acknowledging my favorite Sonic games are bad while thinking the opposite

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

1 hour ago, Rusty Spy said:

General consensus =/= fact

No game is objectively good or bad. We define a game's quality, and all other works of art, based on a general set of agreed upon criteria. But what's generally agreed upon isn't absolutely agreed upon; everyone has their own personal tastes, some of which may directly contradict popular opinion.

Perfect example: a lot of critics consider Sonic 2 to be the absolute peak and the best Sonic game ever. Fans of the franchise on the other hand will overwhelmingly (but not universally) declare that the best Sonic game is Sonic 3 & Knuckles - demonize that game at your own risk!

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Just now, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

Perfect example: a lot of critics consider Sonic 2 to be the absolute peak and the best Sonic game ever. Fans of the franchise on the other hand will overwhelmingly (but not universally) declare that the best Sonic game is Sonic 3 & Knuckles - demonize that game at your own risk!

Same with saying Sonic 06 is a good game

[Tara]

I think one big thing to take away from this is respect.  Mutual respect makes discussion on the games you like or dislike, regardless of their popular perception, a much more enjoyable experience.  Regardless of rather or not you acknowledge the flaws of a game, or even if you see the supposed flaws as flaws, it really goes a long way to just think to yourself:  I like this game.  It has a lot of positive qualities, and it makes me happy to play it.  But also, it's not a perfect game.  It is has its flaws, and it simply mightn't align with another person's tastes.  My opinion is valid, and no matter how much I disagree, so is every one else's.

For example, I'm actually considerably softer on Sonic games with more notorious reputation, barring what I feel are egregiously bad examples ('06, Rise of Lyric, Shadow the Hedgehog).  I enjoyed Sonic 4 Episode II and Sonic Lost World quite a bit, with the latter being one of my favorite games to come out in recent years.  I don't have any reservations about that, even though I am aware of its less than stellar reputation.  But I'm also willing to admit that no game is perfect and hear people out when they say they don't like those games.  I acknowledge and accept that a lot of people don't like them, and I feel their opinions on it, even if I don't necessarily agree, are perfectly valid.  Video games are about fun, after all, and if you're not having fun, then it doesn't matter if the game is objectively "good" or "bad."  The game simply isn't entertaining you, and nothing anyone says is going to change that.

This works inversely as well.  I do not like Shadow the Hedgehog, and each time I play it, my patience with what I feel is lackluster level design theory, incompetently-programmed AI, and just poor handling of weapon- and vehicle-based combat diminishes more and more quickly.  That's nothing to say of how I feel about its story and dialogue, but I'm beating a dead horse here.  The point is that I have no reservations about disliking this game.  It's a game that will never bring me joy.  But some people do like this game, and in order for the conversation to not be miserable, one thing I have to accept is that my opinions are not universal and that some of the things I absolutely hate about the game might be a source of fun for other people, rather it's "legitimate" fun or "ironic" fun.  It's important that in discussing this game, I acknowledge to myself that, even if I don't agree, both our opinions are valid.

On a different note, it is more than possible to appreciate certain aspects of a game, regardless of what anyone (including yourself) thinks of it overall.  I may find Unwiished to be a miserable experience, but I'm willing to put up with it to analyze its scenery, mechanics, and even its overall presentation.  Even if I consider it inferior to the HD version, there's a lot to enjoy about the SD versions, as well.  Even Shadow, '06, and Rise of Lyric had their fair share of points that I appreciated about them.  I probably won't be picking them up again just to experience them, but it's something to say that I don't think any game is all bad.  Except maybe, like, Big Rigs, but that's a different story.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

10 minutes ago, Mikyeong said:

Same with saying Sonic 06 is a good game

I wouldn't say that. The demonizing of Sonic 06 is a lot more tolerated than the demonizing of S3&K.

[Nepenthe]

I have to say that one's subjective experience with art =/= the art's actual objective qualities and adherence to good theory. Saying that there's no such thing as objectively good or bad art does little more than trivialize the talent and knowledge of people making art and the overall theories languages surrounding various mediums that has been cultivated over time. I mean, if we're going to throw away the ability to say a piece of art is definitively good or bad, then there was no reason for people to waste years of their fucking lives aggressively arguing down any Sonic 06 fan who dared tried to say it was anything more than garbage. If all art is equal then Sonic 06 is literally as good as S3&K, or S3&K is as bad as Sonic 06; either or. But either would be pretty difficult arguments to make because of actual demonstrable qualities about each product that we can point out to one another and actually record. The ability for any individual audience member to come away from a work of art with a different opinion about it than another individual doesn't mean that there is nothing about art that's objective. All it means is that we approach the world from unique points of view and have different reactions to the same exact shit.

