What the fuck IS a Sonic? An essay on design discordance.

[Blacklightning]

Some of you might have guessed it, but this has been on my mind for quite a while now. Once there was a time that most of us were convinced that Sega didn't know what a Sonic game was anymore. Now? Even we don't seem to be so confident of it these days, and considering how explorative and vocal we as a fanbase are, I think that says a lot. So I thought I'd take a day to refocus all that, to get back down to the core of what makes Sonic Sonic from a gameplay standpoint, and explore the mistakes that let things come to this.
 
REINVENTING THE SPINBALL
 
Let's start at where we are now. Lost World changed up the Sonic formula by embedding parkour in everything Sonic does, and Sonic Boom... well, Sonic Boom not even outwardly claims to have anything to do with the franchise it's based off, beyond that they're using its name to sell. Two brand new gameplay styles. How many does that make now? Well, assuming you're generous enough to count the classic engines and Dimps mockeries under a single leaf, shove together the Rush and Unleashed eras on account of the boost, and forget the spinoffs that don't have any kind of canonical implications on or in other games, that makes ... by my approximation, six or seven. Alright, fair enough, it's not unheard of. So which one of these is the primary one...? Huh? What do you mean there isn't one?
 

Even the most focused game of the generation still needed two fucking playstyles for some reason
 
That right there is our first problem - Sega doesn't identify their mascot with a single gameplay style at all, choosing instead to use him as a vehicle for other things they can't sell on their own. Even if they do a good job of it, it means all progress inevitably comes at the cost of other progress, and no lessons are learned from mistakes commited previously - at least not enough of them that a single style ever reaches anywhere near its potential peak. Besides that point, it also clouds the identity of the brand by not anchoring him firmly enough to a specific style of play and building everything else off of that, like just about any other franchise that survives for over two decades - and just like they themselves used to in the earliest days, but I'll get to that later. The point is that the biggest problem here is actually by far the simplest to solve - keep the damned games consistent, and an identity will form around it. Scatter their focus like they have been lately, and nobody will have a concrete idea what they're actually playing these games for, beyond a face and a name - because as it stands now it's certaintly not for an assurance of quality.
 
Now I can already tell someone's going to pipe up and ask "well won't it get boring if we're playing the same games over and over"? That's not what I fucking said at all, and that happens to be my next point:
 
SONIC AND THE POINTLESS, UNORIGINAL AND GLITCHY GIMMICK
 
Okay, yes, that wasn't entirely fair. I just wanted an excuse to reference Hejibits. But you can see where I'm going from this - I have no idea what possessed Sega to believe they couldn't make Sonic sell based off his own damned merits, but somehow that became a thing not long after 3D started catching on and for some reason they've almost never looked back since. Besides the fact that these gimmicks just cloud brand identity more when they're literally all that's to Sonic games these days, they don't even fucking work from a critical or a monetary standpoint - the fact that Sonic's become a joke in the eyes of the public largely because of them is a testament to as much.
 

A gimmick these aren't, on the other hand.
 
However, it's important to establish what a gimmick is, at least in regards to this discussion - because believe it or not, making a Sonic game that's not just a level pack of the previous game doesn't mean going to the exact opposite end of the scale and adding shit that doesn't blend with the gameplay just for the sake of it. Though it seems cliche'd as all hell to give a Mario example - Galaxy introduced planetoid gravity as a quirk to separate it from previous games, but quite contrary to how Sonic games handle quirks like this, it doesn't disrupt any of the existing gameplay - combined with brilliant learning curve design, it works hand in hand with everything Mario could already do prior, enhancing the experience without changing it at its core. That's the most important distinction here - a quirk cooperates with the existing gameplay to ehnance it, while a gimmick demands the existing gameplay bend over backwards to support it, usually abandoning or disrupting it as a result.
 
On another relevant footnote, while this probably goes without saying to most of you I feel it still needs to be said - a choice of characters should not fucking equate to a choice of completely different fucking games, and Sega needs to stop believing that the two are in any way even remotely related. Give them a handful of different moves if you must, but they all should ultimately draw from the same gameplay, work towards the same level goals, experience the same levels and accomplish all the same major feats. A character choice is just an excuse to play the same game in a slightly but notably different way - this isn't god damned rocket science.
 
LEVEL GIMMICK: THE GAME
 
Another extremely annoying misconception I see on the subject of Sonic a lot is that quirk or gimmick alike, it absolutely has to be applied on a game-wide basis, which is complete bullshit. What a lot of people forget is that levels, and sometimes by extension their tropes, used to encapsulate all this shit by themselves, and regardless of the outcome were always better off for it - if it worked and it was fun, great, you had another reason to believe the stage was memorable. If not, it didn't overstay its welcome, allowing you to move on and explore what surprises the next stage had for you. Can you even imagine making an entire game based around Marble Garden's spintop? Or Death Egg's reversible gravity? Or the water level changes in Aquatic Mine? Or the Quick Step sections in Spagonia?
 

Ooooooooh, right. That last one actually happened.
 
It sounds fucking stupid, doesn't it? Well, that's the position we're in right now - Sega makes quirks that could easily be level gimmicks, and makes them game gimmicks instead. You could easily have made parts in Colours, for example, where level elements turned you into a laser or let you stick to walls unaided or toggle binary on/off fading blocks, and it would have worked to the benefit of the flow of the level, helped ease any repetition and laser focus (if you'll pardon the unintentional pun) these traits exactly where they're needed in the environment. Because honestly, these things gel better with the levels than they do with Sonic's own gameplay at its core. And complete gameplay changes like the Werehog and Caliburn aside, so does almost everything else. Stick to a central gameplay style, use the levels and the levels alone to experiment otherwise, that's the lesson here.
 
