Sonic: Should Story Matter?

[Kuzu]

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.

It helps to actually talk to these people rather than just taking a few words out of context and assuming the worst :V

Most of my friends that played Sonic remember it mostly for the gameplay, with the most narrative they can remember being everything surrounding Shadow. Other than that, how many people truly talk about platformers and their narratives? Its really not a lot.

[FriendBot]

how many people truly talk about platformers and their narratives? Its really not a lot.

Then it's time to change that, last time I recall shooters back at the day never had a huge emphasis in story but now, Halo (and COD before it sucked ass) has been considered to be a good shooter with a good story with likable characters. Whose to say that platformers should stick to what they've been since their beginning.

I mean, Adventure 2 seems to be one of the first mainstream platformers that has been well-known for its story and I'm pretty sure other games like Conker were also pretty well-received for both being good games and having a good story.

Which is why I think Sonic has the best chance to adapt to the current gaming market, it has proven itself that it can be a very immersive experience. Just look at Unleashed HD to see that, I have never seen such a likable cast of NPCs in a video game ever, though some have said Majora's Mask had great NPCs as well so there's that.

Though I don't mind when Sonic games are simple and not all that immersive really, I can enjoy games like Gens or Lost World but Sonic should definitely have more games either like the Adventures or Unleashed.

[Bowbowis]

 

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.

Can you actually name any major innovations in gaming recently? New ideas that have had any real impact on their genre or the industry at large? Motion controls went nowhere, the Wii U bombed, and Mario Galaxy's biggest innovation was basically making an entire game out of the most hated level in Sonic Adventure 2. The last one I can think of is the DS's touch screen.

Even if the industry hasn't stagnated though not everyone can be the innovator like Mario. SEGA seemed to realize as much too, when Sonic was first created the marketing for him wasn't based around "Hey look kids! Good/innovative/whatever gameplay" it was based around Sonic being cool, being fast, having an attitude. Rather than try to compete with Mario on his own turf SEGA decided to target the areas Mario was weakest, namely character and story, and focused on making a game strong in those areas, creating what was really more of an alternative to Mario than a direct competitor. Basically "Genesis does what Nintendon't" not "Genesis does what Nintendoes, just not quite as good". Gameplay-wise very little changed throughout the Classic games, but even as early as Sonic 2 we started seeing new wrinkles thrown into the "Hedgehog versus scientist" plot; new plans, new settings, new characters, new factors, new stakes, new adventures. S3&K continued that route as did the Adventures and basically every game that followed up 'till the new '10s.

What I'm trying to say is this. Although having good and/or innovative gameplay is nice, it's not what's going to sell a Sonic game. Mario can get away with it partially due to his reputation and partially due to the grandfather clause. Meanwhile Sonic's reputation is in the toilet and he's not really covered under the clause since gameplay was never his primary focus to begin with. Trying to sell him on it without being totally eclipsed by Mario is an effort in futility at best.

 

Also I'm fairly certain that this is the Roger van der Weide video Shadowhunt is talking about if anyone is interested. 

[Diogenes]

What I'm trying to say is this. Although having good and/or innovative gameplay is nice, it's not what's going to sell a Sonic game.

Then don't bother making Sonic games anymore. Just make cartoons.

[Nepenthe]

Or we can sell Sonic games as well rounded experiences. Not just things with only gameplay in them, and not just things with only cutscenes in them.

[Wraith]

I feel like we're kind of underselling the gameplay of Sonic now. I know story has always been a bigger thing than in most platformers but jeeze.  "Good, Innovate gameplay wont sell a Sonic game"? I'm pretty sure Sonic controlling so fast and so fluidly is why people got on board in the first place, why the most popular games in the series are the classic ones, and why people are still asking for that type of game to this day. Sonic wasn't just successful because the story and characters existed. That's not what they were using to advertise the games, anyway. The gameplay was genuinely unlike anything that came before. It was the definition of innovative. The bigger emphasis on story, characters and environments only added to it, but it wasn't the main hook. It's not like the classic games that came after didn't build on the gameplay in interesting ways either. The time travelling mechanic in CD and the alternate characters in 3K shook things up a lot. 

 

[Diogenes]

I've never said that I want them to do away with the story.

But if a game can't sell itself on its gameplay, it's a shit game.

