Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
batson

Was Sonic ever really in a good state after the Mega Drive era?

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Tornado said:

You're talking about mainstream appeal. You literally said outside the fanbase it's more popular. Sales on an irrelevant console that failed basically on launch are not mainstream appeal. Sales on a console made up exhaustively of people within at least tangential fanbases is not influence outside the fanbase. When you understand that, you can dictate what game is more popular or influential on popular opinion of the series moving from there.

Nope, sorry I don't buy this. You want to discount the performance of the game because the system died early. That has nothing at all whatsoever to do with the sales of the game, what the game meant to the company, the marketing/reach and hype of the game. The fact that it died does not erase the exposure it had, and the actual participation in the game itself, which was quite high. You think your comment about the system is also indicative of the game but it quite literally is not, especially since the following game was just flat out not as popular despite being released on a more successful console. You seem to think that GameCube > dreamcast is analogous to SA2 > SA1 in popularity but if it were it would have sold better. It didn't. 

It does not matter if SA2 was on a system that lived for 50 years. 100 years. And the system sold 10s of times more copies than the dreamcast. SA2 itself still reached fewer people despite being on a better, more relevant platform. 

The Dreamcast death didn't erase the existence of SA1 from the minds of millions of more people who owned the game than SA2. Or the press of anyone else that knew about the title when it released.

16 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

As mentioned, the Dreamcast was dead on arrival. SA1 selling the more than SA2 on it is irrelevant, because only one of those consoles lasted the entire generation and it wasn't the Gamecube that crashed and burned. 

I didn't even know there WAS a  Sonic Adventure 1 until a few years later or that it released on the Gamecube, because there was next to no marketing for the DX port despite how "influential" it was. By contrast, I remember seeing SA2B's commercials all of the time when it came to the Gamecube. 

I don't understand why this continues to be brought up. The GameCube lasted much longer than the dreamcast but millions of people already owned SA1 and experienced the marketing and hype and everything else leading up to it 5 years earlier. At the time leading up to SA1 in 1998 it was ground breaking and had a different impact than the poorly reviewed port 5 years later. No, not enough to save the dreamcast but that's not the point, at all. The point is, for all the influence SA2 had on a generation of GameCube owners.... less people played it than they did SA1. The fact that it existed on a console that fared better long term, has absolutely nothing to do with its individual performance in direct comparison. The GameCube owners were not the only people, nor the first to experience these games. Lots of other people did. 

 

I'm not comparing this to SADX, which released later than SA2 and we already know was not as impactful on the GameCube as SA2 was. Which I what I said from the very beginning. 

Share this post


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

Nope, sorry I don't buy this

It doesn't matter if you do or not. Adventure 2 Battle was the game that drove the series forward. Adventure 2 Battle was the one that established the brand to a new generation. Adventure 2 Battle was the one that established the wake that the rest of the franchise blatantly followed in for the next 5 years. Adventure 2 Battle was the one that was pimped by Nintendo and sold better than any other third party game on the syetem.

 

Adventure 1 was a launch game on a system the was dead in every market it released in by the new year. Adventure 1 was a launch game on a system specifically, carefully and deliberately curated for fans of previous Sega works. The people working on it have admitted as much since, and even at the time it was a "win back are loyalist fans to get everyone else" gambit that didn't pay off. No one who bought a Dreamcast wasn't a Sega fan. No one who bought a Dreamcast didn't have some sort of experience with a Sonic game.

Where did that get Sega? It hastened the already imminent-death of N64 in the US, which probably means people who dumped the Saturn when the N64 came out, but Sega realized the system itself was selling well below expectations by Christmas and couldn't even touch the Playstation's market share. In three months, it was done. And the PSX was a mainstream console. The PSX was the console that everyone had. The PSX was the one that actually got the attention, to the extent that Sony merely had to go out on a stage and say "Playstation 2 is coming" and show some faked CGI and the Dreamcast was instantly dead in Japan leading to Sega hemorrhaging money throughout the entirety of 1999 well before 9/9/99.

 

 

Nothing about that suggests any consumers in the industry at large gave any amount of shit about the Dreamcast or what its best selling game was.

 

1 hour ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

You want to discount the performance of the game because the system died early.

No, I want to discount its performance to people who weren't already Sega fans in some capacity because Sega fanboys are all who fucking bought Dreamcasts. Your entire argument hinges on the game being influential to people outside of the fanbase. To having appeal and impact to people who wouldn't ordinarily consider themselves Sonic/Sega fans at the time. To being the game people think of when they think of Sonic in that time period.

 

The problem is no one outside fanbases at least closely related to Sonic bought a Dreamcast when they were on sale. No one. It had a massively successful launch as those Sega fans snapped them up and waited in lines to do more, and then... nothing.

I had one and literally no one else at school did. I never saw another one outside of a used game shop until I was in college. That appeal to people who weren't already closely familiar with Sonic is zero. Multiple people in this thread told you straight up that regardless of how well it sold, they had never even seen the first game until well after the second game released. I had got GamePro and EGM from November 1993 until December 2010. I can tell you that even in the industry itself Sonic Adventure 2 Battle being announced and coming out so soon after the original release was easily an event that equaled anything that was ever on the Dreamcast.

 

1 hour ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

The fact that it died does not erase the exposure it had

The fact that it died, died immediately and only lived through very dedicated fans of the console who supported it until Sega completely gave up in March of 2001 means that it never had any exposure to begin with.

 

 

Who gives a shit if it reviewed well? By January of 2000 there were over a hundred million game consoles on the market. Maybe 3 million of those were Dreamcasts. By January of 2000 Sega had already noted that the writing was on the wall for it. Publishers had already started cancelling support for it. That's mainstream appeal to you? That's the kind of thing that gets people to get up and take notice of a game as they think of the franchise for the next decade, even though they almost certainly never played it; over the one on a console people actually had talked about?

 

1 hour ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

You think your comment about the system is also indicative of the game but it quite literally is not, especially since the following game was just flat out not as popular despite being released on a more successful console

To be perfectly frank,  you're out of your god damned mind if you think Adventure 1 was a more popular game than Adventure 2 at any point after the latter released on Gamecube. Pick the year. It can be 2001, 2002, 2010, 2020. Adventure 2's shadow on the series was far longer and is far better remembered and known than Adventure's ever was and ever will be; if for no other reason than Sonic Team made 4 other games directly linked to its story.

 

 

I've been on the internet since 1999. I've been on this forum since 2003. For over a decade Adventure 2 was the yardstick that people measured 3D Sonic games by. Not just Sonic fans on this forum or the old Sega Forums. YouTubers, magazines, people on regular game forums. "Is this game, be it Heroes or Unleashed or Colors or Generations, as good as Sonic Adventure 2?"

Sonic Adventure never ever had the appeal and popularity that Adventure 2 gained following its release on a console people actually bought and talked about, no matter how much older school fans complain that it's the better realized game. It transcended the sales numbers that the game had on the Gamecube, because the Gamecube was a system that (at least initially) had a fair amount of mainstream appeal that transferred to a game that was popular on it compared to the best selling game on a console that immediately flopped. Adventure simply has not ever had that following, and I don't really care how much you think it selling well on the Dreamcast changes that. That you even admitted as much, in how important of a game it was to an entire generation of video game players; but can't bridge the gap between that fact and your insistence that it's actually Adventure 1, biggest fish in one of the smallest ponds in the history of the industry, isn't my problem.

