Should Sega replace Dimps with Taxman & Stealth?

[8ther]

Tax and Stealth seems to be better at making 2D sonic games than Dimps are and being Sonic fans themselves, they know exactly want fans want in a sonic game, should Sega really allow Taxman or Stealth to the freedom to make original sonic games rather than just remakes?

[Spin Attaxx]

Probably not.

 

Dimps is basically a full fledged development studio, while StealthTax is like one or two people.

 

Easier and quicker to let 200 people make a big project than 2.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

StealthTax are just two fans. No

[goku262002]

According to Stealth they are just establishing their relationship with SEGA, don't have allot of other connections with the other branches yet.

I don't think DIMPS is going anywhere. were stuck with them for a looooooong long time.

[Tornado]

Taxman and Stealth are two guys. Two of the strongest guys in the entire fandom in terms of technical knowledge and the like, and their reputation speaks for itself; but two guys. They don't have the manpower to make a full game; which is why all of the things they've been approached with have been reimaginings of already existing ones.

[Nepenthe]

The point of DIMPS' partnership is to develop handheld-centric projects based upon the design parameters of new console Sonic games. Stealth and Taxman, as good as they are at their craft, have only worked on basically gussying up classic games. There is nothing to indicate these skills would translate into the ability to pump out new games with new design parameters in tandem with the latest console releases.

 

Plus I'm sick and tired of people holding up fan game developers as some holy grail of untapped potential that will help the franchise when none of them have yet to either make a classic game from the ground up that can

best the likes of the actual classic Sonic games, or have seen a project with a new creative direction or at least basic 3D development through to the end. People wonder why I'm harsh against the classic games; this is partly why. This constant insistence that they need to be shoved everywhere at the expense of anything new or interesting. I've played them. I'm done with them. They've had their time. Can we focus on fixing the fucking Parkour?

[Milo]

Taxman and Stealth are two guys. Two of the strongest guys in the entire fandom in terms of technical knowledge and the like, and their reputation speaks for itself; but two guys. They don't have the manpower to make a full game; which is why all of the things they've been approached with have been reimaginings of already existing ones.

 

 

The point of DIMPS' partnership is to develop handheld-centric projects based upon the design parameters of new console Sonic games. Stealth and Taxman, as good as they are at their craft, have only worked on basically gussying up classic games. There is nothing to indicate these skills would translate into the ability to pump out new games with new design parameters in tandem with the latest console releases.

 

These two posts pretty much covered why Sega wouldn't(/couldn't/shouldn't) swap TaxStealth with Dimps. I also doubt Tax and Stealth would have the knowhow to even make a full-fledged game that wasn't a 16-bit styled game anyway.

 

But I do hope Sega allows them to be more involved in helping Sonic Team and/or Dimps develop the current titles, especially in terms of gameplay and level design.

 

 

Plus I'm sick and tired of people holding up fan game developers as some holy grail of untapped potential that will help the franchise when none of them have yet to either make a classic game from the ground up that can best the likes of the actual classic Sonic games, or have seen a project with a new creative direction or at least basic 3D development through to the end. People wonder why I'm harsh against the classic games; this is partly why. This constant insistence that they need to be shoved everywhere at the expense of anything new or interesting. I've played them. I'm done with them. They've had their time. Can we focus on fixing the fucking Parkour?

 

Why not both (have new games and a Genesis revival)? :/

 

I for one actually would like to see a modern-day Genesis-styled Sonic game that goes above and beyond Sega's nostalgia cash-ins that were Sonic 4, but I'm not calling for top priority for said Genesis revival over anything else.

 

Also disagreeing with your implication that a new Genesis-styled Sonic game would be restricted only to familiar, uncreative territory that are the past Genesis games. Sonic 4 did that and that was precisely one of said game's loudest criticisms.

[Nepenthe]

Why not both (have new games and a Genesis revival)? :/

 

I for one actually would like to see a modern-day Genesis-styled Sonic game that goes above and beyond Sega's nostalgia cash-ins that were Sonic 4, but I'm not calling for top priority for said Genesis revival over anything else.

 

Also disagreeing with your implication that a new Genesis-styled Sonic game would be restricted only to familiar, uncreative territory that are the past Genesis games. Sonic 4 did that and that was precisely one of said game's loudest criticisms.

