The "Official" Sonic Canon???

For those who don't know, I made a topic on the SEGA of America forums regarding whether or not Sonic Chronicles was canon. Here it is: http://forums.sega.com/showthread.php?355146-Do-you-consider-Sonic-Chronicles-to-be-canon


The interesting part is when an actual Admin came in and said some interesting things regarding the entire Sonic Timeline and canon. I will put the posts in quotes below so you don't have to go looking yourself:

Spoiler:

So, your thoughts?

Considering the fact that the next few Sonic games will probably be heading towards the Sonic Colors route in terms of story, I don't think it matters. That was a very nice read though.

I think the idea of a "Sonic canon" is no longer applicable. The Sonic Canon died after Sonic Adventure 2.

Sonic Adventure 2 wrote:I think the idea of a "Sonic canon" is no longer applicable. The Sonic Canon died after Sonic Adventure 2.

So far by every single post I've seen by you, pretty much everything died after Adventure 2.

Schismatist wrote:

Sonic Adventure 2 wrote:I think the idea of a "Sonic canon" is no longer applicable. The Sonic Canon died after Sonic Adventure 2.

So far by every single post I've seen by you, pretty much everything died after Adventure 2.

I bet he thinks the franchise died after SA2 as well.

Jmh wrote:

Schismatist wrote:
So far by every single post I've seen by you, pretty much everything died after Adventure 2.

I bet he thinks the franchise died after SA2 as well.

Well you know the Sonic Fanbase, never ceases to surprise us.

Schismatist wrote:

Sonic Adventure 2 wrote:I think the idea of a "Sonic canon" is no longer applicable. The Sonic Canon died after Sonic Adventure 2.

So far by every single post I've seen by you, pretty much everything died after Adventure 2.

Not entirely true. Non-canon does not mean dead, especially when you put spinoff games into account. I know I have my theories. But let me explain this one. By the way, I was only talking of console game.

I think the Rush series could be considered canon (I forgot about those). They are greater than Sonic 4 and show the modern Sonic in a modern world (unlike Sonic 4). Plus, they are fun games made well.

The one game after SA2 that could be considered canon is Sonic 06. While it is likely a canon game, I don't want to count it as one. Reasons are that it was a horrible game which harmed the franchise. Second, from what people tell me, it was not supposed to happen in the first place. And the final reason it isn't canon is that Shadow is in it after he died in SA2.

Sonic Unleashed- no. Werehogs aren't canon. Enough said. The formula changed too drastically to even consider it a worthy Sonic game. A game on its own, it's pretty good, but I don't associate Sonic as a werehog being canon.

Storybook series isn't the main series (easy enough). Although these games look pretty cool.

Chronicles isn't a main game either.

Sonic 4: green eyed Sonic in a retro game? A giant no-no. This one kills the canon as much as Shadow's revival does. A whole slew of original Sonic games was deemed questionable because of the mixed up time frame of this game.

Any game containing Sonic and Mario together is not canon and untrue to the franchise.

Colors I've never played, but seeing how the gameplay is based off 2D/3D elements, I don't see it canon in relation to the originals and 3D games. Nonetheless, these 2D/3D games may start to become the new canon because Sonic Team seems to be concentrating on making them (Unleashed and Colors). So if there are more games in the future like Colors, I'd consider adding it to the 2010+ canon era.

Let me make a small note in saying that if it isn't a canon game, it does not mean it's a bad game. In many cases it does, but this isn't true for all. I liked Chronicles, but it just isn't canon.

So my idea of games being canon or not has only somewhat to do with my Shadow theory judging by the current games. Nonetheless, Shadow is still a determiner in many cases. If he is thrown into a canon game, IMO it is no longer canon unless that Shadow is a pronounced fake. This does not count for games in which Shadow is not in (such as Unleashed, Colors [which I'm assuming he's not in but I really don't know], Rush, or Sonic 4). Putting Shadow in a spinoff game would be fine with me, because spinoffs aren't canon.

In a nutshell, there are several reasons how I consider games canon or non-canon, not just that one Shadow theory.

Generally though, most "canon" games tend to feature Shadow today, so they are instantly non-canon in my book. Also, recent history has changed what we look for in Sonic games, so there is not a true canon.

