Do you think fans (and non-fans) of Sonic are too hard on Sonic games?

[AlexHidanBR]

Not really - most of the criticism towards the games are real, they aren't hate. Some are just hate, but most of them are real. Like how Superstars' bosses are boring because of the way they were programmed - You spend most of the time avoiding or waiting for attacks than actually attacking.

Edited December 21, 2023 by AlexHidanBR

[Scritch the Cat]

On 12/16/2023 at 7:14 AM, Wraith said:

No. I think the kid's got it too easy.

As someone who's watched a lot of series they love fizzle out or sell their souls after a mediocre game or two, I'd say the opposite is true. Sonic has coasted off of good-will for far longer than what's usually feasible for a game series. This cutthroat industry has been easier on him at most, and even the people who are hard on him only care so much because they want to see him win.

Maybe that's true in the majority of cases Sonic has been raked over the coals, but it's certainly not true in the most infamous cases.  There is no constructive criticism to be dug out of "Sonic was never good and if you disagree you must just want to have sex with Big the Cat."  Not only is it pretty obvious that the speaker there just flat-out hates Sonic, I suspect he knows of Sonic mostly due to The Game Grumps and Rule34, maybe DeviantArt on a bad day. 

But while that was an inexcusably bad take that the bosses at IGN should have vetoed, I don't think it's really fair to demand such outlets force their members to come up with outright good takes.  They should shut them up if they have nothing good to say, but decades past when a series was something truly special, I don't see why we should expect or demand every Joe and Jane be invested in its success.  That would be kind of like people asking me for a smart and useful take on Tom and Jerry.  "Huhey, Scritch!  Did you see that Tom and Jerry movie that released in 2020?  Do you think it was at least better than that infamous one in the 1990s with that "money" villain?  Does it do a good job capturing the spirit of the cartoon?  Do you think a new Tom and Jerry cartoon would work these days?  Would you want them to try?"  My answer to some of those would be "No", to more it would be "I don't care", to absolutely none would it be "Yes".  To me, Tom and Jerry is just a random cartoon animal franchise older than me, one of many, I wasn't there to experience when it was ever considered new and exciting, so I'm utterly indifferent to whether it survives and what form it evolves into if it does.

Maybe this has become a tangent, but it would be my preference to only have Sonic seriously discussed by people who actually care about it, and from where I'm standing it looks like hopefully we're moving in that direction.  Conventional game journalism is an industry that has been made effectively obsolete by online word-of-mouth, and the "angry manchild" sort of video review that seemed to be replacing it for a while also seems to have mostly burnt itself out.  What have risen from the ashes seem to be various Internet personalities whose thing isn't just talking about video games, but talking about specific video game series, and these people tend to form mini-communities with each other and often their fans, in some ideal cases even the developers of those franchises.  People here can probably name a number of those YouTube personalities related to Sonic, but these days even such relatively inactive franchises as Twisted Metal have a community of 'tubers about them.

Edited March 2 by Scritch the Cat

[azoo]

The video game community has gotten to where they take Sonic's schtick for granted. Especially mean and unoriginal people will probably be quick to pull out the old outdated memes, yes. But there's no real outcry when Sonic scrapes the bare minimum anymore, mostly because they expect / are pleasantly surprised by the bare minimum from Sonic.

And any extra critique or scrutiny they can give is not given for two reasons: 

1) Sonic's inconsistency and often clumsy design going on for so long has led to critics and normies not really wanting to give it serious analysis anymore, and

2) If they do criticize it, they're in for a vicious wall of hate-messages from Sonic fans. Potentially to the point of campaigning, harassment, doxxing, etc.

Now that second point.. well, it's the elephant in the room, isn't it? The Sonic fanbase has proven that it's really not a fan of criticism from outside parties. Hell, it's hardly tolerant of criticism within it's own walls; it's the textbook definition of a "broken base". But if anyone outside of said base dares raise it's finger at Sonic, it bands together to go apeshit.

The ultimate end-goal of the fanbase these days, it seems, is to cheerlead Sonic; to guide and hypebeast it to success and rally for it's wealth and popularity no matter what. We've gotta say the newest game or film or show was peak, we've gotta fight the haters, we've gotta get those numbers to go up, raise that RT audience score, give them all the views, give all the money. No matter what we truly think of the newest product when we sit on it and explore our thoughts, this is what the fanbase is now. And I think that's because after years of being looked down upon, the fanbase wants to feel validated for liking Sonic.

And you know, I kinda get it. I too am a Sonic fan. I grew up in the fandom during the peak days of it being the dog to kick.

But I feel like that breed of rabid fanboyism is a large part of why critics and outsiders still don't like the fans or take them seriously. And thus Sonic fans continue to get bullied in online communities for being crazed and hostile. Then the fans feel like they're being othered again, and start to build more animosity to people outside of said fanbase and put themselves deeper in their own little bubble. An ouroboros forms and nothing changes. 

So to answer the topic question: no the non-fans aren't too hard on Sonic, and no the fans aren't either. But people on the internet could bother to be nicer to each other regardless if their opinion on Sonic is a positive one or not. It wouldn't kill a non-fan to lay off the Sonic '06 or furry porn jokes. It also wouldn't kill a fan to hear someone say they didn't like a new Sonic thing.

Edited December 22, 2023 by azoo

[Scritch the Cat]

18 hours ago, azoo said:

The video game community has gotten to where they take Sonic's schtick for granted. Especially mean and unoriginal people will probably be quick to pull out the old outdated memes, yes. But there's no real outcry when Sonic scrapes the bare minimum anymore, mostly because they expect / are pleasantly surprised by the bare minimum from Sonic.

