Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27441478-20160601052927/@comment-679780-20160615122842

My favourate character was Scourge. Yeah he was rather cliché but thats what I liked about him.

NotLessOrEqual wrote: Mystic Monkey wrote: Well I still think they're being too harsh and in doing so making Sonic less of a relatable character. As I already said, Sega had less experience with writing and story than emphasis they usually place on gameplay, hardware/software and sales. Thats not SEGA's job. Thats why they gave it to Archie. But they're not letting Archie do it's job more efficiently, thats what I am getting at. With a long list of mandates saying what they can and can't do makes Sonic less of a person. If he can't loose, then is there any point? If he can't cry then is he a person? If Uncle Chuck died, would he rage over the loss of his uncle, or just turn away and run from the pain of losing an close and elderly freedom fighter? If Sega wants Archie to do their job in making stories for Sonic, they should let them do their job in making stories for Sonic.

Such logic would work in a video game that concentrates more on game than story and Sega should have full rights to do what they want to Sega!Sonic, but still should relinquish character rights and freedoms of Archie!Sonic to Archie Comics given he is regarded as a seperate character. Heck if Sega wanted the comics to be like the games, why not go as far as remove the Freedom Fighters? Sally Acorn was never in the games, so why won't they remove her from the comics? Sega won't of course and we all know the backlash that will cause but that only prooves the canon of Archie Sonic comics are seperate to the games.

Rather be reading Sonic the Comic. Sure Sonic is angsty and rude in them stories but he deals with loss and strife now and again that made him a better hedgehog.

NotLessOrEqual wrote: Mystic Monkey wrote: Heck before Penders legally screwed with it, it was possible to confess feelings to Amy on Sonic Chronicles. Never played the game. Dont really know anything about this.

Out of curiosity after reviewing the mandates, I wonder if SEGA even actually bothered to check what was going on in the comics back in the day when Bollers was taking the wheel with his "everyone wants to hump Sonic" thing. Where the license people went over to Archie and said "Ah, screw it, you guys know what you're doin, your ontract is renewed for the next 10 years, have fun! We aint got time for this" and things happened. The way they reacted to relationship when they found out from what Penders and Bollers did probably triggered them to some extent. Wont be seeing and relationships any time soon besides friends (Friendzone lvl 9001<).

Probably for the best I guess. If Archie even manages to breach a rule, Ken Penders wont be the one ordering the petrol to be poured, it will be SEGA, and Archie is the one getting burned and the thing Sega is taking away from them is the license.

SEGA: "Good...Thats one less loose end."

R.i.P in Peace I think the comic started out with mandates but over time Archie tried to work around the mandates. I think by then Sega accepted Archie comics knew what they weer doing due to sheer popularity of the comics and leased some mandates up, such as permitting Sonic to have parents or that story arc where he went to school for some reason or courtship with Princess Sally when she was considering marriage.

Ken Penders just made Sega more hard-nosed on the quality of the comics. I think Sega have a tight budget and all them lawsuits made them peeved. they're trying to recover Sonic's reputation but I think they're doing it in a wrong way.

Sonic isn't Superman. I don't want him to be Superman.