Topic: Why do you think Mario has got more successful over the years but Sonic hasn’t?

Gotta love a random Necro post. Interesting topic but

The thing is, Sonic's entire bit is that he moves fast. Which was born out of the fact that the Mega Drive could scroll the screen faster than the SNES. The Mega Drive was outclassed in pretty much every other aspect. Goes without saying that scrolling fast lost the technical wow factor fairly fast. And all you're left with is a gimmick that runs counter to the stable controls

Super Mario Bros? I mean it was also born out of the NES being able to scroll screens. But scrolling in general is a bit more fundamental. The reason it did well was because it was also a strong platformer in general. Built around very, very stable controls

First of all, when it comes to Mario, you have to go back to the 1980s, when a huge crisis began to reign in the game market. Even Higeru Miyamoto himself and so the person who created this character (Manga) told from the beginning Nintendo to take a chance, they would succeed. In general, this was the time of the formation of Activision, the entry of Atari or Commodore 64, so a revolution began in the world of games. In addition, few people realize that the original version of Mario was without his brother, Luigi joined over time. He just lifted Nintendo from its knees with this title, plus there is no denying the fact that at the time these consoles were not expensive, and were easily available. As a curiosity, it was Mario's creator who invented the pad for the SNES, equipped with the top L and R buttons, which became permanently established in controllers of all manufacturers.

I thin Sonic was not as successful because they were always late to the punch Sonic one was a good game but mario world already existed and was the better game Sonic adventure was a good game but mario 64 already existed and was the better game Sonic got a mid racing game but mario already had several better kart racer before him

Ignoring the very important history, Nintendo just makes super polished Mario games. A lot of Sonic games could be better than they are but they just aren't.

More controversial, but my favorite game streamer who streams both Mario and Sonic humorously compared 2D Sonic levels to bad 2D Mario levels — areas where it is unclear where to go, lots of blind falls, lots of parts where it feels natural to run but you will smack right into an off-screen enemy if you do. It's not really a fair comparison, but it does give some examples of why level design is difficult when the level is centered around going fast but still wants combat and puzzles and variety as well. Since Mario is only centered around very general platforming it can have faster or slower parts more naturally.

Mario is an avatar for Ninteno's gameplay. The gaming industry has a lot to thank Mario for. And to answer the topic's question...so does Sonic.

Sonic is one of the biggest selling game franchises of all time, so it’s done quite well for Sega (and, I would add, despite Sega)

That's a good point... we're comparing two series that have sold well over 100 million games. Maybe Sonic isn't quite up there with Mario, Pokemon, Minecraft and GTA, but it is right up there with Zelda and Final Fantasy... and far above most game franchises. There is only so much room at the top.

@skywake I tried to get into Sonic. Bought the newest 2D game and thought it would be fun. Just can't really get into how fast the game is. It moves at a breakneck pace, and it feels like I can't really follow what's going on.

I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I think Sonic's gameplay generally flat-out sucks. If a platformer utilises fast movement as its primary mechanic, while slapping you with unforeseeable pit deaths and monster encounters, relying on memorisation rather than skill/reaction, I think that's terrible design, and I'm out. I think the Sonic concept would have worked better as a rhythm game masquerading as a platformer rather than as a conventional platformer, but I suppose we may never know what the franchise may have looked like had it been steered in that direction.

And to say nothing of Sonic's general mediocrity to outright awfulness over the decades. Nintendo takes pride in the quality of their work while Sega merely hopes to capitalise on brand recognition. From a business perspective alone, the franchises are worlds apart.

I used to like Sonic as a kid, thinking he was "cool" and all, but take off the rose-tinted branding, and you have a series of all-too similar games that really aren't all that fun to play, and every demo that I've sampled in more recent years reminded me of everything that I dislike/hate about the franchise. It absolutely baffles me that it remains anywhere near as popular as it is given the general quality of its output.

I do recall somewhat enjoying Sonic Rush on DS back when, but I never cared enough to finish it (and I bought the sequel ahead of time, still unplayed). Maybe someday, but at the moment, I just don't care enough to revisit it when there's so much better elsewhere.

Jazz Jackrabbit by Epic (of Fortnite fame) in the 90s seemed to draw a lot of inspiration from the Sonic games, and I think Jazz surpassed Sonic in every conceivable way, being actually fun to play, overall better designed, and I think the character designs and art style was better too. It was the perfect marriage between speed and platforming, and it's a tremendous shame that the franchise was effectively shelved after just two instalments (not counting the GBA game). There was a third game in the works, a 3D platformer, for PC/PS2, but it was ultimately cancelled, and the series has sadly been dormant since 2002.

@Sisilly_G You mentioned demos... I am still impressed at how poorly designed the Sonic Frontiers demo is. That is not to say the game itself is bad (I haven't played the full game so don't have much opinion) but the demo itself was truly bad as a demo. Who makes a timed 15 minute demo where the only way to see any gameplay at all is to skip the background and explanations and just jump in not knowing what you're doing. 😛 And even after skipping everything you basically have time to sort of look around a sparse area and have one extremely mediocre fight and the demo is over. If people didn't already love sonic and want the game I have no idea why that demo would convince someone to buy the game.

@Sisilly_G I agree! Despite trying so hard to like Sonic games, I just find the gameplay contradicts itself by having you go really fast whilst being precise with your jumps and attacks like you said.

Funnily enough I actually think Sonic Dash the mobile game feels more natural to play than a lot of other entries in the series!

@FishyS Tried the demo recently and thanks to the time limit I came away feeling barely any different about the game😂

@FishyS : You think that's bad? 15 minutes sounds extremely generous when you compare it to Sonic Forces, which had a Japan-exclusive demo that was a one minute timed demo. And if that wasn't already hilariously bad enough, the demo pauses every few seconds to prompt a tutorial text box. 😅 It's every bit as awful as you would imagine.

It is by far the worst demo I have ever played, and the saddest part of all is that the game seemed to be decent in spite of it, and I really wanted the opportunity to actually sample the godforsaken thing, but I ultimately refused to buy it, even on sale, on principle, simply due to how shockingly bad the demo was.

I'm still utterly speechless.

Honestly? I think Mario games are S-tier and Sonic games are C-tier. Simple as that.

No offense to the diehard Sonic fans. If you feel Sonic is just as good or better, that's fine. It's all opinion at the end of the day. I just think the majority of people share the opinion that Sonic games aren't all that great.

As a kid I was in love with Sonic 2 and Sonic 3 & Knuckles. But as I got older I realized it wasn't because the games were all that great, I just really liked the characters.

Just because the games don't review as well as fans would like doesn't mean the franchise isn't successful. I mean they had two very successful movies with a 3rd on its way as well as tons of merchandise and plenty of comics and TV shows

Sonic has had, a very bumpy road, but Mario has not had such a list of mishaps.

I would say that early on, they were closer. The Genesis Sonic games are great, but I would say that overall Mario has way more polished and higher quality games than Sonic does. Stuff like Sonic 06, Sonic Boom and Sonic Forces have not helped at all.

I really think that's just the main thing. If Sonic games had the quality and consistency of mainline Mario games that would probably go a long way. There are good Sonic games, but its usually after two or three bad games.

That situation would never happen with the Mario series.

Sonic is a cynical mascot. Mario is a well designed avatar for gameplay. To give you an example, Astro Boy is another well designed avatar for gaming (and I would add, Sony have borrowed very heavily from Mario's proportions.) SOnics long legs may make him look cool, but widen turning circles etc. It's a very subtle nuance that really affects gameplay decisions. Especially when if all you are going to do is go fast, then there isn't much to do other than change the environment you are going fast in. Sonic is best as a super fast thrill ride. At it's very core, it's much shallower than Mario's gameplay and as a consequence you can see SEGA struggling with what to do with it next without fundermentally changing Sonic's mechanics.

(or something. Makes sense in my head lol.)

I'd like to add the point that there really isn't much discourse about Mario games over the years. It's certainly there, I'd say most prominently in the Paper Mario series, but it's never been too big. The most divisive opinion I've commonly heard about most Mario games just boils down to "I like this other title a little more." It never really devolves anywhere past that. The same can't be said for Sonic. Legit, you could praise any, and I mean ANY, Sonic game and you'd receive flak. Praise the classic games, "you don't like anything new." Praise the modern games, "You have horrible taste." There's loads of fandoms that fall victim to this trap, but I'd say the Sonic fanbase is definitely up there. You don't typically see that level of vitriol with Mario, save for a FEW titles like Sunshine and Sticker Star. Once in a blue moon there's arguing, but not often. With Sonic though, it's constant. It's been like that for years, and it'll continue to be that way for many more. Even with remakes/remasters, I've no doubt there'll be plenty people debating if Sonic X Shadow Generations is better than the original or if it's atrocious. It's been that way for practically every game, and it'll continue the exact same way. I wish the discourse could be more civil, but hey, I think most of us are used to it by this point.

Sega’s home consoles were dying. This was Sonic’s cause of downfall. Other consoles were just better, and Sega’s consoles stopped selling as well and eventually Sega caved in and become a multi-platform developer. The way Sonic games are just made people stop caring nearly as much. Not to mention not much variety both in the Sonic series and the Sega consoles themselves.

Sonic continued his downward trajectory making games that were either too similar to each other or just way too different. The Sonic formula just got old for a lot of people, so people stopped caring.

Horrible advertising is also a big part in Sonic’s decline. Marketing is almost minimal most of the time. If there is marketing, often times it’s pretty bad/not towards the actual audience.

Putting Sonic Superstars out just a couple days before Mario Wonder was a downright awful choice. Sonic Superstars seems to have sold low enough that the sales never got updated, and we never heard that it passed 1 Million (could be wrong).

Their best selling modern game is Frontiers which was 3+ million. Not bad at all, just not high enough to be considered a huge franchise.

Saying modern Sonic is a huge franchise is definitely not true. At least compared to Mario, I’d say the Mario series is at least 20x more of a bigger deal right now. Even other Nintendo franchises are bigger at this point, such as Super Smash Bros, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Legend of Zelda, Kirby, Pokemon, and maybe even Pikmin/Metroid.

I like some Sonic games, but I just don’t think it’s a huge franchise now like it used to be.

@PikminMarioKirby

According to wikipedia, the top selling game franchises are:

1. Mario
2. Tetris
3. Pokemon
4. Call of Duty
5. Grand Theft Auto
6. FIFA
7. Minecraft
8. Wii (hah!)
9. Lego
10. sims
11. Assassin's Creed
12. Final Fantasy
13. Sonic
14. Resident Evil
15. Zelda

Those are reasonably up-to-date and at least not totally inaccurate. It wouldn't be a shocker if Zelda eventually passed Sonic but it hasn't yet, including TotK sales. So, yeah, Mario is obviously much bigger but sonic is still recently averaging millions of games sold a year and spitting out movies so I would call it a pretty big franchise still. Just looking at the data, apparently a lot of Sonic games continue to sell even when no game came out recently, although presumably those are all sale-prices (such as the fact I will buy Sonic Superstars when it hits a good enough sale 😝 )

@FishyS The fact that Minecraft got that high with essentially one game is hilarious .

Sonic was a huge thing before, but it definitely has had a huge decline. Probably less than 10% of how big it used to be. The movies and Frontiers are helping some though, so it definitely has been doing better than how it was during Wii-early Switch era.