Sega on Target Audience

[Nepenthe]

That's hardly the case, especially in terms of American kids. Naruto is still selling by the shedload over there.

I do see your point (hell, I mentioned it earlier on as well), but there's difference, really. Things like Naruto aren't especially trying to be hip or trendy, whereas Sonic seems to 'try' to be cool these days, is what I think people are getting at. Naruto's hardly stylish, is it? Even for those who did lose interest, there's a difference between something passing and going as a fad for what it is, or something trying and constantly evolve and change to keep in line with today's definition of 'cool' sort of thing.

One could argue that Sonic has always tried to be cool (which I believe is part of his appeal), and the problem with his current public reception is that he's actually been singing the same song for years and not identifying with what we perceive to be cool today.

It's easy for the fandom to find beauty in the series where others may not automatically begin looking because we entrench ourselves in the subject matter. Thus, it's easy for us to shrug off the marketing if it doesn't fall in line with what we perceive to be true, but regardless we cannot deny that marketing has played an exceptionally big role in what society and Sega believes Sonic to be.

From the near beginning, it's obvious that Sonic's always been this strong willed go-getter who spouted nothing but obvious cheese and wisecracks, but his appeal in the 90s stuck because cheesy and strong willed go-getters still happened to be the thing at the time. They're not anymore, and thus the negative aspects of Sonic's attitude are more emphasized. From AoStH to Sonic Heroes, the hedgehog's persona has hardly changed, at least not to the extent that some like to perpetuate.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Nepenthe

[Chaotix Prime]

I never saw the earlier Sonic games as "edgy" in the least. They were bright, happy, and very comparable to the Mario series that these quotes claim were incredibly different.

Sure, American marketting- along with the cartoons and comics- presented a darker image, but the games themselves were a happy colorful fun land not unlike Mario's own!

I mean, the Super Mario Bros. movie can be considered Mario's "SatAM" in a sense, but no one associates that with Mario's mainstream image.

Comparable. I think they're comparable enough to go well together. M & S at the olympic games proves this. Mario and Sonic have competed for a long time, I believe they don't have to compete with one another, but learn from each others examples. I think it'd be awsome if they had an adventure game or comic or TV series together. They could bring out the coolness (or sillyness) in each other. Something we could use nowadays to solve problems like this. They are different, but essentially the same.

I think perhaps the difference was in the way Sonic was marketed in the East and in the West.

The general impression I get is that Sonic was "cool" in Japan because he was a pure-hearted boy who won his battles through sheer faith and determination, while in the West, Sonic was "cool" because he made lots of wisecracks and was a daredevil who was constantly looking for danger.

Yeah, I agree. It's a shame Americans perceived him in that way. Sonic was a SAVIOUR to his homeland, he beat Robotnik when no one else dared. That's what was cool. I think this is why SatAM haters hated it. It made Sonic "lesser" in a sense. And just like the Mario movie, Sonic HAS made some mistakes along the way, but this doesn't mean it can't be redeemed.

[Saint Nathan]

I figure they have a good idea there. Make some easy money by churning out the good games, but attept to please the hardcore Sonic fans every few games. So we'll get same quality games for a while and then every now and again we get a good one.

At least that's how I read it.

[Dr. Mechano]

Yeah, I agree. It's a shame Americans perceived him in that way. Sonic was a SAVIOUR to his homeland, he beat Robotnik when no one else dared. That's what was cool. I think this is why SatAM haters hated it. It made Sonic "lesser" in a sense. And just like the Mario movie, Sonic HAS made some mistakes along the way, but this doesn't mean it can't be redeemed.

The Japanese image of Sonic (Games, X, etc.) is also more likable to me personally because he doesn't begrudge Eggman for what he does- He stops his evil schemes, but he bears no ill will against the man himself.

Most American portrayals of Sonic have him outright hate the doctor, though to be fair, most American portrayals of Eggman make him less lovable too.

