Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Forum devoted to Sonic the Hedgehog, Sonic Universe and the entire Sonic line by Archie Comics.

Do you prefer Mainline Sonic to run on Internal or External logic?

Internal
17
77%
External
1
5%
Either one
4
18%
 
Total votes : 22

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby DJGameFreakTheIguana » Wed Dec 30, 2015 3:22 am

RaceProUK wrote:Did I say 'hate'? No.

I'm well aware of what you said, nor did I, in anyway or form, say those were your words. The rest that followed after "for no good reason", was something I brought up to support why there's no real reason for calling the surfboard scene stupid, while there is a mountain of reasons to say the same of Pontaff writing for modern Sonic games.

Mordum wrote:It's not a fact because that's not the case in the post right before yours.

Why are you citing a single post to argue against a point made by the actions of a group of people prior to the conversation? As if it was something that changed at that very second? It's even more confusing when you did this to say that the statement in itself was not a fact, when it's as clear as day.

I assume the irony of you interpreting people's opinions based on your preconceived notions of what they should represent is basically the debate version of "external logic" is lost on you, too.

It's even more ironic when you say this while ignoring the behavior of said opinions in order to rhetorically argue with no supporting point other then to say "you're wrong" with nothing to back that up as well. I also said in my first post here that I'm not debating this, I'm wondering why it's even a debate in the first place when External logic has not done any good for the franchise, and people having a different opinion without anything to support them is not good enough, nor has it ever been in any debate I've been in before. If you even have to use other people's opinions to push your own arguments when you're not supporting anything yourself, leaves you dead in the water for the discussion entirely. Going by the ongoing argument where you refuse to acknowledge the truth for god knows why, also tells me a few things as well.

While I don't mean to be personal, looking back at how this started:
Mordum wrote:
ToaArcan wrote:Was anything actually gained by switching to External? All I've really seen is Genwunners getting nostalgic for a super-light-and-kiddy Mega Drive era Sonic that... just doesn't exist.

Or that's all you want to see, maybe, as it allows you to use cheesy internet slang to enforce a really closed-in, short sighted dichotomy.


your actions altogether since responding to that post by ToaArcan seem, shady, at best.
User avatar
DJGameFreakTheIguana
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:46 am

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby The KKM » Wed Dec 30, 2015 4:10 am

If you really want to get into "you can't use your opinion in a debate what I'm saying is true and what you are saying is false", then can you prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, the change to an external logic has damaged the series? Where's your peer-reviewed scientific studies proving, without a shadow of a doubt, making it FACT, that it's damaging the games?

I mean, look at what you're writing.

"It's even more ironic when you say this while ignoring the behavior of said opinions in order to rhetorically argue with no supporting point"

Opinions have no behaviour. Opinions are not an entity that acts in specific ways, unless you want to get into high-level discussion of memetics, and even then it's a flimsy argument when the behavious is always of those opining, not of the opinion itself.

"I'm wondering why it's even a debate in the first place when External logic has not done any good for the franchise, and people having a different opinion without anything to support them is not good enough, nor has it ever been in any debate I've been in before."

Good thing that's not what Mordum said, but rather that ToaArcan was falsely dychotomizing anyone who might prefer external logic as being a "genwunner". Which is not really up for discussion, because if the postulating is "everyone who has opinion X is Y" and if someone comes along and says "I have opinion X but am Z", then the postulating's disproven immediately. Only way out here would be some bizarre application of fallacies.

This is not a hard concept to grasp, this branch of discussion isn't about external logic or internal logic, it's that you can't generalise how the people who disagree with you are and expect that to fly as an argument. No longer how much you (or ToaArcan in this case) insist the only people who'd prefer external logic are "genwunners", all it takes is for one person (in this case, Mordum) who doesn't apply to the definition of "genwunner" but still prefers external logic for you to be wrong.
User avatar
The KKM
BumbleClan
 
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:40 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby Mordum » Wed Dec 30, 2015 4:33 am

"For no good reason." My favorite era of Sonic is the Adventure era, and I think there're plenty of reasons to dislike it. They're all mediocre, if fun, platformers, and from a strict story writing perspective...do not resemble the story we were previously, minimalistically, being told. Even with Japanese manuals, it's still, at most, a continuation of a series's backstory and mythology in a context that mythology was not actually originally built to have. They included it in this new-near Earth setting, but that doesn't mean it was intended to exist there. The Adventure era ISN'T a logical continuation of the series as much as it's a new beginning that happens to have the old games as backstory, and now focuses entirely on a brand new set of themes, motifs, and perspectives.

Sonic Adventure 2's disconnect with the wider series up to that point is immense. What character is reasonably enhanced by the storyline presented in that game that we knew previously? We learn nothing new about Sonic that's a real organic evolution of what we previously knew (so he resembles the "ultimate lifeform"...so what? It has nothing to do with his emotional development or growth). Tails's arc from Adventure 1 is essentially repeated. Knuckles gets a cute romance, and Rouge is one of my favorite characters, but neither of their arcs are particularly essential to the resolution of the story. Amy has a nice moment with Shadow, but it doesn't tell anything we didn't already know about her.

