Sonic: Should Story Matter?

[Diesel]

The things that made Shadow awful wasn't just because it had "dark" elements. It was awful because it had no sort of narrative focus what-so-ever. You were constantly chasing random subplots that didn't add to anything meaningful, until Shadow gets to the end of the game to spout some stupid revelation he made. That's a far cry from Sonic Adventure 2.

Sonic Adventure 2 was actually ABOUT things. Everything in Sonic Adventure 2 has a clear narrative focus. The plotting behind Gerald Robotnik's storyline might have been flimsy, and some people might find some aspects of dubious, but it fulfills a clear narrative function. Gerald's anger and desire for revenge drove him mad. Compare this to Shadow, who had to let go of his anger. That's one of the central driving themes of the story is forgiveness.

There's other things too, like Sonic Adventure 2's sense of pacing, and flow. I'm not trying to build it up as being Shakespearre here, but comparing it to Shadow is asinine. They're pretty damn far apart in terms of quality.

I agree that Shadow didn't have much of a narrative focus with all of its subplots, and I can see why one wouldn't like its story because of that.

But not everything in SA2 had a clear narrative focus. Knuckles was shoehorned into the game's story; the whole subplot with him trying to get back the Master Emerald was pointless.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Diesel

[shdowhunt60]

I agree that Shadow didn't have much of a narrative focus with all of its subplots, and I can see why one wouldn't like its story because of that.

But not everything in SA2 had a clear narrative focus. Knuckles was shoehorned into the game's story; the whole subplot with him trying to get back the Master Emerald was pointless.

Okay? And? How does this make SA2 automatically "not much better" than Shadow? The Knuckles subplot didn't add a terrible lot, I agree, but it wasn't out-right detrimental.

[Diesel]

Okay? And? How does this make SA2 automatically "not much better" than Shadow? The Knuckles subplot didn't add a terrible lot, I agree, but it wasn't out-right detrimental.

I never said SA2 not having a clear narrative focus was what made it not much better than Shadow. The reason why it's not much better than Shadow in terms of story is because it's almost in the same exact same tone as Shadow's game. As I said before, SA2 had Eggman pointing a gun at Amy and threatening to kill her, Eggman telling the president to his face that he will blow up his country, GUN killing most of everyone who was on the ark, including a helpless girl who they're implied to have shot in cold blood, Gerald going insane, Gerald announcing his plans to kill everyone on Earth and Gerald being implied to be executed. Eggman was seriously out of character; he's not supposed to be this dark, gritty villain. He's supposed to be immature and goofy. And Shadow;s whole back story of being a science project to cure a fictional equivalent to AIDS was stupid. None of this nonsense is acceptable for a Sonic game. Shadow's tone was hardly different from this.

As for the Knuckles subplot, yes, it was detrimental. It just shoehorned Knuckles into the game and contained those awful treasure hunting levels.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Diesel

[shdowhunt60]

I never said SA2 not having a clear narrative focus was what made it not much better than Shadow. The reason why it's not much better than Shadow in terms of story is because it's almost in the same exact same tone as Shadow's game. As I said before, SA2 had Eggman pointing a gun at Amy and threatening to kill her, Eggman telling the president to his face that he will blow up his country, GUN killing most of everyone who was on the ark, including a helpless girl who they're implied to have shot in cold blood, Gerald going insane, Gerald announcing his plans to kill everyone on Earth and Gerald being implied to be executed. And Shadow;s whole back story of being a science project to cure a fictional equivalent to AIDS was stupid. None of this nonsense is acceptable for a Sonic game. Shadow's tone was hardly different from this.

As for the Knuckles subplot, yes, it was detrimental. It just shoehorned Knuckles into the game and contained those awful treasure hunting levels.

So, you're basing the entire quality of the game's story entirely off the tone of the story.

One SINGLE element.

Not anything comprehensive or how it actually handles it in tandem with everything else, JUST the tone.

And we AREN'T talking about gameplay here, so that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Now that I think of it too, I actually retract my earlier statement. The Knuckles and Rouge subplot DOES add to the game's central narrative. They're fighting, and they make up. That literally ties in thematically into what the rest of the story is about.

[Diesel]

The tone is a very important part of a story, last I checked.

And it's really not just the tone. It's also numerous crap that happened in the story.

While this topic isn't about gameplay, the Knuckles' subplot did pave way for the horrible treasure hunting. That's definitely a bad thing.

