But all Sonic fans hate each other. Always have and always will. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

No one really is saying "we're better" than the newer fans. I don't feel that ever has been the attitude. There simply has been a massive decrease in quality and soul in the Sonic games after Sonic Adventure. That is just something impossible to ignore. And when Sega makes statements like, "well the kids like it, we can't impress everyone," it just kind of puts us all down.

Like, if Sega really made Sonic games that were somewhat true to the feel of the older Sonic games... I doubt it would get bad feed from the kids. If we liked it when we were kids, why wouldn't they? It all boils down to this. We don't care how many characters are playable. We don't care if it's 3D or 2D. We don't even care if you want to venture into new styles of gameplay. These things aren't what kill it for us.

Phantasy Star was once a turn-based RPG, and is now a live action MMORPG.
Metroid went from a 2D side scrolling action game to a FPS
Mario went from collecting mushrooms and reaching the end goal, to 3D free-roaming and "Star Collecting"

These changes all proved successful, and well loved. It's just, when we play a Mario game, we expect to see the Mushrooms, and the Warp Pipes, and the Stars, and the Goombas and Koopas, and a "mushroom kingdom."

That's all we wanted with Sonic... was to bring our hedgehog back. I even tip my hat to them for at least TRYING with Sonic Heroes. The look and feel was spot on. It was really just the gameplay that really killed for anyone. Even then I'd still play through each Sonic game, looking for good qualities in them. Nowadays, I pick up the games, and barely get through the first stages. Secret Rings and Unleashed for me, were just not even playable. Forget my Sonic "fanboyism." Let's just say these were standalone titles featuring a rat named "Harry." I STILL would not be able to play these games. They're just BAD games in general. And that's not me being 21 talking. Because guess what? I still play and enjoy the most recent Pokemon and Mario titles to this very day.

Sega... Sonic Team... whoever you people are... we say these hurtful things because we care. Believe me, none of us WANT to see Sonic six feet under. We want him to be successful, and be featured in celebrated and memorable titles. Speaking for myself, I still rock Sonic merchandise and clothing, and manage to make that junk fashionable. I stick up for Sonic against the true haters. Hell, I even gave Sonic X a chance and found redeemable qualities in the last season.

But Sega, you honestly can't blame the recent failure of Sonic on US the fans. Because unlike you Sega, we KNOW what we want. You say one thing such as, "Sonic is for kids. That's who we aim to please," and then directly contradict yourselves in your actions by overreacting to criticism, trying to fix it in the next game with the right concept... "Oh? Sonic Adventure was too kiddy? Alright SA2! Sell out to the Tony Hawk Crowd! Oh... that was too over the top! Okay Sonic Heroes! Too kiddy? Okay Shadow the Hedgehog! Oh, you guys like SA1 the whole time? Okay Sonic 06! You don't like? Here, Sonic and the Secret Rings! No new characters!"

Okay... Sega, thank you for listening, that's all good and dandy... but... STOP!!!

We don't care what you do, just do it RIGHT. You wanna do treasure hunting... FINE! Just do it right! Speed/Flight/Power? Racing? Shooting... we don't care. Just test your games before you release them. We don't need a new major title every year. I can't think of any other series that I play that does that.

Saying you're gonna do this the right way with Needlemouse seems like an empty promise to me. Because we've heard it all before. You were taking Sonic back to his roots with Sonic Heroes. You were making the main focus of the game "Sonic" with Secret Rings. You made a side scroller and gave us that travesty known as Sonic Unleashed. So saying that you're taking us back to the roots with Needlemouse means nothing if you're just gonna rush the game for a quick release. It could be amazing if you take your time and make the forumlas work. As could have Heroes, Unleashed, even Shadow the Hedgehog.

If we get a rushed spring or early summer release, I wouldn't expect Needlemouse to be any better than Sonic Advance. And if that's the case, then Sega, you're in trouble. However, if you had the potential to make this 2D platformer surpass Sonic 3&K and Sonic CD, I'd much rather WAIT two years for it, than to get my quick fix in say, six months, and come short of another Sonic Advance quality side-scroller.

True that Silv! However, I must say...games have changed since Sonic's glory days. Once again...i'm not saying we're better or anything like that, but one of my friends who hadn't really played Sonic growing up got the SMC+[thanks to a friend's advice ] and he traded it in like a week or so later. I mean...he's definitely more of a new generation[started playing for real in the PS2 era] gamer and I think because Sonic 2/Sonic 3 didn't have all the bells and whistles of a modern day game he found it "boring". *sigh* I mean...maybe SEGA/ST has a point, they know that the ones whom grew up playing Sonic will appreciate a true throwback, but our numbers are so small when compared to new gamers, ya know?

*high fives for sticking up for Sonic* I do too man, I do too. It gets hard sometimes though. Good thing my friends don't know a lick about Sonic. xD! As for Needlemouse...it's just another game to me. Not even associating it with Sonic. I try to stay away from it...the heartache is just too much. ;_; But uhh...Silv...

Phantasy Star was once a turn-based RPG, and is now a live action MMORPG

What?! Is this like that movie GAMER or something...they got real people?! :O! j/k! lol

Kevin Eva wrote:

---

the statement that "Children have no business playing Sonic" is utter Pingas of the highest order.

... a Sega employee actually wrote that? I mean, YTP memes making it to the Sonic series' owners aside... since when did "Pingas" mean BS? Couldn't he have just stuck to something more descriptive like "garbage" for now, and came back to YTP memes when the opportunities for using them were a little... mmmm... richer? 😛

Anyway, I haven't been following gaming news in general, let alone the Sonic series, but older fans don't have to give themselves a promotion just because they're older. The whole "kids have no business playing Sonic" idea sounds new to me, if only because from GS I thought the view I'd be more likely to hear is that anyone BUT kids has no business playing Sonic. Damned if you do, damned if you don't much?

As for Sega themselves, they're a company, so the most relevant subject here is who it's profitable to appeal to; not that I'd know who that is or anything, but any complaint as to such and such game being "a pander to the kids" or whatever is a moot point; who's to say appealing to the older audience isn't pandering? A game developed commercially by a business is going to be affected by the profit motive by its very nature. If you don't like that, there's always SRB2.

Well, he's clearly an avid poster on an internet forum, so I'll give him the "pingas" thing.

I don't really get the controversy here; Sonic games weren't ever all that hardcore, so it's odd to hear that people bringing the "pandering to children" argument here. Hell, with all the fanservice (nostalgia, not boobs) they stuff into these games, they clearly are trying to pander to the older audience. The only reason the games seem kiddy is because the quality, voice acting, plot, etc. are so terrible that only kids don't notice.

also lol, SRB2

Well, he's clearly an avid poster on an internet forum, so I'll give him the "pingas" thing.

I don't really get the controversy here; Sonic games weren't ever all that hardcore, so it's odd to hear that people bringing the "pandering to children" argument here. Hell, with all the fanservice (nostalgia, not boobs) they stuff into these games, they clearly are trying to pander to the older audience. The only reason the games seem kiddy is because the quality, voice acting, plot, etc. are so terrible that only kids don't notice.

But this is exactly my point. It didn't HAVE to be hardcore for adults to enjoy it. Like I always love to compare to my red and blue pal Mario... he was never hardcore, and yet you have people in their 30's that still acknowledge the awesome that is Mario.

Kids these days are growing up in a lack of quality environment these days. At least in what was once catered to them. I at least know that the cartoons and kiddy games I was into were MUCH more sophisticated than a lot of the stuff that's out there now. That doesn't make me an elitist. All it mean is that I'm not BLIND. I give credit to "new things" where credit is due. This is coming from a huge fan of Teen Titans, Spongebob, and I even go as far to say the recent "Spectacular Spider-man" series tops the animated series of the 90's. I think Mario Games are better now than they've ever been.

And well... Sega... if you were doing things the right way, maybe you'd still be in the console race.

A game can be geared towards kids and still have QUALITY. These games just lack quality, and like stated before, kids are the only ones who don't notice. And the thing is, when they grow up, and turn 20, I doubt they'll be saying, "Yeah remember when we were kids? Remember that AWESOME GAME Sonic Unleashed?" ... the way we talk about Sonic and Knuckles.

If you make a game geared towards kids, but make it with QUALITY, and make it just look and feel like old Sonic games (and this can be done in a 3d title as well), then you're not losing a single member of the kid audience, but you also get the adult audience that grew up with Sonic, or at least, whatever's left of it.

I noticed something very interesting as this decade passed. The death of Sonic online communities. I used to be a regular at another Sonic forum around 2001. Very active... around the same time, I lurked this forum, and The Sonic Foundation, and Sonic Stadium, and all these forums were extremely active. Hundreds of posts daily.

Now... not anymore. This is the only one I could find that is even somewhat active nowadays. Why is this? Why is the Sonic community shrinking by the day?

You decide Sega... you can only pass off bad quality to kids for so long. But they all grow up. And y'know what? Even they aren't stupid. Otherwise there'd be Sonic Riders tournaments and parties instead of Mario Kart. And maybe there'd be a SEGA World Store in Manhattan instead of a Nintendo World. Sure, cutting corners saves money in the short term. But it also goes back to the old saying "You have to spend money to make money." And ultimately, Sonic's gonna go under. I mean... he already lost hardcore. He lost his console, and was picked up on Nintendo consoles for success. Even then you guys couldn't cut it. Now you have him in Brawl and Mario crossovers, which is all fun and cool, but back then, he didn't need Nintendo or Mario to carry him for success. I love the idea of the crossover, but I didn't want it to be done out of a desperation measure, which is all it really is.

my red and blue pal

I at least know that the cartoons and kiddy games I was into were MUCH more sophisticated than a lot of the stuff that's out there now. That doesn't make me an elitist. All it mean is that I'm not BLIND.

So what you're implying is that someone must be "blind" to think of the newer games/cartoons as more sophisticated? As if your own views on cartoons and games wouldn't be distorted by your nostalgia towards your own favourites? Or that having looked at the earlier ones when you were younger, or later ones when you were older, wouldn't have influenced the impressions you got about the differences between them? You sound like you're being a little too sure of yourself. Besides, whether the idea was "it takes a kid not to see this" or "kids have no business playing these games" if it was expressed as the latter I think that's all Kevin could respond to. How was he supposed to know what people meant by it?

As for Sonic communities, I haven't really looked much outside this one, but there's obviously more to them than just Sonic or else we wouldn't be getting non-Sonic-fans like Jimro (IIRC) here. These sites have nostalgia value of their own, and not every website's community has to revolve around its initial subject.

I wouldn't say my views are distorted by nostalgia. I give credit where credit is due. If you just read the next few sentences following the quote, it addresses a lot of things that I grew up with from the 90's, that I actually think are much beter now than they were then. It's just that if we say something was better ten years ago, people automatically think it's an elitist view. That we just don't like it because it's a new gen. And if that were the case, I wouldn't like a lot of these new-age versions of things I once loved such as Spectacular Spider-man over the 90's series, or Mario games now compared to the SNES days. Or Phantasy Star now, compared to then.

If I'm saying I think something is weaker now, than it was ten or fifteen years ago, it's because it IS weaker. Not because I refuse to accept change.

And I'm not saying that other people are blind to think that newer games are better than the older ones. I just think that a younger gamer who starts the series at SA2, and has moved onwards from there, really isn't as much in a position to compare the newer games to the ones that were around before they were born. Not because they're stupid or anything, but because for someone who didn't watch gaming grow and evolve, those games are more likely to be seen as primitive technology to them.

