Sonic Spitball - Part Two!

[shdowhunt60]

I think Shay's most important point here is how SEGA and Sonic Team's lack of commitment to anything has caused ruptures to occur in the fanbase, because everyone is absolutely split on who likes what. I mean, fucks sake, look at all the drama with the voice actors. You have people to this day petitioning and starting flame wars to get Ryan Drummond back as Sonic, and you could criticize these people for being upset for all these years, but in the end it all boils down to this: SEGA should have NEVER changed voices in the first place. Period. That was absolutely abysmal decision making on their part, they changed from Ryan Drummond to Jason Griffith, and demanded that people simply be okay with that, and for what? What did the end consumer have to benefit from that? You got this totally different voice for Sonic, and you either loved it or hated it, and that was the end. In the end, all this ended up doing was adding more fractures to an already unstable fanbase.

[Tara]

Voice changes are a natural part of the development of a series, so regardless of one's feelings towards the 4Kids cast, I don't feel it wise to think that under any circumstance would Ryan and the others have voiced the characters for a prolonged period of time.  Even if Sega hadn't changed them, the cast members themselves could have easily quit by themselves, or they could have failed to negotiate a proper renewal for their contract.  Think about how long it took for Luigi to get a consistent voice, or how Bowser didn't even have a voice (in game) until 2002 despite existing for just short of twenty years beforehand.  The most backlash I recall from these decisions is moderate disappointment.  Characters in their early narrative stages are prone to constant changes, and this includes voice.  In addition, though Ryan Drummond is probably the most well-known voice for Sonic, he wasn't the first.  As such, I see no reason to blame Sega on the principle of changing the voices.

I can blame them, however, for changing them out with really fucking bad voices.  I sometimes think that 4Kids looked at Sonic and thought he was supposed to be a stereotypical poindexter, Rouge a middle-aged Cruella DeVille-type character, and, though not relevant to the games, I'm still struggling to understand their decision to make Gamma sound absolutely nothing like his game counterpart despite SADX being released shortly before his debut in the anime.  The point I'm trying to make is that voice changes are going to happen, because in an age where stories and video games were still developing, that kind of consistency was hard to come by.  However, that doesn't excuse the fact that the replacement VA's didn't sound close enough to and were not nearly as talented as their predecessors, which is where I feel the root of the problem ultimately lies.  If there's any division as a result of voices, it's not because they've changed, it's because the differences between the changes are too drastic each time.  This is definitely not helped by the cartoons having Jaleel White to influence a lot of how Sonic should sound and act as well, which makes the retooling of his character for SA1 through Black Knight all the more alienating, which in turn makes the retooling of his character from Colors and onward even more alienating.

Ryan was a great voice for Sonic, and I'd love to see him voice Sonic again, but I don't feel like the change would have been nearly as polarizing if his replacement had been pretty consistent.  But therein lies the problem that Shay mentioned:  Sega doesn't and has never had a consistent feel for the character, and that's perhaps what has made the fanbase so divided.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Tara

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Sonic and thought he was supposed to be a stereotypical poindexter

I think you meant Tails :P.

[Tara]

I think you meant Tails :P.

No, I mean Sonic.  His voice (in my opinion) sounds like the kind of voice you would give to someone with big-rimmed glasses taped together and a sweater vest.

In terms of narration, though, you would be right.  Tails is definitely more fitting to that description, but his voice doesn't reflect that.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Tara

[ThePrinceOfSaiyans]

Voice changes are a natural part of the development of a series

Yes, but not the degree in which it is handled in the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise, in America anyway. The Japanese voice cast has remained pretty consistent over the years, with Junichi Kanemaru being the voice of Sonic since Sonic Adventure. It's honestly why I prefer the Japanese cast; not because they necessarily give better performances, but because they're consistent. I don't have a problem with Ryan Drummond, Jason Griffith, or Roger Craig Smith, but the lack of consistency is quite irksome IMO. 

[Tara]

Yes, but not the degree in which it is handled in the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise, in America anyway. The Japanese voice cast has remained pretty consistent over the years, with Junichi Kanemaru being the voice of Sonic since Sonic Adventure. It's honestly why I prefer the Japanese cast; not because they necessarily give better performances, but because they're consistent. I don't have a problem with Ryan Drummond, Jason Griffith, or Roger Craig Smith, but the lack of consistency is quite irksome IMO. 

