If Nintendo owned Sonic and Co.

Speak your mind, or lack thereof. There may occasionally be on-topic discussions.
User avatar
MiraiTails
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:26 pm
Location: New York City

If Nintendo owned Sonic and Co.

Post by MiraiTails »

Do you think the quality of Sonic games would improve, worsen, or stay the same?

A related question: If Sega was forced to sell off the characters for financial reasons (I know, but just humor me.) what company would you like to see make the purchase and why?

User avatar
Isuka
Posts: 1431
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:03 pm
Now Playing: Tekken 7
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Post by Isuka »

Can't tell; they would be altogether different games, with no edge or charm (not that it matters to most people anyways). Though I'm sure as hell I wouldn't like to see 9 Sonic Shuffle games.

For any other options, I'd go for Capcom, Konami or maybe Treasure. The first one'd make a fine action game, the second one'd make a fine platformer, and the last one an impressive shooter.
But I'm not sure which company would make a good adventure game, with all the mentioned gameplay elements put together.

User avatar
Zeta
Posts: 4444
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 11:06 am
Contact:

Post by Zeta »

. . . why would Sonic need shooting elements again?

User avatar
Yami CJMErl
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:03 pm
Location: Western New York
Contact:

Post by Yami CJMErl »

Because Shadow. Or some unknown variant of the long-dead E-100 series.

...come to think of it, a Gunstar Heroes-ish game starring Omega would probably actualy be kind of cool.

User avatar
FlashTHD
*sniff*
Posts: 1504
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:00 pm
Now Playing: Team Fortress 2
Location: Out of earshot

Post by FlashTHD »

Ha, you give this series to Treasure and it'll die for sure. Took them 11 years to work up the balls to make a Gunstar Heroes sequel (and apparently that sucked).

User avatar
Delphine
Horrid, Pmpous Wench
Posts: 4720
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:05 pm
Now Playing: DOVAHKIIN
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by Delphine »

Give it to me. I'll fix it.

User avatar
Ngangbius
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:06 am
Now Playing: Dragon Quest IX
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: If Nintendo owned Sonic and Co.

Post by Ngangbius »

MiraiTails wrote:Do you think the quality of Sonic games would improve, worsen, or stay the same?
It all depends if they make it in-house or outsource it.
Isuka wrote:For any other options, I'd go for Capcom, Konami or maybe Treasure.
Important question to any fanatic of Konami: Do they actually spend a big budget on anything that is not releated to the Metal Gear Solid and possibly the Silent Hill franchise? I do know that they seem to skimp on the budget when it comes to their negelcted RPGs and console Castlevanias.

Also, Flash has a point about Treasure.

User avatar
Yami CJMErl
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:03 pm
Location: Western New York
Contact:

Post by Yami CJMErl »

FlashTHD wrote:Ha, you give this series to Treasure and it'll die for sure. Took them 11 years to work up the balls to make a Gunstar Heroes sequel (and apparently that sucked).
I didn't say it was a GOOD idea...just an interesting one.

In my own opinion.

<__<;;

User avatar
Hybrid
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:21 am
Location: Australia

Post by Hybrid »

I'd have to say they'd get better under Nintendo ownership, if only for the sole fact that Nintendo has a good track record of not fucking up key franchises. Plus, Nintendo's group of programmers just seem more competant all-round. Why is it that Mario controls wonderfully both at low and high speeds in Super Mario Sunshine (walking and with the Turbo Nozzle, respectively), yet Sonic can't even run in a proper circle in any of his recent games?

I also think they'd make Eggman the final badguy again, but that might just be me.

User avatar
Ngangbius
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:06 am
Now Playing: Dragon Quest IX
Location: Cleveland, OH

Post by Ngangbius »

I'd have to say they'd get better under Nintendo ownership, if only for the sole fact that Nintendo has a good track record of not fucking up key franchises.
Star Fox?

User avatar
Opa-Opa
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 3:14 am
Now Playing: The Red Ring of Death (X360)
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Contact:

Post by Opa-Opa »

Star Fox isn't fucked up. It's still fucking up. It'll be fucked up when they get completely rid of the Arwing and make Andross a playable character.

