About the "edgy" misconception

[TearForFear]

I noticed that there's a common misconception regarding "cool" and "edgy".

I mean, those who like the Adventure games, they said many times that they like those games because of the factors that make Sonic a cool character and the story a compelling and accessible experience for everybody.

However, their feelings and thoughts are often generalized as "WE WANT EDGE AND DARKNESS IN OUR SONIC AND COMEDY CAN GO TO HELL".

 

My question is: why? Why the opinion of the Adventure fans are so hard to understand? And why are THEY so hard to understand?

Just because an Adventure fan on youtube spends all of his time bullying the Boom fans, it doesn't mean that every Adventure fan is like him.

[Nepenthe]

It's a combination of the facts that debating online is inferior to talking to people face to face, the Sonic fanbase is fraught with a lot of embarrassing and immature emotional attacks and turmoil that makes conversations more personal than necessary, and reigning theory about "fanbase fracturing" has the unintended consequence of disallowing opinions to stand on their own versus being in active, aggressive opposition to something else regardless of a person's real feelings. For example, a person who merely doesn't care much for Colors but doesn't think it's a bad game or anything almost without fail becomes not only this douchebag who hates Colors but prefers Sonic 06, ShtH, or SA2 to it wholesale and thus wants the franchise to suck again because those are obviously worse games in every single way. This trifecta of lovely behavior means you're going to have to qualify every single argument you make about high-tension subjects to intellectually-patronizing degrees in order to kinda-sorta-maybe have a remote chance of being properly understood by everyone in the topic.

Now, in the context of the Adventure fans, that segment of the fanbase has been shat on for years as being made up of nothing but perpetual 12-year olds who have no rational grasp of game theory nor any understanding of what Sonic should appropriately be. Thus they bear the awesome distinction of bearing part of the responsibility along with Sonic Team for ruining the franchise. Subsequently, the flaws and characteristics of past games have also been so resoundingly attacked and mocked into nothing but mere parodies of themselves by Internet and meme culture, meaning a person who thinks a concept from a past game was actually good or can be done well can be easily taken as arguing for the surface-level parody that has replaced the real concept in the current mind space, and not the concept itself. So Adventure fans are an easily-dismissed target because they and their preferences are permanently linked with negative stereotypes. There is little to no credibility to be had by being an Adventure fan anymore and arguing for such ideas doesn't actually happen on an even playing field with a person of an opposing viewpoint. They have to climb out of the chasm that is "lol darkness lol ow the edge lol bestiality lol stories in a fucking cartoon franchise," which makes nuanced debate where a pro-Adventure person isn't misconstrued as wanting to make everything worse damn near impossible.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Nepenthe

[Badnik Mechanic]

The assumption here being that anyone who likes OwTheEdgeHog is an adventure/anti boom fan. But anyway... I might actually be writing an instalment of 'the spin' on this edge thing, mainly because I think the whole concept is ridiculous and nobody knows what the fuck it even means.

I've seen people say 'well it dates back to when Sonic first came out and how different he was from Mario!' Urm... no... the game was different to Mario yes, but this doesn't factor in people whose first console was either a Master System or Mega Drive... and whilst this 'well it was different' may have some say in the US, it sure as hell doesn't in Europe. 

Another thing is that people talk about this switch as if people in the late 80's and 90's had multiple consoles/PC's like many have and do now... LOL! Yeah right! Consoles back then were VERY expensive, you had 1, the rich kid who got spoilt had 2, YOU had 1.

Then I've seen people say that this edge is because of how adventure deals with dark tones or that it's 'not for kids.' There was one guy in the comments of the last original thing I did who tried to argue that SA is dark and is the direction Sega goes in because it teaches kids how to deal with death and disasters.... are you taking the piss? Station Square floods, we see nobody die, Sonic saves the day. There is no lesson, there is no 'this is how you deal with it message' there is nothing that many supporters of OwTheEdgeHog claim there is. 

I've seen another guy claim that Zazz is evoking the 'true spirit of Sonic' because he said he would send Sonic to hell in Sonic Runners.

I swear, sometimes when I see people going on about how Sonic should be edgy, or dark or not for kids I can't help but think it's someone trying their hardest to deny that they like a kids game, as if that's a bad thing. Liking a kids game isn't a bad thing, liking a shit game is, and I think many fans of this 'OwTheEdgeHog' seem to think that being a kids franchise = instantly bad or somehow laughable or demeaning, when the target demographic isn't an issue. Quality of product is.

So I would like to know exactly what people mean when they talk about this 'edge' thing, because I swear the people talking about it don't know.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Hogfather

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

This can basically be summarized as the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory in action thanks to previous games of the franchise botching up any high stakes storytelling or messing up certain stories in general. It doesn't matter how eloquently you present your case on an idea that allows a deeper narrative for the games (or any subject someone doesn't like, period), it doesn't matter how well you'd like to alter it to fit the franchise better, and it doesn't matter how altruistic your intentions are for it, with anonymity over the internet some people will go full 5 year old to flat out belittle you over an idea and misconstrue it to the worst possible degree simply because they don't like it no matter what with the added bonus of making you out to be some moron who wants to continue to ruin the games for others to poke fun at.