And as one last personal pet peeve: no, "it's a spinoff" is not a fucking excuse for anything, because the moment you have to defend the fact that a Sonic game isn't a Sonic game because it isn't even trying to be a Sonic game, it only begs the question of why it stars that fucking blue hedgehog in the first place.
 
BACK TO YOUR ROOTS
 
Let's go even further back, into the relative youth of the series. If the later games in the series distort the very meaning of what it is to be Sonic, what was Sonic before this actually happened? First of all, I'm just going to say this straight - the classics may be held on a high pedestal almost unanimously, but I don't personally believe they are to be upheld as a word of law, particularly when most of the things that make it tick just don't translate into most third dimensional situations. So in much the same way that The Linear RPG boils down the formula all the way to its base components, I think there's a lot to learn by observing the individual mechanics that makes classic Sonic work, and how other styles can benefit from it.
 

 
One of the most heavily discussed of these is that while Sonic is fast, his speed doesn't come cheap - it is only through cooperation with the level design and its quirks that he is at his most mobile. And being constantly toted as the fastest thing alive, you could say that finishing levels in the fastest means possible is one of the most heavily implied self-imposed goals of the games (I guess you could even say a somewhat forced sense of pride, even?), and mobility is the greatest stepping stone towards that. Another less discussed facet is that there's more to the level itself than simply running from point A to B - at any given time it was never surprising to see pathways fork like a trident, and each being treated as a wholly different focus rather than just an alternate route to the goal. Routes with simpler platforming, more rings and/or enemies, Special Stages, secret rooms, it goes on... the point is that there was more to it than just finishing a level quickly, and that in of itself was reason enough to play a game more than once. And even if it wasn't, the alternative is that it had a little something for everyone, which was just as noble.
 
Today, one of these has been outright abandoned, and the other only half fulfilled. Speed is treated as a constant - either it's on, or it's off, almost nothing helps or hinders you and almost nothing carries over unless you're telling it to (and even then you're bound to see speed drops for literally no reason, sometimes for something as simple as jumping). Alternate routes exist in a way, but it's not usually much more than one, and not usually anything more than a shortcut to the goal (to say nothing of the unintentional ones that literally break the game). Alternate goals, self-imposed or otherwise, virtually don't exist, and when they do are usually reduced to frustrating collect-a-thons that break the pace and flow of the level.
 
How differently would game today be if they took the example of games of old, if not their style? I can think of a handful. For one, the most obvious, slopes would probably be important again in some way, but even if not slopes there would be something to exploit to make the most of Sonic's momentum, even if it were something silly like grinding on objects during the boost sections of Riders: 0G. The boost itself, if it ever existed, would affect acceleration rate rather than fix it to a static speed, perhaps increasing your speed cap, and would be affected by the environment around you. Parkour in Lost World would probably be something as simple as jumping into a wall at an angle and keeping whatever momentum you had prior.
 
Any one of those could work, but I absolutely have to stress only one, because:
 
JUST PICK AN APPROACH AND FUCKING STICK WITH IT FOR ONCE
 
When Boom rolled around, Sega tried to assure me this wasn't a bad thing because traditional Sonic games would still be made... is it just me or is this a really crap compromise for all sides involved? On the part of the publisher, this means you're responsible for two entire continuities at once and trying desperately to make them coexist when they drain on each other's revenue. On the part of us fans it strikes another divide in the audience, when said audience is already polluted with divides like these, like cracks in a pane of glass liable to shatter when we least expect it - because changes in gameplay tend to be given equal importance and exposure, very few people can actually agree which one Sonic identifies with the strongest, and are constantly alienated by a new generation of games that completely neglect everything theirs stood for.
 
But perhaps most importantly of all, on the part of the audience in general, outsiders who aren't so fanatical about the franchise that they'd have a minature pool of plushies to swim in and collect the games regardless of quality like we do... they're just going to end up confused and disoriented, and rightfully so because they're being sent conflicting messages from every source of information around them. Sega's not about to own up to one being more worthy of your money than the other after how much they dropped on it, the fanbase is liable to stab you in the throat with a broken bottle if you so much as hint as not aligning with their own preferences, and critics, let's face it, are going to tell you to avoid it irregardless of how they turn out. How many of these problems could be fixed by essentially making two similar games and staying that way? Basically fuckin' all of them, as far as I can imagine.
 

You can't get away this time! There's only one real Sonic!

 

There is really no amount of emphasis I can say this with that will be wholly appropriate. As he stands right now, Sonic has been dug into a hole by constant gimmicks and reinventions, and has been backed into a dire identity crisis as a result. Sega's solution to this seems to be to... keep doing the exact same thing that got him there to start with? To keep reinventing his gameplay until something sticks by pure chance? Even if it ever worked, which it isn't, it would still be fucking stupid because it serves as a DmC-esque betrayal of all the fans who stuck around loyally, waiting patiently and continuing to throw money at them in the offchance they'd fix problems that have gone un-acknowledged for literally decades. No, the solution is the exact opposite - to deem one style of Sonic the primary brand (sigh... the One True Sonic^TM, if you'd rather put it that way), and put their focus on building and polishing that one Sonic to a higher state of being with every game they make. And along the way, not trying to sell themselves on some god forsaken gimmick out of nowhere - just put the focus on the simple act of making moving fun. That really shouldn't be asking so much, and it kind of pains me that I have to go to so much effort to explain it.

[Mauro Fonseca]

And what happens if the "one true sonic" they choose is one you dislike?

[Briraka]

And what happens if the "one true sonic" they choose is one you dislike?