That's sort of what I was driving at with the overall post.

[Nepenthe]

I feel Shay's overall point about consistency is agreeable on the surface but not so much in its implications. At the very least, inconsistency makes it impossible for anyone to gauge a path to take and to properly chart progression. If every game is a new venture that doesn't meaningfully build upon the lessons of the past, it's merely sidestepping, constructing new roads without any assurance of a destination. On the other hand, this is partly why the Boost games were so well received. Despite differences of opinion in the aesthetic approaches of each game or even the general idea of boosting, fans and the public could generally note when and where improvements were occurring, and with this type of clarity came the rebuilding of trust. So consistency is a good ideal to strive for.

 

But where I find contention how readily we accept the idea of franchise fracturing as a result of inconsistency as straight truth, the idea that any kind of departure creates new fans and makes it that much more difficult to make a product that can be accepted on its own merits. Instead, to me, it's becoming more and more of a cop out excuse, particularly in regards to why some games merely receive any criticism at all (as if the likes of any 3D Sonic game are of perfection.) 

 

The first issue of the concept is that it implies people are incapable of developing a range of tastes once they grow attached to something, which not only reduces people to stereotypes but is also opposed by the reality of our very fandom. There are a sizeable amount of people- myself included- who grew up with the franchise and looked forward to the new games despite a growing lack of consistency. There are people who go back and play the older games and become fans. There are fans of both the games and the Archie comic, or the games, the Archie comic, and Fleetway. Most of us also like the OVA and the Boom show on top of that; it goes on. Someone branding themselves a fan of one particular style of Sonic game does not mean they religiously adhere to the merits of that one style. You can please a classic fan with an Adventure game and vice versa.

 

Second is the fact that enjoyment in these different media doesn't indicate any investment in all of that media as the definitive version of Sonic, natural if we accept that most fans like multiple iterations of Sonic simultaneously. I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't watch AoStH under the guise that it was completely accurate to the games or should supplant them in any way, even when I was a more impressionable child, and that belief that they can co-exist is only further supported by the popular notion that each general canon should be allowed some general freedom to do its own thing. After all, this was the ruling viewpoint when Sonic Boom was revealed. We cared very little about the fact that differences were introduced at all on the belief that spin-offs should actually be allowed to experiment, and also that it wasn't going to be muscling in on the operations of the main universe, particularly in case it failed.

 

Subsequently, the reality of this type of nuance is that our range of tastes will eventually overlap in a lot of areas, meaning that people who seem diametrically opposed to one another can end up sharing end goals or have desires that don't actually conflict with one another. While there hasn't been a heated discussion about it, I would say the lack of debate actually speaks for itself: I would wager money that most people either want or are not opposed to things such as entertaining characterization, useful secondary characters, or a proper physics system where Sonic reacts convincingly to the environment. We may have all liked products where some or all of these things may have been nonexistent, but it doesn't mean those of us who do are theoretically opposed to their inclusion or would find them infringing on something we may or may not view as sacrosanct. I had fun with the Boost games, but this doesn't mean I would actually get in the way of Sega making a better physics system than what they had to offer.

 

In general, I feel it's time to retire the idea that a fractured fanbase has doomed the franchise to perpetual mediocrity, or to at least update the concept with more intellectual nuance than what tends to be on display, especially since at most it ends supporting inherently defeatist conclusions that I see any reason to put actual stock in. Sonic can have a good game again, one that most people can enjoy, and regardless of the minute design details such a game will eventually compromise a design that is clear, has depth, and is intelligently executed.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Nepenthe

[Tara]

I would never argue the fact that fandom division means that Sonic can be nothing but mediocre or that it's to blame for the decline in Sonic's quality, so I don't believe that to be the overall point of the argument.  The alleged mediocrity of modern Sonic titles has nothing to do with attempts to appeal to inconsistent standards thanks to almost 25 years of clashing standards; rather, it has everything to do with a lack of intuitive game design and just poor story construction in general.

The problem with inconsistency is that is that what defines the series for some will be the opposite of the series to others.  Since I've been having a nostalgia kick for the Batman animated series, I'll use that as an example.  There are many incarnations of Batman of varying degrees of tonality.  Some people can look at Lego Batman or The Brave and the Bold, for instance, and think it's just as much Batman as Christopher Nolan's Batman, others feel Batman can only exist in the darkest possible environment, making the Nolan films and the recent Arkham games more appealing to them.  As such, even though the Arkham games are probably the most successful superhero games to date, there's still fans who probably see the dark tonality and increased violence and think "This isn't the Batman I loved, even though it's good."