And honestly I don't think Sonic stories could ever draw in all that many people, even if they were good. It's niche nerd shit, it's only ever going to appeal to kids and people who are already emotionally invested in this shit. Platformers are practically dead but cartoon animal mascots are deader.

[Kuzu]

I feel like we're kind of underselling the gameplay of Sonic now. I know story has always been a bigger thing than in most platformers but jeeze.  "Good, Innovate gameplay wont sell a Sonic game"? I'm pretty sure Sonic controlling so fast and so fluidly is why people got on board in the first place, why the most popular games in the series are the classic ones, and why people are still asking for that type of game to this day. Sonic wasn't just successful because the story and characters existed. That's not what they were using to advertise the games, anyway. The gameplay was genuinely unlike anything that came before. It was the definition of innovative. The bigger emphasis on story, characters and environments only added to it, but it wasn't the main hook. It's not like the classic games that came after didn't build on the gameplay in interesting ways either. The time travelling mechanic in CD and the alternate characters in 3K shook things up a lot. 

 

 

But you're speaking from the perspective of somebody who grew up in a time when all of that was the hottest thing on the market. Of course we'll think Sonic can make a come back with his gameplay, its what we grew up on and enjoyed the most back then. 

But think about this as someone who wasn't into Sonic or platformers much at all. What does Sonic offer then? Speed is no longer a commodity because practically every game nowadays can mimic the speeds that Sonic goes at. If nobody really cares about the narrative, then what?

 

I'm not really even underselling Sonic here, I still love playing his games to death and even other platformers, but I don't put anywhere near as much time into the genre as I used to. I don't think the gameplay is bad or lacking, but it doesn't really offer me anything that I didn't already play back when I was younger beyond a gimmick or two. Whether we like it nor not, most Sonic games sell mostly for their gimmicks than their actual gameplay honestly.

Like, a game like Sonic 3 & Knuckles released today wouldn't sell much more than the average indy title really.

I've never said that I want them to do away with the story.

But if a game can't sell itself on its gameplay, it's a shit game.

And honestly I don't think Sonic stories could ever draw in all that many people, even if they were good. It's niche nerd shit, it's only ever going to appeal to kids and people who are already emotionally invested in this shit. Platformers are practically dead but cartoon animal mascots are deader.

How very open minded of you :V

Look dude, I understand opinions and all that shit, but people do have their reasons for playing games beyond just gameplay nowadays. People have these things called taste and it influences their decisions. 

 

No matter how you look at it, Video Games have evolved beyond just things we do to past the time and have become a genre nearly on par with movies, and books and naturally people evolve with them. Its the way of the world.

 

Edited July 27, 2015 by Kuzu the Boloedge

[Nepenthe]

General gamers don't seem to care about the depth of Sonic gameplay so long as it's fun and free of distraction considering the success of the Boost formula games, and even then they didn't really light anything on fire despite their perceived fun factor and uniqueness. I think quality gameplay is always a must, but I don't think approaching the games' marketing by highlighting their other aspects and making a focus to strengthen them as well is misguided. It's not about downplaying gameplay; it's about putting other aspects on an even keel with gameplay in a world where people expect their games to deliver in other artistic aspects.

And honestly I don't think Sonic stories could ever draw in all that many people, even if they were good. It's niche nerd shit, it's only ever going to appeal to kids and people who are already emotionally invested in this shit. Platformers are practically dead but cartoon animal mascots are deader.

Games in general are niche nerd shit. Ask your mom if she knows or even gives a shit about the ins and outs of Halo or Grand Theft Auto or Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts or Call of Duty or even Five Nights at Freddy's (which ironically seems to happily make bank on its animal stars and the non child-friendly lore) or whatever else is popular with the 20 something year old males. And if we're going to go the route that Sonic is too niche to draw people in, should we not then just kill the franchise when its very bedrock is mired in aesthetic choices that dont gel with modern gamers anymore? If we're going to assume that Sonic can or even should continue existing in an environment that is inherently hostile to the very thing he is, I see no reason in not developing, polishing, and showing off everything it has to offer. Everything should be good and everything should matter, if the goal now is to suddenly bring back the masses.

[Wraith]

 

But you're speaking from the perspective of somebody who grew up in a time when all of that was the hottest thing on the market. Of course we'll think Sonic can make a come back with his gameplay, its what we grew up on and enjoyed the most back then. 

But think about this as someone who wasn't into Sonic or platformers much at all. What does Sonic offer then? Speed is no longer a commodity because practically every game nowadays can mimic the speeds that Sonic goes at. If nobody really cares about the narrative, then what?

