He's all about the speed

[blackherox]

I am pretty sure Sega Japan have made some money back off of that after a year and a half of being on store shelves.

True, although the last time I checked (if Vgchartz or NPD is anything to go by) it hasn't been selling much more than that. Its legs have more or less gone. The previous Yakuza' games didn't really break a million units either. And considering that this was probably one of the most expesinve games in development by Sega, it would have to do alot better to be be making a 'very' good retutn.

Edited July 15, 2009 by BlackHeroX

[Miko]

Sorry if you don't see every point made. I tried condensing this for quoting and after awhile of trying to force everything to fit and slashing away at a lot of stuff I wrote, I give up XD.

I never said he wasn't. I said Sonic the Hedgehog was created to offer one style of gameplay. Something you then actually agree with later:

I was considering it in a hypothetical kind of way which is evident in my saying in parenthesis

and this is of course arguable. That's not to say I certain I agree with it entirely. Supposing that it is true, what of it?

To say that Mickey Mouse can be applied to any style of cartoon is entirely irrelevant to the fact that Sonic the Hedgehog can do the same for games.

It's not simply the fact that Mickey can be applied to any style of cartoon. It's the fact that Mickey has no identity with a certain kind of cartooning. If the same were applied to Sonic it'd mean the creatives can put a great deal more effort in the games because it can be taken seriously outside of a certain gimmick. Not only that but he won't have made an identity for himself embedded in gimmicks that may eventually lose favor and would sadly serve as the greatest basis for what reputation he has.

That's another reason why the "throw it on spinoffs" theory won't solve the biggest problem. The reputation the character has will be in his main titles and that problem won't be solved if the main titles are embedded in an identity that's simply no good for persistent use or lose favor with time. These games are generally considered to have the most effort and innovations put in them. If those suck, then people aren't going to want to waste 60 bucks or so trying to wing it on his spin-offs. Just because creatives can persistently find innovations that don't interfere with Mario's (gameplay) doesn't exactly mean people should expect to automatically see this happen with Sonic, just because Mario's a platformer. A good question for you would be why should we? Just because they're both platformers doesn't mean their gameplay will translate on different platforms or in 3D in exactly the same way, or that both styles of gameplay are just as workable for creatives.

There's no argument here. You might as well say that Sonic can be applied to many different genres because Mario has successfully done multiple genres (a point that many, not just me, have made) -- but apparently you don't want to compare Sonic and Mario, which is ironic given that the comparison there is actually more relevant than Mickey Mouse.

I'm not saying Mario cannot do multiple genres, but he's not a very flexible mascot. He's a lot more flexible but still not very flexible. Mario's games have transitioned well to 3D compared to Sonic. They can still presently maintain a good reputation that would make people think there'd actually be some quality behind the spinoffs. But anyways, I wanted to compare Mickey to Sonic because they were different in how they were made to suit their respective companies even though they share the same objective. I'm trying to compare the lack of identity Mickey has in his medium of most work to the very rigid sense of identity Sonic has to demonstrate how it's worked for both.

You know all of this is essentially the same as another company mascot... The reason Mario keeps getting brought up is because he and Sonic share an almost identical position in their respective companies.Mario approaches different genres on a regular basis, in a spinoff format. This works, and it doesn't dilute the gameplay canon platforming games, which keep getting critically acclaimed for being quite awesome.

And there's where our comparison falls apart. Why should we expect Sonic main titles to get critically acclaimed for being awesome just because Mario's do? Because Mario's a platformer? Even as a platformer Mario's gameplay is pretty different from Sonic's and there may be more potential to work with a game like Mario's than Sonic's. And even if they are still presently being critically acclaimed as awesome, it doesn't mean people won't eventually get bored of it, or that ideas will eventually start to wear thin. If Nintendo wants to risk it until that happens because they've seen no problems thus far, that's their choice. But I really think Sonic should learn from his experience. A company that's also at the mercy of other companies for example, deadlines also needs a flexible mascot when creating games so he can represent good ideas that come to them quickly and can feasibly be made on a deadline.

You can argue that Mario's gameplay is slower than Sonic's, yes, but then you're actually making the fundamental error here in assuming that Sonic is all about speed. I'll say again; he's not.

Sonic's signature is speed. Perhaps you can argue there are a few other elements to consider here and there, If I were to say make a MAIN title that was pretty average if not a little slow in pace, would people think its ok for Sonic? No, because Sonic's games created an identity around being fast and using that speed to get to a locale as soon as possible.