The only character with any REAL arc, besides Eggman's weird, hamfisted resolution to do good at the end of the game, is Shadow. A character introduced IN that game. Now, since I actually appreciate the fact you're willing to play the snark game and fight me back (and that's not sarcasm, this board gets way too sensitive too easily), I want to ask you a genuine question that I think you can handle: in what sensible story structure based around archetypal, heroic adventure fiction do we follow a single character whose main goal and method of conflict is saving a mass of animals (and then people suddenly) only to tell a story specifically about contrasting his morality and presence with a dark double...that also gives no actual insight into the character who serves as our frame of reference, but the guest character instead. The entire purpose of doing that kind of contrast in a heroic adventure story like that one is to give more insight into the the protagonist; that's why we have foils at all. But Shadow doesn't exist to give any insight to our protagonist; instead, the entire cast more or less eventually exists to propel the arc of a character we've only just met.

That's not a Sonic story. If I'm generous, that's a backdoor pilot; the symbiote before becoming the Lethal Protector. If I'm less than generous? That's a Mary Sue fanfic dolled up as Die Hard. And believe me, I HATE the phrase Mary Sue and don't even hold much stock in it, but this checks a lot of the buttons really hard. Sonic Adventure 2 has no real desire to actually continue whatever story the staff is pretending to tell. As much as I disagree with it, people can at least argue that Sonic Adventure 1 is some progression from Sonic 3. I think that's dubious, but the thread has shown they can at least present a valid argument for that. It's much more difficult to argue that for Sonic Adventure 2, I'd wager. None of the questions, whether moral or literal, presented in the story grows from ANY previous game's story, and all these new themes are condensed into a character that, as of the story's writing, was truly intended to have that one appearance, even if NONE of the characters actually got any new insight into their deals based on his presence.

This is why I think the dichotomy between "internal" and "external" logic, as if these are the only rubrics through which to analyze these stories, is completely false. If SA2 is Sonic as its highest depth, a zenith of storytelling sophistication that HAS to be returned to...then you know what? I DON'T want that. Because that type of storytelling, when it actually happened, did nothing to fundamentally change or alter my perception of the characters I loved. None of its questions or interesting themes actually apply to the cast I loved, and ended as soon as a character who has NOTHING to do with anyone outside of being mistaken for the protagonist left (and then resumed with him coming back). And you know, Metal Overlord is my single favorite game villain? Nothing about Metal Overlord really applies to Sonic either, as much as it has fascinating implications ABOUT Sonic that we're not addressing because...well, we're addressing them with Shadow instead.

It's not that the Adventure era isn't a Sonic story. It's that it's not Sonic's story, even though the series has his name on it. And it comes to a point where I have to sit back and wonder what the benefit of "internal logic" really does for Sonic's character arc...which is to say, it doesn't really effect it one iota. It doesn't really effect any of the characters, except for Shadow and maybe Silver (but Silver is simply a better structured SA2 Shadow, since everyone's arcs relate to everyone's unlike that other game). Those high fallutin' themes are often not actually ABOUT the characters that started the story off, instead relying on generating new characters to handle new ideas...which, that's silly. That's silly, fundamentally broken, and operates on a completely alien logic concerning how an archetypal hero narrative is supposed operate. Thing is, I also love when writing rules are broken so deep down I kinda love all that, BUT...

The argument between logic rooted in the characters and logic rooted in breaking the fourth wall, playful cynicism divorced from the source material, etc. should at least acknowledge the fact that the golden age of Sonic's game writing, or the SUPPOSED golden age, has just as much a dissonance between its themes and materials as the "external" writing does. I don't care about Space Colony ARK, Angel Island, or any of those things on their own terms. They're made up stuff about made up people. I care about the context they're presented in. I care that these things are being crafted with a very specific perspective on its own characters, and Sonic didn't really do that as a game series. Its writing and all of its mythology don't exist to enhance its main cast, it really only exists so it can DIVORCE its main cast from any real expansion, change, or meaningful growth. It's not a story, it's just a sequence of things. The fact Sonic 06, by my money the best Sonic story ever told in any medium, actually manages to give the Adventure era an ending that not only FEELS like everything actually does fit together, but also provides a perfect bookend to Sonic 1? It's a miracle to put it lightly.

So...no. All that heralded stuff like background mythology, character's having goals, etc. really all felt superfluous in those stories as they were being told. The mythology really only grew more and more complex so it didn't have to actually focus on really developing the actual cast that'd always been there and always WOULD be there. It wasn't a story with a strong thematic spine or arc as much as it was a perpetual motion machine: going on and on for its own sake, constantly showing dramatic change without...really doing anything. Unless you're Tails in SA1 or Shadow in literally any of the games, you're SOL my friend. The Adventure era, narratively speaking, was a series that excelled at PRETENDING to be about something while continuously cutting its protagonist out of being related to any actual themes, ideas, or morals central to the series arc.

I still love those games, though. But Sonic 06 was also such a perfect ending (to a story that didn't really exist) that the idea of going into a more cynical, goofy comedy afterwards...well, I was a kid raised on Seinfeld and the Upright Citizens Brigade. That works out fine for me. But the dichotomy insisted on by you and ToaArcan really doesn't, as some others in this thread are saying, have much to even really do with "internal" versus "external." There was ALWAYS a bizarre divide between character and thematic intent, and the comedic one really isn't any better or worse written than the dramatic one.

