Kikizo Interview with Tetsu Katano

[SuperLink]

OK I get it But let's not forget that Brawl came out last year too.

And Sonic Unleashed does show that they'd put a lot of effort into it, but the Werehog half was unecessary, boring, and they made the worst excuse possible for putting it in too. "To make the game longer".

Sorry but I think plenty of people would buy Sonic Unleashed half a long without Werehog. It would probably have gotten much better reviews too.

[Gatestormer]

SU wasn't bad but Sonic Team lacks the talent (not that they suck or anything), the funding, and the development time to deliver something at Mario Galaxy's level.

That's actually an excellent point. Sonic Team's main income of money is Sonic. Nintendo's profits they get from Mario must only be a percentage of their overall income, so while Sonic Team are fighting the economy with Sonic (and some very minor others) and racing to get the new Sonic out to keep them alive, Nintendo are fighting the economy with Wii, DS, Mario, Zelda, Metroid etc etc and etc. Nintendo have the space, staff, money and time to spend 8 years or so on a single Mario game.

Nintendo could survive without Mario.

Sonic Team couldn't survive without Sonic.

Perhaps SEGA and Sonic Teams best choice for quality is to expand Sonic Team, get more franchises up and running, get in a bunch of other teams so they can get a continuous income while working on Sonic, like Nintendo can with Mario

I think it would be interesting to see how Mario Galaxy would be if it was made on Sonic Teams schedule...

Edited May 16, 2009 by ENVY16

[redmenace]

That's actually an excellent point. Sonic Team's main income of money is Sonic. Nintendo's profits they get from Mario must only be a percentage of their overall income, so while Sonic Team are fighting the economy with Sonic (and some very minor others) and racing to get the new Sonic out to keep them alive, Nintendo are fighting the economy with Wii, DS, Mario, Zelda, Metroid etc etc and etc. Nintendo have the space, staff, money and time to spend 8 years or so on a single Mario game.

Nintendo could survive without Mario.

Sonic Team couldn't survive without Sonic.

Perhaps SEGA and Sonic Teams best choice for quality is to expand Sonic Team, get more franchises up and running, get in a bunch of other teams so they can get a continuous income while working on Sonic, like Nintendo can with Mario

I think it would be interesting to see how Mario Galaxy would be if it was made on Sonic Teams schedule...

Sonic Team is part of SEGA's R&D department, so they get money from the whole share, not just Sonic (and they have other projects as well). SEGA doesn't survive thanks to Sonic, but they've got a lot from it. Sonic Unleashed had a small budget, comparing to other titles, but let's not forget the ammount of time (even before Sonic 06 was out) and money spent in the Hedgehog Engine. It was the first time it was used as well. It was supposed to be a "test" for the thing. I guess they were more converned about how it could be used more than anything else. The next Sonic game is probably going to be a really good thing from how it stands.

[blackherox]

Sorry but I think plenty of people would buy Sonic Unleashed half a long without Werehog. It would probably have gotten much better reviews too.

You say that but I'm willing to believe that would bot be the case. If they release said game and it was only 5-8 hours long with a £30/$60 pricetag, I'm sure a lot of people would be put off. I also doubt it would have gotten ''much'' better reviews, given the shortness of the game and he fact that the day levels were criticized as well.

[SuperLink]

You say that but I'm willing to believe that would bot be the case. If they release said game and it was only 5-8 hours long with a £30/$60 pricetag, I'm sure a lot of people would be put off. I also doubt it would have gotten ''much'' better reviews, given the shortness of the game and he fact that the day levels were criticized as well.

Compared the the Night levels, the day levels were generally seen as excellent by most reviewers. Most review rants consisted of Werehog killing would would otherwise be a good game.

How long does Sonic Rush take to finish? How about Sonic Advance? Or how abut Sonic 2 or 3? Any of those games I think most reviewers would rather play through than the whole of Sonic Unleashed. Being short isn't a bad thing; people thought Rush was worth the money they paid for it. Unleashed without Night stages, especially with all this dlc we're getting, would have definitely still been worth the price. It likely would have gotten more sales too.

Obviously daytime stages were criticized, but you say that as if the majority of "great games" have no criticisms at all, which is simply not true.

EDIT: Most FPS are shorter than 8 hours.

They're also the most popular genre. Apparantly if you don't love them it automatically makes you a weeaboo.