I'd say Nintendo knows Sonic enough to make him shine again. The games could lose a bit of its edge, but they would be good to say the least.

Now, I'm gonna go crazy and go with Ubi Soft. They've been doing a great job with most of their games, and they seem to listen to people (I mean, Prince DID get his original voice back in the third game), while respecting classics.

User avatar
Ngangbius
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:06 am
Now Playing: Dragon Quest IX
Location: Cleveland, OH

Post by Ngangbius »

Now, I'm gonna go crazy and go with Ubi Soft.
...and that's quite crazy!

User avatar
cjmcray
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:12 pm

Post by cjmcray »

Nintendo would probably make the overall quality be somewhat better, since they delay their games often, to make sure they work and function well.

However, there would be only one "true" Sonic game per console, with the rest of the games on said console being spinoffs. (Sonic Party, Sonic Golf, Dr. Sonic, Sonic Strikers)

Also, like everyone said, he wouldl ose his 'edge' stories and worlds would be done all cutesy, with no real big explosions, badass looking villains (Metal Sonic, Eggman's new design, Jet the Hawk, Shadow (before StH and Heroes) the new RoboEgg Pirate) And stories would be paper-thin, without the depth the 'Adventure' series had.

Sonic's best with SEGA. all SEGA really needs to do is delay the game and test it well. SEGA just wants to shove whatever new Sonic title they have onto the market, knowing kids will eat it up, despite the quality
(translation: Sonic's face on something = easy money for SEGA, no matter how bad it looks or plays.)

Rob-Bert
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Here, not there.
Contact:

Post by Rob-Bert »

Might I ask why you think Sonic would end up going the route of Mario? Nintendo doesn't pull that with any of their franchises aside from Mario, so why would they do it with a franchise formerly owned by another company?

User avatar
Ngangbius
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:06 am
Now Playing: Dragon Quest IX
Location: Cleveland, OH

Post by Ngangbius »

Sonic hasn't been "edgy" since...well...the DC years.

And the stories of most Sonic games have been shit, especially when they try to hard to get "deep" so...
cjmcray wrote:Sonic's best with SEGA.


and yet,
SEGA just wants to shove whatever new Sonic title they have onto the market, knowing kids will eat it up, despite the quality
Guess SEGA isn't the best company to treat the franchise right after all.

User avatar
Shadow Hog
Posts: 1776
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:21 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Shadow Hog »

FlashTHD wrote:Ha, you give this series to Treasure and it'll die for sure. Took them 11 years to work up the balls to make a Gunstar Heroes sequel (and apparently that sucked).
Actually it was quite competent. Not as good as the Genesis game, sure, (although really, what is?), but it was quite a good shooter. Now, if they had waited for the DS to come out so they COULD have two-player, then there really wouldn't be any question...

I can't say for sure how good or how bad giving the <i>Sonic</i> series to Nintendo would be. I mean, the quality of the game would be far, far more likely to be, well, you know, <i>good</i>, but the question would be where exactly Nintendo would take the series. Plot could be anything from very sparse (see: <i>Mario</i>) to rather in-depth, if formulaic (see: <i>Zelda</i>) to something in-between (see: <i>Metroid Prime</i>). Gameplay style could be anywhere from <i>Sonic Adventure</i>'s main style to a completely new attempt to translate the Genesis games' style to 3D (although Nintendo has a knack for bringing their 2D games into 3D, it would seem, so this would hardly be a bad thing). Personally, I wouldn't mind the trade-off, but that's me. At this point, Sonic's "edge" is already long, long gone, so... who knows, maybe Nintendo'd be smart enough to give it back?

Who knows, maybe you could give it to Crystal Dynamics; apparently they have a way with reinventing franchises that have gone stale. I mean, <i>Tomb Raider: Legend</i> was actually fun as hell, particularly for a franchise that, by today's standards, was stilted when it first came out, and never once got around to being updated; then they followed up with <i>Tomb Raider: Anniversary</i>, which is apparently just as good. Now admittedly, comparing <i>Tomb Raider</i> to <i>Sonic</i> is like comparing apples to oranges, but you never know...!

