Why do critics always pan Sonic storylines but give Mario a free pass?

[DabigRG]

This thread feels like it turned into a piss sucking festival and a declaration to nicheness.

2 hours ago, BaronGrackle said:

Sonic Adventure 2 was a strong shift away from the storytelling and tone of previous games. Those earlier games could be described without words like "government conspiracy", or "president", or "sexy and smooth". That atmosphere hung around for ShtH and had similar echoes in Sonic '06. But I think it's disappeared since then?

Fair enough.

[StaticMania]

I dunno what Mania has to do with "wanting" simple.

You pretty much want a game for what it offers.

Strikingly, Modern Sonic hasn't been offering serious...so that's not what it is delivering.

[Wraith]

2 hours ago, Diogenes said:

Superhero kids getting shot at but never actually getting hit is pretty fair game for a family-friendly action story, I'd say.

 

If you guys really want to use a pixar movie for the usual pearl clutching routine can you at least use one that doesn't open with a debate about the right to commit suicide? 

[Diogenes]

Who's clutching pearls?

[DabigRG]

16 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

I dunno what Mania has to do with "wanting" simple.

You pretty much want a game for what it offers.

Strikingly, Modern Sonic hasn't been offering serious...so that's not what it is delivering.

What's funny is that at least Lost World has had a habit of advertising themselves as fun adventures only for the game proper to delve into darker, more dramatic territory.

2 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

Who's clutching pearls?

Not Morganite.

[StaticMania]

13 minutes ago, Wraith said:

 

If you guys really want to use a pixar movie for the usual pearl clutching routine can you at least use one that doesn't open with a debate about the right to commit suicide? 

You mean...the right to save someone who's committing suicide.

[Wraith]

3 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

Who's clutching pearls?

Everyone invovled in the usual "Sonic Adventure 2 wasn't appropriate/accessible" conversation 

[Diogenes]

I'm not going on some kind of moralistic crusade I'm just saying I don't think kids getting shot is a good fit for this funny talking animal series. It simply doesn't fit the tone the series had established prior, and it's part of why SA2 is a major tipping point for the series losing its sense of identity.

[Wraith]

Sonic Adventure 2 is a different piece of art than the previous games made by a creative team that had changed drastically. I'd honestly encourage them to put more of themselves into it than try too hard to imitate the previous games. There's a limit to that, but I never really felt they went past it. 

I can admit that too drastic of a shift can be jarring, but that's a fault of the later games. Sonic Adventure 2 by and large carries the original spirit of the characters and is actually pretty lighthearted action fare for the vast majority of it's runtime. It involves bigger ideas like military but they're so exaggerated it feels like satire in the same way Sonic CD takes the idea of pollution to extreme ends for the sake of impacting the player. I personally think it's cool that they tried to do a story where Sonic turns his nose up at a more direct allegory for authority. It's as in-character as it gets for me. The new elements are definetly darker and more off-beat for the series but they use them to introduce different sides of the main characters which imo justifies their inclusion.

As someone who grew up watching shonen maybe I just can't see Shadow's backstory as inappropriate. It's very different from what Sonic usually covers for sure but I'm always pushing for my favorite IPs to be different so I might just be weird like that.  While some deride Shadow for that subplot I think it's a big reason why the character works. Shadow is supposed to be the true antithesis of Sonic and I don't think there's a better way to do that than emotional baggage since that's the opposite of Sonic's keep-moving-forward philosophy. I think GUN doing the deed ties everything together and nails them as incompetent and unfit for their role. My only real problem with the game and it's successors is that they lean too hard on shock over emotional impact, but I wouldn't agree with taking the subplot out just because of that. I think it reinforces the themes of the individual game which is imo more important than being in lockstep with the whole line. 

This kind of turned into an essay but I didn't really know how to cut it down. Feel free to focus on the last thing since Shadow's backstory is what we're actually talking about. 

[Badnik Zero]

Maybe what I’m trying to say is this. Why should anyone care about story in a Sonic game? Why would a reviewer care. No one who picks the games up to review is invested in the character of Sonic. The original draw of the games is its style. It’s speed, its art, its colors and music.

In order to make them care the story has to be good, whether it’s basic or a big sprawling saga, because no one picks up Sonic for the story except die hard fans. When the story chooses to be shonen, or any other genre, it puts itself in a hole. It needs to be a better story first because no one asked for it, and then it needs to be even better than that for the people who are not into the genre. I personally don’t care about dark tones in the series, I can get into that. But I realize that when the game starts to take itself too seriously people will react like, “what is this clusterfuck”, especially when the story is plain bad.

