Sonic and the Secret Rings

[kirbychu]

admin said:

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*

That is exactly what it is. But there's not really any need to actually do what you're told half the time. A lot of the fun is in flying by the seat of your pants and finding the other, faster ways around obstacles just by leaping and smashing through them.

That's why I enjoy the games. They give me no reason to think. I just sit and unwind, and the more reckless and destructive I am, the more praise the game gives me. I can't get that kind of thing from, say, Super Mario World. As much as I love the game, it wants me to be careful and precise. And after a while I find that stressful.

Funny you should mention about watching, though... I tend to attract an audience when I'm playing a Sonic game.

EDIT: Rob-Bert, Sonic is all about speed. The word "sonic" is a measure of speed. Take the speed out of Sonic, and you have just another random platformer.

[Fryguy64]

Speed is, and always has been, Sonic's big selling point.

Mario got lucky - his was jumping. Link? Sword fighting and puzzle solving. But how do you represent Sonic's speed in a 3D platformer without becoming linear and dull?

Well, if I had the answer I'd be applying for a role at Sonic Team

EDIT: Kirbychu, I find the opposite true. Perhaps that's the Nintendo/Sega split in a nutshell. I unwind by wandering around Mario's world quite leisurely, knowing that every action I take will be slow, precise and predictable. I get stress just looking at Sonic. And it's not just Sonic - the same is true of most racing games, especially the F-Zero racing games where speeds just go nuts.

[kirbychu]

admin said:

Kirbychu, I find the opposite true. Perhaps that's the Nintendo/Sega split in a nutshell. I unwind by wandering around Mario's world quite leisurely, knowing that every action I take will be slow, precise and predictable. I get stress just looking at Sonic. And it's not just Sonic - the same is true of most racing games, especially the F-Zero racing games where speeds just go nuts.

I suppose it's down to what we were raised on. I had access to both, but I had Sonic all year round, and Mario only during holidays. Perhaps, because of that, I've developed as a reckless and impatient person, where the opposite would've been true if things had been the other way around.

THANKS A LOT, SEGA!

[Wildcat]

To toss my hat into the arena, I liked Sonic Adventure quite a bit for the DC. It had its flaws, but it was enjoyable. Most of the extra stages for the elective characters didn't faze me much. Sonic and Tails were quite fun, and Knuckles didn't quite slip into insanity inducing numbness of boredom yet. SA2, however, did not wow me at all. Sonic and Shadow's stages grew into far more annoying endeavors than the prequel (thanks to the pinpoint demands of the rails...the last stage for both Sonic and Shadow were horrible), and all the other stages were...well, poorly done. I didn't get back into 3D Sonics after that one. Secret Rings did catch my interest, but I think I'll play a wait-and-see approach with it. I have many other DS and Wii prospects to save for (Super Paper Mario all the way!).

[Fryguy64]

I thought I'd share with everyone the Edge review, not just so you can see how their opinions of the game likely tally up with the reality, but also so I can protect their journalistic integrity somewhat

Sonic and the Secret Rings

Format: Wii
Price: £40
Release: Out Now
Publisher: Sega
Developer: In-house (Sonic Team)

It's a measure of how far Sonic has strayed from the path his fans imagined for him that a slapdash sortie like Sonic And The Secret Rings can be considered a spiritual homecoming for the hedgehog, and a return to form of sorts for Sonic Team. The aimless, out-of-context wanderings of even the better Adventures reached their nadir in last year's scandalous Sonic the Hedgehog, and it could no longer be ignored: Sonic was never meant to do anything other than follow his own feet, fast.

That dream has been kept alive by the likes of the DS' Sonic Rush and the enduring success of back catalogue reissues, and now resurfaces in a full-blown home console title in the form of this Wii exclusive. The level design isn't entirely dissimilar from Sonic The Hedgehog's infuriating assault courses, with the vital difference that Sonic runs them on rails, the player steering him left to right (and occasionally reining in his perpetual motion) with tilts of a laterally-held remote. Camera issues negated (almost), control quirks smoothed away (almost), the road is clear for a ferocious, dizzying blur of an arcade reaction-test to delight any purist - almost.

