Popular and unpopular Sonic opinions you agree and disagree with!

[Kuzu]

8 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

I'll take interesting over boring any day.

Does it count as interesting when it's been done better in other mediums?

Look, I already admitted that I'm biased, so clearly we got two different priorities and preferences. I will say though, it is a lot easier to portray a simpler and positive characterization when in a video game that doesn't focus much on storytelling like Sonic, as I think we can both agree even if you find current Sonic more interesting...they haven't really been able to get it down. 

Or in other words; there have been better portrayals of "boring" Sonic than ones of "interesting" Sonic, as far as the games are concerned anyway. 

[Diogenes]

1 minute ago, Kuzu said:

Does it count as interesting when it's been done better in other mediums?

If nothing counts if it's been done better elsewhere there isn't much of anything in Sonic worth praising.

And I don't think that framing is any kinder towards SatBK because surely there's no shortage of stories where the hero is the best at everything and never wrong.

[Kuzu]

7 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

If nothing counts if it's been done better elsewhere there isn't much of anything in Sonic worth praising.

And I don't think that framing is any kinder towards SatBK because surely there's no shortage of stories where the hero is the best at everything and never wrong.

Then I'm just going to disagree with that; there's plenty to praise about this series, we're just so burnt out and jaded from years of mediocrity to see it. Even if I don't like what Lost World did, I can at least understand and give it credit for attempting to do something. 

And I don't think it's wrong that people like it when the hero is a good guy who wins...especially since this is still a series for children ya know. 

[Diogenes]

2 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

And I don't think it's wrong that people like it when the hero is a good guy who wins...especially since this is still a series for children ya know. 

I'm not saying Sonic being a good guy who wins is a bad thing. I like good guys. I like bad guys. I like winners. I like losers. What I don't like is boring characters, and when a story pretends to have some nuance regarding the character being a hero but the whole world bends to make him right all the time, that's a boring character.

[Wraith]

Diogenes reminded me of something. It's an aside but since it's the popular opinions thread I figured I'd say it: I want Sonic to be portrayed as explicitly more of a rebel. More willing to do things that society or even his friends wouldn't do for the sake of what he believes. In almost every game he fights inarguable supervillains that the world hates or monsters that they'd be better off without. If we're going to have more villains like The Deadly Six, they don't all need to be the same flavor of inarguable evil. 

I'm not asking for a bunch of moral debates either. Just a willingness to break the rules more if they don't align with what he wants to do. Flipping GUN the bird is one way manifested, but you could even do this with royalty like Blaze who have more of a preference for protocol if you wanted to keep things strictly in the cartoon fantasy realm. 

[Kuzu]

32 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

I'm not saying Sonic being a good guy who wins is a bad thing. I like good guys. I like bad guys. I like winners. I like losers. What I don't like is boring characters, and when a story pretends to have some nuance regarding the character being a hero but the whole world bends to make him right all the time, that's a boring character.

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

 

 

On that note, on subject of Sonic being a rebel. That does kind of carry an inherent risk, mainly in Sonic retaining audience sympathy. Because either you have to frame it as Diogenes mentioned, and the world is wrong and Sonic is right. OR the world is right and Sonic wrong.

Its not bad that Sonic is wrong, but if it turns him into a character you no longer want to root for...

 

Now, that can work but it requires you switch the perspective character to someone else to view Sonic's actions through. DMC4 kind of did that with having Nero as the main focus and Dante being framed as an antagonist for Nero to face.

[E-122-Psi]

1 hour ago, Kuzu said:

I find it incredibly ironic that you advocate for a more fallible and vulnerable Sonic, but only when other characters don't look better than him. Because that's kind of what I get from these readings; Sonic should be fallible, but nobody is allowed to be better than him despite that. 

