Jump to content

Diesel

TSS Member
  • Content Count

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Diesel


  1. This has nothing to do with the franchise's current state nor the predication of what is and isn't a popular opinion. It doesn't even have to do with how pleasant your posts look. This topic on characters of various popularity levels progressed just fine until one specific individual- whose behavior has been marked as problematic by- I shit you not, the entire active moderating team ever since he joined- came into the thread. 

    Did the thread get problematic only after I entered it? Yes, but I had nothing to do with it initially. Before the whole argument about Knuckles and Blaze started, you yourself noted that the thread was getting derailed by spam:

    Furthermore, let's not get too snarky and spammy in here. Yes it's a dumb poll at the end of the day but let's not have the thread get on the train towards Shitsville.

     

    As far as I know, no one has decided to or even accused SSMB of making a concerted effort to band together to vote for any single character. We're also not arguing that what you're doing is illegal (and in any event, using "it's not against the rules" isn't a solid defense for the ethics of a behavior). We're arguing that it's unsportsmanlike and thus becomes a poll about /v/'s favorite characters versus the fandom's favorite characters.

    Also to the rest of you, listen to Azoo and cut the spam out. There's no use coming here to defend yourselves if you're going to bandy about the topic.

    And then, you gave Kamina a fairly serious warning:

    This is your last warning. Anymore of this and you'll have to go.

    I had absolutely nothing to do with anything of this, so don't try to say it's my fault the thread ever got problematic. The thread was not going "just fine" before I started any arguments.

    I highly disagree with the rest of your post regarding how I behaved in this thread, but I won't bother responding to it for the sake of the thread.


  2. Not to speak for any of the members here, but I think the reason why a lot of people hate Call of Duty is because it's popular. They don't have much in common with the people who do like it, and since there are a lot of people who like Call of Duty, they don't have much in common with a lot of people. So, they criticize Call of Duty as compensation. I'm not saying the people here are like that, though.


  3. So,  care to actually explain why you think lethal force is the automatic answer  to assault instead of making baseless accusations? 

    Because if you read the other posts before you responded, you would have seen I had conceded on that argument.

    I'm not really sure why people are still arguing with Diesel at this point. He's using GameFaqs as a source...

    You just argue for the sake of arguing. GameFAQs is just as good a forum to poll as any other.

    If you don't think someone punching an police officer and attempting to steal their weapon warrants deadly force, then lol. I could poll even more places if that's what you want.

    And another thing, to Tornado:

    Really not sure about this "wholly fabricate posts" tactic. The post you quoted from CSS said it would give someone an edge in a fight that they wouldn't have against an opponent who would normally mop the floor with them. He literally said the words "should give even an average sized officer a better edge against a unarmed heavyweight boxer", and I know you saw what words were actually said because you fucking highlighted them. The post you quoted from me said that a stun gun or mace would alter the outcome of a fight in a 6-1 boxer against policeman brawl. I literally said "a taser or mace from an officer who knew how to use either would have still dramatically altered the outcome of whatever 6 against 1 Jackie Chan fight you're describing"; and I know you saw what words were actually said because you fucking highlighted those too. There wasn't even an implication of a boxer falling to the ground like a bag of potatoes, and the word incapacitate was nowhere to be found; so why are you pretending that that is what people were saying? You've got six officers going after a guy with tasers, mace and batons, and you seriously think the outcome will be the same as six officers going at a guy with their bare hands?

    Seeing as you're someone who's gone out of his way to deliberately to rephrase my posts into something they weren't, it's ironic to see you accusing me of "wholly fabricating posts".

    If one thinks a baton and a mace would "give an average sized officer a better edge against an unarmed heavyweight boxer" (in ChaosSupremeSonic's words) and/or "dramatically alter the outcome a 6 against 1 Jackie Chan fight" (in your words), they WOULD think a baton, mace and/or would incapacitate someone.

    Definition of "incapacitate"

    prevent from functioning in a normal way.

    For batons, tasers and maces to be effective, they WOULD have to incapacitate someone.

    ChaosSupremeSonic said that a baton and mace would give an officer an advantage against an unarmed heavyweight boxer, so obviously, he WAS saying that a baton and a mace would incapacitate an unarmed heavyweight boxer, as that's the ONLY way for mace and batons to give someone an advantage against an opponent. You said that a taser or a mace would dramatically alter the outcome of a 6 against 1 fight, so you were saying that mace or a taser would incapacitate someone, as that's the ONLY way for tasers and mace to alter the outcome a fight.

