Sonic slowly turning into a Nintendo game

[Psycho the Frog 4]

Yeah, not liking it. Dunno how many Nintendo fan we have here, because we seem to have many of them on most forums, but I'm usually the odd man out in saying I think Nintendo sucks. Outside of Starfox and F-Zero, Nintendo games just seem so bland and uninspiring to me, not to mention they care more about their creativity then the game itself, which resulted in them taking a character who already had a hard time finding an audience but actually pretty cool when you played it, the doing this Poop:

Which is funny, because i heard this game didn't sale well. Anyway, Izuka has been dead set on turning Sonic into something for Nintendo fans(despite, you know, Sonic being cooler then the entire company, which is why he beat Mario in the 90s), and I don't like it, but what do you guys think? Also, it's even brought up here:

[media=]

BTW, here's another article on why Nintendo sucks: http://conflictingviews.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/if-this-really-happens-i-will-quit-gaming-forever/

[Th3AntiGuardian 2]

I respect your opinion, though grouping a large number of video games all into a single category and saying you collectively hate all of them just because their first-party titles of a specific company is a bit narrow minded (outside of Starfox and F-Zero, as you said). I won't go into the "bland and uninspiring" comment, I'll just say we have a difference of opinion. Epic Yarn actually sold quite well, believe it or not. Plus, when given a chance, it is a great game and one of the best titles in the series; it not only has a really unique style that actually makes it look more impressive graphically than most Wii games, but it also has a certain humor that gives it even more personality than other Kirby games (and I've played nearly every Kirby game, with the exception of Star Stacker and Block Ball). Apparantly quite a few critics felt so, too, seeing how nearly every review of it was very positive.

Sonic and Mario's 90's rivalry was..back and forth. Yes, Sonic was considered the most popular video game character in the 90's for several years. But sales of not only Mario, but also series like Zelda have almost always been consistently higher than Sonic (albeit the first few years Sonic was around, a huge accomplishment for Sega). Sonic has had a rocky career ever since Sonic & Knuckles, some of it being contributed to sega's poor-decision making and they fact that they went bankrupt.; where Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid and countless other Nintendo franchises have almost always had a stroing precense in the video game industry. If you look up Zelda on MetaCritic, even some of the weakest entries still have a score in the 80s. Whether you like Nintendo or not, they simply do what they do best and have innovated video games thorughout the time they entered this industry. Company's like Sega have provided healthy competition for them, and in turn have been innovators as well; but for example, Super Mario 64 was the first video game ever where the player had control of an object in a 3D space. The length of time Nintendo has been around, as well as how long many of their franchises have been going strong, is an indication that they must be doing something right, whether you like them or think that their games are "bland and uninspiring." I love Sonic more than any other video game series, but it's a shame there are those who can't realize or appreciate what Nintendo has done for video games. I may strongly dislike Sony, but they still have some great games, I simply can't argue that no matter how much I dislike them as a whole.

Anyway, as for Sonic being Nintendo exclusive, I am obviously for it. Sonic Colors for Wii was the best-selling Sonic game, due to the fact Sonic is an all-ages game (like alot of Nintendo's games) and Nintendo's consoles are directed for all-ages. Sega is financially struggling, and Nintendo could be the one to provide the necessary resources. Sonic is simply his best on Nintendo consoles, from Sonic Advance, to Sonic Rush and Sonic Colors, some of his strongest (and most critically-acclaimed) titles since going third-party have been on Nintendo consoles. I'm a bit confused why everyone is upset about this whole Nintendo-exclusive thing; there has been a large number of Sonic games exclusive to Wii, DS, Gamecube, etc. going back to Sonic Adventure 2 Battle right after the Dreamcast was discontinued. My point being; Sonic sells best on Nintendo consoles, and more money for Sega equals a more stable company that can begin taking chances on experimenting with Sonic (possibly even taking a risk by making Adventure 3 in the future) and getting enough resources to possibly bring back series like Skies of Arcadia and NiGHTS. Sonic games tend to also be of higher quality when not multi-platform. When making a game for 5 plus consoles, the developement team has to spread themselves thin just to complete the various versions. With only having to focus on making a game for one home console and possibly a hand-held version, Sonic Team would have a much clearer direction and would be able to focus more on fine-tuning the game and making it of the highest quality. At this point, there's more Nintendo-exclusive Sonic titles than Sony or Microsoft, so if Sega makes this move, there will be little difference for fans. The only difference being Sega would have Nintendo's guidance, resources and marketing, and Nintendo would have a strong third-party series with a relatively large fan-base that would join their powerful first-party line-up. It would really be a winning situatuation for everyone; fans, Sega and Nintendo.