No, I'm fine with people calling out Sonic and it being clear cut. Hell in Boom he got so bad that some of his friends INSTIGATED COMEUPPANCES onto him sometimes. My problem is when it reverts into a flanderized formula where the characters are streamlined into just sane and stupid herds, which I find kinda bland. Sonic doesn't need to be always right, but at the same time having someone on that perpetual pedestal  instead just moves the problem. That's why I like setups where all the cast have these foibles and parables and the sane man role switches around according to circumstances.

This is the issue I have with the aforementioned concept of having Sonic rebel against authorities for example. X and Archie did actually try this sometimes, but the problem is that for each individual adversity at least, they had trouble resolving it while keeping the grey morality. Either one side was completely in the right with the other strawmaned into a wrong imbecile, or the conflict just sort of withered into nothing and they tried to hide it under the rug. It didn't help that most of the time Sonic was portrayed as a rebel to the point of being having outright naked contempt to anyone criticising him or telling him what to do, even on just the stance of 'think of the consequences for OTHER PEOPLE', meaning he either came off as an asshole the audience would HAVE to root for getting put in his place, or was a designated hero treated in the right despite being just as unlikeable as his opposition.

We get characters like Sally who so effectively and one sidedly oppose Sonic's fundamental flaws to the point of making his whole ethical approach seem like something that needs to be corrected and repressed in the future arcs, or we get characters like Hamlin or Sonic X Knuckles, who are so blatantly just meant to be petty butt monkeys talking out of their ass and not meant to be effective in calling out Sonic's misgivings. There's rarely a good balance, an equal. Most times they try to go for a 'both sides have a point' there isn't really an outcome, the plot is just kinda cut off and it doesn't feel like either side has made a remote compromise.

[Miles Storzillo]

3 hours ago, iambitter21 said:

oh and also:

You know these aren't really "unpopular" anymore, right? just saying, almost half of the sonic fanbase agree with this perspective.

Eh, the 2nd one is the only one I can see somewhat popular.  As for the others, I’m pretty sure the majority still think Lost World, Shadow, and 06 have much worse stories (I won’t deny 06 has a bad story, and I can see why people would say that about Shadow.  Lost World I don’t mind though).  

I don’t see Chip talked about much.  Although, to be fair, the same can be said for any of Sonic’s one off partners.  And when I do people tend to say they prefer Yacker.

And I still hear lots of people complaining about Chip sounding too old.

[Kuzu]

1 hour ago, E-122-Psi said:

No, I'm fine with people calling out Sonic and it being clear cut. Hell in Boom he got so bad that some of his friends INSTIGATED COMEUPPANCES onto him sometimes. My problem is when it reverts into a flanderized formula where the characters are streamlined into just sane and stupid herds, which I find kinda bland. Sonic doesn't need to be always right, but at the same time having someone on that perpetual pedestal  instead just moves the problem. That's why I like setups where all the cast have these foibles and parables and the sane man role switches around according to circumstances.

This is the issue I have with the aforementioned concept of having Sonic rebel against authorities for example. X and Archie did actually try this sometimes, but the problem is that for each individual adversity at least, they had trouble resolving it while keeping the grey morality. Either one side was completely in the right with the other strawmaned into a wrong imbecile, or the conflict just sort of withered into nothing and they tried to hide it under the rug. It didn't help that most of the time Sonic was portrayed as a rebel to the point of being having outright naked contempt to anyone criticising him or telling him what to do, even on just the stance of 'think of the consequences for OTHER PEOPLE', meaning he either came off as an asshole the audience would HAVE to root for getting put in his place, or was a designated hero treated in the right despite being just as unlikeable as his opposition.

We get characters like Sally who so effectively and one sidedly oppose Sonic's fundamental flaws to the point of making his whole ethical approach seem like something that needs to be corrected and repressed in the future arcs, or we get characters like Hamlin or Sonic X Knuckles, who are so blatantly just meant to be petty butt monkeys talking out of their ass and not meant to be effective in calling out Sonic's misgivings. There's rarely a good balance, an equal. Most times they try to go for a 'both sides have a point' there isn't really an outcome, the plot is just kinda cut off and it doesn't feel like either side has made a remote compromise.

