Was anything they said in that trailer really inaccurate though? :v:/> They didn't say Sonic has never been good. They criticized the 3D Sonic platformers of the 90s. ...Which I'll admit, technically isn't an accurate statement at all. Because there was only one 3D Sonic platformer in the 90s. Sonic Adventure. However, I have a feeling they were more likely criticizing the 3D Sonic platformers of the 2000s. Namely, Sonic Heroes, Shadow the Hedgehog, and Sonic 2006. They're kinda infamous for a reason. From 2000 to 2010, 3D Modern Sonic has had a rough time. There were some rough edged gems to really well done games in that time decade like Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic Unleashed and Sonic Colors. And there were some bad to truly awful games like Sonic Heroes, Shadow the Hedgehog, and Sonic 2006. So right there, that's a 50/50 ratio of really good games and terrible games. That's...Not good. Looking at 2011 to now. In terms of really good games we've had Sonic Generations. And.....Um.... Yeeeeeah.... In terms of bad games, well. Let's see. Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric, Sonic Boom: Shattered Crystal, Sonic Boom: Fire and Ice, and now... Sonic Forces. Sonic Lost World I'm not even sure where to put. On one hand, I seriously hate the controls, playstyle and just. The radical change it brought. On the other hand, I kinda have this weird respect for it as it's own unique thing it tried to do. So I don't really want to say it's "bad" but it certainly isn't "good" like Generations was. I'm ambivalent to it, personally but I'm sure a lot of people have opinions on it. Regardless... Looking at the present, I don't know what defense you can even give Sega or Sonic Team at this point. Whatever optimism, good will and faith they earned with their recent-ish modern 3D games like Sonic Colors, and Sonic Generations has been erased. Generations was seven years ago. Since then we've had numerous missteps and failures that have truly just exhausted a lot of patience with them. Hell, Sonic Forces was supposed to be the one to show that they could at least get it right after the Sonic Boom fiasco. It was hyped as coming from the same team that brought up Generations. Not only was that a lie, but it's attempt at capturing the magic of Generations did the exact opposite because of how terribly they did it. So yeah, I really can't feel too defensive about these scathing critiques of the franchise. It's kinda warranted at this point.
Only Sonic '06 is infamous. No one talks about Heroes and Shadow is just used for that "Edgy the Hedgey" meme. No one ever shuts the shuts the fuck up about the turning 12 this year Sonic '06 though and it's always the game used to emphasize how bad Sonic is. If that person REALLY wants to stretch then they will throw in Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric because they literally do not know that Shattered Crystal exists. They probably don't know that Fire & Ice exist either. Speaking of Rise of Lyric, no one cares about that. People tried to force it to be the new '06, but stopped once they figured out it was just a regularly bad PS2 platformer that was made to promote a TV Show. So now no one talks about it unless they are stretching for games since the only know '06. As for Forces, everyone just says it's mediocre really, not bad and not good. Just there. It too will be forgotten for more Sonic '06 talk down the line.
