Does the series have too many characters?

[thumbs13]

13 minutes ago, Plasme said:

I hate this argument that is bandied around about Sonic Adventure 1. No, the non-Sonic characters are not optional in that game, they are required to see the final boss and ending. They must be played in order to beat the game. This argument that they are "optional" and only need to be played if they player wants to play them is just objectively incorrect.

From a story perspective it all ends up the same, but from a gameplay perspective, playing the game one way before being forced to do a different thing you don't like is different than just playing a character's whole campaign. There's also the whole replayability aspect.

There's also also the idea that if the options for getting to the final boss are too much, most people won't do it. (I still haven't collected the emeralds in Advance 2), so if the only stakes are "you won't see the credits", it's not really a detterent.

 

[Strickerx5]

I'm not really going to speak to what route I'd like Mario to take here. I mean, I like me the rpg stories from a decade back with unique characters and I especially love what they did with Rosalina in the original Galaxy but everyone knows those are more special cases rather than paths the franchise ever really considers nowadays. The series was just never about that. Its fans, hell, even its creator, often don't consider that stuff important. Its nice when it's there, but its foolish to ever actually expect it.

Sonic, on the other hand, should flat out never try to go in that direction... well, at least anymore than it already has.

You see, it really doesn't take a lot of analysis to piece together the route Sega and ST were trying to go with the series early on in the decade. From the overly comedic plot of Colors, to the nothingness that was Gen's narrative, to LW... just in general, they were clearly trying to go after a more Mario feel. Hell, this isn't even a take; it's literally what they said they were doing. Though, with each passing game, they got dinged more and more on that very thing. The problem with this is that they were, quite literally, pulling away from what made Sonic, well, Sonic in the first place. From the beginning, he wasn't suppose to be Mario and that's where the series found a lot of its success.

So I have to say that I'm quite strongly in the opinion that this series shouldn't adopt the whole "broad appeal" the Mario series has followed. Especially in an area as beloved as the cast. There are a ton of people out there who have never even played a Sonic game, yet know of a lot if its characters. They are iconic and keep popping up for a very specific reason, because people like them. Seeing Sega go out of their way to dumb down most of them in a sad attempt to appeal to an audience that, lets be real here, probably won't care about them anyway, has got to be on the upper end of the... incredibly long list of aggravating things about this recent decade for me.

Why do people think characters like Silver or Blaze have the backing that they do while the entirety of the D6 don't even have a fraction of it? One pair were made in a genuine attempt to be more than just boss fights (hell that's why people like Orbot and Cubot). One set was made to be more engaging to the player outside of their respective level code. These might not be needed things as far as what the base definition of a game is, but I believe the general fan reception has outright buried any pull that notion had.

People like watching fun and unique characters. They don't have to serve a direct purpose in a level to be a positive addition to a game. Big wasn't even technically in SA2 or Secret Rings but the Easter eggs they did with him there are fucking incredible! The inclusion of a character shouldn't be so black and white as to whether they serve as a hitbox in a level or not. There are a plethora of other ways they can use these characters in this medium. Shoveling most of them into some grave isn't a good option.

To tie this up, undermining, dumbing down, and/or outright removing these characters isn't a good step forward, at all, for this series imo. As it stands, they've tried to go down that path over the last decade and it's arguably put them in a worse position in this category than where they were at the beginning. Of course there needs to be balance (shouldn't just go all Endgame on it), and changes like a more solid foundation in the writing and storyboarding departments would go a lot further with or without this, but I'm just tired of watching Sega and ST trying to make this franchise something it isn't.

[E-122-Psi]

26 minutes ago, Wraith said:

. You're free to ignore the challenge and get a good enough value out of the game just playing the Sonic levels. You won't get to see the final boss, but the same can be said for getting the chaos emeralds and most people would agree that those are optional parts of the game, too.

