"Sonic the Hedgehog was never good"

Possibly the dumbest opinion about video games that people regularly say

On the same level as Star Wars was never good - so its probably just people wanting to start shit but Im sure some people really believe it

It's hard to be objective since after playing about half the Genesis library... ... pretty much every game sucks.

The only other platformer I'd put even in consideration is Chakan

It was good, but only for a brief window a very long time ago.

I could actually understand that opinion. The originals suck because of extremely floating controls and too fast speed without enough visual representation of the environment. 2D Sonic got better when they pulled the camera back. I had fun with Sonic Advance but I could see people not liking it. And I'll always love SA2 but it's a very popular opinion that 3D Sonic has always been bad.

And the comparison isn't helping your case. Star Wars never was good, just less bad.

You can argue about whether the early sonic games were actually good or if they just stood out as decent among a sea of literal garbage because the early days of video game design had almost no rules or consistent logic and most of them looked like hot garbage even considering the graphical limitations.

You cannot argue with the fact that every 3D Sonic game has been some level of a janky broken mess with an incoherent plot and absurd tonal inconsistency.

I hesitate to say I love it but I definitely played a lot of SA2B and that game is really bad.

I say this as someone that LOVED Sonic 2 as a kid.

Its kind of accurate. Sonic 2, 3, "and Knuckles" were relatively fun, and I enjoy them because of nostalgia, but looking at them with a modern lens, they kinda suck.

In the modern day Mario 3 and Super Mario World both still feel like super fun, engaging 2d platformers, even if you are playing them for the first time.

If someone today plays a Sonic game for the first time, they are likely to have a negative experience.

ultra_magnus13 posted...

I say this as someone that LOVED Sonic 2 as a kid.

Its kind of accurate. Sonic 2, 3, "and Knuckles" were relatively fun, and I enjoy them because of nostalgia, but looking at them with a modern lens, they kinda suck.

In the modern day Mario 3 and Super Mario World both still feel like super fun, engaging 2d platformers, even if you are playing them for the first time.

If someone today plays a Sonic game for the first time, they are likely to have a negative experience.

Honestly, Im not a fan of 2D Mario.

Glob posted...

Honestly, Im not a fan of 2D Mario.

As someone who has semi-regularly replayed that era of Mario games and Sonic games over the course of her life...
Sonic 2 and 3&K are both better games than SMB3 or SMW, IMO(not by a ton though). Top tier platformers all really, though I do think the gold medal properly belongs to DKC2.
All of them have their strengths and shortcomings, of course.

Mario transitioned way more smoothly into 3D though, no argument there, though I think the Sonic Adventure games are probably criticized more than they deserve- they're not considerably more wonky than other platformers of the era, and they have some genuinely cool stuff happening. What came directly after them was the indefensible dogshit garbage nadir of Sonic.

Glob posted...

Honestly, Im not a fan of 2D Mario.

That's fair. I could probably say a lot of what drives my appreciation for classic 2D Mario is nostalgia and even now I can't play them for too long until I get bored. And I really don't like modern attempts at making 2D Mario a thing. Even 3D World is designed like a 2D platformer.

But I'd much rather play them over 2D Sonic.

Salrite posted...

Even 3D World is designed like a 2D platformer.

That was the intent with 3D Land and 3D World. 2D and 3D Mario games play very differently, and they wanted to bring 2D Mario style into 3D Mario.

The Sonic Adventure games are great

In my experience, older Sonic games tend to be built around the idea of "if you know what you're doing, you can go super fast and it feels awesome." The flip side of that, though, is that if you don't know what you're doing, you're frequently going to break that flow state and be left with platforming and controls that are kind of clunky because they're designed to work for going fast and not for carefully figuring out an unfamiliar level. That was potentially fine for kids in the 90's who had relatively few games at their disposal and therefore had no choice but to push through that clunkiness to get to the awesome, but for people that didn't have regular access to the games or that have their pick of plenty of other games in the modern era, there isn't a lot of incentive to stick with them that long.