And no, the Knuckles and Rouge subplot doesn't add to the game's central narrative. Them "fighting and making up" did nothing but hint at a creepy romance between a bat and an echidna, which sparked creepy Internet fanfiction and shipping. Remove the whole subplot with Knuckles, and nothing really changes in the story. Granted, the Master Emerald was needed to stop the Chaos Emeralds at the end of the game, but a plot device only revealing its purpose way late in the game is just cheap. Furthermore, Knuckles could have just been written to have never lost the Emerald in the first place.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Diesel

[shdowhunt60]

 

And no, the Knuckles and Rouge subplot doesn't add to the game's central narrative. Them "fighting and making up" did nothing but hint at a creepy romance between a bat and an echidna, which sparked creepy Internet fanfiction and shipping. Remove the whole subplot with Knuckles, and nothing really changes in the story. Granted, the Master Emerald was needed to stop the Chaos Emeralds at the end of the game, but a plot device only revealing its purpose way late in the game is just cheap. Furthermore, Knuckles could have just been written to have never lost the Emerald in the first place.

No, it doesn't really add much to the plot, but it does tie in THEMATICALLY. That's the magic word here. Theme.

[Diesel]

And? Fitting in thematically doesn't justify how unnecessary it was. 

[shdowhunt60]

And? Fitting in thematically doesn't justify how unnecessary it was. 

And... Why do I care if something is unnecessary? If something isn't actively detrimental (and once again, gameplay has no place in this discussion, so stop bringing it up), and instead it adds to the experience, why should I care?

 

[Diesel]

Because if it's unnecessary, it's likely bad. And the Knuckles subplot was bad. It was detrimental to the game's story at large with how stupid it was.

Did it add to the experience? Yes, but not in a good way. A lot of times, less is more.

[Dorkave.]

I think this is a yes and no question. Sometimes, story doesn't need to be your main priority as that was what Generations Taught us, but Sonic Unleashed Taught us about the light where These new games can be better, with a nice story.  I would make this a extremely long post but Sega should just make a good but subtle story.

[shdowhunt60]

Getting back on topic, because this is just getting circular again, here's an interesting observation that Roger van der Weide made after the dust settled on E3.

Look at how SEGA and Nintendo markets their games in comparison to the competition. Meaning, the concepts they're trying to sell.

"You play as a little boy and his bird-dog-thing in a story about friendship."

"You're a woman roughing it in post-apocalyptic earth 1000 years into the future where cybernetic dinosaurs roam the planet."

"You and a band of space marines are hunting down ANOTHER band of space marines, to figure out why these space marines have gone rogue."

"You're a lone space marine traversing through the vestiges of hell.

"You are the lone survivor of a vault who's woken up to see the ruined remains of his home in the aftermath of nuclear war."

Okay, so how are SEGA and Nintendo selling THEIR games?

"Look! It's Yoshi but with yarn! It's so cute! Look at these yarn amiibos we made!"

"We brought back Star Fox! Only this time, you can aim using the gyroscope on the gamepad!"

"You can make your own Mario levels!"

"It's Sonic Boom! But with Fire and Ice! Look, you can use fire at fire thing and ice at ice thing! ISN'T THAT AMAZING?!"

It even goes back further with Sonic games.

"Look! You can use Parkour! Sonic can run on walls now!"

"We got wisps! Aren't they amazing?!"

"Hey remember Sonic back when it was GOOD guys?! Well now you can play as GOOD Sonic now!"

My point is, is that SEGA and Nintendo are trying to use GAMEPLAY to sell their games. But think about it, how much of an impact has this had? How many people do you think were interested in Yoshi's Wooly World vs The Last Guardian? How many people do you think were interested in Star Fox: Zero vs Fallout 4? And how much attention do you think past Sonic games have really garnered outside of sheer cynicism?

Here's the truth when it comes to gameplay. There has been literally nothing new under the sun since the late 90s. We haven't made any groundbreaking innovations in terms of sheer game mechanics in the past 15 years. Hell, many argue that games have regressed and gotten worse. The last major innovations were made when we could move in a 3D space, and when we could connect to the internet. That's it.

So trying to sell a game based off of cute little gimmicks isn't going to work, and we've achieved what could be done with how games are being made now. Maybe VR could change that, I don't know.

But I do know what draws attention, and that's games with a narrative. Not just STORY but NARRATIVE. That's why you have people going apeshit over games like Shenmue 3 and ignoring the new Yoshi that's come out. We all know that Wooly World is going to be a good game. It's Nintendo, they don't exactly put out shit. But we're past the point where a GOOD GAME isn't shocking any more. Or at least I hope that's the case.