Pretty much. It's kind of the same reason I consider the Advance series' ridiculous mandates for the final boss not as enforced a chore or hinderance either. Since while a key goodie IS hidden behind them, you can still at least play what is pretty much a full campaign mode as the character of your choosing. The final boss is essentially a reward, the super 100% good ending for advanced players, not the full game itself where you are still figuring out how to play. This is where the gameplay roulette of SA2 onwards causes issues since you get one level AT MOST before you're forced to switch to another character and playstyle you didn't ask for. A common trend with many playing SA2 was fans being sick of one gameplay and just wanting to unlock the rest of the levels for another, but that choice wasn't there anymore.

SA1 is definitely where this issue started to trickle in (not to mention the imbalance, if you like Amy, you only get three levels to play as her, choice or not), but you still had that freedom for the most part, getting to play the character you wanted in this giant skate park. Everyone getting to play in the Adventure Fields in full also represented that freedom.

[Wraith]

I don't have a strong  preference either way as someone who didn't really consider the alternate gameplay styles in either game too much of a departure or downgrade. Sonic Adventure 2 brings a lot more variety and novelty to the campaigns, constantly introducing new mechanics and scenery. SA1 conversely asks you to repeat a lot of content without showing you much in the way of new stuff if you try to do everything. 

It's a shame that SA2 doesn't allow the player the same freedom but it's not like controlled pacing is always a bad thing.

[E-122-Psi]

A lot of other games go for this roulette style, and while I see why it works for variation at times (a lot of levels just have it by nature of obstacles after all) often similar games that aim for it in excess meet the same complaints (eg. the excess vehicle sections in some Crash Bandicoot games have the same divisive nature). Sonic was usually noted for letting you play the game as you wanted and if you didn't like one character's style you try another. In SA2, if you don't like one playstyle, it's stuck there as a roadblock in BOTH campaigns. SA2 taking this approach admittedly may not have been so bad in concept standalone, but the issue was that each game afterwards seemed to try capitalise on the same approach ten fold.

Next Gen is more incredulous, since it brings back the varied campaigns and playstyles, and yet STILL forces you play as the characters you DIDN'T choose midway through a level anyway. You choose Silver, OH BUT NOW YOU HAVE TO PLAY AS SHADOW OR SONIC ANYWAY. I mean, what's the damn point of letting you choose in the first place???

[Wraith]

The best route is probably to just not try and rock the boat too much in the first place wrt platforming and gimmicks, but to be honest even in the more focused classic games there's a lot of stuff I consider junk and wish I could just skip. I can't though, because that's just not how games are supposed to work with regards to progression. 

I worry that people fall back on this complaint a little too much for sections they just don't like rather than ones that betray the spirit of the game or anything. It's fair to not like a level, segment, gameplay style, or gimmick but the game isn't always required to give you a free pass to the final boss or anything because of it. With the way some people kick up a stink about the progression in these games I wonder how they deal with just playing sections that are less than ideal through to get to the next part you enjoy in any game. 

 

[E-122-Psi]

15 minutes ago, Wraith said:

The best route is probably to just not try and rock the boat too much in the first place wrt platforming and gimmicks, but to be honest even in the more focused classic games there's a lot of stuff I consider junk and wish I could just skip. I can't though, because that's just not how games are supposed to work with regards to progression. 

I worry that people fall back on this complaint a little too much for sections they just don't like rather than ones that betray the spirit of the game or anything. It's fair to not like a level, segment, gameplay style, or gimmick but the game isn't always required to give you a free pass to the final boss or anything because of it. With the way some people kick up a stink about the progression in these games I wonder how they deal with just playing something through to get to the next part you enjoy in any game. 

 

Again SA2 may not have worked so bad standalone, it's a way to play a game. The problem is that each mainstream title after, like many things that hit off in this series, just made it into a formula they exacerbated ten fold, being more and more forceful with new characters and mechanics, and often glaringly in place of adding variation in other key areas like level design. Heroes is just one tautological regiment of making you play through the same obstacles over and over just to show off the trio function.