Share this post


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

It doesn't matter if you do or not. Adventure 2 Battle was the game that drove the series forward. 

*Rest*

Moving the series forward has nothing to do with it. Stop addressing a different point which I'm not making here, it's distracting. I'd agree very much and say it often and did even in this thread, it was a big influencer. SA2 also drove the series forward simply by being the numerical next entry in the series, just as Heroes "drove the series forward" while being very different to SA2 and Takashi Iizuka and co. stating they wanted to go back to the series roots (which has been said to death, so no need to get into that) WTF does that have to do with more people having played SA1? If you want to evaluate the quality of the games that fine, but it's not what I'm doing. 

SA2 didn't save the dreamcast either. I didn't bring that up, did I? Because the death of the dreamcast was not the fault of the Sonic series. 

 

You cannot get it through your skull that that generation are not the only Sonic fans or people aware of the series and its history. Sonic had already existed globally among fans, casuals, the media, etc. Despite a "dead on arrival" system, SA1 still sold more games than its successor did on a more stable system. You seem to be angry about this reality, and keep using system sales as a measure of popularity of individual titles..... Even though the better longevity didn't lead to greater SA2 sales in this comparison. SA2 was a small fish (not even true, it did sell a lot) in a bigger pond. Okay, but it was a smaller fish than SA1. All the longevity of the GameCube didn't help SA2 if it didn't lead to more people experiencing it, in this comparison. It's just a fact that it didn't. 

 

I'm not attacking your beloved game here. It is clearly one of the more popular titles in the series, that's not being disputed. I do think however that it's a hivemind, echo chamber type of mentality that would lead you to think that it's more popular than it actually was. SA1 was more popular than it when it first released. I think for that younger generation, SA2 is their S1, like I said in a previous post. Not just the standard, their original. To them, the Sonic world is defined and colored by that game. Who am I to argue with them? It's their first, and I don't care, I'm not trying to change their mind. But I'm not going to ignore the history of the franchise either, it didn't start with SA2 and I have experienced just about all of it. I don't think anyone can claim that SA2 is of fundamental importance to the series as a whole in the way S1 or S2 were, when to me its not clear that it was even more popular than SA1. Taking everything into consideration I think it happens to be the golden title for that generation of fans, and for everyone else it's one of many 3D titles that Sonic has seen, but not much more. The same way that S3K is the golden title for most classic fans but S2 was the more popular and present simply because more people played it. 

Beyond that, I have nothing to say about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds to me like you're trying to argue that your childhood was somehow more valid than the ones who grew up on SA2, otherwise I don't understand why are you going so hard to try and downplay its influence. It's like you straight up refuse to believe that there may in fact be another game besides the Genesis titles that put this series on the map. "Oh guy you children had your precious SA2B, but you didn't understand the real good old days for us real Sonic fans."  Like come off of it, this is the type of bullshit that makes fans of the Genesis titles look like G1 Transformers fans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kuzu said:

It sounds to me like you're trying to argue that your childhood was somehow more valid than the ones who grew up on SA2, otherwise I don't understand why are you going so hard to try and downplay its influence. It's like you straight up refuse to believe that there may in fact be another game besides the Genesis titles that put this series on the map. "Oh guy you children had your precious SA2B, but you didn't understand the real good old days for us real Sonic fans."  Like come off of it, this is the type of bullshit that makes fans of the Genesis titles look like G1 Transformers fans. 

Stop. Where and when did I do anything that approached that? I have numerous posts in this thread talking about how influential SA2 is in the series. It's obvious that it is, no one needs to even say it. Just because I think it's also fairly obvious the game is not as influential as Sonic 1 or 2, does not make me some boomer. The very thing you are accusing me of, you are doing. 

**(I'm going to speak very generally in this next, long part. It's not directed at you, or anyone specifically. But it must be said, because of what J am being accused of being. ) **

 

This is the problem I always notice with SA2B fans. I believe that so many of you far too colored from this game to ever have an objective opinion. You literally cannot stomach when people say anything that isn't the absolute most rosy colorful praise ever, or challenges an idea you believed to be gospel because it's what you experienced when you got it for Christmas at 7 years old in 2002-2003 and all your friends on the playground agreed with you. Your entire perspective on this series is colored from your first experience of it, which for so many of you may even be your first video game ever played.... Don't bother mentioning the rest of the series. That is not "objective" at all, it's very hard to take seriously. I understand it very well because I have my own nostalgia and sympathize to the good old days of my childhood when things were simple and awesome and nobody disagreed with me.... but I also laugh when you end up in arguments with fans who are not as blinded by nostalgia as you are... Which is humongous irony because you run around the internet literally screaming about Sonic Team's nostalgia pandering (and you're not wrong).... but in reality it's exactly what you want, just your way! And you so often do not have the ability to maintain conversation without resort to emotional attacks, I see it all. the. time. There are some SA2 fans that are a bit more calm and don't have this irrational rage disability when it comes to this game, and it's easier to talk to them, because they usually can see that Sonic is not just one game, sonic has been many things and has a long history, and it typically makes A LOT more sense to evaluate things from that perspective.... Not just from one or the other. Although it's also not unreasonable to look at things in their own context. Both are appropriate, but that doesn't matter to you all, cause screw anybody who criticizes SA2, if they don't see it like you do, they're just a hater and a boomer and a stupid nostalgia loving jerk. That's how many of you actually think and act. The funny thing is, many classic fans aren't much older than you. 

I love this series and have both praises and criticisms for all of its eras, just like with literally anything else, but this game I notice is the one for which the Nintendo children make insufferable. And before you say it, I loved both SEGA and Nintendo, have had both platforms throughout my entire life, I never participated in the "Sega does what Nintendont". Including the GameCube, with your very own SA2B amongst other games. I've experienced most of the genre, know what came before, what was, and what came after and can look at the series with my own feelings but have the ability to separate them from reality, unlike so, sooooo many of you who just cannot. And think criticism means hate, and all opinions are valid regardless of close inspection, and other obviously horribly wrong ideas. Opinions are just opinions, everybody has the right to one, but they are not immune from scrutiny in public discussion. You lot think they are and try to rewrite history to fit your personal experience because your feelings are otherwise damaged. And anyone can scrutinze, it's not limited to the boomers. You all should know because now you're doing it to the next generation of fans, the people who like the boost games. 

