[TimmiT]

The KKM, on 29 December 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

TimmiT- are we forgetting Sonic Unleashed already? What's so uncroyable about a PS4-XBone-WiiU game? They simply make what's essentially a different game reusing as many assets as possible, for the Wii U.

Because unlike the Wii U, the Wii was a well selling console and Sonic was one of the few third party franchises that actually sold well on the platform. It was worth having the big new Sonic game on there from a business-perspective. I can only seeing them making a different game if they plan on selling it on PS3 and Xbox 360 as well.

This post has been edited by TimmiT: 29 December 2014 - 05:15 PM

[Raia]

I'm a little surprised that there wasn't at least a teaser image included in the announcement, given how these announcements usually go and that this is a mobile title.

STHX, on 29 December 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

There is a good reason why that poster had a 2015 game on both PS4/One and Wii U: Sonic sells best on Nintendo platforms. Sonic Boom sold bad because 1) it's complete and utter shit and 2) as shown by the likes of DmC, Bionic Commando, Castlevania LoS, Lost Planet 3, RE: Operation Racoon City and many other "reboots", rebooting a series using a different and mediocre developer always ends in failure in the end.

Or one could look closer to home with Golden Axe Beast Rider, however didn't DmC and the first LoS perform well? heck, the former is getting a XBone and PS4 port...and the latter had a poorly received sequel.

This post has been edited by Raia: 29 December 2014 - 05:01 PM

[TimmiT]

STHX, on 29 December 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

There is a good reason why that poster had a 2015 game on both PS4/One and Wii U: Sonic sells best on Nintendo platforms...

With the exception of Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed, I wouldn't say so. You mentioned Sonic Lost World, but keep in mind that that's of a game for Wii U and 3DS, with the majority likely being on 3DS. Remove the 3DS sales and that number will be far less impressive. And seeing how Transformed was a launch title, it makes sense that it'd sell decently. Sales of Wii games don't mean much here as far more people owned that console.

[Covarr]

It's a shame DmC didn't sell better. I mean yeah, the story was fucked, the character redesigns were stupid, and thematically it was just all kinds of off-point, but when it came down to it, the game was fun. I actually kinda feel like using the Devil May Cry franchise on that one was a mistake; it's often easier to market "the next big thing" than "that old thing you know and love, now without the bits you know and love". Imagine if Destiny had been a Halo reboot. Exact same gameplay, mostly same story (change out some of the names and character designs), it would've sold like shit. Instead, it became the hottest new property of the year, despite being an all-around mediocre game. DmC put itself in a similar position, if it'd gotten a new IP to go with it, I think it could've drawn more attention.

Not to say reboots are always bad; Tomb Raider proved that a reboot can be great and successful when it's done well, especially since the franchise had repeatedly dug itself into a hole and kinda needed a reboot to survive. But what made this game work was that it ultimately still felt like Tomb Raider—even in spite of getting rid of any tomb raiding. They were rebooting it not to try and replace their target audience, but to say "this is the game we should've given you fifteen years ago, if we'd been able".

Sonic Boom? It kinda feels like a reboot for no particular reason. They're not trying to fulfill a franchise's missed potential. They're not trying to examine what did and didn't work in past games and fix that. It's change for the sake of change. Almost worse, the reason they did give was a bullshit one. They were trying to make something more western for a more western audience? But their western fanbase already liked what they'd been producing before. Up to this point, even the shitty ones sold reasonably well. But when you reboot a franchise, people will give it more scrutiny, so unless you have a legitimate reason to reboot it (messy canon, reworking stale or broken game mechanics, character designs actively seem stale in a bad way), you really would be better sticking with what you've got. Certainly, it seems to me that if something is doing well, you shouldn't change it in hopes of doing even better.

[Raia]

How much did the latest Olympics game sell anyways, since there wasn't even a 3DS version to fall back on.

Covarr, on 29 December 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

It's a shame DmC didn't sell better. I mean yeah, the story was fucked, the character redesigns were stupid, and thematically it was just all kinds of off-point, but when it came down to it, the game was fun. I actually kinda feel like using the Devil May Cry franchise on that one was a mistake; it's often easier to market "the next big thing" than "that old thing you know and love, now without the bits you know and love". Imagine if Destiny had been a Halo reboot. Exact same gameplay, mostly same story (change out some of the names and character designs), it would've sold like shit. Instead, it became the hottest new property of the year, despite being an all-around mediocre game. DmC put itself in a similar position, if it'd gotten a new IP to go with it, I think it could've drawn more attention.

Not to say reboots are always bad; Tomb Raider proved that a reboot can be great and successful when it's done well, especially since the franchise had repeatedly dug itself into a hole and kinda needed a reboot to survive. But what made this game work was that it ultimately still felt like Tomb Raider—even in spite of getting rid of any tomb raiding. They were rebooting it not to try and replace their target audience, but to say "this is the game we should've given you fifteen years ago, if we'd been able".

I think the Tomb Raider reboot itself had a troubled or at least lengthy development and at one point even had the Sleeping Dogs crew were brought in to help...still it did well (though not enough to be a major success or recoup the losses with the development time).

My particularly issue with the game came with the marketing/promoting they were going around with it, which included promoting grit and darkness as a selling point.

This post has been edited by Raia: 29 December 2014 - 05:26 PM

[TheKazeblade]

Well, how bad can they actually screw up an endless runner, right? Sonic Dash already kind of hit the bottom of the barrel with its paywalls and whatnot. Ideally Sonic Team will make something solid.

