Megathread Archie Sonic Main Discussion

[Soniman]

So wait, Sonic wasn't born in mobotropolis like the rest? He just randomly just shows up and hangs with the FF? Huh, I never knew that 

[Sean]

Nope. He had absolutely zero history with the FFs before they formed their team. So it's admittedly really weird for Sonic to settle down with these guys he never met before, assuming that that's the case. Like I mentioned, I'm perfectly fine with him teaming up with the FFs and I love that bunch - it's just that I really don't want Knothole or the Sky Patrol to be his actual home where he spends most of his time, because his current incarnation is much closer to the games than before.

[Your Vest Friend]

Not post-reboot. Heck, Tails was supposed to be shown as fleeing Mobotropolis in SCO#001, but the colouring was changed so it was just a random non-entity character instead. 

[Soniman]

14 minutes ago, VEDJ-F said:

Not post-reboot. Heck, Tails was supposed to be shown as fleeing Mobotropolis in SCO#001, but the colouring was changed so it was just a random non-entity character instead. 

But Sonic was with Bunnie and Muttski being taken care of by some nanny so doesn't he have a history in mobotropolis? 

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Regardless of whether it's inherent or not that a character must stay in one place - which while true it doesn't dictate that they should -  the point remains that Sonic isn't any less "Sonic" just because he stayed put in a kingdom more than he did adventuring around. That isn't a set-in-stone trait of his given the many other variations the character has had throughout his entire 25 year history, and if people want to talk about how it's less Sonic for him to not explore, I'd expect these same people to raise as much of a stink over how it's less Knuckles for him not staying put as a guardian in similar cases like Boom or the OVA.

Yeah, but just because Sonic doesn't have that trait in every single depiction of him doesn't mean it can't be important to people, or a reason why they like the character, or something they strongly identify him with and don't want to see gotten rid of.

You're also ignoring the fact that honestly, not all Sonic continuities are created equal. Sonic is a video game character first and foremost, and an alternate continuity it may be, but the Archie series is still based on the games at its core. And in the games, yeah, Sonic is consistently depicted as a wanderer. There's nothing remotely unfair about criticizing an adaption for not capturing something you loved about the character in its origin media. This is certainly not the only or even primary way to measure the quality of a piece of spin-off media; it's not like "more faithful = automatically better" or something, obviously. It's just that, when people are analyzing an alternate media adaptation in light of its source material, it's 100% natural to look at the things they've changed and see whether they're for the better or worse, including if they preserved what you loved about that character, story, or universe, or not.

I do agree with you that media adaptions can definitely change stuff, and I definitely don't believe that Sonic not wandering makes him completely not himself or anything like that. And I guess if your point is just that being a wanderer isn't strictly essential to Sonic's character, I actually agree. But I'm just rubbed the wrong way by the fact that what you're saying seems to imply that if a character isn't always depicted a certain way, that means that you can't consider that an important part of the character. Because that's what it kinda sounds like you're saying, and it's honestly a pretty ridiculous viewpoint. Even if you're just countering the viewpoint that "wandering is essential to Sonic" (which I don't think is incorrect of you to do), the precedent you've set up is really bizarre. What, can people not complain about Superman not having a "no-kill" policy because he hasn't always been depicted that way? Can people not complain about Spider-Man not making a lot of quips because he was pretty quiet in the Electric Company specials he once appeared in? I mean, you do have a point, and it's a good demonstration of why just saying that something "isn't true to the character" is often not going to cut it, since it's actually pretty subjective most of the time, but I think what you said can be taken the wrong way.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

2 hours ago, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

Yeah, but just because Sonic doesn't have that trait in every single depiction of him doesn't mean it can't be important to people, or a reason why they like the character, or something they strongly identify him with and don't want to see gotten rid of.

Which is pretty much why I harped about Knuckles not being a guardian in certain other continuities, and why I'd expect those same people to make the same fuss about that like they would for Sonic. But that one trait not being there is in no way as big detriment as some would make it out to be, especially in cases when we have alternate settings because with that comes alternate rules. 

Quote

You're also ignoring the fact that honestly, not all Sonic continuities are created equal.

No, actually that was the entire point of what I was saying, and if anything you're just reinforcing it.

