Popular and unpopular Sonic opinions you agree and disagree with!

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

It would be unpopular because it isn't true. Especially given the glowing reception it and its sequel had at the time.

There's a reason people point to ShTH and Sonic 06 as Sonic's downfall.

Isn't the point of the unpopular opinions thread that you can express unpopular opinions without other people objecting?

Also, just because Sonic Adventure was considered great when it was released and sold well or whatever doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't start the "downfall of the series". You don't know how Matthew is defining that term; he could very easily mean that, in retrospect, its release signified Sonic's decrease in actual quality.

The definition of "downfall" is (according to merriam-webster.com):

1 a :  a sudden fall (as from power)

 

b :  a fall (as of snow or rain) especially when sudden or heavy

2

:  something that causes a downfall (as of a person) <gambling was his downfall>

Clearly, CSS, you would be right in the case of meaning 1a, but if Matthew is using meaning 2, it's no longer something we can objectively know. You could say that the success of this dreadful game (not in my opinion, but Matthew's) caused Sega to continuing pursuing bad ideas that eventually led to their downfall.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Monkey Destruction Switch

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Isn't the point of the unpopular opinions thread that you can express unpopular opinions without other people objecting?

 No? Not unless the mods say otherwise. And if you go further back in this topic, you will see lots of objections to certain opinions.

Everything is up for debate here, it's just a matter of whether the person who chooses to object to an opinion sees it as worthwhile to make a case about. And even if Matthew is using your second point (which unless he clarifies himself, I'd find it somewhat hard to believe right now), that still wouldn't be true given how drastically different the games after its sequel like Heroes, ShTH, and even Sonic 06 which was the closest to SA1 yet was still different in much of its content, have been by comparison by ditching most of those ideas.

Now, I'm not trying to be mean here, nor am I trying to convince him that SA1 is awesome. He's more than welcome to say SA1 is dreadful, and anyone can easily understand why with little explanation. But to point at SA1 as the downfall of things ignores how things actually were, and that kind of thing really doesn't fly with me regardless.

[Matthew]

Everything is up for debate here, it's just a matter of whether the person who chooses to object to an opinion sees it as worthwhile to make a case about. And even if Matthew is using your second point (which unless he clarifies himself, I'd find it somewhat hard to believe right now), that still wouldn't be true given how drastically different the games after its sequel like Heroes, ShTH, and even Sonic 06 which was the closest to SA1 yet was still different in much of its content, have been by comparison by ditching most of those ideas.

First of all, I agree with you that you are allowed to object, that's the whole point of debate. Let me just clarify something firstly, I don't literally think Sonic Adventure is dreadful, I often use hyperbole in reference to how much the game annoys me. Wasted opportunity, that's what Sonic Adventure is. I think Sonic Adventure is mediocre or just below mediocre.

I actually was meaning Monkey Destruction Switch's second point, but I didn't really explain myself, so I apologise. I think that Sonic Adventure started a really bad precedent that acted as a catalyst for the downfall of the series. In this way, I do think Sonic Adventure was the downfall of the series. Let me list why quickly.

Sonic Adventure introduced:

= Sonic Team's insistence on using genre roulette to pad out the game with pointless gimmicks and boring playstyles (sometimes at complete odds with the core Sonic concept) to attempt to cover up how short Sonic's stages are. Notable examples are Sonic '06, Sonic Unleashed and Sonic and the Black Knight.

= An art style that is completely far away with what made Sonic celebrated.

All the cartoon and colourful elements are traded out for darker anime realism, and not in a unique way like Final Fantasy 7 similarly did. The iconic artstyle, aside from the skyboxes where they did translate the artstyle in a good job, was completely thrown away in Adventure for a more generic artstyle that lingered on until Sonic Colors finally brought the series back to its senses.

= Dreadful glitches, bugs and general poor polish due to a rushed attitude to make as much money in the short term that would persist in future Sonic titles until Sonic Unleashed. Whilst earlier titles, like Sonic 2, were indeed rushed they at least still, on the whole, functioned properly and didn't constantly bug out. 

= Poor controls and a complete disregard to the rolling and momentum based platforming that made the Classic games so popular in favour of raw speed thrills. This continued into the aforementioned Shadow and Sonic 06 where it was even worse because Sonic Team didn't bother to implement the pretty good movement Sonic had in Adventure. Instead, they focused purely on speed thrills, best implemented in automated sections that Adventure introduced.

You get the message, this isn't entirely new information. I won't waste your time with more examples, but if you do want more just ask.