 

You know, this is why I default to his Black Knight portrayal as the best; you can say whatever you want about it; it's boring, it ruins its own premise, or whatever.  But it's also simple and to the point, and who you're meant to root for is pretty clear cut.  Sometimes, that's all you really need. 

Like, I get the desire for nuanced portrayals and whatnot...but given how many fucking problems you and literally everyone else has with when the series ever attempts having nuance, the less risky option is a simpler approach. It's not necessarily a better solution, but it's certainly one with less controversy. 

I've seen people argue SATAM Sonic is an idiot who needs to be baby sat by Sally (or Tails in the case of the games), I've seen people argue that Sonic is a boyscout who is just nice to everyone. I've seen every type of argument there is from both sides. I'm not saying either one is necessarily better than the other as obviously both sides have their appeal to the people who like them.

But I still feel, very strongly, Black Knight strikes that balance that people desire so much; if the worst thing people can say about Sonic is that he's kind of boring, then I honestly consider that a success. I'd much rather people say he's "boring" than: "An obnoxious idiot"  or "He's the least interesting part of the story". Because more often than not, the main character is almost never the most interesting part of a story. 

 

And honestly, you're never going to please everyone because everyone wants different things; the best you can hope for is to get the least amount of complaints. 

[GentlemanX]

*Posts about X!Sonic being boring* Oh hey, looks like I have an unpopular opinion too!

I'm actually a big fan of the "Sonic gets others to change their world view" thing from the games/Sonic X. To me, Sonic is clearly designed to be a static character that doesn't really experience change himself - I think that's literally at odds with the whole premise of the franchise. Sonic's go where the wind takes him and help anyone he runs across style appeals to me because of how endearing I find his personality and seeing it positively bounce off the other characters in the series; both old and new. Character relationships are the bread and butter of Sonic to me, and I like the nuances each character have with each other. With Knuckles, Antoine, or Shadow, Sonic is more cocky  and jabby in his comments, enjoying getting under Knuckles' skin, having fun watching Ant flail, and wanting to goad Shadow into giving him a challenge. With Blaze or Whisper, Sonic is more sentimental, noting the characters feeling more comfortable and relaxed than they were before. With the Chaotix, Sonic feels slightly out of his element, not used to their own consistent mannerisms manifesting in laughing with Vector's habits, impressed by Espio's dedication, or bewildered by Charmy's childlike excitement. All that is to say I enjoy watching Sonic bounce off everyone as he is.

Sonic has a flat character arc, where the story is him changing the world around him with his own inner truth. That doesn't mean Sonic can't be challenged by another character or learn something mind you, but the story is still going to have Sonic being Sonic by the end of it. In SatAM, Sonic will sometimes be told that his actions put others in danger by Sally, but he's not going to stop being the free spirit he is just because he learns to put more thought into his actions first. In Sonic Adventure 2, the last cutscene has Sonic considering Shadow and Gerald's actions over the course of the game, making him think about someone or something's true nature in a greater context, but he still knows who he is and reassures Amy that his not too bothered by everything that's happened. In Sonic X, Sonic is visibly saddened having to say goodbye to Chris in episode 52, but he doesn't dwell on those emotions more than the moment and looks forward to what's next when we see him return to his world at the start of the episode. Sonic status as a flat character doesn't mean he can't express himself in different ways, but it does allow him to remain consistent in his portrayal and personality throughout his long and evergreen franchise.

