My opinions on Sonic stories

[SBR2]

18 hours ago, Diogenes said:

Look I really don't want this whole topic to devolve into yet another Lost World argument, but I have to ask, where does the game's narrative raise these questions? Lost Hex just is; it's yet another fantastic location on (er, close to) Sonic's world, conveniently off the surface so Eggman's energy sucker doesn't bother it, and that's the extent to which the narrative cares about it. Likewise pretty much everything about the D6 that's relevant is explained or can be easily intuited; they're a band of power-hungry jerks from Lost Hex with robot mind control, their life stories aren't really relevant.

Adding to this did anyone ever ask Where did Little Planet come from? Why is Metal Sonic Sentient all of a sudden? Why the hell is Shadow's origin connected to aliens now?

I remember people having issue with those last two but I can't anyone ever doing anything but accepting that this is how the story works. I really don't get why Lost Hex and the Deadly Six need an explanation when almost nothing in this series has ever been explained.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

Big difference. Little Planet was explained as being a natural part of Sonic's world, a planet that comes every few years and holds the time stones. On top of that, given the time period of release, it's justifiable that it wouldn't have an in-depth introduction. Metal Sonic, we don't know exactly what programming Eggman placed into the machine. However, it's easily possible that the programming may have been "First objective, best Sonic in every way possible", and then "Obey Eggman" second. Assuming that, Metal Sonic could have overwritten the second rule by determining that he is the only way to defeat Sonic, and therefore, Eggman was ineffective for his plans. It's like how Bass is programmed to serve Wily, but also beat Mega Man at every turn. The main function overwrites the secondary function, allowing Bass to break Wily's commands through the justification that it fulfills their function of beating Mega Man.

As for Shadow, it's easy to just say it's a origin that we were unaware of. Fair enough, it was stupid, and not needed, but it really doesn't need to be questioned. The problem with Lost World is every single thing is meant to say it's a lost unexplored world in the sky. The fucking name of the game is Sonic Lost World. The land is called The Lost Hex. They were clearly trying to set something up about it, only for Tails and every other character to suddenly already know about the world, meaning the title has no relevance whatsoever.

[Tara]

34 minutes ago, SBR2 said:

Adding to this did anyone ever ask Where did Little Planet come from? Why is Metal Sonic Sentient all of a sudden? Why the hell is Shadow's origin connected to aliens now?

I remember people having issue with those last two but I can't anyone ever doing anything but accepting that this is how the story works. I really don't get why Lost Hex and the Deadly Six need an explanation when almost nothing in this series has ever been explained.

But people did question the alien aspect of Shadow the Hedgehog.  And nobody questioned Metal Sonic's sentience because there was nothing suggesting that he wasn't, since prior to Sonic Heroes he had only appeared in games with no dialogue. (Discounting Sonic Pinball Party because who even remembers that?)  The comics, while not canon to the games, also painted him as a sentient, relatively self-aware robot, so there really was nothing to make us think that he was just a lifeless machine before then.

[Nepenthe]

It's not necessarily a matter of explaining the backstory of something. It's giving enough information to justify including something in any given plot. Little Planet is a mysterious entity with the Time Stones on it so Eggman wants it. Justified. Shadow is related to Black Doom because the alien has inheritable traits to help Gerald make him immortal. Justified. Only one not justified is Metal, but the key is no one is under the impression he was written well in Heroes anyway.

Lost Hex doesn't have anything Eggman really wants aside from the Deadly Six, but he mysteriously doesn't use them for their intended function all that much. So why the hell are we here? The Deadly Six break free and suddenly gain a genocidal streak. Why? What the hell is the point when they could just kill the Sonic, Tails, and Eggman anyway? Seriously, why do they want to kill the planet? Are they in actuality space-faring conquerors? We don't know because there's nothing about their motivations reasonably justified. They become genocidal assholes because the plot says they should, not because of any sense of organic writing.

Shit happens and appears in Lost World just because, whether or not it makes sense or has any of necessity. Again, you lose nothing by setting the whole damn thing on Earth and making up some other random monsters. Everything in the game is arbitrary and thus expendable.

[MetalSkulkBane]

For planet I blame the reactions

"Sonic, look. It's a Lost Hex! Cool!" screams exited Tails and then we completely ignore the thing. It just feels weird. Little Planet has two sentences of explanation and that's all we would need.

As for Zeeti, the problem is how little there is to them. They come from nowhere, they disappear into nowhere, they have no goals in life except finish Eggman's plan. Even personality wise they void.

