Also I'm posting this just because it's so fucking good and makes me sad at the same time.
Loading Video...
Sonic platformers have NEVER been good.
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
And again if that's your argument, then it's not much of an argument. It's more or less argumentum ad populum. Ditto for "x game you like I don't give a shit about" when it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
And your argument, I can say levels on the degree of "duh." Of course, everything is subjective on an individual level, so all you can do is observe what the majority thinks. Whether you agree with them or not, is again, on you.
And again that argument by its nature is a logical fallacy in a debate.
@jg4xchamp said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
And again if that's your argument, then it's not much of an argument. It's more or less argumentum ad populum. Ditto for "x game you like I don't give a shit about" when it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
And your argument, I can say levels on the degree of "duh." Of course, everything is subjective on an individual level, so all you can do is observe what the majority thinks. Whether you agree with them or not, is again, on you.
And again that argument by its nature is a logical fallacy in a debate.
Wrong, that is how you analyze data. You're taking a personal criteria and applying it as a universal truth. I can say I think Yoshi's Island is a terrible game, and I can give you my reasons why, and I can call it the truth, but it's still subjective. I do know, however, that there are many people that love this game, and since they're the majority, it's viewed as a good game. Same thing here with Sonic, and the same thing with anything that is entertainment based. So again, what you're saying is very "duh."
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
And again if that's your argument, then it's not much of an argument. It's more or less argumentum ad populum. Ditto for "x game you like I don't give a shit about" when it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
And your argument, I can say levels on the degree of "duh." Of course, everything is subjective on an individual level, so all you can do is observe what the majority thinks. Whether you agree with them or not, is again, on you.
And again that argument by its nature is a logical fallacy in a debate.
Wrong, that is how you analyze data. You're taking a personal criteria and applying it as a universal truth. I can say I think Yoshi's Island is a terrible game, and I can give you my reasons why, and I can call it the truth, but it's still subjective. I do know, however, that there are many people that love this game, and since they're the majority, it's viewed as a good game. Same thing here with Sonic, and the same thing with anything that is entertainment based. So again, what you're saying is very "duh."
No that is a full of shit answer. To say everything is completely subjective. Not only is that not true but it is also a disrespect to talented artists and designers. That is some kind of Homer Simpson answer, "duuuuuhhhhhh well its good because I like it." There is a craft to game design, music, etc.
This is a pretty good watch.
Loading Video...
@Heirren said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
And again if that's your argument, then it's not much of an argument. It's more or less argumentum ad populum. Ditto for "x game you like I don't give a shit about" when it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
And your argument, I can say levels on the degree of "duh." Of course, everything is subjective on an individual level, so all you can do is observe what the majority thinks. Whether you agree with them or not, is again, on you.
And again that argument by its nature is a logical fallacy in a debate.
Wrong, that is how you analyze data. You're taking a personal criteria and applying it as a universal truth. I can say I think Yoshi's Island is a terrible game, and I can give you my reasons why, and I can call it the truth, but it's still subjective. I do know, however, that there are many people that love this game, and since they're the majority, it's viewed as a good game. Same thing here with Sonic, and the same thing with anything that is entertainment based. So again, what you're saying is very "duh."
No that is a full of shit answer. To say everything is completely subjective. Not only is that not true but it is also a disrespect to talented artists and designers. That is some kind of Homer Simpson answer, "duuuuuhhhhhh well its good because I like it." There is a craft to game design, music, etc.
No, that is the only correct answer, and everything being subjective is what champ is saying. I'm saying how pointless it is to get into that, because that's a philosophical debate. All you can do is look at the majority on something that is subjective if you want to label it quickly as good or bad.
@Renegade_Fury said:
@Heirren said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
And again if that's your argument, then it's not much of an argument. It's more or less argumentum ad populum. Ditto for "x game you like I don't give a shit about" when it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
And your argument, I can say levels on the degree of "duh." Of course, everything is subjective on an individual level, so all you can do is observe what the majority thinks. Whether you agree with them or not, is again, on you.
And again that argument by its nature is a logical fallacy in a debate.
Wrong, that is how you analyze data. You're taking a personal criteria and applying it as a universal truth. I can say I think Yoshi's Island is a terrible game, and I can give you my reasons why, and I can call it the truth, but it's still subjective. I do know, however, that there are many people that love this game, and since they're the majority, it's viewed as a good game. Same thing here with Sonic, and the same thing with anything that is entertainment based. So again, what you're saying is very "duh."
No that is a full of shit answer. To say everything is completely subjective. Not only is that not true but it is also a disrespect to talented artists and designers. That is some kind of Homer Simpson answer, "duuuuuhhhhhh well its good because I like it." There is a craft to game design, music, etc.