 

Contrast this to someone like myself, whose favorite game (by far) is S3K. I admit all the time I have incredible nostalgia for that game, I have played it more than anything else on earth by far. Thousands of times. I'll never stop probably. But I also played at least a half dozen Sonic games before S3K and thus my perspective about the series is not defined by that game, it is still rooted in the series as a whole and the progression of Sonic from his beginnings, the refinement he went through, the good and bad ideas to something that was perfected. But guess what? I've experienced the following eras too. I don't think there's just one way to make a Sonic game, especially in the jump to 3D, I have seen them all. I think some of the more modern games have been quite cool and understand how and why we got here. This series has long gone away from the direction I grew up with and guess what? I do not have a problem with it, because I know that the series is meant to be a mass market series, and is about fun above all else. And some of the modern games are very fun to play. The series can literally never go back to classic Sonic and it wouldnt bother me at all. We only just got Mania in 2017 and I wasn't even one of the ones asking for it. I was asking for a great 3D game. In the summer of Sonic party I was more excited to see what was next for 3D Sonic. My honest preference has always been for Sonic to be a platformer, won't lie, but when I thought we were getting Generations 2, I said to myself... "you know, I'm totally fine with that. I'll definitely buy". Like I have so many other times in this series since day one, including for your very own SA2. Because I just love Sonic and his iconic style. And as long as he remains fun to play with, I'll be a part of it. I'll. Always have my preferences but I support Sonic always when he's still good... Even if it's just a little good. I don't when I see shit like 06. That's it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

Stop. Where and when did I do anything that approached that? I have numerous posts in this thread talking about how influential SA2 is in the series. It's obvious that it is, no one needs to even say it. Just because I think it's also fairly obvious the game is not as influential as Sonic 1 or 2, does not make me some boomer. The very thing you are accusing me of, you are doing. 

**(I'm going to speak very generally in this next, long part. It's not directed at you, or anyone specifically. But it must be said, because of what J am being accused of being. ) **

 

This is the problem I always notice with SA2B fans. I believe that so many of you far too colored from this game to ever have an objective opinion. You literally cannot stomach when people say anything that isn't the absolute most rosy colorful praise ever, or challenges an idea you believed to be gospel because it's what you experienced when you got it for Christmas at 7 years old in 2002-2003 and all your friends on the playground agreed with you. Your entire perspective on this series is colored from your first experience of it, which for so many of you may even be your first video game ever played.... Don't bother mentioning the rest of the series. That is not "objective" at all, it's very hard to take seriously. I understand it very well because I have my own nostalgia and sympathize to the good old days of my childhood when things were simple and awesome and nobody disagreed with me.... but I also laugh when you end up in arguments with fans who are not as blinded by nostalgia as you are... Which is humongous irony because you run around the internet literally screaming about Sonic Team's nostalgia pandering (and you're not wrong).... but in reality it's exactly what you want, just your way! And you so often do not have the ability to maintain conversation without resort to emotional attacks, I see it all. the. time. There are some SA2 fans that are a bit more calm and don't have this irrational rage disability when it comes to this game, and it's easier to talk to them, because they usually can see that Sonic is not just one game, sonic has been many things and has a long history, and it typically makes A LOT more sense to evaluate things from that perspective.... Not just from one or the other. Although it's also not unreasonable to look at things in their own context. Both are appropriate, but that doesn't matter to you all, cause screw anybody who criticizes SA2, if they don't see it like you do, they're just a hater and a boomer and a stupid nostalgia loving jerk. That's how many of you actually think and act. The funny thing is, many classic fans aren't much older than you. 

I love this series and have both praises and criticisms for all of its eras, just like with literally anything else, but this game I notice is the one for which the Nintendo children make insufferable. And before you say it, I loved both SEGA and Nintendo, have had both platforms throughout my entire life, I never participated in the "Sega does what Nintendont". Including the GameCube, with your very own SA2B amongst other games. I've experienced most of the genre, know what came before, what was, and what came after and can look at the series with my own feelings but have the ability to separate them from reality, unlike so, sooooo many of you who just cannot. And think criticism means hate, and all opinions are valid regardless of close inspection, and other obviously horribly wrong ideas. Opinions are just opinions, everybody has the right to one, but they are not immune from scrutiny in public discussion. You lot think they are and try to rewrite history to fit your personal experience because your feelings are otherwise damaged. And anyone can scrutinze, it's not limited to the boomers. You all should know because now you're doing it to the next generation of fans, the people who like the boost games. 

 

 

This reads like a copypasta. But seriously, nobody's downplaying the impact of SA1, they're downplaying the impact of the dreamcast. SA2 reached a wider audience, and that made it more of an awakening. It's not about criticism or merits at all. Or like any of that. It's simply about the widespread legacy of the games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my God for the last time I was comparing SA1 to SA2, not the dreamcast. There's a simple idea in counting and it is that larger numbers are indeed larger than smaller numbers. SA1 sold in larger numbers than SA2 regardless of the fate of the system it was on. So it's not apparent to me that SA2 was more popular. I agree certainly it was for people who experienced it for the first time on the GameCube, no debate there. Outside of that, not clear. The death of the dreamcast doesn't change that, the games sales spoke for themselves. You can't compare the systems and claim that one game was more popular because it was on a system that lasted longer, when it actuality it sold less. You just can't, it's not correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

 

 

This is the problem I always notice with SA2B fans. I believe that so many of you far too colored from this game to ever have an objective opinion. You literally cannot stomach when people say anything that isn't the absolute most rosy colorful praise ever, or challenges an idea you believed to be gospel because it's what you experienced when you got it for Christmas at 7 years old in 2002-2003 and all your friends on the playground agreed with you. Your entire perspective on this series is colored from your first experience of it, which for so many of you may even be your first video game ever played.... Don't bother mentioning the rest of the series. That is not "objective" at all, it's very hard to take seriously. I understand it very well because I have my own nostalgia and sympathize to the good old days of my childhood when things were simple and awesome and nobody disagreed with me.... but I also laugh when you end up in arguments with fans who are not as blinded by nostalgia as you are... Which is humongous irony because you run around the internet literally screaming about Sonic Team's nostalgia pandering (and you're not wrong).... but in reality it's exactly what you want, just your way! And you so often do not have the ability to maintain conversation without resort to emotional attacks, I see it all. the. time. There are some SA2 fans that are a bit more calm and don't have this irrational rage disability when it comes to this game, and it's easier to talk to them, because they usually can see that Sonic is not just one game, sonic has been many things and has a long history, and it typically makes A LOT more sense to evaluate things from that perspective.... Not just from one or the other. Although it's also not unreasonable to look at things in their own context. Both are appropriate, but that doesn't matter to you all, cause screw anybody who criticizes SA2, if they don't see it like you do, they're just a hater and a boomer and a stupid nostalgia loving jerk. That's how many of you actually think and act. The funny thing is, many classic fans aren't much older than you. 

I love this series and have both praises and criticisms for all of its eras, just like with literally anything else, but this game I notice is the one for which the Nintendo children make insufferable. And before you say it, I loved both SEGA and Nintendo, have had both platforms throughout my entire life, I never participated in the "Sega does what Nintendont". Including the GameCube, with your very own SA2B amongst other games. I've experienced most of the genre, know what came before, what was, and what came after and can look at the series with my own feelings but have the ability to separate them from reality, unlike so, sooooo many of you who just cannot. And think criticism means hate, and all opinions are valid regardless of close inspection, and other obviously horribly wrong ideas. Opinions are just opinions, everybody has the right to one, but they are not immune from scrutiny in public discussion. You lot think they are and try to rewrite history to fit your personal experience because your feelings are otherwise damaged. And anyone can scrutinze, it's not limited to the boomers. You all should know because now you're doing it to the next generation of fans, the people who like the boost games. 

