 3: Loyal fans
Sonic Adventure 1: New, potential fans
Sonic Adventure 2: Hype Train people
Sonic Hereos: Loyal fans of Classics
Shadow: New People
Sonic 06: Hype from Shadow's game
Sonic Unleashed: Loyal Fans of Adventure games
Sonic Colors: New Nintendo, casual fans
Sonic Generations: Hype Train of "Sonic's finally good again"
Sonic Lost World: Fans of Sonic Colors
Sonic Boom: New
Sonic Runners?: Hype?
Sonic Boom 2? For Boom Fans? Adventure 3 because boom failed?: Fans?

There's a lot of conclusion we can draw from this. The most mind bloggling of them to fans who see the classic games as the same is that No, Sonic Adventure 1 & 2 are relatively nothing like a Sonic game, as defined by it's predecessors. Yep, that's right the Sonic Adventure 1, the critically acclaimed, fan favorite. The magnus opum of Sonic games was nothing like one. SA1 was a drastically different type of game. The six playstyles and characters was to have broad appeal. It was nothing like a classic Sonic game. It was more or less an "Open World", RPG, inspired by the genesis games rather than a direct sequel to them. Sonic Heroes was the first serious attempt to make a genesis Sonic game into 3d outside of 3d blast. SA1 did exactly what Sonic Boom attempted to do, in other words it introduced new fans (myself included) who at this point have taken over the fandom. It's a good thing for us adventure fans, that Sonic Boom was a flop, if it was a success we'd have found ourselves in the midst of a serious Sonic civil war. A multifactioned war, even more severe than any current disputes within us.

A second conclusion is that the hype train games are the most well known, and so far according to my capacity to perceive the public opinion that idea seems to hold up. Sonic 2, Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic 06, and Sonic Generations are the most well known Sonic games.
A third conclusion is that Sonic 06 is the slammed out the door sequel to capitolize on the success of Shadow the Hedgehog. In a lot of way this statement is correct. It focused on realistic, high fidelity, graphics (something that call of duty and halo fans tend to care a lot about) the story revolves around Shadow. It focuses on hedgehogs in the campaigns and not Tails or Knuckles, so people who only played Shadow's game won't be confused. Shadow's gameplay in 06 was designed to bring back elements from Shadow the Hedgehog. From magazine articles and from when I first played 06 and all other clues, I didn't feel like the game was for me, a fan of the adventure games, but towards the typical Sony and Xbox gamer. The game, it's story. I didn't know it was supposed to be a sequel or connected to the adventure games it felt like a reboot to me.

Another conclusion is that Sonic Unleashed was clearly marketed and made for Adventure fans more than anything else. Even outside of the pattern it was almost called Sonic Adventure 3. As someone who has been introduced to Sonic with the Adventure games, Unleashed feels the closest to a third adventure game.

From there, and the ending of Sonic Boom, it looks like a sequel for Boom might actually be in the works, or at the very least it looks like that's what was planned until Boom and Big Red Button failed. The sheep are wising up to the player's tricks and they're getting old, so I wonder what the Sega has up their sleeve now.

The Future of Game Consoles

A bit off topic, but I can relate it Sonic as it was me pondering about the direction of Sonic that lead to these ideas....

Instead of Nintendo DS's we need Nintendo phones that play's all you favorites. Instead of home entertainment consoles we need home entertainment Nintendo and Sony tablets that plug into your tv and that you can play with friends. Instead of Play Station One and Xbox 4 we need official playstation and xbox gaming pc's that run operating systems like windows, and can use word documents and google chrome and such. Basically, the big 3 gaming companies need to make their gaming devices more functional and practical if they want to remain relevent much longer into the future. It feels like too much of an investment to now only spend over 60 dollars per game, but then to also have to buy this device that serves you no other practical purpose, but to entertain your and play the expensive game you bought. It'd save people a lot their reserves and money if this strategy was implemented. 

I've actually thought of the idea and wanted it for almost a decade now, but I'd really like to have a phone that also plays Nintendo games and such. It's still socially unacceptable and embarassing to be seen in public playing a gaming handheld. There's no problem with this with phones. They can't see what you're doing. For all they know I could crafted my master thesis for the killer presentation I'm going  to make to my boss later; So suck you social stigmatizing #$%^#$%$! Buy a Nintendo laptop or a Sony gaming pc would also solve another one of my problems; Feeling like a wasteful spend thrift when I buy a dedicated gaming machine. Not only do I feel bad because it's expensive, but I also feel bad because the entire reason and purpose I'm getting this horribly expensive device is because I want to waste time mindlessly mashing buttons as things happen on screen. It's like needing to spend over dollars on a cack making machine. You can't feel good about yourself for buying it, but; however, if it said crack making machine also produces vegetables.....then you're a golden eagle!

Yeah, so now how this all come from thinking about Sonic...yeah about that....well you see, it all starts with a conversation about Sonic, but it ends with a conversation about drugs. Thinking about Sonic always leads to a maniac depressive drug addiction to cope with the pain...I don't see the current direction of Sonic or Nintendo as hatred or abandonment of the fans or hardcore gamers. No, with my understanding of economics, marketing, personality, and the big picture, I can clearly see that they've been making highly informed and extremely calcuated decision in hopes of making as much money possible. Shocking I know, but here's what makes me think this. 