Lost World is my least favorite plot in the main series, and it's because to me it attempts to tell the story of Sonic being in the wrong, called out on it, accepts his failing and learns from his mistakes - which is all fine, except it does it in the worst way possible. Sonic leaps into action before Tails has finished talking and ignores his warnings to wait. Is this wrong of Sonic? Absolutely. Is it in character for Sonic? I would argue no. In a situation where Tails is absent and Sonic is observing this on his own, sure - Sonic would jump right in and knock the conch away determining Eggman having it to be a bad thing (which it is, it's just that no one having it is worse in this situation, but I won't dwell on that beat). But with Tails there next to him, in the middle of analyzing the situation? No, I don't buy that he'd jump in while Tails is doing his thing. Nothing about the character's relationship over the base two decades before that tells me that's what he would do. He may not understand Tails all the time, but he does listen to him and what he advises; he knows Tails usually knows what he's talking about. This cutscene alone is not the problem though, ordinarily Sonic would quickly apologize the two would make up and we'd be on our merry way. But the fallout from the scene dictates the plot for the rest of the game, Sonic owns up to his mistake but it ticks Tails off enough that he insists Sonic doesn't trust or respect him, escalated by having them work with Eggman (because that's never happened before). This leads to the two not getting along, Tails being captured by the Zeti, and Sonic determining his failings are the cause of all this misfortune. And I don't believe any of it. I don't believe Tails would blow up at Sonic for working with Eggman, I don't believe the two of them would bicker like this, and I don't believe that Sonic would make the mistake again of not listening to Tails twice, and I certainly don't believe he was "too slow to save his buddy". I find Lost World's plot to be incredibly contrived because no one seems to be acting in ways that make sense for their established characters. It's a plot that knew it wanted to show Sonic and Tails at odds and to show Sonic wasn't always perfect, but had no idea how to get that across in a way that seems natural. And I'll gladly pick any generic plot where Sonic goes around helping people without being overly challenged over something that gets the basic character interactions of two of the most prominent characters in the series wrong.

But this is the popular and unpopular opinion topic - someone else in this thread has stated Lost World is their favorite modern Sonic story. I certainly don't agree with that assessment, but maybe for them it jives fine. Others have stated they find Sonic boring when he's just helping people. While I find that captivating on it's own, maybe for others it isn't. I can't say what is the most prevalent interpretations on everything I just mentioned, but it's certainly what I think about it.

[Miles Storzillo]

1 hour ago, GentlemanX said:

But this is the popular and unpopular opinion topic - someone else in this thread has stated Lost World is their favorite modern Sonic story. 

I didn’t say that, I said

On 10/13/2020 at 5:24 PM, Miles Storzillo said:

-Lost World has my favorite story of the post Unleashed main games

Granted, unlike everyone else I don’t mind it, but it’s not my favorite.

[Kuzu]

1 hour ago, GentlemanX said:

 

Lost World is my least favorite plot in the main series, and it's because to me it attempts to tell the story of Sonic being in the wrong, called out on it, accepts his failing and learns from his mistakes - which is all fine, except it does it in the worst way possible. Sonic leaps into action before Tails has finished talking and ignores his warnings to wait. Is this wrong of Sonic? Absolutely. Is it in character for Sonic? I would argue no. In a situation where Tails is absent and Sonic is observing this on his own, sure - Sonic would jump right in and knock the conch away determining Eggman having it to be a bad thing (which it is, it's just that no one having it is worse in this situation, but I won't dwell on that beat). But with Tails there next to him, in the middle of analyzing the situation? No, I don't buy that he'd jump in while Tails is doing his thing. Nothing about the character's relationship over the base two decades before that tells me that's what he would do. He may not understand Tails all the time, but he does listen to him and what he advises; he knows Tails usually knows what he's talking about. This cutscene alone is not the problem though, ordinarily Sonic would quickly apologize the two would make up and we'd be on our merry way. But the fallout from the scene dictates the plot for the rest of the game, Sonic owns up to his mistake but it ticks Tails off enough that he insists Sonic doesn't trust or respect him, escalated by having them work with Eggman (because that's never happened before). This leads to the two not getting along, Tails being captured by the Zeti, and Sonic determining his failings are the cause of all this misfortune. And I don't believe any of it. I don't believe Tails would blow up at Sonic for working with Eggman, I don't believe the two of them would bicker like this, and I don't believe that Sonic would make the mistake again of not listening to Tails twice, and I certainly don't believe he was "too slow to save his buddy". I find Lost World's plot to be incredibly contrived because no one seems to be acting in ways that make sense for their established characters. It's a plot that knew it wanted to show Sonic and Tails at odds and to show Sonic wasn't always perfect, but had no idea how to get that across in a way that seems natural. And I'll gladly pick any generic plot where Sonic goes around helping people without being overly challenged over something that gets the basic character interactions of two of the most prominent characters in the series wrong.