 

Contrast this to someone like myself, whose favorite game (by far) is S3K. I admit all the time I have incredible nostalgia for that game, I have played it more than anything else on earth by far. Thousands of times. I'll never stop probably. But I also played at least a half dozen Sonic games before S3K and thus my perspective about the series is not defined by that game, it is still rooted in the series as a whole and the progression of Sonic from his beginnings, the refinement he went through, the good and bad ideas to something that was perfected. But guess what? I've experienced the following eras too. I don't think there's just one way to make a Sonic game, especially in the jump to 3D, I have seen them all. I think some of the more modern games have been quite cool and understand how and why we got here. This series has long gone away from the direction I grew up with and guess what? I do not have a problem with it, because I know that the series is meant to be a mass market series, and is about fun above all else. And some of the modern games are very fun to play. The series can literally never go back to classic Sonic and it wouldnt bother me at all. We only just got Mania in 2017 and I wasn't even one of the ones asking for it. I was asking for a great 3D game. In the summer of Sonic party I was more excited to see what was next for 3D Sonic. My honest preference has always been for Sonic to be a platformer, won't lie, but when I thought we were getting Generations 2, I said to myself... "you know, I'm totally fine with that. I'll definitely buy". Like I have so many other times in this series since day one, including for your very own SA2. Because I just love Sonic and his iconic style. And as long as he remains fun to play with, I'll be a part of it. I'll. Always have my preferences but I support Sonic always when he's still good... Even if it's just a little good. I don't when I see shit like 06. That's it. 

 

 

Sir this is a wendys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

Stop. Where and when did I do anything that approached that? I have numerous posts in this thread talking about how influential SA2 is in the series. It's obvious that it is, no one needs to even say it. Just because I think it's also fairly obvious the game is not as influential as Sonic 1 or 2, does not make me some boomer. The very thing you are accusing me of, you are doing. 

**(I'm going to speak very generally in this next, long part. It's not directed at you, or anyone specifically. But it must be said, because of what J am being accused of being. ) **

 

This is the problem I always notice with SA2B fans. I believe that so many of you far too colored from this game to ever have an objective opinion. You literally cannot stomach when people say anything that isn't the absolute most rosy colorful praise ever, or challenges an idea you believed to be gospel because it's what you experienced when you got it for Christmas at 7 years old in 2002-2003 and all your friends on the playground agreed with you. Your entire perspective on this series is colored from your first experience of it, which for so many of you may even be your first video game ever played.... Don't bother mentioning the rest of the series. That is not "objective" at all, it's very hard to take seriously. I understand it very well because I have my own nostalgia and sympathize to the good old days of my childhood when things were simple and awesome and nobody disagreed with me.... but I also laugh when you end up in arguments with fans who are not as blinded by nostalgia as you are... Which is humongous irony because you run around the internet literally screaming about Sonic Team's nostalgia pandering (and you're not wrong).... but in reality it's exactly what you want, just your way! And you so often do not have the ability to maintain conversation without resort to emotional attacks, I see it all. the. time. There are some SA2 fans that are a bit more calm and don't have this irrational rage disability when it comes to this game, and it's easier to talk to them, because they usually can see that Sonic is not just one game, sonic has been many things and has a long history, and it typically makes A LOT more sense to evaluate things from that perspective.... Not just from one or the other. Although it's also not unreasonable to look at things in their own context. Both are appropriate, but that doesn't matter to you all, cause screw anybody who criticizes SA2, if they don't see it like you do, they're just a hater and a boomer and a stupid nostalgia loving jerk. That's how many of you actually think and act. The funny thing is, many classic fans aren't much older than you. 

I love this series and have both praises and criticisms for all of its eras, just like with literally anything else, but this game I notice is the one for which the Nintendo children make insufferable. And before you say it, I loved both SEGA and Nintendo, have had both platforms throughout my entire life, I never participated in the "Sega does what Nintendont". Including the GameCube, with your very own SA2B amongst other games. I've experienced most of the genre, know what came before, what was, and what came after and can look at the series with my own feelings but have the ability to separate them from reality, unlike so, sooooo many of you who just cannot. And think criticism means hate, and all opinions are valid regardless of close inspection, and other obviously horribly wrong ideas. Opinions are just opinions, everybody has the right to one, but they are not immune from scrutiny in public discussion. You lot think they are and try to rewrite history to fit your personal experience because your feelings are otherwise damaged. And anyone can scrutinze, it's not limited to the boomers. You all should know because now you're doing it to the next generation of fans, the people who like the boost games. 

 

Contrast this to someone like myself, whose favorite game (by far) is S3K. I admit all the time I have incredible nostalgia for that game, I have played it more than anything else on earth by far. Thousands of times. I'll never stop probably. But I also played at least a half dozen Sonic games before S3K and thus my perspective about the series is not defined by that game, it is still rooted in the series as a whole and the progression of Sonic from his beginnings, the refinement he went through, the good and bad ideas to something that was perfected. But guess what? I've experienced the following eras too. I don't think there's just one way to make a Sonic game, especially in the jump to 3D, I have seen them all. I think some of the more modern games have been quite cool and understand how and why we got here. This series has long gone away from the direction I grew up with and guess what? I do not have a problem with it, because I know that the series is meant to be a mass market series, and is about fun above all else. And some of the modern games are very fun to play. The series can literally never go back to classic Sonic and it wouldnt bother me at all. We only just got Mania in 2017 and I wasn't even one of the ones asking for it. I was asking for a great 3D game. In the summer of Sonic party I was more excited to see what was next for 3D Sonic. My honest preference has always been for Sonic to be a platformer, won't lie, but when I thought we were getting Generations 2, I said to myself... "you know, I'm totally fine with that. I'll definitely buy". Like I have so many other times in this series since day one, including for your very own SA2. Because I just love Sonic and his iconic style. And as long as he remains fun to play with, I'll be a part of it. I'll. Always have my preferences but I support Sonic always when he's still good... Even if it's just a little good. I don't when I see shit like 06. That's it. 

 

 

The fuck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KuzuYou literally just accused me on this very page of trying to validate my childhood over other people's childhood and trying to spout off about the good old days while dismissing the rest of the series. And you're not alone, it happens a lot with a particular set of fans in this fanbase. I have been accused of it several times on this forum, for reasons outlined in my post, the primary one being that so often, fans who grew up with SA2B as their first actually cannot handle a bad word said about it. They should turn to the mirror before they go on about how others fans are just stuck in their own view, or about nostalgia pandering or anything else.

All I did prior in this thread was comment on how SA1 was probably more popular than SA2 a whole due to its higher sales. Yet after that conversation devolved into me being an inflexible SEGA, classic fan who won't get out of his own way because I disagree with SA2B fans who clearly know better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be obvious just looking at the series and online discussion about it that more people being exposed to something doesn't necessarily make it more iconic, but let me hit you with an easy example: Avatar is one of the highest grossing movies of all time. A lot of people were exposed to it, yet there is a running joke on the internet of nobody being able to recall the protagonists name, let alone plot details. 

 

When you consider that something like that can be everywhere and even consumed by everybody and leave no mark, this isn't that much of a stretch. If Sonic Adventure really was that much more successful than SA2, that means the game had an advantage and still didn't stick the same way. 

That's still an if because I still haven't seen any numbers in this thread, but you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Wraith said:

It should be obvious just looking at the series and online discussion about it that more people being exposed to something doesn't necessarily make it more iconic, but let me hit you with an easy example: Avatar is one of the highest grossing movies of all time. A lot of people were exposed to it, yet there is a running joke on the internet of nobody being able to recall the protagonists name, let alone plot details. 

