What are some mandates by Sega you don't agree with?

[Zaysho]

Maybe just stop giving entitled children attention. Ian's writing isn't perfect (though he and the other comic staff at least give a shit which is far more than I can say about Sega) and is open to criticism but you aren't going to reason with idiots who want to be mad at him for things he literally doesn't control. There's zero reason to keep dredging this shit up that you found on Reddit/Twitter/YouTube and bringing it here.

[Sonario]

A really big chunk of their mandates are just asinine garbage that anyone in their right mind would reject, like "Shadow can't have friends", "Sonic can't express deep emotions" or "Only Tails and Eggman can be inventors".

 

The crown jewel of stupidity however, I would say is "Male animal characters can't wear pants." WHY?!

[Rabbitearsblog]

27 minutes ago, Sonario said:

A really big chunk of their mandates are just asinine garbage that anyone in their right mind would reject, like "Shadow can't have friends", "Sonic can't express deep emotions" or "Only Tails and Eggman can be inventors".

 

The crown jewel of stupidity however, I would say is "Male animal characters can't wear pants." WHY?!

I wonder if SEGA will ever change their mandates?

[Guergy]

On 5/17/2021 at 1:10 PM, Sonario said:

A really big chunk of their mandates are just asinine garbage that anyone in their right mind would reject, like "Shadow can't have friends", "Sonic can't express deep emotions" or "Only Tails and Eggman can be inventors".

 

The crown jewel of stupidity however, I would say is "Male animal characters can't wear pants." WHY?!

It isn't though that most fans want Sonic to be a miserable wreck of person but it would be relatable to see Sonic express some emotions like sadness, joy, anger, etc. As for the other stuff, it feels like most of the mandates should only apply to the games and not other Sonic media. 

[BLUzCLUz]

Keeping Hyper Sonic exclusive to 3&K.

[Rabbitearsblog]

2 hours ago, BLUzCLUz said:

Keeping Hyper Sonic exclusive to 3&K.

Yeah, when are they going to bring back Hyper Sonic?

[BLUzCLUz]

3 hours ago, Rabbitearsblog said:

Yeah, when are they going to bring back Hyper Sonic?

Um, when pigs fly?

[Razule]

1 hour ago, BLUzCLUz said:

Um, when pigs fly?

Pigs have been in planes.

[Kazhnuz]

Honestly, Hyper Sonic is a mandate I totally get behind, because from a story perspective, Hyper Sonic isn't really a good idea, for me. I see it as cool as a bonus, but simply adding a +1 form to the Chaos Emerald and the Super Form is imo kinda weak for a story, as it doesn't provide anything really interesting except an augmentation of power of things that are already super-powerful. And it's a simple way to fall into wanting too much "ultimate forms +1", which can be… quite spectacularly bad

And even as an "occasion thing for hyper powerful threat", adding the Hyper Form seems to me not really interesting because it's just "oh no its too powerful, time to go level infinity+1"., and would still make the Super Form kinda mundane.

 

I really don't see that as really compelling, except for some kind of fanservice. For me, it's no surprise that they have preferred thematic super form to that, which are imo way more interesting and useful to a story.

So for me, it's better storywise that Hyper Form are just that nice bonus that exists in S3&K. At most they can be some reference, but making them anything relevant in-story would just be a bad idea. Not an horrible one that would destroy any good storytelling in the saga of course, but not a good one.

[BLUzCLUz]

On 9/21/2021 at 11:35 PM, Razule said:

Pigs have been in planes.

But let's get real, Hyper Sonic is likely never coming back, like it or not.

[CommanderAbe]

• Sonic was not allowed to “lose”. He could be "put down" and experience hardship but was not allowed to completely 'fail'. Yeah, no, SEGA, that's not how this works

[Dr. Mechano]

1 hour ago, CommanderAbe said:

• Sonic was not allowed to “lose”. He could be "put down" and experience hardship but was not allowed to completely 'fail'. Yeah, no, SEGA, that's not how this works

I mean, doesn't he unambiguously lose at the beginning of Forces?

Or the beginning of Unleashed, when Eggman tricks him and uses him to charge his planet-breaking laser?

Or that whole dying thing in Sonic 06? Something he can't overcome himself, mind you - his friends have to bring him back.

I mean, if these three examples are merely "experiencing hardship" instead of true "losses," then I feel like there's not a meaningful distinction between the two. Practically speaking, Sonic is allowed to lose, and has already lost several times.

[Razule]

I can only assume people who complain about this one don't read the comics. He can lose the battle, but he has to win the war. Obviously, because the alternative is usually death or something horrible. It's essentially "don't kill Sonic" or "don't put Sonic in a hopeless situation".

We've known about this one for ages, and it's clearly not as retrictive as it might initially seem. Like, maybe some story arcs got shortened because of it, like Sonic needing to win immediately after he got beat up in Archie issue 175, but we just had an arc where he took L after L while also turning into a zombie for a year.