Does that mean they were "never good"? I wouldn't go that far, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that they were always easier to bounce off of than many of their contemporaries, and they're not the most appealing to revisit now. I should, though, give the classic ones a proper try some time. I think it would be more accurate (and I think this is actually what many people are saying when they say "Sonic was never good") to say that Sonic has only ever been as good as many of the more recent entries are, and that complaining about how far the series has fallen with those entries isn't terribly accurate.

In the same vein, I will say "Star Wars was never that great" to people complaining about how Rogue One doesn't offer much by way of character building, simply because Episode 4 didn't do much more than Rogue One did. Complaining about Rogue One like that is comparing it to not only the whole OT, but also to everything else that was done to develop the characters from the OT after the movies released. It's not that I think Star Wars has always been bad, just that it's only ever been as good as Rogue One (which I did really like, because while it fell flat in the character building, it delivered "awesome space adventures" in spades).

Damn_Underscore posted...

The Sonic Adventure games are great

Theyre not even good, let alone great.

man101 posted...

You can argue about whether the early sonic games were actually good or if they just stood out as decent among a sea of literal garbage because the early days of video game design had almost no rules or consistent logic and most of them looked like hot garbage even considering the graphical limitations.

I'd go a step farther. Were they good because they were good? Or because if you'd bought a Genesis there was very little else worth playing (other than maybe sports games or the version of Mortal Kombat that didn't have blood censored), because the vast majority of worthwhile games were in the SNES library instead?

It's easy to convince yourself that Sonic is good when you've got nothing else to play and are mostly just constantly playing it out of desperation.

adjl posted...

In my experience, older Sonic games tend to be built around the idea of "if you know what you're doing, you can go super fast and it feels awesome." The flip side of that, though, is that if you don't know what you're doing, you're frequently going to break that flow state and be left with platforming and controls that are kind of clunky because they're designed to work for going fast and not for carefully figuring out an unfamiliar level.

As some people have pointed out over the years, the real trick with the first few Sonic games is that, for all that everything about the games (and their marketing) are telling you that you absolutely GOTTA GO FAST!, that's actually a terrible strategy.

You're much better off generally learning maps and moving through them more tactically, and at times slowing down and maneuvering. If you're just barreling through at full speed 100% of the time (like many kids definitely were), you're more likely to crash out.

Then skip ahead a few decades. Where all you really remember is that you kind of sucked at the game and it didn't feel fun, so you assume it was a poorly-designed game. You've forgotten most of the details, all you really kind of remember is how the game made you feel.



adjl posted...

In the same vein, I will say "Star Wars was never that great" to people complaining about how Rogue One doesn't offer much by way of character building, simply because Episode 4 didn't do much more than Rogue One did.

Ehh, I'd disagree with this, if only because the original trilogy HAD characters. Rogue One kind of doesn't. It has archetypes . Which is part of why even people who enjoyed it can rarely name any of the characters. They'll be like "the monk guy" or "the funny robot" when referring to it. They're not people , as much as they're just roles in the story. Even Andor (whose name I only remember because they gave him a TV show) and "girl protagonist".

And I say that as someone who really liked Rogue One... and I've said in the past that it and Force Awakens are literally the only things Disney has done with the franchise that even remotely "feel" like Star Wars to me. But in TFA's case, that was literally the entire point of the movie - it was scientifically designed to echo the original trilogy as much as possible. Whereas Rogue One sort of simultaneously straddles the line of trying to be something new while simultaneously managing to rekindle some of the old feeling of what Star Wars was meant to be. Rogue One almost feels like someone telling a myth or legend about long-forgotten real events, more like folklore than watching the original history (which I like, but I also understand why others might not). It almost might have benefited more from having a wrap-around frame story of someone telling someone else the "true story" of how the Rebellion got the Death Star plans (which would also have the benefit of instantly nullifying any continuity errors).

