>>12758
>Resident Evil 7 anything like RE1 or RE4
No, but that's because RE isn't named after Chris Redfield, nor is the direction of the series directly tied to him, it's linked to the STARS force.
>Is Mega Man 11 anything like Mega Man Zero?
No because it's clearly dictated that the events of the Mega Man games, from X, to Battle Network, is either different timelines or different universes.
>Is Breath of the Wild anything like Wind Waker?
No, but it still shares similar connections throughout the Zelda methos, from WW's Deku children to the secret Master Sword location from Skyword Sword.
And Jak and Daxter was basically an example where the series ended. Like Mother, although with that example it still took place over different timelines
All of these examples miss the one key element that's different from Sonic the Hedgehog. Sonic stays congruent to the same general timeline (aka, no massive timeskips outside of Sonic CD, from a gameplay perspective, and Sonic 06 with Silver and Blaze's story elements), and also doesn't represent an ongoing narrative outside of the one time it was attempted loosely during the early/mid 2000s. Before SA1, and after 06, Sonic's stories and tones usually stayed contained within the game itself, like in LoZ e.g, where whatever happens starts in the game, and concludes in the game. There was no need to drag a previous plot point from a previous game to play the current game knowing about this. And ultimately, this can lead to an easy way to build an expectation that, as the player; could I get Sonic and co to save the day, or is their world doomed? That's the biggest contender to the argument for story telling, the act of a narrative end cancels out the original consensus of Sonic back in the 90s; Eggman is dooming the wildlife, and it's up to the player as Sonic and his friends, to stop him and save the day. If you made a game where you HAD to play the next game (aka, part 2) just to get a prelonged "conclusion" that might never really end to begin with (basically Archie and what Kingdom Hearts falls into), you have to ask yourself as the player "what is the point even playing as Sonic and co with the idea my actions can change the outcome of Eggman's demand for conquest, when that might never be answered because other subplots drives the narrative forward when it really doesn't have to."
Personally, I rather have a game with a straight forward narrative, that still makes it clear to me "unless I beat this game, Sonic and co will die" and that's all the consequence I really need to sell the idea here. When a game does something like, in Sonic 06, Sonic gets stabbed in the back by Mephilsis, I know in the back of my head "Sonic can't be dead" because this would mean Sonic 06 was meant to be the last game in the series. Figuratively in highsight aside, of course SEGA was going to continue making Sonic, so I couldn't expect anything less than that I had to revive him somehow, meaning the consequence of him even dying to begin with was pointless drama for drama sake. Unlike Shadow in SA2, where before Heroes happened, I could easily believe Shadow was going to stay dead, because his adventure has ended doing what he sought out to do after 50 years of torment over the lose of his family. Sonic, as even his character dictated in Sonic X; he's all about the journey, not the goal. He said it himself. He's not meant to end, he's meant to stay on going forward and ever, and so far, through thick and thin, he actually has been doing so thus far. And to me, this mentality can easily be down through gameplay for a game, basic yet well thought out narrative that allows me to play this game knowing I'm doing so not just because it's a video game, but there's an instinction of some kind, and for be, beating Eggman and stopping his Eggman Empire from being completed is enough for me. Just have fun interactions with the cast along the way and I would be satisfied for someone that ultimately just want more gameplay and cool, new fantasy-esque levels to play through.