Jump to content

E-122-Psi

TSS Member
  • Content Count

    1,855
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by E-122-Psi

  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.
  15. Yeah, but the thing is, that plot flow actually DID happen TONS of the times in the comics from start to finish during its run. Sally chastised Sonic for being reckless, and then did something reckless herself. The only key difference is that they never had the 'called out for hypocrisy' part at the end, the actual element that could have served to humanise this action and make her more sympathetic. It doesn't seem compromising her likeability when she pulls off most of these actions in the first place, but with the even worse issue of being a total karma houdini about it. At least that 'slap on the wrist' would be relatively better than the norm of pretending it didn't happen at all. I mean from the VERY FIRST ISSUE, we get a plot where she gets antsy with Sonic, pulls a mission on her own without telling him, and when he inevitably gets the wrong end of the stick from being left out and the mission goes wrong, she tears into him, claims it's all his fault and he screwed over everyone....which Sonic accepts without a single acknowledgement that Sally's actions caused the misunderstanding in the first place. Is that the better approach that makes her more likeable??? Just Sonic being the designated fall guy even when SALLY is the one who botched it and acted up?
  16. Thank you for completely MISSING mine. I said Sonic deserves critique sometimes. Hell sometimes his character is all the better from having those times his ego has severe repercussions, it turns it into a sympathetic element to him and prevents him seeming all powerful. And yet when someone claims Sally should suffer the same for similar flaws, it is being 'too mean' and bad mouthing the character just for favouritism to Sonic. The problem to me is that a lot of the time, Sally seemed unlikeable anyway, as mentioned she got away with being condescending, arrogant or hypocritical in spades, just the plot never acknowledged it as a characteristic of her's, so it remained undercooked and even worse, Sally looked like a karma houdini. I'd say Sally came off far worse for that than she would a few instances she PAYS for her vices, the only difference in depiction is coming off more boring because she got to retain her dignity. Like a few times Sally was reckless (these DID happen in some issues) and they were similar in use, but maybe beforehand, Sally had chastised Sonic for doing the same (which also DID happen), but now during the ending Sonic is teasing her relentlessly for not meeting her own ideals and while she is sorry and acknowledges her contradiction, she is in a characteristic huff about it because her pride is singed and Sonic is SAVOURING every moment of it. Not bitchy or blaming it all on someone else like in early Archie, just showing a bit of a fallible 'not so above it all' side and adding a new light to their dynamic. Actually I'm pretty sure an episode of Talespin did this sort of plot (the spy episode).
  17. Well it kinda sticks out when there's plenty of times Sally herself was reckless or arrogant and yet was NEVER called out for it like Sonic was or compared to in her dynamic with him. No one likes a character that gets away with being a hypocrite. Like Sonic did need to be called out sometimes, it was obvious, but why did Sally deserve a double standard?
  18. Knuckles being bad tempered or a bone head is an in-universe flaw however. Even if he doesn't get interventions or serious dressing downs over it, the other cast do acknowledge it and it does come back to bite him in many plots. Sally being condescending or a hypocrite was something the narrative always tried to sweep under the rug despite how often it happened. If anything that makes her less compatible with the cartoon format because the writing refuses to let her be targeted for any quirks or bad behaviour. Sally is similarly all about calling out Sonic's hubris and recklessness, so why can the roles never be reversed, not even on playful terms like say, Amy getting teased mercilessly over her pushiness causing the dilemma in Closed Door Policy? There's a difference between making a character a toxic jerk that gets read the riot act non stop and a character is naturally flawed and is acknowledged as such by the other characters. I feel like it would have been far more natural to have Sonic tease Sally in those occasional moments she was reckless herself (even in just a comical "Well that doesn't matter because YOU have a gambling problem!" sort of way), than for them to just go 'Nope, didn't happen, Sally doesn't 'do' reckless or hypocritical, stricken from the records'. It made Sally look like a jerk sue that not even the biggest troll of the hero cast would dare mock when it was called for.
