Sonic vs. Mario

Who made better games? Who makes better games now? Which one would you pick to play as in SSBB?

I think Mario is a pretty cool guy.

Eats lots of spaghetti and not afraid of anything... :P

.

I roll blue.

I think Sonic the Hedgehog 3/Sonic & Knuckles (which is a masterful platformer IMO) is better than the first Mario by quite a big margin, but otherwise, I prefer Mario.

Whilst itt was fairlly even in the mid 90s Mario probably just edges it with the legendary Super Mario World since the transition to 3D whilst there have been some pretty decent Sonic games in 3D Adventure 1 and 2,Generations and Colors. The likes of Mario 64 and Galaxy blow them out of the water.

As far as the 2D games are concerned I liked the Sonic games a lot more,they looked great from a technical standpoint and with vibrant colors,all happening at great speeds with great music supporting the gameplay,in comparison all the Mario games from that era always felt somewhat boring and bland.

3D era though...now that´s a completely different story.

Overall,I like Sonic much better.

Mario. End of discussion.

None of them make games. Again, none of them make games. Sonic, because I don't really care for Mario as a character.Dudersaper

 you know what I ment

Better Games in the 8/16-bit era: Mario

Better Games now: Mario (though I have a tendency to replay Sonic Colors more than Mario Galaxy 2)

Better Brawl character: Sonic

Who made better games? Who makes better games now? Which one would you pick to play as in SSBB?

luckykoopsie

NES era - Mario (as Sonic didn't exist yet)

SNES era - both.. but I'll say Sonic

N64 era - Mario I guess

PS2 era - Sonic hands down

PS3/Wii era - both suck. But I like Sonic 4 Ep 1 and PS2Wii Unleashed so I'll pick Sonic. And Rivals is better than NSMB DS.

Sonic. And Rivalsfinal_lap

[QUOTE="luckykoopsie"]

Who made better games? Who makes better games now? Which one would you pick to play as in SSBB?

final_lap

NES era - Mario (as Sonic didn't exist yet)

SNES era - both.. but I'll say Sonic

N64 era - Mario I guess

PS2 era - Sonic hands down

PS3/Wii era - both suck. But I like Sonic 4 Ep 1 and PS2Wii Unleashed so I'll pick Sonic. And Rivals is better than NSMB DS.

 you seriously think the marios on the wii are bad?? you just have bad taste in games then.

[QUOTE="final_lap"]

[QUOTE="luckykoopsie"]

Who made better games? Who makes better games now? Which one would you pick to play as in SSBB?

luckykoopsie

NES era - Mario (as Sonic didn't exist yet)

SNES era - both.. but I'll say Sonic

N64 era - Mario I guess

PS2 era - Sonic hands down

PS3/Wii era - both suck. But I like Sonic 4 Ep 1 and PS2Wii Unleashed so I'll pick Sonic. And Rivals is better than NSMB DS.

 you seriously think the marios on the wii are bad?? you just have bad taste in games then.

Yeah, it's harsh, but somebody that likes any form of Unleashed and thinks the Wii Mario games suck has extremely bad taste.

BTW, I think Mario won every single era (tho the SNES/Genesis era was close) simply because Nintendo has handled his legacy so much better than Sega has handled Sonic's. The New Super Mario Bros. games have gotten seriously stale, Sunshine had some rough edges, and Mario 64 shows its age (tho that hardly matters when it is the most important 3D platformer ever made) but Mario games have always been of exceptional quality, and to score the second and third highest rated games of all time (Galaxy 1 and 2) that late in Mario's "career" is nothing short of astounding. It shows that Nintendo is deeply serious about maintaining Mario's legacy as the king of the platform genre.

On the other hand, Sonic's "career" has been a bit of a mess. It started extremely strong with Sonic 1,2,CD,3 and Sonic and Knuckles, but 3D Blast was a sluggish turd. Then Sonic came back pretty strong with Adventure, although it's pretty clearly to those who are not zealous Sonic fanboys that Adventure was never as important as Mario 64 and it has aged even more poorly. Sonic Adventure 2 had lukewarm reception due to its nasty tendency of taking away Sonic's spolight in favor of clunky gameplay modes; plus, by that time it was absolutely clear that Sega had an issue with getting camera controls right in 3D. Furthermore, Sonic Adventure 2 set the stage for some of the trash that would come later. Sonic Heroes was decent, but the gimmick was awkward and took away from the sense of speed, and then Sonic 06 brought the series to laughing stock status since it was a broken culmination of all the bad habits that the Adventure games set in motion. Unleashed showed some promise in the Sonic stages (not that those went over all that well with critics), but the Werehog levels were an abomination and frankly embarrasing for a game that called itself a platformer. I haven't played them, but the Secret Rings and Black Knight games seem to have control/quality issues. It was not until Colors that Sonic actually got back onto a high note, which has continued with Generations. That Sega is finally handling the franchise right makes me very happy.