[Nepenthe]

Uh, how expensive were consoles in Europe? My family has never been rich. Until my dad died last year we were making the most money we've ever had only up until then even including the recession and stagnating wages and all of that.......... and yet I still managed the apparently-Bill Gates feat of having a Genesis and a Super Nintendo in my home at the same time. Same with a Saturn, N64, and PSX, a PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube, and so on. But the financials are irrelevant- stylistic distinctions between different works of art don't magically disappear just because a portion of the audience cannot personally experience both, particularly when the art's qualities can exist outside of this direct experience anyway with marketing, news articles, playground/watercooler chatter, etc. in order to even make a distinction (were children just picking their favorite consoles blind or something? That seems...weird). Really, I don't get the right to say that people are simply bullshitting about the Mona Lisa's smile being enigmatic just because I'm too broke to personally get myself to the Louvre.

Also, is it even much of an argument to extrapolate the admittedly one dude who thinks Zazz is some 'true spirit of Sonic," or something, anymore than I could extrapolate the people at IGN who think Sonic's shitty level design in 4 is apparently close to the "one true Sonic" as being a reigning argument of the classic fanbase?

[shdowhunt60]

I didn't grow up in the 90's, but from what little I've been able to find, launch prices of the SNES and the Genesis were in the roundabouts of $200. The only consoles I know of that broke north of $500 at launch were the Xbox 360 and the PS3. And that's largely due to the fact that Sony and Microsoft both were going full force with the hardware and selling the things at a loss.

[Tara]

I think the console experience for Europe was quite different in the late 80's and early 90's than it was in the US, but actual European fans can correct me if I'm wrong.  The only time my family has ever had to sell a console to get a new one was when my brother sold his NES for the SNES.  After that, we got an N64 while my brother got a PS1 (albeit on two different days), then we got TWO Dreamcasts (not simultaneously mind you) then I got a GameCube, my brother an Xbox, and my eldest brother a PS2.  Granted, I'm thinking maybe my eldest brother was old enough to have a job and pay for his own PS2 by then.  Then I got a Wii and my brother got a 360.

And this is all during a period of time when I was in a much worse financial position.  It's actually only now that I'm struggling to pay for my own consoles because of how they've grown in price (no thanks to the Wii U's controllers being crazy expensive on their own) and because I'm doing a lot of things on my own not-sustainable income now.

But I do agree in general that there are fans who seem to be notably afraid of admitting to be watching a show/playing a game for kids.  On one hand, I do empathize with them because I do get that there is a social stigma surrounding the "for children" market.  On the other, you're not doing the series any favors by 1) alienating an entire demographic.  Kids are as much importance to mass media as adults, if not more so because their interests ultimately determine the future of the brand.  And 2) Trying to get the series to be what it obviously isn't.

You see this with every kid's show with a decently high adult fanbase.  Sonic, MLP, Steven Universe, etc.  Just because you can relate to a show doesn't mean it's inherently more mature.  Think about this, why would people put so much effort into making children's entertainment educational if they didn't want it to actually apply to your life?  Otherwise, the "bad touch" segment of Sonic Sez would be the most sophisticated, adult thing ever made.  Don't get me wrong, there are downright vapid kid's shows that fail to treat the audience with some rather basic autonomy, but that doesn't mean they're more for kids.  It just means they're bad shows for kids.

There's nothing wrong with attempting to appeal to audiences of all ages, but there's nothing wrong with attempting to appeal specifically to children as well.  I mean, it's better to appeal to children outright, in my opinion, than to have a bunch of content that is superficially "mature" so that younger players will feel like they're defying age restrictions. (See: Shadow the Hedgehog)

[Badnik Mechanic]

Uh, how expensive were consoles in Europe?

late 80s and the 90s had to endure with the fallout from Thatcher/John Major conservative government who kept wages pretty low and brought in a lot of taxes.

Every kid I knew in school had either a master system, nes, super Nintendo or a Mega Drive. 

I didn't know anyone who had a Sega and Nintendo machine. People eventually upgraded to newer systems. But this was never a day 1 thing and often it was after Christmas as their one big or only gift.

Whenever someone got 'a computer' as everybody in my school called it. It was a big deal, because you potentially had someone to go play your games with or to borrow games from.

Another reason was that not many kids had one, or they had to share with their brothers or sister. So if someone had one they didn't keep it a secret and eventually they would find a lot of people suddenly asking if they could come over.

[Dr. Mechano]

I've always been of the opinion that the Adventure games are just fine. The weird experimental phase between the Adventure games and the Pontaff era (Heroes, Shadow, 2k6, etc.) are the franchise's laughing stock. I will admit that some of the 2D games during this period were serviceable (albeit not great), but the 3D games - for the bulk of the mid-to-late 2000s, were pretty much awful. Story, gameplay, the whole thing was a mess.

I think the problem with these games is that their existence is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of why people enjoyed the Adventure games.

Heroes: "You liked playing as lots of characters? Play as twelve of them, but mostly just replay the same game four times with almost no variation except for Team Chaotix, and even then, just barely."

Shadow: "You liked the nuanced darker themes in SA2? Have this glorified angsty fanfic of a story where Shadow wields a realistic pistol, mutters mild curses, and even kills people (including beloved favorites like Eggman) on-screen!"

