Popular and unpopular Sonic opinions you agree and disagree with!

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Just now, Diogenes said:

Does that actually matter when it comes to the quality of SA2 itself.

Personally I'm not big on the idea of judging games by what they could have been, but in reality are not.

To some extent. It's not denying the actual quality and problems of SA2, but much in the same way people are willing to look at what the quality and problems of SA1 and still see value in what it did and can do better I don't see why this can't be done with SA2.

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

OK, @Conquering Storm's Servant, if I understand your argument right, it's basically that criticisms of SA2 are weaker if they're problems that would be easy to fix. But easy to fix or not, they obviously weren't fixed. I guess the idea you're trying to present is that they aren't "fundamental" flaws, but regardless of how "deep" they are, they're still flaws that made it into the final product. There's nothing wrong with judging a product on its merits rather than, essentially, judging it for "what it could be". Regardless of how "easily fixable" a flaw supposedly is, if it wasn't fixed, and it takes away from your experience significantly, it isn't wrong to consider it a major flaw in your mind.

But furthermore, I actually fear that a lot of the problems with SA2 aren't quite as easy to fix as you describe. You could just revert the treasure hunting and mech shooting to their SA1 counterparts, but a lot of the changes were very clearly made to make them more challenging, which makes sense - since there's more of each style, you don't want it to be a cakewalk, or else a large percentage of the game is a breeze to get through. (That's not to say I don't prefer the SA1 versions overall, because I totally do. But I can see why the changes were made, and why simply using the SA1 versions wouldn't necessarily work for what they were trying to do.)

And if you don't want to go all the way to being totally SA1-esque, well, it might not be so easy to fix it with "small tweaks". I think the idea that you could just remove the lines of code that make the emeralds not able to be collected in any order and everything would be good is over-optimistic at best. At first, I may have sympathized with this, since the inability to collect the emeralds in any order is indeed a major failing of those stages, and it seems so simple just to fix that...but then I had to ask myself, if it's so unnecessary and pointless, why did they put it in to begin with? And then I realize reasons, such as: If they could be collected in any order, how would hints work?

You could try a different tweak, such as removing hints altogether, but then more questions would need to be asked. The stages are bigger and the radar is weaker - how do you find the emeralds (or other treasures)? Well, simple: increase the radar, right? But then, if you really increase it enough that hints are unnecessary, don't you risk making treasure hunting too easy?

Having hints with the emeralds collectable in any order was fine in SA1 because the hints were very simple (just pointing you in a direction), and the hints could afford to be very simple because the treasure hunting stages themselves were very simple. They didn't mind making things a bit too easy, in part because treasure hunting was just one of six playstyles. But the SA2 treasure hunting stages are less simple by design, which is probably because they're a more major part of the game by design. This goes back to fundamental design considerations and decisions - Sega's decision to make treasure hunting a major part of the game, and the subsequent necessity to make it more complex and challenging.

I'm sure you could find some ways to fix these problems, but I doubt they'd be "simple tweaks" as you (and I!) assumed at first. I once thought it was okay to just copy-paste in the SA1 versions. But the more I think about it, the less I realize this is true, because I see the actual reasons behind the changes. Even if the end result is worse than their SA1 counterparts, in a way, these changes make sense in the context of SA2 design decisions, including the fundamental decision to make treasure hunting and mech shooting such a major part of the game, which almost necessitates making them more difficult (unless you want a too-easy game, which would also be a significant flaw - it might well be better overall, but it's not a "fix" if it introduces another potentially significant problem), and that in turn informs design decisions such as making the mechs less nimble, making the treasure hunting radar weaker, making there be complex hints to make up for the weakened radar, making the emeralds only collectable in a certain order...etc., etc.

tl;dr Flaws in Sonic Adventure 2 aren't necessarily simple to fix without introducing other potential problems, because some of them do eventually stem from core design decisions. But even if a flaw IS easily fixed, that doesn't automatically give it a free pass!

[Zippo]

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Yes, they are pretty overblown. Primarily through the degree in which those issues regarding things like the treasure hunting radar can be easily be fixed in the way I just explained how in the parts of my post you convieniently omitted whenever these things are pointed out

No, they are not. SA2, has many issues in many people's view, my own as well. You disagree, so you dismiss it is overblown. I pointed out the treasure hunting exclusively purposefully as I implied in my reply, I could go on a whole other rant on the mech levels, as that alone has a mariad of issues, including the clunky, stiff mech controls, awful level design, poor camera, and bad enemy placement, all being huge issues, among other things. Care to tell the class how easily these issues can be "fixed"? Are you a programmer? A developer? Because I'll take an actual game dev's criticisms with more value, rather than some random person on a forum's words.