Yeah, this is kinda something I often pondered when people say "please be consistent, Sonic Team!" Wouldn't it be a little odd that if SEGA actually stuck with whatever they choose and the fans who asked for consistency didn't like the new direction and started asking for change?

[Linkabel]

I don't think the problem is that Sonic Team is reinventing the wheel everytime they make a new game, the problem is that when they do they don't take the time to polish it and iron out the problems. I mean, even the old ST wanted to try out new ideas after the end of S3&K (and almost got something different in gameplay for that game as well.)

 

Like I said in the Sonic Team thread I did a while ago, ST is a group of very fucking talented people that really need to learn the meaning of focus. Or at least have someone in the team that can guide them better, because I honestly think Iizuka is not doing a good job at it.

 

tl:dr Innovating is not the problem, is how Sonic Team approaches that innovation that's the problem.

[Blacklightning]

I did actually state in the OP that they should be resigning themselves to a style of gameplay that Sonic can identify with, so as long as that happens I can't exactly say I didn't get what I asked for. But even discounting that? It all goes back to the issue of Sonic Team not really keeping any one style long enough to perfect it, so as long as it's objectively a good game and they keep polishing it for as long as they possibly can, it'll grow on people eventually one way or the other.

[- Eternal Paradox -]

 

So which one of these is the primary one...? Huh? What do you mean there isn't one?

 

I'd just like to contribute to this topic by making the age old point of brand clarify and definition.

 

See, one of the main problems of Sonic isn't just the fact they don't keep a consistent gameplay style, but rather they fail to clearly separate the boarders of the franchise into separate brands.

 

To help explain what I'm saying here, let's pull up the trademark example, Sonic's old time rival, Mario:

 

 

 

So, right off the bat, we can see many different alliterations of the Mario brand. And yet they don't conflict or corrupt the others? This is because Nintendo has clearly defined different game-play styles and elements into separate brands. MarioKart. Mario & Luigi. Paper Mario. Because different genres are focused into different games, the innovation almost always goes to the right place, and while games might pull ideas from other brands in franchise (such as enemies or characters), they never quite out-rightly STEAL anything or simply copy paste it in - they make it work for the brand. And perhaps I could go further and say Nintendo have more creative freedom sometimes by not being restricted to one brand, but that's another story for another time.

 

The brand separation also helps consumers. Simple titles, I know, but we don't pick up Mario Golf, Tennis or Kart and think "Hmm, I hope it's got good platforming sections!" And even with other deviations, time seems to work wonders. If I remember correctly, one of the initial criticisms of Luigi's mansion was you couldn't jump. But, flash forward to more recent times and Luigi's Mansion 2, and everybody KNOWS what the Luigi's Mansion gameplay is like, they KNOW the brand now, and they KNOW it isn't a straight up Mario platformer.

 

Mario also makes efforts to separate brands VISUALLY. Think of the clearly separately defined styles of Paper Mario or Mario & Luigi tiles when compared to the mainstream Mario style. These help separate the brands further by giving visual reference.

 

Time to pull another reference otherwise I'll seem like a Nintendo cock-sucker. Okay, let's take Mega-Man.

 

All clearly the same character (blue, arm-cannon, all have/use helmets), and yet each are clearly different, separate alliterations, representing different franchises.

 

Now, for a close-up, let's compare MegaMan classic to MegaMan X.

 

Unlike MegaMan, there is no "Sonic X"... oh wait no hang on...

 

Ok, so right off the bat I can see these guys are pretty much the same character. But if I was to infer differences between them, I might say that the one on the right is newer, more advanced, and more versatile... Oh, guess what! Isn't that pretty much exactly what the X series offers?!

 

Ok, maybe I'm stretching things here. But clear visual boundaries and sub-brands can help keep a franchise consistent and allow developers to channel their creativity without corrupting the main brand and keeping the overall brand relevant.

 

Sonic's never really done this - Not to the degree of other games. Sure, we have Riders, Advance, Storybook and All-Stars imprints, but they're not touted out like they should be. The Adventure and Rush titles are direct sequels, so personally I don't think they count.

 

There is no "Boost" brand. There's no "adventure" brand, and as much as you may want to think they are, Heroes, ShTH, and Lost World are NOT spin-offs in their own sense... yet. Classic Sonic was a resurrected brand very briefly - thanks to Sonic 4, and we all know how that turned out. In the end, we just get... Separate titles...

 

To give Sega credit, at least Sonic Boom is a new brand (although that mostly came about due to the TV show, but hey, still counts). But if they can't keep that brand consistent, then we're going to end up with TWO brands that don't have fuck's idea what they're doing.

 

So Sega desperately needs to define what the main Sonic game brand IS. We can still have our ShTHs, our Heroes and Lost Worlds, but as long as they are clearly defined as not main stream Sonic. Perhaps the Classic, Adventure and Boost brands could run alongside each other, who knows? 

 

[Diogenes]

And what happens if the "one true sonic" they choose is one you dislike?

Well I'm no more fucked than I have been for the past decade, and maybe I could finally shelve those last desperate threads of hope and move on.

[Indigo Rush]

This whole "SEGA needs to focus on Sonic gameplay in one consistent way" is definitely the right frame of mind, but I have always thought that it's far too late for "one consistent way" anymore. The reality is that throughout SEGA's grandmaster douchebaggery of throwing Sonic into any idea that comes to pass, they've created, for every 5 terrible concepts, at least 1 solid and popular one. 

 

Honestly, whether or not people here think it's the "right direction," the Boost-centric games ala Rush, Unleashed and Colors have garnered more critical praise than anything in the past decade. Meanwhile, there are just as many Adventure era die-hards who want a more "full-3D" experience. And then we have people who only want Sonic to remain in 2D, some who are either totally adamant to him adhering to the 16-bit Genesis physics and nothing less, or the critics who think anything that's 2D is Classic, and think that games like Sonic 4 are acceptable. And as much as it baffles me, there are even those out there who think Sonic 2006's framework is something to be admired and revisited. 

