Sonic Frontiers biggest non game design flaws, and are they due to incompetence?

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

1 hour ago, Wraith said:

It's ironic, because with all the swooning over how Sonic Team has improved Sega is rarely extended the same courtesy.

That's because, even when improving, they still fell to old habits with eventually resorting to forcing crunch time as well.

Big companies tend to call the ultimate shots on a lot of projects like these, and have way more say and pull than the companies they're overseeing, which is a big reason that they’re given less benefit if the doubt.

Not to say that there aren't times when they're in the clear and clean of mess, but there's a reason executive meddling is a commonly cited affliction of bad products across all forms of media. 

[Forgeafrontier]

7 hours ago, The Deleter said:

If passable games were the goal of Sonic Team, they would be considered competent at their jobs, yes. Excellence that goes above and beyond the actual goals and requirements are rarely considered necessary if basic competency is all that is being asked for.
 

The problem is twofold in this case. One is that this topic itself is asking whether problems in the game are due to incompetence or not, which in essence, is holding the game to a higher standard than just "it works" and looks to ask why those highlighted problems are the way they are. A cabinet maker can be competent at installing cabinets but incompetent at ensuring build quality, if installing the cabinet was all that was asked.

I completely disagree with this part of your post. I am holding this game to the same standard other triple A (60-70 dollar games) are held to (decent enough game programming, minimal bugs and a generally polished game), this game is not even passable in the polish department, let alone good. The biggest issues with this game I mentioned is nintendo 64 levels of pop in, a lack of animation polish, and no art direction. 2 of those issues not being in the game (pop in and unpolished animation) wouldn't help the game go above and beyond other games, it would make it industry standard. Now the pop-in is inexcusable and just pure incompetence, considering all someone had to do to fix it was alter the draw distance. 

Animation would take a little bit more work but gameplay wise, it should be comparable to generations and unleashed, cutscene wise it should be on par with marza's promotional CG work for the game, this isn't asking for much because they can just reuse the assets from generations and the promo cgi for this game while solid is far from revolutionary and a benchmark many of sonic's other gaming mascot rivals have surpassed,  the cgi is still good and does general things like proper running animations, proper facial expressions (general use of mouth and eye brows) but it doesn't take advantage of sonic's cartoony aspects like unleashed's intro and the progressive commercial does (which looked pixar level). The fact the game couldnt even do that already makes it below average (let alone average) in this department. Note I am not even asking for sonic to look like a pixar character (which he frankly should like in 2022/2023) I am asking for bare minimum things like proper frame transitions, proper falling animations, more ease and out and animations that don't look completely stiff. Generations, lost world and rise of lyric (that game as bad as it was ironically had the best animations in the series by far, the only sonic game to be on par with sonic's rivals like crash, and jak/daxter ) did this. None of what I am saying here is asking for much and would certainly not help this game go "higher standard than it 'working'". If these issues weren't in the game it would be passable, the game in its current state while not completely broken, is not passable imo.

[Forgeafrontier]

4 hours ago, ZinogreVolt said:

Competency when it comes to a game dev team is not really a metric that's worth questioning unless one is part of the staff and knows what went wrong where and with who. It's easy to point fingers based on whose name pops up where in the credits, but that's far from giving the full picture into the sticky world of games development. Things like leadership, resources, and logistics are what's more worth discussing in whether a team can fully get the job done or not, at least when it comes to the portions that don't correlate to more exact game design. 

The reason Frontiers is a hot mess technically has probably got more to do with the fact that it's split across nine entire platforms (Switch/PS4/PS4 Pro/XB1/XB1X/XSS/XSX/PS5/PC), and that's before accounting for settings and modes for different platforms. It seems like Sonic Team did all the porting work internally, and that's just entirely too much work for a team as small as them.

I am 85 percent sure some of this games issues are due to some level of incompetency. the only reason why this game has the pop in issues it does on the other consoles is because sonic team literally forgot to change the draw distance values on the other consoles, SOMETHING 1 MODDER WAS ABLE TO DO WITHIN A FUCKING WEEK OF THE GAME RELEASING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not even discussing the game the fact this game looks like an unreal 3 asset flip yet still runs at 30 FPS on last gen consoles which is already embarrassing enough as is.

 

4 hours ago, ZinogreVolt said:

As for why it just looks so rough in general, it's speculation but I think it's because they wanted it on Switch at all costs, and on the same day as all the other platforms. Keeping the baseline and ceiling for potential graphics low was more than likely the easiest way to ensure it would run decently without too much trouble. It should look a whole lot better than it does, though, even on Switch (that said, some aspects like low loading times and instant loading for fast travel is actually pretty impressive to see on Switch). 