The NES and Master System were before my time. I got my Sega Genesis when I was four. And for someone who grew up with, and loved these genesis and SNES games, I was never able to appreciate NES and Master System titles simply because it just seemed lame in comparison. I couldn't get passed the horrible graphics.

So how can you expect many people who are growing up with Gears of War, and games that look borderline real, to be blown away by Sonic and Knuckles? It's possible, however very unlikely. They might see it as something mildly entertaining at best. But for someone like me, Sonic 3 was gaming at its finest. Because at the time, it was. It pushed boundaries, and it lead among the highest ranks of video game titles.

Now today, the games are laughable. Just look at Sonic Unleashed for example. What boundaries does it push? How does it stand out, as a game itself? It's a joke. How do you go from having Sonic, one of the biggest gaming icons of all time, be featured in much hyped games that turn out to have less quality than Godzilla and Teen Titans games?

Yes nostalgia itself will get me to love an old game over a gamer who may not have even been born at the time, because they weren't around to know that this was once great. But as someone who is still knowledgable with the basic concept of quality, and gaming capabilities of today, it's safe to say that Sonic has become more of a punchline in the gaming world, rather than an icon. There is little to no effort put into the games, and it's not being a Sonic fan of the olde that lets me see that. It's the fact that I play other games of this era and am wondering why Sonic can't keep up?

Super Mario Galaxy... while a general cartoony look, really has no flaws graphically. Everything nice and smooth. The game itself is gorgeous, the gameplay twists and bends and distorts. It's something new, unique, and amazing... and guess what? It's mad KIDDY. And yet an adult could still enjoy it, and say, "Wow, this is great." Sure, Mario may not be everybody's thing. But someone could casually walk into a room, look at it, and it would definitely stand out to the unfamiliar viewer. Sonic Unleashed...I'm sorry, but it's almost as if you HAVE to be a kid under the age of twelve, to really be able to not notice the fact that it's horrible. Even the most loyal of Sonic fans, who will dig as deeply as they possibly can to find redeemable qualities in it, can't even stand it.

It's not a matter of ageism. We're just pointing out the obvious. I even trust this core kid audience to grow out of these games at a much younger age than normal, and continue to play other games they enjoyed as kids at much older ages.

Sega is just using ageism and elitism as an excuse, or a means to justify their bad games. And yet this elitism doesn't seem to exist for any existing game series' that are much OLDER than Sonic, such as Mario, Phantasy Star, or Legend of Zelda. Now if Nintendo were to make for example, a really bad Legend of Zelda game and release it next year... I kid you not, they can do ANYTHING with it, and it would sell. Imagine they set it in the future, give Link a machine gun, and make it a racing game, and do it at a minimal budget, with bad camera angles, and choppy gameplay, it will STILL sell. Probably be a top selling game too. Why? Because of its name. But who is gonna be buying it? Kids. Kids that WOULD have bought it regardless if it was good or bad. And Nintendo could continue to make stupid moves like this, and kids will continue to buy it, and older fans who once knew what a good Zelda game was, will complain about how the series has gone down the toilet. They could continue to do this for a decade or two, but eventually the series will die.

Or they could continue to make good games, and the series could live on forever.

Sonic faces death. It is possible for a series to be iconic for centuries. Superman and Batman will be a century old within our lifetime. Stories like Dracula and Frankenstein have surpassed a century. For all we know, gaming icons can make that mark. If I could guess anyone, it would be Mario. However, gaming icons that were once big, can also die within the same decade. Anyone remember Crash Bandicoot? Back in the day, he actually became a competitive factor in the platformer genre. Not anymore.

And the same thing is happening to Sonic. And Sega is reading too deeply into. Nostalgia vs New Ideas. Elitism.... Ageism...

No...

It's a lot more basic than that. It's good game or bad game. You make a good game, people will like it. You make a bad game, people won't like it. Sega, you've been making bad games in the name of Sonic. People don't like them. Start making good games and people will like them. What is so difficult to understand about this?

I would much rather have my friends come over and have Sonic Riders tournaments instead of Mario Kart. I love Mario, but I want Sonic to be a household name to the group. But first you actually have to make Sonic Riders GOOD. Otherwise, we're gonna stick to the far Superior Mario Kart Wii.

I give credit where credit is due. If you just read the next few sentences following the quote, it addresses a lot of things that I grew up with from the 90's, that I actually think are much beter now than they were then.

Actually, I DID read after the part I quoted; quoting that part was just to show an example of what I was referring to as "sounding too sure of yourself." What made you think I didn't?

Yeah, I know you pointed out examples of "newer" stuff that you preferred to a few examples of "older" stuff, but you seemed to be calling these examples exceptions, not the rule. And I wasn't so much saying that something being new-gen would be the reason you didn't like something, as that it might make you less (or more) inclined to like something than you otherwise would be; as in, it wouldn't stop you from liking something, but might decrease the extent of it. (Hence newer Mario games, etc. standing out.) Granted, I wouldn't know what effect it would have, but it's better to point that out than to just leave it at "if I think something's weaker, it has to be because it is."

As for your "I grew up with Genesis so I didn't appreciate NES; therefore I don't think people growing up with Gears of War appreciate Genesis" argument, just because you think a certain way, doesn't mean you should expect others to. Yes, having watched the progression of technology as it went along would probably give you a different perspective than seeing different levels of technology out of order, but I'm not convinced it's necessarily better.

But when you say "it takes a kid not to see the fact that it's horrible"? As if "horrible" were a matter of fact vs. myth instead of subjective opinion? And why exactly single out kids for this, as if being a kid was the only explanation for liking a certain game? Other factors can influence whether you like it or not too, such as if it reminds you of some other time and/or place in which you played it... who's to say there wouldn't be further explanations still?

