36 replies to this topic

[Lava89]

Hi everyone,

Below is an essay-esque article that I wrote. I plan to post it on my blog and it's in response to the negative opinion of Sonic these days. I apologize if it is kind of a long read.

Being Cool By Bashing Sonic:
A response to the bias and bandwagon mentality

A new Sonic game has been announced, and as such there are the skeptics

whose mantra is "don't get your hopes up" and the optimistic people believe it could be really good. But why is there such a divide in the first place? Why is it that when a new Mario game comes out we don't hear such comments like "they should just let Mario be put to rest". Well a little thing happened in 2005 when Sega released a spin-off called Shadow the Hedgehog, which put one of Sonic's rivals in the spotlight for a change, while selling out everything Sonic was about. In the following year, Sega also released another game in the franchise, but this time in the main roster of Sonic games, which was named after the namesake of the hero: Sonic the Hedgehog (also known as Sonic 06). Now Sonic 06 got deservingly horrible reviews. But why would people hold just two games against a character? I mean, we don't hold "Mario is Missing" against Mario when it comes to spin-offs, but it's also true that no Mario game in the main series was as broken as Sonic 06...(though I am still wondering why people don't ask for the Mario Party games killed off).

Holding one or two games against a character happens from a little something

called "Revisionist History". That is, the non-classic Sonic games that came before Sonic 06 and Shadow are now considered broken as well. Games like Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adventure 2 and Sonic Heroes. But were they all bad games? Well that is too subjective to answer, but considering that the first Sonic Adventure got a review score of 87.12% on Gamerankings, which is a website which combines many different reviews of a game into one comprehensive percent. Even sites like Gamespot gave it a 9.2, a site which also gave Mario 64 a 9.4. That's just the reviews, according to VGChartz.com, the original Sonic Adventure sold 2.42 million copies, plus 1.12 million copies when it was ported to the Gamecube. Let's look at its sequel, Sonic Adventure 2 got 83.71% on Gamerankings and an 8.6 on Gamespot, who gave Mario Sunshine an 8.0.While the second Sonic Adventure outing sold less than a million on the Dreamcast, it sold 2.49 million copies on the Gamecube port. Now for Sonic Heroes, review-wise it was a bit weaker than the other two 3D Sonic games; since on the Xbox it got 75.21%, Gamecube 74.06% and 69.18% for the PS2 version. On Gamespot, it got a "not too shabby" 7.5 for the Gamecube version. However it did also sell 5.19 million copies on all three systems. Now I won't even go about saying that these figures or review scores say that the games were good or that they were bad, that would be one's own opinion. But I think it does prove that other people regarded them as good at the time. Thus this idea that "oh the 3D Sonic games never worked in the first place" is complete rubbish, because obviously people didn't think that when the games came out. Let's not also forget that the handheld Sonic games have done well; on GameRankings the first Sonic Advance got a 83.42% and it's two sequels got 83.42% and 81.29%. The three Sonic Advance games sold, 2.24 million, 1.7 million and 1.17 million copies. Sonic Rush also got an 82.79% and sold 2.89 million copies; with its sequel selling almost half million but getting a 80.15% on Gamerankings. While these are not perfect scores or outstanding sales, they are pretty good considering the current bias attributed to these games as of late; thus the argument that Sonic's games have been regarded as bad since the Dreamcast doesn't work.

Now I would like to point out that this is more than just some Sonic fanboy

getting upset over what people said about Sonic. If someone truly didn't like Sonic that would be just someone's opinion and it would be useless responding to it because I believe they're entitled to it, but I am more responding to a recent trend of people either misinterpreting the facts or forgetting that the games actually did well. It's not that someone's opinion is a fact, but one can compare many opinions of people empirically. Now there is a list of statements I've heard quite a few people say as of late, that I would like to respond to:

""...Any new Sonic game since the Sega Genesis has sucked"

A subjective argument, but as shown by the sales figures and review scores these games were not regarded as bad when they came out. The only games did truly horrible was the Shadow spin-off and Sonic 06.

