Stephen Frost talks about Sonic Boom (franchise & game)

[SuperLink]

I was gonna make a response but Carbo's post was so good that I was kinda floored.

 

But besides the obvious factors of power and limitation, if Sonic Team were better developers, they wouldn't need PS4/XBO/PC hardware to make an amazing Sonic game. It's not like "the reason there hasn't been a great 3D Sonic lately is because the hardware is too weak but now that PS4 and XBO are finally out it can finally be good again!" No, that isn't the case at all and it's kinda naive to think that way imo.

 

Good hardware doesn't make a mediocre developer great. Sonic's recent games were not "bad" because of their hardware. Lost World would have been the same on PS4 and XBO. It was not held back by its hardware, it was held back in design.

 

I know it'd be nice to have a super pretty PS4/XBO Sonic game but I'd like to know where the idea that that's even a development priority comes from. A Wii U version of a future Sonic game might hold back the others, but at the same time maybe ST just isn't interested in pushing hardware at this point? And what good does "pushing hardware" do if the game is poor?

 

This idea that lower powered consoles should miss out because it's "holding gaming back" really honestly pisses me off because a lot of the best games ever made have been lower powered games. More money spent on pushing tech doesn't mean a better game, it means less money spent on making a game good.

 

"Don't make it for weaker hardware because it's holding the game back" also enforces the "AAA" ideology that only games with huge budgets are the games worth creating or buying in the first place and that's currently killing the industry both economically and creatively. Not every developer has to put frickin everything into every game.

 

Wii U isn't successful enough for it to be worth it? Fine. Weaker hardware isn't worth developing for? I seriously couldn't disagree more and I wish this line of thought would stop.

[ChikaBoing]

Well better graphics than Mario was always Sonic's thing in the golden days, and I think people are nostalgic about that.

[SuperLink]

Well better graphics than Mario was always Sonic's thing in the golden days, and I think people are nostalgic about that.

I dunno I always thought his thing in the "golden days" was having better games than Mario. Why can't people be nostalgic about that instead?

 

He shouldn't need PS4 or XBO graphics to finally beat Mario 64.

 

Mario 64 could be released today as is without any visual upgrades and it'd still be a better game than half of the "AAA" games released in the last year. Console power is not stopping Sonic from achieving quality. SEGA could make a Saturn-level Sonic game better than most AAA games if they were really talented enough.

 

Because Sonic 2 and 3 are still better made games than most games released in the last few years.

[Gabz Girl]

The Wii U may be inferior to PS4/Xbone in terms of hardware but it's definitely not as dramatically different as the Wii and 360/PS3. That wasn't even an HD console, at least this one is! I don't see how it could be "impossible" to simply get a slightly downgraded port on the Wii U, at least inferior (but still nice) graphics.

 

Do you honestly think Sonic Team is developing a AAA Sonic game on PS4, with fur textures, particle effects and shit? It certainly sounds like it, and all I can say is you're expecting too much from them. I know this game has been in development for years but they're not the same Sonic Team from the Unleashed era. Remember that.

[SuperLink]

The Wii U may be inferior to PS4/Xbone in terms of hardware but it's definitely not as dramatically different as the Wii and 360/PS3. That wasn't even an HD console, at least this one is! I don't see how it could be "impossible" to simply get a slightly downgraded port on the Wii U, at least inferior (but still nice) graphics.

 

Do you honestly think Sonic Team is developing a AAA Sonic game on PS4, with fur textures, particle effects and shit? It certainly sounds like it, and all I can say is you're expecting too much from them. I know this game has been in development for years but they're not the same Sonic Team from the Unleashed era. Remember that.

It wouldn't be "impossible" to downport it to Wii U but it would certainly be difficult and expensive because downporting is not an easy thing to do. I'm not saying it shouldn't come to Wii U because I really believe it should in some way, but it wouldn't be surprising if it didn't.

 

I fully agree that expecting the next Sonic game to make use of tech that's only on PS4 or XBO is expecting too much from Sonic Team tho. I'm willing to bet that the next Sonic game doesn't do much (if anything) that couldn't be done on the Wii U and each system's predecessor.

[ChikaBoing]

I dunno I always thought his thing in the "golden days" was having better games than Mario. Why can't people be nostalgic about that instead?

 

He shouldn't need PS4 or XBO graphics to finally beat Mario 64.

 

Mario 64 could be released today as is without any visual upgrades and it'd still be a better game than half of the "AAA" games released in the last year. Console power is not stopping Sonic from achieving quality. SEGA could make a Saturn-level Sonic game better than most AAA games if they were really talented enough.

 

Because Sonic 2 and 3 are still better made games than most games released in the last few years.

 

Well I was also reffering to Sonic Adventure. The only upside to Mario 64 in that were the graphics.

[Gabz Girl]

It wouldn't be "impossible" to downport it to Wii U but it would certainly be difficult and expensive because downporting is not an easy thing to do. I'm not saying it shouldn't come to Wii U because I really believe it should in some way, but it wouldn't be surprising if it didn't.

 

Urgh. =[ And since Sega doesn't seem so keen on Wii U anymore, I don't know if we'll even get more games on it. I'm hoping for at least one more, because it would suck if the Wii U didn't get any good Sonic games.

 

But yeah, it hurts me to say that this is not the Sonic Team from 7 years ago who used to go all out with their Sonic games and make them look absolutely stunning and ambitious. I just have such low expectations for the next one it's ridiculous. 