[Shadow the Hedgehog 5]

The reason why people complain about exclusives is usually because they don't own that console and might not be in a position to get it/want to get it. It is very frustrating when you look forward to a new game only to be told you're essentially barred from playing it. It came out of nowhere seeing as Generations and Transformed were multi platform. As for Sonic becoming light hearted, while I prefer a slightly more serious approach, it doesn't bother me too much as long as the gameolay is good. That's what holds a game together. Generations story was incredibly sparse, but the gameplay was great, which made up for it.

[Psycho the Frog 4]

It's late and I'm going to be going to bed soon, but to clarify, I said nothing at all about Sonic being exclusive to Nintendo, I said "Turning into a Nintendo game".

More tomorrow.

[Shadow 43]

Probably a off-topic post, but I really like how you used a video from Roger van der Weide.

I've been following his work ever since he began. His artwork is awful but he makes it in a way that it's hilarious. The stupidity helps too.

I mainly like his Sonic videos, but the Dissidia one gives me a smile on the face too every time I watch it.

[Psycho the Frog 4]

I respect your opinion, though grouping a large number of video games all into a single category and saying you collectively hate all of them just because their first-party titles of a specific company is a bit narrow minded (outside of Starfox and F-Zero, as you said). I won't go into the "bland and uninspiring" comment, I'll just say we have a difference of opinion. Epic Yarn actually sold quite well, believe it or not. Plus, when given a chance, it is a great game and one of the best titles in the series; it not only has a really unique style that actually makes it look more impressive graphically than most Wii games, but it also has a certain humor that gives it even more personality than other Kirby games (and I've played nearly every Kirby game, with the exception of Star Stacker and Block Ball). Apparantly quite a few critics felt so, too, seeing how nearly every review of it was very positive.

First off, I said I think their games suck, I don;t know how that translated to hate. Also, me and a friend bring up Epic Yarn all the time, and he showed me the sales, and it bombed, even then, nobody can defend the game, all anyone can say it "you need to try it first" or "it sold well", but since you're the only one hwo said it had an unique style, let me go on record by saying it doesn't automatically mean good. Also, I don't listen to reviewers, they say whatever they want about a game for their own agenda. :P

 

 

Sonic and Mario's 90's rivalry was..back and forth. Yes, Sonic was considered the most popular video game character in the 90's for several years. But sales of not only Mario, but also series like Zelda have almost always been consistently higher than Sonic (albeit the first few years Sonic was around, a huge accomplishment for Sega). Sonic has had a rocky career ever since Sonic & Knuckles, some of it being contributed to sega's poor-decision making and they fact that they went bankrupt.; where Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid and countless other Nintendo franchises have almost always had a stroing precense in the video game industry. If you look up Zelda on MetaCritic, even some of the weakest entries still have a score in the 80s. Whether you like Nintendo or not, they simply do what they do best and have innovated video games thorughout the time they entered this industry. Company's like Sega have provided healthy competition for them, and in turn have been innovators as well; but for example, Super Mario 64 was the first video game ever where the player had control of an object in a 3D space. The length of time Nintendo has been around, as well as how long many of their franchises have been going strong, is an indication that they must be doing something right, whether you like them or think that their games are "bland and uninspiring." I love Sonic more than any other video game series, but it's a shame there are those who can't realize or appreciate what Nintendo has done for video games. I may strongly dislike Sony, but they still have some great games, I simply can't argue that no matter how much I dislike them as a whole.

I like how nobody who brings up that rivalry just can't say that Sonic won it, it was more then just being popular, Sonic and Sega flat out beat Nintendo till Donkey Kong came back, and won due to graphics, where Sega responded with Vectorman. I would go into the rest of your message, but this isn't about what Nintendo has done for games or their history, it's what they have been doing recently, and how the games they make now can only succeed through name and not much else, plus, all the things they've done to ruin it for the guy who wrote that article I posted, and he IS, or was an NIntendo fan:

 

 

This… THIS is what I fear. Nintendo has RAPED, not destroyed, RAPED the ever loving F*ck out of their most enduring characters. Their top 3 franchises thus far have been ruined. Mario with a water gun and a commercial that would cause an abortion alone, Link with so many errands to run, the entire game feels like a side quest, and Samus with an extreme hormonal imbalance the likes of which we never DARED to desire! Pokemon is honestly all they have left.

