Sonic: Should Story Matter?

[KillaMaaki]

I can do without much story if the gameplay is good. However, I highly prefer to have a good story present as well - I think it enriches the experience (in fact, I'll even endure mediocre gameplay if the story is compelling enough). Having a story that really engages me and makes me care about the characters definitely improves my experience with a game. If only Sega could actually come up with a really good story to go with their games, I'd be pretty damn happy.

That said, I absolutely cannot stand a terrible story even if the gameplay is really good. It just distracts me too much and makes me cringe.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I really don't understand the movement to actively remove story from Sonic games sometimes; the only ones that seem to care are people who barely care about story to begin with, yet they seem to dedicate more energy to ruining things for everyone else than just enjoying the parts of the game they do like. It really just comes off as people being spiteful when other people enjoy something they don't.

It's more that they're using story as a scapegoat to blame things on, just like they've done with almost everything else they pin this franchises problems on by the insular basis of "I don't like it, so get rid of it" like they did with Sonic's friends. 

That's not really hard to understand. What is hard to understand is this logic over dealing with this: story is poorly told? Well let's just remove story rather than improve it.

Actually, it's kind of hilarious despite how stupid it is, because many of these people are also the same kind that'll tell you "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and fail to understand the reverse when something  is broken - basically, if it's broken, don't bother fixing or salvaging anything useful, just throw it away.

Yeah, that's like saying you should knock a whole building down after building it just because there were holes in the wall - the problem isn't that extreme that you can't fix it. And a lot of problems in the games, at the very least regarding story, are among the absolute easiest to fix. It's just that Sonic Team either don't want to bother or seem to think they should knock the whole thing down.

Edited October 20, 2015 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Roger_van_der_weide]

Yeah, that's like saying you should knock a whole building down after building it just because there were holes in the wall -

Oops, got a papercut on my finger. Better chop my entire arm off. Heh.

Joking aside, there IS some logic to their, well, logic.
Money logic; that optimistic hope that if Sega doesn't spend money on the cutscenes, that potential plot money will go to more levels/ development time (I doubt it works this litterarly in the real world but theoratically it makes sense)

And a better argument, that Sega needs to get a CORE Sonic game up and running before attempting big ambitious projects again. So make a good functioning Sonic platformer that get's people trust and faith up without any complicating bells and whistles.
Then use the experience and core foundation of that game to jump to new heights next time.
And that's one argument I'm all for, and the main reason why I'm a big defender of Sonic Generations which I consider this core pure Sonic platformer.

And it's why I hate Lost world and Boom, instead of using Generations as a stepping stone to greatness they just start over from scratch again. %(&%^@. Oh well, diffrent studio's.

Of course the problem of that second argument is that the writing and cutscenes are done by a diffrent team and therefore shouldn't really impact the game development team much, if any.
Only when the cutscenes and gameplay are really interconnected.


But yeah, those 2 arguments I understand and respect to SOME extend.
Unfortunately, so far Sonic team has shown little evidence that those arguments hold much water, especailly the first one.
Sonic games with little plot don't seem to have any bigger production values in the stages then epics like Unleashed.
Tough then again, Unleashed itself was a step down from Sonic 06 in terms of ambition, and that worked in it's favor.
So, goes both ways I guess.
 

Edited October 20, 2015 by Roger_van_der_weide

[Nepenthe]

Both arguments have flaws pertaining to how real life works. The first is that game design doesn't start at or develop through strict budget allocation. It starts from a design document and is birthed through a collaborative artistic environment.

Sonic Team wasn't saying "let's give 75% of the budget to story, 20% to gameplay, and 5% to everything else," nor were they saying, "Hey, we saved ten bucks on gameplay this week; throw it to story." They are guiding themselves along with gameplay and design ideas, like a film crew mainly does, while the budget simply made them aware of practical limitations (e.g., they know they can have the 3 pre-rendered cutscenes they originally planned, but the content of those scenes is still free to be designed how they please in service of the overall project.)

In other words, these games were destined to be what they were from the outset and no amount of money or budgeting was going to fix anything unless you coupled it with the time to redo everything. So this budget argument is a non-starter.

