Sonic Unleashed

24-bit then, but if you're using paint you can't export to grayscale jpeg, damn

Sorry for being annoying :\

 

Game Informer review guys. Make of it what you will... http://www.gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/B269...B3B5C9819F4.htm

Yeah. They say the Wii version is superior due to better level design... somehow I'm doubting this but hey, it is someone's opinion. Just throwing it out there.

What bothers me more is their information that apparently the 360 version of the game is only 1/3 Sonic levels. Let's hope this is misinformation.

 

They don't. In fact, if I recall, the PS2 version of the game is $30; the PS3 version, in contrast, is about double that price. The Wii and PS2 versions are identical outside of player control, so the lowest amount of money they can make off that game is $30. I don't know how much a standard Wii game is—probably about $50—but the fact that they can still make $20 less from it is an important factor to keep in mind.

I already covered this. It's not about intentionally crippling, it's about putting a significantly less amount of effort into the game. One could percieve this as intentionally crippling—if they removed daytime levels like some people are saying, then it definitely is intentional crippling. Otherwise, see the Sonic GBA example I raised earlier.

System demographic, perhaps? It could also have something to do with the Wii's control scheme; is any more advantage taken of it in the Wii version?

 

There's no evidence to support your assertion as is completely illogical outside of the scope of an audience that spends every moment researching games and looking at everything available before making a purchase decision.

If I played Sega Superstars Tennis on DS, I'd want to play the PS3 version since it definitely seems better. If Joe Somebody plays Sonic Unleashed Wii and is lukewarm about it, what makes you think he's gonna want to buy the EXACT same game twice on a different system? I mean, there's nothing in the marketing to push this supposed assertion that the 360/PS3 versions are superior, so how would Joe Somebody come to this conclusion. Videos? Yeah right, if they even bothered to look. Commercials? Doubtful.

You could claim that they did that to convince people like us, in which case I'd have to laugh at Sega for being so stupid as to intentionally gimp a game that will appear on a system that has sold 30 million units worldwide and almost as many as the PS3/360 combined, all in order to wring some more money from the 1000 people who would even bother to notice such a strategy, all the while screwing over the 1000000 other people who don't give a shit otherwise.

It's a stupid stupid assertion the whole way through.

 

I think someone posted that... I remember reading it. Interesting about the daytime levels being only 1/3 of the game though. Yeah I hope it's not correct

Did Sega actually say 50/50 at one point?

 

No, 60/40, with 60 being daytime.

 

Removing levels is by far, one of the most retarded choices Sega has ever made. On Friday, Wii and PS2 owners were dazzled by Empire City. Then, Sega decides to announce "Yeah, we're taking one of the coolest levels out of the Wii and PS2 versions, instead, it'll be in the PS3 and 360 versions." Seriously, one would wonder what the hell they were on when they made this decision.

When a company makes a multi-console game, every version is supposed to be extremely similar. But instead, Sega decides to sell out to Sony and Microsoft, resulting in a superior game, for less than the Wii/PS2 version. But I wonder, why add these features to the PS3 version? I only know about five people in my grade that own a PS3. Right now, it's last in the console wars. So instead, why not put the extra features on the 360 version, along with the Wii version, which currently has the most sales, and is leading in the console wars. Common sense folks.

Seriously, Sega was too lazy to get off their sorry asses and give equality to all versions. Even if the Wii/PS2 versions had to be delayed for these new features, I wouldn't mind at all.

 

I think it's more likely that the Wii/PS2 versions were rushed somewhat. So it's not that they "removed" anything; more like they were never there. Dimps had to meet a publisher deadline, so they decided not to include two of the levels.

Still sucks, regardless.

 

I'd like to think that at least a majority of gamers with multiple gaming systems are somewhat well-versed with the concept of multiple games for multiple platforms. It has been advertised in interviews, commercials, what have you that the Wii/PS2 and 360/PS3 versions of the game differ significantly. With this etched into the consumer's mind, it becomes a possible course of action to buy both versions of the game on this basis.

Not only that, but people who look at game reviews are going to be made aware that there are two versions of the game as well. There's really no excuse to not know that two versions of the game exist, which leaves the door open again for the hook to buy the better version of the game.

If the claim is that casual people won't care enough, then they're still going to buy at least one version of the game, be it the 360 one or the Wii one. If the strategy is intended for the more "hardcore" gamers, they're still getting more money from people giving both versions a shot.

I covered the "intentional gimping" argument at least twice already. Please properly read my posts.