But people are literally cheering for this. Sonic fans orgasm at the thought of Sega being bought out by Nintendo as they foolishly believe they will “save sonic”. They’re on the brink of insanity. I will sit back… and weep.

What did Sega do that was so detrimental to Sonic’s fame?

1. They gave his anti-hero a gun

2. They rushed severly hyped Sonic game without proper play-testing

3. Turned him into a werehog

4. Gave him a sword.

That is 4 things people scream is what killed the franchise.

What did Nintendo do to their core franchises?

1. Gave Mario a water gun.

2. Gave his brother a vacuum cleaner

3. Turned Link into a midget cartoon character.

4. Put link and Zelda on trains because Aonuma’s son likes trains.

5. Caused Zelda to go into the Bomba Bin (!!!!!!)

6. DESTROYED the Star Fox series.

7. Put out an instructional DVD (a whole disc) with the release of Super Mario Galaxy 2, insulting the intelligence of the common gamer.

8. Gave Link an annoying partner that deliberately insults your intelligence for the entire game.

This B*tch deserves more hate than Tingle. I can’t believe I just said that.

9. DESTROYED the Metroid franchise with just 1 game. It took at least 2 for Sonic to be “ruined”. Not destroyed.

10. Created 2 systems that cause headaches and irritation.

11. Restricted memory data to memory cards in fear of losing profits.

12. Thought this game was a good idea.

Who’s Tingle? Only the most HATED CHARACTER IN THE ZELDA FRANCHISE!

For all the Poop Sega gets, I would rather they continue on their path (hell, I’d rather they go completely BANKRUPT!) than to submit to a company that literally destroys their franchises. Houses developers who deliberately insult the fans they’re hired to serve and entertain. Constantly puts out hardware features and expecting us NOT to use them. Restricting how we play games, etc. Nintendo is a company that offers you no freedom in how you play your games. They are arrogant to the point that they will DESTROY their games to ensure you play a certain way.

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, as for Sonic being Nintendo exclusive, I am obviously for it. Sonic Colors for Wii was the best-selling Sonic game, due to the fact Sonic is an all-ages game (like alot of Nintendo's games) and Nintendo's consoles are directed for all-ages. Sega is financially struggling, and Nintendo could be the one to provide the necessary resources. Sonic is simply his best on Nintendo consoles, from Sonic Advance, to Sonic Rush and Sonic Colors, some of his strongest (and most critically-acclaimed) titles since going third-party have been on Nintendo consoles. I'm a bit confused why everyone is upset about this whole Nintendo-exclusive thing; there has been a large number of Sonic games exclusive to Wii, DS, Gamecube, etc. going back to Sonic Adventure 2 Battle right after the Dreamcast was discontinued. My point being; Sonic sells best on Nintendo consoles, and more money for Sega equals a more stable company that can begin taking chances on experimenting with Sonic (possibly even taking a risk by making Adventure 3 in the future) and getting enough resources to possibly bring back series like Skies of Arcadia and NiGHTS. Sonic games tend to also be of higher quality when not multi-platform. When making a game for 5 plus consoles, the developement team has to spread themselves thin just to complete the various versions. With only having to focus on making a game for one home console and possibly a hand-held version, Sonic Team would have a much clearer direction and would be able to focus more on fine-tuning the game and making it of the highest quality. At this point, there's more Nintendo-exclusive Sonic titles than Sony or Microsoft, so if Sega makes this move, there will be little difference for fans. The only difference being Sega would have Nintendo's guidance, resources and marketing, and Nintendo would have a strong third-party series with a relatively large fan-base that would join their powerful first-party line-up. It would really be a winning situatuation for everyone; fans, Sega and Nintendo.

