George and I knew there would be a lot of shit flung about over Bayonetta 2 being allowed in the favorite SEGA games of 2014 article, and while we did urge writers to try all of SEGA's offerings before making their decision (rather than ignoring most of 2014's titles and picking the only game they played), in the end Bayonetta 2 was some of the writer's picks.
I hate the whole "what's a SEGA game?" discussion, because it can get so messy and murky. Is ToeJam & Earl or Ecco SEGA games? What about Seaman? Where is there a line drawn? I'm against whittling it so far down that it only applies to original IPs developed in-house. Even worse when if gets into the "SEGA DNA" discussion.
In the case of what we cover here, what the wiki covers, and what we report on it comes down to if SEGA is involved in any capacity, it's fair game. In the case of Bayonetta 2, true it is more removed from being a "SEGA game" than Isolation or Miku, but given SEGA's name is on the box and they own the IP and had an "advisory" role that makes it a fair choice. Of course, it should still be noted by those who chose the game that it is a Platinum developed game, largely paid for by Nintendo, using an IP owned by SEGA. Even if it falls under the SEGA umbrella, credit should be given to the developer Platinum with at least a mention.
Now in regards to titles like Child of Eden, Crimson Dragon, and Rodea those do get a little coverage on the front page thanks to the talent involved, but of course none have ever been eligible because just because a former SEGA staffer made it, does not make it a SEGA game. So if there is a line to be drawn, that's it.
"We can pretend it's made by Sega if it's a good game!"
There is no pretending, as I laid out above, and even if it were a shitty game, it would still fall under the SEGA umbrella. Though, given it is our FAVORITE games of the year, of course you aren't going to see the bad titles get a mention.
