Sonic 4 episode 1 is PART OF Sonic 4 and My thoughts on Ep1

[Blacklightning]

Yes, it is an objectively bad thing about the game, and it does bother me although I still have fun with the game. Not to say I can't see why it does ruin the game for some people, of course. However, I've also known of people who weren't bothered by the lack of momentum and most (emphasis on "most", Hillary Goldstein) of them seem like reasonably intelligent, level-headed people. And, as I said to Riverstone, saying stuff like "something is seriously wrong with you if you disagree with me" just makes you come off as a douche.

To be honest, saying "nothing is wrong with this game because I still personally enjoy it" isn't really that much better. Remember, there do exist people who regard Sonic '06 as the best thing Sonic Team's ever made, but that doesn't make them right.

Personally, I got a lot of replay value just from repeat playthroughs. I, myself, don't think that it matters if a game is short as long as I find that it has the replay value to back it up, and Sonic 4 succeeded in that area in my opinion. Not to mention that you could really say the same thing about the amount of content Colors has (about 3-8 hours of gameplay for a single playthrough) when compared to its price (a full $50) even if it was a better game. This is subjective.

About the only thing Sonic 4 had to back up replay value was Chaos Emeralds and leaderboards, one of which is a brief, frustrating distraction for the most part (I've even known some people to clear all of them in the first playthrough anyway, so well...), and the other doesn't really hold any value to those not interested in competitive scoring. Colours, in addition to being a much longer and more enjoyable game overall, had a hell of a lot more collectibles to look for, a hell of a lot more alternate routes, rankings, unlockable levels and a multiplayer mode. I fail to see where the comparison draws merit, because there is 50 bucks worth of content and replayability in Colours.

Besides that, well, if you personally find less of a nuicance to replay the same game over and over, well, good for you. That's not what I'm discussing though. A game that is better objectively is bound to find more players who like it subjectively than one that isn't.

I rather liked that it had faster, more Rush-like sections alongside platforming. As I mentioned before, I see Sonic 4 as a marrying of old and new design conventions. (I will agree, however, that it shouldn't have been marketed as a sequel to the classics for this reason.)

That's not what I argued. I was saying that the pacing was terrible, and had a lot of stop-go-stop-go whenever the game suddenly decided to switch between the two. This isn't good level design. The line between the two was blurred at worst in most of the older 2D games, whereas in Sonic 4 it's either eventless running with boost pads and springs, or slow platforming sequences typically with little breathing room. The two never mix.

I suppose this is true to some extent. However, the fact that many levels revolved around different gimmicks (some of them new ones, I believe, like the cards in Casino Street Act 2, the torch in Lost Labyrinth Act 2, etc.) helped the game stay fresh for me and I never found myself feeling like it was a straight-up rehash. Still a subjective point.

Two points out of all the content in the game ain't saying much, and frankly they aren't even significant points. The cards are essentially interchangable with Casino Night slots, and the torch is essentially Lost World, neither with as much depth. What's interesting is that even though some of these gimmicks may appear new to the setting it's in, it's all still blatantly ripped off from other games I've played before and liked it better in (ziplines from Launch Base, crushing wall from Hydrocity, and so on). But why stop at level gimmicks? The level aesthetics, as already mentioned, are blatant copy/pastes. All of the Badniks are all stolen from those same acts, and all save for one of the bosses are identical too besides their pinch phases (and frankly, I'm pretty sure the boss gimmick for Lost Labrynth has been done before too but the exact context escapes me). This is supposed to be subjective? You literally can't deny that there was a lot of uninspired content in this game. I mean a LOT.

Assuming you're talking about the cannons in Casino Street Act 3, throughout much of the stage arrows actually pointed to where you needed to shoot Sonic, and even when they stopped, there was usually a trail of rings pointing you in the right direction. Also, I personally enjoyed using them. Subjective.

I was talking about the torch sections, actually. The cannons were obvious (albiet hindered by aformentioned physics issues), but it should go without saying that limiting your visibility radius in a game based around sheer speed of movement is generally not a good idea. Especially given it's still easily possible to collide with something nasty or fall off a death pit with unreasonably little notice without the damn level darkening on me sometimes

How on Earth is the soundtrack objectively bad? That's quite possibly the most subjective thing about the game.

