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

There's also the fact that reviewers and gamers love to nitpick the crap out of Sonic games, and are willing to turn a blind eye when franchises like Mario do something that they criticized Sonic for doing. Two examples that come to mind are forcing players to replay the whole game with characters that play nearly the same (Sonic Heroes/Mario Galaxy), and featuring out-of-place realistic humans (Sonic '06/Mario Odyssey).

Not saying that the Sonic Adventures have aged as well as Mario 64, or that 3d Sonic games in general are on par with 3d Mario games, but still.

 

Are you talking about Luigi? Because the game doesn't exactly force you to play as him to beat the game, so it's not the same at all. The humans in Odyssey are also quite stylized so they don't look as weird as the 06 ones but this is more of a subjective point - besides, people did point that out and criticize that in Odyssey.

 

You need to replay every single level and mission as Luigi in order to access the last level, just like Heroes forces you to replay as all teams to access the final boss. Both games can be beaten just by playing them once, but need to be replayed for the final ending.

People complained about the realistic humans in SMO at first, but they seem to have gotten over it rather quickly, and I don't recall many critics complaining about them in their reviews. Definitely not to the extent they did about Sonic '06. And stylized or not, their proportions and features were still far more realistic than those of Mario characters, or anything else from prior Mario games. They looked like a whole separate species from Mario, Peach, etc., which I could argue was worse -- at least Sonic and the other anthros weren't the same species as the humans in Sonic '06. And they weren't the only ones with such ridiculous designs in SMO either, there was also that infamous t-rex, and that dog in the third kingdom.

 

Replaying a game once is still preferable to playing the same levels four times in entirety (or up to ten as was the case with Shadow). Also, Galaxy feels entirely satisfying without playing as Luigi. It's essentially a complete experience, whereas Heroes and 06 felt like padding.

Also, the city level in Odyssey was one level. Far less egregious than having an entire hub world constantly filled with walking, talking humans. A lot of it is probably down to polish too - the humans in New Donk City feel like a part of the package, they're very deliberately the way they are to establish a feel, an aesthetic. Sonic 06 just feels like a janky, almost-empty world with stock NPCs. That's the difference.

 

Mario Galaxy is actually an amazing game, whereas Heroes is decent at best. Same thing (only more extreme) with Odyssey vs. '06. And you only need to replay Mario Galaxy once, whereas you need to replay Heroes what, four times?

The entirety of Mario Odyssey isn't realistic humans, unlike '06. And it actually makes sense in Odyssey because you're visiting tons of international locations in Mario's world with a diverse range of characters. Having realistic humans populate an urban metropolis (A) makes sense given the game's scope and (B) is actually really clever when you think about it because it's out of left field.

 

This
It's the same with Odyssey and Sonic 06. People nitpicked at easy stuff since the game itself sucked and it's harder to objectively review a game.

 

That's arguable, since the Heroes levels had various layout tweaks depending on the current team, whereas Galaxy had Luigi go through Mario's level without any changes. And Heroes didn't force you to replay all the alternate missions in each level.

I could argue the fact the realistic humans were concentrated in one kingdom, when the other kingdoms had prominently cartoony characters in classic Mario style, made them far more egregious and jarring. Sonic '06 was far more consistent in having the same kind of NPC in every hub world.

Mario Galaxy was indeed amazing and one of my favorite games from that generation. That still doesn't exempt it from criticism.
Heroes is also a lot shorter than Mario Galaxy, slightly alters the levels for each team, and doesn't make you replay every mission.

See my above response to Nova.

 

They had various tweaks because the game was built around being 'beaten' including doing all four, and the final story. Whatever way you like to put it, completing Galaxy as Luigi and unlocking the secret ending and such is way more of an optional 100% mission than beating the game and you know it.

 

I mean, I guess. It's still padding to force a Luigi replay for unlocking Mario's last level. That's why Mario Galaxy 2 doesn't do it.

 

The reason it's much more egregious in games up to Sonic 06 than it is in Mario Odyssey is because of how often Sonic actually strays from it's own determined style. Mario very rarely does it, which means it plays it safe usually, but that's why when you see realistic humans in Mario, it's purposely done to create a juxtaposition of the lively world of Mushroom Kingdom, and the urban styling of New Donk City; it's supposed to be jarring, and that separation of elements, and how little Nintendo tend to stray from their own pre-determined style, just add to that effect. If it happened 24/7, you wouldn't bat an eye lid, therefore since it's so out of left field, it makes that difference funny to look at and contrasts the bright and vibrant levels you play elsewhere.

