[Sik]

http://www.gamasutra...ming_Appeal.php

If anybody cares, it's mostly Sonic related though:

Quote

Q&A: How Sega Balances Nostalgia, Modern Gaming Appeal
by Brandon Sheffield, Tom Curtis

While Sega has a storied legacy of classic games and IP, Mike Hayes, the president of Sega West, tells Gamasutra that the company "takes pains not to play on [its] heritage," saying its first priority is to stay "relevant for the modern gaming audience."

He specifically called out the Sonic franchise, noting that when Sega stepped out of the hardware game to go third party, Sonic's audience began to split into two camps: the core fanbase of old, and younger players who have other expectations for the classic Sega mascot.

Gamasutra recently sat down with Hayes to discuss the company's product-focused approach to brand management, specifically looking at how the Sonic franchise has changed over the course of its 20-year history.

Let's talk about Sega maintaining its brand over the years. There have been a whole lot of changes in the company's direction. How would you describe Sega's approach to managing its brand?

Well, we always considered ourselves as a company that can quite comfortably have a whole variety of games. So I think what we've done as a company is try to be as agnostic as we possibly can, so that everything's focused on the brand, rather than the company itself.

Definitely our focus is in the product. If people like the product and they recognize it as Sega, that's an absolute bonus. But what we don't want to do is just trade on the name Sega, because it's about products and the fun you get from that product rather than the name, and whatever people may think about that name.

That's interesting to me because in the past, saying that something was a Sega game meant something specific. But it's interesting to hear how you're moving away from having a distinct "Sega flavor" for the games.

Yeah, that's very important. We see ourselves as a software company, and take pains not to play on our heritage overly, unless there's a good nostalgic reason like a re-release of a [Sega] Genesis title or whatever.

But what we're trying to do is make ourselves relevant for the modern gaming audience. And like any other software company, people remember the names of the games, rather than what they think of us. You know it is quite interesting, because we are privileged having a name like Sega.

But to so many people there are so many different impressions of what that means, and it would be impossible for us to try and act like a first party company, trying to reinvent and recreate that. So again, working with product is the most sensible thing for us to do.

How important is that legacy IP in terms of keeping it around and reviving it versus moving it in new directions?

It's like everything, it's a balance. We really rely on a lot of our classic IP, obviously Sonic being the biggest one. And we take pains to make sure that we suit both our core fans -- old people like me that have grown up with Sonic -- but also the whole new load of our consumers that we've got for Sonic in the younger groups. So something like Sonic Generations is a perfect balance of providing something for two different audiences, so we're very cognizant of trying to provide that where it's relevant.

But we have had experiences where we've tried to reinvent old Sega IP … Actually, we haven't done it hugely successfully, and therefore we only embark upon something that uses the existing Sega IP if we can make it highly relevant for a modern audience. And interestingly on XBLA and PSN in particular, we've had a lot of success with old Sega IP, where we can provide more of a bite-size or a memory-driven experience. To try and reinvent something, we have to create a whole new game, and therefore we're very selective of what we do.

Yeah, I mean thinking back to the agnostic idea, it could be potentially beneficial. Because pretty much anytime a Sonic game is made, for instance, the core people wind up saying, 'Well, clearly these people don't understand why Sonic is good, and this is not right, it's not Sega enough.' And so if you avoid that problem entirely, it may be beneficial.

It's interesting when you look at Sonic specifically. I think we realized about three or four years ago where we were perhaps going wrong on certain platforms, mostly PlayStation and Xbox. And I think it was because we didn't actually realize that we've got these two broad audiences. We were trying to make something that the whole fan base to enjoy it, but then maybe 10 year olds will play it, and it was just like oil and water. I think what we've understood now is that we need to try and drive the product in two ways.

For example, that's why we launched Sonic 4: Episode 1. That was clearly aimed at our original core fan base, and that's done extremely well. Always people are going to say you can do it better, and we listen to that and we try that. And then you've got something that was more aimed at young fans like Sonic Colors on Wii and DS -- even though that did actually crossover quite nicely, but that was more aimed at a certain audience. I think we've understood that.

