An overview of the Megadrive/Genesis Sonic the Hedgehog games

In all my years as a video gamer there is one series that has a special place for me, and that is the Sonic the Hedgehog games that were released on the Sega Meagadrive/Genesis. Over recent weekends I've been playing all of these classic games on my 'Sonic mega collection' for the Gamecube. I love the games because they remind me a lot of my childhood, and Sonic 2 was the first game that I really fell in love with, It was also when the Sonic series was both critically and to some extent commercially at its most successful. Sonic's transition from 2D to 3D has been very mixed, (you can read a review of Sonic Adventure in an earlier blog post that I wrote, and the second one will be up very soon), none of them have the replay value or the charm of the 2D games. The speed of the blue hedgehog has found it hard to transfer into a coherent 3D environment, I will go into the details on another occasion but it hasn't helped that in many of these games, too many characters have come and gone along the way.

Now I'll get on with brief review of five of the games, I have deliberately ignored Sonic Spinball and Dr Robotnik's Mean bean machine.

Sonic the Hedgehog (1991)



The first ever Sonic game and an instant classic, Sonic was an awesome character and a perfect mascot for Sega, it certainly shifted a lot consoles which otherwise wouldn't have been sold, and for a moment it helped the Megadrive match up against Nintendo's SNES. What's remarkable and often overlooked about the game is the fact that it relies less on speed with each passing level. Of all the games in this list I'd rank it second, but only narrowly to Sonic 2.

Pros:
* Green Hill Zone- the most iconic level in the entire franchise, past and present. And I'm not just talking about the music
* It''s challenging without ever being too hard, less focus on speed the more you progress into the game, and believe me the Labrynth Zone will leave you pulling your hair (I haven't got any so I'm lucky), and the boss fights require different strategies to defeat them
* Addictive soundtrack
* Great replay value- you can complete it in one sitting but it's so good you'll want to go back

Cons:
* The levels vary in quality, the middle section can be a bit bland, visually and in terms of structure
* There are three acts to each zone, I've always preferred two, as is the case in all of the other Sonic games

Overall score 9/10

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (1992)




My favourite game of all time and the essential Sonic game. It brings back happy memories of my childhood, I used to wake up every morning before school just to complete this game. In my opinion it does everything the first one does, but only better. The visuals are easier on the eye and the levels more imaginative and colourful. There is also the introduction of Tails (who is albeit a little useless in this game).

Pros:
* Visually immersive and pretty to look at, even to this day
* Many levels, ten in total and all of them are diverse in terms of themes, from a casino to a chemical plant to an underground cave
* The difficulty is reasonably even, the levels begin pretty straight forward but get a little more difficult towards the end
* The introduction of the spin dash move, which allows you to break through walls for short cuts and hidden places. Added an extra element to the gameplay mechanics
* Again the soundtrack is beautiful, especially the Sky Chase Zone

Cons:
* The boss battles at the end of each level are easy, until the final one, which is very hard
* Some of the early levels are too straightforward, on occasions it can feel as though you're speeding through them just by holding the run button

Overall score 10/10

Sonic the Hedgehog 3: (1994)



The levels in this game are certainly longer and there is far less focus on speed compared with the previous two. The graphics are also better than the previous two as the Megadrive was really pushed to the limit, the Sonic sprite has also changed (I prefer the older one), there is also a save feature for the first time. The game also sees the introduction of Knuckles the Echinda, making his first ever appearance, although he's the villain and not playable. There is also the possibility that Michael Jackson contributed to the soundtrack, none of it has ever been fully established but it's worth looking into. Although I still enjoy this game and while the gameplay doesn't deviate too much from the previous two, it lacks the charm.

Pros:
* The graphics are impressive
* The gameplay is essentially the same as ever
* There are far more new power ups in this game
* The game has the best special stages ever, collecting the blue spheres and avoiding the red ones is challenging but fun
* You can play as Super Sonic, but you'll have to collect the seven chaos emerald first (you do this by completing the special stages)
* Save feature- it's good because unlike the first game this one doesn't have the lasting endurance like the first two
* The Ice Cap Zone is a particular stand out level, and one of the best 2D Sonic levels ever

Cons:
* There's only six stages
* The design of Sonic has changed for the worst, more slick but less cartoony
* The inclusion of an unnecessary save feature, although more difficult compared with the previous two games, the game can still be completed in one sitting. The save feature can be used as an excuse for someone to stop playing because there are times when you will lose your patience with the game's difficulty
* The moments of speeding through levels are far less then the previous two games

Overall score 7.5/10

Sonic and Knuckles:



This is basically the second part to Sonic 3, the story follows on from the end of 3, they were originally intended to be the same game in one. Of all the 2D Sonic games this is the hardest one, the levels are a lot longer and the boss battles genuinely difficult and require real strategy. It is also the one I enjoy the least but feel the need to go back to every so often simply because of the challenge. The game does have two playable characters for the first time which adds a lot of replay value.

Pros:
* Two playable characters, both of which have clear differences from one another. Which also adds replay value
* Gorgeous graphics, the best on the Megadrive system
* The levels are unique, the likes of the Sandopolis and the Hidden Palace Zone look different to the usual Sonic levels from the previous three games
* Lock on technology- this would only count for the time that the game was released. The hatch on top of the game's cartridge opened so that you could attach the Sonic 2 and 3's cartridge, and pass over data from one game to the other. For example, you could play as Knuckles in Sonic 2.

Negatives:
* The most difficult of all the Sonic 2D games, aside from the first level, every single one will cause the gamer some problems. There really is no run through level like the first two.
* Bad level structure- Linked with my first point, some of the level structure is very contrived and too challenging, but in a very frustrating way. The best example of this is the against the clock dark and light sections of the Sandopolis Zone.
* Less enjoyment- linked with my second point. In the first two games, and to a lesser extent number three. The levels in those games were always enjoyable no matter how long and how difficult they were, but in this game, many of the levels just become chores the longer they last.

7.5/10

Sonic 3D: Flickie's Island



Unlike most hardcore Sonic fans, I have a soft spot for this game. It is by no means a good game and I fully understand why so many people hate it. But I actually enjoy a lot of it, sure the controls are awful and the graphics a bit clunky. But at least it's different, the game plays from an isometric viewpoint with 3D sprites, the objective is to collect seven flickies inside an assortment of robots within the levels. This game was also different because it was Travelers Tales who developed it, not Sonic Team.

Pros:
* Take away the bad controls, the isometric overhead worked well, the presentation of the levels was actually pretty decent, and the colour pallet is very nice to look at.
* Different gameplay- collecting the flickies through each of the levels is fun and a breakaway from the usual Sonic game which was being made at that time.
* The boss battles are very inventive and challenging, without ever being too difficult
* The special stages are fun, if a little easy

Negative:
* The controls are bad, this is a big problem when you have to kill an enemy, first you have to set yourself up and then time your attack with perfection. It also makes exploration a chore in each of the levels
* The Sonic sprite moves like a truck, very slow and clunky
* In my opinion the soundtrack is very unmemorable for a Sonic game, and very annoying in some levels
* Aside from collecting the flickies there's not much else to the gameplay

Overall score 5.5/10










 

Transformers: Age of Extinction- review

Crash-Bang-Wallop

Director- Michael Bay
Running Time- 2 hours and 45 minutes
Certificate- 12

I found the first live action Transformers film, released in 2007, to be a reasonably okay Friday night popcorn flick. Robots punching other robots is pretty fun, and Megan Fox is always nice to look at. But the sequel was dire, and the third was not much better. So Michael Bay has returned for the fourth time, gone is Shia Lebouf and enters Mark Wahlberg. Shifting the focus onto a family dynamic. Which is actually one of the stronger points of the film, but old habits and an overly long running time are nearly unforgivable.

So the main plot goes like this:
After the devastation of Chicago in the last film, Aliens are seen as a threat, so the CIA create a unit for the purpose of hunting down the Autobots, with the help of a bounty hunter/Transformer called Lockdown. Struggling inventor Cade Yeager (Wahlberg) buys an old truck and brings it back to his farm, which happens to be the very tarnished Optimus Prime in-hiding. The CIA find out the location of Optimus Prime and send a team to investigate, Cade and his family escape only to then find out that with the help of government funding, left over Decepticons are being created to form an army for the purpose of protecting humanity.

The good stuff:

I liked Mark Wahlberg as the protagonist, his Character is sympathetic, the conflictive triangle of his daughter and newly introduced boyfriend does bring a level of humanity into the narrative, which the previous Transformers films did not have. At one point his character uses a Transformers gun, which is good because at least the protagonist plays an active role within the film, rather than just a helpless standby as the robots hit one another.

Stanley Tucci puts in a good comedic relief performance, in the supporting role of Joshua Joyce, the head of KSI, the organisation who are building the Decepticons.

Although predictable, the action scenes while bigger are certainly better this time round, it is clear to see who is hitting who this time, and some of the slow motion effects are pretty decent. The final battle in Hong Kong is carnage at its best, and then the heat turns up even more when the Dinobots turn up, even if their appearance is very contrived there is something wonderful in seeing them cause havoc.