Story needs context. Again, two sentence explanations would be enough.

[shdowhunt60]

4 minutes ago, MetalSkulkBane said:

For planet I blame the reactions

"Sonic, look. It's a Lost Hex! Cool!" screams exited Tails and then we completely ignore the thing. It just feels weird. Little Planet has two sentences of explanation and that's all we would need.

As for Zeeti, the problem is how little there is to them. They come from nowhere, they disappear into nowhere, they have no goals in life except finish Eggman's plan. Even personality wise they void.

Story needs context. Again, two sentence explanations would be enough.

Well, even then with Little Planet we had some passive idea of what it was through the Time Stones and traveling backwards and forwards in time. Not to mention that Little Planet has a more cohesive world structure going for it.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

20 hours ago, Diogenes said:

Well, I can say that I definitely would have had a problem with it. Even if the story made sense, even if it was well written, the tone of the game is just not what I consider fitting for the series.

A series has a personality in much the same way as a character has a personality. Like characters, there is flexibility to it; it changes over time as history builds up and as new writers take control, and there's room to argue where exactly the boundaries should be set. But this flexibility doesn't mean that there are no boundaries; a series can be written "out of character" just the same as an individual character can. Regardless of the quality of the writing, you can't write Sonic properly if you write him like Shadow or Cream or Cranky Kong or whoever, because that's not who Sonic is. And likewise, regardless of the quality of writing, you can't write a proper Sonic game if you don't write something that's "in character" for the series.

Now that's not to say that the series can't tell any kind of "serious" story. I think the nature of the series is such that it can accommodate fun, exciting stories that sometimes touch on serious themes. But there are limits to what it can do while still retaining a coherent identity, and simply asking for better writing cannot change that.

I do understand out of character; like I say, I've read alot of Sonic beats Adolf Hitler stories to know what works and what doesn't. Sonic taking situations seriously and situations turning more serious like in Adventure 2 works though.

[Stardust]

9 hours ago, Hyp3hat said:

It's particularly annoying because Sonic games have lots of moments that are so close to doing the important stuff, like getting characters motivations and reactions right and exploring that, but they don't really nail it. I don't think they really need Sonic Adventure esque scope if they can get that stuff right. Colours felt appropriate, honestly, and I don't really get the flack it receives. You can only threaten to blow up the planet so many times...

I've mentioned this before, but the most infuriating one in that respect is Unleashed - there's something really promising in Sonic being insecure and embarrassed of his Werehogliness, which is a side we don't often see of Sonic, but they only give it one scene. The scene where Amy mistakes Sonic for someone else, which was a nice twist on a staple of the franchise by that point, was done quite well. Sonic is really upset by it! And that's it. Less than five minutes later, Amy realises it's Sonic and everythings fine. Lets just have more rubbish Chip bits. It's something like a 25hr+ game to beat, there's plenty of room for that stuff.

That was my impression of Unleashed as well. That Sonic and Amy scene was a lost opportunity. Why? For the very reason you pointed out: it showed actual bits of Sonic's personality. It showed a genuine emotional reaction, something for the players to establish a sense of identification with what he's going through. It's different from showing Sonic saying he's a guy that loves adventure or making fun of Eggman as he usually does. 

[PLAYER] (Sonic is always running away from Amy. So he was really upset when she didn't recognise him? Oh, I didn't know he actually liked her fawning all over him!)

It surprised the players because it veered from the superficial way the characters are usually portrayed in the games. 

 

 

It's been 13 years ever since Sega turned Sonic into a fully-voiced character, someone with a personality and personal tastes. And yet we know close to nothing about him other than his trademark behavior (I'm just a guy that loves adventure!+speed+blue+chilli dogs. You see? Sonic is so predictable you can summarize him in a short formula). So how can the player have a connection to him without there being anything relevant in a personal level about him?

(It's like asking me to like a walking, talking doll. At first it's cute, but it doesn't learn any new lines. Time passes and it can't learn to do anything else other than what's been programmed to do).

When I say personal, I mean the very interaction with the other characters, including the villain, plus the way Sonic handles the obstacles and enemies in each game are supposed to reveal bits and pieces of who the hero is, his personal beliefs, his fears, his fondest memories (Sonic has no memory, did you notice? He doesn't remember his past adventures, except on Generations. But my guess is that those remarks on Secret Rings and Colors was to stir the curiosity of the player and make him go play those games. Capitali$m, you know). How he handles the obstacles is shown to be the same in each game: run, wield magical object, insult/provoke the enemy and pound him repeatedly. That's about it. So the Hero's Journey actually has no meaning in the Sonic games. Sonic is not transformed by his adventures because he executes the same modus operandi game after game. And it always works. He's this static character, this hero who is impermeable to time, change, but also to evolution.