 

I'm not really even underselling Sonic here, I still love playing his games to death and even other platformers, but I don't put anywhere near as much time into the genre as I used to. I don't think the gameplay is bad or lacking, but it doesn't really offer me anything that I didn't already play back when I was younger beyond a gimmick or two. Whether we like it nor not, most Sonic games sell mostly for their gimmicks than their actual gameplay mostly.

Well I don't expect Sonic to make a huge comeback and be as popular as before in this day and age and I don't see why anyone would. I just would like it if he wasn't an embarrassment, at least. :U He's probably not going to be a mega hit ever again, but he could at least be up to the quality standards of the other platformers around him like Rayman, Donkey Kong, Mario and Ratchet. People who like platformers and people who liked the old Sonic games will then be attracted to the new one.  A good narrative will add to that, but it's not like it'll put him back into mega hit territory or anything. 

Gimmicks are how you hook people, but solid gameplay underneath it all is how you keep them. The reason Sonic only grows less and less popular is becasue there's nothing solid under whatever new thing they're trying to sell people on now.  

 

 

 

[Kuzu]

 

Well I don't expect Sonic to make a huge comeback and be as popular as before in this day and age and I don't see why anyone would. I just would like it if he wasn't an embarrassment, at least. :U He's probably not going to be a mega hit ever again, but he could at least be up to the quality standards of the other platformers around him like Rayman, Donkey Kong, Mario and Ratchet. People who like platformers and people who liked the old Sonic games will then be attracted to the new one.  A good narrative will add to that, but it's not like it'll put him back into mega hit territory or anything. 

Gimmicks are how you hook people, but solid gameplay underneath it all is how you keep them. The reason Sonic only grows less and less popular is becasue there's nothing solid under whatever new thing they're trying to sell people on now.  

 

 

 

Sonic has had over a decade of mediocrity, to down right terrible. No amount of good games will ever erase that stain on the franchise, ever.  

Most modern Sonic games since 2008 have had solid gameplay and still don't sell as much as any other big time title. I really think the issue goes beyond if the game plays good or not.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Kuzu the Boloedge

[Diogenes]

No matter how you look at it, Video Games have evolved beyond just things we do to past the time and have become a genre nearly on par with movies, and books and naturally people evolve with them. Its the way of the world.

If you're looking for Sonic game storytelling to be anything more than a fun way to pass time, god help you.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

If you're looking for Sonic game storytelling to be anything more than a fun way to pass time, god help you.

Funny, we could say that for storytelling in the entire video game and animation industries in general if we're gonna simplify things that way. Because god help us for looking at them with some meaning to them. :V

Edited July 28, 2015 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Diogenes]

Funny, we could say that for storytelling in the entire video game and animation industries in general if we're gonna simplify things that way. :V

And I would, for games.

But Sonic is still worse than most about it.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Diogenes

[Wraith]

Sonic has had over a decade of mediocrity, to down right terrible. No amount of good games will ever erase that stain on the franchise, ever.  

Most modern Sonic games since 2008 have had solid gameplay and still don't sell as much as any other big time title. I really think the issue goes beyond if the game plays good or not.

Rayman was putting out literally nothing but shovelware at one point but people seemed to forgive that pretty easily when Rayman Origins came along and was really good. :U

I honestly don't think it goes much further beyond that. Lots of people on this board even talk about how Colors and Generations weren't up to the standard of other platformers of the time. They just need to do better. People will like Sonic again once they have a solid reason to. It's not much more complicated than that. Like I said, he'll probably never be a huge franchise again but there are still people that like platformers. Sonic just has to appeal to them.

[Nepenthe]

I don't think anyone who believes that Sonic's character and events can emotionally resonate with people after the game is turned off needs help, Biblical or otherwise, and subsequently your tone is needlessly hostile.

You still haven't answered why you think its baffling that people want engagement from something cartoony, when by all rights it's expected in other mediums. I sincerely want to know what the philosophical disconnect is for people who believe I'm wrong for expecting better from a story about a cartoony animal fighting a cartoony tyrant but won't bother with this same concern if I admit I cried about a cartoony boy with a pet pink lion who's being raised by rocks.

Unless you believe all cartoony media should be only for children and not have a lasting impact beyond fun, in which case I'll stop pressing the point.