See, and this is where people fundamentally disagree lol. 

While I agree that Lost World's story is completely botched from start to finish, I don't think the idea of having a rift between Sonic & Tails is inherently a bad one. Conflict drives stories, and having one between two characters who normally the best of friends is rife with potential. So I don't think the idea is wrong for them to do. It's just really difficult to actually pull off because as you said, most fans know these characters as thick and thieves, so it would have be a huge issue to cause a legitimate rift between them like that. 

But I feel like just having Sonic & Tails as the best of friends who never fight, would legitimately just bore people after a while unless there was something new to spice it up. So I understand what Lost World's story was going for and why some defend it, because it's one of the very few times the series tries to mess with the status quo somewhat. 

[Your Vest Friend]

I don't think Sonic was designed to be an outright rebel, just a cool teen with a rebellious streak. I mean, one of the first appearances SEGA gave the okay to was Sonic acting as a cop, and that's like the direct opposite of a rebel. I suspect the stronger rebel parts stem from cultural attitudes. 

...There we go, there's a hat thrown into the unpopular opinion ring while we're on the subject. 

[Kuzu]

I guess to throw my hat into this...

Sonic is, at the end of the day, a mascot character for kids. No matter what you're preference is, that's literally his existence. There's only so much you can do with the character in that limited scope.

 

I know people say he's "anti Mario", but that was just a marketing stunt for the console wars and its no longer relevant. Sonic represents a specific brand image more than anything else, which is why he's often kept static and basic. Its not that they don't want to do anything interesting with his personality, its that they deliberately don't because he's meant to be a link to the player to interact with the world.

Its why other characters are often given the more interesting plotlines, because they're not tied to same brand imaging that Sonic is.

 

So for a mascot like Sonic, being a static character who facilitates growth in other characters is probably the most pragmatic approach. Sonic is "boring" by design, not incompetence.

[Diogenes]

If you've made your main character boring you've fucked up, whether you did it deliberately or not.

I mean I'm not saying Sonic needs to be on a constant journey of personal development but at least try to make me give a shit about him. Mario's not a complicated character, he doesn't really change, but he's charming and expressive and they're not afraid to let him stumble and it makes him feel more human. Sonic's trapped between being too "cool" to be human and too lame to actually be cool.

[Kuzu]

3 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

If you've made your main character boring you've fucked up, whether you did it deliberately or not.

I mean I'm not saying Sonic needs to be on a constant journey of personal development but at least try to make me give a shit about him. Mario's not a complicated character, he doesn't really change, but he's charming and expressive and they're not afraid to let him stumble and it makes him feel more human. Sonic's trapped between being too "cool" to be human and too lame to actually be cool.

I don't really know what to say *shrug* 

Sonic 's entire existence was literally meant to be "cool", that's the character's entire persona down to its simplest form. If you find him unrelatable or just too lame, then it feels less like there's a problem with the character and more you just outgrew him. His brand image of "coolness" no longer appeals to you the way it did when you were younger. 

Many children and fans still find Sonic to be cool and amazing, if he was as boring as you said, then he would have faded away from the public consciousness years ago. So clearly there's a lasting appeal about the character that's helped him endure for so many years. 