The problem is that those two attributes - meaningful interaction with others and how the hero is transformed by facing his enemies - are an intrinsic part of storytelling. That's what I'm always trying to point out. Where's the storytelling? There's just the same context (Sonic will defeat Eggman/[villain]...yet again) being replayed in different scenarios, with marginally memorable situations (of course each game had a "meaningful" story in itself, but how long until, as a player, you grow tired of seeing Sonic defeat Eggman again and again and see new characters appear with a predictable theme only to be soon forgotten after the new release?). Where's the sense that this character is growing with us, that he belongs somewhere, where he was shaped as a person, that his universe is in motion, that his friends have a past that is independent of him (Shadow, Blaze and Silver, for example), that his relationships with them are evolving and that he's learned a lot throughout the years? 

 

 

Sonic games don't have to turn into a soap opera, show people fighting and falling in love just for the sake of it. Far from it. But it needs to better portray its characters, in a less superficial way, with more maturity, as the OP pointed out. Otherwise, Sonic and his friends are these realy cute dolls that always do what's expected of them. Tails follows Sonic and fixes mechanical stuff. Amy chases Sonic and gets mad sometimes. Knuckles is...he has fists. Espio is random ninja. Rouge is sexy bat who likes jewels. Characters with preset roles and repetitive lines that will never do more than what's expected of them.

 

(Sorry for the long post. This was meant to be short.)

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

"Better writing" kinda implies fitting into the series, otherwise it's not...well, better writing, is it? When you're asking for better writing, you're kinda asking for everything about the story to be good and fitting - that's been the entire point people have blatantly been saying in detail for the past several years whenever they say "serious stories can work, they just need to be better written."

And asking for better writing changes a lot of things. It doesn't mean ignore the series identity, but it does allow a lot of those limits to be broken. And the Adventure series are a perfect example, with elements of genocide/massacre, revenge that were never in the series prior, and an even greater proportion of violence and destruction that far exceeds what was done in the Classic games before it. But that also means "handle with quality care" when you go about these elements - there's a reason people were okay with SA2's tone but not ShTH, there's a reason people were fine with SA1's story but not Sonic 06 - for all their similarities, one is better written than the other. And likewise, there's a reason people like Unleashed's story, but things are more divisive (if not somewhat negative) over Colors and Lost Worlds despite them being less violent than games before them. 

Simply put, if you're not writing things properly, that not quality writing regardless of what you're putting in. It's not saying Sonic can do M/R-rated stories like Aliens or DOOM and still be Sonic, but it is saying that not everything is out of character for this franchise to co-opt and still be written properly.

 Speaking of which...

Quote

As I'm going to quote Matt from SGB 'Sonic can have serious storylines, it just can't do dark.'(Don't quote me, that was off by memory.) And I personally agree with that.

Lost World was anything but lighthearted if you look further into it.

Define "dark" and why it can't do it. Half of the stuff that people are against Sonic "doing dark" are the kind of things people see in a Disney/Pixar or Dreamworks film, so I find it hard to believe that a franchise like Sonic that appeals to those same audiences can't do what Disney and Dreamworks can for some arbitrary reason.

20 hours ago, Sonikku Mikyeong said:

To be honest, I really don't think Shadow's game was that dark. Yes, it had guns, yes he said the D word, yes there was killing...however with the exception of the first two, the third one most certainly did happen in Adventure 2.

Guns and killing don't exactly make up the tone (although killing is a bit of a stretch). Ratchet and Clank has guns and killing, but it's very slapstick even as it tackles serious elements no different from Sonic. It's all about the stakes and gravity of the story, and Shadow's game had very high stakes and gravity that makes it dark. It's far darker than SA2, but it's problem is that it does a poor job with its overall story.

[Tara]

You also have to remember that tonality isn't just things like level of violence and the things at stake.  Shadow the Hedgehog also had a more moody atmosphere that is pretty much akin to a more modern Batman story (to put it nicely, since there are more fitting metaphors that I'll refrain from using here) than a Sonic game.  Not that Sonic can't have moments of silent contemplation and brooding characters, but that it's not a central part of the Sonic franchise, and not something that carries the weight of the entire game very well.  The bad writing doesn't help it, mind you, but there are problems aside from that.

