Author: Mario_1
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
This looks like a great concept. I'm seeing a lot of people on other Internet forums jumping to negative conclusions about this before they even saw past the cover. Those are the kind of shallow, ignorant and idiotic gamers that I never want to be associated with.
Oh, and for the record, Shadow the Hedgehog was a great game. Fair enough, some people make some valid points against the game, but most people hating on it either haven't played it, or didn't know how to play it right.
quote Dragon ZERONot to mention that Sonic Rush Adventure should've been renamed to "Sonic and the Phantom Hourglass". Everyone who played it will know what I'm talking about.First wolf sonic now sword sonic?
Why don't they change the name from "sonic the Hedgehog" to "The Legend of Sonic."
Author: Barmy Brat
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
quote Mario_1How many times do you need to be told that there's a difference between a game being "good" and a game being "enjoyable"? Even if you enjoyed playing the game, saying it was "good" is still completely untrue because of the slew of flaws inherent with the game, including (but not limited to) poor aiming mechanics, bland level design coupled with low-poly character models and unappealing texturing, slippery controls and heck - several times while playing, I'd enter a room at a thousand miles an hour and the room itself didn't even load, sending me flying into a black void of nothing. Yes, parts of it were fun, but on no level was it a "good game"; Like it is possible to not enjoy a good game (I don't like anything Final Fantasy, for example), it is also possible to thoroughly enjoy a bad game. It's when you ignore a bad game's many flaws and say it's a "good game" anyway when you're moving away from subjective opinions and into more objective (and incorrect) reasoning.Oh, and for the record, Shadow the Hedgehog was a great game. Fair enough, some people make some valid points against the game, but most people hating on it either haven't played it, or didn't know how to play it right.
Also, there's a fairly good reason why people are appalled at "Sonic with a sword" and that is because it is ridiculously out of character. In every game prior to this one, Sonic has represented "nature" while Eggman has represented "machine". Even back in the original game for the Genesis, the game was primarily about nature fighting back against the machines. That's why Eggman used weapons and Sonic used his body; It was a contrast of characters that has worked in every Sonic game from then until now. Giving Sonic a weapon eliminates that distinction. "Nature" is now using man-made weapons to fight back, nullifying the charm and the "message" the games have always been about.
Author: Mario_1
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
You bring up some valid points... But then again, Tails works on hi-tech stuff all the time... And often ends up helping Sonic with it.
And in this case, it's just a sword and a gauntlet. It's not like Sonic's gonna use a gun or anythin' like that.
Author: Barmy Brat
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
Tails has always been the mid-point; The character from nature with a fascination for machines. Sonic and Eggman are the absolutes, the black and whites. Any game deviating from those character archetypes is missing the point entirely.
Author: KirbyHyrule
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
quote Barmy BratIts opnion barmy, opinion.quote Mario_1How many times do you need to be told that there's a difference between a game being "good" and a game being "enjoyable"? Even if you enjoyed playing the game, saying it was "good" is still completely untrue because of the slew of flaws inherent with the game, including (but not limited to) poor aiming mechanics, bland level design coupled with low-poly character models and unappealing texturing, slippery controls and heck - several times while playing, I'd enter a room at a thousand miles an hour and the room itself didn't even load, sending me flying into a black void of nothing. Yes, parts of it were fun, but on no level was it a "good game"; Like it is possible to not enjoy a good game (I don't like anything Final Fantasy, for example), it is also possible to thoroughly enjoy a bad game. It's when you ignore a bad game's many flaws and say it's a "good game" anyway when you're moving away from subjective opinions and into more objective (and incorrect) reasoning.Oh, and for the record, Shadow the Hedgehog was a great game. Fair enough, some people make some valid points against the game, but most people hating on it either haven't played it, or didn't know how to play it right.
Also, there's a fairly good reason why people are appalled at "Sonic with a sword" and that is because it is ridiculously out of character. In every game prior to this one, Sonic has represented "nature" while Eggman has represented "machine". Even back in the original game for the Genesis, the game was primarily about nature fighting back against the machines. That's why Eggman used weapons and Sonic used his body; It was a contrast of characters that has worked in every Sonic game from then until now. Giving Sonic a weapon eliminates that distinction. "Nature" is now using man-made weapons to fight back, nullifying the charm and the "message" the games have always been about.
Author: Barmy Brat
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
Thanks for not reading or comprehending the post, kirbyhyrule. Thanks a lot.
Author: Jesh
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
What defines a game as a hit is definitely not aan opnon, it's really based on what the masses think.
