Sonic Colors: Ultimate - HD Updates Spotlight

[Sonictrainer]

Quote

Rediscover the thrills of Dr. Eggman's Incredible Interstellar Amusement Park with these all new HD updates and improvements! Challenge Metal Sonic, explore the world with a brand new wisp power-up, enjoy a fully remixed soundtrack, and more!
 
Sonic Colors: Ultimate releases September 7th, 2021!

Pre-Order now: https://colors.sonicthehedgehog.com/ 

 

[Soniman]

I just wanted pointing that they mention 60 FPS but not any specific console, then again they also mention 4K so I’ll assume it’s not relevant to Switch

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Interesting.

Can we play Metal Sonic too?

[CertifiedNobody]

2 hours ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

Interesting.

Can we play Metal Sonic too?

That'd be an interesting customization option, and I wouldn't rule it out as impossible. It would be interesting as a late-game bonus.

[VO.SUPER]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KqS7Obj37wAVSb73ePcUDxYxPaxowa0l/view?usp=sharing

Here is the highest quality of the trailer I found on Sonic Retro. The shorts definitely look much nicer without all the compression.

[VO.SUPER]

 

The Nintendo channel uploaded their version of the trailer, with a very... notable omission. This fully confirms it that even 60 fps wasn't going to happen for the Switch version.

This is despite the fact another Wii game is coming out at 60 fps in a few days. (Not that I want to oversell that; this is still the better remaster.)

[BadBehavior]

Especially when Sonic Team themselves made such a big deal out of obtaining 60fps with Lost World on the Wii U. The optimist in me says that they didn't want to hold back the non-Switch versions too much.

[NoKaine]

You can't convince me that the Switch can't run a remastered Wii game at 60 FPS. Especially when it looks otherwise identical (as in, the Switch version is otherwise identical to the other versions).  Especially when it's not even a next-gen game. Super disappointing. 

[VO.SUPER]

11 minutes ago, NoKaine said:

You can't convince me that the Switch can't run a remastered Wii game at 60 FPS. Especially when it looks otherwise identical (as in, the Switch version is otherwise identical to the other versions).  Especially when it's not even a next-gen game. Super disappointing. 

And again, a remastered Wii game that was previously 30fps is now 60fps and releasing this week. 

[Slashy]

1 hour ago, VisionaryofSUPER said:

 

The Nintendo channel uploaded their version of the trailer, with a very... notable omission. This fully confirms it that even 60 fps wasn't going to happen for the Switch version.

This is despite the fact another Wii game is coming out at 60 fps in a few days. (Not that I want to oversell that; this is still the better remaster.)

I see people compare this to Skyward Sword HD a lot and while this is better I feel like people are cherry picking Nintendo's worst remaster to make Colors look better.

It isn't even the only remaster to come out this year Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury came out this year as well and it is likely going to be considered a much better remaster than Sonic Colors Ultimate.

[Sonicka]

For goodness sake - if this turns out to be the case (I'm gunna hold on till the bitter end for them to outright confirm it even though it is inevitable), then that is incredibly disappointing. I really want this game on switch - but I prefer the fluidity of the high frame rate where possible.

There is nothing wrong with 30fps of course don't get me wrong (the original also played just fine). But when you look at its quasi sequel in Lost World achieving 60fps a generation later And this being a Remaster of a Wii game 2 gens ago... there's no real excuses here for them to not get this port to work. 

Put it this way, if the The (lazy) retro 3D Mario Collection managed it last year, Skyward Sword which arrives this week, and the Mario 3D World port + Bowsers Fury with smaller levels plus a massive open world adventure running at 60fps can achieve the goal, then there should be no good reason for this not to be obtainable. I appreciate these examples also run on different game engines, but the Switch isn't exactly underpowered when utilised correctly. Frame rate reductions are acceptable losses in ports from current/next generation consoles, but certainly not the other way around. 

I'd even accept 60fps in docked TV and 30fps in handheld modes (which is often the case) - so I'm going to really hope this is all it means.

[Wraith]

26 minutes ago, Slashy said:

I see people compare this to Skyward Sword HD a lot and while this is better I feel like people are cherry picking Nintendo's worst remaster to make Colors look better.

It isn't even the only remaster to come out this year Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury came out this year as well and it is likely going to be considered a much better remaster than Sonic Colors Ultimate.

