• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Is Sega bad or just Sonic?

Mido

Version 1
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Location
The Turnabout
Would you argue that the serirs never really recovered from that?

I mean, this question isn't truly for me, but when I saw this, I began thinking: Ark is correct. While the years since 06 have been an inescapable low for the series, signs of life appeared sporadically during these years. Unleashed, while I am personally not a fan of the A jump and X homing attack, did make an honest attempt at restoring the series's once good grace. Colors and Generations arguably built up good faith in the frachise well, just not at the high levels seen during Sonic's heyday. Lost World, as many of you said, reaped mixed results. Boom, seemingly destroyed Sonic's slow rise. I can't quite speak about the handheld titles since the only one I played was Sonic Advance, which was quite good.
 

Pen

The game is on!
I don't know how popular my opinion is, but I think the Sonic franchise was doing it wrong from the start with the 2D side-scrolling games. The Sonic games have always been about running fast through the stages, right? You know the whole "Gotta go fast" and all that. At least whenever you play as Sonic. But in the old side-scroller games you can only see a few meters ahead of you as you're running, and if you're running fast (as the game wants you to) you have almost no time to react to the obstacles of the course because you can't see them in time. So if you want to be able to play through those 2D stages successfully you have to play them over and over until you memorise every obstacle. I think the switch to 3D where you see Sonic from behind and can view everything in front of him was very good for the series since it actually makes the gameplay fair to the player. Of course I'm aware this change brought many other downsides though.
 

selicyc

i never knew daylight could be so violent.
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Location
somewhere, I suppose.
Gender
a mystery inside of an enigma wrapped in a soft fuzzy blanket of I don't even know what
I'd argue that the series itself has fallen apart several times, but nobody can agree on when the dark age of Sonic really ever began. Some argue that it was the first Adventure game, some point to Heroes, others say '06 was the downfall, but Sonic the Hedgehog never quite shook its bad reputation off afterward.

Generations really helped to pick the series back up on its feet, and Colours was pretty well liked, and featured minimal gimmicks. But then Lost World received mix reception, and shortly after, the Boom series happened and Sonic lost all the progress it was making.

The problem with Sonic is that Sega keeps trying to reinvent the wheel when they don't seem to have a formula outside of "gotta go fast," (and even then they don't always adhere to that) and Sega was always pushing to meet deadlines, with some rumors that they were often ignoring their QA testers.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
Would you argue that the serirs never really recovered from that?
I would argue that point. Not because later Sonic games were all bad. Some were relatively ok. The issue was every Sonic game is essentially the same. Race to the end of the level, get the rings and kill what ever gets in the way. The only differences is if the game is 2D or 3D or both. SEGA has been unwilling to take a risk and totally change up the formula for what a Sonic game is. Take a risk, see if it works.

Every big Mario game (SMRPG being the exception) before SM64 was just a 2D race to the end fo the level. SM64 totally changed things up by making it a collectathon, not a race to the end. Sure the old race returned in NSMB and SM3DW. Nintendo was able to take the risk and move Mario into a totally different direction. The collectathon. SM64 was different, not because of it's 2.5D. It was different because it changed what people thought a Mario game should be to a collectathon. Now we know both types of Mario games exist (collectathon and race to the end).

SEGA did not do this. The move to 3D sega games didn't change up the formula. It was the same Sonoc running just as fast as usual, collecting the same rings and beating the same bosses. Add in the fact that many (but not all) of these newer Sonic games were not developed that well and you have a serious problem.

The TLDR is: Sure some of the later Sonic games were developed poorly, but it is SEGAs unwillingness to take a risk and move Sonic into a totally different direction that has harmed the IP more than any number of Sonic 06's ever could.
 

CrimsonCavalier

Fuzzy Pickles
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Location
United States
Gender
XY
I would argue that point. Not because later Sonic games were all bad. Some were relatively ok. The issue was every Sonic game is essentially the same. Race to the end of the level, get the rings and kill what ever gets in the way. The only differences is if the game is 2D or 3D or both. SEGA has been unwilling to take a risk and totally change up the formula for what a Sonic game is. Take a risk, see if it works.

Every big Mario game (SMRPG being the exception) before SM64 was just a 2D race to the end fo the level. SM64 totally changed things up by making it a collectathon, not a race to the end. Sure the old race returned in NSMB and SM3DW. Nintendo was able to take the risk and move Mario into a totally different direction. The collectathon. SM64 was different, not because of it's 2.5D. It was different because it changed what people thought a Mario game should be to a collectathon. Now we know both types of Mario games exist (collectathon and race to the end).

