Jump to content


TSS Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Regulus

  1. You've maybe made too many assumptions about members in this post, but this is on the money! I think we all need to remember that Sonic is a light hearted kids game, a good game out of many good games. It sucks that Sonic is the victim of mockery and misinformation on the internet, it sucks that after a promising return to form he has fallen into mediocrity and it sucks that SEGA's future looks bleak. That said, I think people really need to examine their priorities, if this upsets you so much. I really think you need to get out more and experience new games, music, film and tv. Sonic is just one good media product in a sea of good media products.
  2. So, uh, yeah. Anyway I like the core gameplay of Sonic Runners, even if the marketing and microtransaction element killed it for me.
  3. I don't know enough about SEGA politics to discuss appointing new Sonic Team heads. But with this, Honestly most consumers like Sonic Generations. It has good Metacritic scores for example, same with Colours. Its only on overly obsessive fansites and communities where Generations in particular gets a lot of criticism for really minor reasons Not saying that Colours and Generations are perfect by any means, but they are solid titles.
  4. Weren't Colours and Generations published under Iizuka? I'd say Iizuka did pretty good there.
  5. Yeah but its not as widely known as Zelda, which is one of the faces of Nintendo, and I don't think its a kids game. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind a gay Link, I just think it is implausible that Nintendo would ever consider that.
  6. In regards to the potential for a LGBT Link, let's be honest, it's unrealistic. Zelda is a kids game and can you imagine how conservative parents and news media would react? It isn't about gamers not being progressive, it's about being realistic. I think a female Link is perfectly possible. They could literally just make a male character romance crop up if you play as femlink, kind of like what rpgs like KOTOR did with Bastila and Carth.
  7. Sonic 3D Flickies Island, what an introduction The first real Sonic game was Sonic 1
  8. I'm not bothered about ban details being undisclosed, but why do we have to be secretive and shifty about it. Take this for an example, why do we have to refer to Mr Taxi as 'a member' or 'that member' e.t.c. It's like at work and someone gets fired and you aren't allowed to mention them again, it's unpleasant Sure, we shouldn't be telling mods what to do and e.t.c, but why can't people just say Mr Taxi got banned. We all know he did, and we all know his banning is what started this thread. But for some reason it's like Voldemort, he who must not be named
  9. I'm going to do a PhD in the summer so that means I'm the brainest person here, right guys Anyway, I'm very much against this idea that art is entirely subjective. Aspects of art is subjective, but the technical aspect is very tangible.
  10. Can't say I'm in support of a Dislike function. It just seems to have all the negative aspects of the Like function without any of the positive sides.
  11. Since Sonic 3 and Knuckles is, in my opinion, a tad popular, I thought it would be fun to look at where the game made some mistakes. Don't get me wrong, I think the game is a masterpiece and the best Sonic game ever made. That said, I would like to explore where the game made some misfires. So I'll list some reasons I think the game makes mistakes: The levels can sometimes be too long for their own good and needlessly convoluted. People often point to Sandopolis 2, which is a terrible level. I didn't particularly like Marble Garden either though for similar reasons. Whilst Blue Sphere is a better Special Stage than its predecessors, I still think it is pretty boring in its own right. I'd like to have seen the actual core gameplay somehow serve as the concept of the Special Stages. I think some of the level concepts are a bit more generic than Sonic 2. Lava Reef (fire level), Ice Cap (snow level), Sandopolis (sand level) compared to Oil Ocean, Wing Fortress or Casino Night from Sonic 2 for example. Of course Sonic 3AK has some really unique levels, but I think Sonic 2 has a more unique setlist in whole. I think the sprite art in Sonic 2 was a bight cleaner and nicer on the eyes than Sonic 3's. Sometimes the Sonic 3AK levels and characters can look a bit too cluttered for me. List your own examples
  12. I mean, I actually think the likes system is pretty cool. It separates this forum from other forums and I don't want to see it go. I just think that it creates an atmosphere where people are too busy trying to get likes rather than discuss, which can be a bit unfortunate. It also doesn't help with the whole atmosphere problem
  13. Sonic 4 isn't even that insulting. It's just a poorly made and artistically bankrupt version of Sonic 1 and 2 (with the exception of certain aspects of Episode 2). I would say that it's not a good Classic Sonic game, mostly because it just isn't very good, but it's actually a lot better than the games that came before it in my opinion. It's functional, has some fun level design in places, and brought back Classic tropes like badniks, special stages and Super Sonic. I had fun with the two episodes.
