Popular and unpopular Sonic opinions you agree and disagree with!

[Spin Attaxx]

So? The game doesn't have to copy S3&K to be good.

There's a reason why people didn't like Amy and Big's gameplay in Sonic Adventure: not only was it un-Sonic-like, but if you wanted to see the ending, you HAD to play as them.

[Mogtaki]

There's a reason why people didn't like Amy and Big's gameplay in Sonic Adventure: not only was it un-Sonic-like, but if you wanted to see the ending, you HAD to play as them.

They had no place in the game and were somewhat forced in.

[Pawn]

There's a reason why people didn't like Amy and Big's gameplay in Sonic Adventure: not only was it un-Sonic-like, but if you wanted to see the ending, you HAD to play as them.

They didn't like them because they weren't like Sonic, yes. Had they been so though, do you really think there would have been such an issue?

Edited November 23, 2012 by Pawn

[Spin Attaxx]

What one considers fun may not be so for others - especially if they want a satisfying ending and is forced to play as characters he/she doesn't find fun to play as.

[Diogenes]

So then don't make characters that aren't fun to play as! It ain't fuckin' rocket science. Derive every character's gameplay from Sonic's, similar to S3&K, instead of inserting any random idea into the game. Don't just make shitty, unfitting gameplay and then make it optional as if that's a solution.

[Spin Attaxx]

I was working under the mindset that the character system did work like S3&K, not the forced genre-roulette of Adventure. I was trying to say "Have each character play like Sonic with differences AND make it optional".

[Dr. Crusher]

No, I think Spin meant they can be non-gimmicky and work like in S3&K but still be optional... er, like in S3&K.

So if you only want Sonic, you have him. But if you want to play as other characers - with legitimately good and similar gameplay - and their side of the story, you have them.

I don't know, that's just my way of looking at things.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Dr. Crusher

[Nepenthe]

I didn't care about having to different campaigns to get the final ending because they were, on the whole, actually fun and interesting, and they were integral to the game as a whole as part of the experience. I don't jive with this notion that every little thing aside from Sonic has to be optional. If nothing else, that's how games become milquetoast. It's optional, so then mediocrity is forgiven because "you don't have to do it."

[Dr. Crusher]

We're not saying the other characters have to be mediocre. They can still be just as fun if not moreso than Sonic himself.

[Spin Attaxx]

Just because they're optional doesn't mean they don't have to try - after all, kids don't want to play as Knuckles, only to find he superglued his fists to the wall.

EDIT: Crusher, today I ninja'd you a lot... now you strike back.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Spin Attaxx

[Diogenes]

If you want to make a game where other characters are optional, fine. But if you do it right, you won't need to. If you're making the characters optional because you're worried people won't want to play as them, you should instead focus on making those characters fun to play.

[Dr. Crusher]

And if I was ever somehow skilled or lucky enough to be a game designer, I would, because I know there are people out there that want to play as them again.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Dr. Crusher

[Nepenthe]

Of course, being optional doesn't mean anything would have to be mediocre, but I've yet to see a Sonic game where something like an optional character didn't feel either phoned in or merely competent. When something is necessary for play, it inherently requires a greater investment of time and resources to make the feature relevant to actually experiencing the game. All in all, I've had.more fun when I was forced to do something because the developers were aware of this in the first place and thus devoted the time necessary to give it some bit of purpose.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Mogtaki]

Of course, being optional doesn't mean anything would have to be mediocre, but I've yet to see a Sonic game where something like an optional character didn't feel either phoned in or merely competent.

Tails and Knuckles in Sonic 3 and Knuckles?

They didn't HAVE to make them playable, but they did anyway and their gameplay was pretty nice.

[Komodin]

Alternate playable characters... eh, as long as they're fun to play as, I don't really care whether or not they are optional. Then again, I actually like everything about Sonic the Werehog, so I might not be the best authority on this matter.

[Nepenthe]

Tails and Knuckles in Sonic 3 and Knuckles?

They didn't HAVE to make them playable, but they did anyway and their gameplay was pretty nice.