This can be applied to all aspects of the series, and can in turn be transferred to Sonic.  Sonic can absolutely have "good" games again, regardless of what aesthetics and tonality it picks, and rather or not it chooses to deviate from it in later installments.  But no matter what, there are going to be a number of fans who feel it is not definitively Sonic for them.  If they go with a more realistic setting for Sonic, even if the game is 10/10 great, I'll definitely appreciate it and be so happy to see it released, but it will still have the problem that it's not what Sonic feels like to me.  Others seem to be in the opposite side of the spectrum.

However, bear in mind, I'm not much into the actual comic books community so I don't know what the fandom thinks, so this next idea may just be dumb.  This same Batman nostalgia kick has got me thinking, though, that maybe the inconsistency itself isn't the problem, but that the inconsistency is never followed up appropriately.  There are many different interpretations of Batman, like I said.  Some are more lighthearted than others, and I never really hear too many people complain that one is just not good for the reasons that it's different than they're used to.  However, they aren't usually just brought up and then dropped, the same way Sega basically just out of nowhere comes out with Shadow the Hedgehog and then just drops it. (For good reason, mind you, but that's a different story)

You make a good point with Sonic games, comics, SatAM, and AoSTH all existing at the same time and being completely different iterations, and that's where I think different Sonics work best.  They weren't just one-off ideas.  These were expected to continue for as long as they could, and were meant to only coincide with each other.  Lego Batman doesn't affect the continuity of the Arkham series, which doesn't affect the continuity of the animated series from the 90's, etc.  They may draw influence from each other from time to time, but they're not directly related.

The problem with inconsistency in Sonic isn't that there's multiple versions of Sonic.  It's that sometimes Sonic is like this, while other times he's like that, but we never know when we can look forward to him being like this again, because we have to go through several games of him being like that again.  I'm not sure if I'm making sense or not.

[Nepenthe]

I didn't mean to say that Shay's ultimate point was that Sonic is doomed to mediocrity, if only because I like to think he's more optimistic than that. It was mainly just an address towards the resignation I've seen in general whenever people invoke the idea that the fanbase is fractured beyond repair.

 

Furthermore, I do think though that it's hard to inherently agree with hypotheticals concerning the presentation of a AAA Sonic game in a modern context, even when they make logical sense. I say this because I think it would be fair to say that none of us plays games in a vacuum. We have expectations for certain experiences dependent entirely upon what we've played before, which in turn affects how we approach new material in and outside of specific franchises. To be specific, if there was a Sonic game that was demonstrably on par with Galaxy, including its lack of active storytelling, I can't say for certain whether or not that would be considered as much of a flaw as it would be otherwise in lieu of the amazing gameplay. The strength of certain qualities in a work affects the perception and workload of others. 

 

On the other side of the coin, it's easier to argue that a realistic 10/10 Sonic game would displease people who prefer more fantastical Sonic games to the point that the game would be significantly alienating because it's been about 17 years since a mainstream Sonic game came out to both critical and public acclaim. Our working context for deciding how we would most likely act in these scenarios is based on a context informed by flawed games that are easier to rip apart, but even then this says nothing about each audience member's tolerance towards certain elements or ideas in those specific games. I don't think Colors is an interesting direction for the franchise because the game as it exists is noticeably flawed to me. But at the same time, Colors isn't the peak of potential concerning a Sonic-only game with power-ups and tongue-in-cheek dialogue. Give the idea to Insomniac and I might change my tune.

 

You also have a good point that part of the problem with inconsistency is the lack of commitment and communication on part of Sega. We have no assurance that they're going to continue anything- even the good ideas- in a meaningful manner, meaning there's no reason to be personally invested in anything they put out (aside from Boom, but you know). I agree with that, having always remembered to remind myself since Riders that spinoffs are no guarantee of anything, and like I said bucking that trend is part of why the Boost games were as successful as they were. However, this doesn't fully address the perceived issue of Sega supposedly having to reconcile fifteen different versions of what the public considers Sonic to be. If they continued the Boost games and improving them in small and large ways, wouldn't reigning fanbase theory dictate that you're still pissing off a sizeable portion of your customer base anyway?

