What if Sonic was a Nintendo game instead of a Sega game?

[Jet Prower]

Well that was the first thing that came to mind in this universe where SEGA, desperate to promote the tarnished Mario brand, has its own set of parties/concerts/conventions. I confess I have no idea about his moveset, having never played any games besides Sunshine. This in mind, in this alternate reality I'd have no idea what it'd be called, as I'm poor with naming an-

...Mario Party?

 

Strangly sounds better. Though that then brings up the point, would Sonic Shuffle be the dominate game instead of Mario Party?

[Mr Loopone]

Well it depends on whether it is a role reversal or not. Since Nintendo and Sega think differently (Nintendo is about the design and creativity while Sega was about the horsepower and quickly getting things done), they would end up being completely different in an alternative universe.

 

If it was a simple role reversal (Sega = Nintendo, Nintendo = Sega) with the characters as they are, Nintendo would make games either very similar to Sonic 1 & 2 [New Sonic the Hedgehog U with New Tails U DLC would be their latest game] with a big 3D Sonic game to mix things up [sonic the Hedgehog Galaxy or Sonic the Hedgehog 3D Act/Zone] while Sega would mix up the gameplay with only Super Mario Generations being the only game to feel like the classic Mario games (Super Mario Bros. 1, 2 [Lost Levels version], 3 & World, that's right SMB3 and Super Mario World were split into two different games here but could be locked onto one cartridge and Super Mario CD [sMB2]) but mixed with the modern Mario games (Super Mario Adventure 1 & 2, Mario Heroes [includes Wario and Waluigi], Mario 06, Super Mario Unleashed and Super Mario Colors). The Sonic fans would be content but annoyed on that they are fed up of games similar to the classics (that seems a bit strange to type) while the Mario fans would be worried on the next Mario game since some liked Super Mario Adventure and others didn't while many people hated Super Mario Bros. [2006] on the darker SMB movie-esque take of the Mushroom Kingdom and the unfinishedness of the game.

 

Despite the role reversal, Mario and Sonic Olympics would be exactly the same only with Mario's and Sonic's name swapped around.

 

Even then it is not as simple as a role reversal due to various facts to account for such as staff members (would Naoto Oshima and Shigeru Miyamoto work for Sega or Nintendo?), the company culture (Sega was like a sweatshop in the Master System era, while Nintendo took their time), the success of their consoles/arcade division, the climate of the era so here are my thoughts on if Nintendo kept their thinking pattern and Sega kept theirs on if they designed Mario and Sonic:

 

For Sonic, his character design would be probably more like a hedgehog and the gameplay again would also be different probably more like the New Zealand Story with rolling than anything due to the NES capabilities if it was a NES game instead of an arcade game (Nintendo pulled out of original arcade games in 1985). Worst case scenario would be a Dig Dug clone like Devil World had a Pac-Man feel and that probably would have happened if Sonic was made in 1981 (instead of 1985). It is possible to get a Sonic like experience on the NES (as proved with Somari and Jurassic Boy 2) however I don't even think in 1985 that Nintendo would be that technological minded to make it, probably in sequels would be a bit quicker. Playing then would be probably harder to judge on whether Nintendo would push Sonic the Hedgehog and whether the public would love it. People loved Super Mario Bros/Donkey Kong because it was simple to play but difficult to master, how would people love Sonic if it was complex or was like Dig Dug? If Nintendo would make sequels, they probably wouldn't make as many spinoffs unless this Sonic had as many characters as ours and there could be a chance that Nintendo might have made a flop ala Urban Champion or making them Japan only, making the platform genre very different than it currently is since Nintendo contributed for inventing the platformer.

 

For Mario, Sega's first attempt (presumably 1991) would be something more like Alex Kidd in Miracle World (since presumably Sega would be working on a Sonic clone on the Master System and struggled despite being a good game) however Sonic also boasted some programming advantages so Sega instead of speed of the character (unless Mario had powerups making him as fast as Sonic with power sneakers) probably would have focused on a different Mega Drive/Genesis advantage compared to the NES, the amount of sprites with less sprite flicker instead. Mario's character design would look more 90s anime style instead of someone with a moustache and a round plastercine nose. His American design probably would have been similar to the CBS cover of Donkey Kong. People probably would be disappointed on why it would be more straight forward than a hedgehog rolling around or it might be unfairly compared to Castle of Illusion (if Sega made it the same way) but there would be more things for Mario to do. If there was a Master System version, the sprites would still be cut down even though there is a different level design. Even though it would be easier for Sega of America to market the character with Mario having a hammer towards a hedgehog in adverts, it probably wouldn't have been as successful.

 

Hold up just a second though. Mario appeared in Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr, Mario Bros and various Game & Watch games all before Super Mario Bros. That would make a paradox unless Sega made those games making the platform genre. Sega in the early 80s (pre-Hang On/Space Harrier) was not as big with only Zaxxon, Buck Rogers: Planet of Zoom/Zoom 909 and Pengo (probably Monaco GP and Turbo too) being their big names* so if Sega did make Donkey Kong and probably would have been like Congo Bongo [Congo Bongo and Donkey Kong were made by the same developers], there might have been a chance that it would have been ignored. After all Atari, Midway and Namco were the big names in the arcade with Williams being smaller but just as known, the other companies got lucky with their games by comparison (Gottlieb with Qbert, Stern with Berzerk, Universal with Mr. Do, arguably Nintendo with Donkey Kong).

