'Dark' and 'Serious' takes on Sonic: Why are They So Taboo?

[Wraith]

15 hours ago, Kuzu the Boloedge said:

Its 2016 and we still can't come to any agreement on an appropriate tone for this series, its great :V

So because I hate repeating myself, I'm gonna keep this short. I feel like people heavily define the series by which ever game they grew up with and mostly associate its tone with that point in time. So if you grew up in the 90's on the classics, then well of course you're going to prefer its grounded tone and straightforward plots as opposed to the more ambitious and complex plots that the series would become later on. If you grew up in the early 2000's (like myself :V) then you'd probably prefer those ambitious and complex stories as opposed to the simpler plots of old. So we kind of got this impasse of people trying to sell that their vision of Sonic is the "true" vision that Sonic Team should follow and not their opposition. And nobody wants to compromise...at all. Ever.

 

I'm in a weird place where I grew up in the early 2000s but played the Classics first. I remember the jump from Sonic 2 to Sonic Adventure 2 being jarring even as a child, so there's definetly something weird going on with the series tone wise. They were both "Sonic" to me for the longest but eventually Adventure 2 stopped holding up but Sonic 3 didn't.

I feel like, in the end the series should try to stay true to it's originss and to the stuff that make it take off originally. I also don't think Adventure fans harbor much resentment for Sonic 3's plot, since there was still plenty of energy to be found in it's lighthearted story.. Just do something like that. You won't get everyone, but you'll get the majority.

[Shadowlax]

29 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I'm in a weird place where I grew up in the early 2000s but played the Classics first. I remember the jump from Sonic 2 to Sonic Adventure 2 being jarring even as a child, so there's definetly something weird going on with the series tone wise. They were both "Sonic" to me for the longest but eventually Adventure 2 stopped holding up but Sonic 3 didn't.

I feel like, in the end the series should try to stay true to it's originss and to the stuff that make it take off originally. I also don't think Adventure fans harbor much resentment for Sonic 3's plot, since there was still plenty of energy to be found in it's lighthearted story.. Just do something like that. You won't get everyone, but you'll get the majority.

I disagree with the bolded for a few reasons.

The first being... they could just make multiple games with different tones, tbqh that should have been what the 2017 project is to mania.

Next, sega has been trying to do that and largely failing, sega doesn't know how to emulate that, all they have been doing is just taking all the edge out and instead its just become bland. I think lost worst is a giant example of such things, and that's why I am concerned about the new game

Lastly,its not resentment, its people wanna see different things. And on the subject on adventure, particularly 2 that story birthed a character who's to this day for whatever reason still insanely popular who's backstory invovles just people being strait up murdered infront him. It isn't bezerk but at the time, it was a shade ( heheheh) darker than a lot of what had came before. And I think there are room for both things, to just say to stick to one thing seems... limited in scope and imagination. Because the series has the potential... to just do both things. And be totally fine.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

22 hours ago, JezMM said:

Maybe when you were 10 this was edge-of-your-seat stuff but nah nothing particularly dramatic happens in the classic games.  It's all pretty standard action adventure fair.  The twists and little cut-scenes in S3&K were good and I enjoyed them (I first played the game properly as a teenager AFTER getting back into the series via the likes of Sonic Adventure 2) but the point of this whole discussion was "Sonic has always been serious and dramatic!" and sorry but even Lost World is more dramatic than this.  S3&K is the overall better/more consistent story, but yeah if small events like Tails plane being shot down or Knuckles being betrayed by Eggman, Lost World can easily raise you the entire life being sucked out of the planet with Amy and Knuckles' fates unknown, and Eggman faking his own death.

As said the nuances of Lost World's story leave something major to be desired - actually makes me wonder if kids the age most fans were when the classics came out are much less discerning and really enjoyed Lost World's story.

That's completely disregarding that the Classics drew the player in more with them being more gameplay-centric than that of Lost Worlds. You have full control over the character in all except the level transitions in S3&K, so something like the player not being able to stop Eggman from stealing the Master Emerald after Knuckles got electrocuted, or fighting the Death Egg robot with 0 rings puts you a lot more on the edge-of-your-seat and dramatic given that it's the player failing as opposed to watching the character fail in a cutscene.

That's not saying Lost World isn't dramatic in its scenes that shock its audience, but this is apples and oranges here - dramatic and serious moments don't always correlate to how big the stakes are, because smaller stakes like losing a fight be framed just as tense as the world dying despite the magnitude between them being lightyears apart.

18 hours ago, Kuzu the Boloedge said:

Its 2016 and we still can't come to any agreement on an appropriate tone for this series, its great :V

So because I hate repeating myself, I'm gonna keep this short. I feel like people heavily define the series by which ever game they grew up with and mostly associate its tone with that point in time. So if you grew up in the 90's on the classics, then well of course you're going to prefer its grounded tone and straightforward plots as opposed to the more ambitious and complex plots that the series would become later on. If you grew up in the early 2000's (like myself :V) then you'd probably prefer those ambitious and complex stories as opposed to the simpler plots of old. So we kind of got this impasse of people trying to sell that their vision of Sonic is the "true" vision that Sonic Team should follow and not their opposition. And nobody wants to compromise...at all. Ever.

