Who from cartoons/comics should be given a chance to be in the games?

[Drawloverlala]

and Sally was inspired on Ricky

 

ohh but... i remember now..

Schratch, Grounder and Coconuts apeared in "Robotnik mean bean machine"

but still i think Goro Man refered to the newer games..

Edited April 27, 2015 by Drawloverlala

[Pompadour]

I'd honestly love to see Bunnie Rabbot appear in the games. I feel out of all the comic/cartoon characters, she has a chance to stand out with her own gimmicks rather than copy or replace another character. Her robotic limbs allow her to be pretty versatile. Her main thing seems to be her jet feet and arm cannon, so she could be  the "shooter" of the group, with the ability to zip around with her jets for short periods of time. Heck she's also got that stretchy arm and extendo fingers thing. She could be a better werehog. :V

The biggest thing I guess is figuring out why she would even have robotic limbs to begin with, unless for whatever reason they implement the roboticizer that turns living things into robots. Or they would have to add in another character to give her the limbs. Still though, she's a character that would be pretty darn fun if they tried.

Other than that, Shard would've been fun as yet-another-Metal Sonic, a nice deviation without having to go flat out evil like Neo Metal Sonic. But I'm just a sucker for the unlikely good guy characters,  haha.

[Diogenes]

That and I've been hating the idea of one-shot characters (not the characters themselves) in its entirety for a while when it comes to long-running franchise, because they're generally a lot less memorable as characters.

Oh man, do I disagree with this.

Well, I mean, it's true in a sense; a character that keeps showing up is going to keep being noticed, while a character that stops appearing is necessarily going to be left behind.

But I feel like the characters with a more tightly-written arc, and one that actually comes to a proper conclusion, are more likely to be the ones you'll be glad to remember. A good one-shot character has everything tie together; they are introduced with A Problem, the story explores their problem, and then the problem is solved (or at least directly addressed in some form), allowing for catharsis. You can't get that with a character who's never allowed to exit the cycle of conflicts; at best you could continually contrive new conflicts for them, but that's bound to drift away from the character's initial purpose, and it's hard to get the same kind of catharsis from something without any finality to it.

Would Tikal be a better character if she stuck around doing ghost shit, than helping to heal her friend's pain, stopping a repeat of the tragedy she couldn't stop before, and finally moving on to the afterlife? Would Gamma be as memorable if he just went on shooting robots for a few more games, instead of bringing up the issue of his own destruction being necessary to his mission and allowing his death to reunite the flicky family? Would Shadow not be more fondly remembered if he had died at the end of SA2, sacrificing himself to keep his promise to Maria, to reject Gerald's hatred, and to absolve his own sins, rather than becoming Ow The Edge?

...to be fair, that last one has a lot to do with what they chose to do with him post-SA2, not just that he was brought back. And I'm not saying no character can ever benefit from multiple appearances/more than one arc. But I think it's a mistake to write off the power of a character who can actually have a focused, conclusive story.

[Tornado]

Would Tikal be a better character if she stuck around doing ghost shit

"Robotnik, your ass is haunted"

[Mauro Fonseca]

See my avatar for more information on this general idea

 

(I'd honestly like to see a lot of them brought in as background lore, properly altered and adapted, but that'd run into the issues Psi has already delineated. Much as I don't like to see Archie butcher, in my eyes, SEGA characters, I don't imagine most fans would be interested in how Sally'd need to be altered. That said, if it's smaller characters, in cameo appearances, I think that could be neat nods. Say, having Bob Beaky and his diner as part of a HUB.

 

Also having Sticks appear as a conpiracy nut to a further, and modernized, extreme could make for some neat stuff. Like the Chaotix using her as a source or something since she just hoards piles of info. Again, something to serve as a minor character cameo, though.)

 

 

GIVE ME TEKNO OR GIVE ME DEATH

[E-122-Psi]

I'd honestly love to see Bunnie Rabbot appear in the games. I feel out of all the comic/cartoon characters, she has a chance to stand out with her own gimmicks rather than copy or replace another character. Her robotic limbs allow her to be pretty versatile. Her main thing seems to be her jet feet and arm cannon, so she could be  the "shooter" of the group, with the ability to zip around with her jets for short periods of time. Heck she's also got that stretchy arm and extendo fingers thing. She could be a better werehog. :V

The biggest thing I guess is figuring out why she would even have robotic limbs to begin with, unless for whatever reason they implement the roboticizer that turns living things into robots. Or they would have to add in another character to give her the limbs. Still though, she's a character that would be pretty darn fun if they tried.