 

When you consider that something like that can be everywhere and even consumed by everybody and leave no mark, this isn't that much of a stretch. If Sonic Adventure really was that much more successful than SA2, that means the game had an advantage and still didn't stick the same way. 

That's still an if because I still haven't seen any numbers in this thread, but you know.

But this is part of my point. How do you know that SA1 didn't stick the same way? Depending upon your view point, you could say it did or didn't. If you're an SA2B fan, maybe for you and the people in your age group it did. But maybe for older fans SA1 was the better title. This divide between generations in this very specific issue is quite common. For people who came before (me) it is very commonly said that SA1 is the preferred game and was the closest Sonic ever got to doing the 3D formula right. For fans who came after, SA2 WAS sonic in 3D done right and we just need to do a game like that again. We shall never agree and that's totally fine, but who has actually done any meaningful statistical studies on which game had more impact? We can say anecdotally, all these fans on the internet think it so it must be true, but keep in mind that most people from the former age group, are totally grown ups now with marraiges and kids, and are much less likely to be commenting about it. Until someone shows me any kind of statistical study done on this, I will continue to think that the more popular game overall (not just among one group of fans) is the one that sold more overall. 

 

And yes, now I will try to find those reliable numbers. Full transparency, I'd actually done it earlier before Tornado had stopped me in his/her post. But I found conflicting sources. Some say SA1 was higher, some say SA2. Because this challenges my earlier held belief, I'll have to look a little closer, I cannot state this claim with certainty as I thought. I've been meaning to do it anyway, as game sales data is often not reliable, and I've been wanting to do a mini study (as a side thing) on this series history with updated data. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

But this is part of my point. How do you know that SA1 didn't stick the same way? Depending upon your view point, you could say it did or didn't. If you're an SA2B fan, maybe for you and the people in your age group it did. But maybe for older fans SA1 was the better title. This divide between generations in this very specific issue is quite common. For people who came before (me) it is very commonly said that SA1 is the preferred game and was the closest Sonic ever got to doing the 3D formula right. For fans who came after, SA2 Was sonic in 3D done right and we just need to do a game like that again. We shall never agree and that's totally fine, but who has actually done any meaningful statistical studies on which game had more impact? We can say anecdotally, all these fans on the internet think it so it must be true, but keep in mind that most people from the former age group, are totally grown ups now with marraiges and kids, and are much less likely to be commenting about it. Until someone shows me any kind of statistical study done on this, I will continue to think that the more popular game overall (not just among one group of fans) is the one that sold more overall. 

If we put forth the Sonic games, discussion and fan made content we can see in front of us instead of hypothetical people then it's kind of obvious which one was more popular. Arguing this point at all is so ridiculous to me that I can't help but think it comes from a biased perspective. That sweaty ass rant you posted about SA2 fans up above all but confirms that theory. 

 

Quote

 

And yes, now I will try to find those reliable numbers. Full transparency, I'd actually done it earlier before Tornado had stopped me in his/her post. But I found conflicting sources. Some say SA1 was higher, some say SA2. Because this challenges my earlier held belief, I'll have to look a little closer, I cannot state this claim with certainty as I thought. I've been meaning to do it anyway, as game sales data is often not reliable, and I've been wanting to do a mini study (as a side thing) on this series history with updated data. 

paper_mario_sleep.jpg?width=173&height=131

So your whole point is based off nothing, then. Another friday night well spent I guess. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Plasme said:

I also think it's very easy to overblow how popular Sonic was in the 1990s. Sonic 1 and 2 are perhaps some of the most important games ever culturally. In the 1990s Sonic was one of the most recognisable characters ever. He was on the level of popularity of something like MW2 or GTA5.

But even by Sonic 3 he was starting to lose relevance and that game's sales are far lower than Sonic 2. Not to say it's a bad game, because it's my favourite Sonic game ever made after Mania, but it definitely came out after the Sonic fad ended.

And then in 1995-9 (here in the west) there was a whole bunch of nothing. No one cared much about Sonic 3D Blast and Sonic R. 

So Sonic Adventure 2 was actually the most popular Sonic had been since, if we are being generous, 1995. It's an important point to make.

 

Just based on my personal experience, I recall Sonic still being extremely popular in 1994-95. Maybe it varies from country to country though. I live in Sweden and I distinctly remember that during those years virtually every boy around my age at at my school was still into Sonic, and that's not an exageration. We all used to get together during recess and pretend to be Sonic characters (and since the amount of characters was so small, someone would be "Knuckles 1" and another would be "Knuckles 2", lol). Me and my closest buddies also had a "Sonic club" where we would get together after school and play Sonic games and eat snacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm writing this post because I like you a lot @UpCDownCLeftCRightC and usually agree with your posts, but I think you are slightly off the mark here.

I'll begin by saying that I think the central point of your post is right: a lot of people get defensive over SA2 and want fan nostalgia pandering to the game. However, your long post about it was very melodramatic, let's be honest 😛 . Also, that's not what's happening here.

The argument, which I agree with, is that SA2 was a very significant game culturally in the series because it introduced loads of people to Sonic who had never played it or perhaps ever heard about it. My best friend is an example. He hates Sonic and an in-joke between us is that I'll get excited about Sonic and he'll just dismiss it as soon as possible. But even he's played SA2, because he loved the Gamecube growing up.

This is why I agree that SA2 was the most significant Sonic game since Sonic 2. All Sonic games leading up to it were played by Sonic fans. I think @Tornado is being a bit ott by saying the Dreamcast was completely irrelevant as a console. It was relevant to SEGA fans and it's a cult classic for a reason. However, he's right that it was irrelevant for non SEGA fans. I bought it literally because it had SA1 on it, and like him, I knew no one else on the playground who even owned a Dreamcast.

There's also another side to SA2 which I think makes it important and no one has talked about here yet. For a while, it looked like it could be Sonic's swan song. The Dreamcast's death was inevitable upon its release and the game was discussed in magazines as though it could be the last ever Sonic game. This obviously wasn't true, but it left an impression on a lot of us Sonic fans, me included, in a way SA1 never did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

This is the problem I always notice with SA2B fans. I believe that so many of you far too colored from this game to ever have an objective opinion. You literally cannot stomach when people say anything that isn't the absolute most rosy colorful praise ever, or challenges an idea you believed to be gospel because it's what you experienced when you got it for Christmas at 7 years old in 2002-2003 and all your friends on the playground agreed with you[...]

I've been lurking the thread for awhile and I found it a bit amusing how it went from decent to arguing back and forth about Adventure 1 sales. I was just going to leave it alone but then I saw this and while it is definitely a rant style, no one else seems to be giving it a shake so I guess I will. (I'll be cutting some of the quote text for space)

The issue I have with some fans isn't acting like boomers (which is more a term the generation after mine use), but that they act like they are the only ones that have *real* opinions on what Sonic *really* is, and everyone else doesn't. It wasn't people going "SA2 has issues", but "Sonic's friends should be dead (there are professional reviewers who said this too), Shadow should have never existed, SA2 didn't age well, SA2 was never good, SA2 makes no sense, SA2 ruined the series (to the point even the creator felt bad about it)" and so on. Most of the time this was founded on not liking it than fact, because it's just as subjective as liking Boost. Not to mention certain people playing the game badly on purpose to make it look worse than it is. One loop on SA1 they fell through by going too slow and walking into the invisible barrier in a certain way. I went out of my way to try and recreate it out of curiosity and it took over 5 times to get a similar result, hardly something most players would run into. There are actual issues with the game, you don't need to make more up to push that message.

