# Games VS IDW: Elaborating on character continuity

This essay is in part a response to [arguments made on Tumblr](https://www.tumblr.com/twipsai/764083274658316288/) regarding Sonic's characterisation in IDW compared to the games. It also follows a chain that I previously added to via an essay on [Games VS IDW: Sonic's Morality #2](https://hackmd.io/@blurredblu/sonic-morality-2).

By virtue of initially being a response essay, smatterings of 'you' feature in the prose and the specific points I make are informed by what was previously argued. That being said, I also view this essay to be able to stand on its own right to some degree and, perhaps most of all, represent an earnest attempt to clarify some common misconceptions or rhetorically unsound moves that I often see used when discussing matters of canonicity and characterisation in Sonic media.

Also, it really bears saying that writing this became a passion project of its own accord. My friend weighed in on my draft with insights on Sonic's game character and we had a ball discussing the ins-and-outs of his character and the ways in which IDW differ from it.

[TOC]

# Levels of threats in IDW VS the games: Neo Metal Sonic

Discussing the differences in levels of threats that Sonic faces in IDW versus the games is interesting. I want to bring up a point on this before I address your comparisons between SATBK and Frontiers. I actually started doing a close reading of IDW from the beginning the other day, live tweeting my thoughts about it. What startled me among other things is that the entire first arc is a rehash of Sonic Heroes with the uprising and fight against Neo Metal.

Though rehashing Sonic Heroes as a first arc for a continuation to Forces is a fascinating writing decision I could comment many a thing on, one of the main differences most relevant to the current topic was that in IDW, a lot of the characters were reacting as if this were a real, big-time threat that they needed to all band together to face. I noted with some amusement that Knuckles acts deeply haunted, as if he's never lost the ME, smashed the ME with his own hands, or faced an enemy taking ahold of his ME before in the games.

Sonic's reactions in particular, though, stood out to me for how vacillating they were. For all the times he expresses apparent excitement at a fight or seeing a high power level (e.g. being bopped as a projectile into a big Eggman robot or floating armada), his attitude towards Neo Metal is terribly sarcastic and quite exasperated to an almost disparaging degree. He's honestly far, far more emotive when it comes to considering Mr. Tinker or, momentarily, second-guessing whether he should've just initially stuck with the Resistance or not after having a whole argument with Amy about him not being good with dealing with other people (a point that also seems to be a comic-exclusive, to the best of my knowledge).

I haven't yet done a close reading of the Metal Virus arc, but it seems that even the very get-go of the comics, featuring the rise and fight against Neo Metal, defuses the argument that Sonic doesn't face threats in the games like he does in IDW. What's much more certain is that, for all that the plot beats are repeated from Heroes, the characters definitely act much, much differently to how they do in the comparative games. While one could argue that there is a matter of character development to consider, that point is debatable considering how static Sonic's character traits are and in some senses how discrepancies in character are left unaddressed (Silver is much, much more soft and puppy-like in the comics than he is in the games) or a staggering amount of development is done off-screen in the comic (IDW Amy is unrecognisable—when Neo Metal/Eggman comments he hasn't accounted for how much she's grown, I would say neither has the reader at that point) despite the comic picking up from where Forces left off.

# Comparing Frontiers with SATBK

Let me now address your comparison between Frontiers and SATBK. I grant you that Sonic generally shows quite a different disposition to great hulking god-adjacent beings compared to more corporeal or harmless-seeming ones. However, I don't think there are valid parallels to draw between Merlina and Sage or King Arthur and The End in terms of evaluating the consistency of Sonic's attitudes towards others, since SATBK establishes character dynamics more effectively than Frontiers does.

Compare Sonic's first meeting with Merlina compared to his with Sage; the difference is night and day. Merlina summons Sonic and explains to him the calamity of Avalon under her grandfather's tyranny; Sonic therefore is given a narrative basis to view and treat Merlina as someone who is looking out for her kingdom. In contrast, Sonic's first meeting with Sage occurs when she materialises in front of him, being openly quite cold and telling him to leave. It makes little sense, then, that Sonic's first reaction to her appearance is asking if she's trapped, too, like how Amy is—there's nothing in front of him to suggest that Sage is in a similar or sympathetic position.

