This awesome thing is obviously not Sega's

[Neo]

you can only get the Doomsday boss as Hyper Sonic

Not on Sonic & Knuckles. All you need is 7 emeralds.

I don't think that's even true in the combined game, is it? Pretty sure I've done it before...

You only need seven emeralds. ANY seven emeralds. The Chaos Emeralds are fine, but as soon as you deposit just a single one in Hidden Palace, you need to get all the Supers.

[Sniffnoy]

Ah, OK. I think I was misremembering, actually.

[Kogen]

So what happens if you get seven chaos emeralds with Tails, but do not deposit them? Do you get a different ending save file image? Such mysteries to behold!

[Xyton]

Wait, so if Sonic Team made an HD remake for an old game, people wouldn't be happy with that, even if it was really good? Personally, I wouldn't mind: It would show that they can still make something fun, and the could potentially use it as a springboard for new games. (Then again, I'm usually optimistic.)

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a new, good game, but if the general vibe about Sonic 4 is correct, I think I'd rather see a good game period.

[Esrever]

Maybe if it was 2D with 3D graphics. I don't think I've ever seen a 2D HD remake of any old 2D game that didn't wind up looking really strange or just plain awful.

[G.Silver]

Wait, so if Sonic Team made an HD remake for an old game, people wouldn't be happy with that, even if it was really good? Personally, I wouldn't mind: It would show that they can still make something fun, and the could potentially use it as a springboard for new games. (Then again, I'm usually optimistic.)

I think at this point the classic games have been milked entirely too much, they've been re-released so many times on nearly every console for the past two generations. I'm sure some people would be happy with it and it could be a really cool and beautiful thing. But I would have a hard time interpreting it as meaning that "they can still make something fun," because to me it means that they can't. It's one thing to keep trying to expand the franchise, it's something else entirely to go back and admit defeat. Now, if I were happier with the state of modern Sonic games I might feel differently, if a completely new team (such as it is!) that I respect wants to remake a classic, then go for it. But as is, I don't think they even understand those old games well enough to remake them without screwing something up.

[FlashTHD]

I think at this point the classic games have been milked entirely too much, they've been re-released so many times on nearly every console for the past two generations. I'm sure some people would be happy with it and it could be a really cool and beautiful thing. But I would have a hard time interpreting it as meaning that "they can still make something fun," because to me it means that they can't. It's one thing to keep trying to expand the franchise, it's something else entirely to go back and admit defeat. Now, if I were happier with the state of modern Sonic games I might feel differently, if a completely new team (such as it is!) that I respect wants to remake a classic, then go for it. But as is, I don't think they even understand those old games well enough to remake them without screwing something up.

My thoughts exactly throughout this brouhaha.

[FlashTHD]

Post-edit-limit addendum: To expect much of anything special from Sega lately is writing yourself an invitation to disappointment. Step back, chill out and maybe there will be an interesting suprise eventually. (Colors looks somewhat decent so far, at least.) Which is not to say there isn't reason to rage at the exceedingly stupid shit they do, but perspective helps.

Also, just to clarify, if Sega were to do such a remake, I can bet you it will be less about fanservice and more cashing in on the "retro remake" gravy train for seconds. It's as much a fad now as cel-shading used to be if not more - whoops, what does that remind me of?

[Ritz]

I swear, whenever I see someone advocating a 2.5D remake of the classic Sonic games, I sort of want to jam my cock into their mouth to stifle the nonsense. No matter how faithful the recreation, it's simply impossible to translate the original games into 3D without sucking the life right out of the visuals. I'd even go so far as to say that restricting any 3D game's viewpoint to a single axis defeats the entire purpose of working in 3D to begin with, and shouldn't be bothered with unless you're working under a tight budget. 3D for the sake of 3D lost its aesthetic appeal about partway through the PS1's lifespan- why even consider it when 2D allows for so much more?

That's not to say that I can't appreciate the animation on its own merits. All in all, the artist made a solid attempt and the results are quite novel to watch. I'd be a lot more interested had he created an entirely new zone (Something he's expressed interest in doing, but probably won't). Still, I think Sonic 4 had the right idea in using pre-rendered graphics for its environments, sacrificing a superficial degree of parallax for a markedly more polished result. It looks a hell of a lot more appealing to me; Splash Hill is rather tepid in places, but the latter three zones look pretty marvelous to me, Lost Labyrinth in particular.

Oh, and he's got a pair of renders for his Sonic model here. It looks pretty wonky in action and there's room for improvement, but I think it's the best Sonic model to date, fanmade or otherwise. Don't worry though, he's already made plans to ruin it by deliberately incorporating elements of Sonic's modern design, green eyes and all!

[FlashTHD]

I'd even go so far as to say that restricting any 3D game's viewpoint to a single axis defeats the entire purpose of working in 3D to begin with, and shouldn't be bothered with unless you're working under a tight budget. 3D for the sake of 3D lost its aesthetic appeal about partway through the PS1's lifespan- why even consider it when 2D allows for so much more?

To be fair, Mega Man X8 uses it very effectively and the game is awesome.

