Popular and unpopular Sonic opinions you agree and disagree with!

[Semi-colon e]

The problem is is that most of the remixes of the World Adventure aren't subtle at all. Colours did it too, but it was much less offensive about the whole thing. It's less about laziness and more about "hey guys, love this theme!".

 

I was kind of annoyed that the cutscenes with Team Plasma in Pokemon BW2 had very blatant remixes of their theme too, I just find it really lame and it takes away from the whole thing. Take that as you will.

[Nepenthe]

I wasn't really offended by any Sonic game's mere reuse of its own main theme. I personally see no difference between the Spanish guitar rendition of His World at the end of the level, the piano, Charlie Brown-ish rendition of World Adventure when you entered the school, or hell even the Time Eater's theme- which wasn't all that remixed to begin with- being peppered about. There's nothing inherently annoying or offensive about that to me; the only way it would be particularly bothersome is if I hated the music from the outset, and to be honest I don't hate Sonic's orchestral themes so much as I'm apathetic to them because they're all boring. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Semi-colon e]

I had forgotten about the Time Eater. I do consider it more of a character motif, though, so I'm kinder to it, though I wish the final boss themes were more interesting.

[Gabz Girl]

I like the Sonic Colours orchestral theme and Wonder World is alright, but I never liked the World Adventure because it almost sounds like an blatant copy of Super Mario Galaxy's music. Didn't help that Unleashed came out a year after Galaxy so the comparisons were unavoidable. Not to mention it was repeated continuously throughout the game, just like His World which is why I don't like that theme much either!

[Tara]

Unpopular Opinion: I realized today that I actually don't like the orchestral themes we've gotten for this franchise all that much, from Unleashed onwards. 

 

I'm not musically inclined so it's difficult to describe my apathy in concrete terms, but basically when you're used to listening to incidental music from Hans Zimmer, John Powell, John Williams, James Horner, Michael Giacchino, Carlos Siliotto, Alex Wurman, and heck even M83, the orchestral stuff we get in Sonic games is just painfully lacking in terms of standout leitmotifs or soul-stirring compositions. Even when it comes to games only, Koji Kondo's stuff from Galaxy and Skyward Sword, or Grant Kirkhope's music from Viva Pinata, was absolutely gorgeous and heartrending.

 

But Sonic games' orchestral themes do nothing for me; they feel like a series of generically-produced adventure-sounding themes. There's something amateurish and flat about them to the point that I'd rather Sega further outsource the music to better composers, go back to lyrical themes, or go back to jingles.

I wholeheartedly agree.  I love orchestral themes.  I love orchestral music in general, but the orchestral themes from Sonic tend to be the most bland adventure music ever.  In my opinion, anyway.  In addition to sounding incredibly derivative, which isn't an inherently bad thing mind you, I feel that a lot of the orchestral themes lack any sort of narrative purpose or resonance with the plot.  When you listen to a good deal of Final Fantasy openings, for example, you get the feeling of adventure, but also mystery, emotional drama, etc.  With Unleashed and Colors' title screen, the most you get is "grand, epic adventure sounds sort of like Star Wars but not really."  You don't get any attachment to the actual plot or the personality of the characters.

[Adorkable]

We did! Many times, we had Heroes, Shadow the Hedgehog, Unleashed and most importantly, Sonic 06! 

 

Seriously guy, we got sick of all that SA3 stuff, it's no longer popular. 

 

Haha, I hear that often. If it wasn't officially labled "Sonic Adventure 3", then it wasn't, simple as that. Although '06 was extremely close to actually having the label, we can all easily tell why that didn't happen.

 

As for the second part of your statement, I have to strongly disagree. There's still quite a portion of the fan base that would be tickled pink to have a Sonic Adventure 3, myself included.

 

Unpopular Opinion: I realized today that I actually don't like the orchestral themes we've gotten for this franchise all that much, from Unleashed onwards. 

 

I think Unleashed did great with the orchestra, Perfect Dark Gaia was amazing, totally fit the battle, IMO.