Recent aesthetics (Shadow's death and green eyed Sonic in retro game) have destroyed the former and future games as canons. Sonic must now have green eyes or he is aesthetically nonexistent with the ol' brown eyes. That history was erased with Sonic 4.

Therefore, due to unreal events and changes, the canon's roots are gone. When you erase history, you erase the subject and therefore any Sonic game is subjective to be non-canon. This is how I define my canon. Yours could be different though.

Sonic Adventure 2 wrote:

Schismatist wrote:
So far by every single post I've seen by you, pretty much everything died after Adventure 2.

Not entirely true. Non-canon does not mean dead, especially when you put spinoff games into account. I know I have my theories. But let me explain this one. By the way, I was only talking of console game.

I think the Rush series could be considered canon (I forgot about those). They are greater than Sonic 4 and show the modern Sonic in a modern world (unlike Sonic 4). Plus, they are fun games made well.

The one game after SA2 that could be considered canon is Sonic 06. While it is likely a canon game, I don't want to count it as one. Reasons are that it was a horrible game which harmed the franchise. Second, from what people tell me, it was not supposed to happen in the first place. And the final reason it isn't canon is that Shadow is in it after he died in SA2.

Sonic Unleashed- no. Werehogs aren't canon. Enough said. The formula changed too drastically to even consider it a worthy Sonic game. A game on its own, it's pretty good, but I don't associate Sonic as a werehog being canon.

Storybook series isn't the main series (easy enough). Although these games look pretty cool.

Chronicles isn't a main game either.

Sonic 4: green eyed Sonic in a retro game? A giant no-no. This one kills the canon as much as Shadow's revival does. A whole slew of original Sonic games was deemed questionable because of the mixed up time frame of this game.

Any game containing Sonic and Mario together is not canon and untrue to the franchise.

Colors I've never played, but seeing how the gameplay is based off 2D/3D elements, I don't see it canon in relation to the originals and 3D games. Nonetheless, these 2D/3D games may start to become the new canon because Sonic Team seems to be concentrating on making them (Unleashed and Colors). So if there are more games in the future like Colors, I'd consider adding it to the 2010+ canon era.

Let me make a small note in saying that if it isn't a canon game, it does not mean it's a bad game. In many cases it does, but this isn't true for all. I liked Chronicles, but it just isn't canon.

So my idea of games being canon or not has only somewhat to do with my Shadow theory judging by the current games. Nonetheless, Shadow is still a determiner in many cases. If he is thrown into a canon game, IMO it is no longer canon unless that Shadow is a pronounced fake. This does not count for games in which Shadow is not in (such as Unleashed, Colors [which I'm assuming he's not in but I really don't know], Rush, or Sonic 4). Putting Shadow in a spinoff game would be fine with me, because spinoffs aren't canon.

In a nutshell, there are several reasons how I consider games canon or non-canon, not just that one Shadow theory.

Generally though, most "canon" games tend to feature Shadow today, so they are instantly non-canon in my book. Also, recent history has changed what we look for in Sonic games, so there is not a true canon.

Recent aesthetics (Shadow's death and green eyed Sonic in retro game) have destroyed the former and future games as canons. Sonic must now have green eyes or he is aesthetically nonexistent with the ol' brown eyes. That history was erased with Sonic 4.

Therefore, due to unreal events and changes, the canon's roots are gone. When you erase history, you erase the subject and therefore any Sonic game is subjective to be non-canon. This is how I define my canon. Yours could be different though.

Okay, so anything bad to you isn't canon, so if we mix your logic with my opinions that means Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic heroes, Shadow The Hedgehog, Sonic 06, and Sonic Unleashed never happened.

Does anyone honestly care anymore about a true Sonic canon? I mean honestly, I can see three different timelines in the franchise right now. The games have deviated so far from eachother that it's hard to tell what is the official storyline of Sonic.

I know that the Archie aren't so great, but at least they have a consistant storyline, and it's been that way for 18 years.

Think of it more as the adventures of Sonic vs Eggman as canon wise as Sega doesn't want a deep or explained continuum as Sonic 06 messed it up

NeoMetalSonic wrote:Sonic CD comes after 2 in the timeline

Dude, that's way too big of a spoiler, you might get yourself banned if you post that stuff.