I'm not even really convinced this is better than Skyward Sword HD yet. I guess it costs less, and that's good, but SSHD had tangible improvements for returning players. Colors is just new lighting I don't really like and tweaks that weren't made with me in mind.

[Soniman]

1 hour ago, Slashy said:

I see people compare this to Skyward Sword HD a lot and while this is better I feel like people are cherry picking Nintendo's worst remaster to make Colors look better.

Frankly I'm not even sure why SSHD is even considered a worst of anything when it by and large does everything a remaster should do. 60fps, updated textures, various QOL improvements and control options. The price and the amibo feature are the only real strikes against it and one of those isn't even related to the game. Needless to say I think it's done better than Colors which had such a bad presentation out the gate for awhile before it finally got up to a presentable state.

[NoKaine]

I'm not steaming over Skyward Sword HD either but its QoL enhancements seem more like course correction than actually being quality-of-life. If Colors had Tails interrupt you in the middle of gameplay over inane bullshit and Colors Ultimate had it be optional, no one would be jizzing themselves over "quality-of-life." Being able to play the game without tiring yourself out is "quality-of-life" Colors had to begin with.

They're both awkward remasters, though, because changing their real faults and actively improving the experiences would necessitate a full-on remake. They're not the greatest efforts from either team but Colors Ultimate edges out by actually having new content (as minor as it is). I like Skyward Sword but I genuinely see no reason to get HD. I like Colors and its new additions makes me want to buy it.

3D World + Bowser's Fury is better than either but it seems Nintendo can afford to package a port with an experimental game like Bowser's Fury as they're seemingly not making a new 3D Mario at all. Skyward Sword HD and Sonic Colors Ultimate are stop-gap B-team efforts while the main releases are being worked on.

[Sonikko]

I still don't think Colours Ultimate looks good, or even on par with the original.

Also, I really don't understand how anyone could say Skyward Sword is a bad remaster, it's a re-release of the game with the artstyle being intact, the shaders being faithfully recreated for high resolution, it has 60fps which must mean they have worked on the damn thing since the physics were tied to framerate.

The fact that it looks identical while being on different hardware just means that they actually went into it with care and meaning to preserve the original game's artstyle, while bringing it to modern hardware.

On top of that they reworked the parts of the game that people were not happy with, added autosave, made motion controls optional, added an option to skip cutscenes and dialogues.

Colours Ultimate has some (dare I say ugly) gloves and shoes customization, overbearing bloom, no lightfields support which means the lighting is actively worse and broken in so many instances, which have already been pointed out and haven't been shown to be fixed  (the water and plants in Planet Wisp for instance, the entirety of Asteroid Coaster and so on), 60fps support which is already there if you use an AR code, albeit wonky, Metal Sonic time trials, whose animations were not rigged correctly to the model, the Tails save thingie which is decent in theory but also the game did not need it since it showers you with lives anyway.

The only thing Ultimate has over SS is the pricepoint, and even then, I prefer to pay a bit more for a good modern version of a game, than a bit less for the what is gonna probably go down in history as the worst Sonic re-release since DX.

[Soniman]

28 minutes ago, NoKaine said:

I'm not steaming over Skyward Sword HD either but its QoL enhancements seem more like course correction than actually being quality-of-life. If Colors had Tails interrupt you in the middle of gameplay over inane bullshit and Colors Ultimate had it be optional, no one would be jizzing themselves over "quality-of-life." Being able to play the game without tiring yourself out is "quality-of-life" Colors had to begin with.

To me this is a incredibly pointless distinction, it's QOL at the end of the day that improves the game, heck it improves the game significantly than a standard QOL update in most remasters because of how significant the hand holding feature was to SSHD OG. An improvement is an improvent, how "obvious" it was is irrelevant 

28 minutes ago, NoKaine said:

They're both awkward remasters, though, because changing their real faults and actively improving the experiences would necessitate a full-on remake. They're not the greatest efforts from either team but Colors Ultimate edges out by actually having new content (as minor as it is). I like Skyward Sword but I genuinely see no reason to get HD. I like Colors and its new additions makes me want to buy it.

