The Sonic Vs Thread.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Of course there's never any guarantees, but some control variables are needed for the debate to be reasonable, to determine who is merely "most likely" to win, otherwise what's the point on even debating beyond to cheer on your favorite characters and throw out bullshit hypotheticals?

To think outside the box of "This character is the strongest, so he wins, no questions asked". That's my point at least.

 

I again point to my derision of early Pokemon Gym battles. Does anyone really think that Pikachu is likely to win a controlled fight against Onix? No; if the sprinklers hadn't turned on, logic dictates Pikachu would be toast, and to use that happenstance as the basis for asserting Pikachu is stronger than Onix is as disingenuous as using any kind of cheap shot leveled onto the Sonic cast as proof of physical capability.

Nevermind that that whole scene with Pokemon was just flat out rule-breaking, and that happens to be a competition that requires a fair fight be regulated as opposed to what I'm talking about. In addition to that, the scene wasn't pointing that Pikachu was stronger than Onix, it was pointing out that the fight was a fluke on Pikachu's part and that Ash technically forfeitted that match despite Brock giving him the win anyway.

Edited April 11, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Mysterious X]

Of course there's never any guarantees, but some control variables are needed for the debate to be reasonable, to determine who is merely "most likely" to win, otherwise what's the point on even debating beyond to cheer on your favorite characters and throw out bullshit hypotheticals? I again point to my derision of early Pokemon Gym battles. Does anyone really think that Pikachu is likely to win a controlled fight against Onix? No; if the sprinklers hadn't turned on, logic dictates Pikachu would be toast, and to use that happenstance as the basis for asserting Pikachu is stronger than or most likely to win against Onix is as disingenuous as using any kind of cheap shot leveled onto the Sonic cast as proof of physical capability and likelihood of winning.

 

I agree with all that, but we're totally not role playing here, no one is 'controlling' Shadow or whatsoever.

 

I mean I understand, Chaos, that you're saying Omega might have some chances against Shadow, but you still haven't named any.

Why don't you start supporting your idea already?

[Kuzu]

To think outside the box of "This character is the strongest, so he wins, no questions asked". That's my point..

It's more of the why and how they're stronger than anything else.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's more of the why and how they're stronger than anything else.

Nothing wrong with that. But I'm just saying that being the "strongest doesn't mean an automatic win" should be kept in mind.

I agree with all that, but we're totally not role playing here, no one is 'controlling' Shadow or whatsoever.

 

I mean I understand, Chaos, that you're saying Omega might have some chances against Shadow, but you still haven't named any.

Why don't you start supporting your idea already?

I was speaking more generally than I was speaking about Omega vs. Shadow alone. And right now, supporting my idea for that fight alone would be an asspull on my part.

 

I'd like things like the environment to be a factor that helps or harms a character, again generally speaking.

Edited April 11, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Nepenthe]

I find "thinking outside the box" in topics concerning hypothetical battles between fictional characters leads to nothing but stalemates and ridiculous assumptions being put forth, because if anything goes, anyone can win, which inherently eliminates the point of matching up characters in the first place. Why waste my time making a cogent, logical argument that Shadow can kill Cheese if my opponent's not going to address those points, but rather throw in some random bullshit variable that merely flips the fight in Cheese's favor regardless of their objective abilities as fighters? There's just a semblance of a disingenuous nature to the conversation at that point. You also missed the point of my mentioning that battle. xP

[Mysterious X]

I was speaking more generally than I was speaking about Omega vs. Shadow alone. And right now, supporting my idea for that fight alone would be an asspull on my part.

 

I'd like things like the environment to be a factor that helps or harms a character, again generally speaking.

 

I see.

 

So on my end, it's like... Shadow is stronger, smarter, (mindful), faster, uses Chaos energy... Bla bla bla, okay, I just removed the 'regulated competition', now somebody tell me, what advantage does Omega has over Shadow other than his great armor and the ammo that won't be able to hit Shadow most of the times?

Shadow should get exhausted, but I don't suppose Omega has an infinite supply of energy, he's not like, gaining energy from the sun.

I never said Shadow should win 'only' because he is more powerful.

