The younger fandom, and how they learned from exactly none of our mistakes.

Yeah, I get all that. In regards to someone's online experience, it can be difficult to pinpoint how many different regions and cultures are influencing a particular user. Using myself as an example again, I have no idea what countries the people were from that I saw talking about SatAM when I discovered it in '09, so what I personally witnessed could be limited to American conversations or it might not. Everything gets messy when people on opposite sides of the planet carry out instant conversations in a uniform language.

 

I understand why this version of the character is popular, but it's not devoid of any criticism, and personally it doesn't deserve such pedestal.

For me he's always on a constant "Did i already mention i'm evil today? Snively, i told you yesterday but i must say it again: i don't have an heart." and i find it boring as hell.
I think the only single (that i can remember) part i liked him was when he was tricking King Acorn, as he was not in that mindset and it was noticeable in his voice.

Also most of his technological prowess was not his, they were mostly stolen from others (Uncle Chuck, if i'm not mistaken). I might confusing with Archie on this one, thought.

Game's Eggman is a goofy smiling clown, but one as evil as the former, he's not just one that needs to rub it in your face constantly.
Just look at Scrap Brain Act 1 background or Little Planet's Bad Futures. (and this not mentioning the obvious, the Badniks). And the Modern takes aren't far from this if you know where to look. In Colors when you go to Planet Wisp you can see that the water there was originally clean, but became a purple sludge thanks to the Doctor's industrial overhauls.

It's this kind of contrasts that make me love this take of the character.

Now that i kinda feel to bash such popular version of the character, i must tell that i loved the latest americanized take on Eggy, and that is the Movie version, a very loyal interpretation of character even with all typical smudge that comes from Hollywood's dirty claws. In contrast to let's say, IDW that tries to emulate the whole SaTAM/Archie baggage and it's failing because Sega's Japanese overlords can't be rattled in the process.

 

We will hunt them down with bardiches.

 

I've put a lot of thought into it. I think I've come up with a good explanation for what the thing is with 3D Sonic.

Everyone loves the classics, but when you really just boil them down, they're essentially the concept of Mario speedrunning just fleshed out into a full game. To get a sense of what I'm talking about, do a speedrun of World 1-1. Notice how much you rely on muscle memory. That's just one way to play Mario, and not really the way it's meant to be played - after all, you can complete the entire game in 5-10 minutes if all you're doing is speedrunning. Because Sonic is just making a full game out of that design mentality, there are branching level paths to spice things up. The classic Sonic games are designed so that the player can decide how they approach levels and retain their speed. I'm actually planning to start a YouTube channel, and I'll discuss this more in-depth if I get around to it.

The Mario design mentality had to be radically changed for Super Mario 64 because at the time designers couldn't find a way to make the traditional Mario formula fun in a 3D space. For Sonic's levels in the Sonic Adventure games, Sonic Team tried to copy and paste the classic Sonic formula and hoped for the best. However, that design mentality is flawed because of how much the classics rely on building and retaining momentum. As 3D Sonic went on, you can kind of see the effect that has - the game decides when you go fast for you. That isn't how it should work. In his review of Sonic Colors, Jim Sterling said this:

Whether you like it or not, Dimps, in the 2000s, understood what made Sonic fun. They realized it's about trying to go fast and maintaining that speed as a reward for skill. Their three DS games - Rush, Rush Adventure, and Colors - really show how much of a firm grasp on that design mentality. With Unleashed, Colors, and Generations, it's clear Sonic Team took note of that. Those three games are probably the closest Sonic Team has come to recreating the spirit of the Genesis games. You go fast, but you need to stay alert to keep that speed going. Asteroid Coaster Act 1 in Colors and Seaside Hill Act 2 in Generations are what I consider the two best 3D levels in Sonic games. They're fast, they're great for speedrunning, and most importantly they're filled with alternate paths. You can choose what you think is the best way to play them.

However, the boost games aren't infallible. There is, of course, the Werehog in Unleashed, for instance. And I'm not forgetting to mention that they don't really succeed when it comes to replay value. However, I think the boost gameplay is what Sonic Team should consider trying to keep innovating. They can return to the Adventure formula, and I'd be fine with it. But keeping the boost formula with refined controls, customizable abilities (like, say, replace the boost with the spin dash?), and more levels like Asteroid Coaster and Seaside Hill would certainly be a smart decision.

