Characters you don't want to return

[Kuzu]

No that's actually kind of the most important point.

What's fun for one person isn't going to be fun for all.

But this has never coalesced into something coherent and fun that relates to Sonic in a way similar to Tails and Knuckles did in S3&K.

How so?

You're reducing the complaint to a parody of itself. There are more options than the two extremes of "literally identical" and "not at all the same"; there is a sweet spot where they share the same core mechanics but have a few interesting variations.

But that's generally what everyone's problem with Shadow tends to be as far as his gameplay appearances are concerned. I'm not saying his gameplay appearances have been done particularly well, but its generally agreed upon that he was least inoffensive when he played like Sonic and they did go out of their way to differentiate him later on in the series.

So I don't understand the complaint: "He doesn't add anything to the series" when that's just not true.

Shadow doesn't usually get derided for playing similar to Sonic, it's for being a lame steryotype and needlessly dark character since his own spinoff  game. Variety is the spice of life, what's the point of making Shadow playable if he's similar to Sonic? If you're going to make him playable, you've got to give him his own unique abilities( no guns please) that make us feel like he isn't a waste of space being there. Tails and Knuckles don't get crap for not playing similar to Sonic, it's for straying to far from the formula of platforming and getting to the goal ring on foot. I don't see how they play similar to Sonic, aside from playing on foot, and Tails just being a re skin of Sonic in Sonic 2. Knuckles has always felt the most unique of any playable character, having a limited jump and glide ability to hang onto walls. Tails getting the ability to fly in almost every game makes him pretty unique to Sonic, in my mind. Being forced into a mech suit and destroying hordes of enemies can get boring for a while, and you have no idea how frustrating it can be being forced to look for emerald pieces for Knuckles and being stuck on that last shard. If it's those two gameplay styles you're referring to, I agree with the hate for them.

Tails & Knuckles can literally do everything Sonic can do and then some; They're all the same speed, they all have the spin jump, and can all spin dash. Shadow also possess these abilities in all of his appearances. Shadow has also gotten similar differentiation in later appearances, disregarding his guns he's still has had access to his various Chaos abilities. If people hate him for his personality, then that's an issue with the writing not his gameplay quirks.

[Chaos Incarnate]

Tails & Knuckles can literally do everything Sonic can do and then some; They're all the same speed, they all have the spin jump, and can all spin dash. Shadow also possess these abilities in all of his appearances. Shadow has also gotten similar differentiation in later appearances, disregarding his guns he's still has had access to his various Chaos abilities. If people hate him for his personality, then that's an issue with the writing not his gameplay quirks.

Most people are biased and don't want him to return because of his personality, regardless of gameplay. 

 

I could disagree with Tails and Knuckles doing everything Sonic can. For instance, while I don't want it to return, I don't see Tails or Knuckles boosting, or getting a lot of the abilites Sonic has gotten in the recent games. With Tails, there's no need for homing attack chains, he could easily fly over large gaps. Knuckles is simple, just dedicate his style to alternate routes in vein of Sonic 3 & K, being able to access areas Sonic can't. The same could be said for Tails. I wouldn't mind if they were slowed down just a tad bit, as long as they don't feel like a pain to play as, and have a relatively decent speed.

[Tara]

What's fun for one person isn't going to be fun for all.

While that's true, if he isn't contributing anything the majority of the fans consider "fun," then I think that's a pretty decent criticism and more than sufficient reasoning to be opposed to his returning.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Akito

[Nepenthe]

If you extend that beyond the fan base however, then every character has pretty much been deemed as un-fun to play as, hence the shitty friends sentiment, so I don't see it as entirely rational to rule out one character on this basis but not others, especially when you could completely fix the problem anyway but making unfun characters, you know, fun. That's entirely possible- Sonic himself has seen both ends of the spectrum and we didn't up and quit the entire damn franchise.

 

This goes back to my initial opinion: there aren't any recurring characters who absolutely deserve the axe on some weird basis of being unsalvageable, because the fact is they aren't. It'd be quite the uphill battle to successfully make such an argument to the point that I'd have no choice but to believe some cast members are in the same situation like the likes of Chip or Mephiles who were deliberately written to never return.

[Tara]

If you extend that beyond the fan base however, then every character has pretty much been deemed as un-fun to play as, hence the shitty friends sentiment, so I don't see it as entirely rational to rule out one character on this basis but not others, especially when you could completely fix the problem anyway but making unfun characters, you know, fun. That's entirely possible- Sonic himself has seen both ends of the spectrum and we didn't up and quit the entire damn franchise.

 

This goes back to my initial opinion: there aren't any recurring characters who absolutely deserve the axe on some weird basis of being unsalvageable, because the fact is they aren't. It'd be quite the uphill battle to successfully make such an argument to the point that I'd have no choice but to believe some cast members are in the same situation like the likes of Chip or Mephiles who were deliberately written to never return.