The thing that bugs me though in regards to how SEGA markets Sonic, is that it really wasn't always like this. I mean, really, think about it. Go back further in time.

"The Princess of Solleana has been kidnapped by Doctor Eggman, and it's up to Sonic to stop whatever heinous plan he's scheming."

"Shadow the Hedgehog goes on a journey to uncover his memories, and find out who he truly is."

"Sonic the Hedgehog evades pursuit from a military organization who falsely accuses him of a crime he didn't commit."

"Sonic and Company all go on an adventure to stop Eggman and the god Chaos from destroying Station Square."

"Sonic and Tails pursue Eggman who crashlands on a mysterious floating island"

"You play as a hedgehog who needs to save his friends from being enslaved from the evil Dr. Robotnik."

Just about all of those sound more exciting than being able to use fire at fire thing and using ice at ice thing.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

You know, this is veering rather close to the whole "Sonic should not have any dark/serious/not lighthearted moments" argument...

It flat out is a "Sonic shouldn't have dark moments" argument. And this coming right after (and even during) the dozen posts explaining how that isn't the problem, and that tone isn't an indicator of quality is epic.

Edited July 27, 2015 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Diogenes]

Getting back on topic ...

Ahahaha what even is this bullshit.

Why the fuck even play games if this is what you think.

[Remy]

Here's the truth when it comes to gameplay. There has been literally nothing new under the sun since the late 90s. We haven't made any groundbreaking innovations in terms of sheer game mechanics in the past 15 years. Hell, many argue that games have regressed and gotten worse. The last major innovations were made when we could move in a 3D space, and when we could connect to the internet. That's it.

I read a lot of ridiculous shit on forums but this is definitely taking the title of "Most Ridiculous Shit"

 

[Nepenthe]

When it comes to the platforming genre, I honestly would like to know what sweeping innovations have been made that have actually pushed the genre forward and were simultaneously staples that other franchises followed, like the use of polygonal 3D. It seemed like we were going somewhere with the Galaxy games and the focus on spherical platforms until the franchise went back to focus on polishing up more 2D-based and linear experiences, and other franchises began following suit. I'm being serious in that I don't see the genre progressing in any interesting way beyond tuning up mechanics for modern standards, and subsequently I feel the same for gaming as a whole. Chalk it up to ignorance and/or cynicism, but in what ways is the medium and its genres progressing forward? All I got is VR (which is far from being artistically understood and standardized) and toys like Amiibo and Skylanders. 

I also empathize where shdowhunt is coming from. He's not arguing that gameplay is completely unnecessary to the experience so much as other facets of game creation have become much more so due to changing sensibilities, and that it's okay to be excited about them or even prioritize them highly or above gameplay dependent upon the experience. I once idly realized that this is partly why platformers have seen a decline- people are valuing story and realistic experiences more and more and the major platforming franchises have resoundingly pushed that kind of stuff away. Mention the mere idea of a Mario platformer having a more relevant plot in the vain of one of the RPGs and people immediately rebuke the idea because that's not what Mario, and subsequently platformers, are supposed to be. Yet we crave a medium that hosts better and better attention to detail in things like facial animation, voice acting, characaterization, setting, and plot- all largely story-oriented characteristics.

I don't think gaming has regressed as a whole, at least to any notable extent. However, I don't see platformers moving anywhere interesting, and the identity they've chosen to stick by seems to be at odds with the games that actually excite people the most.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Nepenthe

[shdowhunt60]

It should be telling that after 7 years, Team Fortress 2 has remained relevant in the multiplayer gaming sphere with minimal changes to the game's interior structure outside of adding additoinal content. I find it even MORE telling that World of Warcraft has DOMINATED the MMO scene for even longer than THAT. And let's not mention Counter Strike. I echo the sentiment, what sweeping innovations have been made in the past 15 years beyond technical refinement?

[Remy]

When it comes to innovation in 3D platformers you have a pretty narrow sample space, tbh. You're restricting yourself to either Sonic, Mario or a bunch of platform ish games (do we count AC? do we count other games where you jump all over stuff?) But even with Mario we've seen interesting things come of it- What of 3D World 4 player co op? Isn't that a pretty big step forward in one of these kind of games? can you think of another game with that feature? Granted, they did it first awhile ago in NSMB and there's a lot of 2d 4-player platformers now, but that's certainly a step forward at the time of release. That's just one game, probably the most well known game there is, with like 5 minutes of research within a virtually dead genre.

