Jump to content
Detective Kaito

So are Sonic Colors and Sonic Generations not considered good games now?

Recommended Posts

Both games are entirely too filled with sections where Sonic can only go where arbitrary physics say he can go, forcing him into 2d or forcing him into a new direction, throwing him into an abyss if you dare to jump or boost or both before one of their arbitrary turns.  I think in the years right after 2006, playing any Sonic game that wasn't broken mechanically was a breath of fresh air, but SEGA achieved this less by actually fixing things and more by removing things until few were left to fix.  The longer we go without them returning to things they used to manage better, like full 3d environments and characters who aren't Sonic, the more people are likely to resent those games that set the series' present trends.  Maybe they were acceptable as baby steps back then, when the team needed to regroup and recharge.  Over a decade later, it's harder to excuse that they still haven't brought back a lot of potentially great stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 6:30 AM, StarWarsSonic said:

None of the 3D Sonic games hold up.

Sonic games should stick to 2D only as 3D either doesn’t work at all or ages badly for Sonic.

 

There was so much bs here and while I could point out why a strongly disagree with everything you I’ll only focus on these two statements

The games may have not hold up for you but I still get more out of those games than  everything since Colors combined;

-story was more interesting-

the games had actual 3D gameplay 

-new stages as opposed to recycling the overused Green Hill Zone

-characters actually did more than Sonic do everything.

As far as “stick with 2D” crap. Nope. I’m never buying into this defeatist and restrictive mindset. I like Rush and Rush Adventure, but I want an actual 3D game not this wishy washy 2D/3D. 3D gameplay for Sonic isn’t simple I’ll admit but that doesn’t mean that they should flat out not try because I’m sick of the absence of effort in the games. 

You’re getting sequels to Mania regardless, but there are people who still love the 3D games that came from that time and would like to see actual 3D make a return. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 4:01 AM, Wraith said:

Nobody feels any way about it because there's nothing there. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

That does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. Some find that the attempts at more serious stories the franchise has had over the years come off as overly campy in the worst way and consistently fall flat, hence the appetite for more simple stories. A lot of people feel that suits the series better and I'm inclined to agree with them. Even Forces, with all they've supposedly learned over the years, felt really weird - maybe it had something to do with the flip-flopping tone of the game but something tells me any time Sonic tries to attempt more serious subject matter it goes wrong.

That aside, in terms of gameplay I'm really not a fan of this constant attempt to gain a majority consensus one way or the other. A ton of people loved Colours and Generations and they were arguably far more polished and focused than the Adventure-era games which had the unenviable task of trying to make Sonic work in 3D as, at the time, it was a new concept. I can forgive them a lot of flaws for that and I've no doubt that with a similar level of focus and refinement, a more '3D' formula akin to Adventure could work - but enough people like the new style that there's a heavy contingent wanting more of that too. How do you satisfy everyone? I hesitate to say it's impossible as I truly don't think it is but it's a gargantuan task, especially for a franchise that has proved time and time again it has difficulty knowing what it wants to be.

To answer the question posed by the topic in brief, I wouldn't say so. A lot of people like to postulate on what the mood was during a certain time in the community and while I can't accurately convey every possible opinion people had at the time, the consensus was overall incredibly positive and I don't buy for a minute it was just because of the dross that came before them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nova said:

That does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. Some find that the attempts at more serious stories the franchise has had over the years come off as overly campy in the worst way and consistently fall flat, hence the appetite for more simple stories. A lot of people feel that suits the series better and I'm inclined to agree with them. Even Forces, with all they've supposedly learned over the years, felt really weird - maybe it had something to do with the flip-flopping tone of the game but something tells me any time Sonic tries to attempt more serious subject matter it goes wrong.

.

Defend Sonic Colors's story without just pointing at the other Sonic games and saying they didn't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wraith said:

Defend Sonic Colors's story without just pointing at the other Sonic games and saying they didn't do that.

It's simple, light-hearted fun with some jokes that hit, some that miss and it doesn't take itself too seriously. That's enough for me. I'm sorry you disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting my 2 pence (cause I ain’t a yank) on this.