Edited May 16, 2009 by SuperLink

[Djawed]

this katano guy prefers the storybook games

to me that really says enough about him.. in a bad way that is.

Im w8ting for hashimoto's next game and hope that he has learned a lot

[Rusty Spy]

this katano guy prefers the storybook games

to me that really says enough about him.. in a bad way that is.

Im w8ting for hashimoto's next game and hope that he has learned a lot

I don't see how that's the case. The storybook series as pretty much gotten everything right for a Sonic game, story, playable characters, missions, unlockables, and length distribution. The only thing they haven't gotten was the overall gameplay.

The story was well written, the playable characters were completely optional rather than forced upon the player, there were a fair selection of missions and unlockables, and the game doesn't force useless missions on the player, you only play through the most vital missions to complete the story, and all the others are completely optional as well. And the mission progression is nonlinear as well, meaning you could simply deviate from the main missions whenever and try out some other missions before progressing,(though sometimes this can happen unintentionally, for me at least). Couple this along with the great kind of creativity presented in the game and you've got something great going. The only, and biggest flaw unfortunately, is that the gameplay is pretty mediocre.

If they can keep up with how well the rest of Black Knight was and improve the gameplay, there might be some success in this spin off series and hopefully give a positive influence on the main series games.

[redmenace]

The storybooks are good I agree, but they aren't and shouldn't be what the main franchise is. It's cool for spin-offs but go play a SU HD Sonic level (day of course) and another of Black Knight, there's a difference, and although SU still has some stuff to iron out (I want more routes, accessed in different ways and momentum gameplay) it's still what Sonic should be all about, not BK, at least for the main franchise.

[Phos]

Storybook games were exactly wrong.

I haven't had any blocky shadow problems, so I don't know what you're talking about there. I'm not too sure what you're trying to say regarding the latter two problems, but I have I had very few complaints with the game's graphics, I think they look absolutely wonderful.

The real time shadows are very low resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_detail_(programming)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

Actually, On the subject of Depth of Field, I noticed that it's an artifact of the low resolution this game runs at.

Okay, and how many games these days NEVER experience lag problems, EVER.

Off the top of my head, Sega Rally Revo, Virtua Fighter 5, both Motorstorms, MGS4, and Ninja Gaiden 2

There has been a total of TWO levels in the entire game where I had bad problems with the games framerate, both problems always occur in the exact same spot so it's not even like it's much of a problem before. I can't think of a game that came out this generation that managed to keep an entirely consistant framerate throughout the whole experience. For what the Hedgehog Engine tries to do, it does a damn good job at it, especially it being the FIRST game they're using it in, meaning that later games will give them time to improve it.

The PS3 version gives you a little taste of 60 fps once in a while, just enough to make you want more. It's an immediately noticeable improvement when it does. If they can get it to run at 60 fps, that's great, if not, my opinion remains the same.

[Gallon]

If you ask me, saying Sonic Unleashed is nearly as good a game as Mario Galaxy is delusion =_=

Who cares if they're not similar in style? Sonic used to be one of the most respected faces in gaming. Mario still is, Sonic isn't. That's the importance of the comparison.

Have you ever asked why' Because we get only one Mario game for each generation of consoles, while we get a sonic game every year.

[SuperLink]

Then I don't care if we get Sonic more often. Mario is better. Sonic games deserve longer development cycles.

[speedfreak]

I'm 100% in agreement with SuperLink on this one. I would LOVE to see a Sonic game get the treatment Mario Galaxy got. Quality>Quantity.

[blackherox]

Compared the the Night levels, the day levels were generally seen as excellent by most reviewers. Most review rants consisted of Werehog killing would would otherwise be a good game.

I think your over exaggerating a tad. At least from what I read, the werehog wasn't dubbed as ''inherently'' bad, but slightly repititve and unnecessary. The reviews that gave the worst scores (bringing the whole thing down), slated both the day and night. For example, If the werehog was the sole cause for the game being a let down, why would the like of IGN and Gamespot rate the Wii version of Sonic Unleashed MUCH higher than the its 360 counterpart. Especially when the werehog apparently took up most of that version of the game.

How long does Sonic Rush take to finish? How about Sonic Advance? Or how abut Sonic 2 or 3? Any of those games I think most reviewers would rather play through than the whole of Sonic Unleashed.