Honestly, if I had full power over Star Wars as a franchise and could decide what was canon and what got thrown into the trash in order to try and make the "perfect" core to build off of (and didn't have to appeal to what other people wanted from it or fondly remembered from their own childhoods), I'd probably look at the originals, Rogue One, TFA, Timothy Zahn's EU books, and the two KotOR games as the only things that have ever really felt like Star Wars to me (and yes, that means I'd throw away the prequels as well).

In a parallel universe, it would be extremely easy to write far better prequel scrips and follow-up stories to TFA that would be far better than what we got. We used to brainstorm and rewrite those movies in the Geek topics all the time and come up with better stuff that post-1990 George Lucas or Disney. It's not that hard .

adjl posted...

In my experience, older Sonic games tend to be built around the idea of "if you know what you're doing, you can go super fast and it feels awesome." The flip side of that, though, is that if you don't know what you're doing, you're frequently going to break that flow state and be left with platforming and controls that are kind of clunky because they're designed to work for going fast and not for carefully figuring out an unfamiliar level.

I feel this much better describes the newer Sonic games - post Unleashed - rather than the older games. There's nothing clunky about how Sonic controls in the Genesis games.

It also helps that the Genesis games are also pretty forgiving, they're really not that difficult, especially compared to a lot of their contemporaries.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

As some people have pointed out over the years, the real trick with the first few Sonic games is that, for all that everything about the games (and their marketing) are telling you that you absolutely GOTTA GO FAST!, that's actually a terrible strategy.

You're much better off generally learning maps and moving through them more tactically, and at times slowing down and maneuvering. If you're just barreling through at full speed 100% of the time (like many kids definitely were), you're more likely to crash out.

Part of it is that modern Sonic games very much tend to be "GOTTA GO FAST!" and that was a big part of Sonic's marketing at the time, but really it's as you said: Genesis Sonic games generally have a few set-pieces designed for you to GO FAST!!! sometimes complete with intentionally lagging the camera to make you feel like you're going faster than you actually are but it's mostly just an intensely momentum-based platforming that encourages exploring different level paths with harder to reach and stay on upper paths generally being more rewarding. Sonic is generally very safe as long as he's curled into a ball- and the sequels facilitate that(and getting up to speed more easily) with the spindash. And, due to how rings work, most of your deaths are going to be yeeting yourself into a pit, getting crushed or drowning.

Sonic 1 is easily the weakest game, because Marble Zone and Labyrinth Zone all FOUR ACTS OF IT are just kind of cramped, miserable slogs where you're navigating all these obstacles and often they demand the kind of precision the game's engine is ill-suited to. Sonic CD is intensely weird because it looks at all of that and asks, "But what if we added a puzzle element?"

Salrite posted...

I could actually understand that opinion. The originals suck because of extremely floating controls and too fast speed without enough visual representation of the environment. 2D Sonic got better when they pulled the camera back. I had fun with Sonic Advance but I could see people not liking it. And I'll always love SA2 but it's a very popular opinion that 3D Sonic has always been bad.

And the comparison isn't helping your case. Star Wars never was good, just less bad.

Sonic 1, 2 and 3 on Genesis are the best ones still to this day.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

As some people have pointed out over the years, the real trick with the first few Sonic games is that, for all that everything about the games (and their marketing) are telling you that you absolutely GOTTA GO FAST!, that's actually a terrible strategy.

You're much better off generally learning maps and moving through them more tactically, and at times slowing down and maneuvering. If you're just barreling through at full speed 100% of the time (like many kids definitely were), you're more likely to crash out.