 

Colours to me was just okay. I don’t really care that they were a lot of 2D sections since the rush games did 2D stuff with boost really well. But what I do mind are barren levels which are only gratifying if I do optional stuff (eg. using wisps, getting red rings). I also don’t like the controls. They’re okay using wiimote+numbchuck but feel stiff using GameCube since they don’t map the controls to the GameCube making quick step sections surprisingly hard. That said, some of the gameplay can be fun, red rings are handled great and the story is harmless.

 

Generations has a decent start, an amazing middle and an okay end. Nothing to say.

 

Overall, I think the more love Unleashed gets, the less Colours and gens get. It’s kinda sad that the renaissance for Sonic is getting hated, but, as long as you can provide solid reasons for your opinion (that’s not just “this isn’t SA1”), then you do you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think "Sonic should stick to 2D games" is a bit of a stretch of reasoning, when "all the 3D games are either bad or haven't aged well" is the sole reason and fails to address why many of them haven't aged well.  Sonic Adventure was released in an era where getting 3D controls half-way right was practically a miracle on its own, but these days many of its innovations are not only commonplace but heavily improved upon.  But much of its level design, gameplay designs, and core concepts hold up extremely well today.  There's nothing conceptually wrong with SA1, at least in regards to Sonic's stages.  Maybe not so much the others, particularly Big.  I'm not a huge fan of SA2 these days, but I'd argue the same is true for it.  There's nothing terribly wrong with the game itself; it just needs more polish.

Fast forward to Colors and Generations and while they are seen as notably better than the games that were being hailed as the worst just a few years prior, there are core design problems with the game that can't really be fixed without completely reworking the game.  The narrow corridor format, the linear level layouts, the reliance on automation and 2D segments.  Even as much as I personally enjoy these games, there's no doubt that there's a multitude of things that would make them much better experiences.

If we're saying "Sonic should stick to 2D games" because we can't trust Sega to deliver a competent 3D game, then... yeah, I guess.  But that's different from "Sonic works best in 2D" or "Sonic only works in 3D" by concept alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tara said:

I also think "Sonic should stick to 2D games" is a bit of a stretch of reasoning, when "all the 3D games are either bad or haven't aged well" is the sole reason and fails to address why many of them haven't aged well.  Sonic Adventure was released in an era where getting 3D controls half-way right was practically a miracle on its own...

I see this argument a lot and its just not true.

Sonic Adventure launched Dec 1998 in Japan and worldwide in 1999. It wasn't 1996 anymore. You had clear precedents with Mario 64, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon, Banjo-Kazooie and others. The awful camera, poor controls and other problems in SA should not have been so egregious when it came out.

SA wasn't one of the first 3D platformers and wasn't even part of the early movement. It launched on the next generation of consoles after early 3D (Playstation and N64).

SA was a killer app next gen game.

In fact, I remember contemporary reviews noting how archaic the camera was in SA and SA2 (despite giving both games good scores).

SA was reviewed at the time as a graphically stunning game, with fun Sonic levels and other game styles of mixed quality. It was lauded as a step forward in level design. But it was always criticised for feeling clunky and outdated in its controls and camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You had precedents but they still weren't necessarily the norm.  For every Mario 64, you also had Zelda, which also had stifling control and camera issues, or Tomb Raider which was infamous at the time for having the worst camera controls ever despite being a much loved game series, or, like, don't get me wrong.  I love Spyro.  But I don't love how it controls.  It's one of those rare examples of a game where every other aspect of the game makes up for the fact that it controls like a broken car.  Those are just the ones that I can think of off the top of my head that were well received in spite of noted criticisms towards the way they controlled.

Regardless, my point wasn't even that the way Sonic controls was a legendary advancement that rewrote the rules on how we control characters in three-dimensional space, but that it wasn't even extremely uncommon for games to control like that or worse at the time, and that ignoring the awkward controls and dated graphics, the actual design and concept of SA1 still hold up, even if its execution does not.  Saying the series doesn't work in 3D because the first 3D outing in the series (if you exclude 3D Blast, which isn't what most people think of when they think of 3D Sonic games anyway) hasn't aged well, and then citing the subsequent examples which have been noted ever since they were released how they failed to properly (if at all) follow up on the formula as proof for why Sonic simply doesn't work in 3D just comes across as a bit daft in my opinion.  Especially when we now have multiple fan projects which, while not perfect due to the nature of the medium, demonstrate otherwise.