And having polished linear experiences is an interesting direction to go in to begin with, many of the levels within SM3DW are relentlessly creative and you rarely end up doing the same thing more than once or twice as the game constantly iterates on itself. I think lost world was trying to ape this in it's stage design but they failed pretty badly. 

And even if 3D platformers have stagnated that doesn't mean no one, ever is going to come up with an interesting game idea for it ever again. Take Lifeline, a Text Adventure game, a genre who's last innovative title probably appeared sometime in the 80s, where you text an astronaut, alone and stranded on another planet with you as his only point of contact. Lifeline plays off of something new- by using something we use everyday to communicate with people, to instead communicate with the character inside the game, it draws us into it's narrative. The real time element adds suspense. Both of these are things that would have been hard to execute in the old times, or things that weren't used at all. 

If something as basic as Choose Your Own Adventure can produce a fresh and exciting game, surely the possibilities for 3d platformers are endless. Especially now with more people than ever making games, we're bound to come across something new or good. Why isn't there a 3D MarioMaker style game? 

Edit: to answer "should story matter in Sonic?" yes, but it's not exactly a lifeline style choose your own adventure game. The stories should be good enough to hook someone into playing the game though. Maybe Sonic's real problem is it's not as fun as it should be. 

Edited July 27, 2015 by Remy

[Nepenthe]

None of what you named really satisfies what I'm referring to, which for clarification is large scale technological or artistic innovation that has set a new foundational standard for the genre or medium. 4 player co-op's a thing that has generally existed since 4-port consoles if not beforehand on PCs, and while it's an interesting device for platformers because of its rarity I don't think it really seeks to fundamentally create an experience that's all that fresh, particularly since there were already platformers with at least 2-player co-op so we at least have some level of precedence.

And polished linear experiences aren't interesting in an innovative way. I appreciate them as good games, but considering a great deal of the platforming genre's existence has resided within this space comfortably I don't get particularly excited about that. To me, that's like marvelling at a character jumping. Awesome when it's good, but not particularly exciting.

This is why I named Galaxy's use of spherical platforms as an example; what was once a quick gimmick of past games became the basis of an entire title and thus required the developmental resources and creativity to ensure its success. Galaxy possesses ideas and gameplay that hadn't really been done before in that way, the same as 64 to a smaller degree, which only raised the question of what was it to be the foundation of? What was next? 2.5D games with co-op, apparently.

Note that I don't think the genre lacks potential either. Rather that no one seems to be capitalizing it in ways that are as exciting as previous titles or current industry giants.

[Remy]

 

This is why I named Galaxy's use of spherical platforms as an example; what was once a quick gimmick of past games became the basis of an entire title and thus required the developmental resources and creativity to ensure its success. Galaxy possesses ideas and gameplay that hadn't really been done before in that way, the same as 64 to a smaller degree, which only raised the question of what was it to be the foundation of? What was next?

Super Mario Galaxy 2 was next! and after that I presume they realized they'd done almost everything they could with the concept of sphere worlds they moved on to the next thing, which was 3D World. Galaxy wasn't the foundation of anything, it was a complete, finished idea in every way, built on the ideas of some cool games that game before it, which is what makes it so great. If a game is merely a foundation than they probably should have worked on it longer until the idea was finished ._.

 

3D World is what came next, but instead of building on"sphere worlds" it kind of builds on "Mario" as a concept. Every 2nd or 3rd level could have been iterated out into a fairly interesting game, and every level is some whack new twist on a typical Mario stage.

 

I respect that Nintendo didn't just ride Galaxy's coattails forever. Would the world really be a better place if we were drowned in Galaxy style games? How interesting, really is running around a sphere after two games in which almost every conceivable way of doing it was explored? Isn't the fact that 3D world was a completely different, completely fresh game compared to galaxy, that got a ridiculous, insane amount of critical praise proof that doing something fresh is better than "doing the same thing over and over?"

 

If something is innovative that's good! If something is so good it sets the standard for everything else, I think that's even better, but I don't think we should measure our games in terms of how many copycats appeared after them, ala super mario 64. 

 

I thought of something that satisfies the condition though: how about Minecraft? Basically nothing like it beforehand, started as a quick gimmick (3D lego!) which mutated until it formed the basis for dozens of "survivial" type games afterwards. Your Rusts, ARK, Reign of Kings, Terarria, and so on wouldn't exist without that first appearance of Minecraft. Now there's more of that style of game than I can count, and it feels like almost everything has building or crafting shoehorned in. Minecraft only came out in 2009.