This isn't the nostalgia talking. I'm pretty sure I love ADVENTURE, if anything, because of nostalgia.
User avatar
Mordum
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:58 am

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby DJGameFreakTheIguana » Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:31 am

The KKM wrote:If you really want to get into "you can't use your opinion in a debate what I'm saying is true and what you are saying is false",

I said other peoples opinions, and using them to push his own argument without even trying to support it otherwise.

then can you prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, the change to an external logic has damaged the series? Where's your peer-reviewed scientific studies proving, without a shadow of a doubt, making it FACT, that it's damaging the games?

That would be the sales and further disinterest in Sonic. Those alone are a VERY big issue considering Sega Sammy's stance in almost anything not having to do with their pachinko business.

I mean, look at what you're writing.

"It's even more ironic when you say this while ignoring the behavior of said opinions in order to rhetorically argue with no supporting point"

Opinions have no behaviour. Opinions are not an entity that acts in specific ways, unless you want to get into high-level discussion of memetics, and even then it's a flimsy argument when the behavious is always of those opining, not of the opinion itself.

That was actually a screw up, I meant to talk about many of the people behind those opinions, and many of them have been trolls. Not all, but many, and even if they were legit complaints, they were never as bad as they were made out to be the majority of the time, or as bad as the negatives against modern games. Some I've stated already.

"I'm wondering why it's even a debate in the first place when External logic has not done any good for the franchise, and people having a different opinion without anything to support them is not good enough, nor has it ever been in any debate I've been in before."

Good thing that's not what Mordum said, but rather that ToaArcan was falsely dychotomizing anyone who might prefer external logic as being a "genwunner". Which is not really up for discussion, because if the postulating is "everyone who has opinion X is Y" and if someone comes along and says "I have opinion X but am Z", then the postulating's disproven immediately. Only way out here would be some bizarre application of fallacies.

So because you feel that the comment was offensive to you or other people, that it's false?

This is not a hard concept to grasp, this branch of discussion isn't about external logic or internal logic, it's that you can't generalise how the people who disagree with you are and expect that to fly as an argument. No longer how much you (or ToaArcan in this case) insist the only people who'd prefer external logic are "genwunners", all it takes is for one person (in this case, Mordum) who doesn't apply to the definition of "genwunner" but still prefers external logic for you to be wrong.

So I was correct, you were somehow offended by the statement, in that automatically makes it false. At least to you.

Mordum wrote:"For no good reason." My favorite era of Sonic is the Adventure era, and I think there're plenty of reasons to dislike it. They're all mediocre, if fun, platformers, and from a strict story writing perspective...do not resemble the story we were previously, minimalistically, being told.

Regarding this and everything else you said, I find it funny how ToaArcans comment is false for no real given, yet we're going to pretend that many people with negative comments towards the adventure games, can never be biased, exaggerated, or small personal issues, which has been the case of many negative comments made for years, with this part I'm quoting falling into the 3rd catagory, your own personal issues. You ca have personal issue, but that doesn't mean they're actually issues, or mean they make the story unenjoyable. They're flaws at best, which even the best stories could have if you look hard enough, or picky enough to spot at a moments notice.

, I want to ask you a genuine question that I think you can handle: in what sensible story structure based around archetypal, heroic adventure fiction do we follow a single character whose main goal and method of conflict is saving a mass of animals (and then people suddenly) only to tell a story specifically about contrasting his morality and presence with a dark double...that also gives no actual insight into the character who serves as our frame of reference, but the guest character instead.

I kinda don't know how to answer this question, based on from what I'm reading, you're criticizing SA2, simply for not being like anything before it. Aside from the points you made about learning nothing new, there's also the point that you don't have to learn something new about a character to enjoy a story. One of the biggest reasons why people still like that game and it's story specifically atm, was that it was enjoyable. There's no rule that really needs to be abide by(other then text book rules in SA2's case), to make the story good and enjoyable. SA2 is liked as it's own thing, like Satam, archie, and even Fleetway, but many of those, as I've seen, catch criticism because "they aren't like the games hurrrrr". In fact, the general audience wont even really care about anything you just pointed out, general audience being the millions of people who bought the game and loved it.

That's not a Sonic story.

But it's a good story regardless if it's Sonic or not, flaws included(if the general audience actually cared I mean)

Aside from all of that, if we can go into the external logic, this brings the biggest flaws in modern games: They aren't good Sonic stories, AND they are written horribly, the latter being the biggest reason why Ex-Logic is is getting it's negative reception. You could tell me Sonic Colors and World do everything right that you say SA2 doesn't, it wont matter when I have to bad jokes in every cutscene, within a story that fails to even TRY and get me interested in what's going on, that being the very that SA2 and stories before it, got right. Even Sonic 3 and Knuckles went out of it's way to throw in a cut scenes and made them good. It's not like they HAD to make Knuckles try to grab the M.E. from Robotnik and get shocked doing so. They could've just had Robotnik fly off with it and leave Knuckles on the ground where we beat him, as Sonic and Tails just run off screen and suddenly appear in Sky Sanctuary, but there would've been no substance there and we think nothing of it. Even that story can be called out on the flaw that Robotnik did all sorts of questionable things, the biggest was the very thing you brought up, him using animals for his robots, and Knuckles didn't think twice about it despite said animals living on HIS ISLAND, all because "he got tricked". They say Knuckles was suppose to be gullible(as oppose to what he was turned into in Boom), but how gullible do you have to be, to get to the point where you watch your fellow people, or animals, get captured and enslaved, and not have one reaction to it? All this while trying to stop the guy who was rescuing them from their metallic prison?

