Popular and unpopular Sonic opinions you agree and disagree with!

[Diogenes]

7 minutes ago, Conquering Storm’s Servant said:

No, it doesn’t (and there’s more than one meaning to that word). But you’re more than welcome to believe that.

Literally every one of those definitions applies.

"Being the only one"? If Games A and B both have a cyborg hippo mount, then A is not the only one with a cyborg hippo mount.

"Being without a like or equal"? If B also has a cyborg hippo mount, then A has a game that is like it in having a cyborg hippo mount.

"Distinctively characteristic"? If other games are doing it, it's less distinct.

"Unusual"? If other games are doing it, it's become less unusual.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

18 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

Literally every one of those definitions applies.

"Being the only one"? If Games A and B both have a cyborg hippo mount, then A is not the only one with a cyborg hippo mount.

"Being without a like or equal"? If B also has a cyborg hippo mount, then A has a game that is like it in having a cyborg hippo mount.

"Distinctively characteristic"? If other games are doing it, it's less distinct.

"Unusual"? If other games are doing it, it's become less unusual.

If you’re going to be binary about it, sure those definitions apply. But otherwise, only the first two would apply.

Sonic going Super Sonic like Goku going Super Saiyan may be similar (and it’s not a bad thing either), but there’s more than just turning yellow and being more powerful than before that makes them unique. Which you’d understand if you weren’t oversimplifying things like that.

[Diogenes]

Just now, Conquering Storm’s Servant said:

If you’re going to be binary about it, sure those definitions apply. But otherwise, only the first two would apply.

That is literally the opposite of the truth. Not being binary about it is exactly why I said less distinct and less unusual, because the properties exist as a continuum rather than as a binary. "Games with cyborg hippo mounts" may still be unusual whether there's 1 or 2 of them, but they are less unusual when there are two than when there is just one.

Just now, Conquering Storm’s Servant said:

Sonic going Super Sonic like Goku going Super Saiyan may be similar, but there’s more than just turning yellow and being more powerful than before that makes them unique. Which you’d understand if you weren’t oversimplifying things like that.

Yes, the two transformations are not identical, but they do share some traits. So once Sonic's Super transformation was introduced, Super Saiyans may have still been unique for, I don't know, being a transformation that turns your eyes teal, but it was no longer unique for being a transformation that turns your hair gold and spikes it up. It had fewer traits unique to it, and thus was less unique. And because of that, DBZ as a whole became less unique, if only by a small amount.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

32 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

That is literally the opposite of the truth. Not being binary about it is exactly why I said less distinct and less unusual, because the properties exist as a continuum rather than as a binary. "Games with cyborg hippo mounts" may still be unusual whether there's 1 or 2 of them, but they are less unusual when there are two than when there is just one.

No, it’s just looking at things from another perspective. Just because it differs to your specific term doesn’t make it false.

“Games with cyborg hippo mounts” being less usual when there are two instead of one, but they’re not any less unique if they both has something else of merit that differentiates them from one another. Like how Call of Duty and Titanfall are games that let you run around and shoot one another, but they do so differently.

Quote

Yes, the two transformations are not identical, but they do share some traits.

And differ in others, which is another way they’re unique based on their own merits.

Quote

So once Sonic's Super transformation was introduced, Super Saiyans may have still been unique for, I don't know, being a transformation that turns your eyes teal, but it was no longer unique for being a transformation that turns your hair gold and spikes it up. It had fewer traits unique to it, and thus was less unique. And because of that, DBZ as a whole became less unique, if only by a small amount.

So small it’s inconsequential. Not to mention the Super Saiyan can access the form at will instead of requiring 7 powerful objects to power them, are not dependent on rings, can maintain their form for much longer, and can become progressively more and more stronger.

All that still makes them unique on their own merits, and isn’t less unique than Super Sonic just because of similarities on the surface. Which is the same case I’m making regarding Mighty and Ray being used in both branches instead of being separated from one, as Classic could still be unique in its own merits even if it shares them with the Modern branch.

[Diogenes]

I've wasted enough time on this, it's clear you're never actually going to understand what I'm saying, but I just can't let this one bit go without comment:

5 minutes ago, Conquering Storm’s Servant said:

All that still makes them unique on their own merits, and isn’t less unique than Super Sonic just because of surface similarities.