[Shadowlax]

48 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

I have to say that one's subjective experience with art =/= the art's actual objective qualities and adherence to good theory. Saying that there's no such thing as objectively good or bad art does little more than trivialize the talent and knowledge of people making art and the overall theories languages surrounding various mediums that has been cultivated over time.

Yes, as an artist, let me hip you to some shit. Its all trival, what is good or bad is literally decided by the society at the time. Some people don't even live long enough to see their art regarded as good, some people were killed because of it. Some people are hailed as heroes, and are in another life time infamous for the artistic pursuits and contributions to society. What is good or is bad, in regards to anything is completely driven by society and there are no actual rules. Those people cultivating their artistic skills, could have those skills rendered completely nothing by another society. 

 

It is trivial and relative. If you like it you like it, if you don't you don't. Whether people agree with you is another story. Everything is probably meaningless. Life. 

[Nepenthe]

Reduction of art into sheer nihilistic meaningless is something I don't take as a seriously intellectual argument, mainly because remarking about how society reacts is not fundamentally different from the discussion of the individual audience member I posed above. A canvas painted in nothing but blue paint is blue all day long regardless of whether or not blue is considered sinful by society or not.

[Tara]

I don't think she was refuting that tastes develop and change overtime, but that the opinions that are shaped are not independent from the actual objective qualities that do exist in the game.  The level design theory in Sonic 3 is obviously different from Sonic '06 and vice versa, and regardless of what opinions may change about either game, they're only going to change as a response to that.  So simply saying it boils down to opinion is a bit of a misnomer.  Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to classify any art as "good" or "bad" even subjectively.

[Zaysho]

1 hour ago, Shadowlax said:

Yes, as an artist, let me hip you to some shit. Its all trival, what is good or bad is literally decided by the society at the time. Some people don't even live long enough to see their art regarded as good, some people were killed because of it. Some people are hailed as heroes, and are in another life time infamous for the artistic pursuits and contributions to society. What is good or is bad, in regards to anything is completely driven by society and there are no actual rules. Those people cultivating their artistic skills, could have those skills rendered completely nothing by another society. 

 

It is trivial and relative. If you like it you like it, if you don't you don't. Whether people agree with you is another story. Everything is probably meaningless. Life. 

I'm afraid I don't buy into the idea that something is meaningless just because it might be held to a different standard by someone else. It's silly to say there are no actual rules when there are fundamental ideas, principles and theories to art making, and works can be and are judged by those things. Like Nepenthe said, a blue painting is still a blue painting. A game with sloppy controls and poor mission design is going to have that regardless of whether or not someone is capable of actually putting up with it. One person's subjective response to a work isn't the same as how that work functions on a technical level.

[Semi-colon e]

This thing is just about opinions and analysing your own opinions and working out the strengths and weaknesses of any work (or Sonic game, while we're in Sonic Discussion territory), and judging to see if you still like it overall, regardless of general perception. For example, this forum pretty much adores Unleashed, probably more than anywhere else on the internet, to the point that even one of my friends who lurked commented on it. However, I have never felt the love. Not to say I don't appreciate it's strengths, such as some of the Day stages, the visual design, the goofy characters in the hubs, but for me the flaws are just too great for me to say I honestly enjoy it as a whole or even consistently. Others may overlook these flaws and consider it's strengths enough to make up for it, but I do not think it's strengths are good enough in the slightest and that calling it "ambitious" doesn't really mean much if I don't like it.

 

However, saying that, I probably like Heroes more than most people. It's all subjective. I'd say Unleashed is the "better made" game, as in it's less repetitive in it's structure, much more polished, and benefits from the HDness of the whole thing, but I wouldn't say I like it much more than Heroes if at all. As much as Heroes has some abysmal flaws such as shitty bosses and bottomless pits in the sky level design, I still get a kick out of it.

 

I forgot where I was going with this. It's subjective. Bear in mind that there is often a fanbase and critic dissonance with any work. Critics liked Sonic 4 Episode 1 more than the fans did, while Episode 2 was the reverse. Then you've got the Sonic 2 vs 3&K thing that ChaosSupremeSonic talked about, or the two versions of Unleashed. Critics aren't necessarily gospel, but fans could also be more (or less) forgiving on certain things. In other words, like what you like and don't give a fuck about anyone else, just be aware of shortcomings and strengths and be logical and accurate with it.

[Shadowlax]

7 hours ago, Zaysho said:

I'm afraid I don't buy into the idea that something is meaningless just because it might be held to a different standard by someone else. It's silly to say there are no actual rules when there are fundamental ideas, principles and theories to art making, and works can be and are judged by those things. Like Nepenthe said, a blue painting is still a blue painting. A game with sloppy controls and poor mission design is going to have that regardless of whether or not someone is capable of actually putting up with it. One person's subjective response to a work isn't the same as how that work functions on a technical level.

