Sonic Rush

GaijinPunch · Post by **GaijinPunch** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:57 am

Originally posted here.

Sega has opened up the official Sonic Rush Website. Included on the page is info on the story (In a nutshell, it's Dr. Eggman and Chaos Emerald based again), a few screenshots, and a quick instruction on the game. It uses both screens, and Sonic is in polygon form this time which Sega states will allow for more creative animated sequences. the backgrounds look like pixels, but so does Sonic in all honesty. There will also be a new character, Blaze, making an appearance, whose sillhouette you can see at the website. The game is set for a winter release in Japan.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:07 am

Does Dimps have anything to do with this? Because if so, I'm skipping it.

Dartagnan1083 · Post by **Dartagnan1083** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:39 am

Why would you skip it because of Dimps?
Sonic Team has always been over their shoulder whenever they've released handheld sonic games.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:44 pm

I'd skip it if it was made by Dimps because Sonic Team or not, their level designs are pure ass.

Sticking a speed boost in front of a wall? BRILLIANT!

They have a decent grasp of Sonic's mechanics (though Advance 2 and 3 were way too floaty), but that's about it. And if a company has proven to me over the course of four games that they can't make a decent level for anything, then I'm not going to bother with their fifth attempt.

jp · Post by jp » Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:05 pm

I hated Sonic Advance... so much so that I skipped the rest of the games. I agree with sethsez that, at least in that game, the level design was truly atrocious.

But I must confess, I will be buying Sonic Rush... something about Sonic on two screens just fascinates me.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:30 pm

Advance 2 and 3 were worse than the first one by a fair margin, believe it or not.

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:41 pm

sethsez wrote:I'd skip it if it was made by Dimps because Sonic Team or not, their level designs are pure ass.

Sticking a speed boost in front of a wall? BRILLIANT!

They have a decent grasp of Sonic's mechanics (though Advance 2 and 3 were way too floaty), but that's about it. And if a company has proven to me over the course of four games that they can't make a decent level for anything, then I'm not going to bother with their fifth attempt.

Despite what was said in another forum, Sonic Advance 3 is not straight running. In fact, if you try straight running without paying attention to the surroundings, you will die. I found the levels to be a good mix of obstacles and running. I didn't notice any cheap hits or cheapness to the level design or poorly placed enemies, so I'm a bit confused about what's so hated about it. Then again, I found the controls to be very responsive, especially considering the speed of the game.

Dimps is getting better. I thought Sonic Advance 3 was very well done and they also helped work on the awesome Kirby and the Amazing Mirror. I heard that Dragon Ball Z Budokai 3 is much better than the earlier games in the series too.

Anyway, I personally liked Sonic Advance 3 much better than the first one. There is more to the levels and the bonus rounds are much better. SA3 has more in the way of obstacles than the first one, which again, puzzles me about the mostly running level design complaints. The 3 Acts to a zone is a breath of fresh air too. Also, the final two zones are some of the hardest zones I have seen in a Sonic game for a long time. The addition of regular bonus as well as special stages ala Sonic 3 is very nice too. The bosses are also very challenging and they aren't run and chase bosses like the ones in Sonic Advance 2. Still, it really confuses me how some people say the mostly running problem of SA2 is fixed and others say it's still there (which I HIGHLY disagree with).

If I remember correctly, I thought that some E3 impressions of Sonic Rush said that it isn't being designed by Dimps. Not 100% sure on this, though.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:47 pm

BrianC wrote:Despite what was said in another forum, Sonic Advance 3 is not straight running.

Never said it was.

I said it was poorly designed. Sonic Advance 2 is the one where you just hold right (in the first act of the second zone, hold right. If you hit a wall, hit jump. You'll only need to jump twice, and never do anything else).

I found the levels to be a good mix of obstacles and running. I didn't notice any cheap hits or cheapness to the level design or poorly placed enemies, so I'm a bit confused about what's so hated about it.

One big problem is that you're moving very fast, through very twisty levels, with a very close camera. It almost becomes a guessing game. Zoom it out a bit and some problems would be remedied. However, it still has its fair share of springboards that shoot you into spike pits and such. Beyond that, the design just isn't memorable at all.

Then again, I found the controls to be very responsive, especially considering the speed of the game.