[Salamander]

Isn't the idea of "better graphics" to some extent a red herring, too?  There's a nasty thread of realism elitism in that argument that implies that the only value in graphical style is their fidelity to real life - a claim undermined by the popularity both of retro games and their styles, which embrace considerable limitations enforced by creativity rather than hardware because there are impressions you can only evoke with "poorer" graphics.  At the point we're at now, one in which noticeable limitations are frankly few - even sometimes on handhelds - then graphics are finally becoming wholly a matter of style rather than simply a display of technical expertise.  Would 8-bit games be better in HD?

 

But back on the focus group matter:

 

I must stress, there is no evidence to say that these people are part of a focus group, however, since the appeal of these blogs/people are parents with children and it's in both the US and Europe, Sega are definitely targeting the parent demographic and not core gamers. 

 

...I'm majorly crossing my fingers that this was solely for cynical advertising purposes - getting parents to advertise their games to other parents as being good for kids - and not as any kind of focus testing, because talk about unrepresentative!  This would imply that Sega cares more about selling to the parents of young children than to people who actually want to play the games themselves.

[Sami]

Saying that a Sonic game would be good enough when managed on the lower hardware we have is an expectations argument. Saying that a Sonic game would be inherently better on powerful hardware is a semantics argument.

Better hardware allows for better stuff to be done? No shit. You don't need a master's degree in order to suss that one out. Problem is you're not exactly dealing with people who are known for setting regular house calls at the federal reserve. Game development is expensive. Game development is also daunting. It took Sega over a decade to find a formula in 3D that was anywhere near as revered as the Adventure games even though logistically they had more room than ever to improve with the evolution and understanding of the hardware they had to deal with. For a while, Secret Rings was lauded as the only good Sonic game in it's last five years of existence, even though that wasn't exactly saying much and it was a game scrambled together with the adversity of more powerful hardware looming over their heads and a much more powerful (*snort*) Sonic game in development.

"Super Mario 3D World would be better on better hardware"? I mean sure, if all it means to you is an up port that accommodates for really just basic resolution (1080p is about the only improvement that game "needs") but other than that, I don't think that's the case. Claiming a game would be inherently better in any substantial way on account of better hardware ignores everything surrounding design and actual workload that is required to accommodate to that hardware, at least on a level that you can say where it's not being "held back" by older consoles. Matthewmatosis did a review of 3D World recently (a video I highly suggest people watch) where he points out that the liberties that Nintendo had to take with making the aesthetical standpoint less profound as the Galaxy games have in general given a large focus back to pure and instantly memorable level design. There was more levels the game had to offer than ever, it never really got stale and always had something new to offer, all of which was kept within the confines of it's basic game play. And even then the graphics never actually had to pay that much of a price when subtle design effects and even well thought out graphical details beyond the art style made everything pop so well, so much to the point that it even looked better than its current gen competitors in some aspects. And all of this was maintained in the most silky smooth framerate ever, even when four players were running rampant on screen (which could turn into 8 on account of double cherries).

Meanwhile, an incredible overestimation in scale and technology brought vapid experiences like Ryse and The Order 1886 to the table. Which is to say nothing of the trend of constantly remastering last generation games on new consoles, further emphasizing that the console gap this time around is much less of a big deal as almost all games right now are not doing anything that would be impossible on the last generation, other than more polished performance, and the ones that theoretically "aren't possible" like the above are ones that cripple game play for it. It's probably not fair to use examples like that when this generation is in it's relative infancy (even though chances are we're going to go back to shorter generational cycles) but I can't think of many other egregious examples this generation of games where developers heavily overestimated themselves on account of tech. But to be frank; that seemed to be a such a dime a dozen in the previous generation where more development companies went bankrupt, downsized or liquidated than any generation prior, simply on account of overestimating what they could do with their products. That was one of the most damning trends seen last generation and it's definitely not going to relent now.

There is some asterisks to be applied to the above reasonings though. For one thing, none of the above should be misconstrued to assume that we should "never switch consoles" or anything of the sort if good games can be done on lower hardware. I primarily game on PC these days where the hardware is always evolving to support better experiences (which is already miles ahead of anything PS4/XBO achieves), and developers are going to switch what games they make consoles for primarily because newer consoles is where the money is at. As for the other thing, particularly in regards to the paragraph about 3D World, that is a Nintendo game. That means that in terms of production values and budgets, they're going to be a cut above the rest, and chances are that if they had better hardware to design a killer experience around, they would. But that game would not be 3D World, and most importantly in the general analogy, Sega aren't Nintendo. Nintendo isn't an anemic company currently wallowing in their own stumps. If Sega are going to sink all of their chips into making an experience that people are expecting to not maintain any sort of restraint, that is a risky gamble. I can't really emphasize the "Game deving is hard" comment that I made earlier enough either; there are a metric ton of factors as to why that has become increasingly transparent these days with developer accounts and personal experiences. For a company like Sega, if they were to design a game that could cover all current hardware in an optimal rate, that would be their best bet, as it would be low cost and fairly encompassing. It'd at least be a much safer bet for them than designing an experience that can "only be done" on a console with the same power as a PS4 (which you guys have to realize; wouldn't mean just downgrading the game if it had a Wii U port, but also downgrading it if it had an XBO port).