Those theories are made up by people. We determined what sloppy gameplay is, when in reality its nothing. The definition of sloppy game-play or game play in general could change in a 100 years. Its a nonobjective meaningless term, and at the end of the day most things in life are. I'm telling you this as an art major, as who enjoys his craft to the degree that this my life path. Its all meaningless relative  and subjective. The most objective that  you can practice is a science, and a lot if not most of that is the unknowns, theories and things that cant exactly be unproven. I guess math, math would probably be objective, you can't fight 2 + 2. I mean 2 is a human construct, but whatever we would call 2 in this reality would always equal what we call 4 in whatever we call addition in the hypothetical situation in which language developed differently. We giving names to terms that exist in reality quantitative assessment. Not qualitative assessment, which isn't like an inherent conept outside of very specific situations, and even then. Breathing is good, food will keep me alive, being a live and surviving pretty good. Your arguments are getting to the idea that quality is something inherent the nature of things, and not something quantify ourselves. To which I on an ideological level cannot agree with. For a myriad of reasons. 

The only meaning art has, the only rules are the ones you choose to entertain. Whether not people agree with you about is another story. Everything is probably technically meaningless. Its what you make it, whether people agree or not, milage may vary.

[Shadowlax]

8 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

Reduction of art into sheer nihilistic meaningless is something I don't take as a seriously intellectual argument, mainly because remarking about how society reacts is not fundamentally different from the discussion of the individual audience member I posed above. A canvas painted in nothing but blue paint is blue all day long regardless of whether or not blue is considered sinful by society or not.

To be quite honest your argument isn't anything relative to the point, i think this what they call a strawman. What you are talking about is existence, if I draw a picture of shadow, like I have many times in my youth, that objectively exists. Technically, i haven't shown it, i could be lying or some Schrodinger's box situation. But lets say hypothetically speaking, say I did draw shadow a bunch. These pictures exist. You cant take that away unless you destroy them. And even then, in this hypothetical situation only you and I would have known these existence. If two people only know something exists and they cant prove it, does it exist?

Ok we are getting into weird territory, let's bring it back. My point is, those pictures hypothetically exist. They are informed by life experiences, and through effort I have brought them into being. Whether they are good or bad is up to you, and how life has informed your decisions and your views. And then next person, it will be the same. Its subjective. Which is the point of this thread if you have forgotten. Someone enjoying something that many other folks might find bad.Even themselves. And many people rightfully so said, its subjective. Enjoy what you enjoy, (in this instance not condoning horrible crimes), but in this instance enjoy what you like. Just know that companies are informed by money like every other company, and you maybe in a minority and  they may or may not peruse your interest. You have to take that into account. But enjoy what you enjoy,what makes you happy. Whether you acknowledge those flaws or no. 

 

 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

10 hours ago, Mikyeong said:

No wonder people keep saying Unwiished is overrated lmao 

 

That's not to say there is no validity to the notion that UnWiished might actually be better than the HD version as a whole. 

And pshaw to over and misuse of the term "overrated".

That's another buzzword that people tend to throw around. 

 

[Haalyle]

I like Sonic '06. Not because of its story, but because of its glitchy gameplay. Seriously, when I was getting into the game I was expecting the worse and, actually, came off liking it more than Unleashed HD.

Everyone has their own opinions. You can acknowledge it, but don't necessarily make it your own. I acknowledge that Sonic 3 & Knuckles is favored by a lot of people, but I, personally, prefer Sonic 2.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

Objectively speaking, yes, a game might be better than another game, that comes down to how it's built and such, and I'm not going to deny it. However, when it comes to an opinion on said game, it can never be considered as fact. Opinions are subjective, and you are free to enjoy anything you want. As others said, it isn't rocket science. It's literally just having a balance. Drawing a line. Knowing where to stop with the criticism. I dislike Sonic 4 Ep 1. You love it. That's great. No problem with it. You like something I don't like. You have your reasons, I have mine. It comes down to being true to yourself really. Don't alter your opinion to be like others', especially when their opinion is based on an idea that you totally disagree with.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

I do know that Sonic 3 and K is a good game yes but I perfer Sonic 1 and 4 over it. 

[Regulus]

It's perfectly possible to enjoy a game unironically and still recognise it isn't well made.

I really enjoy Sonic R, and not just because it's so bad it's funny, but I actually enjoy playing it. I would have to be out of my mind if I pretended it was actually good though.

[Nepenthe]

3 hours ago, Shadowlax said:

They are informed by life experiences, and through effort I have brought them into being. Whether they are good or bad is up to you, and how life has informed your decisions and your views. And then next person, it will be the same. Its subjective. Which is the point of this thread if you have forgotten.