That makes a bit more sense, and sort of supports the idea that they cared significantly less about the Wii/PS2 version than the flagship 360/PS3 version. After all, it's supposed to be their flagship demonstration of the Hedgehog Engine—they can't afford to screw that up, can they?

 

Which leads to a reasonable solution: delay the Wii/PS2 versions, so they could add more.

 

I think you severely overestimate how much attention people pay to that sort of thing. The Enthusiast game media has always been a bastion for people like us. For everyone else, they only have commercials, ads, the back of the box, and second-hand impressions to go on. Oh, and "everyone else" outnumbers us by a radical amount.

Unfortunately, that leaves out the one important part of the list I made above: second-hand impressions. A game that sustains sales does so because of word-of-mouth, especially among the crowd that doesn't follow games as religiously as we do. If one person buys the game and think it sucks, then you better believe they'll let other interested parties know of their opinion. Unfortanutely, there IS one factor that trumps all, and it's a real simple one: holiday sales. The Wii version was released as is because Sega wanted sales in the late-November pre-Christmas shopping period, which is by far the most profitable time of year for game publishers. There's no sabotage, no intentional or even unintentional lack of effort, no preferences for one version or another. Much like Sonic 2006, they released the game prematurely to make a deadline. Which honestly happens way too often for it to really be notable anymore.

You of all people know the pitfalls and perils that may occur with game development, so don't even try to draw that conclusion from his statement.

 

What the fuck.
SONIC'S FUCKING FRIENDS.

As if they're even fucking playable/in the game, honestly, Game Infarcer.

/endrant.

 

I'm pretty sure you took that sentence out of context. He's talking about the series as a whole since it went 3D, not this game in particular.

 

I'm not referring to us as much as I'm referring to "gamers" in general. I consider a gamer at least someone who claims to be in the know when it comes to the games market—the latest releases, platforms, etc etc etc. Think of all the people who talk about games on YouTube or the millions of users on GameFAQs. That's where I draw the difference between a casual person who buys games for their kids and "gamers."

It may be true that this group is a minority, but I think it's a lot bigger than you perceive it to be.

Which is why I'm rather pissed off by all these cliché, biased reviews that praise unoriginality and dark colors in games, discouraging platformers and any legitimate, surreal creativity in games. Even if it's good, it's not good enough for them.

Totally agreed. That's one of the reason I proposed my idea—in a time of increasing sales, you're going to have two groups of people—people who buy the games for their kids because they're whined at, and then people who stop, look at all the reviews, videos, etc to try and determine if the game they're buying is "the right gift," either for themselves () or the people they're buying the game for.

That's where the potential for double the sales (one for each version of the game) comes in—people get both versions because they don't know what the hell they should get. If nothing else, it becomes a plausible option to get one version of the game if you don't like the other. This doesn't apply to every single gaming demographic, but there is a significant portion of the market that it does apply to. You can just write them out.

I covered the sabotage thing like fifty times god damn don't you people read

No amount of extended development time can fix fundamental flaws in general design, which the Wii version suffered from. At the same time, the 360 version does not appear to suffer from such flaws. I'm assuming they were given roughly the same amount of development time—why was the cheaper version not up to anywhere near the same level of quality?

I'm trying it, and I did it. Why shouldn't I? My point is that there was more care and effort put into the 360 version than the Wii version. How is that an unreasonable conclusion to reach? The reasons why are open to interpretation, but the fact that it happened isn't something you can argue against.

The 360/PS3 version is better designed, and was intended to be better designed than the Wii/PS2 version. That is the core point I'm trying to argue. Do you disagree with that notion?

 

My guess is to not run out of room. (So another GH:A Wii doesn't happen)


It doesn't really matter though, a few levels gone, big deal, it still looks like fackin sex.

 

Okay, can someone here answer a question that is frankly, annoying me (I already scanned through the thread looking for this): I already saw the answer on the PS2 version of the game, but can anyone confirm to me whether or not the Wii version has Japanese audio or not? The instruction manual doesn't quite make that clear enough. It just says there's the ability to change the language, not specifically language audio. Call me a weeaboo, what have you, but I prefer Jun-ichi's voice over 4Kids' Sonic any day.

 

I think so, I never checked, but in the options screen, there is a Language option.

 

Can you check to see if there's the ability to change voices? That's what I really need to know...

 

Sure, after my ISO gets done dumping. Only 7 more minutes.

 

They made the versions so different because the level designs for the PS360 version were created with having a six mile draw distance in mind. That, or they wanted the Wii version to appeal to fans of Sonic Rush. Sonic isn't a system sell anymore (damit, Sega).