So now that we have that [understanding], I think we can craft the game appropriately so that we're keeping both audiences pretty happy with what we've got. The unique one is Sonic Generations, because actually we're bringing those two together, so that you've got a 2D and 3D appeal for both of those audiences.

So we listen, we're working as hard as we can. Can we improve quality? We can always improve quality. Are we always going to make people ecstatically happy? No, we're not. That's the creative business, isn't it? That's like everything, I think.

It's also one of the dangers of having a strong IP that had its strongest years in the 90s. As far as the core fan base is concerned, you can't really give people back their childhood nostalgia, you know? Which is what they want.

Yeah, exactly. And let's not forget that 20 years ago -- because it is almost Sonic's 20th anniversary -- and particularly when Sonic 2 came out, that was the Call of Duty of its time; that was the first core game. Gaming has moved on, Sonic is still as relevant now as he was then, but the way in which you play is different.

Just consider Mario and Sonic; it sold 19 million copies globally. So that is a huge power brand that is being bought because it was a fun party game everyone can play. So he's as popular today, but the relevance is completely different, and Sonic's never going to become a "modern Call of Duty" as he was then. So again, we have to understand and plan accordingly.

...did he just compare Sonic 2 to Call of Duty? Seriously? (yes, I know what was his point, but c'mon?)

This post has been edited by Sik: 09 September 2011 - 05:00 AM

[ICEknight]

Quote

For example, that's why we launched Sonic 4: Episode 1. That was clearly aimed at our original core fan base, and that's done extremely well.

I still don't get why they keep saying all this crap. Did they really think that the original core fan base wanted an HD Sonic Rush with just five levels and music that seems to be using the same annoying instrument over and over?

Thank goodness for Sonic Generations. Now that's what both old and new fans want.

[SpeedStarTMQ]

Yeah, he did compare Sonic to Call of Duty. It's an interesting comparison, but I actuallythink Sonic had a much bigger impact on every day culture. Call of Duty is a renowned series, played by a 'mature' (and I use that word ironically) generation who spend their time online in their bedrooms in 'clans'. Sonic was a huge franchise which spanned theme parks, video games, cartoons, comics, toys, soundtracks and even clothing and bedding. Sonic was arguably one of the mascots OF the 1990's, whereas Call of Duty doesn't have that power, despite amazing sales. In terms of videogame content (ei, sales, success and instalments) Sonic and Call of Duty match up pretty well.

Anyway, I half agree & disagree with some of the points made here. I don't think Sonic ever failed because it tried to be a singular appealing to "two" audiences. Sonic failed because the team didn't realise what made Sonic appealing to the majority (fan split or not).

Whether they were 'new' fans or 'old' fans, no one has ever wanted a game with sluggish controls, un-Sonic setting and story (ala Sonic 2006), and SEGA got too deep in their way trying to mimic the success of Adventure 2, as well as jumping on the 'reinvention' bandwagon- which many films and games jumped on at the turn of 2005/2005 with new formats and consoles coming along- that they completely missed the mark, regardless of the product quality. Sonic 2006 was a game that tried to show Sonic as if it were real, which tried to create an atmospheric, film like setting, and utterly failed because it's a blue hedgehog who jumps and collects rings. It was meant to be fresh, and had all this new technology and shiny graphics, but they didn't focus on much else, meaning by the time the game came out, it was only half baked.

A similar thing happened with Shadow The Hedgehog in 2005, though it at least was an okay game, despite the basic graphical quality and mad story (it was also a spin-off, which gave it some credibility). As well as this, SEGA jumped on the bandwagon again around 2005, by delivering multiple 'styled' Sonic games, like Sonic Riders, which meant the team behind Sonic were working overtime and the product quality wasn't great. Even the introduction of Sonic The Hedgehog (MegaDrive) on the GameBoy was a complete and utter mess.

It's not ever been about 'new' and 'old' fans. SEGA created this split by not delivering decent new Sonic games. They hit their intended path with Sonic Heroes, and things could have only gotten better from there, but poor descisions and odd style choices meant that the series took an odd and unexpected turn, dividing their own fans.