 

* - I know Frogger was a huge hit however that was made by Konami, Sega just distributed the arcade machine in America.

[Parallel Fifths]

Interesting topic! I've really enjoyed reading a lot of the responses here and they've made me think a bit further about the situation than my initial reaction, which was "lololol Sonic the Hedgehog Galaxy and Super Mario Bros. 06."

 

I'm not too knowledgeable on the history of video game companies that aren't Nintendo, so please bear with me. Feel free to correct any incorrect assumptions I've made here!

 

Mario is more innovative than it's being given credit for. The thing is these innovations are being done by proxy. For example, who'd have thought that Mario would star in multiple (successful and beloved) RPG series? Certainly not Shigeru Miyamoto, who has gone on record saying he's not too fond of RPGs and purposely gave Paper Mario: Sticker Star a minimal storyline and few original characters (in part because of a perceived backlash against Super Paper Mario's elaborate storyline, but I imagine his own personal preference for games to have no interesting story to speak of plays a role here). Previously the Paper Mario games (at least the first two) were almost unanimously praised by fans for its witty dialogue, especially from Bowser, King of Sass, and the partner characters. Hey, sometimes, the games are too innovative (SPM and PM:SS's battle systems receiving backlash for not being enough like the first two games)!

 

Mario as a series now is basically serving as the mainstay. The brand name stands for consistent quality, and that's what they're going for. I don't think making a revolutionary Mario game is on the minds of anybody working on the series because that is no longer its purpose. It doesn't need to try something new. You want something new? Play a different IP. The ideas from the tech demo Super Mario 128 went into making Pikmin, for example. Mario is like the familiar sandwich you always come back to after trying a bunch of weird stuff. It's dependable.

 

I've never really been involved in the Sonic fandom, so I can't speak for what the consensus of fans is regarding the brand. I can tell you what pretty much everyone else thinks about practically every new Sonic game: gimmicky, trying too hard to be serious, painful dialogue and poor scripts, godawful camera controls, way too many characters. The Sonic series has been driven to coming up with a new gimmick for everything because it needs to. It can't entice you by being the reliable, familiar sandwich and so it has to take a gamble and say "hey, I'm the crazy new sandwich you haven't tried yet" and hope that this time, it's found the path to becoming a tried-and-true sandwich.

 

How does that relate to the topic at hand? If Sonic were in the hands of the people at Nintendo, I doubt there would be as much schizophrenic variety from one game to another, and I also doubt it would have anything in the way of storylines. Sonic would remain a (mostly) mute hero with no personality beyond "I am a good person and I do good things because they are good." Eggman would probably remain the comical villain in a clown suit with no dialogue beyond taunts (and by extension, no history). Perhaps the jump from 2D to 3D would have been done better and the analogous Sonic Adventure of this universe would be as iconic as Super Mario 64, setting the standard for countless imitators. Afterwards, only minor modifications would be added to gameplay. The series would be the sandwich you turn to when all the other sandwiches fail.

 

Being that Sonic was developed in response to Mario, it's harder to speculate about Mario's fate. Maybe Sonic is just "too cool" and Mario is the chiller alternative. Off the top of my head, perhaps the jumping aspect of Mario's gameplay would be expanded upon and he'd be the dude with altitude or something. I don't know anything about corporate culture at Sega so my speculation stops here.

 

I wonder what the cultural impact would be as well. Mario is nice because he's just super inoffensive and nice. He's not threatening at all and that makes him appealing to all generations. Sonic's 'tude might be off-putting to older-than-the-target-audience generations and painfully out-of-date for younger-than-the-target-audience generations, making him dated. Perhaps this facet of his personality would be toned down or even changed outright as the situation demands (I still bet he'd be mute-hero'd).

[Badnik Mechanic]

I don't mean this like today where sonic is pretty much Nintendo's bitch.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this but, if it's the streotype meaning of the term then I don't particually understand where you're coming from.

 

The Wii U isn't selling well, at all.

 

Sonic games have been doing pretty well both in terms of critical and consumer terms for the last 4 years.

 

Sega have not only given Nintendo a huge gift of being a major third party publisher a goldmine franchise for 3 titles, but also got nintendo to publish the game in Europe! Thats.... thats a fucking megaton. Mainly because the cost of distributing a physical copy of a game over Europe is enromous. But Nintendo are going to be the ones paying the bill for it.

 

Whilst some, and I would be one of them think this deal is in fact bad for Sega in the long run. The fact that Sega have done an exclusive deal with nintendo AND got Nintendo to publush the game in the worlds largest single videogame market... oh yeah... Sonic is certainly nintendos bitch alright...