When Merlina possesses the scabbard and attacks Sonic, it is on the back of much narrative attention being paid to her motivations, her dynamic with Sonic, and Sonic's perceptions of her. With Sage? It can't reasonably be said that there is that similar or comparable level of narrative basis given. It's more so that Sonic automatically gives her the benefit of the doubt that is not narratively reinforced so much as he just feels it.

As for King Arthur and The End, I've less to say about them overall. Perhaps there's something to be said about Sonic listening to what a disembodied voice tells him to do as opposed to exercising more agency or doubt in the matter in his motivations to rescue his friends. Arguably, there is also a lack of build-up or development in dynamic between him and The End for anything meaningful to be said about them. In comparison, Sonic and King Arthur's dynamic is very strongly established to be hostile and with good reason, as Sonic is summoned to save Merlina from a horde of King Arthur's forces and Sonic's ready to throw down with him armed with a solitary chilli dog.

Generally, I would argue that Frontiers suffers from some consistent writing problems, especially in the character writing. It is just as well that the structure of Frontiers with the scattered side conversations you could optionally activate did not lend well to developing robust or convincing dynamics between many of the characters, including Sage and Sonic, for the reader to appreciate compared to the linear storytelling structure of SATBK.

# On Sonic, freedom, and oppression once more: Popper's paradox persisting

The point of Sonic, freedom, and oppression is far from an abstract, theoretical, or semantic concern for his character. It is important enough to bear reiterating.

Let me first note some preliminaries. First, Sonic's association with the Freedom Fighters is solely within the realm of the Archie comics and other American Sonic media such as SatAM, which isn't canonical or continuous to the games. Second, though the [Encyclospeedia has errors in it](https://greenyvertekins.tumblr.com/post/672228618075865088/encyclospeedia-more-like-encyclo-stupid-dia-at) [to the point that I do not personally use it as a reliable source](https://www.deviantart.com/crystalmaiden77/art/Sonic-Encyclospeedia-Errors-1033711643), it is true that Game Sonic loves freedom as an established trait in more reliable sources. All of this, however, still doesn't address my main point.

The differences between valuing freedom or fighting oppression matter because it is enough of a difference to enable or disable Popper's paradox of tolerance, *directly impacting how likable IDW Sonic is compared to Game Sonic*.

If we accept that IDW Sonic holds that he values the freedom of everyone above all else (and I fail to see how that can be controverted), then his actions are open to the charge of Popper's paradox of tolerance, i.e. that if the intolerant are tolerated in a given group or society, it will inevitably follow that the tolerant are ousted and intolerance reigns. The paradox of tolerance is only an applicable issue if Sonic holds as a precept *above all else* that he fights for *everyone's* freedom to live how they please as an ideal, allowing bad, oppressive, intolerant acts to proceed in the name of freedom.

The paradox of tolerance is an issue that has repeatedly come up as a narrative pain point for the comics and that Sonic must wrestle with, to little avail. Nothing substantially changes in the comics, Sonic's character, or IDW's narrative regarding this repeated conundrum, other than occasional moments of Sonic's increased desperation or helplessness. The paradox persists; narrative fulfilment escapes.

However, if Sonic is held to prioritise fighting *against oppression* above all else, Popper's paradox of tolerance no longer applies. Sonic's actions remain coherent *and* he is more likable in his judgement than the alternative than where he holds freedom as the ideal. Instead of letting villains go based on their potential goodness and capacities for freedom, they are handled according to what they show Sonic in the moment. This falls in line with what we see in his Game iterations and behaviours, too.

In sum, the difference between Sonic prioritising fighting against oppression and for freedom matters for his characterisation, the narratives he is in, and his resulting likability. These differing consequences follow step-by-step from which priority is the main driver of Sonic's actions. I fail to see how this doesn't apply to evaluating IDW and Game Sonic's respective characterisations, nor do I see how this is a point that can be brushed aside without some earnest rebuttal.

# On OOCness being different facets of a character

The idea that since IDW is canon material, Sonic should not be seen as a different character to his portrayal in earlier games regardless of seeming discrepancies is worth questioning.

