The Sonic the Hedgehog 4 Megathread

I always just considered the larger size of S3&K's levels a counterbalance to its "boost speed" segments, myself.

...Not to mention it really wasn't a problem throughout most of the game.

 

@Guess Who:

Regarding '06, you could at best argue it was incompetence in terms of setting suitable deadlines.

The point remains that they had a game they knew was bad and published because of a business decision, not inability to tell good from bad. No conspiracy, just a matter of how many more days, deadlines, projects, and thousands spent per day. Yes something had gone wrong to get them at this point and it is moronic for any team to arrive there, but the end result still comes from that wrong thing and not from incompetence regarding what is and isn't a good game.

There's a thread on the official forum for example. People are listing missing features and almost all agree. Such lists take half a minute to produce.


Regarding the rehashing and the game itself, comparing Sonic 4 to everything-less-like-Sonic-3 doesn't make it more like Sonic 3, nor does it provide any argument to support rehashing that debunks mine.
Arguing that the altered physics and controls are not mucking the game up for the fans may or may not be something I agree with, but again doesn't address the debate. In fact if you're arguing this what are you using to argue incompetence?
The point about the rehashing remains. The bit I held back before is that homage and rehash are two different things and the distinction is easy to tell. They chose rehash because if all that old content wasn't there, homage alone wouldn't be enough to answer to "Hey... it doesn't feel, look or control like a classic." Even if it is closer than Sonic-whatever-since-2000.



I agree about Hydrocity though. Personally I think they did get a water zone correct and that it was back in Aquatic Ruin. Hydrocity felt like they were still trying to fix water zones and since day 1 I've always thought it was just way too directed. Cool music, but for me, I'd have to say it has Sonic 3's most dull level design. I'm still glad it exists though; it's unique.

 

I love Hydrocity Zone. It's my second favorite level after Marble Garden Zone. Yes off topic but I'm just saying I love Sonic 3's level design

 

There might be a reason.

So when's this damn game supposed to finally be released, guys? We're all gluttons for punishment, so I know I'm gonna end up playing through it eventually. I haven't even been following any of the developments anymore because I've just got disgusted with it at this point.

Side-note, though; ICEknight, you mentioned somewhere earlier that pushing against springs was gone as early as Chaotix... I remember being able to push the sides of springs that bounced you vertical, at least... and 3D Blast made you jump deliberately on them. Not that either of those two are specifically canon, but still. You could run -through- them on some of the Game Gear games, too, if you wanna get technical lol.

 

Well, I think if the camera followed Sonic a bit better (the entire camera moves in Sonic 3) or Sonic were bigger (he seems way smaller compared to the geometry in Sonic 4) it'd look less floaty.

 

This game is going to be so much fun! I'm glad I'm not one of those people that hates every single new Sonic game...

As for the boost pad debate, there are definitely multiple paths in each stage and surely some will be more platform based. And the fact that this game is episodic and spread out means the replay value will be huge! =D

 

I'll buy this game, I'll play it, I'll enjoy it.........THEN I'll make comparisons and look at the more unnoticable flaws.

I've seen the jump gif. Yeah, I was hoping someone else would notice how similar they were. Still, I don't really see the reason to compare the classics to Sonic 4 at this point.
We know that they're clearly diffferent games.
The simmilarities to the handhelds have been noted.
Its a new game and in the eye of reviewers, this game will be the second coming of Sonic the Hedghog, and a true sequel to the originals. In our eyes it will be a dissapointment, because it likely won't ring any nostalgia bells.

As a stand-alone title, I think this game would work REALLY well.......maybe if was called New Sonic the Hedghog (or something simmilar) it would have hit home better.

 

Not. This is certanly what Sega would like you to believe, though. ("Your Sonic sucks." "Your opinion is subjective." "Well, no shit, it's an opinion." "You see? That the game sucks is just your opinion. The game does not suck, since in fact by itself (in a way that would not be considered subjective) it doesn't even do anything." "Wow, you're right, on its own, it really does not suck! I am so buying this game now.")

Wanna see an example of both rehash and homage, for the same game? Try Kirby's Dreamland. In Kirby's Superstar you will play a rehash of it. In Kirby's Adventure, you will play a homage to it.

...the difference being that in Superstar, you will select and play the game, level by level, and it will be rounded up pretty much exactly like the original...with BETTAR GFX of course...while in Adventure, the homage to the first game will be a single level (one of many), and it will even be drawn in b/w, just like the original game was.

Now, to draw the line: rehash is the same old thing, but "improved". Homage is the same old thing, but part of a wider context.

...in my experience, you can somewhat safely tell it's a "rehash" if it's attempting to improve on various features of the original, while a "homage" will even systematically downgrade itself to remain as faithful to the original as possible...

This is "upgraded" 3/4 of Sonic 1. The returning levels do not hint at any wider context whatsoever, just re-use the same setups and IMPROVE~~~.

For me, this is the very definition of a rehash.

Hm, imagine Megaman 11 featuring 2.5 graphics and only four bosses: Elecman Plus, Cutman Sharp, Nitro-Fireman and Iceman Subzero...if you'd consider a game like this to be a homage, then you are seriously gullible.

Also

....every argument ever made could be brushed off as subjective simply for the fact that it got brought out by a sentient being in the first place.

...big words will not be enough to conceal this game's many, many flaws at the core of its concept.

 

Thank you for taking that section up! That is one of the most boring thing in the whole Sonic 3 level design. Some of that design also appeared in Launch Base. And that design was moved over to Sonic Advance 1 etc...
Knuckles underground section in Launch Base Act 2 is probably the best part of the bad parts of the game :P

So who made that mess to begin with? My only guess is Iizuka. He must have spoken of what he did for Sonic 3, at some point?