 

Even though they can, I would honestly rather Sonic Team pour all of their resources into giving me some awesome games focused strictly on improving the Parkour and an overall more modernized platforming experience than dividing time, talent, and finances into classic-feeling games here and new-ish games here, which is something I feel not only inevitably divides the very identity of the brand, but helps in furthering the annoying narrative that anything new Sonic Team does try is inherently lesser right out of the gate because "well, the classics weren't about going fast/exploring hubs/telling a story/insert any other arbitrary remark about what a Sonic game is supposed to be." This inevitably just splits the criticism being filtered into Sonic Team and is pretty much responsible for a lot of the decisions I'm not fond of in the first place.

 

And the criticism of Sonic 4 owes its underlying reasoning in part to the idea that classic games must feel like, look like, sound like, and be paced a very certain way or else they are fundamentally not classic Sonic games. The similarities of these games' design gave them a style that is very rigidly defined and has been dissected to death, over and over again, across years. They're the 16-bit equivalent of the boost games. And as I said anyway, these games had their time in the sun. They were released when they needed to be released to get Sega and the franchise going. They were well-received. They are fondly remembered as being some of the best platforming experiences ever, and they clearly continue having an impact on the current conversation about how Sonic games should be made.

And I'm fucking sick of it. I've played them to death and am not interested in playing them anymore. So why would I personally advocate anything that continually ensures they and games like them keep getting made?

[Tornado]

And the criticism of Sonic 4 owes its underlying reasoning in part to the idea that classic games must feel like, look like, sound like, and be paced a very certain way or else they are fundamentally not classic Sonic games.

 

The criticism of Sonic 4 owes its underlying reasoning entirely because it was marketed as being exactly that (including one spectacularly ill-advised Iizuka interview); and Sonic 4 as a result was raked over the coals for it when it turned out to in fact be a half-assed HD version of Sonic Rush with the boost removed and some Sonic 2 artwork splashed around.

 

 

I also reject the implication that a new game like the 16-bit games wouldn't be a "modernized platforming experience," because that is a qualifier that doesn't really mean anything in the first place.

[Milo]

Even though they can, I would honestly rather Sonic Team pour all of their resources into giving me some awesome games focused strictly on improving the Parkour and an overall more modernized platforming experience than dividing time, talent, and finances into classic-feeling games here and new-ish games here, which is something I feel not only inevitably divides the very identity of the brand, but helps in furthering the annoying narrative that anything new Sonic Team does try is inherently lesser right out of the gate because "well, the classics weren't about going fast/exploring hubs/telling a story/insert any other arbitrary remark about what a Sonic game is supposed to be." This inevitably just splits the criticism being filtered into Sonic Team and is pretty much responsible for a lot of the decisions I'm not fond of in the first place.

 

And the criticism of Sonic 4 owes its underlying reasoning in part to the idea that classic games must feel like, look like, sound like, and be paced a very certain way or else they are fundamentally not classic Sonic games. The similarities of these games' design gave them a style that is very rigidly defined and has been dissected to death, over and over again, across years. They're the 16-bit equivalent of the boost games. And as I said anyway, these games had their time in the sun. They were released when they needed to be released to get Sega and the franchise going. They were well-received. They are fondly remembered as being some of the best platforming experiences ever, and they clearly continue having an impact on the current conversation about how Sonic games should be made.

 

I never said or tried to imply they should split up the development team to provide both games during the same timeframe (which, considering how Sonic Team is structured right now with the "Unleashed" team and the "Colors" team working semi-independently from each other, is a moot point). I never even said Sonic Team even had to be the developers.

 

And regarding the "fundamentally not classic Sonic games" thing, I believe that's why I said "(modern day) Genesis-styled" rather than "classic." It could take some cues from the Genesis games (presumably the core gameplay, level design, aesthetics, among others), but I didn't mean it had to be a carbon copy of those games with a new coat of paint (which is why I specifically singled out Sonic 4, as it was criticized for being an example of this that was criticized for being so, a point re-clarified by Tornado). It could be a spiritual successor to the Genesis games for all things considered. Hell I didn't even say it had to be a 2D game, I wager that there is a locked treasure chest of what to do with the Genesis games in a 3D space.

 

Many possibilities on what to do with a new Sonic game molded after the Genesis games that I personally think have not seen their surfaces scratched.

[Chaos Warp]

The answer is Yes.....and No. 

 

As it stands right now? No. Dimps is a full development team, while Taxman and Stealth are 2 guys.