Still, I always admired that pure heroism of the Japanese Sonic, and strongly prefer it to the edgy, spiteful American version of his characterization. I know I'm in the minority here, but that's the image I prefer to envision when I'm playing the classic games. A strong-willed and well-meaning hero against his wacky, colorful archenemy. Not the edgy, angry rebel against the dark decrepit dictator.

[Blazey Firekitty]

Still, I always admired that pure heroism of the Japanese Sonic, and strongly prefer it to the edgy, spiteful American version of his characterization. I know I'm in the minority here, but that's the image I prefer to envision when I'm playing the classic games. A strong-willed and well-meaning hero against his wacky, colorful archenemy. Not the edgy, angry rebel against the dark decrepit dictator.

Perhaps that was one of the main problems with Sonic 2006. Instead of focusing on Sonic's friendly rivalry with Eggman in an optimistic world, we have a dark, foreboding plot about Sonic trying to prevent the end of the world, which is being caused by what is basically the devil himself.

[batson]

Sonic was obviously supposed to be a brat in Japan as well in the olden days, as evidenced by the OVA (which was overseen by Sonic Team themselves). "SHUT UP, TAILS!".

Really, i think the more whitewashed version of the hedgehog that we have in the games now is a rather recent invention. Sonic used to be a punk, and he should have stayed that way.

[Sean]

I'm a very big fan of many anime and manga hero protagonists. Monkey D. Luffy is one of my favorite characters of all time, because he has a streak of emotional strength and endurance, but has the heart (and mentality) of a small boy. His idiocy and simple-mindedness is played up for laughs at first (and of course, most of the time), but deep down it lends Luffy a sense of unique wisdom within the manga, and he pulls through with nothing but his own determination, power, and sense of spirit. It even leads him to wage war against the supposed upholder of justice, the World Government.

That's along the lines of how I've always viewed Sonic to be, myself! I'm with Gordo when I feel that I have never imagined game Sonic to be edgy, wisecracking, or rebellious - to me, Sonic is as admirable of a protagonist as many characters of series that I enjoy. But I guess not many people think this way, so I constantly have quirky views on the series.

[Dr. Mechano]

Sonic was obviously supposed to be a brat in Japan as well in the olden days, as evidenced by the OVA (which was overseen by Sonic Team themselves). "SHUT UP, TAILS!".

I think the OVA is an anomaly. This is the same special that made Knuckles a carefree treasure hunter as opposed to a dutiful guardian, after all.

Of course, OVA Sonic was such an over-the-top bastard to the point where it became ridiculously funny. He's probably the only version of "Jerk Sonic" that I like, because it's so overdone that it almost feels like a campy parody of the concept.

[Blazey Firekitty]

I feel that Black Knight was the most balanced portrayal of Sonic I've seen so far. He made wisecracks, and had a "devil may care" sort of personality, but they still remembered to make him seem kind and pure in spite of that.

[BakingBluePotatoe]

I feel that Black Knight was the most balanced portrayal of Sonic I've seen so far. He made wisecracks, and had a "devil may care" sort of personality, but they still remembered to make him seem kind and pure in spite of that.

yeah. I loved that portrayal. (well, from what I've seen. A playthrough on YT till... close the end.)

I hope whoever was writing there write the next game. x3

("If you fall, I'm not picking you up!" "WHAT!? You better NOT drop me!" XD

"Ooo0o0o0, Halloween! x3" lol)

--------

To me, what made Sonic "Cool" was/is pretty simple:

He's a Blue Spikeball that runs really fast whilst smashing robots.

Simple as pie.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Dashing Blue

[Emerald Chaos]

I'd have thought a good game would be "cool" simply by being a good game.

I fail to see the point in this. Just because Sonic isn't "cool" doesn't excuse them from making games which lack quality.

Why is it SEGA seem to have all but given up on making great Sonic games whereas other big names continue to do so? What? Rather than make good games they'd rather focus on continuing to keep Sonic's "cool" image? That just feels stupid.

If Sonic isn't "cool" anymore then they should just make another IP rather than making Sonic something he was never intended to be.

[serpx]

SEGA says the quality of Sonic is going to improve. They also say they are going to make games specifically for us older players, as well as the audience that is kids.