 

There are "moments" of speedy stage design in Sonic 3K, and then there are whole Sonic games that are like that from start to finish.

You talk as if there was no difference between the two, and conveniently ignore the fact that this kind of speed is optional even for speedy parts of the level - you can fall down through the water you just ran across in that video, and guess what? You will discover a whole new section of the level if you do.

If this was a Dimps game, I think you'd fall into a bottomless pit instead.

 

Woah ho there, hold the phone. I think you're misunderstanding why the word "rehash" is being used rather than the term remake. Kirby's Superstar's Spring Breeze mode isn't considered a "rehash" but a remake. It's the exact same game but remade as you mentioned. And you're right that Adventure had a homage to Kirby's Dreamland, but a homage doesn't necessarily mean it has to "downgrade" itself in order to pay homage to an older piece of work, but that's an argument for another day .

The word rehash is used because of its negative implications, while a remake is what it is. A remake gives you the same game but with the modern look and feel to it, like the Super Mario All Stars game, Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes, Maverick Hunter X, Mega Man Powered Up, and Bionic Commando: ReARMED. All these games use the same elements from the works they're based on and improve upon them. These are known as remakes mainly because well, that's what they are, older games remade. They don't attempt to make a new game out of old material, they just make the game to appeal to a modern audience.

The reason why we're using rehash here is because all they've done is taken elements from the older works and simply reused them without any sort of context behind them. Like you mentioned, Kirby's Dreamland is remade in Adventure in black and white, it's a throwback to Kirby's first game. But Mad Gear is practically identical to Metropolis Zone, right down to the badniks that they used. It's not a remake of Metropolis Zone, and it certainly doesn't fit homage because it's not being influenced by that level but rather copying its visual look exactly right down to the color scheme and obstacles. The term rehash is used here because they're merely recycling content without any real meaning behind it. It's not a tribute to Sonic 2, and it certainly isn't a remake of a Sonic 2 level, it's nothing, it's meaningless, it's just lazy design.

 

I am not JUST making up my definitions, I am PRESENTING THEM.

That's what "for me" is there for!

Of course it's subjective, but my point was if you're gonna brush off contrary opinions as subjective while yours to be immune to the same taint, you better stop going into arguments whatsoever.

"Literal definitions" on this topic are subjective, except they pretend they are not. We are not discussing biology, physics and geology here, we are discussing terminology about stuff that has only been properly established 10 years ago at max. Unless you can kindly point me out to the nearest and latest videogame vocabulary consortium, letting me verify your definitions there, they will not by any long shot have the same weight as serious terminology on serious stuff would.

I am not complaining about the length of the game here, I'm complaining about the content. Learn to read or stop stalking me @ GHZ.

Oh but it is, at very least in this subject - and no I don't "know it". What kind of major art differences you see in 16 bit Sonic games is none of my concern, because you are the one bringing that point up and that IS subjective.

I am not asking myself what kind of graphical differences I see between Sonic 2 and CD, I never once did. That's your personal problem, and any points you bring out to support your personal stance WILL be subjective.

But I never said it was necessary, I said that it helps me (personally) to determine what I find a homage to be. Othervise, you're correct. I honestly think you are...but the reason I cannot easily consider it a proper remake is that it only represent a fraction of the full game, while Great Cave Offensive, Meta Knight Revenge etc. are all original stuff. So how am I supposed to mark Kirby's Superstar, as an original game with some Dreamland material, or as a remake of Dreamland with stuff added? Or even a tribute? It confuses me now.

No I do not, you ignorant twat. I did not specifically target any game, I pretty much said there are games by Dimps in which Sonic runs mindlessly from start to finish.

You say I was talking about Sonic Rush and Sonic 4, not me.

That's great to hear, buy why would it be so funny is beyond me.

 

This again? COME ON, you guys! *double facepalm*

 

Woah, woah woah.
Why exactly are we arguing about subjectivity?
Every opinion posted here is subjective, primarily because we are all Sonic fans. As Sonic fans and individuals we each form a unique outlook at one/all of the games we have thus seen and played. This makes us, in some way biased towards a partcular game, as a favorite, be it a 2D game, or 3D game. We each have our preferences, and as such, when we make comparisons between said favorite game and Sonic 4, we are giving subjective opinions.
For any opinion to be fact or in other words; objective, it either needs to be backed up with hard evidence.
OR, the objective opinion needs to come from an unbiased source, someone who can draw comparisons, without already having a winner in mind.

For example;

A Sonic 3 fan comparing Sonic 3 to Sonic 2, would say Sonic 2 is better, because he prefers Sonic 3. This may not be techinically true, but it is how he feels about it. A subjective opinion.

A Mario fan; an unbiased person, saying Sonic 3 is better than Sonic 2, would be a more credible source, because he will not have feelings for a particlar game. His/her opinion is objective

Truth be told, arguing about this kind of stuff is futile.

I don't hewever think that Mad Gear Zone looks exactly the same as Metropolis, but it looks pretty damn similar.
In the later acts, you have to turn a Cog, which will help you move on by running on it. I don't remember that ever being in Metroplis Zone.

 

On the topic of Kirby metaphors - if Spring Breeze is a remake, then what is Revenge of the King?

 

It's a remake of Kirby's Dreamland 1's extra mode.

 

WTF! There is no such thing as an objective opinion, if something is objective it is fact. The Queen is still alive is an objective fact. Opinions are not fact there for are never objective. Sonic 4 is going to be crap is purely subjective as Sonic 4 is going to be good, neither is fact it's speculative opinion, some people like what they see, others don't. I think Sonic CD is better than Sonic 2. I take this as fact, but is it a fact? Is it objective? No it's subjective, I may say I know it, I may think I know it but I don't, I believe that to be the case, I THINK SCD is better than S2. Another person will think differently.