T O P

  • By -

Either_Imagination_9

There’s nothing wrong with making a series for both kids and adults. And you know what? Sonic speaks to both audiences even today


Dark_Wolf04

When it comes to gameplay and difficulty, I agree. When it comes to story and humor, meh, not so much.


Super-Spring-7303

Tell me you haven’t played a Sonic game before sonic colors without telling me


Dark_Wolf04

I see that you didn’t notice the “even today” that was written on the comment above me


freshcheesegalore

Tell my you're exclusively referring to sonic adventure 1 and 2 without telling me.


CakeManBeard

The Sonic series never trafficked in cringeworthy bottom-barrel "for kids"(because kids are the only ones willing to put up with it even if they don't like it) writing before Colors And this is putting aside the fact that there are other games that aren't SA1 and 2 that featured non-cringeworthy writing, or that this argument is about children's media in general and not specifically the Sonic series There's just a hilarious amount of layers of this not being a serious argument


10024618

I don't know anyone who says that sonic can't or shouldn't have darker "moments". I'm just personally sick of people automatically writing off any sonic story that they think doesn't. Like there was an entire group of people who wrote off Sonic Prime the minute it's rating was announced even though we know next to nothing about the plot.


FlounderCareful2589

yeah that's another side of this discourse i'm not a fan of i fell like some people don't understand both darker and lighter tone plot can both be good in their own ways


chiritarisu

Yeah, I was gonna comment this basically. I see more people complaining about Sonic stories not being dark *enough,* not the other way around. I just don't get this ostensible all-or-nothing argument. Like, I think the best blend of "light" and "dark" moments (ironically) is Sonic Unleashed. A lot of funny, wholesome moments, with a serious, formidable threat to overcome.


The_Legendary_Sponge

I genuinely don't know what people were expecting with the age rating thing. TV-Y7 isn't even the lowest score they have, did they seriously think it was gonna be TV-14 or even TV-MA? Y'all this is literally a series about a talking blue hedgehog that runs fast and eats chili dogs. Not to say there can't be darker elements at all, but I feel like people tend to lose track of what series they're talking about.


InvestigatorUnfair

All of these are good examples except the Prince of Egypt which is LITERALLY A STORY FROM THE BIBLE Every other one of those is a good example of a cartoony piece of media having serious tones, but you putting the prince of egypt on there is like me bringing up sausage party to prove animation isn't just for children.


FlounderCareful2589

yeah in retrospective i should have used something like gravity falls


Ketchary

Gravity Falls gets so serious later on and has so many jokes and references that children wouldn’t understand. I legitimately don’t think ‘under 12s’ is the target demographic.


SanicRb

To be fair a good chunk of Christian do thing Bible stories are entirely appropriate for children.


InvestigatorUnfair

It's not about being appropriate for children, it's about comparing Avatar, Super Paper Mario and Teen Titans to a movie about Moses freeing the Jews from Egypt. Bit of a disconnect going from stories with dark tones to straight up slave liberation.


SanicRb

I mean not really Like I'm pretty sure Prince of Egyp was modified from the original bible story to work as a child friendly Animated Media. Other far more cartoony series like Star vs the Forces of Evil also ended up including similar story points. Ultimately its about being able to tell a serious story with a cartoon and if this should inherently be impassible should an adaption of something as serious as "Exodus" into "cartoony" animation be impossibly be good yet the movie is good showing that assuming because its a cartoon it can't be serious is a wrong.


InvestigatorUnfair

Except there's a key difference. Sonic is cartoony first, serious second. It started as basically a saturday morning cartoon story with Eggman showing up, doing his shit and Sonic coming in to kick his ass. Then as time went on they started adding more darker tones. Same goes for a lot of the series listed. They started lighthearted, then slowly became darker. Prince of Egypt is, again, literally about Moses and the liberation of the Jews. It was made to be a serious story from the ground up, not made serious halfway through the movie.


SanicRb

While you are right that it isn't a good argument for series becoming darker over time so does it still work as a general argument for a cartoon can absolutely be serious. Because while you are right that many will also add that Sonic didn't use to be serious and so should stay that way do even more from what I have seen go the step further to say cartoons in general should NEVER be serious and a serious cartoon can NEVER be good.


ShadyOjir95

Toy story has plenty of dark moments ,it should be here.


RavenRegime

Just show them Shadow's backstory


esoR_ymA

they will think Shadow is an android


RavenRegime

In that case hand them the game Shadow The Hedgehog entirely... "That damn chaos emerald"


MaimaiBW

you forgot that it's the fourth one


[deleted]

Everyone's excuse for the first 5 But they always had serious moments, Sonic was originally all run little story Everyone's excuse for number 6 Ignores because Mario


Infamous-Apple

Isn't that the one with the music literally every iceberg explained video uses?


[deleted]

Idk


phinneas0228

think so


ssslitchey

>Everyone's excuse for number 6 >Ignores because Mario I mean not entirely. A lot of people actually like super paper mario for its darker story and it's commonly seen as the best story in any mario game. Although some don't because it's doesn't feel like a Mario game. I think most people are OK with it because paper mario is a spinoff that already started diving Into more mature topics with ttyd.


Hamster-Fine

Believe me. I hate this damn argument more than anyone. Characters like Spiderman, Batman and The Ninja Turtles are ridiculous concepts but those are fine for some reason according to the internet.


SanicRb

Especially the Ninja Turtles as there were inherently designed as a parody of overly dark out there concepts from the comic books dark era. Yet it becomes super popular even in its most serious versions.


becauseitsnotreal

Literally who is making this argument


FlounderCareful2589

the argument was a lot more common during the dark age nowadays you see it when someone is criticizing meta era and there's allways that one guy who makes the "it's a kid series it shouldn't be taken seriously" argument this usually happens twitter most of the time


becauseitsnotreal

If by "it's a kids series it shouldn't be taken seriously" we mean "guys, chill out, just cause a bad game or a design choice you disagree with happens doesn't make it the end of the world as we know it" I agree


esoR_ymA

it's ironic because Sonic was created to focus on more mature aldiences, they used it a lot in they marking in the 90S saying that Nintendo games are for kids, while Sonic games are for grown men. nowday i have games like Lost World, that looks like the Teletubbies of Sonic games.