[shdowhunt60]

Where's Penthe's graph where she compared the Sonic fandom's perspective of what "light and dark" were and compared it to the rest of the world? Because I think that pretty much summed up the whole discussion we're having here.

Any case, I find it hard to criticize Shadow for being dark when it was so badly executed in the first place. Maybe a darker Sonic COULD work, but Shadow could've been any part of the tonal spectrum and just failed to work.

This goes for being lighthearted as well. I for the life of me can't really get behind the slamming of Colors or Lost World for being lighthearted. I have my criticisms for those stories that has nothing to do with the tone.

I've always been able to go back and forth. I enjoy reading some pretty grim fanfiction, and yet can come back around and enjoy some of the most lighthearted Sonic stories (like Champion's from the Archie Comics). I don't really like using tone as a measuring stick for the quality of the story.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

2 hours ago, Tara said:

You also have to remember that tonality isn't just things like level of violence and the things at stake.  Shadow the Hedgehog also had a more moody atmosphere that is pretty much akin to a more modern Batman story (to put it nicely, since there are more fitting metaphors that I'll refrain from using here) than a Sonic game.  Not that Sonic can't have moments of silent contemplation and brooding characters, but that it's not a central part of the Sonic franchise, and not something that carries the weight of the entire game very well.  The bad writing doesn't help it, mind you, but there are problems aside from that.

That's basically what "gravity" is, as far as tonality goes - a serious or solemness with weight to it. Lighter gravity means less serious or solemn where as heaviness implies the opposite.

[Tara]

Just now, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

That's basically what "gravity" is, as far as tonality goes - a serious or solemness with weight to it. Lighter gravity means less serious or solemn where as heaviness implies the opposite.

If that's how you define gravity, then you're right.  But my impression was that "gravity" simply meant "impact on the plot," which speaks nothing of the actual atmosphere of the narrative.  You can have a more solemn story with less weight to it (see: Batman: The Animated Series, where few people [explicitly] die, but it's still told in a really serious manner) and a really silly story with lots of weight to it (see: Futurama, which has plenty of plots that, in other works, would be treated with much tact and solemnity but are passed off here as a joke).  Neither are bad approaches, but one obviously works better with one than it does the other.

[Salamander]

My impression of the Sonic fanbase's preferences, judging from this topic and others preceding it, is that there's a major unacknowledged disagreement much like the one over light vs. dark, simple vs. complex storytelling: Whether Sonic is a characterisation-based franchise or not.  Some people clearly regard characterisation as integral to the storytelling of the series (and indeed to storytelling in general), whereas others don't appear to place it on such a high pedestal.  Proceeding with this in mind might help us to understand each other a little better, although I'd say people's tastes probably correlate pretty well with which games in the franchise people prefer.  The Adventure games were clearly characterisation-heavy, or to put it another way, characterisation-heaviest for the series, while the classics were necessarily limited in the gestures they could make in that direction.

[Nepenthe]

Is the disagreement specifically as it relates to this topic one of the amount of characterization, or simply characterization's role in the games in terms of its relationship with plotting? And what are we defining as characterization here: simply the personality of the character, or that personality and the actions that said personality fuels?

I could be super biased here, but it seems to me that what's happening here and across most topics that delve into this subject is more so that people fall into a generalized camp where personality may or may not trump the importance of the events taking place for them. So to me the implied question of these conversations is: is it okay or even more important to have an entertaining character at the expense of plot, or should an entertaining plot also be a significant factor when crafting a Sonic story?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Ya know, it's hilarious - that last part would almost sound like a false dichotomy if it weren't for the fact that people have actually made a case for the former and demonized the latter option.

I'm sorry, but there's no way in hell an entertaining character should come at the expense of a plot. That's as hollow as it is the other way around with plot over character, if not vague as hell over how to be entertaining - Boom might count as entertaining, but if it's divisiveness is any indicator that just shows how it entertaining means nothing without substance. Then again, you could say that for anything in this franchise, given how people look at things in binary terms like wanting/preferring more funny and less action (or vice versa), more lighthearted and and less serious and intense (or vice versa), and so forth. I get it's preferences and all, but people treat it more rigidly for Sonic than you'd expect any other similar cartoons that accomplish everything that Sonic's nature supposedly restricts him from doing.

[Stardust]

1 hour ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

Ya know, it's hilarious - that last part would almost sound like a false dichotomy if it weren't for the fact that people have actually made a case for the former and demonized the latter option.