But as I said earlier, if you rework anything the right way, of course they can be salvageable, but on a list of characters I'd rather be salvaged, some are lower than others.  Shadow, for example, is not very high on my list because he sort of makes the light-hearted games a little too depressing.  He often comes across as the guy that will come to your wedding to remind that you haven't found a cure for cancer yet.  So I'd rather him... just... I don't know.  Not appear for awhile.  Or at least I'd rather see other characters before him.

 

It's not that he can't be saved by better writing and such, it's just that I'm more interested in seeing others, such as Tails or Knuckles, reworked a little.  Their personalities are more interesting to me, their roles in the series are more prominent to me.  So naturally, I wouldn't mind seeing them reworked and wouldn't care one way or the other if some of the other characters that never appealed to me got the boot.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Akito

[Kuzu]

Most people are biased and don't want him to return because of his personality, regardless of gameplay. 

 

I could disagree with Tails and Knuckles doing everything Sonic can. For instance, while I don't want it to return, I don't see Tails or Knuckles boosting, or getting a lot of the abilites Sonic has gotten in the recent games. With Tails, there's no need for homing attack chains, he could easily fly over large gaps. Knuckles is simple, just dedicate his style to alternate routes in vein of Sonic 3 & K, being able to access areas Sonic can't. The same could be said for Tails. I wouldn't mind if they were slowed down just a tad bit, as long as they don't feel like a pain to play as, and have a relatively decent speed.

That doesn't explain how he apparently cannot work in the series compared to everyone else.

 

I was speaking in the context of Sonic 3 & Knuckles, in which they literally do have all of the abilities Sonic has, with the exception being the Insta-shield and Shield power ups. 

 

While that's true, if he isn't contributing anything the majority of the fans consider "fun," then I think that's a pretty decent criticism and more than sufficient reasoning to be opposed to his returning.

 

...Except Shadow has had the most Sonic-like gameplay of any playable character in the 3D era; everytime he shows up, he always has Sonic's moveset something people generally agree is the best part of the game. So....how is contributing less than characters who've hardly play liked that at all since their 3D debut?

But as I said earlier, if you rework anything the right way, of course they can be salvageable, but on a list of characters I'd rather be salvaged, some are lower than others.  Shadow, for example, is not very high on my list because he sort of makes the light-hearted games a little too depressing.  He often comes across as the guy that will come to your wedding to remind that you haven't found a cure for cancer yet.  So I'd rather him... just... I don't know.  Not appear for awhile.  Or at least I'd rather see other characters before him.

 

It's not that he can't be saved by better writing and such, it's just that I'm more interested in seeing others, such as Tails or Knuckles, reworked a little.  Their personalities are more interesting to me, their roles in the series are more prominent to me.  So naturally, I wouldn't mind seeing them reworked and wouldn't care one way or the other if some of the other characters that never appealed to me got the boot.

 

If you're not interested in Shadow then that's fine, just don't try to justify it by claiming he's "unsalvageable" when he isn't.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Azure Yakuzu

[Nepenthe]

Assigning a hierarchy of sorts of who you want to appear sooner is quite different from wanting a character to literally never return on the basis of a temporary problem. If nothing else, that seems like a natural thing to do if you have favorite characters- you're going to want to see them more than the others that aren't your favorite. But me not liking, say, Metal Sonic for his problems and thus not giving a shit that he's in limbo currently doesn't mean I'm going to angrily declare he can never show up again as a result, which is basically what the topic is asking: Who do you not want to see ever again? And frankly, my answer would be "No one who isn't dead," because I can't even conceive of a rational reason for any of the recurring cast to stay away in the first place.

[Tara]

...Except Shadow has had the most Sonic-like gameplay of any playable character in the 3D era; everytime he shows up, he always has Sonic's moveset something people generally agree is the best part of the game. So....how is contributing less than characters who've hardly play liked that at all since their 3D debut?

Eh, guess it boils down to atmosphere.  I'd rather play as the cocky do-good than the boring, angsty guy, even if they do essentially play exactly the same.  To me, atmosphere and presentation is just as important as core gameplay.  If you get one wrong, it can really drag down the other.

 

Assigning a hierarchy of sorts of who you want to appear sooner is quite different from wanting a character to literally never return on the basis of a temporary problem. If nothing else, that seems like a natural thing to do if you have favorite characters- you're going to want to see them more than the others that aren't your favorite. But me not liking, say, Metal Sonic for his problems and thus not giving a shit that he's in limbo currently doesn't mean I'm going to angrily declare he can never show up again as a result, which is basically what the topic is asking: Who do you not want to see ever again? And frankly, my answer would be "No one who isn't dead," because I can't even conceive of a rational reason for any of the recurring cast to stay away in the first place.