Quote

Sonic is a video game character first and foremost, and an alternate continuity it may be, but the Archie series is still based on the games at its core. And in the games, yeah, Sonic is consistently depicted as a wanderer. There's nothing remotely unfair about criticizing an adaption for not capturing something you loved about the character in its origin media. This is certainly not the only or even primary way to measure the quality of a piece of spin-off media; it's not like "more faithful = automatically better" or something, obviously. It's just that, when people are analyzing an alternate media adaptation in light of its source material, it's 100% natural to look at the things they've changed and see whether they're for the better or worse, including if they preserved what you loved about that character, story, or universe, or not.

I do agree with you that media adaptions can definitely change stuff, and I definitely don't believe that Sonic not wandering makes him completely not himself or anything like that. And I guess if your point is just that being a wanderer isn't strictly essential to Sonic's character, I actually agree. But I'm just rubbed the wrong way by the fact that what you're saying seems to imply that if a character isn't always depicted a certain way, that means that you can't consider that an important part of the character. Because that's what it kinda sounds like you're saying, and it's honestly a pretty ridiculous viewpoint. Even if you're just countering the viewpoint that "wandering is essential to Sonic" (which I don't think is incorrect of you to do), the precedent you've set up is really bizarre. What, can people not complain about Superman not having a "no-kill" policy because he hasn't always been depicted that way? Can people not complain about Spider-Man not making a lot of quips because he was pretty quiet in the Electric Company specials he once appeared in? I mean, you do have a point, and it's a good demonstration of why just saying that something "isn't true to the character" is often not going to cut it, since it's actually pretty subjective most of the time, but I think what you said can be taken the wrong way.

I never said that such and such trait can't be important, I'm saying that such trait isn't as set-in-stone as others that are, and as a result are far more mutable to be exchanged for something else that might equally benefit the character. Even things like Supes "no-kill" policy - hell, he does make exceptions to that, such as when he encounters Darksied at any point in the Animated Series or Justice League and makes no secret that he is the only one he'll kill with no hesitation.

I bring up Knuckles once again, as I'm one of the loudest people who will raise a fuss whenever he isn't acting like a guardian of the Master Emerald (to the point I'm more than happy to engage in debates regardless of how annoyed the opposition is about it). That's something I feel is important to the character and one of the things i really like, and it irks the hell out of me when people say they shoud get rid of the Master Emerald or ignore it just so Knux can be more active with Sonic as opposed to being his own character and using the ME to further develop him. But I recognize that such is specifically for those continuities that have that element - I don't make that same fuss for continuities like Boom or the OVA for thr very reason that their in alternative settings, and as a result, the lack of such isn't that big an ordeal with me than it would be in the settings where it is present. And despite my love for that major aspect, if it isn't present in that continuity, I can find something else to like of the character such as him being more of an explorer in the OVA. Likewise, I can dislike things about the character separate from him, like his flanderized stupidity in Boom. But if that thing is present, I'd prefer it not ignored or thrown away.

Basically, that one trait is just one trait - it's a part of the character, not their whole.

[Dr. Detective]

10 hours ago, Soniman said:

 

I never had a problem with Sonic being Kingdom bound at all because I knew that Archie wasn't 1:1 translation of the games obviously , nor did I think the Sonic's vagabond nature being down played meant he was an entirely different character (really his drifter nature is a secondary characteristic to me, not absolutely vital). 

So no, I'm not 

Some people have entirely different views on the character. That's understandable considering how inconsistent he is most of the time from medium to medium. One of the reasons I'm enjoying the reboot so much more then the issues before it is straight up because a lot of that kingdom bound stuff was lost. A lot of it did make it so that the scrappy, adventurous nature of the self-imposed fun escapades that Sonic, Tails, and whoever the adventure just so happened to allow them to run into was lost for me. I was always more a fan of that then the more governmental, military feel the comics had before. It's still around today with the Sky Patrol and I honestly still don't like it or the Freedom Fighters system but I've come to realize that's it's a compromise I'll have to get used to for the sake of reading comics that actually make good use of my favorite characters.

I thought I wasn't going to care about the current Knuckles and Amy SU Arc because I knew a Chaotix arc was around the corner but reading it just made me realize how little kid me would be bouncing off the walls seeing Amy, Knuckles, and Team Dark on an adventure together in the pages of a comic. I wish I could go back in time and give these issues to him.