As for this idea that Shadow and Sonic 06 were the true games that caused the downfall, no. Sonic was well into his downfall when those games came out and, for many, Sonic 06 was a chance for Sonic to rebirth on new hardware, but we all know how that went. Yes, the games you listed are worse than Sonic Adventure and did ditch the superior level design and movement that Sonic Adventure had, but that doesn't let Adventure off the hook. The reason those games worked off the terrible concepts were because they were following the precedent that Sonic Adventure started. It may have missed what few things Sonic Adventure did well, but all the terrible nonsense wouldn't exist without Sonic Adventure.

 

Now, I'm not trying to be mean here, nor am I trying to convince him that SA1 is awesome. He's more than welcome to say SA1 is dreadful, and anyone can easily understand why with little explanation. But to point at SA1 as the downfall of things ignores how things actually were, and that kind of thing really doesn't fly with me regardless.

I think that pretending Sonic Adventure didn't cause so many problems for the franchise is ignoring the truth, not my own acknowledging of the matter. For some reason, Sonic Adventure gets off the hook more than any other Sonic title. Maybe it's because of nostalgia or maybe it's because fans are so excited by what is genuinely a good conceptual framework that their hopeful wishes make them ignore the obvious cardinal design flaws. The majority of design flaws that ruined Sonic 06 and Shadow were present, and started, by Sonic Adventure.

It would be unpopular because it isn't true. Especially given the glowing reception it and its sequel had at the time.

You probably already know about the phrase argumentum ad populam. Just because something gets good reviews doesn't mean it's objectively good. If that was true then everyone here should proclaim how great Sonic Rush was, and we all know that, whilst it has a major fanbase, many don't like the approach it took. How about Sonic 4: Episode 1? That game got decent reviews when it came out, does that mean it's objectively better than most other Sonic titles. Of course not.

Besides, Adventure got much poorer reception when it re-released on Gamecube very quickly after it's release on Dreamcast, especially in the case of Sonic Adventure 2. By that time the allure of Sonic in 3D had faded away and the pure joy of the unseen speed's novelty had worn off. So I don't think following this fallacy is particularly strong anyway. I remember unwrapping Sonic Adventure on Dreamcast in 1999, I thought the game was awesome! But even then, I knew the game had real flaws that unfortunately were built upon rather than removed. Nowadays, the game has aged horribly and I can see the damage its done to the series.

Sonic Adventure did some things well, that's definitely true. I like the movement of Sonic, even though the camera is shoddy because the development team but no good attention to it (another issue that plagued the franchise). Tails has some fun levels and plays well, even if his levels are undeveloped, short and very simplistic. The storyline was pretty cute (although it did start the convoluted Sonic storyline problem, but that's really more on Adventure 2). I also like the music of the stages and the sound effects, I think they did a really good job there. That said, I can't blindly turn away from the bad precedent this game did.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Matthew

[E-122-Psi]

As much as I like SA1, I agree it introduced a lot things that played into the series degrading and getting a huge identity crisis. They weren't nearly as big a problem in that game in particular, in a lot of cases they were them handled in a way that at least halfway worked, but later games took hold of them and exaggerated and skewed them, making them into a much more apparent flaw.

Edited September 19, 2015 by E-122-Psi

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

First of all, I agree with you that you are allowed to object, that's the whole point of debate. Let me just clarify something firstly, I don't literally think Sonic Adventure is dreadful, I often use hyperbole in reference to how much the game annoys me. Wasted opportunity, that's what Sonic Adventure is. I think Sonic Adventure is mediocre or just below mediocre.

I actually was meaning Monkey Destruction Switch's second point, but I didn't really explain myself, so I apologise. I think that Sonic Adventure started a really bad precedent that acted as a catalyst for the downfall of the series. In this way, I do think Sonic Adventure was the downfall of the series. Let me list why quickly.

Sonic Adventure introduced:

= Sonic Team's insistence on using genre roulette to pad out the game with pointless gimmicks and boring playstyles (sometimes at complete odds with the core Sonic concept) to attempt to cover up how short Sonic's stages are. Notable examples are Sonic '06, Sonic Unleashed and Sonic and the Black Knight.

= An art style that is completely far away with what made Sonic celebrated.

All the cartoon and colourful elements are traded out for darker anime realism, and not in a unique way like Final Fantasy 7 similarly did. The iconic artstyle, aside from the skyboxes where they did translate the artstyle in a good job, was completely thrown away in Adventure for a more generic artstyle that lingered on until Sonic Colors finally brought the series back to its senses.

Yeah, hardly anyone here will defend SA1 on its genre roulette. And if we're talking artstyle, I can't really see your point between SA1 and the Classics with these comparisons. I mean, sure SA1 goes for a more realistic edge, but even so...

-spoilered for size-

Classics:

 

 

 

SA1:

 

 

They're still very strongly alike.

