Sonic 2 Development Lore

Why create a mockup for your portfolio filled with assets from a well known Sonic game you didn't draw for at all? The image almost certainly had another purpose, as concept art for an unmentioned game.

It's more likely the point of the image is to show a concept based on work she compiled for an unnamed project. And reusing Sonic 1 assets to plan the look of Sonic 2's zones fits with the way she created the concepts for sand shower and winter zone, likely because the JPN devs game her raw sonic 1 assets to use when creating the looks of the new stages (which we know they did for Tom Payne, based on his discs showing old badnik sprites. Even Splats was there!), perhaps only as inspiration/a stand in of sorts. Her throwing in mountains from kid chameleon doesn't negate that either if it was a rough draft for the look of a level, since those mountains may be ones she drew herself and had laying around for a quick compilation.

If it's not Sonic related, it could've been a concept for another unreleased STI game, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees just by negating the idea so quickly.

 

You're saying it couldn't be a Sonic mockup because it uses assets from Brenda's other Sonic mockups? You're right in that none of this is proof but if anything this points to the contrary.

 

Honestly, maybe I am a bit too stubborn in my stance.

It's just that Brenda's portfolio's contents can be arranged rather easily into three categories:

1. Art with some new and some old assets, Sonic and HUD visible - Sonic 2 mock-ups
   
2. Art with completely original assets only, no Sonic or HUD to be seen - Mock-ups, sprite collages and animation tests for other games
3. Art with some new and some old assets, no Sonic or HUD to be seen - Unknown

For example, Sand Shower and the winter zone belong to category 1, the Spinball level and Jester stuff to 2 and that temple picture to category 3. That weird mock-up follows none of the same "rules" that stuff for either Sonic 2 or the other STI games do.

Maybe I'm just afraid that we'll once again start parroting stuff that "has to be true" and "makes too much sense", only for all of it to be eventually revealed as incorrect? Who knows.

 

I'm not trying to present all my ideas as definitive fact, only deducing what I can based on evidence available, which just so happens to be more than what I thought at first. That's the norm for historical research, as is the fact that we wouldn't all agree perfectly.

I agree that this piece of art being both different and separated from the other sonic concepts is odd, but I'm not going to be able to convince anyone 100% on this. As with so many things in this game, there still remain a few mysteries.

Hopefully evidence surfaces to further clarify it, but I remain on the side that's optimistic that we could be looking at another piece of the puzzle. It's worth at least discussing and considering, especially if we end up with an ever so small chance to learn more in the near future.

 

I'm with Jaxer on this; the idea that the art is from a Sonic game seems to rely on wanting that to be the case and working backwards to make it fit. That's a dangerous line of thinking as that's how several now-debunked myths about the game's development took hold back in the day. When looking at the evidence as it exists that is one possibility, but there is far too little of it to start off from a position of it being a definite fact.

 

Good thing no one said that. What remains a fact though is only her other Sonic mockups use Sonic 1 assets. What could that indicate?

 

I will politely ask that if you disagree with this theory, you at least refrain from theorizing about my own motive or mindset for presenting it. Frankly, this community has gone way too far in judging those who simply have ideas, regardless of the strength (or lack thereof) of the evidence. In many cases, our misconceptions about facts came from the fact that developers themselves said contradictory things in interviews (especially on the side of Japanese developers). It happens for a lot of reasons.

I present the idea because based on what I see, it appears plausible and I've explained reasons why. People are welcome, and are even expected to disagree, but refrain from putting a motive on it. It would be irresponsible not to at least present the idea as possible. I'm not some youtuber with a stake in this looking for clickbait money. I believe theorizing is a crucial aspect of historical research outside of video games and only operate under that logic.

 

Hate to interupt this current discussion, but I believe that I've found something big

Spoiler: Water level once again

That's a moonpool for docking the submarine, right?