Bad synth quality, for one thing. Kinda like how you could say the same about Sonic Battle's guitar synths, but honestly not that bad. The songs themselves are relatively short, which lends to repetivity when they loop several times (the last level would have to be the outlier and worst offender - is that melody even ten seconds long?). I'm not just saying the music's shit because it doesn't appeal to me personally. That would be silly.

You found Sonic 4: Episode I to be crappy and believe that those who would say otherwise are wrong based on what you believe to be objective facts. I found Sonic 4: Episode I to be 1500 Wii Points well spent and I consider the opinions of those who disagree with me just as valid as my own as long as they can explain why they disagree. I believe you do so well, but you present your opinions as objective facts when I simply cannot see how they are (aside from the broken physics), and saying that something is wrong with me or that I have horrible taste for thinking the way I do isn't going to do any more to make me see that your opinions are fact.

I'm not trying to say something's wrong with you for finding Sonic 4 enjoyable regardless. By all means, enjoy yourself. You just shouldn't expect people to enjoy games based on the same merits, least of all when it's based on facts that don't exactly twist.

Sonic 4 has poor content-to-price ratio. This is a fact.

Sonic 4 has very little original content of its own besides the level layouts and boss pinch phases. This is a fact.

Sonic 4 has bad level design. This is debatable, and I wouldn't mind that had any actual counterpoints been made.

Way to undermine yourself dude. Just because you didn't like the concept behind the Torch doesn't mean you can push aside its implementation as nothing. You would be hard pressed to find another stage exactly like World of Darkness (Sandopolis 2 is as close as I can get - but the light source there was universal).

Lost World, Sonic Adventure 1. And frankly, it was just as counterintuitive back then as it is right now. Also, Lost Ark, Sonic Adventure 2, as well as your Sandopolis example, although at least those two had the common sense not to reduce your actual visibility to the same flow-breaking extent as WoD. About the only thing Sonic 4 has on it is the TNT boxes, but I don't really know that many people who would appreciate having to look for a fuse in the dark and wait several seconds for it to blow something up. Honestly, a switch would've worked better. And frankly, that "light torches to extend bridges and stuff" puzzle can go fuck itself for all I care.

I'll admit it was just off the top of my head, but all the same, the amount of practically stolen content in this game is pretty staggering. I can't be blamed for not wanting to list every individual way it has done so.

I loved the game, I also didnt take it TOO seriously considering it was the first episode and I really feel like part of the reason it was made was for feedback.

Surely Dimps isn't so short-staffed that they need to release a buggy, substandard game at full price to know where to go next? We shouldn't have to be fucking unpaid beta testers just for them to figure that out.

EDIT: Oh christ so many typos. I hope that's all of them.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Blacklightning

[Saint Nathan]

If one third of a game is bad, then that's generally considered a shit game. One third is a really huge amount of game.

just throwing that out there

I liked S4E1... well enough. It was fun, but quite a bit of it was horrible. If all the Episodes are like that, then its going to be utter shit.

[TheDanimator]

@Blacklightning

You acted like he said this...

"nothing is wrong with this game because I still personally enjoy it"

He NEVER SAID, nothing is wrong with the game...where did you get that idea?

"there do exist people who regard Sonic '06 as the best thing Sonic Team's ever made, but that doesn't make them right."

Lets say someone played EVERY sonic game Sonic Team made and still said that about Sonic 06.

That doesnt make them WRONG either.

Because thats a matter of opinion.

As much as I dislike Sonic 06, if someone thinks its the best game then they think its the best game. They are right, To themselves at least.

"Colours, in addition to being a much longer and more enjoyable game overall"

Enjoyable is opinion, not fact.

For whatever reason, I actually go back and play Sonic 4 episode 1 more than Sonic Colors.

"that the pacing was terrible"

OPINION not fact, once again.

Also, you act like the game ripped SO MUCH off of other games, I would personally use the words "inspired by other games" to describe it. If you think about it, basically every game to ever exist has ripped off TONS of other games.