 

I am not even complaining about graphics much because I don't think graphics carry a game as much as art style do but yeah this game graphically looks  like a late ps3 game, and it could be due to them just baselining the games visuals on switch, though this does lead to me wondering why they minimally up-resed it for the other consoles.  But that besides the point, none of this excuses this like animation polish which has absolutely to do with optomization (if your key animation frames don't beat the FPS). I mean the switch has games like mario and rabbids which have amazing animation polish, there are such little details in that games animation transitions which even some AAA platformers don't do.  With regards to art style this game would have stood out from other open world games if it lets say took the heroes art style (Imo the best art direction the series ever had) and just upgraded the graphics for an open world game. That does lead to another conversation I want to have about this game just not really feeling like sonic.

[The Deleter]

4 hours ago, ZinogreVolt said:

I have no idea why they opted for the photo-realistic look, other than what was probably just trend chasing? Either way, if they knew it was gonna be on Switch, they should have prioritized a good-looking but technically lightweight art style early in development. 

This is the statement I remember them saying regarding this:

Spoiler

https://www.famitsu.com/news/202209/18276496.html

Quote

 

ちなみに、物哀しいストーリーというのは、ソニックらしさとは異なると思うのですが、そこはあえてそうしたのですか？

岸本: そうですね。ターゲット層を上げるという意図のもと、シリアスな物語にしています。少年よりは、青年以上の方に刺さる、グッとくるストーリーを狙っています。ほかのアクションゲームと差別化をするという意味でも、そのような物語となっています。

飯塚: やはり、ソニックらしさ100％の作品だと、ソニックファンしか遊んでくれないんですよね。あえてソニックらしくない要素を入れないと、ソニックファン以外のお客さんが興味を示さない。そういった意味で、フォトリアルなグラフィックやシリアスなストーリーなどで、通常のソニックタイトルとはコンセプトを変えています。

 

"By the way, I think a sad story is different from Sonic's character, but did you intentionally do that?

Kishimoto: That's right. With the intention of raising the target audience, we are making this a serious story. We are aiming for a story that will appeal to young adults and above, rather than boys. The story is also meant to differentiate the game from other action games.

Iizuka: If it's a work that's 100% Sonic-like, only Sonic fans will play it. If you don't dare to include elements that aren't Sonic, people who aren't Sonic fans won't be interested. In that sense, with photorealistic graphics and a serious story, the concept is different from the usual Sonic titles."

It relates to the numerous other references in their interviews where they believe that Sonic needs to do more than he is known for, in order to grow as an IP.

It's not explicitly quoted for the graphics here, but with how the core premise of that growth is aimed at asian markets throughout the rest of the interviews, and something they directly cite for the serious story direction as well, I wouldn't be surprised if the same applies to the graphical direction in turn.

4 hours ago, GX -The Spindash- said:

I guess the broader issue I have with this topic then is that "incompetence" is so broad that I don't know how you even make that judgement call without just leaning on blanket cynicism. Like if you were to say "There is a leadership issue" or "There is a resources issue" or "There is a scoping issue" or "There is a communications issue" or "There is an issue with the vision of the franchise" then I can grasp that and there are places in discussion to go from there.

Otherwise, the entire conversation is "They can't do the thing, therefore everything bad."

Passable games are never the goal of any professional developer, or any art or software development in general. I can't see "competence" as a quality as the ability to both aspire to and achieve the excellence because the baseline mindset SHOULD be to achieve excellence, and there will likely be wide variance on what excellence looks like and the ability to achieve it given their resources. More over, if I do put on my cynical hat for just a bit, aspiration in interviews sounds much better than airing dirty laundry, so I don't have a good sense on how seriously to take "We want to be at the top of the industry." It's nice to want things, but it takes planning and effort and a LOT of self-assessment and an environment that both facilitates and encourages all that.

All that said... I still broadly point the finger at SEGA. Sonic Team is not the only studio to struggle producing a polished Sonic game (Big Red Button, Bioware...), and it's still up to SEGA to be able to look at a game, see its progress, and make the business decision that polish is more important than the money they can get right now. Regardless of Sonic Team's competence as a studio, which I really struggle to assess without knowing details on what their process is like, there are oh so many examples of SEGA being willing to release sub-par products, broken products, deeply unpolished products, products that have absolutely insane pre-order and deluxe edition bonuses, and... just freaking nonsense gimmicks that exist only for investors. And if Business Dad can't get their s--- together, that puts extra pressure on everything underneath.