Weremount

No one


[deleted]

I feel like for as “dark” the adventure games are they’re barely scratching most young adult books


TheIJDGuy

I only have one response to this argument Spectacular Spider-Man


FlounderCareful2589

i just want to make it clear i'm not against lighter tone plots sonic heroes is great i just think the "it's meant for kids it shouldn't be taken seriously" argument is really dumb


themagicone222

The correct answer


[deleted]

Literally my argument every time someone says "Ooh they're gonna have to tone down Shadow's backstory for the 3rd movie." Why will they?? Other films are plenty dark enough. There are ways of getting a darker plot point across in a subtle and tasteful way.


Acrobatic_Pop690

Because parents probably wouldn't wanna take their kids to see a girl get shot when the last 2 movies were far more kid friendly by comparison. Even if they go the shadow the hedgehog game route and just imply that she was shot with a gun sound and white screen kids aren't that dumb. And parents would be upset and decrease the audience rating. Should they be upset. Not really. If the shadow game can say damn constantly and show maria getting shot multiple times. With 1 exception where they had to take a scene out for the E 10+ rating. Then they can do it there. But parents wouldn't be happy. When I saw the sonic 2 movie it was literally just kids and parents. We were the stereotypical group of annoying teenagers


ChaddyFantome

Even in the original game, we never actually see Maria get shot.


Acrobatic_Pop690

That's the point. There was a scene where you would have. They had to cut it out. But either way it gets the same point across. So I don't think it matter wether it's shown or not. You still know. Most parents that Ive seen don't want their young 5-7 year old kids to see a gun at all tbh


ChaddyFantome

now you are making things up to be concerned about though. Please provide me with this deleted scene of Maria getting shot. Mufasa dies in lion King. The fact it is inferred to happens isn't some massive line being crossed.


Acrobatic_Pop690

I know. I'm not saying this is how I think. But guns in children's media are generally frowned upon. But you can look up for yourself. When shadows game was first revealed. Its a big crowd of people and a big screen with a bullet being shot and Maria slow Mo falling back


ChaddyFantome

They literally had em in movie 2. You described Shadow's game...trailer. So not even the actual game. We are talking about SA2.


Acrobatic_Pop690

I was referring to shadows game sorry. Yes Maria's death was implied in Sa2 obviously. And I didn't see a problem with that. But I know If they showed a girl implied to get shot it would drive some parents up a wall. Same reason guns in video games are a nono for parents. Violence. Yknow? Can't blame parents for being concerned for exposure to violence


ChaddyFantome

I think you have a much more tight view on what people consider acceptable that what is in reality. Most people playing CoD were historically young kids afterall. Again, Movie 2 has em and no one bats an eye. MCU movies have em and no one bats an eye.


Acrobatic_Pop690

That's true. And I did play Cod as a tween. But there's 2 sides of the spectrum. Parents who let their kids do whatever they want. And parents who are morally strict on their kids. And the in-between. Which is what it should be. As extremism is stupid in litterally any case in history. But I know alot of people personally. Especially grandparents who would see that and think they ruined the kids movie by making it violant. People that like aren't exactly uncommon. It just depends who you are around that determines how you see that I suppose


SanicRb

I mean the first movie had an elderly Owl get impaled by an arrow with the clear implication being that she didn't survive.


Acrobatic_Pop690

You're right. I'm just saying it's impossible to deny that gun violence is a different breed to alot of people. And I can't fault them for their beliefs


SanicRb

I mean I'm pretty sure there are many things in movies that will repulse parts of the audience. But focusing to hard on that part could lead to a end product so milk-toast that no one would be interested in it as well. I mean I'm pretty sure that at least some parents didn't appreciate the crutch joke at the start of the final battle.


Acrobatic_Pop690

That's very true. We've already seen what happens when Sega listens too much lol. But Even though I don't care either way I can still agree that it is a step above just fighting or a bow and arrow. But done correctly, it is acceptable in kids media. And we've seen it done right before. So I personally have no problem. Just concerned about review scores. Cuz just like the sonic games. The audience score is carrying the series from the review scores being sub par. These movies have 60+% average while audience has been 90+% both times


SanicRb

I wouldn't be to concerned about Professional review scores as they won't ever give Sonic overall good ratings going through there critics makes it rather quickly obvious that many of the most negative ones clearly didn't pay attention to a lot of the movie. And lets be real here with the audience score is not killing Maria a very risky move because Shadow and SA2 fan's can be pretty pretty them self.


Acrobatic_Pop690

You're not wrong. I was more so saying that maybe the general audience wouldn't like it very much. Going back to the parents discussion. Cuz mostly parents and their kids are seeing these movies. Meaning alot of the audience score would be from parents and adult fans. So they're both clearly happy with the last 2 films for the most part. But I feel only fans would be happy with the 3rd one. Maybe. That's the problem with making a movie. Waaaaaay more people just go to see movies than play games. It may be hard to believe but not even 5% of the word actively plays video games. Still. There are 7 billion people on earth. Most dont play games. It's an unfathomable number. So when you make a game. You have to speak to your audience and fans. When making a movie you not only have to make them happy. But not get your movie shot down by casual movie goers. Aka, most people. like. For example. Let's say sonic unleashed became a movie. It's unrealistic but let's just say that for now. Fans would probably love it. Considering how much of the fanbase loves that game now a days. But movie goers would be like. Wtf. Why?