[goku262002]

So Ian posted these tweets just alittle bit ago, I'll quote them all but you can check his twitter feed:

Quote

Secret Project #1: Not so secret since lots of folks got teased on it, but it's still not officially announced. Psyched to make it official!

Secret Project #2:1st draft outlines are in for approvals. Crazy hyped to be part of it and hope I can talk more on it soon.

Secret Project #3: Finally finished the rough outline for the whole thing. 1st arc needs revision. This thing is going to be a BEAST.

Secret Project #4: First arc is ready to go. Just need to sit down and write it. Other work comes first, tho'.

Secret Project #5-6: Sorta on the back-burner or now. Almost like I'm busy or something.

~~~~~~~~~~

Sonic Projects: Y'all are gearing up for "Panic in the Sky," but I'm already plotting to STH#300 and SU#100. Got some fun stuff planned!

~~~~~~~~~~

Potential Secret Projects #1-2: Cross your fingers! I'm really hoping these fall into place.

I asked about LHT but all I got was the link to blog post from back in march, so I guess thats still in limbo.

[Dejimon11]

*crosses figures that Mega Man is coming back* hahahaha oh who am I kidding? 

[goku262002]

Just now, Dejimon11 said:

*crosses figures that Mega Man is coming back* hahahaha oh who am I kidding? 

Same but not allot of hope in that. =\

[Heckboy]

I have a feeling "Secret Project #1" is in reference to this:

No idea about the others though.

[goku262002]

Secret Project #3 and 4 are most likely the next Universe and main comic Sonic arcs. have no idea what Secret Project #2 could be.

[Heckboy]

He said this a few days ago:

New comic perhaps?

[goku262002]

Whelp fuck what I just said:

Quote

*looks up* Oh, and 99% of all that was original projects or non-Archie. #knowingsmile *dives back into Word*

 

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

56 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Which is pretty much why I harped about Knuckles not being a guardian in certain other continuities, and why I'd expect those same people to make the same fuss about that like they would for Sonic. But that one trait not being there is in no way as big detriment as some would make it out to be, especially in cases when we have alternate settings because with that comes alternate rules.

A lot of your arguments honestly don't make sense to me, and this is an example of such. I don't understand how you can claim that one trait not being there isn't a big detriment as if it's some objective thing, when it very clearly is a matter of opinion. The reasoning behind it just doesn't make sense to me. You seem to be claiming that, as long as you deem a trait to not be inherent to a character, which, as far as I can tell, seems to be defined by whether or not they have always been depicted with that trait, you don't have any basis to be displeased by the character not being depicted with that trait. And I...don't get this, because that's not how opinions work. At all. And I don't think you can just hide behind "alternate continuities".

Different continuity or not, Archie Sonic is still ultimately based on and derived from the games. Are people not allowed to be displeased in any instance when an adaptation goes against the source material just because it's an alternate continuity? I understand the principle of alternate continuities, that they can have changes relative to the media they're based on and that that's not inherently bad, but that doesn't mean that people have to be content with these differences just because they're not in the same canon as the source material, and certainly not just because other pieces of alternate continuity media have also implemented similar changes. I mean, part of the point of an endeavor like Archie Sonic is to be, well, a comic about Sonic the Hedgehog, a video game character in origin (and incidentally, that's still the primary, most important piece of Sonic media to this day). If not all of the character traits of that video game character are preserved, why don't people have a right to be dissatisfied? I mean, what? Shall we declare that no one can even be bothered by a superhero movie or TV show making major changes to a character just because "it's an alternate continuity"? That's just silly. Even if it's an alternate continuity and they're "allowed" to be different, that doesn't in any way mean people are obligated to accept or embrace the differences. Part of the reason people like adaptations is to see a character they love in a different medium. If they take away something they loved about the character, of course they have a right to be unhappy. You can't unanimously declare it's "in no way a big detriment" as though it's not allowed to bother anyone just because the character hasn't always been depicted with that character trait in every piece of media they've ever been seen in, or whatever your reasoning is. I just don't see the logic.

It honestly seems like you have a weirdly skewed view of opinions. Whether a certain trait of a certain character is crucial to who they are isn't really something that can be calculated objectively, so that a person can declare that it's not a big deal if it's missing. People enjoy characters for different reasons, and I don't think I can emphasize that point too strongly. Just because you judge it as not being an essential, inescapable aspect of the character doesn't mean it can't be extremely important to someone else.