Mario is lauded by no one for its story. It is just there in the background. No one cares about Mario’s story. Actually no one cares about Sonic’s story either. Unleashed had a good story. No one cared. They praised the story of Generations and Mania because they were not stories. If it’s gonna make anyone care it’s gotta be good, and enjoyable to a variety of people.

[StaticMania]

34 minutes ago, Badnik Zero said:

The original draw of the games is its style. It’s speed, its art, its colors and music.

...and the character Sonic the Hedgehog.

Because that's a thing.

[Badnik Zero]

11 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

...and the character Sonic the Hedgehog.

Because that's a thing.

Yes. The character. Not the story. Sonic has enough character for reviewers just by wagging his finger and tapping his foot during his idle animation.

Reviewers only care about Sonic’s story if it’s especially good or bad. And it’s gotten pretty bad.

[StaticMania]

That's crazy. bro.

[Dr. Detective]

They turned the story of SA2 into an anime adaptation fit for a Saturday Morning cartoon. Very easily in fact. As a kid, I grew up with action cartoons and games for my age group that told stories of adventure that came packaged with the occassional heart-wrenching tale that didn't dance around death. I suppose it varies from person to person how far is too far but I personally don't believe SA2 was it.

That game was a fun action-adventure tale from start to finish with the only meaty tonal shift happening when the stakes appropriately raised to their highest point in the final story.

As for an answer to the question, its been answered on here already so I'll just concur with the statement that Sonic's desire to tell stories the way that it does leaves it more easily open to scrutiny than a Mario tale where it largely seems purposefully inconsequential. There are exceptions, like the Paper Mario stuff and what not, but on the whole its not explored too heavily.

All I know about Wario is that he likes money and he farts a lot. I do often find myself wondering what the backstory behind the flatulence is but then I remember that I've got a blue hedgehog to obsess over instead.

 

[DabigRG]

7 hours ago, Dr. Detective Mike said:

They turned the story of SA2 into an anime adaptation fit for a Saturday Morning cartoon. Very easily in fact. As a kid, I grew up with action cartoons and games for my age group that told stories of adventure that came packaged with the occassional heart-wrenching tale that didn't dance around death. I suppose it varies from person to person how far is too far but I personally don't believe SA2 was it.

 

Complete with Heavy Dog being interviewed about what went down during that raid.

[Diogenes]

11 hours ago, Wraith said:

It involves bigger ideas like military but they're so exaggerated it feels like satire in the same way Sonic CD takes the idea of pollution to extreme ends for the sake of impacting the player.

I dunno I feel exactly the opposite, GUN is way too mundane. The truck chase is the only part that really stands out to me; they've got robots and mechs but those kinds of things were already established in the series via Eggman and GUNbots have some of the lamest designs in the series, and aside from that it's basically just dudes in tactical gear barking orders and doing kinda shady shit. If they really wanted some kind of quasi-villainous government organization I would've preferred they go more MiB or something, give them a sense of style and tie them into the more fantastic end of things.

11 hours ago, Wraith said:

While some deride Shadow for that subplot I think it's a big reason why the character works. Shadow is supposed to be the true antithesis of Sonic and I don't think there's a better way to do that than emotional baggage since that's the opposite of Sonic's keep-moving-forward philosophy.

And that much I'm fine with; I'm not against there being something "weighty" in the series, I just want it to feel in tune with the rest of the series. There's any number of ways to give a character a past that drives them in the present; just off the cuff, they could've focused more on the connection between Gerald and Eggman and how Shadow feels about this dark reflection of his creator/possible father figure. Or they could've focused on how Shadow was ripped away from his family and essentially thrown forward in time, have him rage against humanity for stealing his life from him, tie in the stuff about humanity fearing him. Maybe these specific ideas wouldn't come together into a good game story, but it never had to be "government soldier shoots innocent girl".

[thumbs13]

I feel there are two different conversations going on. There's the "Sonic stuff isn't for kids", and the "Sonic's main appeal has changed over time." Shockingly, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I agree with the latter, but not the former.

X proves that Sonic stuff does work for kids. The thing is people really overestimate how "dark" sonic is. Ghetsis trying to murder you with Icicles was darker than most things in Sonic, let's be real here.

The second thing argues that Sonic used to not be about the world being at stake, which is true. That change meaning that people shouldn't care about the story in a Sonic game is a weird take, though. That argument really only works once. After, like Adventure 2, the norm should be to care about the stories because they've always been a big part of the game.

[Plasme]

I don't dislike Adventure 2's story, and actually I think parts of it are quite well executed. As I said before, Gerald's speech is decently voice acted and well presented. I also think other aspects are quite good, such as Sonic and Shadow's rivalry, because it's based upon their speed rather than something dumb which would come later (like Sonic and Zavok for example, who have nothing in common). It's really just a retread of Sonic vs Metal Sonic in terms of essence and mechanics, but at least it's sensible. I also think that the plot twists and character relationships are very cliche (Shadow turning good, Knuckles and Rouge' romance), but they are inoffensive.