    I don't think you understand the word "incapacitate".


  4. I think the game is garbage.

    The only fun part about it were the Daytime stages, and even those were very flawed. The Homing Attack needlessly takes two buttons and doing a boost in mid air has the same controls as doing a homing attack, which often leads to many cheap deaths. The QTEs are also needlessly frustrating and the level design can be flat out bad in some places.

    Then, there's the Werehog and hubs, which are bad altogether.


  5. "Lifestyle" may have been the wrong word for me to use. My bad.

    In any case, furries often put on their costumes on a regular basis, so they make a hobby out of it at the very least. It really can't be compared to dressing up on Halloween, as that's just a one day only every year thing. Something isn't a hobby if it's only done once a year.


  6. And it's no different from the weird anime and game geeks who spend all their time and money dressing up as the characters they enjoy, aside from most of them being human that is.

    I agree.

    No different to people dressing up on Halloween.

     I do not agree at all.

    It's VERY different to people dressing up on Halloween. Dressing up for Halloween is just a one day thing. Furries who dress up in furry costume make a lifestyle out of wearing costumes. 

    I know I'm responding to an older post, but I'm just saiyan.


  7. That doesn't answer the question. What does assault mean? I know what you're trying to pretend the definition is for the purposes of this discussion, as shown by your poll below; but that's not what I'm asking, that's not what I took issue with, and that's not what you spent half of this thread saying with complete certainty.

    But you still rephrased my post into something it wasn't. And brah, I already admitted I was wrong with my definition of "assault". I conceded, sheesh. Why do I have to answer your answer when it's about something I already admitted was wrong?

    There's that strawman again. What "people" actually said, and have reiterated when you assigned this exact argument last time, was that lethal force should be a last option in police confrontations.

    If true, sorry. I thought you people were saying that police shouldn't use deadly force against unarmed individuals.

     There's that persecution complex again. I started this thread replying to specific statements of fact you said (and said and said and said and said and said) that were obviously incorrect to anyone who simply types a search term into google. I have a conceal carry permit, so I also had independent knowledge that one of your other facts was blatantly untrue. I still gave you the benefit of the doubt to justify it, but since you conceded that you mispoke I let the latter one go. But if you're going to call out other members for spreading what you perceive to be misinformation, you for damn sure better expect to be called on it when most of your posts to that point had been loaded with misinformation masquerading behind a specific example with specific circumstances.

    Fair enough.

     No, I was providing an example of a famous heavyweight professional boxer with mental stability problems who went to jail in his prime but still didn't take on a half dozen cops in the process, to rebuke this idea you're seemingly trying to spread that a heavyweight professional is an inherently difficult and dangerous quarry for police to bag.

    You were still showing attitude though; your wording was very antagonistic. Don't try to deny it.

     Your videos and links showed that maces and tasers didn't always incapacitate. No one said that they would guarantee to incapacitate someone, and the video you posted of the officer the taser clearly hurt his mobility.

    It didn't change the outcome of the fight though.

     Yes you did:

    No, I didn't. I said they could dodge maces the same way they can dodge a punch, not that maces were the same thing as a punch.

    I'll get to this more in a minute, but when people say nothing more than non-lethal weapons should be considered as opposed to automatically plugging a guy with a full magazine and you outright deny the chance that they would be effective at all, yes, you are implying that your hypothetical rampaging professional heavyweight boxer is immune to the effects of non-lethal weaponry. 

    I don't get your logic, but I'll agree to disagree.

     So your video showing them having a diminished but still clear affect on people somehow proves that?

     In the video I posted of a cop fighting the ex boxer, it didn't seem to have an effect. The vid says this.

     I don't give a shit what results you got from a poll with a made up definition of a word I've been trying to get you to define for three posts now. 

    Well, I wasn't necessarily speaking to you when I posted that poll. I was responding to those who were saying police shouldn't shoot people who assault them like how Michael Brown did. If you weren't among those people, then I obviously wasn't speaking to you.


  8. If you get along better with "nicer" people on places like the Sega forums, it's probably because you can be a pushover to other people on there with less effort or questioning.

    Nah, the community is a lot more chillax there. For an example, a comparison of a thread I posted on both here and the Sega forum:

    http://forums.sega.com/showthread.php?526622-The-quot-90s-kid-quot-debate

    As you can see, it was a lot more peaceful in the Sega forum. There were still people who disagreed with me, but they still responded more maturely than the people here.

     

    Oh, and on another note, nobody was denying your claim that they have their similarities.