2k6: "You liked SA1's multiple stories? Well, here you go! Play the same set of stages essentially three times with occasional variation!" [Not even going to get into the game's many other problems, because you're all familiar with them by now.]

They were attempts to capitalize on what made the Adventure games enjoyable, both from a plot and gameplay standpoint, but they just never hit their mark. 2k6 especially. It more or less is Sonic Adventure 3 in all but name, and after that bombed, Sonic Team decided to distance themselves from the formula altogether.

I think a proper third Adventure game can theoretically work, but I don't see it happening. Almost everyone involved in the creation of the first two are no longer employed at Sonic Team, and the company has repeatedly fumbled at trying to make "Adventure-ish" games following the success of the first two. So even though it's certainly in the realm of possibility, I don't see it as likely anymore.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Dr. Mechano

[PandoloFox]

The assumption here being that anyone who likes OwTheEdgeHog is an adventure/anti boom fan. But anyway... I might actually be writing an instalment of 'the spin' on this edge thing, mainly because I think the whole concept is ridiculous and nobody knows what the fuck it even means.

I've seen people say 'well it dates back to when Sonic first came out and how different he was from Mario!' Urm... no... the game was different to Mario yes, but this doesn't factor in people whose first console was either a Master System or Mega Drive... and whilst this 'well it was different' may have some say in the US, it sure as hell doesn't in Europe. 

Another thing is that people talk about this switch as if people in the late 80's and 90's had multiple consoles/PC's like many have and do now... LOL! Yeah right! Consoles back then were VERY expensive, you had 1, the rich kid who got spoilt had 2, YOU had 1.

Then I've seen people say that this edge is because of how adventure deals with dark tones or that it's 'not for kids.' There was one guy in the comments of the last original thing I did who tried to argue that SA is dark and is the direction Sega goes in because it teaches kids how to deal with death and disasters.... are you taking the piss? Station Square floods, we see nobody die, Sonic saves the day. There is no lesson, there is no 'this is how you deal with it message' there is nothing that many supporters of OwTheEdgeHog claim there is. 

I've seen another guy claim that Zazz is evoking the 'true spirit of Sonic' because he said he would send Sonic to hell in Sonic Runners.

I swear, sometimes when I see people going on about how Sonic should be edgy, or dark or not for kids I can't help but think it's someone trying their hardest to deny that they like a kids game, as if that's a bad thing. Liking a kids game isn't a bad thing, liking a shit game is, and I think many fans of this 'OwTheEdgeHog' seem to think that being a kids franchise = instantly bad or somehow laughable or demeaning, when the target demographic isn't an issue. Quality of product is.

So I would like to know exactly what people mean when they talk about this 'edge' thing, because I swear the people talking about it don't know.

That would be me, and i can see that your assumptions are running wild since i never once stated that it was a direction taken to "teach kids" to deal with death and despare. I argued your semantics about a kids game and told you that kids shouldnt be excluded from harscher content since it has a learning process. You then started asking me how sonic in particular tought kids anything in which i gave you solid replies on how it "could" teach them.

As for this discussion topic. When we adventure fans says "we want edge back" we mean that he should push boundries again. Sonic used to push what a "kids game" featuring cartoon animals could do. Nowadays he is conformed to exactly what a kids game is. When we Adventure fans says " we want sonic to be darker again" we mean that we want darker elements back.....not hard to understand realy. This isnt to say that we want hedgehogs going full throttle with guns while people are dying left and right. It means that we want more substance to the franchise. Darker themes comes with a lot of interesting plot elements, but it also brings actual consequences to events. 

[Roger_van_der_weide]

I've seen people say 'well it dates back to when Sonic first came out and how different he was from Mario!' Urm... no... the game was different to Mario yes, but this doesn't factor in people whose first console was either a Master System or Mega Drive... and whilst this 'well it was different' may have some say in the US, it sure as hell doesn't in Europe. 

Another thing is that people talk about this switch as if people in the late 80's and 90's had multiple consoles/PC's like many have and do now... LOL! Yeah right! Consoles back then were VERY expensive, you had 1, the rich kid who got spoilt had 2, YOU had 1.

So Sonic is not the anti-Mario because videogame consoles were expensive in the 90's?
Err... I had to read this thrice in order to get the point.

I assume the point is that some kids just happened to get a Sega and don't even know anything or care that it's diffrent then Nintendo, it just happens to be the default system they have?
Sure, I myself was that kid, randomly winning a Sega Game Gear in a competition even before I knew what the heck a Sega or a Sonic was.
So sure, SOME people could just enjoy Sonic as a surrogate Mario because they just happen to have a Megadrive instead of a Super Nintendo.

Alright, but consider this: So game consoles are super expensive and our hypothetical kid in the early 90's can only choose one videogame system to play with.
So he needs to choose his Christmas present carefully.

So he sees Nintendo commercials and plays Super Mario at a friend's house.
And then he sees "BAM 90's SEGA DOES WHAT NINTENDON'T YEAAAAH CAWABUNGA RADICAL!!!" commercials.
And he goes "Hey, this Sonic game looks more interesting then Mario, he's doing way more radical stuff ,dude."
And voila. Our kid chooses a Sega because it is the anti-nintendo and Sonic is the anti Mario.
So if anything, the fact people can only buy one console makes the fact Sonic is unlike Mario even MORE important, it becomes crucial to the choice which you pick.