Um. I have no idea where you've been, but Shadow the Hedgehog is definitely infamous. Heroes, not as much, however it's still considered a mediocre to bad game. Like, I don't even know how that's up for debate. Shadow the Hedgehog was critically panned when it was released, and by fans as well. It still is today. So it's certainly not just a meme as you put it. As for Sonic Heroes, it wasn't as panned but it was certainly criticized for a lot. And with the release of StH after it, it pretty much what first established the whole, 'Sonic doesn't work in 3D' criticism that's plagued the franchise to this day. They are not held up as robust, shining examples of what Sonic as a game series is capable of. ....So no one cares about Rise of Lyric because of how terrible it was while also being a new reboot/branch-off of Sonic as a franchise? Really? Every review and reaction to the game and its direction says otherwise. That makes no sense. Between the years of 2014 to 2017, the Sonic Boom series were the only new console Sonic games that we had. For those four years, Sonic Boom was the face of the franchise. That's disgusting in terms of IP quality control. You can dismiss those games as "bad PS2 platformers that were made to promote a tv show" but for four years those games were what Sega put out with their stamp of approval and as representative of Sonic. And they were trash. When Shigeru Miyamoto was interviewed by Wired back in June 23, 2008, he was asked how he kept quality control high across a growing Nintendo. His answer was: That's a scathing burn and critique of Sega that is also fundamentally true. The fact Sega has played so fast and loose with Sonic's identity, quality and game reputation for all these years has hurt the franchise. Let's say you're right that "no one cares about those games" and Forces along with Shadow, Heroes, etc will be forgotten. That's arguably worst. That's saying the games are so painfully mediocre, forgettable and unimportant that they're nothing. They're so bad fundamentally that they have no worth, even in terms of acknowledging their existence. And Sonic is supposed to be the mascot of Sega? Yeah, Sonic 2006 is considered the rock bottom of the franchise but that doesn't mean the other bad games have no impact to the series' reputation. The reason why Forces is scorned so heavily is because of the long trail of medicore to poor 3D Modern Sonic games that came before it. There's enmity that has been built up which has resulted in an even harsher critical look to be turned towards it as a game. If Forces was the only instance of Sonic Team doing a mediocre job of making a 3D Sonic game, it'd probably have an average score of 70 to 75. It's metacritic score average is 57. So no, those games are infamous as well. Not as much as 06, but they're not fondly remembered.
You're reading way too much into that. All he said was that a Mario game should look like a Mario game.
How is that reading too much? Miyamoto was asked about how he keeps the quality control at an acceptable standard in Mario games. And he answered. While guiding the game designers he supervises, Miyamoto refers to any attempt that strays too far from the original intended history or design of Mario, as looking like a Sega game. He compared designs that stray too far from their original concept or character, to a Sega game. That's not a statement about saying Mario should play like Mario. Miyamoto specifically calls out Sega games as an example of the opposite. Not a specific game that the bad idea resembles. Not a specific gameplay style that doesn't fit. Just Sega itself. Unless you choose to divorce the metaphorical comparison in his statement. There's obviously a reason he chose Sega as a foil for comparison.
That is not what he meant in any way. He was saying that games from different companies have a distinct feel to them. That you can tell whether a game is from Nintendo, Sega, EA or any other company just by watching it. That a Mario game should look like a Mario game, and not like a game from some other company. That's it. You are absolutely, 100% reading too much into it.
Uh, why don't you look at the quote again. ...Miyamoto never mentioned EA, or any other game company. At all. So what are you even talking about? The man said "Often we're in development and I'll say, 'Oh, this looks like a Sega game. We need to make it look more like Mario.'" So no. You have added a bunch of words and meaning into his statement that were never stated or alluded to. Nothing in that interview or quote out of his mouth mentions any other game companies or "distinct feels." He said Sega.
I think you're reading way too into this. Sega games just have a different vibe than Nintendo games, even the good ones. Compare Mario, Kirby, and Zelda to like, Sonic, NiGHTs, and Jet Set Radio. They aren't similar, at all, and that goes for both companies series. Sega games feel like Sega games, Nintendo games feel like Nintendo games. If he really wanted to give Sega a nut punch he'd of specifically called out Sonic.
I suppose that could be more optimistic reading of it. Sega and Nintendo games do have differing aesthetics. On the other hand, one company stays rooted in its mascot's fundamentals while the other constantly reinvents its core mechanics or tacks on arbitrary gimmicks to their mascot's games. It just seems kinda interesting he'd point out Sega when they seem to constantly have trouble understanding what makes a good Sonic game good and keeping to it.
I thought the entire problem people had with Forces was that it's gameplay didn't feel unique or was uninspired when compared to other boost games? Isn't that the exact opposite problem of what you're describing here? Do you have no idea what "SEGA" means? It's a gigantic fucking company. He'd call out Sonic Team if he wanted to, not the entire parent that owns them. If he was really slamming SEGA, how about all the GOOD games they publish? "Oh man, we don't want Mario seeming like garbage like Yakuza Zero or Persona. We're far above those." It's like if I said the entirety of Disney has no idea how to make good movies in response to Chicken Little being a pile of crap. Even then, Forces compares way better to other Sonic games than that movie does to anything.
