How come Nintendo treats Mario better than SEGA does with Sonic the Hedgehog?

[Rabbitearsblog]

So over the years, most of the Mario games have been consistently good and Nintendo seems to take really good care of the Mario series.  But, when it comes to Sonic the Hedgehog, SEGA has been putting out a lot of mediocre games for the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise and they seem to treat Sonic pretty badly, especially when it comes to the games. So, how come Nintendo has treated Mario better in terms of the games, than SEGA has with Sonic the Hedgehog?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

They don’t treat Mario “better” than they do “stricter” than Sega does with Sonic.

It’s a blessing and a curse—on one hand, less room for mess ups, but less room for freedom.

[MetalSkulkBane]

CrownSlayer'sShadow has a point. Mario has no ongoing comic, no fan games, etc.

But generally it's just a question "why Sega makes bad games" which has little to do with their old rival. I mean, Sonic Shuffle was made by same people who made Mario Party, and yet game came out bad (similar case with Chronicles), so somethings are just a mystery.

Maybe it's different philosophy of design? Maybe Nintendo knows Mario is King of Games, so it's their duty to keep certain level of quality, when Sonic doesn't have to live up to same pedestal?

[sonicclaasic]

14 hours ago, Rabbitearsblog said:

So over the years, most of the Mario games have been consistently good and Nintendo seems to take really good care of the Mario series.  But, when it comes to Sonic the Hedgehog, SEGA has been putting out a lot of mediocre games for the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise and they seem to treat Sonic pretty badly, especially when it comes to the games. So, how come Nintendo has treated Mario better in terms of the games, than SEGA has with Sonic the Hedgehog?

Nintendo cares about Mario their mascot and gives quality control over their game character Mario their best of the ability’s on Mario. And other Nintendo characters as well.

Where Sega doesn’t give Sonic the same treatment that Mario Is getting from Nintendo. Back when the Sonic first game came out on the Sega Mega Drive In the 90’s they have taken the time giving Sonic that quality control up-to the Sega Dreamcast era with the Sonic Adventure games.

Today Sega don’t seem to give us any good Sonic games In a while. Sonic Frontiers was a good game I did enjoy It but I felt It was lacking In certain areas.

I enjoyed the 90’s era Sonic games In the golden era of the 90’s. Maybe one day we might get a good Sonic game but who knows.

[Danj86]

10 hours ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

They don’t treat Mario “better” than they do “stricter” than Sega does with Sonic.

It’s a blessing and a curse—on one hand, less room for mess ups, but less room for freedom.

My head cannon always assumed that Nintendo became so bitter over games like Mario is Missing, Hotel Mario and the Zelda iOS games that they just said "Well...those turned out awful. We can't allow quality like that to ever happen again."

So they clenched there IPs so close, to the point that it's almost restrictive. Though with that in mind, I'm certainly not gonna claim I understand Nintendo's thought process. They frequently baffle me too.

8 hours ago, MetalSkulkBane said:

CrownSlayer'sShadow has a point. Mario has no ongoing comic, no fan games, etc.

Actually....though it's not widely known, especially in English speaking countries. A Mario Manga had been going on since 1991, I think? Based on what I've read, it hadn't been translated into any other language until the mid 2010s. Even more surprising is that the Manga series is still going and has adapted a good number of the main games. It doesn't take itself too seriously. If you got the original Mario Maker on Wii U, we did get a cameo Mario sprite based on the manga version called Mario-kun.

Side note. The Manga also adapts certain Yoshi, Wario, Luigi and even Donkey Kong titles. Some of which does mean Mario is shoehorned into the plot. The elephant in the room is that while some have been released in English, it was only a handful of chapters. Almost half of the books have been translated into French and Spanish at least. According to Wikipedia anyway....

[Scritch the Cat]

Mostly this is due to the companies having different roles and different plans for profit.

Nintendo and SEGA started the console race in similar places but since diverged heavily.  Last time SEGA had a console fail—for the second time in a row, no less—their response was to exit the console race entirely and just make games for whatever platform they want.  Nintendo has stubbornly refused to exit the console race and employed various strategies to make their consoles viable even as they lag behind the competition in raw power.  While Nintendo initially managed to gain the lead by introducing motion controls, that lead was lost when motion controls were then copied to death.  So now that Nintendo is back in the quandary of competing despite a very underpowered console, they absolutely have to prioritize Nintendo-exclusive series as the incentive to buy them.  Thus most Mario games on the console have to be both new and good.  Thus most Zelda games on the console have to be both new and good.  Thus most Smash Bros games on the console have to be both new and good.  Thus most Pokemon games on the console have to be both new and...well, three out of four ain’t bad.

That’s far less true of Sonic because SEGA does not make hardware anymore.  Thus there is less need to make new and good Sonic games.  They don’t have to be world-class because the real money-makers of SEGA no longer depend on it, and because by now they have such a large back-catalogue of already-existing Sonic games that are good, Sonic keeps making money in and of itself with less need for new ones.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Probably helps that Software is more malleable than hardware, and the range it can have when not exclusive to hardware allows a lot more room to maneuver.

But that’s just the PC enthusiast in me talking. Which is hilariously ironic give that I also own a Switch.

[jungle_penguins]

I really do think half the questions on the brand compared to other brands can be summarized as what Sonic was doing in the 2000s. 

[Wraith]

Nintendo knows how important it is that Mario's core appeal is retained through multiple generations and mediums. Mario has evolved and made a lot of big swings over the years but they've stayed true to their focus on the joy of movement. There's not a mainline Mario game where you're not running and jumping. Anything that defers is clearly labeled at as a spinoff and does a lot to keep the same look and feel.

