Will Sega ever tap their classic series in a big way?

[Tempest]

I'd love to see SEGA release new games in some of their classic franchises, but only if they do it right. Part of what made classic SEGA good, as Perriot pointed out, was that they constantly innovated, evolved, and varied the gameplay of their IP. The spindash in Sonic 2 is a rudimentary example. In the past, SEGA's small innovations built upon the strengths of their already great games. Yet in recent years (maybe even as late as a decade ago) this stopped working for them in many cases. I know Sonic is a tired example, but it's also the one most can relate to. Once Sonic moved to 3D, each new game added some major changes to the formula established in the Mega Drive games. Sonic Adventure 2 forced players to play game styles other than Sonic's traditional speed and action based gameplay, Sonic Heroes added a team-based gimmick that needed some work, Shadow added guns, Sonic Unleashed added the werehog, and so on. In all of these cases the classic gameplay evolved, but it also distracted from what made the original Sonic games great. Instead of evolving the gameplay, they added gimmicks to dress it up as more than it was, which was a simple action platformer (which is a genre I love). Now it's obvious that adding this extra material dimished what made the series good in the beginning, and that some ideas which were good, like the team-based gameplay, needed more thought and time in development. And it was not proper innovation, rather the addition of new gameplay elements.

What I'm trying to say is that this ability to innovate gameplay that made SEGA such a great developer in the past seems to be crippling them now. They want to continue the tradition of innovation, but they aren't thinking it through or implementing it properly.

That's why I'd rather SEGA leave their existing IP's alone and instead, sit down and think through genre gameplay innovations and then release games utilising this innovation as a new IP. This way fans can't complain they are ruining a perfectly good franchise (which SEGA do more often than not, unfortunately) and game critics can't complain that SEGA are just releasing tired rehashes. Using new IP circumvents this problem and pushes the company forwards. If they gameplay is fun, consumers will respond in kind and perhaps SEGA can afford the higher budgets needed to innovate a classic series to the level it deserves.

@ Perriot - you mentioned that Nintendo just rehash Mario and Zelda clones. While I don't diagree with you, I think you can agree that the quality of these games is far above the quality of games SEGA has released in the recent decades. You can feel the love Nintendo put into making these games, which is something absent from recent SEGA releases. Many recent SEGA games feel clunky and broken, yet Nintendo's games, although treading familiar ground, feel solid and properly conceptualised.

[aaron]

the two posts above may be the best posts i've ever read on this forum.

[ZeroAX]

Just a couple things I wanted to point out after reading through this thread:

There are a couple of saturn ports on the PS2 (the only ones that really come to mind are Dragon Force and NIGHTS) and of course there's the XBLA treasure re-releases, so while emulation of the saturn is obviously not a leisurely stroll through the park, I'm sure it's more a profitability issue prohibiting saturn re-releases.

Also, while Sega may not be very good at delegating their IPs to other developers, I feel like they deserve some credit for their choices in publishing titles by other developers: Resonance of Fate, Bayonetta, Madworld. They seem to be continuing that with The Cave (by the Psychonauts team.)

Personally, I find it endlessly humorous that Sega took F-zero (a series I always found rather uninteresting) and ran with it in a way Nintendo never could have dreamed of. I love Sega to my core, but I can't deny that in many ways they aren't the company they were 10+ years ago. On the other hand they are the same company in the sense that I feel they're better off creating new IPs than meddling with their classic games. For me, completely new IPs or standalone titles are much more interesting than a doddering franchise that's been milked like the family cow. I've always felt that Sega's greatest strength was in varying their titles and innovating gameplay in a way no other company does. Honestly, I don't know why the nintendo fanbase is always clamoring for more mario or zelda. To me it's always seemed like the nintendo franchises are just given a quick gimmick here and a repackaging there, then out the door; and frankly I curse miyamoto and mario for giving people the silly idea that all games should be rendered in 3D-subsequently the single most effective way of taking Sonic out of the picture.

tl;dr Sega may be testing the waters with the digital HD Jet Set Radio release (similarly with Shenmue I'd think, if those HD revival rumors are true) so I would think that's the direction to look for games to be 'tapped.' (I'm not entirely certain of OP's intended vernacular.)

Why does this guy only have 2 posts? Dude post more often, we'd love to have you as a regular on these forums

[pierrot]

@ Perriot - you mentioned that Nintendo just rehash Mario and Zelda clones. While I don't diagree with you, I think you can agree that the quality of these games is far above the quality of games SEGA has released in the recent decades. You can feel the love Nintendo put into making these games, which is something absent from recent SEGA releases. Many recent SEGA games feel clunky and broken, yet Nintendo's games, although treading familiar ground, feel solid and properly conceptualised.

I just wanted to preface by saying that I really enjoyed your post, and found your diagnosis of Sega's current situation to be quite accurate.