So sure, both scenario's are possible, but what EXACTLY is your point here?
To some people, Sonic is just the default generic platformer for their Sega?
Sure, that's definitly possible, but to dismiss the fact Sonic was doing a ton of thing against the Mario philosophy is a little silly. Sonic most definitly acted like an anti-Mario on a lot of levels and i'm pretty sure that those played a part in making him relevant to more then a few people.
 

 

I swear, sometimes when I see people going on about how Sonic should be edgy, or dark or not for kids I can't help but think it's someone trying their hardest to deny that they like a kids game, as if that's a bad thing. Liking a kids game isn't a bad thing, liking a shit game is, and I think many fans of this 'OwTheEdgeHog' seem to think that being a kids franchise = instantly bad or somehow laughable or demeaning, when the target demographic isn't an issue. Quality of product is.

I think their point is more that they (well, the more reasonable of the Edge fans) want Sonic to be FAMILY orientated, like a Disney movie.
For Kids= Only Kids enjoy, adults stay away.
Family friendly= Suitable for kids but everyone enjoys.
It's a battle about what "Kid's entertainment" specifically means.
I assume your definition of Kid's entertainment Is what I consider Family friendly.


I think the main reason why everyone get's upset when "it's for kids" get's brought up is because that phrase is almost exclusively used as tool for dismisal.
Oh I don't watch it, it's for kids. Doesn't matter it's bad, it's for kids.

It's why I prefer "family friendly' as a description.
For kids= Barney the dinosaur, Teletubbies.
Family orientated= Mickey Mouse/ Looney tunes cartoons, Disney movies.
Teenage orientated = Anime
Adult orientated= Simpsons, South park, Hentai, etc.

Doesn't mean ONLY those age groups can enjoy it, it's that those age groups get the most enjoyment out of it.
And far as I'm concerned, Sonic fits in the Family orientated sector, preferebly leaning toward teenage orientated.
It's a more grounded Looney Tunes cartoon.

"It's for kids" just feels like an attack.
"WHY ARE YOU EVEN ENJOYING THIS?"
That's why I'm baffled when people even use it to describe their own interests, it's like they even question their own tastes. "It's for the whole family." Everyone can be part of a family. Bam, mental blockade problem solved.

 

Then I've seen people say that this edge is because of how adventure deals with dark tones or that it's 'not for kids.' There was one guy in the comments of the last original thing I did who tried to argue that SA is dark and is the direction Sega goes in because it teaches kids how to deal with death and disasters.... are you taking the piss? Station Square floods, we see nobody die, Sonic saves the day. There is no lesson, there is no 'this is how you deal with it message' there is nothing that many supporters of OwTheEdgeHog claim there is.

Indeed a silly way to say it.
I think a better version of that person's argument would be that Sonic adventure makes itself beyond a kid's game is because it's willing to at least USE more serious consequences.
Indeed, it doesn't go into it, we don't lament the loss and death. It doesn't have a statement to make about it.
It's there for a quick jolt of emotion/ intensity. That's it.
So it's not quite Shakespeare.
But at least it has the balls to use real stakes.
 

Yes, Sonic adventure is juvenile.
It uses death and distruction in a very "kid plays with action figures in his room" way, you're only supposed to point to the city ruins and go "SHIT GOT REAL YO!" and then the music pumps up and you grab your Batman action figure and go knock some transformer robots off your desk.
To me, this is what makes it Family/ Teen orientated.
There's adult elements included, but extremely toned down and juvenile.
More Ballsy then a kid's show, but not mature to deal with the themes in an adult way.


In the end, I think people wanting serious "edge" is silly too.
It's more energy and stakes that we're missing.
Aside from a few poeple who do genuinely like the Edge for cheap shock effect (kinda like how some people can like torture porn) I think most people cheering for more edgey content mostly do it to balance out the extreme lack of energy and stakes we're having now.

Lost world had stakes, but no energy to it.
Sonic Boom has energy but no stakes.
It's all about finding that sweet spot.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Roger_van_der_weide

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

I noticed that there's a common misconception regarding "cool" and "edgy".

I mean, those who like the Adventure games, they said many times that they like those games because of the factors that make Sonic a cool character and the story a compelling and accessible experience for everybody.

However, their feelings and thoughts are often generalized as "WE WANT EDGE AND DARKNESS IN OUR SONIC AND COMEDY CAN GO TO HELL".

I think people overreact because of the atrocities of the Shadow and 06 storylines. They don't want any chance of anything like that happening ever again, so they don't even want to dip their toes into anything that feels serious or dramatic at all. Of course, some people just like generalizing their opponents' position to give themselves a leg-up because they're not very good at arguing for their points.

And like you and Hogfather pointed out, there are Adventure fans out there who are narrow-minded jerks and/or very poorly reasoned. When a certain group contains a number of unreasonable people that others perceive to be substantial and representative of the entire group, don't be surprised if people lash out against the group as a whole.

I do want to ask, are you completely sure that you're not overgeneralizing about the other side, too, and only serving to widen the gap?