I did not say that Super Saiyans are less unique than Super Sonic, I said they're less unique because of Super Sonic. I am not comparing the uniqueness of the two to each other, I am comparing the uniqueness of Super Saiyans to itself, before and after Super Sonic's creation. Those are two completely different ideas, and if you haven't been able to tell the difference, well, that explains a lot about this disaster of a conversation.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Just now, Diogenes said:

I've wasted enough time on this, it's clear you're never actually going to understand what I'm saying, but I just can't let this one bit go without comment:

Didn’t think “disagreeing” meant a “lack of understanding.”

Just now, Diogenes said:

I did not say that Super Saiyans are less unique than Super Sonic, I said they're less unique because of Super Sonic. I am not comparing the uniqueness of the two to each other, I am comparing the uniqueness of Super Saiyans to itself, before and after Super Sonic's creation. Those are two completely different ideas, and if you haven't been able to tell the difference, well, that explains a lot about this disaster of a conversation.

And once again, I’m saying they’re unique on their own merits.

The main reason this conversation is a disaster is because you want me to kowtow to your definition, when I straight up told you on the previous page I don’t work that way and looked at this entire matter differently. So this isn’t my problem as far as I’m concerned.

[Cuz]

I'm just having trouble following the examples because (series/and/or game) A and B are missing a whole bushel of oranges and apples. What's true when comparing just A and B is rendered false when looking at the broader series.

I can't scope this small. I feel like I'd be missing the forest through the trees.

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

46 minutes ago, Cuz said:

I'm just having trouble following the examples because (series/and/or game) A and B are missing a whole bushel of oranges and apples. What's true when comparing just A and B is rendered false when looking at the broader series.

I can't scope this small. I feel like I'd be missing the forest through the trees.

 

I put it this way: the sum of the parts are what make the whole unique. Just because something else shares some of those parts doesn’t change that, particularly when they utilize those similar parts differently.

Kinda like how Superman and Goku are very similar: aliens from another planet that are far stronger than their adopted home they are dedicated to protecting, but they grew up differently—Goku was a badass little brat to his adoptive father and only turned nice after getting amnesia from falling from a cliff, while Superman was nice from the start and his adoptive parents raised him to be more humble. Plus a bunch of other things, like their superpowers and attitudes, with Goku being fight happy and wanting to be stronger while Superman wants to protect and keep people safe, but that was just a general compare and contrast.

Without those differences giving them their own merits, that is where I see things as less unique. You see the forest and the trees.

[Red Hot Jack]

I stand by my point. Mighty and Ray were resurrected for Mania Plus and Adventures... that's great! But why do they need to be everywhere now? Omega was resurrected too for Modern games, after almost 10 years of being relegated to the Mario & Sonic series as a boss, they brought him back for Forces and Team Sonic Racing. Also great! But that doesn't mean Omega should be in every game, as much as that'd be fun.

Also, it's just natural that brand new characters will be introduced, this is very unpopular, but hear me out: in order to make a "brand new experience" (Iizuka's words, I know), you need to introduce new characters, to create a new gameplay, new gimmicks, new stories and narrative plots. It's honestly exciting too, even though we have to give up some old characters. When the franchise gets this old and with this big cast, and they have to introduce more characters to create new things, it's normal that some may be left behind, not the "core" characters and the popular main cast. But I predict this will happen...

As I said, probably for the next cartoon and if it's tied to the possible Mania 2, they may introduce a new character like they did with Cream (Sonic X and Heroes) and Sticks (Sonic Boom), they had their chance at being main players, but now it's done, new characters will come that will inevitably take their place. 

... Or they can bring back old characters for big roles, like they did for Mighty and Ray, that would be good too, like, I'd say... bring back Honey for the next Mania!

[Emerald Chaos]

Mighty and Ray don't "need" to be everywhere.

But there's no point in arbitrarily sectioning them off and saying they can NEVER be in certain games or the comics.

There's also no point in adding in new characters willy-nilly if already existing characters can fill their roles just fine. The currently existing characters can be used in plenty of new and creative ways.