If a. Miyamoto actually identifies Sega routinely when he states this, then you can assume he is deliberately making a negative inference. Why else would he routinely identify it as the “other”. It wouldn't make sense for him to arbitrarily choose a company with a positive public profile. At best, he would be saying that Sega appears generic, at worst, that Sega has incongruent ideas, or is not to be emulated and bad, basically... However, if b. Miyamoto randomly chose Sega just now as a stand in for any other non-Nintendo developer, then he isn't making any statements or inferences about Sega at all. That's all there is to it. Unless this has been translated incorrectly, there is no way to know what he meant. But it's very possible for someone to evaluate all of Sega based on their perceived failures of the Sonic property. Miyamoto obviously wouldn't be so foolish as to realistically believe that, but he could draw contrast between Mario and Sonic approaches, as they were in opposition prototypically (one of my most expensive words). And by the way, since I haven't posted in here since long before this game was realesed, I just want to thank everyone who wasted our time defending the awful approach Sega has taken with modern Sonic. Now I know we can all spend the rest of our lives dividing the game into a million *real* reasons the game failed, but I feel these people are almost conspiratorial at this point. It's so obvious that this stale, shallow play-style is never going to pan out. And as hard of a pill as that is for modern fans to swallow, it's being forced down their throat by the fist of Sonic Mania. Sonic Mania which is vastly cheaper to produce, building more brand positivity with the public, and *relatively speaking* more profitable, if not generally more profitable, and both of which can be true. By the way, does anyone know anything about the status of Iizuka right now? Was he able to take credit for Mania entirely? Sega would have to be incredibly mismanaged for higher level executives not to notice the deterioration of their iconic brand!
Not really. The main problem is that mechanically, in terms of character control and game physics, it's a big downgrade from Unleashed/Colours/Generations. This is coupled with very short, very linear levels that require too little player input, but still manage to have areas you can fly off into an abyss with little forewarning. Forces' problem wasn't "this is more of the same", but rather "this is an in every way significantly inferior version of a good game released over 6 years ago". Sonic Generations may not be everyone's platonic ideal of what a 3D Sonic game "should" be (it isn't mine either, though I did still love it), but the fact remains that it was a largely competent, polished game, that was received well by critics, fans and the marketplace. Sonic Forces is not a competently made game. It clearly didn't have the budget/staff/resources it needed.
Don't think Miyamoto is having a dig at Sega at all with that statement. He's just recognising that Sega/Nintendo games have a different feel to them. As far as I know he respects Sega as a company and always has.
Definitely no critique of SEGA in there, and I wish Iizuka had said the same thing when Lost World was being made ("This feels like a Nintendo game!"). Miyamoto's just pointing out that something might feel more like Outrun than Mario Kart. Besides, in 2008 SEGA and Nintendo were pretty close. Sonic was in Brawl (coming out that year!), Mario & Sonic were already at the Olympics. I can't see Miyamoto throwing shade at SEGA under those circumstances. If Japanese businesses were going to criticize eachother, they would wait until the shareholder meetings! :v:/> That's because historically, Sega WAS the "other". Despite the two being in different and friendly places now, the Nintendo/SEGA rivalry probably still lingers around in spirit, and a lot of the older Nintendo staff would probably still joke about Sega being the 'enemy', or the 'opposite' of Nintendo. At least this is all my take on it.
And introducing the classic version of a character as a functional part of the game. Part of me wants to go on a long hard tangent but what would be the point? Sonic Forces, meh meh. *Leaves to go back to playing Xenoblade 2 and hoping to get Kos-mos.
That's what I meant when I said, "[Miyamoto] could draw contrast between Mario and Sonic approaches, as they were in opposition prototypically".
Nah. More of the same would've been fine if the physics and level design hadn't been massive step down. It didn't need to be more unique, it just needed to be better.