"...The Sonic games keep bringing in a bunch of new characters"

While this is true up to Sonic 06, Sega has actually been focusing more on solo-Sonic gameplay. At least with home console Sonic games, like "Sonic & the Secret Rings" and "Sonic Unleashed". Games which let you only play as one character regularly: Sonic (well actually one and a half characters in Sonic Unleashed if you count the Werehog). Yet while both of those recent games only have Sonic as the playable character, people want to repeat their mantra.

The Speed versus Platforming argument:

This argument seems pretty fickle. The initial idea was that Sonic was not as fast in the new Sonic games as he was in the old games. As such, Sega listened, and in Sonic 06 and Unleashed they made Sonic really fast. In fact, in Sonic Unleashed they made him so fast that now people are complaining that there's no room to slow down and do actual platforming, like in the...the old games. Thus there is an imbalance between careful platforming versus fast pace gaming. However there was a Sonic game that balanced the two and yet wasn't an old Sonic game, and that game was Sonic Adventure: Just play the levels like Speed Highway-- in it you run really fast on loop-de-loops but then you're required to slow down and jump across platforms-- sounds alot like the old games.

""...Sega has never found a working formula for 3D Sonic gameplay."

This is the idea that no 3D Sonic has ever worked. While that is some people's opinion, I guess millions of sales and good reviews are an illusion. I also wonder why people say that Sonic needs to go completely 2D, yet they seem to ignore the fact that Sonic Unleashed had 2D sections and the handheld games were completely 2D.

This recent bias is not only attributed to the non-classic Sonic games that predated

Shadow the Hedgehog, but also the games released after Sonic 06. A good example of this was the game Sonic Unleashed as when many of the reviews or previews for Sonic Unleashed came out by some gaming websites, the authors of the articles couldn't help but donate a paragraph of how recent Sonic games have fallen on hard times, and then they'd they actually start talking about the game. That's like spewing a whole paragraph whenever a new Mario game comes out, saying how some fans only like the 2D Mario games over any new ones. The worst part of it is that the only "hard times" they could referring to is that they believe any non-classic Sonic game has failed.

As for harsh review given to Sonic Unleashed, a good example of this was the

video review IGN did for the game; which started off by telling people to avoid the game altogether and that it was a "big piece of garbage" (that's some quality journalism right there), so much so that "pretty much every decision made in this game was the wrong decision" then the reviewer contradicts themselves and says that the daytime sections were actually very good. They just don't stop there, they even say that if the game had just the werehog sections and Sonic levels it wouldn't be that bad, but the reviewer did say that the worst part in the game are adventure stages, which aren't so bad, just really boring. So what happened to staying away from a "big piece of garbage" when, according to the reviewer himself, a good portion of it was actually pretty good and the rest was boring at worst?

IGN ended up giving Sonic Unleashed a 4.5 out of 10. Let's go back two years to

when Sonic 06 was reviewed by IGN, for gameplay the reviewer said this about Sonic 06:

"A mixture of camera and control problems, not to mention lackluster missions and faulty level design, detonate all the fun."

What was the reviewer's overall score for Sonic 06? They gave it 4.8, which was

higher than Sonic Unleashed's 4.5. For Sonic Unleashed's gameplay the reviewer said this:

"The daytime levels aren't without fault, but are a lot of fun. Unfortunately, the rest of the game is horrendous."

So some of it is fun...and the rest is horrendous...and if you read the review when

they say "horrendous" they mean only that the bad parts are tedious and boring. Sonic Unleashed's levels are split about 50/50 between normal Sonic and Werehog levels, and so according to the IGN reviewer half of the levels are actually fun?? I'd take 50% of fun and 50% of boring-- over a game like Sonic 06, that is completely broken and glitchy, so much so you can't even complete a level. But I guess with Sonic a game with some fun and boring levels is worse than a game with glitchy and broken levels. In that same review, Sonic Unleashed's graphics got some unneeded flack. The reviewer gave the graphics portion a 6.5, saying:

"The daytime levels look great, but the other two-thirds suffer considerable framerate issues."

As for Sonic 06? It got a 6.5 in graphics too, the reviewer said this:

"Decent character animation and textures, but the environments could benefit from more attention."