The game does fall down in numerous areas, such as its poor translation and awful audio editing (with characters cutting each other off et cetera). The dialogue can also fall into the pre-Colors pitfall of spouting exposition rather than the characters actually talking to each other, which is it's worst failing. The game is just badly written and sometimes cringey (Shadow saying "no, I'm the coolest!"). But otherwise, it's probably one of the better Sonic stories and is fun for what it is.

While the likes of Sonic Adventure, Sonic and the Black Knight, Sonic Forces and Sonic Unleashed have stories ranging from 3/10-4/10, Sonic Adventure 2 probably has a 5/10 story. It's okay for what it is. Especially since Sonic games have always had awful or minimal stories, including in the classic era.

Yet even though I enjoy Adventure 2's story for what it is, I think you have to be seriously delusional not to claim that its story went off in a radically different direction to the series beforehand, even with Adventure 1. The game went for a more anime style and arguably for a more teen appeal. It was probably marketed at kids who grew up with the classic Sonic games who were then around thirteen when it came out on Dreamcast. And to be honest it worked, I was part of that demographic and thought it was badass when it was released, and I think the game and its iconography have always been more enjoyed by teenagers than kids. 

The art direction, gameplay style and soundtrack didn't radically change in Adventure for no reason. Sonic Team were trying to appeal to a slightly older early teenage demographic. The story was part of that, and Adventure 2 took those elements to the next level, fully leaving behind the remnants of Classic Sonic which the original Adventure still clung on to (the badniks, classic zones etc). I actually admire Adventure 2 for its courage of conviction in going all out in its direction with confidence.

And nowadays we see Sonic Team appealing to that same demographic, only we are older now and have nostalgia and a renewed appreciation for the Classic Sonic formula. So the same marketing strategy is essentially being used.

[Wraith]

1 hour ago, Diogenes said:

I dunno I feel exactly the opposite, GUN is way too mundane. The truck chase is the only part that really stands out to me; they've got robots and mechs but those kinds of things were already established in the series via Eggman and GUNbots have some of the lamest designs in the series, and aside from that it's basically just dudes in tactical gear barking orders and doing kinda shady shit. If they really wanted some kind of quasi-villainous government organization I would've preferred they go more MiB or something, give them a sense of style and tie them into the more fantastic end of things.

 

And that much I'm fine with; I'm not against there being something "weighty" in the series, I just want it to feel in tune with the rest of the series. There's any number of ways to give a character a past that drives them in the present; just off the cuff, they could've focused more on the connection between Gerald and Eggman and how Shadow feels about this dark reflection of his creator/possible father figure. Or they could've focused on how Shadow was ripped away from his family and essentially thrown forward in time, have him rage against humanity for stealing his life from him, tie in the stuff about humanity fearing him. Maybe these specific ideas wouldn't come together into a good game story, but it never had to be "government soldier shoots innocent girl".

There are things like the Jets that mindlessly bomb metal harbor that push things in an absurd direction for me. The footsoldiers in gun are never engaged with in SA2 and I think that was a deliberate attempt to avoid grounding them too much or putting a human face in it. This is mostly subjective tho so there's not much of an argument to be had. I wouldn't really mind if they exaggerated them more. I just like the concept and see what they were going for. 

I've never really liked any change to Shadow's backstory because I think moving on from a losing a friend is central to the character. I wouldn't mind a less violent spin on the idea but that's as far as I'm willing to go with changing it. Perhaps Maria simply wasn't able to overcome her disease. Then it's not really anyone's fault, and both Shadow and Gerald would contrast in how they deal with that. 

I understand that character death isn't a regular thing in this series and I dont really want it to be, but I think it's a key part of differentiating this character from the others. 

[Rosaleia]

On 6/30/2019 at 3:27 AM, Eurisko said:

I've said it for many years now, Sega should just keep Sonic a light hearted action/comedy where story is concerned. The OTT dramatic stuff should be kept well away from.  Though I think that Shadow The Hedgehog and Sonic '06 put a nail in that coffin anyway.

 

Not gonna work. SEGA opened pandora's box years ago by making/allowing more serious storylines. Whether we're talking from SatAM/Archie or SA1 and 2, now that they've introduced that to their fans, its going to be very difficult going back. Look no further than people's criticisms towards Colors, Lost World and even Boom. Once you set those kinds of expectations towards your fanbase its very difficult to just 'whoopsie!' and take it back.