  19. I think it depends. Season One Sally having an intentional hubris I think gave her a little more fallible charm and whimsy (helped by them not overdoing like say, early Archie). At the very least it was better than her having one through indirect writing and always getting off for it scot free like in Archie. Granted there's lots of characters I enjoy that have an 'inferiority superiority complex' (Amy in Sonic Boom, Rabbit in Winnie the Pooh, Rebecca in Talespin, Twilight Sparkle in MLP). I'm not saying of course that Sally has to be exaggerated to THEIR level of hubris, but I do think they have to have moments those elements are called out and turned into traits proper (while still keeping that earnest soft side to her of course) especially since like I said, ultimately Sally still often came off as smug, forceful and hypocritical anyway, and it would have been way better to just go with it, join the dots in her personality, and likely get a sympathetic epiphany from her about than just try to sweep it under the rug and make her a karma houdini. Even better if those moments could have led to some actual humanisation. Like let's say they did a role reversal of Spark of Life, where Sally called out Sonic for being reckless, but then was put on the spot for doing the same thing, which is perfectly in character for her, but now she is made to accept her hypocrisy after walking a mile in Sonic's shoes, she just wants to protect Sonic but sometimes it is easier to practice than it is to preach. That could have been EXTREMELY impactful to Sonic and Sally's dynamic and humanising her 'bossiness' some fans berate her over, rather than just trying to insist Sally is consistently the cautious one (when let's be fair sometimes she isn't). Arrogance and temper are hard facets to get right, hence so many depictions of Sonic that varying fans claim are either too unlikeably egotistical or come off as too nice to the point of being a boy scout. There are times writers miss the mark and just make Sonic insufferable, but I think having times Sonic is conveyed as too cocksure for his own good are for the best than trying to pretend it isn't a vice to his personality, because let's face it, either way, Sonic is inherently cocky, just like Sally is inherently 'bossy'.
  20. I think it's a bit of balance here, since while I do agree there should be a playful side maintained to Sally so she isn't flanderized, I think a big obstacle for her was that writers were unwilling to really delve into her uglier side. Sally at times COULD be pushy, self righteous and hypocritical and have a downright crappy temper. It's not just a case of bad writing, these are things that just came inherent to her archetype, and yet it felt like after maybe Season One of SatAm, the writers were in denial they ever existed, sometimes even when problems occurred because of these idiosyncrasies. This if anything just worsened them because it meant they couldn't colour or humanise these aspects, and she never really suffered repercussions for them. I think this is how Sally can suffer the seemingly contradicting complaints of both being 'too boring/perfect' and yet also 'bossy/bitchy'. She was 'bossy' in an unhumanised way that was never treated as a flaw. It's like how Sonic is usually likeably cocky, but he has to have those odd moments he is just flat out arrogant or reckless and needs to get taken down a peg to humanise him, not too often or in too exaggerated doses of course, that would make him insufferable, just enough to keep him fallible and get a sympathetic light on him, not to mention so his flaws coloured his personality a little. Making it so Sonic NEVER goes too far kinda makes him a bit too boring and enabled (take say his Sonic X characterisation). Sally can be balanced by default but I think they needed to address the more obnoxious side of her SOMETIMES for the good of balancing her personality and dynamics. If they maintained a more dire premise for Sally, it would be VERY easy to make such flaws sympathetic after all, she just wants to protect everyone, but she does still need calling out sometimes to address that.
  21. I think there's more than one person here that's getting personally offended. I get people like the Freedom Fighters, but I am perfectly willing to state my two cents on the whole matter. It doesn't mean I aggressively loathe them and treat them like they stole my milk money, I'm just putting my argument up whenever you guys insist on bringing them over to something because, as one previous poster stated, they come off as kind of overrated to me. I mean I like Big the Cat but I'm not gonna dismiss everyone who says his gameplay sucks or his character is a one note blithering idiot as just some big hateful old meanie who doesn't know what they're talking about. They may even have points sometimes. It's about Sonic characters after all. They're welcome to state their opinions, but I'm welcome to state mine.
  22. Because generally I feel like the Freedom Fighters struggle to get out of their one defined role even more than the SEGA cast do. Again it felt like for most of later Archie they had no idea how to expand Sally outside 'straight man' and 'Sonic's girlfriend' while most of the others had EVEN LESS than that. I think I'm more liable to see cases where, say, Big the Cat ISN'T being dopey, or Amy ISN'T being lovesick but they put some palpable bit of character in place of it, than I am to see the Freedom Fighters branch out in characteristics.