Unlike things like Boom where I'm unwilling to give up $50 for something I know is bad, I'll at least dish out what I assume will be $1 for the app even if it's mediocre, provided it's released for Android. And Endless Runners can be flat out great, I can see an awesome Sonic game come out of a template like Subway Surfers or similar games.

[STHX]

TimmiT, on 29 December 2014 - 05:13 PM, said:

With the exception of Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed, I wouldn't say so. You mentioned Sonic Lost World, but keep in mind that that's of a game for Wii U and 3DS, with the majority likely being on 3DS. Remove the 3DS sales and that number will be far less impressive. And seeing how Transformed was a launch title, it makes sense that it'd sell decently. Sales of Wii games don't mean much here as far more people owned that console.

You make valid points, but then why did Generations sell less than Colours? Generations released on 4 platforms, and I'm pretty sure those 4 platforms combined sold more compared to the Wii+Ds combo (ithe Wii sold 100 million units in the end, 360 and PS3 are at 80 million each, the difference is really small). Generations was also much more advertized, had the highest pre-orders in the history of the series, had a better reception and was the superior game.
I would also like to point out that Rayman Legends sold better on Wii U (going by the uk charts, the weakest Nintendo market) and that most definitely wasn't a launch title. I can't find any other explanation: Mario fans buy Nintendo consoles, and since they are Mario fans they are also more receptive to other mascotte platformers like Sonic and Rayman.

However, I agree there is no way Sonic Team would make a PS4/One game and then make a separate Wii U game. But nothing stops them to go the other way around and make a Wii U game first while also up-porting it to PS4/One with increased framerate, resolution and better effects. One game for every platform, and it's not like people would care if the Wii U version is the inferior unoptimized version..

[dot.kh]

I don't know about you guys, but if you ask me they did an awesome job the way they handled Project Colours and Generations back then. And as far as I can tell there's no evidence of Sonic Team fucking up the next proper plattformer for consoles yet (considering Lost World as one of the more experimental titles in the series).

Sonic Runners sounds nice to me. I imagine it's going to be a Sonic Rush-like 2D plattformer with a more arcadey feel to it.

[Tiller]

So I and many other people are assuming its going to be an endless runner given the name, franchise, and platform, but what if it's not? Sonic Dash already has that front covered, although it's a fairly piss vapor thin sort of cover. What would be the ideal mobile Sonic game? Realistically speaking it's going to be monetized in some retarded fashion to milk the 1% of cash whales who just can't help themselves so it's going to a hook beyond "addicting" or "actually a good game." The classic remakes might have been the best kind of revival but it still was a move relying on nostalgia.

I'd accept a worthwhile time wasting infinite runner with weekly challenges, new layouts, and themes ala Rayman Legends only the rings/rewards you earn rolls into a chao garden and alternate character cash shop. I also accept it would be a thing that would never happen ever.

[TimmiT]

I'd wouldn't mind something like Rayman Jungle/Fever Run. Those two games are pretty good.

[MarkeyJester]

It's too early to give a proper analysis and express feelings about a game whose information is limited to nothing but a name. "Sonic Runners" is a rather mediocre name, isn't it?

Maybe I'm being too negative and am missing the point here, I just don't like the idea of getting hyped up over a game with so little information (not that I have gotten hyped up over any of their content over the past decade or so, but lots of people generally do, and are then left disappointed).

[Raia]

I maybe wrong here, but obviously Sonic Team working on mobile games isn't a new concept...weren't they behind a number of Cafe games? would PSO2 count? (on that note-god why doesn't this just get released or at least give us a proper update)

Just being cautiously optimistic, but if they can design it well, it might be a good game.

[Paraxade]

HEDGESMFG, on 29 December 2014 - 12:49 AM, said:

Why? Why can't they just evolve that concept and build off of it? Not the classic Sonic dynamic, just the 2D/3D blend with branching pathways and well polished design?

If I had to guess, maybe production issues? I recall some Sega employees have gone on the record talking about how long it takes to make modern Sonic stages (which is why the Werehog even existed in the first place), and some of the biggest complaints against Colors and Generations were that they were too short/lacked content. Maybe they're trying to explore slower-paced gameplay styles to make it easier to make more/longer levels. It's the most plausible explanation that comes to mind, anyway.

[Aerosol]

Another way to look at it: Sega wasn't willing to grant Sonic Team the manpower to push the Generations style gameplay as far as it could go.

[Yeow]

ICEknight, on 29 December 2014 - 03:50 AM, said:

HEDGESMFG, on 29 December 2014 - 12:49 AM, said:

I know Generations was a 20th anniversary game and something of a one time concept, but I liked it because they put actual effort into the level design, not because it had "classic sonic" in it.

That's something that should happen more often, though.


I don't know why Classic Sonic and Robotnik have gone missing again after the good reception Generations had, quite honestly.

The guy who leaked the stuff about Rise of Lyric months before the game was released and Sonic Runners' existence said something about "the Americans being involved [with Sonic Team] hating the design and saying it's not modern enough" and that "only the Japanese like that design" when asked why Sonic Team doesn't use the classic design anymore.

Which is kinda weird because as you said the reception to the classic designs returning for Generations (and more accurately, the whole Sonic 4 debacle concerning the use of the Adventure-era designs) shows this isn't the case. On the other hand, Sega stuck to their guns on using the Adventure designs for Sonic 4 and claimed that use of the classic designs in Generations were a one-time thing, so that claim might have some merit.

This post has been edited by Yeow: 30 December 2014 - 07:38 AM