4 Common Criticisms Toward Sonic and Why They're Stupid

[T-Min]

So, yeah, see, I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I've also been reading Cracked.com. This is the product of those two things. I wrote it for my blog, but Dissident said I should post it here and see what you guys think of it. Besides, I'm an attention whore.

To see how Sonic Generations is turning out really makes me feel good to be a Sonic fan. It seems that almost every week something new is revealed that raises my anticipation levels. Almost nothing about it looks disappointing in the least.

But if there's anything that Sonic is known for other than his speed, it's disappointment. Following the Dreamcast era, the main console Sonic games featured quite possibly one of the most crippling crashes and burns ever seen in terms of quality. This culminated in 2006 when quite possibly one of the worst games ever made came out titled simply "SONIC THE HEDGEHOG". It was released for the hedgehog's 15th anniversary and it was an insult not only to the fanbase, but to the Xbox 360 and PS3 consoles. Nay, it was an insult to video games in general. Nay! It was an insult to the human race as a whole.

Needless to say, people weren't so quick to forgive and forget. Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 was followed up two years later by Sonic Unleashed. Was it a great game? No, not at all. It featured Sonic turning into a Werehog at night to go through beat-em-up levels that were mediocre at best and absolutely insipid at worst. The good thing, though, is that that was only half of the game. You spent the other twelve hours of the day blasting through levels faster than ever before, dodging obstacles and taking down enemies and the way it felt can only be described as absolute bliss. With Unleashed, Sonic became more than just a fast-paced platformer; it became a series based around simulating the feeling of running at the speed of sound, watching everything fly by. Sure, it still had the Werehog, but if only because of how thoroughly SEGA nailed it with the daytime levels, I would say it is a genuinely good game.

But even the fact that Sonic turns into a Werehog doesn't excuse crap like this:

No matter what you think about Sonic Unleashed, the way the reviewer here presents his opinions is simply unprofessional. He begins the review by saying "There's one thing you should know about Sonic Unleashed before spending your hard-earned money on it: It's a big piece of garbage. BIG piece of garbage." As bad of a way this is to start a review of anything, I could at least see where he's coming from if he disliked the daytime gameplay. Much as I love it, I'm gonna be honest: there ARE legitimate reasons for disliking it. But no, he, too enjoys the daytime gameplay. But apparently the Werehog sucks so much that it kills the whole thing. Why? I dunno, it's just bad. Oh, and it makes Big the Cat look like an endearing character. Because I would totally rather go fishing - for frogs - in a Sonic game rather than play a beat-em-up. And the hub worlds are boring. Why? Because they're boring. What's this nonsense about "explaining his opinion" that you speak of?

It doesn't stop there. IGN wrote an article for Sonic's 20th birthday and made a point to mention Sonic Unleashed, calling it "one of the hedgehog's lowest points - ever" and saying "This is the game in which Sonic turns into a stretchy-armed werewolf thing. What else is there to say?" Uhh, how about the daytime levels where Sonic WASN'T a werewolf?

But for as stupid as all this is, you know what? I get it. Sonic 2006 is probably one of the worst games ever made. Not so easy to forgive that. That doesn't excuse such bias, but I can at least understand where such bias comes from. They were mad. We all were. But it's time to forgive and forget. Even IGN praised Sonic 4: Episode I and Sonic Colors, and Sonic Generations is receiving massive amounts of hype for a reason. And yet no one outside of the fandom has forgiven Sonic. What's even dumber is what they blame the franchise's downfall on. These are the same gaming journalists we rely on all the time for news and reviews on the latest games. Such bias against Sonic has extended beyond gaming journalism: tell anyone on the Internet outside of the fandom that you like the series and you'll be accused of having no taste in video games or, at best, you'll have all the bullcrap criticisms of the gaming journalists regurgitated at you. These are people who have never played a Sonic game in their lives and they are repeating the exact same things the critics are saying. This is why I have compiled this list of four common criticisms toward the franchise from people who either don't know what they're talking about or who are blowing things out of proportion. Bear in mind this is only based on what journalists, crtics and non-fans say: you will see none of the memetic "herp derp GREEN EYES" or "RYAN DRUMMOND WAS THE BEST VOICE ACTOR FOR SONIC BRING HIM BACK" complaints from the...less evolved members of the fandom. So without further adieu...