And you know what all those games have in common? There all on HANDHELDS. Then again, I'd say them being short wasn't exactly great either. Regardless, there is always an expectation (at least in the hardcore community) for the any game on e major consoles to have a certain amount of depth compared to the handhelds. And the Sonic Fan Community is no different. 5 Hours for a MAJOR Sonic Platformer simply isn't enough. And people will get sick of it after a while.

Being short isn't a bad thing;

Tell that to the people who reviewied SATBK.

people thought Rush was worth the money they paid for it.

Unleashed without Night stages, especially with all this dlc we're getting, would have definitely still been worth the price. It likely would have gotten more sales too.

Highlighted part = Definite No.

Especially in this current Economic climate. Come on, lets be serious here.

I can only speak for myself here, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people (especially if you're a student like me) would not be willing to pay £35 quid just for 5 hours of ''pure'' Sonic gameplay. No matter how good it is. If I have to shell out that amount of cash, I expect to get a decent amount of play time for my money, not something I can finish in a couple of hours.

Obviously daytime stages were criticized, but you say that as if the majority of "great games" have no criticisms at all, which is simply not true.

You made it sound like the day stages had no criticisms at all. So there we go.

EDIT: Most FPS are shorter than 8 hours.

But the multiplayer aspect seems to get people coming back for more. Something platformers lack.

Sonic games deserve longer development cycles.

Do they now?

Edit: I'm failing to see what all of his has to do with the interview. Tetsu seems like a nice guy.

Edited May 17, 2009 by BlackHeroX

[SuperLink]

Half FPS don't have multiplay, including much looked forward to Red Steel 2.

Sonic games ALWAYS used to have multiplayer, it's only recently that stopped. It's Sonic Team's fault, not the platformers.

And can you HONESTLY say you bought Unleashed partly for the werehog? Really? Because I'm sure plenty of people here would say they would love a game like Sonic Unleashed but without the Werehog, criticisms of Daytime stages included.

I've been on plenty of forums. Obviously on a Sonic forum loads of people will buy Unleashed, but on non-Sonic forums it's hard to persuade people to try it out. Why? "I heard the werehog is shit and is more than half of the game" or "I heard werehog stages take half an hour"

And the people who reviewed SatBK had plenty to moan about other than the time. Unleashed without werehog is still bigger and more impressive than Black Knight.

Sure half of the games I mentioned were handheld games, but nowadays that doesn't mean anything. Rush gets TONS more praise than Unleashed gets, do you really think gamers are subconsciously enjoying Rush more because it's handheld, or are they requesting a Wiiware 2D Sonic game for no reason at all? Yes, Sonic games deserve bigger development cycles. Why not? He's Sonic, he's a gaming icon. He used to be Mario's equal. Mario's games get HUGE development cycles, and as a result they're all excellent, bar none. Sonic games will never be near as good if they get only half the development time of all the best games. I can't see how it's not simple to piece that logic together.

[lounge]

this katano guy prefers the storybook games

to me that really says enough about him.. in a bad way that is.

I'm guessing the only reason he said that was because he was finally able to direct a sonic game. He had no program involvement in sonic unleashed or sonic 06, so it shouldn't be a surprise that he said this.

[blackherox]

Sonic games ALWAYS used to have multiplayer, it's only recently that stopped. It's Sonic Team's fault, not the platformers.

Yeah, but most platformers don't have multiplayers anyway. If they do, its generelly a side thing thats ''tacked' on.

And can you HONESTLY say you bought Unleashed partly for the werehog? Really? Because I'm sure plenty of people here would say they would love a game like Sonic Unleashed but without the Werehog, criticisms of Daytime stages included.

Your not understanding what I'm saying and your putting words in my mouth.

Especially in this current Economic climate. Come on, lets be serious here.

I can only speak for myself here, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people (especially if you're a student like me) would not be willing to pay £35 quid just for 5 hours of ''pure'' Sonic gameplay. No matter how good it is. If I have to shell out that amount of cash, I expect to get a decent amount of play time for my money, not something I can finish in a couple of hours.

I'll say it again, I'm not going to shell out a whole £35 quid for ''pure Sonic'' gameplay not matter how good it is. If anything, I could just as well rent the game for 5 pounds and still have the same playtime as if I'd spent the full 35.

