Popular and unpopular Sonic opinions you agree and disagree with!

[Kuzu]

I'm finding it hard to take your point seriously; you claim that Archie doesn't do anything with the characters and praise the games for doing so, this is despite the fact that, as you also mentioned, only two characters are relevant in the current games, and Archie has made use of the entire cast at one point.

Even if you take into account all of the shoddiness of the alt. media, which is a strawman btw because it has nothing to do with Archie's quality, I can't understand how a series that attempts to make use of such a large cast is "bad" because their personality isn't always prominent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[E-122-Psi]

The games are far from good but they at least balance the characters in some sense they know which ones matter. Amy and Knuckles had little part in Lost World but their role didn't require anything larger than that. Archie puts endless characters in the spotlight but then can't do anything with them. Yeah the games should put more effort into other characters, but at least they can make SOME of their personalities matter, and those that don't aren't played as if they are meant to.

 

The games have at least made some basic steps in terms characterization weaving into the plot. A lot of the characters have established Fatal Flaws that play part in how the plot can work and can have consequences in how they act (eg. Sonic's recklessness, Knuckles' gullibility, Amy's bratty impulses). The comics barely have any of these (most they do the characters 'mature' out of), and when Ian tries he resorts to Compressed Vices or generic angst (he resorts to giving Sally random bouts of recklessness or abrasiveness, basically the equivalent of an out of character moment, given her earlier days as an occasionally pompous, stroppy and incredibly meticulous character, you'd think he'd have no problem making a moment of error that defined her character).

 

Even in terms of positive strengths the games can make them stem more from their actual character (eg. Heroes Amy was an influential and competent leader BECAUSE of her relentless bubbly attitude, rather than just withdrawing all her silly quirks in favor of being a serious, no nonsense strategist like everyone else).

 

The games AREN'T good, they're haphazardous, but I just don't get why people think the comics are any better when they've failed at the basic steps even the former has succeeded with, especially the comics are actually a story primarily.

[Kuzu]

Because people actually get to see their favorite characters actually do something, actually have an impact, and actually be relevant?

If it's ok for characters not to have that large a role, then it should be just as acceptable for their personality traits to not always be prominent; do we constantly need to be reminded Sonic is cocky? That Antoine is a coward etc, etc. especially if it isn't always relevant to the plot?

Yes, Amy and Knuckles didn't need a large role in LW, but on the flipside they didn't really contribute to the plot either, something which is criticized a lot.

I understand you have a preference for the games, but ignore the things the comics have done right.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Sonic is damn amazing in the comics. I do have to say Sally is lucky to have him by her side (not because I want to be Sonics girlfriend you dolt) because shes one Sonic would tear McNosehair to shreds if he touched one hair on her which is fun to see. Plus it shows Sonic loving side. :3

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I just feel that the Archie characterizations only look remotely good because they have the highly Flanderized versions of other medias to fall back on. If you hadn't seen those and the Archie versions were your only exposure to the cast would you still think they were any good?

Considering that I have seen the other Flanderized medias, yes I'd still think they were any good.

 

 

 

Okay so what does Antoine have now? He's brave. Wow. He's humble. Cor. He's suave. Yikes. He has...pretty much the standard traits of every hero known.

Yes, ignore the very development I just spelled out in the previous post. Perfect.

 

And Sonic throughout all the media he's in doesn't have the traits of every known hero? Once again, not seeing the problem over the parodied stereotypes from most of the games only for you to turn around and bash other characters for the standard heroic traits.

 

 

 

Not only did they change him into a character completely uninterchangable with his previous form, they diluted him into a blank slate. If you hadn't seen the early comics or Satam you'd likely think he was a flat character.

A flat character is a character who does not change or alter his or her personality over the course of the narrative. Whether or not you had seen the early comics or Satam, Antoine is by definition the complete opposite: a dynamic character due to changing his personality over the course of the comics from a coward to a braver individual pulling acts even Sonic didn't expect him to do. If a person hadn't seen him prior to those points, obviously that person is just getting into the comics, and if they're interested in seeing how different he was in the past, they can just freaking google search it.

 

 

 

The games aren't rounded, what I mean is that they can still make any character matter period. Sure only Sonic and Tails matter at this point, but that's better than nothing. The other characters are periphery, but at least they're not treated as anything higher, compared to the comics that give every character heavy limelight yet barely make any use of it whatsoever. You feel after nearly 300 issues they should have done something productive with them, especially since it's a media focused far more primarily on story than the games.

Funny, because they've been doing the exact opposite of making them matter since Heroes. All the more funny that you support the other characters being periphery over being treated as anything higher than that and having these character be active and giving more weight to how much these characters matter.

 

Yet because they're treated periphery to the point of being irrelevant over the course of the narrative, you could completely remove them from the games narrative and it wouldn't change anything. I'd like minor characters more active and mattering to the narrative by being involved, so that despite them not having a major role I can still say that removing said minor character would be a detriment to the narrative because of what they contributed or that they're at least pulling their share of the narrative weight like Amy did in SA2 and helping each other out. 

 

You think that after having several games where no one but Sonic and Tails have done anything substantial that the other characters, with all their abilities and unique personalities, could spice up the plot and conflict, doing more than be cheerleaders and be more involved in what's going on than hanging around on the sidelines.

 

 

 

I can't take to stories that have bland characters. If I don't feel for the characters I don't take the story, and if the characters don't have a shred of personality, I don't feel for them. The games have limitation in this, but at least have one or two that matter, compared to the comics' usual big fat ZERO.

You criticize the comics for not making these characters matter, yet they're ironically put into the thick of the narrative as a whole far more than the characters in the games have been over the past decade. Nevermind that the characters in the comics do have a shred of personality; the fact that you were able to pick out a few for Antoine proves this. 

 

Once again, characters are not solely their personality. Their actions, abilities, and events also shape and influence their being. It's fine if you can't feel for the characters, but I'm not going to praise the games for playing things safe and having one or two characters matter over having their cast of colorful characters they once gave us, especially when they can do far better than they have now. Nor will I praise them for making these characters cringeworthy and annoying stereotypes of themselves when they've shown me in the past how much they made them shine once before.

 

I'll give credit where it's due: the games are definitely improving over the trainwreck of plot, narrative, and characterization problems that once plagued them. But this is at a cost of demoting characters involvement instead of fixing them and keeping them relevant. I don't settle for mediocrity like this when I feel I was given excellence a decade ago. Nor do I settle for mediocrity when I can see a potential for excellence that was completely missed out on. And while the comics aren't perfect, it seems more to me that they know how to use and work with the characters without flanderizing them to stereotypes more than the games that just puts them on the sideline, and are far easier for me to support. They don't sacrifice their involvement by having them sit back cheering others on when they can take action, they don't parody their characters as much, and for having a much much larger cast they certainly try and juggle their utility over the course of the comics much better than the games much smaller cast without throwing us a bone just to point and see our favorite characters just being around.

[E-122-Psi]

 

 

 

Yes, ignore the very development I just spelled out in the previous post. Perfect.

 

And Sonic throughout all the media he's in doesn't have the traits of every known hero? Once again, not seeing the problem over the parodied stereotypes from most of the games only for you to turn around and bash other characters for the standard heroic traits.

 

Because Sonic within it all at least still has a balance of positive and negative qualities. He still at least has a basic personality and pathos. Antoine was the traditional 'all flaws are bad so exterminate until he's a boring old sage' lazy development, to the point he could be a completely separate character and no one would notice.

 

People complained when they changed Sonic into a goody goody with no real vices during the Heroes era. Same for when they altered Mickey Mouse from a mischevious jerk into a well mannered and ultimately dull nice guy. Development isn't just altering a personality into nothing but generic positive aspects. They could have at the very least been positive traits compatible with old personality.

 

 

A flat character is a character who does not change or alter his or her personality over the course of the narrative. Whether or not you had seen the early comics or Satam, Antoine is by definition the complete opposite: a dynamic character due to changing his personality over the course of the comics from a coward to a braver individual pulling acts even Sonic didn't expect him to do. If a person hadn't seen him prior to those points, obviously that person is just getting into the comics, and if they're interested in seeing how different he was in the past, they can just freaking google search it.