I suppose that's true, then.  None of the characters really rub me in a way where I'd be upset that they are in the game.  I don't know, though.  I think there's more reasons to not want a character to return than despising them, though.  Unfortunately, the only characters I can think that fit that description are... well, dead or otherwise shouldn't return for story-related reasons, so I guess I can't give a decent example. ^^;

Edited September 2, 2013 by Akito

[Kuzu]

Kinda wish we could change the topic title so its less "I hate this character and he should never appear again"

[Zaysho]

But as I said earlier, if you rework anything the right way, of course they can be salvageable, but on a list of characters I'd rather be salvaged, some are lower than others.  Shadow, for example, is not very high on my list because he sort of makes the light-hearted games a little too depressing.  He often comes across as the guy that will come to your wedding to remind that you haven't found a cure for cancer yet.  So I'd rather him... just... I don't know.  Not appear for awhile.  Or at least I'd rather see other characters before him.

 

That's a bit extreme, wouldn't you say? You're calling him depressing, when I don't really see that as the case. There are no bad characters, only bad writers, and like everyone else in this franchise, Shadow's suffered at the hands of bad writers. The only difference is, he hasn't gotten a shot at redemption yet. SEGA sure as hell doesn't want to actually make him an interesting character. They practically put Vegeta's words in his mouth in Generations and called it a day (oh, SEGA, you're really not helping my argument against Sonic and DBZ not being remotely similar). Yes, he's much more deadpan serious than Sonic, but can't that make him an interesting counterpoint to Sonic as well? He doesn't moan and cry in his pillow every night about Maria anymore, he hasn't since 2005. With his personal issues resolved, what's stopping him from being an interesting character and watching him clash with Sonic a bit in a fun way?

 

The funny thing with Shadow is that he has to take things seriously all the time, and, as in the Archie Comics, he ends up surrounding himself with people who prevent him from going off the deep end. Team Dark, for all its quirks, balances out Shadow's heaviness perfectly; Rouge keeps him grounded, Omega helps him deal with his frustrations. Where they fail, Hope steps in and reminds him he doesn't have to be perfect and that he can only get better. Shadow in turn keeps the other two in line because of his own sense of morality (e.g. he forced Rouge to return the Sol Emerald to Blaze, despite initially wanting to help Rouge steal it). Sonic and Shadow can be on friendly rival terms (like Sonic and Knuckles of old), and give Shadow some levity by focusing more on their own competition and Shadow having shades of a "comically serious" hero. There's nothing a little bit of good writing can't do to make him worthwhile without turning him into a jerkass or a black hole of depression.

 

Personally, I feel this way about most characters, except for those that were written with the intention of not bringing them back. But the series mainstays? I don't think it'd be the worst thing in the world for them to all get a bit of better treatment and share just a tiny bit of the spotlight with the main hero (Sonic). We've had games that have only exclusively focused on Sonic for the last six years or so (and this probably won't change anytime soon), but I don't see an issue with the supporting cast getting some touch ups so they aren't these ridiculous caricatures with no actual personality that just take up space. It doesn't have to be all at once, but it can certainly be a nice gradual process so they aren't relegated to displays in a Sonic museum (under the banner "remember these assholes?").

[Tara]

But that's the problem.  If the writers don't know how to write him in an interesting way, then he's not going to be written in an interesting way.  So I think the whole "he's a victim of bad writing" is a poor excuse for justifying his presence.  That, and a character is defined by his/her writers, but I'll save that for a different argument.

 

There's nothing wrong with being more deadpan or serious, but in game about cute little animals, he just comes across as a buzzkill.  He was all right in SA2, I guess, but then they milked him for all he was worth and thus ShTH was born.

 

Compare him to Giroro from Sgt. Frog.  He's the more "serious" type, similar to Shadow, but he interacts well within the world around him, contributing to the comedic atmosphere as opposed to taking away from it.  If they can make Shadow do the same, then okay.  I don't mind, and I might even grow to like Shadow.  But as is, I'd rather not see him if they're going to continue to write him in the same boring way.

 

If you're not interested in Shadow then that's fine, just don't try to justify it by claiming he's "unsalvageable" when he isn't.

I don't recall ever saying that, although as Nepenthe mentioned that sort of is implied thanks largely to the topic title.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Akito

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

So here's a thought: why not, instead of putting characters in order of which you would prefer get fixed up first, just fix them up alongside other characters in more desperate need of repair? You want Tails or Knux fixed up, okay, but why should others like Shadow or Rouge have to wait and not be fixed at the same time?

 

Obviously, character balance is one thing, but if the narrative allows room for it, why skirt this chance and keep them waiting in line? It seems a lot of people here are up for second chances, but when you try to do it as soon as possible people hesitate on characters that are "low on their list," and you might as well believe they want to continue hating the character and use them as a whipping boy more.

