So we're really in a second "Dark Age" huh??

[SSF1991]

Quote

You said this era was playable then went on about the past 3-4 years going to LW.

I don't even understand what you're talking about here. I was using the same 3-4 year time frame (2013-2017) that I used for the Dark Age (2004-2008). Again, I stated that.

1 minute ago, Jar Jar Analysis 1138 said:

Any game would have been marginally better than Lyric....

Again, you're nit-picking one title out of multiple titles I listed. One game doesn't automatically mean it's a Dark Age. Also, this isn't a hypothetical thing. "Would have" means nothing. I could say the same for any game, there will always be a title that "would have been" better. Besides, we actually did get a game that is arguably "marginally better" in the current era. Sonic Mania.

I really don't know what argument you're trying to make here.

[Spooky Mulder]

14 hours ago, PandaChao said:

I don't really think we are in a dark age. With the first dark age it felt like there was no end of shitty Sonic games coming out after ShTh, Sonic 06, etc. Right now, I feel like we are just going along a rollercoaster where we have some good games and some lackluster titles. They weren't particularly awful games but just meh and nobody cared for them (Rise or Lyric was awful tho). I feel like Sonic will continue being hit and miss for a LONG time if Sonicteam keeps up with the experiments and hastily put together ideas. 

What really was the dark age then? Shadow in 2005 then Sonic 2006? Secret Rings was sort of well-received in 2007, then we got Unleashed which seemed to mark the turning point in 2008. That’s like three years. Critics hated the Werehog but most were very warm to the Daytime/Boost stages. Then Colors and Generations followed that formula and both did fairly well.

In a way, this feels like a longer dark age. Lost World, Sonic Boom, and now Forces. It’s been over 5 years since Generations and there hasn’t been a good 3D Sonic game since. 

[Jar Jar Analysis 1138]

25 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

I don't even understand what you're talking about here. I was using the same 3-4 year time frame (2013-2017) that I used for the Dark Age (2004-2008). Again, I stated that.

Again, you're nit-picking one title out of multiple titles I listed. One game doesn't automatically mean it's a Dark Age. Also, this isn't a hypothetical thing. "Would have" means nothing. I could say the same for any game, there will always be a title that "would have been" better. Besides, we actually did get a game that is arguably "marginally better" in the current era. Sonic Mania.

I really don't know what argument you're trying to make here.

Quote

 

Again, you're nit-picking one title out of multiple titles I listed.

 

 

 

Didn't use a nitpick on a specific game on my second response nor did I for my first response. The correct term would be "cherry picking" when I first quoted you. I think you are over-using that word when it doesn't apply.

Quote

I really don't know what argument you're trying to make here.

I asked you questions to understand what you meant because I didn't at first. Upon re-read, I do. Also, the description of argumentation would mean I would be to constantly oppose your viewpoint. I do oppose it. Though that is something I'd rather avoid in my expressions and not do.

Quote

Also, this isn't a hypothetical thing. "Would have" means nothing. I could say the same for any game

Oh wonderful! So can I~~

{+Unleashed>Lyric+}

Joking aside, I understand.

 

EDIT: Anyone find it odd the dark ages wouldn't be noted to be during the Saturn/Dreamcast era? I don't remember a lot going on and those systems seemed to have bombed in the market.

[Baconjack]

18 hours ago, SonicLegends said:

From what I've seen the game plays normally and doesn't have the glitches that made Sonic 06 and Boom unbearable to want to play. People are gravely over exaggerating. Imo it looks like the game will be better than Lost World and at the very least slightly below or even near Colors and Generations for scores as it does carry their gameplay style and most importantly does feel like it.

While I can agree that the scores for this game will be on the same page as Lost World, the one thing that puts an enormous brick wall between this game, and Colors is the level design and automation. The Modern Green Hill demo that was released a few days ago, IMO is the epitome of Forces' level design: A straight line, incredibly linear corridor level which you can win with the press of a button. Sure, it's most likely the first level and it is probably easy, but this level design is pathetic. Whilst most first Modern Sonic levels in my eyes are heavily automated linear levels (cough cough Green Hill Generations and Windmill Isle), what ST have done here is a borderline embarrassment. 

Further, the Classic gameplay was actually well received when the game first came out, for a good reason; gamers hadn't seen Classic gameplay in years. Now, we are so used to Classic gameplay, that Mania has made Forces' Classic gameplay completely redundant, which is inferior to Mania's gameplay because of the wacky physics, whereas Mania's gameplay is almost a 1:1 recreation.

[UpCDownCLeftCRightC]

On ‎10‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 10:18 AM, azoo said:

You're not jumping the gun at all.

Mania may have been the brightest star in the series in a long, long, long time; but the Advance and Rush games were critical darling side-games while the franchise's main series sunk to it's lowest lows. 

Also to anyone saying "why do people think Forces is the next 06", please take a deep breath, get out of the Sonic bubble for a sec, and look outside the box. It's as clear as crystal. And while it definitely isn't as glitchy as that game (not many games ever will be), this is easily the worst game design in a main series title since that game, by far.