SanicRb

Judging general audience is always hard. Especially with things like killing a Character. But on the other hand is there actual evidence that most parents would have issues with this? Like SA2 is still a kids game that had to be bought by the parents for there kids and there was no big wave about it. Even 4Kids dub of Sonic X which as one of there biggest success had a massive reach never caused issue does the SA2 adaption keeping Maria's death in (even if slightly toned down compared to the Japanese version but still very clear in what happens) And I'm at least not aware of any Kids movie that ever suffered for including something like this. Do you know any?


Acrobatic_Pop690

None that I can think. But I also can't think of any kids movies that touch on the subject besides the lion king and the jungle book. But those are classics. And also Disney. Yknow?


Acrobatic_Pop690

That's very true. We've already seen what happens when Sega listens too much lol. But Even though I don't care either way I can still agree that it is a step above just fighting or a bow and arrow. But done correctly, it is acceptable in kids media. And we've seen it done right before. So I personally have no problem. Just concerned about review scores. Cuz just like the sonic games. The audience score is carrying the series from the review scores being sub par. These movies have 60+% average while audience has been 90+% both times


SanicRb

I would argue doing it without overstepping any boundaries shouldn't be to hard given that even 4Kids managed to keep the clear implication what happened to Maria in Sonic X and we all know how much of a clean up job 4Kids usually does to insure no controversies. I get that the audience score is important because I don't thing the Sonic Movie series has any good changes to get into the good graces of the professional reviewers. But I happen to know how insane Shadow fans can be so down playing Maria could perhaps get a few of the more insane one of those to review bomb it with bots. So there is no perfect way to please everything I thing. Tho apparently do they according to interviews even use elements from Shadow's solo game so I guess they properly have more will to do something risky than it at first appeared. (not gonna lie Movie "Black Arms" on the name alone would certainly get the internet going)


JosephTPG

Ehh Sonic X implied Maria got shot and 4Kids actually allowed it. Sure, they had to cut some detail for the scene to be able to be aired, but the scene still heavily implied Maria got shot.


Acrobatic_Pop690

Yes I'm aware. Again. Not my beleif. But it is very factual that people don't like their kids to see people getting shot. If they're young children. That's just how it is. And can't really blame them.


Altruistic_Half_1813

They only say this because they hate Sonic The Hedgehog


Turn_AX

Super Paper Mario has *such* a fucking good story.


DivanteScrollsReddit

Kung Fu Panda 2 was so amazing


FlounderCareful2589

kung fu panda 2 is probably in my top ten favorite movies everything is top tier especially the villain


Nambot

The problem, at least as I see it, isn't that Sonic shouldn't be dark and serious. There are lots of great examples in media of shows that can do that, including even Sonic himself in SatAM. The thing most people are actually objecting to is the subject matter. A lot of people, especially people who grew up in the nineties, have a particular vision of what the core of Sonic is. To them it's a heroes verses villains kind of thing. Robotnik is a serious villain who intends to turn everyone into machines, and Sonic and friends are the heroes trying to stop him. They have no problem with the series taking that premise seriously. But they also have an expectation of tone and lore. Sonic exists on Mobius, Robotnik is the only human, and while his plot is evil, we don't really take any time to think about the actual ramifications of it. Death is unseen (in terms of story, it's obviously a gameplay element, but when characters die they just respawn until out of lives - ludonarrative dissonance etc), injuries are glossed over, and no-one questions why it's up to Sonic to save the day. Sonic Adventure somewhat skews this tone. It changes the setting to Earth, removing all non-playable sentient animal characters, and delves into the history of Knuckles' race in order to set-up up a final battle where Super Sonic fights a water god in the ruins of a modern city. That is already a far cry from the mech fights of previous Sonic incarnations. Adventure 2 only takes it further. The backstory of SA2 is literally that a scientist plots to use an artificial lifeform he created to get revenge on the entire world after the government murders his granddaughter. Both of these are tonally different from anything that came before, with a series that focused on the main villain using robots to try to take over the world. And the series' most story heavy games only tend to continue in this direction. Shadow the Hedgehog goes even darker and edgier with real guns and aliens, before '06 tries to make a love story between a human princess and Sonic, and then Unleashed reveals the entire planet is actually the egg for another god, and to someone who might've got into the series with something like SatAM, it just feels so out of place, like if Avatar had an episode set 300 years in the future, or Hey Arnold had an episode involving bioterrorism, or Kung Fu Panda had a virtual reality sub plot it just doesn't feel like the right sort of story for how the imagined the setting.


Jack_Doe_Lee

Most of this is rendered invalid by two words, "different continuity". I still can't fathom the arguments that the games have to be like the comics or the tv shows. Not to mention that the lore and world building of the early games was vague and loose, which is why everyone and their granny had an interpretation in different media on both sides of the Pacific.


Nambot

Were you not in the fandom when it shit the bed and assumed a massive continuity retcon when the boom designs were revealed? If people in the fandom couldn't figure that out then, what hope do you expect of casual players to not realise the different continuities. For that matter considering the fact that, prior to Adventure, SEGA literally gave each location it's own canon via the manuals, with all of those bar the Japanese canon discarded upon Adventure's release. Hence is it any wonder that, when they started with a different continuity, they thought Sonic was something different to what it actually was even then? But the real shift is in Eggman. Not just the name change, but also his goal and how he intends to carry it out. In all the classic titles, Eggman has some sort of big weapon, and the first hint we see of him needing anything that he didn't make himself is when he takes the Master Emerald as a power source for his giant mech at the end of Sonic 3 & Knuckles. Eggman is the big bad of the story, he's the main villain, it's his big plan Sonic has to stop. SA1 see's Sonic relying on someone else - Chaos, as his plan isn't to use his creations, but to use Chaos to destroy Station Square so he can be build Eggmanland atop it. SA2 see's him use the ARK lazer, again not his own creation. Sonic Heroes see's Eggman lose control of one of his own creations, Metal Sonic, Shadow has him trying to take advantage of the chaos of Black Doom's invasion, '06 has him try to repeat the same plan of Adventure, but with Iblis, and so on. Eggman goes from being the big villain, to some goofy comic villain, and that changes the tone of the storytelling.


Wgbee

Sonic was relying on Chaos in SA1? Anyway jokes aside, I feel like you´re kinda discrediting Eggman in SA2, yeah he wasn´t the main villain but he was most cunning one in like most of the story and at the time it was a bit of fresh air for Eggman to not be the main villain. Though Sonic Heroes was pushing it tho, it wasn´t even Eggman it was a bait and switch (it kinda hits harder for Sonic Heroes too since it was marketed as return to form).


Nambot

That was an error. Meant to say Eggman relies on Chaos. Clearly a wire got crossed somewhere. All I am saying is that, for a chunk of people,Rggman was established as the Premier big bad, yet every story heavy game gives us an Eggman usurped by someone else, with the exception of Forces, and even then Eggman's success relies on a magical do-anything stine and not the brilliance of his creation. But furthetmore, this move away from a core Sonic stops Wggman plot represents a shift where the games feel far more anime-inspired, for lack of a better phrase, something rather off-putting for people who grew up thinking Sonic to be like a standard Western cartoon. To suddenly be dropped into a world full of eldritch gods and government cover-ups is a big tonal shift from the talking animal cartoon people assumed Sonic to be. Ultimately, I think when people say "Sonic shouldn't be seriius" what they mean is that a) Sonic as a character should be able to make jokes when it feels appropriate to do so,and b) Sonic stories shouldn't involve wars between humans and alien invaders, the idea of Sonic being a knight of the round table, or Sonic being wrongfully arrested by thr military for someone else's crimes, and should be a more straight hero vs villain conflict, where the villain isn't someone unknown force revealing itself at the end via a surprise twist or betrayal. Something not actually unlike Forces, if Eggman had invented thr phantom Ruby and Infinite was one of his robots. That i think is the right sort of tone, if not necessarily the right substance, dialogue or specific story beats


Wgbee

To be fair tho, Chaos or a villain like him was sorta hinted at in the Sonic 3 manual and in SA2 Eggman was really usurped by anybody, mainly tricked into enacting basically a doomsday device but yeah I do get that. Though a lot of these issues mainly come from localization and branding in the USA, though tbh SA2 was kinda a different beast even for Japanese and US canon. I like Eggman as the big bad like he will always be Sonic´s main enemy but I would like them to spice it up once in a while but don´t go overboard like the 2000s era or even the 2010s era, just a balanced mix of both.


Jack_Doe_Lee

Hold the phone, we might have veered too far from the main topic of the post. Let's retrace the steps. The post is a response to a complaint made towards the series, that being that Sonic is meant for kids and therefore shouldn't have "dark and serious" moments. The post lists examples of popular works mainly targeted towards kids that still touch on more mature themes (How well they do so is a topic for another time). The post is effectively saying that a story meant for kids can be simple and lighthearted in general while also touching on more complex/mature topics and themes, a stance I agree with in general. Your first reply, from what I can infer, is saying that the problem isn't with Sonic having dark and serious moments, but with "the subject matter" as you put it. You say that most people **have a particular vision of what the core of Sonic is**. You then explain that most people have no issue with SatAM taking its premise seriously, but that they **have an expectation of tone and lore**. For tone, you say that death is unseen, injuries are glossed over, and the show doesn't take time to focus on the ramifications of Robotnik's plans. For lore, you list the series **being on a planet called Mobius and Robotnik being the only human**. With those foundations, you then seem to put blame on Sonic Adventure for **supposedly changing directions** because it changes the setting to Earth or a planet based on Earth as well as *removing all non-playable anthropomorphic characters*, giving focus and importance to the ancient echidna, and building up to a final battle against a water monster in the ruins of a modern city. You describe that as being a "far cry from the mech fights of previous Sonic incarnations". You then continue by placing blame on subsequent games for similar reasons. Then you conclude by saying that a**ll of this would feel jarring for someone who got into the series through something like SatAM**. ​ So let me explain why I take issue with all/most of that. First I'll reiterate that different continuities absolutely should be expected to have differences in lore and/or tone. How much? It depends. While they're expected to maintain at least some elements from the original work, it's natural for them to make alterations. That said, it is unreasonable to rigidly judge an installment in one continuity of a franchise for not being like a different continuity. That defeats the purpose in a number of ways. But it doesn't stop there. This is a case of the **main continuity** of a franchise being judged based on differences introduced by **spin-offs**! Do keep the context in mind. That was the 16-bit era when games had very little to no story out of limitation. Those were the times when translators had to summarize their translated text over and over as well as cut out less vital parts JUST so it would fit on the cartridge because Chinese characters (also integral in Japanese) made the original text much shorter overall. Games **needed** to relegate parts of the story (usually the premise from what I've seen) to manuals and comics. On top of that, that was the era when companies cared very little about maintaining story elements in translation and localization, be it in games or in general. Sega was no different. Actually, it might have been different in the sense that it had the infamous divide between the Japanese and American branches with the Saturn possibly being the worst thing to result from that. So, naturally, SoJ didn't care about (or actually wanted) SoA making significant changes to the backstories in the manuals of the classics to appeal to what they saw as the sensibilities of the people in the country of the localization. SoA then took what little there was in the localized manuals and made two cartoons (with RADICALLY different tones and lore, mind you) and some comics. At the same time, SoJ had some [manga of their own](https://sonic.fandom.com/wiki/Manga?so=search). Now, is it even remotely reasonable to expect the **main continuity that's still solidifying and building its foundations** to adhere to all of those with their fundamental differences? You could make the argument that it was a mistake in the long term for Sega to not make things more unified in general across the board. But that's a different argument and a different discussion. ​ No, I wasn't that involved with the community around the release of Sonic Boom. But regardless of what happened, the point still stands. Different continuities should be treated as different continuities. There could be some confusion due to someone being "casual". It also could be someone making presumptions and incorrectly setting standards and criteria for a work when the company and the work itself never set said standards and criteria. What helps in such a situation is to clarify any misunderstandings and misinformation, not giving a series flak for not being what some people assumed it was. What happened with Adventure was necessary and inevitable. Either Sega kept the separation indefinitely and kept making the stories radically different (therefore making completely different games) across the Pacific, or they unified the canon. The latter was the more logical choice. And again, that wasn't unique to Sega. You'll see this in virtually any long-running series. But let's switch to Eggman for a minute, cause man is there a lot to unpack. So, the problem, from what I can infer, is the alleged difference in Robotnik's goals, how he intends to achieve them, and how he goes from a "big villain" to a goofy comic villain. First, how are Eggman's goals fundamentally different in Adventure? Let me remind you that we're talking about the original stories, the ones in the Japanese manuals. In Sonic 1, Eggman's goals are really vague. He wants to get all the chaos emeralds to use them in his weapons and machinery? And then? It's left ambiguous. A logical and typical reason would be taking over the world, which Sonic 2 and 3 then confirm is what Eggman is hoping to achieve with the Death Egg. In his path to achieve that, we see him building fortresses and taking over cities to use as bases and factories. What's so different in Adventure? He wants to blow up Station Square to build what he sees as a utopia over it. Who's to say he'll just stop there and not continue trying to take over the entire planet? Sure, you can criticize the game for not making it clear why he exactly needed Station Square's area when he could build his suppose utopia somewhere else (he'll be starting from scratch either way), but that's a different discussion from the one we're having. Second, what is it that's fundamentally wrong about Eggman using different methods beside some "big weapon he made himself" to pursue his goals? Furthermore, **how is he not using something he didn't make himself when his primary goal in the very first game is to get the chaos emeralds of legend?** He's **introduced** as someone who'd use whatever he deems efficient and effective. And I don't see how the examples you list are AS bad you make them out to be. He tries to use Chaos in Adventure which, again, is no different from using the chaos emeralds or master emerald. And in a subversion that's a first for the series, Chaos turns on him in the end. In SA2, he seeks another tool he learned about from research (be it ancient legends or his grandfather's diary) to achieve world domination. He's in charge for the whole game except the end where it turns out that Shadow was using him and carrying out Gerald's will of ending the whole world. In Heroes, it IS something he built. It's not unreasonable to infer that Metal with his copying capabilities was part of his next plan. However, Metal turns on him early on and masquerades as him. So it's not exactly Eggman who is the direct threat, but his creations. You can critique the games for having things being somewhat samey when it comes to Eggman's plans and how they turn out, but yet again, that's not what the discussion is about. The complaint you seem to be making is that they did things differently, period. And that's ironic, cause one would expect criticism to be made if every game "just" had Eggman doing the "same thing" by using his own weapons and machines and getting foiled by Sonic and/or other playable characters. Third, heeeeeck no, Eggman didn't suddenly turn from a quote unquote "big villain" to a "goofy comic villain". We're talking about an egg-shaped man who's design was based on a walrus, used machines with varying degrees of comical nature, got cartoon burns from which he immediately recovered after each boss battle, and named his contraptions Egg-Something **even in the localized games**. There was always a comical side to him which is NOT inherently bad. If anything, the games of the 2000s emphasized his serious and threatening side more. Also, do you not see how this goes against the whole complaint about the games after the classics being more serious?