     

    Blaze is nothing like Knuckles in any way. 

    :/

     

    Of course they do, we all know that. It's the part where you make a throwaway claim that they're exactly the same character

    I didn't say they were the exact same character; I just said Blaze was a rip-off of something. A character being a rip-off of another character doesn't mean they're exactly the same as that other character; it just means that character is an inferior imitation of another character.


  9. Sorry to remind you this, but those arguments were already over about an hour ago.

    Not yet. :)

    Knuckles wasn't a loner y'know.

    his duty kept him from meeting people that weren't on his Island, therefore, he could only be with his animal friends because they were the only creatures on the Island that he could talk to. So yeah that doesn't make him a loner. If he is/was a loner, then why spend time with the animals?

    Loners can still have friends. 

    The lyrics to "Unknown from M.E." say he's a loner:

    My spikes go through boulders

    That's why I stay a loner

    I was born by myself, I don't need a posse

    I get it on by myself, advisories get shelved

     

    His Sonic City profile from 2008 says he's a loner: http://web.archive.org/web/20080225070243/http://www.sonic-city.com/en/characters/knuckles/index.html

    Knuckles can be a bit of a loner, which may explain why he is so naive and gullible, and easily tricked by Dr. Eggman.

     

    Can you prove that Blaze was a loner? 

    Definition of "loner":

    a person who prefers not to associate with others. 

    Blaze acted like this several times in Sonic Rush.

    (7:24-9:02)

    When Cream and Vanilla recommended that she get Sonic's help to get back the Sol Emeralds, Blaze turned down their offer and said she'll get them back herself, even to the point of yelling at them.

    When she finally met Sonic, she refused to get involved with him (8:56-11:34)


    Then, she meets Sonic again and refuses his help to the point where she actually attacks him (6:11-8:59). Only after they're done fighting does Blaze calm down and accept Sonic's help:

    https://youtu.be/-N1CTc_XZe8?t=6m11s

    Then, there are her official character profiles:

    File:Sonic Rush Man US 0004.jpg

    And her profile in Generations.

    Sonic Channel circa 2012:

    Able to manipulate the "Sol Emeralds", this imperial princess of another world bears the duty to safeguard them as well. Usually she appears to be calm and collected, however she suppresses her feelings and has hidden her emotions within. Exceedingly faithful to her role as guardian of the Sol Emeralds, she has bound herself within strict rules, and therefore may appear shy. However after she happened to encounter with Sonic and friends, Blaze's personality began changing to show a new aspect. Visiting Sonic's world via the power of the Sol Emeralds was possible but the movement of space-time at this time has put an end to that condition.

     

    First you said that Blaze was a rip-off of Knuckles because they're loner guardians, and you were argued down by multiple people pointing out the significant differential context between their life stations and personalities based on the games' stories and character profiles themselves. Part of this was based on the whole "introvert" angle where you once again used a word that you don't know the definition of.

    My statement that Blaze was a rip-off of Knuckles because they're both loner guardians wasn't "argued down" by anyone; you're just inserting your own bias in your recollection of what transpired in this thread. And no, people did not give any significant differential context between their life stations and personalities.

    Then you switched gears and kept pushing this thing about Knuckles not "opening up to others" before Sonic came along, and to refute any arguments that he did open up to someone (namely Eggman) before befriending Sonic, you suddenly applied a random-ass subjective definition and said "herpaderp opening up actually means having friends!" So me and Osmium actually obliged the inane request for proof and proved that Knuckles had friends before Sonic came along.  

    I didn't "switch gears"; I maintained my previous argument about Blaze ripping off Knuckles by being a loner guardian. I merely brought up another thing when I said Knuckles didn't open up to others before Sonic.

    You've completely failed to recognize this fact and mend your argument in light of the information. Now you're saying "well, he's still a loner" (which makes no goddamn sense if the guy has friends) as if it's a meaningful enough similarity to conclude that Blaze is a complete rip-off, as if other characters aren't introverted, all this time providing no actual information from the games to support your argument while also, I must reiterate, having the fucking audacity to ask anyone else for proof.

    Me saying "well, he's still a loner" is mending my argument in light of the information you posted about Knuckles having friends prior to Sonic. I acknowledge that he had friends before Sonic, but he was still a loner. In case you haven't realized, loners CAN have friends. Just because one has friends doesn't mean they're not a loner. A loner is someone who simply prefers not to associate with others; just because they prefer not to associate with others doesn't mean they can't have friends. You clearly don't understand the term "loner".