[Meta77]

46 minutes ago, Mister X said:

He said this a few days ago:

New comic perhaps?

Street Fighter? Since capcom and sega seem to be somewhat buddy buddy just a little.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

1 hour ago, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

A lot of your arguments honestly don't make sense to me, and this is an example of such. I don't understand how you can claim that one trait not being there isn't a big detriment as if it's some objective thing, when it very clearly is a matter of opinion. The reasoning behind it just doesn't make sense to me. You seem to be claiming that, as long as you deem a trait to not be inherent to a character, which, as far as I can tell, seems to be defined by whether or not they have always been depicted with that trait, you don't have any basis to be displeased by the character not being depicted with that trait. And I...don't get this, because that's not how opinions work. At all. And I don't think you can just hide behind "alternate continuities".

Then you're completely missing the entire point. I'm saying a character isn't defined by a single trait, they're defined by multiple ones coalesced together and not all of them are set in stone. And I say that one trait being missing isn't that big a detriment because people like that character for more than just one thing. People can have whatever basis they want to be displeased by a character - they've done just that over the case of Knuckles's Boom counterpart. But a single trait of that character doesn't make up the entire reason why one likes them. That's looking at a three dimensional character in nothing more than one dimension and ignoring everything else about them.

One single trait isn't the only thing that makes up that character to the point that it not being there is a detriment that makes them less of that character . If that were the case people wouldn't be forgiving of changes in other alternate continuities like the OVA or (much more divisively) Boom. 

For instance, Knuckles isn't a guardian of the Master Emerald (i.e. A single trait of the character) in either one of those settings. But he's not "less Knuckles" because of that, he's a different one - one you may or may not like as much as the other. He's more an explorer in the OVA (which is almost an inversion compared to Sonic in that setting) and more the generic doofus in Boom, with little even closely relating to the games counterpart. Yet the OVA version sits well with others despite that omission - hell, I like that version despite it those massive changes. Meanwhile, the Boom counterpart is more divisive because some don't like how his lesser intelligence is flanderised to the point he's an outright moron as opposed to being guillible yet not stupid. And even when people complain about the character in Boom, it has nothing to do with him being a guardian that it is the whole of that character.

Quote

It honestly seems like you have a weirdly skewed view of opinions. Whether a certain trait of a certain character is crucial to who they are isn't really something that can be calculated objectively, so that a person can declare that it's not a big deal if it's missing. People enjoy characters for different reasons, and I don't think I can emphasize that point too strongly. Just because you judge it as not being an essential, inescapable aspect of the character doesn't mean it can't be extremely important to someone else.

Then you honestly don't really know me all that well, because my point doesn't have anything to do with how I view people's opinions on a character or how it isn't something that might be extremely important to someone else (and after I just made an example of how the Master Emerald was something extremely important to me? Really). So I'll kindly ask you to drop that strawman.

Again, not every aspect is set in stone. The various alternate continuities are proof of that, and it has nothing to do with what I think about them.

[Sean]

You're trying to claim that a single trait isn't a big deal when really, it's not a big deal to you. And it's not fair to hold a character's merit to how many traits they possess over the quality of said traits; you're implying like all character traits are equal and the faithfulness to the original source relies on how many bullet points it hits, when judging by a lot of people's problems with how certain games portray the characters, that's not always going to be the case. For instance, taking away Knuckles's status as guardian probably is a bigger deal than taking away his penchant for chuckling in S3K. More people are going to have a problem with the omission of certain traits over others. 

It's ridiculous how you're picking this hill to die on and get defensive over, especially after MDS pointed out that evaluating the weight of Sonic's status as a vagabond is legitimate. You're just spouting a bunch of subjectivity and expecting others to adhere to your (historically vague) standards on how you perceive media. Some people aren't going to like Sonic being tied down to a group anymore than they are going to like Knuckles not being a guardian in certain continuities. Ultimately you're just getting annoyed at people having an opinion. Seriously, the fuck are you going to do about it?

[Meta77]

How much longer do you all think the current comic can keep going. I mean after all all comics after some time become stale right?