This topic wasn't about being exclusive at all, it's about Sonic being made to please Nintendo fans, and not Sega fans, but of course, Nintendo fan wouldn't have a problem with that either, despite the games they're making now are either killing their characters or barely that good. Also, Sonic Colors sold well because more fans who were butthurt about what had been going on with the Sonic series needed a game that catered to them just to be good. Instead of telling the devs to make their games better and blaming Sonic's failures on their own poor dev skills, they blamed it on the characters, storylines, and having dark elements in his game, despite dark elements being present even back in the day, from the games, cartoons, and comics, but even with that, Sonic was always an all-ages titles, even Shadow was rated E10(Smash bros Brawl was even rated T), so the age range had nothing to do with this. Also, Sonic games may sale well on Nintendo titles, but you have to ask WHY that is, and it's because Sonic lost his appeal with the rest of the games, so nobody is going to buy his game when they're not even cool anymore, but the funny thing is, I've heard a few times that SA2 had been one of the best selling title on PSN, top 5 for a while actually, but usually in debates like this, people never wanna bring that up. Of course, SA2 still ha the original appeal of Sonic, I mean really, did you think a game like Sonic Colors was gonna sale well on the same shelf as COD, Gears of War, Prototype, Assassin's creed, and Saints Row? It's about appeal, and Sega of Japan keeps killing it off in order to appeal to Nintendo fans, the people still playing those bad title Nintendo makes nowadays, claiming them to be good or down playing their own failures.

Edited 29 Oct 2015 by Psycho the Frog

[Delicious echidna 53]

look, sonic with a sword? that was badass. knuckles dual wielding axes ? F**************** GENIUS!!!!! but seriously, while the wii games suffered from the " '06 fallout" , sega was actuallly trying something new, rather than just "gotta go fast and that's all" , beside, the bonus section was as usual full of stuff :3

then again, the fanbase is broken up beyond all recognition.... if they want something at the very least good, they'll be better of not listening to their fan, and actually take their time to make a game. period.

[Seviper the Fang Snake 368]

Locke has got a point.

[Danny Felixe 330]

I have to agree with Locke on this. You need to take risks anyway to make things better. It does seem to be backfiring on you but there are people who are getting more interested in Sonic. If Sonic is going to succeed, Sega needs to make changes and understand the risks behind it. The changes are obvious in this case and now Sega, I guess should be thinking about changing again seeing how the games are not up to most fan's standards

[Psycho the Frog 4]

Sega needs to make changes and understand the risks behind it. The changes are obvious in this case and now Sega, I guess should be thinking about changing again seeing how the games are not up to most fan's standards

Hell, they don't even need to make changes, just make Sonic Adventure 3, add elements from the first 2 games and 06, actually FINISH the Darn game, and change the title. This way, people don't get P*ssed off at it being called Sonic Adventure 3, and the people who want it can finally have the kind of Sonic game they've wanted for years. Really, we keep talking about what the fanbase wants and being broken, but we all know the Sonic series has only been for certain Sonic fans since 06, and that's not really fair to everyone who stayed with this series, even through the "bad" games.

BTW, if you guys really wanna know how to save save Sonic, read this: http://conflictingviews.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/how-to-save-sonic-post-9000/

[Danny Felixe 330]

Sega made a mistake. That's the main thing. They need to correct their mistake as soon as possible. Although I do enjoy some of what you obviously don't enjoy. If most fans feel like Sega have made the wrong decision, I would willingly try what they do next, whether they fix the mistake or not. It is their decision.

[Vanquish 0]

Sega made a mistake. That's the main thing. They need to correct their mistake as soon as possible. Although I do enjoy some of what you obviously don't enjoy. If most fans feel like Sega have made the wrong decision, I would willingly try what they do next, whether they fix the mistake or not. It is their decision.

I actually feel for Sega as if we have to feel sorry for the person, who is just "up and down" and can't do anything about that. This as you call "slowly turning into a Nintendo game" is barely something that Sega can actually do with Sonic, whether its good or not. Sadly for somebody, but i still do believe that this is made for good reason and purpose.

