Jump to content

E-122-Psi

TSS Member
  • Content Count

    1,855
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

E-122-Psi last won the day on October 6 2020

E-122-Psi had the most liked content!

7 Followers

About E-122-Psi

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

21,745 profile views
  1. Well in fairness we've reached the era in the comics where we're beating a dead horse in nearly every critique.
  2. More the comics trying to have their cake and eat it too. Some of Archie's ways to compromise more games-esque qualities into their very different premise didn't always work out great (one of the most obvious being brain damaging Charmy to act like his childish Heroes-onward self). With Sonic they were stuck with a more complex situation where Sonic has conflicting situations and challenges from wanting to be 'like the wind' but still tied to roles of authority, but kept it a pink elephant in the room or tried taking the easy way out of with 'anyone who questions his contradictions is a jerk'. It's one of the reasons Archie is treated as pretentious sometimes, since it wanted a more complex and mature foundation but didn't want to develop the baggage it caused. Most of Ian's ways of trying to streamline the dynamics were pretty much the Freedom Fighters going 'Screw it, we're the top heroes so we can do whatever we want'. Like that's literally nearly every way they win an argument between their own fractions in that era. I mean nearly ALL versions of Sonic are this, but they lack the same authoritarian ties so don't come off as hypocritical or corrupt about it. Sonic and Sally come across as feeling they're the ONLY ONES who should be allowed to bend the rules.
  3. I feel at the very least SOME implication GUN was getting cleaned of its bad eggs would have worked. Sonic X done that by having them arrested in the adaptation during their attempts to cover people figuring out their past. I mean yeah I get that it's the past and people might have changed since then, but SA2 made PERFECTLY clear GUN had NOT changed at all, to the point they resorted to trying to scapegoat, imprison and even murder the world's hero than risk letting their mistakes be uncovered. They fit into Amy's category of the selfish sort that only cared about their own hides and were actually in control of Sonic's world, prioritising killing innocents just to hide their incompetence. They needed some key closure on that (even if nuking Prison Island likely took a good few of the dirtbag members out :P).
  4. I feel like Sonic and Sally are ALWAYS the two the comics struggle to not make unlikeable. Penders is obviously the worst case, but even Gallagher and Flynn kept making foul ups with them that made them look self serving or unwilling to accept responsibilities for their actions. It's not that there aren't bigger assholes in the Sonic world at all, but more that, aside from a couple obvious cases like Locke, they're usually reprimanded for their bad acts a lot more, or at least aren't kept in dangerous position they can constantly be enabled, while Sonic and Sally of course are the main heroes and the ones they want you to root for. They do sometimes note their bad actions but too often think a slap on the wrist is enough, otherwise they're just 'rogues'. I think it's largely from the fact that Sonic has to be 'loveably' arrogant and careless. They can show him having moments of humility, but ultimately Sonic is a guy that just does whatever the fuck he wants. Sally at times is this but in denial, a hypocrite who insists every impulse she does is duty bound and for the good of others. In this take however, all these petty or irresponsible moments come off as risking WAY more repercussions. Heavy politics and balance are so often put into place here, not to mention this is a work where people can DIE from one slip up in a mission. They place WAY more stakes and complexities here, and yet still expect you to empathise when they vent mundane self centered teen issues at the wrong time. These two are the top of the hierarchy among the heroes, the ones that make all the decisions and often poo-poo anyone who undermines them (who is usually treated as in the wrong). Even worse when they slip their own personal impulses and egos into delicate situations. Sonic is someone who suffers aesop amnesia from acting like a reckless arrogant show off when millions of lives are in his hands, yet whenever anyone threatens to take matters into their own hands, gets butt hurt, tells them to back off and just be grateful he usually saves MOST of them. They make a point Sonic isn't fantastic in a diplomatic role, but only to a surface level, doesn't stop him being king in some timelines. I think him being stripped of his knighthood was the closest to him suffering real consequences for a big mistake caused from personal hangups between him and Sally (while Sally was absolved of ANY fault). I think this is why it feels cheap that Archie keeps taking the one note route in terms of calling them out, anyone who challenges them is always dismissed as a strawman or a jerk, anyone that could have added a complex query to who they are and how well intentioned they really are is quickly dismissed so they can be enabled. If anything this got worse in Ian's run, while Penders and Bollers at least TRIED to dabble in some grey morality, Fiona, Hamlin, Geoffery all became flat out one dimensional hate sinks under Ian. Even the final pre reboot arc shown Mina and any other commodity in Mobius would get dismissed as 'just a jerk' before they questioned Sonic and Sally's virtues and methods. This is generally why Sonic works better as his own guy, not one giving orders or leading a group. You can't be an id in nearly every way and then be trying to keep others in their place.
  5. It's actually weird they never really delved into that, especially since ARK victims such as Shadow and the Commander align with GUN later on, and you think them exposing the former government's corruption and horrific acts at last and turning it into a unit with honourable members would be something they'd want to address, otherwise why would those guys wanna be anywhere close to them?