Now the bad stuff:

Inane ogling of female characters, this was a big criticism of all the previous films. There is no problem with having extremely good looking women in a film where their purpose is wardrobe dressing (which is not true completely in this case) but making a point of it is very sexist. One example is when Wahlberg's character makes a note of his disappointment in his daughter's ever decreasing length of her tight trousers. At which point the camera lingers behind her legs, her bare thighs in full flesh to the leering audience.

While the action scenes are enjoyable at first, after a while the entertainment drains out of them because, to put it mildly, they go on forever. Which brings me to the running time, at a bum numbing two hours and forty five minutes long, a film of this kind quite simply doesn't need to be this long. Especially when it looks like it's going to end at one point, and doesn't.

So...

Age of Extinction is not as bad as I anticipated, and believe me I really had to push myself to go and see it. It is in no way a good film and despite all of its flaws, it is still reasonably entertaining, which is all that we should really ask for. Which is often overlooked by many professional critics.

If you can switch off half your brain there is something here to enjoy.

2.5/5

Oculus: Review

Director: Mike Flanagan
Certificate: 15
Running time: 1 hour and 43 minutes

Psychological horror films have a tendency to begin very well and then gradually drag out from the middle point to the film's conclusion, when the whole thing blows up in its own face and rarely pays off. The best Psychological horrors should lure you inside of the darkest realms of a character's mind, and with the right story and build up of suspense, they really are the best type of horror film. A few Examples include The Shining, The Ring (both Japanese and American versions), The Others, Jacob's Ladder and Identity. Oculus is nowhere near the level of quality of these films, but it is a good one nevertheless.

The film is based upon an earlier short film by the same director, Oculus- The man with the plan. Set in two different timelines, eleven years between them, the film is Centred on Kaylie and Tim Russell (Karen Gillan and Brenton Thwaites). In one flashback story we see a family move into a new house, where a mysterious mirror begins to have negative effects on the parents. The second story is set eleven years later, Tim has been released from a mental facility after serving time for killing his father, brother and sister return to the house with the mirror. In an attempt try and reveal its supernatural powers and destroy it.

Oculus is a nice break from the usual quiet quiet, bang formula from such films as Paranormal Activity and Insidious. The film to its credit, does at least try to build up tension and bring the few scare moments into the story. The characters are engaging and interesting, Kaylie, wonderfully played by Karen Gillan, is the one who wants to prove that the mirror is of supernatural evil, she acts as the film's stubborn, often manic protagonist. Whereas her brother Tim, is seen as the voice of reason and doubt. The two conflict with one another to make for a very interesting narrative throughout.

While there are no genuine jump out of your seat scares, there are many scenes of slow tension and heart clenching moments. As with any good horror film, the story and build up are far more important than any individual set piece. There are only two scenes where blood is graphically shown, one of these involves an apple and a light bulb, the moment is very inventive, and watching it was the only time in the film where I had to grit my teeth and look away from the screen for a second.

It's common for films of this genre to really collapse in their last acts, as soon as they show their hands, the whole premise usually falls away. But the more surreal and mind bending Oculus became, the more interesting it was. Partly because the characters are written well enough to care about.

However. The film doesn't really tread on new ground, it doesn't try to be, its cliched set ups have been done and dusted before (appearing and disappearing things in a mirror, someone walking into the camera when the protagonist doesn't expect it, et etc). There's nothing wrong with this if the film brings something new to the content, which Oculus does not always do. And it just isn't scary enough, which is unforgivable when the film is about an evil supernatural force.

And while the history of the mysterious mirror is explored to some extent, the film never goes into detail as to why it does what it does, why does it have such overbearing and negative supernatural powers over people? we just never find out. Which somewhat diminishes the experience of the film a little.

Verdict- A solid film with a few surprises up its sleeve.
3/5



        

The enigma of the video game movie adaptation

My initial thoughts on the announcement of an upcoming Sonic the Hedgehog movie were positive, not only is he my all time favourite video game character. He is also a character that could easily be translated onto the big screen, he has already done it on the small screen, and Sonic is an awesome character, who has a world and supporting characters around him which can be explored. Because if there is one advantage Sonic has over most other child friendly video game characters, and that is slick looks, personality and attitude.

I became a little more sceptical when I learned that it was going to be a cross over between CGI and live action, which to me seems to imply the possibility of an animated Sonic in the real world. Which is intriguing in itself, but I'm not sure if it will work. Either way, the movie is still a bit of risk, video game movie adaptations don't have a very good reputation and although Sonic can translate well into a television series does not mean he'll do so in a movie. The average Sonic does not sell more than a few million  copies, even if die hard Sonic fans like myself, go see the movie, it will have to attract other audiences who are either unfamiliar with the franchise or aren't fans of it.