Yet we don't think about that and go on with our lives, and I would have to think because it didn't matter in the end. If it did, it would be brought up more often, but we'll just chalk it up to what one heck of a lie that robotnik threw at Knuckles, and appreciate the story for it's entertainment. Entertainment you think was so good that a game that came out, what, 4 or 5 years after it, needed to adhere to.

The bottom line is context and substance, that's gonna matter a lot more then what other little flaws that can be picked out of a good story, and again, why content that used Ex-Logic is getting criticized most on, because people need that when they spend their hard earn money on a video game instead of food or stuff we as humans actually need.

But the dichotomy insisted on by you and ToaArcan really doesn't, as some others in this thread are saying, have much to even really do with "internal" versus "external."

And yet, that's what fuels the issue to begin with. A key fact you're ignoring to carry a debate, that in all honesty, shouldn't even be a debate to begin with, for many of the very reasons you criticized the adventure games when it comes to criticizing the modern games. If you don't like the dichotomy, you can ignore it and actually add something to the debate itself. In fact, I saw a few posts before that added very little as well, but since there was no dichotomy, dichotomy that was actually true BTW, MADE in the case against Ex-Logic, so it still had something to with the debate, they went ignored.
The thing that makes this funny is that the two of you are rushing here to the defense of people who aren't even part of this discussion, as far as I know, and are responsible for the dichotomy in the first place, but keep on thinking all opinions are equal. They aren't. That's life.
User avatar
DJGameFreakTheIguana
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:46 am

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby ToaArcan » Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:45 am

Worth noting that SEGA always keeps Sonic separate from any development. The difference between the two eras amounts to his reactions to what he's presented with some sort of dangerous monster. In the Internal games, he gets serious. In the External games, he's much more likely to make a stupid joke.

What I'm realising now is that I've been arguing more for "A balance of serious and comedic" over pure comedy, moreso than I have for Internal over External, and the issue therein is that comedy is, as I said before, infinitely more subjective than seriousness. Yo can watch a professional comedian on stage and not laugh once, because you don't find his humour funny. I myself can't stand awful puns, but some people really like them.

Looking back over the thread, which I did for the sake of clarity, I'm not seeing anyone writing a glowing praise of external. Mordum's done a good job of explaining why internal isn't perfect, and that's fair enough, but he's not saying much in the way of reasons why external is better. If anything, he said that arguing fo one in favour of the other is pointless, and beyond me wondering why he's still in a thread which he thinks is pointless (Or at least, that's the impression I got), there's nothing I can say to fault that.

The "false dichotomy" wasn't actually referring to anyone in-thread, because I wasn't seeing anyone arguing in favour of external, as much as against the points made by pro-internal people. Plenty of debate on whether internal is good or not, but nothing discussing the alternative.

However, I will admit, I did kinda clump Mordum in with the group that misremembers the classics because of his statement that the early games were about rescuing animals, more than they were about stopping Robotnik, which clashed with other things he's said about the manuals not mattering, and with the design philosophy of the game itself. That doesn't make him a genwunner, it just means he put more stock in the implications of animals escaping the destroyed Badniks than even the creators did.
User avatar
ToaArcan
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:13 pm
Location: Right behind you

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby The KKM » Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:54 am

How do sales prove what you mean? Can you prove me without shadow of a doubt there is no other explanation to the sales, like, say, "being on the WiiU" or "Sonic 06 did immense brand damage"? What further disinterest in Sonic? Can you point me to credible sources "saying there is a disinterest in Sonic"? Or are you going to keep touting your anecdoctal evidence as fact, and complain when others do what you perceive to be the same?

And it's not about offense, where are you even taking that from? It's about "you are strawmanning everyone who disagrees with you so you can feel comfortable that you've won the discussion". If I say "all people of this group have this personality trait", and you are of that group but don't have that personality trait, am I not wrong?
User avatar
The KKM
BumbleClan
 
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:40 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby ToaArcan » Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:13 am

3DS sales are still down and 06 was technically a great success, even as flawed as it was, and the brand damage would explain it if it was a quick dropoff. Shadow and 06 happened, and then immediately the sales were in the toilet for everything since then. But that hasn't happened. Unleashed also made Platinum on the 360, and that was with three other versions cutting into its sales, including a better-reviewed version for two cheaper consoles, one of which being the ever-popular PS2. The dropoff has been a steady decline since that point, noticeably, since the switch to external and the "No friends, no plot, no stakes" mentality of Pontaff. The dropoff has been its most apparent since they started using their misguided efforts to recreate Sonic 1 and 2 as a selling point. Every press release about a new game is "Sonic goes back to his roots!" Sonic's been going back to his roots since 2010, do something else!
User avatar
ToaArcan
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:13 pm
Location: Right behind you