So some frame rate issues in one game automatically equals lack of artistry in

another? I can agree with the Sonic 06 reviewer, the graphics were pretty bad in the game; if you play it you can see Sonic move very stiffly, and the environments could've used more style. I mean they do meet the next-gen requirements for graphics; like models with more polygons and higher resolution for textures, but that's about it. All you have to do is compare pictures, or even better yet videos, and I believe one would agree with me that there is a clear improvement in the graphics of Sonic Unleashed. The games are also in the same generation, so it is a fair comparison. Not to say that graphics should be a focus, but it is a very good example of how much bias Sonic Unleashed seemed to have gotten.Now mind you, I would not be able to say that Sonic Unleashed was reviewed unfairly if I did not compare it to Sonic 06 and show that it should be considered superior to its predecessor by just the reviewers' words alone. Just like how I would not be able to correlate a reviewer's opinion to how the Dreamcast Sonic games were regarded if I did not compare similar games that were considered good during the same time; in which I used the 3D Mario games of the time as my example.

Anyhow, I'm not here to whip the dead horse to repeat over and over that Sonic 06

was a bad game, in fact I'm trying to do just the opposite. My point is that it just seems when the post-classic-Sonic games first came out people graded them honestly, but now it seems that people want to follow the trend to very haphazardly sign the games off as worthless. I admit, Sonic Unleashed isn't perfect, but to say that it is equal to, or even worse than Sonic 06 is ridiculous, and all one would have to do is to play both games to see that Unleashed is greatly superior, even in just strict terms of glitches and stability. I am also not here to bash IGN, but their very immature response to Sonic Unleashed was an overkill and needs to be pointed out as just one example of the recent and exaggerated criticism.

One would wish that some people could look past Sonic 06 and see that Sega

made a vastly improved game in Unleashed, but that's not a very convenient thing to do. Not only is it a lot safer for reviewers to give newer Sonic games flack, it's also very easy for Sonic to be the butt of many jokes. Such sites like Industry Gamers, that you expect to be professional, had an article about Sega fixing Sonic (which is a perfectly legitimate article), but below a screen from Sonic Unleashed it had the caption "Nothing to see here folks... just another mediocre 3-D Sonic title". Another website, Kotaku, claimed in an otherwise-interesting article that if the Dreamcast did succeed that the Sonic games would still suck. However, this was done in humor, to which I have no absolutely no problem with, as I appreciate humor if it's clean, original and done in good taste. So instead of me telling people to not make fun of Sonic for the sake of my fanboyness, I plead with them that if they're going to make fun of something? Make it fresh and original. The tired joke of "Sonic had some sucky 3D games" is getting old, especially since that opinion greatly contradicts the initial reception that the Dreamcast Sonic games got when they came out. Even jokes can be smart and constructed cleverly. So being that the first truly "broken", non-spin-off Sonic game was Sonic 06, it all shows that there's a bandwagon mentality-- in that it's been very cool recently to bash Sonic.

Edited by Lava89, 14 September 2009 - 04:17 PM.

[Tornado]

Not to belittle your essay, because it looks like you put a lot of thought into it; but you are essentially flogging a horse so dead that it ended up putting the forums on lockdown for a spell pre-crash due to the flame war it ended up causing (the obvious irony being that I'm responding to it). You aren't really saying anything everyone doesn't already know, and you have some incorrect information spread throughout as well. Everyone knows IGN is full of shit, but no one in the fanbase can actually agree on whether Unleashed was actually any good regardless.

Edited by Tornado, 14 September 2009 - 05:55 PM.

[Icecoldfrieza]

Its refreshing to see someone defending Sonic nowadays. I agree that one questionable spinoff and one lousy main series game are not enough to justify the countless articles bashing Sonic.

The editors of several gaming sites flat-out never liked Sonic to begin with. IGN stated this directly in one of their articles a few months ago, in which they suggested that the quality of the Genesis/Megadrive Sonic titles was an "illusion." In addition, 1up.com gave the Virtual Console version Sonic 3 a thumbs down. And yes, Sonic Unleashed was not perfect, but a 4.5? The games are simply not getting fair and honest reviews, and I'm glad more people are recognizing that.

