Sonic 1 and 2 getting the Sonic CD treatment by Taxman and Stealth

Which raises the question, what part of Sonic Boom does Stealth want us to support, the TV show, the Wii U game or the 3DS one? Would it count just to watch the TV show?

 

Let's put it this way...

Do you think Japan cared about how popular SatAM, AoStH, and Underground were?

 

I think now's a good time to bring this up...

These aren't ports! According to everyone else around here, they're remasterings or remakes... which I still disagree with.

Ports would mean that the code from the original game is used, only fashioned to work on different hardware. Let's go deeper, if the ported game was the same as the original (no new features introduced in the port), then it's a One-For-One Port (or just "a port"). Think of the 360 - PS3 Generations ports. If the port did introduce new or improved features, then it's an Enhanced Port. Think of Sonic Adventure DX, or Ocarina of Time 3D.

Anyway, the Retro Engine is a new engine built from the ground up, right? So it's not a port. It's as much of a port as Somari. What is Somari, by the way? A Clone. It's not as accurate as Taxman and Stealth's work, but more on that later.

Okay, well, what about this 'remake' stuff that's being passed around? From the remakes I've seen, remakes are supposed to a reimagining of the original, with every component of the game revisited and redone; new code, new engine, redone music, visuals, even minor storyline details. Think of Resident Evil REmake or Mega Man Powered Up or Metroid Zero Mission or Cave Story 3D.

Okay, well these Sonic "remakes" have the same graphics and mechanics, and the music is far from 'remade', too. It's closer to, dare I say, 'remastered'. As a game, they're the same games, only slightly expanded, instead of completely overhauled. That's not what a remake is!

'Remastering'... You got me there, I have no idea what you people mean by that. I've seen people who describe 'Remastering' as a synonym for 'Enhancement' (Sonic 1 REV01), and other's who'd say it's a synonym for 'Remake'. I dunno. Still, the name alone is enough to make me feel there's some kind of contradiction. Why aren't the graphics "remastered"? They're just blurred, in some cases they're corrected (S1 Eggman Signpost).

Now, how 'bout them Clones? Games with an engine totally different from the originals, yet the resultant gameplay is the same, or at the very least, similar. Let's look again at Somari, with no doubt, it's similar to Sonic 1, only with a different engine and dragged down by programming and hardware limitations, and for some reason sporting Mario, though I'm not sure if this changes my point. It's a far from accurate Clone, but one nonetheless. But did Somari have a startup menu, one that gave you access to multiple save slots? Did it allow you to play as a flying, or a gliding character? Well, doesn't that make the Taxman-Stealth series a bunch of far-from-accurate Clones, also? I wouldn't say so in that tone...

So, here's what I think these games are: Enhanced Clones. These games could easily have fully imitated the originals, the physics work, the graphic are practically untouched, the wav audio could have just been a recording of the original tracks, it was all possible, but they didn't: They have menus, more characters, ruined foreverremastered music. Just take the qualities of a Clone and an Enhancement/Enhanced Port, and jigsaw them together, and you get these games' formula.

 

Yeah, but why?

 

people called the zx spectrum version of outrun a port so why wouldn't you do that here

 

Well, is the Spectrum version of Outrun a port?

 

Clones are defined as being unlicensed, bootlegged, or otherwise illegitimate copies of games, and indeed systems. These games were brought over by the company who made the original games. Wouldn't you call the Super Mario Bros All Stars pack a port of SMB, SMB2, SMBLL and SMB3 a port? The important defining thing here (at least for calling these excellent games clones) is in the legitimacy, rather than the technology isn't it?

 

I've never disagreed with anyone who called it as such

 

If, from a technical standpoint, it is a port, then it should be called a port. The point is that these aren't.

I guess that's where the term 'remastered' comes in, then? But where is 'Clone' defined as 'third party', outside of the derogative which I'm not using? I just mean that technically, it's an imitation, not 'the actual thing'. I'm not talking about legitimacy as a successor or anything. Though, looking around, I've seen one instance of 'Clone' and 'Remake' following the idea of "If the original is still alive, then it's a clone, otherwise, it's a revival." Though, what does that make third party clones that are developed in an age where the initial product is obsolete, like the NX Engine, a self-titled "Engine Clone"? As for All Stars, of course I'd call them 'ports', as long as they are ports at least. I know for a fact SMB3 is a port. It was my understanding that these names were were maker-neutral: Sonic CD required a port of Sonic 1, and the actual Sonic 1 for Sega CD project is a port.

So far my understanding is that 'Clone', 'Enhanced Clone ', and 'Remake' are the same thing, only on a scale: How much, and in what manner, does the imitation differ from the original product?

EDIT: I probably missed your point. I don't see "Clone" as an insult, just the factual identity of these games relative to their originals. The Sonic 1 I play on my Mega Drive is the original, the one I play on my inaccurate emulator is the slightly-less-prone-to-crashes emulation of the original, the one I play on my mobile is the slightly different, buggy-in-its-own-areas-but-bug-free-in-others enhanced clone of the original.

 

Super Mario All-Stars games were legitimately ports based on the original NES assembly code though. (I know someone did a comparison of one of the games at an assembly level somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.) So it's not the best example to compare to this if you were trying to illustrate that they were re-made from scratch.