User avatar
Isuka
Posts: 1431
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:03 pm
Now Playing: Tekken 7
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Post by Isuka »

Yeah, I was going to suggest Ubisoft Montreal too (I don't know now, but a couple of years ago SEGA had a somewhat good relationship with western developers), but infact the PoP games are, you know, slow and much more puzzle-oriented than Sonic's. Though I think they could make a good speedy platformer if they really tried.

I think there's still some edge in the series, if only in it's graphical style, that Nintendo isn't prone to give to any of it's games (save perhaps Super Mario Strikers or Star Fox), but that may be just me.

And well, the Treasure thing was mostly a joke, but if they happened to get a grasp on the series they'd give Sonic the ability to fire something at enemies and make a good game out of it. For some reason, the first thing I thought of when suggesting Konami was Rocket Knight Adventures, but for Capcom the first thing that came to mind was Devil May Cry. Maybe I'm getting too old.
Last edited by Isuka on Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Frieza2000
Posts: 1336
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:09 am
Now Playing: the fool
Location: confirmed. Sending supplies.

Post by Frieza2000 »

Giving Sonic to Nintendo would probably be akin to putting him on permanent life support or having him stuffed and mounted. He'd be around forever, surviving on a steady stream of competent games, but the soul will have long since departed. I'm sure the games would be enjoyable, maybe they'd even be platformers again, but somehow I doubt we'd ever see anything really interesting or progressive. I hesitate to cite 2d examples such as New Super Mario Bros or Yoshi's Island because whether we end up with something mediocre or stellar is a craps shoot depending on the team they assign it to, but I don't think we have any reason to expect much better than the advance series or Rush, especially when a steady repetition of such games every year or two would probably be profitable for years to come.

Heaven only knows what they'd do to the 3d series and the storyline, though the recent success of SotR would probably be their guide. I think the best we could expect would be a kind of Frankensteinian revival, retaining some recognizable elements but with a completely new heart and mind. I think that's the best we could expect from any company, which I'm sure most fans would be perfectly satisfied with. Personally, I would rather see the thing get some kind of dignified ending.

User avatar
Segaholic2
Forum God
Posts: 3513
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 11:28 am
Now Playing: Your mom
Contact:

Post by Segaholic2 »

Frieza2000 wrote:Giving Sonic to Nintendo would probably be akin to putting him on permanent life support or having him stuffed and mounted. He'd be around forever, surviving on a steady stream of competent games, but the soul will have long since departed. I'm sure the games would be enjoyable, maybe they'd even be platformers again, but somehow I doubt we'd ever see anything really interesting or progressive. I hesitate to cite 2d examples such as New Super Mario Bros or Yoshi's Island because whether we end up with something mediocre or stellar is a craps shoot depending on the team they assign it to, but I don't think we have any reason to expect much better than the advance series or Rush, especially when a steady repetition of such games every year or two would probably be profitable for years to come.
No, I agree completely with this. Nintendo's recent track record on sequels isn't great or even good, but for some reason people seem to forget this. Also, Nintendo is King Captain Fuck of Retarded Spin-Off Games; it would be awesome looking forward to playing Sonic Party Sports Bonanza Strikers 14: Karaoke Edition.

User avatar
Zeta
Posts: 4444
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 11:06 am
Contact:

Post by Zeta »

One of the reasons I wouldn't mind seeing Sega being bought out by Nintendo isn't so much what they'd do for Sonic, but for the hopes that they'd revive Sega's "discarded" franchises (IE, everyone but Sonic and Monkeyball): Panzer Dragoon, Jet Set Radio, Samba, Chuchu Rocket, Crazy Taxi, Billy Hatcher, Burning Rangers, and Space Channel 5.

User avatar
Segaholic2
Forum God
Posts: 3513
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 11:28 am
Now Playing: Your mom
Contact:

Post by Segaholic2 »

Why the fuck would Nintendo do that? Sega already "revived" those franchises with sequels to pretty much all of those games you mentioned. Not to mention most of them were excellent as well. The reason they're not making more is because nobody bought them.