I'd argue that's kind of just a reframing of what I said. You absolutely will succeed more if you don't go hurtling around as fast as possible, but the floaty jumping and persistent knowledge that you could be hurtling around as fast as possible if you didn't need to be making careful, floaty jumps just makes that feel bad by comparison to other platformers that make no such promises of supergofast and have tighter controls. So you have a choice between trying to have fun by going fast but feeling bad because you fail, feeling bad playing it safe even though you succeed, or playing a different game where playing the obvious way feels good and also gets you through the game.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Then skip ahead a few decades. Where all you really remember is that you kind of sucked at the game and it didn't feel fun, so you assume it was a poorly-designed game. You've forgotten most of the details, all you really kind of remember is how the game made you feel.

And people who had that as their only game and therefore pushed themselves through to the point of being able to go fast and feel awesome remember feeling awesome more than they remember feeling kind of dragged down, distinct from people who only dabbled in the game and never really got the hang of it.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Ehh, I'd disagree with this, if only because the original trilogy HAD characters. Rogue One kind of doesn't. It has archetypes. Which is part of why even people who enjoyed it can rarely name any of the characters. They'll be like "the monk guy" or "the funny robot" when referring to it. They're not people, as much as they're just roles in the story. Even Andor (whose name I only remember because they gave him a TV show) and "girl protagonist".

I dunno. If ANH had come out in 2016 and had no sequels (putting aside for a moment the question of how radically different cinema history would be if Star Wars had not come out in the 70's), could you not say more or less the same thing about its characters? Luke is no less "the protagonist" than Jin, Han is no less "the lovable rogue" than Andor, C-3PO is no less "the funny robot" than K2SO, Obi-Wan is just "the mentor"... Obviously, those characters were fleshed out further with subsequent movies and other worldbuilding, while none of Rogue One's cast has a future (though Andor has shown us that they can have a past and be developed that way), but looking at just what we got from ANH, it wasn't that much better.

Well, except for the part where it came out 40 years earlier and standards for movie storytelling were generally lower, thanks in no small part to how much modern cinema has been built on top of Star Wars. I know I discounted this for the sake of the previous paragraph, but that's a heckin' caveat.

adjl posted...

I dunno. If ANH had come out in 2016 and had no sequels (putting aside for a moment the question of how radically different cinema history would be if Star Wars had not come out in the 70's), could you not say more or less the same thing about its characters?

Nah. I'd argue that's only the case if you're trying to be excessively reductionist (which you can do for almost any story). I'd posit that the OT has characters who serve archetypal roles (like most good stories do), but the newer characters are, in many cases, nothing but archetypes. Which can work (remember, I said I liked Rogue One), but which often results in characters who come across like soulless automatons who only exist to make the plot happen (which itself isn't necessarily a terrible thing either... if you've written an intelligent and engaging plot).

And now I'm going to post this:

https://youtu.be/FxKtZmQgxrI?t=410



adjl posted...

Well, except for the part where it came out 40 years earlier and standards for movie storytelling were generally lower, thanks in no small part to how much modern cinema has been built on top of Star Wars.

Honestly, at this point, I'd argue that the standards for movie storytelling were generally higher 40 years ago, because the advent of the blockbuster model, larger studio corporatization, and pop culture eating itself have caused most forms of media to degrade.

There's a very strong push towards writing for the "secondary viewing" audience, appealing to demographics suffering from Tik Tok brain rot, and relying on established IPs and formulaic writing because creativity is risky and studios can't afford risk when they're basically pushing half a billion dollars onto RED and spinning the roulette wheel. None of that is a recipe for quality writing. None of that is likely to produce anything better that what was being produced 60 years ago, let alone 40. Sure, it might look prettier (though even that isn't a guarantee these days), but computers can't magically write a genius-level script for you (not yet, anyway).

This isn't even limited to just movies - I'd say no medium is currently producing content that is regularly and reliably better than it was in the past. Television, music, comic books, most genre fiction literature, even video games - there are very few high-profile works coming out that feel like masterpieces. At best, an occasional unexpected success pops out of a smaller indie studio, or a larger studio squirts out a hit (sometimes seemingly by accident). But a lot of things that do succeed do so less because of the inherent quality of the work, and more because of the lowering expectations of the audience, who are slowly resigning themselves to shit.