At the end of the day, classic Sonic isn't so different to 'modern' Sonic. Apart from in 3D, there's not much difference. I enjoyed the Adventure games & Heroes enough because it actually WAS Sonic, and I enjoyed Unleashed (daytime) and Colours. The 2D games have always been good and faithful up to Sonic 4 (which in itself isn't a bad game). The whole fanbase split excuse is totally flawed, and SEGA shouldn't bother to mention it.

Sonic Generations is looking to address the issue directly, but ironically, it seems neither 'classic' or 'modern' fans will have a problem either way, because it seems to genuinely be a GOOD game, which was the problem in the first place.

This post has been edited by SpeedStarTMQ: 09 September 2011 - 06:19 AM

[Nora Kisaragi]

Sik, on 09 September 2011 - 04:57 AM, said:

Sonic 2 came out, that was the Call of Duty of its time

We're in agreement so far...

Sik, on 09 September 2011 - 04:57 AM, said:

Sonic is still as relevant now as he was then

Hahhaha, oh wow.

Sik, on 09 September 2011 - 04:57 AM, said:

"For example, that's why we launched Sonic 4: Episode 1. That was clearly aimed at our original core fan base, and that's done extremely well."

-leaves topic-

This post has been edited by Nora Kisaragi: 09 September 2011 - 08:11 AM

[Namo]

On the whole Sonic compared to Call of Duty thing, that sits well with me. During most of my Elementary school days, kids were real into Sonic, myself and my circle of friends included. (This was from 2000 - 2005). In my High School days, the kids were real into Call of Duty (along with whatever else was out at the time that was gritty and greybrown and violent). Being one of the only people who was still into more imaginative games like Sonic and the like, it was pretty annoying. And I expect the same thing if I ever go into college.

As for Sonic being as relevant now as he was then, I'd say he's not as relevant, but is still sort of relevant. I mean, Retro exists for a reason, right?

[NomadTW]

I feel like I'm going to get upset reading this. I never liked PR bullshit, especially when they flat out lie to us about stuff.

[SteelBrush]

Quote

And then you've got something that was more aimed at young fans like Sonic Colors on Wii and DS -- even though that did actually crossover quite nicely, but that was more aimed at a certain audience. I think we've understood that.

This implies that they still don't really understand why Colours was successful.

[MegaDash]

President Hayes, it was never that hard to appeal to your core audience. Apparently it was just hard bringing Sonic into 3D, and you could've avoided a lot of problems by making less playable characters and have the game, well, more focused on Sonic. Like it is now. And maybe keep it to just Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles.

Then there was DIMPs, which did a decent job at 2D Sonic for starters, but then started taking waaay too many cues from the 3D games to really maintain that classic feel, but hey, the Advance and Rush games were pretty fun by themselves. Just not quite as fun as the Genesis games.

[Trunks]

You guys keep referencing this line:

Quote

"For example, that's why we launched Sonic 4: Episode 1. That was clearly aimed at our original core fan base, and that's done extremely well."

There's not a part of it that's false. It was aimed at the original core fan base, and it's sold extremely well. They're not saying the core fans were happy with it.

[ICEknight]

Trunks, on 09 September 2011 - 02:12 PM, said:

You guys keep referencing this line:

Quote

"For example, that's why we launched Sonic 4: Episode 1. That was clearly aimed at our original core fan base, and that's done extremely well."

There's not a part of it that's false. It was aimed at the original core fan base, and it's sold extremely well. They're not saying the core fans were happy with it.

Can't speak for the others, but I wasn't questioning the fact that they tried to aim Sonic 4 at the original core fan base, but stating that they got a wrong idea of what old fans wanted, and thus failed to connect with their true target (with most of it, anyway).


Which is the complete opposite of what's currently going on with Generations.