In any case, the point I was making earlier was that in the article the Sega employee was supposedly responding to a remark about kids having no business playing those games. Regardless of the reasons for such a remark, what else could he really respond to? Besides, I like the little comment at the end about "it's not really the sort of maturity that 18 years should've accumulated..."

How are these just "exceptions" to the rule? Sonic is one of the very few things that I grew up with that I'm having serious problems with. There is an extremely OBVIOUS decline in quality in Sonic games as the decade has progressed. Productions have just gotten cheaper and cheaper, and even graphically, they haven't improved much since the Dreamcast days. And here we are, two gens ahead of that.

There has never been this "kids have no place playing Sonic games" vibe that I have seen thus far in the Sonic community. The only complaints have been that the games of late have just been BAD. And Sega just does stupid things that is almost seemingly just to piss us off. Remember the Sonic X voice cast taking over the games? Clearly, this was just because they were cheaper. Jason Griffith alone plays the voice of Sonic, Shadow, Jet, and I believe Vector. Why pay four actors to do something that one can do? So what if the actor isn't as good?

And you wanna know what they said? They said that the younger fans that like Sonic X are in the majority.

First of all, I didn't hear any kids raving about the voice cast change AT ALL. Nor do I think they cared either way. Certain things are much demanded long before they actually happen. Like for example, Sonic being in Smash Bros. For years he's been the most requested character, since Melee even. But I never saw any campaigns going on to have the Sonic X voice cast replace the game voice cast.

My point is, they cut corners, and take the cheap and easy, rushed path when it comes to making games. They are just making BAD games in general. And then they use the whole, "it's just a kids game" line to justify it.

No one has ever blamed it on the kids. We're just frustrated that they hide behind the kid fan base, and use them as an excuse to make bad games.

And are the games being bad a matter of opinion? Of course. But just take a look at the passing years. Sonic has gone from rock star status, to gaming's punchline. The Sonic community itself has become almost completely apathetic about new Sonic releases. These are all opinions. But they seem to have made an impact. And if Sega doesn't cut the lazy act, and just start making Sonic games good, I could easily forsee the hedgehog's final decade.

Then everyone loses. Elitists and kids cannot destroy Sonic the Hedgehog. Only Sega can. And they've been doing a good job of this.

How are these just "exceptions" to the rule?

Again, you were saying "kids are growing up in a low-quality environment nowadays" in terms of games and cartoons... then mentioned examples of newer games/cartoons you preferred to older ones. I thought you were referring to those examples as the exceptions.

Anyway, you say there's never been a "kids have no business playing this" attitude, even though the article this thread is about was responding to a quote about just that. It's only one example, but who's to say the article author hasn't seen more of them? He's responding to what's being said, whatever may have been meant. You say what was meant was that it takes a kid to not see how bad what they're playing is.

I guess an analogy for this would be the idea of "girls' toys and guys' toys"; video games are thought of as an example of the latter, (ironically, some say "girls grow out of them sooner") yet plenty of girls use them too as one can see from this website. (Assuming they're mostly telling the truth about their gender, which they probably are.) But it's weirder for guys to play with stereotypical "girls' toys" like Barbie dolls. Does this mean one should assume "girls' toys" are more exclusive? Only in the eyes of people who excessively jump to conclusions. It could also be that they're thought of as more pointless toys, and that guys playing with them makes less sense than girls playing video games. The similarity? You're suggesting that older people playing later games makes less sense than younger people playing earlier games, because of the pointlessness you associate with the later ones, not because "older fans' games" aren't more exclusive. Fair enough. But in this analogy, if someone told a company marketing girls' toys to guys that guys had no business using them, you'd expect a spokesperson for the company to respond to that statement, not to whatever they supposedly "meant" about them being pointless.

Again, I haven't been following the series much. I wouldn't "remember" the Sonic X voice cast taking over; I don't think I even heard about it. Yeah, they're probably cutting corners with the series, but for now they're the owners of that series they're cutting corners with. As long as we get to make fan art and fan games, we get to make alternatives to that corner-cutting approach, so I don't think we're really headed for "the hedgehog's final decade" unless the people making such alternatives give up. I doubt that's likely to happen, given the enormous amounts of material the Internet is getting filled with...

When it comes to evaluating entertainment of any medium, I think it fair to say that subjectivity is unavoidable. That being said, there does seem to be a trend for many major companies, especially those targetting children, to give less than their all and hoping their target audience is incapable of realizing the lack of effort.

Also, in my experience, there are just as many ignorant adults as there are ignorant children, and plenty of uninspired or unpolished media targeted to this older group of ignorants. Of course, truly great works tend to appeal to a very wide audience, young and old, intelligent and ignorant, male and female.

When it comes to evaluating entertainment of any medium, I think it fair to say that subjectivity is unavoidable. That being said, there does seem to be a trend for many major companies, especially those targetting children, to give less than their all and hoping their target audience is incapable of realizing the lack of effort.

Also, in my experience, there are just as many ignorant adults as there are ignorant children, and plenty of uninspired or unpolished media targeted to this older group of ignorants. Of course, truly great works tend to appeal to a very wide audience, young and old, intelligent and ignorant, male and female.

Well said. As I mentioned earlier, I don't think it's fair to single out "kids" for bad taste in games and cartoons. (Which are ironically sometimes thought of as being "for kids" in the first place...)

I know I'm late to the topic, but Silv, some of your comments have really got to me.
First of all your comment, on Sonic Unleashed: "...I'm sorry, but it's almost as if you HAVE to be a kid under the age of twelve, to really be able to not notice the fact that it's horrible. Even the most loyal of Sonic fans, who will dig as deeply as they possibly can to find redeemable qualities in it, can't even stand it." and al overs like it.
So where does that put me, huh? I'm 22, been with Sonic since the beginning, and guess what... I love Sonic Unleashed. Sure, the night stages aren't as well polished, but the day stages are pure gold - of the 24kt variety. Am I wrong? Because according to your statements the opinion that it was a bad game has recently become an encyclopedic fact.

