Sure, it probably didn’t help.
Though I kinda think their main problem is that it must be freaking hard for a Sonic fan to sort out whatever new game will be good, mediocre or unplayable shit. That licence has been all over the place for decades. That can’t help sales in the long term.
I don’t think you can go wrong with any mainline Mario. Some are a bit rough over the edges (looking at you Sunshine), but they’re all fun. Sonic though? What should we expect for the next one, Sonic Superstars or freaking Sonic Forces?
First Sunshine is amazing, potentially the best 3D Mario after 64. No nostalgia glasses 100% objective
That aside you are entirely right. If a new Mario is coming out I know itll be worth checking out. Sonic has like a 1 in 3 chance of being decent.
“My subjective opinion is 100% objective.”
I don’t disagree with your take tho.
Haha maybe I should have put a /s
As much as I liked the Adventure games, Sonic Team and the other devs who work on Sonic need to try not to focus on story so much and devote more resources to gameplay and design when making games. Most of the bad games in the series suffered from too much focus being put on the story in one way or another, including the most infamous among them (Sonic 06 and Boom: Rise of Lyric). Get more technical people in there to work out the bugs, and more designers to craft longer, more engaging stages. Gameplay-wise, they also don’t have to reinvent the wheel every three games. The “boost” style of the Unleashed day stages, Colors and Generations worked well even if naysayers were all like “boost to win”, and relatively minor gimmicks such as the wisps were all you needed to mix it up and keep things entertaining. Going back to this gameplay formula was not among the problems with Forces; heck, one of the problems was that Forces didn’t do it enough, the stages were too short and when you weren’t playing that style of stage you had to do the (apparently) super-wonky 2D sections (I honestly didn’t have a hard time with the 2D stages though if many did that’s an issue). Mario works well following these rules: the story stays simple (even if repetitive, but nobody really plays Mario for the story); gameplay has a solid and established foundation for 2D and 3D and innovation/change in gameplay builds on that foundation instead of scrapping it and starting over; and level design keeps players engaged in gameplay with right-sized stages to be substantial but not overly short or long. Most of the 2D games do usually get this right, but why they can’t translate that consistently to the 3D games (and there have been good 3D games like Adventure 2, Colors, Generations, and at least Adventure 1 and Heroes were decent enough) I have no idea.
The same could be said 30 years ago.
Wonder was a bore of a game, I know it sold loads so it won’t change anything but I sat and played through and finished it fairly quickly but it was not interesting or fun most of the time.
The new mechanics were interesting but just not what was needed. I was really looking forward to something as fun as the super Mario Bros Wii and it wasn’t it.
I agree it was a too easy and too short game, mostly for entertaining new players, but everything on screen constantly makes me smile. We don’t have that many games with that much love.
Yeah there were some cool elements and ideas but I think it missed the mark. It seed got boring and map design and level selection was poor.
I’ll probably jump back in to 100% it but it isn’t looking to be played again like all the other entries.
Tbh I went back and played the others on emulators instead of finishing it.
I haven’t played it but I wonder (pardon the pun) if multiplayer is why people love it. I know Super Mario 3D World was like that. It was fun single player but an absolute blast with multi-players racing each other to the flag.
It is according to Nintendo…
I bought Superstars instead of Wonder myself.
It was on sale at my local GameStop.