 

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

But the degree in which a number of people express them to be exaggerated to the extent that they ignore how simple these things can be fixed. The ones that are constructive about it? Good for them--they're not the ones I'm referring too, but the ones that just bash the game to extreme degrees than they actually are.

And? People can bash and hate whatever games they please. You may not agree with those opinions, but people are entitled to whatever opinion they want, as are you. No one has any right to police anyone else's tastes, so this line is irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

This actually sounds more like you're trying to make a personal attack out of what I'm saying. I call them "spiteful" mainly for the degree in which some protray SA2 problems in general to the extent they make it sound unplayable, because again I actually pointed out the same problems in my previous post.

Yes, because that's exactly what you made it sound like. The fact that you downplayed the game's criticisms by condescendingly putting quotation marks around the word in order paint it as whining is a dead giveaway that you were at least slightly perturbed.

 

36 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

This has been said before somewhere by someone, but reiterate it, it really needs to be kept in mind that the Adventures were a product of their time. Few people will argue that they've aged well given the playstyles between the characters can feel like they're a bit too apart from each other, but often I feel like people disregard that more than they should.

Is this supposed to be some sort of defense? Many of us don't care about them being products of their time. We're critiquing them in today's context, I'm not giving them a free pass just because they're almost 20 year old games. I bought the games with my hard earned money and I have earned every right to say what I want about them, as has everyone else, positively or negatively.

[Diogenes]

16 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

To some extent. It's not denying the actual quality and problems of SA2,

It...kind of is, though?

Like, yeah, you can try to look at the game objectively, see where it succeeded and where it failed, see which ideas might have merit with some more polish or a little reworking and so on, but...the game is still the game. Things like the emerald radar letting you stand right next to a shard without so much as a peep, regardless of how easy they might be to fix (and like MDS said, it might not be quite as easy as it seems anyway), are still in the game and are still problems. If you're going to judge SA2 itself (as opposed to discussing the merits of a hypothetical SA2-like game) it's not "spiteful" to bring up the actual flaws in the game...it's just being honest.

[Dr. Detective]

This is going to come off random considering the current conversation but for some reason I was reminded of Sonic 3 the last time I tried to beat it.

I gave up on that but I just want to say FUCK that shitty barrel in the Carnival Night Zone or whatever it's called. And those ice sliders in the ice level that came after it. Those are terrible too. 

I ain't no developer but I'm gonna call those things shit design anyway.

I don't even know if that's an unpopular or popular thing to say. 

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

1 minute ago, Dr. Detective Mike said:

This is going to come off random considering the current conversation but for some reason I was reminded of Sonic 3 the last time I tried to beat it.

I gave up on that but I just want to say FUCK that shitty barrel in the Carnival Night Zone or whatever it's called. And those ice sliders in the ice level that came after it. Those are terrible too. 

I ain't no developer but I'm gonna call those things shit design anyway.

I don't even know if that's an unpopular or popular thing to say. 

I'm not quite sure what aspect of Ice Cap Zone you're talking about, but your opinion on the Carnival Night Zone barrel is very, very popular. lol

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

30 minutes ago, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

OK, @Conquering Storm's Servant, if I understand your argument right, it's basically that criticisms of SA2 are weaker if they're problems that would be easy to fix. But easy to fix or not, they obviously weren't fixed. I guess the idea you're trying to present is that they aren't "fundamental" flaws, but regardless of how "deep" they are, they're still flaws that made it into the final product. There's nothing wrong with judging a product on its merits rather than, essentially, judging it for "what it could be". Regardless of how "easily fixable" a flaw supposedly is, if it wasn't fixed, and it takes away from your experience significantly, it isn't wrong to consider it a major flaw in your mind.

Well, I'm not really saying they're wrong to consider it a flaw or its given merits given than they do pad out the game to a degree that isn't really necessary. But yeah, that's what I'm getting at.