"Let's not even get started about the repetitive, bland synth crap that goes on in all the music in this game. Ugh."

By saying this you are saying THIS IS WHAT THE MUSIC IS TO ALL PEOPLE!

Im starting to get really repetitive but I really just think more people need to get into a habit of saying what is opinion and what isnt.

"Sonic 4 has poor content-to-price ratio. This is a fact."

OPINION.

"Surely Dimps isn't so short-staffed that they need to release a buggy, substandard game at full price to know where to go next? We shouldn't have to be fucking unpaid beta testers just for them to figure that out."

Yes you are right, dimps should of gotten more feedback before releasing the first episode.

I dont think dimps takes Sonic as seriously as many of the fans do, I truly think they thought no one would notice the physics changes and stuff.

[Tobbii]

If one third of a game is bad, then that's generally considered a shit game. One third is a really huge amount of game.

just throwing that out there

Yet whenever I say "I don't find World of Warcraft fun" my friends tells me "That's because you need to get to level *whateveristhehighestnow* first!".

[Blacklightning]

He NEVER SAID, nothing is wrong with the game...where did you get that idea?

[Flyboy Fox]

Oookay guys, this is going from heated to personal and flame-y now, on both sides. I'm starting to get reports in about how this is escalating, so could we all try to tone it down a bit and discuss things civilly without snarking and getting abusive at each other? Yes? Yes. Thank you (:

[TheDanimator]

Oookay guys, this is going from heated to personal and flame-y now, on both sides. I'm starting to get reports in about how this is escalating, so could we all try to tone it down a bit and discuss things civilly without snarking and getting abusive at each other? Yes? Yes. Thank you (:

Can you please tell me what I personally have said that is heated and/or flamy?

I am re reading what I have said and I am having trouble finding anything that i personally feel fits that description.

Edited June 16, 2011 by TheDanimator

[Sega DogTagz]

Lost World, Sonic Adventure 1. And frankly, it was just as counterintuitive back then as it is right now. Also, Lost Ark, Sonic Adventure 2, as well as your Sandopolis example, although at least those two had the common sense not to reduce your actual visibility to the same flow-breaking extent as WoD. About the only thing Sonic 4 has on it is the TNT boxes, but I don't really know that many people who would appreciate having to look for a fuse in the dark and wait several seconds for it to blow something up. Honestly, a switch would've worked better. And frankly, that "light torches to extend bridges and stuff" puzzle can go fuck itself for all I care.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Sega DogTagz

[T-Min]

Oookay guys, this is going from heated to personal and flame-y now, on both sides. I'm starting to get reports in about how this is escalating, so could we all try to tone it down a bit and discuss things civilly without snarking and getting abusive at each other? Yes? Yes. Thank you (:

[ChikaBoing]

If one third of a game is bad, then that's generally considered a shit game. One third is a really huge amount of game.

just throwing that out there

SA2?

[Blacklightning]

None of those stages actually feature portable light sources (correct me if I am mistaken, but the SA2 stage you are referring to is Eggman's Lost Colony stage right?)

But they nonetheless suffer from the same problems as the ones specified, especially Lost World, hence the comparison. It essentially forces you to slow down practically for the sake of slowing you down (well, technically you could try to speedrun it anyway, but anyone who's ever driven at 120kph in pitch black with only headlights to go by will attest that it is completely suicidal), which is more where my point lies. To be honest I'd compare it to painting with excrement - it's original, sure, but you're still looking at a piece of shit on canvas.

I should probably make a seperate thread for this.

Also if you have that much of a problem with running in the dark, then light a Chaos Emerald fire under Sonic's tail and the whole cavern will light up like the 4th of July.

Has anyone ever gotten all the Chaos Emeralds prior to that level? Is it even possible?

I still don't see how a lot of the things you've mentioned are objectively bad

My problem was moreso that people seemed to completely misinterpret the definition of "objective" as "factual", because for some reason it occured to them that it only took a single disagreement for them to be considered subjective. To be honest I'm kinda glad that Flyboy came in when she did, because I was more interested to see some actual counterpoints than anything else and I probably would've fuckin' flipped if someone pulled the "opinion, you're wrong" card again.