Disagree again. The controls are very clearly aimed at moving as fast as possible, so small jumps feel like Sonic's on the brink of going out of control. Combine that with the general floatiness and it feels like a fan-made Sonic flash game to me. Which, I guess, goes with the level design.

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:26 am

sethsez wrote:
BrianC wrote:Despite what was said in another forum, Sonic Advance 3 is not straight running.
Never said it was. I said it was poorly designed. Sonic Advance 2 is the one where you just hold right (in the first act of the second zone, hold right. If you hit a wall, hit jump. You'll only need to jump twice, and never do anything else).

I found the levels to be a good mix of obstacles and running. I didn't notice any cheap hits or cheapness to the level design or poorly placed enemies, so I'm a bit confused about what's so hated about it.
One big problem is that you're moving very fast, through very twisty levels, with a very close camera. It almost becomes a guessing game. Zoom it out a bit and some problems would be remedied. However, it still has its fair share of springboards that shoot you into spike pits and such. Beyond that, the design just isn't memorable at all.

Then again, I found the controls to be very responsive, especially considering the speed of the game.
Disagree again. The controls are very clearly aimed at moving as fast as possible, so small jumps feel like Sonic's on the brink of going out of control. Combine that with the general floatiness and it feels like a fan-made Sonic flash game to me. Which, I guess, goes with the level design.

So basically, you seem to have more of a problem with the fast control and big sprites than actual level design. But, you do have a right to an opinion, so lets just agree to disagree. Ok, you didn't say mostly running, but you did say Sonic Advance 3 is all about speed, which it isn't. Same difference or whatever. http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/show ... ic+advance

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:24 am

No, I hate the level design too.

It was a step up from 2, though, but still felt far too random and slapped-together.

IMO

Thunder Force · Post by **Thunder Force** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:18 am

I really liked Sonic Advance 3 so I'll definitely be buying DS Sonic.

Post by **BulletMagnet** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:46 pm

sethsez wrote: The controls are very clearly aimed at moving as fast as possible, so small jumps feel like Sonic's on the brink of going out of control.

That's the way I feel about every Sonic game's controls, but that's just me.

Elixir · Post by **Elixir** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:34 pm

We have stores here saying "Coming in September 2005: Sonic DS." but obviously it's going to be changed to Sonic Rush.

I originally bought a DS for this game, but I still consider Sonic to have "died" at the end of Sonic & Knuckles. They went on to produce Sonic Racing, Sonic 3D, Knuckles Chaotix, and now they're letting you play the "bad guy" and sticking him with a gun. Good idea. What's next: The Misadventures of Dr. Robotnik - complete with pitchfork? A sword for Shadow would be understandable, because there would be some Metroid-esque spinning action going on, but this is just lame.

Sega were always taking chances. I'm surprised this isn't in 3D.

Dartagnan1083 · Post by **Dartagnan1083** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:18 pm

Advance 3 is the first title in a long time that can stand side by side with the older Genesis Sonics.
Not quite as nice, but still MUCH better than Advance 1 or 2.

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:19 am

BulletMagnet wrote:
sethsez wrote: The controls are very clearly aimed at moving as fast as possible, so small jumps feel like Sonic's on the brink of going out of control.
That's the way I feel about every Sonic game's controls, but that's just me.

Exactly, but I still enjoy them. There are plenty off obstacles, spikes, in the Genny Sonic games, let's not forget. And pretty much every one of them has a forest level, a casino level, etc.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:45 am

Right, but the Genesis ones had good level design. They didn't have speed boosts that shot you into walls, or springboards under spikes. The Advance games have all the individual parts right, but they're put together all wrong, like fanhacks of Sonic 2.

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:31 am

sethsez wrote:Right, but the Genesis ones had good level design. They didn't have speed boosts that shot you into walls, or springboards under spikes. The Advance games have all the individual parts right, but they're put together all wrong, like fanhacks of Sonic 2.

Ugh...enough of this fanhack stuff. It seems like every game that you think has poor level design gets compared to a fan made game. Opinion or not, it's still rather harsh.