I can understand preferring Sonic in 2D and not liking controlling Sonic in a 3D space.  I don't blame anyone who overall prefers the 2D games because they have been the most consistently well polished games in the series or because it's simply how they prefer the series.  But I don't think that the failures of Sonic's 3D outings invalidate it any more than Mega Man X7 being a game that is a complete mess for reasons completely independent of its genre is a demonstration of why Mega Man couldn't work in 3D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general the fact that the vast majority of 2D Sonic games, regardless of developer, are average at best is ignored whenever this discussion is brought up. Chaotix, the Game Gear titles, Advance and 4 hold up worse under scrutiny than the 3D games do, but they resemble the classic games on a surface level so they're given a pass that the 3D games will never receive despite having way less excuse for error. 

The classic games aren't good because they're 2d games. They're not good because of the way they look and sound or any other surface level elements. They're good because someone put work into cracking a gameplay loop that felt great. Everything else was in service of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tara said:

Sonic Adventure was released in an era where getting 3D controls half-way right was practically a miracle on its own...

Outside of the Mechs and Amy's controls, I would like to say the Adventure games are fairly competent in terms of "control" at least.

The worst thing about the control being what happens when any automation is involved. There's a lot of automation in the game that doesn't quite work, either it isn't automated enough or it just breaks at random points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2019 at 7:40 AM, Wraith said:

Defend Sonic Colors's story without just pointing at the other Sonic games and saying they didn't do that.

It's a fun charming little story that's adequate to experience as you play the game. It doesn't need to be that deep.

Also honestly Gems/Colors have kinda always been like this with the fanbase. They're just....not really popular or beloved games despite the general warm reception they got with media outlets and casuals. Kinda like how Awakening "saved Fire Emblem" but most of the fans considered it a midtier game.

I mean. I really enjoy those games and have defended both for years but it is what it is even if I heavily disagree 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can make a good argument over the merits of being adequate versus being mediocre; the 2D games that were released concurrently with the 3D titles were all but ignored despite being fine enough games themselves.

They're fine titles, but don't really do anything more than their Genesis predecessors.

But given just how clunky the 3D games had become, I can understand people drawing the conclusions that the series simply doesn't work in 3D; it's been almost three decades and there has yet to be a game that truly captures the same essence as the Genesis titles. Even with the good reception of Colors and Generations, neither game really managed to make any type of cultural impact.

Its not unreasonable to say 3D Sonic doesn't work...well because, they have yet to get it TO work. Even their best attempts have had issues. Kinda gives the whole thing a "one step forward, two steps back" feeling. The 2D are much more consistent and "safer", but I can see how most of them can be seen as just as unambitious as we often accuse Colors or Generations as being.

 

 

That being said; there's a REASON why the Adventure titles still have such a presence despite being two decades old. The ideas presented in them were pretty ambitious at the time, and while you can say that it was TOO ambitious for it's own good, no game released in the last ten years has tried  to be as ambitious as it. The only game that came close was Unleashed.

Colors and Generations are technically better in terms of functionality, but they aren't talked about much because...there's not much to talk about. They were good and fine games, but that's about it.

 

So truthfully, it comes down to what you value in a Sonic game; a game that has tons of ideas but has issues executing them, or a game that's just simple to play and understand.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sorry, but no. Even if they’ve yet to fully get it to where they’ve wanted, the conclusion that Sonic doesn’t work in 3D never really held much merit to begin with when it was really more an excuse to scapegoat the series problems alongside aspects like multiple characters.

It’s one thing to argue 3D Sonic has problems because we’ve witnessed them enough to know about them. But to conclude or give weight to the idea that it doesn’t work shows more that people have literally no clue how game design works than anything, because the problems that occurred in 3D Sonic that led to his fall are the same exact problems that can happen in a 2D game. Even more so when this epithet was spread during the time when it was less the dimensions being the problems and more so bad ideas (realistic guns, wonky targeting in ShTH, and swarms of enemies with health bars requiring you to take more than 2 hits to kill to progress certain sections in that game and Heroes) to releasing an incomplete gamelittered with bugs that ruined the experience to the point of becoming a meme with Sonic 06. It wasn’t the third dimension that was the problem, it was the practices and standards, and we’ve had years of experience to know this to give any validation to the idea that Sonic can’t work in 3D. You can make a full on list of the problems, but few if any of them have to do with 3D being in the way.

