>play game
>it's dogshit
>years pass
>people say they love it
is nostalgia that blinding that it can make people like horrible games?
>play game
>play game
>it's dogshit
>years pass
>people say they love it
is nostalgia that blinding that it can make people like horrible games?
More that a younger generation of people hold an affinity for it in part. But I don’t like to make accusations of nostalgia but more standards set in those formative years. I can see the potential in Sonic Unleashed daytime levels and appreciate their challenge. But Sonics controls are terrible to the point if I try to go backward the game sometimes actually bugs out Sonic and the camera. Sonic Generations improved what Unleashed built and made it palatable but now because of it and porting the levels to Generations people make the argument that Unleashed is a hidden gem. I thought it sucked and playing it again last year I think worse of it and am confused beyond belief in the shift in viewpoints on the game.
This is an example of what I see, could attribute it to Herors but think that’s more low hanging fruit.
It's funny, I grew up playing all the sonic games up untill heroes and loved them (born 1999). When I tried unleashed, colours and black knight at an older age I thought they were boring and not that great.
Now people younger than me have an affinity for the games I didn't like. It's a generational thing, people will look more fondly on the games they played before the ages of 8-9 than games they played after those ages.
Some extra notes
>Yes I think adventure 1 is still a good game
>No, I don't think heroes is good
>I want Sega to make a new tails adventure
>New sonic the fighters please
>Shadow the hedgehog has only gotten better the older I get
Nostalgia and affinity for the past are basically the same thing. If you can admit something is flawed compared to another thing but still admire it because it was from your childhood, then you are being nostalgic as the OP described.
I also think you are correct, in that in addition to nostalgia changing one's viewpoints of the past, your age and where you are in life greatly affects how you will like things in the present and future, and even how you feel about things you used to like. Food is an obvious example; People's taste buds change over time and certain foods become more or less palatable. Sports fans have commented too that when they are younger, they associate more with the players, but when they are older they look at the bigger picture, from a manager's perspective. It's just natural to change your outlooks and viewpoints on all sorts of things. That's one thing I find somewhat insidious about the "does this still hold up" argument, because people who revisit something from their early years are not the same people they once were, so it's more like "do I still like this?" than "is this old thing still good?" but they seem to think it's always the latter.
I think in the end, people want different things out of games, and there will almost always be people who like a game. There are instances where people know it's bad but like a certain part enough to still like it, or times when people genuinely think its a good game and don't see the flaws in the same way. Perspective is such a strong thing that it always makes it weird to hear people argue for more "objective" views, that's a whole other topic.
Didn't like Adventure 1, but always had a soft spot for The Fighters and Heroes, for some reason.
"Objective" viewpoints are the most bullshit thing you can possibly attempt to debate in any art form. The only thing objective about games is the code that they execute. Everything else is open to interpretation, and attempts to "objectively" prove a game's quality (or any art form for that matter) is ultimately just someone wanting to desperately assert that their feelings are exactly correct and perfect to everyone. The entire notion of "objective quality" is an oxymoron, it's utterly absurd. There is absolutely no basis for this fallacy, and yet some people insist that because they see enough people agree that it must be undeniable. What it comes down to is people simply abusing words and demonstrating their own ignorance.
Yes, that's roughly what I think. It's such a good way to troll others though, so it gets used so often.
In this case, yes. The love that Sonic Heroes gets, in particular, absolutely isn't rational. Game is just awful and I wince every time somebody speaks of it highly.
like I get that people have many different reasons for liking or disliking things and it doesn't really matter if somebody likes Heroes in the end despite the game's flaws. but it's the case of Heroes specifically where it drives me crazy. this game just doesn't deserve the love, at all.
Can't tell if bait, but isn't that more of a personal problem? Like and dislike what you like, anon, but it reminds me of friends who would feel disgusted by the love some B movies get compared to something with more time in the oven. Not liking something is fine. Not liking that someone else likes something is some Ganker behavior.
If you thought my post of all things is bait I got think assume that you are one unstable motherfricker. I literally went out of my way to be understanding and you're still being a little b***h to me.