Wasn't Fi and the hand holding nature the "real" faults to begin with? The thing they completely streamlined? Unless you mean the structure at that point what you're asking for isn't even a remaster it's a remake/reimagining, which is also what youre asking for...like...a remaster is just the original game cleaned up and brought on modern consoles, and like I said they pretty much did everything right SSHD. There's no graphical and audio fuckery like with the various remasters of old PS2 games (Ratchet, Sly and Jak and Daxter specifically), gave an alternative to the decisive motion controls, etc etc 

I dunno when I just think of all the half ass remasters we got in the last decade, hell barely a year ago with the Mario Collection and that wack ass 4:3 emulated port of 64, that I can't really buy SSHD being an example is all just because it didn't do every single thing possible to "improve itself"

I like Colors but if I didn't none of the new stuff introduced would convince me to double dip. Ugly costumes and a Metal Sonic mode isn't what I enjoyed the game for its extra flourishes and that's all really.

[NoKaine]

15 minutes ago, Soniman said:

To me this is a incredibly pointless distinction, it's QOL at the end of the day that improves the game, heck it improves the game significantly than a standard QOL update in most remasters because of how significant the hand holding feature was to SSHD OG. An improvement is an improvent, how "obvious" it was is irrelevant 

My point being that it's not a particularly high point to have "play the game normally" as a quality-of-life improvement. To contrast with Colors Ultimate, which have fewer new QoL features because it really doesn't need it. I guess the Tails Rescue feature is helpful if you missed those big "IMMINENT DEATH" signs over the bottomless pits (that were in the original game anyway...)

15 minutes ago, Soniman said:

Wasn't Fi and the hand holding nature the "real" faults to begin with?

Yes.

As someone who likes Skyward Sword, as the first Zelda game I completed, yes. Absolutely. I was a stupid dumb baby child and even I got sick of the hand-holding. It is immensely restrictive for no reason. Having Fi interrupt you without prompt or having the item description pop up every time you boot up the game slows it down significantly, and Skyward Sword is already one of the more slower Zelda games. Every criticism of the 3D Zelda came to a head with Skyward Sword.

And those aren't what I meant by real faults, anyhow. I was thinking more the incredibly rail-roaded overworld, the relative lack of variety (including revisiting the same location), inane shit like the tadpole minigame), and general gameplay which didn't allow its actually very involved combat system to fully develop. The dungeons are still the best in the whole series. 

15 minutes ago, Soniman said:

Unless you mean the structure at that point what you're asking for isn't even a remaster it's a remake/reimagining, which is also what youre asking for

That's literally what I said, yes. "To fix the actual faults require a remake."

That's why I call it an awkward remaster. I see why it's a remaster, I see why Nintendo / SEGA would choose this game as a remaster, and it's not a bad remaster, but it would be better off being a whole remake.

Not much to add or expect in these kinds of remasters.

15 minutes ago, Soniman said:

like I said they pretty much did everything right SSHD

Well, yeah, it's a good game with obvious faults that can easily be fixed in a remaster. Shit, a patch in the original, if the Wii could do patches. It's a pretty bare minimum remaster, though, which is why it would be better off as a remake. Same for Colors Ultimate.

15 minutes ago, Soniman said:

I like Colors but if I didn't none of the new stuff introduced would convince me to double dip.

And having less Fi or button controls wouldn't get most people who didn't like Skyward Sword into Skyward Sword HD either. These remasters aren't made for people who didn't like the game, it's for those who did or never tried it at all.

[KHCast]

1 hour ago, Sonikko said:

I prefer to pay a bit more for a good modern version of a game, than a bit less for the what is gonna probably go down in history as the worst Sonic re-release since DX.

Okay we all know this more than likely isn’t actually gonna be the case for most, right? 

[Strickerx5]

Honestly, I'm sort of baffled with this Switch news. Sort of reads like a joke made at the Switch's expense. "The thing can't even play a Wii game at 60fps", like, come on now. Though, tbf this probably really is a pure optimization and time issue. With the feats the Switch has managed before, I don't see a real reason why they couldn't get this up to 60fps on there. Especially with how poor the game itself already looks.

Though, I do get it from a business standpoint. Made the mistake earlier of reading the twitter responses to this news and it's clear what Sega sees here. A large portion of Switch owners don't care about fps. Hell, a large group of them defend shit like this siting that they're just happy it's on the thing at all or "the original ran at 30 and that was just fine". I'm not going to go into the direct gameplay benefits higher fps brings here (because that shit is common knowledge to most and is something that even Microsoft and Sony are getting behind now), but there still seems to be a sizeable audience with the Switch that simply isn't there yet. When that big of a portion of your consumer base doesn't know enough/ care about this sort of stuff... why put in the effort I guess.