But whatever man. I don't mind if it stops here.

SA2?

Not quite the same thing. SA2, at the very least, is relatively consistent across the board because you're switched between gamestyles mid-game, and the gamestyles themselves are largely subjective experiences with the exception that two of them are a bit odd to see in a Sonic game. Sonic 4, on the other hand, is absolute screaming piss for the entire opening third of the series, and there's a lot less subjectivity about it if only because unlike SA2, it consists wholly of a single playstyle.

[Sega DogTagz]

But they nonetheless suffer from the same problems as the ones specified, especially Lost World, hence the comparison. It essentially forces you to slow down practically for the sake of slowing you down (well, technically you could try to speedrun it anyway, but anyone who's ever driven at 120kph in pitch black with only headlights to go by will attest that it is completely suicidal), which is more where my point lies. To be honest I'd compare it to painting with excrement - it's original, sure, but you're still looking at a piece of shit on canvas.

I should probably make a seperate thread for this.

The quality of the implementation has nothing to do with the originality of the concept. You specifically said Sonic 4 does nothing that can't be seen else where (which to be fair - is honesty true about many Sonic tittles) and the Torch from WoD was brought up in your very next bullet point. You have every right to rag on the game but you don't need to exaggerate like that to prove a point. Give the game some credit for what it did do, which in this case, was bringing something brand spanking new to the table.

Whether or not you believe it was crap on canvas or not is indeed a discussion for another thread. (I personally loved that stage)

Has anyone ever gotten all the Chaos Emeralds prior to that level? Is it even possible?

You can play the stages in any order you please, so yes you can easily acquire seven emeralds beforehand.

The real thing to note here is that SS is part of the glorious feature I like to call re-playability. Even if you had yet to unlock Super on your first go round with this stage, going back to tackle it with your new powers results in an entirely new experience. It makes running full tilt in that stage not "suicide" and adds to the shelf life of the entire game.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Sega DogTagz

[Blacklightning]

The quality of the implementation has nothing to do with the originality of the concept.

I was not relating the two directly. Just that the latter doesn't count for much if the former isn't particularly good.

You have every right to rag on the game but you don't need to exaggerate like that to prove a point.

It wasn't an exaggeration on my part - I literally couldn't think of anything original in S4 at the time. It's not like I have a photographic memory of every single thing that happened in the game, but everything about it that I could remember off the top of my head had been done before, and generally better to boot. The torch is the exception rather than the rule anyway.

[Sega DogTagz]

I was not relating the two directly. Just that the latter doesn't count for much if the former isn't particularly good.

Meh. I thought the implementation was pretty good. I guess that's a matter of taste then.

It wasn't an exaggeration on my part - I literally couldn't think of anything original in S4 at the time. It's not like I have a photographic memory of every single thing that happened in the game, but everything about it that I could remember off the top of my head had been done before, and generally better to boot. The torch is the exception rather than the rule anyway.

You brought up the torch in you next breath after your memory was drawing a blank - but whatever, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. If you want some other new stuff to look at, I'll point to the homing attack (which I don't think has ever been done in a classic styled 2D scroller) and the spindash, which has essentially been dead on the consoles since Sonic's 10th Anniversary. There were fresh idea's in there, they were just harder to see under the rehash-ish nature of the episode.

[Sean]

You brought up the torch in you next breath after your memory was drawing a blank - but whatever, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. If you want some other new stuff to look at, I'll point to the homing attack (which I don't think has ever been done in a classic styled 2D scroller) and the spindash, which has essentially been dead on the consoles since Sonic's 10th Anniversary. There were fresh idea's in there, they were just harder to see under the rehash-ish nature of the episode.

Saying that the homing attack is new because it's its first appearance on a classic-styled game, and that the spin dash is new because it hasn't appeared in a console game in a while, is a really big stretch. People aren't going to make this distinction that they're FRESH AND NEW for these, or any, reasons.

[Sega DogTagz]

Saying that the homing attack is new because it's its first appearance on a classic-styled game, and that the spin dash is new because it hasn't appeared in a console game in a while, is a really big stretch. People aren't going to make this distinction that they're FRESH AND NEW for these, or any, reasons.