 

I could see her working with her post reboot origin, albeit maybe with a stand in for Chuck. Her previous origin might be too tragic to maintain without some sort of resolution. As said I feel if the Freedom Fighters ever DID get adapted (as in fully realised characters rather a cameo or something) they would have to do something like a compressed adaptation of the Satam/Archie backstory to do them justice.

 

Bunnie does seem versatile personality wise, if in a rather sad way. She's not particularly developed. Her biggest facets are her relationship with Antoine and being a bit bummed about being part cyborg (the former is an Archie exclusive and the latter is rarely brought up anymore). She's enough of a blank slate that SEGA wouldn't be in as much trouble of betraying her former character. The worst thing I could see is they don't get someone who could replicate Cavanaugh's southern drawl.

 

She does probably have the most potential gameplay wise. She has plenty of room for fun abilities and enough of a gimmick to attach them too. The nearest to a more compatible character is Shortfuse the Cybernik (who tends to be hated with a passion it seems).

 

By the way, while not an official transition, you might be interested in this little WIP:

 

 

[Disonoid 3000]

Echoing the "No one" answers. I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate reason why any of them should be brought over, just ways they could fit once them being included is taken as an assumption.

 

And maybe this is just me, but when things suddenly introduce characters that overshadow old ones, I pretty much instantly dislike them, especially when the characters they're overshadowing are already pretty much ignored for years. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Would Tikal be a better character if she stuck around doing ghost shit, than helping to heal her friend's pain, stopping a repeat of the tragedy she couldn't stop before, and finally moving on to the afterlife?

Yes? Depending on what she does? In fact that's exactly what she's been doing in the Unleashed adaptation of the comics as she helps Knuckles and Sonic by informing them what could help deal with this crisis, while Chaos meanwhile is what's keeping the oceans from falling into the planet's core and saved Sonic and his friends from Dark Gaia's minions. That and they can both drift in and out of the afterlife (or at least Tikal can, not sure about Chaos).

 

 

 

Would Gamma be as memorable if he just went on shooting robots for a few more games, instead of bringing up the issue of his own destruction being necessary to his mission and allowing his death to reunite the flicky family?

I'd say more than likely, but that depends entirely on how they do it. The most I'd consider letting him stick around is for SA2 and then die there.

 

 

 

Would Shadow not be more fondly remembered if he had died at the end of SA2, sacrificing himself to keep his promise to Maria, to reject Gerald's hatred, and to absolve his own sins, rather than becoming Ow The Edge?

Don't know, tho considering how every other character who died or disappeared in similar circumstances like Gamma and Chip aren't brought up as much nowadays, I'm more inclined to say no and that he'd be almost forgotten just like the above after the game he perished in. 

 

 

...to be fair, that last one has a lot to do with what they chose to do with him post-SA2, not just that he was brought back. And I'm not saying no character can ever benefit from multiple appearances/more than one arc. But I think it's a mistake to write off the power of a character who can actually have a focused, conclusive story.

Well I'm gonna enjoy making that mistake as I see greater power in a character whose actions continue to have an effect in this franchise than just one with a focused and conclusive story. Because this franchise has shown me more of how weak its power has been for the most part, otherwise I honestly wouldn't have much of reason to be against it in the first place. Not that this would affect any measure of quality, but I still find it rather wasteful to make an awesome character and then have them die in that same title when they could stick around for another title and then die later (assuming they don't intend to have them stay permanently).

 

You know what would actually make those deceased characters memorable if they had to be one-shot? If there was something of them left behind for everyone else to remember, actions or even physical attachments of the characters that continue to have an effect on the setting or the other characters that remind them (and the audience that remembers said character) of their existence and their impact in the franchise. Like Chip's ring that was completely disregarded after Unleashed, and hasn't been seen on Sonic's wrist in any of the succeeding games. Bring back or show images of locations or objects affected by that deceased character. Make that impact something the continuity remembers even in that character's death. Give us something to remember them by for rather than moving on without it. Make a tombstone or plaque for certain characters to remember, or heck have one of the characters who misses them name something in their honor. Such is a case of being memorable, because there is something of theirs left behind tied to their being.