Schismatist wrote:

Sonic Adventure 2 wrote:
Not entirely true. Non-canon does not mean dead, especially when you put spinoff games into account. I know I have my theories. But let me explain this one. By the way, I was only talking of console game.

I think the Rush series could be considered canon (I forgot about those). They are greater than Sonic 4 and show the modern Sonic in a modern world (unlike Sonic 4). Plus, they are fun games made well.

The one game after SA2 that could be considered canon is Sonic 06. While it is likely a canon game, I don't want to count it as one. Reasons are that it was a horrible game which harmed the franchise. Second, from what people tell me, it was not supposed to happen in the first place. And the final reason it isn't canon is that Shadow is in it after he died in SA2.

Sonic Unleashed- no. Werehogs aren't canon. Enough said. The formula changed too drastically to even consider it a worthy Sonic game. A game on its own, it's pretty good, but I don't associate Sonic as a werehog being canon.

Storybook series isn't the main series (easy enough). Although these games look pretty cool.

Chronicles isn't a main game either.

Sonic 4: green eyed Sonic in a retro game? A giant no-no. This one kills the canon as much as Shadow's revival does. A whole slew of original Sonic games was deemed questionable because of the mixed up time frame of this game.

Any game containing Sonic and Mario together is not canon and untrue to the franchise.

Colors I've never played, but seeing how the gameplay is based off 2D/3D elements, I don't see it canon in relation to the originals and 3D games. Nonetheless, these 2D/3D games may start to become the new canon because Sonic Team seems to be concentrating on making them (Unleashed and Colors). So if there are more games in the future like Colors, I'd consider adding it to the 2010+ canon era.

Let me make a small note in saying that if it isn't a canon game, it does not mean it's a bad game. In many cases it does, but this isn't true for all. I liked Chronicles, but it just isn't canon.

So my idea of games being canon or not has only somewhat to do with my Shadow theory judging by the current games. Nonetheless, Shadow is still a determiner in many cases. If he is thrown into a canon game, IMO it is no longer canon unless that Shadow is a pronounced fake. This does not count for games in which Shadow is not in (such as Unleashed, Colors [which I'm assuming he's not in but I really don't know], Rush, or Sonic 4). Putting Shadow in a spinoff game would be fine with me, because spinoffs aren't canon.

In a nutshell, there are several reasons how I consider games canon or non-canon, not just that one Shadow theory.

Generally though, most "canon" games tend to feature Shadow today, so they are instantly non-canon in my book. Also, recent history has changed what we look for in Sonic games, so there is not a true canon.

Recent aesthetics (Shadow's death and green eyed Sonic in retro game) have destroyed the former and future games as canons. Sonic must now have green eyes or he is aesthetically nonexistent with the ol' brown eyes. That history was erased with Sonic 4.

Therefore, due to unreal events and changes, the canon's roots are gone. When you erase history, you erase the subject and therefore any Sonic game is subjective to be non-canon. This is how I define my canon. Yours could be different though.

Okay, so anything bad to you isn't canon, so if we mix your logic with my opinions that means Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic heroes, Shadow The Hedgehog, Sonic 06, and Sonic Unleashed never happened.

I don't understand what you are saying...

No game accurately happened before Sonic Adventure. You can thank Sonic 4 for that.

But does the idea of a "canon" really apply here? The definition of canon is here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canon

No series is truly canon because Sega keeps changing its rules and guidelines for newer games. A canon is constant; seeing as Sonic changes, it is no longer a canon.

I agree with Sonowske 100% in terms of the games. As for the Archie series though, I've never found it consistent at all (but that's getting off-topic). Nonetheless, no true Sonic game is canon anymore.

Sonic Adventure 2 wrote:

Schismatist wrote:

Okay, so anything bad to you isn't canon, so if we mix your logic with my opinions that means Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic heroes, Shadow The Hedgehog, Sonic 06, and Sonic Unleashed never happened.

I don't understand what you are saying...

No game accurately happened before Sonic Adventure. You can thank Sonic 4 for that.

But does the idea of a "canon" really apply here? The definition of canon is here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canon

No series is truly canon because Sega keeps changing its rules and guidelines for newer games.

I agree with Sonowske 100% in terms of the games. As for the Archie series though, I've never found it consistent at all (but that's getting off-topic). Nonetheless, no true Sonic game is canon anymore.