I'm probably the only opponent on here to classic-styled characters because all it amounts to is replacing Sonic's sprites and throwing in an ability or two that exist mainly to take advantage of the unnecessarily-branching level design with nothing interesting to see or find in it, thus I find them the absolute most boring and unimaginative way you could possibly implement other characters. I don't use Tails or Knuckles because they're so "optional" to the experience that I can get all I need from selecting Sonic and calling it a day. I'm not missing anything significant from ignoring them. So what if they're nice to play as?

[Mogtaki]

I'm probably the only opponent on here to classic-styled characters because all it amounts to is replacing Sonic's sprites and throwing in an ability or two that exist mainly to take advantage of the unnecessarily-branching level design with nothing interesting to see or find in it, thus I find them the absolute most boring and unimaginative way you could possibly implement other characters. I don't use Tails or Knuckles because they're so "optional" to the experience that I can get all I need from selecting Sonic and calling it a day. I'm not missing anything significant from ignoring them. So what if they're nice to play as?

They still didn't feel forced in or incompetent. They still played nicely and went well with whatever gameplay style you liked. An opinion doesn't spell out the competence of a character.

[-blank-]

One of the problems I have with the whole 'SA3 thing' is that the people that want it can't seem to give rational reasons as to why they want it in the first place.

Now this, posted by our own 'Penthe, is a logical reason for wanting an SA3;

I genuinely want another Adventure-esque game because the ideas I espouse about how the franchise should be basically take their root in the Adventure games and the spiritual titles, and I feel like the only chance I'd have of seeing some of them again at this point in time would be another stab at the general "formula."

Multiple playable characters who, while still platforming characters charged with getting to the end, aren't mere carbon copies of each other and thus justify their existence as optional characters in the first place? Different narrative viewpoints for each character/campaign establishing a need to make differently designed versions of the same levels so you're not merely playing the same campaign over again a la Heroes? An attempt at involving the player in the world and creating a charming atmosphere through hub worlds? A lack of inhibition at including things like karting, puzzles, or pinball games for the sake of mere fun and variety like other platformers will do? A story that actually bothers trying? Sign me on board with the game that attempts all of these things

See? Perfectly fine reason.

Or, something simple like;

"I want an SA3 because I loved the first two Adventures and want to see a continuation of the formula."

See, if we got more of that, I wouldn't be so damn annoyed with the idea of an SA3. Instead, we mostly get shit reasons that can basically be summarized as 'Oh my gawd! Sawnik is dieing! The only wai to save him is to give the fans a Sawnik Adventur Tree!!!!"

Shut. The hell. Up.

[Diogenes]

So what if they're nice to play as?

That is kind of the most important thing, the way I see it...

Or, something simple like;

"I want an SA3 because I loved the first two Adventures and want to see a continuation of the formula."

That's the implied reasoning for 99% of those people. "I liked a thing, so make more of it!" Edited November 23, 2012 by hella jeff

[TheOcelot]

See, if we got more of that, I wouldn't be so damn annoyed with the idea of an SA3. Instead, we mostly get shit reasons that can basically be summarized as 'Oh my gawd! Sawnik is dieing! The only wai to save him is to give the fans a Sawnik Adventur Tree!!!!"

Shut. The hell. Up.

Whilst I would welcome another shot at an adventure style game, it would never be exactly like the previous titles (not that I necessarily want it to be), and I don't see the need to call the game 'Sonic Adventure 3'. Unless of course Sonic Team just want to get fuck loads of copies sold, like they did by calling Sonic's latest 2d outting Sonic 4. By calling a game SA3, expectations will be through the roof.

Edited November 24, 2012 by NightwingKnux

[Kuzu]

I'm probably the only opponent on here to classic-styled characters because all it amounts to is replacing Sonic's sprites and throwing in an ability or two that exist mainly to take advantage of the unnecessarily-branching level design with nothing interesting to see or find in it, thus I find them the absolute most boring and unimaginative way you could possibly implement other characters. I don't use Tails or Knuckles because they're so "optional" to the experience that I can get all I need from selecting Sonic and calling it a day. I'm not missing anything significant from ignoring them. So what if they're nice to play as?

Even if you feel that way, they're forced upon you and don't have to deal with any of the problems they could potentially have. If the characters are forced, then they must play in a way that doesn't intrude or slow the game down. The reason games like Adventure aren't well liked is mostly because the gameplay styles it DID have completely work against what people traditionally play Sonic for; to go fast.

[Nepenthe]

They still didn't feel forced in or incompetent. They still played nicely and went well with whatever gameplay style you liked. An opinion doesn't spell out the competence of a character.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. My whole point is that optional characters have only ever felt phoned in or merely competent: passable, okay, nothing special, and my view on the way Tails and Knuckles were handled in the classic games aligns with that overall sentiment. I'm not calling them bad; All I'm saying is that they're boring as fuck and we can do far better and more interesting things with them.

Even if you feel that way, they're forced upon you and don't have to deal with any of the problems they could potentially have. If the characters are forced, then they must play in a way that doesn't intrude or slow the game down. The reason games like Adventure aren't well liked is mostly because the gameplay styles it DID have completely work against what people traditionally play Sonic for; to go fast.

Me not having to deal with any problems of optional features because they're optional is not some inherent positive of game design. Again, all it signals to me in terms of Sonic games is that features that could probably be better served by tying them into the design of the main game in a meaningful way are probably not going to be worth my time because they're going to merely be functional at best; not bad enough to warrant docking points, but still irrelevant to the point that it adds nothing to the main experience of that particular game, and I want more from my games than that.

And if the characters need to be fast to be non-optional, then just make them fast. This isn't hard.

That is kind of the most important thing, the way I see it...

I feel this statement is symptomatic of the "Why do you care about anything in video games aside from gameplay, you hipster" sentiment that permeates gaming culture. I'm not saying gameplay isn't important, but it's not the only important thing to the game, and nice gameplay is sometimes not enough to save an otherwise mediocre experience. I'm not going to settle for the classic-styled way of doing characters just because they're "nice to play as," not when there's better ways of doing things.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Diogenes]

I feel this statement is symptomatic of the "Why do you care about anything in video games aside from gameplay, you hipster" sentiment that permeates gaming culture. I'm not saying gameplay isn't important, but it's not the only important thing to the game, and nice gameplay is sometimes not enough to save an otherwise mediocre experience. I'm not going to settle for the classic-styled way of doing characters just because they're "nice to play as," not when there's better ways of doing things.

I'm not going to say that it's the only important thing, but with a rare few exceptions, I will say it is the most important thing. But (and this is not the first time it's come up, so I don't really expect to convince you of anything, and I'm not sure I'll ever understand it) I don't get why you need some explicit goal, some special treat, to make other characters worthwhile. I don't understand why playing the game is not a reward in itself, why the tools given to you and the act of using them isn't praiseworthy.

---

Unpopular opinion, maybe?: Seven Rings in Hand is actually a pretty good song. It's just that, playing SatSR, you get sick of hearing it just from the menus, and then it plays during the final boss on top of that. Go a few years without hearing it and it's actually surprisingly nice...

I like a lot of SatSR's music, actually.

[Kuzu]

I never really had a problem with Seven Rings in Hand, even with it playing all of the time in the game, I found myself loving it.

[Nepenthe]

I prefer games where the elements therein are meant to compliment the gameplay, not merely be subservient to it just because it's a game, to create an experience where I feel like I'm in the world and am thus emotionally invested in it. I'm not saying that I don't play games and have fun with them if they don't try to create some atmosphere or interesting narrative; there's plenty of games I like that don't, either by intention or function. However, I will not play these games for long, nor will I be as inclined to return back to them. Once I beat Super Mario Galaxy, I never picked it up again. But I play Unleashed much more often, despite knowing full well it's not as good as Galaxy. That's because it's a world I'm invested in, and ultimately I don't give a shit that it's linear or whatever. I genuinely enjoy the entire experience, thus I don't begrudge it.

Basically, I like to have fun, but my favorite games are the ones that strive to be engaging on a deeper level than providing fun. I mean, I can have fun with Diner Dash for just gameplay's sake if I want to, and I do sometimes. But it's no Skyward Sword.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Nepenthe