This post has been edited by ICEknight: 09 September 2011 - 03:26 PM

[Mr Lange]

There was a surreal otherworldly beauty to the original Sonic games. They created a stunning vibrant world rich in vision, one that struck every note on every scale, creating a full, believable world. The gameplay, dynamic, depending entirely on the player's involvement without imposing its own will, and the music as well was spectacular, unreal, and every song always fit every theme it was used for. Its the colors, the vision, the reality, and the believability of it that created a sense of something that was never found in anything else. It could be called transcendental.

As of today, all of that is forgotten, only known by the long existing fans and possibly the original artists who shared that vision. All that's left is the hollow shell used to represent the series, with its titles and characters. The artists working on it now are nothing but zombie organ grinder monkeys full of parlor tricks who graduated some 3d art and game design school just to get a paying job. They write with a formula, fill in the blanks, and may or may not be satisfied with the product but hey, it can be shelved with a price tag, and ultimately that's all the department heads care about.

Therefore they will never recognize why the classic fans love the original series. They look at its surface value in the same way they see the modern continuum of the series, emulating the gameplay and fragments of the once incredible vision. The result is like eating sand painted like a delicious meal. A promising appearance, but ultimately sad, confusing, gritty, tasteless, unfilling.

They should scrap every single airhead working at Sonic Team nowadays and either bring back the original developers, or perhaps those who do have the level of skill needed and understand the vision. Maybe some of Sonic Retro's notable members.

[SpeedStarTMQ]

I disagree with that. Sonic Team isn't perfect, but they've obviously nailed it with Sonic Generations, and did with Colours too. Even Sonic 4 had that otherworldly feel, and Heroes and the Advance games hit it too.

The issue is (or was) that the continuity of this feel is/was constantly broken. Sonic Adventure 2 started the trend, but still felt Sonic enough to be a believable part of that world. Shadow The Hedgehog unfortunately had little in common with Sonic's world, and then 2006 and Unleashed brought Sonic in to this horrid realistic world, which only fits at a stretch.

I'd love some input from Sonic Retro for the games directions, but sacking the team and replacing them? They talk shit in interviews, but that's not thier primary function. If Sonic Retro had the head, the games would never be completed. I don't mind design change in the series, but it has to be logical change.

[Nora Kisaragi]

SpeedStarTMQ, on 10 September 2011 - 04:58 AM, said:

I disagree with that. Sonic Team isn't perfect, but they've obviously nailed it with Sonic Generations, and did with Colours too.

Let's not forget that not everybody thinks Colors was a success. Many people, including me, don't like that game. As for Generations, that game isn't out yet, so you can't say for sure they nailed it. Don't let hype guide your arrow.

[SpeedStarTMQ]

Nora Kisaragi, on 10 September 2011 - 09:42 AM, said:

SpeedStarTMQ, on 10 September 2011 - 04:58 AM, said:

I disagree with that. Sonic Team isn't perfect, but they've obviously nailed it with Sonic Generations, and did with Colours too.

Let's not forget that not everybody thinks Colors was a success. Many people, including me, don't like that game. As for Generations, that game isn't out yet, so you can't say for sure they nailed it. Don't let hype guide your arrow.

I wasn't talking about gameplay, though Colours was spot on, and from what we can see of, as well as what we've played of Generations, shows us that it's a likely hit- without following any hype. You don't have to like a game to see how successful it is. Colours hit expectations, and was arguably everything a 3D Sonic game should be.

What I was talking about was style and design- it fits the surrealism and design if the original Sonic world very well- so it's a success.

This post has been edited by SpeedStarTMQ: 10 September 2011 - 10:22 AM

[Nora Kisaragi]

SpeedStarTMQ, on 10 September 2011 - 10:18 AM, said:

What I was talking about was style and design- it fits the surrealism and design if the original Sonic world very well

I haven't heard this argument before. Do you have any evidence to back it up? I can't see the relation myself and google brings up nothing, and I'd like to understand your reasoning.

I am aware Sonic Colors has a unique artistic direction, one that I appreciate, but I've never seen someone compare it to the original sonic atmosphere before.

This post has been edited by Nora Kisaragi: 10 September 2011 - 10:48 AM