Standing on the shoulders of giants is really only a positive when you respect and improve upon what went before. When every writer is an egotistical know-it-all deconstructionist who thinks they can do better by basically shitting on everything that came before them, it rarely results in a worthwhile improvement of the oeuvre .

And when Hollywood studios spend more time engaging in marketing-think and trying to force every movie to appeal to all four "quadrants" to please everyone, it usually winds up pleasing no one. Art for art's sake has long since died, but now even "entertainment" is giving way to "content" and "investment".

I don't really understand why people say this. The original games aren't perfect, certainly, but that doesn't equate to "bad."

I don't even think Marble Zone or Labyrinth Zone are "bad," they just revert to more classic platforming design philosophies, which people can personally dislike but that doesn't make them "bad." Certainly not comparable to the duct tape games that came out later in the series.

The only complaint I tend to flat-out agree with is that the camera is too zoomed in for a series that prioritizes speed, which ends up rewarding memorization more than anything else. The controls being floaty aren't a problem because the game is built around those controls. If there were any 2 things I would change about the old games, I would:

1. zoom the camera out, and
2. add in a records system, which tracks both the fastest time someone has gotten on a given act and a given zone and a full run, and tracks highest scores the same way. This would help emphasize that the games and their levels are meant to be replayed for better times/scores, and are not supposed to be viewed as one and done experiences.

As a bonus one could also tune up certain aspects of certain levels, like speeding up the block pushing in Marble Zone, speeding up the screw speed in Metropolis Zone, etc, as those are things that don't really rely on player skill much and they feel like time sinks. They don't ruin the levels, imo, but little tweaks like that would make for a smoother experience.

The Adventure and Advance games rock, I don't care what anyone says

You talk about how the old games were designed for those controls, they were designed for that camera too. I imagine a fan mod that zooms out the camera would make that clear.

I would posit that the fact that "no one remembers the names of the Rogue One characters" is a combination of not having decades of pop culture built around them, having only one film to get to know the characters rather than three (or now 6, actually), and the fact that some of the names are just more difficult to even spell, let alone remember. Han Solo and Luke Skywalker is pretty straightforward. Jyn Erso and Chirrut Imwe are a little harder. In fact I didn't even know Jyn was spelled with a Y until I looked it up just now.

man101 posted...

having only one film to get to know the characters rather than three (or now 6, actually),

Plus a 2 season series.

Which is the best thing SW ever had

And also that Star Wars came out in a time when a given local theatre would show maybe a dozen or two movies a year, whereas these days most theatres have a dozen different films running concurrently at all times. And also that Star Wars came out in a time where there really wasn't much else like it and therefore it really, really stood out compared to its contemporaries. Having fewer things to remember makes remembering those few things easier.

Sonics always good. Hes just too fast for their eyes makes sense gamers eyes cant handle things like br headsets. 3ds. virtual boy.

HValle posted...

Plus a 2 season series.

Which is the best thing SW ever had

But I'm willing to bet a considerable portion of the people who saw Rogue One and who have seen all the films, perhaps even multiple times, haven't watched Andor, so I don't know that I would even count that.

Yeah no one knows that a show called Andor has anything to do with the movie Rogue One

Damn_Underscore posted...

Yeah no one knows that a show called Andor has anything to do with the movie Rogue One

I wasn't even thinking about that, I'm more just commenting on the difference in time commitment and also interest required to watch a full series as opposed to just a movie. I know anecdotal evidence doesn't constitute proof of something on a global scale, but even so, most everyone in my family and friend circle saw Rogue One. I have seen it several times and consider it among the best star wars films. I haven't watched Andor and I know precisely one person who has.

It doesn't help that Andor came out with little fanfare in the middle of a string of mediocre Star Wars shows. By all accounts, it's an excellent show that I should really get around to watching one of these days, but I think people can broadly be forgiven for not taking notice of it.