But I completely agree with this, I miss having Sonic songs I can sing to while driving or whatnot. I mean, I can whistle Unleashed's theme, maybe even Lost World's, but I need some words! (lol)

 

Im starting to grow a strong hate for the classic games and its mostly the fans. its like you MUST belive the classic games are the best game ever or else your wrong.

 

Agreed, this is what I was saying before when I said that Classic Games are overrated. If you don't like Sonic 3 and Knuckles, Sonic 2, or any of the Classic Sonics (before '99) as your favorite, then you're wrong.

[FriendBot]

Haha, I hear that often. If it wasn't officially labled "Sonic Adventure 3", then it wasn't, simple as that. Although '06 was extremely close to actually having the label, we can all easily tell why that didn't happen.

 

As for the second part of your statement, I have to strongly disagree. There's still quite a portion of the fan base that would be tickled pink to have a Sonic Adventure 3, myself included.

 

Well we might as well just give up because that's never going to happen due to the negative reception 06 had, so yeah no SA3 and in this forum, we really don't care if there's going to be an SA3 or not but that's just me.

[Adorkable]

and in this forum, we really don't care if there's going to be an SA3 or not but that's just me.

 

So...you're speaking for all Sonic fans? Or just yourself? I'm confused.

[FriendBot]

The majority of this forum really don't care for a SA3, sorry about that poor writing on my part.

[Tara]

I really don't understand why so many fans feel they need a game actually called "Sonic Adventure 3" for it to be "Sonic Adventure 3."  As far as I'm concerned, if not for the lackluster game released in 2010, I'd say Sonic Advance counted as Sonic the Hedgehog 4, Advance 2 as Sonic 5, and so forth.  Besides, Unleashed was known as Sonic World Adventure in Japan.  It was meant to be another installment in that series to some degree, and you see how it was received at the time.

 

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.  If it has the same gameplay mechanics as Sonic Adventure and expands upon the continuity established in SA1 and was released after SA2, then it must be Sonic Adventure 3, regardless of what it's called.

[Adorkable]

I guess it just needs the title to feel official, for me anyways. You could clone Sonic Adventure 2, update the graphics and put in new levels, but if it doesn't say "Sonic Adventure 3", then it's not Sonic Adventure 3.

[Gabz Girl]

Sonic 06 is definitely Sonic Adventure 3. It's got a lot more similarities to the Adventure games than even Sonic Unleashed. Multiple playable characters, hub worlds, missions, a similar plot to SA1 and more. It's always irked me that they just called it Sonic the Hedgehog instead of Sonic Adventure 3 because that's exactly what it is!

[Adorkable]

Unless SEGA releases a game titled "Sonic Adventure 3", there won't be a Sonic Adventure 3. You can get as close as you want, but unless that title is on that box, no dice. I believe that SEGA renamed it to "Sonic the Hedgehog" before release because they were saving Adventure 3 for another day. It makes sense though, right?

[StaticMania]

No, not really...not having an official title doesn't really change the fact that it IS what it technically is. A game like "Super Mario World" doesn't need to be called "Super Mario Bros. 4" to actually be SMB 4 does it? The same thing applies here.

[Splash the Otter]

I don't think Sonic NextGen was ever meant to be a spiritual successor to the Adventure games. The same applies to Heroes and Unleashed. In my opinion, Sonic Boom will likely be the closest to an actual SA3.

[Tara]

The thing is, it may as well be.  Once a certain format becomes the standard, then it sort of loses its purpose to name them the same thing with a number behind it.  That's why TV shows often name their episodes individually as opposed to numerically.

 

The SA1 gameplay format has been standard since 1999; naming anything SA3 would be a moot point by now, because it doesn't suggest anything new.

[Nepenthe]

These discussions about what constitutes a spiritual sequel annoy me, partly because the standards for such are ill-defined and thus inconsistently applied. Sonic Adventure probably has as many differences in terms of coding, flow, design, and aesthetics from Sonic Adventure 2 as it does similarities: multiple playable characters, the Chao Garden, and the same "revenge for the past is never justified" theme in its storytelling. Even then, most of the characters were designed differently from the original, essentially being paired down from six unique objectives to three classes a la Heroes, and all of them are further dissimilar in some respects as a natural result of the development.