I'm sorry I misspoke a bit there. What I meant to say was that the Homing attack and the Spindash were fresh idea's - not to be confused with new or original ideas such as the torch.

Suffice to say, the spindash hasn't been relevant on consoles since SA2 (I am well aware of the rocket accel in Heroes and whatever you want to call Shadow's weak thing in his game). Sonic 4 changed that.

[TheDanimator]

@Blacklighting

"Not explictitly, but the way he acts implies he's not beyond ignoring game flaws as long he doesn't personally feel bad about them. Not inherently a bad thing, mind, but a terrible mentality to bring to a debate."

Before you said this^ you said this...

"To be honest, saying "nothing is wrong with this game because I still personally enjoy it" isn't really that much better."

Considering T-Man said this about the game...

"Yes, it is an objectively bad thing about the game, and it does bother me although I still have fun with the game. Not to say I can't see why it does ruin the game for some people, of course. However, I've also known of people who weren't bothered by the lack of momentum and most (emphasis on "most", Hillary Goldstein) of them seem like reasonably intelligent, level-headed people. And, as I said to Riverstone, saying stuff like "something is seriously wrong with you if you disagree with me" just makes you come off as a douche"

T-Man was stating that there IS BAD THINGS ABOUT THE GAME.

Then you said that he said "nothing is wrong with this game because I still personally enjoy it."

You were putting words into his mouth, thats flat out the way it is.

You were saying something he did NOT say.

But I would agree, if you were arguing with someone who was acting like the game is 100% okay just because they dont care about its flaws, that would be bad mentality. I dont see that as what T-Man was doing though.

You said this...

"You're only fooling yourself if you're seriously trying to claim 4 and Colours are comparable."

No, you are wrong. What are you saying? I am LYING TO MYSELF? pretending to like episode 1?

I am a hardcore fan, Sonic 3 and Knuckles is my favorite game. If i didnt enjoy episode 1 I would DAMN WELL admit it and be very upset. Dont get me wrong, its not like Im not upset about anything they did in the game, there is simply no excuse IMO to say it plays like the classics when the physics are off. Thats misleading, and its what they did. As i said though, I truly dont think dimps knows just who they are dealing with here, Sonic fans can be HARDCORE observant. (Im sure this applied for any huge fan of something.) I just have a feeling dimps really thought they released something that played similar enough and failed, I do not think they intentionally screwed up that bad. Im not even going to argue with you that I am not fooling myself, because I know im not so there is no point in it.

But to be fair, ep.1 and Sonic colors are VERY DIFFERENT games so in a way they are not comparable, but I beleive you were trying to say I was fooling myself if I found Sonic 4 more enjoyable, which simply isnt true. You are acting like JUST BECAUSE you find Sonic Colors more enjoyable and so do the majority of other people that I AM WRONG. There is no right and wrong in this case because what is more "enjoyable" is a matter of opinion.

You said

"Well you're just going to have to swallow your own argument then and regard it as your opinion alone."

In response to

"For whatever reason, I actually go back and play Sonic 4 episode 1 more than Sonic Colors"

You are right, that was an opinion. I wasnt even making an argument with that statement.

What argument are you telling me I have to swallow exactly?

You said this...

"No, shut up. An argument does not work that way. You're supposed to provide a counterpoint to the points I just gave. Saying "it's your opinion" doesn't automatically discredit anything I say, especially if you're not going to give anything of your own to support that argument."

First of all, who do you think you are telling me to shut up?

I cant beleive the staff said nothing about this. I was never blatantly rude to you like this.

These forums were made for people to talk about things, you have NO RIGHT telling me to shut up. I also think you are a bit confused on what I am trying to get across, I was simply stating that you kept saying things as if they are fact when they are a matter of opinion, and your going to piss allot of people off that way and come off as incredibly one sided. I never even said that I disagreed with your statement "the pacing was terrible." I was simply saying that it was an opinion. You ASSUMED I was arguing about it. I also never said that saying "Its an opinion" discredits what you say. Wether or not I AGREE with everything you say, some of your opinions of the game are very observant. Once again, I think you were assuming I was here to argue with you that Sonic 4 was good. I was to some degree, but I decided I did not want to debate with you until you started admitting that not everything you said was absolute fact, because you just cant argue with people intelligently when they are saying things are fact when they are not.