I don't understand how looking for those issues and deciding whether they are down to competence or not is too broad and inaccurate, but pointing the finger at SEGA in an attempt to look for factors isn't. There are many problems with SEGA that have been defined, with a lack of communication between projects, lack of prioritization of Q&A, and enforcement of a series pipeline/crunch culture being one of the most detrimental aspects to the Sonic series that we have observed, alongside decisions to simply greenlight subpar products from actually inadequate developers with Colors Ultimate. But those factors were absent for Frontiers.

Now we have to look at the work Sonic Team made separate from those driving factors, and suddenly it's too vague to get a beat on defining those problems accurately?

2 hours ago, Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon said:

That's because, even when improving, they still fell to old habits with eventually resorting to forcing crunch time as well.

Big companies tend to call the ultimate shots on a lot of projects like these, and have way more say and pull than the companies they're overseeing, which is a big reason that they’re given less benefit if the doubt.

Absolutely not. Pushing the deadline back by an entire year is not anywhere close to an executive call from SEGA for crunch. It's still a very broad delay that did not flexibly change with the dev team's expectations, so it's outdated/bad for the devs in the way that they cannot simply wait forever until the game is perfect to release, but having an entire year to a set deadline in response to a call for final polish is one of the furthest things from crunch describable. There's no room for benefit of the doubt, because this was simply the only role they took in the final production of the game, with Iizuka as the intermediator. 

The onus of the blame for any irregular theoretical crunch that occurs during Frontiers' dev timeframe, would lie on the leadership at Sonic Team. They are the ones who are expected to manage the project well as the developers, and they are the ones who decide, or more accurately ask for, workers to say longer nights to ensure quality. If they prioritize the health of their team, they will take a hardline stance towards crunch and prevent it flat-out, releasing the game in whatever state it achieves by that required release date, but within the deadline they were commissioned for to begin with. If not, and they put ambition before that priority at the last second, then the onus of the blame for the direction of crunch ultimately falls to them, not the executive branch that has been cited during this development as mostly hands-off, thanks to Iizuka and Kawamura's parlaying.

If you want to criticize the deadline, criticize the deadline, but if you want to throw around the weight of allegations of crunch and mistreatment of a workforce in a topic, you're going to need to be more accurate than offshoring that criticism towards the higher company because of how convenient it would be. Workplace management of that nature was made within Sonic Team for Frontiers, not SEGA.

46 minutes ago, Forgeafrontier said:

I completely disagree with this part of your post. I am holding this game to the same standard other triple A (60-70 dollar games) are held to (decent enough game programming, minimal bugs and a generally polished game), this game is not even passable in the polish department, let alone good.

[...]

None of what I am saying here is asking for much and would certainly not help this game go "higher standard than it 'working'". If these issues weren't in the game it would be passable, the game in its current state while not completely broken, is not passable imo.

I mean I'm fine with you making that assertation, but that sounds less like the open question that the title proposes and moreso a conclusion that people are either meant to agree or disagree with. Imo leaving people with their opinions that the game was passible is the more ideal option when specifying and discussing the individual problems, because you're still highlighting the individual issues that you want to discuss and sus out the answer to the question you asked, without diving into personal judgements on what is and isn't a passable standard, because otherwise people will leap to insist that those problems do not discount the entire product from their personal criteria, $60 or not.

Sonic Team wants to compete in the AAA space anyway (kind of) so it's not like you're wrong about Frontiers failing to meet that standard. Without dividing it all up you get the framing debates this thread is revolving around, though.

[GX -The Spindash-]

19 minutes ago, The Deleter said:

I don't understand how looking for those issues and deciding whether they are down to competence or not is too broad and inaccurate, but pointing the finger at SEGA in an attempt to look for factors isn't.

Because I can point to very specific things SEGA has done without any additional buffers and make a very direct assessment. When we look at Sonic Team, there will always be the extra layer of "What was decided within the studio, and what was decided for them?"

I'm fine with speculation in a number of areas, but when it comes to something as blunt as questioning basic competence, I don't feel comfortable making that accusation without something real solid. I won't say SEGA is incompetent as a publisher (if they truly were, they probably wouldn't be in business today), but it's always going to be their responsibility as to what they actually determine is okay to sell, and they've made a lot of questionable decisions that might not be incompetence, but definitely come off as cynical.

I certainly have specific criticisms about specific Sonic games. I have no problem saying what I do and don't like about Frontiers. I'm also fine saying that there does indeed seem like there's something not quite right at Sonic Team as a general vibe based on trends in and among their games. But I want to emphasize, calling someone "incompetent," a single person or a group, is a big f---ing insult that I don't use lightly.