There is definitely bias against Sonic in the gaming media. Is it because the majority of them are hardcore Mario fans who never liked Sonic? That I cannot answer, but to say there is absolutely no bias is just plain ignorant. Yes, this argument may be old, but I feel that it should continue as long as Sonic is being treated the way he is by the gaming media. Anyway, good article.

Edited by Icecoldfrieza, 14 September 2009 - 11:26 PM.

[Ice King]

I'll be brief here and say that I think the comparisons to Mario are incredibly faulty in your context...

Mario is Missing was a licensed edutainment game- The Mario fanbase freely admits it and other games of its ilk are horrible, and actually laugh at these games. They're in that "So bad it's good" category of crappy licensed products from Mario's early history, and they never were mainstream enough to detract from the consistently-good quality games the series is known for.

It's a lot harder to view Shadow or 2K6 in this light. These were not forgettable little hiccups of questionable quality in the Sonic franchise's run- These were both promoted as big mainstream adventures, and even now their effect on the series has shown a markedly darker tone that puts many fans of the lighter Sonic of old off.

I'm not trying to instigate a Mario vs. Sonic war. I like both franchises, but to call the Mario franchise's vastly more positive reception "unfair" is kind of silly, since I think the Mario series does consistently offer games of high quality, from both a gameplay and plot perspective. For the Sonic series, even as a fan, I cannot truthfully say the same thing.

And that's not me "being cool", that's me being honest, expressing my own personal stance on the matter.

Edited by Dr. Mechano, 14 September 2009 - 11:42 PM.

[Frieza]

The fact remains that Sega are exploiting Sonic to get as much money as possible and in recent times cared less about the quality of the games, which is why they release games in beta stage like 2006, I don't know how Sonic Dark Chronicles passed quality control, the music in that game was cringeworthy and Bioware developed it lol.

[batson]

The notion that the Adventure games weren't that good is bad enough, but what REALLY pisses me of is this very recently ignited, slowly growing trend to consider that not even the Mega Drive games were that good. I mean, what the fuck? They got AMAZING reviews back in the day and have ever since been almost universally considred to be among the video game mediums biggest classics. And now all of a sudden people are going "but you know, maybe they weren't that hot to begin with". Fucking unbelievable.

Edited by batson, 15 September 2009 - 12:00 AM.

[Remz]

For starts, sites like IGN and Gamespot are terrible places to source reviews, and VGChartz's numbers are wrong, so you might as well invent your own sales figures... these figures ulitmately mean nothing, as I could source review numbers from other places that give the complete opposite impression (Didn't Play magazine give Sonic 06 a 9 or something similar?) but whatever.

No matter which way you slice it, Sonic has a bad rep at the moment. I don't think 'being cool' has much to do with it at all- perhaps in the community but outside of that reviewers have no one to impress but their readers. SEGA's tiresome habit of churning out games year after year and fixing none of their problems while consistently adding more and more with every release has caused a pit of negative review scores from frustrated reviewers. Unleashed’s scores are a curious occurrence, the game’s quality is up in the air, yes but I don’t think it’s a bad game by any stretch and I think this is more to do with reviewers being fed up at being “forced” to play the Werehog sections than anything else (and in the case of IGN, being complete asswipes).



As for the Mario/Sonic comparison Mario’s last 3 main releases have been hailed as classics, and rightfully so. Sonic on the other hand, not so much. I don’t think anyone would complain to having more Mario Galaxy in the world and if SEGA managed to make a Sonic game that great, then you’d be seeing positive numbers all around. Sonic is only being bashed because his releases have been stagnant and crappy. The last “great” game was like when 2001? 8 Years of mediocre to terrible releases will ruin any franchise.



Hopefully Needlemouse will revitalize shit.



As for this topic: it’ll stay open for now, but if it reaches the rage fuelled shit slinging contests of topic’s past she’ll be lockered.

[Dr. Good Girl]

And plus a lot of game review sites just tell gamers what they want to hear. Here's a bit of info about Sonic being purely business and money driven: http://www.gamepro.c...en-sonic-sucks/

It's sad how he was so great back in the day. Now these days he has begun showing himself that he is not even a worthy opponent for Mario. Although many people say Sonic is a worthy competitor, it's just too late for that now. Sonic's gone down the different road. Maybe someday in the future... when his games are made with the heart.