 

If we focus Sonic into one common gameplay concept, we're going to wind up pissing off a good chunk of the rest of the audience. Diogenes' most recent post comes to mind - if we stuck, for example, with the "Modern Boosting" gameplay, while we'd end up having a consistent and solid gameplay style, it wouldn't be a fair call-back to the aspects of the series that people such as Diogenes wants to see, so he's going to call it quits. Vice versa, if we stuck only to 2D Sonic games, even if they faithfully preserved the basic concepts of the Genesis era, we'd be putting off a ton of fans who want to see the series to move forward and branch out into the third dimension in a meaningful way. 

 

The saying "you can't please everyone" is most definitely true. This is why I'm always proposing that they maintain "focus" by "dividing" the main series in no less than two, but no more than three or four gameplay concepts. Create 2D Genesis-styled platformers (either 16-bit or in HD or whatever) as downloadable games, boost-centric 2.5D games for handhelds, and full 3D Adventure games for consoles. Maybe the occasional "Lost World" or "Secret Rings" to experiment and try something new, but stick with the concepts of speed, platforming and exploration as the series focus. Spin-offs based on other characters are definitely welcome, as well. 

 

If it seems weird to divide the main series up, keep in mind that other popular franchises such as Mario, Metroid and Zelda do the exact same thing by creating both 2D and 3D entries... and with few exceptions, their methods are well-received and successful. Dividing Sonic into three main playstyles isn't that big of a stretch, is it?

 

So going off of that concept... basically, market the 2D Sonic as the Genesis throwback (but give it just as much effort as any other big entry game), the Boost games as the on-the-go-finish-it-quick handheld games, and the Adventure games as the "big budget" entries. Sticking to the finer details regarding acceleration, momentum, rolling physics, bouncing, alternate pathways, extra characters and the like should go without saying for all of these.

 

It may be controversial to "unify" the games through division, but honestly it's the absolute best idea I can come up with to keep most everyone happy and keep Sonic a critical success in the eyes of the gaming public. 

[Kuzu]

This whole "SEGA needs to focus on Sonic gameplay in one consistent way" is definitely the right frame of mind, but I have always thought that it's far too late for "one consistent way" anymore. The reality is that throughout SEGA's grandmaster douchebaggery of throwing Sonic into any idea that comes to pass, they've created, for every 5 terrible concepts, at least 1 solid and popular one. 

 

Honestly, whether or not people here think it's the "right direction," the Boost-centric games ala Rush, Unleashed and Colors have garnered more critical praise than anything in the past decade. Meanwhile, there are just as many Adventure era die-hards who want a more "full-3D" experience. And then we have people who only want Sonic to remain in 2D, some who are either totally adamant to him adhering to the 16-bit Genesis physics and nothing less, or the critics who think anything that's 2D is Classic, and think that games like Sonic 4 are acceptable. And as much as it baffles me, there are even those out there who think Sonic 2006's framework is something to be admired and revisited. 

 

If we focus Sonic into one common gameplay concept, we're going to wind up pissing off a good chunk of the rest of the audience. Diogenes' most recent post comes to mind - if we stuck, for example, with the "Modern Boosting" gameplay, while we'd end up having a consistent and solid gameplay style, it wouldn't be a fair call-back to the aspects of the series that people such as Diogenes wants to see, so he's going to call it quits. Vice versa, if we stuck only to 2D Sonic games, even if they faithfully preserved the basic concepts of the Genesis era, we'd be putting off a ton of fans who want to see the series to move forward and branch out into the third dimension in a meaningful way. 

 

The saying "you can't please everyone" is most definitely true. This is why I'm always proposing that they maintain "focus" by "dividing" the main series in no less than two, but no more than three or four gameplay concepts. Create 2D Genesis-styled platformers (either 16-bit or in HD or whatever) as downloadable games, boost-centric 2.5D games for handhelds, and full 3D Adventure games for consoles. Maybe the occasional "Lost World" or "Secret Rings" to experiment and try something new, but stick with the concepts of speed, platforming and exploration as the series focus. 

 

If it seems weird to divide the main series up, keep in mind that other popular franchises such as Mario, Metroid and Zelda do the exact same thing by creating both 2D and 3D entries... and with few exceptions, their methods are well-received and successful. Dividing Sonic into three main playstyles isn't that big of a stretch, is it?

 

So going off of that concept... basically, market the 2D Sonic as the Genesis throwback (but give it just as much effort as any other big entry game), the Boost games as the on-the-go-finish-it-quick handheld games, and the Adventure games as the "big budget" entries. Sticking to the finer details regarding acceleration, momentum, rolling physics, bouncing, alternate pathways, extra characters and the like should go without saying for all of these.

 

It may be controversial to "unify" the games through division, but honestly it's the absolute best idea I can come up with to keep most everyone happy and keep Sonic a critical success in the eyes of the gaming public. 

 

 

The problem with your "solution" is that you're comparing Sonic with Mario again, which doesn't quite work because Nintendo can afford to hire other developers to work on their franchises, meanwhile Sonic is just stuck with Sonic Team(with the exception of Boom obviously).

 

And honestly, " trying to please everyone" is what got Sonic in his current mess to begin with, so we have to...do it some more? I understand some people have their own idea on what Sonic can or should be, but at some point we have to fucking compromise on something. Three years ago, we got Sonic Generations, a game that is almost considered by all to be one of the better 3D Sonic games and a generally fun experience; yes, even over on Retro, the most elitist site when it comes to classic Sonic, thought it was a fun game(Not perfect mind you, but still fun). So that pretty much goes to show that if Sega/Sonic Team/whoever just stuck with one damn game style and just improved, nobody would complain aside from the most asinine of people who refuse to accept anything but their own interpretation of Sonic, and at that point, are people like that really who we should be trying to please?

