There's no "Super" in "Marble Blast Ultra".
No there isnt... Thinking of Super Monkey Ball as well.
Yay! I'm not the only one that doesn't care one way or the other whether they're old or not. Hell, even Shadow I enjoyed because even though the story sucked I thought it was fun doing missions instead of the usual "Get to the Goal Ring" (some missions made me pull out my hair, but I enjoyed it overall)
I don't like the argument that the older games can be played without other people thinking "Why are they playing a kid's game?" because it's Sonic, they are kid's games. Yeah, the dialogue for more recent stuff is really stupid, but if you're having fun does it really matter that much?
Yeah, the missions on Shadow were a crapshoot, with most of them being suicidally awful (Kill the Artificial Chaos, anyone?) but a few were enjoyable, especially the "Chase the craft" levels, like the one on the highway, or less so, the one in the airship.
I don't like the argument that the older games can be played without other people thinking "Why are they playing a kid's game?" because it's Sonic, they are kid's games. Yeah, the dialogue for more recent stuff is really stupid, but if you're having fun does it really matter that much?
I've not seen that argument here, anyone who would use it would get a verbal thrashing from many here, myself included. 😛
Generally I think the idea is that a kids game, or a child friendly game, will be crap, which isn't without merit, games based on under 4's TV shows or Power Rangers are likely to be terrible, but then they're also licensed games. However a kiddy game isn't by default a bad one, Mario games and the majority of the Zelda games have plush or cartoony visual and are considered the greatest franchises in the industry by many. I'd argue that being kiddy can be liberating, you don't have to apply realistic physics to the universe, and games as out there as Katamari and Locoroco would never work without their unrealistic visuals, mechanics, and charm.
This poster in another forum, claims that the 3D games are 'too kiddy.' Now despite the fact that 2D games were way more cartoony with cutesy animals
The 2D games had a more universal appeal. There was no dialog, just Sonic (and Tails) doing his thing and looking SERIOUS BUSINESS doing it, despite the colorful settings and 'cute widdle aminals'.
The 3D games brought us "WE ALL DID IT TOGETHER", "THE REAL POWER OF TEAMWORK" and "BUT THE SPHINX LOOKED SO CUTE, I HAD TO SHAVE IT".
Hahaha! XD
I don't like the argument that the older games can be played without other people thinking "Why are they playing a kid's game?" because it's Sonic, they are kid's games. Yeah, the dialogue for more recent stuff is really stupid, but if you're having fun does it really matter that much?
I've not seen that argument here, anyone who would use it would get a verbal thrashing from many here, myself included. 😛
Generally I think the idea is that a kids game, or a child friendly game, will be crap, which isn't without merit, games based on under 4's TV shows or Power Rangers are likely to be terrible, but then they're also licensed games. However a kiddy game isn't by default a bad one, Mario games and the majority of the Zelda games have plush or cartoony visual and are considered the greatest franchises in the industry by many. I'd argue that being kiddy can be liberating, you don't have to apply realistic physics to the universe, and games as out there as Katamari and Locoroco would never work without their unrealistic visuals, mechanics, and charm.
If anything, you'd think some of the games least likely to be considered "kiddy" (which I would presume would be the M-rated ones) would be something to NOT expect to be better; the kind of things that would result in an M-rating would be more likely to be the kinds of things that would spark controversy, and in turn generate free advertising...
I don't like the argument that the older games can be played without other people thinking "Why are they playing a kid's game?" because it's Sonic, they are kid's games. Yeah, the dialogue for more recent stuff is really stupid, but if you're having fun does it really matter that much?
I've not seen that argument here, anyone who would use it would get a verbal thrashing from many here, myself included. 😛
Generally I think the idea is that a kids game, or a child friendly game, will be crap, which isn't without merit, games based on under 4's TV shows or Power Rangers are likely to be terrible, but then they're also licensed games. However a kiddy game isn't by default a bad one, Mario games and the majority of the Zelda games have plush or cartoony visual and are considered the greatest franchises in the industry by many. I'd argue that being kiddy can be liberating, you don't have to apply realistic physics to the universe, and games as out there as Katamari and Locoroco would never work without their unrealistic visuals, mechanics, and charm.
If anything, you'd think some of the games least likely to be considered "kiddy" (which I would presume would be the M-rated ones) would be something to NOT expect to be better; the kind of things that would result in an M-rating would be more likely to be the kinds of things that would spark controversy, and in turn generate free advertising...
Well, yes, that has happened in the past, even a favourite of mine Mortal Kombat used violence and gore as a means of grabbing the public's attention. It's easy to do, so easy gore has become mundane today and a giant mole with a laser boomerang and a greenfly sidekick is obscure and outlandish.
The problem with the perspective you're presenting is that people might shun critically acclaimed games such as God of War or Ninja Gaiden due to the assumption that they're overcompensating the gore for a lack of quality. I'd rather people would test the water a bit more before forming an opinion.
I don't like the argument that the older games can be played without other people thinking "Why are they playing a kid's game?" because it's Sonic, they are kid's games. Yeah, the dialogue for more recent stuff is really stupid, but if you're having fun does it really matter that much?
I've not seen that argument here, anyone who would use it would get a verbal thrashing from many here, myself included. 😛
Generally I think the idea is that a kids game, or a child friendly game, will be crap, which isn't without merit, games based on under 4's TV shows or Power Rangers are likely to be terrible, but then they're also licensed games. However a kiddy game isn't by default a bad one, Mario games and the majority of the Zelda games have plush or cartoony visual and are considered the greatest franchises in the industry by many. I'd argue that being kiddy can be liberating, you don't have to apply realistic physics to the universe, and games as out there as Katamari and Locoroco would never work without their unrealistic visuals, mechanics, and charm.
If anything, you'd think some of the games least likely to be considered "kiddy" (which I would presume would be the M-rated ones) would be something to NOT expect to be better; the kind of things that would result in an M-rating would be more likely to be the kinds of things that would spark controversy, and in turn generate free advertising...
Well, yes, that has happened in the past, even a favourite of mine Mortal Kombat used violence and gore as a means of grabbing the public's attention. It's easy to do, so easy gore has become mundane today and a giant mole with a laser boomerang and a greenfly sidekick is obscure and outlandish.
The problem with the perspective you're presenting is that people might shun critically acclaimed games such as God of War or Ninja Gaiden due to the assumption that they're overcompensating the gore for a lack of quality. I'd rather people would test the water a bit more before forming an opinion.
Of course. They should look at it on its own merits, or if not, at least not jump to conclusions about it. But my point was more that IF anything you'd think it'd be the other way around, not that I like for people to jump to conclusions either way...