Compare this to Sonic, where every single game there are elements that just do not work, and it's a consistent theming issue that was never addressed. In Sonics world, you have Sonic and his friends (anthropomorphic animals), the flickies (which aren't anthropomorphic), realistic animals (like the dolphin in SA1), humans in SA1, humans in Shadow the Hedgehog (which are a completely different style), creatures like the Black Arms in Shadow (alien like creatures), and even god-like creatures (Mephalis and Solaris) in Sonic 06. The Megadrive games used the juxtaposition of robotic creatures and the anthropomorphic animals to show the fight between nature and industrialization, which was on purpose to create a theme (it wasn't entirely perfect, but you could suspend your disbelief). The rest of the different styles from around SA1 to 06 just served to show that they had no consistent art direction, with no real reason to use these differing designs other than to chuck things at a wall to see what stuck. This is one of the reasons they wanted a reboot, because the series got bogged down with these characters who just didn't fit into Sonic's world. They didn't make it jarring to create an effect; they made it jarring because they didn't know what direction to take the series in.

If Sonic had a consistent style throughout all the games, rather than just throwing out their style each game, I don't think it'd be as criticised as it is. But, because it's clear they don't know what direction they want to go in, people will critique it under the gise of "comedy" (when really, the underlying issue of inconsistency just needs to be addressed).

 

See, I think this is what a huge part of the critical disconnect between newer fans and older fans, or going back further, between fans and critics going back to the early-00s, really comes down to. Because the Genesis games were considered some of the absolute best of their day. The "Sonic was never good," crowd can whine all they want, those games were instrumental in taking Sega from >1% market share, all the way up to the top of the industry, in less than two years. Sonic was an icon on at least the same level as Mario or Zelda is now, and given how much bigger the industry is almost 30 years later, he was probably a lot higher than that. So when he finally made the jump to 3D and the games were, more and more, not up to that high standard, Sonic Team was, quite deservedly, judged MUCH more harshly for it, and that's why you saw review scores for what were still "decent" games fall off a cliff. I loved the Adventure games, and as a Sonic fan, they were surely some of my _favorites_ of their era, but good enough isn't good enough for a series that's supposed to be one of gaming's top-tier franchises.

...oh dear. I scrolled up and noticed that I just wrote what is literally just a "TL;DR" summary of my previous post in this very topic. I should really get out more, but I can't because of quarantine, so I guess I'll just keep rambling in circles about Sonic until this is over! :P[/QUOTE]
That's fair enough, I think it really just comes down to expectations and personal taste. I think a lot of my opinions on each game can be boiled down to "I had fun with it enough to not feel screwed over by buying it" (yes I even found things to like in '06). It may also have a lot to do with me having been pretty disconnected from the fanbase for most of the 2000's-2010's save for the comic fandom, so I just never really understood the vitriol over it, but I can definitely get where you're coming from!

Each game having its own unique aesthetic isn't an issue in and of itself, it's an issue of said aesthetics clashing with the main character designs, especially with how '06 introduced photo-realistic human npc's which really didn't work next to the noodle armed anime animals flailing around their town.
I feel like the point of inconsistency being an issue is important to address because honestly, the lack of a cohesive overarching style for Sonic leads to a lot of the games feeling disconnected even when they're supposed to take place right next to each other on whatever passes for a timeline in this franchise. It kind of feels like they might be trying to push for a more unified look with how Tyson Hesse has been involved with almost every facet of the series as of late, but really who can say with how wishy-washy Sega can be with these sorts of things?

 

Agreed. Zelda games have a different art style in nearly every 3d installment and they're praised for it. The problem is when the visuals are inconsistent within the games themselves.

I'd say the key to addressing it would be simply designing the humans in Yuji Uekawa's style. He's the one behind the current designs, including Eggman's, after all. The characters in Billy Hatcher would feel right at home in a Sonic game, I still don't get why they never had the humans look like that in the series.

 

I certainly hope that they plan to overhaul the franchise, in the sense that they finally stop pandering to nostalgia (eg, Sonic Forces could've been a consistent style, but added Zavok which didn't fit within the style of the game), and instead focus on bringing a consistent style and tone across all future releases.

Sonic Mania and it's style felt exactly like a sequel should be; an evolution of the game that came before it. Sonic 2 and CD felt like evolutions on Sonic 1, same with Sonic 3K. We can argue which art we prefer, but well, they all fit into a series. Sonic Mania looks exactly like what an evolution of Sonic 3K should be, and just feels right. Forces, on the other hand, feels like another desparate attempt to hold a grip of relevance, rather than just understanding that Sonic is Sonic, he doesn't need to be reinvented every game, he just needs polish (the modern Sonic design is fine, but is looking old with how stilted the actual animation rigs are and how little they can push that design to the extremity).

