Megathread Sonic Frontiers (2022) | MT | General Discussion (DO NOT discuss leaks here please)

[Shiny Gems]

3 minutes ago, Scritch the Cat said:

Incidentally, aren't movie Sonic's eyes blue in the actual movies, as opposed to the green here?

I thought Sonic's eyes only went blue when in that supercharged state he has in the movies.

[NegaMix]

3 minutes ago, Scritch the Cat said:

Incidentally, aren't movie Sonic's eyes blue in the actual movies, as opposed to the green here?

They're only blue when he's powering up with a lot of energy. Otherwise, movie Sonic's eyes have always been green.

[BubbleButt TV]

1 hour ago, Razule said:

The cartoonier look of the movie characters in the new short made me think about how much better the game characters would look if they had more fur detail in Frontiers.

 

it depends how they do it but I always thought that realistic fur just kind of completely goes against Sonic's rubber-hose style.

I don't see it happening any time soon

[King Conne]

I really don't want to see my beloved SONIC videogame heroes full of hairs!!...
Let their movie counterparts be heary if you like hairs, but please let the videogame characters be as beautiful as Yuji Uekwa's artworks as possible!!...

[Diogenes]

I generally prefer my Sonic characters without fur rendering but if they're going to stick him in blandly "realistic" environments it might make him look less out of place.

[Celestia]

2 hours ago, Razule said:

The cartoonier look of the movie characters in the new short made me think about how much better the game characters would look if they had more fur detail in Frontiers.

Maybe it could somehow be made to look cool but I'm really not a fan of any take on this concept I've seen. The movie stuff is probably the "best" (it's certainly better than that one fan film) and even then I just...don't get it.

I wouldn't be against a new style of models but this is the one thing I actively don't want. It's also probably the most likely thing they'd add. Woo.

[ZERO_ninja]

I wasn't really a fan of the fur for Sonic in the films, but overtime I've come around to it and I do actually really love his look in the films now. That said, as much as I do love film Sonic's look, I'd rather the games stick with what they have and keep different the different brands of Sonic recognisably distinct.

I think the video game look is also great, we had a blip with Ugly Sonic but for the most part Sonic has been pretty blessed with really great designs over the years in my opinion.

 

EDIT: And even Ugly Sonic manages have become iconic in it's own bizarre significant way. The one time Sonic has a bad design and even that is a blow up.

[BubbleButt TV]

do people think Sonic looks out of place in Unleashed?

I feel like this is more or less the same artstyle Frontiers is going for but I never really heard anyone say that he looked out of place before

environmental lighting can play a big part in making the character feel more at home in their surroundings I think

(although maybe this is ironic considering that Unleashed is the only Sonic game where he actually does have fur)

[Iko]

My opinion about the fur is that I think the models are outdated and all the modern cast should be redesigned to look more detailed, while still being consistent with their "modern" design (with eventually some adjustments when necessary).

In other words, not a major redesign, but something like Mario in Super Mario Odyssey, he still looks the same as usual, but they made his hair and mustache, along with the fabric of his shirt and pants, more realistic.

If this means rendering some more realistic fur on Sonic and friends, I'm all for that, gummy and plastic models in photorealistic environments don't look good anymore IMO; either do that or go cell shaded and try to recreate anime-like visuals for the whole game.

Plastic Sonic looks fitting in a game like Lost World where the environment is also plastic, but that game is not exactly the best example of art style for Sonic.

[Sega DogTagz]

3 hours ago, Iko said:

A game like Zelda Ocarina of Time is a masterpiece, but I played it only once, maybe twice in my entire life, and I feel little incentive in going back and revisiting it. Other smaller games which can be completed in one hour and half or a little more, I replayed them so many times that in total I may have spent hundreds of hours in them, and still revisit them from time to time. Those games for me have way more value than a very good game that I play once and never again.

 

Even if it lacks true replay value and you never go back to it again, I would imagine most people wouldn't trade the experience of going through OoT for anything. A game on that level is so special, that the experience warrants the price tag, even if you don't pour 100+ hours into it.

I mean, a ton of people pour endless hours into Madden or Fifa every year, but none of them would call it a better game than something like OoT, even if it vastly outshines the latter in terms of play time / replay-ability / whathaveyou. Value doesn't exist in a vacuum. You can't ignore the context of the quality of your experience.

 

Trying to justify or rank a game based on time played or re-playability is a fools errand. We expect different things from different genres. I expect to Drop 100+ hours into a game like Skyrim, or Valkyria Chronicles, or Pokemon and I would be disappointed in the end result if I didn't. But at the same time, playing through God of War Once, clocking in an amazing 30ish hours and never picking it up again doesn't make that game inferior in any way. It did its job and delivered an unforgettable experience.

[Diogenes]

2 minutes ago, BubbleButt TV said:

do people think Sonic looks out of place in Unleashed?

A bit. But Unleashed had color, and some sense of style to its environments. They chose visually striking locations. Frontiers so far is just...there's grass, and rocks, and some trees. They look like they could've come from any of hundreds of other games, probably starring some gruff white dude with a gun.

