HOME | DD

Psyco-The-Frog In reply to lightingshine [2017-08-13 01:41:36 +0000 UTC]

The problem here is that you're pointing out a few topics and making them seem like the talking point of the issue. What some people didn't like isn't an issue. First off sales had already dropped with Sonic 3, so people already had a problem or uninterested in Sonic long before the Adventure games came along, even then the Adventure games sold well so there obviously wasn't too much of a problem, it's not like nobody knew what was in them before we got them. Secondly you talk about what makes them good, the classics I assume, yet what exactly made them good? If you're going to say gameplay, nobody played Sonic games for gameplay quality, that never became a subject until Shadow and 06 came out. Third, everything you know about the series getting changed, what exactly s=did we know about the series? We only knew Sonic fought eggman to stop him from taking over the world. The only thing you can say really changed were character designs and the backgrounds, but nothing more was changed. So I'd need to know what exactly went off the rails outside of designs and going 3D?

This is the same fallacy I've seen before, some people complained so there was a problem, except nobody articulated what the problems were and just said everything was a problem. The argument fails due to this, no speculation or articulation of said problems, and just calling everything bad, you're examples you used weren't good ones either. Your calling out problems and saying "bad progression", and therby making the same mistakes you're defending. Star foxes problems and Metroid problems were completely different from each other, and did not become a problem because it was "bad progression", and they are very different from what Sonic's problems were, which we barely no because they were never fully explained, but some people just said they were bad, many of them being baised as well, something you also didn't account for while making your comparisons.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

lightingshine In reply to Psyco-The-Frog [2017-08-13 04:22:21 +0000 UTC]

I just pointed out that people's complaint is the progression itself, but the actual quality around it. While the loss of interest to the series started with Sonic 3 as you pointed out, the Adventure games didn't help either (although to point out, Sonic 3 eventually got the reputation as the best of the series while the Adventure games started to get hate with time, whatever is justify it's up to you but that's the situation now). And while you have a point that people didn't know what the series was, maybe that's the only reason why specific games were even popular to begin with, eventually they got the test of time, some games passed, others didn't. Recently I have seen a lot of discussion about what makes a Sonic game good, some even take an entire hour talking about it. People now look back at this games with a much better judgment and come to their own conclusions. Kinda like how people watched the all of the Star Wars movies, prequels included and love them equality at the time, but years later the opinions of the same people changed for many different reasons.

I never claimed what makes a Sonic game good, I just pointed out that other people arguments do have weight into them, just like yours. Maybe they have a different perspective of what makes Sonic than yours, I'm not saying they are right or wrong, maybe they think the classic games are timeless, fun and unique while also thinking that the Adventure games are updated and repulsive. It's very similar to Dragon Ball, there's no denying that the series changed a lot the moment it was exposed that Goku is an alien, whatever the changes were good or bad is something that the fandom still argue about it. And while Dragon Ball Z was considered good progression for many, Dragon Ball GT is considered bad progression and Dragon Ball Super is the progression that has split opinions with fans.

You think the series didn't change at all for your own reasons and that's fair, but others think that the series did change for their reasons too, other come to the same conclusion but doesn't treat it as anything bad.

My point is that referring that everyone hates progression is a bias argument, there are some that think that way I give you that, but others were never happy about the direction that the series took during the Dreamcast days (like some who wanted characters like Fang the Sniper to be explored as a character and have no interest in characters like Shadow) and are just hoping for a much better direction to the series. I'm not saying they are right, but I think is fair to keep their point of view into consideration just as much for the people that think the Adventure games were a good progression.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Psyco-The-Frog In reply to lightingshine [2017-08-13 07:24:36 +0000 UTC]

Sorry but what you say here still fails, it all hinges on the complaints that some people made, the problem being many of them are unfounded and can easily been seen as biased, which is the irony here when you call my statement biased. This stems from taking these arguments at face value when the majority of people who make them can give a real reason for why many of their complaints are valid unless it's their own personal viewpoint. Also you're still taking certain points and simply contributing them to your arguments with no reasoning as to why, like how you were quick to talk about how great Sonic 3 rep is compared to adventure, when the majority of hate those games get come from biased reviewers and fanboys who hardly made these complaints until Shadow came out, and continue to use Sonic 06 as an excuse for them while totally ignoring that the execution of the game, through dev hell no less, is why it turned out badly, and instead, blame the content, yet these same people can't handle the same criticsm when modern games come from it, especially when Colors, Lost World, and Boom all failed despite how much these games appealed to their views and fixed their complaints.