  14. Well it depends how people express their preference for a game. I hate to use Sonic 06 as an example, but it's honestly the best one. If someone is aware that Sonic 06 is a badly made game and still likes it, that's fine. I have no problem with that. It's when someone tries to argue that the game is actually good, as if it is somehow overlooked. I mean, it just makes me scratch my head. Sonic 06 is a terrible, terrible game. If someone thinks it's legitimately good then I'm not going to lose sleep or get all mad. I'll just be a bit...baffled.
  15. To be fair though, it's pretty difficult to argue that a badly made game is legitimately good. I get that's it all subjective, but a game like Sonic R is a trainwreck in all honesty. I enjoy playing it but it's so badly made and weaker than its competitors that it's hard to recommend it to anyone. I still enjoy playing it, but I consider it objectively bad because of how difficult it is to argue that the game is good. You could apply this to other bad Sonic games.
  16. It's perfectly possible to enjoy a game unironically and still recognise it isn't well made. I really enjoy Sonic R, and not just because it's so bad it's funny, but I actually enjoy playing it. I would have to be out of my mind if I pretended it was actually good though.
  17. Seeing as this says open discussion... Wouldn't it have been fairer to have given the member a warning? I don't mean to seem funny, but I've literally never heard of a forum where a member, who I can see has been a member for a good few years and has contributed many posts, has been banned for one rude exchange with a moderator. It just seems a bit weird to me, and I don't even think Mr Taxi was particularly rude honestly. He was definitely out of line, but that out of line? Just a thought. I just think that members would improve their behaviour if they got a warning, because otherwise it creates resentment in the forum as we are witnessing with the complaints you have disclosed. I know you say that this is just an assumption, but it seems hard to throw that assumption away seeing as that's what happened pretty much. Again, not saying he shouldn't have been unpunished, just think a warning may have been fairer.
  18. Sonic Adventure 2's rendition was exciting because Green Hill hadn't been seen in a Sonic game since Sonic 1. The games until that point did remix the level but never used Green Hill itself, which made it special. In recent years the remixes of the level and appearances have gotten out of hand and have made it lose its appeal. That said, its still the most iconic stage in the series, and I would honestly be pretty disappointed not to see it in an anniversary title like Generations.
  19. I think it's usually rare when something is so bad it's unintentionally funny too. I've seen a lot of movies and played a lot of games where something is just bad and it's not bad in a funny way, it's just bad. And even when a game is funny-bad, that doesn't mean that the game is constantly amusing the player with how bad it is. Take Sonic 2006. I'd wager to bet that a lot of people who joke about Sonic 2006 have only seen it on Youtube and have never played it themselves. Sure, the game is very funny sometimes, but it was also one of the most frustrating and disappointing gaming experiences I have ever had when I played it when it came out in 2006. It's funny in hindsight, but at the time of playing it, not so much. Even something like The Room, which I think is the most consistently bad-funny product, was still an absolute chore to actually watch from beginning to end. I think Youtube culture plays a big role in these games that become a hit because they are unintentionally amusing. Actually playing these games is not as entertaining as I think a lot of people who just watch them would believe. I've never played Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if that game was 90% boring and terrible and 10% funny.
  20. It works for the reintroduction of these elements but that wasn't what I was getting at. The creation of these elements had nothing to do with fan feedback, it was entirely the creators trusting their instincts and doing their own thing. If it wasn't for vision over feedback we wouldn't have the elemental shields, super sonic, wisps and chao, that was the point if I worded it poorly. That's what I'm getting at. Obviously making games blindly is stupid, fan feedback should be factored to an extent, but I think it is better when the designers trust themselves and mostly do what they want. Probably not, although I think the Boost vision was the closest and I think they would have done far better to keep to it. And of course, it's unfair to pin all the chaos on the fans, the fans aren't responsible at all. It's partly the designers' fault for trying too hard to please fans and failing miserably. I think with the likes of Miyamoto and Kojima they know when to do their own thing and not listen too much to fans. Kojima in particular likes to deliberately do what his fans don't want, with Raiden, Old Snake, Ninja from MGS2 and Venom Snake in MGS5 as examples of intentionally subverting fan desires. Kojima is a perfect example of when not marketing too much to fans makes a game special. And obviously, we would all want a game marketed exclusively for us, but that's unrealistic for a franchise. Excellent point, although they hit gold with their vision through Boost and Wisps. And whilst there's a large portion of the fanbase that are now dissatisfied with Generations, the fanservice in that did pretty well.