I've been on plenty of forums. Obviously on a Sonic forum loads of people will buy Unleashed, but on non-Sonic forums it's hard to persuade people to try it out. Why? "I heard the werehog is shit and is more than half of the game" or "I heard werehog stages take half an hour"

They don't persuade anybody your targeting a niche group in the first place.

And the people who reviewed SatBK had plenty to moan about other than the time. Unleashed without werehog is still bigger and more impressive than Black Knight.

If you read the reviews, one of the biggest complaints is the length. Then theres the ''repitititive' sword waggling. Thats about it.

Sure half of the games I mentioned were handheld games, but nowadays that doesn't mean anything.

You mean all of them. Rush and the advances were all on handhelds.

Rush gets TONS more praise than Unleashed gets, do you really think gamers are subconsciously enjoying Rush more because it's handheld, or are they requesting a Wiiware 2D Sonic game for no reason at all?

You do bring up a good point. Rush is actually quite overrated.uts thats anoher stor. Regardless, no there not enjoying Rush more because (may'e becaus its 2D lol) its a handheld, but people do (or at least should) take into account the fact that the major consoles can do much more, and so as such, expect developers to take advantage of that.

Also note, a Wiiware 2D Sonic would cost a lot less, than a 'pure Day Unleashed 3D Sonic game''.

Yes, Sonic games deserve bigger development cycles. Why not?

Because I'd personally like Sega to invest some of that time into there other titles. I'd like Sega to be known as Sega and not Sonic.

Mario's games get HUGE development cycles, and as a result they're all excellent, bar none. Sonic games will never be near as good if they get only half the development time of all the best games. I can't see how it's not simple to piece that logic together.

Two things your ''logic'' doesn't include:

1) Money: Because if you forgot these things take A LOT of money.

2) A game doesn't have to huge development cycles to be good. Nor does it mean the game itself will god with the log time, case in point: SMS.

Edit: I'm still don't see what this has to do with this interview though. Or is this just another one of those rants againt Sega/Sonic Team yet again *yawn*.

Edited May 17, 2009 by BlackHeroX

[SuperLink]

Yeah, but most platformers don't have multiplayers anyway. If they do, its generelly a side thing thats ''tacked' on.

If it's tacked on like it was in SA2 then it's appreciated.

I'll say it again, I'm not going to shell out a whole £35 quid for ''pure Sonic'' gameplay not matter how good it is. If anything, I could just as well rent the game for 5 pounds and still have the same playtime as if I'd spent the full 35.

Developers change costs depending on the game. Some 360 games are as expensive as £50. If Unleashed was short, it'd be £30. As cheap as Sonic Rush, but MUCH better quality. And, as I said before, I'm sure lots of people would disagree with you there. Personally I'd spend the full £40 on a game with pure Sonic gameplay. Werehog dragged the whole experience down. If you deny that I personally think you're deluded.

They don't persuade anybody your targeting a niche group in the first place.

That's the problem. Sonic isn't meant to be a series that only a niche group can enjoy. When persuading someone to get Mario Galaxy, they say "Fuck yeah it sounds awesome." That should be their response to a Sonic title aswell. If you get less than that, it means the title is sub-par and not Sonic at his best.

You mean all of them. Rush and the advances were all on handhelds.

I guess Sonic 2 and 3 are handheld too then? :/

You do bring up a good point. Rush is actually quite overrated.uts thats anoher stor. Regardless, no there not enjoying Rush more because (may'e becaus its 2D lol) its a handheld, but people do (or at least should) take into account the fact that the major consoles can do much more, and so as such, expect developers to take advantage of that.

Also note, a Wiiware 2D Sonic would cost a lot less, than a 'pure Day Unleashed 3D Sonic game''.

That's exactly why home console Sonic games need much longer development cycles than handheld ones. People expect more, that's reasonable. Without the means, there's no way.

Because I'd personally like Sega to invest some of that time into there other titles. I'd like Sega to be known as Sega and not Sonic.

Considering 3D Sonic has been "shit" for over 10 years and we get games like Virtua Fighter 5 and Valkyria Chronicles which clearly get much more development effort than Sonic titles, that's really not a problem is it? Nintendo isn't known as "Mario", but they make some bloody good Mario games.

1) Money: Because if you forgot these things take A LOT of money.