Woah there, anon. Chill out. I'm just curious as to why the emotion is so heavy with that game specifically. A lot of people like Sonic R even though I hate it, but it doesn't bother me much.
Sorry, I was being genuine and got frustrated to see somebody suggesting that I wasn't. I realize that my hangup over Heroes is personal.
It's a game that I was incredibly hyped for and it just did not deliver for me. It wasn't as fun as the Adventure games and the similarities to the classics were only skin-deep. I was also pretty frustrated with how nonchalantly Shadow was reintroduced and the game's largely condescending tone with its many, many annoying in-game voice clips. It wasn't particularly pretty either and despite having three characters simultaneously at my disposal I mostly felt more limited than playing as Adventure-style Sonic standalone.
What really clinches my disdain for this game is that I've repeatedly went back to it over the years. Even going in with a charitable mood I always come away disappointed and annoyed with the state of what comes across as an extremely misguided, unfun, half-baked game.
Ultimately it's hard for me to look at Heroes praise very charitably based on my experience. But yeah, I realize this isn't something that matters and it's not my place to dictate to other people to disown the game or anything. people like what they like.
All fair, anon. I thought you were being genuine, no worries. Honestly, I can barely play most 3D Sonic games since they hit my motion sickness like a truck, but SA2DX was worth the trouble, for the most part. I only got to play Heroes long after its release and way into the Sonic dark ages, so what I got out of it was a saturated, low-poly, unique Sonic game that didn't seem too bad. Really liked the level aesthetics, but was always sad that they didn't expand on stuff like the Chao gardens.
I think what colors my perspective is that I always had people to bounce opinions off of, like how my little brother just loved Shadow the Hedgehog. At first, I couldn't stand how silly and edgy it was, and while I still am not a fan of where they took things, I can sorta see where my brother comes from when he says he likes it. Can definitely see how the disappointment made ya hate it. Valid opinion, like I said before.
People keep memeing the bad Sonic games as good, making the dumbshits who have bad taste actually think they're in good company.
I have some nostalgia for it but I still think it was bad. the only good part was the train canyon section.
I grew up with it so I'm aware it's nostalgia on some level, but I'm very fond of it. Some high points:
>Vibrant, colourful graphics reminiscent of the genesis games, I still think it's a good looking game today
>Soundtrack especially https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCbZddJt_V0
>The speed/power/fly thing is actually cool and the levels do a good job at utilising it, sometimes letting you take different paths depending on your choice of archetype
>Fun to play, but that's subjective
Bad points I have to admit:
>Speed controls are very imprecise and slippery
>Glitches that cause death such as light speed ring dashes and rail switching not working as it should
>Levels can go on too long, but Team Rose solves that if you just stick to playing them
>Bonus levels are absolute dogshit
I unironically think though some people just get filtered by this game because it's too hard for them
heroes is braindead difficulty-wise. it's just tedious.
Ganker works this way:
>Is [thing] popular? Then it sucks
>Is [thing] not popular? Then it's good/not that bad/niche
>Is popular [thing] not popular anymore? Then in retrospect was good/not bad after all/decent
>Is not popular [thing] now popular? Then it was always shit/I never liked it/it lost its soul
Never trust Ganker, even when it says the truth
>Verification not required.
Ganker leans negative, dumb, and troll-centric which is why you see literally anything and everything get heaped with hate. it's really hat simple.
heroes deserves the hate though
forgot I was in Ganker for a second but honestly this place isn't much different discourse-wise. it's the same base of crazy morons.
I don't know how bad Ganker has gotten in the past 7 years or so, but Ganker isn't that close yet. There's definitely a spot of Ganker mixed into the brew, but there's enough people who aren't broken that you can get into a good conversation more often than not.
this thread is too tl;dr it sucks ass. frick you
It's because things have gotten so much worse that they seem better by comparison.
It's called the Star Wars Sequel Effect. Star Wars sequel movies have retroactively lessened a lot of prequel bashing even though much of that bashing was warranted