The thing about the Sonic fandom is it's pretty divided with many different factions that like different things about Sonic.

I wouldn't say the Sonic games were bad, but it was very obvious they were trying to figure it out as they went along. Then completely lost the plot when they went 3D and never recovered. It's weird to think that a Sonic game done right (camera zoomed out enough to be manageable) feels like playing a flash game from the Newgrounds days.

The Sonic Adventure games are good and thats a hill Im willing to die on.

Often I see people trying to hard to discredit popular things. While I don't follow everything that is popular I don't go out of my way to try and shit on peoples preferences or trends.

Dikitain posted...

Then completely lost the plot when they went 3D and never recovered.

Sonic generations is great though.

Damn_Underscore posted...

Yeah no one knows that a show called Andor has anything to do with the movie Rogue One

"Andor" makes me think of those blue aliens from Star Trek.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/f/fd4c49c5.jpg

Ignac5000 posted...

The Sonic Adventure games are good and thats a hill Im willing to die on.

Can we accept that the controls and camera are objectively bad? I enjoy them fine enough because they're a charming product of their time, but I cannot deny how frustrating they can get, even when I git gud with them.

Salrite posted...

Can we accept that the controls and camera are objectively bad? I enjoy them fine enough because they're a charming product of their time, but I cannot deny how frustrating they can get, even when I git gud with them.

Oh absolutely that physics engine is full of glitches and the camera is awful, but they're also loaded with genuinely cool moments and have some genuine replayability.
And Chaos. Those things are adorable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKFnJJ1D1_U

Dikitain posted...

Then completely lost the plot when they went 3D and never recovered.

The weird thing about Sonic's 3D era is that they never seem to know when to stick with a good idea. Some of the games have been fantastic, then the next abandons everything that made that one good and end up being awful. They just keep trying new concepts with every game, whether the last game's concepts worked well or not.

adjl posted...

The weird thing about Sonic's 3D era is that they never seem to know when to stick with a good idea. Some of the games have been fantastic, then the next abandons everything that made that one good and end up being awful. They just keep trying new concepts with every game, whether the last game's concepts worked well or not.

Shit, they even do it in the SAME game. Frontiers started out developing the characters in an intriguing way and then threw it all out the window.

the first Sonic Adventure game isn't even THAT jank

I'm genuinely curious who considers any single Sonic game "fantastic." Like, what metrics do they use to judge the media they consume? The characters are 1 dimensional stereotypes, the dialogue sounds like it was all written by an 8 year old from the 90s, and the modern games are all glitchy as hell and control like ass. If that meets your criteria for fantastic, what superlatives are left for a game that is actually fully functional and has decent writing and performances?

Something that does bug me about the 3D sonics after SA2... SA2 has a perfectly good feeling homing attack, you really move it rarely fails and it's easy to aim.

But AFTER SA2 (less so Heroes, but it's getting there) they added a control stop after every homing impact so that you can't readily chain them.

It's VERY noticeable in Sonic Colors and they've stuck with it ever since. Even Sonic Frontier has it, but they lowered the 'stun' time a tad.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Nah. I'd argue that's only the case if you're trying to be excessively reductionist (which you can do for almost any story).

None of them develop meaningfully over the course of the film, none of them (with the possible exception of Leia, who - by design - aggressively subverts the damsel-in-distress trope and breaks out a couple of surprises in service of that) have much depth to their personalities, they don't really follow personal story arcs beyond "I wasn't on an adventure, and now I am"... they largely just exist in the context of a larger story unfolding around them, in which they play a role, but their identity as characters doesn't really factor into that beyond whatever traits got them into the mess in the first place.

I'll certainly concede that they aren't quite as throwaway as Rogue One's characters (who were kind of throwaway by design, given that they were thrown away), and absolutely they became better fleshed out with later movies (which makes it hard to assess them in the vacuum of ANH), but they weren't all that much better on the first pass.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Honestly, at this point, I'd argue that the standards for movie storytelling were generally higher 40 years ago, because the advent of the blockbuster model, larger studio corporatization, and pop culture eating itself have caused most forms of media to degrade.