[Indigo Rush]

The problem with your "solution" is that you're comparing Sonic with Mario again, which doesn't quite work because Nintendo can afford to hire other developers to work on their franchises, meanwhile Sonic is just stuck with Sonic Team(with the exception of Boom obviously).

Sonic Team is already divided into two cores - the team that created Unleashed and Generations, and the team that created Colors and Lost World. Just have the "Colors" Team work on the 2D games and you're already half-way there. Dimps created the Rush games (and those are seriously the only Sonic games they seem to be good at making) so they'd be the go-to team to make the handhelds.

 

And honestly, " trying to please everyone" is what got Sonic in his current mess to begin with, so we have to...do it some more?

My friend, if I was truly trying to please everybody, there'd be far more than two to three gameplay styles in my proposed ideas.

 

I understand some people have their own idea on what Sonic can or should be, but at some point we have to fucking compromise on something. Three years ago, we got Sonic Generations, a game that is almost considered by all to be one of the better 3D Sonic games and a generally fun experience; yes, even over on Retro, the most elitist site when it comes to classic Sonic, thought it was a fun game(Not perfect mind you, but still fun). So that pretty much goes to show that if Sega/Sonic Team/whoever just stuck with one damn game style and just improved, nobody would complain aside from the most asinine of people who refuse to accept anything but their own interpretation of Sonic, and at that point, are people like that really who we should be trying to please?

Uhm... I think you actually managed to defeat your own argument, because Sonic Generations was already divided into two gameplay styles. That's two right there, not one.

 

And as I just said, you could easily have the "Colors" team make the 2D games, the "Unleashed" team make the 3D games, and have Dimps do the handheld Rush/Colors games.

 

You're making it sound far more complicated than it actually is. And on top of all of that, there's Sumo Digital who are a pretty capable game development company on their own, and SEGA has them making racing spin-offs. And as you mentioned, Big Red Button and Sanzaru games are both handling Sonic games at the moment.

 

Sonic is a big name franchise that can easily be outsourced. You can worry about "pleasing everyone" all you want, and in a way I understand why that's an issue (seriously, I opened up my last post about it) but citing development overload as a problem simply doesn't jive. 

 

 

I've given this subject far more thought than anything else in regards to the series. Shoving everything back into one single style will only go so far.

[Kuzu]

Sonic Team is already divided into two cores - the team that created Unleashed and Generations, and the team that created Colors and Lost World. Just have the "Colors" Team work on the 2D games and you're already half-way there. Dimps created the Rush games (and those are seriously the only Sonic games they seem to be good at making) so they'd be the go-to team to make the handhelds.

 

My friend, if I was truly trying to please everybody, there'd be far more than two to three gameplay styles in my proposed ideas.

 

Uhm... I think you actually managed to defeat your own argument, because Sonic Generations was already divided into two gameplay styles. That's two right there, not one.

 

And as I just said, you could easily have the "Colors" team make the 2D games, the "Unleashed" team make the 3D games, and have Dimps do the handheld Rush/Colors games.

 

You're making it sound far more complicated than it actually is. And on top of all of that, there's Sumo Digital who are a pretty capable game development company on their own, and SEGA has them making racing spin-offs. And as you mentioned, Big Red Button and Sanzaru games are both handling Sonic games at the moment.

 

Sonic is a big name franchise that can easily be outsourced. You can worry about "pleasing everyone" all you want, and in a way I understand why that's an issue (seriously, I opened up my last post about it) but citing development overload as a problem simply doesn't jive. 

 

 

I've given this subject far more thought than anything else in regards to the series. Shoving everything back into one single style will only go so far.

 

I was mainly referring to your point on how it's "too late"  for Sonic Team to have any focus, and how you wanted to " divide" it up some more

 

 

 

The saying "you can't please everyone" is most definitely true. This is why I'm always proposing that they maintain "focus" by "dividing" the main series in no less than two, but no more than three or four gameplay concepts. Create 2D Genesis-styled platformers (either 16-bit or in HD or whatever) as downloadable games, boost-centric 2.5D games for handhelds, and full 3D Adventure games for consoles. Maybe the occasional "Lost World" or "Secret Rings" to experiment and try something new, but stick with the concepts of speed, platforming and exploration as the series focus. 

 

Like the handheld concept I can understand, but why do we need two sets of 2D games? This is especially since almost everyone would agree that doing something like Sonic 4 with modern day Sonic Team(Or Dimps if you will) just led to a somewhat average and mediocre project. I don't get it :\ 

 

"Experimental" titles don't usually work out well because they tend to be unpolished and optimized and just generally not fun because of it. 

[Indigo Rush]

I was mainly referring to your point on how it's "too late"  for Sonic Team to have any focus, and how you wanted to " divide" it up some more

You're misreading the syntax of what I meant. I'm not dividing it further. Quite the opposite, it's consolidation of the top 3 successful styles and sticking to them. The act of keeping two to three "divisions" is what's preventing further division.

 

Like the handheld concept I can understand, but why do we need two sets of 2D games? This is especially since almost everyone would agree that doing something like Sonic 4 with modern day Sonic Team just led to a somewhat average and mediocre project. I don't get it :\

Please notice how I said "2.5D". I meant in the vein of Colors and Unleashed specifically, where you switch perspectives and have just as much focus in 3D and 2D. I consider the dynamic camera angle switching as it's own branch of gameplay style. I coined "Rush" because Colors and Unleashed are basically "Rush with some 3D in it" as it is. I probably should have been clearer on that.