The second argument is in direct opposition to how people actually act in real life and, if nothing else, has only served as a means to placate people unhappy with the bare minimum. Colors came along and for all intents and purposes satisfied the fandom and public's desire for a simple and "core" Sonic experience with quality. It should have been the unlock key to extraneous features within that gameplay style. What did we see instead? People even *more* happy that the sequel had somehow even less story and a cast of characters rendered into useless piles of shit because they would obviously have just gotten in the way otherwise. No one who totes this "minimalism first" argument actually had the awareness to see that their hype after the game released was hypocritical in that regard. Hell, they're more likely to wonder why people shit on Gens for its story. After all, we got a Sky Sanctuary remake! Surely that's enough!

The behavioural bargain just wasn't upheld on the end of people preaching this minimalist argument, and that's because they don't actually expect or even want these the bells and whistles to come back. You see it with vague, deflecting shit like "Oh, well, playable characters can come back when the main gameplay is perfect," which translates to they're never coming back because a perfect Sonic game is an ambiguous-ass standard and utterly impossible given the current circumstances.

These people are going to be perfectly okay with the most stripped-down Sonic games forever, which is fine as an opinion, but it's been presented in a dishonest way meant to quell dissent. It's why I don't entertain the ideas that there should be some ridiculous timetable for reintroduction of features standard in a game from fucking 1994, or that a stripped Sonic experience must be the core one anymore. Fuck that. There's no scientific reason why a decent action-adventure narrative and some playable characters can't come standard too.

[Regen]

People even *more* happy that the sequel had somehow even less story and a cast of characters rendered into useless piles of shit because they would obviously have just gotten in the way otherwise. No one who totes this "minimalism first" argument actually had the awareness to see that their hype after the game released was hypocritical in that regard. Hell, they're more likely to wonder why people shit on Gens for its story. After all, we got a Sky Sanctuary remake! Surely that's enough!

Uuh.

I want Sonic to have a more minimalist story, but I don't want it to be anything like Colours and certainly not like Generations. Generations didn't have a minimalist plot, it had vague and incomplete plot threads that barely formed together to make up a plot. I don't think most people who pushes for minimalist plot want anything like a Modern Sonic plot. I mean, I appreciate that Lost World had a better plot but, aside from the sometimes funny writing, the plot was still pretty poor. Granted, there may be some people who think that Generations offered a satisfying minimalist plot, but they are clearly crazy and shouldn't be taken seriously  .

I think most people were happy with Colours' plot because it reigned the franchise back to its senses after the complete madness it fell into. Sonic Adventure 2 was already pretty out there but then we got a slam dunk of Heroes-Shadow-Sonic 06-Secret Rings-Unleashed-Black Knight. Some people argue that the series was already being reigned in with Unleashed's plot but I'll never understand that argument. I always viewed Unleashed as having some of the worst dialogue in a Sonic game and with having Chip, the most annoying character in a Sonic game hands-down. I'm aware that's very unpopular with the fanbase now, but that's how I felt at the time. Some people also feel favourable for Black Knight but I thought that was nuts too. Merlina seemed like something out of a warped Final Fantasy and always seemed to clash with the tone of Sonic so much to me. Besides, my opinion isn't so important in this instance, we are talking about why most people appreciated the direction Colours went into, regardless if they were right or wrong. Colours brought the series back to reality and tried to get all this continuity clog off the games, it was at least admirable for that reason. That's why it was popular.

And yeah, in hindsight Colour's storytelling was pretty stupid, I actually detest the direction the series went in Post-Colours but I can admit credit where it's due. The writing improved exponentially after Colours. I'm not talking about deep characterisation or the plot here, but the actual dialogue script the characters speak. In past games the characters just talked at each other, an easy sign of a bad script  department. After Colours the characters actually communicate like human beings. Also, the writing can be pretty funny, the Eggman PA announcements and Zor from Lost World are a good example.

Let's get one thing clear, I hate the direction of Modern Sonic, and I'd way prefer something far out like Sonic Adventure 2 even though I'd rather have neither as the only options really. But the reason people liked Colours plot was because the series' plot had fallen into insanity and it had finally been brought back down to earth with Colours. In hindsight everyone should have been a lot more critical and demanded more from the shallow plot, but I don't think the obsession over Colours being the first Sonic game that didn't suck as an overall product in over a decade was the sole reason why this didn't happen. I think most people were just happy to get a game that didn't have a fucking crazy plot.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2015 by Regen

[Nepenthe]

..... Why are you defending Colors when its quality is not the point of my contention nor even the subject of the part you quoted??? I get it already and got it the last time we talked- you hate the storytelling of most Sonic games and "don't understand" why anyone would have a different opinion about that, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm actually criticizing.