To be clear, I do not hold the view that older, original material is superior simply by virtue of being there first. It is very normal for sprawling franchises to have adaptations and spin-offs, each with varying levels of faithfulness to the source material or even designed to deviate so as to expand the franchise's marketability and reach to different audiences.

So why, then, do I not treat IDW with the same level of acceptance?

First, there is simply the matter that I care more about Sonic, both as a character and a franchise. It is of little concern to me that I mainly enjoy Pokémon through the anime adaptations and not much through the games. Some people show their investment in a franchise by indiscriminately enjoying and patronising all its possible branches. Others are more discerning. On that matter, you could boil it down taste, timing, experience, what have you.

I have an additional and related interest in creative fiction writing, including character-driven stories and what makes for effective characterisation. I also argue for fun.

As a result, my view on Sonic's characterisation and his different media appearances are as follows:

- Sonic has a distinct, admirable identity and character established by the games
- The majority of these games are penned by Sonic Team JP, who continue to have a strong throughline of characterisation in their game scripts and adjacent official media, like their Sonic Channel short stories
- Out of all of Sonic's media appearances, I like his identity established in the games most
- I am not beholden to embrace, like, and approve of all Sonic media equally
- If there are concrete ways in which Sonic deviates too much from what the games have established, I will not enjoy that media as much
- I may also reasonably judge that Sonic is out-of-character compared to the games
- Not all Sonic media upholds his character established by the games
- There are significant times since early on in Sonic's history where Sonic Team JP's creative vision was [ignored](https://x.com/judy_totoya/status/1650421682614714370) or sidestepped in [American adaptations of Sonic media](https://blurredblu.github.io/sonicloreinfo/#/page/sonic%20the%20hedgehog%20%E2%80%93%C2%A0developer%20interview%20collection/block/do%20you%20also%20oversee%20the%20direction%20of%20%5B%5Bsonic%5D%5D%20as%20a%20character%2C%20then%3F)
- Some fans (even a considerable number of them) argue that Sonic's different, non-game portrayals are superior to or the same as the games
- I disagree with those fans' position
- My particular way of caring about Sonic's characterisation will lead me to put forward arguments in support of my disagreement

As a result of these points, based on my knowledge of and investment in Sonic's character, I find it reasonable to judge some of his media appearances as OOC to the games and not as enjoyable as a result. This may well end up in me viewing some significant portions of material as not worth considering as in-character or canonical to do with Sonic.

The one thing I can say is that I don't arrive at those judgements with any haste. I take my time to think through my likes and dislikes, whether they're based on purely my emotion, and whether there is evidence in the published material to support my views, and the effectiveness of said material in supporting or controverting my view.

## IDW's purported canonicity VS capital-C-Canon

In other words: just because Sega *says* it's canon doesn't mean it *is* canon.

[prowerprojects](https://prowerprojects.tumblr.com/post/721855956781252608/the-canonicity-of-idw) wrote a very informative reply to my post on [Games VS IDW: Sonic's Morality #1](/g32iGPDNRqeBuU29S_s-8w) regarding the announcement that IDW being canon not having material bearing on the proceedings of the games and primary canon, the bulk of which I paste here for its soundness of argument:

> Here’s what I think: nothing changed. IDW didn’t suddenly became more canon because of that livestream. I think those people misuse the word “canon” a bit, same with them proclaiming Sonic Prime “canon”. What they actually mean is that they’re “canon” as in they take the elements from the games and base themselves off them, and aren’t creating a completely new alternative universe compared to the Paramount Movies, for example, or previous comics/cartoons.
>
> [...] when you read IDW, you should assume that the events of the games had happened as they did, and 40 issues in it wouldn’t suddenly get revealed that Sonic and Tails met when Sonic saved Tails from drowning, or that Sonic was literally in the delivery room when Tails was born or something. (Same thing with Prime)
>
> However, it does not mean that the events or characterizations in idw have any bearing on those of the games. I mean, they literally don’t. Since idw takes place after Forces, and Frontiers makes references to every game under the sun, why not anything that happened in idw? Why is Tails still so hung up on Infinite, when it would make more sense for him to bring up Metal Virus (or at least bring it up in addition to Infinite), an event more resent and utterly traumatizing (my baby was catching Ls left and right).
>
> What Idw is, and will always be, is secondary canon. Canon, as long as the new game doesn’t come out and contradicts it, and as such, easily ignorable. Secondary canon is a very widespread thing, it doesn’t mean that the things that are considered secondary canon are bad, it’s just that things that are considered primary canon don’t need to take them into account. That’s all. It’s not an insult or anything.
>
> Having 60+ issues of mandatory reading is not a good idea, people aren’t gonna do it, and Sega would not take that risk. (Especially since a lot of countries don’t even get those comics published.)