And this "LOYAL fans" business - thats exactly what this Sega Staff member was talking about! What defines a "loyal fan" exactly? Someone who likes the old games but not the more recent games? 'Cos that's what its sounding like. And thats what the guy means by elitist when you start talking about fans being loyal or not.
Also, I'm sorry, but no one can tell me I'm not a loyal fan because I like Sonic Unleashed. By the way, do you know what my favourite all time Sonic game is? Its Sonic Adventure 2. While others have different opinions of that game, I'm not going to tell them that tey are wrong for it. Shaa, I also love the hell out of Rush, but I also love the old games. I don't understand what people have got against these games (especially in the case of Rush), but everyone is entitled to have their own opinions and views.

For the record I have my own definition for a "loyal" or "true" fan: noun. Someone who loves their chosen field, no matter what. Shaa!

Look dude, just take care when you make those kinds of comments - you have to respect that not everyone thinks the same way. Peace.

I figure a 'loyal fan' is one who hasn't broken all ties with Sonic.

In other words, someone who is not me.

I've completely cut myself off from Sonic, because frankly, he's not my Sonic anymore. My Sonic died when they introduced what is practically bestiality to the series. And don't even try to tell me that wasn't what was being implied when Elise resurrected Sonic. It's a classic 'true love's kiss' scenario.

I define loyal fans as the ones who stick by and support Sonic, simply because he IS Sonic. I bought Sonic Unleashed, without reading any reviews, and against everyone's warnings. Because well, I liked Sonic 06. Sure, there were a hell of a lot of things wrong with it, but I liked it, for reasons I'll point out later. So I went and bought Sonic Unleashed. I had been disappointed with Sonic games before, but figured I could find some redeemable quality in it. I also figured they had learned their lesson after Sonic Heroes. And I'll even admit... they had me FOOLED completely. After seeing the opening FMV, they really tricked me into believing that they had really gone all out with this game. It looked simply amazing. But after playing it, I shortly realized that they put more work into that FMV than into the rest of the game combined.

Firstly, I didn't even get to START the game for a good half hour because they bombed me with this massively long tutorial. First flaw. How can you say that it's a kids game, if they can't just pick up the controller and play? I'm sorry, but if learning how to play the game requires a 30 minute tutorial... then you immediately dropped the entertainment value in half. I just want to pick up the game, and play, and have a good time, without having to learn how to play a new instrument in the process. So now I find myself in a Sonic and the Secret Rings-like scenario, on a track. Only the controls are even more out of control than before. You're just running...really really fast, in a straight line... turn comes, you move the wii-mote slightly... he crashes into a wall. Stops... and slowly builds up his speed... crashes again, comes to a dead stop, takes forever to build up speed again...

I'm sorry, but I know I'm not illiterate with a controller or a Wiimote for that matter. This is even coming from a guy who has defended the camera in every Sonic game since he went 3D against those haters who would automatically give the game a bad review because "the camera made it unplayable." This game was just unplayable. You couldn't even pick up your rings after getting bashed in the face... constantly. And then it would jump into a side-scroller mode. But Sonic is still on a rail. So you see a platform... jump on it? Sure! WAIT! STOP! Doh! Missed it! Doh! Crashed face first into a wall. Now I gotta press another button just to make him stop and move backwards...and then if you let go, he just dashes into the wall again. Like... did they even TEST this game?

I actually thought the Werehog levels were a RELIEF compared to Sonic's stages. At least they didn't lie to me, and pretend to pass itself off as anything you'd expect from a Sonic game. It was beat-em-up style play. Nothing more nothing less. And all I expected from it, was beat-em-up style play. And I got that. And yet people chose to call THAT the gimmick?

I'm not gonna go off and say, that a Sonic game has to be any specific style of gameplay. Or Sonic has to go back to his old design, or anything like that. I don't care if they even wanna make a game on rails. The only thing I'm saying is that they have to make it work.

Since the Dreamcast days, reviewers and magazines have been anything but friendly to Sonic. And throughout the series, even through SA2, which I really didn't like, at all... I still thought that people were unnecessarily harsh to Sonic.

But please... to anyone who disagrees with these points about "elitism" that I'm making. Just answer me this one question... which everyone seems to be dodging. If in fact, Sonic games this decade have remained top quality, and the older crowd is just overly picky, then please tell me why, Sonic is the only game that falls victim to this massive criticism? Why are Mario and Zelda message boards not overflowing the complaints? Why is it that when Super Mario Galaxy, and Twilight Princess were announced, Mario and Zelda fans didn't roll their eyes the way we Sonic fans do whenever a Sonic game is announced? Did all the jerks just decide to become Sonic fans?

Sonic used to be among the "elite," for lack of a more appropriate term. Sonic games were among the most high quality, best graphically, and most coveted titles in gaming. What else was big around this time? Mario, Zelda, Metal Gear even? Since the 90's have fans migrated away from ALL of these titles? Well, yes of course. That's life. Kids get older, they develop new interests, most of them give up gaming altogether by the end of their high school years. But a good many still stick around.

But the makers of Mario, Zelda, Metal Gear, etc, all seemed to stick to the same formula. Just keep making good games. Hell, I'm not even a fan of Metal Gear or Zelda. Never was. I played several of these games, and figured, they just weren't my cup of tea. I had nothing bad to say about them. There was really nothing bad to say about them. They just didn't grab me for whatever reason. But they're doing WAY better than Sonic, and don't fall victim to the hatred Sonic does... maybe because they actually cared to test these games, and make them work, to say the very least. But to say the very most, these titles still set the standard TODAY for gaming. Mario is one of the only major platforming titles even still around these days. Twilight Princess was delayed for well over a YEAR, because they wanted to make sure it was perfect. And the result, was a massive positive response. Metroid Prime was delayed a year as well. Same deal. These games just keep raising the bar when it comes to gaming. And sure, there will always be people out there that dislike it. I know people who say for example that Mario Kart Wii sucks.