Spoiler

tho i am going to laugh when the game also runs at a lower res and still hitches

 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

33 minutes ago, KHCast said:

2 hours ago, Sonikko said:

I prefer to pay a bit more for a good modern version of a game, than a bit less for the what is gonna probably go down in history as the worst Sonic re-release since DX.

Okay we all know this more than likely isn’t actually gonna be the case for most, right? 

Quite a few people have missed the memo on that.

[KingMario05]

Between this bullshit and Epic, I guess I'm getting this on EcksBawkz.

I need to make some space, sooo... anyone want some gently-used Ubisoft crap?

Spoiler

And Doom Eternal, because my laptop runs it better?

 

[mayday2592]

What exactly is the deal with the game releasing on epic, and why is it  a bad thing? I've seen people call it a deal -breaker and I'm genuinely curious as to why that is.

[Strickerx5]

On 7/13/2021 at 10:17 AM, mayday2592 said:

What exactly is the deal with the game releasing on epic, and why is it  a bad thing? I've seen people call it a deal -breaker and I'm genuinely curious as to why that is.

Gonna go ahead and pull from what I said here a while back.

There's quite a bit to dislike about the EGS. Though, I think the major gripes can be boiled down to 3 key reasons. 1, It lacks a lot of features that even small storefronts offer (let alone steam). 2, Epic likes to buy exclusives for their store, limiting purchase options for consumers. 3, Tencent owns a large stake in the company which has led people to worry about Chinese spyware (nothing of which has ever been found mind you).

Some also dislike it for simply being another launcher that's not Steam and they see that as, to try and make this sound less ridiculous than it really is, a needless complication when starting games.

Now, with all that being said (and personally speaking), I do find the amount of hate the store gets to be pretty ridiculous at times. Personally, a game being on there exclusively will never directly effect my decision to buy it. I don't use a lot of Steam's extra features so as long as the actual game is good, I couldn't care less what icon I have to click on in order to start it up.

Also, I do believe that there's often a lot of hyperbole and double standards that go on with these discussions. Mainly revolving around how people will, rightfully, give Epic a good beaten but, at the same time, often completely ignore all the shit Valve does. Like, no one likes to ever bring up how much strong arming Valve did with Steam when it first showed up way back when.

At the end of the day, they're both companies who don't care about you so I often find people holding Steam up in the PC community as this holy thing to be really silly. Like, it's good and I love it too, but really.

So when it comes to Colors being on the EGS, it’s hard for me to care. What I do care about is the actual port itself and how that's shaping up. Cause, real talk, if Sega was releasing this on Steam I still wouldn't be thinking about buying it. Steam isn't going to make those loading hitches and poor lighting go away.

[KingMario05]

1 hour ago, mayday2592 said:

What exactly is the deal with the game releasing on epic, and why is it  a bad thing? I've seen people call it a deal -breaker and I'm genuinely curious as to why that is.

Just wary about downloading another launcher for me, I guess. Already have two (Steam/MS)... I don't wanna deal with three of them, personally.

Spoiler

That Tencent has a 40% stake in Epic just makes the decision even easier...

 

[Kazhnuz]

I'm… not surprised.

I presume that the new rendering engine must be more intensive and less optimized that the original (which was surely something optimized especially for Wii, the ST was pretty good to optimize for Nintendo hardware). IIRC, I remember some devs' Linkedin talking about porting some open-source engine to Switch, so I suppose that the rendering part of the game had to be replaced by Blind Squirrel with a rendering engine that run everywhere but isn't optimized for any plateform (not that I criticize that, it's the same kind of deal that big company that use Unreal do… maybe here with a bit more of control over their code, but more complexity).

And if there isn't other problems, it won't really affect their target population on the Switch, so this wasn't a priority issue (maybe a "nice to have"). I mostly hope it's consistent 30FPS and that we don't have some big lag spike, as it would be sad. But I think I'll play the PS4 version.

I'm personally still a tiny bit sad that we can't get an "HE2 remaster" of Sonic Colors, it would have been epic. But I suppose that the people that could do such a thing are mostly working on the 2022 title.