2) A game doesn't have to huge development cycles to be good. Nor does it mean the game itself will god with the log time, case in point: SMS.

SEGA should use their own reasoning. If they don't have to money to make Shenmue III good they won't make it. Same goes for Sonic. If they can't make it good, they shouldn't make it at all. Mario Sunshine was great. Obviously nowhere near 64 or Galaxy, but it was still more universally enjoyed and acclaimed than EVERY Sonic game in the last 10 years.

Edit: I'm still don't see what this has to do with this interview though. Or is this just another one of those rants againt Sega/Sonic Team yet again *yawn*.

It's relevant because Sonic Team can't just be optimistic to make good games. They have to actually make serious changes.

[sock fox]

Have you ever asked why' Because we get only one Mario game for each generation of consoles, while we get a sonic game every year.

We get at least five Mario games every year...

[SuperLink]

Spin offs aren't "Mario" games..

Imagine a world where we got as many Sonic sports games as we did Mario sports games. It would be unbearable!

[blackherox]

If it's tacked on like it was in SA2 then it's appreciated.

Each to their own.

Developers change costs depending on the game. Some 360 games are as expensive as £50. If Unleashed was short, it'd be £30. As cheap as Sonic Rush, but MUCH better quality.

Yeah, but more effort time and money went into coding the daystages in SU then Rush tendfold, hence a bigger price tag.

And, as I said before, I'm sure lots of people would disagree with you there.

Well I've yet too see these people. Enlighten me.

Personally I'd spend the full £40 on a game with pure Sonic gameplay. Werehog dragged the whole experience down. If you deny that I personally think you're deluded.

I was wandering when the insults would start. And good for you, if you have that kind of cash at your disposable, then by all means do what you want with it. I have to conserve money however. Renting it would be much cheaper and more efficient in my case. Its what I do normally now anyway (well most of the time). But I guess I'm am deluded for wanting more for my money. Sorry about that.

That's the problem. Sonic isn't meant to be a series that only a niche group can enjoy. When persuading someone to get Mario Galaxy, they say "Fuck yeah it sounds awesome." That should be their response to a Sonic title aswell. If you get less than that, it means the title is sub-par and not Sonic at his best.

By niche group I mean the hardcore gaming market, compared to the generel public, which is much larger. I really don't want to get into that debate here.

That's exactly why home console Sonic games need much longer development cycles than handheld ones. People expect more, that's reasonable. Without the means, there's no way.

Well they already have ''longer development'' in a way. You've also right, people do expect more, more for their money and not a 5 hour Sonic game. Thats the point of practically half my post.

Considering 3D Sonic has been "shit" for over 10 years and we get games like Virtua Fighter 5 and Valkyria Chronicles which clearly get much more development effort than Sonic titles, that's really not a problem is it? Nintendo isn't known as "Mario", but they make some bloody good Mario games.

Sonic can however take care of himself however. You don't need to invest in a large amount in Sonic games to get profit back from them ( some of which is used to fund other IP's) and make money. Some of Sega's others IP's aren't as lucky and need more support to get out there. Thats what I mean.

Same goes for Sonic. If they can't make it good, they shouldn't make it at all.

Or they can make it bad and get the same amount of money back. If all business thought like that, the world would be in chaos.

Mario Sunshine was great. Obviously nowhere near 64 or Galaxy, but it was still more universally enjoyed and acclaimed than EVERY Sonic game in the last 10 years.

I'd debate that. ut I don't want to turn this into yet another Sonic should be like Mario thread.

Point still stands though, I can still point to numerous games that trump Mario Sunshine in quality that have taken far less time to make.

It's relevant because Sonic Team can't just be optimistic to make good games. They have to actually make serious changes.

So where's that mentioned in the article? Are you also implying that stuff like his doesn't happen with other companies/devs/publishers?

Sheesh, all Tetsu doing is retifying what the previous dev said about Sonic Team, and as usual there has to be a big deal made over virtually nothing. Don't people ever get tired of this?

[SuperLink]

Yeah, but more effort time and money went into coding the daystages in SU then Rush tendfold, hence a bigger price tag.

This doesn't necessarily add up. Games are often sold based on quality rather than how long they took to make. Example: Persona 4 on PS2 was released in UK at £15, where it clearly took much more work (gameplay mechanics wise, not graphics) than any version of Sonic Unleashed. It's also received an excessive amount of critical and fan acclaim, something that Sonic doesn't get.

