Would you still be a Sonic fan if...

[S0NIC-Keyblade 007]

I remember a few years ago during the Sonic 2006 crisis when people were just about to give up on the Sonic franchise. People were complaining about the games introducing too many characters, 4kids voice actors, gameplay being a mess, storylines contradicting themselves, etc. Yeah yeah same old same old, the Sonic fanbase was having a fit. However, what really caught my attention was how some people wanted Sega to just give up on Sonic games and sell the franchise to Nintendo or something. I know understand that Sega hasn't exactly been creating many award winning Sonic games lately (though I do believe their improving from their 2003-2006 works), but I can't really begin to imagine Sonic without Sega. In my opinion, Sonic pretty much is Sega, even if some of the games that Sega have made lately haven't really been "great", they have still been able to keep Sonic's style that I have loved and followed throughout my entire life. Whether it's Sonic's attitude or the music artists Sega hires to make music, Sega has never really failed to deliver the Sonic style that I've fallen in love with 15 years ago. Though I wonder if Sega were ever to let go of Sonic if they were to go bankrupt or if they simply "gave up", would Sonic still feel the same to me?

Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood was a Sonic game not made by Sega but, another 3rd party company called Bioware. Though the game was good in my opinion the simple fact that the game wasn't made by Sega still made the game feel sorta meh to me. Especially when Sonic seemed sorta out of character in some scenes, but I still enjoyed the game. And of course, we can't forget about Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Though Sonic wasn't the main character in Brawl, his character was still handled by a company other than Sega. However, I believe Nintendo did an overall good job with Sonic. He had character in his annimations and they did a good job showing Sonic's attitude(especially in the "Sonic joins the Brawl" trailer). However, Nintendo using Sonic in a game, and Nintendo owning Sonic are two completely different concepts. I just don't know how Sonic would work if he was owned by a different company than Sega such as Nintendo. Though if Nintendo ever did buy Sonic off of Sega, the first thing that would come to my head is "Will the game have dialouge that includes voice acting?" *Looks at the Mario and Zelda franchises" I'm sorry to keep using Nintendo as an example, but I just thought it would be appropriate since about 70% of the Sonic fanbase today are Nintendo fans, that and because I've heaard the idea of Nintendo buying Sonic so many times. So what do you guys think, would you continue running along Sonic's side if he was owned by another company?

[Teoleulbogo]

I probobly would still be a fan if Nintendo took over Sonic, however I don't really agree with the idea. I agree that Sonic really is what makes Sega what it is, and the same goes the other way around. What I had suggested for Sega to do back when '06 left everyone speechless(actually if anything '06 made people talk more)was for Sega to give Sonic a break and focuss on some of it's other great franchises like Phantasy Star, Ristar, or Jet Set Radio. But back to the main subject I personaly think that if Nintendo were to take the reins Sonic would become a rather different franchise. On one hand, it would probobly have Improved platforming, but on the other, it would most likely become a bit less story oriented. Now, that could be good or bad depending how you look at it, but the fact of the matter is Sega is doing better, and I don't think a company change will be in Sonic's near future.

[psikeout]

For me, the brand on the box hasn't meant a thing since the day the games stopped proudly blaring "SEEEGAAA" at the start. I just like the characters themselves. But, to be fair, ask me after Needlemouse; then we'll see how elated or disappoint-dad I ultimately am with Sega.

[S0NIC-Keyblade 007]

On one hand, it would probobly have Improved platforming, but on the other, it would most likely become a bit less story oriented.

So suppose Nintendo bought Sonic and made the franchise less story-oriented. Do you think that would take an important aspect away of what the Sonic franchise is? Well considering the fact that Sonic had some story oriented games ever since the genesis era (story oriented compared to Mario games anyway) which made the series feel edgier and more unique than other family friendly video games, considering the fact that the series is about a blue cartoony hedgehog.

Edited February 1, 2010 by S0NIC Toadstool

[Rusty Spy]

To me, selling Sonic to Nintendo shows weakness. Weakness in Sega to not get their act together and really embrace what makes a Sonic game tick, and if Sega shows that kind of weakness, it will translate in my feelings toward Sonic as a weak franchise.

A QUITTER!

And if Sonic and Sega are quitters, than there's no reason for me to NOT follow suit.

[Frozen Nitrogen]

For me, the brand on the box hasn't meant a thing since the day the games stopped proudly blaring "SEEEGAAA" at the start. I just like the characters themselves. But, to be fair, ask me after Needlemouse; then we'll see how elated or disappoint-dad I ultimately am with Sega.

^ This.

