Which criticisms towards the series do you disagree with?

[Chaosmaster8753]

Seeing how the 'net is full of folks who bring up common criticisms towards Sonic, I wanna know if there are any that you don't agree with and why?

[CanofEpicSauce]

The fact Sonic is taller and has green eyes.

[Diogenes]

Mostly the ones that insist that Sonic can't survive unless we turn everything back to the way it was in 1994. Whining about his design, insisting we kill off the extended cast except for Tails and Knuckles, complaining that the games have stories, etc etc. We're all aware of how the series has fucked up in the last decade, but most of this is just cowardly head-in-the-sand bullshit.

[Phos]

"Sega should have Nintendo develop Sonic games" - What these people really mean is Miyamoto should direct Sonic games, which in reality would basically entail Miyamoto giving them some vague advice like about how many levels they should include or something and then go do whatever he was doing before Sega called. He'd probably come back in like nine months because his contract says he has to stamp his name on it or something. Yeah, Miyamoto making a Sonic game isn't going to happen.

I could bring up something about the "Sonic is all about speed" or whatnot, but I feel like that horse died long ago. I will say that the speed mostly serves as a means to allow other mechanics to work, rather than a mechanic in and of itself.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

"Sonic sucked ever since Sonic Adventure 1" - you know that's a lie most of the time.

"Sonic sucked since he went 3D" - not really any different from the previous mention.

"Sonic needs to kill off everyone but Tails and Knuckles, because they sux" - so do Tails and Knuckles, son. I suppose we should kill those two off too.

"Sonic's all about speed" - I disagree in it being all about speed.

"Sonic doesn't need a story" - he also doesn't need to run, if we wanted to be an ass about these things.

"It's Robotnik! Eggman's a stupid name." - do I really need to point out how stupid this is?

That's about all I can think of from the top of my head. Honestly, over time, this kind of stuff turns in to some good comedic gold when you confront these people with the actual problems as opposed to the stuff they're scapegoating. But apparently people don't even apply much reason and if it sucks one time, it sucks forever and needs to die. No wonder folks say video games can rot the mind.

[Darth Sonikku]

When people start complaining about Sonic games before they are even released (ala Sonic 4).

Honestly. Ten seconds of footage and many sonic fans start freaking out. Sonic Rush 3. Green Eyes. And other criticisms as well.

This is why I wait for a game to be released and play it myself before I judge a game.

[LimeTH]

Honestly. Ten Three seconds of footage and many sonic fans start freaking out. Sonic Rush 3. Green Eyes. And other criticisms as well.

Fixed it for ya.

I'm getting sick of the whole "SAWNIK SUX SENZ HE WENT THREEDEE" crap. Really, read any article that has anything remotley related to Sonic, they're sure to mention how "Sonic's gone downhill nowadays" or stuff about "Shitty friends". Review upon review with the first two paragraphs being an overexaggerated summary of the past decade and how much it blew and this random shooter game is so much better blahblahblah sawnik shud dai. It's really getting old.

Also the Eggman/Robotnik thing. Is that still going on? I thought that was resovled a while ago...

[123654]

"Sonic sucked ever since Sonic Adventure 1" - you know that's a lie most of the time.

"Sonic sucked since he went 3D" - not really any different from the previous mention.

"Sonic needs to kill off everyone but Tails and Knuckles, because they sux" - so do Tails and Knuckles, son. I suppose we should kill those two off too.

"Sonic's all about speed" - I disagree in it being all about speed.

"Sonic doesn't need a story" - he also doesn't need to run, if we wanted to be an ass about these things.

"It's Robotnik! Eggman's a stupid name." - do I really need to point out how stupid this is?

That's about all I can think of from the top of my head. Honestly, over time, this kind of stuff turns in to some good comedic gold when you confront these people with the actual problems as opposed to the stuff they're scapegoating. But apparently people don't even apply much reason and if it sucks one time, it sucks forever and needs to die. No wonder folks say video games can rot the mind.

Pretty much everything you said. Especially the Robotnik/Eggman thing. It pains me that there are still people who don't understand that situation by now.

One particular one I love is when the first item on a list of things that will (supposedly) instantly fix the series is "Bring back Ryan Drummond!" Seriously. Drummond was not that good of a voice actor. In fact, I didn't like him at all. His departure had nothing to do with the drop in the series' quality at all and bringing him back would be little more than pandering, not fixing any substantial objective issues.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Also the Eggman/Robotnik thing. Is that still going on? I thought that was resovled a while ago...

Eh, it pops up every now and then. Believe it or not, it still hasn't gotten through many people's heads.

One particular one I love is when the first item on a list of things that will (supposedly) instantly fix the series is "Bring back Ryan Drummond!" Seriously. Drummond was not that good of a voice actor. In fact, I didn't like him at all. His departure had nothing to do with the drop in the series' quality at all and bringing him back would be little more than pandering, not fixing any substantial objective issues.

Relax, we got freaking Chris Redfield Ezio Auditore Roger C. Smith. A guy with works such as his is much better than the previous VAs.

[Mangoaxe5]

I disagree when people say that there are too many characters.

I disagree when people say that every character should play the same as Sonic.

I disagree when people say that Sonic can't have serious storylines.

[123654]

Oh yeah, saying the games shouldn't have a story is especially grating. Even the classic games had a story; it's just that they didn't have cutscenes or voice acting, so the plot was revealed in the manuals. There was a whole arc.

[Glenn]

I disagree with one of my own criticisms, namely that there's no greater insult to humanity than the ugly mess of a videogame entitled Shadow the Hedgehog. It was a knee-jerk reaction in the wake of Sonic Heroes, I was confused by a storyline I didn't understand and I had little patience. After properly sitting down, getting over my initial recoil and understanding the plot... yeah, I'll defend it. An interesting, unique spin on the franchise.

I'll also agree with many other answers people have given, including, but not limited to...

- Sonic doesn't need a story

- Sonic has too many friends cluttering his world

- Sonic videogames in 3D are all awful

- Sonic can't do serious

- Sonic has terrible Western voice actors

- Sonic fights Ivo Robotnik, not Doctor Eggman

- Sonic isn't as innovative as Mario

I also defend individual videogames in the series, especially the ones blasted by the majority of the fanbase. The aforementioned notwithstanding, I adore the throwaway, cheesy fun in Sonic Heroes. I can see the rich potential in Sonic the Hedgehog (2006). I quite enjoy relaxing on a Sunday afternoon with the slower-paced Werehog in Sonic Unleashed. I think one of the greatest racing games of all time is Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity.

That said, with particular attention given to the defence of individual videogames, opinion is opinion. If we were all identical, life would be bloody boring. I always respect others, especially if they give reason and justification for their thoughts. No offence intended.

[Blacklightning]

Not so much in the way of criticism, but the way in which budding critics feel necessary to state that issues should be fixed by removing everything relevant to it. While the criticism isn't usually unwarranted, this "addition by subtraction" bullshit is so pretentious and ass-backwards you'd think we were still living in the goddamned medieval ages. Where the storyline fails, they suggest not to hire better writers or simply to improve the story itself, but to remove all semblance of narrative whatsoever, reducing the games down to a shell containing only levels and enemies. Where the dialogue fails, they suggest not to hire better voice actors or to improve the script, but to render everything in the games completely mute, or at best, subtitled Banjo-Kazooie esque nonsense (right, because listening to random unchanging herpaderp noises is so much better than anything Jason can pump out ). Where the cast fails, they suggest not to improve their characterization or to balance their gameplay traits, but to remove every single one of them bar the essential two.

Does this fall under any definition of "fixing" a franchise? Well, look at it this way. Does a doctor cure illness by removing vital organs? Does a builder fix a wall by knocking down large parts of it? Does a forum poster fix their posts by deleting them? In some rare and extreme cases, yes. But most of the time, the situation isn't quite so extreme that a doctor can't prescribe some kind of drug, or a builder can't throw in some spare bricks and plaster, or a forum poster can't click the blatantly obvious "edit" button and retype only the parts that got messed up, and in that same light, there's absolutely no reason you can't fix a franchise by tweaking what's already there or adding on top of it, rather than tearing huge chunks out of it and claiming it's more than what it was before.