No, that is the only correct, and everything being subjective is what champ is saying. I'm saying how pointless it is to get into that, because that's a philosophical debate, and it's pointless to bring up. All you can do is look at the majority on something that is subjective if you want to label something quickly as good or bad.
No, that simply isn't true. There's a science to games just like there's a science to music.
@Heirren said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@Heirren said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
And again if that's your argument, then it's not much of an argument. It's more or less argumentum ad populum. Ditto for "x game you like I don't give a shit about" when it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
And your argument, I can say levels on the degree of "duh." Of course, everything is subjective on an individual level, so all you can do is observe what the majority thinks. Whether you agree with them or not, is again, on you.
And again that argument by its nature is a logical fallacy in a debate.
Wrong, that is how you analyze data. You're taking a personal criteria and applying it as a universal truth. I can say I think Yoshi's Island is a terrible game, and I can give you my reasons why, and I can call it the truth, but it's still subjective. I do know, however, that there are many people that love this game, and since they're the majority, it's viewed as a good game. Same thing here with Sonic, and the same thing with anything that is entertainment based. So again, what you're saying is very "duh."
No that is a full of shit answer. To say everything is completely subjective. Not only is that not true but it is also a disrespect to talented artists and designers. That is some kind of Homer Simpson answer, "duuuuuhhhhhh well its good because I like it." There is a craft to game design, music, etc.
No, that is the only correct, and everything being subjective is what champ is saying. I'm saying how pointless it is to get into that, because that's a philosophical debate, and it's pointless to bring up. All you can do is look at the majority on something that is subjective if you want to label something quickly as good or bad.
No, that simply isn't true. There's a science to games just like there's a science to music.
Except it is. The only thing scientific in this world is science. Entertainment is subjective based, and whatever criteria you hold as good or bad, isn't a universal truth one way or the other. Games fall into that category.
@Heirren said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@Heirren said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
And again if that's your argument, then it's not much of an argument. It's more or less argumentum ad populum. Ditto for "x game you like I don't give a shit about" when it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
And your argument, I can say levels on the degree of "duh." Of course, everything is subjective on an individual level, so all you can do is observe what the majority thinks. Whether you agree with them or not, is again, on you.
And again that argument by its nature is a logical fallacy in a debate.
Wrong, that is how you analyze data. You're taking a personal criteria and applying it as a universal truth. I can say I think Yoshi's Island is a terrible game, and I can give you my reasons why, and I can call it the truth, but it's still subjective. I do know, however, that there are many people that love this game, and since they're the majority, it's viewed as a good game. Same thing here with Sonic, and the same thing with anything that is entertainment based. So again, what you're saying is very "duh."
No that is a full of shit answer. To say everything is completely subjective. Not only is that not true but it is also a disrespect to talented artists and designers. That is some kind of Homer Simpson answer, "duuuuuhhhhhh well its good because I like it." There is a craft to game design, music, etc.
No, that is the only correct, and everything being subjective is what champ is saying. I'm saying how pointless it is to get into that, because that's a philosophical debate, and it's pointless to bring up. All you can do is look at the majority on something that is subjective if you want to label something quickly as good or bad.
No, that simply isn't true. There's a science to games just like there's a science to music.
It's pretty obvious that he's talking about video game criticism and not actual video game design.
@Renegade_Fury said:
@Heirren said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@Heirren said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
And again if that's your argument, then it's not much of an argument. It's more or less argumentum ad populum. Ditto for "x game you like I don't give a shit about" when it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
And your argument, I can say levels on the degree of "duh." Of course, everything is subjective on an individual level, so all you can do is observe what the majority thinks. Whether you agree with them or not, is again, on you.
And again that argument by its nature is a logical fallacy in a debate.
Wrong, that is how you analyze data. You're taking a personal criteria and applying it as a universal truth. I can say I think Yoshi's Island is a terrible game, and I can give you my reasons why, and I can call it the truth, but it's still subjective. I do know, however, that there are many people that love this game, and since they're the majority, it's viewed as a good game. Same thing here with Sonic, and the same thing with anything that is entertainment based. So again, what you're saying is very "duh."
No that is a full of shit answer. To say everything is completely subjective. Not only is that not true but it is also a disrespect to talented artists and designers. That is some kind of Homer Simpson answer, "duuuuuhhhhhh well its good because I like it." There is a craft to game design, music, etc.
No, that is the only correct, and everything being subjective is what champ is saying. I'm saying how pointless it is to get into that, because that's a philosophical debate, and it's pointless to bring up. All you can do is look at the majority on something that is subjective if you want to label something quickly as good or bad.
No, that simply isn't true. There's a science to games just like there's a science to music.
Except it is. The only thing scientific in this world is science. Entertainment is subjective based, and whatever criteria you hold as good or bad, isn't a universal truth one way or the other. Games fall in that category.
