So while I was listening to some remixes of the Sonic 2 soundtrack, I started to wonder about how a Sonic game made with me as lead designer would be like, and the conclusion I came to was that I am 100% confident, that if I in some unlikely event ended up running the Sonic franchise, it would prosper again.

(You may ignore the following text if you don't want to know how I would make a Sonic game)

I would make it a 2D platformer combining the universes from Sonic CD and Sonic 3 and Knuckles, (The art would be similar to those games as well, so the old Sonic model would be back). Since the game series is so old, I would use tons of remade and remixed music from the 2D games including Sonic CD, as well as new music, all in modern sound quality unlike Sonic 4. I would even have Crush 40 make a new version of Sonic Boom as fanservice to newer fans.

The game would play just like the old games, but with new level design. However, I would make some changes that would be a natural evolution of the 2D games. The 3 playable characters from S3&K would be increased to 4. Sonic, Tails, Knuckles and Amy Rose using the old Amy art. Knuckles would play like the 2D knuckles, Sonic would have the insta-shield because it's more skill-based and fun than the homing attack. Tails would play as S3&K tails, in that he can fly and lift other characters with him. Amy would have the homing attack, wich would make her slightly OP, but it's balanced because she is the last character you unlock.

The Sonic and Tails concept would be evolved into what I would call a sidekick system. You choose your main character, and then you choose your sidekick, that will follow you around like Tails did in the 2D games. So you can for example play as Amy, with Knuckles as your sidekick. The sidekick will be AI controlled until whoever has controller 2 presses a button, then it will be controlled by the second controller.

The story would take place the second time Little Planet appears. Sonic and friends have gathered to watch it as a vengeful Robotnik strikes and captures them all, and Sonic is thrown into a time vortex. All of this is told in the manual or in a CG cutscene (with no dialogue) that will play if you leave the title screen unattended.

After a very brief tutorial level Sonic escapes the time vortex to find himself in an evil robotisized future version of Green Hill Zone. In every Zone, there is a past present and future, like Sonic CD, and you can make a good future in every zone by finding the hidden time stone in the Zone. Special stages earn you chaos emeralds that will make you into super Sonic if you get them all.

Tails, Amy and Knuckles appear as robotisized huge bosses after when defeated, you unlock the character you saved. Sally Acorn is a fifth bonus character that is unlocked after you complete the game 100% with all emeralds and time stones. Metal Sonic is a boss in the game.

(Sorry for the long text, I got carried away.)

Anyway. If YOU were the lead designer of a game franchise, what desicions would YOU make? Would you be heavy on fanservice, or new experiences. Be conservative with gameplay, or pursue evolution? How would YOU run one of your favourite (or least favourite) franchises?

(and would you find my idea worth playing? :D)

Firstly, I would hire Malstrom as a business development person and as representative of the market I'm selling to (old-school Nintendo fans).

Then I would make Zelda into a fast-paced, non-linear action game with no puzzles, minimal story or cutscenes and each weapon having a multitude of uses that aren't prescribed by the developer but come from the gamer (Not X item interacts with Y switch/trigger, like so many Zelda items today), and the game would start by giving you a sword immediateyly, with no 'home village' section before you get it like it OoT/WW/TP.

Essentially Zelda I in 3D with more freedom of approach and fresh level design.

--

My ideas are quite similar to yours, yet something developers can't see - a game really returning to be like the first installment would sell very well. Like NSMB for Mario.

Sounds like a Zelda I'd want to play, and then replay.

Would the Ice Arrow be in it?

Malstrom's grip on you is strong, Soleron.  I'd imagine you'd fire/demote Yakamoto and make the next Metroid on Wii 2D in the same vein as Super Metroid. :P  Give a moment Kung, I'm going to answer this thread seriously in a moment.

Take your time :)

I've noticed that ideas get way longer than expected when they're converted from thought into text.

I would make a 3D pokemon RPG for the Wii/Wii's successor.  I would make it like the handheld games, but with 3D graphics and on a home console.  I would get rid of random encounters and have HM moves separate from the move set so that they don't take up valuable move space, on the field they will be used similar to an item.  There would be no national/regional dex crap, just an empty pokedex available from the start.  I would also implement a feature similar to that found in Dragon Quest IX, where one can 'enter' a friend's game and help them (all battles in this mode will be 2 v 2).

That would be incredibly awesome. I've always wanted a 3D pokemon ever since I played Pokemon Stadium.

EDIT: I really like the part I bolded. HM's always annoyed me.

I'm going to use Socom as a prime example. If i were to be lead designer of that title - i would certainly go out of my way to hire SUKMYTURBAN as a tester to help get things done right. Socom Confrontation was such a disappointment in all fronts that I can't even believed Sony allowed /6 to produce that game and sell it. As of right now it's hard to say whether Socom 4 will live up to expectations to die hard fans of the series, as it seems Zipper is straying away too far from what made the game unique, and are just going to "oh this is popular" trend. I would certainly bring back a lot of the aspects that made Socom 2 - Combined Assault popular and liked and just improve on them as much as I could to make the fans happy. Atleast I know if I could satisfy the Socom community, then the game would have some really strong legs in the months to come.

In my books it's all about what the fans want. If you produced a game that was well received from the beginning, then there is no reason to completely overhaul the game. Let's look at Uncharted 2 as an example. It has the same shooting mechanic, melee system (although upgraded in a lot of ways) and just a lot of tweaks to help iron out platforming issues that ocurred in the first game. It's all about adding new features and improving on what you have done in the past and making it better.

Although I absolutely hate Halo as a series, many people love the game because they retained a lot of the features that made people happy and made the title a game of its own. This gen has been filled with "oh look how pretty my game is, BUY IT!" attitudes, but innovation in a lot of ways has gone completely down hill. I think developers need to start looking at what the fans want instead of just trying to turn in a quick buck.

I absolutley agree.

When you make a game, the last thing you want is old fans of the series that are dissapointed giving the game a negative word of mouth.

And fanservice always improves a company's reputation in the minds of the public. It makes for loyal customers.

Sakamoto is a good producer, he's worked on plenty of good games as part of the staff. Giving him creative control with no oversight was a mistake though.

I do have a dilemma here. Malstrom would say that a Metroid I like game would sell the most, while I actually like Metroid Prime 1 and 2 the most. So, both? A 2D game for the 3DS and a Metroid Prime 4 in the vein of 1 and 2 for the Wii. Though I accept the latter wouldn't sell well.

With the Zelda thing though, what I described is a Zelda I would want to play. I've bought all of the 3D Zeldas and finished none. Only Zelda I've finished is Zelda I.

Unlike Nintendo, I do distinguish between what would sell and what I would want to make.