The are still awkwardnesses aplenty. The story, told in sketchy comic-book panels, teams Sonic with a cute teen genie and plunges him jarringly and pointlessly into the Arabian Nights - although nobody seems to have told the level designers. We don't recall Scheherazade weaving tales around dinosaurs, pirates and factory robots run amok. It's easier, though, to shrug off this thematic nonsense than to avoid feeling short-changed by the mere seven levels. Each is padded out with ten additional achievement-based remix missions and a boss fight, and there's plenty of scope for the dedicated in endless score-attack rehearsals, but in terms of hard polygons it's a paltry amount of game.

Secret Rings' poverty of content isn't even remotely balanced by the ill-fitting encumbrance of a pseudo-RPG levelling and skill system (see 'Skills laboured') that hobbles early stages more than it empowers later ones. Its saving graces are that it's spectacular, exhilarating and tough. There's a fine line between rote-learning frustration and seat-of-the-pants glee in on-rails arcade games, and Secret Rings wobbles either side of it perceptibly, but seldom stays on the wrong side for too long.

It's a proper platform game, nothing like as incompetant or misguided as its 360 and PS3 stablemate. But compare Secret Rings with Banana Blitz, and it's clear Sonic Team could learn a lot from its Monkey Ball colleagues when it comes to a strong yet supple understanding of what makes their mascots great, and how to offer challenge and satisfaction through design rather than trickery. Maybe its time to stage a coup, and crown AiAi Sega's platform king.

[5]

Boxout: Skills laboured
Sonic levels up as you progress, gradually unlocking the 100 skills in the game. These can't all be used at the same time, so must be equipped - and let's take a moment here to mourn the appearance of the word 'equip' in a Sonic game - to one of four 'skill rings', essentially presets that can be tailored to different levels' requirements. However, the choice is seldom as meaningful as it should be. Some skills provide fundamental changes to the play style - like the excellent jump cancel, which also acts as an indispensable, immediate brake - while others improve Sonic's attributes, including, unforgivably, the actual quality of the controls (one promotes 'smoother movement to the left and right'). Either way, they should have been there from the start.

Caption 1: As economical as the controls are, the jump button is sticky and overworked. Holding it down charges a higher jump, and also generates lock-on targets on nearby enemies, which, once in the air, can be attacked with a swift Remote thrust.

Caption 2: Alongside the rings are glowing orbs which charge up Sonic's time powers - it's not just the setting that has been lifted from Prince of Persia. Slow-mo is useful but exaggerated; the super dash pointless outside of time trials.

Caption 3: As we are coming to expect of Sega's Wii titles, there's some 50 minigames attached. These are all designed for multiplayer, and most offer disposable fun, but have little imagination and are nothing to go back to.

Caption 4: As was the case with Banana Blitz, Sega is proving adept at getting the best out of the Wii's modest graphical performance: Secret Rings is bright, solid and unbelievably fast, with a huge draw distance. The final level is a dazzling videogame dream in classic Sega style.

[Manspeed]

Rob-Bert, Sonic is all about speed. The word "sonic" is a measure of speed. Take the speed out of Sonic, and you have just another random platformer.

That statement is far to overblown to be exact. Sonic is only partially about speed. The game started out as a platformer to combat Mario, and the speed was added to set it apart and enhance the platforming experience. You're speaking as if it's nothing but speed, and that results in a crapshoot like Sonic Rush. These days, the games are either too much speed and not enough platforming, or too much platforming and not enough speed.

In addition to the speed was the physics engine. The game's inertia was radically differeny from any platformer before it. Name one other platformer that allowed you to build up enough momentum to go through roller-coaster ramps and loops both on foot and rolled into a ball.

These kinds of things are being forgotten entirely in the modern Sonic games. They were the very things that made Sonic what he is, yet they're royally gone. I know that they could've been worked into 3D somehow, but thanks to the messed up design choices that the developers made, nobody seems to think it was worth it.

The problem stems from people who keep bringing out the "all about speed" argument, which I clearly debunked before. When you have a developer like Dimps, who carry that same mindset, you end up something that shouldn't have been, which is a Sonic game that isn't so much a Sonic game as it is something that a retarded fanboy who can't analyze game mechanics for crap thought up.

[Smashchu]

Rob-ert, how can you say it's not all about speed. Like Kirbychu said, without it it's just a mediocer platformer./ Speed is what defines it. It makes the entire gamee. What made Sonic Rush great was it was freakin' fast. It was intense, ttyring to beat your old time by just a hair.

Also, I personally hated the Edge review. First, it was funky. Using funky sentence structer, and didn't seem to weave in and out of scenences. Could have worked just as bullet points. Also, thay hardly talked about gameplay. It was one paragraph. Gameplay is 80% of the game. In the entire thing, all you will do is gameplay. Graphics and all that other bull honky are irrelevent.

