As of lately, Sonic the Hedgehog hasn't been having that much of a good run lately. The last good game was...I dunno, perhaps 10+ years ago? (Excluding Generation, because, well...that was a good idea). But honestly, the last game, Sonic Boom, it just...it really killed Sonic for me. I get that there's some sort of progression that many franchises must go through, but you know there's something wrong with a franchise when they have to completely redesign everything we know about a classic character and how his games are designed. Before anyone says this, yes, I KNOW that Sonic Boom wasn't Sega's fault, it was...Big Red Button, I think. But do you guys think Sonic will make a comeback like his first few years of glory?

SEGA has a problem. We've had interventions for them numerous times, and they just won't quit. Their problem is that they refuse to stick to one idea. We spend the entirety of their games testing their new ideas, and they never expand upon them to make them better in another game, they move onto the next one, dooming every single game to mediocrity or worse (usually worse. Okay, always worse)

ender44 : Actually, that's spot on. Every sonic game that most people can agree are good are the games that stayed true to what we first loved about him in the first place: Pure speed. Games like the Sonic 1 and 2, Sonic and Knuckles, and Adventure 1 and 2 (with a mix of other mechanics that at some point remained true to what a sonic game should be like). Sega should take some notes from Nintendo on how to maintain a franchise.

In a couple words... Probably not.

In more than that, I'd say it's highly unlikely that Sonic the Hedgehog is ever the behemoth it was in the 16-bit ERA.

It's not that they can't do that, in Generations, they showed the ability to have a fun Sonic experience, and even made the 3D levels more like what they should be as well. It was pretty much the best Sonic game in years, and I honestly enjoyed it more than I enjoyed the Genesis originals (and by far).

The only game that has it seemingly beat is Sonic Adventure 2, beyond that, the franchise has been pretty desolate, and that's because SEGA has a different idea of what their franchise should be. It's not that they can't make good games anymore, they've had many decent releases over the past decade. Just many of them are not Sonic games.

If you don't like it, vote with your wallet and refuse to buy the games. Game companies make games that sell. I haven't purchased a Sonic game since Generations, and that's probably the last one I'll buy for a while.

Sometimes, a game can return to its roots (see Generations), but it never stays there. Stagnation is worse than trying something new. Complacency leads to repetition. For an idea of what I mean, look at the Final Fantasy games, a series I personally enjoy, but has objectively gotten worse with time.

legacyme3 : I partially agree with you on that. Some games, such as the 2K series, the NBA series, and basically anything by EA Sports, produce the exact type of game EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Mostly the same teams, mostly the same stats, and mostly the same systems: 360/PS3. They're the same type of game, but people still buy them as if they've never seen a sports game before.
Where I somewhat disagree on this is not complacency, but similarities. I'll use Mario as an example. Ever since Super Mario 64, A LOT of the 3D Mario games have followed the same type of control scheme (I know this from watching game play and playing Super Mario Galaxy 2. I literally said "These controls are just like on the 64!"). Not only is the scheme similar, but so is the "story": Princess gets captured every time, Boswer is the culprit at fault nearly every time, Mario has to save her nearly every time, Luigi is living in Mario's shadow almost every time...It's the same type of formula. It becomes a different game by adding a few new features while staying true to its roots, in this case, in the form of new power ups or new challenge stages. The game still has the same end goal, but has a different approach of getting there, with new abilities and/or limits.
That's how I see it at least.

It doesn't even have to be like Nintendo, who basically make the same game with a different shirt and sell it as new (at least often enough for it to be mentioned). They just need to expand upon ideas. It doesn't need to be the thing forever, they could benefit from it.

legacyme3 : That's my least favorite thing about franchises. There will always be delusional people who don't understand that the game series they have devoted so much attention to is made by people sitting in a room who don't care about them at all. They will buy the game no matter what, say it was fantastic, and when people like me try to bring up its problems, they call us "not real fans". It limits the game industry. Final Fantasy is a prime example. At this point it barely even looks like Square wants to make games anymore, and they would much rather make movies (see final fantasy 13). People keep buying the games, though. They stick with it for better or for worse, and it will always be worse because of it.

Ro.kker:

What you fail to realize though, is that a sports game and a traditional video game can't be fairly compared.

NBA 2k, for example, one of the greatest of all sports games is almost required to be the same game every year. They can't change the rules of basketball to suit their needs, and the most they can do is change the user interface, and streamline the gameplay to make it more fluid. It's both an advantage and disadvantage.

Also, given licensing agreements with the NBA, MLB, NFL, etc, there are rules the developers are required to follow outside of the ones that their development studio has for them. Sonic games are not under this same lens, because the development is generally internal, and the source material, and all licensing rights are held within the same studio.

