The GHZ Forum

Yuji Natter
NOM Interview: Sonic & Mario and new Sonic game details

The Nintendo Official Magazine interview with Yuji Naka, which, if you re-call, confirmed the development of a new Gamecube Sonic game when it previewed last month, has finally been published.

In the article, Yuji Naka reveals that the new title will not be a follow-up to Sonic Heroes, but “a totally new Sonic gameâ€￾.

Naka also discusses the creative problems with getting Mario and Sonic together for a game and express thoughts on sequels to NiGHTS and Burning Rangers.

Scans of the article, courtesy of One Tru Blue, can be found here:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4


Stars sign Phantasy
PSO creators sign copies of PSOBB Ep.4

The creators of PSO Blue Burst Episode IV autographed five copies of the game, which were given away as a prize Sega of Japan’s mobile phone service, Sega Mobile Frenzy (known colloquially as SEGAMOBO).

The prize also included the sound track CD and wrist strap that was included with the initial launch copies of the game.


^ Producer Mr. Miyoshi and sound creator Mr. Kobayashi both signed 5 copies of the game


^ The sound track CD

More details can be found at Dengeki Online.

[Disclaimer: Information obtained via machine translation and so may be inaccurate].

A whole new Sonic game for Gamecube? You guys must be glad it's not a sequel to Sonic Heroes.

Not a sequel? Of course it's not a sequel. The only Sonic game in history to have a true sequel is S&K. But it is gonna have the same cast, more or less, and the same incompetent team making it. How is it any less of a sequel than any other Sonic game?

Well you could count 2-3-K-Drift 2-Fighters-Battle if you wanted to since they all have the Death Egg.

Frieza2000 wrote:Not a sequel? Of course it's not a sequel. The only Sonic game in history to have a true sequel is S&K. But it is gonna have the same cast, more or less, and the same incompetent team making it. How is it any less of a sequel than any other Sonic game?

What on earth do you count a sequel if you don't think Sonic the Hedgehog had a following game by the name of Sonic the Hedgehog 2. And another called Sonic the Hedgehog 3. Or Sonic Adventure, which also had a non-sequel coming after it suspiciously called Sonic Adventure 2?

I'm asking how they define sequel. I'm assuming that Sonic team considers games to be sequels if they use engines similar enough to previous ones. When I said S&K is the only true sequel, I was working with the definition that a sequel was a game using the exact same engine.

I consider every Sonic platformer to be sequel to the last because it's the same cast and story. It's all about definition.

We need a warning that tells you you're not logged in before you post a message.

Or just turn off thing that allows you to post while not logged in.

Did Yuji Naka just compare Sonic and Mario to Aliens vs Predator? XD

Sonic Heroes was supposedly going to be "completely new" but it is clearly a followup to the Adventure games even if it doesn't share the title. The continuity is there with Metal Sonic's assimilation of Chaos and Shadow, and thematically it follows the exact same story formula whereby Eggman is booted aside by powers he sought to control. I think saying it's a "new game" just means they've found a new way to take Sonic Adventure and screw it up again, I doubt very much that they've gone back to the drawing board to create any real new concepts.

Hell - the mere mention of the possibility of a new Burning Rangers has gotten me excited. Then again...hearing the reviews of Astro Boy (3/10 on Teletext), my optimism has dimmed somewhat...

Astro Boy (for PS2?) got a 3/10 from WHO?

Dude, it... it doesn't matter. One of the things that continually blows me away (and pisses me off) is how seriously people take these "magic number" reviews. You cannot summarize a game (or anything else) with a goddamn number. And it never fucking fails, people who don't know anything about games but like to pretend they do will invariably respond to a question about any given game with, "Oh man, Game Informer gave that a 2!" This misses the point of EVERYTHING on such a fundamental level it blows my mind. I don't fucking care what groundless, arbitrary numeral Game Informer or EGM or Edge or Famitsu published as a synopsis for their ideas about the quality of this game. Can't people see that it means NOTHING?!

The endless sea of ignorance that is society has ruined everything I love.