I've seen the threads insulting the Adventure era fans, and now instead of "your new thing sucks!" it's "you want your old thing back and that sucks!". Oh really? The people who claimed every new Sonic game sucked and how he needed to be just like the Classic games again, are telling *us* that *we're* bad for it? Classic fans get Mania, but Adventure fans should just suck it up and stick to SA2 mods? lol I personally don't mind as much as I can replay SA2 whenever I want on various systems and still enjoy doing so, I just find it funny how it's only considered wrong when it's someone else younger doing it. When I was a kid it was all just Sonic to me, but Classic fans insisted on making a divide (even hating on Sonic having green eyes) that only got worse after Generations made it official. (yet in such an odd way by turning Classic Sonic into some caricature of who he was)

Don't forget to add in an insult about how we're not as cultured as you. It's not like we had the same access to the exact same games as you did or anything. I don't remember hearing this talk about giving new things a chance when these games actually came out. I loved Unleashed when it released, but instead online all I saw was complaints about how the werehog was dumb and how this wasn't Classic enough so it sucked. Every game was either "not Classic enough" or "going back to his roots". 3D Sonic only gets praised when he leans into Classic, and that's *not* holding the series back? Sure.

Fans have come up with a lot of interesting attempts of trying to merge the Adventure style of gameplay with the momentum of the Classic gameplay to a lot of praise. To me the Adventure gameplay is more of a baseline to make a better style on top of. I'd honestly be a bit let down if they did it as is, as I think we can do better than boost pads and automation now.

Quote

it's not limited to the boomers. You all should know because now you're doing it to the next generation of fans, the people who like the boost games. 

Do I have issues with the boost games? I do. Do I go into places of Boost fans and insult them to their (virtual) face and say they don't know what a *real* Sonic game is and that their fan art sucks? No, I don't. Any complaints I have about the games are aimed at the gameplay and writing, and not at the people who like it. And before you say that about Classic fans and SA2, I have looked at why people dislike SA2 and a lot of it is personal. I never had as many camera errors as I see in reviews to the point I was wondering if I was playing the same game described. I won't be surprised if in a few years we start seeing backlash on the Boost hate as kids who grew up on Colors are old enough to defend them. There is no Sonic Adventure only forums, just a community of people posting about a game they loved on various platforms. Do I think some Adventure fans can be toxic about how they express it? I do. However, just like I don't think it's okay to say all Classic fans are bullies who did the things I mentioned above, it's not to say all Adventure fans are bullies to Boost fans. Just because I enjoy talking about a certain game doesn't mean I never play or talk about the others. I've been trying to say how I've enjoyed TSR, just to be met to the same reception as usual. I look up Classic fan stuff a lot to learn more about the history of the games and why Classic fans enjoy them. I've even been replaying some Boost games recently, like playing through HD Unleashed for the first time.

Anyways I'm not upset at you, I think it's good you're willing to check out various stuff. I just wanted to respond to some of the points you made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

Stop. Where and when did I do anything that approached that? I have numerous posts in this thread talking about how influential SA2 is in the series. It's obvious that it is, no one needs to even say it. Just because I think it's also fairly obvious the game is not as influential as Sonic 1 or 2, does not make me some boomer. The very thing you are accusing me of, you are doing. 

**(I'm going to speak very generally in this next, long part. It's not directed at you, or anyone specifically. But it must be said, because of what J am being accused of being. ) **

 

This is the problem I always notice with SA2B fans. I believe that so many of you far too colored from this game to ever have an objective opinion. You literally cannot stomach when people say anything that isn't the absolute most rosy colorful praise ever, or challenges an idea you believed to be gospel because it's what you experienced when you got it for Christmas at 7 years old in 2002-2003 and all your friends on the playground agreed with you. Your entire perspective on this series is colored from your first experience of it, which for so many of you may even be your first video game ever played.... Don't bother mentioning the rest of the series. That is not "objective" at all, it's very hard to take seriously. I understand it very well because I have my own nostalgia and sympathize to the good old days of my childhood when things were simple and awesome and nobody disagreed with me.... but I also laugh when you end up in arguments with fans who are not as blinded by nostalgia as you are... Which is humongous irony because you run around the internet literally screaming about Sonic Team's nostalgia pandering (and you're not wrong).... but in reality it's exactly what you want, just your way! And you so often do not have the ability to maintain conversation without resort to emotional attacks, I see it all. the. time. There are some SA2 fans that are a bit more calm and don't have this irrational rage disability when it comes to this game, and it's easier to talk to them, because they usually can see that Sonic is not just one game, sonic has been many things and has a long history, and it typically makes A LOT more sense to evaluate things from that perspective.... Not just from one or the other. Although it's also not unreasonable to look at things in their own context. Both are appropriate, but that doesn't matter to you all, cause screw anybody who criticizes SA2, if they don't see it like you do, they're just a hater and a boomer and a stupid nostalgia loving jerk. That's how many of you actually think and act. The funny thing is, many classic fans aren't much older than you. 

I love this series and have both praises and criticisms for all of its eras, just like with literally anything else, but this game I notice is the one for which the Nintendo children make insufferable. And before you say it, I loved both SEGA and Nintendo, have had both platforms throughout my entire life, I never participated in the "Sega does what Nintendont". Including the GameCube, with your very own SA2B amongst other games. I've experienced most of the genre, know what came before, what was, and what came after and can look at the series with my own feelings but have the ability to separate them from reality, unlike so, sooooo many of you who just cannot. And think criticism means hate, and all opinions are valid regardless of close inspection, and other obviously horribly wrong ideas. Opinions are just opinions, everybody has the right to one, but they are not immune from scrutiny in public discussion. You lot think they are and try to rewrite history to fit your personal experience because your feelings are otherwise damaged. And anyone can scrutinze, it's not limited to the boomers. You all should know because now you're doing it to the next generation of fans, the people who like the boost games. 

 

Contrast this to someone like myself, whose favorite game (by far) is S3K. I admit all the time I have incredible nostalgia for that game, I have played it more than anything else on earth by far. Thousands of times. I'll never stop probably. But I also played at least a half dozen Sonic games before S3K and thus my perspective about the series is not defined by that game, it is still rooted in the series as a whole and the progression of Sonic from his beginnings, the refinement he went through, the good and bad ideas to something that was perfected. But guess what? I've experienced the following eras too. I don't think there's just one way to make a Sonic game, especially in the jump to 3D, I have seen them all. I think some of the more modern games have been quite cool and understand how and why we got here. This series has long gone away from the direction I grew up with and guess what? I do not have a problem with it, because I know that the series is meant to be a mass market series, and is about fun above all else. And some of the modern games are very fun to play. The series can literally never go back to classic Sonic and it wouldnt bother me at all. We only just got Mania in 2017 and I wasn't even one of the ones asking for it. I was asking for a great 3D game. In the summer of Sonic party I was more excited to see what was next for 3D Sonic. My honest preference has always been for Sonic to be a platformer, won't lie, but when I thought we were getting Generations 2, I said to myself... "you know, I'm totally fine with that. I'll definitely buy". Like I have so many other times in this series since day one, including for your very own SA2. Because I just love Sonic and his iconic style. And as long as he remains fun to play with, I'll be a part of it. I'll. Always have my preferences but I support Sonic always when he's still good... Even if it's just a little good. I don't when I see shit like 06. That's it. 