[Regen]

..... Why are you defending Colors when its quality is not the point of my contention nor even the subject of the part you quoted??? I get it already and got it the last time we talked- you hate the storytelling of most Sonic games and "don't understand" why anyone would have a different opinion about that, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm actually criticizing.

Uuh, what?

I thought you were saying that fans of Colours ignored and even defended its shoddy story on grounds that it got the gameplay right, and that they also defended Generations for similar reasons. I thought you were particularly singling out the minimalist crowd (which is why I quoted that part in my previous post) which I'm a part of, I then said that Colours' story was popular for bringing the story back to being somewhat sensible even though it did so in a heavy-handed manner and not because of the gameplay.

What is going on 

Why do we keep miscommunicating Nepenthe, I don't get it? I don't 'hate' the storytelling of most Sonic games. I like all the fan-favourites: Sonic 1, 2, 3, CD, Adventure. I even like Adventure 2, even though I think it's out there, and everyone loves to bash that one. And despite the flaws of Colours, Sonic 4 and Lost World, I got some enjoyment out of their silly plots.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Regen

[Nepenthe]

We keep miscommunicating because your reading comprehension is terrible.

I directly addressed Roger's defense of two classic arguments that people have made in favor of the current direction: the first being that the lack of story allows Sonic Team to allocate more money to gameplay, and the second being that Sonic Team should develop a good basic Sonic experience before we can add other features back in.

My post details my refutations: the first argument is bunk because funds do not switch around during development. The design of a game is always roughly locked in at the beginning regardless of how much money is allocated to the budget, so moving funds is a useless solution.

The second argument is bunk because the behavior of people toting said argument wasn't consistent with the release of Gens after Sonic Team proved themselves with Colors. No one who said "we need to wait for a good game to have x, y, and z return" actually said "I understand why people who would've expected more context or character interaction are disappointed because Sonic Team proved that they could develop a good basic Sonic game with Colors." Instead it was active hostility against the idea that Gens' flaws with context and narrative could even be considered flaws that affected people's enjoyment to begin with. That's because the argument isn't actually being made in good faith.

In short, people happy with Gens' barebones nature do not actually give a shit that others were unhappy with that fact and thus do not care to compromise with people on having meatier games, despite these same people constantly telling us that these games are for the greater good and are necessary for other sects of the fanbase to achieve happiness. Thus, "we need to wait a little longer and make sure Sonic Team understands the basics first" is shorthand for "Just stop complaining already; basic games should be enough for everyone." It's a complete non-argument meant to quell criticism of the minimalist direction. 

None of this has shit to do with how good or bad you think certain stories are.

[Regen]

We keep miscommunicating because your reading comprehension is terrible.

Jeez, no need to be so confrontational  

I think I get the gist of what you are saying now.

I directly addressed Roger's defense of two classic arguments that people have made in favor of the current direction: the first being that the lack of story allows Sonic Team to allocate more money to gameplay

My post details my refutations: the first argument is bunk because funds do not switch around during development. The design of a game is always roughly locked in at the beginning regardless of how much money is allocated to the budget, so moving funds is a useless solution.

Maybe Sonic Team should better plan out in advance how to allocate their funds then. If they planned out to have a barebones story like the Mario series from the outset than this mismanagement of funds wouldn't happen. I mean, I'm not in favour of this either because I don't think more money equals a better game. It's actually a fallacy at it's very core when you give it even a second of serious thought.

 and the second being that Sonic Team should develop a good basic Sonic experience before we can add other features back in.

The second argument is bunk because the behavior of people toting said argument wasn't consistent with the release of Gens after Sonic Team proved themselves with Colors. No one who said "we need to wait for a good game to have x, y, and z return" actually said "I understand why people who would've expected more context or character interaction are disappointed because Sonic Team proved that they could develop a good basic Sonic game with Colors." Instead it was active hostility against the idea that Gens' flaws with context and narrative could even be considered flaws that affected people's enjoyment to begin with. That's because the argument isn't actually being made in good faith.

In short, people happy with Gens' barebones nature do not actually give a shit that others were unhappy with that fact and thus do not care to compromise with people on having meatier games, despite these same people constantly telling us that these games are for the greater good and are necessary for other sects of the fanbase to achieve happiness. Thus, "we need to wait a little longer and make sure Sonic Team understands the basics first" is shorthand for "Just stop complaining already; basic games should be enough for everyone." It's a complete non-argument meant to quell criticism of the minimalist direction. 