[Razule]

28 minutes ago, BubbleButt TV said:

do people think Sonic looks out of place in Unleashed?

I feel like this is more or less the same artstyle Frontiers is going for but I never really heard anyone say that he looked out of place before

environmental lighting can play a big part in making the character feel more at home in their surroundings I think

(although maybe this is ironic considering that Unleashed is the only Sonic game where he actually does have fur)

There's the lighting and the stylization, and also it being a game that released in 2008. He looks more jarring in the Frontiers teaser than he did in Unleashed because even though the model has barely gained any detail in the past 14 years, they're putting him in a 2022 game with less stylization and more realism.

[BubbleButt TV]

49 minutes ago, Iko said:

In other words, not a major redesign, but something like Mario in Super Mario Odyssey, he still looks the same as usual, but they made his hair and mustache, along with the fabric of his shirt and pants, more realistic.

I feel like Mario characters are a lot more straightforward than Sonic characters. 

with Sonic you've got his cartoonish mono-eye to consider and throwing fur on that could end up looking weirdly goofy

I genuinely used to think that this looked cool but the more I look at it, the more I think I hate it lol why would anyone want this

idk, maybe someday someone will make a mock up of game Sonic with fur that actually looks good but until then I really think it would be a step in the wrong direction for a character that's all about highly stylized rubber-hose animation

[Iko]

20 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

 

Even if it lacks true replay value and you never go back to it again, I would imagine most people wouldn't trade the experience of going through OoT for anything. A game on that level is so special, that the experience warrants the price tag, even if you don't pour 100+ hours into it.

I mean, a ton of people pour endless hours into Madden or Fifa every year, but none of them would call it a better game than something like OoT, even if it vastly outshines the latter in terms of play time / replay-ability / whathaveyou. Value doesn't exist in a vacuum. You can't ignore the context of the quality of your experience.

 

Trying to justify or rank a game based on time played or re-playability is a fools errand. We expect different things from different genres. I expect to Drop 100+ hours into a game like Skyrim, or Valkyria Chronicles, or Pokemon and I would be disappointed in the end result if I didn't. But at the same time, playing through God of War Once, clocking in an amazing 30ish hours and never picking it up again doesn't make that game inferior in any way. It did its job and delivered an unforgettable experience.

It depends, and I'm speaking very personal there, so I don't expect other people to agree with me.

OoT is an awesome game and I like it, though, it's a game that you "consume", and there's not much else to do, it's only really good the first time you play it. Once you know the story, the puzzle solutions, the plot twists, and all, the game isn't as fun nor enjoyable anymore.

I don't want to downplay OoT, I like it, it was just an example of good game that lacks replay value, but it's still good.

Madden or Fifa don't really count. Each year, the game is outdated and you must buy the new one... the value is not in the game itself, it's in the ability to play as your favorite team and simulate your favorite sport... the game itself is just a tool, an exploit. You can have fun with friends in multiplayer, but then you have to question if the fun was due to your friends playing and interacting with you real life, or due to the game itself. People put countless hours in online games, but are they having fun in those games, or do they do it for some leaderboard or grind some gacha stuff? Without any separate incentive, would they still put all those hours in that gameplay? That's not true replay value for me.

Some games are just immortal and never age, despite flaws and all. What I mean is that, while Ocarina of Time is a great game, in retrospect, I feel like I spent my money better in a game like Rhythm Heaven Fever, which occasionally I still grab and have fun with, than with any Zelda game I purchased, because as good as they are, they don't give me the same amount of enjoyment (enjoyment =/= fun) extended over a period of many years or even decades, and if I want a similar experience, I have to buy the new one; Except maybe Majora's Mask? But that's a whole different topic I'd prefer to avoid for now.

Is Sonic 1 Master System better than Sonic 3 & Knuckles? Technically no, but Sonic 1 Master System is the one I replay to death each time I have a chance to, while 3&K I played it like 3, or 4 times at best, and even if good, I just cant replay it over and over again because it's more stressful and has a lot of pace-breaking moments with bonus stages, blue spheres and all. I tend to value more the games I enjoy more, regardless of actual "quality", but I guess that this value is personal and not absolute. There are countless other similar examples.

It's hard to explain, but it's not just about the amount of hours spent, it's more about how the game is so much enjoyable that you spontaneously go back to it even if there's no reason to... it's why I think Melee is still the best Smash game despite having much less content than the recent ones. You play Brawl, then 4 comes, it's better, you move to 4; Ultimate comes, it's better, you move to Ultimate... When a decent amount of people stick with Melee despite Ultimate existsing, while with all the other Smash titles people just moved to the next ones, there must be a reason, and I believe it's not just nostalgia. I think those games are the real "gems", and in some cases it might also be subjective which games deserve this title and which don't, it's not strictly related to objective quality.