  23. Tails has been Sonic's straight man himself in many recent works, though with the benefit of having flaws of his own so he doesn't become as formulaic a presence (though the success of execution has varied from work to work). As mentioned they struggled to find any sort of dynamic for Sally outside being the straight man, to the point of making her a 'designated hero' even in situations she should have lost the argument or at least both sides should have gotten rebuke, they liked her being the 'sensible one', which isn't that compelling on its own. It also risked flanderizing Sonic into an arrogant Leeroy Jenkins after a while instead of just giving him necessary fallible moments because of how often they were pit together and how often Sally won. SEGA characters have shown the ability to call out Sonic for his shortcomings without being limited to that dynamic like Sally ended up. Boom Tails and Amy arguably did the 'meticulous vs spontaneous' dynamic against Sonic more two way since their more strategic approaches sometimes had clearer vices as well, while as mentioned they struggled for ages trying to find a fundamental flaw to Sally, even in some cases there was a clear opening. Sally doesn't come off as flexible a character because they liked her being the straight man role to a fault. The other three Freedom Fighters are lower key but they sort of follow the same structure if less stubbornly. They're the more laid back down to earth voices of reason. I remember a lot of the time in SatAm and early Archie, it often just felt like, Antoine aside, Sonic was the one 'naughty kid' among a bunch of well behaved adults, which generally made them less interesting and active characters. I get not everyone has to be bombastic and anarchic, but they barely had ANY big idiosyncrasies. I remember the Sonic Genesis comic being pretty bland because of this, an opportunity to see how they flexed in the games world, but they were just too damn passive.
  24. I feel like the comic had relied on the Freedom Fighters being motive driven for so long that they had problems placing proper personality based agency on them. Even when they had something within the long run it was usually connected to Sonic or some other more vibrant character. The SatAm series was relatively better for establishing foibles for them but even then it was clear they mostly just preferred the Sonic, Sally and (for some reason) Antoine mission plan dynamic. The later comics felt very much like them realising they were running out of steam and trying rapidly to throw shit at the wall and see what stuck, and even then a lot of it was circumstantial rather than actually broadening their personality traits. Like for AGES throughout the pre and post reboot era Ian's team seemed to desperately try to meet the complaints that Sally was too flawless. But I don't think they really made any progress with it, they just gave her loads of amorphous idiot ball moments to make her more fallible, but they never really developed on a consistent foible, even in ideal opportunities they missed the mark. I think they only really fathomed her as the straight man and strategist in terms of character dynamics and couldn't really get out of that comfort zone, even just in terms of deconstructing that role (there was plenty of 'walk a mile in the other's shoes' moments they could have done between Sonic and Sally but never really tried that sort of humanisation between them). The same issue I think kinda happened with Antoine after a while. They developed Antoine's character but at the same time his comical flaws were what made his character compelling in the first place, now he was just another competent set of hands. They had the odd call back to him being cowardly or stuck up but that was all it was, a call back, not a developed flawed moment or bit of agency. Like I feel like they could have done a compromise with Antoine being comical but gaining a place. Like maybe something like Po in Kung Fu Panda or Santino Marella in WWE where a joke character manages to weaponise their goofiness. Antoine could have been a fun Puss In Boots type, more competent and genuinely suave, but still a distinctively comical character, but instead their approach was to just homogenise him and make him like the other down to earth Freedom Fighters just following a mission plan with none of his own ambitions or delusions of grandeur. And these were the two most developed Freedom Fighters. Bunnie and Rotor got scraps of character input at best, even in the show. It really felt like the drama of the comics is slowly what came to define the Freedom Fighters as characters instead of their own personalities, which came back to bite them when they had to streamline it all. This problem can take place importing them to other medias where they would have even less of their old lore to fall back on. You take out Sally being a princess, a leader of a rebellion, her poignant backstory against Robotnik and her romantic ties with Sonic, how much of her old appeal is left? She's the straight man sure, but plenty games characters can take that role AND add their own spice to it anyway.
×
×
  • 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.