[Tani Coyote]

Never mind, while Nintendo has a famous brand, the intense interest for graphics, FPSes, more mature titles, etc. puts them at a disadvantage these recent years. I wouldn't say Nintendo's anywhere close to extinction, but as a brand they are nowhere near as strong as they used to be; in the 80s and 90s Nintendo was God. Now it's not so clear cut. In fact, it's Nintendo's association with younger audiences that makes Sonic such a good fit for them.

At the end of the day, Nintendo's a company the same as any other... and it can run into financial difficulties the moment the market turns hostile to their product. They are hurting a lot right now in the great scheme of things, and looking at the deal with SEGA, as Hogfather points out, it doesn't really speak of a master-slave relationship so much as "We have recognition and money, you need money and we need more customers, maybe we could work out some sort of a deal?" That sounds like a deal between two countries that are nominally equal, rather than a "give me this or I'll knock your teeth in" kind of gunboat diplomacy.

Also, as someone who trades stock... Nintendo has lost about 75% of its value over the last 5 years. SEGA (admittedly likely with help from its Sammy side) has tripled in value over the same period; Sony has gone up about 40%; Microsoft has remained stable. Let me break down what this means to those who don't know: it means there's very little confidence in Nintendo's prospects as a company at present. To add insult to injury, Electronic Arts, the apparent Devil of gaming, has lost about half its value over the period; that's right, EA, for all its issues, has fared better than Nintendo.

For all their past rivalry, Nintendo and SEGA have a lot more to gain from being friends than enemies, and I'd say they're increasingly looking like equals rather than master and servant. And more on topic, I'm anticipating this partnership would exist even if the shoes were reversed... both characters ultimately find their appeal in a retro and younger fandom that is no longer the dominant group as it was in the past.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Turbo the Punk]

First off.

I don't mean this like today where sonic is pretty much Nintendo's bitch. I mean what if in the late 1980's and early 1990's Sonic was released on NES and Mario was released on the Genesis (Yes, its the Genesis not The Mega Drive. I don't care what it was called in Japan, It was called the Genesis in the US so it's the fucking Genesis!). Do you think the world would be different? Do you think that Sega would have won the console wars? What do you think might have happened? I am genuinely interested!

I'd just like to say that the statement in regard to the Mega Drive/Genesis was unwarranted. You have every right to hold a personal opinion, however I'd say that that was not a great representation of that opinion. In addition this is a worldwide community that encompasses people of many countries, so I think it wouldn't be to much to ask that we all be a little more tolerant around here.

 

Now in regard to the original question. I personally could never see that happening. Sonic The Hedgehog is a unique franchise in that it would be radically different if apart from Sega Corporation, at least in my opinion.

 

Everything that the franchise is known for, respected for, and liked for are attributes unique to Sega. Things such as strong characterization and lifelike personification of characters, strong convayance of general themes, setting, plot, and emotion, and gameplay style and physics are all traits that made "The Blue Blur" so iconic to begin with. I personally believe that such immense detail and deciption could only be accomplished by Sega, and no other developer, not even Nintendo.

 

The main reason I say that is that up until Sega's entrance in the gaming industry the majority of other titles (platformers specifically) were very homogenous and shared common gameplay. It was Sega who dared to push and test the limits, and they were able to do just that with Sonic The Hedgehog.

 

Furthermore, Sega was able to build a legacy for itself and it's mascot and iconic character Sonic through mass appeal and ultimately defined a generation in gaming that remains reconized to this day.

 

I seriously doubt Nintendo would have been able to accomplish the majority of what's listed.

[Jet Prower]

First off.

I'd just like to say that the statement in regard to the Mega Drive/Genesis was unwarranted. You have every right to hold a personal opinion, however I'd say that that was not a great representation of that opinion. In addition this is a worldwide community that encompasses people of many countries, so I think it wouldn't be to much to ask that we all be a little more tolerant around here.

 

Now in regard to the original question. I personally could never see that happening. Sonic The Hedgehog is a unique franchise in that it would be radically different if apart from Sega Corporation, at least in my opinion.

 

Everything that the franchise is known for, respected for, and liked for are attributes unique to Sega. Things such as strong characterization and lifelike personification of characters, strong convayance of general themes, setting, plot, and emotion, and gameplay style and physics are all traits that made "The Blue Blur" so iconic to begin with. I personally believe that such immense detail and deciption could only be accomplished by Sega, and no other developer, not even Nintendo.

 

The main reason I say that is that up until Sega's entrance in the gaming industry the majority of other titles (platformers specifically) were very homogenous and shared common gameplay. It was Sega who dared to push and test the limits, and they were able to do just that with Sonic The Hedgehog.

 

Furthermore, Sega was able to build a legacy for itself and it's mascot and iconic character Sonic through mass appeal and ultimately defined a generation in gaming that remains reconized to this day.

 

I seriously doubt Nintendo would have been able to accomplish the majority of what's listed.

 

Didn't Nintendo do alot of this with Mario in the beginning? The main difference that most of us see is that Nintendo plays things alot more safe than Sega, so while the games may still be around, they just may not bas as impressive or have as an expansive universe than they do now.