This has opened my eyes that Game Reviews as a whole have lost touch with the general public. They think way to much. Many hatwed Red Steel, but all of my friends loved it, one dubing it "Red Crack". I just don't think any revieewer is good any more. Maybe the lesser known ones, but now, don't listen to any of them. I say just talk to the people here. They'll give you a more "real" out look.

[Fryguy64]

Heh, I didn't like Red Steel either. And that was before I read any reviews.

There's plenty in there about the gameplay. Remember, when you're writing a review, you are limited to a certain number of words, in which you have to cram series history (if relevant), story, gameplay, graphics and sound, extra game mechanics, bonus features - oh yes, not to mention opinions!

Graphics aren't irrelevant. Anyone who thinks that is deluded. Graphics shouldn't make or break someone's opinion on a game, but graphics are of absolute importance. After all, without them you'd just be staring at a blank screen.

But "good graphics" doesn't mean high-resolution textures. It means being able to convey information clearly. In this view, the original Super Mario Bros. still has good graphics, because the action and movement is conveyed by the graphics exactly as required. In contrast (or, ironically, not) a lot of new games are brown brown brown!! And these can often make it hard to see what's going on.

Good graphics doesn't mean processing power or high definition textures. And if a game looks beautiful (Twilight Princess anybody?) then why shouldn't it be noted.

So stop being a mind-zombie of Nintendo's current marketing department, Smashchu... 10-15 years ago you would have had the exact opposite opinion when Nintendo was all about the graphics.

[kirbychu]

robert said:

That statement is far to overblown to be exact. Sonic is only partially about speed. The game started out as a platformer to combat Mario, and the speed was added to set it apart and enhance the platforming experience. You're speaking as if it's nothing but speed, and that results in a crapshoot like Sonic Rush. These days, the games are either too much speed and not enough platforming, or too much platforming and not enough speed.

Unfortunately for your argument, Sonic Rush was the most popular Sonic game in the last ten years.

Sonic is a platform game, but the speed is what defines it. It is about speed. If it weren't, it'd be called Jump the Hedgehog or something. Even that Edge article up there says that. Most gamers, when asked about Sonic, will first think of speed.

That article does seem extremely negative, Fry. I, personally, was really impressed by the way the story was told, for one. It's actually not sketchy like they said, but told using (in my opinion) some beautiful slightly-animated watercolour paintings. Also, although there's a small nod to it in one of the captions, there's no mention of the fact that this is actually two games in one. Alongside the main game there's also a less boring Sonic-styled version of Mario Party. That, combined with the museum of movies, songs and artwork... I wouldn't really call it a 'paltry amount of game' at all. But hey, that's just me...

[Dances in Undergarments]

smashchu2 said:

This has opened my eyes that Game Reviews as a whole have lost touch with the general public. They think way to much. Many hatwed Red Steel, but all of my friends loved it, one dubing it "Red Crack". I just don't think any revieewer is good any more. Maybe the lesser known ones, but now, don't listen to any of them. I say just talk to the people here. They'll give you a more "real" out look.

THIS JUST IN: Different people have different opinions. Full story at 11.

Reviewers should be looking at games more objectively than the average public. Whether this is a good or bad thing is up to you.

[Smashchu]

dancesinunderwear said:

smashchu2 said:

This has opened my eyes that Game Reviews as a whole have lost touch with the general public. They think way to much. Many hatwed Red Steel, but all of my friends loved it, one dubing it "Red Crack". I just don't think any revieewer is good any more. Maybe the lesser known ones, but now, don't listen to any of them. I say just talk to the people here. They'll give you a more "real" out look.

THIS JUST IN: Different people have different opinions. Full story at 11.

Reviewers should be looking at games more objectively than the average public. Whether this is a good or bad thing is up to you.

That is true, but at the same time, you can't turn your backs to the public and do prance around in La La land with the other reviewers. Red Steel may not have been the best example becuase the people who played it are split, most either liking or hating it.