Well I've yet too see these people. Enlighten me.

If you go on any other forums, you'll see them. Also this thread atm is just a to and fro of you and me. I'm sure if some other people posted then you'd be enlightened.

I was wandering when the insults would start. And good for you, if you have that kind of cash at your disposable, then by all means do what you want with it. I have to conserve money however. Renting it would be much cheaper and more efficient in my case. Its what I do normally now anyway (well most of the time). But I guess I'm am deluded for wanting more for my money. Sorry about that.

Sorry for the insult.

But what you're saying is, you don't care how bad a game is as long as it's longer? That's not value for money. You'd rather buy a half bad platformer like Sonic Unleashed over a great short FPS? I don't see the logic in that at all. It gives the developers what they want. More money for less effort.

By niche group I mean the hardcore gaming market, compared to the generel public, which is much larger. I really don't want to get into that debate here.

Sonic games appeal more to "casuals" (in this case kids) than they do hardcores. When it comes to hardcores, Sonic games only appeal to the small hardcore niche of Sonic fans. Kids buy Sonic because of the gaming icon on the box. Sonic fans buy it because they're fans. Non Sonic fans don't buy it because by their standards the game sucks. Because the effort that went into the game is less than what they expect. That's surely not right is it?

Well they already have ''longer development'' in a way. You've also right, people do expect more, more for their money and not a 5 hour Sonic game. Thats the point of practically half my post.

People expect quality not quantity. That's why Bioshock is so much more popular than Lost Oddysey. I don't know how you made the link that being longer means better value. Are you forgetting unlockables? Which seem to be completely gone from recent Sonic games anyway.

Sonic can however take care of himself however. You don't need to invest in a large amount in Sonic games to get profit back from them ( some of which is used to fund other IP's) and make money. Some of Sega's others IP's aren't as lucky and need more support to get out there. Thats what I mean.

Why do SEGA put more effort into a game that would possibly bomb in sales, when they could put effort into a game that will certainly sell by the shitloads if it was actually good enough? Sonic is still a universally well known character. The whole "hardcore" community follows his games, and then decide not to buy them because they lack the effort of games that deserve support.

Sonic is a games character, he shouldn't be lumped along with cartoon character tie-ins that get games "to make money".

Or they can make it bad and get the same amount of money back. If all business thought like that, the world would be in chaos.

It's pathetic that SEGA would willingly treat their mascot and gaming icon like that.

I'd debate that. ut I don't want to turn this into yet another Sonic should be like Mario thread.

Point still stands though, I can still point to numerous games that trump Mario Sunshine in quality that have taken far less time to make.

It's not. I'm saying Sonic should be as good as Mario. Why would you settle for second best? There's absolutely no reason to not want as much out of your favourite series as possible.

Mario fanbase is as happy as they can be. The Sonic fanbase has to put up with endless criticism and mediocrity. That's the crucial difference between Mario and Sonic.

So where's that mentioned in the article? Are you also implying that stuff like his doesn't happen with other companies/devs/publishers?

Other devs actually release incredible games. That's the problem. The point is that this guy is overly optimistic about Sonic's future, when really if things keep going as they were, without care or effort, Sonic's as good as dead to most gamers.

Sheesh, all Tetsu doing is retifying what the previous dev said about Sonic Team, and as usual there has to be a big deal made over virtually nothing. Don't people ever get tired of this?

I don't care as long as Sonic Team get their act together and create a game that's 100% great than a game that's just 50% great.

Edited May 17, 2009 by SuperLink

[Solid SOAP]

Mario fanbase is as happy as they can be. The Sonic fanbase has to put up with endless criticism and mediocrity. That's the crucial difference between Mario and Sonic.

...who says that you HAVE to make Sonic your favorite series? If Sonic games have been disappointing you lately then just stop playing them.

[SuperLink]

And more and more people have been doing that haven't they? I don't see anyone doing it with Mario. Especially after Galaxy.

[Ryan Brown]

Ok, can we please stop this pointless Sonic vs Mario argument? Like all the others, it's stupid, redundant and reeks of obvious fumes. Let's get back on topic, shall we?

[Indigo Rush]

Sonic is blue. He goes fast! Nnnrrreeeoooowww!!