But if Taxman and Stealth were put at the head of a small team of competent programmers and stuff, kind of like an indie game team except with a budget? Yes, at least on the 2d Sonic Games front, as Dimps has clearly shown a complete lack of understanding on how to make a good one. I have much more faith in Taxman and Stealth in terms of knowing how a 2d Sonic game should work then Dimps. 

[Nepenthe]

The criticism of Sonic 4 owes its underlying reasoning entirely because it was marketed as being exactly that (including one spectacularly ill-advised Iizuka interview); and Sonic 4 as a result was raked over the coals for it when it turned out to in fact be a half-assed HD version of Sonic Rush with the boost removed and some Sonic 2 artwork splashed around.

 

Sonic 4 was raked over the coals when we had about three seconds of footage of Sonic going through a corkscrew, the entire basis for that being that the camera moved in a way that wasn't endemic to the way it was "supposed" to move when classic Sonic ran through a corkscrew, meaning that the coding for it was wrong and subsequently the entire game was broken. Let's not pretend all of the hardcores were particularly forgiving when it came to what the game could potentially feel or look like being developed under current circumstances until we had significant footage to pair up against the press releases. Sonic 4 got immediately destroyed on about as much information as we have on Sonic Boom right now. The fact that cynics were right in the end is irrelevant to the point I'm making, and it would still be irrelevant even if the game had been better whether as a proper sequel or just on its own merits: people were looking for even the tiniest differences from the classic games right out of the gate as a point of contention.

 

I also reject the implication that a new game like the 16-bit games wouldn't be a "modernized platforming experience," because that is a qualifier that doesn't really mean anything in the first place.

Fair enough, but at the same time my elaboration on what I mean would have to depend on what you yourself mean when you say "like the 16-bit games." If we're talking about something a la Megaman 9, then the entire point of that is to conform to gameplay design established 20 years ago. In terms of tech, that's not exactly "modern" is it? If we're talking about inspired by 16-bit, then again, what do you mean by that? Something in the vain of New Super Mario Bros.? Because then it would depend; the things I want and would consider inherent to modern platforming may or may not align with that. For example, everyone knows I want a cutscene-styled story in my Sonic games that continuously informs the stages and gameplay gimmicks you'll encounter and vice versa, in order to establish context of what it is I'm doing at all times and what I'm going to be doing going forward. I consider this type of interwoven gameplay and narrative to be something that would be most likely exhibited by a modern platformer (or a modern game in general). So you could, I guess, throw that into something classically-inspired today, but how would you get away with it in a game meant to remake Sonic 1?

 

I never said or tried to imply they should split up the development team to provide both games during the same timeframe (which, considering how Sonic Team is structured right now with the "Unleashed" team and the "Colors" team working semi-independently from each other, is a moot point). I never even said Sonic Team even had to be the developers.

I never said or implied that either. Of course they're going to stagger development for multiple games; doing it otherwise wouldn't really make sense. But even for out-of-house development, they are still working with finite time and resources, which means the less they are focused on what they want Sonic to be then the less manpower each type of game is going to get at the end of it. Imagine if Lost World, instead of being a Colors Team-focused title, had the full brunt of both teams' work forces working on them at all times during development. How much bigger and/or better might the game have turned out if that were the case?

 

And regarding the "fundamentally not classic Sonic games" thing, I believe that's why I said "(modern day) Genesis-styled" rather than "classic." It could take some cues from the Genesis games (presumably the core gameplay, level design, aesthetics, among others), but I didn't mean it had to be a carbon copy of those games with a new coat of paint (which is why I specifically singled out Sonic 4, as it was criticized for being an example of this that was criticized for being so, a point re-clarified by Tornado). It could be a spiritual successor to the Genesis games for all things considered. Hell I didn't even say it had to be a 2D game, I wager that there is a locked treasure chest of what to do with the Genesis games in a 3D space.

Many possibilities on what to do with a new Sonic game molded after the Genesis games that I personally think have not seen their surfaces scratched.

To the first point: You asked me "why can't we have both (new games and classic-styled games,)" and I answered under the assumption that I was speaking from my own viewpoint, that being one of disdain for continuous demand for 2D classic games, which I'm highlighting because that is basically the point of this thread: to ask why Sega doesn't get Stealth and Taxman to make 2D classic games instead of DIMPS. If you want to talk about other types of "classic games" like spiritual successors or 3D classic games and the like, then that's fine but frankly I'm not all that optimistic in seeing those either. Again, I'm tired of the nostalgia and I'm bored of the fundamental ideas of the gameplay style. I just am.