"You think the series didn't change at all for your own reasons and that's fair, but others think that the series did change for their reasons too, other come to the same conclusion but doesn't treat it as anything bad."
Yet neither you or anyone else gave reason now did you? Sonic has been through a lot of changes yet people these same people never complained about the changes Sonic has had after the boost gameplay started, Unleashed, Colors, and Lost World, and Boom, so obviously change is not a problem for them.

If you're going to try and uphold other people's arguments, you at least need to make valid points, otherwise you're just telling me they're bad because people said it was, and the majority of said people don't have valid points, hence why you haven't and wont give any because you're entire argument is based on people who hardly articulated anything outside of surface vision and thinking they should be given at face value. It's apparent due to the arguments over any new game and these people do nothing but get hyped for anything, but any argument comes up and they deem them bad Sonic fans who don't know what they want. Looking at all that, you're going out of your way for biased trolls for no reason, and then trying to tone police me when you have nothing going for anything you're saying to me, you don't even sound sure of anything you're telling me outside of "people have different viewpoints". I don't know if you're new to the internet but you need to pay more attention to detail before going on about me, especially if you can't give me a good reason as to why I'm wrong in anything I said.

If these people were never happy with the dreamcast games, why did the play every one of them yet ignored the Advance games which were closer to the classics? Why did the complaints not start pouring in until after Shadow and many of them come out either exaggerated or existed in other games that other people or even themselves not call out but will with Sonic? And if the people who don't like the CD era matter so much, why don't the people who don't like the modern era of Sonic games not matter, 3 of them only became the worst selling Sonic games one after the other while a simple digital release of one of the "hated" DC games make the top 10 best sellers for multiple months? And if it's so hated, why is most of the fan based content based on that era? Art, fan games, animations, flash movies. A lot of people seemed to be ok with that era, but because some didn't like it, we no longer get anything but a bunch of games devoid of any real progression and selling much lower numbers. It's some people who didn't like one era vs a much larger number of who don't care for what we are given now and not buying these games.

One thing I also forgot to add, you bring up my view points and liking the dreamcast games, yet how do you know this is only about the dreamcast games? I defend them a lot but that's because the bashing they get for biased reasons, I actually acknowledge and like what most of the series had to offer up until Sonic colors, the only game I disliked or had interest in getting before or around that time was Sonic and Mario and the olympics. The other problem is the fact that there has been no progression in anyway, so even if we go past the dreamcast era for something new, we haven't gotten that. So we only have classic games, dreamcast games, and after 2010, nostalgia pandering.

I could say more but I typed too much for now.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

lightingshine In reply to Psyco-The-Frog [2017-08-13 08:08:36 +0000 UTC]

I agree with you that there are bias arguments out there, but not all of them are, some do have well intentions of sharing their honest opinions. And if you want my opinion on the subject, I think is a lot more favorable to try to understand other people's viewpoints, it doesn't mean we have to agree with them, but that we still respect other people's opinions. A lot of times it very helpful to come to a more mutual and favorable conclusion or even convincing why you stand for your opinions instead of going with the "everyone's an idiot except me" mentality.

And to clarify, I never talked about how great Sonic 3 was, but the general reception in recent years. Which is similar to your example of sales in each Sonic games.

I can not agree with someone, but I can understand why they come from, of corse, in the subject about whatever the series really changed or not, to prove that I'm not someone who doesn't have an opinion, I can say that having a girl getting shoot as a major plotline for a Sonic game is definitive change in tone for me compared to previous games, I can admire it for not being afraid of doing it or complain about been ridiculously out of place, but I'm not going to get in depth in that for the sake of saving space. I have a lot of my own opinions too.

Trying to call people hypocritical just because they don't complain about something and price the other for doing an arguably similar thing is probably missing the point. Maybe is because the changes were actually good or not big enough to be so different? I'm not saying these games are good or bad, just explaining that the origin of people's opinions is not a black and white thing.

Maybe because the Advance games were never so popular or are considering inferior to the Genesis games? Maybe because Sonic lost credibility with time while other series usually don't screw up as much? maybe specifics aspects of the series attracted different and huge target audiences? There are so many endless possibilities as for why one individual person think about the series in one way. After all, I'm not calling you an idiot for what you think about Sonic games, I actually understand your viewpoint.