4. The Sonic series sucks because they tried to put it in 3-D! SEGA should only make 2-D Sonic games, that will save the series!

We start with one of the complaints that is, in a way, the most grounded in reality, as it is true that Sonic's 3-D entries beyond the Dreamcast era are the most infamous games in the series. However, this complaint is still uninformed and quite frankly annoying to hear, and I don't only say that because I'm a fan of a few of Sonic's 3-D entries. Sonic Adventure came out in 1999 for the Dreamcast. It had flaws, but it received great reviews across the board by people who somehow enjoyed speeding through colorful, well-designed environments in the exciting new third dimension - in (at the time) stunning graphics. For whatever reason, this tends to baffle some of the game's detractors who either say that it's aged terribly or was never that good in the first place. I think I'll let GamesRadar talk for me here:

"But people still seem to think this is the blueprint for a good Sonic game. It is not an exceptional game. It was slightly above average and adored solely because it looked worlds better than its competition,"

- Top 7 Games That Don't Deserve Nostalgia

Oh, better!

"And then, because Mario did it in Mario 64 and everyone liked that, Sega made the worst decision in its history - creating a Sonic game in 3D. The screenshots showed glorious forest and temple levels we couldn't wait to run around - but the game's camera was awful and you spent more time battling the controls than Eggman/Robotnik.

Fast things and 3D just don't work. Mario is fine in 3D as he's a slow fat man. Sonic, with his bouncing around and breakneck pace, just ends up dying and getting stuck on lumps of scenery. Even now, we wish with all our hearts that Sega would see sense and make a proper, big-budget, all-new Sonic game in 2D. Imagine that. If we all wish for it really hard, perhaps it will happen."

- The Ups and (Many) Downs of Sonic

You know, I could talk all day about how biased even the titles of the articles are, but I think I'll just talk about the content of them, particularly the second one. Now, much as I love Sonic Adventure, there are legitimate reasons to dislike it - a lot of them. The camera can be quite the annoyance, you have to go through four levels of fishing - for frogs - with a purple cat who appropriately has the intelligence level of Barney the Dinosaur, the voice acting and dialogue suck, and, while it's aged considerably better than, say, Final Fantasy VII, it's not exactly aged gracefully either. So, they do mention the camera, but according to them you also "spent more time battling the controls than Eggman/Robotnik". I'm sorry, are we talking about the crappy port for XBLA and PSN? No, we can't be, the date this article was posted on is September 18th of 2007, three years before the port came out. In the Dreamcast version of Sonic Adventure, Sonic's controls are only jerky during its fastest moments, and those moments are usually either scripted or taking place in confined areas that don't allow death from poor control. If you're playing the game on XBLA or PSN, the controls are floaty to the point of being nigh-on unplayable. I can't speak for the GameCube version, but in the Dreamcast version, this is far from the case. (Also, if fast things in 3-D don't work, I guess that every 3-D racing game ever made has completely sucked, right? I love flawed logic.)

And then we have this sort-of preview of the 3DS version of Sonic Generations:

"On consoles, half of Sonic Generations is going to take place racing through 2D classic levels (which look fantastic), and half of the game will take place in 3D in behind-the-back chase sequences (which look on-par with the series’ typical behind-the-back chase sequences). We’re going to say what everyone is thinking: why don’t they just cut out those generally lackluster 3D levels entirely? Lucky for 3DS owners, the handheld version is going to do just that.

http://youtu.be/Fc2RMHir8nU

http://youtu.be/MsY8r4GNtGU

http://youtu.be/NruVz9FSX9M

Yeah, all those 3-D Sonic games look really lackluster. Totally don't look fun at all.

Oh, and by the way, this is the 3DS version of Sonic Generations. Tell me if it looks as much fun as the HD version:

http://youtu.be/NagIv5t9bbI

Nope, didn't think so.