Don't get me wrong, there are obviously millions of immature jerks on the internet who distort other people's viewpoints all the time. But just like not all Adventure fans want "Ow the Edge", not all Adventure opponents think that Adventure fans want edginess and hate comedy. I know you probably don't think that, but the way you phrased your post, this isn't necessarily entirely clear. I guess what I'm saying is, if you're worried about other people misconstruing your own viewpoints, you should probably also work hard to make sure you aren't doing the same thing, or else what's the point?

(For the record, my own opinion is sort of middle of the road on this issue. I liked Sonic Adventure's storyline, for example, but other instances of dark and serious Sonic don't appeal to me. I would like if the storytelling could be mature (as in well-written and exploring themes competently, not as in "edgy"), not over-dramatic, and not over-comedic...like that'll ever happen =P)

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Im a modern fan and a boost fan and I hear "spolied" from classic fans because I/we hate their games. However, not all classic fans think we are spoiled... just a few assholes who happen to be classic fans.

Another note I think its sad how we are all Sonic fans but we are devided to where we attack other Sonic fans ^^'

 

[Bowbowis]

On the subject of bullying can we please stop pretending that it's a black and white issue of the mean ol' Adventure fans picking on the poor defenseless modern fans? The bullying goes both ways and Adventure fans have taken more than their fair share of abuse from modern fans too. You don't even need to leave SSMB to find an abundance of examples of mockery, condescension, or even outright demonization being directed at Adventure fans. Hell, just a few hours ago I witnessed someone make a post on this very site making fun of people who want a third Adventure title without any provocation whatsoever, the post got quite a few likes too. And you know what? I'm not even upset by it. In fact I doubt that the poster in question even realized that what they were doing was textbook bullying behavior; it's just all too easy to make fun of the unpopular opinion. The fact of the matter is that since Colors released Adventure fans have basically become pariahs overnight. In the blink of an eye we went from perfectly respectable members of the community to outcasts, purely on the basis that we continued to enjoy the games we always had even after popular opinion turned against them, that's bound to get to people after awhile. Does the treatment Adventure fans receive from others justify the less thick skinned among us demeaning others in return? Absolutely not. But it's important to recognize that they are victims just as much as they are perpetrators. Really a little more empathy from both sides would go a long ways.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Bowbowis

[Roger_van_der_weide]

Another note I think its sad how we are all Sonic fans but we are devided to where we attack other Sonic fans ^^'

 

We all feel threatened by each other because we're all sharing one Sonic who represents at least 4 entirely diffrent Sonic philosophies.

Which is why it's so frustrating Sonic Boom isn't diffrentiating itself enough from Legacy Sonic.
If only Sonic Boom and Legacy Sonic had clear defined opposing identities, at least the fighting Fanbase would be split in 2 camps and the fighting would be halved.

Now we're 4 Lions stuck in one territory fighting over control.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Roger_van_der_weide

[PandoloFox]

We all feel threatened by each other because we're all sharing one Sonic who represents at least 4 entirely diffrent Sonic philosophies.
Which is why it's so frustrating Sonic Boom isn't diffrentiating itself enough from Legacy Sonic.
If only Sonic Boom and Legacy Sonic had clear defined opposing identities, at least the fighting Fanbase would be split in 2 camps and the fighting would be halved.

Now we're 4 Lions stuck in one territory fighting over control.

Haha xD a fun anology. But i can agree to that at this point making different sonic series would be for the best. Dont think its within Segas financial capabilities anymore though. And even if it was, i dont see them being interested enough to do it.

[Badnik Mechanic]

So Sonic is not the anti-Mario because videogame consoles were expensive in the 90's?Err... I had to read this thrice in order to get your point.

 I really think the problem is with you on this one if that's the conclusion you came to. I made it pretty clear that few people had both systems so you had a choice between one or the other. If you had one system it wasn't easy to play the main title on the other system. So how can you claim that 'Sonic was better because he was edgier' if you had zero to little experience of the other platform?

Okay, here's something you don't take in consideration: So game consoles are super expensive and our hypothetical kid in the early 90's can only choose one videogame system to play with.So he needs to choose his Christmas present carefully.

So he sees Nintendo commercials and plays Super Mario at a friend's house.
And then he sees "BAM 90's SEGA DOES WHAT NINTENDON'T YEAAAAH CAWABUNGA RADICAL!!!" commercials.
And he goes "Hey, this Sonic game looks more interesting then Mario, he's doing way more radical stuff dude."
And voila. Our kid chooses a Sega because it is the anti-nintendo and Sonic is the anti Mario.
So if anything, the fact people can only buy one console makes the fact Sonic is unlike Mario even MORE important, it becomes crucial to the choice which you pick.

I assume the point You're making is that some kids just happened to get a Sega and don't even know anything or care that it's diffrent then Nintendo, it just happens to be the default system they have.
In fact, I myself was that kid, randomly winning a Sega Game Gear in a competition even before I knew what the heck a Sega or a Sonic was.

This assumption is only correct if you take into consideration the following. That most kids got exactly what they wanted. I have to say, that for Britain's at least in the 80's you didn't always get what you wanted with regards to super expensive stuff, furthermore, it doesn't take into account the fact that many people got a console as a surprise 'I didn't ask for this' kind of gift, which was certainly the case with mine. 

