"From a consumer perspective" Is this a genuine question being asked between Guns of the Patriot and Unleashed?
This is probably a more meta answer than you would want, but: A movie or TV show does not talk back with you. It can fake your involvement by asking you questions, but you can't answer and it will answer for you. More often this is a tactic of children's TV, but for an almost perfect example, Dora the Explorer is modeled directly after a computer game. She'll ask you to say Swiper no Swiping, but Swiper may swipe regardless of how fast you say it. In a real game, maybe you can make sure Swiper doesn't swipe and you get to keep the item and the story changes just that little bit in the final location. Ironically, I don't think any Dora games took advantage of this formula to actually let a player play out and subvert a typical scenario. This is the inherent advantage of a game with even the tiniest bit of freedom, even when sometimes they may also force you into an answer you didn't give. Maybe you don't WANT to fight Dr. Robotnik, well, too bad, because that's just how you get through the game. It doesn't really make it any less of a game, though, does it? your process of getting to that point is part of what makes it a game. The only thing that really changes is the complexity and ambiguity in the process and the systems that guide you to fill in your part of the story. And it's really cool we get to have all degrees of that.
Not sure why Kojima got brought up when his games very much take advantage of the fact that they are games. Anyways, this is all subjective because everyone's way of experiencing things is different, but I'd be a liar if I acted like I was ok with people treating gameplay like a minor factor in their enjoyment of games. Will never not bug me seeing people gas Sonic games like Black Knight or fucking 06 (why????) because of story or whatever.
And I think that's good that everyone has something they enjoy from Sonic. But that doesn't really mean much to me personally as a consumer, because all of that stuff doesn't have much that differentiates it besides that it has Sonic on it. That's probably enough for some people, but I'm an adult with bills to pay. I'm not spending $60 for a game just because it has Sonic in it with the off chance that I MIGHT enjoy it. Sure, you might just say "well Sonic isn't for you anymore" and that may be true, but so many other franchises find a much better balance between appealing to newer and legacy fans, I don't see why Sonic can't do the same besides people just accepting things as they are now and Sega/Sonic Team's lack of competence at doing so. And honestly, while what you said is technically true, I don't think Sega actually trying to make things more uniform and that their games actually work, as opposed to just appealing to whatever trend is popular at the time, would be that bad. We've established that Sonic is popular enough to sell on his image alone, so I don't see why the standard has to be just chasing the popular trend as opposed to making something more unique and suited to the series' identity.
To be honest I dont think there is much of a difference between sonic getting a sword or turning into a werewolf vs mario getting a water jetpack or going into space. I think the people saying that sonic is 'unfocused' is really missing the point behind why these design decisions dont work. The biggest one being, these games just arent that good. People will forgive a lot of weird design choices as long as it's good. If the night levels were good, people would be praising the werehog as a lovably goofy idea that works better than expected instead of trend chasing that bogs down gameplay.
Sonic is probably closer to Hello Kitty and Mickey than to (say) Mario or Zelda nowadays in its position. The identity is the image at this point, and it sort of escapes SEGA's control. The way his image is used goes from ironic ("God you're pathetic" memes) to relatable (his standard "hero" persona portrayed in games) to almost uncomfortably genuine. Kinda like Hello Kitty can be anywhere from a plushie in a kid's hands to being a sticker on a vape or a butterfly knife. It transcends the identity he lost as a gaming icon, so whatever new ideas they use for Sonic don't land the same way they would if a game expected to be a lighthouse for gaming conventions, like Zelda and I suppose FromSoft games are nowadays, would be.
It's why I don't really consider Sonic to be a video game character anymore, yet Sega seem to insist on it. I would prefer IF the games were the things people enjoyed and engaged with the most, but we've reached a point where fans are in fact, more invested in Sonic, the character, than Sonic, the video game. It's why games like 06 and Black Knight can have such passionate fans despite the fact that the games are shit, because to those fans, the game is secondary to the world and characters. It's not wrong to feel that way or to engage with the series on that level, but it just distances me from really talking about the series much, if at all, because my preferences aren't really the popular opinion. At least with Mario and Zelda, discussion tends to center around the actual games themselves, but there's very little of that because outside of places like Retro, the Sonic fanbase just isn't interested in Sonic as a video game.
This is why I hate phrases like "trying too hard", which is another common bit of rhetoric surrounding Sonic's various experiments. They weren't trying too hard to be cool or good things, they were trying wrong. If they tried hard enough to actually be great mechanically, they would've succeeded.
I think the problem with how Sonic has done all these things is that Sonic Team doesn't launchpad ideas with intent of doing interesting twists on Sonic's gameplay, it all stems from "wouldn't it be cool if Sonic (blank)". The developers insist Sonic's character matters more than the games he's in, and that's what informs their decisions. Mario Galaxy builds itself on extending Mario's gameplay a full 360 degrees in antigravity + finding as many ways to tie using the Wiimote into his gameplay as possible. Black Knight is because they thought Sonic would look cool with a sword while Crush 40 blasts a song about being a knight. Mario Odyssey builds itself around the ability to bounce on a cap as an extra jump + take control of other characters for puzzles. Unleashed is because it would be cool if Sonic could be a werewolf and could fight like those brawlers that were really big in that era. Breath of the Wild uses it's new concepts to expand Zelda's gameplay to make a fresh, different experience. Sonic does open world in Frontiers because it would be cool if he ran through an overcast field while dramatic music played. If people didn't want Sonic Team to get flak for experimenting with the brand then maybe Sonic Team needs to change their approach. Think a little deeper, put the game first. The character's gonna pull people in, regardless.