My point is it's not Sega's fault, it's everybody else's for not buying good games.

User avatar
Zeta
Posts: 4444
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 11:06 am
Contact:

Post by Zeta »

Whose fault was Sonic 360?

User avatar
gr4yJ4Y
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 10:14 am
Now Playing: Breath of the Wild (Switch), Resident Evil VII (PS4)
Location: Crescent Knoll

Post by gr4yJ4Y »

I still think that AV Games is about the only development team I'd trust the Sonic series to. But since they're still part of Sega, I'd have to say that the Jungle Beat/Mario Galaxy team would be next best in line. I think Jungle Beat proved they can make an interesting platform experience, with a creative twist. I'm sure they could work with Sonic's speed to make a similarly great game. Maybe they would make Sonic a 2D series on consoles again.

But Nintendo probably wouldn't even use them for Sonic. Since Nintendo doesn't have the resources to make sequels for its own franchises, I don't see how Nintendo would be able to make a Sonic game themselves. F-Zero, Star Fox, Zelda, and Mario 3-on-3 Basketball have all been outsourced with various results.

In some dream world where Nintendo actually focused on a Sonic game and gave it the attention they usually give a Mario platformer or a Zelda game, I can see it being good. However, like Frieza said, it would probably lose its soul. I think I'd have to say that Zelda lost some of its soul in Twilight Princess, since the developers felt the need to make it as much like Ocarina of Time as possible. I can see Nintendo reinventing Sonic more in the vein of the classic games - less change between each title, more refined platforming, tighter control, but probably slower than what we've seen lately. It could actually be good to see each game's story detached from the last one, the same way it is with the Zelda series (to a degree). I also don't think it'd really be so bad to have the games come out only once or twice a generation as opposed to one, two, or three each year.

If you gave the series over to Capcom, they'd likely go Mega Man on it, releasing three or more games each year just for a quick buck. They'd probably give Shadow or Knuckles their own spin-off series, while continuing with the regular series.
Shadow Hog wrote:Who knows, maybe you could give it to Crystal Dynamics; apparently they have a way with reinventing franchises that have gone stale. I mean, Tomb Raider: Legend was actually fun as hell, particularly for a franchise that, by today's standards, was stilted when it first came out, and never once got around to being updated; then they followed up with Tomb Raider: Anniversary, which is apparently just as good.
I think that's mostly because of the experience they'd had with the Legacy of Kain series before taking on Tomb Raider. They're structured somewhat similar. I don't really know how they'd do with a faster-paced game.

User avatar
Locit
News Guy
Posts: 2560
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 3:12 pm
Now Playing: Breath of Fire IV
Location: Living that enby life

Post by Locit »

Segaholic2 wrote:My point is it's not Sega's fault, it's everybody else's for not buying good games.
As far as Sega's first offering on non-Dreamcast systems goes, yeah, they were mostly great. But I don't think the fault rests entirely with gamers for not buying them. During the early post-console period Sega's marketing was pretty terrible. Of all the sequels and follow-ups that could be referenced in the years following Sega's shift to a third party the only one I remember seeing any advertisements for was Orta. That, combined with the fact that former DC owners had three consoles to choose from, meant that the former Sega user base was probably unaware of what Sega was putting out, or if they were there was a significant chance they didn't own the right console. I bought the Gamecube myself and was only able to pick up non-GC Sega titles when I got the other two systems years later- even then I bought almost all of the games used, and I'm not sure how much (if any) companies get out of used game sales.

User avatar
Opa-Opa
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 3:14 am
Now Playing: The Red Ring of Death (X360)
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Contact:

Post by Opa-Opa »

Yes. I remember being very bummed about all that. Only a couple of years ago I got a PS2 and got to play most games that weren't even that good (Altered Beast, Shinobi, Shadow the Hedgehog, Samurai Jack, Sonic Riders, the AGES series and some other stuff that I probably don't remember for a reason).

Ok. I'm gonna go crazy again and go with The Behemoth. They did an amazing job with Alien Hominid, I bet they could remake Sonic in its former 2D glory.

Post Reply