But if tech talk is all that matters then it's all the more important to remember that technology isn't just there to tell you what you can do, it's there to inform you of what you can't do. This is especially true in game design and a lot of the potential "what if's" are not exactly grounded in the best frame of reference to pull from.

Solkia raises the best point in the thread probably but that's because Generations had the opportunity to have most of it's general engine done around the time Sega still had a lot of leeway with these things, and since the PC version of Generations didn't need worry too much about optimizing itself. It's still a game (and engine) that is heavily damaged by it's overestimation of itself meaning so many large levels that end up not accounting for much, and you can tell most of the development time went into the first half of the game where not a lot of assets could be reused. They scrambled the entire Sonic Team development staff for the sake of putting out a game within two years that wasn't even particularly huge, which should say something about how hard it is to develop a Sonic game, and how flawed the formula generally was to deal with. It's no wonder they decided to go for another switch really, even though Generations had the only remotely lauded formula the series has had since Genesis. It's just not a very sustainable formula, one which effectively served as a dead end.

 

An important point worth noting here though is that Sonic is still SEGA's flagship franchise and to this day sells in the million range fairly regularly. The low budget, critically panned, financially disappointing Sonic Lost World still managed to pull off a decent enough 710k units in the end, Generations hit over a million and a half, and even the absolutely awful Sonic Boom somehow managed 490k (one of the lowest selling games in the series). 

 

The entertainment industry has thrived on big hits for decades now, and Sonic is one of the very few franchises left that SEGA can comfortably invest in with that in mind. With every passing game these days though, that comfort grows less and less sustainable. The launch of a new console generation always has been and always will be the absolute best time to turn heads with a franchise revitalization - SEGA knows this and has done it numerous times with Sonic (with varying success, obviously) alone in the past. 

 

My argument does not apply to every game out there - not at all. I wouldn't even say it applies to any other SEGA franchises at this point bar maybe Aliens. But I do insist that Sonic benefits greatly from advancements in technology, much more than Mario does for instance.

 

Looking back on Sonic's history, the series has always thrived on pomp and flash to differentiate itself from its competitors. Both the game design and advertising reflect this - with Sonic 1 giving us the different Zones, all with completely original visuals, music, and tone, to Sonic 3 pushing the envelope for platformers in scale, storytelling, and content, all the way to Sonic Adventure with its high speed, flashy camera work, and graphically impressive setpieces. 

 

Sonic's entire identity is founded upon a flashy, edgy persona. It's been that way from the beginning. Likewise, advancements in technology have propelled the series forward in new ways from Sonic 1 all the way down to Generations. Sonic and tech have gone hand in hand ever since Yuji Naka took advantage of the Genesis CPU to craft a physics engine that wasn't possible on the rival console. 

 

Sonic and SEGA's biggest problem right now are fading relevancy in the industry as a whole. There's only so much that can be done on Wii U that wasn't already possible five years ago with Sonic Unleashed or Generations, but if SEGA does intend to make Sonic relevant again I think putting a gamble on another truly ambitious Unleashed-tier game would pay off massively, just as it has in the past with the Adventure series. 

 

Of course, as has been pointed out, we don't know if that's what SEGA actually wants, nor do we know if Sonic Team is up to the task. That's a fair assessment. That said though, my personal assumption, based off of the massive multimedia push Sonic Boom got and the millions of dollars invested in it, is that SEGA still intends for Sonic to be their hit franchise, and intend to fund that with their more consistent mobiles profits.

 

If that is the case, I firmly believe that ditching Wii U and innovating the franchise once again with a brand new style (both from a game design and visual perspective) that truly takes advantage of modern technology will pay off for them once again - just as it did with the Adventure games, and just as it did with Unleashed. If the quality is really there, that style and technology can be utilized again and again in the future, and the franchise can hopefully continue on the trajectory it seemed to be setting itself on when Generations was awarded its favorable reception and successful sales.

[SuperLink]

Good points but, I'm pretty sure Sonic and SEGA's struggle to remain relevant has far more to do with consistent game quality than pushing hardware. Sonic fans remember Unleashed for its amazing visuals and subjectively ok story, but most other gamers remember it for having a Werehog and continuing the Sonic Cycle, barely even acknowledging its visuals.

 

If I could wish for SEGA to do one thing it would be to make a good game, each and every time, before becoming too concerned with flashy tech. I don't think it's unreasonable to want SEGA and Sonic Team to focus on that either. The visuals being good are useless if it doesn't establish Sonic as a consistently good game that is worth having faith in, and I really don't think they're going to do that??

 

I mean, Sonic was created in the first place to /beat/ Mario right? Not to have better graphics than him, but to beat him. Flash was only one factor in that, gameplay was probably the most important reason Sonic was ever able to "beat" Mario.

 

As things stand though? Nintendo spends less money and time developing better Mario games than SEGA spend to make worse Sonic games. Nintendo's Mario games make so much more money it's not even funny and because of that Mario is "beating" Sonic regardless of how pretty Sonic's game is. How can Sonic "beat" Mario and stay relevant? By being a bloody good game that people can have faith in, not with a superficial display of hardware power that'll impress people for maybe a year but not get them to stay because the game still isn't as good as Super Mario 64.