I'm sorry, but there's no way in hell an entertaining character should come at the expense of a plot. That's as hollow as it is the other way around with plot over character, if not vague as hell over how to be entertaining - Boom might count as entertaining, but if it's divisiveness is any indicator that just shows how it entertaining means nothing without substance. Then again, you could say that for anything in this franchise, given how people look at things in binary terms like wanting/preferring more funny and less action (or vice versa), more lighthearted and and less serious and intense (or vice versa), and so forth. I get it's preferences and all, but people treat it more rigidly for Sonic than you'd expect any other similar cartoons that accomplish everything that Sonic's nature supposedly restricts him from doing.

I couldn't agree more. Here are a few gaming franchises with good portrayal of characters plus a good plot:

Mass Effect (the whole trilogy)

Dragon Age Origins and Inquisition

Final Fantasy VIII, IX, X and XIII

Assassin's Creed 1,2, Unity, Syndicate

The Last of Us

The Witcher

Uncharted

Far Cry

 

There are tons of examples nowadays of how a game can be well-developed in almost every aspect. Sega doesn't have to choose between doing one or another. It has to stop with the lame writing in the Sonic franchise and work to do no less than their BEST. 

Sega's a gaming company like any other. Some new companies are doing way better than Sega and showing how it's done. And being a veteran in the market doesn't excuse making poor releases. Nintendo even had an anime for the release of Star Fox Zero. If the CEO of Sega was serious about improving Sonic games and recovering part of the lost fanbase, then they'd better talk less and start working on it.

[Nepenthe]

Different stories can have different focuses where one characteristic is overwhelmingly focused on over another. Not every work needs to feature balance, because art can do anything it wants to. For example, slice of life stories like what you'll find in newspaper comics or manga are compelled moreso by the characters and their personalities than the situations they find themselves in. No one reads Calvin and Hobbes for plot. They read it for the characters. That's a valid focus. So the debate is instead whether or not it's better for Sonic to have a similar approach to Calvin and Hobbes than say something like Dragon Ball. I agree with you guys in that regard and still say no, at least if the games are going to continue entertaining disastrous or apocalyptic scenarios where action and decision-making need to take place. 

[Beautiful Duwang-Chewchang]

7 hours ago, FFWF said:

My impression of the Sonic fanbase's preferences, judging from this topic and others preceding it, is that there's a major unacknowledged disagreement much like the one over light vs. dark, simple vs. complex storytelling: Whether Sonic is a characterisation-based franchise or not.  Some people clearly regard characterisation as integral to the storytelling of the series (and indeed to storytelling in general), whereas others don't appear to place it on such a high pedestal.  Proceeding with this in mind might help us to understand each other a little better, although I'd say people's tastes probably correlate pretty well with which games in the franchise people prefer.  The Adventure games were clearly characterisation-heavy, or to put it another way, characterisation-heaviest for the series, while the classics were necessarily limited in the gestures they could make in that direction.

This is the side iam on the most. it really hard to debate this whole ideology about whenever it should be good if the series was simple/serious/lighthearted/dark without considering the whole cohesion if it works. lets think back to the conceptart for the first sonic game for example. look them up, think about them. and try to tell anyone its not supposed to feel like shonen. shonen as a story. can be all types of atmosphere without leaning on just one. dragonball for all its violence, certainly doesn't feel dark.  hunter x hunter is mostly serious with its situations under simple execution. jojo feels campy with a harsh atmosphere. super sentai is cheese galore with a large amount of class.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

2 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

Different stories can have different focuses where one characteristic is overwhelmingly focused on over another. Not every work needs to feature balance, because art can do anything it wants to. For example, slice of life stories like what you'll find in newspaper comics or manga are compelled moreso by the characters and their personalities than the situations they find themselves in. No one reads Calvin and Hobbes for plot. They read it for the characters. That's a valid focus. So the debate is instead whether or not it's better for Sonic to have a similar approach to Calvin and Hobbes than say something like Dragon Ball.

That just make the debate sound silly if you ask me - Dragon Ball flip flops between between being slice of life about characters a la Calvin and Hobbes in one part and being more event driven the next. So it's like debating whether to take out one or two of the three flavore in Napoleon ice cream and then serving the entire party what remains instead of letting people have the flavors they want while letting them have other flavors available. 

That said, yeah I still say no to the idea if we're having stories with stakes to them. In Sonic's case, the plot is about the characters and their actions and consequences thereof. 