= Dreadful glitches, bugs and general poor polish due to a rushed attitude to make as much money in the short term that would persist in future Sonic titles until Sonic Unleashed. Whilst earlier titles, like Sonic 2, were indeed rushed they at least still, on the whole, functioned properly and didn't constantly bug out. 

= Poor controls and a complete disregard to the rolling and momentum based platforming that made the Classic games so popular in favour of raw speed thrills. This continued into the aforementioned Shadow and Sonic 06 where it was even worse because Sonic Team didn't bother to implement the pretty good movement Sonic had in Adventure. Instead, they focused purely on speed thrills, best implemented in automated sections that Adventure introduced.

You get the message, this isn't entirely new information. I won't waste your time with more examples, but if you do want more just ask.

As for this idea that Shadow and Sonic 06 were the true games that caused the downfall, no. Sonic was well into his downfall when those games came out and, for many, Sonic 06 was a chance for Sonic to rebirth on new hardware, but we all know how that went. Yes, the games you listed are worse than Sonic Adventure and did ditch the superior level design and movement that Sonic Adventure had, but that doesn't let Adventure off the hook. The reason those games worked off the terrible concepts were because they were following the precedent that Sonic Adventure started. It may have missed what few things Sonic Adventure did well, but all the terrible nonsense wouldn't exist without Sonic Adventure.

I know all about what SA1's problems are. Here's the thing you're disregarding tho, this was during the early days when 3D first started becoming a huge thing - SA1 is not the only 3D game out there to have had a lot of these problems in regard to its polish, nevermind how different things work in 3D compared to 2D when trying to transition Sonic's Classic gameplay to accomodate it. This would be a lot like blaming Sonic 3D Blast for the franchise's psuedo-start into 3D, if I were to make a similar point.

And that's the thing regarding Sonic's downfall, because this was during a time when these things weren't such a big deal compared to today where such flaws would be unacceptable given our higher standards. Yes, SA1 was definitely glitchy, and yes it did (if not had to) do a lot of things differently compared to the Classics before it, no one will deny that or that what it is now would not fly today. But it being the first true start of Sonic's transition to 3D is also reason SA1 gets off the hook more than ShTH and Sonic 06 and why it's not considered to be where Sonic was even close to his downfall, because while SA1 was done in a time with lessened standards, those last two games neglected to address the flaws of SA1 as our standards got higher.

Basically, it's like you're replacing gaming standards in 1998 with standards in 2015 and calling SA1 as the start of it - yes, we know how glaring and serious SA1's problems are now, but not so much back then. And while SA1 may have started certain precedents, it was the job of the succeeding titles after it to improve upon the flaws SA1 had, which was the whole reason things were considered going downhill when ShTH (or arguably Heroes) arrived and not only neglected to do so but introduced all sorts of other problems even SA1 didn't have.

 

I think that pretending Sonic Adventure didn't cause so many problems for the franchise is ignoring the truth, not my own acknowledging of the matter. For some reason, Sonic Adventure gets off the hook more than any other Sonic title.

Which would be true if anyone here were pretending SA1 didn't have problems. But only those blindly devoted to the game would do that. Meanwhile, those who support it acknowledge that SA1 is flawed. But the reason it gets off the hook more than the likes of ShTH and Sonic 06 was, again, because it was during the early days of the franchise going into 3D when standards were relaxed. Meanwhile, ShTH and Sonic 06 are blamed because they were during a time where 3D had matured and became mainstream, along with higher gaming standards, yet they neglected to iron out previous flaws of past 3D titles they were suppose to improve on, if not make said flaws worse and cause problems even SA1 didn't have.

 

 

You probably already know about the phrase argumentum ad populam. Just because something gets good reviews doesn't mean it's objectively good. If that was true then everyone here should proclaim how great Sonic Rush was, and we all know that, whilst it has a major fanbase, many don't like the approach it took. How about Sonic 4: Episode 1? That game got decent reviews when it came out, does that mean it's objectively better than most other Sonic titles. Of course not.

 

 

Dude, time out. You can't claim it's an argumentum ad populum after you've made points in the line of:

= An art style that is completely far away with what made Sonic celebrated.

= Poor controls and a complete disregard to the rolling and momentum based platforming that made the Classic games so popular in favour of raw speed thrills.

Because that comes off as hypocritical after you yourself did just that in favor of the Classic titles and completely invalidates a lot of what you just said. If you're going to use the Classic's popularity to support their fame, then it's fair game to use popularity for the Adventures (which even its supporters acknowledge as flawed anyway). Not to mention that reception is one of the prime factors behind a game being successful or suffering a downfall, because how else are you suppose to determine success for a game if you neglect the whole reason a game is made in the first place - which is as a product for a consumer? The consumers loved the Classic titles, that makes them successful, right? Said consumers also loved the Adventures and made that known, even while seeing their problems, which makes them a success. The same cannot be said for titles such as ShTH and Sonic 06 because, while there are vocal segments that enjoy them (and they surprisingly sold well), the consumers mostly disliked those titles and made their distaste of that product known, which given the impact in tarnishing the franchise's reputation, made them failures.