A lesser percentage of movies coming out might hit that "this is great storytelling" point, but that doesn't mean that the standards for "good storytelling" have declined. Anyone looking to get a good story out of a movie has a plethora of options that are much better than Star Wars (any of them) have ever been, even if most of those options didn't come out this year.

The distinction between standards for "good storytelling" and standards for "adequate storytelling" is very important. "This is good enough that I can enjoy the movie" does not mean "I love this story." I can easily believe that the standards for "adequate" have lowered, owing to it becoming easier to fill a movie with tasty eye candy that makes it enjoyable without a stellar story.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

This isn't even limited to just movies - I'd say no medium is currently producing content that is regularly and reliably better than it was in the past. Television, music, comic books, most genre fiction literature, even video games - there are very few high-profile works coming out that feel like masterpieces. At best, an occasional unexpected success pops out of a smaller indie studio, or a larger studio squirts out a hit (sometimes seemingly by accident). But a lot of things that do succeed do so less because of the inherent quality of the work, and more because of the lowering expectations of the audience, who are slowly resigning themselves to s***.

See, now this is just devolving into "I've decided to hate new stuff, therefore anyone who likes new stuff is just too stupid to know any better," which is pretty much impossible to hold a discussion with.

I can't say that I watch enough recent TV/movies or consume enough music made after 1900 to really comment on those media, but for games in particular, there is a *ton* of fantastic games that have come out recently, so much so that a lot of journalists trying to cover them genuinely struggle to keep up with everything they want to recommend. That's not "good because we don't expect any better," that's genuinely amazing games that people are having a great time with and are well worth playing. Personally, many of my favourite games ever (as in, compared to everything else I've played, so that's an opinion that has nothing to do with how it compares to contemporaries) are less than a decade old, and 2/3 of the spots I actually bother ranking specifically are less than five years old (well, one was released into Early Access in 2016 and that's when I got it, but the formal release was 2020 and the expansion that I'd include in my favour toward the game came out in 2024, so who knows how to count it?).

I can say with absolute, unwavering certainty that if you can't find games that you can enjoy playing, it's because you aren't trying. The AAA market has largely abandoned that particular ship, but there's so much more than just the AAA market out there now. Whatever you're looking for, you'll find it with a modicum of effort and by actually letting yourself have fun.

same attitude as "The Beatles" are overrated and when you try to debate using the context of the era they started in , they bring up other similar bands from that era that were "Just as good", but didn't have the marketing power The Beatles had.

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

same attitude as "The Beatles" are overrated and when you try to debate using the context of the era they started in , they bring up other similar bands from that era that were "Just as good", but didn't have the marketing power The Beatles had.

I mean, you're just vindicating that opinion by referencing "Marketing Power". When they had plenty of contemporaries, even at the time, that's the literal definition of being "Overrated". They were only successful because they appealed to the masses.

AltOmega2 posted...

the first Sonic Adventure game isn't even THAT jank

The GameCube remake has a lot of extra glitches. I remember the Game Grumps were laughing at one in the first level, but that doesnt even exist in the Dreamcast version. I wonder how much the Game Grumps trashed Sonic Adventures good name.

Damn_Underscore posted...

Yeah no one knows that a show called Andor has anything to do with the movie Rogue One

I know when I think of Andor that the first thing I think of is Lord of the Rings, not star wars

Damn_Underscore posted...

The GameCube remake has a lot of extra glitches. I remember the Game Grumps were laughing at one in the first level, but that doesnt even exist in the Dreamcast version. I wonder how much the Game Grumps trashed Sonic Adventures good name.

I absolutely loathe when the popular opinion about a game is solely due to some dumb eceleb's hot take.
The Amy and Big levels were nowhere near as bad as I was expecting. I dare say they were fun