Consider how many people bought the last generation of gaming consoles, and then consider how many bought them now in comparision. It's a HUGE difference. Last generation has outsold this current one by a factor of 9 ! or even over 20 in the case of Nintendo! Game consoles five to seven years ago were selling 9 times the amount of game consoles today, wow. That's some massive deflation right there. The direction and popularity of gaming is changing, and both Sega and Nintendo realize this. They've seen ahead and been aware of this shift in the direction of gaming for a long time, and have been planning, preparing, and executing for it. Sonic Colors sold financially well consider the time and the fact that it only sold on one console. Sega took that as feedback that it's aesthitica style and casual Mario esque gameplay was what Nintendo fans like and would come to expect from now on. Lost World was once again a Nintendo Exclusive and was meant to have the same look and style of Sonic Colors for the purpose of mass identification and marketing. My point being is that they have been choosing how to make the games almost purely off of marketable and appealing the game with be the masse audiences. Basically they were designing purely out to have the most calculated chance of success. Actually if you think back that's almost always been their approach; superficial marketable appeal to the mass audiences. 

The quality of a game almost doesn't matter for sales numbers because I'm not going to know just how terrible a game is until I after I buy and at that point it's too late to return it and get my money back.  At least that used to be the caes. It used to not matter. With gamers becoming wiser and thinking to check internet reviews and word of mouth more often. A game's poor quality is indeed a problem. The best example of this being Sonic Boom. Unless new comers were to find out about the game purely from tv and then immediately go buy if without looking it up, then sure the quality of the game would matter; however if the whole point is to hook more fans into the series then how is giving them an unpolished game going to convince them to keep coming back for more. Even moments into the game, it looks bad from a superficial level which is just as deep as a person goes when it comes to something new and is all it takes to deter them since they were leerly or expectant of it anyway. So Sega and Nintendo aren't stupid in calculation they're geniouses at that, they're stupid because they are short-sighted and can't see the big picture of things. Since Nintendo makes sure to polish their games and works hard to maintain good customer relations, they're much better at having foresight and looking ahead. Treating your dedicated fans poorly is a sure way to die in the long-run. So, Nintendo doesn't struggle with that, they struggle with looking at the big picture much more.

Gamification

Google search, "Extra Credits: Gamification" for the original videos that started this train of thought and to learn more about this topic.

I find that one of the best ways games teach us is through trial and error. I think we should be allowed to take everything in a classroom setting and still be rewarded with points, homework assignment, quizzes, test, projects.etc I really learn a lot from being tested and getting questions wrong. A lot a people do. It's actually sort of exciting to get a test back and see what you got wrong, and after the experience of getting a question wrong, I then know exactly how to do it right; but this never gets reflected in my grade or anyone's grade which makes the grading system a horrible and inaccurate system.

The best format for learning, in my opinion, would be to lecture, have guided practice, independent practice then be tested and retest until everyone understands. It might be a good idea to throw out the ability to fail altogether. Make it so that a person simply completes the class or he/she doesn't complete a class. Make it so that a person must pass all the tests to get any credit for it, but they can attempt the tests as many times as needed. Just like how boss fights can be attempted over and over until the proper method of defeating him is used. If there were no grades, yes, total points wouldn't matter but that's a good thing.

Points should not determine your final grade just as the level of your character in a game doesn't determine if you have beaten the final boss. Points show that you are more likely to succeed when it comes to passing a test, but they don't guarantee it. Making this change is the best change to the structure of a class that could be made.

Currently we have a system similar to Super Mario Land 2: The six golden coins except worse. The school as it stand now, in particular to college, is that a person has to go for 8-16 weeks, respectively, without serious failures otherwise they have to retake the entire class for it to count for anything, and most likely, it wasn't every aspect of the class that tripped them up, but specific parts of it. Super Mario Land could be completed in a much shorter time than a college class, and it could be completed at a person's own pace unlike a college class. In it death, losing all lives, meant all the bosses had to be beaten again which is sort of like having to take a class over again. It's not necessary to make a person beat the first boss that super easy every time they can't beat the super hard levels.

This would also motivate people to study and do research. I've spent tons of time researching how to beat or complete certain aspects of games. If I was allowed to retake a test and I keep failing it, I'd spend a bunch of time studying what I got wrong.

This is exactly what many good games do. Super Mario RPG for example. First it starts with what you know Mario saving Peach from Bowser, then it sets the stage for the new adventure. It tells the objective of the whole game from the beginning, defeat the giant sword and get the seven stars. After that it has toad give you some instructions on how to play. Directly after giving instructions the game helps you apply them with a guided practice. So we have been told what to do and to make sure we understood, we have been hand guided through the process, and they make this part of the game optional for those who already knew, which is the beauty of it. After this the player has a chance to practice their new battle skills on enemies without any assistance from the game. So, the player gets to battle some enemies earn experience which compares to class/homework and points. Then the boss fight comes, tests, and it's more difficult as it requires the player to have LEARNED how to play the game good enough to beat it, but doesn't it just seem silly if a game forced you to continue even if you didn't beat the boss, and if you failed to beat enough bosses at the end you didn't beat the game? What the point of having boss fights if regardless of your performance you progress? It seems silly to me, but this is actually how classes operate.

If you managed to read all of this you are awesome and I thank you for hearing me out."

Sonic World is More like Super Mario Sunshine than Galaxy

Despite the obviousness of it's similarities to galaxy. This game is a lot like Sunshine perhaps even more than it is like galaxy. This game has the most moves and ways for Sonic to interact with in environment in the series, the levels are very open so there's a lot of exploration, both involve the player visiting a isolated new place, the biggest gimmick of the games is an addition to the characters permanent moveset (FLUDD/parkour) for the game; The list goes on. Although, this game could use more of Sunshine's spacious level design since

Sonic is finally properly geared up to make exploration and scaling structures styled platforming fun. These levels feel too small with too little scaleable objects and other interact pieces, for all the crazy things Sonic can do. Large non tubular, with more scaling, and less death pits, levels would be much appreciated here.