Sega was careless and figured once they had a hit game they only needed the name and face to move units. Sonic games were rushed to the market half finished, with mechanics gutted or outright removed between titles and replaced with whatever seemed trendy at the time with no consideration for how it would fit. This "just take him and slap him on something that's already selling" approach was applied everywhere from comics to tv shows to film. They were technically right, but compare Super Mario Odyssey's sales to Sonic Frontiers's and see how much a more steady hand and more reverence for the original titles would have benefited them over the years.

[Dr. Detective]

Sonic's lucky to still be around, honestly. Even here in the 2020s where I'm consistently loving and having more fun with pretty much everything they're putting out now, it still feels like we're struggling in places we shouldn't be. I don't want to resign myself to the idea that this is how it'll always be forever since a lot of what's been happening lately is stuff I had given up on back in the 2010s but comparing Mario to Sonic feels a bit foolish nowadays. I didn't even know video game sales could go as high as they do for Odyssey for a game that's only on one console and wasn't one of them multiplayer shooters. Or Smash Bros. Or Mario Kart.

I've recently learned to never say never but it became incredibly hard to keep the faith when it just became more apparent back in the 2010s and even a tiny bit before then how little say we have in the trajectory of the series. Having faith in a company, something that isn't a person and something you have no means of direct contact with nor any assurance they'll care what you have to say sets in a feeling of hopelessness that's hard to shake off. Even when things are going well that feels true, because they could decide to let the ball drop all over again, for no reason, anytime they want.

 

 

[Slashy]

On 4/24/2023 at 2:49 AM, MetalSkulkBane said:

CrownSlayer'sShadow has a point. Mario has no ongoing comic, no fan games, etc.

But generally it's just a question "why Sega makes bad games" which has little to do with their old rival. I mean, Sonic Shuffle was made by same people who made Mario Party, and yet game came out bad (similar case with Chronicles), so somethings are just a mystery.

Maybe it's different philosophy of design? Maybe Nintendo knows Mario is King of Games, so it's their duty to keep certain level of quality, when Sonic doesn't have to live up to same pedestal?

Mario has an ongoing comic though, has been since like 1990

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Slashy
Damn it I should have read the whole thread.

[Scritch the Cat]

On 4/25/2023 at 6:22 AM, Wraith said:

Nintendo knows how important it is that Mario's core appeal is retained through multiple generations and mediums. Mario has evolved and made a lot of big swings over the years but they've stayed true to their focus on the joy of movement. There's not a mainline Mario game where you're not running and jumping. Anything that defers is clearly labeled at as a spinoff and does a lot to keep the same look and feel.

Sega was careless and figured once they had a hit game they only needed the name and face to move units. Sonic games were rushed to the market half finished, with mechanics gutted or outright removed between titles and replaced with whatever seemed trendy at the time with no consideration for how it would fit. This "just take him and slap him on something that's already selling" approach was applied everywhere from comics to tv shows to film. They were technically right, but compare Super Mario Odyssey's sales to Sonic Frontiers's and see how much a more steady hand and more reverence for the original titles would have benefited them over the years.

I'd call this is an oversimplification, most notably because every mainline Sonic game also has a lot of running and jumping, and many arguably have more running than Mario games do.  The thing is that Sonic runs so much faster than Mario that it's arguably harder to design games around that core movement. In fact even in 2D they didn't have a totally consistent vision for how to design around it.  Going 3D makes it easier in some regard but still harder in others. 

If this was only ever a matter of characters being fun to move around then it wouldn't be too hard to make Sonic just as successful as Mario, but it isn't so it wasn't, and contrary to what you're implying, the joy of movement is not why Mario is a success.  That's the base of what makes Mario a success but without the new gimmicks added to each game on top of running and jumping to set them apart from other Mario games, the games would not keep selling this much.  And though this may be controversial, I do think Sonic also needs gimmicks to keep his games interesting in the long-run instead of just being more of the same.  It's just that most of the gimmicks added to Mario have been much better received than those added to Sonic, because they don't detract as much from what most people want to be doing in the game. 

I don't want to understate the importance of SEGA's dubious ethics rushing games out incomplete as a reason this series' reputation has sunken--it's certainly the main reason that people still can't stop mocking Sonic 06--but I also think it's probably harder to come up with gimmicks that fit with Sonic without them feeling like they slow him down (or as the case may be, force you to play as someone else who is much slower than Sonic, but that hasn't happened for a long time).  Mario's base run speed is high enough to be fun while not high enough to make most other gameplay mechanics require him to slow down to do them correctly, so most gimmicks added to Mario don't feel like they're taking anything away from him.  Mario's also not so fast as to require level designers to get into a completely different mindset to design around him.  Designing good levels for Mario isn't all that different from designing good levels for the vast majority of other platforming characters, but designing good levels for Sonic is a more unique beast, which has often incentivized Sonic designers to force slowdowns with their peripheral gameplay styles.  Even in the Genesis era, the segments where you were going your fastest and the segments when you were doing the most platforming were rarely the same ones.

I have more to say on this but I think it belongs in its own thread, so look for it soon.

[SynthSt0rm]

I believe the reason Sonic games as of recent have been just good at best during these times is because of the time crunch that is obviously been present for most people working at SEGA or Sonic Team. If you remember Sonic Origins, the Headcannon Studio Developer Simon Thomley was apparently put on a hard deadline for the anniversary of Sonic, even though it was obvious he wanted more time to work on the game.

There are also the old story writers, who controversially said they know nothing of the Sonic the Hedgehog characters nor the games themselves. Maybe it's a bunch of other factors, but we can only speculate.