 

I'll never accept this "Sonic is all about speedrunning and nothing else" attitude that seems to have permeated the internet. There's lots of different ways to approach Sonic. Maybe you're trying to collect rings. Maybe you're exploring alternate paths. Maybe you're just screwing around with the physics. Hell, my favorite level of any 2D Sonic is almost always the carnival level, because they always have lots of toys to bounce off of. Point is that you don't have to speedrun to have fun with Sonic, and to say otherwise I feel is a tragic misunderstanding of the games.

 

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it's built around speedrunning (Yuji Naka explicitly said that was one of the biggest design choices of the first game), not that you're required to speedrun to have fun. I mentioned that branching paths are also a huge part of what makes Sonic fun.

 

I know, but a lot of people genuinely seem to think it, and I wanted to vent a little.

 

Because he fest.

 

I know Sonic can work in 3D, the Adventure games even with their flaws felt exactly how Sonic should feel in 3D. I want to see a fully realized 10/10 3D Sonic experience eventually realized.

I'd even want that over a Mania sequel because Mania made me realize Sonic Team was right that there was nothing left to do with the standard formula after 3 and K perfected it. Other than to make new levels that looked better and add new characters.

Don't get me wrong Sonic Mania is an amazing game but it doesn't ultimately push Sonic into a new exciting direction. That's why Sonic Team took a hiatus and ran from the classic format for so long it reached it's peak in 3 and Knuckles and was done with.

If we got a Mania sequel it'd be more of the same but with new characters and levels and, for as much as I dislike Sonic Team sometimes, I respect them trying to avoid ever falling in the trap of getting in a rut because they perfected their craft just a little too well.

 

One wonders how McDonald's stays in business when they make the same stuff for decades on end. It's almost as if people are content with the products and still crave what they put out.

But, no, they perfected the Big Mac, time to give it a rest already.

 

Anyone approaching or judging Mania on the basis of how it “evolves” or “innovates” on the Genesis formula has completely lost the plot. “Doing something new” was never the point for that game, bringing back a beloved playstyle that was abandoned for decades was. If you wanted “new things”, you were free to either hold out for Forces (and later, TSR) or revisit the heaps and heaps of Sonic games that came after S3&K that went in a different direction.

Moreover, if you’re going to claim you’re going to bring back an old formula people want to return, proving that you could actually do your job (as opposed to, say, making a half-assed attempt and telling your audience that was the true followup they wanted) is far more important than whatever new tricks or gimmicks you might want to bring to the table. Demonstrate you can do something right in the first place before you start talking about making changes.

It’s funny how a lack of innovation had never been (visibly) used as a point of critique for Sonic games, until a throwback game got far more acclaim inside and outside the fandom than the truckload of experiments that came before (and the few that followed afterwards). And that somehow, the throwback game is the one that comes out looking bad in that situation.

 

I don't think this is a good comparison. Mcdonald's is food. I eat Mcdonald's at least once a week because there's two minutes from my house. From FOOD I want consistency. From ENTERTAINMENT, namely Entertainment I PAY FOR, I want it to be something more exciting than last time and to be justified spending $40-$60 dollars on a new title.

Megaman literally died because of sequel stagnation and how every game was turning into more of the same. To the point where after it returned, after an 8 year hiatus, it only did okay because it was still the same game we came to expect since 2. If you think Sonic could survive sticking to one gameplay style while it's closest rival, Mario constantly challenges and evolves itself in ways that truly test the idea of what games can be then I don't know what to say.

And I was talking about Sonic Team thinking from a developers standpoint. Why exactly would they want to keep giving people the same thing over and over? Eventuallly someone would notice that, and the fact that their peers are evolving and doing more interesting things. The only franchises that are allowed to stay stagnant but also successful are those like Madden or Call of Duty which have such a monopoly on their genre it's either get that or get nothing. Evolve or die bro.

 

If you can show me where I said that it was then I'll apologize. I just said it's clear that Classic Sonic has reached it's full potential and I understood why Sonic Team needed a break to refresh after. Didn't say that as a detractor to Mania. It's one of my favorite Sonic games btw.

 

That's you. A lot of people desire consistency not just from FOOD, but from ENTERTAINMENT as well. Do you think there's been a lot of innovation in country music? Moreover do you demand innovation from country music, or do you do you look elsewhere for satisfaction while country music continues on and not going anywhere, continuing to find an audience with or without you? (Substitute any other mainstream music genre in case you're feeling obtuse)

Mega Man "literally" died because there were at least four disparate continuities running at the same time: Classic, X, ZX, and Star Force. It had no consistent identity that dilettante fans could rely on.

