Overrating the underrated

Spazz · Post by **Spazz** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:50 pm

Omni Hunter wrote:Games are more than just play things, some are works of art like a shifting portait of creativity, ingenuity and resoursefulness.

And some are a port for boobies!

Locit · Post by **Locit** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:51 pm

Wait, someone came to a Sonic forum, then badmouthed Sonic games? Where was your logic? Was it out to lunch? Was your mind taking a siesta? I was playing Sonic the Hedgehog not ten minutes ago, and found myself thinking how much better looking it was than any of the Sonic Advance games. Of course, it didn't suck either.

Omni Hunter · Post by **Omni Hunter** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:56 pm

I agree, the Genesis games are much less cartoony.

kurosaki · Post by **kurosaki** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:08 pm

Yeah, they may be less cartoony, but the graphics, as in detail of sprites, are sooo much better!

Omni Hunter · Post by **Omni Hunter** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:17 pm

Have you listened to anything we said?
I disagree, the average Sonic Advance sprite is 33 pixels high, S3/K sprites average at 38 and include shading, lighting and the classic run with "wheel-legs" so there is no way the Advance sprites are more detailed. And let's not get into how the GBA has a smaller screen, I admit the level graphics are well done and so on but the sprites are crap.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:18 pm

This person makes absolutely no sense.

Omni Hunter · Post by **Omni Hunter** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:18 pm

Which one?

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:20 pm

What makes Sonic art and Halo not? Aside from your fanboy bias I mean.

kurosaki · Post by **kurosaki** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:23 pm

Omni Hunter · Post by **Omni Hunter** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:24 pm

I never said Halo was not art. If you READ THE POST then you will see I merely said that to draw comparison between two totally different games is pointless.

to compare Sonic The Hedgehog (as in 1)
to Halo or similar games is ignorant

There! See, I even quoted myself as proof. That is the only mention of Halo in the post, there is no mention of "It's crap" or "It's not art".

Oh and if I was a fanboy then I would own every pre-DC Sonic game which I do not. Take a look around, you may find that some of the forums most respected members are what you would call "Fanboys" so watch it.

kurosaki · Post by **kurosaki** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:30 pm

Okay, Halo has amazing polygon graphics.
Sonic has amazing sprite graphics.
The old Sonic games have better graphics than the GBA ones.
I am a complete idiot.
Better?

P.S.
I was wrong to compare a polygon game with a sprite game...

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:32 pm

Games are more than just play things, some are works of art like a shifting portait of creativity, ingenuity and resoursefulness.
Most old Sonic games fall into this category because of attention to detail and constant improvement with each sequel.
Sorry to sound soppy but to compare Sonic The Hedgehog (as in 1)
to Halo or similar games is ignorant.

You made no distinction whatsoever about tech levels. So to sum up.

Your post is about how artistic Sonic is. Then you say to compare Sonic to Halo is ignorant. You tell me what I'm supposed to get out of it.

Let's not even mention the fact that you stated nothing about "totally different games." And why should any comparison between two "totally different games" not take place. Is there some universal definition of what it means to be "totally different" because what I see is patterns of light that change based on user input. Drawing any distinction between games and using that as a basis for not comparing them is just a false illusion.

kurosaki · Post by **kurosaki** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:34 pm

*feels like he's supported by someone well-versed in the English language*

Omni Hunter · Post by **Omni Hunter** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:00 pm

If they aren't totally different then by all means tell me how they are really similar.
Let's see:
Different genre
Different time of release
Different market

Ok may not mean "polar-opposite" or "totally different" I admit but there certainly ARE differences.
As for the post in question it was an arguement against Kuro with a view which was shared by Popcorn, GG and Spazz.
Heres a summary:
-Some games are well recognised as incredible feats of art.
-Old Sonic game (i.e. Sonic 3) falls into this category.
-Pre-emptive apology (very important)
-Underlining that comparison of a simple 16 bit platform game made circa 1990 and a complex strategy game released in 2001 is to all extents ignorant which is an arguement that Kuro stated in his post.
I do believe that tech levels were also mentioned by Popcorn.

because what I see is patterns of light that change based on user input.

Then you must not be familiar with a lighting studio, tv or strobes, the list goes on...

In the end I respect Halo and the fact you and Kuro enjoy the game, all I desire is that older games are not made exempt from this aswell.
I'm just sorry the only arguement you could pull is an English literature lesson after I gave an explanation of my intentions.

It seem that Kuro is now familiar with the issue as he seen the key difference between both games and as such issued an apology which I accept and I sincerely hope that he is not put off this forum because of OUR behaviour.

Kuro- Okay, Halo has amazing polygon graphics.
Omni- One would agree...
Kumo- Sonic has amazing sprite graphics.
Omni- One would also agree...
Kumo- The old Sonic games have better graphics than the GBA ones.
Omni- Not strictly true, sprites only...
Kumo- I am a complete idiot.
Omni- You aren't, you made a valid arguement, never call yourself an idiot...

Thank you for a lovely arguement

Lots of love, Omni

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:11 pm

And I'm sorry that you have to fall back on brainless labels like "genre" which are truly meaningless. Seriously who gives a fuck about the old Sonic games. The last good one is more then a decade old and nobody still plays them seriously. Get over your nostalgia.

Dark Crow · Post by **Dark Crow** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:24 pm

If nobody cares about old Sonic anymore, then tell me why in the hell are we on this site at all now-a-days (and don't say nekkid boobies)? Seriously, the new Sonic games have been nothing short of utter disappointments for the last 2 or 3 years they've been released, and I guarantee that it's going to get worse before it gets better. Nostalgia is literally all we have left to hang onto now.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:28 pm

There is always hope.

Dark Crow · Post by **Dark Crow** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:30 pm

Hope is the quintessential human delusion. I seriously doubt Sonic will get better anytime soon.

Post by **Crazy Penguin** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:32 pm

It's not just nostalgia for me, they're some of the best pick-up-and-play games around even today.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:44 pm

I can wait it out Crow. It took four years between S&K and SA. I can wait another four years.

Dark Crow · Post by **Dark Crow** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:54 pm

But you have to remember that in the time of SA and beforehand, Sega still genuinely cared about their namesake mascot, and actually put in effort to make their games fun (well, the mainstream games at least). Now it's completely about the money that can be raked in with a marketable franchise, and no substantial game behind it.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:00 pm

I don't know how much Sega cared about Sonic before Sonic Adventure even.

Dark Crow · Post by **Dark Crow** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:10 pm

They obviously cared enough to make decent games, you have to give them that.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:12 pm

Sega whored out the Sonic license just as much before Sonic Adventure as they're doing now.

Dark Crow · Post by **Dark Crow** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:26 pm

But when Sega gave STI the Sonic license for 2, 3 and Knuckles, it was obvious that the studio had the necessary talents (Naka and Yasuhara mainly) for the sequels to bring justice to Sonic 1. Granted, the Sonic games by Travellers Tales were horrible, and by-and-large most of Sonic back catalogue was as well (the GG/Master System games), but now Sega have shown themselves completely incapable of creating any decent Sonic games, wether it being a 3D Sonic game developed inhouse, or a 2D one with Dimps at the helms.