Board Thread:Speculation, Theories, and Rumors./@comment-6362372-20131024111232/@comment-24252369-20131211194009

Myself 123 wrote: The Simpsons point isn't invalid. The Simpsons have had several Christmas episodes, one in particular actually ends up spanning an entire year, yet all the characters remained the same age. Episodes set in the past change time periods; The first Simpsons episode that I'm aware of that showed Homer and Marge as teenagers was set in the 70s, the most recent episode (that I'm aware of) to do that was set in the 90s. The point still stands, if The Simpsons do not age, then why should Sonic characters age?

If Sonic characters actually aged, then eventually Sonic would end up being 50 and who'd want to play as Sonic as a middle-aged man? Lots of people probably, but you see my point. I'm not saying the charactes' ages should literally increase with the release of every game; I am saying that it would make sense to occasionally make alterations to the characters' ages to compensate for their characteristics.

But the main issue here is not quite that. I don't think all characters should gain age; instead I think that some of their ages should be altered to match up with their characteristics. For example, Sonic's age is 15. This suits his character and seems reasonable. Same with Knuckles being 16. For some other characters though (in this case Tails), we have an issue of them being too young for the way they act. If Tails' age were to be changed to 12 or 13, (while keeping Sonic's age the same), his age would match up with his personalltiy much, much better.

My point has changed sightly, but I have now come to realize that the issue here is not whether or not the characters should age with the games, but how old they are in comparision with their behavior.