Random example

Lets say someone said

"Episode 1's physics are bad."

I beleive you would consider this a fact, when it is an opinion.

Now if someone were to say

"Episode 1's physics did not stay 100% true to the classics"

This is a fact.

You said this...

"But none quite so blatantly. Even Megaman 9 at least had the sense to introduce new stages and robot masters into the mix, and that was even more of a the nostalgia-driven cash cow than Sonic 4 could ever have hoped to be. Have you ever seen a numerical sequel completely rip off the level themes practically tile for freaking tile from previous games, fill the gaps by frankensteining gimmicks from completely unrelated levels, and add not a single original enemy or boss in the entire game, just to name a few?"

Episode 1 did borrow allot from previous games. (I wouldnt personally call it a rip off persay simply because its borrowing from its own series but this is debatable.) The thing is, for whatever reason you disliked that they did that, and I liked it.

So ill just explain why I personally liked it...

I personally think rehashing many of the levels in Episode 1 was enjoyable to me because It was cool to see some of the old levels in the new style they came up with. If all the levels in episode 1 were totally original I would probably find myself wondering what one of the old levels would look like in that style. I also feel that because Sonic 4 was released MANY years after its predecessor it gave it more of an excuse to get the nostalgia pumping for the classics again by rehashing old levels before the main story arch. But I can totally see your standpoint on this. You were probably itching for something completely new and ep.1 just didnt deliver that to you.

You said

"Let's not even get started about the repetitive, bland synth crap that goes on in all the music in this game. Ugh."

Then after my response you said

"Again, you're completely ignoring my supporting arguments."

Once again, my intention wasnt to argue, just to point out that "bland synth crap" is not factual. But ill give you my standpoint if you will remind me what your supporting arguments were, I cant seem to find them.

You said...

"You, on the other hand, need to learn that the opinion card doesn't override every single argument one makes without giving any logical or rational thought to it whatsoever."

This is a conclusion you jumped to, once again my intention was not argumentative about your views on episode 1.

You said

"...are you actually shitting me? How much of my post did you actually read?"

In response to

"Sonic 4 has poor content-to-price ratio. This is a fact."

OPINION."

Please clarify on what you meant by this one.

"anything else and I probably would've fuckin' flipped if someone pulled the "opinion, you're wrong" card again."

Also, can you please explain when anyone EVER said "Thats a matter of opinion so that makes you WRONG."

Im assuming you were saying this in response to me repeatedly saying, "thats an opinion." I never said "thats your opinion your WRONG" though, that is totally different.

I will reword that once more... I do not beleive that because someone has an opinion about something that discredits them or makes them wrong.

Edited June 17, 2011 by TheDanimator

[Blacklightning]

I'm not even going to dignify any of that with a direct answer, because that post is just full of strawmen arguments and hypocrisy to the point of absolute ridiculousness. If you're going to demonize me for attempting to rationalize my statements with objectivity, devalue them based off opinion alone whilst denying me any right to express any views of my own, and pretty much miss the entire point of practically everything I've posted in this thread, then I have nothing to say to you.

Furthermore, a moderator has already told us to drop the act anyway. I'd strongly recommend complying.

[TheDanimator]

Considering you said this

"devalue them based off opinion alone"

It proves to me your not reading what I said anyways considering I stated numerous times that is NOT what I was doing.

Go ahead, tell me then. What is the POINT of what you were trying to say in this thread?

Im going to assume your point was your first post.

"When you release an episodic game in the first place it's important to make sure each episode can stand up in its own right, because regardless of what you call it, it IS a game in it's own right. There's nothing wrong or unfair about saying ep1 sucks, because ep1 does objectively suck, and it sets a very poor first impression for the rest of the Sonic 4 series. I refuse to believe this should be excused because Dimps screwed everything up on the very first episode, let alone in spite of it."