In Britain before the NES and Master System kicked off, everybody had or knew someone who had a Micro Processor based computer. Be it a BBC Micro, an Amiga, Amstrad or in my case a Commodor 64.

We had these systems for a long time and got a lot of fun and use out of them. However, eventually consoles started to 'look' better, so for many people, gifting their children a console was a logical step, but a lot of parents, mine included didn't just rush out and buy the system their kids said or whichever one was the best seller, they did research, and I can still to this day remember why mine went with Sega over Nintendo, the reason was simple economics. The master system had done amazing in Europe, The Mega Drive was going to be one of the top toys of the year and every electronic store that they went to they went to (no game stores back then), they were told that Sega looked like they may actually beat Nintendo.

They used exactly the same method to decide as they did when it came to picking between VHS and BetaMax a few years earlier. As did many parents at the time. 

Hence why in the school playground in my experience it was a big deal when people got a console, nobody really knew what they were getting until they got it, but us being kids, we had no idea about the politics of consoles and markets, we just got cool toys which had cool games that our friends wanted to come over and play. 

Now lets talk about adverts for a moment. How many people in the UK and Europe remember seeing this on the telly? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8

How about this one? 

Anyone who says I do is a liar. Because they were never shown in Europe. Unless somehow you own a European Genesis as opposed to a Mega Drive. 

The whole 'Sega does what Nintendon't' these adverts may have been popular in the US... but they certainly where not that popular in the UK and Europe. In fact I might be wrong with this, but other than print media, I don't think that Europe got the Genesis Does adverts at all, mainly because it wasn't called Genesis, we did however get the amazingly popular Pirate Sega ones and a couple of UK/Europe specific ones, but I do not at all remember any of the Sega/Genesis does our side of print media. 

Now why is this? In the UK (can't say accurately for Europe), it's VERY rare (though it is becoming more common recently with supermarket adverts), to find a brand targeting another brand, certainly nothing to the aggressive levels that Sega were doing to Nintendo and eventually Sony. They were certainly there in print, but not at all on TV, in fact I remember having a VCR back in the early 90's and I would record TONS of Children's TV, and in the UK at that time out of the 4 TV channels we had, only 2 channels ran commercials, one of those didn't have kids shows.

I used to have a huge collection of VHS tapes from the 90's, and many years ago I rewatched a bunch of them, all recorded from a period of around 3:30pm - 5pm on ITV. Anyone in the UK like to confirm that this was prime time kids TV for those outside the UK? The reason why I did this was because I wanted to look out for Sega/Sonic adverts which had yet been recorded and uploaded to YouTube. During my investigation I didn't find anything new, but I also didn't see much in terms of Nintendo.

There were tons for the GameBoy, mainly the one of the guy in the terminal and the Wario one. But other than the odd Mario 3 advert and the general "THE WORLDS NUMBER 1 GAME SYSTEM!" and the odd "Rob the robot" one, there was very little. Sega on the other hand... tons. 

So you can't really claim that people had a fair or even choice since Sega were pumping out more adverts, at least in the UK compared to Nintendo and the aggressive/cool/edgy marketting wasn't there in the UK. So anyone who was a kid who watched the prime time advertising for these consoles was not exposed to this.

In fact, want an example of a brand attack advert in the UK? Here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSlEqxK8_Oo

That is the most aggressive brand attacking advert on TV right now, in fact it's probably the most aggressive one that's ever been on UK TV. We just don't get them, adverts in the UK and this was true for game adverts were a lot more subtle, at least compared to those shown in the US.

So sure, both scenario's are possible, but what EXACTLY is your point here?
That SOME people just enjoy Sonic as a surrogate Mario because they just happen to have a Megadrive instead of a Super Nintendo? Sure, that's definitly possible, but to dismiss the fact Sonic was doing a ton of thing against the Mario philosophy is a little silly. Sonic most definitly acted like an anti-Mario on a lot of levels and i'm pretty sure that those played a part in making him relevant to more then a few people. 

People are constantly going on about how 'Sonic was this edge' or 'something which was different to Mario' 'he was cool' 'edgy' 'better' 'than mario.' Which is why they liked the game or went with that system/game, we will ignore for now that a lot of these people were either.

A: Not even born when the first game came out.

B: Were kids when Sonic Adventure came out and most likely had no idea why they liked what they liked.

We'll assume that they were all capable of rational, reasonable unbiased thought.

My point is this.

If I own Sonic 1 on a Mega Drive, and it's the only system I have regular access to, how can I ever say with confidence, I like it more than Mario when I only own a Mega Drive? Likewise, how can I say the opposite? I can certainly forge a more rounded opinion if I own both systems and play the two games in my own home in my own room. 

As opposed to my actual experience which was sat in Mathew Smiths house who would regularly make us watch him play Mario, or Garath's house who had 4 dogs running around and a 16 year old sister who hated everyone and regularly stole the controller from our hands.

So you can't, especially at a young age, say 'well I played it at X's house' is a good argument since the environment you play in also has an impact. 

Even if you owned one system, grow up and play the other, there is absolutely no way you can say in complete unbiased confidence that you still prefer X over Y because it offers whatever, because you've grown up with that, it has nostalgia tied to it. Especially when it comes to Sonic & Mario which are two completely different kinds of games, especially when it comes to fans who have grown up with either series. 