 

I mean there's obstacles I don't like much in Sonic 3 and Knuckles, sometimes as any character, but you have to appreciate the variety in level design. Even if you don't like one level there's something new offer the next. In these later games the variety roulette is instead more focused on characters and abilities with the level design often being secondary and in some cases bland and repetitive, while in early games it was having the characters play through the unique variation of levels in a different way.

 

I mean this isn't LIMITED to the 3D games or even post-SA2 ones. Chaotix is a good example that over-focuses on its characters and gimmicks before any good level design at all (which ended up destroying it when deadlines meant they didn't have time to work on levels afterwards). I mean yeah, getting to choose between all those characters with their unique abilities was cool, but what's the point if everything else is undercooked? They don't MAKE THE WHOLE GAME.

[Plumbers_Helper]

As a big Mario fan whose followed this series long before I even knew what a video game was, I first got into Mario through the cartoons, I can tell you Nintendo also has problem utilizing it's characters. Sonic's problem is that characters from his series are often included even when it doesn't make sense for them to be there. For example, what gameplay or story significance does Big the Cat play in Sonic Adventure? What purpose did Tails serve in Sonic Colors when Sonic was shutting down the generators before Tails figured out what they had to do? But then Mario's problem is the opposite: characters from his series are often NOT included even when it would make sense for them to be there. Why didn't Luigi join his brother Mario on his vacation in Super Mario Sunshine when he previously did in Super Mario World? Why do the spinoff titles have such poor character options? Metal Mario? Pink Gold Peach? How about baby versions of the main cast or even a generic Koopa Troopa? Why not include more interesting characters like Professor E. Gadd, characters from the Wario Ware and Donkey Kong series or even the partner characters from Paper Mario?

But has a Mario character ever had the same problems Sonic has? I can only think of three loose examples. I remember originally Waluigi was HATED when he was first introduced, utterly despised for how generic and uncreative he was. "Why is his name Waluigi?" would be the most common complaint about him. "Wouldn't it make more sense to call him Ruigi?" The only fans that even remotely took interest in him were Luigi fans because it gave them a villain to use in their fanfics. It wasn't until the animated shorts for Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour and Mario Power Tennis were released, about 3 years after his first appearance, that people started warming up to Waluigi. But even then he didn't become a beloved character until the webcomic Brawl in the Family started making parody comics of him. Princess Daisy remains either a love-her or hate-her character to this day. Some love her outgoing and tomboyish personality while others find her really annoying. "Hi, I'm Daisy!" is almost as infamous in the Mario fandom as "It's no use!" is in Sonic's. I'm not even gonna get into the Daisy vs Rosalina war that started after Super Mario 3D World and Super Smash Bros for Wii U and 3Ds didn't include Daisy as a playable character. Daisy is a lot more popular now thanks to her inclusion in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, but for the longest time for many mainstream Mario players she was nothing more then "annoying yellow Peach".

Another example is the Koopalings. The original post mentioned how happy people were to see the Koopalings return in New Super Mario Bros Wii. Fans at the time were ecstatic to see them back...until a certain interview changed everything. Before I get into that I need to put things into perspective, the Koopalings used to be immensely popular online. There were countless fansites dedicated to these guys such as the Koopalings Lounge, the Koopatorivm, and most famously Lemmy's Land. Lemmy's Land would also introduce the most popular fan character in the entire Mario fandom, Karma A. Koopa: a Yoshi-Koopa hybrid that was Ludwig's girlfriend. I dare say that the Koopalings were the most popular characters in the entire Mario fandom...because of there relationship with Bowser. People loved the idea that the big bad Bowser was also a loving father figure and sibling rivalry that resulted from that. People were so in love with their family relationship that when Bowser Jr. was introduced in Super Mario Sunshine most fans would headcannon his character away by saying he was just Ludwig as a baby and Super Mario Sunshine just takes place very early in the timeline before the other Koopalings were born. So when Shiguru Miyamoto revealed, just three years after New Super Mario Bros Wil, in an interview that "Our current story is that the seven Koopalings are not Bowser's children." fans...didn't take the news very well. Most people at first just ignored this, but the damage slowly crept it's way in. Koopaling fan sites started closing down in droves and the amount of fanfics I used to see of Mario, not just fanfics of the Koopalings, started slowing down to a crawl. Lemmy's Land was one of the last Koopaling fansites to just simply stop updating...ironically after being online for 13 years. Even Mario fansites soon started to disappear. The Mushroom Kingdom.net is the only Mario fansite from the early years of the internet to still regularly update. I can't say for sure this is why Mario fansites started disappearing from the internet, 2012 was when things like twitter and other social media started gaining popularity, but the timing of that interview plus the disappointment of the Koopalings' retcon was uncannily close to when Mario fan sites on the internet started disappearing.