[Lava89]

Not to belittle your essay, because it looks like you put a lot of thought into it; but you are essentially flogging a horse so dead that it ended up putting the forums on lockdown for a spell pre-crash due to the flame war it ended up causing (the obvious irony being that I'm responding to it). You aren't really saying anything everyone doesn't already know, and you have some incorrect information spread throughout as well. Everyone knows IGN is full of shit, but no one in the fanbase can actually agree on whether Unleashed was actually any good regardless.

Hey no problem, I don't feel belittled. As for Unleashed, true, I'd never make a subjective argument that it was good game or that the fanbase liked it. My point is just that, while not a perfect game, is not bad as Sonic 06 and certainly not worse than it. And then you said I had incorrect info throughout? I'd be curious as to what this is, so I can improve my article. Thanks!

Its refreshing to see someone defending Sonic nowadays. I agree that one questionable spinoff and one lousy main series game are not enough to justify the countless articles bashing Sonic.

The editors of several gaming sites flat-out never liked Sonic to begin with. IGN stated this directly in one of their articles a few months ago, in which they suggested that the quality of the Genesis/Megadrive Sonic titles was an "illusion." In addition, 1up.com gave the Virtual Console version Sonic 3 a thumbs down. And yes, Sonic Unleashed was not perfect, but a 4.5? The games are simply not getting fair and honest reviews, and I'm glad more people are recognizing that.

There is definitely bias against Sonic in the gaming media. Is it because the majority of them are hardcore Mario fans who never liked Sonic? That I cannot answer, but to say there is absolutely no bias is just plain ignorant. Yes, this argument may be old, but I feel that it should continue as long as Sonic is being treated the way he is by the gaming media. Anyway, good article.

Thanks man! I appreciate your support of my article. And wow, that is shocking about saying the old games' quality was an illusion. That to me, is going too far.

I'll be brief here and say that I think the comparisons to Mario are incredibly faulty in your context...

Mario is Missing was a licensed edutainment game- The Mario fanbase freely admits it and other games of its ilk are horrible, and actually laugh at these games. They're in that "So bad it's good" category of crappy licensed products from Mario's early history, and they never were mainstream enough to detract from the consistently-good quality games the series is known for.

It's a lot harder to view Shadow or 2K6 in this light. These were not forgettable little hiccups of questionable quality in the Sonic franchise's run- These were both promoted as big mainstream adventures, and even now their effect on the series has shown a markedly darker tone that puts many fans of the lighter Sonic of old off.

I'm not trying to instigate a Mario vs. Sonic war. I like both franchises, but to call the Mario franchise's vastly more positive reception "unfair" is kind of silly, since I think the Mario series does consistently offer games of high quality, from both a gameplay and plot perspective. For the Sonic series, even as a fan, I cannot truthfully say the same thing.

And that's not me "being cool", that's me being honest, expressing my own personal stance on the matter.

No, I never would say that Mario deserves criticism, in fact I made sure I stayed away from some such arguments. To which I said "but it's also true that no Mario game in the main series was as broken as Sonic 06". In my introduction I merely used the notion about people saying that "Mario should be put to rest" to show that not every game franchise has half the people already skeptical of it before it comes out. And then I used the fact that it's really one spin-off and main title game that's the problem and that Sonic has had a good run with his newer games before Shadow the Hedgehog, like SA1, SA2, Heroes and the handhelds. Just like how it would be like if we held one or two games against Mario, because people would know that he has good titles other than that. But with revisionist history people hold even the games that were considered good against Sonic, it seems anyways.

Yeah I wouldn't ever accuse you of trying to be cool nor instigating a Mario vs Sonic battle. I admit I'm partial to Sonic and only really started getting into Mario games around the time Sunshine came out, but I'd stick up for Mario anyday when it comes to threatening platformers. Which is another issue I see, platformers are really a dying genre and I think it's sad to see many either die off or lose their quality. I still see Mario and Sonic as the last of their kind really.