3. There have been no good Sonic games since the Genesis/Dreamcast days!

...*ahem*

Remember this guy?

It was pretty much everything you loved about the Genesis games on Nintendo's handheld, and it's arguably more worthy of the title "Sonic the Hedgehog 4" than the game that officially received it. It also had two younger brothers, and while they weren't quite as good (Advance 2 especially), they were still pretty decent games. And now I raise you the Rush series on Nintendo's later handheld:

What Unleashed's daytime levels did for Sonic in 3-D, Rush had already done for Sonic in 2-D. It allowed you to tear up every stage at mach speed in rollercoaster-like levels, and both games were a crapload of fun if a bit easy, boss battles aside. Oh, and need I even mention that all of these games came out even before Sonic 4: Episode I and Colors? I understand that this is probably the most opinionated item on this list, but all five - five - of these games received very positive reviews from critics as well. Sure, they were all handheld titles, but does that somehow make it so that they don't matter?

Next!

2. The Sonic series sucked ever since the introduced characters other than Sonic and Eggman!

We're back to IGN again, here:

"When were Sonic games awesome? When it was just Sonic the Hedgehog on Genesis. As soon as Tails, Knuckles, and the slew of other weird, furry folks showed up, things started getting iffy with this franchise. SEGA needs to pull a Mega Man and get back to basics -- dump the dead weight, and give us a 16-bit sidescroller when we tear through a level on a quest to stop Robotnik and get wings. We don't want 3D, we don't want guns, and we don't want werehog. You can either put all the arbitrary characters into a bus and have Robotnik blow it up or just never mention them again. Either way, we'd be happy and the franchise would be saved."

- Videogame Characters That Should Die

I'm sorry, but weren't Tails and Knuckles introduced in Sonic 2 and 3 (respectively)?Which are universally considered by fans and critics alike to be some of the best games in the series?

Now, I'll admit that the series has gone quite a bit overboard with the characters. We have a purple ninja chameleon, a money-grubbing crocodile, a hyperactive bee, a moronic purple cat, a six-year-old rabbit whose voice sounds like a man imitating a six-year-old rabbit, a telekinetic silver hedgehog who comes from a post-apocalyptic future that was destroyed by some stupid-looking Final Fantasy reject so he has to travel back in time to destroy Sonic because he's apparently the "IBLIS TRIGERRRRRR", and...yeah, we don't really need those guys, and a lot of us don't even like them. I can understand how the overabundance of often annoying characters can get tiring to some people. But to actually blame the series' downfall on their presence is pure ignorance. It's not the characters that made the games bad, nor is it the fact that the series went into 3-D. It was poor gameplay and design decisions that ruined everything, and it's stupid that anyone would blame anything else.

1. No one likes the new Sonic games, so the series should just die!

Okay, there are two reasons why this is incredibly dumb.

For one thing, to companies such as SEGA, video games are a business. Even during his dark ages, Sonic games were selling like hotcakes, as they say. To pull the plug simply because of a decline in critical acclaim would be a ridiculous idea that would cost SEGA a lot of money, and your blind bitterness and hatred isn't going to make them do it any faster. Any thinking human being could tell you this.

For another, does anyone remember this game?

If you ever owned a Nintendo 64, you probably do. It was an amazing rail shooter with tons of replay value, graphics that were stunning (...at the time), and it came with a then-revolutionary rumble pak that actually allowed you to feel the action in your hands! It actually holds up well today...which is why they should have added a LOT more when remaking it for 3DS. But that's something I've already ranted about before. So what does this have to do with Sonic, you may be thinking. Well, I'm getting to that. Anyway, Star Fox 64 was followed up by this game here:

It was initially developed as an original IP by Rareware, famous for making the Donkey Kong Country series for SNES, the Banjo-Kazooie games and Conker's Bad Fur Day for N64, and numerous crappy shovelware games for the Kinect, and it would have been named Dinosaur Planet after the area where most of the game takes place. But Nintendo, realizing that people probably wanted a Star Fox game for the new GameCube console, looked at this game, said "Forget it," handed Rare a big wad of cash, and said "Put Star Fox in this game. Trust us, people will love it." Rare then said "Durr, okay!" and boom, Star Fox Adventures. Needless to say, there are mixed opinions on this game. Some hate it because it's not a real Star Fox game and some appreciate it for what it is, as it is a genuinely good adventure game if you can look past the moronic decisions surrounding it. I probably don't need to say that I'm part of the latter group, and I really think that Adventures wouldn't catch as much flack as it does if it were the only oddball in an otherwise consistent franchise. Unfortunately, it would exemplify the problem that would partially lead to the downfall of the series.