The main point I'm trying to make is that while Mario characters have not been as radically misused as Sonic's, there have been controversies none the less.

12 hours ago, Kuzu said:

all we really know is that she's a princess (but not a Queen???)

The Valiant comics and Nintendo Adventure Books show that Princess Peach has a dad, King Toadstool, but no one listens to him because he's basicaly an idiot so Princess Peach does the rulling instead. Though obviously these books are most likey non-canon. There's also Princess Peach's Grandma from Super Mario RPG who might be Queen, but others aren't sure if she's related to Princess Peach as "grandma" could be a mistranslation of a term of endearment in Japan.

[Kuzu]

12 minutes ago, E-122-Psi said:

Again SA2 may not have worked so bad standalone, it's a way to play a game. The problem is that each mainstream title after, like many things that hit off in this series, just made it into a formula they exacerbated ten fold, being more and more forceful with new characters and mechanics, and often glaringly over adding variation in other main areas like level design. Heroes is just one tautological regiment of making you play through the same obstacles over and over just to show off the trio function.

 

I mean there's obstacles I don't like much in Sonic 3 and Knuckles, sometimes as any character, but you have to appreciate the variety in level design. Even if you don't like one level there's something new offer the next. In these games the variety roulette is instead more focused on characters with the level design often being secondary and in some cases bland and repetitive.

If the problem is the execution and not the concept itself, then why are we considering SA2 such a radical departure?

The characters can just serve as a mild distraction before you get back to the Sonic gameplay, but it sounds like the mere idea of ever deviating from Sonic is a taboo that should have never been done. It's not a black and white situation, there's no reason having to shuffle through different characters is any more intrusive than jank level design.

I fucking hate Metropolis zone, but I'm not gonna go as far to say that the level should never have existed.

[Wraith]

23 minutes ago, E-122-Psi said:

Again SA2 may not have worked so bad standalone, it's a way to play a game. The problem is that each mainstream title after, like many things that hit off in this series, just made it into a formula they exacerbated ten fold, being more and more forceful with new characters and mechanics, and often glaringly in place of adding variation in other key areas like level design. Heroes is just one tautological regiment of making you play through the same obstacles over and over just to show off the trio function.

 

I mean there's obstacles I don't like much in Sonic 3 and Knuckles, sometimes as any character, but you have to appreciate the variety in level design. Even if you don't like one level there's something new offer the next. In these later games the variety roulette is instead more focused on characters and abilities with the level design often being secondary and in some cases bland and repetitive, while in early games it was having the characters play through the unique variation of levels in a different way.

 

I mean this isn't LIMITED to the 3D games or even post-SA2 ones. Chaotix is a good example that over-focuses on its characters and gimmicks before any good level design at all (which ended up destroying it when deadlines meant they didn't have time to work on levels afterwards). I mean yeah, getting to choose between all those characters with their unique abilities was cool, but what's the point if everything else is undercooked? They don't MAKE THE WHOLE GAME.

Yeah, like I said it's probably best to just not stray from the core that much. I agree. 

[Kuzu]

I didn't see the edited post, but yea that much I can agree on. Focusing too much on characters and gimmicks over level design is a huge no-no.

[StaticMania]

47 minutes ago, Plumbers_Helper said:

"Wouldn't it make more sense to call him Ruigi?"