And as for being cool? It's not so much that if people just honestly don't like Sonic, everyone has an opinion. But it's when gaming sites hit below the belt, and not just in their own way, they all do it in a very generic fashion. I mean, as much as Sonic 06 sucked, did Sonic Unleashed really need a whole paragraph dedicated to reminding people how much they think Sonic has sucked lately? I can take bias, we all have it, just not bias squared, haha.

Thank you for your honest opinion.

The fact remains that Sega are exploiting Sonic to get as much money as possible and in recent times cared less about the quality of the games, which is why they release games in beta stage like 2006, I don't know how Sonic Dark Chronicles passed quality control, the music in that game was cringeworthy and Bioware developed it lol.

I do agree with you about that when it comes to Sonic 06. But is it evident that Sega is trying to fix the mistake of Sonic 06?

The notion that the Adventure games weren't that good is bad enough, but what REALLY pisses me of is this very recently ignited, slowly growing trend to consider that not even the Mega Drive games were that good. I mean, what the fuck? They got AMAZING reviews back in the day and have ever since been almost universally considred to be among the video game mediums biggest classics. And now all of a sudden people are going "but you know, maybe they weren't that hot to begin with". Fucking unbelievable.

Yeah, that's what it's starting to sound like. As I said before, it's shocking. I remember the Sonic heyday, I was a child of the 90's, they had a Sonic baloon in the Thanksgiving parade for crying out loud. I really don't see the point of it. Go ahead and bash the new games, I'm used to it, but leave the classics alone, haha. I also believe lately that the Genesis doesn't get the credit it deserves, I mean I'll let SNES fans believe that the SNES won the console war, but the Genesis still deserves credit that it brought the gaming giant, Nintendo to be at least equal with them for a long period of time by sheer marketing alone.

Thanks for the reply!

For starts, sites like IGN and Gamespot are terrible places to source reviews, and VGChartz's numbers are wrong, so you might as well invent your own sales figures... these figures ulitmately mean nothing, as I could source review numbers from other places that give the complete opposite impression (Didn't Play magazine give Sonic 06 a 9 or something similar?) but whatever.

No matter which way you slice it, Sonic has a bad rep at the moment. I don't think 'being cool' has much to do with it at all- perhaps in the community but outside of that reviewers have no one to impress but their readers. SEGA's tiresome habit of churning out games year after year and fixing none of their problems while consistently adding more and more with every release has caused a pit of negative review scores from frustrated reviewers. Unleashed’s scores are a curious occurrence, the game’s quality is up in the air, yes but I don’t think it’s a bad game by any stretch and I think this is more to do with reviewers being fed up at being “forced” to play the Werehog sections than anything else (and in the case of IGN, being complete asswipes).

As for the Mario/Sonic comparison Mario’s last 3 main releases have been hailed as classics, and rightfully so. Sonic on the other hand, not so much. I don’t think anyone would complain to having more Mario Galaxy in the world and if SEGA managed to make a Sonic game that great, then you’d be seeing positive numbers all around. Sonic is only being bashed because his releases have been stagnant and crappy. The last “great” game was like when 2001? 8 Years of mediocre to terrible releases will ruin any franchise.

Well if you have a better source than VGChartz please let me know, and proof that it is wrong. At this point it's the best I got. I also got most of the reviews from Gamerankings, which compiled all of the reviews into one percentage and just used Gamespot as an example. But that's why I used the Mario games as a reference so you could say how they usually graded games, I couldn't use any review and take their word if I did not show they regarded other games that were considered good games as well.

As for Unleashed? The problem I have with alot of the reviews of it is that they complain about the Werehog being boring and a drag, yet why do they rate it lower than an actually broken game? So broken it's tough as nails to even really play it? I don't get it...I mean did Sonic 06 have some enduring aspect that gave it that better score?

Thank you for your feedback!

Edited by Lava89, 15 September 2009 - 05:18 AM.

[Tweaker]

One thing I never understood are people who have thousands of posts on Sonic message boards, who consistently play Sonic games, talk about the character and its games all the time... and then berate other people for having not "moved on" yet. I mean, seriously? It's like there's some sort of ongoing bandwagon hate against the character even from its own fans... and for what reason, exactly? Because it's embarrassing? Nobody gives a fuck about embarrassing--you like what you like, and if you're a smart person you can easily justify why you like it without having to worry about everyone else's baseless mob mentality bandwagon hate.

I don't know, I just get irritated to no end by people who go around spouting that being a Sonic fan is stupid and go around saying that if the next game sucks that they're "giving up on Sonic"... a concept that doesn't exist because you obviously still play the old games and enjoyed them for a reason. It's like hypocritical bullshit on its most ridiculous level and I can't believe it's still going on. It makes absolutely no sense.

People are entitled to like whatever they damn well please. I can't think of a single person who has bashed the franchise in this manner who has actually been able to sensibly justify it. It's frustrating beyond belief.

[Sean]

So basically I have to enjoy every Sonic game to consider myself a fan.

[CapnCloudchaser]

If the 'fans' didn't offer vocal criticism of what we didn't like, then Sega would keep making the same mistakes again, and the vocal minority (The 'hardcore' gamers) would blast the game to Hell as a rubbish one, as what has happened for quite some time now.

But then the hardcore gamers aren't afraid to scream and shout about what they hate, so who do Sega listen to? The fans that blindly take in everything Sonic related because to be a real fan means liking every aspect to it, even when there is bad game design?

Edited by CapnCloudchaser, 15 September 2009 - 10:08 AM.

[Tweaker]

I said it's not okay to bash any part of the sonic game genre, because then you're not a fan.

This makes even less sense. Being a fan of a franchise does not entail invariably liking every game ever released with Sonic in the title; it means you, as a person, like and enjoy the franchise either based on what you've played or your own personal preferences of what you've played. There's no rule--written or otherwise--that dictates that you're not allowed to dislike or even actively despise a part of the franchise, especially considering the wide variety in quality that has been made available in the Sonic series specifically.

I mean, for fucks sake, that's like saying that you can't be a fan of the Mario series if you dislike and bash Hotel Mario--a fundamentally horrible game in more than one way. There's literally no logic or reasoning behind that.

[Roarz]

The furry fandom has basically the same issue at the moment, it's cool for furries to go around talking about how sucky furs are. It's loving something but trying to openly display that you don't love it to unhealthy obsession. That and a bit of insecurity for good measure. People need to just relax and accept others views of the games etc instead of going straight on the defensive. Never mind trying to define what a fan is and isn't, just shut up altogether about it XP. Yawn and so forth.

Also Tweaker you're killing me with these adorable Goku avatars XP.

Edited by Roarz, 15 September 2009 - 10:34 AM.

[Tweaker]

Ok, so if you've played sonic 1 and 2 and only like those and proclaim yourself a fan and hate every other sonic game out there currently that still makes you a fan of the sonic game series? And i mean every single one.

Yes. There are aspects of the series that appeal to you; ergo, you are a fan. You could probably narrow the definition and say "fan of Sonic 1 & 2," but in the end you're still a fan of Sonic the Hedgehog, despite in what capacity.

I also mentioned bashing the majority of what sonic games are now, and how that doesn't really make you a fan but hey lets nick pick at just one sentence forget the entire statement.

You failed to adequately justify exactly how it doesn't make those people fans based on solid reasoning, so I saw absolutely no reason to reply to--or even acknowledge--that particular part of your post.

It's always the same people too, i've been on this site for years, i dunno how my account got erased, but the same people are still bashing sonic games and calling themselves fans of sonic games. They can't possibly be fans longer than i have since i got sonic 1 in 1991.

What's your point? That because you've had Sonic 1 since 1991 and you've never spoke out against a Sonic game that you're "more of a fan"? What kind of bollocks is that? There's no varying degree to which you can be a fan based on factors like that; it has more to do to which extent you indulge yourself into the series. Having owned a game longer than someone else is not a factor that can determine the extent to which you enjoy the series... not like any of that should actually matter, anyway.

Is it really necessary to call someone else more of a fan than another just because i never bashed a single sonic game? Yes sonic 2k6 had alot of glitches and is probably the worst game in the series, but do i go flaunting around like a idiot on steroids spamming it like the sin child of sega? nope, and i don't think any fan should either.

So because someone doesn't fill your subjective standards of a "fan," they aren't one? That's a load of shit. People are free to express their opinions on what they play as they please; the degree to which they decide to criticize games that they don't like has absolutely no bearing on the extent to which they enjoy games that they do like.

If someone doesn't like a game, that's their prerogative. You do not define what makes a fan and what does not--they do.

Do i like the game? yes i enjoy it out of the sheer fact that it's a sonic game. I stick with the series through the good or the bad. But i don't hate.

So you enjoy Sonic games regardless of whether or not they're good... just because they're Sonic games?

There are serious issues with that line of reasoning. It's like you'd enjoy a pile of shit if it was shaped like Sonic and endorsed by SEGA. Sonic being on the cover does not make it a good game, nor give valid reasoning through which someone should invariably like the game. To even suggest that is completely ridiculous.

It's like giving a critique in Art. There is a difference in a valid critique and totally bashing every single aspect about the peice of art.

If there is valid critique against every single aspect of that piece of art, then the critique is no less valid than it would be if only a single thing was wrong with it.

Things should be judged objective for what they are; Sonic being on the label should not affect that other than it being used as a frame of reference to judge various aspects of the game based on your own preferences.

If that didn't dumb it down enough for you then well, for "fucks sake" indeed.

The mere fact that you thought you had to "dumb down" anything for me is laughable enough. In fact, I think your clarification might have been more contrived and nonsensical.

Also Tweaker you're killing me with these adorable Goku avatars XP.

^___________^

[Tweaker]

And here we go.

What?

A fan doesn't hate most of what they're supposed to be a fan of. It's like a man telling his wife he loves her and then beats her or like being in a marriage and not in love with her anymore.

Well, let's define "fan":

1 : an enthusiastic devotee (as of a sport or a performing art) usually as a spectator
2 : an ardent admirer or enthusiast (as of a celebrity or a pursuit) <science-fiction fans>

So... we can group these together reasonably as someone who is enthusiastic or otherwise devoted to supporting something. Great!

Where in that does it say anything about having to invariably prefer a majority of products or services or whatever else output by that particular object of interest? I could be an adamant advocate of the Sonic series as a whole after having enjoyed Sonic 1 & 2; the allure of the two games drew me into the series and led me to enjoy its merchandise, keep up with news about the franchise, post on their message boards... sure, I may not enjoy a majority of the newer games, but I'm a fan of the series based on what I have enjoyed.

You could reasonably argue that one could objectively be "more" of a fan by the extent to which they enjoy the series, but it hardly has anything to do with the number of games you like featuring the Sonic branding.

Yes, fine, y'know hate a game or two. whatever. hate every single game after genesis or dreamcast and proclaim that every game afterwards will SUCK is not fandom in any way.

How is it any less fandom? By all means, the format of Sonic games--design, gameplay, et al--has changed drastically throughout that time period. You're trying to argue that because someone doesn't invariably like every single incarnation of Sonic gameplay that they "can't be fans"; this does not logically make sense, as you're trying to define a fan by little more than the quantity of games they've either played or enjoyed. What's the correlation? You've failed to establish one that actually makes sense.

I-I can't explain that anymore to you. Anything further from this will just keep us going in circles.

I imagine it's hard to explain something that doesn't make sense, yes.

Oh and a valid art critique is giving out suggestions based on the principals of art and design and so on and pointing out certain weaknesses. It doesn't matter if it's one or two things, you're not bashing the artwork. Looking at and saying "Holy F**** that's a peice of crap" please don't try to pass that off as a critique. That's a reaction.

I don't recall defining critique as a blanket statement calling something a piece of crap. You can very easily objectively critique... say, Sonic 06 as a game that is inherently flawed based on principles of art, principles of game design, and even principles of a Sonic game; on the other hand, you could probably just as easily advocate it using the same standards. It's about interpretation, which is the entire point of discerning between subjective and objective viewpoints.

Okay, so i took another read and you just took every thing i said and made it like each part you quoted was it's own statement, and not part of a bigger statement altogether.

I'm dissecting your statement point by point and debunking it. How is this any different from quoting a gigantic wall of text and separating what I say paragraph by paragraph?

Edited by Tweaker, 15 September 2009 - 12:25 PM.