Sonic the Hedgehog: how fans have subverted a fallen mascot

[Indigo Rush]

In what twisted world do you live in where people try to defend the idea that '06 is an objectively decent game??

 

Have any of you actually read the 06 topic, lately?

 

...don't.

[biznizz]

I think that the Let's Play, walkthroughs, and Game Grumps have pretty much confirmed that Sonic 06 will never have more than "Eh, that COULD have been good" for an idea or two.

 

And I don't get the "the game's good, but that's not good enough" attitude. Yeah, we are chomping at the bit for an objectively great game, but that doesn't mean that we should look down on the "just good" games. This is why I'm wondering how the Sonic Boom game will turn out (isn't that mainly being made by BRB rather than Sonic Team?).

[StaticMania]

The game is "good" but it shouldn't be 100% accepted as the game is only "good" enough to Not be crap...

[XEspmasterX]

To be honest, the most offensive thing about this article isn't just that they don't know anything about Sonic; it's that they don't really seem to know anything about video games or their fan bases in general.

They try to show how bad the fan base is using the argument that it's so weird for drawing porn of the character. Even ignoring the fact that the porn-drawing fan base is a minority of a minority, this is still a non-existent argument, as pretty much any major franchise has its fetishists, as dictated by Rule 34. I bet that if I walked up to my game shelf right now, I could find porn of 90% of the games on it. It'd be one thing if they criticized the fan base for being extremely divided and pessimistic, because it certainly is, but trying to make this point by pointing out something that literally every major fan base shares is beyond stupid.

Also, they end the article by saying that the original games weren't that good in the first place. The games most likely wouldn't have ever reached the popularity they did if the games weren't at least above average for their time. Sure, you could argue that Twilight's popular despite being held in low regard by many (I've never read them, so I don't have an opinion myself,) but I highly doubt that Twilight will ever be considered a pioneer of modern literature, whereas Sonic was a major mascot of gaming for the better part of 15 years. However, if we ignore all of that, the article still fails to bring up any real reasons why the games aren't that good. The reasons are: there are a few bugs with the physics (a flaw shared by pretty much all games at the time,) and the sound effects were annoying and repetitive (a flaw shared by pretty much all games at the time.) Video games don't get popular through perfection; they get popular due to the experience. 

So basically, the writers of this article either know little to nothing about video games on their most fundamental level or are just flagrantly misrepresenting a franchise to make it look bad, and either way articles like this shouldn't be allowed to be published by a major news site in the first place.

[MamboCat]

I think it's offensive to tar everyone who likes a certain thing with the same brush. Especially when said thing already has a sort of reputation. But that can be sad about nearly everything which has a dedicated "fandom". Do you think the name "Trekkies" is a compliment?!

 

But upon a second reading of this article I think it's clear it's a troll piece. I think accuracy on the subject is not what they were going for!

[XEspmasterX]

I think it's offensive to tar everyone who likes a certain thing with the same brush. Especially when said thing already has a sort of reputation. But that can be sad about nearly everything which has a dedicated "fandom". Do you think the name "Trekkies" is a compliment?!

 

But upon a second reading of this article I think it's clear it's a troll piece. I think accuracy on the subject is not what they were going for!

If this is truly the case, then it looks like I just got trolled, big time. When will I ever learn to not take anything I see on the internet seriously?

Also, I"m not completely sure what you're referring to with the top statement, but if you're talking about me calling the fan base "divided and pessimistic," that wasn't necessarily the point of saying that. I just meant that they could've made a lot better arguments than the one they did. I understand that it was a pretty big generalization. 

[Dizcrybe]

 

And I don't get the "the game's good, but that's not good enough" attitude. Yeah, we are chomping at the bit for an objectively great game, but that doesn't mean that we should look down on the "just good" games. This is why I'm wondering how the Sonic Boom game will turn out (isn't that mainly being made by BRB rather than Sonic Team?).

 

The game is "good" but it shouldn't be 100% accepted as the game is only "good" enough to Not be crap...

 

Thank you. When did it become a bad thing to have a Sonic game that's just "good"? Why can't we accept a Sonic game unless it's outright awesome? Honestly, it's not really helping our "unpleasable" image.

[StaticMania]

I was only explaining what it meant...its not a bad thing to like or defend a game that is "just good", if you're defending the game on it being "just good" that means there's something worth defending. The bad thing is Settling for the games that are only "just good".

[8ther]

It's not just the critic apparently.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/smash.bros.discussion/permalink/282591208584913/?stream_ref=3

 

Just look at those comments, in these post-Sonic 06 days it seems people outside the Sonic fanbase view the series in the same light as Spyro and Crash Bandicoot.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

I'll admit 06 was a bit of a stretch. I understand there is tiny fraction of a minority that actually defends it. But in all fairness, those apologists are the ones every outsider is going to listen to, and assume they represent the entire fanbase.

