How many good Sonic games after Superstars is needed to get the franchise back on top in the video game industry?

[Rabbitearsblog]

So, how many good Sonic the Hedgehog games after Sonic Superstars do you think we need to get the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise back on top in the video game industry?  I personally think that there needs to be at least 6 good games in a row for the franchise to reach the top of the video game industry.   Sonic Frontiers and Sonic Superstars are a step in the right direction, but some of their game mechanics need to be improved upon in the next set of games.

[GX -The Spindash-]

I think the issue is a little bit deeper than "how many good games." Critically speaking, when I have the rare chance to talk with writers outside of the fanbase, I get the vibe that Sonic have "laid the groundwork for a good game" several times already without capitalizing on it. Sonic Unleashed isn't the top-tier game, but it lays the groundwork for fleshing out the ideas and polishing them. Sonic Colors lays the groundwork for the possible best game, Sonic Generations, Sonic Lost World, Sonic Frontiers, etc... but without ever actually getting there. It's a perpetual "When are they gonna get to the fireworks factory" for the series where it always feels like a step sideways, not a full step forward.

I don't think the series needs to inherently just have a series of consecutive better reviewed games. I think it needs to come with a consistency, creative and interesting iteration, and a dedication to quality control that Sonic Team hasn't had a strong history of since the early 90s. And... a big part of that from my perspective is finally establishing a clear stable vision of what the series currently is and wants to be, and an understanding of how that will be compared in the larger games ecosystem. They could, in theory, rebuild a strong reputation in just two games: A surprising hit and a strong follow-up to it; you can see the potential in the way that there were calls for a never-to-arrive Mania 2 following that game's success.

I just don't know if they can ever truly accomplish that in the way that these games are currently made. Even with a much longer dev cycle than most other Sonic games, Frontiers still feels like it's a proof of concept more than a fully realized world of platforming challenges. And while I like Superstars just fine and I think it was absolutely the right choice to replicate the pinball-style physics of Mania, proper focus testing probably should have ironed out the strangely close camera and boss pacing. I want to believe that whatever will come next will take the prior games and use them as a template that can be improved on, but with Kishimoto being weirdly active and open on Twitter like he has... I just have no idea if we're looking at an iteration on Frontiers next, or if we once again start from a semi-clean slate and have to learn all the pitfalls of this new format.

[Sega DogTagz]

This isn't a question that has a real answer because game quality isn't the sole factor that puts games at the top of the industry. In all honesty, it probably isn't even one of the top three influences that decides it.

 

It certainly helps to develop a consistently great product, but Marketing and Hype both play a much larger role than game quality. As does timeliness, uniqueness, brand positioning and appeal. You could point to dozens of extremely high quality series (like say Bayonetta for example) that constantly are praised for their perfect quality, but never break the bank sales wise and rarely remain relevant for long after their release. Meanwhile, unmitigated disasters like Cyberpunk, or ho-hum efforts like Pokemon or Madden can quite literally shovel trash onto your front lawn, and rake in the sales while impacting society and culture at large. Most Madden fans would tell you in a heartbeat that the annual franchise has been putting out half-hearted efforts since they got the exclusive NFL license 20 years ago. Thats 20 years of mid to trash quality, but the brand still sits at the pinnacle of gaming. They have positioned themselves as the only game in town if you want your football fix, so the quality of said product means significantly less in the grand scheme of things.

 

So if you really want to talk about putting Sonic back on top, you would need to take all of that into account. Brand positioning probably being the most important. Between the movies, TV shows and comics, Sonic has always tried to create a universal presence, which can synergize with the game market. But most importantly, the games need to find a unique identity to capture and exploit. They may be platformers at heart, but they need to provide an experience that you simply can't get anywhere else. The titan fights in Frontiers were probably the biggest step toward that goal since the Boost Formula ripped across screens in the early Unleahsed trailers. It captured hearts and minds. You can still see people putting Undefeatable on blast a year after the game shipped. A renewed focus on unique experiences is what will push the franchise back to the top.

[GX -The Spindash-]

4 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

It certainly helps to develop a consistently great product, but Marketing and Hype both play a much larger role than game quality. As does timeliness, uniqueness, brand positioning and appeal.

In this case, I'm not sure there's any real lacking. Frontiers and Superstars had pretty strong marketing campaigns across multiple regions, and from the numbers, Frontiers ultimately did wind up selling well... at least by the initial expectations SEGA had for it. In some ways, Sonic games are practically manufactured to market well, with a lot of aid from marketing collaborations, the movies, the Prime series, and attention-grabbing social media efforts via animated shorts, comics, and art.