Like I said, with Mario, you have a property that is handled with kid gloves and has never lost steam. It seems Nintendo will not let a bad core Mario game get released (the danger with them is that they might let the franchise get stale if the New Super Mario Bros. franchise in any indication) whereas Sonic hit rock bottom with Sonic 06 and Unleashed.

^^

I don't feel like getting in a Sonic vs. Mario debate, but I'm sorry, I can't agree with anyone that thinks Sonic Adventure has aged worse than Mario 64. I slam adventure 1 in this department quite a lot, but at least I can play it. Mario 64 has aged so incredibly badly I can't even move in that game.

^^

I don't feel like getting in a Sonic vs. Mario debate, but I'm sorry, I can't agree with anyone that thinks Sonic Adventure has aged worse than Mario 64. I slam adventure 1 in this department quite a lot, but at least I can play it. Mario 64 has aged so incredibly badly I can't even move in that game.

Renegade_Fury

You must be doing something wrong then. The controls are a tad clunky now, but Mario is perfectly moveable.

Mario 64's age shows in the controls not being that good anymore, but Sonic Adventure has the myriad of glitches, the bad camera, the bad shooting levels, the abysmal frog levels, the sluggish Amy levels, a much blander hub world than the castle in Mario 64, which is widely regarded as being one of the greatest hub worlds of all time.

There's a reason that the re-release of Mario 64 got a 8.4 on GS and an 85 on Metacritic and the re-release of Sonic Adventure got a 5.7 on GS and a 57 on Metacritic. Not to say that everyone has to agree with critics, but what I'm saying is hardly crazy.

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

^^

I don't feel like getting in a Sonic vs. Mario debate, but I'm sorry, I can't agree with anyone that thinks Sonic Adventure has aged worse than Mario 64. I slam adventure 1 in this department quite a lot, but at least I can play it. Mario 64 has aged so incredibly badly I can't even move in that game.

GreySeal9

You must be doing something wrong then. The controls are a tad clunky now, but Mario is perfectly moveable.

Mario 64's age shows in the controls not being that good anymore, but Sonic Adventure has the myriad of glitches, the bad camera, the bad shooting levels, the abysmal frog levels, the sluggish Amy levels, a much blander hub world than the castle in Mario 64, which is widely regarded as being one of the greatest hub worlds of all time.

There's a reason that the re-release of Mario 64 got a 8.4 on GS and an 85 on Metacritic and the re-release of Sonic Adventure got a 5.7 on GS and a 57 on Metacritic. Not to say that everyone has to agree with critics, but what I'm saying is hardly crazy.

Nope. Jumping from cliff to cliff or just going in a circle up the mountain in the first level is an absolute chore. Lining Mario up, dealing with the slow fps and input, and having to use the horrible N64 controller is just an unplayable mess. Sonic at least moves where I want him to go, and I can kill the enemies I want to with any character. The camera angles have always stunk, but they don't kill the game.

I really couldn't care less about scores, and I'm surprised you would bring this one up. 

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

^^

I don't feel like getting in a Sonic vs. Mario debate, but I'm sorry, I can't agree with anyone that thinks Sonic Adventure has aged worse than Mario 64. I slam adventure 1 in this department quite a lot, but at least I can play it. Mario 64 has aged so incredibly badly I can't even move in that game.

Renegade_Fury

You must be doing something wrong then. The controls are a tad clunky now, but Mario is perfectly moveable.

Mario 64's age shows in the controls not being that good anymore, but Sonic Adventure has the myriad of glitches, the bad camera, the bad shooting levels, the abysmal frog levels, the sluggish Amy levels, a much blander hub world than the castle in Mario 64, which is widely regarded as being one of the greatest hub worlds of all time.