What's "cool" is such a contemporary thing; what we found cool in our childhoods is probably not considered cool nowadays, and vice versa. And that's why Sonic tends to be somewhat controversial, because his brand of cool will appeal to a specific group of people at a time. He's either the coolest guy ever or a lame tryhard depending on the person, and that's just how the character functions. 

People who grew up in the 90's found him "lame" when they shifted him to being more of a Shonen hero, people who grew up in the 2000's found Sonic "lame" when they shifted his character to more comedic focus in the 2010's, and I guarantee there's a high chance that whatever they morph Sonic's personality into next will be considered "lame" to the people who grew up in the 2010's. 

[Wraith]

2 hours ago, Your Vest Friend said:

I don't think Sonic was designed to be an outright rebel, just a cool teen with a rebellious streak. I mean, one of the first appearances SEGA gave the okay to was Sonic acting as a cop, and that's like the direct opposite of a rebel. I suspect the stronger rebel parts stem from cultural attitudes. 

Even if it's limited to that this rebellious streak doesn't manifest as often as I'd like. 

And I wouldn't take stuff like Waku Waku Sonic Patrol Car too seriously since sega was a lot more lenient back then.

[DabigRG]

Is a main character/hero just not allowed to be positively portrayed anymore? Like I sorta get the complaints of the other characters not being able to do much anymore or a lack of challenge/counterpoint being not as fun, but sheesh.

[Kuzu]

1 minute ago, DabigRG said:

Is a main character/hero just not allowed to be positively portrayed anymore? Like I sorta get the complaints of the other characters not being able to do much anymore or a lack of challenge/counterpoint being not as fun, but sheesh.

It's kind of a case of balance? 

Before, if Sonic wasn't your favorite character, you had other characters that got focus that could be your favorite. Prefered Shadow, then congrats he got the most focus besides Sonic. Liked Silver, there you go.

There's no option for that anymore though, because everything is hyper focused on Sonic nowadays. So if you don't like Sonic, then you're kind of shit out of luck because you're forced to play as him and only him. 

[Nergal]

1 hour ago, Kuzu said:

I don't really know what to say *shrug* 

Sonic 's entire existence was literally meant to be "cool", that's the character's entire persona down to its simplest form. If you find him unrelatable or just too lame, then it feels less like there's a problem with the character and more you just outgrew him. His brand image of "coolness" no longer appeals to you the way it did when you were younger. 

Many children and fans still find Sonic to be cool and amazing, if he was as boring as you said, then he would have faded away from the public consciousness years ago. So clearly there's a lasting appeal about the character that's helped him endure for so many years. 

What's "cool" is such a contemporary thing; what we found cool in our childhoods is probably not considered cool nowadays, and vice versa. And that's why Sonic tends to be somewhat controversial, because his brand of cool will appeal to a specific group of people at a time. He's either the coolest guy ever or a lame tryhard depending on the person, and that's just how the character functions. 

People who grew up in the 90's found him "lame" when they shifted him to being more of a Shonen hero, people who grew up in the 2000's found Sonic "lame" when they shifted his character to more comedic focus in the 2010's, and I guarantee there's a high chance that whatever they morph Sonic's personality into next will be considered "lame" to the people who grew up in the 2010's. 

 

 

Yes, it's true coolness has a contemporary edge to it but to really understand what "cool" truly means you have to look into the etymology. Cool came to be in standard American English from its usage in African-American jazz music culture. At its essence, coolness is something regarded as desirable and attractive to the majority population while still keeping its edge that gives its excitement. It has a composed and collected quality without being too stiff and unnatural.. Yes, it's true what is considered cool changes with each decade but the bare essentials remains the same. The first trend associated with "coolness" on a global level were the Beatniks that was essentially a musical subculture. The Beatnik and Bohemian movement lost its edge factor once it got absorbed to the mainstream, quickly then being regarded as pastiche and out of style. The same thing happened to Disco once it went from an underground musical culture to being on every radio station in 1979. Coolness instinctively is something that is unique, unusual, or edgy [something that is experimental and counter-cultural] that is also attractive and inaccessible to the majority public. Since it's something tied to popular culture and music there is an innate rhythmic and soulful quality in the concept of cool. Moreover, it's intuitive and very much about how you tap into the public consciousness with a natural ebb and flow. From a commercial standpoint, demo testers and marketers can understand what cool is to the public audience they're trying to get if they aren't too out of the loop like many suits were in the 90s. But Sonic wasn't one of them; hence why he was so popular in the States and West for years.