 

"Experimental" titles don't usually work out well because they tend to be unpolished and optimized and just generally not fun because of it.

That is definitely a risk, but the "experimental" natures of the first Rush game and Secret Rings are what brought us games like Unleashed in the first place. Every now and then, when they're given the creative freedom to try out something out of the ordinary, they can tap into something that's potentially successful and utilize it into the next "main entry" game. Consider what could be in store for the next big SEGA Sonic game now that they've experimented a bit with parkour in Lost World? They've had an entire game to try it out and received feedback on it. Think about how that can help them develop it further into something great.

 

Also, as an aside, I would consider spin-offs starring other characters as "experimental" as well.

[Kuzu]

You're misreading the syntax of what I meant. I'm not dividing it further. Quite the opposite, it's consolidation of the top 3 successful styles and sticking to them. The act of keeping two to three "divisions" is what's preventing further division.

 

Please notice how I said "2.5D". I meant in the vein of Colors and Unleashed specifically, where you switch perspectives and have just as much focus in 3D and 2D. I consider the dynamic camera angle switching as it's own branch of gameplay style. I coined "Rush" because Colors and Unleashed are basically "Rush with some 3D in it" as it is. I probably should have been clearer on that.

 

That is definitely a risk, but the "experimental" natures of the first Rush game and Secret Rings are what brought us games like Unleashed in the first place. Every now and then, when they're given the creative freedom to try out something out of the ordinary, they can tap into something that's potentially successful and utilize it into the next "main entry" game. Also, I would consider spin-offs starring other characters as "experimental" as well.

 

I wouldn't really say the switching perspective type of gameplay is it's own style, but just that...a perspective flip. I'd also argue a bit that 3D and 2D should be kept in two different games themselves, but that's my own personal preference.

 

 

As for your point about experimentation, I think you missed my point. The problem isn't experimentation in and of itself, but rather these "experiments" lack the fundamentals that make good game design. Why do Sonic Team have to make 2-3 more games, before they get something like control and camera angles right? Shouldn't that be something there from the beginning? 

 

I'm not against experimenting with a new style once in a while, but not if I have to play a game that's unpolished and unoptimized. I'd rather they just stick with what they know and leave it at that then.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Perhaps focusing on one consistent style isn't the answer, but merely consistency period.

 

It's not really a bad idea for Sonic to branch out from time to time, but the problem is doing it so much and at the same time throwing away the previous iterations in favor of the more recent one.

 

Like Mario and Megaman, they have some games that are a stark difference from each other, but the key thing they have throughout their differences is that they have a consistent core element to them that makes them identifiable even if you playing an RPG like Paper Mario instead of the usual platformer titles of the series. Megaman The Power Battle is nothing but a game of boss fights, but it still retains the same or rather similar controls as you would playing a normal Megaman platformer.

 

So really, it's not simply diversity that's the problem, but how Sonic diversifies himself. You could identify Sonic through the Adventures and Heroes, but once you hit ShTH and Sonic 06 things become a mess. Then things go a completely different route in Unleashed, which even if you discount the Werehog gameplay it plays so drastically different from the Adventures and Heroes. Then Colors tries to make it less of a boostfest, only to become so blocky that it works against the flow of getting through the stage. Come around Lost World, we're at it again with how the developers want Sonic to play.

 

Now given how things are, this is where sticking to one consistent style of play and building from that seems to be the better option. It allows us greater focus of the franchise instead of seemingly being all over the place. It's essentially going back to square one and using that base as an experiment. But that one style of play may need to be reoptimized into a new form depending on how you design a Sonic game, as due to their being elements that don't translate well from 2D to 3D things might feel completely different between just the dimensions alone, for example. A 3D Mario game may have some elements that connect it to the 2D titles, but playing Mario 64 for example feels much different from playing Super Mario World.

[Indigo Rush]

I wouldn't really say the switching perspective type of gameplay is it's own style, but just that...a perspective flip. I'd also argue a bit that 3D and 2D should be kept in two different games themselves, but that's my own personal preference.

Well the perspective switching isn't the only defining factor. Honestly, I truly thought that went without saying, but I guess I need to be even more specific:

The perspective switching games that use the "boost" as the main object of speed and action which utilize said mechanic to complete the level where 3D is meant for "wind blowing in your face speed" and 2D is meant for "tricky platforming." Is that better?

Otherwise, keeping 2D and 3D separate is also what I'm arguing for in the case of Genesis 2D and Adventure 3D, so I don't see a problem there.

 

 

As for your point about experimentation, I think you missed my point. The problem isn't experimentation in and of itself, but rather these "experiments" lack the fundamentals that make good game design. Why do Sonic Team have to make 2-3 more games, before they get something like control and camera angles right? Shouldn't that be something there from the beginning?

 

I'm not against experimenting with a new style once in a while, but not if I have to play a game that's unpolished and unoptimized. I'd rather they just stick with what they know and leave it at that then.

Why do you assume that when I say "experiment," it means basic fundamentals such as how the camera works, optimization and polish? Seriously, WHY THE BLOODY HELL DO YOU ASSUME THIS? I thought I've already said that this goes without saying. No freaking DUH, the games should work well and play well. There's no excuse for Secret Rings' poor controls. There's no excuse for Rush's unfair difficulty spikes. There's no excuse for the Werehog. Never have I ever said that experimentation is an excuse for poor design.