[Soniman]

3 minutes ago, Meta77 said:

How much longer do you all think the current comic can keep going. I mean after all all comics after some time become stale right?

if archie sonic can survive shit like this

hes good for awhile

 

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

2 hours ago, Sean said:

You're trying to claim that a single trait isn't a big deal when really, it's not a big deal to you.

Not really. It has nothing to do with how big a deal I think about that single trait.

Quote

And it's not fair to hold a character's merit to how many traits they possess over the quality of said traits; you're implying like all character traits are equal and the faithfulness to the original source relies on how many bullet points it hits, when judging by a lot of people's problems with how certain games portray the characters, that's not always going to be the case. For instance, taking away Knuckles's status as guardian probably is a bigger deal than taking away his penchant for chuckling in S3K. More people are going to have a problem with the omission of certain traits over others. 

I don't see how in the world I implied that when I gave examples that were completely unfaithful to the original source where people had a fondess or distaste of one or the other. I was saying people like those characters for the sum of all their traits put together, so that the loss of one might not be that big a deal breaker when the others make up for it or they bring something new to work with it . And I think that's one of many reasons why people have issues with certain character portrayals alongside flanderizing their more obvious traits, like how they did Shadow in Boom. People like Shadow for his powerful abilities, gruff exterior, tragic backstory, and his sympathetic qualities and desire to right wrongs, but Boom took out the last two parts and gave nothing in return to make up for them, so he became a two-dimensional asshole.

And like I said earlier with Knuckles, they did just that by taking away his role as a guardian in the OVA. But they made up for it by giving him that sweet hat exchanging that trait with him being more of a wandering friend who comes out to help Sonic when he needed it. And as a result, hardly anyone made a fuss over that portrayal, where as they raised more of a fuss because they didn't give anything to make up for his portrayal in Boom where he was nothing more than dumb muscle - although some argue that the comedy he's in makes him a lot more entertaining than his game counterpart which they find more bland and boring, so I guess there's something out of it for others.

No, not every trait is equal to each other or faithful to the source, but again, some are more mutable to be exchanged for something else. And as someone who has a problem with the omission of Knuckles being a guardian, even I recognize that that trait is one of them given the OVA example.

Quote

It's ridiculous how you're picking this hill to die on and get defensive over, especially after MDS pointed out that evaluating the weight of Sonic's status as a vagabond is legitimate. You're just spouting a bunch of subjectivity and expecting others to adhere to your (historically vague) standards on how you perceive media. Some people aren't going to like Sonic being tied down to a group anymore than they are going to like Knuckles not being a guardian in certain continuities.

Okay, and? Nothing wrong with that.  Again, they can have whatever basis they have towards disliking a character, and I don't expect them to like it anymore than me or someone else would. But some people can find value in other things about Sonic despite being tied down to a group such as him having something close to him worth fighting for, or Knuckles not being a guardian like him being more free to explore the world - or not, in which case it's not their fancy.

 

Quote

Ultimately you're just getting annoyed at people having an opinion. Seriously, the fuck are you going to do about it?

Lol, no I'm not actually. You're putting words in my mouth. If anything I'd be getting more annoyed that people are misconstruing what I'm saying, because all I'm saying is how such traits aren't set in stone and can change for something else.

And what I'm going do towards people's opinions is debate about them like I always do, letting them know that, hey, it's a different setting so somethings will change between the two to make something work, even if I'm not fond of it myself. Because having an opinion doesn't mean it can't be challenged.

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

What the heck? I know this may sound silly, but I don't understand it, CSS. I don't get it. What are you even trying to say? What are you trying to prove? What's the point? No one's saying you can't like Sonic being "tied down". No one's saying that has no merit. All I'm saying and all Sean's saying is that it's legitimate to be upset about Sonic's character trait of being a wanderer being removed. Why the heck does it matter that it's just one character trait, as you keep emphasizing over and over again? The mere fact that Sonic has other elements to his character doesn't mean that a person can't find one individual element important. I like our family dog, Cookie, because she's furry, sweet, and pretty, among other things. The mere fact that I like her for multiple things doesn't mean that I don't care about the individual traits or would be OK with them being replaced, even if what they were being replaced with was something enjoyable too. Like, if Cookie became scaly instead of furry, I wouldn't be OK with that just because it's also pretty cool (I mean, a scaly dog, just imagine it, pretty awesome), because I like Cookie for her furriness. It's not the number one thing I like about her, it's not the core of who she is, but you know what? It's still a part of her, and I still care about it. And if I got a stuffed animal of Cookie, I would rather it be furry than scaly because that's more representative of who she is in real life and a trait I like about her, just like I might want a comic of Sonic to have him be a wanderer rather than a tied-down sort of guy because that's more representative of who he is in the video games and a trait I like about him.