So, now I'm going to ask you if you remember either of these games:

Probably not.

Why?

Because they sucked.

To Assault's credit, it did feature rail shooting levels in the Arwing reminiscent of 64, and they were the best of what the game had to offer, but even they were slow-paced and dull compared to the levels of 64 and they took a back seat to ground combat levels that dropped you in an area, said "here's a gun, hunt down X amount of targets", were unrefined and controlled poorly, and just weren't much fun. And even the most diehard of Star Fox fans won't defend Command, which is pretty much what happens when you take the words "bland", "boring", and "frustrating" and give them physical form as a real-time-strategy game - yes, a real-time-strategy game - for DS. Star Fox didn't just go downhill; it losts its identity. Not even Sonic did that. And although Star Fox has fewer games, that just makes the fact that it has a smaller ratio of good games to bad ones that much more inexcusable. If you don't count Adventures, there are only two: 64 and the original Star Fox, and the original has aged so poorly it's almost laughable. I mean, look at this:

http://youtu.be/hJxkJ_Ze6qM

Does it look like anything you would see yourself playing now? Compare to Sonic's Genesis titles, which are absolutely fantastic even today.

So, if people are saying that Sonic should die...why does everyone want a new Star Fox game? Is it because we know Nintendo can do better? But if that's the case, then why can't SEGA do better as well? (Not that they haven't done better. I mean, really, Sonic Colors.) Is it because most of us only think of Star Fox 64 when we think of that series? Then why do we think of Sonic 06 when we think of Sonic rather than the Genesis and Dreamcast games? And Sonic Colors?

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a new Star Fox game. No, not at all. In fact, if it were good, I'd love it just as much as you would. But let's not be hypocrites here: if Sonic is to die because of a decline in quality, so should every other series that ever saw such a decline. Even if it's made by Nintendo.

Edited September 25, 2011 by T-Man

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

So when is this going to be posted on your blog? It's a really good read!

[sonfan1984]

lol, I remember that IGN article about SEGA killing off every Sonic character in the series besides Sonic and Dr Eggman. I see fans of those characters throwing huge fits of rage cause their favorite character got removed rather then really helping the series. I remember when Sonic and the Secret Rings got praised for having Sonic as the only playable character but guess what? The game is still mediocre anyway even with Sonic as the only playable character. So I don't see how getting rid of everyone and making a Sonic 1 rehash over and over is going to save the franchise and then the series starts to get boring and people will start begging for Sega to try new things.

Anyway, the article is great read and I agree about all the stupid complaints. =D We should help spread this everywhere.

Edited September 25, 2011 by sonfan1984

[T-Min]

So when is this going to be posted on your blog? It's a really good read!

I actually posted it there first. I wasn't going to post it here, but Dissident said I should and I was like "Meh, why not?"

Oh, and thanks =D

[Sami]

Told you people would like it. ;D

[Komodin]

Wow, I must say, this is quite an awesome, interesting and well-researched essay! Well done, mon!

[Dark Qiviut]

lol, I remember that IGN article about SEGA killing off every Sonic character in the series besides Sonic and Dr Eggman. I see fans of those characters throwing huge fits of rage cause their favorite character got removed rather then really helping the series. I remember when Sonic and the Secret Rings got praised for having Sonic as the only playable character but guess what? The game is still mediocre anyway even with Sonic as the only playable character. So I don't see how getting rid of everyone and making a Sonic 1 rehash over and over is going to save the franchise.

I remember the article, too. It was so insipid that I still wonder why it even passed the editing stage. It was horrid journalism at its finest, and I usually like IGN.