    And this is all regardless of the fact that you've outwardly refused and ignored to address the vast swathe of differences Blaze has with Knuckles in your conclusion. 

     

    I did address the "differences" you people brought up between Blaze and Knuckles. Azoo brought up that they don't guard the same types of emeralds nor the same number of emeralds, and I stated that's irrelevant as in the end, they still guard emeralds nonetheless. You brought up Blaze being afraid of heights and conscious about her body, and I said that's irrelevant as it's rarely ever touched upon in the games (the latter isn't touched upon in the games at all). You brought up things like Knuckles and Blaze being of different genders, which is irrelevant, as their genders say nothing about their characterization.

    I'm telling you to stop moving the goalposts not only because its only result is that you're responsible for shitting up yet another topic, but being stubborn and refusing to acknowledge proper refutations to your arguments is thankfully against the fucking rules you agreed to abide by when you signed up here. And that's me reading your posts in actual good faith. If I were to read your posts in bad faith, it would be that you're nothing more than a troll, which is also against the rules.

    I'm not moving goalposts, and you only think the refutations to my arguments are "proper"; again, you're putting your own bias in your recollection of events that transpired in this thread. And furthermore, I did mend a number of my arguments when users posted information to refute them; for an example, I conceded my argument that Knuckles and Blaze both have fire powers when other people pointed out that their abilities relating to fire aren't the same.

    Tornado already told you you're on thin ice in the racism thread, but I'm not in the mood to see you continue to make a fucking circus out of a topic because you're too bullheaded to recognize when the logic with which you've based an opinion makes no sense or is rooted in terrible or nonexistent terms and definitions. You've literally yet to contribute honestly and positively to the boards nor learn a goddamn thing, so I'm giving you three choices: You can mend your argument in light of all of the information you've been given by the various members here and actually try to have a productive conversation, leave the topic, or get banned if you repeat yourself. And yes, this ultimatum applies to every other topic in which you're being a brick wall in.

    Do you threaten to ban members every time they don't reach an agreement with you? Do what you want.

    Honestly, the community here is very toxic. You people actually lash out at others for simply not being in agreement with you. I've actually been calm in the threads I post in for the most part since I came back from my suspension. The elitist attitude on this board is one of the reasons the Sonic fanbase has such a bad rep. The official Sega boards are actually a lot kinder and more peaceful than here. I'll say bye ahead of time in case I'm banned for posting this.


  10.  What does the word "assault" mean? You said it literally half a dozen times, so I hope you know; but it's becoming increasingly clear that you just said a word and pushed it through in the hopes no one would challenge it. Similar to "emulation". And "backtracking". There's probably more.

    And? You said that I said police officers should be allowed to shoot people for touching them. That's not what I said at all; I said that police officers should be allowed to shoot people for assaulting them (something I later conceded), thus you were rephrasing my post for your own convenience.

    Nope. Your persecution complex is your own problem no matter how hard you try and make it everyone else's, but if you're going to resort to a completely stupid extreme example for why non-lethal force cannot be considered in every situation, I'm going to call it for the attempt to move the goalposts that it is.

    It's not moving the goalposts. You people said police shouldn't use lethal force against unarmed individuals, and I brought up an example where I feel lethal force would be justified against an unarmed individual.

    First of all, I suggest you drop the bullshit attitude. 

    Pot calling the black. You've been showing attitude towards me a number of times in this thread already. 

    Yeah, that's enough. You spent your entire fucking time in this topic unequivocally saying that police officers are allowed to shoot people for touching them. You don't get to mince words over who's been spreading misinformation. This absolute idiotic side conversation you're trying to push about how heavyweight boxers are trained fighters so they can somehow block mace as if it had the same physical consistency as a fist or casually shrug off baton strikes isn't diverting anyone's attention from your previous posts.

     

    Mike Tyson was a professional heavyweight boxer; one of the best there ever was. Mike Tyson did go to jail for a major criminal act not too far removed from when he was in his prime. Mike Tyson was known for being about a half step away from being uncontrollably insane. Mike Tyson still did not fight off six cops in a rage induced arrest before finally going down for the seventh, so who the fuck gives a shit about what a boxer is capable of in this wonderful example devoid of any repeated basis in history?

    Just look at how antagonistic your wording is. You were baiting.

    You've been given such a free pass on the piles of indefensible garbage you've spewn all over this forum in every thread you've entered ever since you've joined that insulting the guy who has defended you from being banned on multiple occasions probably isn't the best idea on your part

    While I feel that you baited me, two wrongs don't make a right, so I admit that's no excuse for how I responded to you there. My apologies.