 

Meaningful similarities fade away the farther you go down the timeline: Chao Gardens are gone, we've not actually had another story with the same theme as SA1 and SA2, the aesthetics are totally different, and multiple characters have been done in different ways too: either as partners who only exist to help the main three in their singular mission of getting to the end of the level, and a purposeful dichotomy between a platformer/brawler and a twitchy speed-running game. Whatever formula or style for Adventure that actually exists isn't well-defined, yet I'm told all the time that Sonic 06 and Sonic Unleashed are essentially SA3 because, well, you know, hubs (those things SA2 lacks). Fuck, Black Knight might as well be SA3 with how arbitrary it all is.

 

Further causing confusion is the fact that this amount of noted differences were enough to essentially disqualify the actual Sonic 4 from being considered as such in the minds of many a fan, who will explain down to minuscule detail why each and every change means it isn't Sonic 4 in any meaningful capacity. Sonic 4 is Sonic 4 in name only, essentially. Why isn't this the case for other 3D games? With as much bullshit is involved, I've stopped accepting this argument. Sonic 06 isn't Sonic Adventure 3; It's Sonic 06. Sonic Unleashed isn't Sonic Adventure 3; it's Sonic Unleashed. At the most, they use the Adventure games is a mild inspiration but have their own identities worthy of recognition as their own individual games.

 

Overall, if we do get a game named SA3 then great. If we don't, no sweat. Ultimately I still do find many things in the Adventure "style" to like though, so I'm always going to have a preference for games that include things from all of them and will continually ask for them until something different but better comes along.

[Tara]

Meaningful similarities fade away the farther you go down the timeline: Chao Gardens are gone, we've not actually had another story with the same theme as SA1 and SA2, the aesthetics are totally different, and multiple characters have been done in different ways too: either as partners who only exist to help the main three in their singular mission of getting to the end of the level, and a purposeful dichotomy between a platformer/brawler and a twitchy speed-running game. Whatever formula or style for Adventure that actually exists isn't well-defined, yet I'm told all the time that Sonic 06 and Sonic Unleashed are essentially SA3 because, well, you know, hubs (those things SA2 lacks). Fuck, Black Knight might as well be SA3 with how arbitrary it all is.

 

I don't believe the similar themes in SA1 and SA2 were a tying point between the two games as much a product of flawed writing.  Not to say they can't explore the same theme in different executions twice over as long as they are different enough to stand out (which they are), but I certainly don't find that to be a definitive factor of an "Adventure" title or anything that unifies SA1 and 2 as two connected pieces of work.

 

In any case, the fact that there are so many meaningful similarities omitted as time goes on is actually what I think makes each game from (debatably) Heroes onward "Sonic Adventure 3."  The adventure games were all about experimenting with different ways to use the different characters, and I think Heroes and '06's implementations are as equally valid attempts as SA2's.  Eventually, it was decided that the added characters were a problem, so they scrapped them.  The Adventure series, under a different name, "evolved" (in a general sense of the word) as a series tends to do.  They removed what they perceived to be "problems" and focused on what is perceived to be the most important aspect.  It doesn't mean it's any less part of that series; it just means that they changed the formula.  It's similar to how the later Splinter Cell games have a completely different control scheme but still focus on stealth overall or how later Call of Duty games put high emphasis on multiplayer over the single player campaign.

 

 

Further causing confusion is the fact that this amount of noted differences were enough to essentially disqualify the actual Sonic 4 from being considered as such in the minds of many a fan, who will explain down to minuscule detail why each and every change means it isn't Sonic 4 in any meaningful capacity. Sonic 4 is Sonic 4 in name only, essentially. Why isn't this the case for other 3D games? With as much bullshit is involved, I've stopped accepting this argument. Sonic 06 isn't Sonic Adventure 3; It's Sonic 06. Sonic Unleashed isn't Sonic Adventure 3; it's Sonic Unleashed. At the most, they use the Adventure games is a mild inspiration but have their own identities worthy of recognition as their own individual games.