On the other hand, I think the GBA versions were re-created in C, but I'm not positive on that.

 

I like to say that they're remastered. The music is cleaner than ever before (Seriously, I hear things in these that I've never noticed before), there are many visual fixes and enhancements (Widescreen, fluid movement on the Stardust Speedway spotlights), they have added areas and characters, and they have added in new modes and options (multiple soundtracks in Sonic CD 2011, anyone?). These are the makings of a remaster. Same thing, just touched up. (You could say "enhanced", too, since there are NEW features.)

Secondly, this is NOT a clone. Clones are when there is a game B that plays like game A, however, the clone B does not have the same characters, music, etc. as game A, but was clearly inspired by it.

AND, I know what Somari is, it is a clone, and nothing like a remake or remaster, and you should be ashamed to compare these remastered games to it.

So, I'd call it a remaster. However, if you wanna make stupidly complicated classifications, then you can call it an Enhanced Remaster. :v:

 

I already said they were Enhanced :P So you're one of the people who bunch Remaster with Enhance.

Where? Where is Clone defined as 'third party rip off that dances around copywrite'?!

You know what, Official Enhanced Clone. No one has noticed that Official Clones are a real thing?

Oh for crying out loud, you're not seriously getting mad that I used a logical comparison? Of course Somari isn't a remake, it's a Clone, it's comparable to these games because of their status so far to me as Enhanced Clones. If Somari had additional levels and were maybe more accurate, it would be one as well.

"Stupidly complicated"?! It's not complicated at all! It's simple classification! You know what, you can't just shoot it down with 'it's stupid'. And 'Enhanced Remastering' is redundant, since, according to you, the two words mean the same thing.

I'd be comfortable with Remastering, but, the whole 'built from the ground up' just... doesn't fit it for me. I imagined it meaning Enhancement of the Original, like that NES Donkey Kong Anniversary version with the additional level. But that just goes back to the word, "I Remastered this very chair by making a new one that looks like it only better". I'm just taking words literally by this point. None of the implied nonsense about illegitimacy, or insulting undertones. That's why Remastering confuses me, at least the common definition of every other word made sense, but this one? Take digital remastering, for example, say a Disney Classic, they aren't totally remade from scratch, they're just the original, only neatened up. To me, all of those noob hacks which are just stock Sonic 1 or 2 with the SCHG bugfixes applied were remasters.

 

It's a conversion.

 

I donno, although I don't own a Wii U or a 3DS or whatever, I've been wonder if it'd be worth buying the games to at least supply the support.

 

1) Sorry I missed that you said "enhanced". I DID read your posts, I guess I missed that part. :/

2) There is no official definition, it's the meaning it has gained over time. Weather you like the connotations it comes with or not, they are there, and should be considered in the classification. If I may use a somewhat extreme example, it's sort of like using some sort of racial slur and then saying "I'm just referring to his/her race! Ignore the negative meaning this word has accumulated over the years!" That's not to say that calling something a "clone" is like using the"n-word", it's just a LOGICAL comparison about the baggage a word can carry. />

And, sure official clones are a thing, but not really in games. The only company I can think of to do that is Hanna-Barbera with things like the Smurfs and the Snorks, or one of their 12 shows with "mettling kids!" However, in games, no such thing exists to my knowledge. Can you name an example? (I'm honestly curious. :P ) I can say, unequivocally, that these Sonic Remasters are not "clones" as they feature too much that's the same. Even though Somari (Which I think we can both agree is a clone) does not feature the same level designs or character designs. Regardless of the addition of Knuckles & Tails to Sonic 1, it still has the same Sonic gameplay.

3)And, I'm not ACTUALLY angry. I thought that over-the-top fist-shaking emoticon was enough to show that. :P However, I really don't think it's a fair comparison because the remasters are not clones, they are the same game with a different code base. Clones always have enough things changed to make it different, for copyright-dogging reasons or not, official or not. Different characters, different level deigns, different (if similar) art assets. Somari features SIMILAR level art. Sonic CD/1/2 remastered feature 95% identical art assets. (The remaining 5% being things that were enhanced).

4)"Stupidly complicated" Sorry, I just think it's kinda silly to come up with multi-termed classifications for these games just because the code has been redone. Personally, I can't even tell the difference gameplay-wise, so I don't see why it's all that important to call it anything besides a remaster. However, I did decide to participate in the conversation, so consider this point a victory. />

5) However, after reading ICEKnight's post, what about an official classification of an ENHANCED CONVERSION? "Enhanced" can address all of the changes, be them fixes, additions, or visual upgrades. "Conversion" can address the fact that the engine is different. I'll still call it a "remaster" for short (Just like I call a canis familiaris a Dog), but I think that's fairly precise while being all-encompassing as to what these remasters are.

...What do you think?

 

*sigh* fine I'll support Sonic Boom I like you guys too much, Hopefully this means the S3 port/remake or your own game out of this.

Is it cool I'd just buy the 3DS version or does it have to be both?

 

I'd buy the 3DS version to support Stealth, Taxman and Richard Jacques.

 

Well, both Booms at least should be better than lost world 3ds. Awful game.