I mean, if that's not the case, then how exactly do you go about determining the franchise's downfall? Because you simply saying "it has glaring problems" doesn't carry a lot of weight given that everyone knows that and still sees tremendous value in what it accomplished.

Sonic Adventure did some things well, that's definitely true. I like the movement of Sonic, even though the camera is shoddy because the development team but no good attention to it (another issue that plagued the franchise). Tails has some fun levels and plays well, even if his levels are undeveloped, short and very simplistic. The storyline was pretty cute (although it did start the convoluted Sonic storyline problem, but that's really more on Adventure 2). I also like the music of the stages and the sound effects, I think they did a really good job there. That said, I can't blindly turn away from the bad precedent this game did.

And who's telling you to blindly turn away? The only point of contention here is you stating that SA1 started the series' downfall, whereas the series' history says otherwise. That's really it.

Edited September 20, 2015 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Matthew]

Good post, I'll try to respond in kind.

Yeah, hardly anyone here will defend SA1 on its genre roulette. And if we're talking artstyle, I can't really see your point between SA1 and the Classics with these comparisons. I mean, sure SA1 goes for a more realistic edge, but even so...

They're still very strongly alike.

 

The themes are similar, for sure. It's one of the strengths of Adventure. That said, Adventure's realistic edge is what makes the game lose it's edge and identity. The cartoony visuals are completely lost from Adventure onwards and it's a steady downward spiral that culminates in Shadow the Hedgehog. I really think that Lost World gets the art style right, despite the influence from Mario and the overuse of bright primary colours:

I really think this what Sonic games should be aiming for in 3D. I find the relaism approach really doesn't work in Sonic games. I think this can work in reverse too mind you. I strongly dislike how Abe's Oddsey: New N Tasty lost the realism aspect for the bright glaring bloom. I don't think realism and mascot platformers are at odds with each other. I just think Sonic lost a sense of his roots and identity with Sonic Adventure, and the game acted as a catalyst for the other poor decisions that the future games took. This is all subjective of course.

Basically, it's like you're replacing gaming standards in 1998 with standards in 2015 and calling SA1 as the start of it - yes, we know how glaring and serious SA1's problems are now, but not so much back then. And while SA1 may have started certain precedents, it was the job of the succeeding titles after it to improve upon the flaws SA1 had, which was the whole reason things were considered going downhill when ShTH (or arguably Heroes) arrived and not only neglected to do so but introduced all sorts of other problems even SA1 didn't have.

 

A lot of fans use this argument and I don't think it holds up at all. Super Mario 64 launched in 1996, that's 3 years before Sonic Adventure. Sonic Adventure came out on the end of 1998 in Japan and was released in 1999 everwhere else in the world. The identity of 3D plaforming was actually well established by Sonic Adventure. Controlling Sonic reliably and terrible camera angles shouldn't be issues. Sonic Adventure was actually when really creative 3D platformers that perfected the open 3D platformer controls came out:

Banjo Kazooie (1998)

Spyro the Dragon (1998)

Rayman 2 (Late 1999)

I would also use Crash Bandicoot but that's very corridor-esque and almost a different genre so I'll leave it as it's not really fair to compare that to Sonic Adventure.

Of course, Sonic Adventure was revolutionary. It had unprecedented speed with crazy and looping geometry. The problems are with the actual performance though and, especially when you consider this was on new powerful next gen hardware, it shouldn't be an issue.

This isn't just me making stuff up either, this was something that critics noticed at the time too. I would pull in fan feedback too, but I can't find any contemporary fan feedback.

"To further the problems caused by this lack of consistency, the cameras for Sonic Adventure, though they have been cleaned up considerably from the oftentimes painful Japanese release, are still incredibly frustrating at points."

http://uk.ign.com/articles/1999/09/09/sonic-adventure

"The game's camera is the most notable issue, but collision problems occasionally show up, as well. Most of the time, the camera doesn't get in the way of play, but it's annoyingly spastic in tight areas, and it can get caught under floors and behind walls, sometimes resulting in unnecessary deaths. Collision problems can also result in Sonic's untimely demise, sometimes causing Sonic to careen straight through a normally solid wall. Some of the worst instances of bad camerawork have been fixed for the US release, but some problems still remain. Either way, these problems don't ruin the game - they only add an occasional element of unwelcome frustration. "

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/sonic-adventure-review/1900-2540626/

Now both of these contemporary reviews think that the game is very good, but they don't deny that the game is very buggy with a poor camera system. I'm not bringing these critics in to prove the game is buggy (I'm not falling for argumentum ad populam), I'm only showcasing that the flaws these games had weren't excusable for their time because contemporary reviews and people were very aware of them. It's not as though no one really noticed these problems at the time because 3D platforming was somehow new. This is some kind of false narrative that certain fans seem to have made themselves believe over time. Sonic Adventure was a victim of rushed production at the cost of quality. and this attitude would continue to plague the franchise until Sonic Unleashed.