BTW, I don't know about that speedboost thing, but I'm pretty sure that at least one of the Genesis games has springboards hidden under spikes. Sonic 3 has enemies desguised as spikes. Is this poor level design? What about the wierd glitch in Sonic 1 where Sonic gets hit twice by spikes when he should be hit only once? Sonic 2 Genesis has some levels where it's possible to springboard right into an enemy and yet, you didn't complain about that game having poor level design.

Anyway, would someone mind explaining why someone might think Sonic Advance 3 has good level design? I personally think it has good level design, but I need to know specific areas to tell if sethsez is wrong or right with his arugments or if what he is talking about really is poor level design in general.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 6:02 am

The issue isn't just these things by themselves. Yes, Sonic 2 had areas where you could springboard directly into an enemy, but the viewing area was large enough, and the game was comparitively slow enough that you could react in time. Thus, you weren't blindsided by it, and if you still ran into it, it was your own fault. However, Advance 2 and 3 have a camera that's zoomed in so far you can barely see what's coming up, and while this is the same with the first Advance as well you moved slowly enough in that game that it's not nearly as much of an issue. The end result of this is that by the time you actually see the enemy you've just been launched into, it's too late.

And yes, since the level design doesn't take this into consideration, I think it's bad. Likewise, Sonic 2 would have terrible level design if you chopped off about 15% of the screen from all sides and made it move twice as fast but didn't alter the levels accordingly. Just look at all the SNES -> GBA ports where the sides of the screen are cut off and suddenly people are complaining about blind jumps. Well, Advance 2 and 3 feel like that, and they were designed for the system in the first place. Sonic Pocket Adventure, luckily, had the good sense to rearrange everything to be more suitable to a portable system. That game's major failing was that despite being made from Sonic 2 and 3 assets, it wasn't as good as either.

Finally, the enemies disguised as spikes in Sonic 3 are clear traps, there are graphic hints that give them away, and if you know that they exist (which you find out the first time you play the level), you know to look for them. On the other hand, Advance 2 and 3 are both full of traps that you can't predict even if you're aware they exist due to the aforementioned high speed and small viewing area. I'd estimate that 60% of the jumps in these two games are blind ones.

By the way, you say I always compare games with bad level designs to fanhacks. I'm curious as to where else I've said that. I said that here because I think it's the truth. I've played fan-made Sonic games, and fan hacks of Sonic 2, and I think Advance 2 and 3 are about on par with those.

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:56 pm

You also compared CV IV (a game generally praised for its level design) to fan hacks, sethsez. Seriously, I want to hear what others have to say about Sonic Advance 3 rather than this dissing session you keep giving every time someone says they like the game. You gave your reasons why you hate the game and the level design, so please give someone else a chance to voice their opinion without inturrupting it. Now, would someone mind explaining why Sonic Advance 3 shouldn't be compared to fanhacks?

Anyway, this topic is about Sonic Rush, but I keep mentioning Sonic Advance 3 becuase I think sethsez's logic is flawed and I don't want further "disagreements" to occur. I can't prove it if I don't have anything to go by, so a little help please? This won't be settled if only me and sethsez post.

BTW, there is an area in Sonic 2 where you are going so fast that it's near impossible not to crash into an enemy when you are bouncing off a spring, especially if you aren't rolled into a ball when bouncing off it.

The Sonic Advance games have more viewing space than the GG games and the viewing space in many SNES ports aren't really cut off all that much, especially when you take the wide screen into account. Some things that seemed like cut off jumps were actually like that in some of the SNES games too. Compared to the much loved Super Mario Bros DX GBC, the GBA SNES ports have much more viewing space.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:15 pm

I'll reply however I want, especially if someone is replying to me. k? In any case, I can't interrupt anyone here. It's a message board. And if someone says "please don't reply, I'm waiting for someone to come along and prove you wrong" there's a pretty good chance I'll ignore it. If you can back up what you're saying, by all means do so. I'm doing the same because I was asked to explain why I don't like Dimps, and since then everything I've posted has been a reply to someone else who was quoting me. Except for my reply to dave, which was three sentences and was related to something I said anyway. And I've made it clear that this is all my opinion in the first place.

And I don't remember comparing CV IV to a fan hack. I think it does look horribly generic, however, and has absolutely nothing that sets it apart from any other typical SNES action game, which is a shame for such an otherwise unique series. However, if I did compare it to a fan-made game (which is different from a fan hack, fyi), that's probably why. And just like in that topic, you're taking someone disliking a game you enjoy FAR too seriously.