And any extra critique or scrutiny they can give is not given for two reasons: 

1) Sonic's inconsistency and often clumsy design going on for so long has led to critics and normies not really wanting to give it serious analysis anymore, and

2) If they do criticize it, they're in for a vicious wall of hate-messages from Sonic fans. Potentially to the point of campaigning, harassment, doxxing, etc.

Now that second point.. well, it's the elephant in the room, isn't it? The Sonic fanbase has proven that it's really not a fan of criticism from outside parties. Hell, it's hardly tolerant of criticism within it's own walls; it's the textbook definition of a "broken base". But if anyone outside of said base dares raise it's finger at Sonic, it bands together to go apeshit.

The ultimate end-goal of the fanbase these days, it seems, is to cheerlead Sonic; to guide and hypebeast it to success and rally for it's wealth and popularity no matter what. We've gotta say the newest game or film or show was peak, we've gotta fight the haters, we've gotta get those numbers to go up, raise that RT audience score, give them all the views, give all the money. No matter what we truly think of the newest product when we sit on it and explore our thoughts, this is what the fanbase is now. And I think that's because after years of being looked down upon, the fanbase wants to feel validated for liking Sonic.

And you know, I kinda get it. I too am a Sonic fan. I grew up in the fandom during the peak days of it being the dog to kick.

But I feel like that breed of rabid fanboyism is a large part of why critics and outsiders still don't like the fans or take them seriously. And thus Sonic fans continue to get bullied in online communities for being crazed and hostile. Then the fans feel like they're being othered again, and start to build more animosity to people outside of said fanbase and put themselves deeper in their own little bubble. An ouroboros forms and nothing changes. 

So to answer the topic question: no the non-fans aren't too hard on Sonic, and no the fans aren't either. But people on the internet could bother to be nicer to each other regardless if their opinion on Sonic is a positive one or not. It wouldn't kill a non-fan to lay off the Sonic '06 or furry porn jokes. It also wouldn't kill a fan to hear someone say they didn't like a new Sonic thing.

I'm wondering where you got the notion of how most Sonic fans act "These days" and how recently the period known as "these days" began.  Did you read through these or other forums and note what percentage of posts are people getting all defensive of the lastest Sonic things?  Maybe you did.  You'll have to forgive me for not doing this all that much, so maybe if you have, your take is valid, but you'd still be extrapolating the way the majority of Sonic fans in general think and act from how the majority of fans on certain forums do.

Speaking as someone whose go-to-measure of Sonic fan opinions is well-esteemed Sonic-related YouTube personalities like The Geek Critique, @Roger_van_der_weideand J's Reviews, "cheerleader" is not how I would describe their attitude at all.  The last few things I recall being nearly unanimously loved by such people were the Sonic 2 movie and Sonic Dream Team.  Their attitudes towards Sonic Frontiers, Sonic Prime, and Sonic Superstars were very mixed, with a lot of common complaints among them.  Even for things people really wanted to like, such as the aforementioned Sonic Superstars and Sonic Frontiers Update 3, they have not been shy in concealing their disappointment.  And you can say I'm wrong to treat them as speaking for most of the Sonic fandom but I think there's a there, there, when there's a consensus on what exactly the problems are.  Also, maybe the majority of Sonic fans are "cucksumerists", but is there any reason to believe that's any different from fans of other dubious franchise these days?  Pokemon has been striking out in the games department a lot worse than Sonic lately but still selling millions, so why don't we hear more diatribes calling most Pokemon fans useful idiots?  I'm just going to assume that the "creative" output of the Pokemon fanbase was just never as cringe as that of Sonic fans.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Scritch the Cat

[Wraith]

13 hours ago, Scritch the Cat said:

Maybe this has become a tangent, but it would be my preference to only have Sonic seriously discussed by people who actually care about it, and from where I'm standing it looks like hopefully we're moving in that direction.  Conventional game journalism is an industry that has been made effectively obsolete by online word-of-mouth, and the "angry manchild" sort of video of review that seemed to be replacing it for a while also seems to have mostly burnt itself out.  What have risen from the ashes seem to be various Internet personalities whose thing isn't just talking about video games, but talking about specific video game series, and these people tend to form mini-communities with each other and often their fans, in some ideal cases even the developers of those franchises.  People here can probably name a number of those YouTube personalities related to Sonic, but these days even such relatively inactive franchises as Twisted Metal have a community of 'tubers about them.

Sega doesn't just want people who care about Sonic to buy games though. They always want to reach new audiences, and until they eventually stop wanting that, takes from people who don't care about Sonic will always be useful to them because they're trying to figure out how to get them to care. It doesn't make any sense to filter them out. You could choose to filter them out, but then you'd be missing context about what SEGA is thinking going into the next project.

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Wraith

[Scritch the Cat]

6 hours ago, Wraith said:

Sega doesn't just want people who care about Sonic to buy games though. They always want to reach new audiences, and until they eventually stop wanting that, takes from people who don't care about Sonic will always be useful to them because they're trying to figure out how to get them to care. It doesn't make any sense to filter them out. You could choose to filter them out, but then you'd be missing context about what SEGA is thinking going into the next project.

 

That's a good point, but do review scores really matter if a lot of people buy their games anyway, and a large percentage of them are too young to give much in the way of feedback?  That's not a totally rhetorical question, incidentally; I really don't know what percentage of Sonic fans these days are really young.