That said, very good read, T-Man. Great dissecting of the poorly though-out, illogical, faulty, lazy opinions amongst the pro-2D/3D Sonic-bashers (and Hilary Goldstein's horridly written review). Great usage of research, as what Komodin said, and I like how you delved into why their logic sucks. Great work!

Edited September 25, 2011 by Dark Qiviut

[the blu blur]

For another, does anyone remember this game?

If you ever owned a Nintendo 64, you probably do. It was an amazing rail shooter with tons of replay value, graphics that were stunning (...at the time), and it came with a then-revolutionary rumble pak that actually allowed you to feel the action in your hands! It actually holds up well today...which is why they should have added a LOT more when remaking it for 3DS. But that's something I've already ranted about before. So what does this have to do with Sonic, you may be thinking. Well, I'm getting to that. Anyway, Star Fox 64 was followed up by this game here:

It was initially developed as an original IP by Rareware, famous for making the Donkey Kong Country series for SNES, the Banjo-Kazooie games and Conker's Bad Fur Day for N64, and numerous crappy shovelware games for the Kinect, and it would have been named Dinosaur Planet after the area where most of the game takes place. But Nintendo, realizing that people probably wanted a Star Fox game for the new GameCube console, looked at this game, said "Forget it," handed Rare a big wad of cash, and said "Put Star Fox in this game. Trust us, people will love it." Rare then said "Durr, okay!" and boom, Star Fox Adventures. Needless to say, there are mixed opinions on this game. Some hate it because it's not a real Star Fox game and some appreciate it for what it is, as it is a genuinely good adventure game if you can look past the moronic decisions surrounding it. I probably don't need to say that I'm part of the latter group, and I really think that Adventures wouldn't catch as much flack as it does if it were the only oddball in an otherwise consistent franchise. Unfortunately, it would exemplify the problem that would partially lead to the downfall of the series.

So, now I'm going to ask you if you remember either of these games:

Probably not.

Why?

Because they sucked.

To Assault's credit, it did feature rail shooting levels in the Arwing reminiscent of 64, and they were the best of what the game had to offer, but even they were slow-paced and dull compared to the levels of 64 and they took a back seat to ground combat levels that dropped you in an area, said "here's a gun, hunt down X amount of targets", were unrefined and controlled poorly, and just weren't much fun. And even the most diehard of Star Fox fans won't defend Command, which is pretty much what happens when you take the words "bland", "boring", and "frustrating" and give them physical form as a real-time-strategy game - yes, a real-time-strategy game - for DS. Star Fox didn't just go downhill; it losts its identity. Not even Sonic did that. And although Star Fox has fewer games, that just makes the fact that it has a smaller ratio of good games to bad ones that much more inexcusable. If you don't count Adventures, there are only two: 64 and the original Star Fox, and the original has aged so poorly it's almost laughable. I mean, look at this:

http://youtu.be/hJxkJ_Ze6qM

Does it look like anything you would see yourself playing now? Compare to Sonic's Genesis titles, which are absolutely fantastic even today.

So, if people are saying that Sonic should die...why does everyone want a new Star Fox game? Is it because we know Nintendo can do better? But if that's the case, then why can't SEGA do better as well? (Not that they haven't done better. I mean, really, Sonic Colors.) Is it because most of us only think of Star Fox 64 when we think of that series? Then why do we think of Sonic 06 when we think of Sonic rather than the Genesis and Dreamcast games? And Sonic Colors?

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a new Star Fox game. No, not at all. In fact, if it were good, I'd love it just as much as you would. But let's not be hypocrites here: if Sonic is to die because of a decline in quality, so should every other series that ever saw such a decline. Even if it's made by Nintendo.

This. So this! Talking about hypocriticism at a very shameful low. If one series gets the benefit of the doubt as it recovers than so should Sonic. It shouldn't get any less due to one gamer's bitterness.

I honestly will never understand why the series still gets so much strife as if Sega killed their dog or something. I honestly feel like putting this quote in my signiture, but its quite long so...