Honestly, I think it's a little more complex than that. Some people have their preferences, but they can still want as long as what they're getting satisfies them.

People who grew up on the classics aren't always opposed to more ambitious and complex plots, nor will those who grew up in the early 2000's be against simpler plots. Only those with more narrow interests who get dogmatic and anal about anything that veers against their preferences are the ones who don't want to compromise at all, and if you ask me I say let them be upset and pissy - it's not always about them, so if they don't want to compromise then let them be unhappy. No pleasing them at that point.

Me? I grew up in the 90s on the classics, and you'd think that would be my preference, but I actually prefer its more ambitious that they progressed into. That said, I do prefer coherency (then again, who doesn't?), but all in all, I'd like to think that Sonic is far more flexible and can adapt many different things into a centralized style than what Classic or Modern fans like to restrict him to. My basic rule of thumb on storytelling and tonality is this: if it's okay with Disney/Pixar or Dreamworks works, it should be okay for Sonic.

[Sega DogTagz]

So....

We want a grand adventure told on a simple stage - high stakes with a reserved dramatic flow all wrapped in a flawlessly presented package with a side of Sonic's personality shining through.

Is that too much to ask Sega? lol

 

Seriously, lets just mash up Rush, Unleashed and Black Knight and call it a day.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Funny enough, it really isn't that hard to do in itself if you have a writer that's at least competent and aware of the world they're writing.

[Sega DogTagz]

11 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Funny enough, it really isn't that hard to do in itself if you have a writer that's at least competent and aware of the world they're writing.

It might be a bit harder than it sounds.

Shoot, just look over at the movie theaters. There are only a handful of flicks that come out the gates checking all the boxes even though almost all of those are written up by professional lifelong writers and directors. We still see waaaaay to many fails despite that.

I'm certainly not saying its impossible, but we appreciate great stories because they are great. We appreciate good stories less because they are good, but more-so because they deviate from the norm of utter crap.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

35 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

It might be a bit harder than it sounds.

Shoot, just look over at the movie theaters. There are only a handful of flicks that come out the gates checking all the boxes even though almost all of those are written up by professional lifelong writers and directors. We still see waaaaay to many fails despite that.

I'm certainly not saying its impossible, but we appreciate great stories because they are great. We appreciate good stories less because they are good, but more-so because they deviate from the norm of utter crap.

Depends on what boxes being checked here - some fails are the result of things like bias, missing the entire point, or obviously catering to a specific audience than the one judging it. Almost no different to the kind of things that annoy us when it comes to Sonic's fails (although I'd be wary about the specific audience part).

I'm not gonna deny there isn't a sort of challenge, but the kind of basic storytelling we see in at least the most decent works isn't that hard to ask for.

[Tara]

7 hours ago, Miru said:

Whole planet? All we saw was a single grassy loam turn monochromatic and two bystanders get killed. We should have had more signs it was effecting the planet. Also, the lack of candy levels and world-weary jokes helped the old games.

I'm pretty sure it's said at one point that this problem had impacted literally the whole world at that point.  I mean, I agree in that's a classic example of "show, don't tell," but it really wasn't just Knuckles and Amy's immediate area that was impacted.

[Shadowlax]

7 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

 

People who grew up on the classics aren't always opposed to more ambitious and complex plots, nor will those who grew up in the early 2000's be against simpler plots. Only those with more narrow interests who get dogmatic and anal about anything that veers against their preferences are the ones who don't want to compromise at all, and if you ask me I say let them be upset and pissy - it's not always about them, so if they don't want to compromise then let them be unhappy. No pleasing them at that point.

 

I feel like this part of the statement is missing a point. You immediately say "thow these people out a window". But consider why these people are who they are, or who they are. A few years go there were classic fans, now they are largely adventure fans. They werent upset because comprimise, I dont think that adventure fans were livid at advanced 1,2, and 3, being released around the same period,  they are upset now because they aren't  in any regard getting anything they wanted. 

You say they are unwilling to comprimise? But how is adventure fans going to comprimise when as of currently they  are getting nothing. Compromise is meeting in the middle, they have no middle. Same with classic fans in the early 00's.

And im not going to pretend there are people with almost militant opinions this franchise to the point of being embarassing. 

But I feel your statement is lumping a shit ton of other people who arent that. Who like a thing arent getting want, are petitioning for what theywant and arent interested in the out put at the time. Used to be classic fans, now its adventure fans. And dont feel like calling them names its honest, sonic is video game character you dont owe him or sega shit. If someone isnt interested in the products being presented and isn't buying or actively calling for something else, dont call them pissy because they dont want what you perceive as comprimise, because thats subjective  in itself. But also because all they are doing is expressing their opinion and there right as a consumer to not be interested and buy something.