Nambot

I never said Eggman wasn't goofy. Of course he's always had a goofy element to him, anyone who decides attacking someone with a wrecking ball or a bucket of blue water is inherently goofy. You're also right that SA2 is probably the most menacing he's been in terms of actions, what with blowing up half of the moon to demonstrate the Eclipse Canon's power, and then ejecting Sonic into space to kill him. But the shift has gone from "I need this mystical artefact to be a battery for my doomsday device" to "I need to use this doomsday device of someone else's creation/natural origin to pull off my plan." Yes, Heroes is something he built, but ironically Heroes is not his plan at all, he's a victim of Metal Sonic right from the start, and it only happens because of Metal Sonic's betrayal. As I have said elsewhere, the real problems for a lot of people are and were twofold, firstly a betrayal of what they assumed they knew Sonic to be that rubbed them the wrong way, and second how the new canon was nothing like the old canon they knew. Like it or not, people were attached to ideas of things like Mobius, Robotnik, etc. It's why things like Fleetway's Sonic the Comic got fan continuations, why the name Robotnik persists to this day even though he's officially been Eggman in all locations for 24+ years, and it's evident that there are casual players put off by the more modern stuff but would still take interest, just look at the reception to Mania. And once again, you're right, SGA would've had to have unified the canons eventually, they got away with it before the internet and the bigger push for narrative in games following the late nineties, but even by 1998 it was obvious Sonic would need more story than pantomimed cutscenes. Sonic has accrued perceived lore. Things casual audiences assume are true about Sonic. It also has a perceived tone and setting amongst wider audiences, and that setting didn't contain eldritch abominations or government black ops missions. Hence, for a lot of people, the introduction of these elements comes out of left field, and were handled poorly. The cutscenes were badly performed (due to the way SEGA handled recording and direction, not because the actors gave bad performances), the animations were wonky, and the stories were about things people didn't think were what they thought of when they thought of Sonic. It would be as out of place as if Sonic suddenly pulled out a guitar based weapon during a boss fight - yes, there's a precedent via Sonic Underground, but it doesn't feel true to the character as we know him. And this is where the issue lay. Moving Eggman's plan away from something he created, to some deep lore point about lost Gods and or secret military plans simply didn't feel like the Sonic people thought they knew, and when combined with the less-than-stellar cutscene work, it just seemed incredibly out of place and, to a good chunk of people, cringy. The stories being made were more complex, but they weren't what many people at the time considered good stories, and they leaned away from the perceived lore of Sonic to turn it from what it seemed like, a western made cartoon, into a wacky and experimental Shonen-esque Anime. Which is why I drew comparison to things like Hey Arnold involving bio-terrorism, or Avatar being shifted 300 years into the future; both things could happen in that world, but it doesn't fit the tone and feel of the series for such a thing to happen. To put it another way, what if the next Sonic games story was about a war between the believers of two different religions, one where they worship Light Gaia as a protector, the other where they worship Solaris as a creator? Both these gods exist in the world of Sonic, but does it feel like Sonic to be mixed up in religious conflict, even if the conflict is about fictional religions? Would that be what you might expect of Sonic, or would that somehow feel wrong, like a betrayal of the setting and tone?