SEGA did not do this. The move to 3D sega games didn't change up the formula. It was the same Sonoc running just as fast as usual, collecting the same rings and beating the same bosses. Add in the fact that many (but not all) of these newer Sonic games were not developed that well and you have a serious problem.

The TLDR is: Sure some of the later Sonic games were developed poorly, but it is SEGAs unwillingness to take a risk and move Sonic into a totally different direction that has harmed the IP more than any number of Sonic 06's ever could.

I think there's something to be said for this argument. But the whole premise of Sonic is going fast. Mario never had that gimmick. You could go fast, you could not go fast, as long as in the end you reached the goal. But Sonic was always about speed. And that sometimes didn't translate well in 2D, never mind 3D, where it has been an absolute disaster.

Even if the whole speed in 3D was a good idea, the games have not been well made. Let's pretend that the idea behind 3D Sonic were a good one... it still has to be executed properly, and I don't think we can say that it has.

If they change the premise behind Sonic, would it even be Sonic anymore? Why not just retire Sonic and come up with a new character that doesn't have to go fast, and that can have a proper 3D adventure. Because you're right: Sega need to take risks, but if they take risks with Sonic, everyone is going to complain. "Why is Sonic a collect-a-thon now? This isn't a real Sonic game!"

In the end, Sega can't win. If they continue the way they've gone, they'll continue to shame the name of Sonic. If they change the Sonic formula, the fanbase will riot. Lose-Lose.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
I think there's something to be said for this argument. But the whole premise of Sonic is going fast. Mario never had that gimmick. You could go fast, you could not go fast, as long as in the end you reached the goal. But Sonic was always about speed. And that sometimes didn't translate well in 2D, never mind 3D, where it has been an absolute disaster.

Even if the whole speed in 3D was a good idea, the games have not been well made. Let's pretend that the idea behind 3D Sonic were a good one... it still has to be executed properly, and I don't think we can say that it has.

If they change the premise behind Sonic, would it even be Sonic anymore? Why not just retire Sonic and come up with a new character that doesn't have to go fast, and that can have a proper 3D adventure. Because you're right: Sega need to take risks, but if they take risks with Sonic, everyone is going to complain. "Why is Sonic a collect-a-thon now? This isn't a real Sonic game!"

In the end, Sega can't win. If they continue the way they've gone, they'll continue to shame the name of Sonic. If they change the Sonic formula, the fanbase will riot. Lose-Lose.
I get your ponit and ot makes total sense.

However what I was saying was not about Mario being fast, as it's not a speed game really. It was more about the fact that the early games are about reaching the flagpole at the end whereas the later games are about collecting stars. A total shift in what a Mario game is.

I agree the whoel Sonic being fast did not translate so well. You are spot on with that. I also agree that the 3D games were not made well. The comparison is (for the most part) Mario changed up what a mario game is when ti went to 3D (well 2.5D then 3D later on) with SM64. Sonic's move to 3D was just more of the same thingas the past but now just in 3D. People will say "this is not a real Sonic game" if SEGA change up things. We both know that will happen. But if the game is good enough and advertised well enough, the majority of fans will accept it. Many IPs have undergone massive changes. Some good and some bad. After a while it becomes a risk that must be taken.

The best way to do this is to take the risk and if if succeeds, good, you keep going down that path. If it fails, you revert the next game back to what everyone wants. Mind you what everyone wants is a Sonic game that does not totally suck. Something SEGA have not done so well at in the past so really, a bad Sonic game that is taking risks or a bad Sonic game that is rehashing all the past games (as SEGA is doing now)? What's the difference? At least in the former you took the risk.

So the fanbase riot? Let them. It's only one game as a trial run. And SEGA might get new fans to the series as well who like the new direction SEGA is taking with Sonic. If they continue as they have, Sonic will keep staying bad. If they take a risk Sonic as an IP might improve, might not. That's the risk.
 
Joined
May 11, 2011
I don't know how popular my opinion is, but I think the Sonic franchise was doing it wrong from the start with the 2D side-scrolling games. The Sonic games have always been about running fast through the stages, right? You know the whole "Gotta go fast" and all that. At least whenever you play as Sonic. But in the old side-scroller games you can only see a few meters ahead of you as you're running, and if you're running fast (as the game wants you to) you have almost no time to react to the obstacles of the course because you can't see them in time. So if you want to be able to play through those 2D stages successfully you have to play them over and over until you memorise every obstacle. I think the switch to 3D where you see Sonic from behind and can view everything in front of him was very good for the series since it actually makes the gameplay fair to the player. Of course I'm aware this change brought many other downsides though.

But Sonic is not only about speed, but platforming too. Some Zones in sonic 1 you can't exactly speed through, like Marble and Spring Yard.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom