#bluerthanthoumaybe

[ponett]

Do you think there are media essentials to experience if you want to participate in a serious conversation?

Like "you've GOT to play Chrono Trigger if you wanna have good opinions on JRPGs" and anything else in an essentials list you would find on 4chan or somewhere?

I would say there are some things like that, but the list of things that I think are absolutely mandatory is very short. Sticking with video games, like, yeah, everyone who likes video games should have played Tetris and Minecraft at some point, but it's hard to make a longer list of entries in "the canon" that everyone has to play.

I mean, there are tons of games in the Game Designer Canon I've never played. Far Cry 2, Resident Evil 4, Rogue, BioShock, Deus Ex, Her Story, etc. I still need to get around to playing my copy of Disco Elysium. I played Outer Wilds briefly and thought it was neat but bounced off of it. There's just a lot of games out there, and there's never enough time to play all of the ones I want to play. So like, if someone told me they'd never played Super Mario 64, part of me would be like "what?!" and part of me would totally get it.

I guess when it comes to "serious conversations," particularly if you're trying to do some kind of criticism, it's just good to have familiarity with at least some of the "mandatory" entries in the genre you're talking about, even if it's unreasonable to expect everyone to have played all of them. Like, I don't expect everyone with JRPG opinions to have played every Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest and Tales and Chrono and Pokemon and SMT and Kingdom Hearts and Xeno and Ys and Mana game. Lord knows I haven't! But if you wanna speak authoritatively on the genre then it's good to have played at least some of them.

I also just think it's good to use these lists of "mandatory" games/movies/etc. to branch out for your own good, rather than trying to impress anyone. Sometimes you might think you won't like something popular, but it ends up really clicking with you and opening the door for more new things you might like. Also, like, sometimes things are so popular that people take for granted the specific ways in which they're good, so when you approach them with fresh eyes it's like, whoa! This really is awesome in a way I didn't expect.

[blazehedgehog]

It wouldn't be a controversial opinion that writers should write stories with conflicts and imperfect characters. Characters who are too mean, friendships that are violent and etc. sometimes they should aim to make the audience feel uncomfortable. But when does the content of text becomes inappropriate? When does a writer fail to communicate their intentions well, misunderstands their audience's expectations, or proves doesn't have the standards or maturity to handle the concepts they're utilizing in their text?

This is a line in the sand I feel like a lot of people are wrestling with nowadays and there's a lot of complaints from people who think it's a media literacy problem that folks no longer want nuanced villains or flawed heroes. As in, people don't want moral ambiguity. They don't want a good character that is sometimes bad.

Like I said, some people see this as a failing of media literacy, and it can be, but I think it's also just a sign of the times we live in. We will have been going through eight, maybe even twelve years of looking at our neighbors and wondering if they own a red "Make America Great Again" baseball hat. And we wrestle with the possibility that those kinds of people could still have good parts about them, because the climate has really riled a lot of people up and amplified all manner of divisions.

And this is going to be some classic "I'm ignoring your question and just following my own train of thought" but I've even wondered if that is the point. We as a society used to live in harmony together more often and we've got a guy and his cronies that have turned everything into a battleground. It's divide and conquer.

I often think about when the pandemic was first starting, and I read a report from a doctor that one of the worst things Donald Trump could have done was make covid 19 into a political issue, because political issues divide people up and force people to pick a side about a thing that ultimately didn't have sides, because it was supposed to be more about "How much damage control can we accomplish before things get really bad?"

(Answer: barely any damage control, things went about as badly as humanly possible, and now somehow a felon is serving a second term in the white house.)

And the fact of the matter is, everything is political now. Down to the very notion of heroes and villains themselves. And clearly this isn't just something that effects "the bad people," a large portion of society is tired of it. They want easily digestible clarity.

So my answer there is more just "it depends on the era." It depends on the mood of your audience. You can fight back against that, you can swim upstream, and maybe you'll even be remembered as ahead of your time for that. But everything is off limits and nothing is off limits, you know what I mean?

