Popular and unpopular Sonic opinions you agree and disagree with!

[Alice Twilight]

Looks like something straight out of Archie Sonic.

What issue?

Don't think I've seen something like that when I read it.

if anything it reminds me of colors, with the whole mind control thing.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Looks like something straight out of Archie Sonic.

Lawl. It's definitely one of my loopier crackfic ideas.

[Dr. Mechano]

While we're on the subject of ShTH, I was more than a little disappointed that there was no "Join Eggman" ending.

I think it would've been pretty cool to help Eggman against Black Doom and Sonic in order to take over the world. But instead we got three (THREE!) "Shadow kills Eggman" endings.

Sega, it's seven years later, and I am still disappoint.

[Alice Twilight]

While we're on the subject of ShTH, I was more than a little disappointed that there was no "Join Eggman" ending.

I think it would've been pretty cool to help Eggman against Black Doom and Sonic in order to take over the world. But instead we got three (THREE!) "Shadow kills Eggman" endings.

Sega, it's seven years later, and I am still disappoint.

The join Eggman thing should've been normal ending.

He wasn't really bad or good in that game, he acted like an anti hero.

Though I guess if Aliens are attacking it's kinda difficult to rule the world when someone else is trying to do it.

Edited November 5, 2012 by NISA

[Dr. Homem]

Following up on Dr. Mechano's point, notice the wasted potential in the neutral final mission - Lava Shelter. You can either help Eggman activate the base's defenses, or Omega find the center of the base. Yet... either way you'll fight Eggman at the end.

How does this make sense? Helping Omega is the anti-Eggman path, that's for sure. But why would you battle the Egg Dealer right after helping the doc? They could have easily made a different boss.

[Stritix]

Sonic 06 doesn't hold a candle to Adventures glitchyness and buggyness

wat

....though I generally agree with your other points apart from this and Big.

[Dr. Homem]

- Linearity isn't a bad thing at all. Branching paths or such don't matter. As long as the level is interesting and fun, I really don't care if it's linear.

[Diogenes]

Not making choices isn't interesting or fun

[Kuzu]

Not making choices isn't interesting or fun

Depends on how it's used really.

[Dr. Homem]

Not making choices isn't interesting or fun

But it's not the main factor. An engaging straight path can be far better than an uninteresting braching path.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Homem

[Diogenes]

How do you make a path engaging?

[Kuzu]

How do you make a path engaging?

By putting interesting shit on it.

[Diogenes]

And what constitutes "interesting shit"?

[Dr. Homem]

Art design, atmosphere, creative placement of elements.

[batson]

Not making choices isn't interesting or fun

[hangarninetysix]

Art design, atmosphere, creative placement of elements.

[Dr. Homem]

Remember guys, I never said "Multiple paths are bad and linear paths are good" - just that "Linearity is not inherently bad"

[Alice Twilight]

wat

....though I generally agree with your other points apart from this and Big.

Sonic Adventure is more glitchy.

I've fallen through the dock many times in Adventure while in 06 that same section with the whale that chases you, never happened.

Plus Sonic always seems to be drawn nears walls and I'm always having to fight for control.

[hangarninetysix]

Remember guys, I never said "Multiple paths are bad and linear paths are good" - just that "Linearity is not inherently bad"

Isn't it, though? When is linearity better? Of course, in terms of resources it's easier to develop. But in terms of gameplay, I'm hard pressed to find that linearity isn't in fact inherently worse than non-linearity as long as other variables are kept equal.

[Nepenthe]

Tight and engaging design is tight and engaging design; I don't give a shit if it's constricted to one or two paths, especially since the absolute best platformers tend not to be all that open in regards to the space you can travel anyway. Rayman Origins and Legends, the NSMB games, Galaxy, the original Crash Bandicoot games, Super Meat Boy, Donkey Kong Country Returns, the list goes on and on. And in Sonic's case, whenever the levels do open up into these sprawling labyrinths, there's nothing interesting to see or do on them that you cannot find on one or two major paths through a stage. They're there just to be there and be impressive. More platformers have come along since the 90s and have done a hell of a lot better than the classic games with a whole lot less in terms of navigable area, so I can't get with this constant derision of linearity.

[hangarninetysix]

Tight and engaging design is tight and engaging design; I don't give a shit if it's constricted to one or two paths, especially since the absolute best platformers tend not to be all that open in regards to the space you can travel anyway. Rayman Origins and Legends, the NSMB games, Galaxy, the original Crash Bandicoot games, Super Meat Boy, Donkey Kong Country Returns, the list goes on and on. And in Sonic's case, whenever the levels do open up into these sprawling labyrinths, there's nothing interesting to see or do on them that you cannot find on one or two major paths through a stage. They're there just to be there and be impressive. More platformers have come along since the 90s and have done a hell of a lot better than the classic games with a whole lot less in terms of navigable area, so I can't get with this constant derision of linearity.