[Wraith]

31 minutes ago, Scritch the Cat said:

That's a good point, but do review scores really matter if a lot of people buy their games anyway, and a large percentage of them are too young to give much in the way of feedback?  That's not a totally rhetorical question, incidentally; I really don't know what percentage of Sonic fans these days are really young.

Reviews and opinions from mainstream gaming outlets like youtubers don't matter that much if they just want to keep their current audience, but they want to expand.

[Kuzu]

At this stage in the franchise's lifestyle, Sonic just kind of exists in its own seperate bubble outside the realm of criticism. 

There's really no way to give an "honest" critique about it. If you rate it too low, Sonic fans will rally to end you, regardless of how constructive your criticism is. If you rate it too highly, then that's just begging for bad faith actors to come out with the disingenuous arguments about Sonic fans accepting mediocrity.

Sonic's kind-of at a point where it does well enough to stay profitable due to how devoted the established fans are, and the general nostalgia people have for the series, but it's nowhere near where the actual gaming juggernauts are. The only ones who really see this as a bad thing are the jaded fans who want to see the series live up to its full potential, but they're such a small part of the fanbase nowadays and are generally cowed into silence by the majority who's fine with how things are.

 

I think this is why IGN and other gaming outlets just give out 5-7 scores nowadays. The games aren't exceptional enough to warrant an 8-10, but if they're not terrible enough to warrant anything lower than a 5 either. And because Sonic has been a laughingstock for so long, Sonic fans are more than willing to accept those 5-7 scores, otherwise you wouldn't see so many fans trying to justify the scores when they came out.

 

 

The ironic part here is that, according to interviews with the developers, they're trying really hard to win over the masses with then explicitly emphasizing their higher review scores. They want their own Breath of the Wild essentially, that game that helps them break into the mainstream.

[ZinogreVolt]

I don't find myself in disagreement with most Sonic fan criticism, but I tend to identify with very little of it. My thoughts usually align more with the mainstream whenever I do feel very negative on a Sonic game (which is rare, generally I don't dislike games as a whole?). Having said that, I don't think it's a good thing if the games are still scoring in the low 70s if Sega's goal is to broaden the appeal of the series and bring in new audiences. That clearly didn't stop Frontiers from selling as well as it did, so maybe it's not entirely necessary, but that game as well as almost every other one released in the past few years had blatant issues. Every time a fun Sonic game releases, there's always an annoying "Yeah, but..." associated with it. That's almost more annoying than when the games just straight up unambiguously sucked ass. Frontiers has a myriad of technical problems and lacks polish. Superstars lacked polish at launch (though many of its issues got fixed recently), has ho-hum graphics, and the soundtrack is disappointing. Origins is buggy and it feels like a cash grab in some places. Dream Team is unambiguously good, but it's relegated to a pretty niche mobile service.

I will say that I am more forgiving of Sonic because there's very little like what those games are doing, and making fast games into platformers with lots of variables is very difficult and generally avoided for good reason. Especially in the 3D space. Some games like it do exist, but they are exceptionally rare so it's hard to say that there's much of a blueprint. Given Sonic Team's pretty tenuous existence as a conglomerate and the uphill developmental battles they face from Sega's corporate backend, I am again reluctant to point fingers since you can never fully know what goes wrong and where during a game's development. That doesn't make it any less frustrating, since many franchises have made better games in fewer attempts and with ideas that are even more ambitious.  Understanding the circumstances a bad game was made in doesn't make the bad game any better.

But overall, I wouldn't really say Sonic gets any more or less flack from players or fans compared to other franchises. Every popular franchise has its share of really stupid detractors or bullshit criticisms, even the most popular and beloved ones. That just comes with the trade of being an old IP.

 

[Shiny Gems]

On 12/22/2023 at 12:33 AM, Scritch the Cat said:

I'm wondering where you got the notion of how most Sonic fans act "These days" and how recently the period known as "these days" began.  Did you read through these or other forums and note what percentage of posts are people getting all defensive of the lastest Sonic things?  Maybe you did.  You'll have to forgive me for not doing this all that much, so maybe if you have, your take is valid, but you'd still be extrapolating the way the majority of Sonic fans in general think and act from how the majority of fans on certain forums do.

Speaking as someone whose go-to-measure of Sonic fan opinions is well-esteemed Sonic-related YouTube personalities like The Geek Critique, @Roger_van_der_weideand J's Reviews, "cheerleader" is not how I would describe their attitude at all.  The last few things I recall being nearly unanimously loved by such people were the Sonic 2 movie and Sonic Dream Team.  Their attitudes towards Sonic Frontiers, Sonic Prime, and Sonic Superstars were very mixed, with a lot of common complaints among them.  Even for things people really wanted to like, such as the aforementioned Sonic Superstars and Sonic Frontiers Update 3, they have not been shy in concealing their disappointment.  And you can say I'm wrong to treat them as speaking for most of the Sonic fandom but I think there's a there, there, when there's a consensus on what exactly the problems are.  Also, maybe the majority of Sonic fans are "cucksumerists", but is there any reason to believe that's any different from fans of other dubious franchise these days?  Pokemon has been striking out in the games department a lot worse than Sonic lately but still selling millions, so why don't we hear more diatribes calling most Pokemon fans useful idiots?  I'm just going to assume that the "creative" output of the Pokemon fanbase was just never as cringe as that of Sonic fans.