Similarly, in that it's another issue I have not inherent to a specific criticism, I absolutely despise it when these people somehow get exactly what they ask for and immediately go back on their word the second those same people see its fruits. Or worse still, continue to beg for these things in complete ignorance of the fact we've already had these things more or less granted, as if they can't handle the reality that these things don't singlehandedly make a game good. I'd like to think we have mostly the infamous SA3/S4 fiascos to demonstrate good cases in point, in that people keep fucking asking for them and plug their fingers in their ears if someone so much as hints at '06 or the actual named Sonic 4. Yes, we get it, you're not happy with the way they came out. Get the fuck over it. Asking for more of the same isn't helping.

If I had to name a specific criticsm that grates me, it'd have to be "because it's unlike the classics". Now in a game that's genuinely trying to be like a classic game this is a legitimate criticism, to be fair, but what a disturbingly large number of people fail to realize is that the comparison quickly becomes moot when the game is striving to be something completely different, to revolve around something that isn't purely slope physics and spindashes. It's bad enough that people underrate the likes of Unleashed and Colours for this reason, but when you see someone citing Sonic Riders of all things being bad on the basis that it's not enough like the classics you can't help but lose a little faith in humanity. Christ, does it really bother people THAT much that Sonic tries new things? There's always romhacks if you only wanted to play S3&K level packs for the rest of your gaming career.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Not so much in the way of criticism, but the way in which budding critics feel necessary to state that issues should be fixed by removing everything relevant to it. While the criticism isn't usually unwarranted, this "addition by subtraction" bullshit is so pretentious and ass-backwards you'd think we were still living in the goddamned medieval ages. Where the storyline fails, they suggest not to hire better writers or simply to improve the story itself, but to remove all semblance of narrative whatsoever, reducing the games down to a shell containing only levels and enemies. Where the dialogue fails, they suggest not to hire better voice actors or to improve the script, but to render everything in the games completely mute, or at best, subtitled Banjo-Kazooie esque nonsense (right, because listening to random unchanging herpaderp noises is so much better than anything Jason can pump out ). Where the cast fails, they suggest not to improve their characterization or to balance their gameplay traits, but to remove every single one of them bar the essential two.

Does this fall under any definition of "fixing" a franchise? Well, look at it this way. Does a doctor cure illness by removing vital organs? Does a builder fix a wall by knocking down large parts of it? Does a forum poster fix their posts by deleting them? In some rare and extreme cases, yes. But most of the time, the situation isn't quite so extreme that a doctor can't prescribe some kind of drug, or a builder can't throw in some spare bricks and plaster, or a forum poster can't click the blatantly obvious "edit" button and retype only the parts that got messed up, and in that same light, there's absolutely no reason you can't fix a franchise by tweaking what's already there or adding on top of it, rather than tearing huge chunks out of it and claiming it's more than what it was before.

Let's see if I can put this all in a sig.

It's definitely going on the list of "words of the wise".

Edited January 27, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Darth Sonikku]

There is one other thing I can't stand. And that's when people (Gameinformer and IGN)start comparing Sonic games to Mario games.

When Sonic Colors came out, some reviewers started comparing it as an attempt to copy Super Mario Galaxy.

Copy?

Does Sonic Colors have the same type of levels as SMG?

Does Sonic Colors have the same type of powerups as SMG?

Does Sonic Colors and SMG play exactly the same and have the same physics.

I don't know about you, but I think some of those reviewers called Sonic Colors a copycat of SMG simply because it takes place in outer space.

Hell, maybe we should just call Sonic Adventure 2 a copycat of SMG because SA2 has a bunch of levels that take place in outer space.

(I'm probably overreacting or not thinking clearly but comparing sonic games to mario games just doesn't sit well for me).

Also @LimeTH

Thanks for the fix.