[Kogen]

I'd even go so far as to say that restricting any 3D game's viewpoint to a single axis defeats the entire purpose of working in 3D to begin with, and shouldn't be bothered with unless you're working under a tight budget. 3D for the sake of 3D lost its aesthetic appeal about partway through the PS1's lifespan- why even consider it when 2D allows for so much more?

To be fair, Mega Man X8 uses it very effectively and the game is awesome.

To be fair, G Sonic uses it very effectively and the game is awesome.

[Ritz]

To be fair, Mega Man X8 uses it very effectively and the game is awesome.

Howso? Does it incorporate dynamic angles and plane switching and the like? Because 2.5D is perfectly acceptable so long as there's a degree of utility to it. Any viewpoint is ultimately worthless if you aren't going to play to its strengths.

[Neo]

I swear, whenever I see someone advocating a 2.5D remake of the classic Sonic games, I sort of want to jam my cock into their mouth to stifle the nonsense. No matter how faithful the recreation, it's simply impossible to translate the original games into 3D without sucking the life right out of the visuals. I'd even go so far as to say that restricting any 3D game's viewpoint to a single axis defeats the entire purpose of working in 3D to begin with, and shouldn't be bothered with unless you're working under a tight budget. 3D for the sake of 3D lost its aesthetic appeal about partway through the PS1's lifespan- why even consider it when 2D allows for so much more?

So what you're saying is you hate Clockwork Knight?

[G.Silver]

I'd even go so far as to say that restricting any 3D game's viewpoint to a single axis defeats the entire purpose of working in 3D to begin with, and shouldn't be bothered with unless you're working under a tight budget. 3D for the sake of 3D lost its aesthetic appeal about partway through the PS1's lifespan- why even consider it when 2D allows for so much more?

I don't think the purpose of working in 3D is ever to restrict the viewpoint. The video is a nice piece of work but nearly every "2.5D" game I've ever played makes use of its 3D in some manner or other, tilting the viewing angle, zooming in and out, changing perspective, and so on. It's primarily for visual effect, but you can't say it doesn't make a difference. (Imagine NiGHTS as a wholly 2D game.) The little enhancements do add something that you don't get from straight 2D, and these days the 3D backgrounds can (or could, soon) be just as lush and detailed as 2D ones.

It certainly won't be cheaper though. Unless the 2D is replicating something that would be better off in 3D anyway (which is not the sort of thing that happens in old 2D games) there is no way that 2D backgrounds could possibly be cheaper than 3D ones. For character animation (ie, New Super Mario) 3D animation is cheaper because it's easy to change and tweak once your model is built, and multiple models can use the same animations, so you save a lot of labor there, but building up a 3D background is going to take much, much longer--you have to build the 3D models, for one thing, and then you have to detail the sides. With 2D, you detail one side and you're done.

I certainly can't look at something like Donkey Kong Country Returns and think it would look better in 2D, but I can't look at WarioLand Shake and think it would look better in 3D, either. There's a perfectly good argument for either case.

[Rob-Bert]

Klonoa is a very fine example of a 2D game using 3D graphics. I'd kill for a Sonic game done in the style of Klonoa.

[Ritz]

So what you're saying is you hate Clockwork Knight?

Nice try! The Clockwork Knight games at least put the 3D to moderately good use with plane switching and objects that unfold and fall from the background. The foreground elements were seldom all that attractive, anyway. The game's strengths ultimately lie with the art direction, character design and 2D elements (textures and backgrounds).

I don't think the purpose of working in 3D is ever to restrict the viewpoint. The video is a nice piece of work but nearly every "2.5D" game I've ever played makes use of its 3D in some manner or other, tilting the viewing angle, zooming in and out, changing perspective, and so on. It's primarily for visual effect, but you can't say it doesn't make a difference.

In retrospect, I suppose there have been more games that have put 2.5D to good use than not, but it's easy to forget that when there's been such an influx of games that just look bland as hell to me. Still, I maintain that no amount of 3D trickery will ever make a suitable substitute for any of the 2D Sonic games, much less a replacement. I'd say the same of any 2.5D remake of a game that put 2D to exceptionally good use.

It certainly won't be cheaper though. Unless the 2D is replicating something that would be better off in 3D anyway (which is not the sort of thing that happens in old 2D games) there is no way that 2D backgrounds could possibly be cheaper than 3D ones. For character animation (ie, New Super Mario) 3D animation is cheaper because it's easy to change and tweak once your model is built, and multiple models can use the same animations, so you save a lot of labor there, but building up a 3D background is going to take much, much longer--you have to build the 3D models, for one thing, and then you have to detail the sides. With 2D, you detail one side and you're done.

I'm not sure about this one, though. I mean, I think there's something to be said for the fact that this one man was able to craft a solid 3D interpretation of MHZ in less than a week in his spare time- not many people can do the same thing in 2D, it seems. I can't say for sure that 2D is harder to work with, but I don't doubt that there's a shortage of competent 2D artists in the industry outside of pre-production roles, who generally get paid an equivalent amount of cash as the modelers themselves just to render a single image of an environment!