 

 

Quote

And if you don't want to go all the way to being totally SA1-esque, well, it might not be so easy to fix it with "small tweaks". I think the idea that you could just remove the lines of code that make the emeralds not able to be collected in any order and everything would be good is over-optimistic at best. At first, I may have sympathized with this, since the inability to collect the emeralds in any order is indeed a major failing of those stages, and it seems so simple just to fix that...but then I had to ask myself, if it's so unnecessary and pointless, why did they put it in to begin with? And then I realize reasons, such as: If they could be collected in any order, how would hints work?

Wouldn't hints just work the same way? I can't see how making such changes would make the game more of a breeze given that unlike Tikal occasionally showing you a near-exact location of the shard, the hint boxes only stick to mentioning parts of the level and expect the player to keep an eye out as they search through the level. I can't imagine stages like Aquatic Mine (Especially Aquatic Mine, what with drowning three times looking for that damn Air Necklace), Death Chamber, or Security Hall being any easier given the amount of obstacles and hidden areas that can keep you at bay even if you were to zero in on a shard.

 

Quote

I'm sure you could find some ways to fix these problems, but I doubt they'd be "simple tweaks" as you (and I!) assumed at first. I once thought it was okay to just copy-paste in the SA1 versions. But the more I think about it, the less I realize this is true, because I see the actual reasons behind the changes. Even if the end result is worse than their SA1 counterparts, in a way, these changes make sense in the context of SA2 design decisions, including the fundamental decision to make treasure hunting and mech shooting such a major part of the game, which almost necessitates making them more difficult (unless you want a too-easy game, which would also be a significant flaw - it might well be better overall, but it's not a "fix" if it introduces another potentially significant problem), and that in turn informs design decisions such as making the mechs less nimble, making the treasure hunting radar weaker, making there be complex hints to make up for the weakened radar, making the emeralds only collectable in a certain order...etc., etc.

I don't know about that. That really sounds more artificial than something that necessitates making them difficult--kinda have a hard time understanding why one would make, for example, the emeralds collectable in a certain order when in plenty of cases one can stumble upon one out of order and in a very obvious area to boot, like having the second emerald float in the air in plain sight, but the radar somehow doesn't pick it up. I'd almost say someone just neglected that part for whatever reason.

Nor would I personally see much change in difficultly were they to implement these tweaks to make the game smoother. For all the problems, SA2 isn't really that difficult a game as it is. I mean, how old were we when we first played and beat them on release? A lot of these issues people have had have been hindsight than anything--not that they're wrong, but I think that context should be made.

Either way, I can't see "too easy" as being a flaw here when implementing these fixes, but that's just me.

 

[Zippo]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Detective Mike said:

This is going to come off random considering the current conversation but for some reason I was reminded of Sonic 3 the last time I tried to beat it.

I gave up on that but I just want to say FUCK that shitty barrel in the Carnival Night Zone or whatever it's called. And those ice sliders in the ice level that came after it. Those are terrible too. 

I ain't no developer but I'm gonna call those things shit design anyway.

I don't even know if that's an unpopular or popular thing to say. 

That's literally one of the most uncontroversial opinions in the Sonic fan base, lol. The Barrel has always been considered a blemish on Sonic 3 and Knuckles.

[Dr. Detective]

1 hour ago, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

I'm not quite sure what aspect of Ice Cap Zone you're talking about, but your opinion on the Carnival Night Zone barrel is very, very popular. lol

Okay good. I almost chucked my controller through the window when I got there.

As for Ice Cap, I'm talking about this part with the slides.

I couldn't beat it and when I reached a point where I finally thought I got passed it, Sonic took a step too forward because the controls hate me and he fell and started sliding again. So I gave up.

[Austroid]

9 hours ago, Natie said:

The OVA english dub voices are the best english voices the classic characters have ever had. 

Wholeheartedly agree!

Sonic's accent just fits him (its pretty cute honestly), Tails sounds like a kid, (which works) and Knuckles sounds like he's a treasure hunter from the west. (also works) I really like how they all sound relatively young, which is fitting since they should be. 

With Eggman, I liked how he could range from pure evil, ("When you awaken... kill him!") to plain hilarious. (Fine! Don't blame me when this happens!" *Ban*) If Amy was in the OVA instead of out-of-place Sara, it would of been the perfect rep. of the classic games. Its too bad the OVA never continued...

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

32 minutes ago, Zippo said:

No, they are not. SA2, has many issues in many people's view, my own as well. You disagree, so you dismiss it is overblown. 