Mario is an outlier. He's the flagstone of a well-heeled super mega corporation who put lots of time and resources into making sure each mainline Mario is at least palatable. Mario also has an expansive universe on which to build distinctive play styles; it's intuitive Donkey Kong, Yoshi & Wario handle differently, and anyone who doesn't want to play as them don't have to because they aren't crammed within the same games (and the rare case they are, the vast majority of the selfsame game can be played with as Mario only).

And New Super Mario Bros. continues to go on selling millions despite SMW perfecting 2D Mario.

Oh, and Mario Odyssey ripped off Space Station Silicon Valley.

 

I'm pretty sure Mega Man died due to sequelitis, and the fact it was evolving at a snail's pace.

 

Pretty sure Country Music is like the Madden or CoD examples where it has such a hold on a specific audience there's no need to evolve.

Notice you didn't bring up rap or pop or anything because Rap in 2000 like Jay Z, Nas, Common and Rap in 2020 like Tyler the Creator, Lil Uzi Vert, Playboi Carti are completely different in sound and tone. As a matter of fact go to any mainstream music genre and compare it from 2000 to 2020 and see how easily your argument falls apart. Music is definitely not something that has grown stagnant in any way.

I'm just going to start at 2007. Megaman Starforce 2 sold .51 million copies worldwide. This is in compared to the .95 million that the predecessor sold a year prior. So what does Capcom do after? Release yet ANOTHER Megaman Starforce game a year later. This one sold .46 million copies and the Starforce series ended.

The Megaman ZX series that came out around the same time sold .28 million copies for the first game. Now the second, that once again came out a year later, DID do better...to the tone of .33 million copies.

https://www.vgchartz.com/ This is where I got my information from spending 5 minutes to research. If people wanted more of the same then getting so many Megaman games that were pretty much the same thing all the time should have all sold consistently right? Regardless of small differences in terms of looks and tone.

Megaman 9 was the only game of that era to do well. Even 10 didn't do as well.

And after Megaman came back after that 8 year hiatus, and came out with a game that was more of the same, it only sold .36 million copies. That's how done people are with the Megaman gameplay style.

Spyro died because it was getting stale. Crash died because it was getting stale. Skylanders, the Spyro spinoff, died because it was getting stale and started just being the same expensive thing over and over. Ty the Tasmian Tiger went from selling a million for his first game to only .19 million for the third. Do you know why? People were tired of buying the same things all the time.

NSMB still evolves it's format and does things like add new transformations and ideas all the time. I still prefer playing as Peachette in New Super Mario Bros U Switch over anyone else. The gameplay has used the modern evolution of gaming to do things in the games that wouldn't have been possible in 1990. It's not the same.

I don't know what that last thing is but it seems irrelevant enough to ignore.

You're posting a Calvin quote that obviously calls that thought process as a logical fallacy using Calvin a brash boy who sometimes has the most "must consume media" type thoughts in the world as the mouthpiece to expose it. Come on man.

 

Lord these last few replies are why us younger Sonic fans tend to find you classic grognards obnoxious and I'm one of you in spirit.

Mania is a glorified 3&K romhack. I don't want Sonic to just be Mania over and over again, I want it to actually make a quality 3D game for once that takes Mania's design in the third dimension (that is, I want an official game like SRB2). Sonic pulling a Mega Man and just being nothing but 2D classic throwbacks would...well, I'd buy them, but me--and a lot of my friends--would just check out from considering ourselves capital-F Sonic Fans.

And before you call me a stupid adventure kid I love Mania and bought it like three times and consider it one of my favorite games of all time. I absolutely do want Mania 2. I want Mania 3. I want ten goddamn Manias. I just don't want Sonic to be nothing but Mania and shitty 3D games. We can have Mania and good 3D games. Theoretically.

 

Thing is, Mania really wasn't the time to innovate. Mania's job was to prove that the classic formula would still appeal to the general gaming public, and it succeeded. Mania 2 should be where Sega (well, preferably Evening Star) says "OK, how can we add to this to make it even better?"

And given how little I trust Sonic Team, I have to wonder who should be the one to try their hands at "Classic Sonic in 3D". Could be Evening Star, could be someone else. Just please not Sonic Team.

 

I wasn't saying that as a bad thing.

Secondly, as Sonic Team effectively was just a name for "whoever developed Sonic games at the time", I have no problem with Sonic team making a 3D Sonic game...so long as the current one isn't the one making it. Sonic Team was always just marketing after all.