As of now, hip-hop and rap culture is currently considered the cool thing, though it'll eventually morph into something else since it's incredibly mainstream (in the US, at least) and becoming watered down in its initial concepts.  In other words: you can't have coolness without edge and you either have it or you don't. Otherwise, it's just impossible to get it. That's why it's so easy to go into the "try-hard" zone.

 

 

And to go on with my point, you're pretty much wrong in that coolness can stop being cool with the next decade. Yes, it falls out of trend and isn't the in style any more but special quality can still be recognized by newer generations. There are past musical artists still considered cool (although not TRENDY for the contemporary period) after all these years so that throws what you said out of the window. Michael Jackson, Prince, Tupac, Biggie Smalls, Selena Q, David Bowie, Queen, and other immortalized pop stars come to mind.

 

Why Sonic stopped being cool has nothing to do with him being "outdated" but rather his creators erring in changing his image without demo testing the US market like they did in the 90s [hence why classic Sonic's personal style was based off of MJ and the music of his games were a mix between house, hip-hop, funk, rock, and new jack swing]. Sonic Heroes Sonic was something never considered cool in the US in the 2000s. That shonen hero trope was still only regulated to a certain base in America who watched anime, not the GP. That buttrock, Avril Lange and Evanescence music wasn't something really considered "cool" either despite being popular with some American teens. Justin Timberlake, Beyonce, 50 Cent, Eminem, and Lil Wayne were artists considered cool during that time. Dry humor snarky heroes weren't considered "cool" in the 2010s either. If anything, after SA2, Sonic's creators choose to pander to a niche/nerdier crowd instead of courting the general public like they used to. Even now, most people (and I don't mean nerdy Youtube game reviewers) regarded 90s-early 2000s Sonic with positivity because.. it's almost like that style he had actually aged well [and the last time Sonic actually successfully tapped into the Western cultural parameters of coolness and style] And Sonic hasn't done well like that since then... so uhh lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kuzu]

Thanks for the history lesson?

[Nergal]

13 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Thanks for the history lesson?

 

thanks for skimming my post and ignoring the final part that proves your "point" wrong ig

 

 

[Kuzu]

21 minutes ago, Nergal said:

 

thanks for skimming my post and ignoring the final part that proves your "point" wrong ig

 

 

I read your post, it just felt really weird to get a whole history lesson. 

 

In any case,  you do have a point; Sonic's "coolness" does have a lasting appeal and I did mention that's why he's endured for so many years. But like...I do notice more people outgrowing him more often than not. Like people who grew up with 2000's Sonic don't really see much appeal for Classic Sonic I've noticed for instance, despite being what made the character hit in the 90's. 

[Nergal]

9 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

I read your post, it just felt really weird to get a whole history lesson. 

 

In any case,  you do have a point; Sonic's "coolness" does have a lasting appeal and I did mention that's why he's endured for so many years. But like...I do notice more people outgrowing him more often than not. Like people who grew up with 2000's Sonic don't really see much appeal for Classic Sonic I've noticed for instance, despite being what made the character hit in the 90's. 

people who grew up with 2000s sonic/are fans of 2000s sonic aren't the GP though. The GP is more receptive to Classic-SA2 era Sonic than Sonic games after that. the niche tastes of fans doesn't necessarily reflect on how greater audiences will react.

 

[Kuzu]

...Does GP mean General population?