I really love Tyson Hesse's art, along with his character designs, but I unfortunately don't think they will get used in the mainline Sonic games. They want to have their cake and eat it too,

Spoiler: Sonic Mania ending spoiler

to be able to use Mania's ending by making him go into the Forces universe to finish that plot, all as a bid to advertise Forces

, but they want them to have completely different aethetics. Which is fine, but then they go and effectively merge them within the games itself, creating dissonance. We don't need a timeline, it doesn't matter when the games take place. But then going and merging games plots together, when there is no reason to do so and creates that dissonance, it just seems like a team who aren't confident in their product and are riding off the success of another (which turned out to be the case).

I think the main reason I don't like Sonic having different art styles, but don't mind Zelda doing the same thing, is because they don't use art style as a way to advertise the game. They don't go, "oh look, this game has Toon Link back from Wind Waker, you liked that game right? Here's another game like that!". Instead, they focus on just delivering a game that is enjoyable and cohesive within itself, and don't try and link two completely different games and styles together within the game itself (re above).

To me, it kind of seems as if Sonic Team don't want to disappoint fans, especially after the poor reception of Lost World and Forces, but they're not sure what elements they should keep in, and what to remove (a lot of Sonic fans argue 24/7 about what game is there favourite, so much so there's factions, kind of like the gatekeeping of the fandom we see in OPs post). So, they instead just put everything in, which is why we have Classic Sonic all the time as a bid to create a game that everyone will enjoy (which they never do). If they just instead tried to make a game they were happy with, with a unified direction (even if that means ignoring a lot of what fans think they want), I think it'd be a lot more successful at its goals.

 

In my honest opinion, one reason people didn't like 06 humans might've had to do with the game's graphics (aesthetics and lighting), giving them an ugly appearance.
Even 06 Sonic, in his game, didn't look too hot. Ported the model to Forces, he looked quite nice to me xD

 

While we're on 06, know one criticism I never understood? The inability to jump on enemies.

Like ok, it's a classic feature but did anyone use it in the 3D games? Back then or today? Does being able to jump on enemies make Lost World or Forces any better? It feels like such a tiny thing to mention in the grand scheme of things.

 

There are times in most 3D games where jumping on enemies is more convenient than the homing attack. Off the top of my head I can name a few parts of Sky Sanctuary in Generations. And the way ‘06’s level design is structured creates many places where using the homing attack isn’t ideal.

 

When it comes to discussions of how to fix the series, I think Sonic fans have a habit of getting in the weeds and laser focusing on things that don't matter too much to the general audience and reviewers, like Sonic's shade of blue, Blaze the Cat's continuity, how round Sonic's tummy is. As fans we can all complain about Tails not being brave enough in Sonic Forces, but the game wouldn't have been reviewed better, it wouldn't be any more fun to play.

It's not hypocrisy that Super Mario Odyssey was very well received and Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 was very poorly received, both having realistic human NPCs. The Mario game was very fun to play and the Sonic game was very much not fun to play.

 

Definitely not what I was getting at. Even if Mario Odyssey is like 50 times better than Sonic '06 (which it is), that doesn't justify giving it a free pass for doing something Sonic was criticized for. All games should be judged equally and objectively.

I mean, the fact people started dissing the classic games ("Sonic was never good") based on the series' current reputation shows their very bias.

 

Odyssey only had realistic humans in one level and it was done with the specific intent of creating a bizarre fish-out-of-water scenario for Mario. It's really not comparable to the simply-bad art style choice of Sonic 06, which couldn't even make its animal characters appealing. Odyssey was also a game with an explicit focus on creating a variety of atmospheres and visuals. The increased graphical fidelity of even returning elements makes the more-realistic environments and occasional dinosaurs a lot easier to digest and appreciate.
Replaying the game as Luigi was bonus content with a victory-lap bonus level. While I'd rather have not hidden the final level behind it (or behind ridiculous star bit and green star grinding in Galaxy 2), I could at least get a satisfying conclusion to the game and story without having to do all that effort. Heroes wasn't even fun the first time and they ask me to replay its overly-long, repetitive levels three times each and also asking me to do some really stupid special stages just to get a proper conclusion.

Both are filler but one of these games is simply a lot more annoying about it. You can probably guess which one that is.