Really appreciate everyone who's supported Himari so far. I care a shit ton about this game, and it motivates me so much that others do too.

Am I really forced to remove everything cool from himari because sonic did it first? What kind of game would that be? Just a walking simulator. No rolling, no ninja run animations, no floating yellow collectables. Sounds like shit

Some people have the impression that Sonic has a strict hold on several broad game mechanics: moving fast, rolling (Odyssey, metroid, etc did it too), slopes and ramps?!?! so they treat any ip in inspiration as a "fake." If this were the case, every new ip would be pretty lame.

I don't think many people realize the pain of someone first seeing Himari. "Wow nice game looks like sonic!" like thanks but how about: "Nice game bro." I know I'll never escape this impression but I urge everyone to view Himari separate from sonic (to an extent).

I want to do so much more than enhance the gameplay formula of sonic. I want to tell a new story, create new characters, and write new banger indie rock tracks. If you go into himari as a sonic fan, you'll like it. But i want other people to like it even more. Himari isn't a sonic game, it's a game.

I can't lie that everytime Himari is compared to sonic, a bit of me explodes. It IS my main inspiration, but as undertale is to earthbound. Himari is more than a derivative work.

I only hope that Himari will be thematically and visually unique enough from the modern representation of sonic, that it'll be treated differently. Unfortunately RR went for a full cartoon artstyle and a light-hearted story (i think). Which may be attracting the smooth brain commenters.

Well it is a bad model but the camera isn't helping.

Another thing is incentive and wonder. Notice the reward above is visible to the lower path. This gets the player thinking "Wait how do I get up there? There's something cool up there i want to go back and get up there" Remember, the jump hasn't been taught yet. So it creates wonder.

Also notice the slanted walls. That's to push the player to their goal if they're really shit. I don't want anyone getting caught on walls yet.

Also the point of the uphill "punishment" is meant to infer that this player may be inexperienced. So I slow them down uphill so that they'll be more prepared/ready to see the next obstacle.

Paths won't always converge in a linear way. This is just the tutorial, so I'm purposefully keeping the player going linear to focus on teaching the fundamentals. Later on, I'll introduce paths that branch farther. You gotta start simple though.

That leads to gimmicks which are cool but inconsistent. Mechanics need to be consistent, which is why abilities are so hard to make. They have to be applicable as much as possible throughout the game, so that the level design isn't restrained to certain mechanics. Gimmicks are often a one and done.

Ex: The first mandatory rolling section will force you down a slope into a stack of boxes or enemies. Naturally showing it to be possible. Then it's a matter of keeping that idea intuitive, by including it under other mechanics.

Yeah but those aren't really "abilities." Currently you can do that stuff when you're rolling, running above a threshold, or stomping. Therefore, making that action a sub-mechanic that can be taught along with each ability's introduction.

The only "ability" important enough to go in the first level is rolling. Since I included it technically with momentum as a mechanic.

Its gotten to the point where if I want to remain organized with my level design, I'll have to release the demo with 3 separate stages, just so players can actually learn about boosting, skidding, rail grinding, hydroplaning, stomping, etc.

As of writing this, the tutorial/first stage is focused solely on moving the character. There is literally no space for teaching any other game mechanic since moving has like 3 sub mechanics that are super complicated on their own (Controls, momentum, terrain).