Then you weren't actually reading my post given that I called out the same flaws people have addressed.

Quote

Care to tell the class how easily these issues can be "fixed"?

Did you read the whole intial post? I did just that for the part I called out.

Quote

Are you a programmer?

Actually, yes.

Quote

A developer?

Now that I'm not.

Quote

Because I'll take an actual game dev's criticisms with more value, rather than some random person on a forum's words.

You do that then.

Quote

And? People can bash and hate whatever games they please. You may not agree with those opinions, but people are entitled to whatever opinion they want, as are you. No one has any right to police anyone else's tastes, so this line is irrelevant.

Dude, the only one policing on anyone is you as I've never said anywhere that people are suppose to like this game. So take that strawman elsewhere, please.

But if they bash and hate whatever and I think it's unfair, I'm just as entitled to say that whether you like it or not.

Quote

Yes, because that's exactly what you made it sound like. The fact that you downplayed the game's criticisms by condescendingly putting quotation marks around the word in order paint it as whining is a dead giveaway that you were at least slightly perturbed.

I was actually doing that to highlight specifc parts of Naties post. 

Again, this sounds like you're trying to make this as a personal attack.

Quote

Is this supposed to be some sort of defense?

More something to keep in mind and understand while applying today's standards.

28 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

It...kind of is, though?

Not when I make a case on the same the same flaws in agreement. Come on, now.

[Zippo]

13 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Then you weren't actually reading my post given that I called out the same flaws people have addressed.

 

I read your entire post. That's not even what I'm talking about. I'm contending your baseless accusation that SA2's critcism are overblown.

 

17 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Did you read the whole intial post? I did just that for the part I called out.

 

This is how i know you didn't properly read my reply. I specifically pointed out SA2's awful level design, shit enemy placement, and piss poor camera as major issues that can't simply be fixed. But of course you skimp right by it.

 

24 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Dude, the only one policing on anyone is you as I've never said anywhere that people are suppose to like this game. So take that strawman elsewhere, please.

Oh please. No one here has policed anyone's tastes. And no, you came in here, downplayed people's arguments and dismissed them as being exaggerated and whiny, and after you were called out on it, and now you've gone and changed your narrative.

34 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

 

But if they bash and hate whatever and I think it's unfair, I'm just as entitled to say that whether you like it or not.

Again, this sounds like you're trying to make this as a personal attack.

I hope you aren't trying to imply that it's okay to criticize people for being negative about a game.

And please, spare me this with this victim card nonsense. No one had any problems here until you shot down people's arguments and painted them in a negative light.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

2 hours ago, Zippo said:

I read your entire post. That's not even what I'm talking about. I'm contending your baseless accusation that SA2's critcism are overblown.

The accusation isn't baseless, and I've already explained my point twice over the parts I was referring too.

Quote

This is how i know you didn't properly read my reply. I specifically pointed out SA2's awful level design, shit enemy placement, and piss poor camera as major issues that can't simply be fixed. But of course you skimp right by it.

My fault. I was still on my case regarding the parts I was making point on my earlier case regarding the emerald radar and clunky mech, and was trying to keep things short since I'm typing on a phone. 

That said, I've already said in my initial post that the level design was a different matter to be explained, as that's more complicated compared to the mechanics of the playable characters. Enemy placement being "shit" is subjective, although that can be dealt with by making them more visible and already in view instead of having Hunters, for example, drop from the air without warning--I think they and the Hawks were the only bad examples of this while others only did so from a distance or were already present upon your arrival. The camera on the other hand, I'll admit I'm not sure how to go about that, but in SA2's defense that's not a problem exclusive to it.

Quote

Oh please. No one here has policed anyone's tastes. And no, you came in here, downplayed people's arguments and dismissed them as being exaggerated and whiny, and after you were called out on it, and now you've gone and changed your narrative.

No, my narrative hasn't changed. I've repeated what I was saying and explained how I looked at it and why. So I still stand by what I said.

Quote

I hope you aren't trying to imply that it's okay to criticize people for being negative about a game.

I don't really care if someone is being negative about the game, honestly. I mean, as long as they're being accurate about it, and I can see their point, I don't really mind.

I'm not here to force them to be positive about it, particularly when I see the problems and agree with a number of them, but not to the degree they express them and think they're and easy fix.

