[PC2]

I take it you've never played Bridge Zone. :/

Interestingly, Bridge Zone was conceived in the early 90's and wasn't made of rectangles. I'm beginning to notice a familiar pattern here, so I'll just wait for someone to respond with something other than "I like Sonic Colors stfu" before giving more thoughts. You guys are way too angry today.

@PC2: I love Donkey Kong Country Returns. Hell, I'd say it is one of the best platformers I have ever played. However, it does NOT have over 100 levels, don't kid yourself. The 70+ levels in it are of higher quality with more to do and see in them than Colors', but to say that there are 100 over levels is a blatant lie. I personally prefer DKCR to Colors and believe it to be a much better game, but it's silly to just lie about it.

I'm sorry, I overestimated. I forget the actual number, but I know that it's way more than 36-51. I refuse to count the silly Sonic 1 hackjobs, though.

I still love you~

[TimmiT]

Why is Mario suddenly in space? What's with the bunnies? What happened to Peach's Castle? Was she captured by Darth Vader or something? And because I know someone's going to say it, no, this doesn't count, as it's an interactive cutscene. Colors literally starts you out in the first level of the game with no prologue of any sort or backstory, which doesn't come until two levels in. What? They may as well have not even made a Disc Channel screen.

Colors doesn't start at the beginning of the story because it doesn't need to. A story can also start just after the beginning or in the middle and explain what happened later on, which is what little story Colors has does.
Also, the game starts with a level because most people don't care about what happens in a Sonic game. They just want to play the game, not see Sonic go HERP DERP I'MA GONNA BEAT ROBO-I MEAN EGGMAN'S BUTT SOME MORE.

Sonic 1 didn't need a cutscene to explain that Eggman is the bad guy, why would Colors need one?

This post has been edited by TimmiT: 20 March 2011 - 01:33 PM

[DigitalDuck]

-pic-

I still love you~

Welp. Looks like I have a fourth wife.

Also, aren't you the one with the hate? I thought liking the game we're discussing kinda ruled me out there.

This post has been edited by DigitalDuck: 20 March 2011 - 01:39 PM

[Dark Sonic]

Sonic Colors kind of has an opening cutscene, although it's not shown until after Tropical Resort Act 2 I believe. However whining about how the game lacks an opening cutscene in a Sonic game is kinda crap. I mean, for fucks sake who cares why Sonic just happens to be there. Would you rather they try Robotnik unveiling this week's monster again?

Now after this discussion I decided to complete challenge mode again. And some complaints made are certainly valid. A lot of levels consist of reused level geometry, those levels made slightly differemt via powerups or rectangular platforms and blocks. Honestly they probably could have got away with taking out 2 levels per world and perhaps making a 7th world. There is also the fact that the bosses, while slightly original, are only as such the first time you fight them, not the second. And no it doesn't have as many levels as a lot of other games out there.

But it's still a fun game, and you can make it longer by finding the red rings, or by trying to rank S everything. And the game world levels are a nice little distraction (Why are you so butt hurt that 6 of them are slight nods to Sonic 1 levels PC2 I really don't understand it). Was Sonic Team a bit cautious when making this one? Probably. However I'm going to let it slide because this is the type of game that Sonic's needed since forever. A solid base foundation for future games.

Also IIRC this game was made by the same team that made the Story book games... which were crap. Then they made something which was actually pretty good. So if they made this I'm hoping that the Unleashed team is currently busy making something like this but on steroids.

Also just to throw this out there, would DKCR be any worse of a game if it didn't have an opening cutscene where, OH SHIT TIKIS DONE STOLE MAH NANNERS? No it wouldn't. Wouldn't be better without it either. It's just there. I don't see why we have to care.

This post has been edited by Dark Sonic: 20 March 2011 - 01:48 PM

[MegaDash]

I take it you've never played Bridge Zone. :/

Interestingly, Bridge Zone was conceived in the early 90's and wasn't made of rectangles. I'm beginning to notice a familiar pattern here, so I'll just wait for someone to respond with something other than "I like Sonic Colors stfu" before giving more thoughts. You guys are way too angry today.

Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware the rest of my post after that brief comment could be summed up with "I like Sonic Colors stfu." Thanks for sideswiping my questions and criticisms, bro. You're a real cool bro and we all iz just raeging.

