LogFAQs > #987028216

"Sonic the Hedgehog was never good" is an excessively silly opinion. The first game really didn't understand fully what it was doing, relying too much on precision-platforming with an engine that was not designed on it and failing to take full advantage of Sonic's speed; Sonic CD had terrible level design that bizarrely combined exceedingly closed-in, obstacle-filled paths with an encouragement for exploration and speed via the time-travel mechanic... but Sonic 2 substantially streamlined the system and figured out how to use Sonic's speed in combination with limited platforming to make a fun product, and Sonic 3 & Knuckles perfected the model (while also adding in some remarkably good, if subtle, environmental storytelling).

Salrite posted...

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

This is about as close to objectively wrong as an opinion can get. The original Star Wars literally created the concept of a summer blockbuster, gave rise to one of the most profitable franchises in human history, and was genre-defining for sci-fi and science-fantasy.

I'm reminded of the famous quote about Lord of the Rings being the "Mount Fuji" of fantasy (it's so omnipresent to be always visible, sometimes near, sometimes far, and the only times you don't see it are because you've either made a conscious decision to turn away from it and ignore it, which is still a tacit acknowledgement of its presence and importance, or because you're standing on top of it) - Star Wars is basically that for sci-fi.

Salrite posted...

Any other proper platformer you can theoretically do just as well the first time because you're presented with all the visual information you need. Sonic games require you to memorize maps after you stumble through them the first dozen times because you can't possibly know where the path you choose will take you until after you've experienced it over and over.

I disagree that this is true (on either statement), but even pretending it was, so what? Soulslike games use the exact same gameplay loop (get your ass kicked a few dozen times until you learn how to deal with a specific boss) and are some of the most popular games of the modern era. F-Zero GX did that back on the Gamecube and it is still fondly remembered for it. And anyone who enjoys speedrunning is used to the idea of playing a game over and over again until they perfect it. There is an appeal to doing that.

man101 posted...

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.

Sure I can. I feel like this opinion is consistently voiced by people who have not played a Sonic game since 2010. Were the immediate post-Dreamcast Sonic games shit? Yes. Heroes, Sonic '06, and the Wii spinoff games were all garbage. Unleashed had its moments, but was bogged down by Werehog tedium and wildly inconsistent difficulty. And while I love the Adventure games, I will concede they are somewhat janky and dated by modern standards.

But the Sonic franchise has managed to turn out good games since then. Colours and Generations were legitimately great, and Frontiers, while different, reviewed well and was fun to play. This is not to say it's been all sunshine and roses, of course - Forces was bad, Lost World was worse, and Sonic Boom was the absolute worst game to ever come out of the franchise (even Sonic '06 compares favourably to it, and I will die on that hill), but the Sonic franchise has shown itself capable of turning out fun and well-made 3D entries.