|
|
Post by Smashchu on Mar 20, 2007 2:07:48 GMT -5
What worries me is that everyone does say Secret Rings is the best 3D Sonic game yet, and future games should follow this direction, but that there are still a few kinks that need to be ironed out. Similar things were said about the original Sonic Adventure on the Dreamcast: It was a good direction for Sonic to go in 3D, but there was room for improvement. Well, the years passed, and not only were the kinks never addressed, but they actually got worse. Not to be pessimistic, but knowing Sonic Team, this could possibly be the last decent 3D Sonic game we see for a while... maybe.  Well, Sonic Adventure 2 fixed most of them, or atleast that I know of. The kinks here are few and far between, despite what Matt wants you to think(Best 3D Sonic game isn't a 6.9). I do think the next one will be better. After that we'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by Dances in Undergarments on Mar 20, 2007 6:00:46 GMT -5
Best 3D Sonic game isn't a 6.9 Yeah, its a 4.2 Actually I don't know. I do know Sonic sucks, though. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Mar 20, 2007 6:15:05 GMT -5
Can't remember if I mentioned this already (and I can't be bothered to check), but Edge magazine gave Sonic and the Secret Rings a 5 out of 10, citing how it's a sign how far Sonic has fallen from grace that a game lacking in so many ways has been touted by fans as a victorious comeback, and even a resurgence for Sonic Team. Although they did give the 360-PS3 Sonic The Hedgehog game 2 out of 10, which is one of the lowest scores they've doled out in recent memory. I was considering picking this up, but I'm not so sure any more. I mean I struggle to enjoy 3D Sonic games as it is, and even if this is the "best" of them, then that doesn't fill me with desire to go out and grab it. And if it isn't the best of them, then I'm definitely not going to grab it. I'll stick my with Sonic Rush and Mega/Gems Collections, thanks!  |
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Mar 20, 2007 6:43:39 GMT -5
Eh, I never even listen to reviews any more. They're so full of bias then they often steer me away from games I'd like and towards games I hate.
Example - Sonic Riders got terrible reviews. I got the game anyway, and, though annoying at first, once I realised how to control it properly it became one of my favourite racing games.
Mega Man Network Transmission, on the other hand... I read some good reviews on this, so I got it. I then found it was unplayable. Entirely. Attempting it gives me a headache, because MegaMan doesn't control in any logical way. Never bothered to play past FireMan.
Bleh. I just don't like it when people make sweeping generalizations like "all Sonic games suck", because... it remains one of my favourite game series. So generally it feels like my taste in games is being insulted.
The point is, even when Sonic games haven't been great, they've never made me stop wanting to play before I reach the end, and I've never encountered a glitch that haulted my progress. Yet many other games, Mega Man included, have done this to me hundreds of times. And Mega Man is still considered a great series? I honestly don't know any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Mar 20, 2007 9:34:40 GMT -5
Heh, I don't think all Sonic games suck. But from experience, I did not like Sonic Adventure or Sonic Adventure II (on DC or GC), I did not like Sonic Heroes or Shadow the Hedgehog. I also did not like the Sonic R racing game on Sonic Gems  I haven't played StH on PS3/360 and I haven't played S&TSR. But I'm guessing I probably will not like them either. I'm sure there's a magic formula out there that will one day produce a decent 3D Sonic game. But until that day, I do not like 3D Sonic games I don't trust reviews generally, but I trust Edge magazine almost entirely - because even when I ignore their advice and buy the game anyway, I find out exactly what they were talking about all for myself. Every time. I don't think they've reviewed a single game that I've played that I haven't agreed with. Plus, they have the most awesome features and most sexy design of any game mag. |
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Mar 20, 2007 10:00:07 GMT -5
Heh, I don't think all Sonic games suck. But from experience, I did not like Sonic Adventure or Sonic Adventure II (on DC or GC), I did not like Sonic Heroes or Shadow the Hedgehog. I also did not like the Sonic R racing game on Sonic Gems I know there are a lot of people out there who disliked the 3D Sonic games. But still, Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2 are among my most-played Gamecube games, so I'd like to think that it's not that they're bad games, but just that they're not to everyone's tastes. I can't really argue for Heroes and Shadow, though. And I refuse to argue for Sonic R. But my post back there was more influenced by the fact that this morning I read yet another review which slammed Secret Rings primarily because it's a Sonic game and the writer apparently has some personal quarrel with them. I needed to vent. Apologies. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Mar 20, 2007 10:14:01 GMT -5
No probs! I understand that they're popular games, and so must have qualities that I either have not found or am incapable of appreciating (I suspect the latter). My main issue is the controls - as you can see I keep trying to play them, but I just get annoyed with them. Oh well. I'll just have to wait for Super Mario Galaxy instead |
|
|
|
Post by Manspeed on Mar 20, 2007 15:27:37 GMT -5
I want to like the 3D Sonic games, but there was so much they could've done with them but didn't. I could think of a about a thousand things they could've added to make the Sonic Adventure formula better, but apparently they don't think that hard.