[Ritz]

Not repeating the same mistakes Sonic Team has made time and time again is an act of cowardice. Sonic Colors is bad because they didn't pad it out with bullshit like every other 3D Sonic game. Sonic Colors is also bad because the first thing you experience when the game starts is the actual fucking game instead of a cutscene, even though you get one of those just a few stages later. This is bad because I need to immediately be told exactly what's taking place in the inconsequential story or I get disoriented and the game becomes impossible to enjoy. The game is a sloppy cut-and-paste take on Sonic 1 (6 tiny bonus levels out of about 40 stages) and Mario because there's a scrolling level. Sonic Team tried to make it look like Unleashed 2, Sonic 4, and the best thing since sliced bread at the same time to ensure sales, even though Unleashed is the only game mentioned in the article I linked and the tone isn't particularly sensational. This is deceptively misleading to me because I didn't bother to watch any trailers.

Bridge Zone wasn't made of rectangles.

I can't even reply to any of this. This is one of the most exasperatingly retarded discussions I've yet read in General Sonic Discussion. Sonic Colors is just barely a good game, and there are legitimate complaints to be leveled against it, but I don't think you've touched on any of them! All I'm reading here is just bullshit upon bullshit.

[PC2]

Sonic 1 didn't need a cutscene to explain that Eggman is the bad guy, why would Colors need one?

A post-1998 game with no opening cutscene is like a 1990 game with no title screen. It's called presentation. Colors is so sloppy it doesn't even have one.

(Why are you so butt hurt that 6 of them are slight nods to Sonic 1 levels PC2 I really don't understand it)

Slight nods ≠ six whole acts pulled directly from the original game. SA2 had a reimagined GHZ in 3D as a little anniversary present if you complete everything in the game. This is taking it way too far.

Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware the rest of my post after that brief comment could be summed up with "I like Sonic Colors stfu."

You're exact sentiments were, and I quote, "deal with it", followed by a sarcastic summation of my own complaints.

I'm not even trolling and some of you guys are literally foaming with rage. I let it get too cozy in this thread while gallivanting around the rest of the forum. Try and keep it together, we were getting some good discussion going last time. If you want to have better conversations around here, if you're sick of all the douchebaggery, you've got to try harder than this. Mods, don't trash any of this. I'm not leaving until we get more meaningful discussion out of it.

Again, my intentions aren't to offend anyone or condemn people who like this game, but to get some insightful thought going.

This post has been edited by PC2: 20 March 2011 - 02:02 PM

[Ritz]

We can't have a meaningful discussion when we're not discussing meaningful things. A game doesn't need an opening cutscene. A game doesn't need cutscenes at all. A game doesn't even need a title screen, really! 6 optional bonus levels are in no way a deal breaker. 6 optional bonus levels and a few recycled classic enemies don't count towards nostalgia pandering when they're not even worth a bullet point on the back of the box.

What the hell is this discussion even about? This is all beyond worthless.

EDIT: GTA4 was a blockbuster. It doesn't have a title screen.

This post has been edited by Ritz: 20 March 2011 - 02:15 PM

[Herm the Germ]

I'unno about you guys, but this constant throwing around of "good game or not" seems kinda pointless when handled as fact, since it's impossible to be fact -- it's a subjective matter, really. That said, I'm on the side of things that think of it as a good game. If one doesn't like it, however, I also wouldn't blame 'em.

That said, the whole opening cutscene thing isn't really all that necessary, as, two levels in, you do get a flashback to what happened and how they ended up where they were, so, no big deal, really, if ye ask me. Sonic Unleashed might as well have started with a new Egg Fleet type of level and culminated in that scene of Eggman fighting Sonic in his new giant robot. The feel of the game would likely be the same (though, thinkin' about it, it woulda been kinda awesome to have that kind of cold start. : D )

[STHX]

So pray tell, why should a Wii game that's smaller than a Dreamcast game warrant full retail price and receive critical acclaim across the board? Next you're going to tell me that Ocarina of Time should've been re-released physically on as a Wii disc.

I have no idea what the last part is supposed to mean. However, what you say about the price can be said for a lot of games, not only Colours. Just look at a generic game store: 50€, 60€, 70€. These are the prices nowadays, with the main exception being the DS. Colours is not long, but it's not even that short as you seem to believe. Galaxy and Returns are both longer than Colours, but they cost the same. I just bought Tactics Ogre for the PSP. Very long game with multuple routes and multiple endings, high replayability. I can easely put 50 hours in this game and probably even more, and it costs less than Colours (35€). It also costs less than Returns and Galaxy, even if it lasts more. So, with this in mind, they should be both overpriced. Personally, I think all games are overpriced, even the ones I like, even Galaxy and Returns. But I can still enjoy them

It wasn't multiplatform because it isn't up to par with other current-gen games and would've gotten a horrible reception without the crowd of other similar games on its platform to blend into- I mean "compete" with. Instead of marketing it honestly, Sonic Team tried to make it look like Unleashed 2, Sonic 4, and the best thing since sliced bread at the same time to ensure sales, even if the game plays like neither of those.