There's a reason that the re-release of Mario 64 got a 8.4 on GS and an 85 on Metacritic and the re-release of Sonic Adventure got a 5.7 on GS and a 57 on Metacritic. Not to say that everyone has to agree with critics, but what I'm saying is hardly crazy.

Nope. Jumping from cliff to cliff or just going in a circle up the mountain in the first level is an absolute chore. Lining Mario up, dealing with the slow fps and input, and having to use the horrible N64 controller is just an unplayable mess. Sonic at least moves where I want him to go, and I can kill the enemies I want to with any character. The camera angles have always stunk, but they don't kill the game.

I really couldn't care about scores, and I'm surprised you would bring this one up. 

I brought up the scores because you're acting like I'm saying something unreasonable.

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

You must be doing something wrong then. The controls are a tad clunky now, but Mario is perfectly moveable.

Mario 64's age shows in the controls not being that good anymore, but Sonic Adventure has the myriad of glitches, the bad camera, the bad shooting levels, the abysmal frog levels, the sluggish Amy levels, a much blander hub world than the castle in Mario 64, which is widely regarded as being one of the greatest hub worlds of all time.

There's a reason that the re-release of Mario 64 got a 8.4 on GS and an 85 on Metacritic and the re-release of Sonic Adventure got a 5.7 on GS and a 57 on Metacritic. Not to say that everyone has to agree with critics, but what I'm saying is hardly crazy.

GreySeal9

Nope. Jumping from cliff to cliff or just going in a circle up the mountain in the first level is an absolute chore. Lining Mario up, dealing with the slow fps and input, and having to use the horrible N64 controller is just an unplayable mess. Sonic at least moves where I want him to go, and I can kill the enemies I want to with any character. The camera angles have always stunk, but they don't kill the game.

I really couldn't care about scores, and I'm surprised you would bring this one up. 

I brought up the scores because you're acting like I'm saying something unreasonable.

Because I do after playing them each these days. Falling back on scores doesn't mean anything to me.

Sonic is very basic, has no challenging gameplay, and it was never innovative. To be honestly I think Sonic in generel is just utter trash.

And :lol: at JigglyWiggly, he will never fail to entertain me.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

Nope. Jumping from cliff to cliff or just going in a circle up the mountain in the first level is an absolute chore. Lining Mario up, dealing with the slow fps and input, and having to use the horrible N64 controller is just an unplayable mess. Sonic at least moves where I want him to go, and I can kill the enemies I want to with any character. The camera angles have always stunk, but they don't kill the game.

I really couldn't care about scores, and I'm surprised you would bring this one up. 

Renegade_Fury

I brought up the scores because you're acting like I'm saying something unreasonable.

Because I do after playing them each these days. Falling back on scores doesn't mean anything to me.

Fine, but that doesn't mean that the disparity of scores between the two re-releases has no meaning at all. Not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, but there are definitely lots reasons why Mario 64 is regarded so much better even today.

Both have starred in very iconic games in my life, but Sonic just didn't make the 3D jump nearly as well as Mario.

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I brought up the scores because you're acting like I'm saying something unreasonable.

GreySeal9

Because I do after playing them each these days. Falling back on scores doesn't mean anything to me.

Fine, but that doesn't mean that the disparity of scores between the two re-releases has no meaning at all. Not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, but there are definitely lots reasons why Mario 64 is regarded so much better even today.

I think nostalgia plays way too much into it, and like you said, Nintendo has never dropped the ball with Mario. If SEGA had done the same with Sonic, we'd probably be seeing some inflation in scores for the Adventure games or even with the newer releases. Sonic Unleashed for the 360/ps3 for example, I don't like that much, but I think it got something like a 3 here. I think Sonic as a franchise has an uphill battle when it comes to perception which is why I only take scores for these games with a grain of salt.

[QUOTE="luckykoopsie"]

Who made better games? Who makes better games now? Which one would you pick to play as in SSBB?

final_lap

NES era - Mario (as Sonic didn't exist yet)

SNES era - both.. but I'll say Sonic

N64 era - Mario I guess

PS2 era - Sonic hands down

PS3/Wii era - both suck. But I like Sonic 4 Ep 1 and PS2Wii Unleashed so I'll pick Sonic. And Rivals is better than NSMB DS.