    But what, pray tell, did I dodge and cherry pick?

    The vast majority of my post. I posted videos and links showing how neither maces nor tasers are always effective, so you can't act as if they are. And yet, you dodged all of it and cherry-picked what parts of my post to respond to.

    The shit you posted was the same shit that I already responded to once, and in response you simply tried reiterating it again as if that makes it more true.

    Except it's not the same shit you already responded to, nor did I simply try reiterating it again. Again, I had posted links and videos that I hadn't posted before to bolster my argument, and you ignored all it.

    What about mace, a gaseous/liquid solvent that irritates the skin on contact and plays havoc on someone's eyes and breathing, makes it the same as someone's fist? 

    I never said it was the same as someone's fist. 

    What about a strict training regiment or high athletic ability makes someone able to completely shrug off a hit from a taser or baton strike?

    And I never said anything about a training regiment or high athletic ability enabling someone to "completely shrug off a hit from a taser or a baton strike". This is what I'm talking about when I say you rephrase my posts for your own convenience.

    You're acting as if they have no effect on people and others are saying that they are guaranteed to incapacitate someone; which is pretty ridiculous when neither is true.

    That's not how I'm acting; I never once said they don't have any effect on people. I'm saying they don't always have an effect on people.

    As for others saying they are guaranteed to incapacitate someone, yes, that is what others are saying, yourself included:

     

    But in the event a taser fails, this is also why officers have this:

    police-model-pepper-spray-by-mace.jpg?t=

    And this:

    Hardwood_Police_Baton_Tonfa_1707.jpg

    Before resorting to a gun. Both of which (especially the baton) should give even an average sized officer a better edge against a unarmed heavyweight boxer.

     

     

    Because unless you can come up with something showing Mike Tyson was made out of rubber or some sort of merman in his prime I'm pretty sure a taser or mace from an officer who knew how to use either would have still dramatically altered the outcome of whatever 6 against 1 Jackie Chan fight you're describing without needing to put a dozen bullets into him.

    And one other thing, I polled another forum on whether or not a police officer has the right to shoot someone who assaults them (assault as in punching them in the face and trying to steal their gun). The vast majority of people voted they had the right:

    9moB7P2.jpg 

    You can argue "oh, that's just one forum", but really, based on common sense, the majority of people would agree with me on this.


  11. So you're not going to address the fact that the Sonic 3 manual stated that Knuckles had friends before Sonic and just continue saying this as if repetition magically adds validity to an argument? Are are you going to finally take the L and move on?

    He may have had friends before meeting Sonic, but he was still a loner, as was Blaze.


  12. Introverts don't socialize much because they don't want to, not because they have some prior responsibility that they're beholden to. You don't temporarily become an introvert just because your mom makes you clean your room before you're allowed to go hang with your friends.

     

    In any case, Knuckles and Blaze still chose to keep themselves, regardless of whether or not it was because they were introverts or not. That's enough of a similarity; they were both loners.


  13. He opened up to the animal friends on Angel Island,

    Proof?

    and he opened to Eggman immediately when he told him that Sonic was the bad guy. So you're literally wrong.

    Aligning with someone =/= opening up to them.

    Becoming friends with someone is opening up to them.

    Yes. Not because he's an introvert. But because his duty kept him from meeting other people.

    Which makes him an introvert. Introverts choose to keep to themselves. Extroverts choose to be with  others.


  14. Knuckles kept away from people because he lived on an island in the sky that the rest of the world didn't even know existed, not because he was an introvert.

    No, he kept away from others because of his duty of guarding the Master Emerald. There's nothing to say he didn't know the outside world existed; he just chose not to get involved in it.

    I don't understand why you still keep making the argument that Knuckles was an introvert until Sonic showed him the light.

    He chose to keep to himself on the Angel Island and didn't open up to others. That made him an introvert.


  15. Nope. You just have once again shot your mouth off extensively regarding a topic without knowing what the words you were saying meant.

    Baseless statement.

    Nope. I'm just mocking this contrived example you brought up for no other reason than to divert attention from your failed attempt to claim every hypothetical officer/suspect altercation into a justifiable cause for killing the suspect.

    So, in other words, you're trolling.

     I also note that you just cherry-picked and dodged the majority of my post. You have nothing contributing to add to this discussion. 

    Why are we even going on with this needless digression? I mean, yeah, professional boxers can pose a notable threat to a police officer if given a chance... but here's the thing: not everyone is even a amateur boxer, much less a pro!