Quote

And please, spare me this with this victim card nonsense. No one had any problems here until you shot down people's arguments and painted them in a negative light.

Dude, really. The only person here with a problem so far is you, no one else. I'm not victimizing myself of anything--you're just here to pick a fight because you want to make out my words as a personal offense, which you still continue to do. I've explained my case as it is, pointing out that yes SA2 has flaws and problems, and that I agree with them but find them overblown. I might have been too dry and blunt when I was making my case, but I wasn't trying to be mean about it.

If you still want to be hostile about it, be my guest. But I'm not going to get dragged into the flames.

[Baconjack]

Unpopular opinion:

Mania's level design is not great. In some levels it feels like playing a Modern game from a 2d perspective and 16 bit graphics. 50% of levels like Stardust Speedway and Hydrocity are automated. 

The treasure hunting stages in Adventure 2 are garbage.

[RedFox99]

Unpopular opinion:

I don't care for the magic shown throughout the franchise and I don't support Sallicole

[Natie]

18 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Because for starters, a lot of the so called "criticisms" of said game hare vastly overblown to trivial degree, and a lot of its problems in game design are so easy to fix that those who rant on it very easily come off as spiteful.

Huh? What's your point? The game shouldn't be critisized cuz it's problems could be fixed? 

Yeah, every bad game's issues "could be fixed". But they weren't, and that's why we say they are bad. I've never see this kinda cop-out before, this is a first.

12 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Dude, really. The only person here with a problem so far is you, no one else. I'm not victimizing myself of anything--you're just here to pick a fight because you want to make out my words as a personal offense, which you still continue to do.

lol this is so transparent.

[DonWaffleleven]

16 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

This has been said before somewhere by someone, but reiterate it, it really needs to be kept in mind that the Adventures were a product of their time. Few people will argue that they've aged well given the playstyles between the characters can feel like they're a bit too apart from each other, but often I feel like people disregard that more than they should.

Granted, some things like Big's fishing levels were hated from the get go. It'd be a different matter if something like that were more along the lines of a side game than part of the main game.

I think it's worth pointing out that how a game has aged doesn't have to necessarily impact the enjoyment you can get from a game. If we associate "new" as the most fun we can have and "old" as the crusty old garbage, then why do people still get a kick out playing games like the PS1 Resident Evils? Because I think their enjoyment factor can be separated from the "age". If people can have fun with a game where you can't even move or aim properly, then let people have fun with a game that has a busted camera and some interesting but ultimately boring play styles.

Also it's amusing to see you getting raked over the coals just for daring to say "guys, maybe tone down the hate a little." Keep fighting the good fight, brother.

[BlueSky]

Gee, I'm going to throw in an unpopular opinion;

I like SA2:B more than Colours.

When I get stuck on SA2:B I still keep trying (I keep "farming lives since I'm a klutz) and I keep on coming back for more. I'm not too good of a gamer but I still get lots of enjoyment out of it.

Colours? I play for like one or two stages and then I get bored or confused, where was I supposed to go after this stage?

I'm not too certain of why but that's how it goes for me: I'm not about all those fancy tech things, if I enjoy a game then I enjoy it. If you don't you don't I appreciate your opinions. I hope you respect mine.

And Lost World? I lost my interest after it became too annoying stagewise, it gives me a headache after all. It was the first game to "crash" my 3DS... what an achievement.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

3 hours ago, Natie said:

Huh? What's your point? The game shouldn't be critisized cuz it's problems could be fixed? 

Did I say that? Or did I say something else entirely?

Quote

Yeah, every bad game's issues "could be fixed". But they weren't, and that's why we say they are bad. I've never see this kinda cop-out before, this is a first.

If defending a game while acknowledging it's problems and discussing how they can be fixed is considered a "cop-out," then I don't think you understand the meaning of that term.

Quote

lol this is so transparent.

2 hours ago, DonWaffleleven said:

I think it's worth pointing out that how a game has aged doesn't have to necessarily impact the enjoyment you can get from a game. If we associate "new" as the most fun we can have and "old" as the crusty old garbage, then why do people still get a kick out playing games like the PS1 Resident Evils? Because I think their enjoyment factor can be separated from the "age". If people can have fun with a game where you can't even move or aim properly, then let people have fun with a game that has a busted camera and some interesting but ultimately boring play styles.