 

 

How long were you sitting on this essay before you could find a thread to post it in?

 

15 hours ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

SA2 didn't save the dreamcast either. I didn't bring that up, did I?

That would have been a particularly silly point to make on your part, since the Dreamcast had been fully discontinued for months before Adventure 2 released. To even suggest it as an argument you could have made shows as much of a disconnect from the reality of the Dreamcast's situation at the time as "Dreamcast was a mainstream console whose games that captured the minds of the overall gaming public" did.

 

 

15 hours ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

I'm not attacking your beloved game here.

lol

Share this post


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

I'm writing this post because I like you a lot @UpCDownCLeftCRightC and usually agree with your posts, but I think you are slightly off the mark here.

I'll begin by saying that I think the central point of your post is right: a lot of people get defensive over SA2 and want fan nostalgia pandering to the game. However, your long post about it was very melodramatic, let's be honest 😛 . Also, that's not what's happening here.

The argument, which I agree with, is that SA2 was a very significant game culturally in the series because it introduced loads of people to Sonic who had never played it or perhaps ever heard about it. My best friend is an example. He hates Sonic and an in-joke between us is that I'll get excited about Sonic and he'll just dismiss it as soon as possible. But even he's played SA2, because he loved the Gamecube growing up.

This is why I agree that SA2 was the most significant Sonic game since Sonic 2. All Sonic games leading up to it were played by Sonic fans. I think @Tornado is being a bit ott by saying the Dreamcast was completely irrelevant as a console. It was relevant to SEGA fans and it's a cult classic for a reason. However, he's right that it was irrelevant for non SEGA fans. I bought it literally because it had SA1 on it, and like him, I knew no one else on the playground who even owned a Dreamcast.

There's also another side to SA2 which I think makes it important and no one has talked about here yet. For a while, it looked like it could be Sonic's swan song. The Dreamcast's death was inevitable upon its release and the game was discussed in magazines as though it could be the last ever Sonic game. This obviously wasn't true, but it left an impression on a lot of us Sonic fans, me included, in a way SA1 never did.

Sure sure. The reason I got into the melodrama, is because I was directly accused multiple times of being some classic fan who couldn't get out of his own way of thinking, especially by Kuzu (who I have no issue with whatsoever). Or that I had some agenda or bias in saying it and just can't accept that non classic games had an impact on the legacy of the franchise.... Even though I keep saying it myself over and over again. This happens all the time particularly when SA2 is involved as it did here and it happened more than once in this thread. I find it extremely irritating and that's why I ranted. All i did was take the position that SA1 may have been more popular than SA2, despite the latter without question (as I keep saying over and over) being the more influential game on the following generation of fans for years to come. My only reasoning is sales, and sales alone. Even though SA2 reached and resonated with a particular generation very strongly, SA1 may have reached more people in general considering the marketing push behind the game and the overall sales numbers which I've seen as higher than SA2. I don't have another reliable metric, nor do I really believe anyone else although I don't discount personal experience. It is possible I am wrong though, I have seen conflicting sales reports. I thought it'd be easy to verify since I've seen these numbers before but it actually isn't. So I'm checking (slowly) SEGA sales reports, as well as a few other things I've found. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

 My only reasoning is sales, and sales alone. Even though SA2 reached and resonated with a particular generation very strongly, SA1 may have reached more people in general considering the marketing push behind the game and the overall sales numbers which I've seen as higher than SA2. 

I think a big problem with this argument is that it centres around sales. That's not the only metric of a game's cultural significance.

I mean, take Knack. Does anyone think that was a significant game? It sold well, it sold better than Super Mario 3D World even, but I don't think anyone would say it's culturally significant. A game can be commercially successful, significant for a short time, and then fade away.

I do agree that SA1 was a very important game when it came out, and its sales reflect that, but it was very quickly overshadowed by SA2, even if it's sequel may have sold less than it did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DryLagoon said:

I've been lurking the thread for awhile and I found it a bit amusing how it went from decent to arguing back and forth about Adventure 1 sales. I was just going to leave it alone but then I saw this and while it is definitely a rant style, no one else seems to be giving it a shake so I guess I will. (I'll be cutting some of the quote text for space)
 

*rest*

Anyways I'm not upset at you, I think it's good you're willing to check out various stuff. I just wanted to respond to some of the points you made.

Thanks. And I get this, I do. A lot of classic fans wre pretty intolerant of the adventure generation back in the day, for multiple reasons. Adventure fans were on the defensive for a long time once they were old enough to find out the prior generation may not have agreed with them. But that said, it's not what I got into this thread for, it's not what I was doing AT ALL....But then somehow I was accused of it multiple times. And it's been this recent trend, which I have fallen victim to multiple times on this forum, and I have seen growing even louder on social media. That generation has already turned into the thing that theyre upset at classic fans about, and what seems to trigger them the most is when anyone dare criticize (even when not actually) SA2. As for them, it is the golden game of their time. I know what that feels like since for me it is S3K, so I'm not upset at them about their nostalgia, but I do get irritated when they start lashing out at me and others when I happen to disagree with them, often in ways that have nothing to do with the game itself... Like in this thread. And many other times on this forum. And casually on social media. It happens all the time, but more so when it comes to SA2 than anything else. 

All I did was say that S1 and S2 (which aren't even my favorite titles in the series) were clearly the most influential in the series history. You'd figure that would be beyond dispute at this point. It's not a contest between generations, it's just a fact that they sold way more (this is reported everywhere, so I don't have to look this up) and were a major part of the broader gaming revolution of the 90s, even surpassing the Mario juggernaut of the time. I mean, considering that before Sonic, Mario and nintendo had something like a 90% market share, and in just 2-3 years that changed to 65% in favor of SEGA, that is pretty staggering. They are  the only games in history that can claim that and the marketing push that followed their success is something we probably won't see again. This doesn't at all take away the impact SA2 had on the generation 10 years later. My only point is, theyre not on the same scale. 

And for SA1, there is more of a debate and I can see why so many think SA2 is the more popular one, it's not ridiculous to think it. I think for the GameCube generation is 100% is. But I found it interesting that SA1 sold more despite this and I do remember a lot of the previous generation preferring SA1 to 2. It was a common debate of the early online forum Era in the early 2000s and even to this day when you ask fans from the older generation, it is a common preference for SA1 over 2. So it seemed to me, not so clear cut as it might seem. 

Share this post


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

but I do get irritated when they start lashing out at me and others when I happen to disagree with them, often in ways that have nothing to do with the game itself... Like in this thread. And many other times on this forum.

I've noticed that it happens here, but I've gotten used to it and usually let it slide as just how some people are. I will admit there are times I get heated, but I try to take a break from the thread if it gets too much.