 

Perhaps that will always be the case at this point, but the point I'd like to make is that the infinite possibilities presented by art means that its within the realm of possibility to find ways to cater to and reconcile multiple groups of people in ways that stir their passions for Sonic and gaming with the least amount of alienation. The goal isn't to please every buyer perfectly, but most people. In short, I don't think the broken fanbase is as bad as it's made out to be, and a more productive conversation at this point in the series' lifespan would be discussing the minutiae of our views and finding where the real, valuable common ground is, rather than constantly playing up the existence of borders.

[Tara]

I can pretty much agree with the idea that the quality of a hypothetical product dictates more of how we feel it relates to the character than just the concept in a general sense.  Like I said on the previous page, the realistic-looking setting worked in SA1 and Unleashed's favor far more than it did ShTH and '06, largely because the former two games emphasized bright colors and scenery, while the latter pair tended to emphasize things that were dull and earthly.  I don't think that necessarily means we can write off these hypothetical concepts under the pretense that the quality could also hypothetically change one's perceptions of it.  I still think 3D Blast looks more like 3D Sonic to me, despite SA1 having the arguably more appealing... well, everything.  There are many different ways to execute the same general principle, some of which are more appealing than others, and if Unleashed is anything to go by, could still be considered good, even if departs from what one would traditionally want.  But it's still worth noting that the expectations we have for a series are based on what things we find most appealing about the series, which may or may not stem from what medium introduced us to Sonic, in addition to the track record exhibited by games that failed to meet those expectations.

Also, I think that was a point made in Shay's video that Sega may have to just learn to stick with one thing, even if it means pissing off a good deal of people who didn't want the series to go in that direction.  To an extent, I might agree with this as long as it's nothing as polarizing as Shadow the Hedgehog (where very few fans, let alone critics, liked it).  But then you have them doing exactly that with Boom, and it's not working out for anyone except fans of the cartoon.

All in all, I agree that the fandom division that everyone goes on about is overblown, especially when we have people who blame the fandom for the actual quality of the series, and I also agree that it would be more productive to discuss a middle ground rather than propagating the divisiveness of different approaches to the series.  I do think these differences should be noted, however superficial they may be, and I think the inconsistency, while not the ultimate doom of the franchise or a scapegoat for deteriorating quality, is still an important issue to note when attempting to discuss what common ground we may have between the several different interpretations of the characters, settings, and tonality.

[Bowbowis]

It strikes me that the biggest problem in our fan base isn't that it's divided, plenty of fanbases are just as divided as Sonic's without being in anywhere near as bad a shape; the problem is that the different sides of the fanbase see each other as a threat to themselves. As both Nepenthe and Tara said above this has a lot to do with SEGA's poor communication skills and the general unpredictability of the Sonic franchise. I'd like to expand on that point a bit more by exploring how another franchise, The Legend of Zelda, dealt with a similar situation and why I think that approach could work for Sonic.

 

Like Sonic, The Legend of Zelda's fanbase is thoroughly broken and for much the same reasons. Which is better, the light and slapsticky Toon Link games? Or the darker and grittier Non-Toon Link games (henceforth known as Real Link games for the sake of simplicity)? What about gameplay? Is the more action oriented A Link to the Past style better? Or is the more puzzle oriented Ocarina of Time style superior? The Zelda fanbase is as split on these issues as the Sonic fanbase is on it's equvalents but despite that it doesn't have the same reputation Sonic does and I think that's largely down to Nintendo's handling of the situation. Rather than simply "pick a direction and stick with it," as I often see people demanding SEGA do with Sonic, or attempting an awkward fusion of the different styles like Lost World Nintendo instead decided to embrace the different sides of the franchise. Console titles became the big new adventures carrying on with the Real Link side of the franchise and building off of the Ocarina formula while the handheld titles carried on the ALttP direction and took up the Toon Link side of the franchise after Wind Waker. The result was that everybody got the Zelda games they wanted and nobody really lost out.