Sorry for the late reply, but...

Yeah, but those reviewers you mentioned are just a number of a whole number of Youtubers on Youtube. I have seen much more positive ones on Social Media and Youtube, personally speaking; especially on social media. Still, anyways, the reviewers you mentioned, especially Roger_van-der_weide (not sure much about the other two), have always been more mixed to negative. In fact, in regards to Roger, many of the 3D Sonic games he has reviewed are just...pessimistic, to put it nicely. Sure, he may give some good points here and there, but while this may be rather controversial, I do not personally see much reason to go by someone who has been mainly negative with Sonic games for many years, especially the 3D ones.

I apologize in advance for saying this, but Roger is not the kind of guy I would go to in terms of reviews. I personally don't find having a constantly negative outlook towards things like even a video game series is not something that is mentally healthy for different reasons.

That is to say, in an attempt to be more on topic, I can't say he is harsh on Sonic games, and I understand that criticism must exist, which I accept; but when you are constantly not happy with something, at the least, I do not think that makes one so reliable as a reviewer.

On that note, about the whole being constantly unhappy with a series like Sonic, while it may be obvious, the same could be applied to a number of Sonic fans (not all of them, of course), as well as people who are fans of different franchises as others may have pointed out already.

[Rabbitearsblog]

7 hours ago, Shiny Gems said:

Sorry for the late reply, but...

Yeah, but those reviewers you mentioned are just a number of a whole number of Youtubers on Youtube. I have seen much more positive ones on Social Media and Youtube, personally speaking; especially on social media. Still, anyways, the reviewers you mentioned, especially Roger_van-der_weide (not sure much about the other two), have always been more mixed to negative. In fact, in regards to Roger, many of the 3D Sonic games he has reviewed are just...pessimistic, to put it nicely. Sure, he may give some good points here and there, but while this may be rather controversial, I do not personally see much reason to go by someone who has been mainly negative with Sonic games for many years, especially the 3D ones.

I apologize in advance for saying this, but Roger is not the kind of guy I would go to in terms of reviews. I personally don't find having a constantly negative outlook towards things like even a video game series is not something that is mentally healthy for different reasons.

That is to say, in an attempt to be more on topic, I can't say he is harsh on Sonic games, and I understand that criticism must exist, which I accept; but when you are constantly not happy with something, at the least, I do not think that makes one so reliable as a reviewer.

On that note, about the whole being constantly unhappy with a series like Sonic, while it may be obvious, the same could be applied to a number of Sonic fans (not all of them, of course), as well as people who are fans of different franchises as others may have pointed out already.

I usually don't pay much attention to the Sonictubers who are overly negative about the franchise because it becomes very hard to take them seriously when they are constantly being negative towards the franchise.  Now, don't get me wrong, I think that there should be some proper criticism in regards to this franchise and this franchise is definitely not perfect, but if everything you say about this franchise is nothing but negative, whether it be saying that all the games are bad (when that's definitely not true) or you straight up say that you don't like any of the characters in this franchise, then it makes me wonder about whether they like the franchise to begin with and why would they bother with this franchise when there's other franchises out there that they could spend their time with.

[Shiny Gems]

12 hours ago, Rabbitearsblog said:

I usually don't pay much attention to the Sonictubers who are overly negative about the franchise because it becomes very hard to take them seriously when they are constantly being negative towards the franchise.  Now, don't get me wrong, I think that there should be some proper criticism in regards to this franchise and this franchise is definitely not perfect, but if everything you say about this franchise is nothing but negative, whether it be saying that all the games are bad (when that's definitely not true) or you straight up say that you don't like any of the characters in this franchise, then it makes me wonder about whether they like the franchise to begin with and why would they bother with this franchise when there's other franchises out there that they could spend their time with.

Agreed. I know Roger is mixed and not just negative sometimes, but even if he has dedication, I wonder why he is still playing Sonic games. I mean, as I may have said before, it is not mentally healthy to be constantly unhappy with things, especially, but not limited to things like video games. I wonder if some people like him do it to torture themselves or to make the series look bad on purpose, or just don't know when to quit? No offense to him and the other Sonictubers, of course, but I do think people like them have overstayed their welcome as Sonic fans, meaning the series is just not for them anymore. I am not sure if they may realize that they are probably not gaining anything from trying to get themselves pleased from modern Sonic games or are just sticking around for Sonic games they may not like for any other reason.

It is kind of like they are putting themselves in some kind of abusive relationship with something that they just don't want to leave for some reason, when it is not good for them.

[Scritch the Cat]

On 12/31/2023 at 1:46 PM, Shiny Gems said:

I apologize in advance for saying this, but Roger is not the kind of guy I would go to in terms of reviews. I personally don't find having a constantly negative outlook towards things like even a video game series is not something that is mentally healthy for different reasons.

Speaking of excessive negativity, I think you've got a double-negative in there.

Now, to weigh in on where the conversation has gone since I last replied, an important point to make about @Roger_van_der_weide, in particular, is that being over-analytical is kind of his thing as a YouTuber.  His overall goal isn't to praise things or diss things; it is to, as he calls it, dissect things.  He wants to examine Sonic-related things from the inside-out to discern why they work, don't work, what parts could be tuned up so they would work, etc.  I certainly don't disagree that he is too negative about some things, the Sonic Boom TV series being among them, but often enough he also has insights that aren't positive or negative, just philosophical; his view of humans in the Sonic series being one of the first that comes to mind.  It's not a straight positive or negative take, but it's at least a nuanced take in the sense that I don't think many other people would conclude that humans don't seem to fit with Sonic thematically but that's precisely why they're useful in helping Sonic stand out.  I also like the point he makes about how juxtaposition is a big part of the series.

