The physics look kinda screwy in the gameplay video.
It's still in alpha. If you've been following the status of fan Sonic engines you'd notice how much hard it is to get the collision detection right. That, or the Sonic scene programmers aren't that good (with the exception of Damian Grove and Christian Whitehead, in case they ever read this)
And yes the state of Sonic fandom is most worrying.
If Dimps is doing this then there is more reason to trust the game will turn out at least ok. The advance games and Rush were ok to good IMO.
It also fits that it is episodic and released online, it doesn't have the clout that Sonic Team would have (although sadly, the game will probably be better than what Sonic Team would produce).
As for the fandom (should we say, "fandoom"?), I'm a bit worried with the fans AND whoever is in charge with concepting the games. There seems to be a bit of tendency to have inter-*species*... romance... in those games. Slightly disturbing.
I've been really psyched for this, but the physics in that video do worry me. I really, really want this to FEEL like Sonic 4.
Dimps' involvement is alright, but nothing in their games stands out (to me) as much as the classics did. At this point, I don't just want a 'pretty good' game with fair stage design. This is Sonic 4, god damn it.
Again, though, it is an alpha build. I seem to recall that Yuji Naka completely changed the engine of Sonic 1 after the initial build.
The leaked video footage was pretty good. The only thing that really needs tweaking is Sonic's jump animation. It just seems really slow and floaty. Other than that, I think it has a lot of potential to be a fun and visually appealing game.
I for one am glad that it's the guys behind Sonic Rush developing this and not Sonic Team. In that game they made Sonic less like Sonic and more like NiGHTS, which can only be good. You see, I don't think Sonic the Hedgehog is a good game, it's purely nostalgia goggles. It looks great, it was faster playing than anything else at the time, but there's nothing to it. Don't get me wrong, I played the hell out of those games when I was young, but going back to them now there really is nothing to keep you hooked. It's textbook style over substance. At least in Rush there was some depth to the mechanics; a speed boost meter that was recharged for successfully pulling off tricks. The game encourages you to keep up a constant speed and then awards a rating based off time and score. Sure there were some horrible maze-like underwater sequences and god-awful 3D boss encounters, but overall Rush was a hell of a lot better than Sonic 1-3. It's my opinion, don't all reach for your guns at once.
GSZX1337 wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the OP's referring to his Dreamcast as a girl?
Jayson:
Well,
both let you stick things in them for amusement...
both usually end up costing you a fortune over time...
and both whine incessantly...
pelham123 wrote: (...) overall Rush was a hell of a lot better than Sonic 1-3. It's my opinion, don't all reach for your guns at once.
I see what you mean about Rush, but I don't see what you mean about the other Sonics. The classics have very tight gameplay and level design. Rush may even be a better game for doing "score attack" gaming of improving your times and score, but I could really enjoy the often (relative to Rush) slower paced platforming of Sonic 1 and 2.
pelham123 wrote: (...) overall Rush was a hell of a lot better than Sonic 1-3. It's my opinion, don't all reach for your guns at once.
I see what you mean about Rush, but I don't see what you mean about the other Sonics. The classics have very tight gameplay and level design. Rush may even be a better game for doing "score attack" gaming of improving your times and score, but I could really enjoy the often (relative to Rush) slower paced platforming of Sonic 1 and 2.
Ivo.
I just think they're just very basic games, not a lot beyond the graphics, and speed, besides the bosses there's not much of a challenge. There's not the same thrill of ever-present danger you have when playing Super Mario Bros. or Mega Man. I guess my point is that even though I played a lot of Sonic when I was a kid, I can never sit down and play through them these days the way I can with a Mario game.
GSZX1337 wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the OP's referring to his Dreamcast as a girl?
Jayson:
Well,
both let you stick things in them for amusement...
both usually end up costing you a fortune over time...
and both whine incessantly...
pelham123 wrote:
I just think they're just very basic games, not a lot beyond the graphics, and speed, besides the bosses there's not much of a challenge. There's not the same thrill of ever-present danger you have when playing Super Mario Bros. or Mega Man. I guess my point is that even though I played a lot of Sonic when I was a kid, I can never sit down and play through them these days the way I can with a Mario game.
Well, the classic Sonics are more or less basic anyway (maybe Sonic CD not so much?) - as long as it has good level and enemy design the basic Sonic engine done right is rock solid for me. Dimps actually put in some interesting innovations in their games that matter for score attacks ("squeezing" tricks into your course without slowing down too much) and in Rush the added Boost mechanic is a rather clever way to let you keep speeding through enemies if you have some skill, as well as allowing you some chance to clear some gaps even if you hadn't picked up enough speed previously.
It may seem a bit of a tautology, but it really comes down to the implementation. The ideas IMO are good enough, they just have to be done right. Sonic is a more basic game than Mario, but it can be about as fun. I said once in these forums that I saw Marios as generally better games in terms of quality, but that I at least used to have more fun with the gameplay of Sonic anyway.
(with the exception of Damian Grove and Christian Whitehead, in case they ever read this)