 

SEGA actually did this during the early 2000's with the Advance games providing a simple lighthearted classic inspired experience for the purists while the Adventure games branched out into 3D and bigger plots with some darker streaks, allowing the series to grow and evolve without losing what got it there in the first place. At the present though Sonic doesn't have that and that's where the bulk of the issues lie. Even as someone who prefers Ocarina style Real Link games I could still enjoy a game like Spirit Tracks because I can be comfortable in the knowledge that even if it's not exactly what I want in a Zelda game it's only be a matter of time before Skyward Sword rolls around and Spirit Tacks can tide me over till then. With Sonic however each new game terrifies me. Every Colors or Lost World that releases just continues to make me lose hope that I'll ever see the things I loved about this franchise in the first place ever again. it's rather telling that the overall best received Sonic game since the whole "back to the roots" push gained traction is Generations, the game which didn't try to make a compromise between the different eras of Sonic but instead celebrated their differences. Why not try to emulate that on a series wide scale? That's why I advocate doing what Zelda does, doing what Sonic did, make Classic Sonic type games for handheld make Adventure type Sonic games for console. Who loses in that scenario? I think I speak for most of my fellow Adventure fans when I say that I'd be a lot more amenable to games following the current direction if I could know that something more in the spirit of the Adventure games was coming our way too and I'd like to think that most classic fans would at least be willing to live and let live with such an arrangement.

[Komodin]

It strikes me that the biggest problem in our fan base isn't that it's divided, plenty of fanbases are just as divided as Sonic's without being in anywhere near as bad a shape; the problem is that the different sides of the fanbase see each other as a threat to themselves. As both Nepenthe and Tara said above this has a lot to do with SEGA's poor communication skills and the general unpredictability of the Sonic franchise. I'd like to expand on that point a bit more by exploring how another franchise, The Legend of Zelda, dealt with a similar situation and why I think that approach could work for Sonic.

 

Like Sonic, The Legend of Zelda's fanbase is thoroughly broken and for much the same reasons. Which is better, the light and slapsticky Toon Link games? Or the darker and grittier Non-Toon Link games (henceforth known as Real Link games for the sake of simplicity)? What about gameplay? Is the more action oriented A Link to the Past style better? Or is the more puzzle oriented Ocarina of Time style superior? The Zelda fanbase is as split on these issues as the Sonic fanbase is on it's equvalents but despite that it doesn't have the same reputation Sonic does and I think that's largely down to Nintendo's handling of the situation. Rather than simply "pick a direction and stick with it," as I often see people demanding SEGA do with Sonic, or attempting an awkward fusion of the different styles like Lost World Nintendo instead decided to embrace the different sides of the franchise. Console titles became the big new adventures carrying on with the Real Link side of the franchise and building off of the Ocarina formula while the handheld titles carried on the ALttP direction and took up the Toon Link side of the franchise after Wind Waker. The result was that everybody got the Zelda games they wanted and nobody really lost out.

 

SEGA actually did this during the early 2000's with the Advance games providing a simple lighthearted classic inspired experience for the purists while the Adventure games branched out into 3D and bigger plots with some darker streaks, allowing the series to grow and evolve without losing what got it there in the first place. At the present though Sonic doesn't have that and that's where the bulk of the issues lie. Even as someone who prefers Ocarina style Real Link games I could still enjoy a game like Spirit Tracks because I can be comfortable in the knowledge that even if it's not exactly what I want in a Zelda game it's only be a matter of time before Skyward Sword rolls around and Spirit Tacks can tide me over till then. With Sonic however each new game terrifies me. Every Colors or Lost World that releases just continues to make me lose hope that I'll ever see the things I loved about this franchise in the first place ever again. it's rather telling that the overall best received Sonic game since the whole "back to the roots" push gained traction is Generations, the game which didn't try to make a compromise between the different eras of Sonic but instead celebrated their differences. Why not try to emulate that on a series wide scale? That's why I advocate doing what Zelda does, doing what Sonic did, make Classic Sonic type games for handheld make Adventure type Sonic games for console. Who loses in that scenario? I think I speak for most of my fellow Adventure fans when I say that I'd be a lot more amenable to games following the current direction if I could know that something more in the spirit of the Adventure games was coming our way too and I'd like to think that most classic fans would at least be willing to live and let live with such an arrangement.

I can't help but feel that there's one problem with this, in context to Sonic: Why should the Classic-inspired games be regaled to the handheld systems, where they'll frankly just be ignored for the most part? Why can't there be space in the console market for both Classic and Adventure/Modern/Whathaveyou Sonic, where they can both reach their maximum potential instead of just contending with (comparatively) weak hardware?

[Mauro Fonseca]

Yeah, calling for a "live and let live" scenario that's actually "you get the shitty end of the deal" doesn't really win me over. Here's an idea, shove Adventure 3 on the DS and give us full HD 2d platformers from now on.