Then shame on THEM for making such harsh and annoying a generalization. Why should we have to suffer for it and be wrongly scape-goated for what ANY fanbase has?! There's playing devil's advocate, but I refuse to be a brown-nose to please those whose mis-judge me and my compatriots so rashly.

 

 

 

As for SLW and Unleashed, while they are okay, they aren't great. We keep wanting to be mentioned in the same breath as stellar franchises such as Mario, just because the games don't suck as much as they used to. I just think that's not good enough.

First of all, "Blank", speak for yourself before you go on trying to speak such a varied factor for a fanbase.

 

Second, do you realize how ridiculous it is to vilify a fanbase over daring to actual express pride in videogames despite the opinions of critics who can be just as biased?

 

Why shouldn't we be allowed to like or love these games, defend them and whatnot, and  not have to fear being discriminated as some "magically" horrible fanbase that's among the worst of them all?

 

That's inanely......  illogical, despicable, and such crap needs to be put to rest back in the past where it belongs.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's not just the critic apparently.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/smash.bros.discussion/permalink/282591208584913/?stream_ref=3

 

Just look at those comments, in these post-Sonic 06 days it seems people outside the Sonic fanbase view the series in the same light as Spyro and Crash Bandicoot.

Uh, that looked more like they were talking about how unpleasable our fanbase is than ranting about how Sonic is dead (I didn't see many comments that even implied that). If anything, they're more spot on than the critic in question - they're not using porn as an example of why our fandom is a mess.

 

I think people know Sonic is far active than the likes of Spyro and Crash. It's that some of them wish he was in their light.

[Dizcrybe]

I was only explaining what it meant...its not a bad thing to like or defend a game that is "just good", if you're defending the game on it being "just good" that means there's something worth defending. The bad thing is Settling for the games that are only "just good".

 

Dude, I was agreeing with you.

[Willsy]

We're not the only fanbase that gets this. Nintendo's fanbase gets flak all the time, and Call Of Duty's has just become laughably bad. Sonic bashing is somewhat rarer than the two that I mentioned.

[_______]

First of all, "Blank", speak for yourself before you go on trying to speak such a varied factor for a fanbase.

 

Second, do you realize how ridiculous it is to vilify a fanbase over daring to actual express pride in videogames despite the opinions of critics who can be just as biased?

 

Why shouldn't we be allowed to like or love these games, defend them and whatnot, and  not have to fear being discriminated as some "magically" horrible fanbase that's among the worst of them all?

This is what I'm talking about.

 

Even if the games are polarizing like SLW and Unleashed that alone should be enough to tell you that it's not as great as some like to think it is, otherwise they would receive widespread acclaim regardless of Sonic's reputation. Sure, you're free to defend and love them. But when you do, keep in mind that Sonic has no given rights to be treated among the best franchises. Franchises which consistently make games so good they are rarely polarizing because it's hard to deny their quality.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

This is what I'm talking about.

 

 

You really don't get what I'm saying I see.

 

Even if the games are polarizing like SLW and Unleashed that alone should be enough to tell you that it's not as great as some like to think it is, otherwise they would receive widespread acclaim regardless of Sonic's reputation.

Highly doubtful, considering how bottom of the barrel the media can become with materiel like Sonic, as this article has shown, as well as Gameinformer, among other yellow journalists. If you want to submit yourself to the opinions of such inane folk, then be my guest, but don't try to drag us into it.

 

 

Sure, you're free to defend and love them. But when you do, keep in mind that Sonic has no given rights to be treated among the best franchises. Franchises which consistently make games so good they are rarely polarizing because it's hard to deny their quality.

In that case, NO franchise has those rights, because it's purely down to opinion at this point, "Blank". This is intolerably asinine.

[Nepenthe]

And I don't get the "the game's good, but that's not good enough" attitude. Yeah, we are chomping at the bit for an objectively great game, but that doesn't mean that we should look down on the "just good" games. This is why I'm wondering how the Sonic Boom game will turn out (isn't that mainly being made by BRB rather than Sonic Team?).

 

People tend to "look down upon the just good games"- at this point- because for months upon months before they release people insist to everyone that they're going to be the best thing ever and say all sorts of different things to actively distance and shame anyone who contributes less than favorable thoughts towards said games. I imagine if people actually manage their hype properly with Boom, and any other Sonic game going forward, we can break this self-inflicted cycle of a good game being "hated" a week after it comes out.

[Willsy]

As much as I love Sonic, even I put my hands up and admit that he's not been doing too well. It is by no means a perfect franchise, there is a lot wrong with it. At the same time though, it's not as bad as people proclaim it to be. Yes, people are disrespectful about Sonic. But that's just life. There are real assholes out there, and the best thing to do is just ignore them. However, Sonic isn't entitled to respect, he has to earn it, and that is entirely up to SEGA and Sonic Team. And no game should get a free pass for it's past, not even Nintendo games.