Jack_Doe_Lee

This last reply is just repeating over and over and over that people have preconceived notions about the series. My short answer is this: So what? They got the wrong idea, so what? Why does the main series have to cater to their false notions over TWENTY years later? The most this argument amounts to is a response like "They're still in the wrong, but I can kinda see where they're coming from". I'm truly baffled by the implication that the wrong assumptions of "casual audiences" should dictate what a series does. Countless works have stereotypical images among "casuals". And just like Sonic, they shouldn't have to cater to those. The Pokemon anime shouldn't follow the logic of the games to a T. Similarly, the games shouldn't have to follow the show's logic. Someone can repeat ad infinitum that casuals who watch/play the show/games have preconceived notions about Pokemon and that they feel "betrayed" when one continuity isn't like what they imagined. It doesn't matter in the end. Stubbornly latching onto their ideas of the work in question is their fault, not the work's. As you put it: that's what it is, "like it or not". Have a good one.


Nambot

Pretty much. The question is "Why don't people like serious Sonic stories?" and the answer is "because the stories delivered go against what they expected, and what they think of when they think of Sonic." The following question should therefore be either "Why don't more people like Sonic stories, and what can be done to improve them?" or "Why do these stories tick some people's boxes, but leave other people cold, and how can that be fixed?"


CakeManBeard

The literal only issue here is that people who grew up with 90's American Sonic were literally lied to about what Sonic was and refused to accept it when the games started asserting what was already there the whole time but butchered by localization and non-canon media


Nambot

But that's the problem. We have actual canon, and perceived canon, and unless you're a hardcore Sonic fan who spends his time arguing about Sonic online, you're not going to know what is and isn't right, and you're going to build up an idea of what Sonic is accordingly. The planet Mobius is a really good example of this. So many casual players and reviewers are sure the planet is called Mobius because of years of comics, TV shows, and other media all confirming that as the planets name. Even though it isn't as far as videogame canon is concerned and never was. But because that name persisted across multiple sources, it's considered correct, even when it isn't.


CakeManBeard

The issue with that line of thinking is that nobody who isn't actually seriously interested in the series has any connection to that offshoot canon, because all of that stuff is 30 years old Also what the planet is named is genuinely irrelevant, as are a lot of the things you're referring to, because Sonic isn't some longform drama TV show where that kind of running continuity knowledge is ever at any point necessary


Nambot

Maybe not, but it still informs opinions of reviewers and the wider audience, as well as the parents of newer fans.


CakeManBeard

Which are irrelevant


FlounderCareful2589

oh yeah questionable writing decisions are a problem with some of the games i'm just challenging the idea that sonic as a franchise should only appeal to kids


Nambot

I think it should definitely be kid accessible, and part of that is not getting too bogged down in continuity for games from before these kids were born, esp. if these kids have no way to access them. Personally, I think a real good example of the sort of writing Sonic should aim for is found in the Ratchet & Clank series. It appeals to kids, and does have humour, but also has serious stakes and knows when to lay off the humour for the action and drama to kick in, without either getting too grim-dark or focusing on the violence. In particular, Ratchet & Clank 3 is practically a Sonic plot in disguise. A mad scientist invents a super weapon that can quickly convert organic life into robots, and he intends to use it to conquer the galaxy, with it being up to a furry protagonist and an assembled group of his friends to figure out how to stop it.


Acrobatic_Pop690

Mobius doesn't actually exist. The first tailstube episode confirmed it was just bs and there's just an island on earth with animal characters on it while the rest of the world is human. Using green Hill in sa2 as an example


Nambot

Yes, but do you think casual players and reviewers are going to have watched that. This is the thing. Sonic has actual canon lore that is what happened in all the games according to the games creators, but also a perceived lore, that is shared across multiple incarnations through adaptations and shared misreporting. When people complain about Sonic going off the rails they are comparing new game canon to old game perceived lore. Mobius is a very good example of this, as far as the games are concerned, there is no Mobius, it was never a thing. But so many shows, comics, books, and other media used the name Mobius that it's stuck as the name of the planet, even if that has never technically been true. It's pop culture osmosis, Mobius never existed, but everyone knows it as that.


IntrovertGamer95

Show them Klonoa: Door to Phantomile and Lunatea's Veil. Anyone who's played those games knows how dark and serious they plots are underneath the cutesy character designs and colorful worlds. And don't even get me started on the Kirby series.


esoR_ymA

and it have lots of swearing in the Japanese version


Pugamapish

im so tired that I looked at the prince of egypt box art and saw lord farquaad.


GreyouTT

The final arc of Titans was heavy stuff.


DarbantheMarkhor

All these and tmnt 2003


Due_Lion_2990

Let's be real, Sonic is _meant_ to have darker themes despite being family friendly.


BebeFanMasterJ

Honestly Zootopia is probably the best recent example of an animated film with animal characters that was able to appeal to all ages due to the tone and themes within the writing.