People very didn’t cut Sonic 4 any slack because it was 2D—If anything, they came down on it even harder and ignored that it was 2D. And ironically enouagh, people tend to forget the Advance titles in spite of them doing more with the Genesis formula mechanics than usual—or rather, they forget Advance 1, but (and this actually does have merit) call out a lot of the flaws in Advance 2 for pre-dating the same route that Unleashed took with its speed dominant game play, or rip Advance 3 a new one for it schizophrenic level design impeding that speed.

All in all, Sonic in general has had problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Conquering Storm’s Servant said:

But to conclude or give weight to the idea that it doesn’t work shows more that people have literally no clue how game design works than anything, because the problems that occurred in 3D Sonic that led to his fall are the same exact problems that can happen in a 2D game.

Cool, just casually toss in that anyone who has a difference in opinion to your own doesn't know anything. Great way to maintain a polite dialogue.

Also, wrong on the second point (camera being the main one I can think of, an entire extra dimension of movement and positioning maybe) and even if you weren't... They weren't there in the 2D games so it's a moot point.

On 12/22/2019 at 10:34 AM, Tara said:

I also think "Sonic should stick to 2D games" is a bit of a stretch of reasoning, when "all the 3D games are either bad or haven't aged well" is the sole reason and fails to address why many of them haven't aged well.  Sonic Adventure was released in an era where getting 3D controls half-way right was practically a miracle on its own, but these days many of its innovations are not only commonplace but heavily improved upon.  But much of its level design, gameplay designs, and core concepts hold up extremely well today.  There's nothing conceptually wrong with SA1, at least in regards to Sonic's stages.  Maybe not so much the others, particularly Big.  I'm not a huge fan of SA2 these days, but I'd argue the same is true for it.  There's nothing terribly wrong with the game itself; it just needs more polish.

Fast forward to Colors and Generations and while they are seen as notably better than the games that were being hailed as the worst just a few years prior, there are core design problems with the game that can't really be fixed without completely reworking the game.  The narrow corridor format, the linear level layouts, the reliance on automation and 2D segments.  Even as much as I personally enjoy these games, there's no doubt that there's a multitude of things that would make them much better experiences.

If we're saying "Sonic should stick to 2D games" because we can't trust Sega to deliver a competent 3D game, then... yeah, I guess.  But that's different from "Sonic works best in 2D" or "Sonic only works in 3D" by concept alone.

Tara, I have a feeling you're referencing my post and with all due respect, I never said that Sonic can't work in 3D. I said SA1/2 had the unenviable task of trying to do that and we seem to have reached a consensus on that being difficult at the time. I even touched on the idea that it could possibly be done better now, so we're somewhat on the same page I think, just reading slightly different parts of it. Also, to address something else you mention, I don't believe that 'narrow corridor format' and 'linear level layout' are necessarily design problems. The levels are that way by necessity as they service that game design and I would also argue that Generations levels at the very least, despite being glorified corridors, are still less linear than Sonic Adventure 2's levels. But would you really argue that either Colours or Generations have more automation than Sonic Adventure 1 or 2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nova said:

Tara, I have a feeling you're referencing my post

Sorry if it came across that way, but I was actually referring to this post.

19 minutes ago, Nova said:

Also, to address something else you mention, I don't believe that 'narrow corridor format' and 'linear level layout' are necessarily design problems. The levels are that way by necessity as they service that game design and I would also argue that Generations levels at the very least, despite being glorified corridors, are still less linear than Sonic Adventure 2's levels. But would you really argue that either Colours or Generations have more automation than Sonic Adventure 1 or 2?

I'm not going to argue which game has quantitatively more automation, but I know that Colors and Gens FEEL more automated in that there are virtually no ways to sequence break or explore areas at your own leisure due to the boxed in nature of the game as well as a physics engine that actively discourages anything but predetermined routes and obstacle courses.  SA1 and 2 definitely had ways that Sega obviously preferred you to play, along with more than a few set pieces where you were forced to play by Sega's rules.  But that's the ENTIRE GAME with Colors and Gens.

Perhaps I should rephrase "design problems" to mean "design ideas that generally make the game weaker from a personal perspective."  Colors and Gens are well made for what they are, but what they are isn't necessarily what a lot of fans want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for assuming there, I felt my comments could be interpreted as 'Sonic can't work in 3D' but that is completely unintentional if so and I felt the need to clear any potential misunderstanding up.