 

However, despite saying all this, I'm permanently in the "no one-shots for series" camp - so no offense, but don't bother convincing me. The only thing we're going to agree on here is to disagree.

 

EDIT: As an added note, a focused conclusive story doesn't have to be limited to one appearance either nor does their initial purpose have to be so rigid and inflexible that it can't be applied in other ways should that character live on instead. You could get whatever catharsis you're explaining in more than one appearance, all the more reason I'm not fond of the idea with one-shot characters.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

My own two cents are less about a specific character, and more like...a concept.

 

More specifically, Roboticization.

 

Now I don't know if Sonic Chronicles counts (probably not since it was made by Bioware), or if I'm thinking of something else, but I think Roboticization is something that could work in the game canon...

 

But only as the last thing Eggman does when he's nearly lost his mind from constant failure.

 

My reasoning behind this is because when Roboticization was introduced, it was under the use of SatAM Robotnik, who bears very little resemblance to Eggman personality and motive-wise. SatAM Robotnik just roboticizes...because. Eggman however would not really have any reason to do so since his greatest desire is to direct all the attention towards the fact that it was HE who conquered the world, and HE wants everyone to adore him. Now if there is one thing I've sorta noticed about some of the more recent games, it's that Eggman is steadily acting more and more crazy with each passing game, and quite a few of his plans tend to lean more into the mind control territory, whether through Dark Gaia influencing people via negative emotions or via mind control with the Wisps, and we've even see evidence both in the Classic games (putting animals into robots), and Lost World (Deadly Six turning Tails into a Robot) that this is not out of the question for him on a small scale. Now with that in mind, it kinda stands that eventually Eggman's going to go cuckoo from his constant failures and eventually just decides to go:

 

"Screw it! I'll just turn everyone into robots!"

 

And does just that. Of course Sonic will win somehow, and probably toss Eggman into somewhere he can never escape (some kind of version of White Space maybe?), where he completely loses it and decides that if he can't win with Sonic in any universe, he'll just destroy those universes so Sonic can't win either.

 

And then he becomes Eggman Nega, and due to dimensional shenanigans, the time he spent in the dimension actually ends up being 200 years outside of it.

 

And now I've somehow gone straight into headcanon territory.

[E-122-Psi]

I think robotocization might work if retooled to befit his goofier characterisation. Replace the grim dark 'self aware living death' situation and maybe make it so it sorta brainwashes the victim into being loyal and idolising of Eggman. That would better work to his ego than a bunch of mindless slaves (truthfully it would have for Satam Robotnik anyway).

[DarkLight]

Off-topic but, 

Why not?  That's exactly how they acted in the Fred Wolf cartoon all the time sans the Red Sky episodes.

 

They acted too goofy than they were in the series and seemed totally oblivious to what the current danger was. Practically incompetent. Some felt this was done because Peter Laird, who did a lot of consulting and overseeing each script of the 2k3 series, didn't like the Fred Wolf series, and just didn't care how they were to be portrayed just as long as the 2k3 Turtles were treated far better. 

[Tornado]

I'd say there was far too much Adventure 2 dickriding for far too long to think that Shadow would have been forgotten like characters from the original Adventure were.

[Tara]

As far as I'm concerned, one-off characters can have just as much depth and memorability as the characters that appear every single game.  In fact, some characters might deliver the most satisfying experiences purely as a result of their temporary nature.  There's a Japanese concept called mono no aware, which essentially capitalizes on the idea of something that is beautiful but short-lived. (A common thematic example would be cherry blossom flowers, which only bloom for a short period of time, but are absolutely gorgeous when they do.)  Chip would be an arguably excellent example of this concept and how despite being a one-off character, he has one of the most memorable conflicts that I can think of.  Naturally, he's not a series icon or anything, but not every character is supposed to be.  Tikal and Chip are alike in that regard.  They're not supposed to define the series, but are the victims of circumstances surrounding it.  Those are legitimate types of characters just as much the mainstay ones.