[Kuzu]

If you're looking for Sonic game storytelling to be anything more than a fun way to pass time, god help you.

If you truly do not believe the entire cartoon mascot genre cannot offer anything in terms of emotionally investment that people can appreciate. Then its kinda pointless to argue this :V

In any case, can you explain why you feel that way tho? What is it about the genre that prevents you from having any sort of emotional attachment to a series like Sonic beyond "just something to play".

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

And I would, for games.

But Sonic is still worse than most about it.

You're missing the point. Animations and games aren't just time killers. They can and often do have meaning to them. And with games nowadays having evolved into something much greater than what they were decades ago, you're doing them quite a massive disservice, including Sonic who has managed to deliver more meaningful themes in his games.

Edited July 28, 2015 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Wittymations]

Hell, when it comes to games, I feel they have far more right to have an engaging story than any comic, movie, or even book out there.

Why? For one particular reason. YOU are the protagonist. You're the one who fights antagonist guy, you're the one who goes through trial and tribulations, you're the who takes each step, and you're the one who saves the day (or ruin it, even), and if you're playing a certain type of game, you're making your own choices.

Since you can put yourself in the shoes of the protagonist, you can get more emotionally invested.

[Diogenes]

Maybe I'm a little tense because every time I try to post about this everything I say gets twisted into some hardline anti-story agenda.

Its not about not understanding people wanting engagement from something cartoony. I understand that perfectly well. Hell I started watching Steven Universe a while back and I love the shit out of it, it presses all the right buttons and it being a cartoon has never been an obstacle for it.

But Sonic isn't fit to lick the scum off of SU's boots, when it comes to storytelling. It doesn't have even a fraction of the planning, focus, emotional depth, and outright heart of something like SU. Sonic is a complete fucking mess. If there was any plan (which I doubt) for it it was lost long ago, leaving the series wandering, shitting out cheap, barely passable action stories. No consistency, no goals, barely any character development. Interesting things happen to new, usually one-shot, characters, while nothing much is done with the main characters that are supposed to be the backbone of the series.

To cut my rambling short, basically, Sonic stories have pretty much always been shit. And the overall canon (in so much as there is one at all) is even worse. That doesn't mean it was never fun! It was, at least sometimes (sadly less often than it should have been). But any kind of serious emotional resonance? It does not have the chops for it.

But that's the past, right? It can be better in the future, right? Well, to an extent. But the difference between Sonic now, and something like SU or a good Pixar film or any other cartoony animated property that really touches people's hearts, is that they aren't trying to force the end results of 20+ years of meandering, contradictory bullshit into something resembling a heartfelt piece of art. They are built from the ground up to support the story they are trying to tell. Every last element can be tuned in service of the message.

Sonic can't do that. Sega won't allow it, judging from how neutered Boom ended up. Fans won't allow it, considering how much shouting there was about characters being "out of character" in Lost World. All that shit isn't just going to up and vanish, and I doubt people would like it if it did, anyway. For this series to have stories with meaning and purpose, and characters with genuine depth, they need to kill what the series has been practically since its inception.

 

And again, I'm not saying that things can't be fun. I'm not saying the characters can't be likable. I'm not saying that there can be no emotional resonance. But the series has trapped itself under its own failures.

But with games nowadays having evolved into something much greater than simply time killers, that's doing them quite a massive disservice, including Sonic who has managed to deliver more meaningful themes in his games.

The vast majority of games are still just time killers. There's not actually anything wrong with that, but we should call it what it is.

And no, Sonic hasn't really delivered much in the way of meaningful themes. Nothing that hasn't been seen dozens of times on equally cheap children's cartoons, anyway.

[Wittymations]

Really, you could argue the same thing about Sonic's gameplay, just as much as its story.

[Nepenthe]

When you say there's something wrong with people for expecting a higher level of quality from a story about a cartoon hedgehog, you are implicitly arguing that the cartoony nature of the franchise is the reason it should not be expected to be better, which is not only an anti-story stance but inherently insulting to animation as an art form. If your argument is that Sonic has issues that are inherent to the way it's been written regardless of its aesthetics, then just say that so we don't have to have this song-and-dance.

Anyway, the fundamental fact we disagree on still is whether or not Sonic is buried under its canon to do something interesting. To me it has proven it's not beholden to anything but the barest mechanics of what makes a Sonic story proper, meaning the thematics are free to be chosen as any writer sees fit. It's akin to DC comic continuity, which is a a mess of far more years of canon than Sonic will ever manage to obtain but which hasn't proven an objective block for good, character driven storytelling. Sonic is a serial. That's okay.

