Sega: Sonic Games Don't Suck, You Just Don't Understand Them
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Now I don't believe in the "customer is always right" thing....because truth be told they ain't always right sometimes......but this is just asking for it.
Sonic games focus too much on making light of dark situations. It's like they try to aim at a lower age group with each game. Adventure was more in the 6-12 group, Adventure 2 was more for the 7-14 group. Then with the downhill games you have Heroes in the 5-11 group, Shadow in the 5-10 group, and so on, decreasing by one top appealing age.
Unleashed was just ridiculous and for 6 year-olds.
4 looks decent though, I must admit...
Unleashed was just ridiculous and for 6 year-olds.
4 looks decent though, I must admit...
Ah, self-justification...even at this you fail Sega.
But Sega, really? You have come to the point where you are blaming the very fanbase for your crap games? For your shitty decisions about turning Sonic games 3D?
Even the fans you once had aren't being fooled by this craptacular display of excuses for your incompetence at appealing to your target audience.
But Sega, really? You have come to the point where you are blaming the very fanbase for your crap games? For your shitty decisions about turning Sonic games 3D?
Even the fans you once had aren't being fooled by this craptacular display of excuses for your incompetence at appealing to your target audience.
Hey SEGA, and Sonic team, too. You say that I, as a Sonic fan, have the wrong expectations about your past ten years of Sonic games?
What, exactly, was I supposed to expect when in Sonic and the Secret Rings, the first new Sonic title released on the Wii...
*deep breath*
YOU HAD ME DRIVING SONIC LIKE A FUCKING CAR?!?
What, exactly, was I supposed to expect when in Sonic and the Secret Rings, the first new Sonic title released on the Wii...
*deep breath*
YOU HAD ME DRIVING SONIC LIKE A FUCKING CAR?!?
...great now Sega is acting like a little kid. Why is it that everybody's response to poor quality is turning into childish remarks like this? I hope Sega realizes that this isn't helping your reputation right?
I wonder if Sega will drop any farther.
And off topic, what ever happened to Sega's OTHER game series.
I wonder if Sega will drop any farther.
And off topic, what ever happened to Sega's OTHER game series.
To be argumentative "Eggman" was his original name. For some reason when the series was brought over to America they saw fit to change the name to "Robotnik". It wasn't until, what SA2 that they found a way to fix that discrepancy.Cray Z Munkey said:
I wouldn't think so.. but someone keeps buying the garbage they keep releasing with the name Sonic on the box.Podunk said:
I think Sega and a lot of game companies for that matter need to consider the maxim "The Customer Is Always Right". I think that like with a lot of other things in the gaming industry we're looking at an increasingly corperate culture basically punching in a bunch of numbers based on their research and then deciding what the perfect game is, and if we don't like it, obviously there is something wrong with those doing the complaining.
The truth remains that corperations have always been especially bad at the actual creative process itself, I think the gaming industry which is based on creativity has been suffering to some extent as a whole because of it's insistance on becoming increasingly corperate and statistic driven to make more money.
I usually consider it a bad sign whenever a developer or even a producer decides to claim their fans are somehow at fault for a bad product. Even with movies "we overestimated the audience, obviously people are too dumb" seems to be an increasing reflex. Of course then again I suppose trying to cater to the mainstream and that ultra-low common human denominator is also at fault. I mean what would have been a success if targeting a regular sized, or niche, audience can be failure if your predicting (and requiring) something to see millions upon millions of sales and turn into a cultural phenomena.
I'll also be honest in saying the same thing I did about the latest "Final Fantasy" game: We are currently using the current generation of technology because it's supposed to be better than the stuff we left behind. If the current tech can't do things that were previously common, like detailed city/world building in RPGs, or producing a good Sonic game that meets the expectations of the long-term fans, then the current tech is hardly an improvement. It's the job of the industry to get itself together and make things work, not give the fanbase excuses. If a company can't perform reasonably at the current level, then they should go back a generation and design more for the PS-2 and X-box (currently a lot of units out there) or whatever.
While this is getting somewhat off subject, I'm rapidly beginning to think of the Wii/PS-3/360 era as being the gaming "age of corperate whining" more than anything. Oh sure we see some decent stuff, but for every genuinely awesome game released that wows the audience we seem to see two designers making excuses for why their current work can't be as awesome as their previous work because of "limitations on the current, more advanced, technology" which is supposed to be better. My attitude is basically that they need to put their nose to the grind stone and find a way to make the things us consumers want, or get out of the business, instead of crying "OMG, we can't do that" or acting like the audience are stupid or retarded for expecting things that could have been accomplished a generation of tech ago (or even two) with current, much more powerful technology.