Although I thought Bioware did a sterling job with the characterisation in Chronicles. They just... kinda forgot to put much game in there. I would be very inclined to give them a second chance, though. Pretty much my dream game would be "Baldur's Gate 2 - but Sonic!", and I'm sure Bioware could do that if they set their minds to it.

[Teoleulbogo]

So suppose Nintendo bought Sonic and made the franchise less story-oriented. Do you think that would take an important aspect away of what the Sonic franchise is? Well considering the fact that Sonic had some story oriented games ever since the genesis era (story oriented compared to Mario games anyway) which made the series feel edgier and more unique than other family friendly video games, considering the fact that the series is about a blue cartoony hedgehog.

That is kinda what I'm saying. We all(or at least mostly)chose Sonic of Mario because of his edgeiness and interesting(if not a bit predictable)story, and Sonic has been, for the most part, as edgey as he can be. Now Nintendo creates amazing games but(with few exceptions)they aren't as edgey as Sega. Which is why I am not a fan of the idea of a "Nintendo Sonic" it would just not be the same Sonic we all know.

[SuperStingray]

Although I thought Bioware did a sterling job with the characterisation in Chronicles. They just... kinda forgot to put much game in there. I would be very inclined to give them a second chance, though. Pretty much my dream game would be "Baldur's Gate 2 - but Sonic!", and I'm sure Bioware could do that if they set their minds to it.

Sonic Chronicles felt like a (very) short JRPG that wanted to be Mass Effect. It's linear and has turn-based battles rather than real-time ones, but the story and dialogue is almost copy-pasted from Mass Effect.

[Thirsty Pocket]

Id want Masahiro Sakurai to take the helm. He takes the time to understand what made the characters great, and plus, Kirby games are amazing, with a surreal environment eerily similar to early sonic, And the revenge of Metaknight brings non-overdone seriousness to the game. I beleive the man who made Kirby would be perfect to handle Sonic.

But more on topic, Im no Sega fan. There are only a handful of games outside of Sonic that they made that interested me, so I wouldn't care if Sega gave him up to another company.

It all comes down to who takes Sonic, and how he is handled. I dont know about Nintendo. They do fine work, but neglect all franchises save for once every generation, unless its Mario or Pokemon. I dont know who else would be good for Sonic though, As I dont know enough about the other big names in gaming, save for maybe Capcom, Konami, Rareware, and DataEast... none of them seem to be good candidates IMO, but I could be wrong.

[redmenace]

Depends, but probably not. It's rare the Sonic from other company that I've liked, INCLUDING Dimps (which is weird I know but that's it).

Nintendo picking Sonic? I'd probably let it go and wouldn't come near within ten feet from it. Capcom would be the only company I'd trust somewhat and even that...

I've got a feeling that Sonic wouldn't be Sonic if it wasn't handled by Sega either, no matter how good other companies might be. There's a feel to it, a feel to many good Sega games, that the others do not have. It's that spirit that makes Sonic unique to me and I doubt it could be emulated by anyone else.

Edited February 1, 2010 by redmenace

[Meow]

I don't want Nintendo in control of Sonic, no thanks. If anyone I'd put my faith in Capcom if I -had- to.

Otherwise if Sonic went to be a Nintendo owned franchise I'd probably stay a fan but the new titles would no longer be of interest to me, since personally I have not liked how Nintendo has handled the Mario franchise since Mario 64 (just my opinion though lol) and I don't want them to be handling the Sonic titles =/.

[Mick]

It wouldn't be the end of the world to me if Sonic wasn't a part of Sega. Would I play the games with Sonic and it wasn't made by Sega? Yes! Just as long as they're fast and challenging. It has to be fun as well and I like knocking out those badniks. I really don't think it would make a great big difference if Sonic wasn't a part of Sega. It may be strange at first, but I know people won't mind it in the long run.

[Marcello]

I'd still be a fan, even though I'd have to get used to Sonic not being SEGA.

Nintendo does alot more retro stuff in Mario games. I mean is there a new Mario game that doesn't have the Underground theme? Nintendo would do a whole bunch of that type of stuff. I'm sure the game would be great, because I know Nintendo almost always makes great games.

[Djawed]

Simple answer: No I wouldn't. Im firstly a SEGA fan, second a sonic fan. I enjoyed sonic the most in my childhood that is why he is very close to me. But the success of SEGA as a whole is more important for me than just sonic's succes

[Mort]

For me it would really depend on who owns and is making the games. I personally think Nintendo would do a great job with Sonic as well as a couple third party developers.

[AuroraRedwinters]

SEGA is one of Sonic's middle names, so no thanks.

Besides if Sonic went to Nintendo let's say, I can kiss my beloved Sonic comic series goodbye.