[knuckles20]

I had more fun with Sonic Chronicles than I did with any games since Colors.

Calling Generations (PS3/360 verisons) “the best recent 3D game” is a huge lie given you spend more than half the game in 2D.

[DabigRG]

2 hours ago, knuckles20 said:

I had more fun with Sonic Chronicles than I did with any games since Colors.

 

I don't know about fun, but I think I see what you're getting at from what I know about it.

[Guergy]

On 10/21/2018 at 5:54 PM, knuckles20 said:

Calling Generations (PS3/360 verisons) “the best recent 3D game” is a huge lie given you spend more than half the game in 2D.

That is what bothered me about the "Boost era" of Sonic games, I thought I was going to play a 3D open world games but I spend half of it playing in 2D.  I am not against 2D or 3D but  it appears that do not want to mix it to together in those games. 

[Rowl]

Unpopular opinion: I do not think that the Deadly Six are that bad for villains. A lot of Sonic fans seem to dislike them because of their one noted personality traits. But almost 3/4 of the Sonic cast is one dimensional and badly written. Look at Infinite and how laughable he is as a villain in terms of backstory and motives. I wonder if the D6 would be more beloved among the Sonic fans if they were all designed as super cool, radical furry characters like the rest of the cast.  

[DabigRG]

1 minute ago, Rowl said:

Unpopular opinion: I do not think that the Deadly Six are that bad for villains. A lot of Sonic fans seem to dislike them because of their one noted personality traits. But almost 3/ç of the Sonic cast is one dimensional and badly written. Look at Infinite and how laughable he is as a villain in terms of backstory and motives. I wonder if the D6 would be more beloved among the Sonic fans if they were all designed as super cool, radical furry characters like the rest of the cast.  

I somewhat agree with that, though I think one of the general issues with them is, along with said onenote-ness and a relative lack of backstory  for most of them not really helping, the fact that they are arguably too eclectic with a relative lack of comfortable cohesion.

Well that and the fact that they were introduced under a storytelling mentality that has an undeniable habit of both relatively incomplete stories and what I will describe as character bio-friendly characterization.

[Rowl]

I have another unpopular opinion: I do also think that Princess Elise is not that bad of a character either. I mean sure, she is bland and her design is really uninspired, plus she became kinda creepy in the end with her whole romance angle with Sonic, but at least she did not annoy me like most other damsels in distress. At the moment back then she technically had more character than Zelda or Pauline and still has also technically more personality than Princess Peach to this day. Sure it isn't much, but at least she did not got on my nerves. There are far more main characters at the moment that really trigger me like Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Sticks, Shadow, Charmy Bee, Silver and even Sonic. I can't even tell what it is, but they really annoy me at the moment. 

[DabigRG]

17 minutes ago, Rowl said:

I have another unpopular opinion: I do also think that Princess Elise is not that bad of a character either. I mean sure, she is bland and her design is really uninspired, plus she became kinda of a creepy in the end with her whole romance angle with Sonic, but at least she did not annoy me like most other damsels in distress. At the moment back than she technically got more character than Zelda or Pauline and still has also technically more personality than Princess Peach. Sure it isn't much, but at least she does not get on my nerves. Their are far more main characters that at the moment really trigger me like Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Sticks, Shadow, Charmy Bee, Silver and even Sonic. I can't even tell what it is, but they really annoy me at the moment. 

She didn't bother be either, but I must ask, any idea why Amy might bother you nowadays?

[Rowl]

3 hours ago, DabigRG said:

She didn't bother be either, but I must ask, any idea why Amy might bother you nowadays?

Hard to say. I can not really exactly point the finger on what bothers me the most on her. Maybe because she is in every incarnation a stereotype that I personally do not like. In the old Sonic games she was a stereotypical fangirl character, in the modern games she is just a bland stick in the mud stereotype and in the Boom games and TV show she is a strong woman stereotype and a bit of a hardcore feminist. 

All Sonic characters are stereotypes, I know that. But at least I can get a bit enjoyment of some of the stereotypes form the other characters. Like Knuckles and Cubot been dump ones, or Zazz been the Crazy one or Vector been the greedy one. But with Amy I personally can not get any enjoyment out of her.

