Is the Sonic Cycle a Myth?

[GSZX1337]

The Sonic Cycle will probably go down as a brief period in Gaming History where Sega lost their shit and didn't know what to do with their icon. Assuming that Sega doesn't lose their shit again.

Eh, I don't think it's that handhelds aren't the same "class", it's just that Sonic is a console franchise. It's just like how people don't really count the console Pokemon games.

But in the Sonic games' case, the handheld games are better than the console games that people are associating with the series.

I completely agree with BurningDoom and ZeroAX in that for about a decade, the handheld titles were the only good Sonic games. However, they don't get the same attention as the console games. Not that they deserve to be cast aside, it's just that franchises such as Sonic have their console titles given a higher level of importance and attention. It's like this with Zelda, Mario, Jak, Ratchet & Clank, etc. This perception is probably the most prevalent with PC game franchises. I mean, how many people really talk about Duke Nukem: Time to Kill or StarCraft 64.

I REALLY enjoyed Sonic and the Secret Rings. I can't be the only one, can I?

I haven't played Sonic and the Secret Rings, but I have played its "sequel": Sonic and the Black Knight, which was fucking terrible.

[ZeroAX]

So you played the game once...and are debating the merits of how good it is? Huh. With no clicky thumbstick and being dragged down by an emulator, at that.

I was able to judge its level design by that playthrough. Why is it that hard to accept that someone considers one game better than the other? Just say you disagree, you don't have to try to lower the value of my opinion.

And I repeat that I think 8-bit is just not strong enough to do Sonic justice. It's like trying to make a GTA game on the PSone. It can be fun, but the open world environment can hardly be as good as the PS2 and above games.

[dsheinem]

The Sonic Cycle was in full force during the mid 2000s. You can't blame Sonic Adventure & Sonic Adventure 2 in that mix because between the two games.... it was new and it was the semi start.

The place to start the cycle is Sonic Heroes up until Sonic 06.

LOL! So the Sonic Cycle was only 3 years?

No. The Sonic Adventure games absolutely fall into the "screens provide hope of triumphant return" followed by "pictures of new and troubling things" followed by "massive disappointment". Sonic's first 3D game to provide a compelling 3D version of what the 2D games offered, in my mind, is inarguably Sonic Colors. Yes, as you said, everything before was a "semi-start" but they were also tremendously horrid.

I suggested before in this thread that (on consoles) the cycle lasted 1996-2010, and I stand by that assertion pretty firmly. Did various games along the way have redeeming/decent parts? Yes. Did any single game approach the overall quality that marked the series prior to 1996? Not even close. I'm not alone in this sentiment - basic research will show you that the qualitative impressions of most "regular gamers" posting about these games online at the time of their releases as well as the "professional" review scores for every game in the series during this period fall far below the scores that Sonic games prior to 1996 and since 2010 have received.

[alienjesus]

The Sonic Cycle was in full force during the mid 2000s. You can't blame Sonic Adventure & Sonic Adventure 2 in that mix because between the two games.... it was new and it was the semi start.

The place to start the cycle is Sonic Heroes up until Sonic 06.

LOL! So the Sonic Cycle was only 3 years?

No. The Sonic Adventure games absolutely fall into the "screens provide hope of triumphant return" followed by "pictures of new and troubling things" followed by "massive disappointment". Sonic's first 3D game to provide a compelling 3D version of what the 2D games offered, in my mind, is inarguably Sonic Colors. Yes, as you said, everything before was a "semi-start" but they were also tremendously horrid.

I suggested before in this thread that (on consoles) the cycle lasted 1996-2010, and I stand by that assertion pretty firmly. Did various games along the way have redeeming/decent parts? Yes. Did any single game approach the overall quality that marked the series prior to 1996? Not even close. I'm not alone in this sentiment - basic research will show you that the qualitative impressions of most "regular gamers" posting about these games online at the time of their releases as well as the "professional" review scores for every game in the series during this period fall far below the scores that Sonic games prior to 1996 and since 2010 have received.