 

I find "thinking outside the box" in topics concerning hypothetical battles between fictional characters leads to nothing stalemates and ridiculous assumptions being put forth, because if anything goes, anyone can win, which inherently eliminates the point of matching up characters in the first place. Why waste my time making a cogent, logical argument that Shadow can kill Cheese if my opponent's not going to address those points, but rather throw in some random bullshit variable that merely flips the fight in Cheese's favor regardless of their objective abilities as fighters? There's just a semblance of a disingenuous nature to the conversation at that point. You also missed the point of my mentioning that battle. xP

 

Emmett was clearly asking how Omega was able to seal Shadow, he thought that this apparently means, Omega had some advantage over Shadow. That's why there 'should' be a point in discussing it.

Shadow Vs. Cheese would be certainly useless, because again, we're not role playing, where there are sharp stuff around for cheese to stab Shadow's Ultimate head.

In general, we can take two characters that are even or close in powers, like Cream and Tails, or maybe Sonic and Shadow, or else discussing the advantages and disadvantages can be a waste of time.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I find "thinking outside the box" in topics concerning hypothetical battles between fictional characters leads to nothing stalemates and ridiculous assumptions being put forth, because if anything goes, anyone can win, which inherently eliminates the point of matching up characters in the first place.

And like I said, I'd prefer "anything goes, anyone can win".

Why waste my time making a cogent, logical argument that Shadow can kill Cheese if my opponent's not going to address those points, but rather throw in some random bullshit variable that merely flips the fight in Cheese's favor regardless of their objective abilities as fighters?

Since when is the environment a "random bullshit variable"? I'm not doing it merely to flip the fight in a character's favor than it is giving them a chance at beating a stronger character.

 

For example, you fight in the air against someone like Tails or Rouge who can fly while characters like Shadow can't, and it's pretty likely Shadow has a disadvantage. Shadow's hovershoes allowing temporary lift allows him to stand a chance instead of free falling while trying to get a shot off of his more agile opponent.

 

Or how about in a volcano against characters like Blaze? Pit her against Knuckles, and she'll generally have the advantage with her manipulation of fire. But since Knuckles can dig and divert lava away, he puts himself in a better position to fight back.

 

Or how about a tech facility? Someone Shadow or Knuckles being powerhouses can simply throw or destroy massive objects towards characters like Tails or Eggman, but because the latter two characters have technology around them, they could use it to even things out.

 

It's a factor that keeps a character's powers being the only variable in the equation and allows weaker or more disadvantage characters to "think outside the box" and try to stand a chance. Rather than, "I'm stronger than you, so there's no way you can win" it's more "He's stronger than me, so I got to find another way to take him on".

 

Or how about that League of Legends example I made a while back? (although that definitely involves teamplay, so maybe, maybe not)

 

You also missed the point of my mentioning that battle. xP

No, I got the point. I'm pointing out that was precisely what I wasn't talking about due to its nature. A cheap shot like that in a regulated fight probably wouldn't fly compared to what I mentioned above.

 

You could have used a better argument with the Cerulean City battle against Misty instead.

Edited April 11, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Diogenes]

And like I said, I'd prefer "anything goes, anyone can win".

Okay, anyone can beat anyone. Topic over, everyone wins/loses.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Okay, anyone can beat anyone. Topic over, everyone wins/loses.

So what? We lock the topic now?

[Mysterious X]

So what? We lock the topic now?

 

Isn't that what you want? =_=

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Isn't that what you want? =_=

Not really, I'm just fighting fire with fire with that comment. I'd really like to have a discussion over this and bring something else to the table instead of being told "No, it's pointless and no use."

Edited April 11, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Mysterious X]

Very good.

 

Now let's discuss something useful, Eggman Vs. Commander. (The commander from Shadow the Hedgehog, with each eye having a different color.)

[Nepenthe]

Since when is the environment a "random bullshit variable"?

When it's catered to the specific abilities of a character to give them an edge they otherwise wouldn't have, which again raises the question: if we're going to allow every single possible scenario entry into the conversation, how in the world do you even begin to reasonably debate who is likely to win a specific match up? You can't, because there is no debate. If anything goes, everyone's a winner under some scenario, meaning the point of discussion is undermined. There has to be some kind of control in play. Personally, I'm a flat, neutral terrain/no power sources kind of person.

No, I got the point. I'm pointing out that was precisely what I wasn't talking about due to its nature. A cheap shot like that in a regulated fight probably wouldn't fly compared to what I mentioned above.

The fact that a cheap shot would be illegal is irrelevant. The point is, there exists a situation in which Pikachu won against Onix. However, it has no bearing on his physical capabilities as compared to Onix, so it's in bad faith to use it as a point in the argument: "Who would win: Onix or Pikachu?" My point would still stand if you had two wild Pokemon thrown into a lake somehow with no Pokemon League to oversee.

You could have used a better argument with the Cerulean City battle against Misty instead.

All I remember about Misty is bikes, Togepi, and Psyduck. xP

Very good.

 

Now let's discuss something useful, Eggman Vs. Commander. (The commander from Shadow the Hedgehog, with each eye having a different color.)

I don't understand this one at all. What does the Commander have on Eggman???

[Mysterious X]

Eggman wants to rule the world, Commander should protect his city. And make some... commands.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Mysterious X

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

When it's catered to the specific abilities of a character to give them an edge they otherwise wouldn't have, which again raises the question: if we're going to allow every single possible scenario entry into the conversation, how in the world do you even begin to reasonably debate who is likely to win a specific match up? You can't, because there is no debate.

Uh, yeah there is. By understanding the environment.

 

It can be as simple as understanding that being on ice makes things slippery, being in a canyon is claustrophobic, being underwater makes you wet, and being in the sky risks you falling down. Kinda like the pokemon battle example your trying to use. In events when the battleground isn't neutral, Ash tries to use it in a way that benefits him even when the match-up is poor or he tries to play upon the abilities of his pokemon in spite of that and hope that he can get lucky.

 

In relation to the Sonic series, when you wind up in a fight like going up against Eggman in Marble Garden when there's no ground you have to keep in mind that you're in the air and Eggman can catch you off-guard from any position. Or when you're fighting Eggman in Casino Night Zone and you're bouncing around like a pinball, you're using the flippers and such to guide you to him. Or when fighting Chaos 4 in SA1, him being underwater gives him the advantage and you have to wait for him to peak his head out to attack him. Or in the same game, where you're fighting the Egg Viper and you're given 2 long platforms that will break anytime Eggman bashes from underneath them, you're trying to fight with what little space you have and win.

 

This is what I mean by the environment. It can spell victory or death for a character who can try to make use of it. It shouldn't be something that puts everything on such an equal playing field that there's no point to arguing who could win, because you can still use a character's powers to nullify the environment and shift the advantage right back into their favor (such as the Egg Viper example) against the one making use of it.

 

If anything goes, everyone's a winner under some scenario, meaning the point of discussion is undermined. There has to be some kind of control in play. 

How about skill and resourcefulness?

Personally, I'm a flat, neutral terrain/no power sources kind of person.

Too bad that's not a guarantee. I'd rather a character try to be resourceful when put in a bad situation and thrown out of their comfort zone like the ones I mentioned above. Allows more flexibility.

The fact that a cheap shot would be illegal is irrelevant. The point is, there exists a situation in which Pikachu won against Onix. However, it has no bearing on his physical capabilities as compared to Onix, so it's in bad faith to use it as a point in the argument: "Who would win: Onix or Pikachu?" My point would still stand if you had two wild Pokemon thrown into a lake somehow with no Pokemon League to oversee.

And with that I would have to ask, what the wild pokemon thrown into the lake are?

 

All I remember about Misty is bikes, Togepi, and Psyduck. xP

Ash and Misty fought in the Cerulean Gym.

 

Ash used Butterfree (because Pikachu refused to fight Misty) against her Staryu and the bug gets defeated due to Staryu's advantage of being in the water. Then Ash switches out Pigeotto against Misty's Starmie, but despite it still being partly a flying type, it wins despite Starmie's advantage in the water.

 

That's my example from Pokemon regarding the environment being put into play.

Edited April 12, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[NocturnalTwilight]

Has anyone done Sonic VS Shadow yet?

 

We've seen Sonic and Shadow fight several times, but we've never seen either finish the fight.

[Splash the Otter]

Has anyone done Sonic VS Shadow yet?

 

We've seen Sonic and Shadow fight several times, but we've never seen either finish the fight.

Didn't they finish it back in SA2? Granted, they both won in their own storyline, but I'm pretty sure Shadow's victory was noncanon, since he was trying to kill Sonic.

Edited April 12, 2013 by ElectroKyurem

[NocturnalTwilight]

Didn't they finish it back in SA2? Granted, they both won in their own storyline, but since Shadow was trying to kill Sonic at the time, I don't don't see how his victory could be canon.

 

I know they fought back in SA2, and that's what I was thinking of. But like you said, they both won in their own story line. 

 

I'm talking about like some crazy battle with no distractions and you can throw in Super Forms as well. 

[Splash the Otter]

I know they fought back in SA2, and that's what I was thinking of. But like you said, they both won in their own story line. 

 

I'm talking about like some crazy battle with no distractions and you can throw in Super Forms as well. 

In Shadow's story, it's believed that he killed Sonic after winning the fight against him. This would have been perfectly in character for him. Sonic on the other hand wasn't out to kill anyone, which implies that his story contains the canon ending. Thus, it's been established that in a match between Sonic and Shadow, Sonic would come out on top!

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Where in the world are you getting the idea that he killed Sonic beyond a simple statement of "I can't let you live?"

[Diogenes]

Well that line implies that's what he intended to do.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Well that line implies that's what he intended to do.

Yet the scene afterwards doesn't show anything on it as far as what canonically happens after their fight as far as the ending goes.

 

Meanwhile, the last story's intro scene picks right up after the Dark story, and goes from there. I'm not seeing the connection; you might as well say they're contradictory.

[Mysterious X]

Has anyone done Sonic VS Shadow yet?

 

We've seen Sonic and Shadow fight several times, but we've never seen either finish the fight.

 

They won't.

 

Didn't they finish it back in SA2? Granted, they both won in their own storyline, but I'm pretty sure Shadow's victory was noncanon, since he was trying to kill Sonic.

 

Sonic's ending is the canon ending.

 

In Shadow's story, it's believed that he killed Sonic after winning the fight against him. This would have been perfectly in character for him. Sonic on the other hand wasn't out to kill anyone, which implies that his story contains the canon ending. Thus, it's been established that in a match between Sonic and Shadow, Sonic would come out on top!

 

Where, when, and who 'established' that?

Give me one clear reason, other than Sonic is the protagonist.

 

Shadow's own arsenal of Chaos energy is obviously an advantage, heck, he destroyed some dozens of Mephiles' clones, tell me this wasn't canon.

Shadow never took off his rings in a fight against Sonic, because the author doesn't want any of them to win (regardless of Shadow's defeat in Sonic Adventure 2, which was necessary for the story to progress),  maybe because if Shadow won, it will be a shock to fans that Sonic really lost(!), and if Sonic won, they will be wondering how did he, since they're 'even', but in fact they're not overall even.

Actually the real reason why Shadow wouldn't take them off, is because when he met Sonic he thought that Sonic was not better than him, when he knew him well, he 'knew' that Sonic is 'not' better than him, he knows he won't need more than he already has to beat (or at least keep up with) Sonic, that, and he doesn't want to kill himself to defeat Sonic because it's really not needed.

 

Where in the world are you getting the idea that he killed Sonic beyond a simple statement of "I can't let you live?"

 

 

Maybe he didn't kill him, but even if he did it won't be canon, the same as the dark endings of Shadow the Hedgehog.

But he was intending to.

 

Yet the scene afterwards doesn't show anything on it as far as what canonically happens after their fight as far as the ending goes.

 

Because Shadow's ending isn't canon.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Because Shadow's ending isn't canon.

Explain. Because the Last Story picks right up from his ending.

[Diogenes]

Meanwhile, the last story's intro scene picks right up after the Dark story,

Or the Hero story. Eggman nabs the emerald while Tails is distracted and presumably does the same thing.