But, objectivity has been lost. Almost every reviewe hates the music. Does it mean it's bad. Not at all. While they may not like it, it's still fits the game. They seem to forget that it fits, and thus works. Also, don't forget overhyping games and makeing up BS excuses(X-play's opinion on any soundtrack will always inflat or contract scores). If you really want to see this phenominon, read IGN's review of the game. If you have actually played it, you'd see it's a lot of BS. A lot of the things he said don't exist.. When compairing it to other games, he pulled out pusdofacts. Things that aren't even true in other games. Abd most of his complains was becuase it's hard to back up. It can be annoying at times, but ig you so much of a problem with it, just add the fire back step, so when you back up, you can hit the foes who hurt you. The biggest flaw, is that he calles it the "Best 3D Sonic game" and gives it a 6.9. K. How is that logically correct? Expecially when he gave Sonic Heros an 8. Opps.

The real problem comes in whne your opinions are totally different from the fans. I'll tell you, finding a person who owns S&tSR and hates it(or even finds it average) is hard. Looking at the X-play boards, GameFAQ(which almost everyone loves it, yet hates the 360 game) and Mario Heaven Index. This creates a weird complex. Those who matter like it, but those who don't, but say they do, hate it.

Of course, I can't defend the entire game. There are some rough patches that could have been worked out better, but why I defend the game is becuase regarddless how crappy the mission is you are playing, it's fun. You go fast and it's easy to control Sonic. If you ask me if the game is worth your time, I'll tell you yes, that is, if you liked the Sonic game(not nessicarly the 3D ones though).

Of course, I maybe compaining a bit too much. Seem as the game deserves 9s. I can understand a 7.5 or so. It makes scens. Fun games, with akward controls. I can see that, but 9.6 and 2/5. Nope.

Also, looking back at that review I only saw one paragraph given. I'm not sure what "Boxout: Skills laboured" is paragraph on gameplay, before the score was suppose to be, but seems like a waste of space. Of course, this is me. I assum it's a British mag and I can see it's probobly just different from the ones in the state, and not my personal taste(or cup of tea ).

But I would like to say that Sonic>Monkey Ball. SMBBB was good, but not THAT good. The minigames are fun, but most don't work at all, and it's the main focus.

[Fryguy64]

A review cannot ever be objective. It is a person's opinion, and all you can hope for is that a review is by someone who can be trusted to hold similar opinions to yourself.

On NinDB, my game pages do not feature reviews, they feature overviews - general information about the game. It doesn't tell you if the game is fun to play, it doesn't tell you if the graphics are amazing, it doesn't tell you if you should buy it. I decided early on that I wanted to supply overviews and not reviews on NinDB, because it's supposed to be an information resource, not a sounding house for my opinions (that's what the forum is for)

Stood between the videogame publisher, who wants you to buy their game so they can get that new extension on their house, and the consumer, who wants to be entertained for a number of hours, there is the reviewer. They get paid to play the games and tell you what they think about them, diverting you from the poor ones and towards the good. After all, no publisher thinks the games they sell suck, and no consumer wants to play a sucky game. Opinions. It's absolutely vital that they are there - giving you something more meaty to read than the press release or back of the box (both controlled by the publisher).

Unlike IGN and most reviews, where an average game might get a 7 or 8 out of 10, Edge gives average games a 5. Absolutely average. You might enjoy it anyway, you might not. There are no major flaws, but there are no qualities that really make it stand out. I don't see why a 5 isn't justified.

If anyone can tell me S&TSR has any qualities that make it stand out as a game, then I'd like to hear them. It's all very well saying it doesn't suck, but if you can't tell me why it's worth playing then I'm sticking with Edge.

[Smashchu]

I forgot to ask what Edge uses for the average. It makes me happy that they uses 5. The flaw with the 10 point system iss everyone seems to use 7 as the adverage, but when someone comes along with a 5(the real average) it gums up the works. So, it gives me some more respect for them.

Now, I'm not sure if I can give you an honest opinion, as our taste in these games are totally different. I liked a few of the 3D games(mostly the two Adventures), but you liked none of them. You may still enjoy it, but would find it average at least.

I wrote up a review on the game. I'll post it here, but it will need some touch ups.

[kirbychu]

admin said:

If anyone can tell me S&TSR has any qualities that make it stand out as a game, then I'd like to hear them. It's all very well saying it doesn't suck, but if you can't tell me why it's worth playing then I'm sticking with Edge.

To a person who enjoys 3D Sonic games, it's the most fun of the lot. Otherwise, I really can't say. You might find you like it, you might find you dislike it just as much as the others. It's definately not one I'd recommend 100% to someone already dissatisfied with the series, anyway.

[Fryguy64]

How about comparing it to other game series rather than Sonic. That might give me a better idea