 

Looking back on Sonic's history, the series has always thrived on pomp and flash to differentiate itself from its competitors. Both the game design and advertising reflect this - with Sonic 1 giving us the different Zones, all with completely original visuals, music, and tone, to Sonic 3 pushing the envelope for platformers in scale, storytelling, and content, all the way to Sonic Adventure with its high speed, flashy camera work, and graphically impressive setpieces. 

 

Sonic's entire identity is founded upon a flashy, edgy persona. It's been that way from the beginning. Likewise, advancements in technology have propelled the series forward in new ways from Sonic 1 all the way down to Generations. Sonic and tech have gone hand in hand ever since Yuji Naka took advantage of the Genesis CPU to craft a physics engine that wasn't possible on the rival console. 

On the prior point: ironically Mario games were always much longer and bigger. Sonic games excelled on gameplay, not content or size.

 

On the latter: I really don't think, gameplay-wise, there's anything that the PS4 and XBO can do to make Sonic good that the Wii U/360/PS3 couldn't. Sonic and tech went hand in hand where it was necessary, but tech has been more than good enough for Sonic for a long time now, it's SEGA and Sonic Team who can't keep up, absolutely not the other way around.

[azoo]

I was going to wake up and continue where I left off, but... you know, Carbo and SuperLink have said everything I'd said, but infinitely better. I'll just slide on back to the background. :v

[Sami]

 

 

It's not really the matter of "what's the big difference between hardware" and more like "what would a Sonic game do that requires THAT much power".

Because besides visual pluses, shorter / more seamless loading times, and higher poly stuff... I don't know what you guys are expecting. I seriously don't. We're at a point where the only limitations are how much space there is and how much processor power there is; we're not making gigantic leaps and bounds like we used to no matter what way you slice it. And even if you can count at least one thing that is, what way would it benefit Sonic to the extent that it's impossible to pull off in "last-gen" material like the Wii U? 

 

Unless you're looking for something that is so complex / over-ambitious that it breaks the concept of a Sonic game in the first place, but that's a bit on the impractical side, isn't it? Especially since Sega's so willing to sit towards the status quo?

 

I thought of a good analogical response to this. 

 

Batman Arkham Knight Batmobile innovates the series gameplay in a radically new direction, introducing a game mechanic we've never seen before (a vehicle that you can seamlessly summon at almost any time from any place, smoothly fall into, and use as a weapon), all while being extremely flashy and eye catching. Personally, I'm a casual fan of the series at best. But I think the Batmobile looks cool as fuck and I think it was extremely smart of Rocksteady to show off the new gliding and driving mechanics (as well as how they play off each other incredibly fluidly) at press conferences, because it turned me into a customer. That's what I'm talking about with Sonic as well.

 

In fact, I think the fluidity in design and flashy appearance makes the Batmobile itself a very Sonic-esque innovation. Something like that is very characteristic of this series, and it's something that Rocksteady themselves have said isn't even close to possible on older hardware (and by extension, Wii U). A hypothetical multiplat version of Arkham Knight that is available on Wii U wouldn't have the Batmobile. Sonic suffers the same problem.

 

Good points but, I'm pretty sure Sonic and SEGA's struggle to remain relevant has far more to do with consistent game quality than pushing hardware. Sonic fans remember Unleashed for its amazing visuals and subjectively ok story, but most other gamers remember it for having a Werehog and continuing the Sonic Cycle, barely even acknowledging its visuals.

 

If I could wish for SEGA to do one thing it would be to make a good game, each and every time, before becoming too concerned with flashy tech. I don't think it's unreasonable to want SEGA and Sonic Team to focus on that either. The visuals being good are useless if it doesn't establish Sonic as a consistently good game that is worth having faith in, and I really don't think they're going to do that??

 

I mean, Sonic was created in the first place to /beat/ Mario right? Not to have better graphics than him, but to beat him. Flash was only one factor in that, gameplay was probably the most important reason Sonic was ever able to "beat" Mario.

 

As things stand though? Nintendo spends less money developing better Mario games than SEGA use to make worse Sonic games. Nintendo's Mario games make so much more money it's not even funny. How can Sonic "beat" Mario and stay relevant? By being a bloody good game that people can have faith in, not with a superficial display of hardware power that'll impress people for maybe a year but not get them to stay because the game still isn't as good as Super Mario 64.

 

On the prior point: ironically Mario games were always much longer and bigger. Sonic games excelled on gameplay, not content or size.

 

On the latter: I really don't think, gameplay-wise, there's anything that the PS4 and XBO can do to make Sonic good that the Wii U/360/PS3 couldn't. Sonic and tech went hand in hand where it was necessary, but tech has been more than good enough for Sonic for a long time now, it's SEGA and Sonic Team who can't keep up, absolutely not the other way around.

 

Do you remember most peoples' reactions to Sonic Unleashed's daytime gameplay? That original leaked trailer (pre-Werehog) turned a lot of heads at the time, and I specifically remember almost everyone being floored by the game's Sonic levels. People complain now about Unleashed's level design being linear and vapid (I disagree personally, I still love racing through them, but whatever), but most people at the time (not just fans) came to the conclusion that Sonic Unleashed would not only have been a good game, but an amazing one had it not had so much meaningless fluff bogging it down. 

 

Had the game not pushed the envelope so much technologically, I don't think that response would have been nearly as favorable. Remember - Unleashed is regarded as a bad game that could have been amazing if not for the Werehog. That is the game's general reception. 