 

This is what bothers me though:

So trying to sell a game based off of cute little gimmicks isn't going to work, and we've achieved what could be done with how games are being made now. 

How can that be said when we're getting mountains of cool indie games unlike pretty much anything before? For an interesting technological advancement, how about this? http://bounden.gameovenstudios.com/

Game Oven's whimsical dancing game for two players, with choreography by the Dutch National Ballet. Twist and twirl elegantly, or get entangled with a friend.

Holding either end of a device, you tilt the device around a virtual sphere following a path of rings. You swing your arms and twist your body, and before you know it, you are already dancing.

Bounden isn't something that could have existed without today's technology, and we are no where near the limits of human creativity when it comes to game design and creation. The real innovation hasn't come in "3D graphics" and the internet's innovation wasn't just online play. The real big amazing technological thing is that now, anyone with a laptop can easily create and release their own game. Not exactly a boon for Sonic, but I think it's extremely interesting. Big budget story blahblah cinematic experiences are boring, and honestly I can see games moving away from that direction very quickly. I hope Nintendo keeps iterating their Mario craziness and I hope one day SEGA apply that creativity, or maybe draw from how creative game design has come, as opposed to their cynicisim, to Sonic. 

 

 

Aside:

 

"You're a lone space marine traversing through the vestiges of hell."

Uhh like DOOM (1993)? Wow if the game is just that maybe I can just play the old one instead.

 

...pretty sure, regardless the draw for the new doom isn't how cool and fresh the premise is (because it isn't) they were selling the new doom on being fast, fun, a combination of "old and new"  and the awesome new "SnapMap" thing, on consoles- basically giving PC style creator tools to console gamers. The story concept of doom is honestly pretty boring compared to some of the other stuff they showed.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Remy

[Nepenthe]

I don't mean "foundation" as an unfinished game. I mean "foundation" as in a game that sets the bedrock for how new games after it is supposed to function on a base level. 64 was a completed game and it set a general standard for how both 3D movement and collectathons were to function. All Galaxy led to was a single sequel and that's about it. And while there's nothing wrong with that, it underpins the fact that I don't see how we are treading new ground or moving forward in any notable way by just polishing up Mario and 2D experiences- and I say 2D experiences with disappointment. The genre in the console sphere has almost thrown away an entire axis available to it that seemed commonplace nearly 20 years ago. The ideas and their widespread application aren't new, or exciting, or daring. The wild west has disappeared (or moved to indie at least.) Mainstream platformers are actually boring in that regard, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's part of the reason no one cares that much about them anymore. Not only are they aesthetically the opposite of what people are looking for in games but they fundamentally feel like the same game we were playing on Super Nintendos and Megadrives again. Part of this has been deliberate as companies have come to pander to nostalgia down to the point that it's an actual gameplay device- play the same game in the same aesthetic style with the same music you played in your childhood. I don't mean to say that Mario should become more gritty or dark or any such strawman nonsense. At most I'm noting observations and my reason for the general ennui with it all.

Minecraft is an example, along as I said with VR and interactive figurines, but again that's abolut...it? And honestly I didn't see a lot of crafting in platformers anyway after the fact. That might have been hilariously interesting, however.

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

...

At first I thought shadowhunt60's post sounded a little strange, buuut...I think he may have a point. I mean, my love for Sonic's universe and characters is one of the biggest reasons I'm into it.

Even in the Genesis days "when Sonic games were good", gameplay was hardly the only draw, maybe not even the primary one; it was also Sonic's "attitude" compared to Mario's, which in a sense tied in to the fast gameplay.

So yeah, maybe story and premise are a lot more important than we might assume.

[Diogenes]

Obviously story and context are an important part of gaming.

But to say that gameplay in its entirety has plateaued, and that what really matters is the deep, engaging narrative of "cartoon hedgehog fights mad scientist" or "literally just Doom again" is...baffling, to put it politely.

[Nepenthe]

You're engaging in the classic strawman that shdowhunt and others who empathize want excessively deep narrative from a franchise that can't support it on the basis that it has cartoony elements, which is what is ultimately baffling here. Also baffling is that this kind of mischaracterization continues to easily exist unchallenged in a media environment with unprecdented access to and development of animated works that explore any number of subjects that aren't sanitized life or moral platitudes for developing children without significant moral backlash. So first, if you're going to try and turn the topic towards engaging in an assertion that animators have been debunking since the 1900s anyway, you should at least lay out the logic for why this entire frame of mind is irrational or baffling.