[Tweaker]

Sonic is Sonic, regardless of what company licenses the character. The trademark SEGA logo at the start of each game may be part of the experience for sure, but at the end of the day, what matters are the games themselves. As long as the same people bring the magic to the screen, the company associated with it is completely irrelevant.

[Ebby]

Can I even GIVE UP Sonic? I don't think so.

If you ask me, Sonic already feels partly owned by Nintendo showing up on the Gamecube, DS, and the Wii. If I haven't been stopped by these things, I won't stop if Sonic gets sold. Hell, if it makes Sonic games better I don't mind, even though I have faith in SEGA. Unleashed was the best Sonic game I played in years, so I know they can do it.

[Remynaka]

CAPCOM....... that's it. That's the ONLY company I think can make a sonic game feel like sonic if sega gave him up. Tho I think Sonic would die before sega sold him. Nintendo...... I never liked the idea when people joke about it... I don't like the idea now. It just wouldn't work.

[Gavvie]

Yes, I would. I've enjoyed the games where SEGA didn't hold too much control, and I've certainly enjoyed the newer Sonic games where others would claim (wrongly, in certain cases), that SEGA are losing control.

To me, Sonic is plain and simply an awesome character, and whether his games are crap or not, he has remained that character. Would I like to see a Sonic game handled with the same care and attention as a game along the lines of Super Mario Galaxy? Of course I would. Was I at all disappointed with the end result of Sonic Unleashed? Chip aside, no, not really. I could even see the logic in the Werehog sequences (they'd make a good spin-off game, if the levels were a bit shorter and quicker).

The only Sonic game which has frustrated me to no end was Sonic '06. It's the only game I've played where I lost interest, lost patience, and eventually lost my temper. Hell, I even like Shadow the Hedgehog!!

As stated earlier on in the thread, Sonic isn't about the brand on the box. Sonic's Sonic, and he always will be.

[Badnik Zero]

I dunno. Sega is synonymous with Sonic for me, it'd be hard to lose that. I like seeing that little Sonic Team logo even though I know the team's changed players over the years. I don't think I'd be welcoming of changes made to the series outside of Sega. If the games were that good under someone else though...

Edited February 1, 2010 by Cupcake Hedgehog

[Chooch]

Yes because I love Sonic for being Sonic. Not because he's Sega's mascot.

Not to say I don't love Sega too. They've brought me other fantastic games.

[BlazingTales]

To answer your question, of course I'd still love Sonic! As long as they don't turn him into something totally different, then I'd stick with him.

I'd find it interesting to see how'd they deal with him if they had an entire game to do so. I have a feeling they could come up with some awesome gameplay ideas. Maybe the quality would go WAY up, but at what price, if any?

That is kinda what I'm saying. We all(or at least mostly)chose Sonic of Mario because of his edgeiness and interesting(if not a bit predictable)story, and Sonic has been, for the most part, as edgey as he can be. Now Nintendo creates amazing games but(with few exceptions)they aren't as edgey as Sega. Which is why I am not a fan of the idea of a "Nintendo Sonic" it would just not be the same Sonic we all know.

One thing I kind of dislike about certain Nintendo franchises are that the stories and VERY predictable. Granted, Sonic always has the same base plot, but he still has can somehow tell an... interesting, even "edgey" story. That's probably the reason I've stuck with him for so long: Nintendo repeats for the same awesome result; Sonic repeats for something totally "new" in a sense.

Edited February 1, 2010 by BlazingTales

[DMNBT]

A game (any game, not just Sonic's) should stand out by it's own merits, not by who developed it. I don't care who developed a game, I care if it's fun to me.

[Brianzilla2004]

It would break my gaming heart to see Sonic and SEGA part. But that isn't going to happen unless SEGA goes under, and they're not going under. In fact, they're improving universally by the looks of it. They have more AAA titles coming out these days than they did in, say, 2006, and overall scores for their products are on the rise.

Some might say that Sonic makes SEGA. I think that it's SEGA that makes Sonic. SEGA has a certain style that comes out in their games. Vectorman, Billy Hatcher, Jet Set Radio. They all share something special that comes out in Sonic's games as well. Based on their track record, I doubt Nintendo will ever capture my intrigue like SEGA has. I liked Rare's work on the Donkey Kong franchise, but now they're owned by Microsoft, so why would I want anything to do with Nintendo?

I would still love the character as I do today, even with the catastrophic voice work Jason Griffith provides, which always induces cringes. But I don't think I could ever love any of Sonic's games ever again. Not unless Nintendo basically keeps business going as it is these days. To be fair though, I'm skeptical I'll ever love a new Sonic game. If Sonic Team can't provide the thrills of the old school Sonic days with Project Needlemouse, then I can't imagine they'll ever reproduce the wonders of my favorite games...