Edit: also what about people who just are fond of one thing. Who just really like 1 version of sonic and arent interested in others, why call them pissy, thats called having a different opinion. I dont call my friend pissy for only liking dragonball and not z, he has reasons for this and they are valid. He isnt dogmatic because he's "unwilling to comprimise with z" he likes what he likes and thats ir. He's the "classic fan" of akira toriyama's works. And thats ok, you seem to be trying to paint people who have specific interests as these bad people. No,they like this thing and dont like the other things, but to say it as plainly as that takes the oomph out of your statement.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

56 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

I feel like this part of the statement is missing a point. You immediately say "thow these people out a window".

...

And im not going to pretend there are people with almost militant opinions this franchise to the point of being embarassing.

But I feel your statement is lumping a shit ton of other people who arent that.

Then you seriously haven't actually read what I said, because I did not immediately say that.

I say those who are more narrow who get anal about anything that doesn't cater to what they desire can just be upset since they'll always find something to complain about.

Like seriously dude, that is one hell of a strawman if there ever was one.

[Shadowlax]

s

2 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Then you seriously haven't actually read what I said, because I did not immediately say that.
 

I did actually, you said this

Quote

Only those with more narrow interests who get dogmatic and anal about anything that veers against their preferences are the ones who don't want to compromise at all, and if you ask me I say let them be upset and pissy - it's not always about them, so if they don't want to compromise then let them be unhappy. No pleasing them at that point.

Which is to say to disregard those people entierly

 

Quote

I say those who are more narrow who get anal about anything that doesn't cater to what they desire can just be upset since they'll always find something to complain about.

to which my response is, maybe they don't want compromise because they enjoy a specific thing. And they don't enjoy the other things. And maybe not paint it as someone who is insufferable and can't be pleased. And more as, someone who's fond of a specific kind of thing and its trappings who isn't pleased by other versions of that thing, who is choosing to ask for that and not indulge in the aspects they don't like. But when you say it like that the oomph is gone.

You try to paint them as people who will never be happy, when in actuality they will be happy when they get that thing they want. Which in terms of classic fans, they just did... they got sonic mania. So sega is actually more than capable at this point of just... providing things that cater to, with in reason, specific tastes.So it actually makes less sense to ask them to compromise, because an entire section of the fanbase, literally with no compromise got the thing they want by who they wanted it to be by. So now its actually kind of super weird to even ask for comprise, when classic sonic fans were yelling for over a decade for something that finally came, the hell should everyone else compromise? Why should everyone else compromise, when the people who aren't compromising literally just got rewarded the exact thing they want exactly.

I was just saying calling them names besides, " special interest consumer" seems to be... off. No one's getting dogmatic, or at least most people, some people like one version of sonic more than another. There is no boogieman here.

Quote

Like seriously dude, that is one hell of a strawman if there ever was one.

I addressed what you said, and even quoted it for you.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

4 hours ago, Shadowlax said:

s

I did actually, you said this

Which is to say to disregard those people entierly

 

to which my response is, maybe they don't want compromise because they enjoy a specific thing. And they don't enjoy the other things. And maybe not paint it as someone who is insufferable and can't be pleased.

If they don't want to compromise because they enjoy a specific thing, don't enjoy the other things, and get anal and dogmatic about the things they don't enjoy, that is by definition insufferable and someone who cannot be pleased. And you went on to say,

7 hours ago, Shadowlax said:

And im not going to pretend there are people with almost militant opinions this franchise to the point of being embarassing. 

Like those weren't the very people I was talking about as you continued to separate every fan into their own categories and ignore the whole point in them all compromising on other things. Just because someone grew up with Classics doesn't mean they want everything they like to be strictly like the 90s games because they don't like the Adventures - surprise surprise, there are Classic fans that like SA1 and 2, just like there are Adventure fans that can appreciate S3&K, and so forth. They don't hate them because it's different from what they started out with. But the ones that do will still fuss even if they get what they want - yeah Classic fans got Sonic mania, that didn't stop a few people from complaining about Sonic 2017's trailer implying a darker and edgier tone (and that's without getting into those who wanted the darker tone complaining about Classic Sonic being around, yet they're the ones willing to suck it up and compromise as opposed to those who didn't want a dark tone in the first place).

If you actually read what I was saying, you'd know that.

Quote

I addressed what you said, and even quoted it for you.

And addressed it with a complete strawman. Great job. 

[Diogenes]

4 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

If they don't want to compromise because they enjoy a specific thing, don't enjoy the other things, and get anal and dogmatic about the things they don't enjoy, that is by definition insufferable and someone who cannot be pleased.