That aside, I'd have a hard time believing that 3D modeling is any more labor-intensive than 2D illustration when the industry spends millions annually developing tools to streamline the process, not to mention the lower skill barrier in comparison (2D artist needs to learn how to visualize form, approximate light and deal with perspective, 3D artist pretty much only needs to learn how to use the tools). Oh, and the advent of shaders allows a 3D artist to replicate the visual properties of every surface material conceivable, some of which would take a 2D artist years to render convincingly. As for detailing sides, you generally only see two planes of a surface in a 2.5D environment, and seldom ever more than 3. So, they make a handful of tiling textures and apply them liberally throughout the foreground plane. The capacity for detail is practically limitless, but that's as far as they really need to go. Seems a lot less costly to me in the long run.

Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass and I'm wrong about everything? Stranger things have happened, I guess.


Wait, just as I'd finished typing this, I realized that the combined labor of 3D modelers, texture artists and VFX programmers could very well exceed the cost of a team of 2D artists, but, uh, the only 2.5D game I can think of that actually put that much effort into the visuals is Blazblue. I wouldn't complain if every game looked as good as Blazblue.

[FlashTHD]

Howso? Does it incorporate dynamic angles and plane switching and the like?

Yes and (somewhat less) yes.

[G.Silver]

I'm not sure about this one, though. I mean, I think there's something to be said for the fact that this one man was able to craft a solid 3D interpretation of MHZ in less than a week in his spare time- not many people can do the same thing in 2D, it seems. I can't say for sure that 2D is harder to work with, but I don't doubt that there's a shortage of competent 2D artists in the industry outside of pre-production roles, who generally get paid an equivalent amount of cash as the modelers themselves just to render a single image of an environment!

Not many people are competent artists. While 3D skills might appear more tool-based, 2D skills are less specialized and cheaper to acquire (you can get a decent 2D art class almost anywhere), and the tools are cheaper too. The reason there are so few 2D artists (also, 2D illustration is a completely different job than building 2D game assets) working in the game industry isn't because they cost more, it's because there's hardly any demand for them (just like there's hardly any demand for 2D games).

(2D artist needs to learn how to visualize form, approximate light and deal with perspective, 3D artist pretty much only needs to learn how to use the tools). Oh, and the advent of shaders allows a 3D artist to replicate the visual properties of every surface material conceivable, some of which would take a 2D artist years to render convincingly. As for detailing sides, you generally only see two planes of a surface in a 2.5D environment, and seldom ever more than 3. So, they make a handful of tiling textures and apply them liberally throughout the foreground plane. The capacity for detail is practically limitless, but that's as far as they really need to go. Seems a lot less costly to me in the long run.

Modeling something in 3D is a different way of translating the visual form, but the visualization is the same. A 3D artist still needs to understand composition, how to *use* lighting (not just how to turn it on), and a ton of other skills. A 3D artist with weak 2D fundamentals is not going to get very far. As for materials, a 2D artist can still fake it with collage (this is why Photoshop has become so important for all kinds of digital art, not just 3D), and as for "tiling textures," what do you think 2D games are made of? Even non-tile-based games still use repeating textures and elements, just like in 3D. The things that make this so easy to do in 3D make it just as easy to do in 2D, and in Sonic's case, you can be sure there are no "complicated" textures.

Seriously, if some asshole wants to come in here and tell me he's a pro making amazing 3D work with absolutely no 2D skill, then by all means, but I'm certain it wasn't just as simple as "learning the tools."

[Ritz]

and as for "tiling textures," what do you think 2D games are made of? Even non-tile-based games still use repeating textures and elements, just like in 3D.

I realized that I should've mentioned this immediately after it was too late for me to edit my post. That much goes without saying, but my intent in bringing it up was to point out that the process between the two mediums was similar, and thus, not that much more complex.

Anyway, I agree with you for the most part, and there's really no point in arguing any of those points, so I'll back out. I just went overboard in my bloodcurdling fury and my dire need to insert my hardware into someone's mouth. I just... I just really don't like 2.5D, you know?

[Ritz]

Wait, I'm still not satisfied. If 2D isn't more expensive or difficult to employ, then what the fuck is Sonic 4 even. Why would they even?

[Neo]

Wait, I'm still not satisfied. If 2D isn't more expensive or difficult to employ, then what the fuck is Sonic 4 even. Why would they even?

Sonic 4 is "3D". They just took a bunch a pictures of the 3D work they did so they could just slap it on the Rush engine without having to worry about stuff like polygon count.

[Ritz]

That is an obvious observation and does not answer my question, which was also rhetorical.

[(No Imagination)]

Hm, maybe they want the game to look like a first-gen GBA cover or something. Those repeating tall banana plants look ... weird, though. At first I was gonna rant about how lazy it is to render something in 3D just to take a single shot of it from a single angle and copy/paste it all over the level ... but now I've taken a second look at the banana trees and ... they look more like pixel or maybe vector drawings to me.

While those six-leaved stemless phoenix palm plants obviously look like fake plastic.

...maybe ... maybe the plastic fake 3D is filler material until someone gets their job done..?

* HYSTERICAL LAUGHTER *