Like, yeah, Sonic has other traits other than being a wanderer. That literally has no bearing on whether or not him being a wanderer is an important part of him, especially since I'm not ever implying that it's objectively important or something, just something that some people consider to be important about him.

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

I don't see how I implied that. I was saying people like those characters for the sum of all their traits put together, so that the loss of one might not be that big a deal breaker when the others make up for it or they bring something new to work with it and make up for it.

Yeah, the key word is MIGHT, man. It might do that for some people (e.g. you), but not for others. No one is going to argue that the loss of one trait in a character MIGHT not be a big deal. If that was actually your argument from the beginning, there would obviously be nothing for us to argue about. Instead, what you've seemed to be arguing all this time is that Sonic being a wanderer can't be considered an important part of his character, or something like that. At least, that's the implications of what you've been saying this whole time. You might say I'm putting words in your mouth, but the point is, just because you don't directly say something doesn't mean people are "putting words in your mouth" for finding the implications of what you say (implications that it's possible you might not even realize at times). You keep going on and on about how Sonic isn't any less "Sonic" because of the loss of this one character trait, but you know what? For some people, he is. Maybe he's not completely "not Sonic" because of this one change, but that doesn't mean he can't be less of a representation of what people love about the character. Because yes, characters are made up of a SUM of character traits, but obviously, if you remove something from that sum, the collective whole isn't the same.

You seem to be insisting that exchanging one character trait for another isn't a big deal, when in reality, to some people it is, and the fact that other character traits are more important, or that the character trait it's replaced with is also good in some ways (in YOUR opinion at least), doesn't change that one whit. And that's not even addressing the fact that you haven't brought up any basis for Sonic being a wanderer not being a very important trait other than the fact that he hasn't always been depicted that way, but as far as the reasons people value Sonic are concerned, that matters not one iota. There is literally no reason why a person cannot consider a character trait a character is only sometimes depicted as having as being important to their personal enjoyment of the character. 

At the end of the day, I'm sorry - I can't see what you're arguing for other than that people shouldn't consider "being a wanderer" to be an important trait of Sonic's character, when in reality, this is clearly a subjective thing. For some people, being dark and brooding is important to Batman's character, but he certainly hasn't always been depicted that way. Even if Batman being happy and positive can also be interesting, that doesn't mean that people can't care about him being dark and brooding and consider it to be important to their enjoyment of him. And does it matter that Batman has other character traits, such as being a good detective, a good fighter, a crusader of justice, having dead parents, etc. that don't change? No.

At the end of the day, it really does feel that you just don't like people having a different opinion than you. You don't consider Sonic being a wanderer to be important, or at least consider what it's being exchanged for to be a good replacement to the extent that you don't mind it being gone. But other people do, and there's no way you can claim that they're wrong, because how important a character trait is in an individual's perception is not necessarily changed at all by the fact that they have other character traits, or that they don't always have that character trait. And the mere fact that that character trait is being replaced by another character trait that can also be considered good in some ways, by some people, also does not change that.

And with that, I'm done. I'm not going to participate in this argument anymore unless or until I become convinced that you're not just arguing that people shouldn't view Sonic being a vagabond as important, that others' subjective views are inferior to yours for no reason, or something like that. Because if that's what you're arguing, it's frankly not a perspective worth arguing with. And if it's not what you're arguing, I don't know what you're arguing and really need you to enlighten me.

If all you're arguing is that your own opinion is legitimate, then screw me. I would never argue against that at all - no one would. But if that's so, you sure have a bizarre way of presenting your arguments for that case.

[Shadowlax]

3 hours ago, Meta77 said:

How much longer do you all think the current comic can keep going. I mean after all all comics after some time become stale right?

Untill sega goes to idw I guess.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

3 hours ago, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

What the heck? I know this may sound silly, but I don't understand it, CSS. I don't get it. What are you even trying to say? What are you trying to prove? What's the point?