I buy annual editions of sports games, because I don't mind paying money to have a slightly upgraded experience (the only thing I love more than video games are sports, specifically baseball) that remains true to the source material. I would extend this same courtesy to SEGA if they were to stick to their own source material, but they are not shoehorned into doing so. They can do whatever they want, and often miss the mark entirely.

The Mario example you spoke of is why I stopped playing Mario games. Eventually, the same thing over and over gets boring, no matter what new mechanics or abilities you add to the game. It's a weakness in the franchise mold, and what I call "CoD Syndrome". The more releases you have concurrently, or within a small time frame, the less I want to play your games.

Since 2005 (10 years) 7/8 main series Super Mario games have been released. (New Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Galaxy, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario 3D Land, New Super Mario Bros. 2, New Super Mario Bros. U, Super Mario 3D World)

Most of the games above are the same game ported, reported, and stylized for the console in question. The ones that aren't are basic deviations from the original source material. Outside of the original Galaxy, and 3D Land, the games have been largely lousy (in my opinion), and have lost my interest for the forseeable future. In 10 years, they have made two main series Mario games that I would not consider mediocre. Mario is quickly becoming one of those complacent franchises that thinks it can get away with repacking the same thing over and over, and only make a new interesting title every 4-5 years or so).

For an example of a franchise that hasn't lost its way and does the job right, look no further than The Legend of Zelda. I'll admit, I was not a fan of Skyward Sword, but they've managed to take a repetitive mold and make it fun each and every time, for the most part. Since 2005 (the same timeframe as Mario), they've made fewer games, but each of them had something worth adding to the franchise. Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, Skyward Sword, and A Link Between Worlds. I'm not including the remakes for the 3DS, but even if I was, those revamped the games and made them better, so even those had use.

They've managed to make me look forward to playing the next Zelda game, whereas the Mario franchise has me wishing for them to take a 2-3 year hiatus to plan a new idea.

ender44 - woops

I will say that while Square Enix has been disappointing recently (I hated 13, but liked the two sequels a little), Final Fantasy XV has me foaming at the mouth. It looks incredible, and if it can deliver on its promise, it will be worth not only all the hype it has gotten, but all the hype every game since 12 has gotten.

I love the Final Fantasy franchise, and it would be incredible to see XV be as good as I hope it to be. (Also, Type-0 HD was supposedly fantastic, though I've yet to play it myself)

legacyme3 : Uh... why did you summon me here? 

thing1 :

I don't really know. I think I had two things open at once, and left the computer for a long enough time that I forgot which thread I was in.

Now I'm worried I didn't summon you to another post, somewhere.

ender44 :

I meant to summon you I guess, sorry for mixing you up with thing1 for whatever reason (I'm pretty sure this qualifies as one of my bigger mistakes)

legacyme3 : no worries. It happens to me too sometimes. 

.
I don't think sonic will ever go back to the original. The original was a 2D side scroller. People just don't like those kind of games these days. 

Ro.kerr : Actually, Sonic Colors was a fantastic game too, in my opinion it was better than Generations, but to answer your question, I just don't think that he'll ever return to where he was 10+ years ago because SEGA just can't seem to consistently make great games. It seems like whenever they seem to be on a roll again like they were with Colors and Generations, they seem to just kill their momentum by making a game like Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric...

It's doubtful, what with the way Sonic Team is handling the blue hedgehog. Let's hope that Sega conducts a massive shakeup of Sonic Team so that Sega can be profitable enough to return to consoles. Sadly with the way things stand however, it will be a long time if that will happen, lets just hope it won't be too late. 

While my only memories of Sonic are on the Genesis, I do have to say that what I tried of Sonic 3D blast made me think that the franchise wasn't that interesting anymore. Oh, the graphics were beautiful, but I didn't have the same interest playing it.

It's no wonder Sega has been struggling so much. Despite superior technology it never seemed to have been able to market its products appropriately

Well Sonic as a franchise has been dying slowly I pretty much lost hope with Boom since I hated it even more than 06. The only good modern Sonic games all around in my opinion have been Colours and Generations. I think Sonic as a franchise is more likely to die completely than it actually going back to how it used to be and staying that way at this point, maybe there could be some hope for Sega coming back on the right track if they actually managed to release a good sonic game next but I'm not holding my breath considering their track record.

legacyme3 : Well, your first part is true; there's no denying that comparing a sports game to a video game is fair. That's just something I blatantly overlooked

As for the part about the franchise molds, I can understand that you have more of a knack for sports games instead of Mario since you like sports. I personally don't think Mario falls under the CoD Syndrome you mentioned. There's no denying that they have made repetitive games, that's for sure, but we should also take into consideration that there are a few spin offs, such as Mario Party (even though I prefer the first 4 and wish the others could compare in my opinion), Yoshi's Island,  Mario Kart, and even Luigi's Mansion. When Nintendo isn't sucking us dry for their repetitive games, they try to add in something new or changing a major element of a game. One notable example is the new game specifically for Toad, called Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker. As far as I can tell from a bit of gameplay, the biggest difference so far is that you have to explore a very small area and that you can't jump (coming from a game where the main character was originally named jumpman). Another example is Kirby's Epic Yarn, where instead of absorbing your enemy's powers, the player has to interact with enemies and the environment in order to progress.