Now true, these problems were more excusable because of how exciting and fresh Sonic Adventure was. I'll never try to deny that. It was an incredibly game for the time, I remember playing it on Dreamcast back in 1999 and being blown away. That said, it definitely started a lot of the series's eventual crippling problems in hindsight.

You can't claim it's an argumentum ad populum after you've made points in the line of:

Because that comes off as hypocritical after you yourself did just that in favor of the Classic titles and completely invalidates a lot of what you just said. If you're going to use the Classic's popularity to support their fame, then it's fair game to use popularity for the Adventures (which even its supporters acknowledge as flawed anyway)

I'm not using argumentum ad populam and never would because it's a technique I hate. I personally feel that Sonic lost his identity with Sonic Adventure's art direction, I don't care if critics and other players happen to agree with that notion. It's a complete coincidence that I never even referred to. It's not like I'm using reviews of critics unhappy with the new art direction Sonic Adventure took to somehow validate my points.

I mean, if that's not the case, then how exactly do you go about determining the franchise's downfall? Because you simply saying "it has glaring problems" doesn't carry a lot of weight given that everyone knows that and still sees tremendous value in what it accomplished.

I see Sonic Adventure as a catalyst for Sonic's downfall because of all the bad precedents it set. It's my own personal opinion and nothing more. Oh, and by the way, I don't mean a downfall in terms of sales, I mean a downfall in terms of the franchise's quality, my own subjective opinion. Sonic Adventure cannot be solely blamed for the downfall in sales, there's many factors for that as you most likely already know.

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Good post, I'll try to respond in kind.

The themes are similar, for sure. It's one of the strengths of Adventure. That said, Adventure's realistic edge is what makes the game lose it's edge and identity. The cartoony visuals are completely lost from Adventure onwards and it's a steady downward spiral that culminates in Shadow the Hedgehog. I really think that Lost World gets the art style right, despite the influence from Mario and the overuse of bright primary colours:

 

Hidden Content

I really think this what Sonic games should be aiming for in 3D. I find the relaism approach really doesn't work in Sonic games. I think this can work in reverse too mind you. I strongly dislike how Abe's Oddsey: New N Tasty lost the realism aspect for the bright glaring bloom. I don't think realism and mascot platformers are at odds with each other. I just think Sonic lost a sense of his roots and identity with Sonic Adventure, and the game acted as a catalyst for the other poor decisions that the future games took. This is all subjective of course.

 

That sounds less like a loss in edge and identity and more like an establishment of a new one, which SA1 was doing at the time given its changes. That said, I'd rather have the Pixarish artstyle of Unleashed-Generations, but at any rate.

 

A lot of fans use this argument and I don't think it holds up at all. Super Mario 64 launched in 1996, that's 3 years before Sonic Adventure. Sonic Adventure came out on the end of 1998 in Japan and was released in 1999 everwhere else in the world. The identity of 3D plaforming was actually well established by Sonic Adventure. Controlling Sonic reliably and terrible camera angles shouldn't be issues. Sonic Adventure was actually when really creative 3D platformers that perfected the open 3D platformer controls came out:

Banjo Kazooie (1998)

Spyro the Dragon (1998)

Rayman 2 (Late 1999)

I would also use Crash Bandicoot but that's very corridor-esque and almost a different genre so I'll leave it as it's not really fair to compare that to Sonic Adventure.

Of course, Sonic Adventure was revolutionary. It had unprecedented speed with crazy and looping geometry. The problems are with the actual performance though and, especially when you consider this was on new powerful next gen hardware, it shouldn't be an issue.

Except even Mario 64 had camera angle issues, of which several critics have noted for a platformer of such quality.

"Although Super Mario 64 is not as ridiculously easy as Super Mario World, it isn't very difficult, either, and most of its challenge comes from one of two factors: faulty camera angles or Mario's momentum."

Source

"The biggest flaw in the gameplay is the camera angles from which you view the action. Nintendo obviously spent some time developing a 'smart-cam' to follow the action from useful angles, but it doesn't work as well as it should. Often your view of Mario is blocked by large objects. If you have the time you can usually rotate the camera manually, but that doesn't help when the thing blocking your view is the boss that you're fighting. There is a camera mode that follows directly behind Mario (the Mario butt-cam) but it's generally not a very good perspective."