Not that I'm trying to defend Astro Boy. I've never played it and have very little desire to...

By that logic, a written review is meaningless because no matter how much a literary genius the author is, mere words cannot fully express the gaming experience.

a written review is meaningless because no matter how much a literary genius the author is, mere words cannot fully express the gaming experience.

That's actually a very true statement, but you can express your thoughts much more clearly and accurately with the written word. Most people are too lazy to read, though, so they glance at the number for shock value, I guess.

Yeah, most reviewers simply say "graphics are good, control is okay, camera is terrible, sound is good. 6/10".

That really says absolutely nothing about the game.

Green Gibbon! wrote:Dude, it... it doesn't matter. One of the things that continually blows me away (and pisses me off) is how seriously people take these "magic number" reviews. You cannot summarize a game (or anything else) with a goddamn number. And it never fucking fails, people who don't know anything about games but like to pretend they do will invariably respond to a question about any given game with, "Oh man, Game Informer gave that a 2!" This misses the point of EVERYTHING on such a fundamental level it blows my mind. I don't fucking care what groundless, arbitrary numeral Game Informer or EGM or Edge or Famitsu published as a synopsis for their ideas about the quality of this game. Can't people see that it means NOTHING?!

The endless sea of ignorance that is society has ruined everything I love.


Not that I'm trying to defend Astro Boy. I've never played it and have very little desire to...

I give that post an 8.5/10. The .5 showing the great degree of accuracy and care gone into my summary, even though technically it means I am no longer rating out of 10.

Yeah, most reviewers simply say "graphics are good, control is okay, camera is terrible, sound is good. 6/10".

That really says absolutely nothing about the game.

One paragraph reviews piss me off so much. It shocks me how many 100+ page gaming/film magazines will give something just a half page "review" swiped straight from the back of the box.

A couple page review desscribing different aspects of the game and how well they work can be helpful, but it all eventually comes down to the individual playing the game. Oh and I use numbers when I'm lazy, typically if a site gives it under a 6 it is just a crappy game period. If 6 through 10 though pretty much mean the same thing and then you have to read.

I give that post an 8.5/10. The .5 showing the great degree of accuracy and care gone into my summary, even though technically it means I am no longer rating out of 10.

Because all grading scales must follow your ideal and have increments of one unit only.

He's refering to a previous argument about this, IIRC.

I know, I remember. It was just as stupid then as it was now. I wonder how he ever got through fractions.

I give this thread a 2.945 out of 6.

Boo. Let's start rating PEOPLE.
Del, you get a 7/10.

chriscaffee wrote:I know, I remember. It was just as stupid then as it was now. I wonder how he ever got through fractions.

It only goes to further show how ridiculous the concept of a number rating system is. Why would such precision be called for in a measurement system that doesn't even exist?

Light Speed wrote:A couple page review desscribing different aspects of the game and how well they work can be helpful, but it all eventually comes down to the individual playing the game. Oh and I use numbers when I'm lazy, typically if a site gives it under a 6 it is just a crappy game period. If 6 through 10 though pretty much mean the same thing and then you have to read.

I'd say all the way from 5 to 10 means you have a chance of enjoying the game simply depending on your tastes, although 5 is a little iffy.

As long as a score is not below 5-6 because of technical reasons (REAL technical reasons, like control, rampant glitches, etc, NOT graphics), there's a chance someone could have a good time with it. If a game has a 3 because it's just plain screwed up technically, then I doubt many would want to play it.

If there's one thing I hate the most, it's how everybody puts graphics as so important in their reviews.

It only goes to further show how ridiculous the concept of a number rating system is. Why would such precision be called for in a measurement system that doesn't even exist?

The purpose of the numbers is so one can compare games without having to do a direct comparison between each and every game a person has played. I don't have to compare VOOT to 652 other games if I give it a numeric representation.

As for the system not existing, that simply isn't true. It's a scale based solely on an individual (or group) opinion, but all reviews are based on opinion whether a small blurb, a 50-page deconstruction or a simple number. You might as well say all such measurements or analysises are useless since they are subjective and not universal.