 

I think it goes without saying that this is the game I'm describing - the amazing franchise saving game that everyone says Unleashed could have been had its premise and design not been crafted via Game Design Mad Libs. Sonic Team A's last game suggest that they finally fucking get it, so I'm arguing on the assumption that they actually make a good game here.

 

Edit - Also to be honest I think a really good Sonic game (i.e. true to the series identity) needs a much bigger budget and scope than a good Mario game pretty much on principle. That's not a bad thing, it's just how it is. I'd say the same for Zelda as well. Mario has always thrived on "less is more" design and being relatively simplistic. The same can't be said for stuff like Sonic, Zelda, Uncharted, or whatever. 

 

I really do agree with you when you say that not everything needs to be AAA. I don't even think every Sonic game needs to be. But where Mario kind of overcomplicates itself when it tries to go for larger scale and bigger budgets (Sunshine), Sonic thrives. People's favorite parts of Mario's biggest "AAA" game are the linear obstacle course sections - something Nintendo recognized and acted upon. On the other hand though people's favorite parts of Sonic's biggest AAA game are the extremely flashy, fast speed stages. Dialing everything down with Lost World wasn't met with positive reception at all.

 

What works for Mario doesn't work for Sonic at all because fundamentally they have extremely different identities.

[azoo]

Actually, nevermind what I said earlier.

 

 

I thought of a good analogical response to this. 

 

Batman Arkham Knight Batmobile innovates the series gameplay in a radically new direction, introducing a game mechanic we've never seen before (a vehicle that you can seamlessly summon at almost any time from any place, smoothly fall into, and use as a weapon), all while being extremely flashy and eye catching. Personally, I'm a casual fan of the series at best. But I think the Batmobile looks cool as fuck and I think it was extremely smart of Rocksteady to show off the new gliding and driving mechanics (as well as how they play off each other incredibly fluidly) at press conferences, because it turned me into a customer. That's what I'm talking about with Sonic as well.

 

In fact, I think the fluidity in design and flashy appearance makes the Batmobile itself a very Sonic-esque innovation. Something like that is very characteristic of this series, and it's something that Rocksteady themselves have said isn't even close to possible on older hardware (and by extension, Wii U). A hypothetical multiplat version of Arkham Knight that is available on Wii U wouldn't have the Batmobile. Sonic suffers the same problem.

 

That's good and all, but Arkham Knight is pulling off something people have known Batman could do for a long time and yet has never been able to pull off in a game, thus making it's innovation reasonable. What can Sonic do that'd be a big deal to him?

 

You can say last gen gave Sonic the ability to move unbelievably fast speeds without massive frame rate drops and rendering issues, which yes is a massive feat in tech that the previous gen couldn't do. But also note that was last gen, sooo yeah. Is there anything else we've been missing that's really necessary?

 

Once again, unless if you're thinking of something in the direction of "open world" or anything to that scale, which I'm doubting is even close to being on their minds, given their financial placement.

 

 

Do you remember most peoples' reactions to Sonic Unleashed's daytime gameplay? That original leaked trailer (pre-Werehog) turned a lot of heads at the time, and I specifically remember almost everyone being floored by the game's Sonic levels. People complain now about Unleashed's level design being linear and vapid (I disagree personally, I still love racing through them, but whatever), but most people at the time (not just fans) came to the conclusion that Sonic Unleashed would not only have been a good game, but an amazing one had it not had so much meaningless fluff bogging it down. 

 

Had the game not pushed the envelope so much technologically, I don't think that response would have been nearly as favorable. Remember - Unleashed is regarded as a bad game that could have been amazing if not for the Werehog. That is the game's general reception. 

 

I think it goes without saying that this is the game I'm describing - the amazing franchise saving game that everyone says Unleashed could have been had its premise and design not been crafted via Game Design Mad Libs. Sonic Team A's last game suggest that they finally fucking get it, so I'm arguing on the assumption that they actually make a good game here.

 

Edit - Also to be honest I think a really good Sonic game (i.e. true to the series identity) needs a much bigger budget and scope than a good Mario game pretty much on principle. That's not a bad thing, it's just how it is. I'd say the same for Zelda as well. Mario has always thrived on "less is more" design and being relatively simplistic. The same can't be said for stuff like Sonic, Zelda, Uncharted, or whatever. 

 

I really do agree with you when you say that not everything needs to be AAA. I don't even think every Sonic game needs to be. But where Mario kind of overcomplicates itself when it tries to go for larger scale and bigger budgets (Sunshine), Sonic thrives.

 

Man, Unleashed was adored instantly not only for really damn good visuals (which are still pretty today, mind) but also because it looked like a blend of Rush and Adventure-ish stuff, and proved to not be a glitchfest like the last three or four games that came before it. It definitely wasn't all just visuals, even if that was a part of it. 

 

And I feel that when they make another Sonic game, they don't really need as much of a graphics pushed as they needed when jumping over to next-gen. Sonic's got a style with a wide array of colors and lush detail pulled off at really fast speeds, and that's already been achieved in Unleashed and Generations. How much farther can you really take it without it being overkill?

 

 

 

What works for Mario doesn't work for Sonic at all because fundamentally they have extremely different identities.

 

Sonic may have more style, substance and narrative than Mario, but calling them extremely different identities whenever they're both cartoony-esque platformer franchises that have time and time again put gameplay first and held onto various Japanese game design sensibilities... I'm just not sure where you get the idea that they're so overwhelmingly different.