Regarding the rest of this and nitpicky Sonic YouTubers in general, I do not agree with the premise that complaining is unhealthy, in and of itself.  Certainly, dwelling on things that trouble oneself and that one is unable to fix and ponder without mentally breaking is unhealthy, but if people are going to have negative thoughts either way, then it's healthy to get them off their chest, especially when those negative thoughts contain interesting insights.  And incidentally, I will absolutely not cosign on the notion that old fans should just move on when it's clear the series isn't for them anymore, as I feel it is impossible to do so without being a tacit apologist for any greedy/self-righteous corporation that thinks it's acceptable to betray the wishes of its old fans, that or test if those old fans are willing to keep kissing the corporation's ass until the corporation tries to shit in their mouths.  Entirely too many corporations have gotten the notion that it's acceptable to go against what fans want to jump on trendy bandwagons, and perpetual consumer wrath is what all of these corporations deserve.

Also, let's be real, how well has it worked overall for Sonic?  Once in a while, you get innovations and reinventions that work, and if you want something aside from what you think are the normal Sonic-tuber negative takes, check out The Geek Critique's review of Sonic Rush, which ends with him saying that yes, Sonic isn't really "for him" anymore, but that doesn't automatically make it bad.  But just because occasionally, a game succeeds in reinventing Sonic game design so well that it becomes the new standard for what Sonic "should" be, does not mean that's the way to bet.  Most changes to Sonic's overall game loop have had divisive reputations at best, and it might be one thing if they traded old Sonic gameplay traditions for new gameplay that was on par with the industry standard for that sort of gameplay, but they almost never do.  Case-in-point, Shadow the Hedgehog.  Putting aside for a moment how many players would even like a Sonic game filled with guns compared to how many would hate it, even people who actually liked the guns in theory would find them simple and bland in practice, compared to numerous other games that had much better gun-focused gameplay.  And then just when you'd think it couldn't be more obvious that a lot of people aren't here to play a shooter, Sonic Team up and made the final boss of a Sonic game a bullet-hell out of nowhere.

That's a good place to segue to next point: A lot of these critics aren't stating excessively negative opinions, nor reflections of personal tastes about what a Sonic game should be in concept, they reflect objectively verifiable facts about things that are or are not in games.  It is an objectively verifiable fact that Sonic Frontiers shipped with Sonic's speed disabled when he jumps.  Let's ignore for a moment the dead horse about how important momentum is to a Sonic game, whether most younger players care about momentum or even know the word, whether they've been able to observe that in some games Sonic accelerates more when going downhill and decelerates going uphill, whether building a boost into Sonic ruins a lot of the challenge of using the terrain; putting all that aside, how the fuck does a developer take a platformer series whose hero is known for moving fast and think it's a good idea to not let him move fast while he jumps?!  That shit deserved to be called out by the fans, and lo and behold, the squeaky wheel got the grease.  Also lo and behold, a lot of the Sonic 'tubers who complained about that also praised Morio Kishimoto for listening and addressing it in Update 2, which gives lie to the claim being made here that Sonic 'tubers are just going out of their way to hate Sonic and by now hate Sonic so much they should just move on.  Why should people believe they should just move on instead of complaining when they've been shown this series is now being run by people who actually listen to and address the complaints, and they often enjoy the revisions made in address? 

Sonic is not a lost cause, and for that matter, neither is SEGA.  It's one thing to say "old fans should just move on" when you get a genuinely and thoroughly awful corporation like EA that demonstrably has sacrificed all quality in exchange for maximum profitability; fans of Command & Conquer and SimCity have almost unanimously concluded that those franchises will only be represented by DRM- and microtransaction-filled shit from here on if they exist at all, so they've jumped ship to the many spiritual successors made by other companies.  To stay and complain about what few new entries those actual series get would only be preaching the same few points to the same choir each time, to no end because pleasing the fans is never EA's goal.  But this franchise and this company are not like that, at least not totally.  They are not devoid of problems but they've done a lot to demonstrate that they at least want to do right by fans. 

That is the real reason a lot of the Sonic fans just won't quit despite not always being pleased with the results; because they always see how there is potential for things to get better again, and often enough they do.  It's still not as often as they should, but very few of the disappointing things to come out of Sonic are conceptually irredeemable; most of the time fans can see the potential there and can offer feedback on how to add or change just a few things to make the whole package better.  Feedback like "The open zone sucks" is not constructive, but that's not what fans are saying; it's "The open zone would be a lot more fun if the Sonic gameplay took place on the natural terrain instead of a bunch of Hot Wheels track and gymnastics gear levitating above it, so just give Sonic his normal physics back so he can do that."  Likewise on a plot front, the complaints from Roger, J's Reviews and others about Sage isn't just "Sage sucks" but "It's hard to feel sentimental about Sage's flashback montage when you barely even gave her any events to flash back to", and again, it is an objective fact that they did not give her much.  A lot of the plot about Sage's developing relationship with Eggman was told only through those logs you can recover from Big's fishing minigame, and why should Sonic fans expect to get those plot details more from a silly Big the Cat segment than the cutscenes?  Why should they settle for it?  Again, contrary to what their detractors allege, these people want to like Sonic stuff, often enough they do, and even when they don't they can see a line of hope. 