Just as well, I don't think people not liking Lost World's characterization as much as you do are opposed to good storytelling. Lost World isn't perfect. It has noted problems in the way it handles everyone and the way they act in their conflicts, several of which I've noted in the first act alone, and no one should be accused of not wanting better for agreeing with that. There's no correlation between expecting better and one's opinions of Lost World.

Whether or not Sega is outright opposed to it is another story, and just as well their opposition should not be an argument against advocacy for better, because as Witty implied if that's the case why talk about what the gameplay should be at all?

[Remy]

Hell, when it comes to games, I feel they have far more right to have an engaging story than any comic, movie, or even book out there.

Why? For one particular reason. YOU are the protagonist. You're the one who fights antagonist guy, you're the one who goes through trial and tribulations, you're the who takes each step, and you're the one who saves the day (or ruin it, even), and if you're playing a certain type of game, you're making your own choices.

Since you can put yourself in the shoes of the protagonist, you can get more emotionally invested.

You're unable to do that when you watch a book, a movie. etc? I don't think Sonic is any more the player's story than it is Sonic's. You're just along for the ride. Like yes, games can have super engrossing stories and taking advantage of the fact that a player is in "control" of what happens can make for some interesting tales

It's not like Sonic is taking advantage of that particular angle either, or that it really could? It's not Metal Gear Solid 3's ending. It's not Spec Ops, It's not Bioshock's Would you kindly nor has it ever gone remotely close to that. The only time they tried giving player choice or something similar was Shadow and that was horrible. 

Sonic does deserve a good story, but I feel with where the series is at now the goal should be "fun romp". It would be interesting to see something crazy but I think the focus should be working from Lost World's misused mechanics first then thinking about an epic story second.

 

I think the DC Comic's argument is interesting, I'd argue the opposite, that they're so buried under years and years of canon that the stories are now eating their own tail, accomplishing nothing spinning endlessly in a cycle of pointless revisionism and fanservice. They're trapped by the need to never fall out of expectations. What do cape comics ever try to say anymore? What's their angle other than continuing because fans like the characters? 

Can you even make Batman or any of his associates go through something where they change, or are their stories constantly trapped to returning to the status quo? 

Edited July 28, 2015 by Remy

[Bowbowis]

 

I've never said that I want them to do away with the story.

But if a game can't sell itself on its gameplay, it's a shit game.

And honestly I don't think Sonic stories could ever draw in all that many people, even if they were good. It's niche nerd shit, it's only ever going to appeal to kids and people who are already emotionally invested in this shit. Platformers are practically dead but cartoon animal mascots are deader.

 

Alright then Dio, allow me to pose a question.

If you were sitting at E3 and saw a game that was completely silent and looked like this:

Would you buy it?

 

Even if it was, in all other ways, identical to this:

:

 

"If a game can't sell itself on its gameplay, it's a shit game." Those are your words. A game should be able to sell on gameplay alone, not context nor character, not story nor sound, not even art. So I've removed those distractions. I've left you with nothing but pure untainted gameplay, and if you won't buy it, then I'd forced to conclude that Sonic 1 is a "shit game" as you put it.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Bowbowis

[Komodin]

 

 

Alright then Dio, allow me to pose a question.

If you were sitting at E3 and saw a game that was completely silent and looked like this:

Would you buy it?

 

Even if it was, in all other ways, identical to this:

:

 

"If a game can't sell itself on its gameplay, it's a shit game." Those are your words. A game should be able to sell on gameplay alone, not context nor character, not story nor sound, not even art. So I've removed those distractions. I've left you with nothing but pure untainted gameplay, and if you won't buy it, then I'd forced to conclude that Sonic 1 is a "shit game" as you put it.

I think what he meant with that statement is that, to him, even if a game is fully packed in every other way, if its gameplay doesn't hold up, then he's not gonna speak all that favorably about it. Him favoring gameplay as his primary hook in the medium doesn't mean that he doesn't appreciate the other elements that makes a game nor does it necessarily mean that he'll accept a game that is nothing but gameplay and devoid of all other context.

 

Let's refrain from doing this strawmanning thing here--it won't do anyone any good and it only assumes bad faith in others.