Edited September 25, 2011 by the blu blur

[KHCast]

Wow,Took a lot of effort to read but after reading it I must say it was worth it. It's a interesting, informative, creative, Great read and I can definitely see the effort put into it. Good job man!

[SuperStingray]

I gave you the benefit of the doubt enough to read all the way through, but honestly, I feel I should have stopped as soon as the word "bias" came up. Any time this word comes up in a discussion about this series, the argument immediately falls into strawman mode. Don't get me wrong, I agree that those criticisms are annoyingly shortsighted, but there are better ways of getting that across than this accusation that IGN's consistently negative opinions are part of an agenda and not simple opinion, poorly communicated or not.

On top of that, a fair share of this comes more from opinion than analysis, so it's really just as much your bias as it is theirs. Not everyone's going to agree that Advance or Rush are good or that Espio or Silver suck, but if they did, would their thoughts be as biased as IGN's because it goes against your argument?

I respect the effort you put into writing this, but you can't just just counter what other people believe by saying what you believe and holding that as evidence. You want to write like Cracked? You can't just link to the articles you're arguing against, you have to find the hard facts and lay them down harder. This is hard to do, especially with a subjective phenomenon like video games, but look into the history and instances where journalists look into faults on false pretenses. I can't find it, but I remember reading a Kotaku post two or three months ago that implicitly blamed the introduction of Tails in Sonic 2 for the oversized cast today.

So you have a good outline here, but try to stray away from countering opinions with other opinions.

[Tornado]

In addition to what SuperStingray said, I will note something in response to #4: Hindsight is an amazing thing.

[Soniman]

I love you and I love this article, though I have some gripes.

1: Im irked how you mention the Chaotix in the list of bad characters, even thought they originally in an old 16-bit game and can be considered "classic characters", yet you fail to mention train wrecks like Shadow. Personal gripe, but still.

2: YOUR WRONG STARFOX ON THE SNES WAS EPICALLY AWESOME DESPITE THE GRAPHICS!!! RAGE!!!!!!!.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Soniman032-

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Well if we're going to start with critiquing things now, I have to say your weakest point would be in the "No one likes the new Sonic games, so the series should die!" at least right when you bring up Starfox as an example with Assault and Command and how the series has aged. I wouldn't say no one remembers them, because quite frankly it wouldn't be easy to tell if you couldn't bring up any evidence on your end to show your point. That's where you really start placing your own bias, and you need to be even harder than that regarding the facts.

In addition to what SuperStingray said, I will note something in response to #4: Hindsight is an amazing thing.

Although, to be fair, he did kinda point out the flawed logic behind Gamesradar's "Fast things and 3D just don't work" part by using racing games that do just that and don't receive the same kind of criticism.

And I find the hindsight arguable regarding what people thought was actually the problem, but that depends on whether I'm talking about the same thing you are about it, and I don't think I am.

Edited September 25, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Johnny Boy]

This article is way to mind blowingly epic for words. You just completely dissected and obliterated every dumb complaint against this franchise. T Man, I salute you.

[Jacky]

damn son, pretty good read.

and here i was about to accuse you of tl;dr.

[T-Min]

I gave you the benefit of the doubt enough to read all the way through, but honestly, I feel I should have stopped as soon as the word "bias" came up. Any time this word comes up in a discussion about this series, the argument immediately falls into strawman mode. Don't get me wrong, I agree that those criticisms are annoyingly shortsighted, but there are better ways of getting that across than this accusation that IGN's consistently negative opinions are part of an agenda and not simple opinion, poorly communicated or not.

On top of that, a fair share of this comes more from opinion than analysis, so it's really just as much your bias as it is theirs. Not everyone's going to agree that Advance or Rush are good or that Espio or Silver suck, but if they did, would their thoughts be as biased as IGN's because it goes against your argument?

The purpose of this article wasn't so much as to be 100% objective so much as to attack statements I saw as illegitimate, unfair or uninformed. Honestly, I think an article like this would be at least somewhat opinionated by its very nature. Regarding that second point, of course not everyone's going to agree, but on the subject of Advance and Rush, the critics did seem to agree. I don't necessarily hate Espio and Silver myself. I'm just saying that they're kind of unnecessary, and I can understand why having so many such characters would get annoying to some.