I disagree with this argument too although I think it has more going for it than the first argument. It's true that Sonic Team should be focusing on getting Sonic working again before attempting crazy and high-reaching ideas, the big glaring problem is that a Sonic game shouldn't just be a functioning Sonic product. It needs to have more going for it than just be an average platformer with Sonic in it to compete with today's market. This can be applied to story but also can be applied to everything else such as ingenuity in level design and new boss ideas (because let's face it, Sonic bosses have always been sub-par). 

As for people who were content with Gens' terrible story, I'm afraid this isn't unique to Sonic. A lot of gamers don't care about story but most of my favourite games wouldn't be the same without their story. A big reason I prefer Dynasty Warriors to Hyrule Warriors is the far superior story.

I almost wholeheartedly agree with you  . I have some criticism with your use of 'minimalism' though. A minimalist story doesn't have to be Generations. Sonic CD had a minimalist story and that was beautiful. Every cutscene in Sonic CD is brimming with personality and expression. It's not at all like Generations' snore fest  

[Nepenthe]

My point is they're not mismanaging funds at all; they're mismanaging design. People saying that by taking out the story will magically give you more money to make a better game in the middle of development- effectively saying that things can be solved if they just threw cash at the problem- don't know how game production works.

Also, I'm using minimalism in a very specific context to mean the modern direction. I know the classics are minimalist, but even with this elaboration I don't agree with you that we should go back to that. I'm not paying $50-60 for games on $200-400 consoles in support of a billion dollar industry to end up with an experience that is only rebuking modern storytelling conventions because people decided Sonic should bank on archaic platforming conventions instead of fixing its own problems. Such a game either better be a Mario title or capable of being my butler. Otherwise I'll just play the classic games.

[Regen]

Also, I'm using minimalism in a very specific context to mean the modern direction. I know the classics are minimalist, but even with this elaboration I don't agree with you that we should go back to that. I'm not paying $50-60 for games on $200-400 consoles in support of a billion dollar industry to end up with an experience that is only rebuking modern storytelling conventions because people irrationally decided Sonic should bank on archaic, boring-ass platforming conventions instead of fixing its own problems. Such a game either better be a Mario title or capable of being my butler. Otherwise I'll just play the classic games.

It's not that SEGA should irrationally bank on archaic and boring conventions. Some of the best modern platformers have great minimalist plots. When Braid wasn't being pretentious with its books, the game had some beautiful minimalist themes and cutscenes. Rayman Origins oozes personality with its minimalist cutscenes. 

I don't want the next Sonic game to be in the past, I want it to be in the future just as much as you. I just see that vision as more nuanced is all. 

[Nepenthe]

What about Braid or Rayman? I mean, Citizen Kane is one of the greatest movies of all time. Doesn't mean I want drama films to stop using color or CG or digital cameras. And this isn't even about nuance because there's nothing about dialogue or plots with some actual tension that prevents that.

[Regen]

What about Braid or Rayman? I mean, Citizen Kane is one of the greatest movies of all time. Doesn't mean I want drama films to stop using color or CG or digital cameras. And this isn't even about nuance because there's nothing about dialogue or plots with some actual tension that prevents that.

Yeah, but Citizen Kane has dated and is really old. I think Braid and Rayman Origins are pretty new platformers (there aren't exactly many) which is why I used them as examples  . Another good example of minimalism in modern games is Shadow of the Colossus and the soon to be released Last Guardian. 

When I talked about nuance, I meant that minimalism can convey emotion and atmosphere without long and lengthy dialogue exposition, which I think contrasts with the speed tone of Sonic games. It's not something I can objectively prove, but I really think minimalism works well with Sonic.

[KillaMaaki]

I don't really consider story and dialogue to oppose or work against gameplay - even though the gameplay is designed to be fast, I always compartmentalize the two and it doesn't bother me to slow down and get some plot every now and again. In fact, I think plot actually can be a clever way of pacing the game - if you put in cutscenes, for example, right after a climax in gameplay (say, a boss fight) it serves as a bit of a breather before the action starts back up again (optional if you include a Skip Cutscene feature - which every game absolutely should)

Another thing is that if a story is really engaging, it tends to have memorable moments and I think that has a definite positive impact on a game. Let's compare Sonic Adventure and Sonic Generations.