5 minutes ago, Tara said:

I'm not going to argue which game has quantitatively more automation, but I know that Colors and Gens FEEL more automated in that there are virtually no ways to sequence break or explore areas at your own leisure due to the boxed in nature of the game as well as a physics engine that actively discourages anything but predetermined routes and obstacle courses.  SA1 and 2 definitely had ways that Sega obviously preferred you to play, along with more than a few set pieces where you were forced to play by Sega's rules.  But that's the ENTIRE GAME with Colors and Gens.

Perhaps I should rephrase "design problems" to mean "design ideas that generally make the game weaker from a personal perspective."  Colors and Gens are well made for what they are, but what they are isn't necessarily what a lot of fans want.

With the second part of this quote you answered the point I was going to make to the first - that is just how those games were designed. We both know that, but it's just our own subjective opinions informing which is better than the other.

It should come as no surprise that personally, I'm more a fan of Unleashed/Colours/Generations as I feel they do a fantastic job of translating some of the ethos of the classics into a modern, 3D game engine - a lot of the stuff that made Sonic work in 2D is, in my opinion, hard to directly translate to 3D so I can see how the boost and your ability to hold onto it for longer periods with repeated plays is intended to be akin to 'earning your speed', especially when combined with alternate routes.

Again though, these are subjective differences in opinion and we could run circles all day discussing what it is we like about each style. Don't get me wrong though, I still really enjoy playing Adventure 1 and 2 and, in the right mood, maybe even Heroes - but back to the point at hand, are Colours and Generations considered 'bad games' now? No, I really don't think so, I think it's just arguable as to which style people have an appetite for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nova said:

Apologies for assuming there, I felt my comments could be interpreted as 'Sonic can't work in 3D' but that is completely unintentional if so and I felt the need to clear any potential misunderstanding up.

With the second part of this quote you answered the point I was going to make to the first - that is just how those games were designed. We both know that, but it's just our own subjective opinions informing which is better than the other.

It should come as no surprise that personally, I'm more a fan of Unleashed/Colours/Generations as I feel they do a fantastic job of translating some of the ethos of the classics into a modern, 3D game engine - a lot of the stuff that made Sonic work in 2D is, in my opinion, hard to directly translate to 3D so I can see how the boost and your ability to hold onto it for longer periods with repeated plays is intended to be akin to 'earning your speed', especially when combined with alternate routes.

Again though, these are subjective differences in opinion and we could run circles all day discussing what it is we like about each style. Don't get me wrong though, I still really enjoy playing Adventure 1 and 2 and, in the right mood, maybe even Heroes - but back to the point at hand, are Colours and Generations considered 'bad games' now? No, I really don't think so, I think it's just arguable as to which style people have an appetite for now.

As I've said before, I quite like Unleashed/Colors/Generations.  I mean, I even liked Sonic Lost World, and you can't even mention that game on this board without people calling for your head.  So I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with preferring the modern games.  They are without a doubt more friendly to play and some of the later sections of Unleashed notwithstanding, a lot less frustrating.  But I don't really feel like the capture the fluidity and style of the 2D games.

I certainly agree that many things from classic Sonic can't be directly translated into 3D, as can be said for virtually any series that started out that way.  Mario for example is a lot more open and has a much more versatile move set in 3D, for instance, because running and jumping on Goombas doesn't work incredibly well in 3D as a main mechanic.  But I don't feel like the boost games necessarily do that.  To me, they are endemic of a wider problem with many games simplifying their core elements by removing pivotal features, taking control away from the player, and/or relying on QTE's to fill the void where interesting mechanics could otherwise exist.

But honestly, I think the wider gaming community would probably disagree with me on this.  Core fan sites like this probably have more mixed and varied opinions on the matter, but I think the wider audience finds Colors and Gens to be genuine steps in the right direction, with some people saying that Gens is the first time Sonic has ever been good in 3D.  I think the question should be less "are Colors and Gens considered bad games now" and more "has the good will that Sega earned from Colors and Gens worn off" which is also contestable, but is more a question on how Sega's later games reflect on the perception of their previously released titles, rather than on the quality of the games themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2D Sonic is already extremely complex in terms of mechanics; because you need to understand the layout of the levels to maintain and keep your speed going using the level topography. I realized this because when Mania, I noticed so many people noting how hard to play the games were even though its not any different from older Genesis titles. So I fully understand translating that into a 3D plane is an absolute nightmare for Sega without cutting SOME corners.