Such are my thoughts and opinions. The bottom line is that Sega and Team Sonic have nobody to blame for their poor reception except for themselves. It's our job to tell them when a game is good, as we are the ones paying for it, it's not their job to dictate it to us.
The truth remains that corperations have always been especially bad at the actual creative process itself, I think the gaming industry which is based on creativity has been suffering to some extent as a whole because of it's insistance on becoming increasingly corperate and statistic driven to make more money.
I usually consider it a bad sign whenever a developer or even a producer decides to claim their fans are somehow at fault for a bad product. Even with movies "we overestimated the audience, obviously people are too dumb" seems to be an increasing reflex. Of course then again I suppose trying to cater to the mainstream and that ultra-low common human denominator is also at fault. I mean what would have been a success if targeting a regular sized, or niche, audience can be failure if your predicting (and requiring) something to see millions upon millions of sales and turn into a cultural phenomena.
I'll also be honest in saying the same thing I did about the latest "Final Fantasy" game: We are currently using the current generation of technology because it's supposed to be better than the stuff we left behind. If the current tech can't do things that were previously common, like detailed city/world building in RPGs, or producing a good Sonic game that meets the expectations of the long-term fans, then the current tech is hardly an improvement. It's the job of the industry to get itself together and make things work, not give the fanbase excuses. If a company can't perform reasonably at the current level, then they should go back a generation and design more for the PS-2 and X-box (currently a lot of units out there) or whatever.
While this is getting somewhat off subject, I'm rapidly beginning to think of the Wii/PS-3/360 era as being the gaming "age of corperate whining" more than anything. Oh sure we see some decent stuff, but for every genuinely awesome game released that wows the audience we seem to see two designers making excuses for why their current work can't be as awesome as their previous work because of "limitations on the current, more advanced, technology" which is supposed to be better. My attitude is basically that they need to put their nose to the grind stone and find a way to make the things us consumers want, or get out of the business, instead of crying "OMG, we can't do that" or acting like the audience are stupid or retarded for expecting things that could have been accomplished a generation of tech ago (or even two) with current, much more powerful technology.
Such are my thoughts and opinions. The bottom line is that Sega and Team Sonic have nobody to blame for their poor reception except for themselves. It's our job to tell them when a game is good, as we are the ones paying for it, it's not their job to dictate it to us.
lol this is hilarious.
as an earlier post noted, Sega is going ostrich on the gaming communities critics, burying it's head in the sand.
Would it bee too much to ask for a branchout for Sonic? I do love Sonic, but his games are so damn stale. Can anyone else imagine an open world game the size of Just Cause 2 with Sonic in it? I think if it was done right then it could actually be awespome as.
as an earlier post noted, Sega is going ostrich on the gaming communities critics, burying it's head in the sand.
Would it bee too much to ask for a branchout for Sonic? I do love Sonic, but his games are so damn stale. Can anyone else imagine an open world game the size of Just Cause 2 with Sonic in it? I think if it was done right then it could actually be awespome as.
Sonic has a lot of Nostolgia behind him, especially for a lot of the Gen-Xers who are having kids and also want them to experience it. Sonic was so awesome at one time that the franchise is still running off that steam, even if it's rapidly losing headway.StriderShinryu said:
It's also noteworthy that Sonic is considered generally safe and kid friendly, sort of like Mario, and I think that also has a lot to do with it. Even if crummy, people figure the games are risk-free to buy for a child.
Then of course there is the whole "Anthromorph" factor, and the Furry Fandom. While a minority, furries still represent a pretty solid niche audience. Even when you get past the pornographic aspects (which are pursued with fervor and gusto), Sonic is simply one of the more developed and obtainable anthromorphic universes out there. I think there are a decent number of people who buy Sonic stuff for this reason, like there are people who will follow certain comic titles almost religiously so they can have everything, and if things get good again talk about how they remained a faithfull fan even during the dark times and kept it alive until good development eventually arrived.
The point being that Sonic has a solid fanbase that is balanced on a lot of differant tiers. The character got to the point where the name is going to sell titles. There are long term fans who will buy Sonic titles just for the social aspects of being able to talk about how horrible they are with authority when dealing with other fanboys who are doing the same thing.
Such are my opinions and thoughts (aside from the ones I expressed in my last message)