If anyone is going too far and breaking the rules of writing its simply because they aren't writing with a purpose. Stories are about a journey. A place that changes, a person that changes, a circumstance that changes. Often all three. The story ends when the change is complete. If you aren't writing with the intent on changing things and letting us watch that transformation complete itself, then you are simply writing a bad story. That's the problem, not pushing flawed heroes too far or whatever.

Otherwise, follow your heart. Not everybody will be able to keep up with where you're going, but as long as you're going somewhere, don't let anyone stop you.

[blazehedgehog]

Apparently Sonic Lore team had to fight for putting Babylon Rogues in Crossworlds (Lore manager tweeted it out). It's hard to Understand Sega/Sonic Team's mentality on their own cast. Even writers and creatives are constantly in negotiation for character representation and inclusion. Is there some sort of coherent theory to all this?

I genuinely have no idea, unfortunately. This is one of those things where Sega's ways are strange and unknowable. My only guess is that Takashi Iizuka is weird about what he considers to be "his characters." A friend of mine, Setsune, reminded me of this anecdote recently regarding Sonic Heroes:

Vector, Charmy and Espio weren't brought from Knuckles Chaotix in to Sonic Heroes, they are "brand new characters." Largely because Sonic Team did not work on the Knuckles Chaotix game, so maybe he feels like he wasn't allowed to use them?

Similarly, the Sonic Riders games were technically made by Sonic Team, but it was a different department of Sonic Team.

You see, in the Dreamcast era, Sega branded a lot of their development teams and gave them more autonomy. They became satellite companies. This is where we got Hitmaker, Smilebit, Amusement Vision, Wow Entertainment, etc.

One of those was United Game Artists, who made Space Channel 5 and Rez. When the Dreamcast died, Sega brought all of those studios back internally, and specifically with UGA, they got merged into Sonic Team. But within Sonic Team, things still were kind of divided, from what I understand.

So, like, Feel the Magic XX/XY and The Rub Rabbits, despite being Sonic Team games, were made by a lot of the former UGA people. Don't quote me on this as fact, but I think there was an effort to integrate the UGA people into Sonic Team more, which is how we got Sonic Riders. Sonic Riders has a lot of UGA people on it, which is why Ulala is a racer.

Ergo, maybe Takashi Iizuka saw Jet, Wave and Storm as characters created by outsiders and he didn't want to touch them. Either out of respect, or otherwise.

[blazehedgehog]

Have you ever had that experience when you share the same opinions with unsavory people? Like thinking that modern American animation is too sterilized and safe, but having to share that opinion with John K and his sycophants. (for the record I do not think this)

I mean, in my Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric review I expressed my distaste for Sonic's blue arms. About how, to me, every time I saw blue arms on Sonic the Hedgehog, it was from somebody who did not understand the visual design of the character.

If Sonic had blue arms, it was a sign of bootleg merchandise, or a crummy low-rent licensing deal, or, broadly speaking, just a symptom of garbage. If you get his colors wrong, you messed up.

But then Sega, in their endless, infinite wisdom, said "It's okay for Sonic to have blue arms sometimes."

Even in that image right there! Look! His arms blend into his body so you can't see them! You fools!

But you know who else shares that sentiment? Chris Chan, apparently. And I actually had people get on my case about "siding with Chris Chan." If you base your entire personality on only liking the opposite of what Chris Chan does you better stop breathing air, buddy. Because Chris Chan also does that.

And blue arms on Sonic is still dumb! Look at this garbage!!!

If you think this looks normal you straight up don't understand character design! I will die mad about this!

[blazehedgehog]

I've been thinking about Rob Liefeld and how essentially he's the punching bag of comic book artists.

Guy who just makes mindless buff guys with exaggerated surface level appeal and can't even draw feet, one of the worst consequences of 90s era comics.

I've been thinking about that maybe we've been too mean towards such artists?

In 2000s/2010s, mediocrity and anything less than that, especially when it tried to be sincere, was relentlessly mocked, creating the cringe culture we lived through, while other figures were heralded and role models.

But now, one by one, a lot of the most beloved artists of that era are exposed to be not so good people, or just another brand of mediocre, the consequences of that era turned out to be very bad (2010 culture of commentary youtube, cyber bullying and lolcows) and people are starting to sincerely enjoy the works of the artists who were mocked once, or find something to appreciate about them.

So the question is, do you think audiences were too mean? We engaged in the culture of ridicule too much? And have we passed that era of ridicule and mockery?

I mean you're kind of touching on a different idea too, which is: in this culture where everybody is valid, where everybody deserves love and understanding and acceptance, how do we give and take criticism?

And the obvious answer there is that we are constructive. We do our best to suggest improvements. And when we can't be constructive, we don't "punch down." You level the playing field. Lift up people that are unfairly below you, drag down people that are unfairly above you.

Are we punching up at Rob Liefeld, or down? Well, have you ever walked the red carpet at the Hollywood premiere of a big budget summer blockbuster?

Rob Liefeld has. Multiple times. He may not be executive rich, but a quick google estimates he has an eight figure net worth -- about $20 million. He probably owns a big house and lives very comfortably. It's almost guaranteed he doesn't have to work anymore, unless he wants to. Certainly, if I had $20 million dollars, I could absolutely stretch that to last the rest of my life. Easily!

So does he deserve it? Yeah, a little. Not a lot, but a little. There are worse artists than Rob Liefeld, but are they more successful than him? Not usually. So he's earned a "kick me" sign, I think. I don't think that's unfair to say.

But then you need to ask yourself a new question: did Rob Liefeld earn that "kick me" sign himself, or did the internet elevate him to that level of celebrity by making such an example of how bad his work is? This is where we get into "lolcows" and folks like Chris-chan, right?

(Serious answer about Rob Liefeld: No. Deadpool was popular and would have gotten these movies even without Liefeld being roasted over stumpy feet, tiny eyes or too much cross hatching)

Because there are damaged people who aren't going to walk away. People who kind of get trapped in a loop of just making things worse, and worse, and worse -- and the worse it gets, the more famous they get for "being worse." And it can start to look like punching up at a celebrity, but it's a celebrity that you created by being parasocial.

That is absolutely undeserved.

[blazehedgehog]

New Virtua Fighter was announced and the last entry is getting some updates, any thoughts on Segas efforts of bringing their old ips back so far?

One Virtua Fighter does not make up for delisting:

NiGHTS into Dreams

Sega Bass Fishing

Crazy Taxi

Space Channel 5 part 2

Jet Set Radio

Daytona USA

Afterburner Climax

Sega Rally Online Arcade

Outrun 2 Online Arcade

Sonic the Fighters

Sega Rally REVO

Sega Ages: Shinobi

Alex Kidd in the Enchanted Castle

Alien Soldier

Alien Storm

Altered Beast

Beyond Oasis

Bio-Hazard Battle

Bonanza Bros

Columns

Columns III

Comix Zone

Crack Down

Decap Attack

Dr. Robotnik’s Mean Bean Machine

Dynamite Headdy

Ecco Jr.

Ecco the Dolphin

Ecco: The Tides of Time

ESWAT: City Under Siege

Eternal Champions

Fatal Labyrinth

Flicky

Galaxy Force II

Gain Ground

Golden Axe

Golden Axe II

Golden Axe III

Gunstar Heroes

Kid Chameleon

Landstalker

Light Crusader

Phantasy Star II

Phantasy Star III: Generations of Doom

Phantasy Star IV: The End of the Millennium

Ristar

Shadow Dancer

Shining Force

Shining Force II

Shining in the Darkness

Shinobi III: Return of the Ninja Master

Sonic 3D Blast

Sonic Spinball

Space Channel 5: Part 2

Space Harrier II

Streets of Rage

Streets of Rage 2

Streets of Rage 3

Super Thunder Blade

Sword of Vermilion

The Revenge of Shinobi

ToeJam & Earl

ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkoton

VectorMan

VectorMan 2

Virtua Fighter 2

Wonder Boy in Monster World

Wonder Boy III: Monster Lair

We still haven't even heard any more news about the new Jet Set Radio, Crazy Taxi, Golden Axe, Shinobi or Streets of Rage games they announced over a year ago. Anything we've seen or heard has been classified as leaks, and not all of it sounds very positive.

Also, Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 would have absolutely been delisted with all the other games recently but I get the feeling somebody at Sega of America pumped the brakes on those two. They were announced to be delisted in other territories, but apparently have not been delisted anywhere as of yet.

They could have stopped more games from being delisted. While a few of these have to be delisted for licensing reasons (Daytona USA is a real life race event, Afterburner, Outrun and Sega Rally all contain licensed vehicles, etc.), there's no reason to delist NiGHTS, Space Channel 5, or 75-80% of those games.

The argument can be made that they'll just prep new versions of this stuff, but you know things are going to fall through the cracks. The PC is supposed to be the forever platform. It's insulting for them to do this.

[blazehedgehog]

This probably has been asked before but how do you feel about there being a character whose name is a nod to something that you are responsible for establishing? (I'm referring to Sage)

It's nice. It makes me happy. It's probably the most recognition I'm going to get for anything I've ever made or will ever make. Because at this stage, I will probably never work for or even collaborate with Sega on anything.

I don't have enough "official" experience or trust to ever qualify for one of their jobs, and I don't update my Youtube channel enough or pull in big enough numbers for them to ever even send me promotional packages for movies or games. Even when it comes to side projects, like the comics or animation or whatever, I will probably never touch those things behind the scenes. I don't have the connections or the social skills or maybe even the writing skills.

SAGE is my strongest legacy, and the most positive I've put out into the world. I have to fight back on impostor syndrome really hard to remind myself that it's okay to be proud of it. That I get to have the honor of being the founder. My doubts tell me "You barely ran it for two years out of the last 25" but I also stayed hands on for at least another four or five years after I gave it up. I helped a lot of friends and made sure deadlines could be met.

Sage being named after that means a lot to me. I left enough of a mark on something, somewhere that I helped change the face of the Sonic franchise. It may end up a footnote in a trivia section somewhere, one that doesn't even mention me, but I know, and that's what matters.

Leaving your mark on the world is what most people want, right? I can't complain. SAGE has been the work of many very talented hands, it has grown far beyond anything I had the ability to accomplish, but two of those hands were mine, and they were as important as anyone else's. And I'm not dead yet, so who knows what the unpredictable future still holds for me. Impostor syndrome is a liar, after all.

[blazehedgehog]

I've watched some clips of animators being at odds with older animators when it comes to decisions and they got me thinking.

Do you think there's a point when you know too much? When you're fully settled in your own biases and preferences that anything new feels off? Or can professionals keep an open mind with new sensibilities and the way language of art evolves?

You can never know too much. The problem is not knowing too much. The problem is when you think you know "enough".

But it's been a fact that, for example, with racism. You socialize someone with racial biases, you show them first hand, long term evidence of the truth, you give them a broad and robust understanding of what it's like to be that other person, and they become less racist.

What you call "keeping an open mind" is what should be called "being willing to continue learning."

The moment you dig your heels in and find yourself saying "the kids these days don't know the right way to do things" is the day you give up learning. People talk about smooth brain versus wrinkled brain, but that kind of stuff is when your brain turns to stone. Literally rocks in your head. And the clock is ticking until erosion does its job.

Never stop being willing to learn, never stop being willing to understand, and never stop considering the perspective of others.