This complaint wouldn't have made sense from anyone who isn't Japanese back then.

The pun would barely be any different and it still wouldn't matter to anyone who isn't Japanese.

[DryLagoon]

Others online say Sonic has too many characters, I think it doesn't have enough.

Does that mean cramming as many characters into one game as possible like Heroes and Generations? No. I've said it before, but for me it's natural for Sonic to rotate characters because he's going on adventures to various places and the only people following Sonic are either those who directly connect to him (Tails, Amy, Eggman), or happen to have their own goals overlap in the area (Rouge, Blaze, etc.). To add to your Mario comparison think of Rosalina. She was introduced in Mario Galaxy and is heavily tied to it. I wouldn't mind some more interesting NPCs too, but that would require bringing hubworlds back. Not every cast member needs to be playable or in the main story to stand out in my opinion.

Forces and the Olympic games mobile show just how little reoccurring villains Sonic has (although that's partly because many were monster of the week). Why wouldn't I want to see more who could possibly show a different side of Sonic and bring something different to the table? Because others say so? I may be disappointed on how they dealt with Infinite, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't excited to battle against him.

As for the hero main characters I would like for them to get a grasp on them again. Maybe others dislike the newer heroes, but I can't think of any I dislike. Some fan favorites even came out of doing so.

To me I like Mario characters in the same way one likes vanilla ice cream. (I know it's a common comparison) Ice cream is always good and you won't complain if you get vanilla, but most like having some other flavors and toppings to spice things up. Not everyone is going to like every flavor, but those who do will swear by it. That's how I think of Sonic characters I guess.

[Kuzu]

5 hours ago, Diogenes said:

If you take the complaint at its simplest, face-value meaning, then probably not; there's no set limit beyond which you have objectively "too many" characters, and there are plenty of series out there with more characters than Sonic that have been far more successful than he's been in decades. That doesn't mean the complaint is entirely wrong, though; what Sonic has is more characters than it knows how to handle.

Sonic's got a real problem with trying to make almost every new character it introduces into a big deal. Characters rarely exist around the periphery in solid supporting roles; everyone's gotta be either a big hero or a big villain, and it's just not sustainable. We get games with a half dozen playable characters each with their own gameplay and story pulling the game in multiple directions at once, we get games where major characters are largely sidelined in favor of some fresh new thing to push, we've got characters hanging around feeling vestigial and underused because they were never designed to be (or retrofitted into being) anything but protagonists.

This, of course, isn't the only problem with regards to the writing and use of characters in the series. Sonic has a lot of problems. Reducing the number of active characters isn't going to fix all of them. But the series needs to get a better handle on its characters, what roles they're supposed to play, when they should and should not appear, and throwing more characters onto the pile doesn't help.

I want to elaborate more on this, because it is actually a good point.

There is a disproportionate amount of protagonist characters than there are supporting characters in this series, as in characters who have had stories that center around them as the primary character alongside Sonic, very often pushing the other supporting characters to the side in the process. 

We've had: Knuckles, Shadow, Blaze, Silver, Jet, etc etc all of these character being the center of attention in their debut. Meanwhile the obstential supporting characters like Tails, Amy, Big, Rouge, Cream, etc are just pushed to the side and ironically, never have much room to actually support anyone. 

 

I feel like the series doesn't need so many protagonist-like characters, because it does start to dilute the series and it's very easy for those character to have their stories and personalities ruined because of how defined and focused they are. Of the protagonist characters, they're generally the ones people complain about the most in terms of being derailed.

[DabigRG]

To ignore the OP for a second and answer the title, I don't think it's about having too many characters so much as having numerous characters it often doesn't know how and what to do with.

[Plasme]

4 hours ago, Wraith said:

. You're free to ignore the challenge and get a good enough value out of the game just playing the Sonic levels. You won't get to see the final boss, but the same can be said for getting the chaos emeralds and most people would agree that those are optional parts of the game, too.