What I am saying is that these moments of experimentation are meant to utilize a new, sensible gameplay concept or ability that otherwise wouldn't be used in a main-entry game until they figure out how it could be best implemented into it. The boost was a sensible idea in the context of a speed-based platformer. Even the Wisps had some potential. Those are ideas that could work in tandem with the main games, but were used in "spin-offs" first. This is regardless if those spin-offs were good or not - they SHOULD have been good, but that wasn't my focus. Those games being GOOD should not ever be something I have to clarify! Shouldn't every game that's released be a good one?! Honestly.

[Kuzu]

Well the perspective switching isn't the only defining factor. Honestly, I truly thought that went without saying, but I guess I need to be even more specific:

The perspective switching games that use the "boost" as the main object of speed and action which utilize said mechanic to complete the level where 3D is meant for "wind blowing in your face speed" and 2D is meant for "tricky platforming." Is that better?

Otherwise, keeping 2D and 3D separate is also what I'm arguing for in the case of Genesis 2D and Adventure 3D, so I don't see a problem there.

 

 

Why do you assume that when I say "experiment," it means basic fundamentals such as how the camera works, optimization and polish? Seriously, WHY THE BLOODY HELL DO YOU ASSUME THIS? I thought I've already said that this goes without saying. No freaking DUH, the games should work well and play well. There's no excuse for Secret Rings' poor controls. There's no excuse for Rush's unfair difficulty spikes. There's no excuse for the Werehog. Never have I ever said that experimentation is an excuse for poor design.

What I am saying is that these moments of experimentation are meant to utilize a new, sensible gameplay concept or ability that otherwise wouldn't be used in a main-entry game until they figure out how it could be best implemented into it. The boost was a sensible idea in the context of a speed-based platformer. Even the Wisps had some potential. Those are ideas that could work in tandem with the main games, but were used in "spin-offs" first. This is regardless if those spin-offs were good or not - they SHOULD have been good, but that wasn't my focus. Those games being GOOD should not ever be something I have to clarify! Shouldn't every game that's released be a good one?! Honestly.

 

 

I was going by Sonic Team's own track record man, I never said you wanted an unpolished game. I'm sorry if I implied it. :\

[Indigo Rush]

It's fine, sorry. Didn't mean to get so heated.

 

But what I'm putting forward is an ideal. Ideally, we could have a consistent identity for Sonic across three gameplay styles. My proof of concept was Mario, who has his 2D retro platformers and his 3D platformers, both of which try new things on occasion. And Metroid and Zelda basically do the same thing as well, so it seemed like it could work just as well for Sonic, too.

 

The only difference is that Sonic on handhelds would have it's own style to it, and that style of choice was what we saw in Colors and Unleashed, where completing the level with insane speed could actually complement the concept of handheld on-the-go gaming, where you want to finish up a level quickly while you're out and about. The 2D-3D switching would really just be a preservation of a popular existing gameplay style. 

 

And ideally, we'd have a good, fun and solid spin-off that introduces a new concept or character that has a nugget in there that can be used in the main series. I know very well that Sonic Team's track record isn't great, and should what I propose be implemented, it likely wouldn't go perfectly. But I would like to think that the ideal should at least be considered. 

 

Also, I want to clarify something else, when I mention "3D Adventure," I don't necessarily mean it in the exact same vein as the Dreamcast games - I kind of loosely meant the concept of a full-3D platformer. We haven't really gotten there yet, but again, I'm speaking in ideals.

 

So yeah, no bad blood intended. Just poor conveyance on my part and some misunderstandings thrown in.

 

At the very least, a good 2D line of games and a good 3D line of games should be a granted concept, right? 

[Kuzu]

For starters, they'd need to stop with the cheap handheld cash ins of main games.

[- Eternal Paradox -]

Okay, I'd like to come back into this with some more ideals I've got floating round.

 

When the Nintendo staff were originally developing New Super Mario Bros, it was developed in conjunction with The Legend of Zelda - and as such, ideas were spilt into three categories - Ideas that would work for Mario, ideas that would work for Zelda, and things that would work for both.

 

I don't know about you, but I feel this could be adapted to work for Sonic Team.

 

See, Sonic Team is quite clearly a team full to the brim of young devs with brilliant ideas. Sadly they never get to implement their ideas properly as they're stuck making a Sonic game. So it leaks into the game.

 

So, why not have Sonic Team develop two or more titles at once. Maybe spilt them into finite teams perhaps, but put them in the same building and have them chuck ideas at each other. Ideally, we'd have one or two main, branded Sonic titles (Boost formula, classic formula, whatever), and one "wildcard". The wildcard, is essentially, Sonic Team's chance to go nuts. Do whatever they want, throw in whatever crazy shit they have in their head and make it work. I'd recommend the wildcard be a new franchise rather than Sonic to avoid corruption of the Sonic brand.

 

But why work on a wildcard? Well...

... Now, think of all the times you've gone "Why is this in Sonic? Why the hell wasn't this a separate game?" - THIS IS WHY. Sonic Team was an incredibly creative (they still are), and they want to make NEW games, not be ball and chained to a blue hedgehog.

 

But they can't, and in a realistic world, I can't see SEGA loosening the chains or spending money on big risks any-time soon.

[azoo]

I think Blacklightning's post was right on the money. Sonic needs a consistent gameplay style to build off of, and it needs to work off of the base of a simple concept: make moving fun. 

 

Although the general perception of Sonic has become so disoriented by different styles that there's no way to go completely back to one or the other, you can't really let that get to you when designing a game. Pleasing everyone has only led to Sonic becoming the inconsistent dogpile that he is today. 

 

So what should they do?

 

Though it may be a really tired statement to make, I have to say that basing it first and foremost on the gameplay originally established in the series would be a good start.