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby Mordum » Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:17 am

DJGameFreakTheIguana wrote:Regarding this and everything else you said, I find it funny how ToaArcans comment is false for no real given, yet we're going to pretend that many people with negative comments towards the adventure games, can never be biased, exaggerated, or small personal issues, which has been the case of many negative comments made for years, with this part I'm quoting falling into the 3rd catagory, your own personal issues. You ca have personal issue, but that doesn't mean they're actually issues, or mean they make the story unenjoyable. They're flaws at best, which even the best stories could have if you look hard enough, or picky enough to spot at a moments notice.


...but his comment is false. His comment is about how the only people who dislike the Adventure stuff could ONLY dislike it because of nostalgia, or prefer "external" logic because of nostalgia, is objectively false. Because there're people who don't have nostalgia as their reasons.

He was objectively wrong. You wanna know the reason he was wrong? Because other reasons were stated.

The rest of this paragraph is ridiculous. You're basically insisting you're the only one with an objective viewpoint, and that anyone's perceived flaws of a work can just be chalked up to the problem being "with them". It's an overly serious, near pretentious homage to the Die Hard era of action movies featuring a bunch of goofy anime animals in a near realistic world. I LOVE Sonic Adventure 2. But as I said, there're plenty of completely valid reasons why someone would not like that material, or that interpretation of a character.


I kinda don't know how to answer this question, based on from what I'm reading, you're criticizing SA2, simply for not being like anything before it.


You either didn't grasp my point or you're just willfully misconstruing me. My ENTIRE POINT is that it's perfectly valid to dislike Sonic Adventure 2 because it's not really an organic progression of the story that was being told in the games up to that point and completely deviates focus and significance from its core protagonist to a guest character. A grander tangible, emotional, thematic, and philosophical scope presented that has nothing to do with any of the important characters in the series cast is a completely valid reason to not like a story where those important characters play a prominent role.

In fact, the general audience wont even really care about anything you just pointed out, general audience being the millions of people who bought the game and loved it.


Twilight and Bayformers are also wildly successful. Nickelback is wildly successful. Vicious Circle was an incredibly successful stand up comedy special.

Someone should be allowed to dislike something, and have their reason for it be considered valid if they're willing to argue it on a realm of character, theme, craft, etc.. "A bunch of people who aren't you ended up liking it, so you're wrong" is a legitimate fallacy. You are twenty six years old.

But it's a good story regardless if it's Sonic or not, flaws included(if the general audience actually cared I mean)


That is not a fact. I love SA2. There are valid reasons why someone wouldn't. That's the point. Literally my only point is "someone could validly express why this story is not that well done." A well spoken argument against "This isn't a well constructed story, and here're several reasons why" isn't "Yes it is."

Aside from all of that, if we can go into the external logic, this brings the biggest flaws in modern games: They aren't good Sonic stories, AND they are written horribly, the latter being the biggest reason why Ex-Logic is is getting it's negative reception. You could tell me Sonic Colors and World do everything right that you say SA2 doesn't, it wont matter when I have to bad jokes in every cutscene, within a story that fails to even TRY and get me interested in what's going on, that being the very that SA2 and stories before it, got right.


And how do you know that all the problems you have with the comedy, pacing, tone, characterization, and whatever else issue you have with Colors and Lost World are inherent flaws and not just your own personal problems, the very things keeping people from liking the part of the franchise YOU like?

Yet we don't think about that and go on with our lives, and I would have to think because it didn't matter in the end. If it did, it would be brought up more often, but we'll just chalk it up to what one heck of a lie that robotnik threw at Knuckles, and appreciate the story for it's entertainment. Entertainment you think was so good that a game that came out, what, 4 or 5 years after it, needed to adhere to.

The bottom line is context and substance, that's gonna matter a lot more then what other little flaws that can be picked out of a good story, and again, why content that used Ex-Logic is getting criticized most on, because people need that when they spend their hard earn money on a video game instead of food or stuff we as humans actually need.


"The bottom line is context and substance", even though you're dismissing my issues with how the story is constructed, based on how it compares and contrasts with the context it's presented, as meaningless and superfluous vis a vis its quality.

Context only matters when you like it.

And yet, that's what fuels the issue to begin with. A key fact you're ignoring to carry a debate, that in all honesty, shouldn't even be a debate to begin with, for many of the very reasons you criticized the adventure games when it comes to criticizing the modern games. If you don't like the dichotomy, you can ignore it and actually add something to the debate itself. In fact, I saw a few posts before that added very little as well, but since there was no dichotomy, dichotomy that was actually true BTW, MADE in the case against Ex-Logic, so it still had something to with the debate, they went ignored.


It sounds like you just don't like the idea that someone else can actually articulate what they mean.

The thing that makes this funny is that the two of you are rushing here to the defense of people who aren't even part of this discussion, as far as I know, and are responsible for the dichotomy in the first place, but keep on thinking all opinions are equal. They aren't. That's life.