Mario games are crap now, they're trite. Having Mario jump from hub to hub looking for stars? It's all been done before, it's been beaten to death. There's nothing left for the series but to change it to--

Holy shit, Super Mario Galaxy.

Like I've been saying, Mario games may have an easier time finding "innovations" to accomodate it's gameplay. Mario's gameplay is not the same as Sonic's. Moves in Mario galaxy are not very fast paced and to a degree it is still a sidescroller and level exploration of a 3D plane is far easier because Mario's objective is not to zip through as fast (and by fast I mean as in as little time). Mario can switch camera angles in a very fluid fashion or slow down if the camera's isn't to the player's comfort because the game isn't propelling you through the level at ridiculous speeds. Sonic's going to be limited in ways Mario is not because of how his gameplay and level objectives work.

I'm telling Sonic Team to go ahead and explore creative freedom with gameplay ideas, and not to be pigeonholed into one. The idea that any new ideas Sonic Team could come up with (that'd merely be showcased by Sonic) won't work is an assumption.

An assumption backed up by ten years of them trying?

Really have no idea how to double quote in this instance sorry XP

Anyway, They've not yet even attempted what I've been saying for main titles. Secondly, even if Sonic Team did come up with crappy ideas, there is still a point in not pigeonholing Sonic because sticking to one thing means Sonic's developed identity would have a shelf life that lasts as long as the gimmick he's identified with. The company will not want him to have a shelf life as their mascot.

Notice how this doesn't necessarily have to even be a 3D platform. When I mean explore the 3D plane, I mean actually explore the landscape on an entirely different level than one could on a 2D plane. If the above is what you're suggesting, then there's no reason not to go back to 2D because the only direction one needs to worry about going is forward and maybe on an occasion backwards

Seems to work fine for practically every 3D platformer, shooter and almost every other genre you care to think of.

Sonic's iconic gameplay is currently in speeding through a level in as little time as possible and you could probably call it a 3rd person racing game. Other platformers a lot slower in pace will often compliment a 3D plane this because exploring a 3D plaform in a 360 degree fashion asks for players to tolerate slowing down to explore. Sonic's gameplay doesn't encompass every platforming game. Saying Sonic's speed is a reason as to why he's hurting right now doesn't mean every platformer presently will fail because it too is a platformer. The idea that some platformers are doing well doesn't mean every platformer will. And is it possible platforming games will lose favor? Sure. The only reason why I said not to make Sonic about any main genre of gaming is because he represents the company and should be versatile in the event something like that were to happen. Not because no one presently likes platformers. He'll be ready for any situation that befalls the gaming industry and can weather through just about any foreseeable problems.

Look at Sonic Adventure. Check the inertia of Sonic. Sonic Unleashed is about the only Sonic game that has adopted the pure race-as-fast-as-you-can mindset. Exploration has been a key point in the success of decent Sonic platformers since Day one.

I should probably explain what I mean by race-as-fast-as-you-can mindset. When I said that, I meant race Sonic to the exit as little time as possible. There's probably been a time score since the very beginning. The quicker you get there the better your score and in recent games this can help to improve your rank. Even if the objective wasn't to physically make Sonic faster and faster and faster literally the objective to be quick about maneuvering through the levels is pretty obvious. So this considered, taking time to slow one's pace and explore the level a bit is contradictory to the idea of keeping getting there as quick as you possibly can. While I can acknowledge the seeds for level exploration may've been planted, the objectives of the games most especially make the idea of slowing down to explore the level discouraged by the the game itself. The game also tends to work with linear paths, to discourage this as well.

This is true in games since Sonic Adventure, but the whole point of adding new characters like the classics is so that you get new abilities, new interesting ways to play the same levels... without being forced to play as them. I fail to see why comparing Sonic to an RPG clarifies your point. If anything it makes it more redundant.

Using an RPG was to create an easy example as to how the way the game worked ran the same for each character on some level, and yet they each have different abilities to contribute to the gameplay. That is to say there were common features about the gameplay, and yet they each have something distinct that'll add something unique to the game. Sonic is pretty much the guy everyone rips from, and he's become the most redundant of them all.Its may not impossible, but a reinvention as to how the characters will contribute to the gameplay or the gameplay itself will need to be reworked (Especially in Sonic's case). I'm not saying all this with the idea we should add every character in the franchise under the sun. but if the games are going to use them they need to work them into Sonic's gameplay, make them optional and give them a reason to BE there. What's the point in having another option if it's just going to be a Sonic reskin? The allure to Sonic's contributions to the game are sucked dry when that happens. I also notice how the movement wasn't for "optional playability" it was, Sonic. No one else. Period. Despite the fact these gamers know very well SEGA provided that alternative for optional playability for single player, not only was that not being asked, it was being asked knowing full well of the alternative to "no one else but Sonic in single player mode".