As an example, Sonic Adventure has the scene leading up to the Perfect Chaos boss fight with the entire city getting wrecked and this massive behemoth rising out of the waters. It's all quite epic-looking (for the time, anyway) and definitely memorable.

Now look at Generations. Minimal story and few cutscenes. Is there a particularly memorable moment from that game? In my opinion, no. I really love Generations for the gameplay, but there isn't any particular moment or scene from that game which really sticks out to me.

EDIT: I also think it's worth pointing out that the original games, even with not much story, also had memorable moments. On the one hand, even with so little dialogue, there definitely was a story and that does enhance those moments (like Mecha Sonic, for example) but I'd argue that these same moments for someone today who had never touched the games before just wouldn't have the same impact, partially because the game industry has sort of spoiled people (myself included >.>), with production values increasing all the time.

Edited October 20, 2015 by KillaMaaki

[Salamander]

EDIT: I also think it's worth pointing out that the original games, even with not much story, also had memorable moments. On the one hand, even with so little dialogue, there definitely was a story and that does enhance those moments (like Mecha Sonic, for example) but I'd argue that these same moments for someone today who had never touched the games before just wouldn't have the same impact, partially because the game industry has sort of spoiled people (myself included >.>), with production values increasing all the time.

Perhaps, but at the same time, and this is something we would observe now with minimalist or "retro" games as much as with classics, I think that with the best games there's a kind of suspension of... not disbelief, exactly, but of criticism.  We can still become sufficiently immersed in a less (visually or technically) complex game to be strongly affected by developments which upset your assumptions about the plot or gameplay system.  For instance, when the typical level formula of, say, S3&K is interrupted for an admittedly primitive, seconds-long "cutscene," all in-engine, I think the separation from the standard gameplay of free movement and platforming remains striking because of how you're accustomed to that gameplay.  (A modern example of a game which aims to create a similar effect would probably be Shovel Knight; Undertale sounds like a fine example, although I haven't played it myself.)  Actually, I think it's the persistence of "retro" that causes classic games to still work as much as retro is in itself evidence that classic styles still work.  (I think it's interesting that this applies more to 2D games than to 3D ones; we don't see much nostalgia for the more primitive of 3D graphics, and I would speculate that this is because it's easier to accept the abstraction of 2D than the obvious limitations of early 3D... but that's a whole other topic.)

[PandoloFox]

When I talked about nuance, I meant that minimalism can convey emotion and atmosphere without long and lengthy dialogue exposition, which I think contrasts with the speed tone of Sonic games. It's not something I can objectively prove, but I really think minimalism works well with Sonic.

This is what we talked about before and i dont think "minimalism" is the right way to describe it since visuals and silence can speak more than words ( for certain scenes ). Some scenes however benefits from dialogue. Its about circumstances and what you want to show. Its not minimalism when you are not removing features to begin with, but just adds scenes where silence can empower it. But you need to be great at story telling and character building to make such scenes work. The audience needs to understand the circumstances and feel joy or pain with the characters in their silence. This is not going to happen though if every scene is a silent scene, knowing when to use them is key and if you overuse them they wont have any effect.

[Regen]

But you need to be great at story telling and character building to make such scenes work. 

That's the problem with minimalism, it's very hard to do but super effective when it works. It's debatable if the current Sonic Team's writing would ever be capable of doing this, but this is the joy of hypothetical arguments  . I think it's funny when people say they want minimalism as though that would cut down development resources in the plot department. Minimalism is actually very meticulous and requires a lot of investment to be done properly. It wouldn't magically free up resources for other departments.

This is not going to happen though if every scene is a silent scene, knowing when to use them is key and if you overuse them they wont have any effect.

I don't think every scene needs to be silent necessarily. I'm in favour of a silent storytelling for Sonic games but I'm not rigidly against dialogue in a Sonic game either. Exposition is obviously important to any game, of course the game doesn't need to have loads of dialogue to throw at the player to weave in exposition as you probably already know.

I think walls of text are against the nature of Sonic games. Sonic games should be fast-paced and always going forward rather than stood still. That's why I think dialogue should be minimalist: short, sweet and to the point. One sentence can carry a thousand words. 