No, it is not. There's science to music. There's science to dance. What you are essentially saying is that every talented game designers work is a bunch of flukes and they just "winged it" and had absolutely no idea what they were doing in the process.
@Heirren: Uh, what? I have no idea how you think that's what I'm saying. If I really have to dumb it down for you, I'm saying this: whatever you think is cool and all, but in the end, no one gives a shit other than you. If a lot people like something, well then a lot of people like that something for whatever reason that is. It doesn't mean you have to as well though, because it doesn't matter, it's just entertainment.
k? happy? I got stuff to do now.
@Thunderdrone said:
2D, 3D whatever. They go from absolute shit to mediocre.
A series sold mostly on the novelty of speedy side scrolling graphics and riding the cheesy wave of 90's badittude.
A mascot that was admittedly created by committee to counter whatever Mario was doing and an overall approach that valued style over substance. Visual fluff over depth. Pop culture over timeless archetypes. Buzz words (BLAST PROCESSING) over a quality, solid gameplay foundation.
Sonic is like Obama's presidency. Where the ideals, dreams and promise were (are) so strong it STILL seems to overpower the continuous disappointment of what the real thing actually has to offer. And no matter how bad things get, the novelty of this disruptive situation elevates it to a far higher level than it ever earned the right to be.
I started gaming on a Sega Master System and was able to see this at the age of 7 as soon as I glimpsed a proper platformer.
Now I ask; how on EARTH does this IP, made by the most overvalued dev team ever, still to this day have such a huge, HUGE following? Especially within the same gaming community that can be so vile and vindictive over the smallest of things?
Sanic plz
Doesn't this belong in games discussion? What does this have to do with System Wars? As far as the comparison to the Obama presidency...LOL!!! Right, we need another President who DID NOT really win his office, lied to the people of the US, and the UN, disregarded the consensus opinion of our allies and went into Iraq, never found one WMD. I lost friends in that useless, upper Right wing corporate money making war. So Obama says : No tax breaks if you make 250k a year, or if you hire foreign labor in China or Mexico. Your right that's bad for America.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@jg4xchamp said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
Neither impact nor longevity necessarily mean good. You can be a bad game and have impact= Kill.switch. You can be a long running franchise and be completely pathetic since day 1=Dynasty Warriors.
No one is denying Sonic's impact on the medium or his popularity, but the quality of his games? like any game is arguable.
Sure, just like I couldn't give a shit about Bayonetta, but that isn't what I'm saying. What I am saying, however, is that obviously enough people thought it was good, as it changed the gen IV war, and it has obtained a fan base large enough to still be going for over two decades.
And again if that's your argument, then it's not much of an argument. It's more or less argumentum ad populum. Ditto for "x game you like I don't give a shit about" when it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
Then I guess no such game, movie, music etc exists that are good going by your definition.
But I don't believe there is a truly factual argument that any subjective entertainment is good. What says one is "good"? Popular opinion? Critical acclaim? And who says critics opinion is more important than ours? Sales? There is no logical point to arguing subjective entertainment, but humans do, due to an egotistical desire to be right or the one in the know, engage in this non sense anyway.
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
And again that argument by its nature is a logical fallacy in a debate.
Wrong, that is how you analyze data. You're taking a personal criteria and applying it as a universal truth. I can say I think Yoshi's Island is a terrible game, and I can give you my reasons why, and I can call it the truth, but it's still subjective. I do know, however, that there are many people that love this game, and since they're the majority, it's viewed as a good game. Same thing here with Sonic, and the same thing with anything that is entertainment based. So again, what you're saying is very "duh."
What personal criteria did I post? I merely stated a fact that
A: your argument is argument ad populum: which it is
B: impact doesn't inherently mean good game, because it doesn't
Analyzing "data" as you would see wouldn't show us that Sonic was ever good, or had good games. It would just imply that Sonic was popular, Sonic had influence, and Sonic has lasted a long time. So again your notion of we must accept he was ever good, because of x, y, and z, while ignoring x,y, and z have nothing to do with the game necessarily being good or not, is a fallacy. I'm saying something very "duh", because you're incapable of seeing what is a clear as day fallacy. That's not on me, that's on you m8.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@jg4xchamp said:
And again if that's your argument, then it's not much of an argument. It's more or less argumentum ad populum. Ditto for "x game you like I don't give a shit about" when it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
Then I guess no such game, movie, music etc exists that are good going by your definition.
I don't understand how someone reads that, and then responds to me with something that aggressively stupid.
Explain to me how me saying his argument of Sonic being popular and influential has nothing to do with whether or not the game is good. Because the quality of something can easily be argued person to person, and doesn't necessarily need that piece of entertainment to be popular or influential. Likewise you can be popular and influential, and absolutely suck.
This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
@Ghost120x said:
Going back and playing them I have to say the level design is questionable but I wouldn't go as far to say the old ones were trash. The recent games are the real problem, they were so bad It gave me an ulcer.
I never said they were trash. Just that they were never very good even by 16-bit era standards.
Sonic 3 and Knuckles is one of the greatest games ever made and I've played a lot of great platformers of that era.
Sonic 2 and Sonic CD were great games. Sonic 1 hasn't aged well.
The rest of the franchise ranges from shit (Sonic 06) to pretty good (Sonic Colors and Generations). I will say that the Adventure games were nothing special even back then.
Out of the few I tried playing (Sonic 1, Sonic & Knuckles and Sonic Adventure) I didn't enjoy them or see the appeal.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Bigboi500 said:
I agree, even the old Sonic The Hedgehog games controlled like shit and had bad level design. Not really sure why anybody ever liked those games when there was always the superior Mario games available.
They controlled fine....guess they were just to hard for you.....Mario was much slower....and easier.
Disagree with this. Sonic games, on the whole, were much easier IMO. Sonic 2 and 3 are very easy. The only Sonic that is as tough as an old school Mario game is the first one, mostly due to that damn water level. **** that level lol.
@Seabas989 said:
Sonic 3 and Knuckles is one of the greatest games ever made and I've played a lot of great platformers of that era.
Sonic 2 and Sonic CD were great games. Sonic 1 hasn't aged well.
The rest of the franchise ranges from shit (Sonic 06) to pretty good (Sonic Colors and Generations). I will say that the Adventure games were nothing special even back then.
I liked them a lot back in the day, but if one is trying to argue the quality of the franchise, they don't really make that argument well because they started the trends that led to Sonic's downfall.
I never grew up with Sonic as a child. I didn't really get to check out Sonic 1-3 until I was in college and had a Wii.
They were "okay" and I got a bit of enjoyment from them, but they really did not click with me that much, and I will say that I find Mario (whether classic or modern) if far superior to Sonic IMO.
To actually get all the chaos emeralds was such an exercise in frustration, and you basically had to go through each level like t was a surgery (as opposed to going through levels with speed which was supposed to be Sonic's gimmick in the first place). and then if you actually managed to get 50 rings by the end of a level you had to play some BS minigame where one mistake or error could pretty much just ruin everything and crap over your effort in actually managing to keep 50 rings by the end.
I realize the emeralds are optional too, but I don't exactly like going through a game and getting the "lol **** you" ending which Sonic 1 and I believe 3 had. And outside of that trying to get 50 rings was the only thing that really made gong through Sonic levels interesting, because otherwise the level designs were just kind of boring to me.
@jg4xchamp said:
the most recent MK game was pretty legit. Not up to snuff with the high end of the genre, but way more deserving of respect than older games in that franchise.And yeah DKC1 especially has horrible detection n shit, but 2 is okay. But yeah, pure game design Retro's work clowns the original DKC games so fucking easily.
Oh yeah man, I thought MK9 was surprisingly good. And even though MK2 and UMK3 have weak sauce gameplay, I still found them fun. I still play UMK3 regularly. But yeah, point being that in the height of MKs popularity back in the day, they were far behind the curve in quality.
And yeah, obviously so with Retro DKC.. I loved the SNES games as much as the next guy, who couldn't be all over that style back then? The graphics, the music, ****. Awesome stuff. But then you look at their contemporaries like SMW and Yoshis Island and it's just lulz.
And damn I still need to play Tropical Freeze. I hate this backlog of mine.
@ConanTheStoner said:
@jg4xchamp said:
the most recent MK game was pretty legit. Not up to snuff with the high end of the genre, but way more deserving of respect than older games in that franchise.And yeah DKC1 especially has horrible detection n shit, but 2 is okay. But yeah, pure game design Retro's work clowns the original DKC games so fucking easily.
And damn I still need to play Tropical Freeze. I hate this backlog of mine.
Yeah, you really really should :
I used to love Sonic & Crash titles back in the 90's
@jg4xchamp said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@jg4xchamp said:
And again if that's your argument, then it's not much of an argument. It's more or less argumentum ad populum. Ditto for "x game you like I don't give a shit about" when it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
Then I guess no such game, movie, music etc exists that are good going by your definition.
I don't understand how someone reads that, and then responds to me with something that aggressively stupid.
Explain to me how me saying his argument of Sonic being popular and influential has nothing to do with whether or not the game is good. Because the quality of something can easily be argued person to person, and doesn't necessarily need that piece of entertainment to be popular or influential. Likewise you can be popular and influential, and absolutely suck.
This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
I was referring to your statement that popularity means nothing in regard to quality. Period. Which I find aggressively stupid.
This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
While I don't use popularity myself as a measuring device it does not inherently mean something doesn't possess quality.
@Thunderdrone said:
A series sold mostly on the novelty of speedy side scrolling graphics and riding the cheesy wave of 90's badittude.
A mascot that was admittedly created by committee to counter whatever Mario was doing and an overall approach that valued style over substance. Visual fluff over depth. Pop culture over timeless archetypes. Buzz words (BLAST PROCESSING) over a quality, solid gameplay foundation.
Sonic is like Obama's presidency. Where the ideals, dreams and promise were (are) so strong it STILL seems to overpower the continuous disappointment of what the real thing actually has to offer. And no matter how bad things get, the novelty of this disruptive situation elevates it to a far higher level than it ever earned the right to be.
I started gaming on a Sega Master System and was able to see this at the age of 7 as soon as I glimpsed a proper platformer.
Now I ask; how on EARTH does this IP, made by the most overvalued dev team ever, still to this day have such a huge, HUGE following? Especially within the same gaming community that can be so vile and vindictive over the smallest of things?
1. Your memories have obviously been tainted. Sonic wasn't just about speed, but far more than that. For example, the incredible level design. Compared to Mario's simple side-scrolling levels, Sonic's level design was a major leap forward for platformers, with levels that scrolled in multiple directions, with a sense of verticality, sloping curves, multiple parallax scrolling layers, different intersecting paths through the same levels, etc. The physics was also a big leap forward for platformers, with Sonic speeding up and slowing down in a manner similar to how fast-moving objects would actually speed up or slow down, how you need to generate enough momentum to move up a slope, how he accelerates with the pull of gravity, etc. It was the attention to detail, the excellent level design, the physics engine, the gameplay mechanics, etc. that made Sonic a great game, not just the speed.
2. Complaining about Sonic's marketing is not a valid complaint against its gameplay. Sonic had a solid gameplay foundation backed by a decent marketing campaign to get the word out there. Many people who played the original Sonic trilogy for the first time long after the 16-bit era still loved them, with or without any marketing.
3. You sound like a Tea Party member. Your comparison between Sonic and Obama is completely nonsensical. Stop bringing politics into this.
4. Which version did you play? The Master System version or the Mega Drive version? If you played the Master System version, then that tells you nothing about the actual quality of the original Mega Drive version. It's pretty silly to judge the 16-bit original based on an inferior downgraded 8-bit port.
5. Because the gameplay was solid, the speed was exciting, the level designs were excellent, the physics were detailed, the graphics were impressive, the soundtrack was great, the characters were well-designed, and so on and so forth. There are plenty of reasons why Sonic gained a huge fan following. As for why it's still successful today despite its decline in quality, much of that success is not coming from the core "gaming community" (many of whom have actually been "vile and vindictive" towards Sonic "over the smallest of things"), but from young children today who are discovering Sonic for the first time and don't care if the gameplay is good or mediocre.
@jg4xchamp said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@jg4xchamp said:
And again that argument by its nature is a logical fallacy in a debate.
Wrong, that is how you analyze data. You're taking a personal criteria and applying it as a universal truth. I can say I think Yoshi's Island is a terrible game, and I can give you my reasons why, and I can call it the truth, but it's still subjective. I do know, however, that there are many people that love this game, and since they're the majority, it's viewed as a good game. Same thing here with Sonic, and the same thing with anything that is entertainment based. So again, what you're saying is very "duh."
What personal criteria did I post? I merely stated a fact that
A: your argument is argument ad populum: which it is
B: impact doesn't inherently mean good game, because it doesn't
Analyzing "data" as you would see wouldn't show us that Sonic was ever good, or had good games. It would just imply that Sonic was popular, Sonic had influence, and Sonic has lasted a long time. So again your notion of we must accept he was ever good, because of x, y, and z, while ignoring x,y, and z have nothing to do with the game necessarily being good or not, is a fallacy. I'm saying something very "duh", because you're incapable of seeing what is a clear as day fallacy. That's not on me, that's on you m8.
By that same logic, it would be a fallacy to say Mario was ever good, or Zelda was ever good, or Street Fighter II was ever good, or Doom was ever good, or any game was ever good. There can be no such thing as a "good" game, according to your logic.
@jg4xchamp said:
@Renegade_Fury said:Sonic is an arcade style take on platformers, and I love it for that, and it makes me lol how some people like to rewrite history to the point where they want to believe it was never good. Yeah, a franchise that shook the industry and has been going on for 23 years was never good, lol.
Neither impact nor longevity necessarily mean good. You can be a bad game and have impact= Kill.switch. You can be a long running franchise and be completely pathetic since day 1=Dynasty Warriors.
No one is denying Sonic's impact on the medium or his popularity, but the quality of his games? like any game is arguable.
Contradiction. You were criticizing him for saying Sonic is good based on popularity and longevity, yet here you are claiming Kill.switch is "bad" and Dynasty Warriors is "pathetic" without any substantiation at all. Your argument appears to be both a 'petitio principii' (begging the question) fallacy and a 'contradictio in adjecto' (self-contradiction) fallacy.
pretentious indeed
@Thunderdrone: excellent OP... And highly accurate. I was 13 when the first sonic released and I remember vividly the "Sega does what NintenDont" commercials... I found the game and everything that followed to be the very soul of mediocrity at best. Still to this day loathe the floaty sonic controls. Blah.
@Jag85 said:
@jg4xchamp said:
What personal criteria did I post? I merely stated a fact that
A: your argument is argument ad populum: which it is
B: impact doesn't inherently mean good game, because it doesn't
Analyzing "data" as you would see wouldn't show us that Sonic was ever good, or had good games. It would just imply that Sonic was popular, Sonic had influence, and Sonic has lasted a long time. So again your notion of we must accept he was ever good, because of x, y, and z, while ignoring x,y, and z have nothing to do with the game necessarily being good or not, is a fallacy. I'm saying something very "duh", because you're incapable of seeing what is a clear as day fallacy. That's not on me, that's on you m8.
By that same logic, it would be a fallacy to say Mario was ever good, or Zelda was ever good, or Street Fighter II was ever good, or Doom was ever good, or any game was ever good. There can be no such thing as a "good" game, according to your logic.
@jg4xchamp said:
Neither impact nor longevity necessarily mean good. You can be a bad game and have impact= Kill.switch. You can be a long running franchise and be completely pathetic since day 1=Dynasty Warriors.
No one is denying Sonic's impact on the medium or his popularity, but the quality of his games? like any game is arguable.
Contradiction. You were criticizing him for saying Sonic is good based on popularity and longevity, yet here you are claiming Kill.switch is "bad" and Dynasty Warriors is "pathetic" without any substantiation at all. Your argument appears to be both a 'petitio principii' (begging the question) fallacy and a 'contradictio in adjecto' (self-contradiction) fallacy.
If you truly believed mario was never good, good on you. Would that change the fact that if someone argued against your opinion that
A: he must be good because he's popular
B: he was influential
Are both logical fallacies, as both of them don't inherently mean good. This wasn't even hard to follow. I gave an example, if you really want to whine about my examples, surely I give both of you the benefit of the doubt that you can name 2 games that easily show that they weren't very good, but they had influence, and they were popular. Christ you people need debate lessons. At no point did I say there is "no such thing as a good game" or "you can't call something good". I merely said that his 2 examples of why Sonic was good, aren't actually much of an argument because you can be those 2 things and not be good. You people just got butt hurt.
"1. Your memories have obviously been tainted. Sonic wasn't just about speed, but far more than that. For example, the incredible level design. Compared to Mario's simple side-scrolling levels, Sonic's level design was a major leap forward for platformers, with levels that scrolled in multiple directions, with a sense of verticality, sloping curves, multiple parallax scrolling layers, different intersecting paths through the same levels, etc. The physics was also a big leap forward for platformers, with Sonic speeding up and slowing down in a manner similar to how fast-moving objects would actually speed up or slow down, how you need to generate enough momentum to move up a slope, how he accelerates with the pull of gravity, etc. It was the attention to detail, the excellent level design, the physics engine, the gameplay mechanics, etc. that made Sonic a great game, not just the speed."
^In contrast this is more of an argument to the games quality. Subjective as it may be, it actually has something to do with if a game is good or not.
@LJS9502_basic said:
I was referring to your statement that popularity means nothing in regard to quality. Period. Which I find aggressively stupid.
This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
While I don't use popularity myself as a measuring device it does not inherently mean something doesn't possess quality.
Because it doesn't inherently mean something is good, that is what argumentum ad populum is. Just because a bunch of people believe something is true, doesn't mean something is true. Don't be dense, if you actually have a counter share one, don't give me some half assed attempt at a rebuttal.
lol, this terrible topic is still going. Champ, do you really believe I don't understand what you're saying? You really believe I don't know what's debatable about correlating popularity and quality? Please. I'm saying quality in itself is subjectively measured, so there is nothing else to analyze past the popular opinion. Are you going to pretend to be so dense that you want to pass off that words like "good" weren't thrown around when describing Sonic in the 90's - a franchise that was looked upon in such a positive light by both gamers and the industry, itself? If so, you're in denial. This wasn't Glover, where everyone returned their copy after seeing advertisement after advertisement for Heaven's sake.
@Renegade_Fury said:
lol, this terrible topic is still going. Champ, do you really believe I don't understand what you're saying? You really believe I don't know what's debatable about correlating popularity and quality? Please. I'm saying quality in itself is subjectively measured, so there is nothing else to analyze past the popular opinion. Are you going to pretend to be so dense that you want to pass off that words like "good" weren't thrown around when describing Sonic in the 90's - franchise that was looked upon in such a positive light by both gamers and the industry, itself? If so, you're in denial. This wasn't Glover, where everyone returned their copy after being brainwashed by advertisements for Heaven's sake.
I never said otherwise, I disagree with the notion that "oh its revisionist history' or some shit to think his games aren't good, because you must accept he was popular/influential. I can accept the latter easily, his place in gaming history is well deserved, whether or not his games were actually good is easily arguable, that's all I said.
If your arguing his place, yeah you have something. If you are arguing against someone saying "his games were never that good" with he was popular, then that's not an argument. Anyway at this point I'm willing to bow out. Agreeing with Thunderdrone probably gave me a serious case of ebola.
It's definitely not nostalgia. Sonic 1, 2, 3 & Knuckles are all phenomenal games. The graphics are impressive, the speed can be incredible yet the slow platforming is phenomenal (and is what is severely missing in today's Sonic games), and the musical score ranks among the top video game scores ever. C'mon, Michael Jackson did Sonic 3 for god's sakes.
Nonetheless, if you didn't grow up with the games like some of us did, go back and play them. They still hold up.
That, or you sir, are an idiot.
@jg4xchamp said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
lol, this terrible topic is still going. Champ, do you really believe I don't understand what you're saying? You really believe I don't know what's debatable about correlating popularity and quality? Please. I'm saying quality in itself is subjectively measured, so there is nothing else to analyze past the popular opinion. Are you going to pretend to be so dense that you want to pass off that words like "good" weren't thrown around when describing Sonic in the 90's - franchise that was looked upon in such a positive light by both gamers and the industry, itself? If so, you're in denial. This wasn't Glover, where everyone returned their copy after being brainwashed by advertisements for Heaven's sake.
I never said otherwise, I disagree with the notion that "oh its revisionist history' or some shit to think his games aren't good, because you must accept he was popular/influential. I can accept the latter easily, his place in gaming history is well deserved, whether or not his games were actually good is easily arguable, that's all I said.
If your arguing his place, yeah you have something. If you are arguing against someone saying "his games were never that good" with he was popular, then that's not an argument. Anyway at this point I'm willing to bow out. Agreeing with Thunderdrone probably gave me a serious case of ebola.
I think it is revisionist history, because essentially you are saying that people were tricked into liking Sonic, and that no one really had fun actually playing them, which is, of course, wrong. If you want to debate gameplay mechanics, level design, music, and so on, we can, but that's all it is, a debate between us. It doesn't represent how anyone else feels, but yeah, I'm done. I will say this though, I am definitely in the mood for playing Sonic 3 & Knuckles tonight!
@jg4xchamp said:
If you truly believed mario was never good, good on you. Would that change the fact that if someone argued against your opinion that
A: he must be good because he's popular
B: he was influential
Are both logical fallacies, as both of them don't inherently mean good. This wasn't even hard to follow. I gave an example, if you really want to whine about my examples, surely I give both of you the benefit of the doubt that you can name 2 games that easily show that they weren't very good, but they had influence, and they were popular. Christ you people need debate lessons. At no point did I say there is "no such thing as a good game" or "you can't call something good". I merely said that his 2 examples of why Sonic was good, aren't actually much of an argument because you can be those 2 things and not be good. You people just got butt hurt.
"1. Your memories have obviously been tainted. Sonic wasn't just about speed, but far more than that. For example, the incredible level design. Compared to Mario's simple side-scrolling levels, Sonic's level design was a major leap forward for platformers, with levels that scrolled in multiple directions, with a sense of verticality, sloping curves, multiple parallax scrolling layers, different intersecting paths through the same levels, etc. The physics was also a big leap forward for platformers, with Sonic speeding up and slowing down in a manner similar to how fast-moving objects would actually speed up or slow down, how you need to generate enough momentum to move up a slope, how he accelerates with the pull of gravity, etc. It was the attention to detail, the excellent level design, the physics engine, the gameplay mechanics, etc. that made Sonic a great game, not just the speed."
^In contrast this is more of an argument to the games quality. Subjective as it may be, it actually has something to do with if a game is good or not.
Oxford Dictionary definition of the word "good":
"To be desired or approved of"
If a game is approved of, then by definition, it is "good". If a game is approved of by a significant number of people, then it is "good", by the very definition of the word. In other words, using approval-based popularity as a basis for determining what is "good" is not a fallacy, since it is consistent with the actual definition of the word, and to claim that it is a fallacy would in itself be a logically flawed argument.
I thought 2D Sonic games were just ok... not bad but not great. The only Sonic game that blew my mind was Adventure 2 Battle. I guess I'm weird. :/
Sonic 1 to 3 and Knuckles were incredible fun games and some of the finest in the 16 bit era and Sonic CD was as well but then you judge it to masterpieces of say Super Mario 3 and Super Mario World which are possibly the greatest 2D sidescrollers ever and World and 3 could even be touted as the best game ever.