I'm not sure what you think that article said, so I'll just quote it:

Sonic Colors, Not Sonic 4, Is The Next Mainstream Sonic Action Game

The title says nothing about Colours being the "real Sonic 4".

Takashi Iizuka, Producer, pointed this out during a presentation and said Sonic Colors is the follow up to Sonic Unleashed. Other games like last year's Sonic and the Black Knight are branch titles.

Iizuuka, so Sega, said Colours is Unleashed 2. And it is: Boost/Boost gauge, drifting, how the Homing Attack works, 2D/3D switches, Big Act followed by gimmick Act. It is very similar to Unleashed. However, again the article says something different: It says Colours is the next "main title", not "Colours is Unleashed 2", just like Unleashed was the next after 2006, and yet it wasn't called Sonic The Hedgehog 2006 2 (or whatever), while Black Knight was just a spin-off, like Rivals.

The game itself is more of a sloppy copy-and-paste job of Sonic 1, Sonic Unleashed, and Super Mario Bros haphazardly thrown together to make a bland SNES-era platformer with no flow or life to it. I don't even know how anyone could call it a Sonic game if it weren't for the fact that every inch of it is plastered with pointless and overexaggerated "SONIC!!!" memorabilia. Sonic 4 may not be the best representation of a classic Sonic game, but we can at least agree that it doesn't go the completely opposite direction and pretend to be a complete different type of game. I can live with not enjoying a game that gives me the details outright, but don't sell me a can of beans with chicken soup inside.

Again, you make it sound like the whole game has been copied from other titles. As I said, there are those 6 Game Land Acts, but there are also 14 other Game Land Acts completely original. Just like there are the other planets. You can't call this a Sonic game? Fine:

Is this a Kirby game then? Is it part of the series? Yet it still has Kirby in the title, and it was marketed as the next Kirby game, and the first Kirby for the Wii.
I also don't understand the whole "Bland" argument. What defines bland for you? Lack of color, repetitive landscape, reusing resources? Colours doesn't look bland, it's colorful and has variety. Galaxy does it better? Returns does it better? Yes, no doubt, but that doesn't instantly make Colours shit. Is bland referred to the level design? Opinions. Colours, to me, doesn't look bland even if speaking about the level design. Starligh Carnival is all flashy and automated, Aquarium Park however is filled with alternate paths. Hell, even Tropical Resort has diverging paths. The game could have been better, but the stages are still well designed. Careful, I said well designed, not "The Best Ever Made!".

And to answer your question about Lost World, Retro didn't do it because unlike Sonic Team, they're actually confident enough to come up with new ideas to resurrect a franchise, and it worked smoothly. I really wanted to enjoy this game, but I knew from the start that something was off. As the months went by, excitement built, but there were those odd spikes like when Game Land was revealed that gave me a very "wtf" feeling inside. The more I played the game, the more I realized exactly what had happened. This isn't a Sonic game and it isn't even a mainstream-quality platformer. It's just Sonic Team's way of giving up on getting a good critical reception the fair way and the hard way. Let's just hope they never do it again.

I'm not saying "put the Lost World baaaawwwww", however, Retro could, read, could have made a whole world instead of just the final Golden Temple, I would have liked it more, but they still went with one final extra level. I still consider Returns one of my favorite platformers. And I'll tell you one thing: I didn't like Game Land. I vastly prefer the normal stages. They're there, but you don't have to play them. You still have to play as the Werehog to finish Unleashed, just as you have to fish in Adventure or playing as the Chaotix in Heroes. Game Land is "Extra", Night levels are not.
And, what the hell It's just Sonic Team's way of giving up on getting a good critical reception the fair way and the hard way supposed to mean? Do you think reviewers gave this game a good score because of Nostalgia, even if you said this game doesn't play like the classics? Or are you saying Sega bought reviewers? If the game was bland reviews would have been worse, critical reception would have been worse. Besides, Sega hasn't marketed Game Land as a collection of old Zones repacked together. This is something the players discovered by themselves.

Really, my head hurts. Is this whole thing a different way to say "I don't like the game and don't understand how you all like it"? Ah, forget it, I'll just leave this here:

[TimmiT]

Sonic 1 didn't need a cutscene to explain that Eggman is the bad guy, why would Colors need one?

A post-1998 game with no opening cutscene is like a 1990 game with no title screen. It's called presentation. Colors is so sloppy it doesn't even have one.

People just want to play the game, not see Sonic go HERP DERP I'MA GONNA BEAT ROBO-I MEAN EGGMAN'S BUTT SOME MORE at the start of the game.

Colors would probably be sloppier if it had an opening cutscene.

Also, I now regret making this thread.