There isn't a single thing about this game that says to players "we cared about making this" but rather "you liked ____ so here's ____" brand focus testing, and it's as transparent as from the plot to the concepts to the very gameplay you end up watching for 45 out of the 60 seconds you get to play in the demo.

And with this game releasing not only during the same year as Mania but also a week after Super Mario Oddysey, Sonic Team's about to get a reckoning unprecedented. I'm almost expecting Mania to do like Rush did to them after 06, and influence the next "era" of Sonic, once the team gets restructured and the battle plan changes again. It's definitely coming. The forecast says it all.

If Sonic Team faces "the reckoning", don't you think the series will go on hiatus? Because I sort of think that's fairly likely (I desperately hope you're right though).

Unless of course Forces sells well and reviews okay and that becomes the new direction. Which is entirely possible.

 

[Natie]

Hopefully Mania's reception being so great and Forces' being so questionable will send a message and they'll hire more talented people who are really passionate and knowledgeable about sonic (and game design lol), cuz whenever I see lukewarm games like these it always feels like they're just making sonic games cuz they have to, and trying to give people what they want through bare-bones market research of what some fans didn't like.

[Soniman]

So now that the reiew scores are croppping up and like...none of them have been particuarly glowing so far? Is it time to call it now?

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Call it whatever whenever you want man. It's ya'll's opinions, and I ain't gonna tell you how to work 'em. Personally though, no. Reviews or not, this game is not looking to be bad enough to spin some other "Dark Age" or whatever you call it.

[Jar Jar Analysis 1138]

We can't call this the dark age..That is ignoring the context of Mania which broke the chain of Lost World.

We Abe one really good game(Mania) and one mediocre one. It's an overall good year with perhaps one flop.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

 Heck,  actually looking at what reviews have to say, the potshots taken at Sonic aren't nearly as common as they were in the alleged first fall age. And the games of late don't have the consensus, critical or player consumer base- wise,  of trash fire, let alone damning. 

[Jar Jar Analysis 1138]

5 minutes ago, Jovahexeon Ace Joranvexeon said:

 Heck,  actually looking at what reviews have to say, the potshots taken at Sonic aren't nearly as common as they were in the alleged first fall age. And the games of late don't have the consensus, critical or player consumer base- wise,  of trash fire, let alone damning. 

I say it's only because of the avatar, visuals and easy to play gameplay. Forces seemed to be at an alright spot. Sure it might get ripped by fans such as Johnny but not many people hate it from what it seems.

[Korke]

I have my doubts. The game seems a lot like Colors with no wisps, but I wonder... Why is Colors claimed as a good game that "ended the Dark age" by the majority of people, while Forces is flamed? Of course, I should make it clear that, personally, I hated Colors' levels.

But it's something to think about it. I'll wait on CPY to try playing Forces and compare it with another play-through of Colors, to confirm my suspicions.

[Jar Jar Analysis 1138]

13 minutes ago, Korke said:

I have my doubts. The game seems a lot like Colors with no wisps, but I wonder... Why is Colors claimed as a good game that "ended the Dark age" by the majority of people, while Forces is flamed? Of course, I should make it clear that, personally, I hated Colors' levels.

But it's something to think about it. I'll wait on CPY to try playing Forces and compare it with another play-through of Colors, to confirm my suspicions.

Colors for a Wii games, was actually solid. I would never want to return to that style of gameplay again, It's the best version of "Blocky,Wispy/bad boost implementation" gameplay.

 

[Diogenes]

Colors showed basic competence and wasn't weighed down with terrible alternate gameplay, unlike '06 and Unleashed (respectively) before it. It's not a terrible game, but a lot of its praise is due to the timing of it. Forces doesn't have the benefit of that timing; Forces is a game that should have, if nothing else, improved upon Generations, but instead it regressed and fell behind every other boost game.

[Jar Jar Analysis 1138]

8 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

Unleashed

Sleep is the cousin of death.

9 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

Colors showed basic competence and wasn't weighed down with terrible alternate gameplay, unlike '06 and Unleashed (respectively) before it.

Colors was the first to regress the boost gameplay. It was praised because of the "classic platforming" Sonic was known for and appealed to the Nintendo fans who were unfamiliar with Sonic.

Both Sonic Unleashed/Colors were success(with scores over 7.5) with Unleashed selling more(2.45 compared to 2.18). Although that was across 4 consoles with the later on one. Typical and ironic. Sonic games have always seemed to fair better on nintendo consoles.. 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

24 minutes ago, Jar Jar Analysis 1138 said:

Colors was the first to regress the boost gameplay. It was praised because of the "classic platforming" Sonic was known for and appealed to the Nintendo fans who were unfamiliar with Sonic.

Ehhhh, to be fair, that can also be attributed to how it fulfilled the consensus wish of "Unleashed without the werehog".