[Dr. Crusher]

Apart from speed being everything (there needs to be just as much platforming) and killing off all characters (still hate Shadow, but I think most of them do have potential - unfortunately this common criticism has given Knuckles and Tails a sort-of backlash...), all that gets me is just all the articles about Sonic starting off with how he's been sucking the last few years. It doesn't matter if the review itself in question is overall positive or negative, they will remind you that SEGA's icon has failed miserably for a long time, always calling it out as if you have amnesia.

It doesn't anger me per say, because I suppose it's (mostly) true. Instead it makes me sad, and seeing no one let him off just reminds me that Sonic's become the joke of video games. And that makes me cry. It's even worse when the article, video games or not, isn't even about Sonic, yet I will guarantee you that there will be at least one little bash against the hedgehog. *sigh*

But for the most part, I'm too busy being more upset by the things that make me and the rest of the fanbase feel ashamed of themselves just for being Sonic fans. Things like Sonic Passion and all that.

[RootingForTheEmpire]

Protip: If anyone claims Colours is ripping off SMG purely for being set in space, kindly insert a foot up their ass remind them that Sonic levels have been set in space since the Genesis games.

[Vertekins]

People saying that Colours is a Mario Galaxy ripoff. Clearly they're so far up Mario's arse that they think that he pioneered practically everything including platform games set in space, orchestral soundtracks and, you know, actual power-ups in a videogame.

People who say that Sonic would be better off without a voice. Errr....NO. Sonic needed to talk in order to display brilliant characterisation of the like seen in SatBK and Unleashed. I'll give Sonic one thing., he's far far more charismatic than mute videogame characters because he's got a personality and he isn't afraid to show it unlike other faux videogame characters who's creators maintain that they don't talk because they're the players avatar and that they are who you alone think they are without speech spelling it out for you.

The SonicXElise shenanigans in '06. I agree with the dissenters who mention how awkward and badly done it was. But people wrongly assuming that it was beastiality. No it wasn't. End of story.

[batson]

I disagree with people who seem think that the Sonic series absolutely must keep producing 3D titles just for the sake of there being 3D titles. Sonic games should be fun and functional platform games, and if the people making the games are better at delivering that in 2D than in 3D, then i believe they should be allowed to focus on what they are good at. I hate it when people seem to think that making games in 2D automatically marks some kind of "regression", as in that the people making the games are "going backwards". 3D gameplay has no value on it's own (and neither do 2D gameplay, of course), the only thing that matters is how fun the games are.

On another note, i hate the old "the music in modern Sonic games sucks"-sentiment that reviewers always seem to hold. As far as i am concerned, music is the one aspect of the Sonic series that is almost consistently of good quality.

[Vec]

In my case:

-Kill everyone and leave Sonic, Tails, Knuckles and Robotnik (and sometimes they include Amy): A game or two with only these characters could be great at the beginning, but if you keep doing it always, it'd turn out very repetitive

-The reviewers that bash Tails for the sake of bashing

-Classic fans "in extremis" (Should bring back classic model, games should be in 2D, they should make like Megaman 9 but in 16-bit graphics, etc.)

-Give Sonic to X company

-They should give up with Sonic and let it die

-Reboot the franchise

THat's all I remember

[DarkLight]

-Accusations of the series ripping-off of Mario and make it seem like a bad thing.(Somehow I get a sense of bias stemming from this kind of thing.)

-Claims that the fanbase is universally unpleasable(I will say that is true to a degree, but I wouldn't say universal considering how big the fanbase is.)

-Not so much a criticism, but the term "true Sonic fan" being tossed around by fans and game reviewers.

Those are all I got.

[Dr. Crusher]

I disagree with people who seem think that the Sonic series absolutely must keep producing 3D titles just for the sake of there being 3D titles. Sonic games should be fun and functional platform games, and if the people making the games are better at delivering that in 2D than in 3D, then i believe they should be allowed to focus on what they are good at. I hate it when people seem to think that making games in 2D automatically marks some kind of "regression", as in that the people making the games are "going backwards". 3D gameplay has no value on it's own (and neither do 2D gameplay, of course), the only thing that matters is how fun the games are.