Even then, that explanation would only be relevant insofar as helping me understand why people- even those same ones who engage in aesthetically-cartoony media with depth on regular occasion without batting an eye at the irony- always trot this out because the fact is that nowhere in his post or ours is there any mention of needing significant depth anyway. None of the story threads he named as examples are unique in that regard, and I know I don't necessarily want Sonic to explore the nuances of young adulthood or something. But do we want engagement? Of course we do. Engagement isn't something only reserved for non-cartoony works. It's the bare minimum for media, otherwise the effort in bothering to make the characters and narrative interesting is rendered pointless.

Let me put this another way: if you don't think Pixar is misguided in making sure their films are engaging to both a child and adult audience, you practically have no leg to stand on in decrying others for wanting Sonic to at least be a little better than the shit he's been trotting out since Colors.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Nepenthe

[Kuzu]

So I see things have picked up in this topic, so I'll share my piece I guess.

I do kind of see where shadowhunt is coming from, but I don't personally agree with it completely anyway. But he is partially right in that video games nowadays are being marketed more about their narrative and settings than the gameplay itself. I mean, how many people actually care about games like The Last of Us or Batman Arkham Knight for their gameplay compared to the marketing surrounding their narratives?

 

But moving onto Sonic, and I've answered this topic before, yes it should matter because I feel like we're at an age where players can appreciate good lore and settings surrounding things in this series in addition to its gameplay features. The problem is tho, like Nepenthe pointed out, we have been conditioned to pretty much gloss over most attempts at narrative; not just us, but gamers as a whole. Platformers were never about the story, so they've never given us a reason to actually care about it. Its why games like Ratchet & Clank, which has one of the best narratives I've seen from a video game period, is mostly glossed over and ignored, or most of its general focus is on the weapons and gadgets you use. 

 

Do I wish for that to change? I do, but then I feel like people wouldn't even consider the series the same anymore. Like hell, this very topic proves my point with how many people have argued that story isn't as much of a factor as "playing the game", which kind of implies that any sort of shift away from gameplay is somehow taking away from the game as a whole. Whenever Sonic tries to be more narrative driven, while its justified due to past mistakes, its an idea that nobody is even willing to consider. Its the same with Mario, he's been mostly the same since his first game and nobody even questions changing him in the slightest and given all of the people that want Sonic to follow Mario's direction....yea.

So yea, should story matter? Yes 

Does most of the gaming community understand this in regards to platformers? Not really.

 

[SenEDDtor Missile]

So I see things have picked up in this topic, so I'll share my piece I guess.

I do kind of see where shadowhunt is coming from, but I don't personally agree with it completely anyway. But he is partially right in that video games nowadays are being marketed more about their narrative and settings than the gameplay itself. I mean, how many people actually care about games like The Last of Us or Batman Arkham Knight for their gameplay compared to the marketing surrounding their narratives?

 

But moving onto Sonic, and I've answered this topic before, yes it should matter because I feel like we're at an age where players can appreciate good lore and settings surrounding things in this series in addition to its gameplay features. The problem is tho, like Nepenthe pointed out, we have been conditioned to pretty much gloss over most attempts at narrative; not just us, but gamers as a whole. Platformers were never about the story, so they've never given us a reason to actually care about it. Its why games like Ratchet & Clank, which has one of the best narratives I've seen from a video game period, is mostly glossed over and ignored, or most of its general focus is on the weapons and gadgets you use. 

 

Do I wish for that to change? I do, but then I feel like people wouldn't even consider the series the same anymore. Like hell, this very topic proves my point with how many people have argued that story isn't as much of a factor as "playing the game", which kind of implies that any sort of shift away from gameplay is somehow taking away from the game as a whole. Whenever Sonic tries to be more narrative driven, while its justified due to past mistakes, its an idea that nobody is even willing to consider. Its the same with Mario, he's been mostly the same since his first game and nobody even questions changing him in the slightest and given all of the people that want Sonic to follow Mario's direction....yea.

So yea, should story matter? Yes 

Does most of the gaming community understand this in regards to platformers? Not really.

 

Never thought of it like that. I just always figured it was more due to the "no narrative" crowd wanting it for the sake of their ego and to make the people who do want an engaging narrative look like idiots even though there's so much proof to the contrary that it just made the dissonance more obvious.