BrianC wrote:The Sonic Advance games have more viewing space than the GG games

Yes they do, but the issue here is that in the GG games, you still have enough screen space to be able to react accordingly. Despite having a smaller screen, the levels are a better fit for it than the Advance games are for the GBA screen. I'm not talking about screen size, I'm talking about how its utilized and how it relates to overall level design, and game design.

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:35 pm

Again, you keep saying it's becuase my love for the game. It's becuase people like you with negative opinions can't keep their mouths shut on this forum without insisting that the other person's opinion is invalid and re-posting your opinion, which has already been stated all over again, thus keeping the argument going. Seriously, even if I did give detailed reasons for why the level design isn't as poor as fan made games, I feel that I would just be ignored anyway, which is why I want someone with a more trusted opinion to reply. BTW, it's also not that I think you have no opinion. It's just that you gave reasons for disliking the game, but insist on trying to prove that everyone who disagrees with you is invalid, which is why I want someone to post the other side of the coin. I'm not trying to change your opinion, but I did find some things you said to be wrong and I do want to state why I find them wrong. Again, I'm not trying to stop you from disliking the game, I just want to prove that there are vaild reasons for liking it, which it what I was trying to do with CVIV. However, as game specific as the argument was, I was only focused on those games, not becuase they are my favorites or becuase I love them or whatever, but becuase they are games that seemed to be dissed here to the point of the opinions of the people who do like the games being considered invalid.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:48 pm

You're the only person who I've replied to about this game. I didn't reply to either Dartagnan1083 or Thunder Force (because they said "I like the game" rather than "if you don't like the game you're wrong and here's why"), and I replied to dave's comment about the Genesis games.

I never said anyone's opinion was invalid... to the contrary, you're here going "hey, don't reply, I'm gonna get someone here who will prove you wrong." If you want to talk about Sonic Rush, then quit talking about SA3. If you want to discuss SA3, then discuss it without whining about your opinion being invalidated by one person who doesn't agree with it. And there's the fact that this all started with you contradicting my opinion, not the other way around (of course, I didn't complain that you were trying to snuff it out or whatever).

You're the only person I'm replying to here for a reason.

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:52 pm

sethsez wrote:You're the only person who I've replied to about this game. I didn't reply to either Dartagnan1083 or Thunder Force (because they said "I like the game" rather than "if you don't like the game you're wrong and here's why"), and I replied to dave's comment about the Genesis games.

I never said anyone's opinion was invalid... to the contrary, you're here going "hey, don't reply, I'm gonna get someone here who will prove you wrong." If you want to talk about Sonic Rush, then quit talking about SA3. If you want to discuss SA3, then discuss it without whining about your opinion being invalidated by one person who doesn't agree with it. And there's the fact that this all started with you contradicting my opinion, not the other way around (of course, I didn't complain that you were trying to snuff it out or whatever).

You're the only person I'm replying to here for a reason.

But you are the one taking me out of context and the reason I didn't want you to reply is becuase you keep saying the type of things that cause arguments....

sethsez wrote:Right, but the Genesis ones had good level design. They didn't have speed boosts that shot you into walls, or springboards under spikes. The Advance games have all the individual parts right, but they're put together all wrong, like fanhacks of Sonic 2.

And this was a reply to my post? It was right after dave4shmups post, who didn't even say anything about the level design and pretty much the post that got me started again...

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:57 pm

Saying something you disagree with is not the same as "saying things that cause arguments," though between this thread and the CVIV debate it appears that they might as well be.

I think Sonic Advance 3 sucks. If someone asks why, I'll tell them why. If someone makes a comment about the game in relation to something I said, I'll reply. If someone tries to debate it, I'll debate it.

BrianC wrote:And this was a reply to my post? It was right after dave4shmups post, who didn't even say anything about the level design and pretty much the post that got me started again...

No (I don't know why you thought that was a reply to you), that was a reply to Dave's post, who said the Genesis games were comparable in design to the GBA ones. I replied with why I don't think this is the case.