Insufferable maybe, but that does not mean they can't be pleased, just that they have strict and specific criteria to be pleased.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Just now, Diogenes said:

Insufferable maybe, but that does not mean they can't be pleased, just that they have strict and specific criteria to be pleased.

Yeah, that's not much of a difference if it's so strict and specific that anything beyond that puts them up in arms anyway.

[Mauricius]

4 hours ago, Shadowlax said:

You try to paint them as people who will never be happy, when in actuality they will be happy when they get that thing they want. Which in terms of classic fans, they just did... they got sonic mania. So sega is actually more than capable at this point of just... providing things that cater to, with in reason, specific tastes.So it actually makes less sense to ask them to compromise, because an entire section of the fanbase, literally with no compromise got the thing they want by who they wanted it to be by. So now its actually kind of super weird to even ask for comprise, when classic sonic fans were yelling for over a decade for something that finally came, the hell should everyone else compromise? Why should everyone else compromise, when the people who aren't compromising literally just got rewarded the exact thing they want exactly.

It's not about people who just like certain style of Sonic and just can't enjoy as much other styles, like many Classic fans who got Sonic Mania. It's about people who only like one game or few, refuse to accept any game that's not exactly like the ones they like and then complain because SEGA isn't making games exactly for their tastes. People like that indeed couldn't be pleased, because as long as the game is new, it logically will be different from the old ones. Just you wait, sever or later you'll find someone who doesn't like Sonic Mania just because Sonic has the Drop Dash move which wasn't present in Sonic 2 or something trivial like that, despite the game being a classic one in pretty much everything.

If Sonic games could have been divided into groups where each game has the exact same feel and just contains different levels/story, then I could understand that mindset (well, except the bitching part, that's just unnecessary). I've seen people complaining about Sonic Adventure having a big and shocking change of tone into a darker one that is a complete opposite of the one in the Classics when it's not really THAT different from S3&K's tone (Perfect Chaos flooding the city is supposed to be unfitting as opposed to Eggman burning a whole forest along with its inhabitans). In fact, even SA2 is just part of a gradual progression towards a darker, more dramatic and more serious take on the franchise that was present since the beginning.

[Shadowlax]

1 minute ago, Mauricius said:

It's not about people who just like certain style of Sonic and just can't enjoy as much other styles, like many Classic fans who got Sonic Mania. It's about people who only like one game or few, refuse to accept any game that's not exactly like the ones they like and then complain because SEGA isn't making games exactly for their tastes.

One, that's kind of exactly the same. That's the exact same desire, they like one and go " this isn't like the sonic I like and I have no interest in it", you just put a mean spin on the second one , but its the exact same desire. Two, that's a totally fine criticism? As a consumer I can totally just not enjoy the thing that isn't like the thing I want and petition for something more like it. Paper mario is going through a hell of a time with that sort of thing right now.

Quote

People like that indeed couldn't be pleased, because as long as the game is new, it logically will be different from the old ones.

Technically yes? But most of those people, if they made a game called sonic 5 right now, and it played exactly the same as the classics they would be fine. There would probably be technical differences sure, but they would be fine. This sounds like more of a non existent boogie man if anything, particularly considering those people literally just got that with sonic mania. You give them the exact thing that they wanted, and then they are happy. Unless mania plays like garbage or something, but I doubt that.

Quote

Just you wait, sever or later you'll find someone who doesn't like Sonic Mania just because Sonic has the Drop Dash move which wasn't present in Sonic 2 or something trivial like that, despite the game being a classic one in pretty much everything.

I mean if they justify well enough that could be a valid criticism, sometimes adding new mechanics aren't the best thing to do for some people. Fighting games get this sort of thing all the time. While I enjoy the concept of adding new things to old forumulas, sometimes when something has been gone for so long the novelty is just having the thing. I think its why those new old school megaman games hit off so well 9 and 10, it was just the novelty of having the thing.

Quote

If Sonic games could have been divided into groups where each game has the exact same feel and just contains different levels/story, then I could understand that mindset (well, except the bitching part, that's just unnecessary).

They kind of can?

Quote

I've seen people complaining about Sonic Adventure having a big and shocking change of tone into a darker one that is a complete opposite of the one in the Classics when it's not really THAT different from S3&K's tone (Perfect Chaos flooding the city is supposed to be unfitting as opposed to Eggman burning a whole forest along with its inhabitans).

I agree with you, but the "pixmagination" a term where people just strait up ignore, or imagine away elements of games because it was pixels and old, and are suprised when the same thing gets brought into 3d. A good example of this of people getting shocked over the gradual change of Final Fantasy , when in realitiy from the jump the stories were always super anime and weird. But when you see speech bubbles in ff6 you interpret it yourself and then magically get suprised when you see the 3d interpretation of those characters are a lot more... sad than one remembers. This happens with sonic and all the edge he showed during the 90's, they imagined it away , though I can blame them from imagining the sonic cartoons away... those were bad.