[Shiny Gems]

Just now, Scritch the Cat said:

Speaking of excessive negativity, I think you've got a double-negative in there.

Now, to weigh in on where the conversation has gone since I last replied, an important point to make about @Roger_van_der_weide, in particular, is that being over-analytical is kind of his thing as a YouTuber.  His overall goal isn't to praise things or diss things; it is to, as he calls it, dissect things.  He wants to examine Sonic-related things from the inside-out to discern why they work, don't work, what parts could be tuned up so they would work, etc.  I certainly don't disagree that he is too negative about some things, the Sonic Boom TV series being among them, but often enough he also has insights that aren't positive or negative, just philosophical; his view of humans in the Sonic series being one of the first that comes to mind.  It's not a straight positive or negative take, but it's at least a nuanced take in the sense that I don't think many other people would conclude that humans don't seem to fit with Sonic thematically but that's precisely why they're useful in helping Sonic stand out.  I also like the point he makes about how juxtaposition is a big part of the series.

Regarding the rest of this and nitpicky Sonic YouTubers in general, I do not agree with the premise that complaining is unhealthy, in and of itself.  Certainly, dwelling on things that trouble oneself and that one is unable to fix and ponder without mentally breaking is unhealthy, but if people are going to have negative thoughts either way, then it's healthy to get them off their chest, especially when those negative thoughts contain interesting insights.  And incidentally, I will absolutely not cosign on the notion that old fans should just move on when it's clear the series isn't for them anymore, as I feel it is impossible to do so without being a tacit apologist for any greedy/self-righteous corporation that thinks it's acceptable to betray the wishes of its old fans, that or test if those old fans are willing to keep kissing the corporation's ass until the corporation tries to shit in their mouths.  Entirely too many corporations have gotten the notion that it's acceptable to go against what fans want to jump on trendy bandwagons, and perpetual consumer wrath is what all of these corporations deserve.

Also, let's be real, how well has it worked overall for Sonic?  Once in a while, you get innovations and reinventions that work, and if you want something aside from what you think are the normal Sonic-tuber negative takes, check out The Geek Critique's review of Sonic Rush, which ends with him saying that yes, Sonic isn't really "for him" anymore, but that doesn't automatically make it bad.  But just because occasionally, a game succeeds in reinventing Sonic game design so well that it becomes the new standard for what Sonic "should" be, does not mean that's the way to bet.  Most changes to Sonic's overall game loop have had divisive reputations at best, and it might be one thing if they traded old Sonic gameplay traditions for new gameplay that was on par with the industry standard for that sort of gameplay, but they almost never do.  Case-in-point, Shadow the Hedgehog.  Putting aside for a moment how many players would even like a Sonic game filled with guns compared to how many would hate it, even people who actually liked the guns in theory would find them simple and bland in practice, compared to numerous other games that had much better gun-focused gameplay.  And then just when you'd think it couldn't be more obvious that a lot of people aren't here to play a shooter, Sonic Team up and made the final boss of a Sonic game a bullet-hell out of nowhere.

That's a good place to segue to next point: A lot of these critics aren't stating excessively negative opinions, nor reflections of personal tastes about what a Sonic game should be in concept, they reflect objectively verifiable facts about things that are or are not in games.  It is an objectively verifiable fact that Sonic Frontiers shipped with Sonic's speed disabled when he jumps.  Let's ignore for a moment the dead horse about how important momentum is to a Sonic game, whether most younger players care about momentum or even know the word, whether they've been able to observe that in some games Sonic accelerates more when going downhill and decelerates going uphill, whether building a boost into Sonic ruins a lot of the challenge of using the terrain; putting all that aside, how the fuck does a developer take a platformer series whose hero is known for moving fast and think it's a good idea to not let him move fast while he jumps?!  That shit deserved to be called out by the fans, and lo and behold, the squeaky wheel got the grease.  Also lo and behold, a lot of the Sonic 'tubers who complained about that also praised Morio Kishimoto for listening and addressing it in Update 2, which gives lie to the claim being made here that Sonic 'tubers are just going out of their way to hate Sonic and by now hate Sonic so much they should just move on.  Why should people believe they should just move on instead of complaining when they've been shown this series is now being run by people who actually listen to and address the complaints, and they often enjoy the revisions made in address? 

Sonic is not a lost cause, and for that matter, neither is SEGA.  It's one thing to say "old fans should just move on" when you get a genuinely and thoroughly awful corporation like EA that demonstrably has sacrificed all quality in exchange for maximum profitability; fans of Command & Conquer and SimCity have almost unanimously concluded that those franchises will only be represented by DRM- and microtransaction-filled shit from here on if they exist at all, so they've jumped ship to the many spiritual successors made by other companies.  To stay and complain about what few new entries those actual series get would only be preaching the same few points to the same choir each time, to no end because pleasing the fans is never EA's goal.  But this franchise and this company are not like that, at least not totally.  They are not devoid of problems but they've done a lot to demonstrate that they at least want to do right by fans. 