Okay, if no game is canon then why does this matter, at all? I think it's sort of a fact that canon/timeline/(Maybe even story at times) does not matter in Sonic games.

Schismatist wrote:

Sonic Adventure 2 wrote:

I don't understand what you are saying...

No game accurately happened before Sonic Adventure. You can thank Sonic 4 for that.

But does the idea of a "canon" really apply here? The definition of canon is here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canon

No series is truly canon because Sega keeps changing its rules and guidelines for newer games.

I agree with Sonowske 100% in terms of the games. As for the Archie series though, I've never found it consistent at all (but that's getting off-topic). Nonetheless, no true Sonic game is canon anymore.

Okay, if no game is canon then why does this matter, at all? I think it's sort of a fact that canon/timeline/(Maybe even story at times) does not matter in Sonic games.

I can't disagree with that, you're correct.

The argument I'm trying to make is that Sonic Team has not made their games in a chronological timeline. Some new traits appear in old games (Sonic 4) and this is what destroys whatever canon they may have had in the first place. Also, it ruins the consistency in the series IMO. In certain series and with certain characters, a timeline does matter, and Sonic Team has failed to even acknowledge this.

Canon means if a game actually contributes to the overall storyline and timeline. In other words if it actually happened in the timeline. I also agree Sonic games aren't about the story, but they still have one (Just like Mario), as weak as they are.

Jmh wrote:Canon means if a game actually contributes to the overall storyline and timeline. In other words if it actually happened in the timeline. I also agree Sonic games aren't about the story, but they still have one (Just like Mario), as weak as they are.

That is very true. I live for good Sonic stories though.

Sonic Adventure 2 wrote:

Jmh wrote:Canon means if a game actually contributes to the overall storyline and timeline. In other words if it actually happened in the timeline. I also agree Sonic games aren't about the story, but they still have one (Just like Mario), as weak as they are.

That is very true. I live for good Sonic stories though.

Take the game Dead Space and put Sonic character's heads over the main character's heads.

Schismatist wrote:

Sonic Adventure 2 wrote:
That is very true. I live for good Sonic stories though.

Take the game Dead Space and put Sonic character's heads over the main character's heads.

I swear, I had too good of a time making this.

Schismatist wrote:

Schismatist wrote:
Take the game Dead Space and put Sonic character's heads over the main character's heads.

I swear, I had too good of a time making this.

His eyes are green though.

Jmh wrote:

Schismatist wrote:

I swear, I had too good of a time making this.

His eyes are green though.

AAAAHHHHHHH THE CONTINUITY IS RUINED I HAVE NO REASON TO LIVE!!!!11111

Schismatist wrote:

Sonic Adventure 2 wrote:
That is very true. I live for good Sonic stories though.

Take the game Dead Space and put Sonic character's heads over the main character's heads.

I don't care for games like Dead Space. It has too much unnecessary violence and blood.

The green eyes is okay so long as it is the new era Sonic and not the old, and not a game that crosses this boundary like Sonic 4.

Sonic Adventure 2 wrote:

Schismatist wrote:
Take the game Dead Space and put Sonic character's heads over the main character's heads.

I don't care for games like Dead Space. It has too much unnecessary violence and blood.

The green eyes is okay so long as it is the new era Sonic and not the old, and not a game that crosses this boundary like Sonic 4.

A change in art style doesn't have anything to do with story.

Schismatist wrote:

Sonic Adventure 2 wrote:
I don't care for games like Dead Space. It has too much unnecessary violence and blood.

The green eyes is okay so long as it is the new era Sonic and not the old, and not a game that crosses this boundary like Sonic 4.

A change in art style doesn't have anything to do with story.

I disagree here. Aesthetics do matter. A green eyed Sonic from Adventure on makes sense, but putting a green-eyed Sonic in what is supposed to be a classic game ruins the whole idea of the classic. A green eyed Sonic isn't classic.

So in certain cases, art does matter, at least in my book.

Sonic Adventure 2 wrote:

Schismatist wrote:
A change in art style doesn't have anything to do with story.

I disagree here. Aesthetics do matter. A green eyed Sonic from Adventure on makes sense, but putting a green-eyed Sonic in what is supposed to be a classic game ruins the whole idea of the classic. A green eyed Sonic isn't classic.

So in certain cases, art does matter, at least in my book.

It's the same character though.