[Coz483]

9 hours ago, BubbleButt TV said:

I feel like Mario characters are a lot more straightforward than Sonic characters. 

with Sonic you've got his cartoonish mono-eye to consider and throwing fur on that could end up looking weirdly goofy

I genuinely used to think that this looked cool but the more I look at it, the more I think I hate it lol why would anyone want this

idk, maybe someday someone will make a mock up of game Sonic with fur that actually looks good but until then I really think it would be a step in the wrong direction for a character that's all about highly stylized rubber-hose animation

The muzzle and arms being "skin" are my least favorite confirmed things about Sonic characters, and it doesn't even look right.

10 hours ago, BubbleButt TV said:

do people think Sonic looks out of place in Unleashed?

I feel like this is more or less the same artstyle Frontiers is going for but I never really heard anyone say that he looked out of place before

environmental lighting can play a big part in making the character feel more at home in their surroundings I think

(although maybe this is ironic considering that Unleashed is the only Sonic game where he actually does have fur)

I mean it's probably due to the graphics not being as powerful at the time, and the fact Frontiers just takes place in these open fields. At the end of the day Sonic has had a lot of styles for both it's characters and backgrounds so a realistic world doesn't really bother me.

10 hours ago, Diogenes said:

A bit. But Unleashed had color, and some sense of style to its environments. They chose visually striking locations. Frontiers so far is just...there's grass, and rocks, and some trees. They look like they could've come from any of hundreds of other games, probably starring some gruff white dude with a gun.

I mean it reminds me of games where Sonic had ruins, and other concepts like that. To me it feels normal I guess.

[StaticMania]

1 hour ago, Coz483 said:

The muzzle and arms being "skin" are my least favorite confirmed things about Sonic characters, and it doesn't even look right.

Literally just for the hedgehogs...and Knuckles.

For Espio & Charmy such a thing wouldn't make sense.

[Coz483]

13 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

Literally just for the hedgehogs...and Knuckles.

For Espio & Charmy such a thing wouldn't make sense.

I obviously mean the ones that have it like Hedgehogs and echidnas, who not only have fur on muzzles(though the arms can be bare) but also look weird in 3d having certain parts be "skin."

[Natie]

Was is ever confirmed to be skin? I'm pretty sure its just spots of brighter belly/face fur like real hedgehogs have. Instances of poor texture work aside...

[Razule]

46 minutes ago, Natie said:

Was is ever confirmed to be skin? I'm pretty sure its just spots of brighter belly/face fur like real hedgehogs have. Instances of poor texture work aside...

The blue part of Sonic's models always has texture that the tan part doesn't. 

[Natie]

Instances of poor texture work aside, im pretty sure skin wasn't the original intention as second-color fur patches on muzzles and bellies are pretty common for cartoon animals.

...God, could you imagine if the movie Sonic model interpreted that part as bare skin?

[ComeAsYouAre]

Sonic was inspired by Felix and I doubt that the white part of Felix is anything other than Fur

[Razule]

35 minutes ago, Natie said:

Instances of poor texture work aside, im pretty sure skin wasn't the original intention as second-color fur patches on muzzles and bellies are pretty common for cartoon animals.

...God, could you imagine if the movie Sonic model interpreted that part as bare skin?

16 minutes ago, ComeAsYouAre said:

Sonic was inspired by Felix and I doubt that the white part of Felix is anything other than Fur

In the furry scrapped 06 render higher up this page, we can see that the muzzle and arms at least are skin. 

Sonic's eyelids use to be the same color as his muzzle. The Forces' CaC, you can select the Avatar's "skin" color. 

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this after all this time, but if a Sonic character has a human skin tone on their designs (the Hedgehogs, Rouge, Charmy, and Espio), it's skin. It's like they're wearing mascot costumes.

I can't imagine Movie Sonic with visible would've looked right, and I'm glad they chose to make it all fur.

[Natie]

Ah so it's just design interpretation inbreeding over 30 years just like the quills and eyes and everything else no longer making sense as cartoon abstractions, thank you SEGA. 

[Shiny Gems]

So, we are talking about skin on Sonic characters?

I am fine with it, and that is why I was not initially a fan of the fur where his mouth and stomach is when it comes to movie Sonic the Hedgehog.

I have to admit though, now that I have gotten used to it, I would say the fur is better on movie Sonic than skin.

Still, for game Sonic, I am fine with the skin as I said. I see nothing wrong with it.

[Sega DogTagz]

Had a thought today.

What if the "cyberspace" levels in Frontiers leaned in on the potential that was only lightly touched by the Phantom Ruby? i.e. dramatic shifts in the stage during the gameplay.

 

I think the most creative level in Forces was the Imperial City stage where Infinite constantly flipped gravity and warped the landscape into his twisted image. On top of foreground/background interaction, it also made for plenty of spectacle. In theory Cyberspace can replicate all those kinds of effects.

 

If everything around you is a programmed illusion, there really is no limit to where the level can take you. You can get outside the box with how you want to incorporate the idea too. Maybe key badniks have hacking capabilities that can close doors or delete bridges if they aren't dealt with fast enough. Maybe Eggman is watching you run through levels remotely and can "program" in some extra hardships for you.