Frankly I find the current state, and future of gaming to be largely underwhelming as a whole, although that does extend to Sega as well. I feel Sega is trying too hard to mimic other company's success in turning Sonic and Yakuza into whipping boys, but I digress. I would not go so far as to say that Sega's recent games have felt clunky or broken. I do feel that they have dabbled more in throwaway games and as such, I really haven't touched at least 50% of their published library from the past 7 years or so, but I do feel that in general they still keep to a certain level quality. Really I think Sonic '06 did a lot to tarnish Sega's reputation, but other than that game, I can't really think of a game from Sega that has felt broken. Disappointing to fans, yes, but not broken.

With that said, I honestly don't feel a great deal of love put into Nintendo games. More a company policy to adhere to a certain level of quality (which is of course shared by companies other than Nintendo as well) and just enough effort to not disappoint fans.
Keeping with the examples of Mario and Zelda, my favorite games of those series are Super Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker because I feel that they are the boldest entries to their respective series, but consequently some of the least loved by fans. (At least at the time of their releases.) I won't say that I have an unpleasant time playing Nintendo games, I just don't feel rewarded with an exciting experience when I play most of them. The best example I can give is Zelda Skyward Sword; and it's at this point half of the people reading this will disregard me as a troll.
At face value, Skyward Sword should be a great experience, but playing it I had an overwhelming sense of repeating things I had done five or so times before, but this time with wii motion. (I won't get too much into it, but I am one of the people who had severely unresponsive wii motion controls.) It took me every ounce of willpower I had to complete it, and when I finished it I truly resented the game for making me feel like I had actually wasted my time playing a video game. I suppose I can't truly fault the game, I just found no real charm or much sense of newness, and this is indicative of my feelings toward most of Nintendo's library. Their games just aren't for me, and I'm not offended by anyone who chooses to disregard what I have to say based on that alone.

Since I'm already well into wall o' text territory and rather off topic here: One thing I will say is that I feel like there is a sweeping habit of resting on one's laurels in the video game industry today. (Again, I would like to point out that I'm not absolving Sega of any culpability here.) It's a habit I associate originally with Nintendo, but particularly Sony, especially EA, and even Capcom these days (et al) seem content to just milk their franchises for every single penny they're worth. Perhaps one of the reasons I'm so frustrated by Nintendo (and while we're at it, Square Enix) is that their success appears to validate this behavior, and I find it detrimental to meaningful growth in gaming. Of course, any credibility I might have had is entirely lost once it's revealed that I love most any and all shmups....

These are obviously just one man's opinions, and I'm sure I don't even need to disclose that I'm a 16-bit Sonic fan, but I am aware of the fact that my opinions tend to be a bit abrasive. I just hope no one takes offense to them.

Why does this guy only have 2 posts? Dude post more often, we'd love to have you as a regular on these forums

If I'm not run out on a post, I guess I can post some more in the future.

[AppleQueso]

...even Capcom these days (et al) seem content to just milk their franchises for every single penny they're worth.

To be fair to Capcom, they've kinda always done this. Did Mega Man really need 6 NES games? Did Street Fighter II really need FIVE versions?

If I'm not run out on a post, I guess I can post some more in the future.

You seem to go to great lengths to not be abrasive, even if you're posting an unpopular opinion. I don't think you'd have any problems around here at all.

[pierrot]

...even Capcom these days (et al) seem content to just milk their franchises for every single penny they're worth.

To be fair to Capcom, they've kinda always done this. Did Mega Man really need 6 NES games? Did Street Fighter II really need FIVE versions?

Yeah, I was actually kind of thinking this as I was typing it.... As much as I love the VS series, and MvC2, there's not a great deal differentiating all of them. Not to mention the Alpha series + revisions.

[Tempest]

pierrot: Thanks for the compliment and I agree with most of your post.

I feel Sega is trying too hard to mimic other company's success in turning Sonic and Yakuza into whipping boys, but I digress.

I definitely agree. SEGA used to be one of the industry's primary innovators and now they mostly copy other developers. The warehog in Sonic Unleashed is an obvious example of SEGA copying a concept from Zelda:Twilight Princess and copying it quite poorly for that matter.

I would not go so far as to say that Sega's recent games have felt clunky or broken. I do feel that they have dabbled more in throwaway games and as such, I really haven't touched at least 50% of their published library from the past 7 years or so, but I do feel that in general they still keep to a certain level quality. Really I think Sonic '06 did a lot to tarnish Sega's reputation, but other than that game, I can't really think of a game from Sega that has felt broken. Disappointing to fans, yes, but not broken.

To me, SEGA's recent games don't have the same level of polish as some of their past games. Granted, during the Saturn era we recieved unfinished games like Burning Rangers and many of SEGA's last round of arcade ports, but this didn't detract from the enjoyment of them because the gameplay elements were solid.

In contrast, I feel current SEGA overlook simple gameplay quirks that, if fixed, could have made some of their more recent games more enjoyable. For example, the broken physics of Sonic 4: Episode I were something simple to fix (and something essentialy to fix in my opinion), yet because they weren't fixed, they deterred a lot of gamers. I enjoyed the game regardless, except for those times when the physics didn't work properly.

SEGA tends to rush release their games before resolving important bugs that would permit a more seamless experience comparable to games by other developers. No games are perfect, but SEGA's recent games always have some bugs that hamper enjoyment. Or have a lot of SEGA's games always been buggy? Certainly I recall a lot of bugs in Sonic 3 but I don't remember them making the game less enjoyable. Maybe gamers (myself included) used to be more forgiving. Maybe these days with the superior technology we expect a higher quality of games.

But you're right: most SEGA games have maintained that essential vibrant, fun quality that make SEGA games SEGA games. However, in my opinion, they rely more on style than substance these days.

Keeping with the examples of Mario and Zelda, my favorite games of those series are Super Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker because I feel that they are the boldest entries to their respective series, but consequently some of the least loved by fans.

They're definitely among the more original entries in either of these series (and I enjoyed them too), which is keeping with the Nintendo of the Gamecube era: they were at their most innovative/experimental on this system. I doubt we would have gotten something like Pikmin or Metroid Prime prior to the Cube or on the Wii.

[pierrot]

To me, SEGA's recent games don't have the same level of polish as some of their past games. Granted, during the Saturn era we recieved unfinished games like Burning Rangers and many of SEGA's last round of arcade ports, but this didn't detract from the enjoyment of them because the gameplay elements were solid.

In contrast, I feel current SEGA overlook simple gameplay quirks that, if fixed, could have made some of their more recent games more enjoyable. For example, the broken physics of Sonic 4: Episode I were something simple to fix (and something essentialy to fix in my opinion), yet because they weren't fixed, they deterred a lot of gamers. I enjoyed the game regardless, except for those times when the physics didn't work properly.

SEGA tends to rush release their games before resolving important bugs that would permit a more seamless experience comparable to games by other developers. No games are perfect, but SEGA's recent games always have some bugs that hamper enjoyment. Or have a lot of SEGA's games always been buggy? Certainly I recall a lot of bugs in Sonic 3 but I don't remember them making the game less enjoyable. Maybe gamers (myself included) used to be more forgiving. Maybe these days with the superior technology we expect a higher quality of games.

But you're right: most SEGA games have maintained that essential vibrant, fun quality that make SEGA games SEGA games. However, in my opinion, they rely more on style than substance these days.

I think it's immediately apparent that Sega's releases these days just aren't up to par with the games they made as first party developers and through to the end of the last gen of consoles. What I really think has hurt them the most though, at least in terms of reputation, is that they've made a number of missteps with Sonic, and as Sonic is their flagship IP now more than ever, those missteps are further accentuated and noticed by the general gaming community. If Secret Rings and The Black Knight had been released with a new IP, they may have been slightly more critically successful. Sonic 4 for the most part is just a naming error. If it had been called 'New Sonic the Hedgehog Rush HD' I doubt people would care as much that the physics engine isn't as crisp or fun as the 16 bit sonic games. Going off on a bit of a tangent here, I really don't understand why they gave the project to Dimps instead of having the level designers for the 2D sections of the most recent console releases work on Sonic 4. It also saddens me that they're considering making new chapters for as long as it's commercially successful. I'm not really sure what they were even thinking, making 'Sonic 4' without Yuji Naka even in the company.

Anyway, I really don't see the Sega of today as anything other than an almost entirely new company. They really don't share a whole lot in common with the Sega of old, both in terms of personnel and in game releases, so perhaps I'm just a little more forgiving of their follies because of that.

They're definitely among the more original entries in either of these series (and I enjoyed them too), which is keeping with the Nintendo of the Gamecube era: they were at their most innovative/experimental on this system. I doubt we would have gotten something like Pikmin or Metroid Prime prior to the Cube or on the Wii.

I couldn't agree more. While I don't necessarily enjoy Nintendo as a whole, the Gamecube, and most of Nintendo's outings on the system, are things that I can honestly say that I truly enjoyed. If they had stuck with innovating more in their gameplay and variety of games rather than "innovating" hardware, they might have been able to change my feelings toward them entirely.

[Gunstar Green]

All I want is a sequel to Burning Rangers.

IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK?!

I'm not really sure what they were even thinking, making 'Sonic 4' without Yuji Naka even in the company.

It's kind of funny how he's gleefully taking jabs at it from the sidelines, even saying the fan produced Sonic 2 HD is looking better than Sonic 4.

Honestly I see modern Sega being more successful as a publisher than a developer. The majority of games I've enjoyed the most the past few years with Sega on the box have been made by someone else.

Also I never really understood why they didn't take more advantage of the Phantasy Star and Shining Force properties back when RPGs were at the height of their popularitly.

[Erik_Twice]

Did Street Fighter II really need FIVE versions?

Five? Aren't there like a dozen? Or is my gaming sense failing?

If I'm not run out on a post, I guess I can post some more in the future.

You seem to go to great lengths to not be abrasive, even if you're posting an unpopular opinion. I don't think you'd have any problems around here at all.[/quote]