I love you and I love this article, though I have some gripes.

1: Im irked how you mention the Chaotix in the list of bad characters, even thought they originally in an old 16-bit game and can be considered "classic characters", yet you fail to mention train wrecks like Shadow. Personal gripe, but still.

Yeah, but no one really knew who the Chaotix was until Heroes XP And like I said, I wasn't necessarily saying they were bad characters. Just that we don't need them and quite a few of us think they're bad.

AND I LIKE SHADOW. RAEG!!!!!!!!!

Well if we're going to start with critiquing things now, I have to say your weakest point would be in the "No one likes the new Sonic games, so the series should die!" at least right when you bring up Starfox as an example with Assault and Command. I wouldn't say no one remembers them, because quite frankly it wouldn't be easy to tell if you couldn't bring up any evidence on your end to show your point. That's where you really start placing your own bias, and you need to be even harder than that regarding the facts.

I guess you're right about this XP That part where I said "no one remembers those games" was moreso me trying to be funny, but I'll keep this in mind.

Edited September 25, 2011 by T-Man

[Xenos]

Regarding extra characters;

I don't see why having them around is so big of a problem, all the dislike of the other characters stems from the fact they were brought up the wrong way, Shadow started off good, but ended in a trainwreck.

The Chaotix honestly didn't get a good chance, they debuted officially in a game barely known by many outside the fanbase, and come back as Modern Characters in a game where nothing can be taken seriously at all.

The characters being unnecessary isn't a completely valid point if you consider the Mario Series. With so many recurring characters, you'd think people hated them, but no, they don't.

That's either because they are only in Spin-Off's or they are just likable. Nobody wants Sonic's (Shitty) Friends around because they can be generally annoying, to the voices, the Gameplay, etc. All Sonic Team need to do is just make them better in general as characters.

I mean, the voices are fine enough from what I've heard. (Amy, please fix Amy and make Vector sound less...well..like his 4Kids Actor.) Making some playable will be fine as long as they don't suck. So what's the problem?

What annoys the hell out of me is when critics and fans keep hating on them just by them appearing in the damn game. Seriously, just look at Shadow's reveal and see how much butthurt happens from reactions of people. I really can't wait for when they reveal the next rival character in Generations, that should be GOLD.

And I honestly think critics will be so condescending on Generations because of the massive amount of characters in the HD Version of the game, I can see a Con from IGN reading: "- Too many characters/friends" And if that happens, I'll say, I told you so.

I mean, it's okay if you personally dislike the characters and don't want to see them again, I just don't want some stupidity about being skeptical over a game (Generations) if a few characters show up. (Shadow, Chaotix, Amy, ETC.)

[sonfan1984]

Regarding extra characters;

What annoys the hell out of me is when critics and fans keep hating on them just by them appearing in the damn game. Seriously, just look at Shadow's reveal and see how much butthurt happens from reactions of people. I really can't wait for when they reveal the next rival character in Generations, that should be GOLD.

And I honestly think critics will be so condescending on Generations because of the massive amount of characters in the HD Version of the game, I can see a Con from IGN reading: "- Too many characters/friends" And if that happens, I'll say, I told you so.

I mean, it's okay if you personally dislike the characters and don't want to see them again, I just don't want some stupidity about being skeptical over a game (Generations) if a few characters show up. (Shadow, Chaotix, Amy, ETC.)

[\Lennox]

By the way, from bro to bro, you sir, deserve something.

This makes me wanna start a topic of my own!

[Blue Wisp]

Was a great and enjoyable read. I agreed with 95% of it.

But Star Fox Assault... Sucked?