This assumes any other developer would be better. We've had Dimps, Bioware, Sanzaru, and a collection of former Naughty Dog employees, and all of them either failed or fell off over 10 years ago. I don't think that's bad luck, it's just that other devs don't see Sonic any differently than SEGA does. He's a popular character built for merchandising first and quality second, just like Garfield. That may not have been true when SEGA was still a major player in the industry, but it sure as shit is the case now. Our only hope is Hardlight. Dream Team went very well, demonstrating they care about putting the game first. Hopefully SEGA doesn't downsize them and discourage them from making anything other than small mobile gam- Oh...
I think it's really telling that the closest and most purest version of Sonic to date, Mania, gets labeled as a side game for the sole fact that it wasn't developed by Sonic Team. Nevermind the fact that its highest rated Sonic game in 20 years, and gets critical acclaim across the board, its not Sonic Team so it "doesn't count". For better or worse, these games have cultivated a fanbase that prefer their brand of... "questionable" gameplay designs, simply for the fact that it's "cool". So I think getting rid of Sonic Team at this stage would just lead to an extreme level of backlash. I doubt Sonic Team want people outside their fanbase to hate their games, but they are so set in their ways and just lack the capacity to make anything else. Frontiers is touted as an "evolution" but it's just a boost game pasted over an open field. And it doesn't really matter anyway, because people still popped for those titan fights, and that's the main part that matters to most people. We'll probably only ever see a significant change in game design philosophy once a lot of the old guard are out, and even then, they'll probably just pass their bad habits down to their successors.
Every single sonic game since sonic 2 has some story of being rushed and development crunch. Even forces, which was in development for like 5 years, most of that time was spent on making the hedgehog engine. I don't think any developer could make a good product under those circumstances. Early sonic games could be really good even when they were rushed, because 2d games are just simpler to develop in general, but now sonic games has ballooning level sizes and dynamic lighting and HD textures. Modern games take longer to make and sega just hasn't updated their mindset since the genesis era. There's got to be some lovecraftian level stuff happening behind the scenes at sega, like we are going to get some tell-all whistle blower former sonic team staff and we are going to learn that all game pitches had to be done in the form of interpretive dance. My guess is that sonic is the only series sega has that is both recognizable and has family appeal. Nintendo can bounce between mario, zelda, pokemon, kirby, so they can have consistent output even if each series only has 2 games a decade. But sega only has sonic to work with, so they force the titles out even when theyre undercooked. Thats why hearing them say they want sonic to reach the level of mario makes me so sad. They just lack the time, money, and talent, and it can't be fixed no matter how many super fans who taught themselves machine code just so they can reprogram sonic labrynth that they hire, because the problem is entirely with management.
The only people who say that are the ones who seek to undermine Mania's success and impact, because they're afraid of Sega "learning the wrong lessons" from it and making Classic Sonic alone define the brand. Which was never, ever going to happen, of course. But you can't tell them that. They've been extremely overbearing the past few years, but I think their noise gives a false impression of their numbers. To back up to your earlier point, this is also why story/characterization seems to get focused on in lieu of gameplay these days. We're currently living through the nostalgia era of the period where the stories and character variety were the only arguably decent things the main series was doing, so of course that's what gets a lot of spotlight. I don't like it either, but it won't last forever. In the meantime, I think it's important to try not to let the apparent perspective of the apparent "majority" impact your own. Which is easier said than done, I know, but like I said, this too will pass.
Well, yes. Any delusions of Sonic Team being disbanded comes with an equally delusionial dream team taking over in their place. I don't think any of SEGA's current in house teams are capable of delivering a decent product so I wouldn't even bother to look there. We can spend all day discussing potential candidates, but that's besides the point. I believe that there is something wrong with Sonic Team on a fundemental level. I believe we will never see a title coming from them that's truly astonishing. I don't believe it's a time or money issue either. Give these guys all the time and money in the world and they're going to serve up polished mediocrity. There's never any nuance when they experiment. It always feels like they took the first draft of an idea and called it done so that they could move on. I just don't see any actual passion emitting from this studio other than the work from the sound team. SEGA as the publisher is not free from any blame here either. They deserve the same level of scrutiny, if not more. 5993 already mentioned Mania, but I'd like to toss in Dream Team in here as well. Those two games are from two dev teams who have far less to work with and still manage to put out stellar titles. Their games aren't without their own flaws, but they had a spark to their execution even when they weren't doing anything radically different from just being 2D or 3D platforms. They knew what they were and they honed in on making them stellar experiences with solid controls, level design and presentation. Sonic Team couldn't even settled on good controls for Frontiers so they just gave us sliders. Sliders that then don't do anything in the Cyberspace stages. "Figure it out yourself. Actually, nevermind". To me, it just feels like Sonic Team doesn't even want to work on Sonic. They're just obligated to keep doing it since that's what their studio is called. You'll never convince me otherwise.
This is an unfair assessment. Most of Dimps's work has been pretty solid. I think the only crime you can associate them with is being involved with... *checks notes* Sonic 4? That exists? Bioware's output was the victim of being bought by EA. Sanzaru's output was mediocre, but I'd say that can be expected when you're forced to make some Sonic Boom spin-offs. The case of the collection of former Naughty Dog employees, Big Red Button, was bad management by Sega. Midway through development they were suddenly told that they had to make Sonic Boom for the Wii U, which wasn't as powerful as the previous target platform. Next, while they were initially tasked with creating a fresh new Sonic canon for the West, they suddenly got pushback from Sega because their ideas conflicted with the Japanese canon. Which made them scrap a lot of work.