 

Furthermore, I think you're misappropriating the point that Tornado was making. Sonic 4 wasn't destroyed for being a classic retread. It was destroyed on marketing itself as a proper sequel without the underlying mechanics to support that notion. Had the gameplay been more accurate or marketed differently, a lot of its criticisms wouldn't have been made and it would've been better received by the community. This is different from the notion of it failing simply because it was "unoriginal." If nothing else, people wanted it to be "unoriginal" insofar as it conforming strictly to Genesis gameplay standards.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Nepenthe

[Gabz Girl]

No. Because it's just two guys and Dimps are a proper development team.

 

But if Taxman and Stealth were given a bigger budget to work with and maybe form a small indie team together to make their own original game, it might be great. We haven't seen their full potential but it's obvious that they're very talented and it helps that they are Sonic fans. And who knows? Maybe they won't make these so-called boring ass 2D platformers, because those were all remakes (mind you I'm sick and tired of playing the classics since these are available almost everywhere!).

 

Dimps are bloody clueless and have been since 2010! I'd like to see them replaced tbh. =/

[Tornado]

Sonic 4 was raked over the coals when we had about three seconds of footage of Sonic going through a corkscrew, the entire basis for that being that the camera moved in a way that wasn't endemic to the way it was "supposed" to move when classic Sonic ran through a corkscrew, meaning that the coding for it was wrong and subsequently the entire game was broken. Let's not pretend all of the hardcores were particularly forgiving when it came to what the game could potentially feel or look like being developed under current circumstances until we had significant footage to pair up against the press releases. Sonic 4 got immediately destroyed on about as much information as we have on Sonic Boom right now.

I was here when that happened. I said much the same thing at the time. The real issue is that the marketing blitz continued as normal after the PartnerNET leak, which is when things really blew up against the game rather than a handful of really loud people on Retro complaining. And it arguably got worse once damage control did set in, because blatant lies.

 

 

Episode 2 was an even bigger mess.

 

The fact that cynics were right in the end is irrelevant to the point I'm making, and it would still be irrelevant even if the game had been better whether as a proper sequel or just on its own merits: people were looking for even the tiniest differences from the classic games right out of the gate as a point of contention.

I don't see how. People were looking for the tiniest differences because they were basically told that they wouldn't be there. That they jumped on those differences before they were actually evident doesn't change the fact that they were there from the start and it was still decided somewhere along the chain to act like they weren't.

[Nepenthe]

My point doesn't hinge on the fallout of Sega's continued marketing of the game. My original point was that fans would not be all that willing to accept a classic-oriented game that differed even in the mildest of ways from the originals, simply because there is a very ingrained belief that classic gameplay needs to have specific parameters to be considered as such. The example of which is pouncing on Sonic 4 before we knew the extent to which Sega would be trying to sell any particular ideas about it. Basically, the backlash happening when it happened under the context of ignorance that it happened speaks far more to the idea that classic gameplay is something you can't really trifle with all that much regardless of whether or not you know what you're doing, than it does to people simply not wanting to be bamboozled.

[SegaFanatic]

The point of DIMPS' partnership is to develop handheld-centric projects based upon the design parameters of new console Sonic games. Stealth and Taxman, as good as they are at their craft, have only worked on basically gussying up classic games. There is nothing to indicate these skills would translate into the ability to pump out new games with new design parameters in tandem with the latest console releases.

 

Plus I'm sick and tired of people holding up fan game developers as some holy grail of untapped potential that will help the franchise when none of them have yet to either make a classic game from the ground up that can

best the likes of the actual classic Sonic games, or have seen a project with a new creative direction or at least basic 3D development through to the end. People wonder why I'm harsh against the classic games; this is partly why. This constant insistence that they need to be shoved everywhere at the expense of anything new or interesting. I've played them. I'm done with them. They've had their time. Can we focus on fixing the fucking Parkour?

 

I agree, Lost World is fine they need to refine it

[azoo]

Aren't those "specific perimeters" that were to be followed really just being able to gain speed while rolling down hills, not being forced into long-winded automated segments, and not feeling like you're gonna drop like a rock when you let go of the control stick?