My hope is that they will realize, when they finally make a good game for us core market, that a good basic Sonic game is all they need for their success of the hedgehog. A good basic Sonic game will reach all markets, because it's just simple fun, like Mario, which can be enjoyed by all. We don't need in-depth stories, at all.

In my opinion, Sonic could be as successful as some of these first person shooters if SEGA wasn't so blind.

[Badnik Zero]

Sonic was obviously supposed to be a brat in Japan as well in the olden days, as evidenced by the OVA (which was overseen by Sonic Team themselves). "SHUT UP, TAILS!".

Really, i think the more whitewashed version of the hedgehog that we have in the games now is a rather recent invention. Sonic used to be a punk, and he should have stayed that way.

Quoted for serious truth. The whole point of launching the Sonic mascot back in the '90s was to create a cooler video game alternative to Mario. Mario jumped on heads. Well that was boring, because Sonic rolls into a ball and shoots around off ramps. Sonic's got wild hair. He's impatient because he loves speed. I know AoStH pushed it a bit with its slapstick routines, but it's still a faithful adaptation of the Sonic persona. Look at Sonic X which was another Japanese production, and the attitude is still there. The English word "punk" is in the Japanese theme song for the show! Blazey mentioned SatBK. Sonic laughs at danger and finishes his food before finishing his fight. That's something you might see in AoStH!

It just seems like this kind of thinking is extremely backwards. Older gamers still remember how great Sonic was back in the day. It has less to do with cool, and more to do with the quality he's talking about. If you ask someone why they stopped playing Sonic the Hedgehog, I bet you'd get less of "Sonic is for kids" and more of "Sonic games suck ass". What's sad is that newer gamers might actually get the impression that Sonic is too immature (kiddy) for their tastes. Now even the president of SoE is saying because it's a kiddy series, we can expect that kind of quality, when it was the quality that drove older gamers away to begin with. I just don't understand why making good games would be bad for a game company. It sounds like he's excusing the poor state of the franchise.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Badnikz

[Djawed]

a good game doesnt need audiences. The audiences come autimatically if the game is good...

I think if sonic games would be actually really good than it would have the same thing as mario galaxy.

A game that is being loved by people that you wouldnt even expect to. Sonic games need quality. Audience shouldnt even play a role cuz that comes itself after words spread abouit a game.

I remember back in the days how i used to tell my friends how good sonic was. He couldve been a rabbit that looked like a junkie. But no sonic 1 was a good game, i enjoyed it and that is what should be important FIRST. than they can make the hedgehog maybe less ... yea i think they exegurate his personality sometimes. With the "my name is sonic the hedgehog" or "bring it on"..

but i am just asking for a very good game!!!

Edited August 14, 2009 by Jaouad

[Chaotix Prime]

Quoted for serious truth. The whole point of launching the Sonic mascot back in the '90s was to create a cooler video game alternative to Mario. Mario jumped on heads. Well that was boring, because Sonic rolls into a ball and shoots around off ramps. Sonic's got wild hair. He's impatient because he loves speed. I know AoStH pushed it a bit with its slapstick routines, but it's still a faithful adaptation of the Sonic persona. Look at Sonic X which was another Japanese production, and the attitude is still there. The English word "punk" is in the Japanese theme song for the show! Blazey mentioned SatBK. Sonic laughs at danger and finishes his food before finishing his fight. That's something you might see in AoStH!

Ha! Ya know, it's funny, when I first saw Sonic, not knowing a tidbit about him, I used to think, What's with the punk like guy? I thought he did look punkish, but nowadays I like to think his character has mostly grown out of this.

Long live the hedgehog!

Let's hope Sega looks at his more mature side for stories as of now. That's all I want, really.

[BlazingTales]

a good game doesnt need audiences. The audiences come autimatically if the game is good...

Amen to THAT! If they made a good game, technical and design wise, then EVERYONE should enjoy it. Not just kids or long time fans. It sort of saddens me that they say they will sacrifice quality to just make money off of kids. Why can't they make a decent game?

[Diogenes]

Amen to THAT! If they made a good game, technical and design wise, then EVERYONE should enjoy it.