  6. I dunno really. There's several mandates I don't agree with on paper, but the fact they're broken so often suggests SEGA are more open with them than implied and it's more down to the usual situation of half assed writing that's been there since the series got spin off media. "Sonic can never lose" for example could seem burdening to Sonic's character and risk making him an invincible hero, but the truth is Sonic has gotten his ass kicked MORE often since this mandate was revealed than not. Hell SEGA even had a game where Eggman found a way to beat his ass down and conquer the world, while Sonic Boom even had a few comical situations he ended up the butt monkey of an episode, even the end of pre-reboot Archie was a long conga of Sonic being one-upped by the bad guys over and over with any victory coming off as incredibly bittersweet. It seems like Sonic "losing" is only forbidden in regards to the bad guys permanently defeating him, which is kind of a case of "Eh, well duh." The same issue with lack of emotions, since while writing isn't brilliant in this era, we still arguably see MORE of a humanized Sonic commonly in media, compare to say earlier cases like SA/X Sonic who was pretty stunted in emotions, modern takes on Sonic at least seem to commonly care about what's going on and even lose their cool a few times (Lost Worlds was definitely an attempt a more vulnerable Sonic, if not done brilliantly). Again it seems more writing issues that take their toll here, unless it's down to a case of outright melodrama that demands Sonic outright break down, in which case do I ask do we REALLY need that for a 'human' Sonic. This if anything could be seen as a test to make Sonic likeable through his standard personality without resorting to cheap tricks like angst and emotional torture that are harrowing and sympathetic no matter what way you put them. There's a couple few newly revealed ones that I don't like the sound of and do sound hindering to how the characters are given depth, stuff like 'currency doesn't exist in the Sonic world' (which abolishes a bit of the Chaotix's motivations) and 'Shadow can not have 'pet the dog' moments where he cares about other people', but even these don't seem consistently done. It really does feel like there's a bit more leeway to these than is let on.
  7. It's not that Heroes is hard to figure out, but more the level of demand it's mechanics ask is far more divergent and unfocused. Sonic was always about platforming, zipping through big 'virtual playgrounds' with still a decent focus on platforming hopping and momentum. Heroes on the other hand dumbs that all down in favour of stop and go gimmicks, needing to switch out into different gameplay modes non-stop or play through a lengthy combat area. Most gameplay elements it inherits from previous games are almost exclusively what Sonic Adventure 2 introduced to make itself different like grinding. It's not to say this makes it a BAD game (though execution does vary) but more it's a very weird choice as an introduction to Sonic. I feel like porting over the Adventure games first to get people into the swing of a more divergent new take would have been a better strategy here, especially as an old Megadrive owner who only playing those games AFTER Heroes. Hell even Next Gen in concept would be closer to a loyal introduction to the franchise in spite of poorer quality. That PS2 gamers got only Heroes and Shadow and then Mega Collection Plus leaves a HUGE evolutionary process missing that makes old and new seem barely the same. It's feels a bit like if they chose to bring Crash Bandicoot back into the market by remaking Crash of the Titans (speaking even as someone who thought that game was decent).
  8. It's less the story itself and more the ridiculously cheesy and saccharine execution of it, with the characters not shutting up with the goody goody lines, basically if it's not 'mature' then it has to give us diabetes. I can see how Chaotix may be an exception though because it's generally the one that has legitimately fun banter based on the characters' personalities. It's weird they only did that aesthetically however while the gameplay was often more convoluted and gimmicky compared to the previous games due to the character switching and combat focus (besides occasional call backs like the special stages returning). As someone whose first taste of the 3D Sonic era was Heroes, I could definitely tell a HUGE difference in it, especially when I got to try Sonic Adventure DX afterwards and just felt it did a way better job feeling like one of the old Sonic games (at least when playing as Sonic).
  9. I heard Heroes was done by the same guy who done all the 'dark' Sonic stories of that period. As such it kinda feels like a straw manned perspective of how he views the original more cartoony Sonic approach that this game was calling back to, just loads of annoying saccharine cartoon animals who chirp on about 'Hooray, team work!'. Granted if that was the point he was making, he didn't really do a good job supporting his case with the later titles that went the opposite direction either.
  10. Yes. It is accomplishable on paper. But remember this is SONIC writing we are talking about. Archie spent a whole two decades struggling to make it work and some will still argue whether they finally accomplished it at any point, and the same team that done Archie are now the ones in charge of IDW, the media that is being proposed here.