Only difference is this...

A fan says, Mario 64 sucks... it's too kiddy. Give me a FPS any day.

Nintendo is completely unphased, they keep doing things their way.

A fan says, "Sonic Adventure sucks! It's too kiddy!"

Sega's response... "WHAT?!?! OMG! Did you hear that! Quick! Bust out the suggestive lyrics, the cleavage, the darker characters! Tony Hawk games are huge among the hip! Let's make our games look more like that! And I want it released THIS YEAR!!!"

Okay...

Mixed reaction... half of them are saying, "WTF? This doesn't even seem like a Sonic game at all. What happened?" The other half are saying, "ZOMG! Shadow!!!"

Sega's response... SONIC HEROES! Look guys! Checkered backgrounds! Pretty impressive huh? Now it looks like a Sonic game! And look, SHADOW'S BACK!!!!

Oh... uh... gameplay? Ooops... we forgot!

And, what?!?! Now you're saying it's TOO KIDDY again? Geez! What does it take to impress you guys?

Alright... well that's it! You guys want intense? You got it!

SHADOW THE HEDGEHOG!!!! WITH GUNS!!!!

And the message boards went off. One side staring, with nothing to say but, "What...the... *?!?!" The other half going nuts! "ZOMG! Shadow! YES! And it totally makes sense that he uses guns! Because he's DARK N' STUFF!!!" Now Shadow already had his share of haters... but this REALLY set them off. And most people, like me, who were on the fence with Shadow, drifted off into hate mode. Not that I had a problem with him getting his own game. But if they were gonna give him his own game... make it his own game. Don't make it, the next Sonic game where Sonic isn't playble.

So how did that turn out? Well let's see. Opening FMV shows Sonic beaten up and in massive pain, falling to the ground in utter defeat and humiliation, while Shadow stands triumphant over Sonic's near corpse, and jumping off to kick more and look cool.

...

Because THAT right there is what Sonic fans really want to see. And alien invasion where Sonic, and all of our beloved characters, helpless and defeated, while the new guy TOTALLY OWNS THE BAD GUYS... AND SONIC, TAILS, KNUCKLES, and everyone else... They might as well have just tied Sonic down, clipped his nose shut, forcing his mouth open to breathe, and have Shadow take a massive dump in his mouth, and use THAT as the opening FMV. It would have been saying the exact same thing.

But hey! I'm just a STUPID ELITIST!!! The kids LOVE Shadow! And Sonic is a kids game! I better just take the bench on this one and let the kids enjoy... THIS GAME WITH MACHINE GUNS AND EXPLOSIONS AND POWERMAN 5000!!!! FOR(4) KIDS!!!!!

And still...STILL! I buy the game, looking for redeemable qualities. Well...the gameplay was actually pretty smooth. The level design and music for the most part were great. Interesting villain... okay... I like how you can take separate paths to unlock different levels. A bit of a Star Fox approach there. Okay...

Then Sonic 06 rolls around. Now this was lookin' like a Sonic game here. Or at least what a Sonic game should have been. Teaser footage comes out. In game graphics... INCREDIBLE! Lookin' like a true next gen game here. Look at this ruins level in the gameplay footage! Look how the robots fall when you hit them! I haven't felt this giddy and excited since Sonic Adventure! More and more info comes out, and things are just looking better and better. Sega in interviews just flat out admit, that they haven't been trying lately, and that they're gonna go all out on this one. Give it their all to make us a great Sonic game!

Hey look! Adventure fields! So we're taking this back to the SA formula! Good good! Okay... uh... new Hedgehog. This could be interesting? Hey! New promo art! Featuring, Sonic, Silver, and oh...Shadow. Alright! Whatever this still looks amazing! And look! Finally, an official title! "Sonic the Hedgehog!"

Oh man! This is it! They're finally gonna make up to all the recent travesties and make Sonic truly amazing once more! So we finally pop it in! Let's see! Oh man! This is great! This game is mad pretty! Oh wow! Look at these level designs! Look how smooth everything moves! Man! Look at all the moves, and the action!

And then you play through it and finish it... and suddenly you just realize. "What a second! Did I just get raped by Sega again?!?!"

Now don't get me wrong. I still give it credit for everything mentioned above. It's not until the end of the game that you actually realize, that this game titled "Sonic the Hedgehog," was in fact, "Shadow the Hedgehog 1.5" for the sole reason that Sonic had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

SPOILERS!!!! DO NOT READ ON IF YOU EVEN CARE ABOUT SONIC 06'!!!!

Sonic even know that Mephillis, or anything going on with Iblis, is even HAPPENING. Literally, it's Shadow and Silver fighting the main villain, with Silver's future at steak, and major prophecies about Shadow going on... and the entire time, until the very end, Sonic is completely oblivious to this, because he's running around with some chick. Even when Mephillis actually KILLED Sonic, he didn't even see it. Take this into consideration. You follow the Sonic's story... and all this talk about the end of the world, and this new God of Destruction... none of this is ever mentioned. Sonic's just chillin with a princess, is killed from behind, without even realizing it, wakes up, and for some reason he doesn't even know, he's fighting some boss, wondering, "Wait a minute! What the hell is going on? I died? Who just killed me? Where am I? What is that?"