Well, I'd say the impact can come from improved design of successive games that play better, although that can vary.

A succeeding game that plays much smoothly would definitely make playing the older game frustrating due to those changes. For instance, after playing Sonic 1 and the progressing to S3&K, going back to Sonic 1 can have its frustrations when things like the Insta-Shield or Spin Dash isn't available in the previous game, so it impacts it due to things like muscle memory or just the simple lack of abilities. Of course, that's not always true as successive games can end up having that as well--Me and a friend just beat Mania last night all the way to the true final boss, and throughout my playthrough I was extremely frustrated at how we couldn't Insta-shield when we wanted to in a pinch in the Mania mode, so it really depends.

Quote

Also it's amusing to see you getting raked over the coals just for daring to say "guys, maybe tone down the hate a little." Keep fighting the good fight, brother.

Well, I just try to look at things from multiple views. Of course, being open minded about is going to have some moments like this, but I just keep a cool head and reiterate my stance.

Besides, what's the worst they can do?

[NikoS]

@RedFox99 out of curiosity, what is the "magic" you referred to?

also

2 hours ago, BlueSky said:

I like SA2:B more than Colours.

I'm 150% with you in this, i still play  SA2 to this day, colors... i don't think that would happen (this is coming from a guy who  l o v e s  unleashed, so it's not "the boost formula"'s fault)

[RedFox99]

Just now, NikoS said:

@RedFox99 out of curiosity, what is the "magic" you referred to?

also

I'm 150% with you in this, i still play  SA2 to this day, colors... i don't think that would happen (this is coming from a guy who  l o v e s  unleashed, so it's not "the boost formula"'s fault)

Just magic in general dude.

[Natie]

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Did I say that? Or did I say something else entirely?

 

Hmm... well lets see here...

 

Quote

Because for starters, a lot of the so called "criticisms" of said game hare vastly overblown to trivial degree, and a lot of its problems in game design are so easy to fix that those who rant on it very easily come off as spiteful.

 

Ooh, what's this...? The problems are easy to fix.... so therefore... people who don't like it... are spiteful... and their criticisms are invalid (implied by the quotation marks).
 

So yes, you did say that.

If it wasn't what you meant, mayhaps you could specify so I could see your point better, instead of leaving a vague and smug post.

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

If defending a game while acknowledging it's problems and discussing how they can be fixed is considered a "cop-out," then I don't think you understand the meaning of that term.

Ah yes, the rest of that post was fine enough job, the problem lies with the fact that instead of offering your defense and viewpoint on the game, you instead made the assertion that since SA2 could have been better (even though it wasn't), that people who are bothered by those flaws and dislike the game, are somehow being unfair/spiteful, which makes no sense. Leaving me to have a sneaking suspicion that it might be some sort of hasty excuse to vent your frustration at people who hate something you love. Again, feel free to elaborate if I'm way off the mark.

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

1 hour ago, Natie said:

 

Hmm... well lets see here...

 

 

Ooh, what's this...? The problems are easy to fix.... so therefore... people who don't like it... are spiteful... and their criticisms are invalid (implied by the quotation marks).
 

So yes, you did say that.

No I very clearly didn't. Half of that is you putting words in my mouth and mincing words. Nevermind there was a whole three posts I made afterwards that elaborated what I meant, so this comes off as strawmanning on your end.

 

Quote

Ah yes, the rest of that post was fine enough job, the problem lies with the fact that instead of offering your defense and viewpoint on the game, you instead made the assertion that since SA2 could have been better (even though it wasn't), that people who are bothered by those flaws and dislike the game, are somehow being unfair/spiteful, which makes no sense. Leaving me to have a sneaking suspicion that it might be some sort of hasty excuse to vent your frustration at people who hate something you love. Again, feel free to elaborate if I'm way off the mark.

You are way off the mark. The assertion was, as I already expanded upon previously later down the line, while yes SA2 could have been better, the degree in which people go about the flaws is overblown to the degree that they come off as spiteful/unfair, not that they their complaints are invalid. And as I said twice to Zippo earlier, I actually agree with a lot of those flaws for the same reason, but not to the same degree in which they express it given the nuances from it and its predecessor, SA1.

And while I may like SA2, I know the game isn't perfect and has problems, and for reasons I stated the first time.

[RedFox99]

Can we just drop this already? 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I mean, I'm not going to just let people twist things out of context when I can help it.