Quote

In fact, even SA2 is just part of a gradual progression towards a darker, more dramatic and more serious take on the franchise that was present since the beginning.

I agree, someone needs to photoshop of picture of sonic's head on the hulk in the avengers 1 and it just says  " i was always edgy "

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

If they don't want to compromise because they enjoy a specific thing, don't enjoy the other things, and get anal and dogmatic about the things they don't enjoy, that is by definition insufferable and someone who cannot be pleased.

or they can.. by just giving the thing that they want... like they just did.

Quote

Like those weren't the very people I was talking about as you continued to separate every fan into their own categories and ignore the whole point in them all compromising on other things.

Actually you were kind of vuage about it because peoples definition of annoying or dogmatic in your case varies from person to person, so no I didn't know.

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Just because someone grew up with Classics doesn't mean they want everything they like to be strictly like the 90s games because they don't like the Adventures - surprise surprise, there are Classic fans that like SA1 and 2, just like there are Adventure fans that can appreciate S3&K, and so forth.

This is true yes

Quote

They don't hate them because it's different from what they started out with.

Its fine if they would though, if they honestly didn't like it.

Quote

But the ones that do will still fuss even if they get what they want - yeah Classic fans got Sonic mania, that didn't stop a few people from complaining about Sonic 2017's trailer implying a darker and edgier tone

That's true.

Quote

(and that's without getting into those who wanted the darker tone complaining about Classic Sonic being around, yet they're the ones willing to suck it up and compromise as opposed to those who didn't want a dark tone in the first place).

Eh I saw quite a bit of people weary as fuck, and a lot of people are now are just " sonic might not be for me anymore, so i'm not going to give it my money" , they don't seem to be compromising. Heck sonic mania's existence may have inspired them to compromise less, i mean hypothetically, if they got what they want why can't I hypothetical person get what I want. Why should I continue giving money to a thing , that  doesn't cater to me and also kind of makes fun of me for wanting a thing. That doesn't sound like compromise. That just sounds like a bunch people going " i'm done "
 

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

2 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

or they can.. by just giving the thing that they want... like they just did.

To which they then complained about something else they didn't want from a different game.

3 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

Actually you were kind of vuage about it because peoples definition of annoying or dogmatic in your case varies from person to person, so no I didn't know.

I put it in plain english from the beginning dude, so that's not an excuse.

[Mauricius]

36 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

One, that's kind of exactly the same. That's the exact same desire, they like one and go " this isn't like the sonic I like and I have no interest in it", you just put a mean spin on the second one , but its the exact same desire. Two, that's a totally fine criticism? As a consumer I can totally just not enjoy the thing that isn't like the thing I want and petition for something more like it. Paper mario is going through a hell of a time with that sort of thing right now.

I guess... but there's a reason why I put a mean spin there (I should've explained myself better before). There's nothing wrong with not liking certain content, but I was thinking more about the fanboys who make biased opinions on anything that's just slightly different from their 'perfect' vision of the series. You know, the guys who are just stubborn all the time and just don't care about others' tastes. Instead of discussing why they like certain aspects of their loved games and don't like the new games they rage at the first indication that the game isn't EXACTLY what they wanted.

59 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

Technically yes? But most of those people, if they made a game called sonic 5 right now, and it played exactly the same as the classics they would be fine. There would probably be technical differences sure, but they would be fine. This sounds like more of a non existent boogie man if anything, particularly considering those people literally just got that with sonic mania. You give them the exact thing that they wanted, and then they are happy. Unless mania plays like garbage or something, but I doubt that.

I actually do agree with that. But still, it seems like some people are just actively searching for things to complain about. While they're satisfied with Mania, they'll probably continue complaining after that game if SEGA doesn't continue to make Classic styled games, with no regard for other fans' opinions and tastes. Which is why compromise would be a good idea, the one that tries to combine as much things that different factions love as possible. For example, for the whole 'Serious vs comedy' debate a compromise would have comedic moments that don't water down this epic feeling of things being at high stakes. Yet despite such game having the more serious tone they wanted, some people would complain about the comedic moments like they're destroying the whole story, even if they are executed well.

1 hour ago, Shadowlax said:

I mean if they justify well enough that could be a valid criticism, sometimes adding new mechanics aren't the best thing to do for some people. Fighting games get this sort of thing all the time. While I enjoy the concept of adding new things to old forumulas, sometimes when something has been gone for so long the novelty is just having the thing. I think its why those new old school megaman games hit off so well 9 and 10, it was just the novelty of having the thing.

Sure, new mechanics can wildly change the amount  of enjoyment for some people, for the better or worse. But the thing with the Drop Dash is that it doesn't seem to affect the gameplay in a way like the physics or the Boost mechanic do. If you don't use it, the level is still designed so that you have as much fun as you would have in real Classic games, unlike the Boost games which are specifically designed for that single move. I am too divided on the move since it seems to be overly specific compared to other characters' moves which give the player more control and the Insta-Shield which doesn't affect movement at all, but I am still glad they are trying out something new.