[Blacklightning]

A lot of the issues you just brought up are all rooted in the same absolutionist attitude that occurs pretty much every time any franchise drops an epically bad bomb, regardless of whether or not they're still standing at the end of it all (and if I'm not mistaken, I already covered pretty well in CSS's sig quotes). Whenever things go to shit that badly, a fan's first instinctual suggestion is to drop everything related to the disaster and revert back to whatever worked when the franchise still had its old glory. Sometimes, depending on the approach taken, this is exactly what they should be doing, but more often than not they're overzealous about it, if not outright fucking paranoid and xenophobic. Really, the only surprise so far is that this attitude still exists with almost memetic persistence, long after the likes of '06 was overtaken by a steady, noticable rise in game quality ever since.

One thing I've been meaning to bring up lately, though, is that trying to interpret a fanbase or even the target audience in general is like playing Chinese fucking Whispers with a crowd of hundreds of thousands. Someone may bring up a good point every now and then, but once it becomes common it gets gradually twisted out of context over time to such an extent it only vaugely resembles the original meaning behind that point, and then made all the more worse by complete tools who parrot those words further and often drag it even more out of context just to stay in the "in" crowd, usually without even attempting to question or understand it. It's sad, really, because a complaint about the alternate gameplay Genre Roulette bullshit that started in SA1/2 somehow got simplified all the way down to "Sonic Only" merely because they were represented as character changes, which just meant come Unleashed that Sonic Team only had to think of an excuse to enforce the same genre roulette bullshit with only one character to convince themselves they were doing exactly what the fanbase asked of them.

While it certaintly wouldn't hurt if Sonic Team based their game design decisions based on objective merit and told fans and critics alike to go fuck themselves, if they actually listen to the ceaseless, aimless clamouring for an SA3 and it ends up bombing for all the exact same reasons '06 and S4 did, I'd just like everyone to know that I fucking called it.

[Marcello]

I for one thought Assualt was great, much better than most of what Sonic churned out between '05 and '10, and liked Adventures. I've only playet it a bit, but I didn't think Command was terrible.

Edited September 25, 2011 by MarcelloF

[Teeks]

I love Star Fox Adventure, despite the fact that it isn't a Star Fox game, it's still a fantastic game. Assault isn't too bad either. Command, okay yeah, command sucks.

The problem I have with that comparison is that Star Fox has fewer games which also means it's had fewer bad games. Sure, Command is bad and people are split down the middle when it comes to Assault. Adventures as well but normally not for reasons of it being "bad." But Star Fox and Star Fox 64 are often considered to be two of the best games for their respective consoles while Star Fox 64 3D is currently looking to be the same way. Meanwhile, the Sonic series has games like Shadow the Hedgehog, Sonic 06, the night portions of Sonic Unleashed and the Sonic Riders series which are considered by many more people to be bad. Yeah, sure, these games all have their fans as well, I don't blame anybody for liking any of them. Okay, maybe Sonic 06, but the rest, to each their own. Star Fox has widely been considered by many to only have one truly bad game and even Command got pretty decent scores.

Another thing that I think sets the two franchises apart is how well some of the games hold up. Compare Star Fox 64 and Sonic Adventure. Now I love both these games. I've played each of them dozens of times and I'd never in a million years say either of them are bad, but honestly, Star Fox has aged a whole lot better than Sonic Adventure has. Nostalgia goggles or no, Star Fox might only have five games and a remake, but as a whole, the series has been more consistent than Sonic as of late.

I don't disagree with you at all. I think people are quick to judge Sonic games just because they're Sonic games, but I also don't disagree with critics who have given games like Sonic Unleashed bad reviews because there are genuinely terrible things about them. So that's my two sense.

Either way, I like the read. Even if I don't think Star Fox is a fair comparison.

[Carbo]

I'm not sure I appreciate the Star Fox comparison, because as far as personal opinions go and deviations from gameplay style is accounted for, none of those games are infamous for being bad games, far from it. Assault has a 71% review aggregate, a good reception, and Command and Adventures were critical successes. From an objective standpoint I honestly think this was a good misjudgment on your part, especially when you're attempting to pit a couple of games only looked down upon by their respective fanbases, against roughly three games that are by a wide group of people considered as some of the biggest blunders in video game mascot history.

[pppp]

Great article even though i like the Gamecube's Starfox games

But you forgot the "Game looks awesome but how do i know they wont put in a fishing mode at the last minute?" complaints