As for the fanbase though, I'm not sure how they've ruined Sonic. An example of a fanbase ruining a game would be Call Of Duty. No explanation needed there though.

[_______]

Highly doubtful, considering how bottom of the barrel the media can become with materiel like Sonic, Gameinformer, among other yellow journalists. If you want to submit yourself to the opinions of such inane folk, then be my guest, but don;t try to drag us into it.

I agree that the media and non Sonic fans can be particularly harsh on the franchise. But they usually don't go as far as bashing a genuinely good game. Sonic or not.

 

Generations and Colors received generally good reception despite Sonic's reputation for instance.

 

All I'm saying is we are not helping matters when we avidly defend the sub-par titles when we should be expecting more from a behemoth such as Sonic.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

I agree that the media and non Sonic fans can be particularly harsh on the franchise. But they usually don't go as far as bashing a genuinely good game. Sonic or not.

 

Generations and Colors received generally good reception despite Sonic's reputation for instance.

 

All I'm saying is we are not helping matters when we avidly defend the sub-par titles when we should be expecting more from a behemoth such as Sonic.

And then they conveniently forget they exist when it comes to talking about "most recent great Sonic games" anyways (which they usually claim is the classics, and everything afterwards sucks).

[Vertekins]

People tend to "look down upon the just good games"- at this point- because for months upon months before they release people insist to everyone that they're going to be the best thing ever and say all sorts of different things to actively distance and shame anyone who contributes less than favorable thoughts towards said games. I imagine if people actually manage their hype properly with Boom, and any other Sonic game going forward, we can break this self-inflicted cycle of a good game being "hated" a week after it comes out.

 

This.

 

This kind of attitude was absolutely rampant with Lost World and yet the irony of it all was that quite an amount of pre-release complaints were actually made quite legitimate upon release. Even upon release, there were still some who would try to stifle contrary/less than positive views towards the game and detractors were even told to stifle their criticism on this very forum because it was 'affecting' the fans who simply couldn't tolerate the opinion that SLW was nowhere near as good as they had led themselves to believe it was.

 

It's...pretty annoying :T

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

 

 

Generations and Colors received generally good reception despite Sonic's reputation for instance.

 

 

The Avdenture games, Heroes, the Advance series, the Rush games, and the Daytime stages of Unleashed were all generally positively received upon their debuts and respective releases to humanity as well. You're going to have to try harder than that now.

 

 

All I'm saying is we are not helping matters when we avidly defend the sub-par titles when we should be expecting more from a behemoth such as Sonic.

"Blank", learn to speak for yourself ASAP. That was plain uncalled for and rude. You're running solely on opinion based notions that we're futilely defending "sub-par" games that are deemed undeserving by high and mighty biased folk. And I don't take kindly to such actions.

[SoniClub]

What a terribly written article. I expect better of the guardian; there's a lot of incorrect facts here.

It's rather annoying to see articles like this; Sonic has genuinely been looking up in recent years. Generations was the first game in a while I'd quite happily show friends, and Colours before it was equally applaudable. It gives off this false stigma that Sonic is still struggling around, barely making profit and releasing bullshit like '06 still, when this simply isn't the case.

As Nepenthe quite rightly mentions, it's only really Shadow and 06 that really deserve the thrashing they get. They were sloppy, unplayable messes that tried to hard to make Sonic something that he is not. Of course they were bad. Of course this is widely accepted. But it's irritating when they are cited as references for an apparently still ongoing decrease in quality when they were now nearly a decade ago. Things have changed rather significantly. Yes you can slate them for being horrifically bad games (although that's been done to death by now) but don't try and use them to judge a franchise 10 years on, it just makes for a poor argument.

It gets rather silly when they try to justify that Sonic has never been good anyway. A few err, 'polygon...?' glitches and 'annoying' sound effects, hah, I think you need a course in pre-32 bit gaming love.

[omote23]

What a terribly written article. I expect better of the guardian; there's a lot of simply incorrect facts here.

It's rather annoying to see articles like this, as Sonic has genuinely been looking up in recent years. Generations was the first game in a while I'd quite happily show my friends, and Colours before it was equally applaudable. It gives off this false stigma that Sonic is still struggling around, barely making profit and releasing bullshit like '06 still, when this simply isn't the case.

Generations can't reduced operating loss. Then Sega tries restructuring. And then SLW devastated All

Plus. Sonic generations and Colors is just mediocre game. During the late 7th generation, Average mediocre game Metascore is 80. Because many reviewers give a lot of score

Sent from my SHW-M250S using Tapatalk 2

.P.s If this post cause a problem. How can I delete?

[Enesephus]

Did you just call Colors and Generations mediocre games? Blasphemy!

[Agie]

If he believes they're mediocre, that's fine. To believe they weren't profitable...I could have sworn they sold well.