N64 era - Mario you guess??? What Sonic games were even on the Saturn?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

Because I do after playing them each these days. Falling back on scores doesn't mean anything to me.

Renegade_Fury

Fine, but that doesn't mean that the disparity of scores between the two re-releases has no meaning at all. Not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, but there are definitely lots reasons why Mario 64 is regarded so much better even today.

I think nostalgia plays way too much into it, and like you said, Nintendo has never dropped the ball with Mario. If SEGA had done the same with Sonic, we'd probably be seeing some inflation in scores for the Adventure games or even with the newer releases. Sonic Unleashed for the 360/ps3 for example, I don't like that much, but I think it got something like a 3 here. I think Sonic as a franchise has an uphill battle when it comes to perception which is why I only take scores for these games with a grain of salt.

Aside from the nostalgia thing (since nostalgia applies both ways), fair enough argument. Although Sonic Unleashed is bad, I do think the reviewer went into that one with his knives ready based on perception of the franchise. I'm not usually one to say what scores certain games should have gotten, but Sonic Unleashed seemed more like a 5 than a 3.5, which is a more appropriate score for Sonic 06.

[QUOTE="final_lap"]

[QUOTE="luckykoopsie"]

Who made better games? Who makes better games now? Which one would you pick to play as in SSBB?

conkertheking1

NES era - Mario (as Sonic didn't exist yet)

SNES era - both.. but I'll say Sonic

N64 era - Mario I guess

PS2 era - Sonic hands down

PS3/Wii era - both suck. But I like Sonic 4 Ep 1 and PS2Wii Unleashed so I'll pick Sonic. And Rivals is better than NSMB DS.

N64 era - Mario you guess??? What Sonic games were even on the Saturn?

Sonic 3D Blast.

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Fine, but that doesn't mean that the disparity of scores between the two re-releases has no meaning at all. Not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, but there are definitely lots reasons why Mario 64 is regarded so much better even today.

GreySeal9

I think nostalgia plays way too much into it, and like you said, Nintendo has never dropped the ball with Mario. If SEGA had done the same with Sonic, we'd probably be seeing some inflation in scores for the Adventure games or even with the newer releases. Sonic Unleashed for the 360/ps3 for example, I don't like that much, but I think it got something like a 3 here. I think Sonic as a franchise has an uphill battle when it comes to perception which is why I only take scores for these games with a grain of salt.

Aside from the nostalgia thing (since nostalgia applies both ways), fair enough argument. Although Sonic Unleashed is bad, I do think the reviewer went into that one with his knives ready based on perception of the franchise. I'm not usually one to say what games should have gotten, but Sonic Unleashed seemed more like a 5 than a 3.5, which is a more appropriate score for Sonic 06.

I'm not sure what I'd give Unleashed, since I only like rating games I really like, but I'm glad you see my point.

That said, I'll agree nostalgia applies both ways, but I don't think Sonic Adventure benefits from it at all versus for Mario 64. It's not even Sonic Adventure 1 that I'm thinking about when I criticize Mario 64, it's Galaxy 1 & 2 (specifically throwback galaxy). After playing those games, it really puts into perspective just how bad that game is now to me. I feel the same way about most 64 games, since I think they universally suffer from similar problems. I'd rank N64 as my second favorite console of all time, but time has not been kind to it, and especially for Mario 64.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

I think nostalgia plays way too much into it, and like you said, Nintendo has never dropped the ball with Mario. If SEGA had done the same with Sonic, we'd probably be seeing some inflation in scores for the Adventure games or even with the newer releases. Sonic Unleashed for the 360/ps3 for example, I don't like that much, but I think it got something like a 3 here. I think Sonic as a franchise has an uphill battle when it comes to perception which is why I only take scores for these games with a grain of salt.

Renegade_Fury

Aside from the nostalgia thing (since nostalgia applies both ways), fair enough argument. Although Sonic Unleashed is bad, I do think the reviewer went into that one with his knives ready based on perception of the franchise. I'm not usually one to say what games should have gotten, but Sonic Unleashed seemed more like a 5 than a 3.5, which is a more appropriate score for Sonic 06.

I'm not sure what I'd give Unleashed, since I only like rating games I really like, but I'm glad you see my point.

That said, I'll agree nostalgia applies both ways, but I don't think Sonic Adventure benefits from it at all versus for Mario 64. It's not even Sonic Adventure 1 that I'm thinking about when I criticize Mario 64, it's Galaxy 1 & 2 (specifically throwback galaxy). After playing those games, it really puts into perspective just how bad that game is now to me. I feel the same way about most 64 games, since I think they universally suffer from similar problems. I'd rank N64 as my second favorite console of all time, but time has not been kind to it, and especially for Mario 64.

I agree about Mario 64 in some ways (I just don't think the control issues are bad as you do). I actually don't think the game is fun anymore and I don't see myself ever playing it again. It's just that it laid the basis for great Mario 3D platformers whereas the Adventure games started trends that really screwed over the Sonic franchise. Sonic in 3D should have been Colors/Generation-like from the beginning. I mean, I realize that the technology was not there back then, but the hub world and extra characters should have never existed. If Sonic Adventure was just a bunch of Sonic stages, the game would have been fvcking divine (for its time), which is why those treasure hunting, shooting, froggy levels annoy me so much.

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Aside from the nostalgia thing (since nostalgia applies both ways), fair enough argument. Although Sonic Unleashed is bad, I do think the reviewer went into that one with his knives ready based on perception of the franchise. I'm not usually one to say what games should have gotten, but Sonic Unleashed seemed more like a 5 than a 3.5, which is a more appropriate score for Sonic 06.

GreySeal9

I'm not sure what I'd give Unleashed, since I only like rating games I really like, but I'm glad you see my point.

That said, I'll agree nostalgia applies both ways, but I don't think Sonic Adventure benefits from it at all versus for Mario 64. It's not even Sonic Adventure 1 that I'm thinking about when I criticize Mario 64, it's Galaxy 1 & 2 (specifically throwback galaxy). After playing those games, it really puts into perspective just how bad that game is now to me. I feel the same way about most 64 games, since I think they universally suffer from similar problems. I'd rank N64 as my second favorite console of all time, but time has not been kind to it, and especially for Mario 64.

I actually agree about Mario 64 in some ways (I just don't think the control issues are bad as you do). I actually don't think the game is fun anymore and I don't see myself ever playing it again. It's just that it laid the basis for great Mario 3D platformers whereas the Adventure games started trends that really screwed over the Sonic franchise. Sonic in 3D should have been Colors/Generation-like from the beginning. I mean, I realize that the technology was not there back then, but the hub world and extra characters should have never existed. If Sonic Adventure was just a bunch of Sonic stages, the game would have been fvcking divine (for its time), which is why those treasure hunting, shooting, froggy levels annoy me so much.

Yeah, for sure, I agree that the basis of Mario 64 for Mario 3D platformers was better than Adventure 1 was for Sonic 3D platformers. It's just that comparing Mario 64 against Sonic Adventure 1 that I can't agree with you. As for what Adventure 1 should have been, well I loved it when I bought it. It was really cool being all the characters, having a hub world, and all that other jazz. Even now I find the hub world at least charming since it's quick and easy to navigate versus how dull and huge it was in '06. As for different characters, they were already going in that direction with Sonic 2 and 3 & Knuckles, so I don't have a problem with that either. When it comes to bad trends, I like to point my finger at the stupid tone that started in Sonic Adventure 2, and the lack of fixing the bugs and camera angles that started in Adventure 1. They were too worried about superficial stuff  than fixing and improving the gameplay, but I think they're on the right track these days.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

I'm not sure what I'd give Unleashed, since I only like rating games I really like, but I'm glad you see my point.

That said, I'll agree nostalgia applies both ways, but I don't think Sonic Adventure benefits from it at all versus for Mario 64. It's not even Sonic Adventure 1 that I'm thinking about when I criticize Mario 64, it's Galaxy 1 & 2 (specifically throwback galaxy). After playing those games, it really puts into perspective just how bad that game is now to me. I feel the same way about most 64 games, since I think they universally suffer from similar problems. I'd rank N64 as my second favorite console of all time, but time has not been kind to it, and especially for Mario 64.

Renegade_Fury

I actually agree about Mario 64 in some ways (I just don't think the control issues are bad as you do). I actually don't think the game is fun anymore and I don't see myself ever playing it again. It's just that it laid the basis for great Mario 3D platformers whereas the Adventure games started trends that really screwed over the Sonic franchise. Sonic in 3D should have been Colors/Generation-like from the beginning. I mean, I realize that the technology was not there back then, but the hub world and extra characters should have never existed. If Sonic Adventure was just a bunch of Sonic stages, the game would have been fvcking divine (for its time), which is why those treasure hunting, shooting, froggy levels annoy me so much.

Yeah, for sure, I agree that the basis of Mario 64 for Mario 3D platformers was better than Adventure 1 was for Sonic 3D platformers. It's just that comparing Mario 64 against Sonic Adventure 1 that I can't agree with you. As for what Adventure 1 should have been, well I loved it when I bought it. It was really cool being all the characters, having a hub world, and all that other jazz. Even now I find the hub world at least charming since it's quick and easy to navigate versus how dull and huge it was in '06. As for different characters, they were already going in that direction with Sonic 2 and 3 & Knuckles, so I don't have a problem with that either. When it comes to bad trends, I like to point my finger at the stupid tone that started in Sonic Adventure 2, and the lack of fixing the bugs and camera angles that started in Adventure 1. They were too worried about superficial stuff  than fixing and improving the gameplay, but I think they're on the right track these days.

On the subject of the characters: I don't actually have a problem with having other characters per se. But what was so great about Sonic and Knuckles is that the Knuckles gameplay retained all the fun of the Sonic gameplay just with some added twists. In contrast, I just thought the other characters in Adventure 1/2 were not even slightly fun to play as, tho I confess I had a bit of fun with the hub world. I didn't even have a problem with the idea of the Werehog in Unleashed initially. I was just counting on them to handle it right. But they made the Werehog levels into a poor man's God of War with god awful platforming (and I don't like God of War in the first place). I wish the Werehog would have played mostly like Sonic with just a little more verticality because of the long arms; that would have been awesome. So what I'm saying is that the existence of other characters is not the problem, it's just the lazy ass way they handle their gameplay styles. When I play Sonic, I want to feel fast and awesome. End of story. And that's why I think they are getting it right these days.

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I actually agree about Mario 64 in some ways (I just don't think the control issues are bad as you do). I actually don't think the game is fun anymore and I don't see myself ever playing it again. It's just that it laid the basis for great Mario 3D platformers whereas the Adventure games started trends that really screwed over the Sonic franchise. Sonic in 3D should have been Colors/Generation-like from the beginning. I mean, I realize that the technology was not there back then, but the hub world and extra characters should have never existed. If Sonic Adventure was just a bunch of Sonic stages, the game would have been fvcking divine (for its time), which is why those treasure hunting, shooting, froggy levels annoy me so much.

GreySeal9

Yeah, for sure, I agree that the basis of Mario 64 for Mario 3D platformers was better than Adventure 1 was for Sonic 3D platformers. It's just that comparing Mario 64 against Sonic Adventure 1 that I can't agree with you. As for what Adventure 1 should have been, well I loved it when I bought it. It was really cool being all the characters, having a hub world, and all that other jazz. Even now I find the hub world at least charming since it's quick and easy to navigate versus how dull and huge it was in '06. As for different characters, they were already going in that direction with Sonic 2 and 3 & Knuckles, so I don't have a problem with that either. When it comes to bad trends, I like to point my finger at the stupid tone that started in Sonic Adventure 2, and the lack of fixing the bugs and camera angles that started in Adventure 1. They were too worried about superficial stuff  than fixing and improving the gameplay, but I think they're on the right track these days.

On the subject of the characters: I don't actually have a problem with having other characters per se. But what was so great about Sonic and Knuckles is that the Knuckles gameplay retained all the fun of the Sonic gameplay just with some added twists. In contrast, I just thought the other characters in Adventure 1/2 were not even slightly fun to play as, tho I confess I had a bit of fun with the hub world. I didn't even have a problem with the idea of the Werehog in Unleashed initially. I was just counting on them to handle it right. But they made the Werehog levels into a poor man's God of War with god awful platforming (and I don't like God of War in the first place). I wish the Werehog would have played mostly like Sonic with just a little more verticality because of the long arms; that would have been awesome. So what I'm saying is that the existence of other characters is not the problem, it's just the lazy ass way they handle their gameplay styles. When I play Sonic, I want to feel fast and awesome. End of story. And that's why I think they are getting it right these days.

Agreed 100%. I'm in that camp as well, because I don't think Sonic's friends are inherently bad. Just make it fun, and don't make the gameplay deviate from Sonic's core. If they are bringing back the other characters in the next Sonic as rumored, I'm actually looking forward to it.