1 hour ago, Shadowlax said:

They kind of can?

They can easily be divided into groups but there are no two Sonic games that give the same feel (which is probably the most important thing in games that can be carried to new content). All Classics have the same gameplay and similar graphics but CD feels much different to Sonic 1 with it's artsy and crazy, 'alien' environments, and both games feel different to S3&K's sense of adenture and story progression. Also the 2 Adventure games. While they are similar, SA1 tries to impress with its varied environments, while SA2 uses Sci-Fi settings and action movie-like story elements. But those are just artistic decisions, many other things can feel different, like the gameplay or music.

[MetalSkulkBane]

I wonder if games choose Archie's style of writing would that be a fair compromise.

[Tara]

Considering there are more than enough people who outright hate Archie's take on the characters, I don't think it would be.

To be honest, I'm at the point where I feel like "compromise" is putting us in the same situation as the mid-2000's "satisfy everyone at once" approach.  We want to please everyone at least in some way that it's causing us to forget that what draws us to a series isn't always the immediately obvious details, but the little nuances that comprise of a series' unique tone, flavor, and style.  Meaning, it's not easy as just taking the best of one thing and mixing it with the other.  It's a much more delicate balance, and even then, it's still going to alienate somebody.  That, and I feel that our idea of compromise is essentially "We can have all these things as long as my thing gets the forefront," which... well, isn't really compromise.

Basically, I think of the Neapolitan ice cream example I made awhile ago.  It literally has three flavors, so it's meant to satisfy three different types of people.  The problem being that (especially once the carton's been out of the freezer for awhile), the flavors don't stay in their respective spaces.  Eventually, through natural factors, they're going to start mixing together, to the point where it's not just vanilla with a teensy bit of chocolate that you can just ignore.  It noticeably changes the flavor.

While I do think Sega's inconsistency with Sonic has lended its way to some problems in terms of establishing the identity of the series, I don't think it's nearly as catastrophic as it seems to have different takes on Sonic.  If, for example, Batman can go from The Killing Joke, the first R-rated animated Batman film, to Return of the Caped Crusaders, a campy return to the form of the 60's Batman style, in the span of a few months,  I don't see why Sonic can't have something like Sonic Adventure or Sonic Adventure 2, but also have games like Sonic Mania.  The two don't even have to overlap.

I don't know. I just feel at some point, Sonic tends to get a lot of scrutiny for thing that other series just don't.  To me, Sonic has always been about "what kind of adventure can we put Sonic in this time?" regardless of things like continuity or world-building.  I mean, those things can definitely help a series, but I never thought that's what made the series great.  Mario's the same way.  They call back to previous games sometimes, but rarely do they let that intrude upon what direction the series can take, and nobody questions it because it's not some Stanley Kubrick/J.J. Abrams/Adam Sandler series where every story always builds up to some greater thing.

I actually don't remember where else I was going with this.  I'm tired.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

On 8/31/2016 at 2:13 PM, Tara said:

Considering there are more than enough people who outright hate Archie's take on the characters, I don't think it would be.

To be honest, I'm at the point where I feel like "compromise" is putting us in the same situation as the mid-2000's "satisfy everyone at once" approach.  We want to please everyone at least in some way that it's causing us to forget that what draws us to a series isn't always the immediately obvious details, but the little nuances that comprise of a series' unique tone, flavor, and style.  Meaning, it's not easy as just taking the best of one thing and mixing it with the other.  It's a much more delicate balance, and even then, it's still going to alienate somebody.  That, and I feel that our idea of compromise is essentially "We can have all these things as long as my thing gets the forefront," which... well, isn't really compromise.

Well many people who hate Archie's take - as in not all, though the fact that I even have to make that disclaimer just in case really says something here - tend to not be the most open-minded or considerate folks out there as Archie's take or its fans have tried to be, so I'm just gonna say oh the fuck well.

And really, we're not going to please everyone because there's always some group out there that wants things there way at the expense of the other group, and that'll just lead to them losing as many as they wanted to gain. But if you ask me, that bigoted mindset many display should make it easy where not to put their focus in, because you're never going to appease the more close-minded folks as opposed to those that are more open (but not any less critical, mind you) to ideas or potential evolutions that one wants to bring to the table unless you appease those very rigid standards they have, so why bother.

I mean, if someone is perfectly fine with a game with just Sonic at its basic, but would like it even better if it also had Shadow, Blaze, Silver, or Amy, it's not exactly a loss is it? Compare that to someone that wants a game with just Sonic and will rage if anything beyond that, then it's easy to see that that's not exactly a gain. It's not like the former is wanting to sacrifice Sonic's identity to the point that he should be akin to GTA, or something like turning Sonic's color from blue to red, but that Sonic is flexible enough to adapt and bend many different ideas into his own unique style - for example, the Wisp show that aliens isn't an out of place concept, where as the Black Arms show a poor execution of it, and Chaos show that uber-powerful monsters aren't a problem while Solaris is an example of the idea being overused to the point of fatigue.