I think saying that Sonic 4 is Sonic 4 in name alone comes less from a technical standpoint and more from a quality standpoint.  Sonic 4 shares many similarities with Sonic 4 to the point where it may as well be called such, but the quality and legacy it leaves behind fail to measure to the fondness and positive association of the Genesis titles.  It's similar to how GoldenEye Rogue Agent is similar to GoldenEye 007, but is often seen as a disgrace to the name due to terrible plot and miserable overall experience.

[Diogenes]

Unless SEGA releases a game titled "Sonic Adventure 3", there won't be a Sonic Adventure 3. You can get as close as you want, but unless that title is on that box, no dice.

Then why even care about it? You could scribble SA3 over Sonic Labyrinth's boxart, but is that going to make it the game you want? Unless the name itself gets you off (which honestly I'm almost starting to believe considering how many times I've heard this argument), what is the point in dragging your feet over it just over the name?

[Nepenthe]

I don't believe the similar themes in SA1 and SA2 were a tying point between the two games as much a product of flawed writing.  Not to say they can't explore the same theme in different executions twice over as long as they are different enough to stand out (which they are), but I certainly don't find that to be a definitive factor of an "Adventure" title or anything that unifies SA1 and 2 as two connected pieces of work.

 

In any case, the fact that there are so many meaningful similarities omitted as time goes on is actually what I think makes each game from (debatably) Heroes onward "Sonic Adventure 3."  The adventure games were all about experimenting with different ways to use the different characters, and I think Heroes and '06's implementations are as equally valid attempts as SA2's.  Eventually, it was decided that the added characters were a problem, so they scrapped them.  The Adventure series, under a different name, "evolved" (in a general sense of the word) as a series tends to do.  They removed what they perceived to be "problems" and focused on what is perceived to be the most important aspect.  It doesn't mean it's any less part of that series; it just means that they changed the formula.  It's similar to how the later Splinter Cell games have a completely different control scheme but still focus on stealth overall or how later Call of Duty games put high emphasis on multiplayer over the single player campaign.

 

On the contrary, the fact that both of the games basically have the same story feels like a definitive tie between the two because they are the only two games to express this theme. Regardless of whether it was the result of intention or incompetence, the fact that it exists and is endemic only to those two as direct titles and the definitive Adventure series seems as worthy of mention as the Chao Gardens.

 

I also don't agree with the idea that a specific series is somehow supposed to lose features and similarities as time goes on, and subsequently I'm unsure of the comparison between them and the Call of Duty series (I have no experience with Splinter Cell) whose Modern Warfare branch is actually very well-defined and unchanging to the point of arguable stagnation. The same goes for the classic games. Really, I feel the whole point of a "series" or "sub-series" is that there are nearly unchanging characteristics unique to each title within that series that makes the banner they're united under actually meaningful. If the only similarity between various titles is "you can play as multiple characters," then is Secret Rings of all things now an Adventure title? The Riders games? Rush? Mario and Sonic? You can play as multiple characters after all. The title is effectively meaningless at this point. They are less "Sonic Adventure games" and more just plain ol' "Sonic games."

 

I think saying that Sonic 4 is Sonic 4 in name alone comes less from a technical standpoint and more from a quality standpoint.  Sonic 4 shares many similarities with Sonic 4 to the point where it may as well be called such, but the quality and legacy it leaves behind fail to measure to the fondness and positive association of the Genesis titles.  It's similar to how GoldenEye Rogue Agent is similar to GoldenEye 007, but is often seen as a disgrace to the name due to terrible plot and miserable overall experience.

I would agree more with this if discussion about the game wasn't fraught with constant explanation on why the physics differences- regardless of their quality as a whole- separate Sonic 4 from its predecessors. Indeed, I feel the parts are just as relevant to its ostracization as the overall quality, as I don't believe people here or at Retro would give the game a pass as a classic title if it were more enjoyable within its own design.

[Adorkable]

Then why even care about it? You could scribble SA3 over Sonic Labyrinth's boxart, but is that going to make it the game you want? Unless the name itself gets you off (which honestly I'm almost starting to believe considering how many times I've heard this argument), what is the point in dragging your feet over it just over the name?

 

Because I have hope, dude. To me, Sonic Adventure 1 & 2 were the best damn games Sonic has ever been in, and I've played nearly all of them. If they ever made a 3, I know it would be the best game ever. It's not as simple as "scribbling" all over a different Sonic game, it's about what comes from SEGA and Sonic Team. Like Nepenthe said, Sonic '06 is Sonic '06, and Sonic Unleashed is Sonic Unleashed, just because they may have been influenced by the Adventure games doesn't give anyone the right but SEGA to call them Sonic Adventure 3, and by the looks of the titles, none of them say Sonic Adventure 3. As I said before, Sonic Adventure 3 will exist when SEGA writes the label on a game. SEGA, no one else (unless a different company makes it - loophole, lol)! I don't know what you mean by "dragging my feet" all over it for the name, but when they put the title on the game, then it will exist. Not just because a fan or fans say that a game heavily resembles them.

[Tara]

 

On the contrary, the fact that both of the games basically have the same story feels like a definitive tie between the two because they are the only two games to express this theme. Regardless of whether it was the result of intention or incompetence, the fact that it exists and is endemic only to those two as direct titles and the definitive Adventure series seems as worthy of mention as the Chao Gardens.

 

I also don't agree with the idea that a specific series is somehow supposed to lose features and similarities as time goes on, and subsequently I'm unsure of the comparison between them and the Call of Duty series (I have no experience with Splinter Cell) whose Modern Warfare branch is actually very well-defined and unchanging to the point of arguable stagnation. The same goes for the classic games. Really, I feel the whole point of a "series" or "sub-series" is that there are nearly unchanging characteristics unique to each title within that series that makes the banner they're united under actually meaningful. If the only similarity between various titles is "you can play as multiple characters," then is Secret Rings of all things now an Adventure title? The Riders games? Rush? Mario and Sonic? You can play as multiple characters after all. The title is effectively meaningless at this point. They are less "Sonic Adventure games" and more just plain ol' "Sonic games."

My point was not that a series would naturally lose things as it goes on, but that it's losing these features doesn't make it any less part of the series.  When evaluating their previous work and thinking as to how they can improve on the next one, sometimes those improvements come at the cost of removing certain features.  Outside of the fandom, I remember the Chao Gardens being seen as a hindrance to the completion of the game, so they were removed.

 

As for multiple playable characters, my point was that (I suppose; understanding Sega's marketing during this era is pretty baffling) they were removed to focus on what is considered to be the primary aspect of the series;  Sonic's gameplay.  Sonic's gameplay has not been that drastically different from SA1 up until now.  He's had new moves added to his reservoir, sure.  The gameplay engine and play-style have changed a bit, sure.  But it still ultimately adheres to the basic principles outlined in SA1.

 

I would agree more with this if discussion about the game wasn't fraught with constant explanation on why the physics differences- regardless of their quality as a whole- separate Sonic 4 from its predecessors. Indeed, I feel the parts are just as relevant to its ostracization as the overall quality, as I don't believe people here or at Retro would give the game a pass as a classic title if it were more enjoyable within its own design.

I think those are explanations as to why the quality fails to match up, so it still fits.  However, I do agree that the fanbase would probably not be appreciative of Sega's likening it to the Genesis titles even if it had been a better-produced game.

 

 

Because I have hope, dude. To me, Sonic Adventure 1 & 2 were the best damn games Sonic has ever been in, and I've played nearly all of them. If they ever made a 3, I know it would be the best game ever. It's not as simple as "scribbling" all over a different Sonic game, it's about what comes from SEGA and Sonic Team. Like Nepenthe said, Sonic '06 is Sonic '06, and Sonic Unleashed is Sonic Unleashed, just because they may have been influenced by the Adventure games doesn't give anyone the right but SEGA to call them Sonic Adventure 3, and by the looks of the titles, none of them say Sonic Adventure 3. As I said before, Sonic Adventure 3 will exist when SEGA writes the label on a game. SEGA, no one else (unless a different company makes it - loophole, lol)! I don't know what you mean by "dragging my feet" all over it for the name, but when they put the title on the game, then it will exist. Not just because a fan or fans say that a game heavily resembles them.

But the point is- suppose you have a game that has everything that defined the Adventure series, but it wasn't named as such.  Why hold out for something when you already have what you want under a different name?  A rose of any other name would smell as sweet.

 

On the other hand, they could confirm Sonic Adventure 3 and make a game nothing like SA1 and 2.  Cow droppings of any other name would smell as much like cow droppings.

[RustyRick]

 

 

Granted, I love Drummond and Smith equally, but I don't think it's without merit to say that Smith sounds younger even with a deeper voice. ^.^

What do you think of Jason Griffith then, if I may ask? I found him initially too kind of stunted with his line-reading in early Sonic portrayals like X, Shadow and Riders, but eventually he kind of grew on me, and Griffith gave us some of the most memorable Sonic quotes that we still remember to this day, like 'Time to rock 'n roll!" and 'Even without wings, I can still fly!'

[Adorkable]

Cow droppings of any other name would smell as much like cow droppings.

 

That's funny.

 

If they were to make a game titled "Sonic Adventure 3", and it be nothing like Sonic Adventure 1 & 2, I would accept that. I'd finally get my wish, I guess you could say.

 

I guess think of it like this, imagine having an amazing movie, then an even more amazing sequel to the movie, then a possible third sequel to the movie. Wouldn't it be such a desire to have that third sequel? Sonic Adventure is the kind of game that sucked me into the series for life, all I would like is to have a third game, and it to be the best of them all. Sure it's been years since the Adventure formula has been used, but SEGA could easily bring it back at will, it's just a matter of choice for them. It's been highly demanded, it's their move, to say the least.

 

I get what everyone has been saying about how some games have been so close to the Adventure series, why not just accept those as Adventure 3? I'm going to say it again for a final time...if it doesn't say "Sonic Adventure 3" on the box, then guess what? It's not Sonic Adventure 3. It's like smacking a label on something that's not even according to the label.

[Tara]

What do you think of Jason Griffith then, if I may ask? I found him initially too kind of stunted with his line-reading in early Sonic portrayals like X, Shadow and Riders, but eventually he kind of grew on me, and Griffith gave us some of the most memorable Sonic quotes that we still remember to this day, like 'Time to rock 'n roll!" and 'Even without wings, I can still fly!'

Jason Griffith's performance started out terrible and improved a bit as the games went on.  In terms of overall acting quality, I remember him being particularly good in Black Knight, but awful in '06 and unbearable in ShTH.  Some of his performances in Sonic X were quite good as well, and others were pretty terrible.  Honestly, though, I've always found his actual voice to be terrible for Sonic as is.  He sort of reminds me more of a strange (and might I add undesirable) mix between Mandark from Dexter's Lab and Jeremy from Code Lyoko than he does Sonic the Hedgehog.

 

Strangely enough, though, I'm kind of okay with his Shadow. XD

 

 

That's funny.

 

If they were to make a game titled "Sonic Adventure 3", and it be nothing like Sonic Adventure 1 & 2, I would accept that. I'd finally get my wish, I guess you could say.

 

I guess think of it like this, imagine having an amazing movie, then an even more amazing sequel to the movie, then a possible third sequel to the movie. Wouldn't it be such a desire to have that third sequel? Sonic Adventure is the kind of game that sucked me into the series for life, all I would like is to have a third game, and it to be the best of them all. Sure it's been years since the Adventure formula has been used, but SEGA could easily bring it back at will, it's just a matter of choice for them. It's been highly demanded, it's their move, to say the least.

 

I get what everyone has been saying about how some games have been so close to the Adventure series, why not just accept those as Adventure 3? I'm going to say it again for a final time...if it doesn't say "Sonic Adventure 3" on the box, then guess what? It's not Sonic Adventure 3. It's like smacking a label on something that's not even according to the label.

Putting M&M's in a Skittles bags wouldn't make them Skittles, would it?

 

Yeah, I get what you're saying.  If I like two movies enough, assuming that there's enough room for a sequel given the context of the narrative, then I'll definitely want another one.  However, I'm not going to be picky with the name.  Especially since movies have an uncanny history of naming things terribly.  (Rambo 4 being named John Rambo, for instance)