  11. I think it's more for the reason that if adding a character compliments said story in any unique way another couldn't and if they were added would they cause any issues handling another character already in? Have they thought through how two of similar take can co-exist without either of them losing their agency and charm from before or having to be altered to the point they're barely the same character people wanted in the first place? I think that's what many take issue with Rotor about for example, since a lot of his niches established are those of other key characters, namely being the tech guy and a big powerhouse type. He's in a basic sense, Tails and Big merged into one character. I don't mean that to EVERY detail of course, and that Rotor could NEVER co-exist with those characters, but how would they go about that without downgrading either of them, such as making Tails/Big or Rotor less relevant or more one note, or alternatively how could they alter and diverge one while still keeping the same appeal they had as before? To use a sorta similar example from recently, the new Crash Bandicoot games have really tried to push Coco in as a main character, but it's all mostly by her having Crash's shtick, all his abilities and gameplay, and borrowing most of his gags. Generally the only unique thing they kept to diverge them are Coco's straight man/tech girl elements, with neither characters getting new distinctive traits otherwise, so now pretty much the only things that differentiate the two make Coco basically a more competent and versatile version of the main character. It's a case of shoehorning in a similar character without thinking through how they can co-exist with another and not ruin their agency. This is an issue some have with the Freedom Fighters, that writers often struggled to make a balance with them and the SEGA cast, either demoting and dumbing down the SEGA cast to make the Freedom Fighters' competence more important or reducing the Freedom Fighters to an artefact due to how much more colourful and powerful the SEGA cast were. There obviously needs to be some development made here so both can work together.
  12. It wasn't just that though but that the comics tended to INSIST she was the 'normal' one, even when she made tons of mistakes or contradicted her own 'normality', they never set it against her personality. Like there's plenty of characters I like that are SORT OF the straight man but have this hubris about them that makes them THINK they're such more than they really are, but the difference is they get funny karma and role reversals for it while Sally NEVER does (eg. Twilight Sparkle who is also a stiff, but a funny stiff that is allowed to humiliate herself and even have Pinkie Pie sometimes needing to reign her in). It never becomes a defining flaw for Sally, the writers just having her make a mistake and not be ALWAYS right should have been enough to them. This is a reason I liked Season One Sally because the archetype for her was basically the same and all her positives remained, but they tended to undermine this pomposity about her more than the later comics were willing to, making it a funny and BEARABLE characteristic. Sally was allowed to be teased over it and, dare I say it, LOSE HER DIGNITY SOMETIMES, something the Archie team seemed to really try to siddle over. It's hardly like she became this odious egotist or bitch like say, early Archie was, just they knew when to drop the calm elegance about her when it was called for and so to give her a more colourful personality. 'Sonic Boom' was the only time they maybe went too far and let her get away with being too apathetic and even that one was a group effort (Antoine's stupidity actually getting one of his teammates robotocised should have been the line for his shtick). Concerning giving her weapon, I always thought the laser blades were one of the most unfitting. Like making Rotor well built felt a bit off too, but at least he was ALWAYS the big guy of the team. Sally getting close combat weaponry never felt like complimenting to her meticulous personality. I mean they did note this Sally was a bit more reckless than before, but STILL didn't want to put it against her straight man persona. Sally felt incredibly amorphous and undercooked for the simple fact they didn't want to put 2 + 2 together and suggest being the preachy cautious straight man who still pulled lots of reckless stunts herself JUST MIGHT imply she's a bit of a self righteous hypocrite who can't practice what she preaches. It's hardly like doing such would have turned her into the perpetual group egomaniac, she at least had sympathetic reasoning compared to say, Sonic or Antoine, but you have to point out a characters' flaws when they're due.
  13. (I could almost hear the Archie team going "Look, see this? This is us at our TOPS here!" :P) Even then though I think it was the fact they had an ideal opportunity to develop on Sally and Cream (you know when Cream and the other misfits RESCUED her) and didn't play off of it, same with tons of other situations Sally could have been put in a more human light. It had a real 'missing the forest for the trees' thing. IDW and Forces is admittedly very similar in the basic premise and structure to Archie, to the point I was kinda surprised Forces wasn't more cleanly a spiritual successor to SatAm/Archie, so it is arguably the one continuity they could most get away with adapting the Freedom Fighters and a lot of their core elements alongside it, though yeah, I think them being careful in moderating authenticity to those characters and their appeal without converting the other work according to them is the concern for some, especially since IDW has a lot of the same creative team as later Archie. Either way there would be a limit however, Penders will sue if they convert back TOO much.
  14. Gallagher's Sally is more like a horribly flanderized take on my preferred Sally with the addition of being a karma houdini. The nearest to my preferred Sally is Season One SatAm Sally, who DID have a hubris and grouchiness (though stemmed more from actual sympathetic motives and neuroses rather than just general bitchiness), but was moderated by her calm and clever side and at least on occasion was made to realise she'd acted up (eg. Sonic and the Secret Scrolls). Later Archie Sally is Gallagher's Sally disguised in a calm and clever facade. Still condescending and full of bullshit but treated like an angel. Hell even Season Two Sally, despite being streamlined to her positive traits more, I could stand because she at least usually genuinely was in the right when the writers intended her to be, and most times she was a bit pompous about it, she still got undermined a little. Like Drood Henge she was made to acknowledge she underestimated Tails, they kinda skipped around that with Cream in Archie.
×
×
  • 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.