[ZinogreVolt]

1 hour ago, Forgeafrontier said:

I am 85 percent sure some of this games issues are due to some level of incompetency. the only reason why this game has the pop in issues it does on the other consoles is because sonic team literally forgot to change the draw distance values on the other consoles, SOMETHING 1 MODDER WAS ABLE TO DO WITHIN A FUCKING WEEK OF THE GAME RELEASING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not even discussing the game the fact this game looks like an unreal 3 asset flip yet still runs at 30 FPS on last gen consoles which is already embarrassing enough as is.

Given the hundreds upon hundreds of other games from other developers that suffer from similar, if not even more destructive or problematic issues, I am again willing to argue it's probably got more to due with some mix of workload/priorities. Tales of Symphonia Remaster and Pokemon S/V came out after it and were both much more embarrassing games on a technical level, despite optimization workload for both of them having almost certainly been smaller. That's not to mention the numerous other games that have shader stutter compilation issues that make them unplayable, or have bugs/performance issues caused by things like the engine. Even Sonic Colors last year was much worse off than what Frontiers got, despite being something that in theory shouldn't have had as many problems. Of course, I won't argue that the pop-in shouldn't have been dealt with early in, but considering this is a problem that numerous games from numerous devs suffer from, arguing incompetency is almost certainly oversimplifying it. 

[The Deleter]

1 hour ago, GX -The Spindash- said:

Because I can point to very specific things SEGA has done without any additional buffers and make a very direct assessment. When we look at Sonic Team, there will always be the extra layer of "What was decided within the studio, and what was decided for them?"

I'm fine with speculation in a number of areas, but when it comes to something as blunt as questioning basic competence, I don't feel comfortable making that accusation without something real solid. I won't say SEGA is incompetent as a publisher (if they truly were, they probably wouldn't be in business today), but it's always going to be their responsibility as to what they actually determine is okay to sell, and they've made a lot of questionable decisions that might not be incompetence, but definitely come off as cynical.

I certainly have specific criticisms about specific Sonic games. I have no problem saying what I do and don't like about Frontiers. I'm also fine saying that there does indeed seem like there's something not quite right at Sonic Team as a general vibe based on trends in and among their games. But I want to emphasize, calling someone "incompetent," a single person or a group, is a big f---ing insult that I don't use lightly.

Competence isn't some grave insult that determines your entire worth though, or even applied to the entirety of a work or someone's work. It's a measurement, and it's one that is applied to professional endeavors consistently, whether we like it or not. I can get over that because at the end of the day, I am judged by those same measures and expectations, and understand where the ramifications of that measurement begin and end. 

I'm not leaping at the chance to call Sonic Team incompetent in all individual factors, either. The pop-in issue, for example, I'm reserving judgement on as I had heard enough statements from the team on system parity in performance, that imo it might have been a business decision to prohibit the Switch version from being too directly unappealing in comparison, which is a fair bit of a different hypothesis than suggesting they just didn't have the resources to optimize for 9 platforms, an inadequacy in it's own right. If they don't feel the need to fix it in the upcoming updates with how much Kishimoto has addressed concerns, I'm probably going to lean further towards that being a business proposition more than an actual inability on the developers' side.

There can be a multitude of reasons for why Sonic games are the way they are, and to boil it all down to just competency is too reductive in it's own right to entertain when looking for a proper look at the factors involved, even if it is the only measure that the consumer actually values when purchasing a product.

But I'm not going to shy away from it when it does apply, though. For as many problems the series is riddled with, it's still aiming to meet and failing specific criteria that it wants to be judged by, and it directly correlates to ability, either as a result of or in spite of those factors. It's just not that strong of a condemnation as a measurement when everyone and everything around me is measured by it to begin with.

Labeling an entire project, group, or person as incompetent will always be an insult due to how sweepingly reductive it is. Not worth giving anyone who insists on it the time of day.

[Sonicka]

5 hours ago, Forgeafrontier said:

I am holding this game to the same standard other triple A (60-70 dollar games) are held to (decent enough game programming, minimal bugs and a generally polished game), this game is not even passable in the polish department, let alone good. The biggest issues with this game I mentioned is nintendo 64 levels of pop in, a lack of animation polish, and no art direction. 2 of those issues not being in the game (pop in and unpolished animation) wouldn't help the game go above and beyond other games, it would make it industry standard. Now the pop-in is inexcusable and just pure incompetence, considering all someone had to do to fix it was alter the draw distance. 

Is there a console specific version of this game that you are holding accountable for these issues or just Frontiers as a game in general?