I referring to Adventure games was a mistake of mine, I usually use that name to refer to other games like Heroes, etc.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Psyco-The-Frog In reply to lightingshine [2017-08-13 09:20:00 +0000 UTC]

The talking points of every complaint not being biased and being honest and understanding them doesn't change anything. For one most of the complaints have been the same over the past decade and most of them tend to be biased and have no articulation, and when the honest complaints are the same thing and still push for the same problems we have no, there's a distinction without, which doesn't make it helpful. Most of which you said may apply in a general sense but the subject of Sonic is a different ball game where the majority of the complaining subset, biased or not, still pushes the franchise in a bad direction either way, hence why it's not helpful.

"And to clarify, I never talked about how great Sonic 3 was"
But this is the point you're making, I know you meant it's reception but that's what it comes down to, how great it is. However there is a point you're not seeing here while only looking at the surface, that being the difference in reps still include us adventure fans. A good many of us still like the classics along with the modern fans, it's how the franchise has been since then we are torn on, and I already spoken on the bias of the reception towards these opposing eras and the modern era failing in comparison, doing while fixing many of the complaints people made.

"Trying to call people hypocritical just because they don't complain about something and price the other for doing an arguably similar thing is probably missing the point."
There is no need for you tone policing. This just comes down to how you feel about what I said, and it has no barring here. If you want to prove me wrong on what I said that's another issue, but you'd be hard pressed to do so. It is not missing the point regardless if you think it's arguable. Case in point if you're not going to make a valid argument, you can forfeit the point altogether.

"Maybe because the Advance games were never so popular or are considering inferior to the Genesis games?"
Yet is this not what the people you're defending have been saying about the 3D games? Some of the modern games they praise are also inferior to the Genesis games, especially Lost World and the handheld Boom titles, so your argument doesn't stand here.

"I referring to Adventure games was a mistake of mine, I usually use that name to refer to other games like Heroes, etc."
Most people commonly do this. From Adventure to 06, we count those as the adventure games/era and everything after modern, though Colors was a breaking point for most of us, and it went over the edge with Lost World after Generations failed to those of us who played it but don't praise it. Keep in mind here that at no point still have you acknowledged that the modern games.

"Maybe because Sonic lost credibility with time while other series usually don't screw up as much? maybe specifics aspects of the series attracted different and huge target audiences? There are so many endless possibilities as for why one individual person think about the series in one way."
You say endless possibilities, yet this goes back to what I said before where even unbiased complaints still end up being the same as biased complaints, and everything here you just said about the advance games are the same talking points biased people have made against the 3D games. You not only proved this point right, but failed your own point but failing to come up with a different argument off the top of your head, which is what I assume the points you brought up came from.

"After all, I'm not calling you an idiot for what you think about Sonic games, I actually understand your viewpoint."
You're still concentrating too much on tone policing and disregarding the attitudes and behavior that makes me call people these names in the first place, especially when many of the people I'm talking about are commonly referred to as Nintards, Nintendo drones, or coporate slaves, and called this by other Nintendo fans who criticize Nintendo because these people praise everything Nintendo does and get angry when someone doesn't sing the same praises, and this is the exact situation we deal with now, only difference is that they exaggerate the amount of the complaints Sonic games while simultaneously pretending they know fuck all about all aspects of gaming because they worship Nintendo. They can get away with this because they took over bigger Sonic message boards and the critics also make the same complaints, though it's the nintards that parrot them, and people like you who are too busy playing white knight will defend them because they somehow understand their view points but still fail to prove any point they make while focusing on tone policing. No, you are not the first to say any of this stuff to me, and like all the others you too worried about understanding their points but fail to see why at the most they aren't valid, showing a lack of understanding then you realize. There's also the case that you assume one doesn't understand your viewpoint because they counter them or making excuses as to why one doesn't understand them, like me calling them hypocritical or another name. What's funny is that you ring up name calling and how you haven't called me anything when I never called you anything either. Getting back to the real deal, you actually don't understand the point, because you're taking the opposing points at face value and repeating them back to me and using morality as a basis, such as the topic of how they can be helpful when after 7 years they have already proven to be far from that, and you being too quick to dismiss the claims being biased when most of them are.

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

Psyco-The-Frog In reply to Rb1996 [2017-08-06 23:22:39 +0000 UTC]

I've made plenty of memes defending 06 though, but no, I haven't touched on that notion specifically, but it still goes back to bashing the formula and usually 3D gameplay anyway.

👍: 1 ⏩: 0