Whilst I certainly agree with you that the Sonic Adventure games were pretty poor, I disagree with them being the start of the Sonic cycle. At the time of their release, they were quite well received and whilst maybe not given the greatest review scores of the series, were given pretty good ones. It wasn't until the likes of Sonic Heroes that the cycle truly began amongst the fans. I also agree that while the likes of Sonic 4 Episode 1 and Sonic Unleashed were starting to step up their game, they still very much fell into the same old cycle - quite probably because they seemed at first to offer exactly what people wanted, and then they revealed the werehog, or people saw the wonkly physics and it was all ruined. At least some of the earlier ones had the issues on display from the outset. Sonic Colors was definitely the turning point for console sonic games post Mega Drive.

I personally never worried about the sonci series on console too much, I was too busy enjoying Sonic Advance and Sonic Rush.

[Menegrothx]

I'm not alone in this sentiment - basic research will show you that the qualitative impressions of most "regular gamers" posting about these games online at the time of their releases as well as the "professional" review scores for every game in the series during this period fall far below the scores that Sonic games prior to 1996 and since 2010 have received.

Sonic Colors and even Generations both got quite lukewarm receptions though. Quite many reviewers (who love Sonic 1-3) seemed to think: "The 2D sonic is finally back after all these years! Too bad half of the game is filled with ADHD modern Sonic. It's a decent game, 7/10". I personally think Generations is one of the best 3D platformers of all time, but despite that it has few bad levels (whose great idea it was to include Sonic 2006 in the game while ignoring Sonic CD and Sonic&Knuckles?) and the final boss was God awful.

[Gamerforlife]

Ugh, this nonsense again. The Sonic Adventure games were both very well received, and they DID successfully transition Sonic to 3D. All of the Sonic and Shadow levels were excellent. Where they messed up a bit was with some of the other characters.

I'm tired of this myth that the series went downhill with the Sonic Adventure games. It's the gamers of today essentially trying to rewrite history with this falsehood that everyone was disappointed by the Sonic Adventure games. Ten years from now, everyone will be saying the same thing about Generations, which interestingly enough, have a lower gamerankings average than the Sonic Adventure games had when they came out. I was there when those games out. I bought both titles when they came out and had my finger on the pulse of the gaming community of the time. People enjoyed them, and one look at gamerankings shows you that their overall review score percentage is in line with the 16-bit entries.

I'll admit though, there were some issues some people had with Sonic Adventure 2 and its overuse of side characters, but sentiment towards the series was still good overall.

The cycle officially begins post Dreamcast with Sonic Heroes in 2003 and REALLY kicks in when Shadow the Hedgehog came out. Sonic the Hedgehog in '06 is probably went most fans wrote the series off

[dsheinem]

I was there when those games out. I bought both titles when they came out and had my finger on the pulse of the gaming community of the time. People enjoyed them, and one look at gamerankings shows you that their overall review score percentage is in line with the 16-bit entries.

I was there too, and that's not at all how I remember it. While the SA games were a step up in many ways from everything since Sonic and Knuckles, The Sonic Adventure games still didn't meet the quality standards of the 2D Sonic titles. While they have some decent levels across them, the final product in both cases was wildly inconsistent. You are right that they haven't aged well and that shapes how people think of them now (whereas the 2D games have aged quite well), but I also was far from alone in not thinking highly of them at the time, either.

I did check the Gamerankings page, and they don't really offer much in the way of reviews from when the SA games came out. They tell me that "we love almost everything" Gamepro gave SA a 5/5, the UK version of DC magazine gave it a 9/10, and a pair of other pubs that I'd never heard of gave it a score in the 8/10 range. SA2 performed pretty similarly. Both games average in the mid 80s, but I'd think that the original Genesis titles (which they don't have records of) would have ranked (on average) at least 10 points higher. That's a significant drop in quality. Genesis Sonic games = A quality, DC Sonic games = B quality.

It's hard to argue that the Sonic games are amongst the very best (top 10 or so) titles on the DC. It is hard to argue that the Sonic games aren't amongst the very best titles on the Genesis.