I feel to make this comparable to a "AAA" game is a bit disingenuous when Sonic Team generally don't price their games in these tiers anyway. Frontiers was allocated a slightly higher than usual RRP as they clearly felt the quality, depth and length of the experience earned that marked increase. They also gone on record to say that they wanted to Market this to new and returning players and that they would be getting worthwhile experience (something I personally agree with). I got 40 hours just from the initial campaign play-through which is a good 3-4 times the length of a regular Sonic game Experience (on a first go around).

Even then, "Triple A's" don't always deserve their due - I paid £20 more for Horizon II than I did Sonic Frontiers and had a much more engaging time with latter even though technically Horizon is a more "polished" experience. 

The complaints for no art direction & asset flipping or lack of polish & bad pop-in due to the incompetence of developers is IMO just an unjustified rant because you didn't like the specific direction they took. It's ok not to like the approach, but to call out dev's for lack of vision because you didn't like this style is kinda rude. I think it's been detailed elsewhere in this thread why they went down the realistic approach for the Starfall Islands - and the dissonance is purposeful for a multitude of reasons, especially since this helps set Cyberspace apart from what the open worlds where trying to accomplish. It might not have gelled for you (and that's fine) but that doesn't mean it didn't for others or that Sonic Team are creatively lacking.

As for the pop in? Sure, this isn't great - but I somehow doubt they have a magical slider or person that can simply patch a "fix" on this. I think you also have to bear in mind that different developers work with different game engines, not to mention that these are large open-zones that Sonic traverses quickly. If you compare Frontiers to other "industry standard" games you'll find that they too have plenty of pop-in and bad draw distance - often this is disguised by the devs using unique tricks and/or geographical traversal elements to allow for areas to load before you'd even notice - BUT these also don't have the protagonist running at high speeds across open landscapes. This isn't as simple of a "fix" as you make it sound.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Frontiers is perfect or without flaws - there is plenty that I'd like to see improved for a sequel title. However, there are other games out there with actual performance issues and bugs that are genuinely problematic (like Pokemon... or even previous Sonic games) that have been in desperate need of post release patchwork. In my experience of Frontiers (on PS4 Pro) this isn't a game in 'dire need' of such post launch fixes - the game absolutely runs and functions (so is playable) and makes for an experience that is (IMO) worth playing.  


 

 

[Cooldude]

12 hours ago, Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon said:

That's because, even when improving, they still fell to old habits with eventually resorting to forcing crunch time as well.

Big companies tend to call the ultimate shots on a lot of projects like these, and have way more say and pull than the companies they're overseeing, which is a big reason that they’re given less benefit if the doubt.

Not to say that there aren't times when they're in the clear and clean of mess, but there's a reason executive meddling is a commonly cited affliction of bad products across all forms of media. 

Agree one can't pin all the blame on Sonic Team, some stuff are beyond their control and Sega executives  call the shots...often to the detriment of the actual Sonic game.

A more interesting question is just how bad Sega is in this regard, compared to its competitors in the video game industry. I mean just to cite two examples, EA and Activision are notorious in the industry for piling extreme pressure on the developers and shutting down well-loved studios on a whim, much to the anger of fans. 

[ComeAsYouAre]

8 hours ago, Cooldude said:

Agree one can't pin all the blame on Sonic Team, some stuff are beyond their control and Sega executives  call the shots...often to the detriment of the actual Sonic game.

A more interesting question is just how bad Sega is in this regard, compared to its competitors in the video game industry. I mean just to cite two examples, EA and Activision are notorious in the industry for piling extreme pressure on the developers and shutting down well-loved studios on a whim, much to the anger of fans. 

One should remember that Sega is a Japanese studio who's issues are different than those two 

 

Japanese companies suffer from Financial conservatism that discourages risks to an extreme degree. Meanwhile Publicly traded  American Companies kinda suffer from "Profit first" mentality that ignores the Long Term. 

 

Not saying the two cultures are alien to each other as you have financial conservatism in America and Neoliberalism in Japan, but in general corporate culture is different. 

[Cooldude]

On 2/27/2023 at 10:04 PM, ComeAsYouAre said:

One should remember that Sega is a Japanese studio who's issues are different than those two 

Japanese companies suffer from Financial conservatism that discourages risks to an extreme degree. Meanwhile Publicly traded  American Companies kinda suffer from "Profit first" mentality that ignores the Long Term. 

Not saying the two cultures are alien to each other as you have financial conservatism in America and Neoliberalism in Japan, but in general corporate culture is different. 

Sure there are cultural differences...but there are also similiarities, I mean they all operate in the video game industry with similiar constraints and resoures. Its not like they operate on alien planets with no commonalities between them.