[Nepenthe]

Dragon Ball is classified as an adventure/fighting shonen story despite taking time to make the characters participate in slow moments and generally be likable, which is why I feel it's relevant to illustrating the issue. No one here or elsewhere who is disappointed with the more comedy-driven, lightly-plotted focus is instead advocating for something akin to the opposite where Sonic plots are almost nothing but 100% action.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

So what exactly would you be saying to those who aren't disappointed with comedy-driven, lightly-plotted focus, if you haven't already?

I feel it's been stated multiple times that those who are disappointed wouldn't mind any of that as long as they get the intense action and stakes they desire, only to be shut down by the typical responses of "Sonic can't do dark," "It's hard to take Sonic seriously because he's a blue, cartoony hedgehog," "Sonic is for kids," and whatever else anyone can pull up that's been said.

[Nepenthe]

Well, those hypothetical rebuttals are inherently loaded anyway so I would argue against that, or at least clarify what someone means when they mean "dark." Are they saying that they don't like an atmosphere that's overwhelmingly brooding (I agree)? Are they saying that they don't want visceral, bloody, adult violence (I agree)? Or is any and all violence off limits (I don't agree)? There have to be some definitions established first so I know what the person is even talking about when they try to say they don't like "darkness" or "Sonic can't handle x," especially so I don't sound like someone advocating that we turn the franchise into fucking Saw or something.

As a generalized argument, I would advocate for something like the Sonic OVA. There's a conflict that forces the characters to act and make decisions, there's interesting and entertaining action set pieces in major areas, the villains are directly involved, and it's not so sanitized that everyone gets out without a scratch on them (although the violence isn't all that bloody or cringe-worthy like uncut DBZ levels). At the same time, there's still comedy and fun characterization to be had during establishment or exposition scenes and the bits between the major action beats, and a little bit of an attempt to give Metal some sort of character and resolution. Speaking of which, Metal is actually useful which is another thing I'd like to see translated to the games.

There's of course some differences from the games: I wouldn't want Sonic to be that much of a douchenozzle, nor would I want the art design to be that dark and sterile, and we need to get back to friggin' Earth, but in general I would wager most people in the fandom like or appreciate the OVA to some level and don't consider it "un-Sonic like" or "foreign" or "out of bounds" and thus can understand my point of view if I were to simply point to that and say "Sonic stories in the games should be something like that." 

[Tara]

2 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

That just make the debate sound silly if you ask me - Dragon Ball flip flops between between being slice of life about characters a la Calvin and Hobbes in one part and being more event driven the next. So it's like debating whether to take out one or two of the three flavore in Napoleon ice cream and then serving the entire party what remains instead of letting people have the flavors they want while letting them have other flavors available. 

That said, yeah I still say no to the idea if we're having stories with stakes to them. In Sonic's case, the plot is about the characters and their actions and consequences thereof. 

But then again, with Neapolitan ice cream, you can still sort of taste remnants of the other two flavors when you choose one (which isn't a good thing if you only like one of the flavors), so a preferable solution would be to have three different tubs of vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry and letting people choose from that.  That's fine for parties (if you're rich) but doing that with the Sonic series leaves you with the problem we have today.  Division of profits, division of fanbase, lack of focus, and the house always being out of vanilla by the time it's my turn to be served.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, you people need to stop making me want ice cream.  It's not good for me.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Yet those definitions have been stated time and time again - those who say they want some darkness or intensity have made it perfectly clear (for the most part, there are those that would want that) they're not asking for things to turn into Saw levels of brooding atmosphere or bloody, adult violence. They consistently point to other franchises to make their case, Pokemon with it's movies and some of its games, Megaman X and Zero for being darker and edgier than Classic, if not pointing in the franchise itself with the Adventure titles - all of them tackling rather dark material than what you'd normally expect or associate with their franchises.

So sounds more like the opposition know what they mean and are just plugging their ears and strawmanning.

11 minutes ago, Tara said:

But then again, with Neapolitan ice cream, you can still sort of taste remnants of the other two flavors when you choose one (which isn't a good thing if you only like one of the flavors), so a preferable solution would be to have three different tubs of vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry and letting people choose from that.  That's fine for parties (if you're rich) but doing that with the Sonic series leaves you with the problem we have today.  Division of profits, division of fanbase, lack of focus, and the house always being out of vanilla by the time it's my turn to be served.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, you people need to stop making me want ice cream.  It's not good for me.

Well, unless you're allergic to something in them, the remnants of the other two flavors isn't gonna kill ya, so that makes it more like whiny nitpicking than anything. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