The GHZ Forum

1up wrote:There won't be another PS3 or Xbox 360 game for a while.

By Patrick Klepek, 03/30/2007

Hope you liked Sonic and the Secret Rings, as Sega president Simon Jeffery told Newsweek the Wii game was one of the company's first steps towards reinventing what the world perceives as Sonic. Even though Sonic the Hedgehog appears to have performed well commercially for the company, they seem to have recognized the 3D adventures in recent years haven't done much for the core fans.

"We are actually undergoing a fairly considerable refresh of Sonic as an intellectual property, as a character," said Jeffery.

And what this means for Sonic and friends is a break. "We're not going to be bringing another game out on the other platforms for quite some time, because we feel that it is time to reinvent Sonic, to make Sonic contemporary again. At the same time, even the recent 360 and Playstation 3 games have sold extremely well. Sonic is still an extremely endearing character; there's still a lot of love for Sonic out there in consumerland."

Sonic's already a part of Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games, so the blue hedgehog isn't exactly going anywhere, but it might be a little while before he's headlining another platforming adventure. Maybe this time he'll finally leave his sidekicks behind.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3158379

Nice to hear that they're finally starting to listen to the fans and not just sales. Hopefully this means that their "new ideas" won't just mean slapping in new characters.

This was already in a different topic. Anyway, they said this before Sonic 360 too (that it's a "reinvention") and none of this means a jillion Sonic titles won't be turned out - just that they'll probably be on Nintendo consoles.

That 1up article is incredibly misleading.

All Jeffery said was that they were going to ignore the PS3 and 360 and focus on making new Sonic titles for the Nintendo systems. (Probably because, despite what he said in the interview, Sonic Next sold horribly.)

He didn't say anything about them taking a break from making Sonic games altogether, and he certainly didn't say anything about it "being a little while before Sonic is headlining another platforming adventure." Talk about wishful thinking on the part of the 1up writer.

Grant wrote:This was already in a different topic. Anyway, they said this before Sonic 360 too (that it's a "reinvention") and none of this means a jillion Sonic titles won't be turned out - just that they'll probably be on Nintendo consoles.

Yeah. Like I said in another thread, we're still trying to figure what the hell they were talking about with Sonic 2006.

One thing I'm afraid of is that Sega might misunderstand what it is people haven't liked about Sonic lately and just give us something even worse.

I have no problem with Sonic's "sidekicks", at least Knuckles and Tails. As I've recently been obsessed with, Sonic's gameplay and elements have disappeared somehow or another. Aside from the voice actors being horrible, the stories, world/level design and control sucks alot. Strangely, I've always felt the Chao gardens from SA1 and SA2 were one of the few things that made Sonic feel...Sonicy. What's happened to Sonic over the years is like having Mario turn into a Gansta who shoots plungers at bloodsoaked mushrooms. It's just not him anymore...

I don't fully understand the argument that 3D Sonic titles don't "feel" like Sonic. What does that even mean?

Mario 64 didn't "feel" like SMW or the NES titles at all (and Mario Galaxy doesn't look like it will either). To name a few of the differences, the life system was completely different, Mario's means of defeating enemies was completely different, and there were objectives within the worlds rather than just getting past obstacles.

So what's the difference? How is Mario's transition from 2D to 3D so much smoother than Sonic's?

I didn't play Heroes or 360 but I had relatively few problems with the Adventure titles (the biggest gripe being forced into play styles I didn't like) and genuinely enjoyed Secret Rings. Of those games, I never thought "this really doesn't feel like Sonic."

Also, I could go the rest of my life without hearing another comparison of Sonic/Mario to emo or gangsta or whatever. Give it a break.

I believe the last titles didn't feel like Sonic because usually Sonic titles are good or at least decent, and Shadow and Sonic 360 were shit. Mario64 was great, so was Mario Sunshine, even though he had a water gun.

Actually, I thought Sonic's transition to 3D was pretty smooth, it just needed a little more polishing off. The problem is that that polishing off never happened, and instead each of the 3D Sonics after SA2 was a repeat performance with some extra gimmick that did more harm than good.

