If Nintendo owned Sonic and Co.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:33 am

And let's not forget - if Sonic goes 'bye-bye' from Sega, Sega goes bye-bye for good. Unless they can start focusing on other classics like Burning Rangers & Streets of Rage again, they're gone. Go ahead and fight me on this, but it's a guarrenteed fact - they'll be gone in the same fiscal year when the hedgehog & plumber become roommates. Again, another thing that can get redeemed to greatness.

The only thing worth salvaging from the company are the characters and franchises. If they jump ship to Nintendo (or any sane company, really) all the better. Because the Sega ship is going down no matter what within the next 7 years unless they get some competent management. It's not like any of the original people who made Sega great are still a significant part of the company anymore.

Arcade · Post by **Arcade** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:56 pm

But then, how come they made the game Sonic and the secret rings in less that two years, and it didn’t ended being crap like "Shadow"? Maybe because the team was big?. So that’s the big answer, make a big team and the game gets good?.

Why Sega? Why didn’t you have a big team for the supposed rebirth of Sonic? Why?

Oompa Star · Post by **Oompa Star** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:07 pm

Sega is so concerned about making money that it is probably cheaper to use smaller development teams. Another thing, bigger teams don't always mean good games.

Ngangbius · Post by **Ngangbius** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:27 pm

Yeah, didn't Sonic 2K6 have a large team behind it for example?

Owen Axel · Post by **Owen Axel** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:52 pm

Why is it that companies that focus on making money inevitably end up making considerably less money than those that focus on quality?

It are a mystery.

Isuka · Post by **Isuka** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:24 pm

... Does Electronic Arts focus on quality?
Also maybe it doesn't depend on how big or small a development team is, but on the director(s)/ designer(s) overall involvement with the project?
And, seriously, screwing a fully fledged 3D high definition platformer after screwing the same kind of games (only without such graphical polish) is something, but to screw an on-rails action game it takes some good effort. Maybe that's why SotR didn't suck, at least not much.

Probably both SEGA and Sammy get a living of other franchises and new ideas out of Sonic and all the Genesis days' big names; they still have Virtua Fighter, Super Monkey Ball, Virtua Tennis, Shining Force, now they have Ryuu ga Gotoku, and though they currently suck Full Auto, Condemned and Chromehounds seem to give much monies from themselves.

One Classy Bloke · Post by **One Classy Bloke** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:56 pm

EA does focus on quality. More than Sega at the moment at least. The main complaint about EA is that they make the same games over and over.

Oompa Star · Post by **Oompa Star** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:24 pm

EA's games sell because so many people like sports. Also if I'm not mistaken, EA has exclusive rights to the NFL license, so either you play Madden or you don't play any football games.

Psxphile · Post by **Psxphile** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:31 pm

According to rumors, they're eyeing MLB exclusivity now.

The madness begins anew.

Isuka · Post by **Isuka** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:01 pm

They also have The Sims, that must mean something to their wallets too.

Though they keep releasing the exact same game year after year with updated databases and nothing more. That's probably why some 2K games titles have glitches; they constantly tweak the gameplay engines and change the players' statistics to reflect realism over the more mainstream arcade experience of the EA Sports titles. Don't take me wrong, the FIFA and NBA Street series are really neat, but the "main" ones kinda suck.
And the less said about Burnout Dominator, the better.