  21. That's a really good point. I would bet they are probably very tired of constantly making failing Sonic games. I know I would be. A good point. I also didn't like Lost World and thought it was a massive step back from Generations. I think its hard to say where the drastic change in gameplay came from, whether it stemmed from the fans who hate Boost or just Nintendo appeasing. It was probably Nintendo appeasing, but I think the general distaste for Boost played a part in it. I'd wager to guess a lot of fans don't even like Generations nowadays with the amount of criticism I see it getting, despite it being a far better product than any other Sonic game in over 20 years. I really do think the radical direction SEGA went off in with Lost World and Boom was because of fan feedback on the Boost series, and I think it was a gigantic mistake. That's why I'm concerned with Sonic Team listening to fans. If Sonic refined Boost and continued in that direction I'm almost certain Sonic would be in a much better situation now. I think you are right, it's a mixture of Sonic Team making truly bizarre twists on their games (werehog, swords e.t.c) that are utterly atrocious concepts and then responding to fan feedback in the worst possible way. In a way where even fans aren't pleased. Keep in mind though that the whole Boost formula came from Sonic Team, that's why I think it's best that Sonic Team trusts their own instincts a bit. And to be honest, most of their utterly terrible ideas come from copying others, the Werehog is literally a terrible God of War, Lost World is a lame Mario Galaxy and Black Knight is obviously Zelda inspired. I think Sonic Team are usually pretty reliable when they actually trust in themselves and do their own thing, such as the Boost and Wisps. General gamers. And I appreciate your sentiment, obviously the fans should be considered to an extent, but I usually think it is better when a studio tries to keep fan service (and I don't mean in a eye candy sense) on the backburner. That's not true, the designers can create stuff the fans love and have no idea of. The elemental shields, Super Sonic, Tails and Chao were not due to fan feedback, but most fans like them. Fan service can be a great thing, but I think the best kind of fan service is the fan service that the fans had no comprehension of.
  22. Sonic's extended cast is overpopulated, I think even fans of the friends would admit that. Sonic has far more rivals than he needs to: Metal Sonic, Shadow, Silver, Knuckles e.t.c. One rival figure would do fine, especially with the lack of writing talent in Sonic Team. I actually think Pontac and Graff were good script writers, but whoever writes the plots for the game, even if it is Pontac and Graff, are clearly very weak. I think my perspective is very different to the majority of fans here though. I don't care about the friends that much, aside from the main core perhaps. I just don't think a franchise should be producing games to please its fanbase, they should make games they want to and for their own vision.
  23. Shooting mechanics are far inferior to say, Jak 2 or Ratchet and Clank. Shadow has pretty rubbish shooting honestly.
  24. I get that people are frustrated, but honestly I'm happy it's taking so long for the announcement of a Sonic Team game. Maybe this means that Sonic Team have finally figured out what they are doing and are developing a complete polished product. Right, riiiight.
  25. That's because I believe they do . Most fans of Sonic Adventure 1 say something like 'Sonic Adventure is better than Adventure 2 because the levels aren't so linear'. It's not enough to say they personally prefer it, it's that they say that it's somehow objectively better. And it's not like I'm saying this argument is wrong or anything, I just want to know why people feel this way. Again, it's not like I dislike Adventure 1 or anything. I like both Adventure games a great deal. I just wouldn't say Adventure 1 somehow has this way more expansive and, especially, objectively superior level design to Adventure 2. I saw Azoo write something along the lines of 'it suits the spirit of Sonic to be non-linear because his games were non-linear from the outset. That's a pretty interesting argument. I want to see more discussion like this basically. Arguing why it is more befitting for Sonic to be non-linear. That isn't the intention. I just want to know why people think linear level design is somehow objectively worse for Sonic somehow. Where has this come from . Who's being generalised here?
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.