 

Oh well now you're ignoring what I spelled out. That doesn't alter the fact that he has nothing to offer in terms of unique personality NOW. What exactly can they do with him now except place him in generic battle scenes and submit him to other event based scenarios? I don't call it a good characterization when the only way to make him remotely interesting is to go 'well he used to be an incompetent jerk, but now he isn't'.

 

It just seemed a really cheap and unrealistic development. Flaws don't just naturally disappear. They certainly could have made Antoine a better person, but the perfect Ace he's always thought he was seems to derive from the point that he WASN'T that. Even Deconstructing his personality and making him appreciate himself for what he had (and finding potential and hidden depths in that) could have helped, but instead they just make him another generic hero. So much of Antoine's pathos and charm came from being a pompous clown. You could have made him more competent while still maintaining some sense of bluff and bluster, arguably he would have made a very well rounded character that way (look at types such as Darkwing Duck), but instead they just decided to more or less completely flip around his entire personality.

 

Funny, because they've been doing the exact opposite of making them matter since Heroes. All the more funny that you support the other characters being periphery over being treated as anything higher than that and having these character be active and giving more weight to how much these characters matter.

 

Yet because they're treated periphery to the point of being irrelevant over the course of the narrative, you could completely remove them from the games narrative and it wouldn't change anything. I'd like minor characters more active and mattering to the narrative by being involved, so that despite them not having a major role I can still say that removing said minor character would be a detriment to the narrative because of what they contributed or that they're at least pulling their share of the narrative weight like Amy did in SA2 and helping each other out. 

 

You think that after having several games where no one but Sonic and Tails have done anything substantial that the other characters, with all their abilities and unique personalities, could spice up the plot and conflict, doing more than be cheerleaders and be more involved in what's going on than hanging around on the sidelines.

I support them doing that over PRETENDING they have weight in the story when reality they're all pretty much the same generic mould. It's not worth putting Amy in a big role of the story if she's not going to be Amy, or Knuckles if he's not going to be Knuckles. That's the whole point people like their characters in the first place.

 

The games don't do a good job with the cast, but I find that less frustrating than the comics placing these characters in such high order roles and then doing absolutely nothing with them, or in some cases actually diluting them. At least the games accept they may as well just use Sonic if they can't do anything unique with another character. It's even more aggravating because the comics actually have the nerve to pretentiously see it all as improvement and development over what the games offer.

 

 

You criticize the comics for not making these characters matter, yet they're ironically put into the thick of the narrative as a whole far more than the characters in the games have been over the past decade. Nevermind that the characters in the comics do have a shred of personality; the fact that you were able to pick out a few for Antoine proves this. 

 

Once again, characters are not solely their personality. Their actions, abilities, and events also shape and influence their being. It's fine if you can't feel for the characters, but I'm not going to praise the games for playing things safe and having one or two characters matter over having their cast of colorful characters they once gave us, especially when they can do far better than they have now. Nor will I praise them for making these characters cringeworthy and annoying stereotypes of themselves when they've shown me in the past how much they made them shine once before.

 

I'll give credit where it's due: the games are definitely improving over the trainwreck of plot, narrative, and characterization problems that once plagued them. But this is at a cost of demoting characters involvement instead of fixing them and keeping them relevant. I don't settle for mediocrity like this when I feel I was given excellence a decade ago. Nor do I settle for mediocrity when I can see a potential for excellence that was completely missed out on. And while the comics aren't perfect, it seems more to me that they know how to use and work with the characters without flanderizing them to stereotypes more than the games that just puts them on the sideline, and are far easier for me to support. They don't sacrifice their involvement by having them sit back cheering others on when they can take action, they don't parody their characters as much, and for having a much much larger cast they certainly try and juggle their utility over the course of the comics much better than the games much smaller cast without throwing us a bone just to point and see our favorite characters just being around.

 

I was not complimenting Ant at all with those traits, they're all generic positive traits that you could give to pretty much every damn hero in the comic. A hero being nice isn't a distinctive personality at all.

But actions and events are formed by their personality.They make what they do distinctive and give a point to using them over any other character there. Archie's setup consists of basically lucky dipping a bunch of generic soldiers into a story and then just having them duke it out with the odd exposition. The games don't do a great job with their cast, but the fact the comics are a story based media and probably have had a lower rate of personality based stories than the former (that at least have very pivotal signs of life such as Sonic Adventure) doesn't say much. Games such as that and Lost World were about defining personality traits and how they progressed the story, and yet the comics have made only a handful of such cases (usually with far less depth and consistency) despite making about 200+ stories over them. And unlike the games, it's main intention is story, you can't just enjoy the gameplay if you don't like it.

 

I'm sorry but I'd take a limited cast that does get bits of personality display over a huge cast with zero display at all. I'd take characters getting rare but better defining moments of key involvement over tons that only make them more blander and interchangable. You don't give a crap about Flanderized characters, I don't give a crap about empty characters.

 

 

Because people actually get to see their favorite characters actually do something, actually have an impact, and actually be relevant?

If it's ok for characters not to have that large a role, then it should be just as acceptable for their personality traits to not always be prominent; do we constantly need to be reminded Sonic is cocky? That Antoine is a coward etc, etc. especially if it isn't always relevant to the plot?
 

Which the comics don't really do, at least not in a manner Sonic couldn't do pretty much the exact same way right down to dialogue. Every time a character gets focus they either turn into Sonic 2.0 or just go through the motions with no characterization whatsoever. What's the point?

 

Because it's possible to make a character's personality distinctive in ways that don't just leave them one note. You can make dialogue distinctive. You can make their positive and negative contributions have some consistent reasoning and actions. Archie can't do that even when it's TRYING.

 

 

I understand you have a preference for the games, but ignore the things the comics have done right.

Well I don't see how that's any different to how you and other comic fans treat the games when comparing them to the comics.

[Kuzu]

Except they do, and the fact that you're ignoring all distinctive traits and generalizing anything that's not unique as "generic" is baffling.

Like I said, do we constantly need to know these characters are distinct? If you to, then your characters probably aren't very unique.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[E-122-Psi]

We don't constantly but we need to a plausible amount of times, rather than a handful of inconsistent ones. I'm sorry but I just don't see the depth at all, at least not enough to consider them a great deal better than the games. All I see is the pretentious allusion that it's there through narrative. 'Our versions of the characters are dramatic and badass so they must be dripping with depth'. At least the games grew out of that phase and just accept how simplistic they are.

[Kuzu]

We don't constantly but we need to a plausible amount of times, rather than a handful of inconsistent ones. I'm sorry but I just don't see the depth at all, at least not enough to consider them a great deal better than the games. All I see is the pretentious allusion that it's there through narrative. 'Our versions of the characters are dramatic and badass so they must be dripping with depth'. At least the games grew out of that phase and just accept how simplistic they are.

 

Then what honestly counts as "plausible" because from how you're describing it, you'd swear that these characters have never had a shred of personality, which is BS and you know it. If you feel there's no "depth" in the comics fine, but don't put them down and then praise them games for doing things the comics have also done because then it makes you look like a hypocrite. Whether you agree with how it was done or not, the comics have shown different facets of the character's personalities, and they do have depth.

[E-122-Psi]

I may be exaggerating in the sense there is literally no depth, but there is certainly not enough considering how long the comic has spanned and, as mentioned, it is created more directly for story purposes than the games are. There are maybe a handful of issues that each character has shown some huge amount of personality. The games are admittedly not that bigger, but it's numbers are far smaller than the comics and it's potential for stories is more limited.

 

I admit the games aren't brimming with depth, but the comics aren't even close either, especially since they have the same pretentious air and fondness for cheap plot ploys the likes of the Shadow era were slammed for. If I'm a hypocrite I'm not alone.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

 

Because Sonic within it all at least still has a balance of positive and negative qualities. He still at least has a basic personality and pathos. Antoine was the traditional 'all flaws are bad so exterminate until he's a boring old sage' lazy development, to the point he could be a completely separate character and no one would notice.

 

People complained when they changed Sonic into a goody goody with no real vices during the Heroes era. Same for when they altered Mickey Mouse from a mischevious jerk into a well mannered and ultimately dull nice guy. Development isn't just altering a personality into nothing but generic positive aspects. They could have at the very least been positive traits compatible with old personality.