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:19 pm

sethsez wrote:
BrianC wrote:And this was a reply to my post? It was right after dave4shmups post, who didn't even say anything about the level design and pretty much the post that got me started again...
No (I don't know why you thought that was a reply to you), that was a reply to Dave's post, who said the Genesis games were comparable in design to the GBA ones. I replied with why I don't think this is the case.

I didn't think it was a reply to me. You are the one who said that you were only replying to me. Anyway, I thought that Sonic Rush looked interesting, but the way the two screens are implemented is very odd. The whole 2 screen play field thing has me a slight bit skeptical.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:31 pm

Okay, I'll alter that to say you're the only one I'm arguing with, then.

The 2 screen thing interests me for the exact same reason. Combined with the higher resolution screens (if only slightly) and a view that looks slightly more zoomed out, this looks like it'll finally answer my complaints about the last two Advance games.

PepsimanVsJoe · Post by **PepsimanVsJoe** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 7:08 pm

Dimps is an abortion.

Alright maybe I should explain that.
Well I played through a fair bit of Sonic Advance 3. I must have played through five or six of the zones before quitting. I got so much of a "been there done that" feeling from each of the stages. This wasn't by comparing the zones to prior Sonic games, this was by comparing the zones in the SAME GAME. Each of the levels felt like nothing more than a collection of loops and hills with a different tile-set for each. The two character mechanic felt busted and tacked on, the artstyle is awful just awful(Sonic's new look is so much better in 3D ala Sonic Adventure 2).

Just today I sat down and played through Sonic 1. Now that game on the other hand was brilliant in terms of level design. Each zone had their own style and they were so well designed there was no reason to sit around adding Chao's to obscure places as some sort of "content". Hell for the most part all of the early Sonic games were incredibly well done and felt very fresh and unique.

I will point out also that while the level designs in Sonic CD are fairly unique in themselves..they are unfortunately all very lousy. This works both ways but still I'd take this game over Sonic Advance 3 since at least there's something new to see around every corner.

Sonic Advance on the other hand is perfect fodder for the usual Sonic game trolls that say "Well all you have to do is hold forward in order to beat the game". The stages are so straightforward and uninteresting you really don't know where you're going(This can also be attributed to the small-screen which doesn't allow for enough "stuff" to get crammed into the playing area).

Edit: Sonic Adventure 1? Ewwwwwww

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:04 pm

PepsimanVsJoe wrote:Well I played through a fair bit of Sonic Advance 3. I must have played through five or six of the zones before quitting. I got so much of a "been there done that" feeling from each of the stages. This wasn't by comparing the zones to prior Sonic games, this was by comparing the zones in the SAME GAME. Each of the levels felt like nothing more than a collection of loops and hills with a different tile-set for each.

YES. I tried to say it when I called the games boring, but this articulates it far better. In Sonic 2, there's a huge difference between Metropolis Zone and Hill Top Zone. Advance 2 was the worst offender here, and while 3 was a bit better, it still suffered from the "same level designs, different tile set" feel you're speaking of.

I will point out also that while the level designs in Sonic CD are fairly unique in themselves..they are unfortunately all very lousy. This works both ways but still I'd take this game over Sonic Advance 3 since at least there's something new to see around every corner.

I actually love Sonic CD since it emphasizes exploration, which is what I always felt Sonic was about (much moreso than speed... the first Sonic was mostly slow paced). I can see why some people hate it, though.

jp · Post by jp » Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:30 pm

I agree with sethsez (maybe I already said that? I don't know). The GG Sonic games were incredibly slow paced compared to the Genesis games and thus they worked. Sonic Advance and Sonic Advance 3 (which I picked up today) both seem to be:
Run forward
Hit spike/enemy/etc. that came out of nowhere
Collect coins
Run forward

Kind of lame. Hopefully Sonic Rush plays a lot better.

To me what made the original Sonic games so great WAS the ingenious level design. Like PepsimanvsJoe said, all of the levels in the original are so unique each one is a completely different experience. And the same could be said about the next 4 games in the series (Sonic 2, 3, & Knuckles).

My problem with Sonic CD stems from the lame bosses. One hit? Eh, fuck that. Though the race against Metal Sonic is one of my favorite levels in all of Sonic's history.

shmups.system11.org

Sonic Rush

Sonic Rush

Ehhhhhhh

Re: Ehhhhhhh