[Bowbowis]

Okay let's take a look at this, because there is a reason I suggested that it be the handheld games to go the Classic route and it's not because I just decided, "Fuck Classic fans". For the sake of explanation I'm going to break this up into three areas, namely controls, visuals, and hardware and explain why they make putting the Classic games on handheld the smarter decision.

 

1. Controls

The first thing I want to look at here is button layouts. Let's imagine for a second that we're planning to port Sonic Adventure 2 to the 3DS or at least make a game with the same basic setup. Because one major complaint people had with the game was the cluttered control scheme let's give the somersault, spindash, and light dash their own buttons to help ameliorate the problem. Our control scheme would probably wind up looking something like this:

Okay, that looks good. But what if we want to add the parkour from Lost World? On a console we'd have a right analogue stick to control the camera leaving the bumpers open, two additional triggers, and the analogue sticks act as buttons in and of themselves leaving us with five (assuming one is used to center the camera) open inputs we could map the parkour to. On a handheld however we've basically used up all the physical inputs already and mapping any function you'd need to activate at a moments notice to the touch screen or an input which would require you to remove your finger from the thumb pad is a bad idea (just play Kid Icarus: Uprising and you'll see what I mean), so if we want to add something like parkour we're going to have to remove another function. And if you want a boost game well your shit out of luck because the 3DS only has one set of triggers so it's going to force you to sacrifice either the drift or quick-step and good luck controlling Sonic without one of them. A classic game on the other hand runs on the D/Circle pad and a single button alone, leaving you three face buttons and two triggers to map new abilities to without interfering with old ones.

 

2. Visuals

The Classic Sonic games and games inspired by them tend to use a very simple and bright artstyle, while games going in the Adventure direction tend to be more detailed and realistic. It's the former artstyle that works better on handheld, and not simply because it's less detailed (although that is one reason). To illustrate my point here are four screenshots from the console version of Generations (two from classic levels and two from levels following the Adventure style), all of them have been scaled down to the size and resolution they would appear at on a 3DS screen:

Immediately you'll notice that Speed Highway and Crisis City are a lot more detailed and confusing than Green Hill or Chemical Plant, which use a lot of basic shapes and contrasting colors which let you very clearly see where the level is. Speed Highway and Crisis City on the other hand have the same colors dominating both foreground and background, making it somewhat unclear what's a platform and what's just a part of the scenery on the smaller screen. Sure you can figure it out if you look at it for a second but these are still images, if Sonic was actually moving everything would be gone by the time you figured out what's what. Perspective is also a major factor in visibility as well, in 2D every part of the level is the exact same distance from the camera, if you can see one you can see them all, all the information you need is in the foreground and the background can be safely ignored. In a 3D game however your destination is further from the camera than your current location, it's going to appear to be small and so making it visible is paramount. In cases where the level uses similar colors throughout you run the risk of the destination blending into the background, a larger screen can help with this a it makes the various shapes and details appear larger whereas on a smaller screen they blend together and become difficult to see. In the original, full sized version of the Speed Highway image you can clearly see the route due to the higher resolution, while in the 3DS sized version it basically fades in to that background somewhere between the second and third street lamp making it difficult to tell where you need to go. What I'm essentially saying is that a 3D game, and especially a detailed and semi-realistic one, is a lot harder to see, and therefor play, on a small handheld screen when compared to a simpler more cartoony 2D game.

 

3. Hardware

From what I've gathered the biggest hang-up you guys are having with my suggestion is that it places Classic Sonic on less powerful hardware and yes, I was well aware of that when I made it. The thing is that a 2D game doesn't need the same level of hardware a 3D game does to run well. 2D is a much more controlled environment than 3D, there are far less variables to account for, most notably is that a 2D game doesn't have to constantly keep track of the Z-axis of all moving or potentially moving objects the way a 3D game does. The 2D perspective also reduces the number of objects the game needs to display. Imagine Sonic running across a bridge suspended over the sea with lots of rocks jutting out from the water below, in a 2D game all you can only see the water on one side of the bridge so all the level designer needs to do is throw some rocks in the background and you're good, in a 3D game however you can see both sides so rocks need to be place on the other side of the bridge too, effectively doubling the number of rocks the game needs to render. Remember all those banks of springs or rows of enemies in the 3D games? In a 2D game those same roles can be filled by one enemy, or one spring. People tend to overlook the budgeting aspect of game design; every variable or object used takes up cart/disk space and processing power which could be used for something else. The fact that a 2D game requires less of those things means that they leave more to play around with than a 3D game does. That's why I suggest Classic Sonic be on handheld, not to give him less out of spite, but because Classic Sonic can do more with less. He can grow and evolve on a handheld while 3D Sonic would almost certainly plateau if not backslide.