 

People complained when they changed Sonic in Heroes because he was nothing more than a two dimensional stereotype of his former self in the Adventures, nevermind that the plot as a whole was a paper thin mess with a few plotholes and barely explained motivations that barely gave enough motivation to draw the audience in with a script that made some people cringe at the dialogue They wouldn't mind him as a goody goody if there weren't other problems plaguing these characters, and it hardly had to do with their vices.

 

By calling Antoine's development a traditional "all flaws are bad so exterminate" you're flat out ignoring everything  in the past that led up to how he is currently, some of which was around even before Flynn took the head in writing characters. Despite having a cowardly demeanor, Antoine still had bouts of confidence and bravery: he was willing to defend Sonic from Geoffery during the Endgame arc when the latter was about to kill Sonic despite the perception that Sonic commited treason. This same character was also willing to put himself at risk in helping to spy on characters like Drago when he felt something suspicious. This same character also went up and karate chops Evil Sonic during issue 112 whenever he was causing trouble, and many many many other feats of events that toughened him up to the point that he takes on Metal Sonic, one of the most dangerous machines Eggman has made, and diverts his attention to take an explosion at point blank meant to kill Elias as he was escaping New Mobotropolis.

 

Sonic usually shrugs off half of this stuff, but Antoine lacking Sonic's resilience and abilities put him at a disadvantage that magnified his cowardice for not being as strong or his bravery when we'd expect him to cower. And because characters like Sonic are the hero, we'd expect him to do and shrug off even the more minor things Antoine was against. We'd expect a heavy hitter like Sonic to take on massive threats and events, but we're more surprised when it's the once cowardly and supposedly weaker character stepping up to take action and make such commitments, so much that it culminates in him nearly paying the ultimate price for it. Without those changes in personality from those events, he would never have been motivated to show such commitment and willingness to nearly sacrifice his life like that and it wouldn't have the same shock value. That's just how much he's set apart from Sonic; I find it easier to see Sonic be willing sacrifice himself than I would Antoine, hence why I'm more shocked when it's the latter who takes the bullet over the former who does it more regularly.

 

Oh well now you're ignoring what I spelled out. That doesn't alter the fact that he has nothing to offer in terms of unique personality NOW. What exactly can they do with him now except place him in generic battle scenes and submit him to other event based scenarios? I don't call it a good characterization when the only way to make him remotely interesting is to go 'well he used to be an incompetent jerk, but now he isn't'.

Make him create events? Shock us by his change of heart that leads to surprising his friends and the audience? Tell me, how is he suppose to be made use of if you don't submit him to events? Because at every point in the narrative, there is always an event going on.

 

 

 

 

It just seemed a really cheap and unrealistic development. Flaws don't just naturally disappear. They certainly could have made Antoine a better person, but the perfect Ace he's always thought he was seems to derive from the point that he WASN'T that. Even Deconstructing his personality and making him appreciate himself for what he had (and finding potential and hidden depths in that) could have helped, but instead they just make him another generic hero. So much of Antoine's pathos and charm came from being a pompous clown. You could have made him more competent while still maintaining some sense of bluff and bluster, arguably he would have made a very well rounded character that way (look at types such as Darkwing Duck), but instead they just decided to more or less completely flip around his entire personality.

Actually flaws can naturally disappear, particularly if that character is dynamic. Yes they could have maintained some sense of bluff and bluster while making him competent, but it's not like it's completely against nature to have him toughen up and not do that by having him much stronger and competent.

 

 

 

 

I support them doing that over PRETENDING they have weight in the story when reality they're all pretty much the same generic mould. It's not worth putting Amy in a big role of the story if she's not going to be Amy, or Knuckles if he's not going to be Knuckles. That's the whole point people like their characters in the first place.

No, that's part of why people like their characters. The other parts are their abilities and their actions influencing their being that go along with the event they respond to, with each one having their differences and similarities. All of these things put together are what make up the whole point in people liking them.

 

Again, characters are not solely their personality. 

 

 

 

 

The games don't do a good job with the cast, but I find that less frustrating than the comics placing these characters in such high order roles and then doing absolutely nothing with them, or in some cases actually diluting them. At least the games accept they may as well just use Sonic if they can't do anything unique with another character. It's even more aggravating because the comics actually have the nerve to pretentiously see it all as improvement and development over what the games offer.

Probably because they're not treating the other characters as useless and irrelevant even in minor support roles and don't make the characters act as stereotypes of themselves. I see characters doing far more than standing around and cheering, even if they're not fighting the bad guys. I see them pulling their own weight and influencing each other as oppose to one character doing it and everyone else following along that one character like the others don't matter.

 

In the comics, I see a cocky Sonic throwing himself at the bad guy attacking his friends as he usually does in the games, with the same snark, same taunt, and same impulsiveness playing to the strengths and weaknesses of his character as he deals with an event. Meanwhile, Amy cheers and fawns over him like she does in the game (in a more toned down, less stereotypical manner) while at the same time helping to evacuate people away from the danger, or even better see that same Amy get upset at Sonic getting attacked and throws herself into the fight to smash someone with her hammer (even if said person outclasses her) because she doesn't want to see the person she loves get hurt. I see Amy, even when she's gushing over Sonic while he's away somewhere else, being far more independent by helping out other people in need, or even putting aside her infatuation for Sonic when things get more dangerous; despite being infatuated with Sonic, not everything about Amy revolves around Sonic. When has Amy ever done or been anything like this since Heroes or even all the way back in the Adventures?

 

In the comics, I see Rouge, despite being more of an ally of the heroes, being two-faced and deceptive as she uses more underhanded tactics to her advantage. I see her flirt with other characters, I see her taunt other characters, I see her fight other characters, I see her spy on other characters, and I see her help other characters whenever they help her cause or when there's a greater cause to be made. Such as the case of Treasure Team Tango when she claims she was helping Blaze, Amy, and Cream find a Sol Emerald only to double-cross them to steal it for GUN's cause. Typical Rouge behavior, even with good intentions, she applies ruthless, immoral, and downright underhanded methods to do so. When was the last time we've seen Rouge do any of this in the games?

 

In the comics, we see Omega gleefully blowing shit up and showing off how powerful he is to boast as Eggman's most powerful robot. When was the last time we've seen Omega of all characters do this?

 

What about the Chaotix and their goofy antics in the games? What about Cream, well mannered as she is, being more active, even though she's placed in a much more minor role? What about Knuckles being stubborn, being enraged, being hesitant, yet still committed to his duties or even helping others out when something far more dangerous rears its head and beats him despite all his efforts? Because I've seen their personalities and actions and being active in far more events much more frequently in the comics that I've seen them in the games in almost a decade.

 

 

 

 

But actions and events are formed by their personality.They make what they do distinctive and give a point to using them over any other character there. Archie's setup consists of basically lucky dipping a bunch of generic soldiers into a story and then just having them duke it out with the odd exposition.

No, they aren't.

 

Actions, Events, and a character's Personality all work together in harmony, building and influencing each other. Some may have a stronger pull depending on the circumstances, but they aren't formed by just one thing without the others reciprocating that influence. A cowardly character (personality) can't show their cowardice (actions, such as running away or hiding) if there's nothing that inspires fear from them (an event, be it a character causing it or some other circumstance). A heroic character (personality) can't show their heroics (actions) if there's nothing that requires them to act heroically (events putting others in danger, whether caused by another character or some other circumstance).

 

The events can shape the character personality and invoke an action, or the character's personality makes them take action to shape the events, or a character's actions trigger events that shape their personality, either way you cut it actions, events, and personality work together. Without one, you weaken the others; every single fictional narrative, even the most barebones, work this way in some manner, whether generic or not.

 

 

 

 

 

The games don't do a great job with their cast, but the fact the comics are a story based media and probably have had a lower rate of personality based stories than the former (that at least have very pivotal signs of life such as Sonic Adventure) doesn't say much. Games such as that and Lost World were about defining personality traits and how they progressed the story, and yet the comics have made only a handful of such cases (usually with far less depth and consistency) despite making about 200+ stories over them. And unlike the games, it's main intention is story, you can't just enjoy the gameplay if you don't like it.

They've made 200+ stories, and only a few of them was about defining personality traits and story progression? So the arc where Eggman destroys Knothole, beats Sonic while delivering a "reason you suck speech", captures his friends, and Sonic and co. staging a rescue, get sent to a new city, fight and beat Eggman while returning a "reason you suck" speech of his own wasn't about their personality and their progression through the story?