 

The only reason I'd put trust into anything StealthTax can do is because at least I can trust them to not mess up on any of those things. (Well, that, and Taxman knows how to pull off that sick SCD-esque art style.) But even then, I'd actually rather let him and Stealth do their own indie things while Dimps or someone gets their act together.

 

Sega doesn't need to regress to being like the classic games again, because there's been loads of good ideas since that can make Sonic so much better than he was ever before. But I'm calling total bullschpit on implying that taking any of the original game elements and putting it into a new game wouldn't still feel fresh; because if that was the case then the 3D Zelda games must be tired and obnoxious since it's just a tweaked Ocarina of Time with different/more stuff going on.

[Frogging101]

Or they could not try and fix Lost World's stupid mechanics and instead make a Sonic game with the classic physics AS WELL as new innovative mechanics, locations, etc. You know, make Sonic games fun and unique again. The gameplay of the classic games was unique, the Boost gameplay and Lost World gameplay are not.

This is your opinion presented as fact (and with nothing to back it up). Personally, I don't see why the Parkour system or even the Boost gameplay is any less unique than the classic gameplay. And Lost World's mechanics being "stupid" is neither here nor there. I apologize if this sounds overly hostile, but it just seems like you're suggesting that, objectively, the only way a Sonic game can be fun is if it uses the classic gameplay mechanics.

I don't speak for anyone else, but honestly when I played Sonic 1 for the first time recently, I found it to be a very frustrating experience and not fun at all. The more recent mechanics feel more fluid and more fun to experiment with and learn compared to the old ones. That's what I think. It's different from what you think and I'm sure it's different to what a lot of people think. It's all subjective and we have to remember that.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Frogging101

[azoo]

Yeah, that's what I've been saying. It's not really about being a 1:1 Sonic 1 - 3K replica or not, that's a load of rubbish. The idea is getting the most basic design philosophies down, and yeah its totally much more simple and less pretentious than the wording makes it sound.

[Nepenthe]

Or they could not try and fix Lost World's stupid mechanics and instead make a Sonic game with the classic physics AS WELL as new innovative mechanics, locations, etc. You know, make Sonic games fun and unique again. The gameplay of the classic games was unique, the Boost gameplay and Lost World gameplay are not.

 

I don't care about uniqueness; I care about having fun. Classic gameplay bores me.

And I don't know how any can say with a straight face that the Daytime gameplay isn't unique when there is actually no real equivalent to it.

[SegaFanatic]

I'd rather they build on Lost World.

[azoo]

Classic gameplay is unique. Boost gameplay is unique, too. Come on, man.

 

And while I don't agree with Nep on the classics being "boring", I can see where she's coming from with it, since I don't think its the mechanics that make them boring to her as much as it is how barebones (and in the eyes of some fans: rigid) it is compared to what we could have instead.

[Space☆Tomoki]

I'd think that if Dimps was making a "classic" 2D-oriented platforming Sonic game, like Sonic 4, then I wouldn't be against TaxStealth helping them out with things like physics and level design, since they seem to be competent enough going by their re-imagining of Hidden Palace Zone in Sonic 2 HD. As for 2D Boosting games like Colors DS / Generations 3DS and 3D handheld games like Lost World 3DS, I'm not sure how well they would fare, in that regard.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I still fuckin' play S3&K to this very fuckin' day! You bitches bettah recognize the glory of this classic! >=/
 

On a more serious note, count me in with the crowd that would love to see something new be developed that can be as fun. I don't believe that it's impossible to surpass what the Classics did, and I honestly believe that notion comes from people with a very narrow idea of what should be in a Sonic game.

 

Of course we should also be careful not to jump off the cliff with whatever idea comes up, like they did with ShTH...

[Nepenthe]

Classic gameplay is unique. Boost gameplay is unique, too. Come on, man.

 

And while I don't agree with Nep on the classics being "boring", I can see where she's coming from with it, since I don't think its the mechanics that make them boring to her as much as it is how barebones (and in the eyes of some fans: rigid) it is compared to what we could have instead.

 

Indeed. It's not that the classics are faulty or anything, but that my frame of reference for them is a series of five games that play pretty darn close to one another as well as a sizable culture dedicated towards picking them apart and remaking them time and time again. Regardless how much potential people tote they have under modern circumstances, for twenty-something years things have just felt relatively stagnant with that gameplay style, so it's at the point where I feel "Yeah, they're great and everything, but can't we do something else?"