I interpreted the question more along the lines of critical reception, whether that was the initial intent or not.

[Rabbitearsblog]

1 hour ago, GX -The Spindash- said:

In this case, I'm not sure there's any real lacking. Frontiers and Superstars had pretty strong marketing campaigns across multiple regions, and from the numbers, Frontiers ultimately did wind up selling well... at least by the initial expectations SEGA had for it. In some ways, Sonic games are practically manufactured to market well, with a lot of aid from marketing collaborations, the movies, the Prime series, and attention-grabbing social media efforts via animated shorts, comics, and art.

I interpreted the question more along the lines of critical reception, whether that was the initial intent or not.

Oh yeah, I meant critical wise. 

[Sega DogTagz]

3 hours ago, GX -The Spindash- said:

In this case, I'm not sure there's any real lacking. Frontiers and Superstars had pretty strong marketing campaigns across multiple regions, and from the numbers, Frontiers ultimately did wind up selling well... at least by the initial expectations SEGA had for it. In some ways, Sonic games are practically manufactured to market well, with a lot of aid from marketing collaborations, the movies, the Prime series, and attention-grabbing social media efforts via animated shorts, comics, and art

They indeed had good marketing and sales, if your using Sonic and/or Sega games as a baseline. Frontiers sold gangbusters as far as Sega's projections were concerned.

However when you are talking "top of the industry" its still a drop in the bucket compared to the franchises the rule to roost. Frontiers had a good marketing campaign, but its nothing compared to the efforts you see for COD or Pokemon. Frontiers sold plenty, but it still gets smoked by AAA exclusives like GOW.

 

 

Quote

I interpreted the question more along the lines of critical reception, whether that was the initial intent or not.

 

Thats fine. Doesn't makes sense to me though.

Critics don't decide which franchise rules the day. They never do. Thats a public domain function.

 

 

[Rabbitearsblog]

42 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

They indeed had good marketing and sales, if your using Sonic and/or Sega games as a baseline. Frontiers sold gangbusters as far as Sega's projections were concerned.

However when you are talking "top of the industry" its still a drop in the bucket compared to the franchises the rule to roost. Frontiers had a good marketing campaign, but its nothing compared to the efforts you see for COD or Pokemon. Frontiers sold plenty, but it still gets smoked by AAA exclusives like GOW.

 

 

 

Thats fine. Doesn't makes sense to me though.

Critics don't decide which franchise rules the day. They never do. Thats a public domain function.

 

 

Not to mention, you wouldn't believe how many times critics and audiences have butted heads on the quality of a content.  So, most audiences don't really take a critic's word for granted when it comes to a franchise that they care about.

[Palas]

Never going to happen again. Forget it. This is an industry that curates its own history and sets its own standards for quality -- which means the language is construed by those at the forefront of the technological, material and technical realms of development. Sonic can make as many good games as it wants: the top of the industry dictates what "good" means. It's a completely different level, and doesn't depend on Sonic as a brand or any supposed inherent quality the games have.

[GX -The Spindash-]

8 hours ago, Sega DogTagz said:

Critics don't decide which franchise rules the day. They never do. Thats a public domain function.

They don't, but they can be a good reference for what the general quality of a product is moreso than public quality metrics like Steam reviews or Metacritic audience reviews, things that are really prone to exploitation by mobilized or extremely passionate sub-groups. However, for the purposes of what I'm going for, you could also probably lump in content creators and general social media discourse in with what a "critic" will be in this circumstance. Even if it's not directly "criticism," the degree to which something is being talked about or shown off is still a useful metric.

Sonic has a level of mass market appeal, enough that marketing can get you to decent sales numbers for the scale that SEGA is working at. But Sonic still has a significant reputation of quality issues that... in my opinion is exaggerated but still has enough truth to it. Some people will dive right into Sonic without seeing it, but there's just as much apprehension surrounding it. Even two of the examples you listed, Cyberpunk and Pokemon, were riding a wave of positivity following the Witcher series and Legends Arceus (though both also benefit from being part of a broader licensing ecosystem, and both have very different standards for what is needed to keep their respective machines running).

SEGA has spent countless entries letting unpolished releases erode trust. While I hesitate to really bring too much personal experience into it, it's the best I got for now, and of the non-Sonic communities I hang out in, there's largely an attitude that recent Sonic games have been, at best, just okay. It would take something significantly better than "just okay" to break through that, and I don't think better marketing alone can overcome it.