Quote

And for SA1, there is more of a debate and I can see why so many think SA2 is the more popular one, it's not ridiculous to think it. I think for the GameCube generation is 100% is. But I found it interesting that SA1 sold more despite this and I do remember a lot of the previous generation preferring SA1 to 2. It was a common debate of the early online forum Era in the early 2000s and even to this day when you ask fans from the older generation, it is a common preference for SA1 over 2. So it seemed to me, not so clear cut as it might seem. 

A common thing I see with SA1 and SA2 is splitting the gameplay by platformer and spectacle. I somewhat agree with it, as SA1 felt like it was trying to bring the Classics to modern even if it wasn't perfect at it and not as momentum based (the badniks were still cartoony here in contrast to Chaos). While SA2 is more about getting through the level with style, it is the game that introduced trick points and the ranking system after all. I think both have their place, and I like both for different reasons. I found the story interesting in SA1 too. I prefer having hub worlds to explore like in SA1, but I also enjoy how quick it is to replay levels in SA2. I can get why older fans would prefer SA1, as to me SA1 felt like a goodbye letter to Classic and SA2 the start of something new. You had all the Chaos Emerald and Knuckles family stuff that carried over from S3&K. To me why I talk about SA2 more is I find there are more little details to uncover. SA1 has them too, like I only learned more recently that the NPCs all had mini story lines and had logical reasons of where they appeared during the story, almost like a mini take on Majora's Mask NPCs. Like the tourists leave after you beat the game. Sure they were simple reused models, but I found that they put so much effort into it really interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Plasme said:

I think a big problem with this argument is that it centres around sales. That's not the only metric of a game's cultural significance.

I mean, take Knack. Does anyone think that was a significant game? It sold well, it sold better than Super Mario 3D World even, but I don't think anyone would say it's culturally significant. A game can be commercially successful, significant for a short time, and then fade away.

I do agree that SA1 was a very important game when it came out, and its sales reflect that, but it was very quickly overshadowed by SA2, even if it's sequel may have sold less than it did. 

I can buy this. The only reason I hadn't taken it as fact is because it is not that apparent to me how influential SA2 is outside of that gamecube generation. In the gaming press and beyond, it's not clear to me that it's had as lasting of an effect. I'm not saying it definitely didn't, but to be honest a lot of the opinions of the game around the time it released were very mixed. Most of us know this by now. It was a love or hate game and to this day IMO the most divisive game in the series history. You were either part of the Gen who picked it up right away and fell in love, or the old guard who dismissed it as the beginning of the downfall. The old guard (I'm mostly in that group) doesn't see it as a landmark title like the Nintendo kids did. And there were A LOT of that old guardba ck in the day, people are forgetting that now because this same group are grown ups now and dont dominate the discussion like they used to. 

I don't know how to properly evaluate impact in this scenario. Maybe even the fact that it caused so much controversy, is a point to its credit actually. But aside from the Gen who didn't accept it as great, the ones who did, did thoroughly and maybe that too, is additional credit. My only exercise here is exploring how much SA2 impacted the wider culture, not just our specific, young fanbase of that time. I think to say it was on the level of Sonic 2, it'd have to be able to do something like that. 

Share this post


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

but to be honest a lot of the opinions of the game around the time it released were very mixed. Most of us know this by now. It was a love or hate game and to this day IMO the most divisive game in the series history. You were either part of the Gen who picked it up right away and fell in love, or the old guard who dismissed it as the beginning of the downfall.

There's this 2001 IGN review of SA2 that I find hilarious in how much things have changed since then. The quotes speak for itself.

Quote

"Sonic Adventure 2 might very well be the last time we see old blue on the Dreamcast. While I'm sure it's not the last time we'll ever see Sonic again in a video game (ask all the hopeful Nintendo Smash Brother addicts), it's not going to be the same seeing our spiky haired companion on a non-SEGA system. Of course, non-Dreamcast fans are gleeful of the change, hoping to see how cool Sonic really is on "their" machine. To these good folk, I'm feel sorry for them; these are the people who never got a chance to experience what it feels like to scorch through a level at mind-numbing velocities, never saw the impatient idle animation of our blue hero, and above all, won't play Sonic Adventure 2."

Quote

"Although Sonic Adventure had featured a few problems, I still regard it as one of the best Dreamcast games. The visuals are still among the best and very few games today can still match the visual splendor of the original Sonic Adventure. Putting the well-known 2D Sonic into a 3D world is no easy task, and Sonic Team did a great job with Sonic Adventure. Most of all, the incredible amounts of extras, boss encounters, and the epic level of gameplay that got bigger and better as you got farther into the game."

Quote

"More importantly, the Sonic/Shadow levels bring back the level concepts of the old days of Sonic; remember how hitting a pattern of descending paths, turbo pads, boosting bumpers, and getting the right power-ups allowed you to zoom through a level? Welcome home then, because SA2 not only brings back that "correct path" but creates a delightful tempo of action in the Sonic/Shadow levels."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I don't give a fuck if you hate SA2 or not, that game has gotten shit for years, I'm used to it by now. That's not what this was about; the main sticking point of this whole tangent was trying to suggest that SA1 was somehow more "culturally relevant" than SA2 to the mainstream when everything points to the opposite. That and whether you meant it or not, you really came off as patronizing when you're talking about these games at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DryLagoon said:

There's this 2001 IGN review of SA2 that I find hilarious in how much things have changed since then. The quotes speak for itself.

 

Right, I remember this one. And then the GameCube review from six months later on the same site. Thats the point, there were a lot of glowing reviews about the game but equally as many that were not so glowing. To me, it doesn't indicate a bad game by any means, just a divisive one. My parents bought me several among magazines back then, I read them regularly and checked online when I could, talked to my friends about it. And my younger brother is a part of that Nintendo generation, although he's probably influenced by the classic games to a degree because he watched me play all the time. But his favorite was SA2/shadow, that was HIS game and that next game or so in the series even though I always bought them (when I actually earned money). When I ask him about it, he loves everything shadow and SA2 but knows where my Gen comes from. And he has his friends like him that were Shadow fans and swear by SA2B. 

And then I have my friends, we all grew up with the classics, watched the Satam cartoons (and sang the theme song, I'm still embarrassed) bought the dreamcast which was extremely hyped for us (so many fights over the dreamcast because my older cousin always tried to steal them from us and play marvel vs Capcom) and loved SA1. SA2 for us was definitely the beginning of a new era, one that was less "Sonicy" to us. None of us hated it though, it was just different. 

So for my Gen, it was kind of the point where we felt the series starting slipping, even though it wasn't all bad. We just don't have allegiance to it. For my younger brothers Gen, it is Sonic. 

 

Edit: I should add that SA2 is probably around the point in life where we weren't exactly kids anymore. Like, we were still young, still in grade school, maybe just hitting puberty. But not quite as impressionable as around the time leading up to SA1. I remember seeing magazine scans for that game the year before it came out, I must've been 9 or 10. That game looked absolutely incredible at the time, I have never been more hyped for a game in my life, including with S3K which came fairly quickly after I had gotten Sonic 2. And most kids I knew at school were the same way, everybody had an N64 but wanted a dreamcast really bad. And when the demo came out, I played it every chance I could get until I finally got my hands on it. 

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 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.