A fan is a fan, but honestly, as much of a voice they have, and the input they give, certain fans have a very over-inflated sense of worth over others that are more flexible. If someone's idea of compromise is "we can have all these things as long as my thing gets the forefront" then perhaps that person needs to check their ego, because they're not the only fan who wants something out of this franchise. Some want more intense plots than what we've had, but that doesn't mean those that want more humor should fuck off, nor does having humor mean it should come at the expense of intensity - and you never know if those who like more intense plots also like and would desire humor alongside it, hence compromise.

[Tara]

21 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

And really, we're not going to please everyone because there's always some group out there that wants things there way at the expense of the other group

Every action you do is at the expense of another person's personal tastes.  That's literally how tastes and media experience works.  Tastes aren't comprised of simple compromise of "here's action and comedy."  It's comprised of how much of something or how little of something they like in a work.  So, say, there's some people who don't like any conflict in Sonic games (just as an example; I don't know why they would be playing the games if they didn't like a game that is pretty deeply rooted in conflict, but just roll with it), saying "There needs to be more conflict, but it can also just be lighthearted fluff," is then not a reasonable compromise for them.  And I mean, that doesn't even mean someone will automatically hate something just because there are elements of something they don't like, but it means it will not be fully preferable to them.  In turn, it means that they may not necessarily love the direction the series is going, which is ultimately the desire of every fan.  To have a series that they can love, not just find okay because it has some of the things they like in it.

It's why I think Sega's lack of commitment to follow up with ideas is worse than their lack of consistency.  If they followed up with ideas from time to time, we could have different Sonic games that approach the series in radically different perspectives, and people could just play the Sonic games they thoroughly enjoy.  And it's not to say that anyone's forcing them to play the games they already don't like in the first place, but it means that if there is bound to be more of what they like, they will return to the series and be able to contribute more to it, as opposed to just jumping ship on the franchise altogether because it's going in a  direction they don't like.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

42 minutes ago, Tara said:

Every action you do is at the expense of another person's personal tastes.  That's literally how tastes and media experience works.  Tastes aren't comprised of simple compromise of "here's action and comedy."  It's comprised of how much of something or how little of something they like in a work.  So, say, there's some people who don't like any conflict in Sonic games (just as an example; I don't know why they would be playing the games if they didn't like a game that is pretty deeply rooted in conflict, but just roll with it), saying "There needs to be more conflict, but it can also just be lighthearted fluff," is then not a reasonable compromise for them.  And I mean, that doesn't even mean someone will automatically hate something just because there are elements of something they don't like, but it means it will not be fully preferable to them.  In turn, it means that they may not necessarily love the direction the series is going, which is ultimately the desire of every fan.  To have a series that they can love, not just find okay because it has some of the things they like in it.

Then that's just being as rigid as I just pointed out.

But let's get out the way that I never said that tastes were a simple compromise like that in the first places, because for one tastes and media are far more flexible than whether it's a compromise of something or eschews something altogether. I mean, that really just reinforces what I was saying toward those that are more closed to things as opposed to others that are more open. 

Some might like comedy and action, and those who prefer action aren't necessarily going to hate comedy in itself (or vice versa) - it may not be fully preferable to them, but that's not to say they won't like the direction. Archie itself Post-Reboot is very much an example of that, as many who support it do not prefer the direction it went given what it lost, but they enjoy the absolute hell out of the direction it's going anyway to the point that they want to keep its setting despite that loss.

Quote

It's why I think Sega's lack of commitment to follow up with ideas is worse than their lack of consistency.  If they followed up with ideas from time to time, we could have different Sonic games that approach the series in radically different perspectives, and people could just play the Sonic games they thoroughly enjoy.  And it's not to say that anyone's forcing them to play the games they already don't like in the first place, but it means that if there is bound to be more of what they like, they will return to the series and be able to contribute more to it, as opposed to just jumping ship on the franchise altogether because it's going in a  direction they don't like.

But wouldn't that just end up reinforcing the problem with the lack of consistency part and fracturing the fandom as a result?

[Tara]

2 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

That's just being as rigid as I just pointed out.

But let's get out the way that I never said that tastes were a simple compromise like that in the first places, because for one tastes and media are far more flexible than whether it's a compromise of something or eschews something altogether. I mean, that really just reinforces what I was saying toward those that are more closed to things as opposed to others that are more open. Some might like comedy and action, and those who prefer action aren't necessarily going to hate comedy in itself (or vice versa) - it may not be fully preferable to them, but that's not to say they won't like the direction. There are surprises out there - hell, Archie itself Post-Reboot is very much an example of that, as many who support it do not prefer the direction it went given what it lost, but they enjoy the absolute hell out of the direction it's going anyway despite that.