[SuperLink]

I'm personally not at all convinced that the Batmobile wouldn't work on Wii U or last-gen consoles, RocksteadyWarner Bros. simply ain't big enough to come out and say "the Wii U isn't a viable platform for this game so we won't develop for it".

 

I was going to wake up and continue where I left off, but... you know, Carbo and SuperLink have said everything I'd said, but infinitely better. I'll just slide on back to the background. :v

Don't sell yourself short man your post was what spurred me on to make mine ^^;

 

 

Do you remember most peoples' reactions to Sonic Unleashed's daytime gameplay? That original leaked trailer (pre-Werehog) turned a lot of heads at the time, and I specifically remember almost everyone being floored by the game's Sonic levels. People complain now about Unleashed's level design being linear and vapid (I disagree personally, I still love racing through them, but whatever), but most people at the time (not just fans) came to the conclusion that Sonic Unleashed would not only have been a good game, but an amazing one had it not had so much meaningless fluff bogging it down. 

 

Had the game not pushed the envelope so much technologically, I don't think that response would have been nearly as favorable. Remember - Unleashed is regarded as a bad game that could have been amazing if not for the Werehog. That is the game's general reception. 

 

I think it goes without saying that this is the game I'm describing - the amazing franchise saving game that everyone says Unleashed could have been had its premise and design not been crafted via Game Design Mad Libs. Sonic Team A's last game suggest that they finally fucking get it, so I'm arguing on the assumption that they actually make a good game here.

 

Edit - Also to be honest I think a really good Sonic game (i.e. true to the series identity) needs a much bigger budget and scope than a good Mario game pretty much on principle. That's not a bad thing, it's just how it is. I'd say the same for Zelda as well. Mario has always thrived on "less is more" design and being relatively simplistic. The same can't be said for stuff like Sonic, Zelda, Uncharted, or whatever. 

 

I really do agree with you when you say that not everything needs to be AAA. I don't even think every Sonic game needs to be. But where Mario kind of overcomplicates itself when it tries to go for larger scale and bigger budgets (Sunshine), Sonic thrives. People's favorite parts of Mario's biggest "AAA" game are the linear obstacle course sections - something Nintendo recognized and acted upon. On the other hand though people's favorite parts of Sonic's biggest AAA game are the extremely flashy, fast speed stages. Dialing everything down with Lost World wasn't met with positive reception at all.

 

What works for Mario doesn't work for Sonic at all because fundamentally they have extremely different identities.

Of course I remember that initial reactions to Unleashed were "holy shit this is pretty" and "HYYPE" and it turned tons of heads, but ultimately? The heads didn't stay turned, there was a lot of "I knew it was too good to be true" and "Sonic cycle strikes again" as well as some "close but no cigar" etc.

 

Ironically Sonic Colours, while mixed within the fandom (its general reception was surprisingly positive), was the game a lot of people said "broke the cycle". Not because it was gorgeous but because it had a solid foundation and gameplay that worked from beginning to end. Sonic Colours was one of the games that started to give people faith in the franchise, Sonic Colours was a large part of why people were attracted to Generations, Sonic Colours was also pretty much the only reason people were initially so hype about Lost World. Colours, despite not having the power behind it, was a real force of giving gamers faith in quality, whether or not you agree with that, that doesn't make it less true. Unleashed turned heads that left due to its amazing visuals, Colours turned heads and kept them there because of the solid gameplay.

 

I don't disagree that a game true to Sonic would need to be more expensive than Mario, but not by that much? "True to Sonic identity" terrain isn't super simple like Lost World but it is stylised and repeated, sure it's organic in form but it doesn't need very realistic textures to be true to Sonic form. Generations got it mostly right (for obvious reasons). Even Colours got it right but without the visual excellence. The backgrounds also don't need to be complex and realistic like Adabat.. they need to be expansive and exciting and show that Sonic is exploring a small part of a huge organic world, but they don't need all the detail of Unleashed. Again, Generations got it fine, even Adventure got it fine and Adventure may have been detailed but it wasn't Shenmue.

 

This brings me back again to my thoughts on extremes. Zelda and Sonic are more detailed than Mario, sure, but Uncharted? No way, Sonic and Zelda are nowhere near Uncharted, there's a scale to these things, there's not just Mario on one side of detail and Sonic and Zelda sitting comfortably with Uncharted on the other side, Sonic arguably wouldn't need as much money to make good and pretty as Zelda, let alone Uncharted.

 

You're right that Mario and Sonic are fundamentally different, Sonic's games are more focused on how he interacts with the more (crazily) organically shaped world around him and uses it to advance, where Mario is pure platforming for the sake of platforming. BUT that doesn't mean Sonic is so hugely different to Mario that his games are more similar to Uncharted in terms of budget. More than Mario definitely, but nowhere near as much as Uncharted is necessary. Sonic 1-3 weren't exactly Donkey Kong Country in terms of visuals afterall.

[Diogenes]

Pretty much everything I could say has already been said better by others, so I'll keep my opinion short:

I've neither thought of nor seen proposed any idea that I think would be necessary or even significantly beneficial to the series that (to my admittedly limited knowledge) couldn't be done on this generation's consoles (and maybe even last gen's too). The series is an oldschool platformer at heart, and that's not a genre that asks for a whole hell of a lot. That's not to say that there aren't benefits to more powerful hardware, but I feel we've reached a point where those benefits are going to be almost entirely "extras", not anything essential to the game, either designwise or in the presentation.