That is the real reason a lot of the Sonic fans just won't quit despite not always being pleased with the results; because they always see how there is potential for things to get better again, and often enough they do.  It's still not as often as they should, but very few of the disappointing things to come out of Sonic are conceptually irredeemable; most of the time fans can see the potential there and can offer feedback on how to add or change just a few things to make the whole package better.  Feedback like "The open zone sucks" is not constructive, but that's not what fans are saying; it's "The open zone would be a lot more fun if the Sonic gameplay took place on the natural terrain instead of a bunch of Hot Wheels track and gymnastics gear levitating above it, so just give Sonic his normal physics back so he can do that."  Likewise on a plot front, the complaints from Roger, J's Reviews and others about Sage isn't just "Sage sucks" but "It's hard to feel sentimental about Sage's flashback montage when you barely even gave her any events to flash back to", and again, it is an objective fact that they did not give her much.  A lot of the plot about Sage's developing relationship with Eggman was told only through those logs you can recover from Big's fishing minigame, and why should Sonic fans expect to get those plot details more from a silly Big the Cat segment than the cutscenes?  Why should they settle for it?  Again, contrary to what their detractors allege, these people want to like Sonic stuff, often enough they do, and even when they don't they can see a line of hope. 

Oh, I am not being critical of Roger for being that negative and especially over-analytical, to be clear. I just wanted to point out something, and it was not truly about just him. Not to mention, I did say that some of his views were mixed, as in not positive or negative as you said.

Also, I said being negative, and I meant being overly negative, not necessarily complaining. I might have missed something in Roger's case, but it is how you complain that matters. I do agree there is nothing wrong with complaining, but some people can be attached to a series like Sonic to the point it is mentally unhealthy. Can't say at all this applies to Roger in particular, but yeah, you can see this is what I meant. As for your view on fans moving on from the Sonic series, I think you are taking that a bit too far. I mean, the series is something that, while adults can play it too, is for kids mainly as well. I do think kids. or some kids, may not know better or can't form their own opinion initially well, and to that end, I do think kids can be manipulated by older fans, and I even think the older fans can ruin the series for them. That is not good for a series aimed at kids. I don't see how simply leaving the series is just kissing Sega's butt and being apologetic to them at all.

For the record, I also did not say Sonic tubers like the critics hate Sonic, but for reasons, I do think some of them may be better off just moving on. After all. in the EA comparison you made with Sega and Sonic, I do not think that IS the same thing. I mean, EA has done much worse than Sega ever did, and I think most of the things EA does should be fought more than someone older trying to stick with a series like Sonic and trying to be pleased by Sonic, even though it is unlikely and is probably not going to happen, nor is it worth the time and maybe effort to try and get it to happen. Sure, some of the older Sonic fans are better at criticism than younger people,  so this does not apply to all of them, but I think some people are just wasting their time trying to be pleased. To me...that is not a good way to spend time. I also don't think seeing the potential for things getting better again is worth trying to stick with the series, for some, anyway. Plus, wanting to like stuff is not always that easy, and I do not think ruining the series for younger people and future generations just because things continually don't go one's way is the right way for SOME people who stick to Sonic to do.

That is to say, though, of course, not all Sonic fans who are negative do this, and as long as they can be constructive, I am pretty sure there is no harm if they stay for all I care; but thing is, not all of them do that, and to me, that can cause problems for other Sonic fans. Plus, I don't think you can speak for every one of these very Sonic fans we talk about. What if some of them do NOT stick to Sonic for the reasons you mentioned? Granted, the other reasons may only slightly be different if I have this down correctly, but based on what I have seen in the past, I do think some people not knowing when to quit is not really that good of a thing, and worth it. Plus, I have seen non-Sonic fan reviewers been way worse, if that means anything. I think how ridiculous they can be and how silly they are with reasons they have against Sonic games can be more hurtful to unnecessary levels.

But yeah, I do think there is more to the story than you might be able to see here, no offense. Maybe I should have been more clear on my end on some things, but I don't think all Sonic fans who are negative are aware about how their actions may affect others and even themselves. Not only is it mentally unhealthy, but it can be bad for others, too.

[Guergy]

I think we are seeing this aspect of the critics, fans and non fans die down. Things are not as toxic as they used to be. 

[Rabbitearsblog]

29 minutes ago, Guergy said:

I think we are seeing this aspect of the critics, fans and non fans die down. Things are not as toxic as they used to be. 

Yeah, it was way worse when Sonic 06 came out.  But, I think it's dying down either because Sonic Frontiers became a hit or the movies did pretty well or maybe it's because at the time when Sonic 06 came out, you didn't have many Sonic fans voicing their opinions on the games or the state of the franchise at the time and we had to rely on the critics' words since there were barely any platforms at the time for fans to speak their minds.

[Scritch the Cat]

On 1/31/2024 at 9:44 AM, Rabbitearsblog said:

Yeah, it was way worse when Sonic 06 came out.  But, I think it's dying down either because Sonic Frontiers became a hit or the movies did pretty well or maybe it's because at the time when Sonic 06 came out, you didn't have many Sonic fans voicing their opinions on the games or the state of the franchise at the time and we had to rely on the critics' words since there were barely any platforms at the time for fans to speak their minds.

Another possible factor is that since then, it's become a lot more common to see games from huge companies and franchises release as blatantly unfinished, broken crap.  Fallout New Vegas.  SimCity 2013.  The Saints Row reboot.  Pokemon Scarlet and Violet.  Suicide Squad Kill the Justice League.  It's so common for games to come out with glaring technical flaws, some of which render them basically unplayable, that the whole narrative has practically shifted from "Why is this game so broken?" to "How soon will they fix it?"  The standard of corporate ethics has shifted from "If they release a game unfinished then they're assholes" to "So long as they fix it with patches instead of just taking your money and running, they can still be considered ethical."  Granted, SEGA and Sonic have not helped their cases by recurring in that category, at times even failing to do ports that work well.  But there are so many more games these days that people can beat up on for cheap laughs that Sonic still doesn't seem as "special" anymore.