This argument is a desperate expedient which is used by SA1 fans. If you only play Sonic's story then you are only experiencing a small part of the overall game. It isn't at all like getting the chaos emeralds in Classic Sonic. The actual equivalent to Classic Sonic would be getting to Mystic Cave in Sonic 2 and then just turning it off. Or getting to Launch Base in Sonic3AK and then turning the game off.

SA1 is designed to have all the stories completed for a complete package. Sonic's story does not contain enough gameplay for a complete experience and you are missing out on so much of the game by not playing the other stories.

[Kuzu]

Sonic literally has the most levels and is the longest campaign in the game; the other characters are only relevant if you want to get 100% completion, which is the same condition in Sonic 3 as getting all of the Chaos Emeralds and getting to the Doomsday zone. 

There is absolutely nothing forcing you, the player, to continue playing SA1 after beating Sonic's story if the other characters do not interest you in any way. 

 

There is no expediting here, this is a fact. 

[Plasme]

14 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

There is absolutely nothing forcing you, the player, to continue playing SA1 after beating Sonic's story if the other characters interest you in any way. 

There is absolutely nothing forcing you, the player, to continue playing Super Mario after World 1 if the other worlds do not interest you in any way. That's an equally dumb argument.

This really is a pathetic and desperate argument which shows how fanatical some people are about SA1.

Sonic is one story in a game which has six playable characters. While yes, Sonic does have the largest and most substantial story in the game, SA1 isn't designed to be turned off after beating his story. The only way to comprehend the plot, fight the final boss and see the ending is to beat the other stories. Moreover, the other stories have significant amount of content in their own right and have large significance to the plot. They aren't side quests.

14 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Sonic literally has the most levels and is the longest campaign in the game; the other characters are only relevant if you want to get 100% completion, which is the same condition in Sonic 3 as getting all of the Chaos Emeralds and getting to the Doomsday zone.  

Which is why arguments like this are incredibly annoying. Getting the chaos emeralds in the Classic Sonic games is a side objective which does not have major impact on the game besides from slightly changing the ending, giving Super Sonic and Doomsday in S3. The equivalent in SA1 and SA2 is getting the emblems for Green Hill Zone or doing the Chao Garden races.

Knuckles, Tails, Gamma, Amy and Big are significant amounts of gameplay chunks (much more than Sonic when taken together) which are a significant part of the reason you buy the game. They reveal key aspects of the story. They give you a true ending which is incomparable to the Classic Sonic chaos emerald endings.

It would be like saying that you buy a fighting game and only play as one character and then just turn the game off (I'm not saying mastering the others, just not playing them). It would be like playing Kirby Super Star and just turning it off after one story is completed. Such complete experiences!

People only make this argument in absolute desperation to try to dial back the side characters' negative impact on the overall quality of Sonic Adventure. It's just ridiculous and needs to be discarded out of hand.

[Kuzu]

7 minutes ago, Plasme said:

 

This really is a pathetic and desperate argument which shows how fanatical some people are about SA1.

Here's some advice, keep personal opinions about certain fans to yourself because I really don't care to know how you feel about SA1 fans.

[Plasme]

3 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Here's some advice, keep personal opinions about certain fans to yourself because I really don't care to know how you feel about SA1 fans.

I'm calling the argument stupid, not the people who hold them. Smart people can make stupid arguments.

And SA1 fans are a fine bunch, I'm a SA1 fan, I just accept that the game has problems. I'm talking about the fanaticism which can inhabit some of its most ardent sect. It leads people to deny obvious facts about the game when they should know better.

[Diogenes]

18 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Sonic literally has the most levels and is the longest campaign in the game; the other characters are only relevant if you want to get 100% completion,

Even with the most levels, Sonic still makes up only about a third of the game. I wouldn't be satisfied paying full price for just that.