 

The classics and Adventures (and even the Advance series) were games designed off of making your every movement feel satisfying. Slopes build up speed or slow you down depending on the angle. Acceleration is natural. Spinning in a ball dramatically increases velocity when traveling down inclines, and you can even charge it up and blast off with it. Using the bounce attack sends you whirling up and down until you go higher and higher, and jump dashing acts as a way to get to jogging speed quickly or get that extra push when making a jump.

 

These things were the exact parts that made Sonic popular to begin with, and they fall like jigsaws into place for designing a game where "moving is fun". And from there, they should build up. Parkour (and even the "hold to keep dashing" Spin Dash) from Lost World are ideas that would benefit Sonic's movements, and even quick-stepping and drifting have their place if the game's fast enough to warrant it. Heck, boosting and tricks could work in their own ways too if applied in a way that works with the rest.

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that when you spend the first ten or so years making a gameplay style based around building speed, flow, actiony platforming and Rolling Around At the Speed of Sound™, then people aren't going to forget how that plays. It's what people grew to love Sonic for in the first place, and it's what people (specifically outside of the fanbase) grew to expect from the games. Why keep changing that, when you can go back and expand off of it? All it does is mud up the image until noone knows what Sonic is anymore besides an icon, which is where the discussion spins right back to the OP.

[omote23]

So.. what is the realistic solution for Sonic franchise??.... ?

P.S Anyone can summarize this essay?.

[Blacklightning]

See, one of the main problems of Sonic isn't just the fact they don't keep a consistent gameplay style, but rather they fail to clearly separate the boarders of the franchise into separate brands.

 That's actually a pretty good point, but sadly one I also think Sonic missed the opportunity for long ago. The short and short of it is that guys like Mario can get away with it because unlike Sonic, he's never really endured an identity crisis to start with - whenever you look at a Mario game you think "Jumping, Shrooms, Powerups" in that order, and the franchise tends to follow not only that same formula but even many of the same moves (eg: NSMB introducing wall jumping to the 2D games after 64 made it standard). You could say that diversions to that style mind their own business ultimately - like you say, they're clearly their own thing, and people don't mind them existing because they're not actually being denied the styles of play they do enjoy in the process.

 

Sonic meanwhile doesn't have the integrity for it anymore. To say nothing of the fact that main series games shove irrelevant gimmicks in seemingly out of some baseless fear that the existing gameplay can't sell it, part of the problem with Sonic in regards to this argument is that they plain don't revisit anything they do - they let something serve its purpose, and then discard it like it's some kind of disposable solution. And when they do revisit something, it's usually so long after the fact that they no longer have the best understanding of what originally made it tick, and the original fans of those styles have grown so pedantic and picky about it during that long wait that they will accept nothing less than perfection - take a wild fucking guess what I'm referring to, you probably won't be wrong.

 

The point is that they had ample opportunity to set up the groundwork for their styles to coexist, but squandered it, and now people the world over just groan and faceplam if Sonic tries to change things up again. The way I see it, Sonic absolutely shouldn't be taking pointless risks like that anymore. They need to dial everything back, focus on movement and only movement, and unite everything worth saving under a single banner for them to start fresh under. Then maybe, maybe, they'll have the grounds to start branching out safely once again, only once Sonic's identity is questioned by nobody, least of all Sega.

 

P.S Anyone can summarize this essay?.

 

- No reinventions

- No game-wide gimmicks

- Level quirks only

- Make moving fun

- Final Destination

[Chaos Incarnate]

If I'm going to sum up Sonic as blunt as possible...

2D Sonic: Building up speed and momentum, extra goodies can usually be found at your discretion to add replay value to the experience, not make you feel like a total dumbass for missing things (bad endings in CD and 3 & K aside).

3D Sonic: Experimentation, usually revolving around gimmicks from the highest to lowest of degrees: Genre roulette through alternate characters, different stories to get through, combat, sun and moon medals, Wisps, Nostalgia factor, and going out of your way to experience the bullshit to reach a final story, true ending, etc.

See why that may frustrate the shit out of some players nowadays who might just be looking for a good time? I like stuff added in here and there to add some weight to my experience, but fucking fishing? Medal collecting to beat the god damn game?

I don't like Colors, but I give it credit for at least getting straight to the point, and going from point a to point b, without any bullshit hindering your experience if you just want to get through the game.

So uh, I dunno, focus on making speed a reward by building up momentum would be kinda cool, I never understood why that would be difficult to execute in 3D. It's not hard to focus on fun factor, rather than adding in shit that slows you down, the exact opposite of what Sonic is about. I'm going to cut this short without sounding like a broken record, but I think other methods of replay value, such as alternate pathways and characters with the same play style could easily ail the worries of length and such.

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

[danidado]

I seriously think that, as a response to Sonic Boom's redesigns, it would be time for a little renovation for the main canon, not only ditching writers (enough with Pontac and Graff, back with Shiro Maekawa), some voice actors (namely Roger Craig Smith, Kirk Thornton and Cindy Robinson) and current direction trend they're keeping since 2010 (no more kid pandering, no more Classic pandering, no more 2D/3D hybrid gameplay, no more "inspiration" from Mario, no more focus on juvenile humor, no more short games that take 3-4 hours to finish), but also the characters models.

 

 

Am I the only one that finds these models....ugly. Seriously, look at Silver's face......that side mouth with grey lipstick, and everybody's colors look dull and they look like...smurfs.

 

For the 2015/2016 game(s), shouldn't they remake the character models into something similar to these  :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forget the pistol in the last one, but tell me who wouldn't like to see something similar to these amazing models in the next game(s) ?  

 

Art made by Deviantart artist k7g4p11

[Spin Attaxx]

I'm sorry, but those models look like they're fresh off the taffy-pulling machine.

 

Now what other Sonic game had unnaturally lanky models...?