Makes me wish Sonic Xtreme was actually released...
|
|
|
|
Post by Smashchu on Mar 20, 2007 17:14:59 GMT -5
Heh, I don't think all Sonic games suck. But from experience, I did not like Sonic Adventure or Sonic Adventure II (on DC or GC), I did not like Sonic Heroes or Shadow the Hedgehog. I also did not like the Sonic R racing game on Sonic Gems I haven't played StH on PS3/360 and I haven't played S&TSR. But I'm guessing I probably will not like them either. I'm sure there's a magic formula out there that will one day produce a decent 3D Sonic game. But until that day, I do not like 3D Sonic games I don't trust reviews generally, but I trust Edge magazine almost entirely - because even when I ignore their advice and buy the game anyway, I find out exactly what they were talking about all for myself. Every time. I don't think they've reviewed a single game that I've played that I haven't agreed with. Plus, they have the most awesome features and most sexy design of any game mag. Yeah, then I don't recommend it. You have to like the 3D ones a little. And if you don't like the previous ones, you'll loath 360/PS3. Why is Sonic so hard to control, why(oh and he's really slow) But, yeah, most reviews are crap now(mostly Wii). Most of the good ones have falled from grace(IGN and Gamespot) while smaller ones are staying the way they are, which is making them better. X-play is still good despite their odd ball quirks. But, most are bad becuase of Beleif Bias(making Psychology one of my most useful and useless classes). All 3D Sonic games suck so this one must suck too. Thus why Matt said "Best 3D Sonic Game" and gave it a 6.9. It sad to say that game reviews, in general, are broken. Most that use a 10 point system are. I belive EGM or GI is still good, and all of the smallers ones are still good. But, don't trust IGN(mostly Wii, DS seems OK) or Gamespot. I think Edge Magazine is also using Beleif Bias. It seems to me they are using the "All 3D games suck" logic. I would like to read the review and see. Also, finished my review, now I must go and re-do it., It needs some work. |
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Mar 20, 2007 17:52:58 GMT -5
I want to like the 3D Sonic games, but there was so much they could've done with them but didn't. I could think of a about a thousand things they could've added to make the Sonic Adventure formula better, but apparently they don't think that hard. Can I ask what, exactly? Just out of curiosity. Personally, SA was my favourite of the 3D games, but I thought it could've done with having a couple of the features removed and some of the existing ones expanded upon. Makes me wish Sonic Xtreme was actually released... I don't understand why people drool over Xtreme so much. It looked terrible. The point of Sonic games is to be fast. It's hard to be fast in a confusing maze. Plus there's the fish-eye lense. Did somebody think horribly distorted graphics would be cool? |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Mar 20, 2007 18:40:27 GMT -5
To clarify: When Edge magazine gives a 10/10 it means the game will be played years from now and will be, in all respects, nigh on perfect. They have issued five of these in their 15 years, including Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Halo and Half Life 2. None of which I would disagree with. When they say 5, they mean decidedly average in all respects. Some people may enjoy it, but on the whole most people will probably wonder what the fuss was about. Under 5 and the game is significantly broken, over 5 and it's better than average. They have had features and ongoing discussions about whether they should drop the review score entirely and just feature the review itself. I personally believe their review system is reliable - based on experience. They don't say "all 3D Sonic games are crap" - they say it's a shame that this absolutely average game is being pushed by fans as the second coming of Sonic. They do say it's better than the others, but they also say the others are pretty average or downright bad. I trust them entirely - their love of gaming is absolutely clear, their journalistic integrity is solid, and their reviews (and scores) can be backed up by trying for yourself! You may disagree sometimes, but on average you can tell that they meant what they said. I can see no obvious bias - they give all consoles the benefit of the doubt and focus on the games. Plus they published a letter of mine - the first letter on the letters page in fact, and provided an illustration. And then referenced the topic I raised in a recent review! And if promoting MY opinions isn't proof enough of their journalistic integrity, I don't know what is |
|
|
|
Post by Manspeed on Mar 20, 2007 18:47:45 GMT -5
Sonic Adventure had all the right ideas. What it needed was more fine-tuned physics and a better-controlled camera like SM64's. I shouldn't have to be thrown off the level for trying to run along the walls, I shouldn't have to get killed for not being able to see anything because the camera insists on staying in one spot even thought I should be able to move it, and I definitely should be able to go faster by spin-dashing as well as not staying in air indefinitely by rolling into a ball. The only other thing it needed was levels that can be accessed by any character, and have parts that only they can get into using their abilities. I wasn't really a fan of the whole "six different scenarios with six different characters" thing.