 

The point of the thread is to actually reconcile one's subjective experiences with art's objective quality, not to simply throw one's hands up and conclude that the subjective experiences people have with art means that art's quality, and subsequently art itself, is meaningless (which as an artist is one that's the bane of my existence because, again, I don't consider it intellectually honest), and thus everything is the same. What makes this kind of nonsense all the more potent is that video games are formed from the ground up by computational math and logic, meaning they are probably more measurable in terms of "working" and "not working" than other forms of art that rely on more informally learned visual rules. But I guess falling through the floor in Sonic 06 is something everyone collectively imagined, or perhaps we're just too unenlightened to see the "beauty" in it.

[Kuzu]

Like what you want to like and try not to care too much about what other people think. Its that simple really.

[Nepenthe]

5 minutes ago, Kuzu the Boloedge said:

Like what you want to like and try not to care too much about what other people think. Its that simple really.

On the other hand, that's fine and it's the stance I take, but when people come in and dictate to certain fans that they can't say they find x game good (or bad) because it's objectively false- despite the fact that one's conclusion about the game's quality is also an opinionated statement- then you're kind of forced to care and confront what other people think. I don't think we should forget our happy little saying around here: "You can like it, but you can't say it's good." How do you tell a Sonic 06 fan that it's okay not to care when the community has spent years trying to force these fans what to think anyway?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Regulus]

1 minute ago, Nepenthe said:

 when people come in and dictate to certain fans that they can't say they find x game good (or bad) because it's objectively false- despite the fact that one's conclusion about the game's quality is also an opinionated statement- 

To be fair though, it's pretty difficult to argue that a badly made game is legitimately good. I get that's it all subjective, but a game like Sonic R is a trainwreck in all honesty. I enjoy playing it but it's so badly made and weaker than its competitors that it's hard to recommend it to anyone. I still enjoy playing it, but I consider it objectively bad because of how difficult it is to argue that the game is good. You could apply this to other bad Sonic games.

[Kuzu]

7 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

On the other hand, that's fine and it's the stance I take, but when people come in and dictate to certain fans that they can't say they find x game good (or bad) because it's objectively false- despite the fact that one's conclusion about the game's quality is also an opinionated statement- then you're kind of forced to care and confront what other people think. I don't think we should forget our happy little saying around here: "You can like it, but you can't say it's good." How do you tell a Sonic 06 fan that it's okay not to care when the community has spent years trying to force these fans what to think anyway?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sadly, we have a sort of hive-mentality on this site, because how dare somebody like a game that the majority doesn't like; who do they think they are, someone special. Liking games that are actually bad, the fuck is wrong with them :V

On the real tip though, there's nothing really wrong with talking about a game that's not necessarily liked that much...its just, since we're on the internet, nobody has any obligation to actually be mature and respectful about it. So we get things "I don't know how ANYONE could ever like this completely terrible game, which makes me question your tastes overall".  Cuz ya know, that's a good way to get a point across.

[Regulus]

Just now, Kuzu the Boloedge said:

On the real tip though, there's nothing really wrong with talking about a game that's not necessarily liked that much...its just, since we're on the internet, nobody has any obligation to actually be mature and respectful about it. So we get things "I don't know how ANYONE could ever like this completely terrible game, which makes me question your tastes overall".  Cuz ya know, that's a good way to get a point across.

Well it depends how people express their preference for a game.

I hate to use Sonic 06 as an example, but it's honestly the best one. If someone is aware that Sonic 06 is a badly made game and still likes it, that's fine. I have no problem with that. It's when someone tries to argue that the game is actually good, as if it is somehow overlooked. I mean, it just makes me scratch my head.

Sonic 06 is a terrible, terrible game. If someone thinks it's legitimately good then I'm not going to lose sleep or get all mad. I'll just be a bit...baffled.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

17 minutes ago, Regulus said:

Well it depends how people express their preference for a game.

I hate to use Sonic 06 as an example, but it's honestly the best one. If someone is aware that Sonic 06 is a badly made game and still likes it, that's fine. I have no problem with that. It's when someone tries to argue that the game is actually good, as if it is somehow overlooked. I mean, it just makes me scratch my head.

Sonic 06 is a terrible, terrible game. If someone thinks it's legitimately good then I'm not going to lose sleep or get all mad. I'll just be a bit...baffled.

Same. Or like before when I tried to argue that Sonic 4 was a good classic game and most of the members were pissed off at me for insulting the classics. I'm not kidding.

[Regulus]

38 minutes ago, Mikyeong said:

Same. Or like before when I tried to argue that Sonic 4 was a good classic game and most of the members were pissed off at me for insulting the classics. I'm not kidding.

Sonic 4 isn't even that insulting. It's just a poorly made and artistically bankrupt version of Sonic 1 and 2 (with the exception of certain aspects of Episode 2).

I would say that it's not a good Classic Sonic game, mostly because it just isn't very good, but it's actually a lot better than the games that came before it in my opinion. It's functional, has some fun level design in places, and brought back Classic tropes like badniks, special stages and Super Sonic. I had fun with the two episodes.