Also that the series is in a rough enough position that it really should be focusing on just making fun, stable, decent-looking games, and not trying to push the limits of the hardware.

[Blue Blood]

I want a new Sonic game that's amazing and pushes the boundaries of a system graphically all while being brilliant to play. That's what Sonic was to start with, and that's what I want it to be today.

Though at this stage I'll settle for a good game.

how bout dat sonic Boom guys

[Dejimon11]

I just want this franchise to be good again that's all. If Sega keeps trying to do something different with the franchise every single time it's going to get to the point where the general audience are going to get sick of sonic. I think signs of this are starting to show because how is that lost world a game that was released when the Wii U's install base was laughably bad 2 years ago sold more than Sonic Boom a game that was released when the Wii U's install base was significantly better? Not only that if I recall correctly S4 ep 2 sold worse than the first one. Also this is just me but I think that of lost world came out last year it actually would of sold a lot more.

As for the graphics who really cares at this point it? To me a game doesn't have to look amazing just make to look presentable. Look at shovel knight people aren't praising the game because of how it looks people are praising the dang game because it's actually fun. So power and graphics isn't the issue what they should be focusing is to make better games.

Wanna know what the difference between Mario and Sonic is? Nintendo actually knows what makes a Mario game special where as Sega doesn't. For years they keep saying that they understand Sonic but every time they say that it seems like it's just PR talk. Remember the last time they said that they understood the franchise we got sonic boom and look how that turned out.

[Gatestormer]

It's interesting to see Frost's comments here, I think he's way off the mark with a lot of things (I don't believe people are bored with Modern Sonic as a character), but his comments about trying to get a development team caught up with 24 years within one development cycle is a valid point, and pretty much just reiterates what I've felt about Boom from the beginning.

 

I understand it's probably impossible to assemble a team of fans as a development team, but the people behind Boom really had no idea what they were dealing with, and you can see this from some of the early concept art that has been found. They weren't right for the job.

 

Moving forward, I would really love to see a whole new take on trying to incorporate the classic Sonic gameplay in to a 3D environment. Sonic Team have far from exhausted all the possibilities, hell I'm not even sure if they've ever actually tried to make a 3D Sonic game that's inspired by the classic gameplay. What I really hope is that while they've been away, they've had a bunch of people busy developing a brand new engine that can handle the physics that Sonic needs. 

 

The way I see it, ever since Adventure the development process has changed. For Sonic 1/CD/2/3K, it feels like they had their physics engine ready to go first, and then designed all the environments to take advantage of that. From Adventure onwards however, it feels like they designed all the environments first, and then had to force the engine they were using to work with them, so we end up with automated sequences and boost pads everywhere because Sonic can't really make it through the environments properly on his own.

 

I think they need to start fresh from the bottom and work their way upwards. Nobody knows what they'll come up with next but I just hope it's something new. 

[Blue Blood]

It cannot be stressed enough that Boom is the very product of Sonic's lack of consistency in tone, style, gameplay and overall quality over the past decade and a half. If the series hadn't gone backwards and forwards a million times over, alienating and appeasing new and old fans constantly then there would have been no reason for the brand to be relaunched. The goal of it was to wipe the slate the clean and start completely anew with with Sonic.

When Frost talks about things like "people being bored with speed and Modern Sonic as a character", I don't believe he's without merit at all. That's what happens to stagnating franchises that are dragged through the mud for so long. SEGA's just stumbled along not knowing what they're doing, and Boom is supposed to remedy that. Extensive market research and design went into creating the new characters and world for TV, games and toys that actually appears to be paying off. They wanted to find a new fanbase with clearly designed products that cater to them. They ended up getting more of it right than they got wrong. The games getting off to such a painful start has clearly thrown a spanner into the works, but we should be well aware by now that Boom is doing it's job. The show is performing well and the toys are selling, both positives for SEGA that will continue build brand recognition and familiarity. It's like long-term advertising.

The fact that they're keeping the original series running in tandem is both a blessing and curse. I wouldn't want to be without it personally, but it does somewhat diminish the value of Boom as it's own thing. Boom can just be seen as this silly little off-shot of the original Sonic series, and hasn't done a very good job of setting itself apart as a new product when it's already repeated so many past mistakes. On the flipside, it gives SEGA another Sonic brand to work with, and hopefully retool in a different way. While Boom clearly knows it's market, the other series can progress in it's own way, with an overlapping but separate appeal. We don't know if it'll actually work out this way yet though. I foresee the series continuing down the Colours, Gens & SLW route route, but even so that is still separate too Boom.

I don't think it's necessary to go over the reasons why RoL failed both critically and commercially - we should all know the story by now. It's might not be the end of the Boom games though. Ultimately they're just products for the TV show, and if SEGA can sell them then they'll continue to make them. It's probably best to look at it this way - RoL and SC were failures, but Sonic Boom as a license is not. Big Red Button are dying (dead?) and SEGA America are facing some hard times at the moment. If anything new happens, which is up in the air right now, then it'll be very different teams on either side. The outcome will almost certainly be something entirely different (and to clarify, I didn't say "better" or "worse").