Source

And games like Banjo Kazooie, Spyro, and Rayman 2 weren't immune to similar technical problems Sonic Adventure had (I still remember being in the Sanctuary of Fire and Rock after gaining the flight power in Rayman 2 and the game only allowed me to fall in an endless abyss of lava unharmed). 3D platformers weren't perfected back then, they were launching off, some with greater success than others and some aging much better than others. And they weren't free of bugs themselves. But again, future titles of those other games ironed out those problems, whereas Sonic's titles did little to address.

I'm not using argumentum ad populam

and never would because it's a technique I hate. I personally feel that Sonic lost his identity with Sonic Adventure's art direction, I don't care if critics and other players happen to agree with that notion. It's a complete coincidence that I never even referred to. It's not like I'm using reviews of critics unhappy with the new art direction Sonic Adventure took to somehow validate my points.[/quote]

But you are referring to the popularity of the Classic's artstyle and gameplay in your point of Sonic's lost identity with Adventure, much like how I'm referring to the popularity of what Adventure did despite its differences from the Classics. That kind of thing works both ways.

many factors for that as you most likely already know.

I see Sonic Adventure as a catalyst for Sonic's downfall because of all the bad precedents it set. It's my own personal opinion and nothing more. Oh, and by the way, I don't mean a downfall in terms of sales, I mean a downfall in terms of the franchise's quality, my own subjective opinion. Sonic Adventure cannot be solely blamed for the downfall in sales, there's 

My point stands even regarding its quality, for all the same reasons I've already stated. SA1 started a lot of precedents, but problem came when those flaws were not addressed in later titles. And while there's nothing wrong with looking back on what it did in hindsight and seeing its issues given how high our standards have become, blaming SA1 for these quality problems that plagued later games when it was in a time where it was just learning to make use of changes into an open 3D world makes little sense in itself. Again, that's putting 2015 standards in 1998 when technology and skills back then were of lesser quality than they are today.

[FriendBot]

I'm not entirely sure what's up with the SA1 talk but I'll give my two cents.

Sonic Adventure aged not so well. When I mean "not so well", I mean horribly.

I still like the game though even if the game was a bit realistic, it still had a bunch of cartoony elements in it, Twinkle Park is a fine example of this but of course it's fairly grounded in its setting, which is also what the Classic games did as well. SA1 just had more city levels than natural ones but then again, 2/3 of the game's setting is either at Eggman's lair or in Station Square so you can't really expect a huge amount of Hill Tops or Green Hills.

I also seem to recall that SA1 was made in like, 9 months or something so it was pretty much a rushed launch title for the Dreamcast. But despite that, SA1 is probably THE most ambitious early 3D platformer I've seen (then again, my knowledge outside of Sonic is limited) and also when you really think about it, SA1 wasn't trying to be a Sonic game per say. It was more of a showcase of what SEGA can do on the Dreamcast and use their posterhog to do so and safe to say, it worked. That's why there was a genre roulette since SEGA wanted to fit in so many things to showcase how awesome and cool this 3D platfomer is gonna be. It kind of does go against the standard game design for platformers but SEGA was all like "Fuck that noise, we gonna be above that shtick. Cause we're SEGA!", it's game design anarchy but they made work at the time, not perfectly but they did it.

Sadly, they seem to stick to that genre roulette for SA2 when they didn't need to. SA2 has aged not as bad as SA1 but it lost some of its gold but it's still a good game to play through (Not saying SA1 wasn't unplayable but when you only have 1/6th of your game that has nice control AND good level design, that's not a good thing). Since SA2 is much more story-driven, they had to drop hub worlds and make the stages more linear, which isn't a bad move either. I mean, if I were to say to compare SA2's style of story-gameplay segregation (that's an actual term, right?) I would actually compare it to the Last of Us. (I know, that's ballsy thing to say but I'm pretty convinced that I'm right on that). Since the story makes up the game and its story is like a B action thriller movie with some drama, you don't get much leeway to make more cartoony worlds.

Heroes went back to the more classic-style in terms of art design, I guess to bring a relief from the more "gritty" settings of the Adventure games. Also the gameplay is similar to the Sonic gameplay in the Adventures, which I'll just dub as "Adventure Sonic" gameplay, but it features more combat sections and enemy health bars so it seems like Sonic Team wanted to make Sonic more of an action/adventure game than a fast-paced platformer, which again isn't really bad either but it does kind of kill the pacing of the levels, which isn't ideal for the original Sonic game philosophy. The story is a lot simpler but that's because the game was already made before Shiro penned the story, which explains the feeling the story felt like an afterthought.

