Things You'd Like To See Explored More

[batson]

Also, going a bit off topic, Why the hell does everyone hate Cream?

Well, at least back when she first appeared, the hate aimed at her was largely due to the fact that she suddenly showed up and became promoted to major character despite not really brining anything new to the table. Remember, this was back when the Sonic cast was actually quite small compared to what it is today, and most major characters belonged to a specific character "archetype" that they were the series only representative of. And as far as most were concerned, Cream was essentially a mix of Tails "cute, innocent kid" archetype and Amy's "girlie-girl" archetype. In other words, she was an unnecessary addition to the cast.

Of course now, about 8 years and 10 000 new characters later, this whole "character archetype already taken" argument isn't really used much anymore since there are now plenty of characters who (more or less) belong to the same archetype, and people seem to have gotten used to the thought of having several characters with very similar roles and/or personalities. For instance, you rarely (if ever) hear anyone complain about Marine being around despite being very similar to Charmy with her "hyperactive kid" persona, or about Wave sticking around despite the fact that Rouge could fill up the "selfish bitch" quota by herself.

Edited May 30, 2011 by batson

[Kuzu]

Well, at least back when she first appeared, the hate aimed at her was largely due to the fact that she suddenly showed up and became promoted to major character despite not really brining anything new to the table. Remember, this was back when the Sonic cast was actually quite small compared to what it is today, and most major characters belonged to a specific character "archetype" that they were the series only representative of. And as far as most were concerned, Cream was essentially a mix of Tails "cute, innocent kid" archetype and Amy's "girlie-girl" archetype. In other words, she was an unnecessary addition to the cast.

Ya know she debuted AFTER Shadow did right? So that argument really holds no claim, considering everyone loved Shadow at that point.

Of course now, about 8 years and 10 000 new characters later, this whole "character archetype already taken" argument isn't really used much anymore since there are now plenty of characters who (more or less) belong to the same archetype, and people seem to have gotten used to the thought of having several characters with very similar roles and/or personalities. For instance, you rarely (if ever) hear anyone complain about Marine being around despite being very similar to Charmy with her "hyperactive kid" persona, or about Wave sticking around despite the fact that Rouge could fill up the "selfish bitch" quota by herself.

OR Blaze being Shadow/Knuckles, really I just think people do it, just because its apparently cool to hate the extra cast now.

[batson]

Ya know she debuted AFTER Shadow did right? So that argument really holds no claim, considering everyone loved Shadow at that point.

Yes, Shadow had already appeared as the third "rival" character in the series, but i guess perhaps people found his more "life or death" rivalry with Sonic to be different enough from Knuckles friendly rivalry to accept it as something different, and as for Metal Sonic... well actually, yeah, there really was some controversy regarding his and Shadow's similar roles even back then.

But anyway, im just telling you what i remember from that time. If you were active in the Sonic community yourself back in 2003, im sure you can recall there being a lot of comments on how "useless" Cream was due to her being "a mix between Tails and Amy" and therefore not "brining anything new" to the series. I for one certainly remember it, that's for sure.

Edited May 30, 2011 by batson

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

How the hell do archetypes decide whether a character was necessary or not? Last I checked, Tails filled more of the "Kid Genius" archetype than the "Cute, innocent kid" before Cream was even on the drawing board, so that position seems readily available for Cream to have. And if not, then Tails occupied 2 whole archetypes, no different than Cream does.

Heck, if Amy archetype is being a "girly-girl", she also served as the resident "Damsel in Distress" and "Love Interest", therefore filling 3 archetypes for one character. So I don't see how Cream isn't allowed to serve in 2 archetypes.

Do we really want to go dissecting this apart? Then again, this isn't something to be surprised at considering the fandom's history.

Edited May 30, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Your Vest Friend]

How the hell do archetypes decide whether a character was necessary or not?

Wasn't it said that this was the reson that Fang hasn't been brought back since Rouge existed in modern games now (circa 2004/5-ish, maybe), as said by an employee at the time? I dunno, it was ages ago, now. *shrug*

[batson]

How the hell do archetypes decide whether a character was necessary or not?

Well like i said, i was just reciting what i remember the discussions being like back then. Whether the arguments were ever valid or not, that's another question entirely.

But perhaps i should clarify that i dont mean that people specifically said "that archetype is already taken" (or maybe they did, but i personally dont recall hearing it). But that is nevertheless a good "summary" of peoples main complaints against Cream back in those days, regardless of how they phrased it. She was a "female Tails" or a "younger Amy".

But like i said, that argument seems to have died as the cast kept expanding and people saw more and more new characters with personalities similar to those of older characters.

[Your Vest Friend]

Never mind, found the Fang stuff. It was AAUK, circa 2008/9! I'd link to it, but I've heard that there's a filter on the website, so I'll just quote AAUK's part;

“Bringing back Nack would ultimately involve crafting a game of which Nack’s reappearance would be an essential part of the story thus justifying his return and the time neccessary to redesign and retool him to fit in with the current canon.

(…)

He can’t be a thief because thats Rouge’s roll now. If he was a mercinary for hire that’d be treading on the Rogue’s ground. In all seriousness, where does he fit? I like Fang/Nack but how do you get him back in without devaluing someone who is already there? And no ‘why can’t they just do it’ is not an answer.“

So yeah, some archetypes are at least noted by SEGA. Just not ones for hybrid-traited characters.

[Mega]

I know Vector's a supporting character, but that doesn't mean they have to make him an idiot. I dunno, I thought he was unique in that he's supposed to be a brawny guy with an actual brain.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

“Bringing back Nack would ultimately involve crafting a game of which Nack’s reappearance would be an essential part of the story thus justifying his return and the time neccessary to redesign and retool him to fit in with the current canon.

That wouldn't be hard to do for Nack. He could serve as a useful villain, and it wouldn't kill us to have a more recurring one other than Eggman.

He can’t be a thief because thats Rouge’s roll now. If he was a mercinary for hire that’d be treading on the Rogue’s ground. In all seriousness, where does he fit? I like Fang/Nack but how do you get him back in without devaluing someone who is already there? And no ‘why can’t they just do it’ is not an answer.“

Um, someone should've told AAUK that a mercenary and a thief along with Rouge being a spy/agent aren't anything alike.

I don't ever recall Fang being a thief in any kind of portrayal, and a mercenary for hire is completely different from Rouge's occupation. Rouge is a GUN agent and spy, loyal under their command like Shadow is and takes part in clandestine missions that would require her to be covert as opposed to out in the open.

A Mercenary for hire has absolutely no loyalty other than who pays them the most, or where the profit is much bigger, and will gladly go against any foe if the money is right. It's a completely different occupation as mercenaries will glady take part in open warfare as opposed to covert missions. That's not treading on anyone's ground.

And then there's bounty hunter, which is what I originally remember him being referred to as his occupation. Not too different from a mercenary except for the fact that they go specifically for people who have prices on their heads instead of open warfare.

[Diogenes]

Yeah, it'd be pretty easy to work Fang into things. Any similarities to Rouge can be played into a rivalry (either because they're both after the same jewels or because they're on opposite moral sides...or both), and there's plenty of room for a small-time antagonist in the series, either having him working for Eggman for power or profit, or just being a skeevy thief on his own.

[Kuzu]

Yeah, it'd be pretty easy to work Fang into things. Any similarities to Rouge can be played into a rivalry (either because they're both after the same jewels or because they're on opposite moral sides...or both), and there's plenty of room for a small-time antagonist in the series, either having him working for Eggman for power or profit, or just being a skeevy thief on his own.

[Skull Leader]

And then Bean and Bark can come along for the ride, huzzah.