I bring that huge paragraph to say this: Yes, Nintendo does use the same mold for their games sometimes, but I think it's only when they've completely failed on something when they use something familiar to their fans in order to stay at the top, like how the Wii U was a bit of a let down until Smash 4 came by (unless you had a 3DS and used that instead...then what would it matter? lol).

Legacy, just a question, but is your dislike of Mario from its current repetitive streak in such a small time, the similar formula used for many of the games, or both?

My dislike of Mario stems from both its current repetitive streak, as well as a lack of support on other consoles (though this latter reason is unavoidable and stupid, and is part of the hellspawn known as Console Exclusivity).

The games, even when they are different, often handle in similar fashions and don't really bring much to the table that I'm seeking. I seek innovation, or taking a concept and evolving it further. What the Mario franchise fails to do is bring out the innovation I'm seeking (they may not be entirely failing in this respect, but they fail on a personal level, which is what matters) nor do they evolve those concepts that I do like, and leave them stuck in the past.

You mentioned Luigi's Mansion, a game I enjoyed a lot when it was on the GameCube. This is the type of innovation and mold breaking gameplay that I want. But then they made the awful 3DS game within the same franchise that took about 20 steps backward, and only added a stale multiplayer mode that really shouldn't have existed in the first place, if they weren't going to try.

More or less, the Mario franchises seem to be stagnating. As somebody who doesn't have unlimited money, my best chances of playing the new Nintendo games is to play them when I'm visiting a friend. I don't have a problem with this, and have finished many games as a result (Skyward Sword being a particularly long one that I finished across multiple visits), but it sucks for gamers who are forced to make a choice between Mario 85: Same Old s*** Repackaged and something that is relatively unique, for an exclusive title (The Last of Us, which I personally didn't like, but is universally loved). Console exclusivity is both Nintendo's strongest weapon, and its greatest weakness. Their lack of third party support pushes thousands away, and is why I can't give Mario games a more thorough look.

I still find enjoyment in some of the games, but they are no longer the awe-inspiring classics of my youth, and have degenerated in shameless watered down shells of what they once were. The innovation that once made Nintendo consoles must haves are no longer.

That's probably the long way of saying "I've outgrown being appeased by the same thing over and over", but the only repetition I will accept in video games comes from JRPGs (Only so many ways you can do a JRPG) and sports games (duh), and even then, I wish there was more they could do.

Hope that answers the question.

legacyme3 : Ohhhhh, okay, now I understand c: Well, thank you for replying this whole time

There's a chance that Generations will be the last good Sonic game. Sega has turned themselves to mobile games; although they never said they weren't going to make console games it's a safe bet they won't make them often. The team in charge of Sonic Boom already confirmed they won't do the series any sort of justice either. I don't think Sonic deserves it this hard. .-.

legacyme3 : I sadly agree with you on that. Mario games are pretty stale. The spinoffs like Luigi's Mansion, Paper Mario, and the Mario & Luigi games are almost infinitely better games. And while they need more 3rd party support, that was the reason the Wii games were 90% shovelware. I think they definitely need more quality control, and to trust developers more.

Nah Sonic isn't going to be as big as he used to be but he is going to be going away any time soon despite the decrease in sales. They split up the fanbase with all their different gameplay styles from 2d platforming to a 3d open world then team base platforming then they made sonic have a boost bar then they kept the boost bar and added the werehog then they put in wisp power ups and then they added classic sonic. Geez the list goes on. I barely scratched the surface. I probably have more chance getting struck by lighting twice than Sonic getting a game that isn't mediocre or out right bad because SEGA/SonicTeam wants to reinvent the wheel every time they make a game. What is sad is that I love a good chunk of the Sonic series but it is annoying that SEGA don't stick with something and improve on it rather than burn everything and start fresh when it doesn't go as planned.

thing1 : That isn't true at all. There's a large community that enjoys 2D type games. This is proven by the support given to Indie games on sites like Steam.

Games like FEZ and Mega Man 9/10 have proven, if done right, that people still love these types of games.
Then there's also the large community on sites like VIZZED that people come to just to play old games like that.

The issue is, that large developers always seem to be hesitant to go all-in on 2d remakes/new games. They usually do this weird 2.5D type hybrid. Similar to games like the Rocket Knight and the Bionic Commando remakes that didn't seem to appeal to the retro crowd, or the new crowd.

There has been traction on Sonic Fan Projects that are complete remakes of original games. Like Sonic 2. That's the thing. THE FANS mostly want 2D type game from Sega. Problem is, they just wont make it for whatever reason.