The only thing you have demonstrated is that some people have tastes that let them bypass things they otherwise don't like.  And I mean, I'm generally like that, depending on what the thing in question is, so I can see why it might be preferable, but if we're to operate under the assumption that people that are more open to things they don't otherwise like are by default better, then it's really not much different than what you're already stating to be against.

And I've already basically stated that tastes are flexible and can adapt, but they don't always adapt the same way.  Of course there are people who love the current direction of the Archie comics, despite their attachment to the previous continuity.  That's great.  But there are also people who can't get into the new continuity because they were so attached to the old one, and even as much as I love the new continuity and find the series far better off without Ken Penders' direction, I can't really say I blame them?  An expectation was established and now it's not meeting that expectation.  Again, that doesn't mean people will hate the series now, nor does it mean that they'll love it.  There's all sorts of in-betweens, but it doesn't really matter, because in the end, it's not the best series it can be in some people's eyes.  Ergo, you're going against someone's desires, no matter what you do.

20 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

But wouldn't that just end up reinforcing the problem with the lack of consistency part and fracturing the fandom as a result?

I'm of the mindset that the consistency problem is misdirected.  The source of inconsistency I feel is mostly in the world-building.  That meaning, there is virtually none.  Mario has all different kinds of play styles.  There are traditional platformers (New Super Mario Bros.), 3D platformers (Galaxy, 3D World, etc.) racing games (Mario Kart), and RPG games (Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi) just to name a few, but nobody complains about that being inconsistent.  Namely for the simple reason that the two are similar enough that it doesn't really feel like two separate games.  Mario is a generally lighthearted story about a plumber who saves Princess Peach by fighting creatures like Goombas and Koopas.  This is true of pretty much every Mario game.  The platformers (that I've played; I admit I haven't played all of them) typically have pretty simple stories, meanwhile the RPG's have slightly more complex and non-linear stories per the nature of RPG's in general.

Sonic hasn't really had that luxury in awhile.  Where does Sonic live?  Where does Sonic take place?  What enemies does Sonic face (sans Robotnik)?  What does Sonic's world look like?  What color scheme does the series typically take?  Little things  like that.  But as far as gameplay and to certain extent stories, I don't think it's really that big of a deal.

But as I said in one of my previous posts, I feel like Sonic gets questioned for a lot of things that people wouldn't bat an eye about in other series.  So maybe there is a lot of people asking "Why is Sonic Riders a thing when Sonic Unleashed is also a thing?"  I don't know!

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

47 minutes ago, Tara said:

The only thing you have demonstrated is that some people have tastes that let them bypass things they otherwise don't like.  And I mean, I'm generally like that, depending on what the thing in question is, so I can see why it might be preferable, but if we're to operate under the assumption that people that are more open to things they don't otherwise like are by default better, then it's really not much different than what you're already stating to be against.

And I've already basically stated that tastes are flexible and can adapt, but they don't always adapt the same way.  Of course there are people who love the current direction of the Archie comics, despite their attachment to the previous continuity.  That's great.  But there are also people who can't get into the new continuity because they were so attached to the old one, and even as much as I love the new continuity and find the series far better off without Ken Penders' direction, I can't really say I blame them?  An expectation was established and now it's not meeting that expectation.  Again, that doesn't mean people will hate the series now, nor does it mean that they'll love it.  There's all sorts of in-betweens, but it doesn't really matter, because in the end, it's not the best series it can be in some people's eyes.  Ergo, you're going against someone's desires, no matter what you do.

Yes, and I demonstrated that because that's the nature of compromising.

Like I said earlier, you're not going to please those that are closed and rigid as opposed to those that are more open. So whether it's not the best series it can be to some people, whether or not that expectation is met, if one is to compromise things then they should be more flexible about what they're willing to accept and what they can manage losing. If one can't get into something because of how attached they are, that's on them, but you can't make compromises if you expect all of your expectations met that you're being too rigid to sacrifice.

That's the point here regarding people being more open to things they don't like - it's a given that you're not going to get all of your desires met, because that's the result when one makes a compromise. So if you don't want to adopt a new thing or change of pace, you're out of luck whenever the franchise takes it into its mold that others will like or simply accept (in good tastes, which isn't to say people will accept Sonic's identity transforming from platformer to GTA, as I clarified earlier), so it not being the best in some people's eyes is just a natural given that they'll have to choose whether to work with or not. And to elaborate so that part doesn't get twisted, this would tie into the case with Archie - some people can't get into the new continuity because of that strong attachment they don't want to let go of, while others with equally strong attachments understand that they will never get those things back and would rather move on and see what this world has to offer to make up for it. I don't blame the former that can't get into the new continuity, but that is one expectation far beyond their control and how they deal with that is on them. Meanwhile, the latter has made their compromise to step into the new continuity with open, yet (initially) cautious arms and will judge how things work from there.