On 1/2/2024 at 8:42 PM, Shiny Gems said:

Also, I said being negative, and I meant being overly negative, not necessarily complaining. I might have missed something in Roger's case, but it is how you complain that matters. I do agree there is nothing wrong with complaining, but some people can be attached to a series like Sonic to the point it is mentally unhealthy. Can't say at all this applies to Roger in particular, but yeah, you can see this is what I meant. As for your view on fans moving on from the Sonic series, I think you are taking that a bit too far. I mean, the series is something that, while adults can play it too, is for kids mainly as well. I do think kids. or some kids, may not know better or can't form their own opinion initially well, and to that end, I do think kids can be manipulated by older fans, and I even think the older fans can ruin the series for them. That is not good for a series aimed at kids. I don't see how simply leaving the series is just kissing Sega's butt and being apologetic to them at all.

I've done my time (sort of) as one of those newer fans of the series who's been on the receiving end of jaded older fans complaining about how much better it was in the past, and there are certainly a lot of such people who are very rude and/or drama queens about it.  It's easy to have a negative opinion in light of things like Richard Kuta's tirades against the name "Eggman" and insulting everyone who disagrees as just "drinking the SEGA Kool Aid".  But it feels like your post is implying that we should just not communicate with those newer fans about how things used to be, because ignorance is bliss and we should just let them be as happy as possible, and I can't cosign on that because it just sets those children up to be useful idiots for developers to be lax about things.  If children don't know any better, then I have no problem letting them know better.  If their opinions are easily influenced by jaded old fans, so what?  Why do you consider that the greater evil to them being easily influenced by companies that think it's acceptable to betray the wishes of old fans and half-ass things if they think they can make more money by exploiting the more ignorant?  That has gotten to the point of them releasing a game that could cause literal physical harm to players with its seizure-inducing graphical glitches, so no, older fans should not just shut up, nor can it be said that they overall are out of line.

 

Edited February 19 by Scritch the Cat

[Shiny Gems]

On 2/6/2024 at 5:12 PM, Scritch the Cat said:

Another possible factor is that since then, it's become a lot more common to see games from huge companies and franchises release as blatantly unfinished, broken crap.  Fallout New Vegas.  SimCity 2013.  The Saints Row reboot.  Pokemon Scarlet and Violet.  Suicide Squad Kill the Justice League.  It's so common for games to come out with glaring technical flaws, some of which render them basically unplayable, that the whole narrative has practically shifted from "Why is this game so broken?" to "How soon will they fix it?"  The standard of corporate ethics has shifted from "If they release a game unfinished then they're assholes" to "So long as they fix it with patches instead of just taking your money and running, they can still be considered ethical."  Granted, SEGA and Sonic have not helped their cases by recurring in that category, at times even failing to do ports that work well.  But there are so many more games these days that people can beat up on for cheap laughs that Sonic still doesn't seem as "special" anymore.

I've done my time (sort of) as one of those newer fans of the series who's been on the receiving end of jaded older fans complaining about how much better it was in the past, and there are certainly a lot of such people who are very rude and/or drama queens about it.  It's easy to have a negative opinion in light of things like Richard Kuta's tirades against the name "Eggman" and insulting everyone who disagrees as just "drinking the SEGA Kool Aid".  But it feels like your post is implying that we should just not communicate with those newer fans about how things used to be, because ignorance is bliss and we should just let them be as happy as possible, and I can't cosign on that because it just sets those children up to be useful idiots for developers to be lax about things.  If children don't know any better, then I have no problem letting them know better.  If their opinions are easily influenced by jaded old fans, so what?  Why do you consider that the greater evil to them being easily influenced by companies that think it's acceptable to betray the wishes of old fans and half-ass things if they think they can make more money by exploiting the more ignorant?  That has gotten to the point of them releasing a game that could cause literal physical harm to players with its seizure-inducing graphical glitches, so no, older fans should not just shut up, nor can it be said that they overall are out of line.

 

I see your point on the first paragraph. I mean, Sega is not perfect, and if you ask me, I'd say they are not even half empty in terms of close to being perfect. Luckily, they are not the only ones who can release bad games.

As for the second paragraph, to answer your question about me possibly saying older fans should not communicate with newer fans..

No, not at all. That is not the case. First, I am aware some good can come out of the communication between the two groups. Secondly, I am just making an observation. A point of view on part of, and I do mean part of, what may happen between the two groups. Now, this is a possibility that can happen, and truth to be told, I can't control it even if I wanted to. None of us can. Still, if you were to ask me if I wanted to control that, I will tell you the truth, which is...

I don't.

For I think some things are best left untouched, as in not to put any human bias into them. You know what I mean?

[SadVlad]

I personally don't because there are two types of fans, just like there are two Sonics now. They are the same character, but they are from two different timelines. Modern and Classic Sonic.

The Sonic from the original Genesis era is the Modern Sonic that we all know, and Classic Sonic is the one introduced in Generations that was ripped from time, and moving forward in all the newer 2d titles since then.

But there are fans of the classic style, and those of the modern style. Two different tones and play styles. There a few people that are just fans of Sonic in general, and enjoy anything. I'm in that category.

But I can see why some people will defend one type of Sonic game over another. This is one of those franchises that will always be divided. But that is why they created the branched timeline so they can make games in both eras.

Edited February 28 by SadVlad