Grant wrote:This was already in a different topic. Anyway, they said this before Sonic 360 too (that it's a "reinvention")

They said Sonic2k6 was a "reinvention" as almost a tagline to sell units, just like they did with Heroes. They only said it becuase they had a game to sell.

However, they don't have any Sonic games to sell now, so they're not using it as a promotional gimmick. I think they're actually serious this time.

Sonic2k6 was an utter disaster, enough to convince SEGA that they can't keep making shit games anymore. So in a way, it's good that thing came out. It's prompting SEGA to really make sure they get the next one right.

I wonder if SEGA made ANY money off of that game.

-NO promotional ads, so less sales

-fees for celebrity talent, Lacey Chebert and Zebrahead

-fees for the 4Kids staff

-fees for putting it on both platforms

-fees for the development staff

-fees for the CG animation crew

cjmcray wrote:-fees for the 4Kids staff

Somehow, I don't think that took very much out of their budget.

cjmcray wrote:They said Sonic2k6 was a "reinvention" as almost a tagline to sell units, just like they did with Heroes. They only said it becuase they had a game to sell.

However, they don't have any Sonic games to sell now, so they're not using it as a promotional gimmick. I think they're actually serious this time.

Wait, what? The whole reason we're talking about this is because of an interview promoting Mario & Sonic at the Olympics, which is still a Sonic game being developed by SEGA. They're trying to sell it just as much as anything else!

Unfortunately 99% of the opinions SEGA hears as feedback are total BS, like MAKE IT FASTER AND NO CHARACTERS instead of actual gameplay analysis or an understanding of what made the 2D games work (I think most reviewers have totally forgotten what Sonic games were actually like), so unfortunately I have this feeling that they are just going to turn the entire series into mediocre Sonic only rails games or scripted platforming games even worse than STH360 that are about as interactive as Dragon's Lair.

(I think most reviewers have totally forgotten what Sonic games were actually like)

The thing you have to understand about videogame journalists is that they're parrots. Somebody says one thing and everybody else repeats it because that's what they're expected to do. It's easier than genuine observation and the pay is the same.

Green Gibbon! wrote:It's easier than genuine observation and the pay is the same.

Hell, I want that job.

I'd do it if I wasn't forced to play shitty games.

I'd play the shitty games if it meant I'd be able to get my hands on all three consoles without necessarily having to pay for them all.

I've been thinking about how the press can cause "mass opinion" as of late. And it's not just in gaming. If there's a major case that's all over the news, no one is going to get a fair trial because the reporters put their own view into it. Unfortunately this spin gets taken for fact. And since most trials that have a lot of coverage in the US are run by jury...

But it's probably even more evident in the video game press. For movies you can just go see the movie. Often you can find someone who has seen a movie and ask their opinion. And if not, all that you lose is an hour or two and a few dollars. Video games cost a lot more and so people depend on the views of reviewers for picking out games. If enough reviewers feel the same way about a game, the opinion is spread and sometimes even accepted as fact. I had this conversation with a friend of mine:

Me: I saw Running with Scissors the other day. I was surprised I liked it. It was actually a really good movie. Pretty different.
Him: It got bad reviews though. It's probably not a good movie.

Ofcourse it makes sence to trust the opinion of someone who writes for a living over someone you actually know! How foolish of me....

I can back that up as a journalist. Nothing pisses me off more than reading a review on something that doesn't go deep and sounds really fucking generic. I try not to do that, the difference is that I don't get paid, while the people who do the whole generic parrot thing usually do.

Group consensus becomes reality. If everyone thinks something is true, than it becomes true, regardless of any facts getting in the way.

Plus, since 'fact' can easily be attributed to exaggeration or a difference of opinion, it's hard to tell what's worthwhile and what's just a bunch of garbage slapped together.

example : (actually more specifically) causes of global warming

Whether or not its true isn't the case. If you are a scientist and you deny it, you're placed in the same category as Holocaust deniers. Oh yeah and you also receive death threats.