As someone has already said in this topic, nobody has ever really complained about that fact. The only complaint from fans is that Sonic's spotlight is being stolen by new characters unnecessarily.

And I'm saying it's not true that no one has ever really complained abut that fact. And part of people complaining about Sonic's spotlight being stolen unnecessarily is because they take spotlight for being little more than Sonic reskins. This was especially the case when Shadow came out and was accused of being a recolor that stole Sonic's thunder which leads me to bringing up two points.

1.Supposing the fans did have universal acceptance amongst the people who played the game and will come back again in spite of the game's flaws, but that doesn't mean everyone's thrilled with them by a long shot. Most would-be consumers complaining about the multiple characters that have little interest in these characters don't differentiate between Knuckles the echidna from Cream the rabbit.

2. And as for universal acceptance, you again refuse to acknowledge the anticipation many people had when Sonic 06 came out because ONLY Sonic was expected to be playable. People may be okay with the characters, but that doesn't mean they want them to be playable. I'm not saying not to make them playable. I'm saying that if they're going to be playable they need to stop taking virtually all of Sonic's contributions to the gameplay.

Level exploration is good, and something that is missing from modern Sonic games.

But what you and I understand in terms of level exploration is different. While I wouldn't object to multiple routes, I'm also considering the need for 360 level explorations which would call for the slowing down of the character.

The re-introduction of such a feature would revitalise the player's interest in actually enjoying Sonic games. Know why? Because as you hinted just now, speedruns and time attacking are secondary objectives in a Sonic the Hedgehog title. If the aim truly was to blitz through stages as quickly as possible, Knuckles would not exist. Tails would not exist.

This is of course assuming Sonic Team thinks things through wonderfully every single time they add a character which is not the case and we both know this. The aim is to get to a level in as little time as possible. They grade you on how quickly you can reach a certain point and the levels are designed with a clear and almost linear path to make it obvious to the player how to get to the end quickly. Your score depends far more on getting there quickly than it does actually slow down to explore and the games have made it obvious. Still, Tails and Knuckles stemmed from awareness on some level that level exploration was the future, even if blitzing through the levels was back then "the now."

Luigi has the same capabilities as Mario but just has a higher jump.

Mario does it so Sonic should too, should really be nominated to become its own logical fallacy.

Luigi originally was made for 2P mode, which is why it was initially understandable to create a palate swap so 2 people can play. But even now, creatives behind the Mario series do often take into account the fact the brothers at this point need their own identities from each other.

Luigi may have a higher jump by they try to compensate for this by giving him lower speed and power or a loss of traction. Or they may make Luigi faster with poorer traction. We may argue if this changes much in how one would expirience gameplay until we're blue in the face, but the fact remains that even they can acknowledge the need for there to be some difference so that Luigi would have meaning in being a playable character in single player.

What are you talking about? Sonic the Hedgehog has alwaysbeen a platform game, has never been anything _but_ a platform game. What is this 'currently' business you're speaking of?

I wasn't trying to imply that his main games weren't anything but platforming games, but it doesn't change my point. Regardless of what he was and currently still is, I think Sonic will probably need to encompass more than that in order to be very a flexible mascot.

or change the gameplay substantially which will result in them 'continuing to add tacked-on unwanted gameplay elements' as they scramble to find what works.

There would be no "tacked-on" unwanted gameplay elements because as a flexible mascot, it would be the gameplay for that game, not a futile attempt to work with the gameplay Sonic already has. Sonic Team may have a problem with making games, period. but I can understand the difficulty many developers could have with making innovative a "Sonic" styled game on a regular basis. I'm saying don't give Sonic an identity with a specific kind of genre or gameplay. That does not mean make him an RPG, it does not mean make him 2D. It means to make him flexible. He can do all of these things, but he can have a major game to be taken seriously in whichever he chooses.

P.S: For me, every discussion is a potential learning experience. So, I do if I disagree express why I do so. To not express concerns among those I disagree with would still leave me with many questions and I don't think would not get very much out of that. As for "Yakuza" I find myself agreeing with what other people have said on the figures and being this thing's limiting my quote space I won't touch on it right now unless really necessary.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Miko