I also didn't like Amy's, Big's and Gamma's scenarios, but thankfully SA2 fixed that, but at the same time introduced a bunch of other problems. For one, they polished some of Sonic's mechanics, but they still haven't fixed the spin dash, and the somersault was a stupid idea. Sonic's levels were also revamped to something I didn't like. They were all either a highway/ series of platforms suspended over a bottomless pit. Sonic games are supposed to take place on flat ground and should require being able to build up momentum in order to go through loops and run on walls, not bouncing on enemies' heads to cross gaps, not having to sit and watch Sonic run through a loop on his own, and not being shot through the level against your will due to having dash pads all over the ground.
Aside from that, the Shooting and Hunting stages sucked. Shooting was too clunky, and Hunting was hampered by a less-than stellar radar and stages that were far to big to be able to find everything within a time limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Mar 20, 2007 18:57:22 GMT -5
Sonic Adventure had all the right ideas. What it needed was more fine-tuned physics and a better-controlled camera like SM64's. I never had a problem with the camera personally, because the game never really gives you a reason to need to adjust it. It always points the direction you should be running in, and if you're not running that direction, you're generally not playing the game right.  In fact, the only time I ever needed to adjust the camera was for SA2's third mission in Final Rush. I definitely should be able to go faster by spin-dashing as well as not staying in air indefinitely by rolling into a ball. I'm... not really sure what you're talking about here. Spin dashing does make you go considerably faster. In fact, one of the biggest tips people give for beating time-based missions is to constantly spin dash while running. I really don't know what you're talking about with staying in the air indefinately. Sonic stays in the air, like... two seconds, tops. Less if you jump dash. The rest of your points are a matter of opinion, I agree with one or two, but also liked a lot of the things you disliked. EDIT: While I think of it, this is a question I've always wanted to ask people who complain about the loops... What control did you have over them in 2D Sonic games? All you could do on them was stop, which meant you had to go back and take another run-up to try again. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Mar 20, 2007 19:12:12 GMT -5
I'll be honest, I'd much rather watch someone who enjoys (and is good at) the games showing off than I would playing them myself. That's another problem I have. I like to explore, work to my own pace, work things out for myself. I don't like to be pointed in a particular direction and get told to just run that way and jump if you see spikes. Not that I'm against linear, on-rails style gaming. Hell, Star Fox was about as linear as it gets, but at least I could decide to shoot that guy or dodge, and if I failed I'd have a few goes before my life was ended. In Sonic it feels like if you don't run in the direction the camera points then yes, you will inevitably fall off the stage and die until you have learned the sequence by rote. Punishment for not doing exactly what the game tells you to do. *sigh* At least in Mario I can get bored of trying to beat the sandbird and just see how far I can kick the watermelon before it bursts |
|
|
|
Post by Manspeed on Mar 20, 2007 19:27:23 GMT -5
That's another thing. I think non-linear works better for 3D games in general. I wanted there to be a non-linear Sonic game. It could've had one huge areas made up various small areas, a la Jak and Daxter. I also think that the 3D Sonic games doesn't have enough of the unique physics that made the old Sonic games what they are.
Remember how you could build up momentum while running and be able to roll around in a pinball-like manner? There's next to none of that in the 3D Sonics. Instead, it's mostly just running and jumping along, like most other platformers. Answer me this: Would a Mario from SMW be able to handle himself in a stage from Sonic 3? Then answer this: Would a Mario from SM64 be able to handle himself in a stage from SA2? Think about that for a moment. The very things that set Sonic apart from other platformers are virtually non-existent in the 3D ones, and I don't just mean speed. These idiots who keep saying "Sonic is all about speed" sound like they just want a game where you nothing but run forward endlessly, which is definitely not what a Sonic game is.
|
|