But in doing that, I feel like the games have just become dull over time. Perfectly functional and good in their own right, but there's no real way to experiment or play the game in  your own way. In Classic Sonic (and Mania), there are many ways you can choose to play; you can speed through it like normal, take a methodical approach and try to search the level for goodies, etc etc. You more or less can do the same in the Adventure titles, albeit in the first one more than the second. There's no real variance in how you play the Boost games though; they're designed to do one thing, and that's the only thing you can do. It's why I can only play them once and move on, because there isn't much to play around with after its all over unless I wanna do a time attack run.

But I can understand why that type of gameplay is appealing to more casual players; the wider gaming community are more than likely adults now. Adults with children, jobs, and bills to pay and simply have very little time to actually play games any more. So a game that's simple to play is something that's appealing, because you don't have to play more than once to get the full experience. It's why those types of games are popular with reviewers. Reviewers get paid to review a large slew of games in a short time period, they simply do not have the time to really experiment and "master" a game, so ones that are short and simple tend to be well received unless they have some glaring problems. 

A lot of the issues that fans have with these games are issues only veteran fans are going to really have a problem with (i.e. lackluster storytelling, lack of fan favorite characters, etc etc). That said, Mania's reception shows that there is still a demographic for more complex gameplay in this series so I hope Sega takes that to heart. Especially since Forces` middling reception shows you can only repeat the same formula so many times before people get bored of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nova said:

Cool, just casually toss in that anyone who has a difference in opinion to your own doesn't know anything. Great way to maintain a polite dialogue.

There’s a difference between a fact and an opinion. After well over a decade of seeing “Sonic doesn’t work in 3D” because they screwed up twice with titles like ShTH and 06 after their first two successful attempts with the Adventure games and then screwing up 2D Sonic with Sonic 4, amongst a slew of other things that were complained about like having anyone other than Sonic playable which didn’t actually fix the problems when removed, I think it goes without saying anyone still repeating that doesn’t know anything.

Quote

Also, wrong on the second point (camera being the main one I can think of, an entire extra dimension of movement and positioning maybe) and even if you weren't... They weren't there in the 2D games so it's a moot point.

Which was pretty low on the list of things people were more frequently targeting as the series’ problems. You’ll find more people ranting about other characters being in a game than the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2019 at 6:42 AM, Nova said:

It's simple, light-hearted fun with some jokes that hit, some that miss and it doesn't take itself too seriously. That's enough for me. I'm sorry you disagree.

So's Heroes and it manages to do it while also making use of the extended cast, having actual stakes, not introducing and dropping plot-points in the space of a single cutscene (outside of a few obvious sequel hooks), not wasting three minutes on how gut-bustingly hilarious the name "Baldy McNosehair" is, and just generally giving a shit.

So really Colors isn't even the best at doing the thing its supposed to be good at.

 

On 12/18/2019 at 4:46 AM, JezMM said:

Granted, if Sonic Team were already working on the "two worlds" bullshit and this is just normal in the more surreal version of Sonic's world then we're already fighting a losing battle to make a satisfying lore explaination since uhh, yeah, the two worlds bullshit is bullshit.

Thank you. I can't believe how many people can't seem to get their heads around this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bowbowis said:

So's Heroes and it manages to do it while also making use of the extended cast, having actual stakes, not introducing and dropping plot-points in the space of a single cutscene (outside of a few obvious sequel hooks), not wasting three minutes on how gut-bustingly hilarious the name "Baldy McNosehair" is, and just generally giving a shit.

So really Colors isn't even the best at doing the thing its supposed to be good at.

 

Nah I'd say Heroes has a lot of the same problems as far as just not giving a shit goes. You don't even need to hold it up as the positive example because  almost allall of the Sonic games have stories that are fairly straightforward and have jokes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heroes barely has a plot for it have "tension". Saying its better than Colors isn't really saying a whole lot. 

 

The storybook games work a lot easier if you're going to cite a positive example of a simple and straightforward story that tries to get you you to care about what's happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.