[Wraith]

23 minutes ago, Plasme said:

This argument is a desperate expedient which is used by SA1 fans. If you only play Sonic's story then you are only experiencing a small part of the overall game. It isn't at all like getting the chaos emeralds in Classic Sonic. The actual equivalent to Classic Sonic would be getting to Mystic Cave in Sonic 2 and then just turning it off. Or getting to Launch Base in Sonic3AK and then turning the game off.

You aren't experiencing a small part of the overall game. You're experiencing the majority of the playable content of the game, from the perspective of the character you apparently want to be playing, just like how Super Mario World and every other Mario game has optional content. 

There are rewards for completing that content, but the game is generous enough to provide a straightforward experience if that's what you'd prefer. It's the closest they've come to a catch all solution 

 

23 minutes ago, Plasme said:

SA1 is designed to have all the stories completed for a complete package. Sonic's story does not contain enough gameplay for a complete experience and you are missing out on so much of the game by not playing the other stories.

I agree, so people should stop whining about them and play them. 

"But I don't like the other character's levels!" 

So don't play them.

See my point now? You can still think they're shit and that the game is worse off for having them. I'm just making the point that it's still remarkable that the option is there for players who like more straightforward sonic games. 

[Kuzu]

1 minute ago, Plasme said:

I'm calling the argument stupid, not the people who hold them. Smart people can make stupid arguments.

And SA1 fans are a fine bunch, I'm a SA1 fan, I just accept that the game has problems. I'm talking about the fanaticism which can inhabit some of it's most ardent sect.

Nobody is being fanatical, so I have no idea of why you're accusing anyone of doing that.

You clearly put much more emphasis on the other characters in SA1 than...literally most people do, because the consensus is it's at least the most unobtrusive way they've been implemented out of the entire 3D games.

If you disagree, fine but stop framing this as we're just being a bunch of unreasonable fanboys about a game we like as a means to discredit our stance, because that shit is not cool.

3 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

Even with the most levels, Sonic still makes up only about a third of the game. I wouldn't be satisfied paying full price for just that.

The point being is there's nothing stopping you from playing as them or not.

If you don't want to play as them, then don't but if you do, then go right ahead.

You can hate how the other characters play, but the choice to play them is still on the player at the end of the day.

[Diogenes]

5 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

The point being is there's nothing stopping you from playing as them or not.

If you don't want to play as them, then don't but if you do, then go right ahead.

You can hate how the other characters play, but the choice to play them is still on the player at the end of the day.

It'd be nice to have an option that was actually good.

[Plasme]

10 minutes ago, Wraith said:

You aren't experiencing a small part of the overall game. You're experiencing the majority of the playable content of the game, from the perspective of the character you apparently want to be playing, just like how Super Mario World and every other Mario game has optional content. 

First of all, stop the speculating that I don't really like SA1 because I do.

Secondly, you are just wrong. As @Diogenes says, Sonic's story is only 1/3rd of the game. It's completely different to the optional content of Super Mario World. Knuckles, Tails, Amy, Gamma and Big make up the remaining 2/3rds of the game, are essential for understanding the plot, have their own gameplay mechanics, sometimes unique levels and unique objectives. You are missing out on a lot of the game by not playing it.

10 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I agree, so people should stop whining about them and play them. 

"But I don't like the other character's levels!" 

So don't play them.

See my point now? You can still think they're shit and that the game is worse off for having them. I'm just making the point that it's still remarkable that the option is there for players who like more straightforward sonic games. 

I don't accept that as an argument. It's good for replay, I'll give it that. But you haven't really played SA1 if you haven't played the other stories just like you haven't really played Kirby Super Star if you haven't played all stories.

If people get pleasure out of playing only Sonic then that's fine, but that's no different to only playing the Hero Story in SA2 or only playing half of Sonic 2 and then just stopping because the second half of the game is weaker than the first.

 

@Kuzu. Sorry I don't know how to multiquote, so I'll address your point here.

It's a fanatical argument which is made to try to diminish the significance of the remaining stories, because most people think the non-Sonic stories suck. Whether the people who make it are fanatical is not for me to say. Also I have no way of knowing that about people. But it is a very fanboy argument.