Options
Should Sonic games be lower-budget?
- Should Sonic games be lower-budget?
-
Should Sonic games be lower-budget?
Tominique > 10-13-2024, 06:44 AM
I recall watching a video by Pariah695 talking about if the Sonic franchise should have Triple-A games, and I've been wondering what others here thing about this.
So summarize the points in the video, though I will still heavily recommend a watch 'cause I'm omitting a lot of stuff:
Yes, a big, high-budget, über cinematic journey of a Sonic game would kick all kinds of grass, but Sonic's appeal in the gaming landscape is kind of a double-edged sword that doesn't let that happen without massive monetary loss.
Sonic as a franchise is in a weird spot where everyone knows Sonic, but it's only really the minority of the hardcore fans that really stick around for the games themselves since even back at the Genesis trilogy, they were not mass-appeal games in terms of their gameplay. What drags Sonic for most is simply the brand name and it's characters more than the actual games, which leads the franchise to something like Sonic Frontiers, where it tries to shape the franchise into something it isn't because what the franchise is doesn't make sales.
Therefore, it would be a much safer investment and better for the franchise's identity to make smaller-budget, less committal games that focus on the niche that Sonic does best. Look at Sonic Mania and it's success, since it didn't really make insane sales, but still did well enough to get an expansion due to the game's lower budget.
Which is to say, smaller games that don't need as big of a success to net a positive gain. And thus the franchise can, again, focus on it's niche instead of trend-chasing, and hopefully grow into something more as a franchise with smaller, but quality games that you wouldn't get elsewhere.
... Now, for what I think of it.
I've always seen Sonic as a franchise with games on the lower-end of production. They're usually games you could beat in a few hours, but their main drag is the replayability that keep you in more from mastering what content it has rather than tagging you along for a massive journey. So specially now I do think it's kind of a dumb idea to risk a bigger budget on games of which the appeal is more on the brand itself than the actual gameplay.
As much as I say that these past years have been a good year to be a Sonic fan, that doesn't mean Sonic's perception to the general audience has changed much. It's wild how such an iconic franchise in the gaming industry can be that way with such a rocky reputation. Sure, everyone knows Sonic, but the real question is does everyone care about Sonic and will actually play the games starring the blue rat?
SEGA seems to be putting all their chips in Sonic X Shadow Generations, which has me both excited and a bit concerned for it's reception, and overall glad they're putting so much trust in the Sonic name. But I still believe more Sonic projects moving forward should be more focused experiences in that small package that Sonic usually has them on. Like Sonic Superstars! (Because I'm still very sour about how poorly that game got received despite being the best thing ever.)
And y'know, less committal projects also lets the franchise get wildly experimental again. Maybe outsourced to third-parties like the DIMPS days.
Because let's face it, even with stuff like the movies giving the franchise a boost, the games are nowhere near as big as they were back in ye olden days and shouldn't be treated as such, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing if that means we finally get that Omega third-person-shooter spin-off!
-
RE: Should Sonic games be lower-budget?
Ryan the Game Master > 10-16-2024, 12:43 AM
Hm.
Personally, I don't think any budget is going to get the franchise that worldwide relevancy. Not even a AAA game on the same level of the other big names will fix it. That "Sonic was never good" narrative has gone on for too long and done too much damage. Even with the success of the movies, IDW, Mania, and Frontiers, the Sonic franchise will always be remembered for the Classic Era heyday and literally everything else "sucking". That's the public perception, and no amount of As will change that.
At least, not easily.
What Sonic needs is consistency. As much as I love the experimentation, it doesn't and won't mean jack to the public. They don't like Sonic, and they certainly don't like us for liking him. Normies need a reason to like Sonic and get into the franchise, something the movies still haven't done for anyone older than 9.
The movies, the Archie comics, the Fleetway comics, the IDW comics, Sonic Boom, etc. There are plenty of fans which consume content from all these other mediums, all these other universes, but won't/can't touch ANY era of the source material with a 10-foot pole for one reason or another (ease, public perception, peer pressure, budget, piss-poor game preservation, etc). The Marvel Cinematic Universe has the same problem: As popular as those moves were, a relatively small fraction of those who watched them were moved to start reading the comics that spawned them.
All in all, I don't think the budget of a Sonic game matters. Whether it costs half a billion or a 500 grand or even a fan project made official for no money at all, quality is quality, and the people need to see that Sonic has it, over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over again, and if they don't - even ONCE - they will make their displeasure known for years to come, through mockery and memes.
TL;DR - Screw the budget, the games have to be good regardless. -
RE: Should Sonic games be lower-budget?
BDBGaming > 10-16-2024, 05:52 AM
Honestly, budget doesn't mean dog-water when the game's not good. Gameplay (In my opinion) is what matters most for a good game. As someone who has PTSD from playing Super Mario 3D world and 100 %ing it because my young cousins (oldest is 9) wanted to play it day after day, I'm not a big fan of Mario. Sonic is more fun for me, and Sonic Advance is a good piece of supporting evidence for this. It's also proving the point of gameplay over budget. Not only is it super fun, it has replayability, as not only are there 4 (5 in later games) characters, but each has certain routes when you look hard enough! (I H A T E Angel Island zone. SO EASY TO FALL! >
) It's SUPER FUN!
