>>535141239
>does Sonic being generic and noncomplex work or not?
A simple and "relatable" protagonist is an easy way to get the average joe on board with something because you only need a surface understanding to engage with the media. The issue is that once that's said and done, there's nothing else to grow attached to, no meat and potatoes to keep people engaged before the next flavor of the month thing comes to grab everyone's attention.
A main part of what keeps the Sonic fanbase alive outside of the memorable designs is the fact that there's more to the cast and its characters than meets the eye.
Sonic is just a cool dude that travels the world seeking a good time on the surface, but his level of shear confidence, incorruptibility, and borderline inhuman levels of nonchalance in the face of adversity, is unrelatable. It paints him both as someone that you could just run into on a hike, as well as some sort of almighty ideal to aspire to be. They're enough surface level appeal to get you hooked, but once you realize that there's something strange and esoteric to these characters that goes beyond what you spot on the surface, it gets people talking, wondering, and trying to make stories around and decipher what makes these characters so strange.

I personally feel like Shadow is actually a better example of this than Sonic, since there are seemingly tons of people that refuse to engage with the idea that Shadow is an inhuman Frankenstein's Monster-esc creature that fails to properly understand and empathize with others due to his artificial nature, with people simply writing off that nuance and replacing it with a more typical "Traumatized father" kind of vibe, where he was originally a person "just like you and me" before losing someone close and being afraid to love again.
They throw out something unique to replace it with something relatable, and they miss out on what made them special.