And yours is so perfectly objective, thankfully for us plebians.
User avatar
Mordum
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:58 am

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby DJGameFreakTheIguana » Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:28 am

ToaArcan wrote:Worth noting that SEGA always keeps Sonic separate from any development. The difference between the two eras amounts to his reactions to what he's presented with some sort of dangerous monster. In the Internal games, he gets serious. In the External games, he's much more likely to make a stupid joke.

Or the archie comics where it could go either way, depending on the situation of course. There's nothing wrong with a joke, as long as it's not so bad that you actually have to say something about it.

What I'm realising now is that I've been arguing more for "A balance of serious and comedic" over pure comedy, moreso than I have for Internal over External, and the issue therein is that comedy is, as I said before, infinitely more subjective than seriousness. Yo can watch a professional comedian on stage and not laugh once, because you don't find his humour funny. I myself can't stand awful puns, but some people really like them.

Wont blame you for that, I myself have only been in the same debate many times and met with a lot of anger just because I dare to even defend the former, getting me tied up in many arguments where you're not even sure if you're on topic or not. The part I don't blame you for though is that what you argued for and still work for In-Logic, while what you argued against has been the result of Ex-Logic, targeting to the specifics of why the argument exists, or the results of the two logics.

Looking back over the thread, which I did for the sake of clarity, I'm not seeing anyone writing a glowing praise of external. Mordum's done a good job of explaining why internal isn't perfect, and that's fair enough, but he's not saying much in the way of reasons why external is better. If anything, he said that arguing fo one in favour of the other is pointless, and beyond me wondering why he's still in a thread which he thinks is pointless (Or at least, that's the impression I got), there's nothing I can say to fault that.

Kinda like what I was trying to say about not supporting his claims until he hit me with that big post. However, you are right about what's gone on in the topic, but about internal logic not being perfect, it isn't, nothing is, but that doesn't justify going for something that's proven to be far worse. You said comedy is infinitely more subjective then being serious, but the case here is that pretty much everything about Sonic has been twisted at this point, and just works on Ex-Logic with no real effort put behind it. Something even AoSTH was able to do in comparison to Boom, and the classics compared to modern games. That's the big issue.

The "false dichotomy" wasn't actually referring to anyone in-thread, because I wasn't seeing anyone arguing in favour of external, as much as against the points made by pro-internal people. Plenty of debate on whether internal is good or not, but nothing discussing the alternative.

I'll honestly say I forgot about that, as this whole argument started over the very first sentience of that post.

However, I will admit, I did kinda clump Mordum in with the group that misremembers the classics because of his statement that the early games were about rescuing animals, more than they were about stopping Robotnik, which clashed with other things he's said about the manuals not mattering, and with the design philosophy of the game itself. That doesn't make him a genwunner, it just means he put more stock in the implications of animals escaping the destroyed Badniks than even the creators did.

Not even knowing what a genwunner admittedly, just another internet term I didn't know that may have regarded trolls, the misinformed, or current gen fans specifically, I can see why that happened. Plus, being the kind of game Sonic was, or better yet, how it's presented, I don't even know if we were suppose to think about it, and just ignore the fact that it's gonna rain turtles in some random area by the time you get done with the Sky Chase zone in Sonic 2. This, opposed to the implications of Robotnik making a move for a giant diamond that somehow seemed to tick off the guy who spent the entire game helping him till that point.

The KKM wrote:How do sales prove what you mean? Can you prove me without shadow of a doubt there is no other explanation to the sales, like, say, "being on the WiiU" or "Sonic 06 did immense brand damage"?

Sales determine interest, and 06 had a lot more of it the 1 single port of Sonic Colors that weren't even as the same as the other, and one guy getting mad at the fact that people gave the game good scores on Walmarts website. This is also true for Amazon.com, I checked it myself, 06 still getting more positive score then negative, by people who don't spend all day writing or recording rants on a website. Also, if 06 did so much damage to the franchise, why did Unleashed, Secret Rings, and Sonic 4, sale so well after the fact, while Colors has to rely on the numbers of two different games, same with Generations and Boom, to get the same or more numbers? I also wont blame a game selling bad because it's on the WiiU(If it's not a Nintendo IP, but some of those sold little to), because some game son there still got decent sales, that being cause by the general notion that people by Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games(Not true for everyone, like myself, I own only 3 Nintendo IPs on my Wii, Smash Bros, Sin and Punishment, and the game I intend on giving away because it bores me, NSMBW).

What further disinterest in Sonic? Can you point me to credible source

The further decline in people buying his products, I.E., the modern games.

And it's not about offense, where are you even taking that from? It's about "you are strawmanning everyone who disagrees with you so you can feel comfortable that you've won the discussion".

You guys seem to like labeling things you disagree with so you can feel justify in yelling at someone for being honest. Also, you say it's not about being offensive but you could've fooled me when you accused me of "strawmanning everyone" who doesn't agree with me, when I never said everyone specifically. I have people who disagree with me on things but can explain it to me without being emotional or exaggerating a small issues, which has happen to me A LOT MORE OFTEN for simply liking SA2 on the Sega forums(which led to me being banned), while the guys who did the exact thing you accuse me of, could say whatever they want and have no one bat an eye, including direct insults. Case in point, your getting offended, and my years of experience in dealing in these debates where opinion and ignorance matters more then fact and logic, tells me you are offended by what I'm saying.