[Nepenthe]

This topic is irrelevant to an assessment of the Mario and Sonic's quality at the time and how difficult it would be for people without money to compare the two. We're talking about the perception of each's tone, particularly in the case of Sonic and how people discuss his more serious aspects in online conversation. How in the world does the fact that a subset of the UK population's inability to actually play the game erase Sega's intent to make and market a game that possesses artistic aspects that are in direct opposition to Mario's? Again, this is like me saying people are bullshitting about the reputation and qualities of famous paintings because I'm personally too broke to see them myself. It's ridiculous.

[Badnik Mechanic]

 How in the world does the fact that a subset of the UK population's inability to actually play the game erase Sega's intent to make and market a game that possesses artistic aspects that are in direct opposition to Mario's? 

Because when you're a kid and you only have exposure to one system, when you grow up and say 'I liked Sonic more because he was 'this this and this' which Mario wasn't' it's daft because you never had the other source to forge any kind of conclusion.

What you did was grow up and read someone else's article or argument about what Sega were doing different and applied it to your own scenario.

Unless of course I'm wrong and when we were all kids in the 90's we all suddenly ran to our parents and said "I like Sonic since he's edgier than Mario and Sega is doing stuff that Mario isn't."

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

This sub-discussion about Sega marketing in the early 90s and UK children's ability to get multiple consoles doesn't seem particularly relevant to me, but I'd like to add that I feel like there's a conflagration between Sonic's personality and the tone of storylines going on. I wasn't around when Sonic was new, but I'm pretty sure the marketing for him back then didn't have anything to do with darker or more dramatic storylines, but rather Sonic's personality and "attitude", especially in contrast to Mario's. That's a pretty big difference, and any connection between the two is tenuous at best.

[Briraka]

I find the whole "Sonic is supposed to be the anti-Mario" thing irrelevant nowadays because Nintendo has presented Mario stories that are leaps and bounds ahead of whatever Sonic Team has made since the new millennium. If anything, Sonic Team could learn a little from games like Paper Mario or Zelda.

Hell, I'd take 3D World or Captain Toad's simplistic stories and expressive, but mute cut scenes at this point.

[PandoloFox]

 I really think the problem is with you on this one if that's the conclusion you came to. I made it pretty clear that few people had both systems so you had a choice between one or the other. If you had one system it wasn't easy to play the main title on the other system. So how can you claim that 'Sonic was better because he was edgier' if you had zero to little experience of the other platform?


 

This assumption is only correct if you take into consideration the following. That most kids got exactly what they wanted. I have to say, that for Britain's at least in the 80's you didn't always get what you wanted with regards to super expensive stuff, furthermore, it doesn't take into account the fact that many people got a console as a surprise 'I didn't ask for this' kind of gift, which was certainly the case with mine. 

In Britain before the NES and Master System kicked off, everybody had or knew someone who had a Micro Processor based computer. Be it a BBC Micro, an Amiga, Amstrad or in my case a Commodor 64.

We had these systems for a long time and got a lot of fun and use out of them. However, eventually consoles started to 'look' better, so for many people, gifting their children a console was a logical step, but a lot of parents, mine included didn't just rush out and buy the system their kids said or whichever one was the best seller, they did research, and I can still to this day remember why mine went with Sega over Nintendo, the reason was simple economics. The master system had done amazing in Europe, The Mega Drive was going to be one of the top toys of the year and every electronic store that they went to they went to (no game stores back then), they were told that Sega looked like they may actually beat Nintendo.

They used exactly the same method to decide as they did when it came to picking between VHS and BetaMax a few years earlier. As did many parents at the time. 

Hence why in the school playground in my experience it was a big deal when people got a console, nobody really knew what they were getting until they got it, but us being kids, we had no idea about the politics of consoles and markets, we just got cool toys which had cool games that our friends wanted to come over and play. 

Now lets talk about adverts for a moment. How many people in the UK and Europe remember seeing this on the telly? 

 

Anyone who says I do is a liar. Because they were never shown in Europe. Unless somehow you own a European Genesis as opposed to a Mega Drive. 

The whole 'Sega does what Nintendon't' these adverts may have been popular in the US... but they certainly where not that popular in the UK and Europe. In fact I might be wrong with this, but other than print media, I don't think that Europe got the Genesis Does adverts at all, mainly because it wasn't called Genesis, we did however get the amazingly popular Pirate Sega ones and a couple of UK/Europe specific ones, but I do not at all remember any of the Sega/Genesis does our side of print media. 

Now why is this? In the UK (can't say accurately for Europe), it's VERY rare (though it is becoming more common recently with supermarket adverts), to find a brand targeting another brand, certainly nothing to the aggressive levels that Sega were doing to Nintendo and eventually Sony. They were certainly there in print, but not at all on TV, in fact I remember having a VCR back in the early 90's and I would record TONS of Children's TV, and in the UK at that time out of the 4 TV channels we had, only 2 channels ran commercials, one of those didn't have kids shows.