And that I think, is essentially what makes up a large part of the difference between Sonic and Mario. Mario never gave people higher expectations in regards to the story. It came out during a day and age where story was more a non-factor, and never made the pretense that its focus was on the gameplay and little else. Sonic from almost his very introduction was more story and character driven. It doesn't matter if you think the other universes or previous games are canon or not, they nonetheless helped set a standard for a tone that resonates with people to this day. SEGA can't just run from that.

Furthermore, Sonic's image was never initially marketted as a timeless character. He was designed to be the 'cooler' alternative to Mario, and whats defined as 'cool' changes throughout the decades. Which would be fine, but that also means Sonic himself has to adapt with the times. Sonic can't BE a timeless hero in those circumstances, especially not in a story-driven medium. He has to grow and change to some degree, something that SEGA doesn't understand, because they keep trying to make him the equivalent of some timeless, Mickey Mouse-eque character who isn't in the same situation. Their biggest mistake was attempting to shove a single storyline on the series, when they could have just had multiple ones that came and went as the times changed. Similarly to the older universes, he could have had character development, but it wouldn't have been relevant to any story beyond the series it was told in.

[Eurisko]

32 minutes ago, Rosaleia said:

 

Not gonna work. SEGA opened pandora's box years ago by making/allowing more serious storylines. Whether we're talking from SatAM/Archie or SA1 and 2, now that they've introduced that to their fans, its going to be very difficult going back. Look no further than people's criticisms towards Colors, Lost World and even Boom. Once you set those kinds of expectations towards your fanbase its very difficult to just 'whoopsie!' and take it back.

And that I think, is essentially what makes up a large part of the difference between Sonic and Mario. Mario never gave people higher expectations in regards to the story. It came out during a day and age where story was more a non-factor, and never made the pretense that its focus was on the gameplay and little else. Sonic from almost his very introduction was more story and character driven. It doesn't matter if you think the other universes or previous games are canon or not, they nonetheless helped set a standard for a tone that resonates with people to this day. SEGA can't just run from that.

Furthermore, Sonic's image was never initially marketted as a timeless character. He was designed to be the 'cooler' alternative to Mario, and whats defined as 'cool' changes throughout the decades. Which would be fine, but that also means Sonic himself has to adapt with the times. Sonic can't BE a timeless hero in those circumstances, especially not in a story-driven medium. He has to grow and change to some degree, something that SEGA doesn't understand, because they keep trying to make him the equivalent of some timeless, Mickey Mouse-eque character who isn't in the same situation. Their biggest mistake was attempting to shove a single storyline on the series, when they could have just had multiple ones that came and went as the times changed. Similarly to the older universes, he could have had character development, but it wouldn't have been relevant to any story beyond the series it was told in.

That was a whopping reply I was pointing out that I feel that simple light-hearted storylines with a splash of comedy work better not just for Sonic but for the whole cast of characters. The over serious plots and acting don't. 

Lets face it, no matter what the current social trends are the fact remains that this is a series about a fast , anthropomorphic blue hedgehog and his friends  trying to stop a crazy fat man with a megalomaniacal complex from taking over a world. It doesn't need to be complex, it never has and I think Sega have started to realise that. 

Yes , he was the "Cooler" alternate to Mario AND many other video game characters of the early 90's but as someone who grew up at that time , it wasn't the "dude with a tude" schtick that made him, it was his games. Simple and to the point.  

This is why Mania was so highly received. you don't need the overly complex storytelling for Sonic. Just great games.

Welcome to the boards by the way 

[DabigRG]

Can most agree that if Sonic(or anything really) is gonna have stories, they should generally be adventurous, fun, and charming?

[Dr. Detective]

I actually do agree with the criticism that G.U.N is a little mundane.

Make it like the Navy from One Piece. They've got weirdos with elemental powers and people who can turn into animals over there. 

[DabigRG]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Detective Mike said:

I actually do agree with the criticism that G.U.N is a little mundane.

Make it like the Navy from One Piece. They've got weirdos with elemental powers and people who can turn into animals over there. 

The fuck...?

[Badnik Zero]

2 hours ago, thumbs13 said:

The second thing argues that Sonic used to not be about the world being at stake, which is true. That change meaning that people shouldn't care about the story in a Sonic game is a weird take, though. That argument really only works once. After, like Adventure 2, the norm should be to care about the stories because they've always been a big part of the game.

I get that the epic story has been a part of Sonic for a while (I’d even argue that it goes back to how atmospheric the last stages of the later classic games were in terms of epic), but past Sonic Adventure 2, that never really caught on. After a series jumps the shark, its critics can be pretty harsh. Reviewers have been done with epic stories in Sonic since Shadow’s game failed hard on the epic mark. What fans want is another deal, but reviewers don’t care about that kind of story.