And then, Sonic Team catches on that Shadow has became pretty popular amongst the fanbase, which is a good sign since Shadow does provide an interesting contrast for Sonic and the series as a whole. But I guess since Sonic Team only assumed what the fanbase thought of a "dark badassery", they just went full up angst and edge on it, making the premise of the game pretty laughable, if not just straight up dumb. The game was a lot more gritty and dull, which makes the levels uninteresting and unpleasant to look at though I personally found levels like Circus Park, Sky Troops, Lava Shelter, Digital Circuit, Mad Matrix and etc. nice-looking levels. The gameplay stuck with the Heroes gameplay of the "fast-paced action/adventure" variety with the addition of weapons, which did made enemies more easy to kill, God bless the Shadow Rifle!, but of course, Shadow has his Chaos powers but hey, sometimes you just need to stab a Dark Arms soldier with a katana.

Then came 06....

It attempted to follow SA1's idea of showcasing what SEGA can do for the PS3/X360 except making it BIGGER and keeping the action elements from previous games but because of development problems like making Secret Rings and Naka leaving the company, it was pretty much a turd. The levels/hubs looked too realistic that it makes Sonic and friends stand out like a sore thumb, the models themselves look pretty ugly and are incapable of emoting, the story was just not written well even if it did have good characterization of some characters, the story does nothing to explain the rules of time travel, which is not a good or atleast a unsafe way to tell a competent story with time-travel. Again, good idea but wrong direction.

See a pattern here? SEGA/Sonic Team always had the right idea but they took it to a wrong direction. SA1 may have had elements of common issues in Sonic's downfall but it's just really SEGA's fault for taking good ideas and screw them up that screwed the series over.

Well geez, that's a big 2 cents I dropped. That's the last time I act all philosophical about Sonic, I'll leave that to the professionals.  

[Dr. Mechano]

I liked SA2's mech stages. 

Know what? I loved SA2's mech stages. 

I would play an entire game (starring Eggman, naturally) of SA2's mech stages.

They're slow, heavy, and not at all like the Sonic formula. And yet I have an absolute blast every time I play them. The thrill of soaring through space in Cosmic Wall, blasting away enemies as Eggman laughs maniacally all the way, shouting the occasional "Yosh!" or "Now you know my real power!" Good times.

[Bolt]

Shadow the Hedgehog is my favorite Sonic character, and his game is my third favorite. I never had a vendetta against multiple/other playable characters, and have always embraced it to the point where the more recent Sonic-only games have soured my taste a bit.

I enjoy and love Sonic 2 over Sonic 3&K by a large margin. I just find it more fun, the history and legacy behind it brought me deep into learning about the series as a whole, all the hype and merchandise/spin-offs that resulted from it's release, the classic feel, look, and sound of the game...I just don't feel the same connection to 3 (or 1 for that matter) and would choose Sonic 2 any day. I wish Tails could fly, but we have hacks for that.

I'm not a big fan of the whole Japanese Classic ascetic, or the recent neo-classic art, references, and merchandise. It just feels lifeless and bland to me compared to the older western classic style, and the modern style as a whole. I know we'll never see the western style again, but it saddens me a bit and turns me off of the whole neo-classic movement in general. I always liked modern Sonic better anyway, but still.

[FriendBot]

The more I think about it, the more I strongly feel about it.

Sonic Colors is a very mediocre game and is pretty overrated.

Not even story-wise, the level design just doesn't fit the ideal Sonic level design. I mean, blocky and slow-paced Megaman-esque platforming in my SONIC game?! Not saying that kind of platforming is bad but it really doesn't any reason to be in Sonic game, like at all. I'd even say that Colors is a much slower game than Lost World was. I mean the only times that you go fast is mostly automated and are in quick step sections. It's not even an 3D game either, most of it is entirely 2D. The only "real" 3D sections are not very interesting anyway. 

It's just not a very interesting game to play, it has nice visuals and music but that isn't enough for me to consider it a "great game". Just an ok game with a mediocre script that has a couple of fun jokes and bromance. 

Yep, definitely my second least-favorite Sonic game, after 06.

[baba_944]

I think I posted here before (not looking back and 100s of pages) but here's mine:

1: I prefer "Sonic The Hedgehog 4" to "Sonic 3 & Knuckles". When I was a kid, I thought Sonic 1 and 2 were hard (still do). Then I played "Sonic & Knuckles Collection" and that was the most easiest Sonic game I've played. The story (from the manual) was great, the music was excellent (PC version) , but the gameplay was terrible.

2: "Sonic 3D Blast" PC has some phenomenal music.

3: Multiple endings aren't canon, they just tell you what-if scenarios. Therefore, I loved the multiple endings in "Shadow The Hedgehog".