[alienjesus]

I did check the Gamerankings page, and they don't really offer much in the way of reviews from when the SA games came out. They tell me that "we love almost everything" Gamepro gave SA a 5/5, the UK version of DC magazine gave it a 9/10, and a pair of other pubs that I'd never heard of gave it a score in the 8/10 range. SA2 performed pretty similarly. Both games average in the mid 80s, but I'd think that the original Genesis titles (which they don't have records of) would have ranked (on average) at least 10 points higher. That's a significant drop in quality. It's hard to argue that the Sonic games are amongst the very best (top 10 or so)titles on the DC. It is hard to argue that the Sonic games aren't amongst the very best titles on the Genesis.

But equally this doesn't really make them representative of the sonic cycle. Maybe they weren't considered as polished as the 16 bit games even when they came out, but they were considered to be good, and a mid 80s rankign certainly isnt terrible. Hell, Colors and Generations both have a high 70s ranking on that site.

Both games might be considered the start of the downturn nowadays, but I honestly think that's because they've just aged badly. They don't rate badly compared to the real sonic cycle games like Shadow the Hedgehog (low 50 percents on gamerankings), Sonic 2006 (high 40s), Sonic & The Black Knight (mid 50s) or Sonic Unleashed (low 60s).

I'd argue it would be hard to place either Colors or Generations as one of the top 10 for their respective consoles either, it doesn't mean they aren't considered good games.

[dsheinem]

I did check the Gamerankings page, and they don't really offer much in the way of reviews from when the SA games came out. They tell me that "we love almost everything" Gamepro gave SA a 5/5, the UK version of DC magazine gave it a 9/10, and a pair of other pubs that I'd never heard of gave it a score in the 8/10 range. SA2 performed pretty similarly. Both games average in the mid 80s, but I'd think that the original Genesis titles (which they don't have records of) would have ranked (on average) at least 10 points higher. That's a significant drop in quality. It's hard to argue that the Sonic games are amongst the very best (top 10 or so)titles on the DC. It is hard to argue that the Sonic games aren't amongst the very best titles on the Genesis.

But equally this doesn't really make them representative of the sonic cycle. Maybe they weren't considered as polished as the 16 bit games even when they came out, but they were considered to be good, and a mid 80s rankign certainly isnt terrible. Hell, Colors and Generations both have a high 70s ranking on that site.

Both games might be considered the start of the downturn nowadays, but I honestly think that's because they've just aged badly. They don't rate badly compared to the real sonic cycle games like Shadow the Hedgehog (low 50 percents on gamerankings), Sonic 2006 (high 40s), Sonic & The Black Knight (mid 50s) or Sonic Unleashed (low 60s).

I'd argue it would be hard to place either Colors or Generations as one of the top 10 for their respective consoles either, it doesn't mean they aren't considered good games.

Fair points all.

I guess it is fair to say that my "own" Sonic Cycle started with the last Genesis title (3D Blast) and continued until Colors. For each game - including the SA games - I was hyped, then worried, then disappointed. I get that the SA games don't neatly fit into that infopicgraphchart thingy, but my experiences with them were largely equivalent to my experiences with the games you seem more comfortable putting in there.

[BurningDoom]

So you played the game once...and are debating the merits of how good it is? Huh. With no clicky thumbstick and being dragged down by an emulator, at that.

I was able to judge its level design by that playthrough. Why is it that hard to accept that someone considers one game better than the other? Just say you disagree, you don't have to try to lower the value of my opinion.

And I repeat that I think 8-bit is just not strong enough to do Sonic justice. It's like trying to make a GTA game on the PSone. It can be fun, but the open world environment can hardly be as good as the PS2 and above games.

No, I just don't think that a valid opinion of a game can be formed with only playing once, and that playthrough being dragged down by an emulator. NGPC emulators are few and most of them aren't very good.

And BTW, NGPC is 16-bit, not 8-bit. Which would be why it looks like a Genesis game.

Nothing personal against you. Never meant to offend you or anything.