 

That's one reason why Shadow's return was given such poor reception initially.  Because after such a dramatic exit, you would hope that they would have a very good reason to bring him back.  Otherwise, it sort of sours the emotions and connotations the character established with his sacrifice.  Namely since, you know, fictional characters aren't real people.  When they're brought back, we don't normally think, "I don't know how this happened, but I'm just happy to have you back!"  We expect every circumstance of a characters' life to have a contextual meaning that we can understand, so even when we love a character, we might still not want to see them return.  That's mainly why to this day, I can't bring myself to be overjoyed at Shadow's return.  Not because of some insane hatred of the character (even though I do believe that his return made him extremely one note and boring to watch), but because his return sort of took away from what was at the time a noble and heart-wrenching scene.  This isn't to say, however, that I think Shadow fans don't deserve to see their favorite character again or that I don't empathize with those who legit enjoy Shadow since his return.  If that applies to you, great.  To me, Shadow was a one-off character and not one that necessarily benefited from his return.  Don't get me wrong, there are some really good things to have come out of it (namely, I thought the overall theme of ShTH was a really solid one that would have worked under better pretense), but I still think that my feelings for Shadow were the strongest when I considered him a character that was rough around the edges but ultimately had a good heart and good intentions when he sacrificed his own life.

 

This could all easily be chalked up to "bad execution" if you really wanted to, but that dismisses the permanence of his death as one of those valid executions.  That is ultimately limiting the character not just what they can do in their life, but what the end of their life or their time in the series actually means.  For example, if something were to happen to Sonic (and I mean actually happen and not just a dream or something like that), then we have a general understanding that "bad things would happen."  We understand his weight as a character.  Sonic, being the main character, has the luxury of having that status clearly identifiable by virtue of being alive and a prominent part of the series.  Some characters only leave this kind of impact and weight upon their absence, such as Chip and Tikal.  It's not a negative character trait at all, just different characters with two different narrative purposes.

 

On the other hand, I believe that a truly good writer knows how to simultaneously end one line of development for a character and start a whole new chapter with its own trials and adversities to challenge and further flesh out the character.  I think it's really cool when you reach the conclusion of something and then see the endless possibilities that lie ahead and your first thought is "What's next?"  That's an awesome thing, too.  Not every character specifically needs that, though.  In fact, the absence of the character can often be the catalyst for these "endless opportunities" type situations. (Such as the supposed death of Dr. Robotnik in SatAM were it not canceled).  A non-Sonic example would probably be Mia Fey from the Ace Attorney games.  She's not really a one-off character since her spirit guides you throughout the course of the first three games, but her exit from the series in the third game ultimately makes a very dramatic note.  It's her absence (in conjunction with Phoenix's characterization and development thereafter) that gives off a notable feeling of "then and now" between AA3 and AA5.  That is to say, despite being probably one of my favorite characters in the series, I don't really care to see her return.  The impact she left is so strong that even when she's not there, we can see it in how the characters behave and interact and mature as a result of her absence.  I mean, sure, if the writers wanted, they could have worked in such a way that Mia didn't have to die or that her spirit could live on somehow, and maybe it would have been okay, but it certainly wasn't the only option.

 

All this to say, I have nothing really against the one-off characters in general.  A character that is well-written but leaves a lasting impact is just as valid as a character you grow attached to over the years of playing.  What mainly ruffles my jimmies with the one-off characters is the way it seems like they're invented to steer conflict and drama away from the main cast.  Like, oh this character undergoes an enormous transformation?  Better assign it to someone you probably won't see again, because we can't break the status quo of the other characters for more than two seconds.  That's why I'm kind of liking where Sonic Boom is trying to go, but ultimately has yet to take the big leap.  The characters are close and make that well known, but they also bicker and argue, sometimes they say sarcastic things to one another, sometimes they get really mad at each other, sometimes they disagree.  It feels less like character tropes being forced on you (although it still kind of feels like that at times, but I digress) and more like friends being actual friends.

 

So yeah, long story short, one-off characters are fine by me as long as they're well defined in their own right.  But they shouldn't be the only characters that are well defined.