 

Look, I'm not saying Classic Sonic can never be on a console, but I do think that he and Adventure Sonic can and should coexist and that this would be a smart way to do it. I suspect people would be a lot more tolerant of their non-preferred Sonic as long as they could know that SEGA was making something for them. Hell I'd probably buy both types of games and I'm sure plenty of other fans would too. Also keep in mind that handheld Sonic games are portable, so it's not as though Classic Sonic wouldn't have any advantages to make up for for the somewhat weaker graphics.

[shdowhunt60]

Bowbowis has got it right. Consoles just aren't a friendly environment to sidescrollers. You'd be placing a 2D sidescroller vs games like Dying Light and Uncharted, and that's just not wise from a marketing standpoint. At all. Generations itself is a testimony to this, Modern Sonic completely overshadowed Classic Sonic. This isn't all that unusual, it's like "Why do we only get Isometric Final Fantasies on console any more?", because nobody is interested in them

It makes far more sense in the handheld market, because handheld users aren't looking for games like Dying Light or Uncharted. It's not just hardware constraints being the reason for this, it's also due to the fact that people aren't looking for immersive and deep 3D games, as much as they are for a game that's easy to pick up and get into.

[Wraith]

Bowbowis has got it right. Consoles just aren't a friendly environment to sidescrollers. You'd be placing a 2D sidescroller vs games like Dying Light and Uncharted, and that's just not wise from a marketing standpoint. At all. Generations itself is a testimony to this, Modern Sonic completely overshadowed Classic Sonic. This isn't all that unusual, it's like "Why do we only get Isometric Final Fantasies on console any more?", because nobody is interested in them

It makes far more sense in the handheld market, because handheld users aren't looking for games like Dying Light or Uncharted. It's not just hardware constraints being the reason for this, it's also due to the fact that people aren't looking for immersive and deep 3D games, as much as they are for a game that's easy to pick up and get into.

Sonic in general doesn't stand a chance against AAA franchises like Uncharted and Dying Light, and that doesn't have much to do with whether he's in 2D or not. Platforming gameplay just isn't as popular as it once was. An Adventure game coming out now would have nowhere near the same impact as it would 10 years ago. 

Not to mention smaller 2D games come out on digital platforms like PSN, XBL and Steam all the time and find a good amount of success that way. 

 

[Mauro Fonseca]

An Adventure game coming out now would either get laughed at or be so improved that calling it "Adventure" would be a lie

 

meanwhile everything from Rayman Origins to Expand Dong Freeze does not exist outside the portables as the foretold future of every game on a PS4 being Uncharted is developed

 

which makes me imagine, if we're to follow the logic of "Sonic in 3d on the consoles so it can be competitive!", a cinematic, dlc-filled, microtransaction-riddled, basic-plot-that-gets-overpraised-by-pocketed-journos written Sonic game, incidentally, which'd be amusing I suppose

Edited July 16, 2015 by The KKM

[Diogenes]

Bowbowis has got it right. Consoles just aren't a friendly environment to sidescrollers. You'd be placing a 2D sidescroller vs games like Dying Light and Uncharted, and that's just not wise from a marketing standpoint.

What, and 3D Sonic can compete any better? Platformers in general barely survive in modern gaming. If anything I'd guess there'd be more success with downloadable 2d games, so long as they weren't balls awful like Sonic 4.

[Tara]

Therein also lies a problem:  Why should only modern Sonic fans get a 3D Sonic?  Why should modern Sonic be the only one to get 3D Adventures?  I mean, I'm not suggesting they stop with the classic-style sidescrollers, but suffice it to say, I've wanted a 3D Sonic game that looks and feels like classic Sonic for the longest time now (Generations and SLW don't count).