[Jar Jar Analysis 1138]

39 minutes ago, Jovahexeon Ace Joranvexeon said:

Ehhhh, to be fair, that can also be attributed to how it fulfilled the consensus wish of "Unleashed without the werehog".

The werehog surprisingly wasn't the biggest issue despite the controversy. Much of the reviews for the Wii version faired better than the PS2 and HD(Doesn't make sense).

A lot of the reviewers just hated Sonic and they would bank on the Sonic 06 bandwagon.. But the most aggravating thing are the culmination of critic and user base reviews. Unleashed actually didn't get that many reviews while Colors got a whopping 54 and over twice as many user scores(300 something).

Again, Sonic does better on Nintendo consoles for some reason. You could say it was the werehog but many of the people were fairly new to colors.

[Phos]

Why would it be a second dark age?  The nature of their problems shifted a bit but it's not like they had it figured out again and then lost it.  

[Whatever the WhoCares]

When I think of a franchise's Dark Age, it brings to mind RELATIVE quality and release droughts. For Mario, everything after Mario Galaxy 2 and before Mario Odyssey can be considered that series' dark age. Throughout the Wii U's life, Mario was playing it safe, which for his outstanding series does constitute a dark age. 

For Sonic, everything between Sonic 3&K and Sonic Mania (and so far, after) fell far short of those games, although one can argue that because of how well they were received at the time, SA and SA2 were not part of this dark age. Regardless, there was an over-15-year dark age leading up to Mania. I actually enjoy Sonic Generations more than any of the others, but it lacks the proper realization of its potential for me to sit here and rank it anywhere near the Genesis games. So it sits in that dark age. Mania brought an end to that dark age, giving us a 2-month golden age. 

Sonic Forces brought us into another dark age. So yes, people, we are in the second dark age of Sonic as a franchise, just not for the reasons people think. 

[Jar Jar Analysis 1138]

53 minutes ago, Phos said:

Why would it be a second dark age?  The nature of their problems shifted a bit but it's not like they had it figured out again and then lost it.  

It's a typical Sonic tradition at this point. 

Forces actually is a direction Sonic Team should go. An Accessible product for everyone to enjoy while also giving something equally for the fans. Mania is also a good example so I think they should draw from both.

In my own view, Forces is fine and so is Sonic Team. Unless this ends up being a consistent streak(more than 2 games being "average")then it can be applied. It's a better game than Colors despite the obvious flaws so the path they are taking isn't a BAD one. Just needs better management and leadership for the next one.

[SBR2]

A Sonic Game was less than great following a good game! Shut It all Down! Sonic was never good!

Look I hate to bring up the Sonic Cycle but seriously as soon as another Game is good people will forget all about the Negativity surrounding Forces and when another Game is bad it's back to "THE SKY IS FALLING!"

[Razule]

12 hours ago, SBR2 said:

A Sonic Game was less than great following a good game! Shut It all Down! Sonic was never good!

Look I hate to bring up the Sonic Cycle but seriously as soon as another Game is good people will forget all about the Negativity surrounding Forces and when another Game is bad it's back to "THE SKY IS FALLING!"

Well... surprisingly bad games are still a bad thing. How about... no games be bad?

[HeroMystic]

On 11/7/2017 at 10:39 PM, Soniman said:

So now that the reiew scores are croppping up and like...none of them have been particuarly glowing so far? Is it time to call it now?

 

Not even close.

Sonic's "Dark Age" is less of that and more of a "Fall from grace." The Adventure titles were good for their time, and so was Heroes, and even Shadow the Hedgehog was more seen of that "well that was weird" type of game. Really, the game that caused Sonic's downfall was Sonic 06. Ever since that game, gamers as a whole just didn't care about Sonic anymore (Sonic and the Secret Rings and Black Knight didn't help the cause). That's mainly because there was massive hype for Sonic 06 all over the internet and it delivered poorly in almost every conceivable way. To make an example, look at Metroid: Other M and what it did to the Metroid fanbase. Same massive hype and same poor delivery, and the fanbase hasn't quire recovered from it yet.

Sonic Forces has had none of this. For me personally, as soon as I saw Classic Sonic appear in the first trailer I completely tuned out. None of the negativity (or selective praise) are in any way, shape, or form, a surprise.

[SBR2]

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 12:25 AM, Razule said:

Well... surprisingly bad games are still a bad thing. How about... no games be bad?

So bat 1000 everytime and never ever make mistakes? That's totally a possible thing to do.

No game is intentionally bad. Every now and then you're going mess up. It's just in this fanbase even if it's not the worst game ever it is still somehow the worst game ever.

[Heckboy]

58 minutes ago, SBR2 said:

So bat 1000 everytime and never ever make mistakes? That's totally a possible thing to do.

No game is intentionally bad. Every now and then you're going mess up. It's just in this fanbase even if it's not the worst game ever it is still somehow the worst game ever.

No game is going to be perfect, but maybe, just maybe, with the right developers, we could get games that are more than just "functional" after years of mediocrity?