I don't enjoy a lot of games that are very well made.

Everyone's got different interests and different tastes. Finding your audience is important no matter what sort of thing you're making.

[BlazingTales]

I don't enjoy a lot of games that are very well made.

Everyone's got different interests and different tastes. Finding your audience is important no matter what sort of thing you're making.

Yes, but you like Sonic and high speed platforming, correct? That means a quality Sonic game would be a dream. The point is is that if the game is good, the audience will come to it.

[Sean]

Not necessarily, there are many good games, movies, etc. that don't have very wide followings, apart from the usual cult following.

Oh and yeah... audiences are important. If there's no audience, a game won't be successful, and more games that are of that quality are not as likely to be made again. Don't underestimate the importance of a following.

[blackherox]

I fail to see the point in this. Just because Sonic isn't "cool" doesn't excuse them from making games which lack quality.

Is that what he's saying?

Why is it SEGA seem to have all but given up on making great Sonic games whereas other big names continue to do so? What? Rather than make good games they'd rather focus on continuing to keep Sonic's "cool" image? That just feels stupid.

I don't think they've given up, but its not as if anyone appreciates there efforts anyway. I don't get your other companies big names? Sega still make quality games, and if recent events are anything to go by there overall quality titles is more or less the same as other developers.

Ironically, this guy, said he continue to make more ood hardcore gaes on the Wii, even though House of Dead and Madworld weren't so hot, sales wise Beat a mountain of shovelware that ther devs have been giving it anyday.

If Sonic isn't "cool" anymore then they should just make another IP rather than making Sonic something he was never intended to be.

Why?

because it's just simple fun, like Mario, which can be enjoyed by all. We don't need in-depth stories, at all.

And thats my problem with Mario's current state. Its very minimalistic. Nothing new, always the same.

good game doesnt need audiences. The audiences come autimatically if the game is good...

A good game doesn't need an audience? So how is it supposed to sell?

I think if sonic games would be actually really good than it would have the same thing as mario galaxy.

A game that is being loved by people that you wouldnt even expect to. Sonic games need quality. Audience shouldnt even play a role cuz that comes itself after words spread abouit a game.

Well that's not really isn't the case. Ad Sega know that better than anybody. Am I right MadWorld?

Marketing, audience, interests, console climate, affordability etc are all VERY important aspects if one wants to make a successful game. The audience in particualar do not 'automatically' come to a game, especially if said game has had little to no advertisment.

[Phos]

At this point, I can't tell whether Sonic Team's failings are the result of Sonic Team not having the desire to make a good game or not knowing how.

[SuperStingray]

At this point, I can't tell whether Sonic Team's failings are the result of Sonic Team not having the desire to make a good game or not knowing how.

I'm no expert, but from what I can tell, it seems like more of the latter. Sonic Team's staff is always changing, not to mention it has multiple divisions, so it's more than likely that the games would be inconsistent. Besides, if they didn't have the desire to work on a Sonic title, why don't they just work somewhere else? Edited August 14, 2009 by SuperStingray

[Rusty Spy]

Is that what he's saying?

Pretty much.

They're basically saying that they're only going for the bare minimum in quality, just decent enough for their target demographic.

And frankly, that is very discouraging to me. If this is their general mindset when making a Sonic game, I honestly don't know if the quality will improve beyond what we have right now anymore.

[Blacklightning]

The point is is that if the game is good, the audience will come to it.

Tell that to Shenmue.

[blackherox]

Pretty much.

They're basically saying that they're only going for the bare minimum in quality, just decent enough for their target demographic.

And frankly, that is very discouraging to me. If this is their general mindset when making a Sonic game, I honestly don't know if the quality will improve beyond what we have right now anymore.

Well I've read the interview again and no he does not say that. However its easy to infer that he did. He mentioned the target group and about targeting said group which is true and the fact that a game doesn't have to get 90+ review scorres to be considered good/great/fun. So i've still yet too see the problem here. What he's saying in my opinion makes perfect sense.

Edited August 15, 2009 by BlackHeroX