Also barmy you've provided me with some awesome insight to the Sonic series
Author: KirbyHyrule
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
quote Barmy Bratthere is nothing that says "good means that its a fact and enjoyable means you liked it." So you saying that good means he thinks that its a fact is actually just your opinion I guess.Thanks for not reading or comprehending the post, kirbyhyrule. Thanks a lot.
Author: DarkSpyro_Dragon
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
quote Barmy BratI agree with you 100% on that.Also, there's a fairly good reason why people are appalled at "Sonic with a sword" and that is because it is ridiculously out of character. In every game prior to this one, Sonic has represented "nature" while Eggman has represented "machine". Even back in the original game for the Genesis, the game was primarily about nature fighting back against the machines. That's why Eggman used weapons and Sonic used his body; It was a contrast of characters that has worked in every Sonic game from then until now. Giving Sonic a weapon eliminates that distinction. "Nature" is now using man-made weapons to fight back, nullifying the charm and the "message" the games have always been about.
Think about the Oil Ocean zone in Sonic 2. It was basically implying that machines are destrying the environment. The theme was that Robotnik's (I'm sorry, I refuse to call him eggman
) oil tanker was leaking oil and sonic had to go clean up the mess...yeah, it was something like that 
Author: Barmy Brat
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
quote kirbyhyrulei think you're an idiot who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about but hell i'll try explaining it again to you anywaythere is nothing that says "good means that its a fact and enjoyable means you liked it." So you saying that good means he thinks that its a fact is actually just your opinion I guess.
The difference between a "good game" and an "enjoyable game" is that a good game - no matter what your opinion of the genre/source material/console it's on - remains a good game. Like my earlier example, I really couldn't stand to play more than five seconds of any of the Final Fantasy games because they're not my cup of tea, but I'm not so blind I can't see that, on their own merits, they're (generally) very good games. The same works in reverse. While I must admit I largely enjoyed Shadow the Hedgehog (somewhat of a guilty pleasure), I would by no means consider it a good game. It's buggy, has bland and uninspired artwork/environments, contains several broken gameplay mechanics, etc etc. A game with all these flaws is not a "good game" by any definition, however it was enjoyable - to me - on a subjective level. That's where "opinion" comes into it: Enjoying a bad game is subjective, an opinion. Disliking a good game is subjective, an opinion. These opinions, however, do not change the quality of the games themselves.
I really do wish you'd stop posting about things you quite clearly do not understand in the slightest. At the very least, don't latch on to an argument you can't follow.
Author: Theory of Chaos
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
Sonic runs. Sonic takes down the bad guy. Sonic wins. No excess, one-sided characters. No unnessicarily complicated plot. No weapons. Just Sonic fighting Eggman. This formula is not only classic, but it works. Wonderfully, I might add. What's the most puzzling about this whole situation is the fact that SEGA doesn't seem to grasp this concept.
A game doesn't need a new character or gimmick in order to be good: it just needs to be well made. Let's fix the camera before giving the characters guns. Tighten the control before giving Sonic a love interest. Make the game worth playing before putting in another (Blank) the (Animal).
I know I'm giving this game shit before even hearing anything about it, but SEGA and SonicTeam need to understand that they have something good in their hands before they bury it under all the filth that has come out in the past years. Replay the GBA games. They're wonderful. Pop in Sonic CD. It's a classic. Dust off your Dreamcast and sit down to some Sonic Adventure. That's how a 3D Sonic game should be. But take out the other five playable characters and simplify the plot. What do you have?
Just a little guy running around trying to save the world. And that's what we need.[/rant]
Author: MusiKon
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
Wait, this isn't what the "Wii version" of Sonic Unleashed is, is it?
Author: Enigmatic Man
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
quoteYou have too admit, we all have good reason too.I know I'm giving this game shit before even hearing anything about it,
I gave up on sega when it was announced that 50% of Sonic Unleashed would be spent playing the wolf. If I wanted an action game I would play Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry, yet Sonic seems hell bent on entering every possibly genre and being as mediocre as possible every time.
quoteBloody hope notWait, this isn't what the "Wii version" of Sonic Unleashed is, is it?
----
And about 'opinions', whats the point of a debate/arguement if your going to shield it behind an opinion. Do we want a discussion or not?
Author: Cruxis Mana
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
Early concept art has been uncovered:
Author: Theory of Chaos
Date: (PT)
Subject: re: Sonic and the Black Knight - Spring 2009
-------------------------------------------
Epic.