If I say "all people of this group have this personality trait", and you are of that group but don't have that personality trait, am I not wrong?

Yes, but when did I say "all people of this group"? If I did, it was a mistake on my end, but I've never doubted that there's a few people in these group with good reasons, but I hardly ever find them.
User avatar
DJGameFreakTheIguana
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:46 am

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby DJGameFreakTheIguana » Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:40 am

Just so yall know, I'm double posting because it's 5 a.m. and I need to do something before I go to sleep, so excuse me. I would like to addres this:

Mordum wrote:..but his comment is false. His comment is about how the only people who dislike the Adventure stuff could ONLY dislike it because of nostalgia, or prefer "external" logic because of nostalgia, is objectively false. Because there're people who don't have nostalgia as their reasons.


Ok, so let's bring that comment up again:
All I've really seen is Genwunners getting nostalgic for a super-light-and-kiddy Mega Drive era Sonic that... just doesn't exist.

He clearly states in exactly this one sentience you keep talking about, that it's "All he's seen", and not "All these people who do this are that", and was not even talking about adventure games, the title isn't even in this exact sentience that got you so bothered and responded to. I even used CTRL-F to look for the word, Adventure, and it's not even in that exact post, in nam notta one of the writing, that followed after that exact sentence. (Back to the future reference. What? It's been on TV a lot lately.)

Can we get past this now?

Also, I'd like to contribute something to the debate specifically next time I come back. Writing this so I remember that when I read all this over to see what the latest fuss is about.

EDIT: Just checked myself to be sure on something, so i have to add this:

Twilight and Bayformers are also wildly successful. Nickelback is wildly successful. Vicious Circle was an incredibly successful stand up comedy special.

I said the general audience, I didn't say the flaws aren't there entirely. There are many successful things I have no interest in or even hate, but if it's successful, other people not caring about I personally do is still a fact, even if what I dislike is in fact, flawed. I hate modern rap and like old school and underground rap, doesn't change the fact that people don't care about the flaws of the rappers I hate on.

Someone should be allowed to dislike something

Don't think I said otherwise.

That is not a fact. I love SA2. There are valid reasons why someone wouldn't.

I don't think I said otherwise here either, but hence the part I checked myself on:
For no good reason though. I mean, are we still assuming people hating stuff like that was really legit? Matter of fact, most people hating on the adventure games have been a loud minority at best, so I'm pretty sure you would lose that bet pretty easily


Assuming this was the comment I made that this argument pertains to, because it wasn't present in what this was a response to, I have and always meant to say that MOST PEOPLE hating on this stuff had no good reason, given exactly how they choose to explain it. You make it seem valid enough, I'll give you that, but you're one guy out of many. Also, when I said this "for no good reason", I specifically meant that about the idea that many people would think the boarding stunt in City Escape would be thought of as stupid by as many people who don't like the writing of the modern games, the ones selling less this SA2.

And how do you know that all the problems you have with the comedy, pacing, tone, characterization, and whatever else issue you have with Colors and Lost World are inherent flaws and not just your own personal problems, the very things keeping people from liking the part of the franchise YOU like?

No. I don't like the modern games because of bad writing and the total abandonment of anything interesting or even objectively good, even by the standards of he general audience who aren't playing those game. You and many others dislike SA2 for completely different reasons, even if under the same label. I dislike the tone of Colors because it not only goes against most of Sonic's content over the years and the exact opposite of what he was, it's not even delivering something worthwhile. SA2 did all that, and it's not just because I like it(I didn't like Sonic X despite having things I liked in it), a lot more action went on in that game then Colors, but the tone itself was an issue to many people because they don't want to take Sonic seriously and aren't interested in that tone period, the kind of people I was talking about, that you are excluded from because you actually take the time to point out the flaws and not just say "this is stupid hurrr", which even then, keep far LESS people away from liking the franchise I like, the the greater number Colors has for being disliked, and not bought. Both games delivered their content in a completely different way that the issue can't even begin to be comparable, hence why this debate has taken place hundreds of times before now, and will hundreds of times after, I'm assuming.
Also, I do realize that I call Colors writing stupid with no further words in the bad writing, but the dialogue itself is THAT BAD without even having to get into all the details you had to get into about SA2. I don't have to point out that I learn nothing new or "Sonic Adventure 2's disconnect with the wider series", Colors is disconnected from quality, to the point of simply looking at it drove people away, morso Lost World and Boom, while you actually had to experience SA2's story to even notice the flaws you call out, that as I said before, the general audience would think nothing of because the surface of what they're getting actually correlates with their interest. This is the main reason why I said the problems between the games are no where near comparable. Colors needs to be written well and given a better tone for people to even care about it, outside the internet of course.
User avatar
DJGameFreakTheIguana
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:46 am

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby Mordum » Wed Dec 30, 2015 9:22 am

DJGameFreakTheIguana wrote:He clearly states in exactly this one sentience you keep talking about, that it's "All he's seen", and not "All these people who do this are that", and was not even talking about adventure games, the title isn't even in this exact sentience that got you so bothered and responded to. I even used CTRL-F to look for the word, Adventure, and it's not even in that exact post, in nam notta one of the writing, that followed after that exact sentence. (Back to the future reference. What? It's been on TV a lot lately.)