I used to have a huge collection of VHS tapes from the 90's, and many years ago I rewatched a bunch of them, all recorded from a period of around 3:30pm - 5pm on ITV. Anyone in the UK like to confirm that this was prime time kids TV for those outside the UK? The reason why I did this was because I wanted to look out for Sega/Sonic adverts which had yet been recorded and uploaded to YouTube. During my investigation I didn't find anything new, but I also didn't see much in terms of Nintendo.

There were tons for the GameBoy, mainly the one of the guy in the terminal and the Wario one. But other than the odd Mario 3 advert and the general "THE WORLDS NUMBER 1 GAME SYSTEM!" and the odd "Rob the robot" one, there was very little. Sega on the other hand... tons. 

So you can't really claim that people had a fair or even choice since Sega were pumping out more adverts, at least in the UK compared to Nintendo and the aggressive/cool/edgy marketting wasn't there in the UK. So anyone who was a kid who watched the prime time advertising for these consoles was not exposed to this.

You can easily claim it since people had things called "friends". These friends would have the "opposite" console. so even here that logic falls apart since there were obvious ways for kids to compare stuff. And i live in Europe myself, im fully aware how much "sega" was advertised compared to nintendo. That didnt stop people from actualy getting a super nintendo. Your own memories as a child realy doesnt contribute much since we all can tell stories about our childhood that will differ from yours. In my case i even got both. And even without having both i had friends that either owned a super nintendo or a mega drive.

And while we didnt get the "sega does what nintendont" commercials, the commercials we did get surely wasnt "tame". As someone that lives in UK, you should be painfully aware of this. Sonic was pretty much marketed as an asshole over there.



 

People are constantly going on about how 'Sonic was this edge' or 'something which was different to Mario' 'he was cool' 'edgy' 'better' 'than mario.' Which is why they liked the game or went with that system/game, we will ignore for now that a lot of these people were either.

A: Not even born when the first game came out.

B: Were kids when Sonic Adventure came out and most likely had no idea why they liked what they liked.

We'll assume that they were all capable of rational, reasonable unbiased thought.

My point is this.

If I own Sonic 1 on a Mega Drive, and it's the only system I have regular access to, how can I ever say with confidence, I like it more than Mario when I only own a Mega Drive? Likewise, how can I say the opposite? I can certainly forge a more rounded opinion if I own both systems and play the two games in my own home in my own room. 

As opposed to my actual experience which was sat in Mathew Smiths house who would regularly make us watch him play Mario, or Garath's house who had 4 dogs running around and a 16 year old sister who hated everyone and regularly stole the controller from our hands.

So you can't, especially at a young age, say 'well I played it at X's house' is a good argument since the environment you play in also has an impact. 

Even if you owned one system, grow up and play the other, there is absolutely no way you can say in complete unbiased confidence that you still prefer X over Y because it offers whatever, because you've grown up with that, it has nostalgia tied to it. Especially when it comes to Sonic & Mario which are two completely different kinds of games, especially when it comes to fans who have grown up with either series. 

 Like this

 

A.bringing in people that use the terms incorrectly to prove a point. A.K.A strawmanning.

B: Using people from the adventure era to pull out yet another point to dismiss claims. A.K:A another strawman.

Because if you have friends, odds are that you have played the games that person might have owned. a console that you yourself might not own. And this is only going by that people cant get both. You are also dismissing the teenager demographic that could take up jobs in order to afford consoles. its not just parents and kids that played these things.

You even bring up that you played the opposing console at a friends house......are you saying that you cant form an opinion after playing games at friends houses for several ours? You do know that friendships lasts more than a few instances right?

At a young age you wernt even able to form well rounded eplanations of your own taste....what is your point?

Unbiased? opinions are "biased". how is it possible to even prefer something over something else without being biased......

Edited October 9, 2015 by PandoloFox
Because im not used to stadiums quoting system and i messed up earlier.

[Badnik Mechanic]

You even bring up that you played the opposing console at a friends house......are you saying that you cant form an opinion after playing games at friends houses for several ours? You do know that friendships lasts more than a few instances right?

 

Yeah you're right that's exactly what I said... oh wait no it isn't and you know it.

 I can certainly forge a more rounded opinion if I own both systems and play the two games in my own home in my own room. 

[PandoloFox]

 

Yeah you're right that's exactly what I said... oh wait no it isn't and you know it.

Your own qoute talks about having "both" consoles.......and your point has been that people cant say that they prefered one over the other because we only had one of the systems. 

[Nepenthe]

Because when you're a kid and you only have exposure to one system, when you grow up and say 'I liked Sonic more because he was 'this this and this' which Mario wasn't' it's daft because you never had the other source to forge any kind of conclusion.

What you did was grow up and read someone else's article or argument about what Sega were doing different and applied it to your own scenario.

Unless of course I'm wrong and when we were all kids in the 90's we all suddenly ran to our parents and said "I like Sonic since he's edgier than Mario and Sega is doing stuff that Mario isn't."

You are, at this point, arguing against the ability for a consensus about the meaning of the themes and subtext of art to be formed unless every single individual person on Earth is able to experience it, which... just isn't how art works. Rather, the burden of proof should act as such that people who haven't played Sonic, well, shouldn't sit down at the table and say the people who have played it and came to a conclusion about what it means are, for some reason, completely bullshitting. Seriously, UK kids who chose Nintendo mean as much as remote island tribes towards the discussion.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Nepenthe