In short, there are a litany of factors that lead to the official stance on IDW's canonicity being more of an appeasement of the fanbase's factions as opposed to leading to substantial changes in how fans should understand or engage with the material.

# Sonic being more anxious: questioning realism as an ideal

To address a footnote on Sonic's anxiety stemming from being tortured in the Death Egg in Forces, it is first dismissible by virtue of the torture not having happened in the first place. Sonic being tortured is a [mistranslation](https://youtu.be/q2f67UhfBfs?t=1016), a significant one insofar as Forces was originally written in Japanese then translated into English, and [Iizuka has gone on record denying that Sonic was tortured in Forces](https://youtu.be/V4Rkjyqq5XI?t=187) to boot. Arguing that Sonic's displays of anxiety in IDW stem from his recent bout of enduring torture thus holds no water.

Let us move onto the topic of relatability in characterisation. Though it would be foolhardy to say that relatable characters hold no appeal to audiences, it would be equally foolhardy to say that *only* relatable characters hold appeal to audiences. Taking the matter of anxiety—quite a relatable and realistic human emotion or state of being—if we discuss Sonic's character in terms of what is established of him in the games, it would be fair to say that giving Sonic more realistic character traits, such as anxiety, is antithetical to the type of character that he is.

Put another way, giving Sonic anxious traits or thought processes is fundamentally incongruous with what has been established in the games. The most prominent example is Sonic's love for danger; Sonic in the games finds joy in life-threatening situations. In '06, [he's inside an active volcano and remarks that it's cool that it's raining fire.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy20JQXLU7E&t=137s) In Black Knight, he [grinds over a pit of lava with delight, excited about the prospect that he might fall to his death.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWLJfnlYeCo&t=125s) In Secret Rings, [he jumps right into a cannon and shoots himself across the sky riding on a bullet because it's fun for him.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1fy14q7RCY&t=65s) None of these are normal actions or decisions because Sonic is not a normal person.

It could be argued that matters of physical prowess, danger, or injury have no bearing on Sonic's mental and emotional capacities for feeling anxiety. However, his inhuman capacities still apply to the way he addresses emotional and mental hurdles in the games. This is the main thing that separates Sonic from the rest; Sonic does not have inner conflict or problems. [As stated by Maekawa,](https://youtu.be/O1ErbV_djg8?t=390) he does not have a "weak point" or any drama surrounding him. He lives life however he wants to, unbogged by responsibility and entirely unchained to anyone or anything. Sonic is almost inhuman in his personality, behaviors, and how he lives life. The way he reacts to situations that would normally be traumatizing or terrifying to the average person speaks for itself.

The result is that Sonic is a larger-than-life, inspirational figure who positively influences the comparably more normal characters around him who have personal conflicts or insecurities. This is not to say that Sonic does not experience worry at all—on numerous occasions Sonic has expressed concern and worry for others. However, this worry is typically in the context of helping other people rather than his own problems, and the narrative focus given to Sonic's worry is minimal or nonexistent. The audience is never given insight into Sonic's thought process in order to convey that aforementioned emotional distance between Sonic and the viewer—that the thought process behind Sonic's idiosyncrasies is unknowable to average people. Compare this to how IDW often divulges Sonic's entire thought process when he's worrying or deliberating on something with the focus shifted and it gives off a distinctly less Game Sonic-like impression to the narrative.

This should not be seen as a bad thing or inferior to characters that exhibit more realistic characteristics. The knee-jerk response that realistic characters are better is a notion based off of a narrow view of what characters are generally considered to be good or appealing, perhaps conflating relatability with likability. But there is such thing, too, as liking characters because they are to be admired than related to.