Although...
Budget could allow some of those games to be rebuilt. Like a remaster of Sonic Advance! An official one with no characters!
So my opinion?
Budget is something up to SEGA. People have mixed opinions, so there's nothing we can really say for the majority.
(THE PTSD THING IS A JOKE.) -
RE: Should Sonic games be lower-budget?
Tominique > 10-16-2024, 06:13 PM
I think there's been a bit of communication error here so lemme clarify things.
I'm not saying that if SEGA put 2.5 gazzillion dollaroos into the next Sonic game then we would have Sonic Heroes Adventure 3 Battle DX: Director's Cut & Freedom Fighters, nor do I want that. As I've said, I'd prefer the franchise going for less committal projects with less risks in their budget.
This is all taking Sonic Frontiers as an example, which is a game I bet wouldn't have done as well if it weren't for the outside help from the movies alongside hopping on to the open-world trend. And even then, while the game did good for Sonic standards, the sales weren't all that big otherwise for a game that tried to sell itself as so important.
It's as Ryan said, the Sonic name is pretty negative in the public perception, but the narrative has been changing in recent times, though I don't think Sonic Heroes Adventure 3 Battle DX: Director's Cut & Freedom Fighters coming out will be what does it, and nor is consistency.
I think wanting the Sonic franchise to be consistent is asking a bit too much, 'cause as 30 years of games show, the franchise is anything but. And that's how we get such devise opinions on it for a while now. Games wildly varying from each other require different judging, which makes for that divisiveness if you're expecting the franchise to be one thing.
And I get it, it's consistency in pure quality, not necessarily the way the game is. But again, divisive games. I myself think Sonic has had some great games over the years when looking at each of them individually, for what they are and with little to no bias. But not everyone does that. Some dislike Wisps in Sonic Colors, some dislike the weapons in Shadow the Hedgehog, some dislike multiple characters in Sonic Adventure 2, some dislike the momentum-based platforming in Sonic 1. Crucial parts of those games that make them special that also come at their detriment in terms of barrier of entry for how unorthodox they are.
That is to say. I think Sonic games do have a good record of quality, when you bother to learn them. Heroes went from one of my most disliked games to one of my favorites after I sat down and bothered to learn it's intricacies and really mastering it, and sitting down and learning them is what a majority of Sonic games ask from you. The problem comes with the fact people don't expect that level of nuance to be gathered from an E-rated game starring a blue cartoon hedgehog, so they go through the experience missing that vital piece that made everyone say Sonic Adventure 2 is actually just bad all along like 10 years later.
And that was all to say why I think, regardless of quality, it'd be the smarter move for lower production on Sonic games aimed for that dedicated crowd. Sonic Heroes Adventure 3 Battle DX: Director's Cut & Freedom Fighters can drop any time of the year and be the best thing ever for Sonic fans, but the average Joe can't do a jump properly so now the game controls bad and it's just another addition to the pile. Which won't hurt as much if the lower budget means the game still nets a big positive gain, then keep doing that and hopefully word of mouth keeps doing the job for the franchise's rep in the long run like how it has been recently.
Again, look at Sonic Mania. Didn't do amazing by greater standards, but for what it was it got deemed such a massive success it managed to get an expansion, I can bet part due to it's lower budget.
I really do feel Frontiers got where it did more so from the Sonic brand getting a boost from the movies and getting a lot of people into the franchise. And as I see it, if Sonic keeps doing it's Sonic thing while try to expand further and further, the movies gotta stop doing the heavy work eventually, and it will end up biting more than it can chew and we're gonna have to deal with another under-performing game discouraging SEGA again.
In short: I feel Sonic games have been good for a while, just not in the general eye, which I fear SEGA overextending the franchise for instead of staying within it's relatively niche strength.
Also, it's as BDB says, at the end of the day none of us really have a say on how the franchise is handled, and for all we know Sonic Heroes Adventure 3 Battle DX: Director's Cut & Freedom Fighters can come out and now Sonic is beloved worldwide forever. It's just discussion for the sake of it. -
RE: Should Sonic games be lower-budget?
BDBGaming > 10-17-2024, 05:40 AM
(10-16-2024, 06:13 PM)Tominique Wrote: Also, it's as BDB says, at the end of the day none of us really have a say on how the franchise is handled, and for all we know Sonic Heroes Adventure 3 Battle DX: Director's Cut & Freedom Fighters can come out and now Sonic is beloved worldwide forever. It's just discussion for the sake of it.
Man, BDB sounds like a smart guy. Sonic Heroes Adventure 3 Battle DX: Director's cut & Freedom Fighters could come out anytime Sonic Heroes Adventure 3 Battle DX: Director's cut & Freedom Fighters wants to!
(The BDB sounds smart thing was a joke.)