Of course, they don't even address this at all. And another thing... remember how Sonic and Shadow would fight each other as boss battles in SA2, but the following cutscenes would not determine a clear winner? Same deal with Sonic and Knuckles in SA1. Silver clearly BEATS Sonic the first round. Okay... we know Sonic will get him back second round, right? Wrong! Sonic is still shown as being completely helpless to Silver the second time, and Shadow has to come and save him, who tosses Silver around like a rag doll. Clearly, this is to establish, that in Sega's eyes, Shadow>>>Silver>>>Sonic.

Since when was Sonic a hired jobber to the new guys? I know that formula works great in wrestling! The wrestler is great in his prime! Loved by many! But as the years age, the fans grow tired, and get into the newer, younger wrestler, and so the older, once great wrestler is paid to lose to the new guy, so push his career. Y'know... a jobber. That is what Sonic has been reduced to. Completely unimportant. And his supporting cast, Tails and Knuckles... even less important. It's all about SHADOW AND SILVER!!! Y'know! The new guys! Don't blame us! Shadow won the poll! We're Sega! We speak for the people! You're all just confused!"

Then we got Sonic Unleashed, which I already touched base on. And this game, actually, made me wish they could go back to being as good as they were during SA2, which was a game I generally disliked.

And now they're going off on this whole Needlemouse thing, saying that they're "hitting the reset button" on the series, which is something they've been saying since Heroes. I really just think they have no idea what they're doing anymore. They don't know what Sonic stands for as a character, or as a series. And I could make some basic suggestions... but then again, who am I to say what makes Sonic, Sonic?

But if I may, I'd like to make a little prediction on Needlemouse. Because this is honestly, this whole concept is extremely predictable on Sega's part. But this time, I'm gonna predict a different outcome. If they do in fact make this game, straight up 2D (not a 3D side scroller, but straight up 2D), that looks and feels like Sonic 2 or Sonic 3... I don't think "kids" will eat it up, because of the generation gap. And honestly, I think they're going about this all wrong. Believe me, despite what you may think, I WANT Sonic games to be enjoyable for kids. And I think they could EASILY make Sonic games appeal to both kids and adults alike.

One very simple request...

Make the game recognizable to older Sonic fans, as a Sonic game.

But then you have to follow up all the way on it. Because, Heroes was very recognizable as a Sonic game on the look and feel. But there were a great many things wrong with it otherwise, which I won't get into any massive detail about.

Follow up on that simple concept of making it recognizable as a Sonic game through level design and artwork... yes. And then, do WHATEVER YOU WANT, in terms of new gameplay ideas. Just make it work. Test it, and test it, until it works. Until it's amazing. Give yourself high standards. Don't settle for so-so. Even if it takes five years to make the game... whatever it takes to make it work. Sonic on rails, or 3D, or 2D, or fast, or slow, as odd as it sounds, could work, if just done right. I enjoy so many different styles of games, that I could enjoy any genre. It's not about the specific genre but the actual dynamics of the game.

Sure, if say, a Teen Titans, or Godzilla game came out with mediocre quality, you wouldn't hear me complain too much. Because they're games based on movies and TV shows. But Sonic the Hedgehog was a gaming icon, and well... now that status is questionable. I just want him to be a gaming icon again. I want people to think that Sonic is the greatest platformer out there. I want there to be a "Sega World Store" in the city, as there's a Nintendo Store, with Sonic featured as the star. I want to see his balloon floating down the streets of Manhattan for the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade like it once used to. I want your average household to have Sonic Shuffle and Sonic Riders to be the standard party games. I want Sonic to be huge, and a household name again like he once used to.

What I don't want is what Sonic is now. A second rate jobber on life support from Nintendo. Because let's face it. Nintendo saved Sonic from extinction with the death of the Dreamcast. Sonic would not have lasted on the Xbox or Playstation, considering all multi-console Sonic titles since, have sold more on Nintendo's systems than the other two COMBINED. Had Nintendo chosen to reject Sega as a third party to assert their victory over Sega in the console wars, Sonic the Hedgehog would officially be dead and discontinued. And even now, they have to resort to these Mario/Sonic Olympic crossovers just for sales. If that isn't telling you that somewhere down the line, Sega slipped up, I don't know what else is.

May as well dive into this. I hate to use you as an example, Silv, since you raise many a valid point with which I agree, but there are other issues that beg addressing.

First, and perhaps foremost, this author, ArchangelUK, is someone whom I've seen demonstrate a fair deal of understanding with the online communities, especially the NiGHTS one. I have no doubt that, in having the thankless task of being the front man for SoE public relations, he has seen such things as the old schoolers blatantly deride the new schoolers. Were I him, I'd not have framed the debate as a matter of elitism per se. That being said, one might be able to see his point considering you dismissed Sonic Unleashed as irredeemable to even the most loyal fans; there are people in the community who enjoyed that game, whether they were from the MegaDrive halcyon days or got their start with Sonic X. In short, you wrote off a particular title that you didn't like with a blanket statement that only kids were naive enough to appreciate it, which is (and I admit openly I cannot speak precisely to what ArchangelUK had in mind when he wrote that post) probably what the author was talking about in his statement.

Second, in pursuance to the "us vs. them" conflict, I cannot readily accept that somehow the fans are absolved of guilt in this, in any way. Yes, Sega has greenlighted many a production that you and I agree are strongly lacking in the fundamentals of what makes us love the hedgehog. Agreed, there are overt signs that corners have been cut. Indeed, the both of us and many more besides want to see this character return to the glory days. However, one thing that even Sonic Team cannot be faulted for is attempting to recalibrate in response to bad press. If they were truly insufferable, you'd see, say, Sonic '06 repeats every which way as the mainstream instalments in the franchise. Of course, these attempts are wildly off the mark more often than not, oftentimes overshooting their trajectory with something embarrassingly flawed while correcting the major mistakes of the previous title, as you well explained. As such, you'll forgive me if I find

Because unlike you Sega, we KNOW what we want.

and then

A fan says, "Sonic Adventure sucks! It's too kiddy!"