Tell me please, what is it that you THINK "Objectively" means?

You said...

"There's nothing wrong or unfair about saying ep1 sucks, because ep1 does objectively suck"

I keep re reading this word in the dictionary trying to find anything that says Objectively means "Opinion"

But everything I read is telling me Objectively basically means FACT.

That is your problem, you still dont understand that Sonic 4 episode 1 sucking is an OPINION not a FACT.

You also said

"Furthermore, a moderator has already told us to drop the act anyway. I'd strongly recommend complying."

The moderator said this...

"Oookay guys, this is going from heated to personal and flame-y now, on both sides. I'm starting to get reports in about how this is escalating, so could we all try to tone it down a bit and discuss things civilly without snarking and getting abusive at each other? Yes? Yes. Thank you (:"

I personally NEVER got abusive, snarky or heated or Flame-y, YOU are the one that was telling me things like "Shut up" Which is, heated and and Flame-y.

I urge any moderator to pick out ANYTHING I said that fit those descriptions.

Until then, Im going to assume they were not talking about me.

Edit:

I have done further research and have come across this...

Examples of Objective and Subjective

Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.

Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.

Summary:

1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.

2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.

3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.

Objective appears to be based off of facts while Subjective appears to be based off opinion.

Therefor saying Sonic 4 episode 1 is objectively bad is a false statement. Case closed.

Unless there is something I missed.

Edited June 17, 2011 by TheDanimator

[Blacklightning]

Would it kill you to use quote tags?

It proves to me your not reading what I said anyways considering I stated numerous times that is NOT what I was doing.

Which turned out to be a blatant lie.

Enjoyable is opinion, not fact.

...

"that the pacing was terrible"

OPINION not fact, once again.

...

"Sonic 4 has poor content-to-price ratio. This is a fact."

OPINION.

What is the POINT of what you were trying to say in this thread?

To make a rationalized argument in hopes that others would do the same, so as to help me understand their point of view better. Obviously that was too much to ask.

I keep re reading this word in the dictionary trying to find anything that says Objectively means "Opinion"

An opjective statement is one backed by logical reasoning. In other words, explaining why I support this point of view. My problem with you specifically is that you have almost never done this, yet expect me to believe it amounts to nothing anyway without even a single reasonable supporting argument to back it up. This is absolute foolhardiness and I won't stand for it. Not one bit.

That is your problem, you still dont understand that Sonic 4 episode 1 sucking is an OPINION not a FACT.

Prove. Me. Wrong. Then maybe I might take you seriously. Until then, I'm done here. Edited June 17, 2011 by Blacklightning

[TheDanimator]

"Would it kill you to use quote tags?"

Not at all, honestly I don't know how to use them. I would like to though.

How do you do it? I haven't posted on here very much until recently.

What are you saying turned out to be a blatant lie? Im not following you.

"An opjective statement is one backed by logical reasoning. In other words, explaining why I support this point of view."

Everywhere I am reading says an objective statement is based off of facts.

I still fail to see how saying "Episode 1 sucks" is a fact.

This is the core of our content, you say Episode 1 sucking is a fact, I say its an opinion.

Once you realize that I am right, and episode 1 sucking is in FACT an OPINION, I am also done here because there is no use debating over it. Once someone says something is a fact and it is set in stone in their mind there is little chance on doing this...

"so as to help me understand their point of view better"

Why would you care about someones point of view if episode 1 sucking is a fact to you?

Thank you for putting up with my lack of quote tags, I will gladly use them if you send me a PM message explaining how to.

Edited June 17, 2011 by TheDanimator

[Blacklightning]

"Would it kill you to use quote tags?"

Not at all, honestly I don't know how to use them. I would like to though.

How do you do it? I haven't posted on here very much until recently.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Blacklightning

[Preston]

None of this will matter when Episode 2 is announced next week. Then we'll all have some root beers and laugh this discussion off.

[Facehugger]

None of this will matter when Episode 2 is announced next week. Then we'll all have some root beers and laugh this discussion off.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Facehugger

[Sega DogTagz]

Doubtful, these types of debates are srs business. Just look at how worked up Blacklighning is getting.