Of course someone else could have a different interpretation for what Sonic should be and that's their decision

This is what we talked about before and i dont think "minimalism" is the right way to describe it since visuals and silence can speak more than words ( for certain scenes ). Some scenes however benefits from dialogue. Its about circumstances and what you want to show. Its not minimalism when you are not removing features to begin with, but just adds scenes where silence can empower it.

Ehh. I think using the environment for expressing the narrative is a technique of minimalism to be honest. Minimalism isn't a half-assed plot like in Generations that's just barebones. Minimalism is an art style where everything that's not absolutely necessary is stripped away. Portal 1 is actually minimalist, and that game has a lot of dialogue.

I just think the minimalism technique fits in very nicely with the tone of Sonic games. 

[FantasticMrRobb]

I honestly think so. I feel that having a story helps you relate with the character more and gives room for development with characters. Don't get me wrong, the gameplay of a Sonic game is extremely important, but having a story helps make it a better game. But that's just my opinion.

[Jaguar360]

While Sonic games can be great without particularly interesting stories (Colors, Generations, Genesis games, Advance games), I really think that having a somewhat captivating story matters a lot and helps with character attachment and motivation to play more Sonic games. Imo, Sonic games that go in depth with the plot and/or character interactions should at least happen every few games so that the development of the series lore doesn't come to a halt. The series is barely meeting that at the moment; we need more recurring characters to keep things interesting.

Making a story compelling doesn't necessarily mean that it should be complex either. Sonic Rivals and Rivals 2, for instance, don't have the most complex stories, but I'm fond of them personally largely because of the interesting character interactions and relationships that stemmed from them along with the little plot twists here and there.

Character development is also good for making things interesting with the story. Sonic Rush does this particularly well with Blaze imo. Recent Sonic games have had decent character development as well, but it's only really been with Sonic and Tails. It's great that we are learning more about Sonic's character each game since he's the protagonist, but it's making things a bit stale without other characters getting into it.

The next game is a really great opportunity to incorporate more recurring characters into the plot and finally get things moving again. In short, while great stories aren't necessary in Sonic games much of the time, story does matter for the series' growth.

[Chaos Controller]

The Sonic series has some of the best characters and lore out of any video game franchise. To not have the stories matter, is a complete waste. It's all a matter of having SEGA understand that, and bringing in a writer who loves the series a lot.

Not sure why Ian hasn't been approached to help develop and write the games.

[Briraka]

The Sonic series has some of the best characters and lore out of any video game franchise. To not have the stories matter, is a complete waste. It's all a matter of having SEGA understand that, and bringing in a writer who loves the series a lot.

Not sure why Ian hasn't been approached to help develop and write the games.

Ian Flynn writing wouldn't change too much because SEGA ultimately decides what direction the games' story goes.

[Chaos Controller]

Ian Flynn writing wouldn't change too much because SEGA ultimately decides what direction the games' story goes.

I think it would. They already place heavy restrictions on the comics and he plays by their rules anyway. He'd find a way to bring out the best in whatever premise they cooked up, I'm sure. That's what great writers do. And Ian is a great writer.
 

[Briraka]

I think it would. They already place heavy restrictions on the comics and he plays by their rules anyway. He'd find a way to bring out the best in whatever premise they cooked up, I'm sure. That's what great writers do. And Ian is a great writer.
 

I don't doubt Ian's ability as a writer, but I don't think that's going to change the direction the series is in. He'd still be bound to the same "Sonic and Tails kick Eggman's butt again" plots that Pontac and Graff are tied to. The only potential improvements that bringing Ian in is better jokes.

Which is debatable, because I don't care for it when he uses memes and "HEY REMEMBER THE SONIC ADVENTURES?".

[Chaos Controller]

I don't doubt Ian's ability as a writer, but I don't think that's going to change the direction the series is in. He'd still be bound to the same "Sonic and Tails kick Eggman's butt again" plots that Pontac and Graff are tied to. The only potential improvements that bringing Ian in is better jokes.

Hidden Content

You don't know that for sure, though.

For example, there were a bunch of characters and cameos in Sonic Colors for DS, and Pontac and Graff didn't write that version of the game. The same basic premise and story were still in play, though.

[Briraka]

You don't know that for sure, though.
For example, there were a bunch of characters and cameos in Sonic Colors for DS, and Pontac and Graff didn't write that version of the game. The same basic premise and story were still in play, though.

Yes, but that was before Colours got popular, and even then, those were just cameos.

Then again, cameos would be an improvement over the nothing we have now so :/