Since the 3D jump Sonic has never really been able to compete with the likes of Ratchet and Clank and most notably Super Mario. I mean Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 are solid games but have aged terribly and when you compare them to Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 and 64 its no contest. It could be argued the weakest 3D Mario game Sunshine is better than any 3D Sonic game. Colors and Generations I think were only considered good because of SEGA not sticking stupid stuff in there still a long way of any 3D Mario game.
Sonic Lost World is a Mario Galaxy rip off and Sonic Boom don't even go there. Also the less said about Sonic 2006 the better.
I have to say the series sunk to a new low with Sonic Boom even worse than Sonic 2006. Sonic is screwed he hasn't been able to compete with Mario for years and people who still think he can are kidding themselves.
"Quality is subjective."........lol
@Heirren said:
"Quality is subjective."........lol
If you think that quality is not subjective, why don't you prove which is higher quality out of Sonic 3 and Super Mario Bros 3 without using a single subjective statement? If quality is indeed objective, you should be able to do this.
Everybody that I've debated with that argues quality is objective has either failed this test or didn't even attempt it because they knew that doing so would wreck their argument.
@Jag85 said:
@jg4xchamp said:
If you truly believed mario was never good, good on you. Would that change the fact that if someone argued against your opinion that
A: he must be good because he's popular
B: he was influential
Are both logical fallacies, as both of them don't inherently mean good. This wasn't even hard to follow. I gave an example, if you really want to whine about my examples, surely I give both of you the benefit of the doubt that you can name 2 games that easily show that they weren't very good, but they had influence, and they were popular. Christ you people need debate lessons. At no point did I say there is "no such thing as a good game" or "you can't call something good". I merely said that his 2 examples of why Sonic was good, aren't actually much of an argument because you can be those 2 things and not be good. You people just got butt hurt.
"1. Your memories have obviously been tainted. Sonic wasn't just about speed, but far more than that. For example, the incredible level design. Compared to Mario's simple side-scrolling levels, Sonic's level design was a major leap forward for platformers, with levels that scrolled in multiple directions, with a sense of verticality, sloping curves, multiple parallax scrolling layers, different intersecting paths through the same levels, etc. The physics was also a big leap forward for platformers, with Sonic speeding up and slowing down in a manner similar to how fast-moving objects would actually speed up or slow down, how you need to generate enough momentum to move up a slope, how he accelerates with the pull of gravity, etc. It was the attention to detail, the excellent level design, the physics engine, the gameplay mechanics, etc. that made Sonic a great game, not just the speed."
^In contrast this is more of an argument to the games quality. Subjective as it may be, it actually has something to do with if a game is good or not.
Oxford Dictionary definition of the word "good":
"To be desired or approved of"
If a game is approved of, then by definition, it is "good". If a game is approved of by a significant number of people, then it is "good", by the very definition of the word. In other words, using approval-based popularity as a basis for determining what is "good" is not a fallacy, since it is consistent with the actual definition of the word, and to claim that it is a fallacy would in itself be a logically flawed argument.
This is absurdly disingenuous. That definition says nothing about collective desire or approval. It could very well be talking about desiring and approving of something on an individual level. The latter is more consistent with reality since people have varying ideas of what's good and what's bad based on their individual standards.
@GreySeal9 said:
@Heirren said:
"Quality is subjective."........lol
If you think that quality is not subjective, why don't you prove which is higher quality out of Sonic 3 and Super Mario Bros 3. without using a single subjective statement? If quality is indeed objective, you should be able to do this.
Everybody that I've debated with that argues quality is objective has either failed this test or didn't even attempt it because they knew that doing so would wreck their argument.
I don't think Sonic is bad. I really like the first two but the issues revolve around going fast but not going fast. Platformers are about rhythm. Most Nintendo games carry this philosophy--they even had this old thing called the Miracle Piano, in addition to Mario Paint. Mario 3 brings this in spades. As the game progresses the levels get more complex, rhythmically. Early on, it is as simple as jumping on an enemy and missing a jumps has little consequences. Over the course of the game the player is trained to handles the more complex platforming sections.
Sonic, on the other hand, does not do this as well. There are sections that work. Sonic builds speed, hits a few fish, bounces of a few bugs, but then hits a ramp and goes flying into the air with absolutely zero warning to the player as to what the next minute challenge will be. That is an abrupt halt to what the game tries to succeed at. Go really slow, jump up on a few moving platforms, find a few ring boxes, see a spring in front of you; but you just randomly jump on this thing? Take a leap of faith and either land or hit some spikes or some bugs. The levels are not layed out as thoughtfully as in a Mario game. There are even little sections where a spring will be placed on a wall and lead the player directly into a dead end a screen or two over--or into a slow as molasses walking section.
Sonic aims to be fast but it is actually a slower game than Mario.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment