Pontaff Retrospective: What's Up with all the Hate?

[SSF1991]

Sega could win if they actually put out a game whose mechanics were actually competitive with the likes of Mario, Donkey Kong, and Rayman right now.

It doesn't need to compete. It just needs to be fun, in my opinion.

[FriendBot]

Or atleast make Sonic stand out from the crowd like they did in the 90s, that's how they managed to make Sonic successful in the first place. A solid mixture of great marketing and of course, a solid game. Colors and Gens were pretty good games but the overall presentation was pretty lacking IMO, I love Unleashed because of its presentation even if it wasn't all that solid in gameplay.

It doesn't need to compete. It just needs to be fun, in my opinion.

I found Shattered Crystal to be fun and it sold pretty poorly, just being fun isn't good enough nowadays especially for Sonic.

 Sonic in the past managed to do SO MUCH more than just being fun, it was memorable, exciting and adrenaline-pumping action that made Sonic stood out. Having a campy and silly Sonic game isn't bad but people like Roger has said, you got to bring in an alternative to it as well. 

[Nepenthe]

It doesn't need to compete. It just needs to be fun, in my opinion.

In the context of Sega's problem, "fun" is an unquantifiable, subjective feeling that allows people to tide themselves over with games like Sonic 4, ShtH, and even Sonic 06 that are mechanically inferior games to other titles on the market that are going to be taking up more money and mind share from the gaming public and keeping Sonic from attaining any sort of respectable success. It's a completely useless and untenable goal to aim for without the objective qualities of the game backing it up in the context of its competitors, because anything can be fun to anybody, even if the gameplay and reviews are fucking shit. It makes no sense to say nothing matters aside from fun if you're going to lament that poor ol' Sega can't please everyone. There's a way to start pleasing people- make a game that isn't mediocre in a market where other platformers regularly achieve better than mediocre.

[Roger_van_der_weide]

I remember when Colors came out people absolutely loved the writing. The brotherly relationship Sonic and Tails had was praised, the humor was praised, people loved how Sonic behaved, nothing really that negative.

Nowadays it's a damn crime for them to even think about writing for Sonic games anymore.

Kinda reminds me of Mario Sunshine, that also had a "I love it! I like it. It's alright. I don't like it. I HATE IT!" reputation cycle.
Funny since I like that game more and more.

As for Colors, I remember it took a long time for me to settle in what I really thought of Sonic Colors.
It was diffrent, it was weird, it took things in a diffrent direction.
The first couple months I had it I didn't have a strong opinion, just a weird...confusion.
When I made aparody video of it, I was extremely mellow over the game and the Pontaff elements, most jokes are only about taking the idea what the Colors stages would be like if it was a real functioning themepark.

But the more it sank in, the more I disliked it.
And what Kuzu just said, if it was JUST Colors, then fine. A breather episode.
Sonic needed one after Shadow and 06. I can dig it.
But it just keeps going and going and going.

The game was respected because "hey at least it isn't 06, lol" but without bad games to hide behind...
I love the concept and ideas of the game, I'm all for a light hearted "Sonic and Tails solve a mystery in Eggman's space themepark" game but man, Pontaff's writing just sucks the energy and fun straight out of me.

You can probably credit/ blame Sonic Colors for making me create Sonic analyzing video's, it caused such a huge wall of confusion for me that I had to take a jump down the rabbit hole and explore the Wonderland of my brain to figure out exactly what Sonic Colors was doing to my Sonic experience.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Roger_van_der_weide

[D.H]

I remember when Colors came out people absolutely loved the writing. The brotherly relationship Sonic and Tails had was praised, the humor was praised, people loved how Sonic behaved, nothing really that negative.

Nowadays it's a damn crime for them to even think about writing for Sonic games anymore.

IMO, it's because the tone of Colors was a breath of fresh air.

I mean, SA1, SA2, Heroes, ShTH, 06, & Unleashed had "monsters of the week," Sonic's friends heavily involved, and in the cases of Shadow and 06, try hard edgy plots. 

When Sonic Colors came out, it had been so long since a Sonic game featured a lighthearted plot, that just centered around Sonic, Tails, & Eggman, people instantly loved it, because it was something a Sonic game hasn't had in years.

Nowadays, the novelty of lighthearted Sonic stories has worn off, Sonic, Tails, & Eggman are still the only characters the games are centered around, and now people are sick of it, and I think a lot of the hate for Colors comes from the fact that that game started the trend.

Personally, I think the story to Colors is awful. I can't think of a single funny joke from that game, nothing felt genuine, even the "bromance" between Sonic and Tails, Eggman's mind control machine was absolutely pointless, and the action in that game was severely lacking. Sonic can have a lighthearted game, I'm fine with that, but the fact that Colors had so little action going on in the story, despite Sonic being an action/adventure series, is ridiculous.

Edited October 2, 2015 by D.H

[Roger_van_der_weide]

It doesn't need to compete. It just needs to be fun, in my opinion.

As others mentioned, Fun is such an...icky word to use as a goal.
I have fun with Sonic 06. Exploiting glitches, laughing at dumb things happening.
Videogames trigger so many aspects of the brain, can be enjoyed in so many ways.

The Fun perspectives from a Sonic Shattered Crystals, Sonic adventure or Sonic Unleashed are so diffrent they can easily qualify each of those games into completely diffrent genre's, even if they're all "platformers."
 

Also, am I the only one who's starting to see the word fun as a...Political word?
Like, on the surface it's such a nice fluffy word, Fun! I like to have fun! Puppy's and icecream fun, yay!

But use it in discussions of how Sonic games should be, and the word suddenly get's a dictatorish flavor to it.
You don't like Sonic Schoolhouse? Doing maths is fun! Don't you like FUN?
How can you have fun in a videogame when there's no Maths involved? That's not how videogames work! You hate fun!
Puppy's and icecream are deeply dissapointed in you!
Sonic police, arrest this man!

(Not in this discussion (yet) but generally speaking)

Edited October 2, 2015 by Roger_van_der_weide

[TCB]

In the context of Sega's problem, "fun" is an unquantifiable, subjective feeling that allows people to tide themselves over with games like Sonic 4, ShtH, and even Sonic 06 that are mechanically inferior games to other titles on the market that are going to be taking up more money and mind share from the gaming public and keeping Sonic from attaining any sort of respectable success. It's a completely useless and untenable goal to aim for without the objective qualities of the game backing it up in the context of its competitors, because anything can be fun to anybody, even if the gameplay and reviews are fucking shit. It makes no sense to say nothing matters aside from fun if you're going to lament that poor ol' Sega can't please everyone. There's a way to start pleasing people- make a game that isn't mediocre in a market where other platformers regularly achieve better than mediocre.

To be fun for yourself of course (fundamental really), but 'competitively fun' among the crowd to engage the market and others to play too is what you're saying right? 

I agree in that case.

[FriendBot]

Sonic police, arrest this man!

This is even funnier in context when the ROM for Waku Waku Sonic Patrol Car came out recently. 

[SSF1991]

adrenaline-pumping action

Huh? I never experienced any of this playing a video game, let alone Sonic. This isn't a movie. But that's just me.

It's a completely useless and untenable goal to aim for without the objective qualities of the game backing it up in the context of its competitors, because anything can be fun to anybody even if the gameplay is fucking shit. It makes no sense to say nothing matters aside from fun if you're going to lament that poor Sega can't please everyone.

Video games are a form of entertainment. If you're not entertained, or at the very least having fun, then the game didn't do its job. It's why people can still have fun with Sonic '06 despite the bad quality. Personally I do not like Sonic '06 at all but that's just me. And I'm not going to justify the game's bad quality and defend it because of how quirky the game was able to entertain me. Especially seeing as that entertainment that 06 may provide wasn't intended.

The problem is that the concept of fun can be interpreted in many different ways. People have their own standards for entertainment and fun can't exactly be defined. For some fun is that "adrenaline-pumping action". Others it's just exploring. And others, like I said earlier with Sonic '06, can have fun because of the glitches.

Me? It's very casual sounding. I go through a lot IRL and games provide an escape from that. Just being able to sit down for an hour, play a nice game, then stop and catch up on things here is all I ask. I usually give bonus points to an amazing soundtrack as listening to music, including video gaming music, is another escape of mine. It's probably why something such as the writing of a game doesn't stand out to me so much.

It really just depends on the person.

 

Edited October 2, 2015 by SSF1991

[Nepenthe]

To be fun for yourself of course (fundamental really), but 'competitively fun' among the crowd to engage the market and others to play too is what you're saying right? 

I agree in that case.

Yes. Discussions and debates need to be had upon the recognizable strengths and weaknesses of the various games and their designs in order to put forth a respectable idea of what we want in the future. Just saying you had more fun with Colors than Sonic Adventure is not an argument in favor of continuing its design principles because someone can just retort with the opposite.

[FriendBot]

Huh? I never experienced any of this playing a video game, let alone Sonic. This isn't a movie.

Donnie plz.

Well I guess what I'm saying is, you're constantly engaged in the game, excited to know what's gonna next in the story or next level.

I felt SA2 and Heroes managed to do this very well in the series really.

Seeing the GUN Truck come out of nowhere, completely threw people off and people wanted to run away from it. That kind of energy is what Sonic needs, am I making sense now or am being silly again?

But I guess you could say that Generations had a personality in its levels as well like in City Escape and Crisis City but outside of the game, it's pretty dull. I prefer a good mix of engaging gameplay and story to consider the game good really. 

[Nepenthe]

The problem is that the concept of fun can be interpreted in many different ways. People have their own standards for entertainment and fun can't exactly be defined. For some fun is that "adrenaline-pumping action". Others it's just exploring. And others, like I said earlier with Sonic '06, can have fun because of the glitches. Me? It's very casual sounding. I go through a lot IRL and games provide an escape from that. Just being able to sit down for an hour, play a nice game, then stop and catch up on things here is all I ask. I usually give bonus points to an amazing soundtrack as listening to music, including video gaming music, is another escape of mine.

It really just depends on the person.

Which is why it's an unreasonable goal when it comes to actually doing business, and we should remember that Sega isn't making these games out of charity. They're trying to make money, and making broken games that a few people happen to find fun is a surefire way to go out of business. It's unprofessional.

Furthermore, making perfect the enemy of good is also unprofessional. You will never please everyone, but people having individual tastes is not an impediment on the ability to create quality and lasting entertainment, thus it's not an excuse either. You're not aiming for everyone; you're aiming for a significant majority. There are people who don't like platformers at all and would rather play first-person shooters. Should Sonic just up and stop being a platformer and become a first-person shooter in light of this reality? Of course not. If you're going to throw your hands up and say "It's all subjective," then you don't need to be in the business of making entertainment.

[SSF1991]

Donnie plz.

I get that a lot. =P

But yeah I see what you mean.

[azoo]

Besides, going for just "fun" is a minimum requirement, not the ultimate expectation. You start playing a game on the notion that it should be fun, not that it's a shining example because it managed to achieve just that.

Actually bothering to go beyond the minimum, relative to not only good narrative but also gameplay depth and longevity is what separates the good games from the great ones, to me; and Sonic was once beyond great. Granted that we don't have many examples of said great games in this series since it's had such a spotty history, and we sometimes have to pick-and-choose little pieces to form together a cohesive idea, but what I'm saying is that playing that one game I had a fairly decent experience with and nothing else isn't going to leave a lasting impression besides "oh yeah, that was neat I guess".

And as much as both a business and an art video games are, shouldn't that be the goal to go beyond just "fun"? I know the point's already been made by both Nep and Soni here, but it's just been an argument I've never quite understood.

I mean yeah, standards and expectations vary by person (after all, for some, fun is enough), but once again: why go for the minimum and throw people who expected better under the bus? It's not like Sonic Team can't afford it either; I mean yeah Sega has financial issues, but just by brand recognition alone Sonic makes serious bank, right?

Edited October 2, 2015 by Azoo

[Kuzu]

Video games are a form of entertainment. If you're not entertained, or at the very least having fun, then the game didn't do its job. It's why people can still have fun with Sonic '06 despite the bad quality. Personally I do not like Sonic '06 at all but that's just me. And I'm not going to justify the game's bad quality and defend it because of how quirky the game was able to entertain me. Especially seeing as that entertainment that 06 may provide wasn't intended.

The problem is that the concept of fun can be interpreted in many different ways. People have their own standards for entertainment and fun can't exactly be defined. For some fun is that "adrenaline-pumping action". Others it's just exploring. And others, like I said earlier with Sonic '06, can have fun because of the glitches.

Me? It's very casual sounding. I go through a lot IRL and games provide an escape from that. Just being able to sit down for an hour, play a nice game, then stop and catch up on things here is all I ask. I usually give bonus points to an amazing soundtrack as listening to music, including video gaming music, is another escape of mine. It's probably why something such as the writing of a game doesn't stand out to me so much.

It really just depends on the person.

Dude, you might not understand this, but why do you think most video games nowadays are pushing so damn hard to be like movies? If fun was as subjective as you're making it out to be, there'd be no reason for developers to even make high quality products in the first place. Everyone could just put out shovelware and people would enjoy it "because its fun!" 

"Fun" in the sense that you're defining it is just accepting whatever product a company puts out and trying to justify any shortcomings it may have as "Well I still liked it". And in that case, what's the point? If everybody thought like that, quality would be meaningless and evidently its not because Sonic STILL does not sell up to the standards as other platformers. There's a base line of quality that consumers have come to expect and one that developers must meet. 

This is probably why Sega are so complacent about putting out games that are at best, just average nowadays. Fans have lowered their standards so low that they're willing to accept anything they put out and justify any shortcomings it may have  as "well its better than 06" , thinking that alone is enough to make up for the quality of the game. 

[Diogenes]

Dude, you might not understand this, but why do you think most video games nowadays are pushing so damn hard to be like movies?

Rampant stupidity?

[azoo]

Rampant stupidity?

Well yeah it's dumb that it's gone that far, but you should know that's neither here nor there in this discussion. :v

The point is that people want more than just something fun, and do appreciate a good narrative for a game. That doesn't mean to jump from one extreme to another on which is more important, because of course gameplay is first for Sonic and will always matter more than the narrative, but undermining the storytelling to mean nothing at all to the player other than landfill doesn't do any favors for anyone either.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Azoo

[SSF1991]

Games don't need to be a giant epic movie but that doesn't mean things need to be pushed aside and ignored either. Gameplay should be the number one focus. Why? Because you do more than just watch or listen to a video game. You play it. Like I said it's not a movie, it's a video game. I always do appreciate a good narrative, and like I said a good music soundtrack, but that's not something I actively look for in a video game.

And honestly I don't know where developers get the mindset that video games have to be like movies. If games like Super Mario Maker, which is nothing more than a level editor, can accomplish over a million copies sold and/or shipped then it isn't something that is really all that necessary.

It has nothing to do with lowering standards. I've had these same standards since I was a kid. It's just going into a video game and expecting...well...a video game.

Edited October 2, 2015 by SSF1991

[FriendBot]

Games don't need to be a giant epic movie but that doesn't mean things need to be pushed aside and ignored either. Gameplay should be the number one focus. Why? Because you do more than just watch or listen to a video game. You play it. Like I said it's not a movie, it's a video game.

And honestly I don't know where developers get the mindset that video games have to be like movies. If games like Super Mario Maker, which is nothing more than a level editor, can accomplish over a million copies sold and/or shipped then it isn't something that is really all that necessary.

I don't think anyone has ever said to push gameplay for cinematics for Sonic, he needs both!

I mean, would you really be as hyped to play Unleashed without the godly made opening or its story? Heck, would anyone even bother to play the Storybook series if it wasn't for how good the story was?

Sonic may be in the same genre as Mario but they don't play the same and don't function the same.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Freddy Fuckboy

[Diogenes]

I don't think anyone has ever said to push gameplay for cinematics for Sonic, he needs both!

I mean, would you really be as hyped to play Unleashed without the godly made opening or its story? Heck, would anyone even bother to play the Storybook series if it wasn't for how good the story was?

Sonic may be in the same genre as Mario but they don't play the same and don't function the same.

If I could trade Unleashed's cutscenes and story to make it a game I genuinely loved, I'd do so without hesitation.

[Fake Hedgehog]

I care more about the narrative, characters, writing and cinematics. Always have.

Don't care much at all about gameplay. Now that I think of it, I feel pretty bad for people that do. Yikes.

 

[SSF1991]

I mean, would you really be as hyped to play Unleashed without the godly made opening or its story? Heck, would anyone even bother to play the Storybook series if it wasn't for how good the story was?

Actually yes, I can seen myself play Unleashed or even the Storybook games without the story.

 Sonic may be in the same genre as Mario but they don't play the same and don't function the same.

You completely missed my point. I'm saying that if people can be interested in just a level editor then the mindset that developers have with video games being like movies is kind of far-fetched in my opinion. What franchise it is has nothing to do with this.

[azoo]

Games don't need to be a giant epic movie but that doesn't mean things need to be pushed aside and ignored either. Gameplay should be the number one focus. Why? Because you do more than just watch or listen to a video game. You play it. Like I said it's not a movie, it's a video game.

And honestly I don't know where developers get the mindset that video games have to be like movies. If games like Super Mario Maker, which is nothing more than a level editor, can accomplish over a million copies sold and/or shipped then it isn't something that is really all that necessary.

Because Mario Maker doesn't need a story to understand it. It presents itself for what it is, and it delivers. Simple as that.

Everything needs basic context for what is to be understood. Sonic presents itself as a speedy platformer series with a focus on action-adventure elements because it suits the experience as a whole. Unless you have something like a far out spinoff or a thing like a Sonic Maker, a story with proper progression and development (even as simple as it may be) is needed to bring context to the experience and justify the reason of the game's existence beyond some meta-purpose like "because they can".

I think people get caught up in thinking as well that because people want some sort of substance, that they actually think people are expecting something complex and heavy on exposition. And no, I'm personally not. Sonic 3K and CD are as effective to me as Adventure and Unleashed are. For different reasons of course, but that's because there's a lot of room to do a basic action-adventure story well, and if you actually think it through it's not very hard or complex! Nor is it too much to ask for, or expect!

If I could trade Unleashed's cutscenes and story to make it a game I genuinely loved, I'd do so without hesitation.

As if it's quality is a means of trading gameplay for narrative (or vice versa)... which it's not.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Azoo

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

I care more about the narrative, characters, writing and cinematics. Always have.

Don't care much at all about gameplay. Now that I think of it, I feel pretty bad for people that do. Yikes.

 

I would like the game play to be fun. Like the storybook series have good stories but i hate their gameplays. the controls were shitty.

[Fake Hedgehog]

 What franchise it is has nothing to do with this.

It does family. People may enjoy games for different reasons, in the case of this discussion gameplay is one, narrative is another. Because one game can make mad cheese with just one, doesn't mean this is the rule for all games, at least not necessarily.

People who enjoy Mario games are not enjoying it for the story, they're enjoying it for the gameplay. Mario has never been a story based series, but very gameplay "rich". As such it's fans are people who care mainly for the gameplay and not at all for the storyline.

From the Adventure reboot all the way up to Black Knight, Sonic has been a heavily story and character based franchise, with very weak gameplay, so a large chunk of its audience are people who care about narrative over gameplay.