Edited September 2, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Kuzu]

I wanna address something; I don't the writers don't know HOW to write Shadow, in so much they simply refuse to because I don't really think its that hard to give a character a purpose and go from there, Sega are just too caught up in the shitty friends complaints to do anything. Its the most paradoxical thing ever, they're not using the characters because people don't like them, yet they refuse to try to give a reason for people to like these characters. Sometimes I just wanna go to Sega and give'em a swift kick in the balls.

 

But that's beside the point; I like Shadow and what he brings, I don't feel he drags away from the series because he's the "serious" character among a colorful atmosphere, if anything it makes him standout that much more in eyes. I'm not gonna say he's been utilized particularly well, but neither has nobody else which is why it still bugs me that Shadow still seems to get the brunt of the hatred. And until Sega do something to make him likable again, he's gonna stay that way but Sega refuse to do anything with these characters, so basically Shadow isn't going to be doing anything memorable anytime soon.

[Tara]

So here's a thought: why not, instead of putting characters in order of which you would prefer get fixed up first, just fix them up alongside other characters in more desperate need of repair? You want Tails or Knux fixed up, okay, but why should others like Shadow or Rouge have to wait and not be fixed at the same time? Obviously, character balance is one thing, but if the narrative allows room for it, why skirt this chance and keep them waiting in line? It seems a lot of people here are up for second chances, but when you try to do it as soon as possible people hesitate on characters that are "low on their list," and you might as well believe they want to continue hating the character and use them as a whipping boy more.

If there's room in the narrative, then sure why not?  But only if they fit reasonably within the narrative.

 

If they can be fixed up to a point where I like them and don't feel out of place for me, then I'm open to it.  I just don't care if they do or not is what I'm saying.

[Kuzu]

*Ignore this* 

Edited September 2, 2013 by Azure Yakuzu

[Zaysho]

But that's the problem.  If the writers don't know how to write him in an interesting way, then he's not going to be written in an interesting way.  So I think the whole "he's a victim of bad writing" is a poor excuse for justifying his presence.  That, and a character is defined by his/her writers, but I'll save that for a different argument.

 

Characters can be interpreted multiple ways under different writers though. Look at TMNT, there isn't a totally definitive version of the Turtles, not even when they were still owned by Mirage. But even then, people have their own ideas about what they consider "true" for the characters. Some people love the Fred Wolf version, others are Mirage purists, so on and so forth. I groaned the second I read the name "General Krang" in the first issue of IDW's series, and you know what? I found I really enjoy that incarnation when I have no love for the Fred Wolf version. Hell, I'm looking forward to Bebop and Rocksteady's return, and again, I have no love for the Fred Wolf cartoon.

 

So, no, I don't think a character can always be defined by his/her writer(s), and that's just as much of a poor excuse for justifying them being shoved out of the way. We don't even have a definitive writer for Sonic's character yet, and there are different versions of just him, even in the games. Unleashed focused on his kindness, Black Knight focused on his morality, Colors... I dunno, that he's the funny guy? I'm just saying there's potential for any character, and if writers that actually get the characters and can balance it all and turn in fun stories and interpretations (I'm a fan of Black Knight's writing, personally) then it should happen. Though, as Azure Yakuzu pointed out, SEGA likely won't simply because of fan demands, which makes it harder.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

But that's the problem.  If the writers don't know how to write him in an interesting way, then he's not going to be written in an interesting way.  So I think the whole "he's a victim of bad writing" is a poor excuse for justifying his presence.  That, and a character is defined by his/her writers, but I'll save that for a different argument.

 

Actually no, let's have it right now, because it irks me how being a "victim of bad writing" is such a poor excuse for justifying his presence when he and every character such as Tails has been said victim of it, yet you are more forgiving on certain characters like Tails than others and want them to be better written.

 

If the writers don't know how to write him in an interesting way, you know the solution to that problem? It's called finding better writers. Writers have made Aquaman of the DC comics from one of the more useless characters into straight up badass come around Justice League, writers have turned Raiden of Metal Gear Solid fame from a whiny annoyance that some believe to have stolen Snake's role in MGS2 to a straight up badass cyborg ninja that made many of those same fans willing to give him a second chance at having his own game.

 

There are writers out their capable of rescuing scrappies from the scrappy heap, and it's a matter of finding the good ones that do. So if anything, being a victim of bad writing is every bit of a strong point as it can be, because it says a lot that characters like Shadow were well recieved on their debut before becoming known as a "shitty friend" later on as a result of terrible writing in those later games.

Edited September 2, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Tara]

Characters can be interpreted multiple ways under different writers though. Look at TMNT, there isn't a totally definitive version of the Turtles, not even when they were still owned by Mirage. But even then, people have their own ideas about what they consider "true" for the characters. Some people love the Fred Wolf version, others are Mirage purists, so on and so forth. I groaned the second I read the name "General Krang" in the first issue of IDW's series, and you know what? I found I really enjoy that incarnation when I have no love for the Fred Wolf version. Hell, I'm looking forward to Bebop and Rocksteady's return, and again, I have no love for the Fred Wolf cartoon.

 

So, no, I don't think a character can always be defined by his/her writer(s), and that's just as much of a poor excuse for justifying them being shoved out of the way. We don't even have a definitive writer for Sonic's character yet, and there are different versions of just him, even in the games. Unleashed focused on his kindness, Black Knight focused on his morality, Colors... I dunno, that he's the funny guy? I'm just saying there's potential for any character, and if writers that actually get the characters and can balance it all and turn in fun stories and interpretations (I'm a fan of Black Knight's writing, personally) then it should happen. Though, as Azure Yakuzu pointed out, SEGA likely won't simply because of fan demands, which makes it harder.

I guess it's bad time to point out that I don't like any TMNT series except the 1986 version...

 

But yeah, every writer has a slightly different take on him, but the base of his personality is all the same.  Shadow will always be the grittier version of Sonic.  That's an established canon that I'd actually be upset if they decided to change.  Even if they find someone who redeems Shadow and makes him a better character, then that doesn't make Shadow a good character.  That just makes this particular version of Shadow good.  Unless the series undergoes a massive reboot, his motivations, actions, and core traits are all defined by the past writers.

 

The problem with your example with TMNT is that those are all completely different series.  I don't read Archie Sonic expecting him to act exactly like game Sonic.  If I don't like the way Sonic acts in one, I go to the other.  Yes, they're technically both Sonic, but they're different versions of Sonic.  With different versions, you're mostly free to do whatever the hell you want with them as long as it abides by certain core principles.  Sure, the games have gone through various changes in atmosphere, but... well, you see, I've never exactly praised that aspect either.

 

Actually no, let's have it right now, because it irks me how being a "victim of bad writing" is such a poor excuse for justifying his presence when he and every character such as Tails has been said victim of it, yet you are more forgiving on certain characters like Tails than others and want them to be better written.

Because they're more interesting characters.  If they're going to write all the characters bad, I'd rather see the characters that are less bad than the characters that are more bad.  Is that really such a bad thing?  Would you continue washing your clothes with soap that doesn't work just because the company is poorly managed?  No, you want the best results possible.  So even if the only soap you can afford for whatever reason doesn't work super well either, it still works better than the soap that leaves dirt stains plainly visible all over your white t-shirts.

 

 

If the writers don't know how to write him in an interesting way, you know the solution to that problem? It's called finding better writers. Writers have made Aquaman of the DC comics from one of the more useless characters into straight up badass come around Justice League, writers have turned Raiden of Metal Gear Solid fame from a whiny annoyance that some believe to have stolen Snake's role in MGS2 to a straight up badass cyborg ninja that made many of those same fans willing to give him a second chance at having his own game.

The point is, they're not going to do that.  So as long as they're not going to do that, I'd rather them focus on characters I actually like seeing than characters I don't.

 

 

There are writers out their capable of rescuing scrappies from the scrappy heap, and it's a matter of finding the good ones that do. So if anything, being a victim of bad writing is every bit of a strong point as it can be, because it says a lot that characters like Shadow were well recieved on their debut before becoming known as a "shitty friend" later on as a result of terrible writing in those later games.

Except it's still a poor excuse.  As I said, if you reworked anything, it could be improved.  Why is Shadow so special in this?  Yeah, he could be improved, but as long as he's not, I'd rather not see him.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Akito

[Aquaslash]

Shadow can easily work in lighthearted stories.  His seriousness is just asking to be played for laughs and offset by goofy characters.  Have him interact with someone like Bean, and there's hilarity everywhere.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Because they're more interesting characters.  If they're going to write all the characters bad, I'd rather see the characters that are less bad than the characters that are more bad.  Is that really such a bad thing?  Would you continue washing your clothes with soap that doesn't work just because the company is poorly managed?  No, you want the best results possible.  So even if the only soap you can afford for whatever reason doesn't work super well either, it still works better than the soap that leaves dirt stains plainly visible all over your white t-shirts.

 

Yes it is, because if they're going to write all the characters bad, what in the world makes certain characters "less" bad than others if they all suck? If Shadow was good, and Tails was good, but then both of them sucked to high hell and kept sucking, why is Tails "less" bad than Shadow and someone you want to see when he he is absolutely no better? What puts him above the list? Obviously it's a personal thing since people do have favorite characters, but even so, neither character has the "best results possible" when they've both been put through the shitter and are in need of cleaning.

 

So if the characters are all bad, there is no such "less" bad of character with one another. If you like them more, that's one thing, but your liking them more doesn't equate to them being a better character. I like Shadow, and no way can I or anyone say that he's a better character than the likes of Big the Cat simply because I like him over the purple fisher.

 

 

 

Except it's still a poor excuse.  As I said, if you reworked anything, it could be improved.  Why is Shadow so special in this?  Yeah, he could be improved, but as long as he's not, I'd rather not see him.

 

Not it isn't, not when that's the one of whole reasons things were in bad shape in the first place at the time over why such characters sucked in addition to their gameplay. Hence the whole "Shitty friends" sentiment because they were so poorly written and played that their characterizations and gameplay were shit, which is all the more incentive that people want things reworked and improved so that they aren't shit anymore. Being a victim of poor writing is not devalued by the ability to rework anything, because that's practically the whole motivation towards having them improved at all. 

 

I'll ask you the same question: why are Tails and Knuckles so special in this? If they end up sucking, why are you more forgiving?

 

It's not that Shadow's special, but that he tends to be singled out as a character that some would rather keep moving the goalposts over when the chance to improve him should come when he is no less capable of failure or success than the likes of Tails or even Sonic himself as far as the franchise as a whole was concerned; that should he suck, they shouldn't bother trying to fix him, while if Tails, Sonic, or the franchise were to suck they should put forth the effort to make them better.

Edited September 2, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Kuzu]

 

 

 

Except it's still a poor excuse.  As I said, if you reworked anything, it could be improved.  Why is Shadow so special in this?  Yeah, he could be improved, but as long as he's not, I'd rather not see him.

 

I just wanna address this point:...How can he improve if you're aren't willing to see him?

Edited September 2, 2013 by Azure Yakuzu

[Zaysho]

But yeah, every writer has a slightly different take on him, but the base of his personality is all the same.  Shadow will always be the grittier version of Sonic.  That's an established canon that I'd actually be upset if they decided to change.  Even if they find someone who redeems Shadow and makes him a better character, then that doesn't make Shadow a good character.  That just makes this particular version of Shadow good.  Unless the series undergoes a massive reboot, his motivations, actions, and core traits are all defined by the past writers.

 

No, by your own admission my example with the TMNT refers to different versions of the property that have wildly different interpretations (I disagree, but now's not the time). But if we're talking just Sonic games here, why would just "that version" be good with a good writer and the character is still marred by the damage all the past writers did? We don't hold Sonic '06's version of Sonic against the character in the grand scheme of things. Why the double standard? Why wouldn't it just be considered "growth" or "character development" instead of a "fluke"?

 

Except it's still a poor excuse.  As I said, if you reworked anything, it could be improved.  Why is Shadow so special in this?  Yeah, he could be improved, but as long as he's not, I'd rather not see him.

 

Hey, if it's broke, why bother fixing it, amirite?

 

Look, if you don't like Shadow, fine. I can accept that. I have no problem with that, but you're denying Shadow a chance to improve while giving Tails and Knuckles a chance. They've all been flanderized and pared down into these annoying, cardboard cutouts of characters when they've shown potential for being great in the past. SA1 is still my definitive Knuckles, and I'm just more and more annoyed every time I see him be the butt monkey in every game since Heroes. I think it sucks that one of the franchise's oldest characters even gets lousy treatment like that, but you don't see me going "Well, he's useless, better give him the axe!" And that's not just because I don't want a lynch mob to come after me. Why should Shadow, or any other character, not get the same shot?

[Tara]

Yes it is, because if they're going to write all the characters bad, what in the world makes certain characters "less" bad than others if they all suck? If Shadow was good, and Tails was good, but then both of them sucked to high hell and kept sucking, why is Tails "less" bad than Shadow and someone you want to see when he he is absolutely no better? What puts him above the list? Obviously it's a personal thing since people do have favorite characters, but even so, neither character has the "best results possible" when they've both been put through the shitter and are in need of cleaning.

Because Tails' personality is at least fun to watch.  As a personal preference, I'd rather have a character that is cute and fun even if he may be badly written than one that is blatantly angsty and overtly-serious and very badly-written.  That's just preference.

 

So if the characters are all bad, there is no such "less" bad of character with one another. If you like them more, that's one thing, but your liking them more doesn't equate to them being a better character. I like Shadow, and no way can I or anyone say that he's a better character than the likes of Big the Cat simply because I like him over the purple fisher.

You're right.  My preference is not an objective fact.  But then, when did I ever say it was?  If you like Shadow, great.  If you want to see him return again, cool.  Hope it works out for you.  But I don't.  The topic question is who you don't want to see again, and I said Shadow because I simply haven't liked any appearance he's had after SA2.  This whole thread is all a matter of preference, really.

 

Not it isn't, not when that's the one of whole reasons things were in bad shape in the first place at the time over why such characters sucked in addition to their gameplay. Hence the whole "Shitty friends" sentiment because they were so poorly written and played that their characterizations and gameplay were shit, which is all the more incentive that people want things reworked and improved so that they aren't shit anymore. Being a victim of poor writing is not devalued by the ability to rework anything, because that's practically the whole motivation towards having them improved at all. 

Except you're just stating why it's such a poor excuse.  If we were talking about an actor, I would think differently.  Just because this actor was in this poorly-written film, doesn't mean that the actor is a terrible person.  Characters, on the other hand, are all dependent on the plot and writing to move forward (and sometimes vice versa, depending on the format of the media in question).  If they are written as bad characters, they are just bad characters.  Sure, someone could pick it up down the line and make them better.  But there's an infinite number of different "could" scenarios.  Sonic could grow a Mario-style mustache and write pornographic fan fiction on the internet, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen or that his character should be given the treatment of what could happen to him.  It's still a silly excuse.  It doesn't justify his presence, it just says "hey, yeah he was bad, but he could have been better!"

 

I'll ask you the same question: why are Tails and Knuckles so special in this? If they end up sucking, why are you more forgiving?

Because, as I said above, their personalities click more with me, which means to me they suck less.  Could Shadow develop that same appeal?  Perhaps.  Do I particularly care if he does?  Not necessarily.  If someone decides to pick him up and do something good with him, wonderful!  I might grow to like the character, I might not!  But if they decide to just scrap him, I just don't care!

 

It's not that Shadow's special, but that he tends to be singled out as a character that some would rather keep moving the goalposts over when the chance to improve him should come when he is no less capable of failure or success than the likes of Tails or even Sonic himself as far as the franchise as a whole was concerned; that should he suck, they shouldn't bother trying to fix him, while if Tails, Sonic, or the franchise were to suck they should put forth the effort to make them better.

I'm not saying they shouldn't.  I just don't care if they do or don't.  If they're going to write him as they have for the past decade or so, then I'd rather see him gone, but if they do decide to improve... wonderful.  Simple as that.

 

No, by your own admission my example with the TMNT refers to different versions of the property that have wildly different interpretations (I disagree, but now's not the time). But if we're talking just Sonic games here, why would just "that version" be good with a good writer and the character is still marred by the damage all the past writers did? We don't hold Sonic '06's version of Sonic against the character in the grand scheme of things. Why the double standard? Why wouldn't it just be considered "growth" or "character development" instead of a "fluke"?

Because his motivations and personality is all devleoped as a result of those past intentions.  A character interacts with the plot and develops as a result of it.  Of course, in a continuity as loose as Sonic's, that doesn't really matter, so if they did develop Shadow better, then okay.  That would just be it.  But then, the way the series constantly phases in and out in attempting to decide rather it wants a tightly-knit story or if it just wants to be episodic is something I've never been particularly fond of, either.  I have no problem with either approach, just make up your mind.

 

And as I've stated in the past, the reason we don't say that about Sonic is because he's had decades worth of good moments to overshadow the bad moments.  Oh hey, Sonic '06 sure blew, but wait... remember all those other fun moments you had with him?  You can say Shadow has those moments for you, and I'll respect that.  But he doesn't for me.

 

Hey, if it's broke, why bother fixing it, amirite?

Yeah, because that's exactly what I said.

 

Look, if you don't like Shadow, fine. I can accept that. I have no problem with that, but you're denying Shadow a chance to improve while giving Tails and Knuckles a chance. They've all been flanderized and pared down into these annoying, cardboard cutouts of characters when they've shown potential for being great in the past. SA1 is still my definitive Knuckles, and I'm just more and more annoyed every time I see him be the butt monkey in every game since Heroes. I think it sucks that one of the franchise's oldest characters even gets lousy treatment like that, but you don't see me going "Well, he's useless, better give him the axe!" And that's not just because I don't want a lynch mob to come after me. Why should Shadow, or any other character, not get the same shot?

I'm sensing a pattern of people misinterpreting my apathy with enforcement of absolute fact.  Why should certain characters not get the same shot? No reason why he "shouldn't," aside from the fact that I can't picture it ever coming out good.  If it does, then... okay.  I was wrong.  But at this rate, I honestly do not care because Shadow has never appealed to me.  Pretty much everyone who's engaged in this topic has given pretty much the same stance for their own character of choice.  So mine just happens to be Shadow, and yes, I guess I'll admit people exaggerate on his weak points, but my reasons for not wanting to see him return are scarcely different from anyone else's for not wanting to see any other character return.

 

I just wanna address this point:...How can he improve if you're aren't willing to see him?

 

Ahem...

If there's room in the narrative, then sure why not?  But only if they fit reasonably within the narrative.

 

If they can be fixed up to a point where I like them and don't feel out of place for me, then I'm open to it.  I just don't care if they do or not is what I'm saying.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I'm pretty sure Akito has said more than once that he doesn't hate Shadow, at least not in manner you guys are making out to be. Just wanted to emphasize that.

 

That said, I'm not finished with the debate (was writing this on my damn phone):

Because Tails' personality is at least fun to watch.  As a personal preference, I'd rather have a character that is cute and fun even if he may be badly written than one that is blatantly angsty and overtly-serious and very badly-written.  That's just preference.

And if he stopped being fun to watch? Because in games like ShTH, Sonic 06, and even in Heroes where people began noticing the writing was off, he was no more fun to watch than any other character.

 

 

 

You're right.  My preference is not an objective fact.  But then, when did I ever say it was?

 

 

No, but you said that if they were going to write all the characters bad, you'd rather have the ones that are "less" bad, and I wanted to know by what measure is a character "less" bad besides personal preference (because I for one don't even give a damn about my own preferences in these cases, much less anyone else's).

 

 

Except you're just stating why it's such a poor excuse.  If we were talking about an actor, I would think differently.  Just because this actor was in this poorly-written film, doesn't mean that the actor is a terrible person.  Characters, on the other hand, are all dependent on the plot and writing to move forward (and sometimes vice versa, depending on the format of the media in question).  If they are written as bad characters, they are just bad characters.  Sure, someone could pick it up down the line and make them better.  But there's an infinite number of different "could" scenarios.  Sonic could grow a Mario-style mustache and write pornographic fan fiction on the internet, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen or that his character should be given the treatment of what could happen to him.  It's still a silly excuse.  It doesn't justify his presence, it just says "hey, yeah he was bad, but he could have been better!"

 

 

I was actually explaining why it wasn't a poor excuse, and that also applies to the characters you happen to favor when they're given poor treatment as well. The point being that you simply don't call a poor job at something a bad excuse, because a poor job is a poor job regardless; you acknowledge it and take steps to improve it and avoid doing so in ways you know the audience won't like.

 

 

 

Because, as I said above, their personalities click more with me, which means to me they suck less.

 

 

And what if they were to have those personalities that click with you still present, but flanderized to ridiculous and absurd levels? Essentially, like they did with Shadow for me, by taking his characteristics I like only to blow them out of proportion. Would that still click with you?

 

Edited September 3, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Zaysho]

And as I've stated in the past, the reason we don't say that about Sonic is because he's had decades worth of good moments to overshadow the bad moments.  Oh hey, Sonic '06 sure blew, but wait... remember all those other fun moments you had with him?  You can say Shadow has those moments for you, and I'll respect that.  But he doesn't for me.

I agree he's had good moments before, and improved vastly afterward, which is largely why that's allowed. But Shadow arguably has a lot of potential and even had good moments scattered about. I've heard some people say his story was the only good thing about '06... but then, I assume that's not saying much. And he can only improve in the same way as Sonic if he's allowed to do so. His motivations and personality may have been shaped by what was done in the past, but that doesn't mean he can't develop or grow beyond that.

 

But, fair enough, you don't care for the character, you don't care for the character. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just arguing with your point, which I would think would be fair.

 

Yeah, because that's exactly what I said.

OK, that crack went a little too far, I apologize.

 

I'm sensing a pattern of people misinterpreting my apathy with enforcement of absolute fact.  Why should certain characters not get the same shot? No reason why he "shouldn't," aside from the fact that I can't picture it ever coming out good.  If it does, then... okay.  I was wrong.  But at this rate, I honestly do not care because Shadow has never appealed to me.  Pretty much everyone who's engaged in this topic has given pretty much the same stance for their own character of choice.  So mine just happens to be Shadow, and yes, I guess I'll admit people exaggerate on his weak points, but my reasons for not wanting to see him return are scarcely different from anyone else's for not wanting to see any other character return.

 

That's just the thing, you're figuring it can't be good simply because you don't care for the character. That's fair, it's your personal taste. But it's also why I'd point back to my TMNT example. Despite that property having wildly different interpretations among the various incarnations, we still have core characters and some canon immigrants. It's still Turtles to me, regardless of what version it is. While I inititally groaned about "General Krang" in IDW's comic, the "Krang War" story and Krang's one-shot turned me around on the character. I don't care for the Fred Wolf cartoon, I'm not shy about that, but even I'm willing to give some credit and think there might be potential if it's mined properly. That goes back to Shadow, or any other character, and I say "why the hell not?" Instead of them being a "shitty friend" or a dumb hanger-on, make them, you know, not suck.

 

While I'm arguing for a character I happen to like, I think it can equally be applied to any character. I don't care for Cream, Charmy, or Big for example, but hey, give 'em a shot and make them worthwhile, don't just stick them in the same lousy role they've had the whole time to justify why some people don't like these characters. I really don't think my argument for Shadow is any different from your arguments in favor of Tails or Knuckles, other than playing favorites.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Zaysho