Regardless, I don't feel the console is relevant.  Both versions of Zelda (and by extension, both versions of Sonic) can intermingle on different consoles as they please.  If they wanted to make a Toon Link game on the Wii U and "real Link" game on the 3DS for a change, it wouldn't strike me as any more problematic as long as it was a good game.  If they make a console version of a classic-inspired Sonic game, that doesn't mean we can't look forward to a more modern-inspired game on the same console, and if they made a portable version of a modern-style Sonic, it wouldn't be mean it would be usurping the classic style.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Tara

[shdowhunt60]

Therein also lies a problem:  Why should only modern Sonic fans get a 3D Sonic?  Why should modern Sonic be the only one to get 3D Adventures?  I mean, I'm not suggesting they stop with the classic-style sidescrollers, but suffice it to say, I've wanted a 3D Sonic game that looks and feels like classic Sonic for the longest time now (Generations and SLW don't count).

Then why the hell would we have both have Classic and Modern Sonic at all? It seems completely unecessary to me to have these two different Sonics if they're just going to basically be the same damn thing. It's like saying that regular Megman should have a cheesy anime storyline like Megaman X. Classic and Modern should each have their own thing that they do. They need to have their own identities. And to me, this means that Modern should be 3D, and that Classic should be 2D. It's not about holding Classic Sonic back, it's making sure that each branch of the franchise have a clear and distinct identity, which is something that this franchise AS A WHOLE absolutely needs right now.

[Diogenes]

That's exactly why I'd argue that trying to maintain separate branches is a mistake. Can't have a series with a "clear and distinct" identity if it's trying to support multiple Sonics at once.

[Tara]

 

Then why the hell would we have both have Classic and Modern Sonic at all? It seems completely unecessary to me to have these two different Sonics if they're just going to basically be the same damn thing. It's like saying that regular Megman should have a cheesy anime storyline like Megaman X. Classic and Modern should each have their own thing that they do. They need to have their own identities. And to me, this means that Modern should be 3D, and that Classic should be 2D. It's not about holding Classic Sonic back, it's making sure that each branch of the franchise have a clear and distinct identity, which is something that this franchise AS A WHOLE absolutely needs right now.

Mega Man is a terrible example, especially when you're using plot to defend a gameplay nuance.  Yes, classic Mega Man and Mega Man X do different things, but you know... they're both 2D shooters.  The end goal and mechanics are still the same.  The only thing that divides them is plot and a few additional mechanics that are exclusive to the X games that don't do much to differentiate X on his own.  I wouldn't suggest that classic Mega Man even attempt to delve into the same plot as Mega Man X, but it's not really asking too much for them to have roughly the same sort of gameplay.

As for why there would even need to be two Sonics to begin with in that case, though, I moreso say why not?  I reiterate that I don't believe the inconsistency itself to be the problem but that the lack of proper follow up is.  We can have 3D Classic Sonic and 3D Adventure-style Sonic, too, as long as we know that one will not impede on the progress of the other.  That's why I think the games, comics, and two completely polar opposite cartoons coexisted well, despite all being completely different interpretations.  Having a single identity is great, but having different iterations of the characters undergoing similar things isn't a thing that distracts from that.

[Mauro Fonseca]

I mean, so long as we're trying to support elements of this discussion with kinda-cynical "this is what'd be popular!" "this'd allow it to stand out!" "this is what the series needs to survive and appeal to the normal audience!"

I think there'd be a good argument to get a good 3d Sonic gameplay going, while going back to the classic Sonic art and feel for everything

 

in most cases, forgotten or troubled franchises when reinventing themselves through a return to roots find success- see the recent Mickey shorts, for an example

[shdowhunt60]

I mean, so long as we're trying to support elements of this discussion with kinda-cynical "this is what'd be popular!" "this'd allow it to stand out!" "this is what the series needs to survive and appeal to the normal audience!"

I think there'd be a good argument to get a good 3d Sonic gameplay going, while going back to the classic Sonic art and feel for everything

And what about those of us who AREN'T fans of the "classic" Sonic style then? What about us?

[Mauro Fonseca]

You can get a couple mobile games to sell to the kids who were born with green eyes :V We're talking about tackling the big leagues, you gotta break a few eggs to do that!

(are you beginning to see there's no solution that won't leave someone unhappy? I'm fine with modern Sonic existing, but genuinely I think a merger of the two with Sonic looking like Sonic 3 Sonic would be the most, at a basic marketing level, successful approach to throwing Sonic back into at least the general gaming eye favourably. Someone'll always come out hurt, though, so it's really no use even trying to pretend "oh but we can appease everyone")