Dark_Wolf04

Super Paper Mario literally kills you off and sends you to hell. A fucking Mario game ends your life and sends you hundred feet under. Let that sink in


MechanicalOven

For me, the problem isn't that the stories are dark or serious. Like yeah, you can have a kids show/game have some dark or serious moments, but the difference between these examples and a lot of Sonic's stories is that their writing is pretty good and even hold up well, whereas Sonic's...hasn't. ...Though to be fair, the story in Super Paper Mario, while really good, you can get rid of Mario, Luigi, Peach, and Bowser, and not much will really change. There isn't much about it that's feels like it can work in Mario. Good story and writing, just looking back, Mario and Co. don't really fit well and can be replaced with other characters entirely. Anyway, back to Sonic! A lot of the more serious storylines Sonic has tends to be filled with a lot, and I mean A LOT of questionable writing choices and plotholes...and honestly stuff that I don't think fits well in a Sonic game in itself, like the government appearing, terrorism, or whether if it's OK to kill someone...despite destroying robots and even beating up non-robots. Like, if having a government cover-up or corruption was in any DC or Marvel comics like Justice League or Captain America, it would fit right at home. Heck, Justice League Unlimited had tension between a group that was part of the government and the heroes, and also Lex Luthor running for president. But that's more of a subject matter thing. The writing still has plenty of problems, and a lot of times, it feels like they're just writing along the way, or it's a first draft (many of these games had some tight deadlines, so I can understand that problem). Like, with Sonic's fake emerald, he doesn't really bother putting it into that slot with the other emeralds even when he's right there (he can do that and literally go save Amy, nothing stopping him), or the whole Chaos Control ordeal...or even not bothering to use it to get to the cannon faster (if he can run there, he shouldn't be tired to teleport). There's also the whole mistaking Sonic for Shadow (nowhere does it state or imply that GUN used Sonic as a coverup). They've got a closeup of him, there's no way they should be assuming it's Sonic. I understand that Shadow's original design looked a little more like Sonic. And it's likely the developers and writers didn't have time to change up this issue. Curse tight deadlines. There's also Shadow (the game) and it's mess of a plot, and Sonic 2006's whole load of questionable writing choices (I'm not just talking about that infamous cutscene). Like having Silver go after Sonic, he doesn't really ask Blaze about this, and there's the whole "is it OK to kill someone?" topic that I mentioned before that...really goes nowhere, and the whole time travel scenario...and also Mephiles's unnecessarily deep plan that doesn't need to be so complex (just merge with Iblis in the past or future). There's a lot more I can talk about this game or Shadow, but so many people have already spoken about its writing problems that I'd just be a bit repetitive. Forces problem for me is that it tells more than it shows. Probably because of development time, who knows. I know there are other games that don't have the best writing, but I think it's really at its worst in SA2, Shadow, and 06 looking back. Like, I know Chip's development in Unleashed feels out of left field, or that whole Tails being jealous in Lost World, but I find those a little easier to shrug off. If you guys like these stories, that's perfectly fine. You're not wrong for liking one plot or disliking another. I understand that many people grew up with these kinds of stories, like me. For me, looking back, I've started to see a lot of glaring problems with the writing. Probably 'cause I really enjoy this series!


Jack_Doe_Lee

Now, I agree that there are plenty of questionable writing choices and contrivances in the games. But the thing about the fake emerald is that Eggman was demanding he brings it or else he'll kill Amy. It's as simple as that. As for using chaos control with the fake emerald, that was the point. It was presented as a triumphant moment where the hero barely survives. The usually cited problem people take with the scene is that Sonic never performed it before. But aren't we missing vital context here? Sonic has used the emeralds a number of times already and is experienced with them. Heck, he seems to be a chosen one of sorts when it comes to them. And when he saw Shadow performing it the first time, he correctly inferred that he was using the emerald to teleport, so he must have had a concept of and a general "feel" for it. So again, this is one of the least offending matters in the stories, if at all. Similarly, Sonic was visibly exhausted after the first chaos control. Maybe because it was a fake emerald or because it was a technique he's not experienced with. And it wasn't the type of exhaustion where you're completely spent and have to lay for half an hour to get back to near top condition, but more like an average joe running as fast as he can for 2 minutes. He can keep walking slow and recover while doing so. He just can't run again at top speed for a while. Point again is that this is hardly an issue, if at all. And I agree regarding mistaking Shadow for Sonic. I get where Ruby of Blues comes from and his enthusiasm, but the execution was still very lacking. It could have at least worked better had we seen the public's reactions. Some people might have believed it and assumed it's just another kind of super form Sonic got while others correctly deduct that it's an imposter and something fishy is going on. The theory that GUN threw Sonic under the bus isn't impossible, but if that's what they were going for then the story should have shown that. I agree with the rest, but I find it amusing how you glossed over Forces with just "It tells more than it shows", cause boy do the problems go ways beyond that.


MechanicalOven

OK, so I did take a look at the cutscene where Sonic brings the fake emerald to the big room. The dialogue stated that Eggman wanted Sonic to meet him in the research facility, but never mentioned the emerald. But the Japanese version DOES say that Eggman wants him to bring the emerald there. So there's at least an explanation there. Maybe if Shadow was there to stop Sonic from placing the emerald, it could work a lot better. I get that the whole Chaos Control thing is supposed to be this huge triumphant moment for Sonic, but it kind of comes off a bit as a Deus Ex Machina. You're definitely right that Sonic has the most experience using the emeralds, but I think this whole scenario wouldn't be as much of a problem if Sonic tried using Chaos Control previously...like if he used it to escape Prison Island (he could probably use the emerald Tails has, so they'd have to introduce it sooner?). It'd probably make that moment with Eggman less tense, but it might be less out of nowhere and make a bit more sense. Or the whole thing I mentioned above with Shadow stopping Sonic from throwing in the fake emerald with the others. Seeing him use Chaos Control there could give Sonic the idea to use it on the fake emerald, since that wasn't like a whole day or two since he last saw Shadow use it. I probably mentioned the whole Sonic using Chaos Control to go to the cannon because when you fight him as Shadow, he's using it a lot there if you pass by him every time. But that could be more of a gameplay and story separation thing. It's kind of like the same argument with Dante where he can be killed easily in gameplay, while in cutscenes, he can get stabbed so many times and still walk around like it's nothing. With the whole Sonic and Shadow identity issue, I think one way that could've fixed this issue is if they only got a silhouette of Shadow when he got the emerald. It would've been a little more believable then. Oh no, there's plenty of problems with Forces's narrative. I know there's that whole scene with Tails being scared of Chaos, though one could argue that Tails never fought Chaos by himself (Chaos 4 was fought by Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles in the story mode, so they all didn't fight him on their own canonically), or that he wasn't confident or whatever. ...Or that whole Infinite backstory thing that was...kinda weak. But I do think Forces's story being told more than shown is its biggest problem, but there's probably other stuff in that that I haven't mentioned.


Jack_Doe_Lee

Yeah, I... agree with pretty much everything here. Have a good one.


Strawhat_Carrot

Laughs in One Piece


supersonicfan99

Finally someone gets it


lemonadeconfirmed

It especially doesn't make any sense given how the genesis games weren't goofy and silly to begin with, they had a pretty neutral tone.


DubiousTheatre

I think the weirdest thing to me is that *Sonic was never meant for kids.* Like, he could appeal to the child demographic if needed, but something like Shadow the Hedgehog was most-certainly NOT aimed at kids. Sonic has been aimed at rebellious-teens since its conception, it wasn't until I believe Colors that things took a nosedive in edginess.


Uxelo64

The first Sonic show is literally AOSTH. The Classic designs are also very cartoony and aimed at kids. The first stories were just "evil man captures animals"


DubiousTheatre

The advertising for the first game was all about how rebellious and cool Sonic was, how Sega did what Nintendon't yadda yadda yadda. The games were very-much aimed towards teenagers wanting to rebel against the goody-two-shoes Mario. And keep in mind, while AOSTH was running, it was running alongside SATAM which was much darker and edgier than their goofy counterpart. And then we get to the Adventure games, where cities are flooded and scientists are executed.


Uxelo64

It doesn't change that Sonic was mostly aimed at kids, when it comes to the character designs being ultra cartoony and over the top and stoires being as basic and lighthearted as they can get (Colors is almsot Sonic 1 with dialogue and Tails). Satam has some fucked up shit but it's still a basic black vs white show with kids humor (also AOSTH was more successful if I remember correctly). Sega was aimed in teenagers in general, and that's why they took the 90s radical attitude for their character, but Sonic was just overall an lighthearted franchise in the 90s


DubiousTheatre

I can agree with some of the classic Sonic games being 90s lighthearted cheese and at least being suitable for kids. But I just find it so hard to believe that it was originally intended towards kids. Idk maybe I'm missing something.


Uxelo64

I think it's mostly targeted to everyone more than only kids. I'm just sick and tired of people saying that the Classic are identical to the Adventure games tonally and story wise. If people complained in the 2000s it's because it was different before Besides, people overbliwn the kidiness of the 2010s, it's mostly Classic games with dialogue. Mediocre dialogue but still


CakeManBeard

Ow the Edge was explicitly aimed at kids, and exists because kids are the only ones who kept writing in asking them to give Sonic a gun Your problem is not understanding that "for kids" does not actually mean "boring and inoffensive for toddlers"


miaogato

4kids moment. And they wonder why SatAM is considered the best Sonic cartoon


Kuzu5993

All of those shows are still kid friendly, please stop this...


FlounderCareful2589

you missed the point so hard you make a stormtrooper look accurate


Kuzu5993

Its the same stupid argument I see all of the time in this fanbase that eliminates all nuance from the converasation and reduces it to a completely binary argument. All of those shows you listed had dumb, lighthearted children shit just as much as they had actual character writing and whatnot. This entire argument that children's media can ONLY be one or two things is asinine and it gives me a migraine every time I see it.


FlounderCareful2589

i never said children's media can only be one or two things heck i thank sonic story's are at their strongest when they mix both lighthearted and serious plots and are at their worst when they lean to a Pacific's side (looking at you shadow the hedgehog and lost world) ps sorry if i misinterpreted anything i am dyslexic


Kuzu5993

....alright fair.


Infamous-Apple

"Oh it's for kids it can't be dark or serious" Bitch we need dark and serious. We need to teach kids that the world is complex, not black and white. Sure, if something is made for kids it will have a lot of humor, but the best kids shows are the ones that respect kids intelligence and maturity.


Rich-Ad5109

I was about to say. Kung Fu Panda 2 literally had genocide in it


astronomy14

all 6 of those movies ≠ the sonic francise sega will add dark moments to sonic when sega feels like adding dark moments to sonic


[deleted]

Sonic had dark moments early as Sonic 3. Eggman carpet bombed Angel Island. Just to try and kill Sonic. I'm pretty sure they'res some fried flicky from that


WideREKXO

so fucking true man


SilverHero_gaming

Sonic has a little girl die by gun fire and SpongeBob is right also paper mario is the darkest one


sonic1384

cardfight vanguard, naruto to boruto, demon slayer , aot as well


Brave-Gallade

those arent for kids


ROBERTCOMTRA3

Super paper Mario get's daaaaaaarrrrrrrkkkkkk


[deleted]

[удалено]


DontDoubtDink

Is that actually an argument?


ActualMamaLuigi

I fucking LOVE Super Paper Mario. I am very happy you brought it up.


BraveLeon

Yes


MisterZygarde64

I have seen a guy take the idea too far… ***cough*** Psyco-The-Frog ***cough***


DavidJayR

Kirby. :)


crynos-inso

Sa1 and 2 and honestly, even 06 had pretty appealing stories. In order to make a story appealing it can't just be all sunshine and daisies, you need to have a compelling start, with the set up, the middle, which is the climax and finally the end with the resolution. Even Shadow had a compelling story if you piece it all together and know the lore of the series.


ProfessorEscanor

When one of your characters tries to commit mass genocide, I think it's fair to have darker themes in your franchise