Sonic-related pet peeves?

[Pawn]

Well I don't haven't seen anyone outright state that the series has "abandoned" its roots. The exact opposite in fact, so I think there's a minority here.

 

Neither one of us implied that the series has abandoned its roots. One aspect of them, yes, but at the end of the day the hedgehog's still running through Green Hill, pummeling robots at the expense of an egg-shaped scientist.

 

 

Lost World may not be as detailed as the previous games, but that doesn't mean its not appealing to look at.

 

There are a few niggles I have that Phos brought up in the Lost World forum, but otherwise it looks nice, yeah.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Pawn

[Splash the Otter]

I'm getting rather annoyed by how popular Zeena has become in comparison to the other Deadly Six, especially when you consider how little we know about her.

[Dizcrybe]

I'm getting rather annoyed by how popular Zeena has become in comparison to the other Deadly Six, especially when you consider how little we know about her.

 

She's only popular because our dicks will it.

[Spin Attaxx]

When you're the attractive girl in a group of 4 guys and an emo chick, you tend to stand out from the crowd.

 

EDIT: Ninja'd :U

Edited June 12, 2013 by Spin Attaxx

[Kuzu]

I'm getting rather annoyed by how popular Zeena has become in comparison to the other Deadly Six, especially when you consider how little we know about her.

 

 

There's a very good and dirty reason for this.

 

That said, I also like Zavok a lot too.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Azure Yakuzu

[Uraraka]

They are called rings, not coins. Say it with me: RINGS.

  That's funny! I often say "coins" when I play Sonic, and "rings" when I play Mario... I must have pixlexia!!!

I'm getting rather annoyed by how popular Zeena has become in comparison to the other Deadly Six, especially when you consider how little we know about her.

   Actually, I am annoyed at the pathetic name : the deadly six... did team rocket come up with that? haha! (although, I am excited to see them in the new Sonic game... Who is Zeena?)

[Dizcrybe]

 Who is Zeena?

 

The chick.

[Tara]

I honestly don't see the problem with the name "Deadly Six."

 

It's not like they named them the Meanie Multiples of Three.

[Dizcrybe]

I honestly don't see the problem with the name "Deadly Six."

 

It's not like they named them the Meanie Multiples of Three.

 

That would be hilarious, though.

[Tara]

That would be hilarious, though.

Indeed, then we can finally get the sequel we've always wanted.

 

Dr. Robotnik's Deadly Bean Machine.

[Uraraka]

Indeed, then we can finally get the sequel we've always wanted.

 

Dr. Robotnik's Deadly Bean Machine.

  hahaha!

[Tara]

New pet peeve:  I hate the word "gimmicky."

 

Admitedly, this is a minor one and has mostly been brought upon by what I feel is sort of unfair criticism towards the Wisps in both Colors and Lost World alike.  The problem stems from the fact that it's just a word and doesn't criticize anything other than the fact that it was made to sale, like pretty much everything in the game.  That, and being a "gimmick" does not necessarily have to be bad.  Yoshi was a huge gimmick in Super Mario World.  That didn't stop him from later becoming a beloved character and staple of the Mario franchise.  Megaman being in Smash Bros. 4 is a gimmick.  The whole Smash Bros. universe is a gimmick, in fact.  But they're not bad in any sense of the word.

 

Now, I'd be more okay with criticisms toward the Wisps if people actually explained what made them bad as gameplay elements.  To me, I dont see why they're problems, especially in Lost World where they appear to be completely optional.  I look at them along the same lines as the Bounce Bracelet and Flame Ring in SA2.  That is, additional powers; the difference being that in SA2 you could use them whenever and Colors you had to stumble upon them.  They don't really slow you down too much if at all and in many cases are actually helpful.

 

Now, I can understand some people just not wanting to use Wisps because they don't like using them, but attacking them for being "gimmicky" literally holds no weight in a conversation.  It's just a few steps away from calling a musician a sell-out because he/she decided to experiment with different styles of music.

[Nepenthe]

I've found that the word "gimmicky" is like the word "milking:" its connotation depends almost entirely upon your perspective towards the thing in question. If you find something inherently enjoyable, someone can basically whore that something out for years and you'll be perfectly fine with it. If you don't like it, it's more likely to be quickly called "gimmicky" or bring "milked dry."

 

But I don't think the concept is without merit simply because it can possess a positive or negative connotation at the same time. After all, you just threw out examples of "good" gimmicks, which inherently implies there are bad ones too...like Microsoft's television gimmicks with the Xbox One for instance. No matter how you slice it, the entire console is "gimmicky" in a negative context, which is only further worsened by the fact that it is already as restrictive as it is. Even if the console wasn't restrictive, the television angle would still potentially muscle in on the appeal of the idea of a "console: a device which is ultimately meant to play games. Sometimes, people don't want gimmicks. They don't want a truckload of asterisks or bullet points stapled onto a product. They just want something that works and works well. 

 

In Lost World's case, the Parkour looks good enough to be the only gimmick necessary to sell the game. The movement itself appears to be more fun than the Wisps are, who in themselves are conceptually flawed for reasons people have been pointing out for years, and whose advertisement and assets needed are instead a guarantee that they are actually not going to be completely "100% optional," something that they have never achieved in a single appearance of theirs. Why then should they be spared the derision of being "gimmicky" in a negative context, especially since Lost Worlds arguably doesn't even need them to do what it needs to do? It could literally survive on just the Parkour.

[Diogenes]

To me, calling something gimmicky implies that its nature as a gimmick stands out, that it doesn't fit smoothly with the rest of the game. It's waving something shiny and (theoretically) enticing in front of your face, but failing to properly integrate it with everything else, so it tends to grate. By that definition I'd say the wisps are clearly gimmicky, as (Cube excepted) they all change your controls and the gameplay pretty radically for their duration. Compare to Mario's powerups, which usually give you a new ability and/or modify some properties, while leaving the rest intact; mushrooms make you taller and let you break bricks, the leaf gives you a tail attack, a slow fall, and limited flight, the penguin suit gives you ice shots, improved swimming, a slide ability, and better grip on ice, but in each case the core gameplay is still intact. And when his powerups change too much, like the frog suit crippling your land movement or the boo mushroom making you move entirely through floating, they start to feel...gimmicky.

[Kuzu]

For me a gimmick is a feature that a product is obviously trying to pitch above all else, regardless of its actual quality. Like, the product is good for this one thing and nothing more. Sonic's speed is essentially a gimmick as that's how he was marketed and mostly what people associate with him. This series tends to rely on gimmicks a lot more than it really needed honestly, and still does to some extent.

[Soniman]

 It could literally survive on just the Parkour.

 

I don't want the game to merely "survive", I want it to excel.

 

Mario Galaxy arguably still could have been a great game if it didn't have power-ups, but because it did it enhanced the experience. That's basically my stance on the whole wisp thing, I don't see how the game could be automatically better by actively NOT having them, they seem to be there for those who want to spice up the experience a bit and aren't really being shoved down your throat like some people seem to be acting like.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Soniman

[Nepenthe]

The basic level design being allocated to the Wisps' abilities could instead go towards more interesting level design for the Parkour instead. Games can thrive on just their basic movement too, as well as the challenges that come from the level designers exploiting movement and how it functions. The new Rayman games are a prime example. There are no classic, temporary power-ups with which to speak of. It all comes down to just your basic abilities and how good you are at using them.

[Tara]

But I don't think the concept is without merit simply because it can possess a positive or negative connotation at the same time. After all, you just threw out examples of "good" gimmicks, which inherently implies there are bad ones too...like Microsoft's television gimmicks with the Xbox One for instance. No matter how you slice it, the entire console is "gimmicky" in a negative context, which is only further worsened by the fact that it is already as restrictive as it is. Even if the console wasn't restrictive, the television angle would still potentially muscle in on the appeal of the idea of a "console: a device which is ultimately meant to play games. Sometimes, people don't want gimmicks. They don't want a truckload of asterisks or bullet points stapled onto a product. They just want something that works and works well. 

Well, yes, there's good and bad of everything.  "Realistic graphics," for example, sounds good, but some games don't work well with realistic graphics.  I'm by no means denying that there are good and bad gimmicks.  I'm just saying the word itself does not really analytically criticize anything.  On the subject of Xbone's live TV gimmick, it's a bad gimmick for the following reasons:

1. It's a useless feature; it's not like you couldn't already just change the channel, which is actually easier than watching it through the Xbone.
2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it require an HD cable subscription anyway?  So why would you spend several hundred dollars to watch TV on your Xbox when you can just get a cable box?  Sure, the Xbone has some "exclusive" shows, but that hardly matters when those shows haven't even been released yet, and I can guarantee that pretty much no one wants to spend hundreds of dollars just to give those three or so TV shows a chance.
3. As you said, at the end of the day, the Xbone is a console that will be used for games first and foremost.  The live TV feature is just going to unnecessarily increase the price and make it less accessible.

Yes, those are all bad features, and definitely warrants being described as a "bad gimmick," but referring to something as bad solely because it's "gimmicky" and not because it is a "bad gimmick" or "useless gimmick" holds no weight.  Basically, I'm saying I hate when people criticize it for being a gimmick without explaining why it's a problem.

 

 

 

In Lost World's case, the Parkour looks good enough to be the only gimmick necessary to sell the game. The movement itself appears to be more fun than the Wisps are, who in themselves are conceptually flawed for reasons people have been pointing out for years, and whose advertisement and assets needed are instead a guarantee that they are actually not going to be completely "100% optional," something that they have never achieved in a single appearance of theirs. Why then should they be spared the derision of being "gimmicky" in a negative context, especially since Lost Worlds arguably doesn't even need them to do what it needs to do? It could literally survive on just the Parkour.

 

 

I'm not at all saying they shouldn't be criticized or seen as a bad gimmick.  I can understand that a lot of people don't like them, but it means nothing to a discussion or as a general criticism if the word "gimmick" is used negatively without some form of backing.  This was an especially popular criticism from 2004 to 2008, where fans were constantly riled up over how much they wanted a Sonic game "without gimmicks."  In fact, I remember the Wisps at one point being praised because they weren't initially perceived as gimmicks, which all in all is kind of dumb because as I stated, everything has a gimmick in some form or another.  Smash 4 has Megaman, Cocoa Puffs have a high-pitched bird voiced by Liono who suffers from a tragic addiction that tears his life apart (seriously, that's terrible), and Honey Nut Cheerios supposedly lowers cholesterol.

 

Now I can understand if some people don't like them and don't understand why, and that's okay too.  But when one attempts to justify it, gimmicky always seems to be one of those words that people sort of just toss out there.  Diogenes and Azure Yakuzu posted good examples of what gimmicky means, but I still think the word itself is useless without backing.  Diogenes mentioned the frog suit example in SMB3.  That's an example of it being used right.

 

I suppose you could boil this pet peeve down to "I hate when people post an opinion without explaining it," but gimmicky just happens to be one of those token words, I guess.  The same applies to "soulless" and words such as that.  They express that something is bad without actually explaining why, in this particular instance, that it is bad or what makes it "gimmicky" or "soulless."  Detail is the key.

[Dr. Detective]

When people lump in Sonic Adventure 2 as being too dark for the Sonic series next to the likes of what Shadow and Sonic 06 hilariously tried to get away with. The idea of limiting any kind of emotional context whatsoever doesn't bode well with me.

[Kuzu]

Hey Crystal, welcome to stadium. Leave your sanity at the door.

 

But yea, I never understood why SA2 tends to get flak for being "too dark" when it doesn't really get that dark until the last story. And even then, the game ends on a positive(if bittersweet) note. 

[Nepenthe]

@ Akito: I see what you mean. But I would still argue that those words do have a pervading, "universally" understood connotation that allows for their usage in general conversation. Otherwise, people wouldn't use the words without excessive clarification, and subsequently people would ask more often than not what they mean! =P Language relies a lot on precedent and implication for the sake of expediency and ease of expression. It allows us to use turns-of-phrases, metaphors, and technically make up new words altogether. It's just kind of how it works. While a gimmick isn't inherently bad, "gimmicky" seems to suggest as such from precedent that it does have an informal definition, meaning that something has a gimmick to the overall product's detriment. Certainly conversation can go further on how something is gimmicky, but I don't think the word "gimmicky" itself is utterly without meaning.
 

Hey Crystal, welcome to stadium. Leave your sanity at the door.
 
But yea, I never understood why SA2 tends to get flak for being "too dark" when it doesn't really get that dark until the last story. And even then, the game ends on a positive(if bittersweet) note.

 
No death and government in mah Sonic games.

[Diogenes]

I don't want the game to merely "survive", I want it to excel.

 

Mario Galaxy arguably still could have been a great game if it didn't have power-ups, but because it did it enhanced the experience. That's basically my stance on the whole wisp thing, I don't see how the game could be automatically better by actively NOT having them, they seem to be there for those who want to spice up the experience a bit and aren't really being shoved down your throat like some people seem to be acting like.

Well, like I said, the wisp powers and Mario's powerups don't really entirely equate. You don't create a good game (or enhance an already good one) by throwing things in at random; whatever you add has to fit with everything else. If the wisps don't fit (and you can make a fair argument for that), they can drag down the game in spite of adding more things to do in it.

When people lump in Sonic Adventure 2 as being too dark for the Sonic series next to the likes of what Shadow and Sonic 06 hilariously tried to get away with. The idea of limiting any kind of emotional context whatsoever doesn't bode well with me.

Thinking SA2 was too dark isn't the same as asking for the removal of all emotion.

[Komodin]

No death and government in mah Sonic games.

 

Well, we can certainly do without silly governmental hyjinks in our Sanic gaems...

[Your Vest Friend]

Thinking SA2 was too dark isn't the same as asking for the removal of all emotion.

Well, logically speaking it isn't.

Looking at how quite a lot of people think...

[Kuzu]

Well, logically speaking it isn't.

Looking at how quite a lot of people think...

 

 

Too bad this fanbase hardly thinks logically.