Sega's response... "WHAT?!?! OMG! Did you hear that! Quick! Bust out
the suggestive lyrics, the cleavage, the darker characters! Tony Hawk
games are huge among the hip! Let's make our games look more like that!
And I want it released THIS YEAR!!!"

Okay...

Mixed reaction... half of them are saying, "WTF? This doesn't even seem
like a Sonic game at all. What happened?" The other half are saying,
"ZOMG! Shadow!!!"

Sega's response... SONIC HEROES! Look guys! Checkered backgrounds!
Pretty impressive huh? Now it looks like a Sonic game! And look,
SHADOW'S BACK!!!!

Oh... uh... gameplay? Ooops... we forgot!

And, what?!?! Now you're saying it's TOO KIDDY again? Geez! What does it take to impress you guys?

Alright... well that's it! You guys want intense? You got it!

SHADOW THE HEDGEHOG!!!! WITH GUNS!!!!

to be a complete contradiction. A base is never wholly united. Let's say Unleashed is meant to pander to the "need4speed" crowd. I enjoy it but you do not. You enjoy Sonic '06 whereas I do not. Is this because Sonic Team failed to deliver, or because, in truth, the fan base is too complex to be struck off the list of factors affecting how the next game is made? It could be for both reasons, but my point remains that saying the fans know what they want is like saying a nation knows the direction it wants to head in: it is an abstraction that will swiftly crumble under the weight of the reality of factionalism.

As a corollary to my point above, you cited Nintendo's ability to withstand the criticism of some fans. I agree, but that is because Nintendo isn't shattered like Sega. Miyamoto has been the visionary behind Mario and Zelda from the inception, while Sonic's visionaries (Ohshima, Yasuhara, and Naka) have all moved on to other things. Nintendo EAD is made up of many veterans; Sonic Team isn't nearly in league with EAD. With such constancy as one terrific director can provide over more than two decades like Miyamoto, refinement to near perfection is possible. The director of Unleashed was blasted so virulently (by fans, among others) that he went to Square-Enix.

Again, this isn't to pick on you, Silv; I started off with Sonic 2 myself. You could only begin to imagine how swiftly I recoiled at first playing City Escape in Sonic Adventure 2 and thought, "Did Sonic Team sell out to the Tony Hawk movement?" No, I don't believe in the slightest that Sonic games have been top quality between Sonic Adventure and Sonic and the Black Knight: in fact, those two games are bookmarks of a huge deterioration to me. Yes, I do believe that the generation that started out with Gears of War isn't going to look at MegaDrive Sonic as fondly as we do. Perhaps, then, ageism is not an unreasonable defence for Sonic Team. Old school Sonic spoke to us in a particular way, despite the fact that he was a silent protagonist running through oftentimes surreal zones. The style of video games now is lots of explosions, chatter, and basically enjoying an interactive movie. As our external culture has changed from the more fantastic to the grittier, so have video games, marketed toward the popular trends of television and movies. I don't say that's terrific in the slightest, but that's where we are. Mario and Zelda get a pass on this in part because of their iconic status. Had Sonic Team the same quality control that Mario or Zelda does, Sonic would be right up there with them in that regard.

Don't get me wrong; I usually hold Sonic Team and Sega accountable for what I find to be pretty tasteless moves. I don't chalk it up solely to them, though; the Sonic blogosphere is a litany of fiery commentary about "how I would fix Sonic" and "why Sonic sucks these days". When ArchangelUK then says the online communities have immature detractors, those immature detractors are among the first to come out (and I'm not calling you one of them, Silv) and say how Sega is putting up straw man arguments to deflect their poor decisions. Taken in that perspective, does the accusation of community elitism seem so far off the mark?

No offense taken... none has been from the start. And by no means do I mean to come across that way. I guess I'm just overly passionate about the subject. Hehe.

But yeah. I see how it seems like a direct contradiction when I say the solution is simple, but the address the different crowd reactions. No matter how you make a game, there will always be people that don't like it for whatever reason. When I brought up similar statements about Zelda and Mario in another board, someone argued that a lot of people picked apart recent Zelda and Mario games, along with a list of reasons they do. Which to me, it falls under the whole, "can't please everyone," statement. But these games as a whole, in general, (and I can't stress the phrase, "IN GENERAL" enough), were seen as good games. Good reviews, and unlike Sonic games, they don't receive a massive storm of criticism. There are always problems with games. And there will always be people who pick apart at these problems. However, Sega heard these little complaints, the way there are little complaints about every game, and overreacted, blew it out of proportion. And from there, they just completely lost direction, and small problems turned into big ones. And now what we have is a lost series.

I mean, let's get real for a second here. If there wasn't some massive uprising of Sonic hatred from its own fanbase, do you think Sega would have even CONSIDERED doing a major console 2D game known as Needlemouse? I was never on the bandwagon that Sonic's downfall came with the 3D age. I think Sega is perfectly capable of making good 3D Sonic game, given time and interest. So many people claimed that Sonic never survived the transition into 3D, and that's why they're doing this. To please everyone. And I truly believe that it's that very mentality that will make it impossible for Needlemouse to be good. It's the very fact that they didn't want to do it in the first place. Same with Shadow. They made the game because he won a poll(where I so voted for Knuckles, baby).

When you have that whole, "We'll do whatever it takes to please you," how can you make anything good if you have absolutely no standard to please yourself? They just gotta do something that THEY love, and THEY think is amazing, and just let people come to it, and let the haters hate. Better to just stick to your guns, and lose a small portion of overly picky gamers, who were losing interest in the series regardless of the direction it was going in, than to just piss EVERYONE off. And I do think that at some point or another in this decade, they've managed to piss off just about every Sonic fan out there.