[Th3AntiGuardian 2]

Regardless of what's been said, Locke put it perfectly. Comparing Sonic to Nintendo games is a moot point. Since recently trying to be an active part of multiple Sonic fan communities (including this one), I've seen so many different types of Sonic fans. It just feels like majority of fans I try to talk to are always unhappy about something. Sega just needs to focus on making a good game, that majority of fans will at least like and sell well. And also move the Sonic series forward, rather than back. They've had some great ideas, its just that usually it isn't executed as well as it maybe should've been (I.e. Black Knight; great concepts, graphics, etc., just gameplay wasnt as developed as it should've been. I really enjoyed the game, but I can see why it didn't get the greatest reviews). Some fans want Adventure 3, some want another game like Unleashed/Colors and some want a 16-bit follow up to the Genesis games. Sega just needs to figure out what made the original Genesis games so great, and try to successfully transition that into a 3D game. Gameplay wise, I'm very optimistic Lost World will be successful in doing that; it looks to have levels and gameplay reminiscent of Adventure, Unleashed and the Genesis games. Sega seems to be on the right track lately, so they just need to keep doing what they're doing. It's great to listen to fans to a certain extent, but in this case the fanbase is so divided on the direction of Sonic, they just simply cannot make a game that pleases everyone.

[Lena Stan Account 60]

It doesn't suck for ME until there's Rayman & Kirby in it.

[Lena Stan Account 60]

First off, I said I think their games suck, I don;t know how that translated to hate. Also, me and a friend bring up Epic Yarn all the time, and he showed me the sales, and it bombed, even then, nobody can defend the game, all anyone can say it "you need to try it first" or "it sold well", but since you're the only one hwo said it had an unique style, let me go on record by saying it doesn't automatically mean good. Also, I don't listen to reviewers, they say whatever they want about a game for their own agenda. :P

I like how nobody who brings up that rivalry just can't say that Sonic won it, it was more then just being popular, Sonic and Sega flat out beat Nintendo till Donkey Kong came back, and won due to graphics, where Sega responded with Vectorman. I would go into the rest of your message, but this isn't about what Nintendo has done for games or their history, it's what they have been doing recently, and how the games they make now can only succeed through name and not much else, plus, all the things they've done to ruin it for the guy who wrote that article I posted, and he IS, or was an NIntendo fan:

This topic wasn't about being exclusive at all, it's about Sonic being made to please Nintendo fans, and not Sega fans, but of course, Nintendo fan wouldn't have a problem with that either, despite the games they're making now are either killing their characters or barely that good. Also, Sonic Colors sold well because more fans who were butthurt about what had been going on with the Sonic series needed a game that catered to them just to be good. Instead of telling the devs to make their games better and blaming Sonic's failures on their own poor dev skills, they blamed it on the characters, storylines, and having dark elements in his game, despite dark elements being present even back in the day, from the games, cartoons, and comics, but even with that, Sonic was always an all-ages titles, even Shadow was rated E10(Smash bros Brawl was even rated T), so the age range had nothing to do with this. Also, Sonic games may sale well on Nintendo titles, but you have to ask WHY that is, and it's because Sonic lost his appeal with the rest of the games, so nobody is going to buy his game when they're not even cool anymore, but the funny thing is, I've heard a few times that SA2 had been one of the best selling title on PSN, top 5 for a while actually, but usually in debates like this, people never wanna bring that up. Of course, SA2 still ha the original appeal of Sonic, I mean really, did you think a game like Sonic Colors was gonna sale well on the same shelf as COD, Gears of War, Prototype, Assassin's creed, and Saints Row? It's about appeal, and Sega of Japan keeps killing it off in order to appeal to Nintendo fans, the people still playing those bad title Nintendo makes nowadays, claiming them to be good or down playing their own failures.

x)

O_O what the... ultimate hater.

[Danny Felixe 330]

O_O what the... ultimate hater.

He's allowed his opinion. Even if it is a long one

[Delicious echidna 53]

As long as it doesn't get out of hand, everything is fine. And As long sonic goes fast, it won't be A nintendo game.

[Lena Stan Account 60]

As long as it doesn't get out of hand, everything is fine. And As long sonic goes fast, it won't be A nintendo game.

And until he doesn't have a mario hat. And a star. And mario is one of eggman's egg network member , he is a traitor.

Mario + Eggman = Magioman

[Glider4 4]

Hate nintendo. Hate how Lost world looks like a mario game. New mario sucks. I've said it a million times on this forum so i'm not going to go into detail again. BTW abstract levels are the laziest thing.

[Delicious echidna 53]

Go play Rayman then.

[Glider4 4]

Go play Rayman then.

Hell yea XD oh and that article is terrible. If you ask me nintendo only started sucking after mario galaxy

[Delicious echidna 53]

Must be the fact that Mario can be That milked and not start to upset people that make some angry.