But, I can see the film being made on a reasonable budget, and most people know who the Sonic character is, he is very marketable, and if the film turns out good, with word of mouth. I'm sure it will attract many people to buy a ticket.

There's a reason why video game movie adaptations have a bad reputation, a lot of them have been pretty bad (Street Fighter is without doubt one of the worst movies of all time), and for the most part they're not very faithful to their source material. However, they're not all bad. Mortal Kombat, while it has dated badly is still entertaining and watchable. Whilst unfaithful, the Resident Evil films are good popcorn flicks, the same can be said for Prince of Persia. The Super Mario Brothers is a guilty pleasure of mine (it's best to think of it as a standalone), the first Tomb Raider was decent. And Final Fantasy: The spirits within is very underrated, not only was it ground breaking for its time but it also had a very good and meaningful story.

And  the biggest hurdle for a video game adaptation is the story and its content. This is not to say the same is not the case for other movies, but the first and foremost important thing in a video game is the gameplay, so there is rightly and obviously going to be more of a focus on the gameplay than the story. One of the reasons why good books can adapt into films is precisely because they have a narrative structure with deep enough characters for us to care about.

As soon as you switch on the power button and pick up the controller, regardless of the story, the video game becomes a sport, you're the hero, so there is very little emotional connection with the character you control and those around them.

But even with these hurdles, video game adaptations should be better than what they have been. You have to wonder whether those who make them have ever actually played the games for themselves. But there ultimately needs to be a compromise between persevering with the source material and pleasing the faithful fans at the same time. While making something which is very entertaining and escapist. Because let's be honest, no one wants to watch a boring Sonic movie where there isn't a super cool speed chase.

It was not that long ago when comic book movies were more often than not laughed at and quite often bombed financially at the box office, but now that has all changed due to technology, higher budgets and better talent getting involved.
It will be much harder for video games to make the transition, but I have a good feeling that may all change with the release of Warcraft next year, a film with a high budget and the talent attached to it. If that is a critical and financial success I hope it is, it could possibly be the turning point for movies based on video games.    









 

The toll that tomorrow takes

I believe that I'm different to most people in many respects, I'm a reasonably quiet person, reserved within large groups, my personality is very reflective. Which is perhaps why I'd rather go back in time than know what the future is.

I'm fascinated with the past, one of the reasons behind this is that there are certain moments in my life where I wish I could go back to, as the person I am now, rather than person I was. There are certain moments in my life, especially when I was young, that I wish I had savoured. Moments or events in which I could relive.

There are also many places in my past I wish could revisit.

I miss Christmas time at my infant school, I miss my old bedroom from my childhood, I miss the old video store I used to go to on Friday nights, I miss the old Toys R Us in Wood Green, I miss my old garage where I used to train, I now miss all of my old University accommodation rooms, I miss sitting in Battery Park and staring across the Hudson river, at dusk.

I become attached to certain places, even if I was only there for a short time. It's one of the reasons why I think the setting in a piece of fiction is just as important as the characters, especially in novels.

But revisiting old places (particularly from your youth) is always going to end in disappointment, without the people you first shared those places with, they end up making you feel lonely and distant.

When you are young, you live through moments, you don't realise the importance of simple and often trivial things in life. Which is why we can only remember our childhood through photographic images, for me it is anyway.

Taking a photograph is a special commodity, although we can't go back in time, by taking a photo we can capture it. For that one second, that one moment becomes a memory locked in time.
One of the best examples of this is with this photo album of the London underground, I can't help but look at these photos and wonder where these people are now,

http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewtucker/retro-pictures-of-the-london-underground-in-the-70s-and-8

But for me looking back at old photographs is a sad experience, I look at those old photos of myself and wonder what that person would think of me as I am now. And I look at the photos thinking, and wonder how has that person grown to become the person for whom I am today.

I have not been very good at getting older, it's not that I am still childish, I just don't think I have made the transition from a carefree teenager to a responsible grown up adult. The world around me seems so narrow. Perhaps it's my punishment for being a deep thinker, but I believe it has more to do with nostalgia.

I think it is only natural for everyone to look back on their past and wish they could relive certain points, change things. Which is why nostalgia is a double edged sword, it's important to reminisce with our past, particularly special moments and places, because they are what become of our memories, and our legacy.

But nostalgia also takes us away from the present, which is the most important of all. If we're locked in our past, it's far easier to take our eye off of the future, and what is immediately in front of us.