Originally Posted by
Melf
They talk about how Mario wasn't created as a mascot and just became one, while Sonic was created specifically to be a mascot. They ignore how revolutionary and different the game was at the time. Sonic didn't sell anywhere just on his ' tude and his look. The fact that the game was actually good was what pushed sales.
And so what if he was marketed as a mascot? Did these guys forget that Sega was a business? Why wouldn't you do what was necessary to boost sales of your product?
They also complain that the game was just "go right and jump on things," as though that made the game too simplistic (and somehow different than just about a billion platformers of the time) but then proceed to show how much they suck at doing just that. The game being "unplayable" when going fast stems from their horrible skills, as you can see in the video. They ran into enemies that were clearly in view and avoidable, missed easy jumps, and just farted around like they had no idea what they were doing. And that's the game's fault? And Sonic's in the middle of the screen, but you can only see what's in the right half? WTF?
This proves that you can't win this debate with revisionists. Either Sonic sucks because all you do is hold right and run to the end of the screen, or it sucks because you have to slow down and avoid enemies and obstacles. God forbid the levels be designed to include both elements. God forbid you have to actually assess the part of the level you're in and decide how best to proceed. God forbid you think while playing!
Bookmarks