    You people were the ones who said police should refrain shooting anyone unarmed, which includes boxers. That suggests police should handle boxers the same way they'd handle anyone else, which is a ridiculous statement, as boxers are more dangerous than the average person.


  16. 1 ) Different kinds of emeralds; and regardless of that they handle their jobs completely differently

    2 ) Blaze is a pyrokinetic. Knuckles had one or two fire-looking moves once because he was painted as an anime-trope angry red guy.

    3 ) Blaze was an introvert esque character. A loner only in her personality, otherwise being surrounded by royalty.

         Knuckles is a hermit. A loner only in profession, he lives on an island by himself, but seems pretty open to other people.

    4 ) Blaze changed after she met Sonic. Knuckles didn't. He stayed exactly the same.

    1) Doesn't matter if they're different kinds of emerald; the characters are both still emerald guardians.
    2) I conceded on that. 
    3) Knuckles was introverted as well; someone who keeps away from others all their life is an introvert. And Knuckles only opened up to others after he met Sonic.
    4) Nope, Knuckles no longer considered Sonic his enemy after meeting him; he considered him his friend after meeting him.

    Perhaps "meet" is the wrong word to use. my bad. Knuckles and Blaze only opened up to others after they got to know Sonic.


  17. Meh, I'll concede on my argument that both Knuckles and Blaze have fire powers. My other points still stand, though.

     

     

    ...OK, that was my (momentary) mistake. But let's suppose they were counterparts - would that therefore no longer make them ripoffs of each other?

    That's right.


  18. Knuckles doesn't have fire powers.

    You're just repeating what you said over and over again without even attempting to provide any backing.

    Knuckles does have fire powers; his uppercut in Sonic Advance, his Fire Dunk in Sonic Heroes, his Hammer Punch in Sonic Rivals and his Knuckle Slam in Sonic Rivals 2 are all examples of this.

    No she didn't.

    Yes, she did. Have you even played Sonic Rush? Even those who disagree with my statement that Blaze is a ripoff of Knuckles agree that Blaze was a loner.

    Repeating something that's untrue over and over again doesn't make it any less untrue

    Except it's true. Both Knuckles and Blaze are emerald guardians  with fire powers and were loners until they met Sonic.


  19. So how come those two characters being a gender counterpart & a dark counterpart aren't ripoff's, yet Blaze being an alternate dimension counterpart is a ripoff?

    Blaze isn't an alternate counterpart of Knuckles.

    Evil Knuckles from the comics would be an example of an alternate dimension counterpart to Knuckles, not Blaze: http://archiesonic.wikia.com/wiki/Evil_Knuckles

    He had no real friends because no one was really on the island aside from the animal buddies to be friends with, not because he was a deliberate shut-in. 

    He still didn't have any friends, though, much like Blaze. It's similar enough.


  20. You keep distilling their similarities into such broad, simplistic terms in order to keep trying to force this argument. "Opening up to others after he met Sonic" implies that he was closed off to everyone until Sonic brought about a positive change. This is nonsense that doesn't take into account the actual aspects of the narrative going on here. Knuckles was never closed off to people, he didn't trust people who he believed were the villains like every other hero ever. 

    Knuckles was closed off to others until Sonic brought about a positive change. Dude had been guarding the Master Emerald all his life and had no friends up until that point.

    The issue was that he simply didn't know who the villains were, and had he known from the outset he would've automatically been on Sonic's side. This is not the same as Blaze's character arc. You're completely retelling a story of gullibility into one of locked away emotions by stretching so much that holes are appearing in the fabric of your argument. 

    He still didn't open up to others until after meeting Sonic, much like Blaze.

    Alright, so by the logic that Blaze is a ripoff of Knuckles, it's safe to say that '06 Silver is also a ripoff of Knuckles because he was protecting a thing and his gullibility led him to help the main antagonist with his evil plan... Right?

    Nope, Knuckles guarded emeralds. Silver did not.

    One could argue that Silver's gullibility is a rehash of Knuckles' gullibility, though.

    On the note of comparing Knuckles and Blaze, If we're gonna bring up the whole "Knuckles has fire stuff" thing here, that's only because 2003 - 2006 started having him associate some of his moves and other weird crap with fire every now and then, and the only reason why was because he was red and they wanted him to fit the anime cliche of "fire = red = angry" which more or less consumed his character for a little while.

    Irrelevant; he still had fire powers, which makes him similar to Blaze. 

×
×
  • 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.