This post has been edited by TimmiT: 20 March 2011 - 02:31 PM

[Dark Sonic]

Ah, forget it, I'll just leave this here:

Fucking awesome haha

[PC2]

What the hell is this discussion even about? This is all beyond worthless.

If that's the way you feel, you're only wasting your own time by posting. Like it or not, there are others here who are actually interested in discussing this game. "This is the most retarded discussion ever" contributes nothing to the discussion at hand. The reason you guys are constantly getting in circular arguments and actively achieving nothing is because of posts like this going back and forth with no actual substance. I want to have an actual conversation in this thread, not just brawling or endless praise. When you feel you're ready to contribute, you're welcome to discuss and debate.

In addition, a few of you seem to be blowing my comments out of proportion and completely misunderstanding me as a result. My current complaint isn't about the lack of opening cutscene or Game Land, it's about the way the game is being marketed, period. If you're still lost, re-read this post. Even then, my complaints with the game's actual design extend further than that, but I already posted those last time. It isn't about the game being good or not. It's about Sonic Team's questionable business ethics.

STHX, thank you for actually paying attention. Give me some time to digest your post so I can respond. Retro, please take STHX's post as an example of how to debate properly.

[Guess Who]

Why is Mario suddenly in space? What's with the bunnies? What happened to Peach's Castle? Was she captured by Darth Vader or something? And because I know someone's going to say it, no, this doesn't count, as it's an interactive cutscene. Colors literally starts you out in the first level of the game with no prologue of any sort or backstory, which doesn't come until two levels in. What? They may as well have not even made a Disc Channel screen.

guys I don't understand why is sonic in emerald hill zone, who is this fox, the game gives me no backstory or cutscenes or anything, it just throws me into the level, they may as well have not even made a title screen

They didn't ruin the game. They're just misleading advertising that takes advantage of people who wanted a completely different product. Colors wasn't even designed as a Sonic game or for Sonic fans, especially not older ones. If the generic level design is anything to go by, it rides on the success of the Mario franchise and the Wii's other popular platformers. It wasn't multiplatform because it isn't up to par with other current-gen games and would've gotten a horrible reception without the crowd of other similar games on its platform to blend into- I mean "compete" with. Instead of marketing it honestly, Sonic Team tried to make it look like Unleashed 2, Sonic 4, and the best thing since sliced bread at the same time to ensure sales, even if the game plays like neither of those.

Except it plays almost identically to Unleashed (granted, with far more emphasis on 2D sections), and aside from HERPDERP BEING IN SPACE, has nothing in common with Mario level design. Before you say anything: your "THEY TOOK DESIGN FROM SMB3" comparison is so shallow and full of shit that it wasn't worth posting. They had almost literally nothing in common.

The game itself is more of a sloppy copy-and-paste job of Sonic 1, Sonic Unleashed, and Super Mario Bros haphazardly thrown together to make a bland SNES-era platformer with no flow or life to it. I don't even know how anyone could call it a Sonic game if it weren't for the fact that every inch of it is plastered with pointless and overexaggerated "SONIC!!!" memorabilia. Sonic 4 may not be the best representation of a classic Sonic game, but we can at least agree that it doesn't go the completely opposite direction and pretend to be a complete different type of game. I can live with not enjoying a game that gives me the details outright, but don't sell me a can of beans with chicken soup inside.

You're a fucking tool. The game plays just like Unleashed (plus wisps). I don't even know what the fuck you're going on about anymore.

So pray tell, why should a Wii game that's smaller than a Dreamcast game warrant full retail price and receive critical acclaim across the board? Next you're going to tell me that Ocarina of Time should've been re-released physically on as a Wii disc.

Portal was four hours long and still better than most other games from the past decade. Granted, it wasn't full price. But the length of the game has little bearing on the quality; I'd much sooner pay full price for five to eight hours of quality Sonic than for a forty hour grindfest like, say, FFXIII. If you're looking for a good bang:buck ratio, there's much worse titles in that regard than Colors.

The main game in DKCR is over 100 levels, each of which are much longer than Colors's puny acts that try to impress with vast-looking aesthetic appeal that you can never actually explore. There is way more to collect in comparison and unlocking Mirror Mode is a feat in and of itself. The average player could get almost half of the Red Rings on his or her first run through if it weren't for the nonsensical restrictions on the Wisps made to make the game seem longer. At least Sun and Moon medals required some effort, and even without them Unleashed game is still longer than Colors. The night levels are part of the game, so I would hope they have some sort of length to them.

You're right, the Sun and Moon Medals did require effort, and the night levels had length to them. These are not positives. Both of those things were what ruined Unleashed, on account of them being fucking boring. Colors cut out the filler and was a much better game for it.

[Sparks]

Outside of the internet, the only "marketing" I saw was this on TV a few times: