Characters you don't want to return

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

But in Sonic the Fighters all 8 protagonists were either heroes or neutral, so your argument doesn't hold any water. 

Nor does yours when said "neutral" character we're discussing hasn't even done anything heroic for the sake of good during his tenure and has been listed more as a villain anywhere else.

 

You mind telling me what Nack's story was in Fighters that motivated him to be a hero to help destroy the Death Egg II instead of doing it for his own interests? Because by your logic, Eggman should count as neutral for helping the heroes to stop Chaos in SA1, the ARK and the Biolizard in SA2, Metal Sonic in Heroes, Black Arms in ShTH, and Solaris in Sonic 06, when despite all of those times he's worked with the heroes he is clearly a villain regardless of his heroic resume.

 

My point is that you can't just divide the cast into "heroes" and "villains" like it's some kind of binary system.

And when have I ever done that when everyone on this board knows of terms such as Anti-hero when they talk about Shadow?

 

You asked me why I thought Nack was a villain, not about the division of heroes and villains and it's binary nature. It's funny how you know me better than that, yet you go and accuse me of such black-and-white thinking.

 

 

 

Characters like Jet, Fang, and Rouge are best classified as neutral, since they don't really belong to either group.

Nack has been far more associated as a villain where as Jet and Rouge have at least done some heroic feats for more than just themselves to classify as anti-heroes. Nack cares far more about money and couldn't care less past his own greed of it, while Rouge, despite being greedy in her own right, will more likely give back what she takes or even value people's lives over being greedy if there's something else at stake over them.

Edited September 21, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Splash the Otter]

Nor does yours when said "neutral" character we're discussion hasn't even done anything heroic for the sake of good during his tenure and has been listed more as a villain anywhere else. You mind telling me what Nack's story was in Fighters that motivated him to be a hero to help destroy the Death Egg II instead of doing it for his own interests?

I don't care if people list him as a villain, because they're wrong. Fang didn't actually do anything villainous in STT, unless fighting Sonic for what appear to be mundane (albeit valuable) gems is inherently evil. And his motivation in StF was exactly the same as everyone else: "Dr. Eggman has a new Death Egg, we should do something about this".

 

 

And when have I ever done that when everyone on this board knows of terms such as Anti-hero when they talk about Shadow?

 

Antiheroes are just another kind of hero, they shouldn't be counted as a separate group.

 

 

You asked me why I thought Nack was a villain, not about the division of heroes and villains and it's binary nature. It's funny how you know me better than that, yet you go and accuse me of such black-and-white thinking.

 

If that's what I'm doing, then I apologize.

 

 

Nack has been far more associated as a villain where as Jet and Rouge have at least done some heroic feats for more than just themselves to classify as anti-heroes. Nack cares far more about money and couldn't care less past his own greed of it, while Rouge, despite being greedy in her own right, will more likely give back what she takes or even value people's lives over being greedy if there's something else at stake over them.

 

There has only been one example of Fang being motivated by greed, and that was in STT. And even then, he thought the Chaos Emeralds were ordinary jewels. Furthermore, the only reason Rouge is considered more scrupulous is because she's been given more opportunities to exhibit this quality, while Fang is stuck with a single game's worth of characterization.

 

I'm tired of arguing about this though. What exactly makes my opinion wrong, aside from being unpopular?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I don't care if people list him as a villain, because they're wrong.

Prove it.

Fang didn't actually do anything villainous in STT, unless fighting Sonic for what appear to be mundane (albeit valuable) gems is inherently evil. And his motivation in StF was exactly the same as everyone else: "Dr. Eggman has a new Death Egg, we should do something about this".

As far as the context went for the game, yeah.

Also you got the script/manual/any writing in StF's story over Fang that proves that? Because as far as Fighters goes, its plot is nothing more than the characters beating each other senseless at different places and nothing else, with the Death Egg just being a convenient location they end up fighting on.

Antiheroes are just another kind of hero, they shouldn't be counted as a separate group.

They are a separate group since they're likely to conflict, fight, or ally with either heroes or villains due to their more questionable actions that define their group as one with looser morals.

There has only been one example of Fang being motivated by greed, and that was in STT. And even then, he thought the Chaos Emeralds were ordinary jewels. Furthermore, the only reason Rouge is considered more scrupulous is because she's been given more opportunities to exhibit this quality, while Fang is stuck with a single game's worth of characterization.

Well, I take what is present for either character regardless. Otherwise, Fang shouldn't have even been brought up for discussion in the first place since he doesn't have a lot going for him.

I'm tired of arguing about this though. What exactly makes my opinion wrong, aside from being unpopular?

That there's no evidence of him doing anything worth counting him as a neutral character? Edited September 21, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[FalconKick]

Hehehehehee....it never surprises me how easy it is for all of you to get your panties in a knot over a bunch of fictional characters.  You know what this thread needs?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ppOup8fp4E

It gets more interesting if you take Slo-Mo. Make Ma-Ma proud.
 
Seriously, unless you work for SEGA of Japan, no amount of yelling and screaming at each other isn't going to fix anything and despite everything wrong we point out in every subject, the characters will stay the same. If only for just marketing reasons. I know it's terrible but it's reality.

We have three options:

1. We stop having odd and curious feelings towards video game characters and just fill up the thread with a list from every poster, as we attempt to discard the existence of a Sonic character with impunity....I like that word. Impunity
2. Since everyone is ready to defend ANY character to the death, why don't somebody get a mod and we merge this with the "How to fix Sonic Character thread" and concentrate our efforts on improving said destitute characters
3. Ignoring whatever I and Cersei Lanister has to say and keep arguing about the same characters in an endless cycle, while I watch until get bored and then leave to go bug some other thread.

And to cap the Games of Throne reference, here is Peter Dinklage singing a song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkj4i-QjWrQ

The only good thing out of that new X-Men movie....that and maybe James McAvoy doing his best Alan Moore impression.

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Well this is a completely opposite topic from the How to Fix X character ones. I don't see how that calls for someone to be dismissive of the discussion.

Edited September 21, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Splash the Otter]

Prove it.

I can't prove an opinion. And really, this is little more than a conflict of opinions, is it not?

 

As far as the context went for the game, yeah.

Also you got the script/manual/any writing in StF's story over Fang that proves that? Because as far as Fighters goes, its plot is nothing more than the characters beating each other senseless at different places and nothing else, with the Death Egg just being a convenient location they end up fighting on.

 

Seriously? The entire backstory for all of the characters was that whoever was the best fighter had the best chance of stopping Dr. Eggman. It's an excuse plot, but it does show that they were all on the same side. That's worth something, isn't it?

 

 

They are a separate group since they're likely to conflict, fight, or ally with either heroes or villains due to their more questionable actions that define their group as one with looser morals.

 

Sorry, but I just see them as a slightly less "heroic" type of hero.

 

Well, I take what is present for either character regardless. Otherwise, Fang shouldn't have even been brought up for discussion in the first place since he doesn't have a lot going for him.

So we're in agreement that Fang's is only seen as a villain because we haven't had a chance to see him in another light?

 

That there's no evidence of him doing anything worth counting him as a neutral character?

 

Well he's either neutral or a villain, and I just don't think he fits the latter role. Is there anything wrong with that?

[Tara]

Seriously? The entire backstory for all of the characters was that whoever was the best fighter had the best chance of stopping Dr. Eggman. It's an excuse plot, but it does show that they were all on the same side. That's worth something, isn't it?

Not really.  It could easily be inferred that Fang wanted to stop Eggman solely to get his hands on the Chaos Emeralds himself and use them for his own greedy motivations.

[Kuzu]

I can't prove an opinion. And really, this is little more than a conflict of opinions, is it not?

 

 

you just said anyone who thinks Fang is a villain is wrong

[Nepenthe]

Hehehehehee....it never surprises me how easy it is for all of you to get your panties in a knot over a bunch of fictional characters.  You know what this thread needs?

It gets more interesting if you take Slo-Mo. Make Ma-Ma proud.

 

Seriously, unless you work for SEGA of Japan, no amount of yelling and screaming at each other isn't going to fix anything and despite everything wrong we point out in every subject, the characters will stay the same. If only for just marketing reasons. I know it's terrible but it's reality....

 

I already talked to you about this before: there is nothing particularly profound about contributing to threads with nothing but meta commentary about the engagement levels of people partaking in discussion. You are not special for not giving a shit. People are going to discuss facets of the franchise with differing levels of passion. That's the point of this board. You don't really have any unique insight, much less actual authority, to tell anyone how to proceed in the thread from this point on. Another one of these shitty, pretentious posts and it's an automatic strike and suspension. If you have nothing to say that's relevant to the actual subject at hand, don't reply.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I can't prove an opinion. And really, this is little more than a conflict of opinions, is it not?

Then don't go saying other people are wrong if you can't back it up concretely than "because I said so."

 

 

 

Seriously? The entire backstory for all of the characters was that whoever was the best fighter had the best chance of stopping Dr. Eggman. It's an excuse plot, but it does show that they were all on the same side. That's worth something, isn't it?

No, because anyone who thinks Fang is a villain can just assume he was in it for his own sake of stealing the Emeralds again instead of legitimately trying to help the heroes to do the right thing.

 

 

 

So we're in agreement that Fang's is only seen as a villain because we haven't had a chance to see him in another light?

I guess, but I fully expect him to be cast as a villain if he ever given the chance to show up again.

 

 

 

Well he's either neutral or a villain, and I just don't think he fits the latter role. Is there anything wrong with that?

That your reasoning simply helping the heroes stop a bad guy isn't enough to make someone neutral. Seriously, Eggman has done heroic acts himself,  far more than Nack and some of which had heroic standards to them such as stopping Black Arms, but that doesn't cast him as a neutral character.

Edited September 21, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Jolt_TH]

I can't prove an opinion. And really, this is little more than a conflict of opinions, is it not?

 

Saying that someone is wrong, is not an opinion , that's treating your opinion as fact. Someone says Tails is a girl, that's wrong, saying Shadow isn't a hedgehog is wrong, however someone saying that tails is the best character, is an opinion, they can't be wrong or right , saying Fang isn't a villain is an opinion not a fact. I'm with CSS on this one but regardless if it's not what you meant saying "your wrong" has entirely different connotations to "I disagree"

[Splash the Otter]

Saying that someone is wrong, is not an opinion , that's treating your opinion as fact. Someone says Tails is a girl, that's wrong, saying Shadow isn't a hedgehog is wrong, however someone saying that tails is the best character, is an opinion, they can't be wrong or right , saying Fang isn't a villain is an opinion not a fact. I'm with CSS on this one but regardless if it's not what you meant saying "your wrong" has entirely different connotations to "I disagree"

 People are telling me that my opinion is wrong, so why shouldn't I respond in kind? And when I said they were wrong, I meant that they're wrong about Fang objectively being a villain. Really, his moral alignment is entirely up to interpretation, so I'd like people to respect that I simply don't consider him evil.

 

However, I would just like to point out that he doesn't do anything particularly evil in the games. In Triple Trouble, he didn't care about the Sonic/Eggman conflict, he just wanted the Chaos Emeralds. The only thing that made him "villainous" is that he was constantly getting in Sonic's way. If anything, Fang is his world's version of Wario. He isn't a hero by any means, but he isn't a villain either.

[Jolt_TH]

Objectively he doesn't have an alignment (and yes neutral counts as an alignment) unless there is one stated by official word, like a manual or something so he can't objectively be or not be a villain. It's ENTIRELY subjective.

 

interesting you used Wario as he was created as the "bad" or "Evil" Mario and is even listed as a villian in a lot of places, the only time he isn't considered a villian is his own games, and even then he is mostly after treasure and money because of his greed.

[Kuzu]

 People are telling me that my opinion is wrong, so why shouldn't I respond in kind? And when I said they were wrong, I meant that they're wrong about Fang objectively being a villain. Really, his moral alignment is entirely up to interpretation, so I'd like people to respect that I simply don't consider him evil.

 

However, I would just like to point out that he doesn't do anything particularly evil in the games. In Triple Trouble, he didn't care about the Sonic/Eggman conflict, he just wanted the Chaos Emeralds. The only thing that made him "villainous" is that he was constantly getting in Sonic's way. If anything, Fang is his world's version of Wario. He isn't a hero by any means, but he isn't a villain either.

 

The difference is Wario has actually done good, for selfish reasons, but still good nonetheless. Fang has not done anything that benefits anyone other than himself, and his existence is basically to walk all over anyone who gets in his way because he's a selfish prick. 

 

You're making a mountain out of a mo-hill honestly; why do you care so much if Fang is treated as a villain by the community? He hasn't done anything remotely heroic, and his entire existence is just getting in the way of the actual heroes. What else is anyone going to refer to him as? Even if you get rid of the morality, he is still very much an Antagonist because of how his character works, so honestly I don't get how can you try to argue there is anything redeemable about him when there's no evidence to suggest this.

[Jet Prower]

I neither see Fang as good or super bad in the games. He is bad in his own way, but he doesn't appear to be evil. It does look more like, he is just being motivated by greed, meaning I would consider nuetral, unless it says otherwise. Would he work with sonic if paid? Probably. Would he work for Eggman if paid, most likely. He looks just mostly motivated by greed and that's it.

 

If was talking the comics, that's a lot different story there, but as for the games, since there is little to go on, I would just consider him a nuetral motivated by greed, which does shift slightly more towards bad than good.

[Splash the Otter]

interesting you used Wario as he was created as the "bad" or "Evil" Mario and is even listed as a villian in a lot of places, the only time he isn't considered a villian is his own games, and even then he is mostly after treasure and money because of his greed.

Really? I guess I never thought of Wario as a villain.

 

The difference is Wario has actually done good, for selfish reasons, but still good nonetheless. Fang has not done anything that benefits anyone other than himself, and his existence is basically to walk all over anyone who gets in his way because he's a selfish prick. 

 

You're making a mountain out of a mo-hill honestly; why do you care so much if Fang is treated as a villain by the community? He hasn't done anything remotely heroic, and his entire existence is just getting in the way of the actual heroes. What else is anyone going to refer to him as? Even if you get rid of the morality, he is still very much an Antagonist because of how his character works, so honestly I don't get how can you try to argue there is anything redeemable about him when there's no evidence to suggest this.

I just wish people would stop acting like I'm wrong for having a different opinion. Why can't Fang be a neutral character anyway? The least it would do is give him development.

[Kuzu]

Really? I guess I never thought of Wario as a villain.

I just wish people would stop acting like I'm wrong for having a different opinion. Why can't Fang be a neutral character anyway? The least it would do is give him development.

Because he's not, it's not a matter of opinion because nothing about him is neutral; he literally antagonizes the heroes only, what else do you call that but an antagonist.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Why can't Fang be a neutral character anyway? The least it would do is give him development.

Because he hasn't done anything ambiguous enough to count him as a neutral character.

 

That, and simply being a neutral character does not give a character development; he could still be given development as a villain.

Edited September 22, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Splash the Otter]

Because he's not, it's not a matter of opinion because nothing about him is neutral; he literally antagonizes the heroes only, what else do you call that but an antagonist.

As CSS already stated, antagonist=/=villain. Knuckles was an antagonist in Sonic 3, after all.

 

Because he hasn't done anything ambiguous enough to count him as a neutral character.

But at the same time, he hasn't done anything bad enough to count him as a villain either.

 

By the way, I really think the entire "evil" aspect people ascribe to Fang is because of his portrayal in the comics. This is part of the reason I dislike when people classify him as a villain, because quite often their perception is based on a false model of the character.

[Jet Prower]

By the way, I really think the entire "evil" aspect people ascribe to Fang is because of his portrayal in the comics. This is part of the reason I dislike when people classify him as a villain, because quite often their perception is based on a false model of the character.

 

How is the comics portrayal of Nack false? I would honestly call him evil or a villain if you are talking archie comics, because he has not only tried to work with eggman and DID get sonic robotsized, but he has tried to shoot Sally before with a gun, but instead hit Mina. Thus, why he was arrested for quite awhile in that series.

[LATER BUDDY]

Fang is an antagonist in most the games he's been in (though the others neutral to help stand for the bigger issue at hand right?), but he's more over just a character after his own personal gain with his greed of wanting the chaos emeralds. Honestly greed to get something you want at even the expense of other people/characters would be enough to stand as a villain. The Knuckles example is kinda flawed with this because he's not doing it for personal gain, just protecting something of his people and doing his job and misinformed by Eggman. Fang knows the power of the chaos emeralds and wants them for himself to make dosh, that's like saying someone who just jacked your Sega Genesis to pawn off isn't a bad guy.

 

I think the problem is is that's basically all we know of Fang. I mean he's been a kart racer and fighter against Eggman (idk about the Sonic Drift plot, more referring to the Fighters game) so everything doesn't go to shit, but he'd most likely be a saturday morning villain after and go back to his greedy needs, based off what we have anyways.

 

That's purely going off what we know and what I think. Everyone should probably cool down if they're getting offended that their view on a character is being challenged, since honestly he could be up for debate, so I don't think there's a 100% "right" view of Fang/Nack. I think if he was just left to Triple Trouble or whatever the hell, then yeah, he'd be a full-on bad guy.

 

Anyway, personally I'd like to see him return as a villain, since quite frankly I've always been tired of the notion that any animal that looks remotely like Sonic will become a good character left to rot in the friend bank because they aren't that relevant outside their respective story. Fang could be a great comical side villain that kinda fucks up everything Sonic and Eggman have going, and help paint a larger universe about Sonic as in "hey, there's more people hunting these extremely valuable and powerful stones." Rouge does that to a degree I guess, but I always thought that Fang would be more interesting.

[Splash the Otter]

How is the comics portrayal of Nack false? I would honestly call him evil or a villain if you are talking archie comics, because he has not only tried to work with eggman and DID get sonic robotsized, but he has tried to shoot Sally before with a gun, but instead hit Mina. Thus, why he was arrested for quite awhile in that series.

There's nothing wrong per se with how the comics portray Fang. The problem is more with people declaring that it applies to the game incarnation as well.

[Mando-Whirl-Wind]

Fang is an antagonist in most the games he's been in (though the others neutral to help stand for the bigger issue at hand right?), but he's more over just a character after his own personal gain with his greed of wanting the chaos emeralds. Honestly greed to get something you want at even the expense of other people/characters would be enough to stand as a villain. The Knuckles example is kinda flawed with this because he's not doing it for personal gain, just protecting something of his people and doing his job and misinformed by Eggman. Fang knows the power of the chaos emeralds and wants them for himself to make dosh, that's like saying someone who just jacked your Sega Genesis to pawn off isn't a bad guy.

 

I think the problem is is that's basically all we know of Fang. I mean he's been a kart racer and fighter against Eggman (idk about the Sonic Drift plot, more referring to the Fighters game) so everything doesn't go to shit, but he'd most likely be a saturday morning villain after and go back to his greedy needs, based off what we have anyways.

 

That's purely going off what we know and what I think. Everyone should probably cool down if they're getting offended that their view on a character is being challenged, since honestly he could be up for debate, so I don't think there's a 100% "right" view of Fang/Nack. I think if he was just left to Triple Trouble or whatever the hell, then yeah, he'd be a full-on bad guy.

 

Anyway, personally I'd like to see him return as a villain, since quite frankly I've always been tired of the notion that any animal that looks remotely like Sonic will become a good character left to rot in the friend bank because they aren't that relevant outside their respective story. Fang could be a great comical side villain that kinda fucks up everything Sonic and Eggman have going, and help paint a larger universe about Sonic as in "hey, there's more people hunting these extremely valuable and powerful stones." Rouge does that to a degree I guess, but I always thought that Fang would be more interesting.

I agree, honestly, Both eggman, and Sonic could use someone to act as a foil to both, someone who messes with both their plans just for hsi own pure pleasure. Its just sad Sonic team cant think that way, since they have the perfect base for another great recurring angle to the games, but hey they prefer disposable monster of the month(doesnt help that he was created by their now defunct handheld devision)

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

But at the same time, he hasn't done anything bad enough to count him as a villain either.

Except he's done little good and more bad regardless for what little he's done in his time in the games, and with no attempt to side with the heroes for good intentions as Wolfy put in detail.

Edited September 22, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[StaticMania]

There's nothing wrong per se with how the comics portray Fang. The problem is more with people declaring that it applies to the game incarnation as well.

Because that be all the comics have to go on regarding Fang. There's literally not much to go on of regarding Fang's character other than "Fang is a mischievous treasure hunter who tries hard to be sneaky and cunning, although his overconfidence and overall naiveté proves to be his biggest flaw." "...he is said to desire the Chaos Emeralds not because he knows of their true power, but because he believes they will fetch a hefty price on the market."