[Chaos Incarnate]

I don't think many would agree with me on this, but I honestly wouldn't mind if Sonic was one of those series that took a long break, aside from maybe Handheld and Smartphone gaming. Until Sega and Sonic Team can rejuvenate the Blue Blur with a triple A game that restores the faith of fans and other gamers, perhaps it'd be best to let the Blue Blur sleep a while.

That, or go ahead and pass it off to a different developer who knows what they're doing with Sonic and how to make a great game. Yes, I'm aware of Big Red Button's failure with Sonic Boom: ROL. But that isn't necessarily the issue, since plenty of talented people out there could still craft a great game. BRB just was not the best choice of developer, and Sega shares as much of the blame.

[Your Vest Friend]

Oh here's one. You know the Sonic 3 Bonus stage music? I only remember it as the Sonic's Schoolhouse theme, I keep forgetting that it was in Sonic 3.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

I hate Sonic 2. I am not a fan of the older games but I really hate Sonic 2. It has nice music but the gameplay sucks also I HATE that it takes your rings when you do a special stage and also Sonic 2 special stages can go straight to hell. 

[Muscles Maximum]

I really truly enjoy Sonic Riders a whole lot. I was so excited to hear it was getting a sequel. When I got it, I was very disappointed.

Then when I heard about Free Riders, I was even more excited that this series was going to be a trilogy. Then I played it and was very unhappy. At least it's a pretty game.

But I still have my Sonic Riders 1 and I still love it. I don't care what anyone says. Also, this games intro is the coolest.

[Indigo Rush]

You have aaafriend in me, pal! (Not just because of the Big avatar). I thought Riders 1 was dope! Despite the air mechanic that forced you to run on foot, I thought the rest of the game had wonderful flow and a really cool style to it. II would love a true sequel that follows the main controls from the first one with a cel-shaded anime visual style like the opening. 

And a funky soundtrack by Hideki Naganuma. Hhhnnngg my dreeeeeams...

Edit: mobile SSMB is too glitchy, boo >:|

Edited September 25, 2015 by Indigo Rush

[Your Vest Friend]

Eh, I thought Riders was okay, but the air mechanic was so goddamn annoying, it took a huge chunk of enjoyability out of it. Oh, and the weapon scaling system, where one hit completely nullifies any ring gathering you'd done prior as opposed to just dropping you a single tier. 

The other unpopular part of this is that my favourite thing to do in Riders was just walk around hiding from opponents in Battle mode. 

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

I'm a fan of the Riders series and that opening to. The only one I don't care for is Free Riders. (Not because I have to get up to play but the game was flat and very predictable)

 

thr he first one will always be the best one

[Hero of Legend]

Riders 1 was a lot of fun, but I think I actually prefer the sequel is some way, it's a toughie.

I love Zero Gravity so much it's actually my fav Sonic game last gen, it's the only one that REALLY hit that spot with me, it felt like it right the right buttons, and it's weird since I was hyped like no-one else for Colors, but man was that a disappointment.

The thing that ZG lacked though was that pop in color, the manual trick systems which was really fun, but also that more punk JSR style to it, Zero Gravity was more subtle, it's funny as the Art Director was the same (who also was the Art Director in Billy Hatcher and later Sonic 4 Ep 1 and 2).

[Muscles Maximum]

You have aaafriend in me, pal! (Not just because of the Big avatar). I thought Riders 1 was dope! Despite the air mechanic that forced you to run on foot, I thought the rest of the game had wonderful flow and a really cool style to it. II would love a true sequel that follows the main controls from the first one with a cel-shaded anime visual style like the opening. 

And a funky soundtrack by Hideki Naganuma. Hhhnnngg my dreeeeeams...

Edit: mobile SSMB is too glitchy, boo >:|

That's awesome and I totally agree with all of it. The first game has such a JSR feel and Hideki Naganuma's music would have been perfect for it.

I also adore Big the Cat with all my heart. I truly love his design and character. (Plus he's got some of the best music in SA1).

You're a cool guy, Indigo Rush.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Speaking of that does anyone else think the fishing levels are good? Yeah its not running but its different and its a fun mini game. 

[Muscles Maximum]

I quite enjoy them. It does take some getting used to and I can see why most people don't like it. But I think it's quite nice.

Plus some of the very few platforming bits in some of Big's levels like Hot Shelter and Ice Cap are just so satisfying to me. 

Man I really wish they would have fleshed out his gameplay a bit more. (T﹏T)

[Failinhearts]

I never really played the Fishing levels yet. But from what I played, I was quite annoyed.

But like what @monkokaio said, I might just need to get used to how it works.

[Haalyle]

At first the fishing levels frustrated me, but I grew to love them even if I was annoyed if I accidentally caught a fish instead of Froggy.