Sonic and Addition

What the hell happened to Sonic?

 

Source

One word: addition. Sonic is the victim of reckless addition, a franchise killed by it's own enthusiasm. There comes a point when adding something to a series is detrimental, and Sonic has long passed that point. It's like they listened to people asking for innovation in the industry, yet never realized innovation by itself is worthless.

It's a true shame, because the first 3 Genesis games got it so right. They added things like characters, enemies, levels, music, but did not ever add a crazy new direction for the series to take. The core gameplay was iterated upon, improved, but never truly altered. This is how you do a sequel.

You see, if you don't get a sequel right, you did one of three things wrong. You could have simply made a bad game, something that does happen. But more relevant to this article, you either changed nothing, or you added too much. If you add too little, you don't make much progress and your game feels samey and pointless. If you add too much, usually the game changes dramatically and you've left yourself no solid base anymore. Basically, a good sequel either needs to magically have that new base be amazing, or more likely, it needs to add just the right amount of stuff, and more importantly the right things.

Let's compare the first 3 Sonic games to the ones after. Between Sonic 1 and Sonic 2, what was added?

• Tails the Fox, a new character
• New zones
• New enemies
• New boss who is not Eggman
• A new gameplay mechanic, the spin dash
• Super Sonic, powered up version of base Sonic

I'm likely forgetting some stuff, but the point is that: a) Nothing major was changed and b) all the additions supplement the gameplay of Sonic 1. As for Sonic 2 to 3?

• A new character, Knuckles
• More enemies
• More bosses
• More zones
• Hyper Sonic, powered up version of Super Sonic
• Super forms for Tails and Knuckles

Again, they didn't change anything major per se. They simply added onto what was already there. Building a new character off the base mechanics and giving more tools like super forms do not change the core very much.

After that, it's a whole different story. Almost no game after Sonic 3 gets a pass from me in the sequel department. You want a list?

Sonic Adventure 1 added 3D gameplay, 5 more styles of gameplay, voice acting, a hub world, minigames,the chao garden, and a new villain.

Sonic Adventure 2 might be the only game that tried to stick with a nice sequel philosophy, not adding much new besides a villain.

Sonic Heroes changed the 3D mechanics, added team play, 4 different teams, wallrunning, block breaking, flying, pole ascension, take your pick.

Shadow the Hedgehog added gunplay, swearing, vehicles, and the ability to chose your own story.

Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 changed the 3D mechanics, added 12 character playstyles, brought the hubworld back, added high speed segments, 3 separate stories, and last but not least upgrades for characters.

I could go on, but I think you're getting the point. Every single game after the 3^rd Gensis one adds stuff for the sake of adding stuff. Whether it be to ride a trend, trying to innovate, for whatever reason they keep adding things rather than expanding. There are good ideas here at their core. 3D sonic. Team gameplay. Things like that sound like they'd make for fun games, if they had more time. But the issue is that it seems like if they don't strike gold on their first shot (something that rarely happens) they assume it's bad and toss it aside, adding more stuff to try to find that new amazing idea.

Sonic the Hedgehog is a franchise often maligned for just being bad, and Sonic Team are accused of being bad game designers just as much. But I'm not sure that's the issue. We got great games like Sonic Generations after that had 3 games of that fun, arcadey style. I think they have a good grasp of what they want to to, and their ideas are good. Their issue is time, and perception. They really don't know how to make a show-stopper on their first try, and that's fine, but they refuse to refine it. They just add and add and add.

Many people have no hope left for Sonic. I disagree. I say that if Sega stop trying to add mindlessly, we may have hope left.

Sonic Riders: The Sequel We Need

Sonic Riders needs a sequel. It really does. There has literally never been a more perfect time for this underrated little gem of a racing series to get a proper sequel (Free Riders doesn't count, you monster).

To be fair, Sonic Riders has always had a hard time of it impressing people, and yeah, I get why. Less tracks than Mario Kart, and half of those courses being the same place as another one, fairly unbalanced gameplay, mechanics impossible to understand even after a few races, it's no wonder these games floundered. But despite all this, a sequel is seriously something this series needs. And I have a list. It's a good list, too.

A Wealth of Mechanics

The Riders series has had 2 games now (FREE RIDERS STILL DOESN'T COUNT) and both games had wildly different mechanics. Riders 1 had the air meter and boosting. You needed air to stay on your board, drift around tight corners, but most importantly, you needed it to boost. Boosting gave you a speed increase, and let you attack other racers to get ahead. You could only replenish your air at certain points, like jumps and shortcuts like flying and grinding. What all this added up to was an air meter you had to constantly manage, determining whether to boost or save your air for when you needed to to progress. If you were good enough, you could basically boost forever and always have enough air for it. It was a system that rewarded knowledge of the track and good air management skills on top of already needed racing skills.

Zero Gravity, on the other hand, changed everything up. Rather than having an air meter, you had a gravity meter that you used to activate Zero Gravity functions, like drifting corners, flying down the track, or attaching yourself to walls. This removed the management function because it was nigh impossible to run out of meter, but it made the courses more varied. Being able to ride on walls will do that.

So what does this mean? Well altogether it means that the Riders series has many, many different mechanics and styles to pull from at this point, and it'd do well to use them to their full advantage. They could mix and match the air meter and gravity meter, take ideas from one, see what went wrong in one and use those lessons, and so much more. So for example, there could be a game where you have an air and gravity meter, and you must manage both. Or you could combine them both into one meter and choose between using gravity shortcuts or boosting, that sort of stuff. The riders series has a lot to work with now, basically. Especially because...

Neither Game Hit Their Potential

As much as I enjoy these games, they both have pretty severe shortcomings that very much limit what they are able to do. Riders 1 had next to no comeback mechanics, obtuse track design, unbalanced racers/vehicles... It looked cool and had some great ideas behind it, but there was a lot wrong with it as well.

Zero Gravity on the other hand suffers from a butchered trick system, a gravity meter that almost never ran out, a flying mechanic that could only be used in one place removing any skill from it, more boring course design, weaker visuals, and more. It was very different from the original, perhaps to its detriment.

Neither game has ever had a chance to get a second go or learn, because Zero Gravity changed everything and Free Riders was... ugh. Again, this is why I think a sequel would be great. How cool would a hoverboard racing game be where you grind, fly, and bust through various courses? Yet neither of these games have had enough time to actually realize their full potential. A sequel could be the perfect fix for that.

Online

The Riders games have always had a bit of an identity crisis. They look like fun family racers that everyone can enjoy. Heck, they try to sell themselves that way. Issue is, that's wrong. Very wrong. These games in no way are fun pick up and play racers. Trust me from personal experience, the mechanics simply can't be fully grasped very quickly, absolutely killing the party experience from square one. If nobody but you sees the fun depth, well, nobody's gonna play it.

But; I have a solution. Online play could fix literally all of these issues. Sure, the games would indeed have to make some changes for this to work, but the core of the games would be perfectly suited for play like this. The nature of online play is often racing the same courses over and over again, mastering the mechanics, and testing your mettle against others. Riders, with its more complex and deep mechanics than the average mascot racer would be the prefect fit for this. No longer would you have to worry about explaining everything to your friend who's never played before. Everyone online would know what they're doing, and the races would get competitive and require much more skill. The core mechanics of Riders are simply not suited to a party setting, which is totally fine. They just need to drop the typical mascot racer mindset.

Take the game seriously

Ok, look. Riders and Zero Gravity were balanced badly. I'm being frank here. It feels like there was absolutely no care whatsoever put into the different characters, boards, and shortcuts. Flying characters have a massive advantage, power characters are handicapped from the start, certain boards rely on randomness that basically leaves your success up to a coin toss, it's a mess. Plus the ability of some boards to take multiple kinds of shortcuts basically forced you to choose those.

Audiences weren't impressed by it either. The game was often called unbalanced, clunky, and not very satisfying. Often your winning a race was 100% on what character and board you chose at the start.

Basically what I'm saying here is that Riders has a lot to learn from. The devs have plenty of experience and feedback to base the next game off of, and they know what to do. It feels like they didn't take the game seriously. It feels like they spent 2 games messing around with the mechanics, not once realizing how special and perfect these mechanics could be. Imagine what could happen if they did realize. This, above all else, is why I think the Sonic Riders series needs a sequel.

But will it get one? Alas, it's unlikely. They didn't sell brilliantly, audience reception was lukewarm, and at this point Sega can't afford to screw around with Sonic. There's too much at risk for them financially right now. And above all else, well, I just don't trust Sonic team to make a good game. In general. The last time they showed a good grasp of good level design was the genesis days. They have never once grasped 3D levels properly, and I doubt a Riders sequel would be any different. So does Sonic Riders need a sequel? Absolutely. Will it get one? The odds are slim. 

Thanks for reading.