[PublicEnemy1]

4 hours ago, CommanderAbe said:

• Sonic was not allowed to “lose”. He could be "put down" and experience hardship but was not allowed to completely 'fail'. Yeah, no, SEGA, that's not how this works

Um, that's exactly how this works? The heroes are kinda supposed to win out in the end, that goes for almost all media, especially for children. Doesn't mean you can't put them through the wringer before they win. That's what makes it all the more satisfying when they come out on top.

[Dr. Mechano]

26 minutes ago, PublicEnemy1 said:

Um, that's exactly how this works? The heroes are kinda supposed to win out in the end, that goes for almost all media, especially for children. Doesn't mean you can't put them through the wringer before they win. That's what makes it all the more satisfying when they come out on top.

I think the wording is just a little weird.

Temporary losses are still losses. So regardless of the mandate's phrasing, Sonic is still "allowed to lose" individual battles and conflicts.

But I think some fans read this rule and assume, "Oh. Sonic can't ever lose at anything, ever," which isn't true.

[PublicEnemy1]

1 hour ago, Dr. Mechano said:

I think the wording is just a little weird.

Temporary losses are still losses. So regardless of the mandate's phrasing, Sonic is still "allowed to lose" individual battles and conflicts.

But I think some fans read this rule and assume, "Oh. Sonic can't ever lose at anything, ever," which isn't true.

That's why I said "in the end". Of course heroes can have temporary losses,or even bittersweet victories that may have permanent repercussions.

[CommanderAbe]

5 hours ago, Razule said:

I can only assume people who complain about this one don't read the comics. He can lose the battle, but he has to win the war. Obviously, because the alternative is usually death or something horrible. It's essentially "don't kill Sonic" or "don't put Sonic in a hopeless situation".

We've known about this one for ages, and it's clearly not as retrictive as it might initially seem. Like, maybe some story arcs got shortened because of it, like Sonic needing to win immediately after he got beat up in Archie issue 175, but we just had an arc where he took L after L while also turning into a zombie for a year.

I did read Archie Sonic before reboot

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It’s definitely bad wording, but even then losing a war doesn’t have to be permanent either.

And honestly, it’s not just bad wording, but the sort of black-and-white vibe it gives off. It may not be intended, but when people see how something is presented in a way that doesn’t help it’s case…well, it doesn’t help the mandate’s case. You say Sonic doesn’t lose, and if the audience see Sonic always beating his foes without breaking a sweat in a struggle, how are they not going to interpret that as Sonic always has to win?

Sonic should be allowed to lose, not just a battle, but a war as well. There’s still something worthwhile in watching/playing him as an underdog that recovers and then wins the next war after gathering those still ready to fight.

They should be more interested in keeping  things continuous, on going, so that regardless of whether Sonic gets a good or bad ending, the show can still go on with him.

Of course, portraying his loss as something trivial and lacking tension like they did in Forces doesn’t help either—in that example, the desire to see more struggle in Sonic came off so half-heartedly that it felt like it was mocking people for wanting more tension and edge. There’s a decent and a bad way to present what the audience is asking for. Here’s hoping Flynn’s writing in Frontiers gives us a change in pace we’re looking for.

[Piko]

If this thread has proved anything, it’s that fans take the mandates way too literally. “Sonic can’t lose” doesn’t mean “Sonic can’t face even the slightest amount of tension” as there have been plenty of moments where he has technically “lost”. It means he has to win in the end, which is just basic storytelling, especially in children’s media.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Not gonna lie, I would love to see a sort of “downer ending” where Sonic severely loses and has to work twice as hard the next game to make things right. Or something similar to those lines.

Done well, of course.

[Guergy]

That would be novel except that Sonic is similar to Mario in that it is not really going to have a downer ending. Sonic is a game series that relatively lighthearted and Sega wants to keep it that way. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I don’t see how being lighthearted has anything to do with having a downer ending.

Like are we really going to do this “Sonic is lighthearted, not dark” stick for the millionth time again?

[Rabbitearsblog]

4 hours ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

I don’t see how being lighthearted has anything to do with having a downer ending.

Like are we really going to do this “Sonic is lighthearted, not dark” stick for the millionth time again?

I agree with this.  I mean, I've seen a lot of lighthearted stories that have downer endings, so I don't see a problem with any of the Sonic stories having downer endings from time to time.

[Kazhnuz]

The issue with the downer ending is more the format than anything else. Sonic tell mostly self-contained stories (even when there is continuity), so a downer ending would nearly lock the next game, and if it doesn't happens. I mean, both downer ending where we still have stuff to do in Sonic won't ever get resolved (S4E2, Sonic Chronicles). IMO it would works in comic/cartoon but for the game it put too much of a constraint for how works currently the Sonic Team. Especially now that we have nearly 5 years between games xD

Now, bittersweet ending like Shadow in SA2 or Gamma in SA work better for the format of Sonic, IMO. Finish the self-contained story with a sad moment, I'm all for it.

[Starry Skydancer]

According Ian Flynn, Sega have said that; Shadow and Rouge are not friends, and Team Dark are "Not a thing."

Presumably they told him to not write them as friends.

Perhaps I should take what he claims with a pinch of salt, but I don't entirely understand how he would have got this mistaken, either.