Moving on to a different subject kind of, I wanted to see Sonic in the hands of a Western developer for a long, long time. Why? Because the series is a drag now. It needed something new with a huge scope and ambition. Something totally different, but more akin to the old days that many Japanese teams including SEGA don't have much interest in anymore. When we got our first glimpse of Boom I was genuinely pleasantly surprised. I thought it was going to be really good. More fool me for having any faith in SEGA and their endeavours, right? It's still something I'd want to see, but my thirst for a Western Sonic game specifically has been quenched somewhat. I just want greatness again. I'll settle for good, but it won't keep me happy for very long.

[ThePrinceOfSaiyans]

I frankly doubt that Sonic will ever be consistently good again, unfortunately. Lost World is proof that Sonic can dip in the middle of a franchise high. Hopefully I'm wrong about Sonic's future, but y'know. 

[Milo]

When Frost talks about things like "people being bored with speed and Modern Sonic as a character", I don't believe he's without merit at all. That's what happens to stagnating franchises that are dragged through the mud for so long. SEGA's just stumbled along not knowing what they're doing, and Boom is supposed to remedy that. Extensive market research and design went into creating the new characters and world for TV, games and toys that actually appears to be paying off. They wanted to find a new fanbase with clearly designed products that cater to them. They ended up getting more of it right than they got wrong. The games getting off to such a painful start has clearly thrown a spanner into the works, but we should be well aware by now that Boom is doing it's job. The show is performing well and the toys are selling, both positives for SEGA that will continue build brand recognition and familiarity. It's like long-term advertising.

 

It's probably best to look at it this way - RoL and SC were failures, but Sonic Boom as a license is not.

 

Eh, I dunno. If Boom was a local initiative specifically tailored to only the States, then yeah it's largely a success. But as the global brand that Boom was touted as, the people behind it massively flubbed its launch. The tie-in games were released worldwide on the same day (not sure if this was the same case with the tie-in merch)...but the show is only available in the US and France, with other territories not seeing the show for an entire year. What's the point of releasing tie-in material for the centerfold of the entire franchise (the television show), when the show itself will be MIA for such a long period of time? (Never mind the actual quality of said tie-in material themselves, which in the games' case is less-than-stellar...). As for the show, having such a long gap for its premiere in certain territories runs a serious risk of having the show being largely forgotten when it actually airs in the new territories. The initial push the tie-in materials provided would had largely faded by then, and fans of the brand would likely find it more convenient to watch it through torrents or streaming sites somewhere on the internet rather than wait for such a long period of time for it to be available through legal channels. Even the show's local performance in the US is honestly nothing short of a miracle. The current timeslot it has on CN and the invisible advertising it got could had seriously trounced the show's abilities of performing well, so for the show to be pulling in the ratings it has and possibly get a second season in spite of all that is downright impressive.

 

It may be doing fine in the areas people can actually see the show, but Boom as a worldwide initiative is hardly existent outside of the (poorly selling and poorly-received) games. Had Boom been given a more cohesive launch across all territories, it would probably be doing a lot better than it is now.

[Blue Blood]

That's very, very true. It's definitely daft that the show and other products are launching up to and possibly more than a year later than in France and the US. The biggest market being the States though does count for a bit. We can see it's doing well with it's crappy timeslot, so it stands to reason that it'll continue to perform well in other territories and/or at better times. Isn't Boom getting repeats at a slightly less dead time now as well though? I thought it was being aired on some weekday afternoon/evening following the Saturday morning premiers.

[FriendBot]

I thought that was during the Winter break, which is long done by now. Correct me if I'm mistaken?

[Diamond Sonic]

An easy TL;DR to people who don't understand

 

Instead of getting Sonic Unleashed 360, you get Sonic Unleashed PS2 ported to 360.

 

We do understand, believe it or not

 

The jump from PS3 to PS4 (or Wii U to PS4 if you'd prefer) is nowhere near the same spec difference as that of PS2 to PS3. That comparison is a complete fallacy. 

 

Sami is right in that Mario 3D World would be better on PS4, if by nothing but graphics alone, but it's a pure graphical fidelity issue (how pretty the game is). 

 

I've yet to see any PS4 games that are impossible on Wii U, and I own a PS4,

[Radiant Hero Ike]

We do understand, believe it or not

 

The jump from PS3 to PS4 (or Wii U to PS4 if you'd prefer) is nowhere near the same spec difference as that of PS2 to PS3. That comparison is a complete fallacy. 

 

Sami is right in that Mario 3D World would be better on PS4, if by nothing but graphics alone, but it's a pure graphical fidelity issue (how pretty the game is). 

 

I've yet to see any PS4 games that are impossible on Wii U, and I own a PS4,

I dunno, InFAMOUS Second Son doesn't look like it'd work on Wii U, despite the Wii U being my favorite console.

I'd love to see a SUPER AWESOME GRAPHICS Sonic game on the PS4 or Xbox One. I personally think the Wii U, 360 and PS3 should have a separate Sonic game that's not related to whatever 25th anniversary game we may get. Maybe we could have the 360/PS3/Wii U game release this year, developed by one Sonic Team division, and then the XBO/PS4 anniversary game release next year? Just my two cents.

Also I just realized this doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand, sorry mods. D': On topic, I don't really know what to say about all this... I mean, I liked the Boom RoL game, but I wouldn't say it was a success. On the other hand, as others have said, he could've meant Boom as a whole was successful, which would make more sense.