 

Or Eggman's supposed last stand when all his resources were exhausted as he tries to regain control, and Sonic beats him to the point Eggman mentally cracks, and Sonic ends up feeling bad for it, wasn't about personality traits and story progression?

 

Or Sonic and Co. fighting the Iron Dominion, who's techomancy allows her to pit their strongest defenses against them, and the terror, friction, and conflict that inflicted upon the masses and the Freedom Fighters during and after her defeat when it came to Nicole, wasn't about personality traits and story progression?

 

Or Naugus' ascent to the throne, the distrust he sowed between the people, the Freedom Fighters, and the government as they plotted against each other wasn't about story progression and personality traits? Or Eggman's return to terror during this event that set more conflict and chaos as they had to deal with him and Naugus?

 

How about about the Universe side-stories that show other characters dealing with other issues? The Chaotix looking for a friend of theirs and traveling through all sorts of dangers while dealing with each others antics as they progress to find him? Shadow fighting Metal Sonic in Blaze's world, trying to reason with the robot before ultimately having to destroy him when there was no other option? Blaze traveling to Sonic's world to look for her Sol Emerald with the help of Amy, Cream, and supposedly Rouge in an attempt to save her world while fighting against Team Dark and Team Tango in order to keep it? Silver searching for answers over the cause of the catastrophe affecting his time period, traveling to all sorts of time periods to look for the answers while dealing with said time periods chaos and events?

 

This looks like more than a handful to me.

[E-122-Psi]

 

People complained when they changed Sonic in Heroes because he was nothing more than a two dimensional stereotype of his former self in the Adventures, nevermind that the plot as a whole was a paper thin mess with a few plotholes and barely explained motivations that barely gave enough motivation to draw the audience in with a script that made some people cringe at the dialogue They wouldn't mind him as a goody goody if there weren't other problems plaguing these characters, and it hardly had to do with their vices.
 
By calling Antoine's development a traditional "all flaws are bad so exterminate" you're flat out ignoring everything  in the past that led up to how he is currently, some of which was around even before Flynn took the head in writing characters. Despite having a cowardly demeanor, Antoine still had bouts of confidence and bravery: he was willing to defend Sonic from Geoffery during the Endgame arc when the latter was about to kill Sonic despite the perception that Sonic commited treason. This same character was also willing to put himself at risk in helping to spy on characters like Drago when he felt something suspicious. This same character also went up and karate chops Evil Sonic during issue 112 whenever he was causing trouble, and many many many other feats of events that toughened him up to the point that he takes on Metal Sonic, one of the most dangerous machines Eggman has made, and diverts his attention to take an explosion at point blank meant to kill Elias as he was escaping New Mobotropolis.

 

Sonic usually shrugs off half of this stuff, but Antoine lacking Sonic's resilience and abilities put him at a disadvantage that magnified his cowardice for not being as strong or his bravery when we'd expect him to cower. And because characters like Sonic are the hero, we'd expect him to do and shrug off even the more minor things Antoine was against. We'd expect a heavy hitter like Sonic to take on massive threats and events, but we're more surprised when it's the once cowardly and supposedly weaker character stepping up to take action and make such commitments, so much that it culminates in him nearly paying the ultimate price for it. Without those changes in personality from those events, he would never have been motivated to show such commitment and willingness to nearly sacrifice his life like that and it wouldn't have the same shock value. That's just how much he's set apart from Sonic; I find it easier to see Sonic be willing sacrifice himself than I would Antoine, hence why I'm more shocked when it's the latter who takes the bullet over the former who does it more regularly.

So basically his entire personality is comprised around being this underdog who used to be a coward but now isn't? Basically he relies on this one shtick of being more badass than people in and out universe expect. How is that any different from cases of Flanderization in the games except for the fact it's over a positive aspect rather than a negative?

 

Make him create events? Shock us by his change of heart that leads to surprising his friends and the audience? Tell me, how is he suppose to be made use of if you don't submit him to events? Because at every point in the narrative, there is always an event going on.

There is more to just reacting to events. A character can react to events in a unique manner that has effect on the plot other than 'they're good, they solve it, they're bad, they worsen it'. Heroes are by default reactors, but they can still do so in a manner that has any sort of unique twist or definement, or even have sub plots. Antoine has none outside the 'wow he's not such a wimp after all' sthick. Oh and making kissy faces at Bunnie to remind us they're still a couple.

Actually flaws can naturally disappear, particularly if that character is dynamic. Yes they could have maintained some sense of bluff and bluster while making him competent, but it's not like it's completely against nature to have him toughen up and not do that by having him much stronger and competent.

 

But why make a character COMPLETELY different? Why take away all the traits that made them likable to many in the first place? Some people liked the old Antoine because he was funny or had pathos from his flaws. Now they cannot make those connections at all unless they liked him for his French accent.

No, that's part of why people like their characters. The other parts are their abilities and their actions influencing their being that go along with the event they respond to, with each one having their differences and similarities. All of these things put together are what make up the whole point in people liking them.

 
Again, characters are not solely their personality. 
 

Actions are still connected to personality. Abilities are something, but with the comics rather generic battle scenes I find that hard to consider defining either, especially since so many Sonic characters share abilities (how many techies do we have already?).

Probably because they're not treating the other characters as useless and irrelevant even in minor support roles and don't make the characters act as stereotypes of themselves. I see characters doing far more than standing around and cheering, even if they're not fighting the bad guys. I see them pulling their own weight and influencing each other as oppose to one character doing it and everyone else following along that one character like the others don't matter.

 
In the comics, I see a cocky Sonic throwing himself at the bad guy attacking his friends as he usually does in the games, with the same snark, same taunt, and same impulsiveness playing to the strengths and weaknesses of his character as he deals with an event. Meanwhile, Amy cheers and fawns over him like she does in the game (in a more toned down, less stereotypical manner) while at the same time helping to evacuate people away from the danger, or even better see that same Amy get upset at Sonic getting attacked and throws herself into the fight to smash someone with her hammer (even if said person outclasses her) because she doesn't want to see the person she loves get hurt. I see Amy, even when she's gushing over Sonic while he's away somewhere else, being far more independent by helping out other people in need, or even putting aside her infatuation for Sonic when things get more dangerous; despite being infatuated with Sonic, not everything about Amy revolves around Sonic. When has Amy ever done or been anything like this since Heroes or even all the way back in the Adventures?
 
In the comics, I see Rouge, despite being more of an ally of the heroes, being two-faced and deceptive as she uses more underhanded tactics to her advantage. I see her flirt with other characters, I see her taunt other characters, I see her fight other characters, I see her spy on other characters, and I see her help other characters whenever they help her cause or when there's a greater cause to be made. Such as the case of Treasure Team Tango when she claims she was helping Blaze, Amy, and Cream find a Sol Emerald only to double-cross them to steal it for GUN's cause. Typical Rouge behavior, even with good intentions, she applies ruthless, immoral, and downright underhanded methods to do so. When was the last time we've seen Rouge do any of this in the games?
 
In the comics, we see Omega gleefully blowing shit up and showing off how powerful he is to boast as Eggman's most powerful robot. When was the last time we've seen Omega of all characters do this?
 
What about the Chaotix and their goofy antics in the games? What about Cream, well mannered as she is, being more active, even though she's placed in a much more minor role? What about Knuckles being stubborn, being enraged, being hesitant, yet still committed to his duties or even helping others out when something far more dangerous rears its head and beats him despite all his efforts? Because I've seen their personalities and actions and being active in far more events much more frequently in the comics that I've seen them in the games in almost a decade.
 

Execution plays a lot into it, and the comics favorite form of execution is 'say not do'. Their best form of development is just having the characters talk exposition or backstory. They have the odd quirk here and there but it's not integral to how they perform and usually strictly for brief comic relief. Most exceptions usually lead to pretentious angst, compressed vices or the character just randomly turning into a jerkass (eg. Sonic randomly becoming bad tempered or self righteous).

 

Amy may have some leaway in that case, but as much of it comes from her just blandly going through the motions and being an average Freedom Fighter like everyone else. Of course she won't talk about Sonic because her character is designated to act the same as everyone else in center role; determined, serious and slightly snarky.

 

What about the Chaotix and their goofy antics in the games? Well it has a motive and distinction. They're not a generic sidekick squad like they and many others are in the comics. They have their own job and ambitions. They stand out. Other cases such as Omega and Cream I may give some exception to, but still a lot of it is as bi polar as the games and doesn't affect their presence as just another soldier.

 

 

No, they aren't.
 
Actions, Events, and a character's Personality all work together in harmony, building and influencing each other. Some may have a stronger pull depending on the circumstances, but they aren't formed by just one thing without the others reciprocating that influence. A cowardly character (personality) can't show their cowardice (actions, such as running away or hiding) if there's nothing that inspires fear from them (an event, be it a character causing it or some other circumstance). A heroic character (personality) can't show their heroics (actions) if there's nothing that requires them to act heroically (events putting others in danger, whether caused by another character or some other circumstance).
 
The events can shape the character personality and invoke an action, or the character's personality makes them take action to shape the events, or a character's actions trigger events that shape their personality, either way you cut it actions, events, and personality work together. Without one, you weaken the others; every single fictional narrative, even the most barebones, work this way in some manner, whether generic or not.
 

 

The fact Ian barely makes any stories that have influence on how his key cast's personalities react (or even worse does but then ignores any potential in favor of generic action) isn't an excuse. Characters need circumstance, but they should at least have the odd one that befits their character within over 100 stories., 

They've made 200+ stories, and only a few of them was about defining personality traits and story progression? So the arc where Eggman destroys Knothole, beats Sonic while delivering a "reason you suck speech", captures his friends, and Sonic and co. staging a rescue, get sent to a new city, fight and beat Eggman while returning a "reason you suck" speech of his own wasn't about their personality and their progression through the story?

Par Eggman getting a Not So Harmless moment and Sonic showing yet another Determinator moment, no.

Or Eggman's supposed last stand when all his resources were exhausted as he tries to regain control, and Sonic beats him to the point Eggman mentally cracks, and Sonic ends up feeling bad for it, wasn't about personality traits and story progression?

As said it had some shine, but was resolved ridiculously quickly and had little influence from other characters except generic half hearted pity any of them could say.

Or Sonic and Co. fighting the Iron Dominion, who's techomancy allows her to pit their strongest defenses against them, and the terror, friction, and conflict that inflicted upon the masses and the Freedom Fighters during and after her defeat when it came to Nicole, wasn't about personality traits and story progression?

What should we talk about first? The plot enforced stupidity where neither hero or villain suspected NICOLE might be vulnerable to technomagic? Said dilemma when they finally figure it out being resolved in one issue? Monkey Khan getting a similar exorcism of all his defining traits as Antoine? Or maybe the horrific love triangle between him, Sonic and Sally? The nearest to good characterizations was with Snively, and as said before, Ian has a better run with villains.

Or Naugus' ascent to the throne, the distrust he sowed between the people, the Freedom Fighters, and the government as they plotted against each other wasn't about story progression and personality traits? Or Eggman's return to terror during this event that set more conflict and chaos as they had to deal with him and Naugus?

Which involved randomly altering two long established characters into completely different characters (one for the sake of a villain and the other for the sake of a strawman). The conflict was quickly just sweeped under the rug and I don't really feel for the heroes throughout much of it, Sonic and Sally for their self righteousness and NICOLE due to barely having any personality outside being upset, which again is circumstantial and failed to bring a unique trait throughout the whole thing.

How about about the Universe side-stories that show other characters dealing with other issues? The Chaotix looking for a friend of theirs and traveling through all sorts of dangers while dealing with each others antics as they progress to find him? Shadow fighting Metal Sonic in Blaze's world, trying to reason with the robot before ultimately having to destroy him when there was no other option? Blaze traveling to Sonic's world to look for her Sol Emerald with the help of Amy, Cream, and supposedly Rouge in an attempt to save her world while fighting against Team Dark and Team Tango in order to keep it? Silver searching for answers over the cause of the catastrophe affecting his time period, traveling to all sorts of time periods to look for the answers while dealing with said time periods chaos and events?

 
This looks like more than a handful to me.

Which nearly all go into my problem of execution, solely revolving around generic fight scenes and exposition.

 

I could say the games try similar characterization moments with say, the side missions in Colors or the Olympic Games, and they're cheap little dialogue scenes (that probably still bring out more personality than most of the comic's script). I still stand by my belief that spotlight doesn't 'save' a character, making them 'do cool stuff' doesn't 'save' them. Making them stand out and show what they can contribute to the franchise in a unique fashion 'saves' them. The games don't do a whole lot of that, yes, but the comics don't and still pretentiously try to give the implication they do, and what's more have had LOTS more openings for it than the games have.

 

I'm sorry, but either way, I just don't like the comics and don't get what they do so much better than the games. Call me hypocritical, stubborn, whatever, but that's my opinion. No one will convince me the comics are any better.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

So basically his entire personality is comprised around being this underdog who used to be a coward but now isn't? Basically he relies on this one shtick of being more badass than people in and out universe expect. How is that any different from cases of Flanderization in the games except for the fact it's over a positive aspect rather than a negative?

 

There is more to just reacting to events. A character can react to events in a unique manner that has effect on the plot other than 'they're good, they solve it, they're bad, they worsen it'. Heroes are by default reactors, but they can still do so in a manner that has any sort of unique twist or definement, or even have sub plots. Antoine has none outside the 'wow he's not such a wimp after all' sthick. Oh and making kissy faces at Bunnie to remind us they're still a couple.

Because flanderizing a character restricts that character to just one thing, limiting their ability to adapt and grow, to learn or change depending on the different circumstances they're put in. To flanderize a character is to lock that character in a box, and in the games case they've refused to let the characters out, turning them into stereotypes when in the past, despite having a main quirk that stood out from each other, they could still show other dimensions of their character.

 

In the comics, I see the characters given a chance to take part in the narrative, even in the smallest roles where I think they were of no use only to see them end up getting a bigger role later down the line. But the games as far as recently? I just see them there simply to be there, to the point that I wouldn't miss anything if I took them out. Things are more dynamic and given far more utility in the comics than the games, and that's what makes them different in comparison.

 

For example, Antoine's 'wow he's not such a wimp after all' shtick is the very unique manner that made him go as far as sacrificing his own life despite lacking much of the resilience, power, drive of the other characters. For a weak character like him be willing to take a point blank explosion compared to a strong character who's already taken several in the past speaks volumes of a difference. For said character to have a successful relationship with another character whereas a certain hero had a failure of a relationship despite it holding for who knows how long speaks just as much.

 

It's funny how you're okay with characters in the games standing out with just one personality quirk, only to criticize those in the other medium when they do have few quirks standing out even when you point them out.

 

But why make a character COMPLETELY different? Why take away all the traits that made them likable to many in the first place? Some people liked the old Antoine because he was funny or had pathos from his flaws. Now they cannot make those connections at all unless they liked him for his French accent.

Because development can change a character that way, often to avoid stagnation as they adapt them for any upcoming changes in the overall narrative where their old self could hinder things or not flow well as the narrative progresses.

 

And in the case of Antoine, not all of his traits were likable, one of a cowardly, self-absorbed coward that was more interested in elevating himself and bringing others like Sonic down than helping them. It's done Antoine much better compared to his past when he started growing out of this, and allowing the audience to like him as a more cooperative and reliable character than his once cowardly, incompetent, and less ballsy past. And while he still has moments when he gets fearful, it's more bearable because instead of him puffing his chest out and flinching before the hit comes his way, he's puffing his chest out, taking the hit, and reassessing whether he wants to do it a second time if it hurts him. I'm seeing a lot more people like him now than he was in the past.

 

Actions are still connected to personality. Abilities are something, but with the comics rather generic battle scenes I find that hard to consider defining either, especially since so many Sonic characters share abilities (how many techies do we have already?).

"Actions connected to personality" was basically the exact same thing I just meant when I said "all these things put together are what make up the whole point" and how "characters are not solely their personality" over people liking these characters. We have far less techies than we do speedsters, flyers, and punchers. And even with them sharing abilities there are differences:

 

• Knuckles and Bunnie are strong, but Knuckles can't shoot a plasma cannon out of his arm and Bunny can only use one strong arm to Knuckles two. In addition to being a cyborg, Bunnie has opportunities of sneaking around Eggman's all cyborg troops, but she's vulnerable to tech based attacks that affect her cybernetics.
• Nicole, Tails, and Rotor are techies, but Nicole is much more advanced as a result of being all tech, coming up with solutions that even Tails and Rotor wouldn't think of; Tails is more inexperienced and has more help with Rotor, but he is capable of flight while Rotor is a lot more physically powerful (post-2nd Genesis Wave)
• Sonic, Shadow, Blaze, and Metal Sonic are speedsters, but Shadow and Blaze have more abilities that Sonic does not, such as Shadow being capable of teleporting without the use of a Chaos Emerald and Blaze making use of pyrokinesis, and Metal Sonic is capable of flight and can be rebuilt after being destroyed.

 

I could go on and on and and on with the list of differences in character abilities, but with all these differences in abilities their actions and responses would be different in the samey situations their put in, and their personalities would influence or be influenced by all these other variables connected to their whole being as a character.

 

Execution plays a lot into it, and the comics favorite form of execution is 'say not do'. Their best form of development is just having the characters talk exposition or backstory. They have the odd quirk here and there but it's not integral to how they perform and usually strictly for brief comic relief. Most exceptions usually lead to pretentious angst, compressed vices or the character just randomly turning into a jerkass (eg. Sonic randomly becoming bad tempered or self righteous).

 

Amy may have some leaway in that case, but as much of it comes from her just blandly going through the motions and being an average Freedom Fighter like everyone else. Of course she won't talk about Sonic because her character is designated to act the same as everyone else in center role; determined, serious and slightly snarky.

 

What about the Chaotix and their goofy antics in the games? Well it has a motive and distinction. They're not a generic sidekick squad like they and many others are in the comics. They have their own job and ambitions. They stand out. Other cases such as Omega and Cream I may give some exception to, but still a lot of it is as bi polar as the games and doesn't affect their presence as just another soldier.

 

And this is total BS because for a bunch of "soldiers going into war" like you criticize them for, they seem to be "doing" as much as they're "saying". Nevermind how the odd quirks the game characters have here and there as of recent isn't intergral to how they've been performing in the narrative either, once again to the point that they can be taking out of the narrative and said narrative would be the same, yet you still give them praise for it inspite of that.

 

In the comics, Amy is still the lovestruck, quick to anger, impulsive, with bratty tendencies clashing with her mature ones, etc. character that we've seen in the games. And despite having similar personality traits to others, her triggers of those traits differ.

 

And for the past two games the Chaotix had a role in, they ended up being treated as nothing more than cheerleaders the next time we see them. Yet they've had multiple motives and distinctions in the comics, and despite having a different job and ambition (Charmy was a prince in the previous setting, Espio was the heroes' spy and recon before reluctantly turning traitor to serve this same position for the Iron Dominion, etc.) they still have moments where they stand out and get to take part in what's going on instead of staying on the sides.

 

And unlike the games, not only have Omega and Cream stood out a lot more but they actually get chances contribute than they ever had in the games. Cream is pretty preppy, cheery, and polite compared to the other "soldiers" in the comics far more than the likes of Amy, and is by far the most optimistic. She's no different in the comics than she is in the games, but she's given more opportunities to defend the people in New Mobotropolis while Team Freedom was dealing with the Death Egg, or help out Amy instead of sitting off doing nothing.

 

And as far as Omega goes, he's more sociopathic and comedic while his game counterpart is more robotic and arguably more soldier like. But in the games, Omega is a satellite character to Shadow, while he's had moments to stand out by himself in the comics. Cream is equally a satellite character under Amy.

 

Par Eggman getting a Not So Harmless moment and Sonic showing yet another Determinator moment, no.

 

Despite that boosting Eggman's ego after achieving a major win after so long, shattering Sonic's will by almost destroying and practically breaking him to an extent we've hardly if ever seen anywhere else, increasing more friction with his closest friends that was around for the past forty (that led to a fist-fight between them in an admittedly stupid arc later before things cooled off)? What about how Eggman's triumph against Sonic showed that Sonic couldn't do everything on his own, especially if someone ends up countering everything he blows, and that his friends are there to pick him up when he falls? Can we stop ignoring the other elements that went on?

 

 

As said it had some shine, but was resolved ridiculously quickly and had little influence from other characters except generic half hearted pity any of them could say.

Nevermind that it was a resolution after dozens and dozens of issues of them fighting this threat after so long, or the weakened state done unto Eggman by Enerjak that made it easier for the heroes to take advantage of, but it still has to be drawn out? And that pity they gave him being a point that came back to bite them hard in the ass when Eggman finally came back and was more ruthless than ever?

 

What should we talk about first? The plot enforced stupidity where neither hero or villain suspected NICOLE might be vulnerable to technomagic? Said dilemma when they finally figure it out being resolved in one issue? Monkey Khan getting a similar exorcism of all his defining traits as Antoine? Or maybe the horrific love triangle between him, Sonic and Sally? The nearest to good characterizations was with Snively, and as said before, Ian has a better run with villains.

Yeah, I certainly see that Ian does the villains better, hence why I'd like the games to do better in this area. But considering the various other things that occurred and was connected to these other things, which you are once again disregarding, let's talk about all of the above, shall we?

 

The "plot enforced stupidity" of NICOLE's vulnerability to technomagic?

The Iron Queen didn't even know NICOLE controlled the whole city or that said city was made of nanomachines she could control, only manipulating the stuff that she was aware of being controlled until that point or just simple brute force. But it's not plot enforced stupidity when her troops repelled the first attack on her from the heroes who were the biggest threat to her and got a confidence boost. Nor is it plot enforced stupidity when the Queen had a bigger power base compared to her weaker predecessor at the time. Nor is it plot enforced stupidity when the Queen was capable of turning the heroes cyborg powerhitters against them, limiting their ability to just brute force things and forcing the group to improvise. All of which contributed to her arrogance and overestimating her forces and abilities to where it bit her in the ass, forcing her into a bitter retreat when she felt she was out of options. Nor is it plot enforced stupidity when both during all of these moments, the person who would tell her of this potential vulnerability to NICOLE was too infatuated and overconfident in the Queen and her capabilities to remember this until the Queen shut him away and forced him to improvise a solution to her benefit.

 

In short, being ignorant of your options and overconfident in your abilities are not plot enforced stupidity, lest you apply that to every other media out there that does this.

 

And on top of this, that dilemma was never resolved, as it led to another dilemma where people grew distrustful of NICOLE after she was turned against them, which led to yet another dilemma of Naugus using that distrust to ascend to the throne. And all these things led to more strengths and weaknesses, and created different events, and the characters reacted differently to these circumstances they were put into because of the lack of control on a situation they tried to prevent and were then trying to resolve. All of which were left dangling when legal issues outside of the comic messed up the original plans.

 

Monkey Khan "excorism" of his unique traits?

What excorcism? You mean him being combative, stubborn, abrasive, and lacking in tact before realizing their common goal and working to fight that like they did in the past? Because the first thing Khan did was shoot lightning at Mina's concert and provoke yet another fight between him and Sonic, that luckily for them was cut short. But the guy was still abrasive, the difference being that things got even more personal as his home went in shambles, and doing the same thing on a different circumstance wasn't exactly going to work in his favor. 

 

The "horrific" love triangle between Khan, Sally, and Sonic?

"Horrific" is rather overboard. But yeah, I'm not even going to try to defend this, because this was definitely stupid.

 

Which involved randomly altering two long established characters into completely different characters (one for the sake of a villain and the other for the sake of a strawman). The conflict was quickly just sweeped under the rug and I don't really feel for the heroes throughout much of it, Sonic and Sally for their self righteousness and NICOLE due to barely having any personality outside being upset, which again is circumstantial and failed to bring a unique trait throughout the whole thing.

For one, the conflict was swept under a rug because of real life circumstances completely out of Ian's control. Secondly, NICOLE did have a personality, after having developed into an actual person with real emotion that was shown to be hurt, instead of just a machine giving advice and analysis. She could feel remorse, she could feel happiness, show care, the unique trait of her's being that she was a machine that has evolved into something more than a tool.

 

I could say the games try similar characterization moments with say, the side missions in Colors or the Olympic Games, and they're cheap little dialogue scenes (that probably still bring out more personality than most of the comic's script). I still stand by my belief that spotlight doesn't 'save' a character, making them 'do cool stuff' doesn't 'save' them. Making them stand out and show what they can contribute to the franchise in a unique fashion 'saves' them. The games don't do a whole lot of that, yes, but the comics don't and still pretentiously try to give the implication they do, and what's more have had LOTS more openings for it than the games have.

 

Okay, this is hypocritical as balls, and you damn well know it.

 

You say that making these characters stand out and contribute in a unique fashion is what saves them, yet they're given arcs seperate from the main one showing what it is they're contributing to the greater whole of things in their own fashion. You criticize them as "soldiers going to war", but then dismiss them as hardly doing anything because they're all "say not do". When the comics makes efforts of doing, you brush it off as generic and prententious, that they're "trying" only to imply they're failing or just pretending to be something, which is sounding even more like a denial to acknowledge major elements, quirks, unique abilities, and all around contributions in the medium.

 

Meanwhile, contrary to your very claim, the characters in the games have hardly contributed anything since arguably Heroes up to Sonic 06 depending on the character. Hardly any of them were around to contribute anything unique Unleashed or Colors even when there was plenty of room for them to do so, and when they are around to contribute in Generations, they're relegated to the sides as cheerleaders who only help in level progression and filler. They don't even bother trying to give them anything unique fashion to contribute anymore than they've done in the past to the point of making them irrelevant in the narrative, mostly just there to be background and little more, yet you paint it as something far stellar as what the comics have done, nevermind how much grasping at straws using the Olympic Games of all things as an example of how much better they are than the comics. I mean, really, the Olympic Games? You couldn't have at least made a point to use either the Storybook games, or hell even the Rider games, one of the few sub-series of the games that would have actually proven your point? I may have grievances with other parts of these titles, but even those could have been an acknowledgement on their use of the characters than that the Olympic games.

 

Honestly, I'm more convinced you're doing more bashing of the comics and hiding it under the guise of critical analysis, because it is just ridiculous and discredits everything you've said for you to place something so little and say it's so much despite being treated as irrelevant in the narrative or grasping at straws like that. Especially when it could have done much more and much better.

 

 

I'm sorry, but either way, I just don't like the comics and don't get what they do so much better than the games. Call me hypocritical, stubborn, whatever, but that's my opinion. No one will convince me the comics are any better.

Yeah, let's not go any further on the hypocritical parts of your argument. That would make this post longer than it already is.

 

All in all, I couldn't really care less whether you like the comics or not, and was never out to convince you in the first place; you took it upon yourself to disagree and further kick start this debate when I praised a moment I found awesome and made note of other comic elements I wished to see the games emulate more of.

 

But it appears less that you don't get it and seems to be more that you don't like people acknowledging the comic's strong points over the games. And for you to not get what people they do so much better than the games, after this entire discussion of me and others telling exactly why we find it better, is you shutting your ears to the very answer you were given, disregarding our points through the filter of "I don't like the comics" with undertones of "stop liking what I don't like" the more this discussion progressed.

 

Now, you not liking the comics is perfectly fine. It has it's differences and its flaws and strengths like other mediums, so it's not going to attract the same exact crowd as the games. But while you may disagree, you don't have the excuse of not getting what it is people like about them after they've made an extensive effort to tell you why.

[E-122-Psi]

So basically it's okay for YOU to make claims of how the games are bland and the comic do everything SOOO much better, but when I remotely suggest vice versa I'm an arrogant bullying jerk? Never mind it was you that resorted to personal insults because I had the nerve to disagree with your first comment, on a topic based around people's differing opinions no less. Arguing preferences aren't personal attacks. Condescending insults certainly are though.

 

I'm going to make this reply short, my problem with Archie is that the personalities take a bad seat in favor action. That's what I mean by 'say not do' while still being generic soldiers. Their personalities do not effect how they contribute outside their generic heroic traits (yeah sacrifice and bravery are cool but every hero has them) and most development goes less into rounding them with positive aspects but replacing their previous personality with the former. I don't find Ian's action scenes all that interesting either, so abilities don't really make them distinctive in the generic bashing and background banter. In other words, most characters contributions revolve 'smash enemies and talk smack' and mostly in a manner you feel any character could do in an interchangeable way. The only thing they put much distinction on is backstory, and you can give a broom a tragic past. It's still a broom.

 

The games don't use much potential but they never give the implication they are. They're designed to be simplistic little stories that don't ask for much else. I want other characters to play part but the story isn't calling for it right now so I understand.

 

In the end, maybe I don't see it. Maybe I am just too stubborn to see any life in the comics. That's just how I see it and they just don't do it for me. I guess that's why it's on this thread.

 

If it's any assistance, this guy also gives what is probably a more lucid rendition of most of my problems with the comic:

 

http://laviarray.deviantart.com/art/Archie-s-Sonic-The-Hedgehog-series-analysis-391725689

[Kuzu]

So basically it's okay for YOU to make claims of how the games are bland and the comic do everything SOOO much better, but when I remotely suggest vice versa I'm an arrogant bullying jerk? Never mind it was you that resorted to personal insults because I had the nerve to disagree with your first comment, on a topic based around people's differing opinions no less. Arguing preferences aren't personal attacks. Condescending insults certainly are though.

 

I'm going to make this reply short, my problem with Archie is that the personalities take a bad seat in favor action. That's what I mean by 'say not do' while still being generic soldiers. Their personalities do not effect how they contribute outside their generic heroic traits (yeah sacrifice and bravery are cool but every hero has them) and most development goes less into rounding them with positive aspects but replacing their previous personality with the former. I don't find Ian's action scenes all that interesting either, so abilities don't really make them distinctive in the generic bashing and background banter. In other words, most characters contributions revolve 'smash enemies and talk smack' and mostly in a manner you feel any character could do in an interchangeable way. The only thing they put much distinction on is backstory, and you can give a broom a tragic past. It's still a broom.

 

The games don't use much potential but they never give the implication they are. They're designed to be simplistic little stories that don't ask for much else. I want other characters to play part but the story isn't calling for it right now so I understand.

 

In the end, maybe I don't see it. Maybe I am just too stubborn to see any life in the comics. That's just how I see it and they just don't do it for me. I guess that's why it's on this thread.

 

If it's any assistance, this guy also gives what is probably a more lucid rendition of most of my problems with the comic:

 

http://laviarray.deviantart.com/art/Archie-s-Sonic-The-Hedgehog-series-analysis-391725689

 

Chaos never said the comics are infinitely better than the games, he just said he wished the games would take some cues from them; that's not the same as saying "The comix are so much bettur, games sux". He's also not trying to devalue the games, but calling you out on devaluing the comics and downplaying their merits to justify your claim that they're bad, by giving you evidence to the contrary of your claim that they're boring and pretentious.

 

Basically, this entire thing started because you felt the need to say "Well I don't like the comics for so-so reason" and when he gave you solid evidence to the contrary for your reasoning, you just kind of ignored it and accused of him of bashing the games.

[Biggs]

I thoroughly enjoy the later half of Unleashed's day stages. They're fantastic. Dragon Road and Jungle Joyride are stupendously fun and rewarding.

 

I can't help but feel any levels before that were cataclysmically easy however and thus levels before (and including) Rooftop Run kinda... sucked.

 

Yes, I didn't like the original Rooftop Run. The remake was so much better.

[E-122-Psi]

Chaos never said the comics are infinitely better than the games, he just said he wished the games would take some cues from them; that's not the same as saying "The comix are so much bettur, games sux". He's also not trying to devalue the games, but calling you out on devaluing the comics and downplaying their merits to justify your claim that they're bad, by giving you evidence to the contrary of your claim that they're boring and pretentious.

 

Basically, this entire thing started because you felt the need to say "Well I don't like the comics for so-so reason" and when he gave you solid evidence to the contrary for your reasoning, you just kind of ignored it and accused of him of bashing the games.

His statement was more or less along the lines of 'and this is why I put the comics above the games'. I admit that's not particularly offensive, but all I did was state I disagreed and why I thought so, it wasn't insulting him, it was opinion, and it's no different from his complaints of mass flanderization in the games which I wasn't offended by personally. I can label endless parts of my claims that were ignored and either way I was fine debating until you two resorted to personal insults and directly calling me a 'hypocrite' and full of 'BS'. If you can't debate without treating an opposite opinion like an ignorant personal attack, I'm hardly the only one in the wrong here.

 

I admit it may just come down to personal tastes and I've even admitted that in my previous two posts, but either way I don't like it, and you're the ones who think I'm full of crap for it and should just say my argument is wrong and the comics are good. It just doesn't appeal to me, just like the games don't appeal to you guys.

[Kuzu]

His statement was more or less along the lines of 'and this is why I put the comics above the games'. I admit that's not particularly offensive, but all I did was state I disagreed and why I thought so, it wasn't insulting him, it was opinion, and it's no different from his complaints of mass flanderization in the games. I can label endless parts of my claims that were ignored and either way I was fine debating until you two resorted to personal insults and directly calling me a hypocrite and full of 'BS'. If you can't debate without treating it like a personal attack I'm hardly the only one in the wrong here.

 

I admit it may just come off as personal tastes and I've even admitted that, but either way I don't like it, and you're the ones who think I'm full of crap for it and should just say my argument is wrong and the comics are good.

 

We called you a hypocrite because you're accusing the comic of flaws that are also present in the games, while praising the games for  having those same flaws; is that not what a hypocrite is.

 

Nobody is trying to convince you of anything, you can hate whatever you want, we're just kinda perplexed at how you claim the comics don't do this and that and use that as a reason to decry them, but then turn around and say the games better for doing the same things.

 

 

And calling us out on doing the same in regards to the game isn't really applicable because we actually gave reasons on what the comics do over the games, while all you really did what was just say how much you hated Archie and why they suck compared to the games, while not giving any actual reasons on why the games are better beyond saying "I just like them better". If you can't explain why, cool but don't accuse us of doing something we did when we backed up our reasoning.

[E-122-Psi]

We called you a hypocrite because you're accusing the comic of flaws that are also present in the games, while praising the games for  having those same flaws; is that not what a hypocrite is.

 

Nobody is trying to convince you of anything, you can hate whatever you want, we're just kinda perplexed at how you claim the comics don't do this and that and use that as a reason to decry them, but then turn around and say the games better for doing the same things.

 

 

And calling us out on doing the same in regards to the game isn't really applicable because we actually gave reasons on what the comics do over the games, while all you really did what was just say how much you hated Archie and why they suck compared to the games, while not giving any actual reasons on why the games are better beyond saying "I just like them better". If you can't explain why, cool but don't accuse us of doing something we did when we backed up our reasoning.

Well that's where you're ignoring my part of the argument, which was in terms of execution.

 

I just feel there is something the comics lack in terms of quirks and personality involvement. That is not double standard for the games because they have had points I feel stand out better (eg. Lost World) as well as the fact even the games are bland, they don't give the pretentious air that they aren't. Not to mention half of my arguments stated the games WEREN'T good, but I don't see how the comics do any better (eg. replacing the reliance of a single negative aspect with a positive one for a character, or using loads of characters but making them interchangeable to negate the point). You gave points, it's I don't think they changed how superficial the actual treatment was in the comics, I could make a lengthy analysis of Satam Antoine's character as well but it doesn't change he was also executed as one note comic relief, just like Archie Antoine is executed as another generic set of hands.

 

I accused you because added derogatory remarks and claimed I was full of crap for it, not because you had a different opinion from me.

[Kuzu]

Well that's where you're ignoring my part of the argument, which was in terms of execution.

 

I just feel there is something the comics lack in terms of quirks and personality involvement. That is not double standard for the games because they have had points I feel stand out better (eg. Lost World) as well as the fact even the games are bland, they don't give the pretentious air that they aren't. Not to mention half of my arguments stated the games WEREN'T good, but I don't see how the comics do any better (eg. replacing the reliance of a single negative aspect with a positive one for a character, or using loads of characters but making them interchangeable to negate the point). You gave points, it's I don't think they changed how superficial the actual treatment was in the comics, I could make a lengthy analysis of Satam Antoine's character as well but it doesn't change he was also executed as one note comic relief, just like Archie Antoine is executed as another generic set of hands.

 

I accused you because added derogatory remarks and claimed I was full of crap for it, not because you had a different opinion from me.

 

 

You keep saying you feel one way about both series, but then never bother to explain why. I might have went too far with saying you're full of crap and I apologize, but you could at least bother to explain your point better instead of just expecting us to take your word for it. What about the execution you feel is better? What stands out? How do Archie's moments pale in comparison in light of the similar events taking place?

 

I don't even prefer Archie, but I can at least establish the merits of both far better than what you've explained in the vague terms that you've given. If you can't explain it properly, then I can't really take the claim that Archie is pretentious seriously.

[E-122-Psi]

You keep saying you feel one way about both series, but then never bother to explain why. I might have went too far with saying you're full of crap and I apologize, but you could at least bother to explain your point better instead of just expecting us to take your word for it. What about the execution you feel is better? What stands out? How do Archie's moments pale in comparison in light of the similar events taking place?

 

I don't even prefer Archie, but I can at least establish the merits of both far better than what you've explained in the vague terms that you've given. If you can't explain it properly, then I can't really take the claim that Archie is pretentious seriously.

I've explained several times over. I admit I could be more specific about this but I can't quite pinpoint any better, I even linked to a thorough analysis I thought explained it better. I just think the comics fall in terms of making personalities and usually are too vehement on making the characters be taken seriously, with superficial angst and exposition rather than looking into actual quirks and how they affect their character.

 

In the end I suppose I just like quirky stuff over serious stuff, especially since the quirky stuff accepts it's just a simple silly story. I think it's how some complained the games overdo some character's dialogue and have their key traits perpetually 'turned on'. While I admit that can get obnoxious at times, I like it that way, since it means their mannerisms are unique. The comics subdue this and as said, too much dialogue and actions feel interchangeable, and there's a ridiculous amount of it expressed solely through exposition. I like broad personalities over down to earth ones. Maybe that's more a preference and it might be unfair I place the comics as 'bland' because of it, but I just feel the comics lack enough characterization for a media that focuses more on story than the games.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

So basically it's okay for YOU to make claims of how the games are bland and the comic do everything SOOO much better, but when I remotely suggest vice versa I'm an arrogant bullying jerk? Never mind it was you that resorted to personal insults because I had the nerve to disagree with your first comment, on a topic based around people's differing opinions no less. Arguing preferences aren't personal attacks. Condescending insults certainly are though.

No, it's not okay for you to praise the games for one thing, only to decry the games for the same things. Pretty much what Ragna said. Not once did I call you a bullying jerk, so throw that strawman away. 

 

I called you a hypocrite because you weren't practicing what you're preaching, calling the games as better examples despite working counter to the very things you decry the comics for. If that's too personal, then sorry, but I find it amazing how every specific example I've given you whenever you made a criticism, you brushed it off while not giving anything in return, or when it came to the other things that were interconnected to it as a greater whole you brushed them off as irrelevant over a singular aspect you say isn't found in the comics.

 

Then you say you don't like the comics and don't get what's good about them, despite being given an extensive explanation on what it is people see good in this comics. Again, the comics have their flaws, but they have their strengths that the games don't make point to acknowledge with its characters.

 

I don't mind you disagreeing, but don't expect me to take the disagreement lightly if I see something off about it. This topic is about disagree, but like everywhere else you should be prepared to defend that disagreement regardless.

[Vertekins]

"Sonic Lost World was the first game in which Sonic showed real emotion over the belief of his friend's deaths"
 

 

 

 

 

 
Looks pretty affected by Shadow's, Elise's Shahra's and Caliburn's demises to me. Needless to say, I disagree utterly with the belief that SLW was unique or remarkable for Sonic's character on this front.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

I cried at Sonic and the Secret Rings and at Sonic and the Black Knight. :*(

 

I still belive Sonic is the heart and feeler of the team and he can show emotions.

[Chaos Incarnate]

"Sonic Lost World was the first game in which Sonic showed real emotion over the belief of his friend's deaths"

 

Looks pretty affected by Shadow's Shahra's and Caliburn's demises. Needless to say, I disagree utterly with the belief that SLW was unique or remarkable for Sonic's character on this front.

Lost World did a damn fine job with it, and I'm glad they went back to having Sonic show real concern for his friends and allies (whereas he looked as if he couldn't give two shits in Generations), but saying Lost World is revolutionary in making Sonic feel like a real, genuine character for the first time positively irks me to no end. Whether or not other games did it better is up for debate, but you still can't argue they've done it first.