[DabigRG]

11 minutes ago, Rowl said:

Hard to say. I can not really exactly point the finger on what bothers me the most on her. Maybe because she is in every incarnation a stereotype that I personally do not like. In the old Sonic games she was a stereotypical fangirl character, in the modern games she is just a bland stick in the mud stereotype and in the Boom games and TV show she is a strong woman stereotype and a bit of a hardcore feminist. 

All Sonic characters are stereotypes, I know that. But at least I can get a bit enjoyment of some of the stereotypes form the other characters. Like Knuckles and Cubot been dump ones, or Zazz been the Crazy one or Vector been the greedy one. But with Amy I personally can not get any enjoyment out of her.

Okay, I suppose I can see the train of thought regarding that.

[SonicMkIII.0]

Is the franchise in another ‘dark age’? I can’t really say, as at this point I’ve kept Sonic at arm’s length for many, many years, with the Archie comic being the only thing that appealed to me for so long. ...At least we have Mania? And the IDW comic, even if I just don’t connect with it the same way I did the Archie comic.

I think for me, personally as a fan, I’ve lost a lot of interest in the franchise, and while Mania is fun for me? I think I’m more or less done  with Sonic for the foreseeable future. I’ve been getting the IDW comic at the store as part of my pull-list, but think I’ll be taking it off of it soon. Just not what I wanted from it. So, from a fan perspective? Yes, though this has been a longstanding problem before Forces was released. From a franchise perspective? Nah. This is small potatoes compared to the last time. That being said? Sega, for the love of all that is good, push another of your franchises for the next little bit (and I’m not talking about Yakuza). The blue hedgehog needs a break. 

EDIT: Wrong Thread.

[SBR2]

Boost Gameplay is way more fun to play that Adventure Gamplay.

[Mountaindewandsprite]

I feel that at this point fans do an infinitely better job at creating Sonic media than Sonic Team themselves.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

On 10/23/2018 at 8:24 AM, Rowl said:

Unpopular opinion: I do not think that the Deadly Six are that bad for villains. A lot of Sonic fans seem to dislike them because of their one noted personality traits. But almost 3/4 of the Sonic cast is one dimensional and badly written.

What are those dimensions then?

Or rather the single dimension most of the cast has? Usually people say “one dimensional” without knowing what that actually means.

 

[E-122-Psi]

I actually don't really mind the Deadly Six either. Sure they weren't exactly depthful, but compared to the really generic load of prop monsters that looked ripped from a sci fi movie we got in most of the games beforehand, they were at least colourful and cartoony, and worked okay in instigating a good dynamic to the games' story (in spite of iffy execution). I like they were alternative villains from Eggman who also weren't standard shadowy sinister archetypes miles above his league as well, they were opportunists and as goofy and careless as he was and it was an intentional part of the story. They also didn't follow the long stale formula of using Eggman as a patsy and then swatting him away when he outlived his usefulness, they both took turns using ideal moments of weakness to usurp the other and even knew to exploit the other's resources, which was an intriguing dynamic that made both sides look a little more crafty.

I think if the Sonic series had a better selection of alternative villains that weren't fairly unmemorable and repetitive, I would be more critical (admittedly they're pretty lame compared to Archie's developed hierarchy of charismatic opportunist villains), but the Deadly Six were a far step in the right direction at least.

[DabigRG]

3 hours ago, E-122-Psi said:

I actually don't really mind the Deadly Six either. Sure they weren't exactly depthful, but compared to the really generic load of prop monsters that looked ripped from a sci fi movie we got in most of the games beforehand, they were at least colourful and cartoony, and worked okay in instigating a good dynamic to the games' story (in spite of iffy execution). I like they were alternative villains from Eggman who also weren't standard shadowy sinister archetypes miles above his league as well, they were opportunists and as goofy and careless as he was and it was an intentional part of the story. They also didn't follow the long stale formula of using Eggman as a patsy and then swatting him away when he outlived his usefulness, they both took turns using ideal moments of weakness to usurp the other and even knew to exploit the other's resources, which was an intriguing dynamic that made both sides look a little more crafty.

Makes you wish the story was more fleshed out even more.