A personal inclination towards certain types of characters is all well and good. It is when discussing the canonicity of how Sonic behaves when it comes to inner conflict that there is an objective answer to the question of 'is it done the same or similarly in IDW versus the games'? A personal preference for Sonic's portrayal being more realistic (and not realistic for him, even, but realistic according to human standards) holds no weight when discussing if it is in character or not; as things stand, it isn't.

# Credit where credit is due: double standards when praising writers and blaming Sega

On the topic of creative directors influencing Ian Flynn and Evan Stanley's writing for IDW, I absolutely agree that there is certainly some influence from SEGA's revisions there. Writing is a collaborative process between writers and superiors. It would be naïve to think that one individual can take sole claim of creative credit in a project like IDW.

However, taking away credit from the writers when discussing things such as their characterisation is misguided, if not untenable by the writers' own admissions. For a popular example, many people bring up how Shadow's behaviour in the Metal Virus arc was SEGA's fault and Flynn couldn't have done anything about it. However, Flynn implies on [his podcast](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OleiMSOryw4&t=991s) that he had control over Shadow's actions in Shadow's "death" scene, and that he could have chosen a different angle to tackle when handling how to write Shadow out of the story. There is also the fact that Evan Stanley has tweeted about [not liking her writing choices for Silver in the past,](https://x.com/SpiritSonic/status/1835179470686503120) indicating that characterisation is mainly her choice, not SEGA's.

Put another way, the attribution of blame on SEGA and credit to the writers makes it self-contradictory to talk about improvement in characterisation in the comic. For instance, when you bring up how the Phantom Rider arc has great characterisation compared to the rest of the comic, does that not disprove the notion that it's entirely SEGA's doing? Shouldn't we be praising SEGA for the improvement in characterisation, then? It becomes clear that the writers do have a level of creative control over how the characters are written if it is to the point that it is noticeably better in recent issues, because it implies that SEGA is lax enough for writing differences in characters to be noticed by the reader.

There is no way for us to know the intricacies of working on IDW under SEGA's revisions as a matter of certainty. What we do know is that, for IDW, each writer's inclinations are easily noticeable in how they choose to write the characters. Yes, SEGA does give certain limitations on what is allowed, but the level of blame directed towards them rather than the writers when discussing bad character writing in the comic not only lacks a logical basis, but also renders the practice of crediting choices of characterisation a muddied mess, if not outright exercising a double standard on who shoulders the blame and who receives the praise.

# Closing remarks

This essay started off as a response to a particular viewpoint on IDW Sonic and Game Sonic being continuous to one another. In some sense, that is the basic 'point' of this essay or why it exists. If it hadn't become obvious 1,000 or 2,000 words in, it has ballooned beyond just being a particular response to a particular essay. Though the original essay provides some context motivating which arguments featured in this response and which did not, it is fair to say that this whole exchange is representative of broader, much more frequent discourse about Sonic's characterisation.

Discussing what is canonical and what is not is a topic that requires discernment of different materials and their statuses, a discernment that is arguably lacking in current discussions about Sonic's character. The idea, for example, that Game Sonic values freedom above all else because he featured in the Freedom Fighters in the Archie comics is simply misinformed. But it is not hard to see where the confusion stems from when IDW, which actively promotes Sonic holding freedom as a be-all ideal, grows in popularity. It is also worth considering the context of its release; by 2018, Forces had been the latest game to be released in 2017 and was widely panned for its poor writing, especially in its English translation (not that the Japanese version offered a staggeringly more compelling story either way). If the bar is on the floor, people will trip over a threshold and be all the merrier for it.

Many people praise IDW Sonic or, barring that, view him to be continuous to the games from multiple arguments. For a litany of reasons, some of which I've hoped to show here, many of those arguments are misguided, faulty, or misinformed. The roots of those reasons are not merely to do with nostalgia factor or blind preference for medium—the roots sprawl over the analysis, deconstruction, and understanding of what literary devices and production factors contribute to an iteration of Sonic's character development and how different iterations can be compared over genres, mediums, and time. In other words, it's making an argument for what makes Sonic good, what doesn't, and why.