As for Adventure 1, you just have to take time into context. It was the first big 3D Sonic game, so I can roll with everything they tried to do.

Both are great franchise, but I prefer Mario over Sonic.

Super Mario 3 Super mario land Super mario 64/DS ver also/ NSMB DS are some of the best games I have ever played an will always be some of the best games I have ever played.

Soinc 2 is a great game

Sonic adventures is also a great game, maybe even a 9.5 outta 10 game.

Other then that, Sonic is long gone. Let him die please :( Stop playing the worst  music ever made to him running around premade cut scenes.

I haven't played a lot of Sonic but from what I have played, Mario definitely takes the cake.  Super Mario World 1/2, 64, Galaxy 2, and Sunshine are all incredible games that are hard to top.

Well to be fair, I'll start from the SNES/GENESIS era:

SNES/GENESIS: Mario wins slightly

N64/Saturn: Mario wins by a mile...

Gamecube/Dreamcast: Sonic wins, even though I thought Super Mario Sunshine was awesome..

Wii/?: Galaxy demolishes pretty much any sonic game, including the Genesis ones, Mario wins easily...

Which would I choose in SSBB? What is this? 2008? Neither, they both suck in brawl, Mr. G & W owns them all.

sonic adventure series is amazing and i loved them just as much as mario 64 or the galaxies, but I'm just a hardcore mario fan because mario has never let me down. The sonic franchise hasn't received as much love which is why sonic is starting to decline. I think of mario and sonic as being on the same team now, both are on nintendo, so I don't think of sonic as competition anymore, but competition is healthy and is needed in the gaming industry to ensure that developers have reasons to try and make their games the best.

Sonic just needs that competition with mario to show what he is truly made of. That's why sonic was the best on his sega systems, but hopefully there are sonic fans out there who want to go to school for game developement, so they can work for sega and make sonic truly "Gold" once again.

I'm probably walking straight into the mouth of hades for saying so, but i think it depends on your gender.

Sonic is cool, Mario isn't.

[QUOTE="luckykoopsie"]

Who made better games? Who makes better games now? Which one would you pick to play as in SSBB?

final_lap

NES era - Mario (as Sonic didn't exist yet)

SNES era - both.. but I'll say Sonic

N64 era - Mario I guess

PS2 era - Sonic hands down

PS3/Wii era - both suck. But I like Sonic 4 Ep 1 and PS2Wii Unleashed so I'll pick Sonic. And Rivals is better than NSMB DS.

you could include the master system ones and compare them to Mario :P

I'm probably walking straight into the mouth of hades for saying so, but i think it depends on your gender.

Sonic is cool, Mario isn't.

BarbaricAvatar

You know what I think is cool. A developing company that produces the best first party games. That is pretty cool.

where is sega now? well little johny, sega makes games for nintendo,playstation and microsoft now....... LOL

[QUOTE="BarbaricAvatar"]

I'm probably walking straight into the mouth of hades for saying so, but i think it depends on your gender.

Sonic is cool, Mario isn't.

luckykoopsie

You know what I think is cool. A developing company that produces the best first party games. That is pretty cool.

where is sega now? well little johny, sega makes games for nintendo,playstation and microsoft now....... LOL

[QUOTE="luckykoopsie"]

[QUOTE="BarbaricAvatar"]

I'm probably walking straight into the mouth of hades for saying so, but i think it depends on your gender.

Sonic is cool, Mario isn't.

Dudersaper

You know what I think is cool. A developing company that produces the best first party games. That is pretty cool.

where is sega now? well little johny, sega makes games for nintendo,playstation and microsoft now....... LOL

you mad sega doesn't make consoles anymore?? boo hoo go cry about it. Nintendomination.

Oh, another infant.Dudersaper

I'm sorry, I'm just in a really depressed mood right now.

I'm probably walking straight into the mouth of hades for saying so, but i think it depends on your gender.

Sonic is cool, Mario isn't.

BarbaricAvatar

Please. The character design might be cool, but Sonic has a fvcking corny personality.

Sonic is very basic, has no challenging gameplay, and it was never innovative. To be honestly I think Sonic in generel is just utter trash.

And :lol: at JigglyWiggly, he will never fail to entertain me.

Stefan91x