Because linearity is bad. It's just not as bad as poor gameplay. If you only have resources to have great gameplay in a few areas, then it's better to have a linear game. But the fact that the game is linear certainly doesn't add anything, it detracts. It's just a matter of managing resources. Lots of paths and choices take more of them, unless you sacrifice gameplay, which is usually not the right choice.

Linearity is the lesser of two evils. And just because you can have good gameplay on a linear course, doesn't make linearity a good property for a game to have.

[Nepenthe]

Linearity doesn't detract from anything; the implication you're making is that every single game would inherently be noticeably better if it was open, that developers start from something big and scale back to the detriment of the overall design for whatever reason. This is completely unfounded and ignores the breadth of imagination that an art like game design offers to the developers, especially for genres like simulation and arcade racers, music games, or puzzlers in which enjoyment is derived from fairly linear experiences. Forza's tracks not being veritable street maps is not detrimental to the experience, because it's not the point of the game. It doesn't need that for what it offers, and the same goes for the platformers I named.

Second, if you can have a good game that is inherently linear in design, then you're admitting that linearity as a quality is inherently neutral, and that its affect on the experience depends upon how it is managed by the game designers. If that weren't the case, then every single one of those games I listed simply would not be as well-regarded as they are, especially if they have predecessors that are more open in design. "Wait, Galaxy's stage designs only offer one or two viable paths to travel to complete the stages? Well, screw that; Super Mario 64 forever bitches, shitty camera and all."

[hangarninetysix]

Linearity doesn't detract from anything; the implication you're making is that every single game would inherently be noticeably better if it was open, that developers start from something big and scale back to the detriment of the overall design for whatever reason. This is completely unfounded and ignores the breadth of imagination that an art like game design offers to the developers, especially for genres like simulation and arcade racers, music games, or puzzlers in which enjoyment is derived from fairly linear experiences. Forza's tracks not being veritable street maps is not detrimental to the experience, because it's not the point of the game. It doesn't need that for what it offers, and the same goes for the platformers I named.

Second, if you can have a good game that is inherently linear in design, then you're admitting that linearity as a quality is inherently neutral, and that its affect on the experience depends upon how it is managed by the game designers. If that weren't the case, then every single one of those games I listed simply would not be as well-regarded as they are, especially if they have predecessors that are more open in design. "Wait, Galaxy's stage designs only offer one or two viable paths to travel to complete the stages? Well, screw that; Super Mario 64 forever bitches, shitty camera and all."

I don't understand this at all. Especially "Second, if you can have a good game that is inherently linear in design, then you're admitting that linearity as a quality is inherently neutral". You must distinguish between variables. If a overall good car has horrid MPG, having low MPG is still bad, even though the car with low MPG may be good. It does not make MPG neutral, higher is always better as long as other variables remain constant.

Likewise with games. A linear game may be good, but this does not make linearity neutral at all. Nonlinearity is better, as long as other factors remain constant. What does Super Mario's shitty camera have to do with Nonlinearity? It's simply a nonsensical point. The first thing to do when examining variables is to make sure other variables remain constant. So, we would have to assume also that Galaxy would have a shitty camera if we were to examine nonlinearity in a comparison between the two games.

It's as you said: that some of the nonlinear games you played had open and empty, uninteresting areas. So, in this case, the gameplay is not as good as the linear games you are comparing them to, as if this was somehow refective upon the nonlinearity of the game making it worse when it is clear that the decisive factor was the fact that the gameplay was worse.

[Vertekins]

Unpopular Opinion; Whilst Fiona Fox is a freaking terrible character who doesn't amount to anything more than a plot device rather than a character and is a glorified Tails recolour, she was nevertheless morphed into something she isn't to generate animosity between Sonic and Tails in order to give rise to the horrible "House of Cards" story arc.

Take a look at these pages;

She hates Sonic because he left her in that prison camp and made a break for it with Mighty and Ray? She states that Tails should "Learn a lesson" and not count on anybody? That's funny! She states the contrary here!

The way Fiona does a complete 180 and change her views on Sonic is inconsistent and unbelievable, her pairing-up with Scourge just as much so when it's clear as day in the above page that she admired Sonic's heroism;

It's not just the "Fiona is mutilated without rhyme or reason to generate animosity between Sonic and Tails either", you could even see it as a way of expressing, surprise surprise, pro-Sonally leanings because no time is wasted before Sonic gets back with Sally i.e The very next issue.

Ridiculous.

[DarkLight]

^You know, it's funny how I hear most fans say Fiona became a better character when she switched sides and yet as you pointed out, it still comepletely contradicts her entire stance on disliking selfish or self-serving characters such as Scourge. I will say she was very dull and only served as Sally's "replacement" when she was with the FF's, but that was more on the shitty writing the comic had at the time.

Edited November 6, 2012 by DarkLightDragon