Sixth-Rate Soma

See, there's two things I gotta say about your statement, Scritch. I'll have to number 'em, because for some reason SSMB doesn't want to let me use quotes. 1. I wouldn't include Sonic Adventure anywhere near "consistently good" territory, as I referred to in my post. It dated itself the moment it decided to dream bigger than it had the skill to execute, and as much as that spirit is admirable, it doesn't translate into wide respect. The most people can say about Adventure these days is "i guess sonic's parts didn't suck??" which is a far cry from the wide acclaim the Genesis games get, bar maybe Sonic 1. And that much is really important. The most celebrated entries of the Genesis games are the ones that are the most iterative; that is to say, the best ones were the ones that cared more about building upon tried-and-true foundation than throwing out the rulebook all the time. The same is true of nearly every game franchise that's ever existed. Even Zelda's Ocarina of Time is in many ways a 3D translation of A Link to The Past, its direct console predecessor. Metal Gear Solid is a 3D translation of Metal Gear 2. Super Mario Galaxy takes cues from Super Mario Sunshine's quirky non-FLUDD levels. Modern Warfare builds directly off the formula of previous COD games. Etc. To say that the innovation was what made those games great is to ignore the rich tradition they pull from that makes those innovations even possible. Experiments are messes without a strong foundation, and Adventure proves that immeasurably, in spite of its better parts. 2. With all due respect, the idea that people wouldn't buy Sonic games if they take after what's old doesn't really fly in the face of the evidence. SEGA literally milks Sonic for nostalgia every other release, with Sonic Mania being only the latest in a very long trend. The fact that Generations is both one of the most popular and most acclaimed entries in a decade should assuage those fears; it's moreso flawed experiments like Lost World or Boom that sour the public appetite. This is a large part of why I mentioned that a series of consistently good games is what Sonic needs, more than any new direction. Sonic has been inconsistent and overly risky ever since the Classic era ended, for good and for ill; people need to be assured that, if they buy a new Sonic game, they're not taking some wild gamble, and can expect a good time. And that's a genuine problem.

i'd say all anyone wants out of sonic is consistently good games. we're an odd sort of people that kick around here; we like our flawed gems and our beautiful failures, always pumped and ready to play whatever comes our way for about a hundred different reasons. lots of people will argue about whether they thought the boost trilogy was worth iterating on, but the one thing those games (almost) all accomplished? lots of good stuff with no catch. the thing that has people hyped about sonic mania? lots of good stuff with no catch. nobody really expects sonic to appeal to all his disparate fanbases, they just hope to have a good time playing his games. if they do, a lot of the problem is already solved.

it's sort of a double-edged sword. on the one hand, no, you're not a failure for not beating fairly difficult games. but at the same time, these are the games that defined sonic not just for a generation, but forever afterwards. if you're interested in getting to know the roots of the character, or are just sort of loosely interested in what makes a video game mascot a success, the genesis games are excellent case studies. i'd give 'em a shot again some day, once you've put some distance between yourself and the games. but don't worry if you never get around to it, yeah?