Okay, this is what I've been saying the entire time:

9 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

 

I never said that such and such trait can't be important, I'm saying that such trait isn't as set-in-stone as others that are, and as a result are far more mutable to be exchanged for something else that might equally benefit the character.

I said this much at the very beginning, and this simply means that these traits are not fixed or unchanging compared to others and might be traded for something equally beneficial to that character. That is literally it - nothing more, nothing less. So when I say that Sonic being a vagabond is not set in stone, I'm not saying anything about:

• a trait not being inherent to a character
• someone not being allowed to be displeased or bothered by the changes
• how these aspects can't be important to someone else or the character
• a character's merit to the number of traits vs the quality of their traits
• which trait is legitimate or not
• how people should adhere to my standards of perceiving media
• how being an alternate continuity is a shield against criticism
• how people should be content with the changes
• or how objectively important it is
• that people are "wrong" for having a different opinion than me (seriously?)

And so forth. I'm saying, it isn't a fixed, unchanging part of him. So regardless of whether you or anyone else likes or finds that important about him compared to those who don't care about it, it doesn't make your preferences anymore or less legitimate than the others, but nonetheless that is completely besides the point I'm emphasizing.

You guys keep talking about what I'm implying, which frankly if I was then I would have flat out confirmed whether you were right about them the moment you brought it up as opposed to arguing against them. All of those are implications you guys have been reading out of nowhere that I've been saying isn't the case as tried to explain my point with the examples I gave. Like I've been saying with Knuckles being a guardian - there have been two cases where that major trait of his has been thrown out, yet one of those cases was praised regardless (or otherwise given no flak) and the other caused a massive stir.

You're saying that the mere fact that Sonic has other elements to his character doesn't mean that a person can't find one individual element important. And I'm saying, yeah I know that, I have such feelings myself, but there could be something else makes up for it - I for instance find that Master Emerald to perhaps the single most important aspect about Knuckles given what it's connected to, but in cases like the OVA where it's completely omitted there's something that makes up for that loss as opposed to Boom which doesn't.

Really, things are a lot more flexible than you guys are making it out to be, whether any of us likes it or not - and you guys seem more inclined to pick a side in a way that comes off as dogmatic, and takes issue with me being more open-minded (or "historically vague" as Sean put it) about the point when I consider all sides outside my own opinions, which is what I think might be the issue of why you're don't seem to understand me because I'm not looking at this entire thing from just my opinion alone like you guys are. The collective whole not being the same was my point from the very beginning, that yes it's not going to be the same, but that doesn't make it "less" than it does "different" - and whether someone likes that difference or not isn't something I take issue with so long as they recognize it's an alternate setting - and no where have I been saying they should like or be content with said differences if it doesn't suit them.

Absolutely nowhere did I say that Sonic being a vagabond isn't a legitimate point, and I'm outright insulted you would even think I'm saying that people's subjective views are inferior or "wrong" to mine. Yeah, my own opinion is legitimate, so is everyone elses, and I really cannot understand how anyone can read the statement that "some traits aren't set in stone" as something that means I'm annoyed of people having a different opinion, how that bizarrely de-legitimizes someone's opinion, or that something is unimportant to someone when I flat out applied that very argument on myself (more than once) with Knuckles. To put it mildly, sometimes I don't see the value in picking a side over which one I prefer when I find it more flexible to look at them all and work with them from there, because I do think both sides can have points worth considering at times, with this being one of them.

[Mauro Fonseca]

16 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Regardless of whether it's inherent or not that a character must stay in one place - which while true it doesn't dictate that they should -  the point remains that Sonic isn't any less "Sonic" just because he stayed put in a kingdom more than he did adventuring around. That isn't a set-in-stone trait of his given the many other variations the character has had throughout his entire 25 year history, and if people want to talk about how it's less Sonic for him to not explore, I'd expect these same people to raise as much of a stink over how it's less Knuckles for him not staying put as a guardian in similar cases like Boom or the OVA.

I wasn't talking about whether Sonic should be a wanderer or not, I was talking about Soniman's implication that he had to stop being one because comics can't support wandering stories. I wasn't talking continuity, adaptations, or anything, I was saying Soniman was limiting what comics as a medium can do for no reason. I specifically said I didn't want to get into the "Sonic must be like this" discussion again.