I'll agree with this. I'm not one of the people who go down the "3D Sonic = Automatically Rubbish" path, but it annoys me to no end when people refer to 2D, not just for the Sonic series mind you, as "classic" or "retro" regardless. It's as if they forget what any 2D game old or new is actually like, and they neglect the fun times of the games themselves.

I know they have to march on and evolve as Mario did, but that shouldn't mean that anything 2D is instantly 80s/90s.

-The reviewers that bash Tails for the sake of bashing

This too.

I realise this is less "Disagree with common criticism" and more of a traditional "Things I Hate", but it still pisses me off. Especially the jokes about him liking Sonic in more ways than one just because he's trying to help him save the f***ing world.

-Not so much a criticism, but the term "true Sonic fan" being tossed around by fans and game reviewers.

Oh yeah, and this.

I couldn't care less who's saying it. It could be a retro fanatic, it could be a modern fanatic, it could be someone who doesn't even look at the games and just the other media, it could even be a guy that's neutral - anyone who uses the term "True Sonic Fan" is in need of a slap.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Dr. Crusher

[Darth Sonikku]

-Accusations of the series ripping-off of Mario and make it seem like a bad thing.(Somehow I get a sense of bias stemming from this kind of thing.)

There's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from Mario games. Or any game series for that matter. Hell, Super Sonic and the Death StarDeath Egg take inspiration from DBZ and Star Wars respectively. Those aren't even game franchises. But I don't necessarily like it when people accuse a game of copying another game simply because of one or two factors. Especially when those said factors are obvious or minimal at best. i.e. The levels being in outer space, orchestral music, interacting with star peoplealiens from outer space, etc.

Come to think of it. Mario seems to have taken inspiration from Sonic in SMG2. Straaange, isn't it!?

Edited January 27, 2011 by Darth Sonikku

[ChikaBoing]

"Sonic sucked ever since Sonic Adventure 1" - you know that's a lie most of the time.

Why should it be a lie? It's their opinion, a justified and understandable one.

"Sonic sucked since he went 3D" - not really any different from the previous mention.

Again it's not really wrong to say that, 2d and 3d Sonic are very different from each other, so it's not guaranteed everyone will like 3d Sonic games when they like a 2d one.

"Sonic needs to kill off everyone but Tails and Knuckles, because they sux" - so do Tails and Knuckles, son. I suppose we should kill those two off too.

Knuckles and Tails are the most unique characters in appearance and abilities, after Sonic.They also are the least blunt variations from an already existing character as a base model. It's not just nostalgic reasoning to why they should be the only characters, they add the most to the gameplay as well.

"Sonic doesn't need a story" - he also doesn't need to run, if we wanted to be an ass about these things.

Speed and fast running is Sonic's unique and distinct feature that differentiates it and does different from other Videogames, and that's why people buy them for.Many other games that do story do it better, so why should people want a story from a Sonic game since it doesn't revolve around the concept what makes the Series unique,especially since Stories in a Sonic games never goot credit outside of the Fandom. It can add something but it's definitly not "needed".

That's about all I can think of from the top of my head. Honestly, over time, this kind of stuff turns in to some good comedic gold when you confront these people with the actual problems as opposed to the stuff they're scapegoating. But apparently people don't even apply much reason and if it sucks one time, it sucks forever and needs to die. No wonder folks say video games can rot the mind.

You sound like you are referring people outside of the fanbase or aren't really into the modern games. It's understandable if they sort of casually shout out these comments, it's not because they aren't aware of the actual problems. You can't really expect people who don't have any bias to Sonic to accept things that are mediocore to the general standards of the mainstream, like the Stories and several petty characters.

[123654]

It also annoys me when people say Colors ripped off Galaxy. I don't doubt that they took some inspiration from Galaxy with the setting (in fact I think it's less likely that they didn't) but that's not the same thing as a ripoff. A ripoff is plagiarism.