Can we get past this now?


No, because he says it in a thread where people have mentioned liking Colors, et al., the "external games" for reasons that have nothing to do with what he said. If he's posting in the thread, he'd have to have seen those posts. If he's saying he HASN'T seen those posts, then he's admitting he's not reading the posts in a thread he's contributing to and thus asserting the conversation must exist under his logic, rather than him adjusting to the conversation he's willfully entering as it's already going. If he has seen those posts, then he's lying and simply ignoring things for the sake of being right. OR, a third option that the two of you have been indulging in, talking about people who have @#$% nothing to do with the conversation. Either way, his statement is objectively wrong because we have proof that he'd HAVE to have seen people who aren't like he describes because they are in this thread dated before he made that post, dingus.

This isn't hard.

I said the general audience, I didn't say the flaws aren't there entirely. There are many successful things I have no interest in or even hate, but if it's successful, other people not caring about I personally do is still a fact, even if what I dislike is in fact, flawed. I hate modern rap and like old school and underground rap, doesn't change the fact that people don't care about the flaws of the rappers I hate on.


Your argument is really blurring the line between financial success and objective quality, and seems to only apply circumstantially based on whatever's most convenient for you.

Don't think I said otherwise.


You've repeatedly emphasized that the reasons I posed that could be valid reasons did not matter, and before that chalked people not liking SA2 up to "personal issues."

But of course, the reasons YOU dislike things have nothing to do with personal reasons and completely objective.

If you DO think that people can validly dislike things you don't, you have a funny way of showing it, in that you don't show that at all.

Assuming this was the comment I made that this argument pertains to, because it wasn't present in what this was a response to, I have and always meant to say that MOST PEOPLE hating on this stuff had no good reason, given exactly how they choose to explain it. You make it seem valid enough, I'll give you that, but you're one guy out of many.


Oh, it's valid now? Even though you just got finished telling me, in the same post that you chalk reasons for dislike up to people's "personal issue's", that a lot of my issues with the writing's crap-poor structuring vis a vis its thematic relation to its protagonists didn't matter because the story was "still good" (and no reasons for why it was good, just "it's good").

There is no rubric you've presented or perspective for what you're talking about or even qualifies for this objective quality you stick to. Just that vague "internal logic." Nothing else seems to matter. Context doesn't matter, structure doesn't matter. It's all about "internal logic." Just that it exists. Just the bare minimum of coherency, and suddenly SA2 is just above any meaningful criticism.

Also, when I said this "for no good reason", I specifically meant that about the idea that many people would think the boarding stunt in City Escape would be thought of as stupid by as many people who don't like the writing of the modern games, the ones selling less this SA2.


...But that is validly stupid. Sonic Adventure 2 tries to be a game centered around a morally ambiguous amnesiac trying to usher in a Biblical-scale apocalypse as a way to tell a story about the callousness of humanity and the dangers of falling into the same trap and the first scene of the character you're conditioned, as a consumer, to like and identify with more is snowboarding down a city street going YOU'RE TOO SLOOOOOOOOOOOOW. This character, by the way, who you've been conditioned by marketing and branding since you picked up a Genesis controller to like and identify with and consider the protagonist of the story you're now being told, does not change or have his outlook on the world, humanity, or anything else changed, altered, or challenged in any significant way and just exists to be the crappier, campier Jack Bauers but for 12 year olds. SA2 is what people argue a Pontac and Graff is in terms of dissonant story craft, just in a dramatic context, not comedic.

And please, sales mean people don't think SA2 is stupid? Just by virtue of statistics, how many people who bought SA2 looked back on it and no longer think it's NEARLY as cool as it was when they were little kids? Unless you have a valid study to conclusively shut me down, I'm going to wager a lot of them. And I'm going to wager there's a reason a lot of those people didn't show up on Sonic message boards.

You have no way of determining what people think of SA2 just because they happen to have owned it. Lots of people owned Sonic 06.

No. I don't like the modern games because of bad writing and the total abandonment of anything interesting or even objectively good, even by the standards of he general audience who aren't playing those game.


And it's entirely possible that the people you say hate SA2 for dumb reasons...don't have dumb reasons. As I've illustrated, and as you've admitted, there is incredibly validity in thinking SA2 is just as bad as the quality you perceive in a Pontac and Graff script.

You and many others dislike SA2 for completely different reasons, even if under the same label.


You have literally quoted me saying I like Sonic Adventure 2. In this post.

I dislike the tone of Colors because it not only goes against most of Sonic's content over the years and the exact opposite of what he was, it's not even delivering something worthwhile. SA2 did all that, and it's not just because I like it(I didn't like Sonic X despite having things I liked in it), a lot more action went on in that game then Colors, but the tone itself was an issue to many people because they don't want to take Sonic seriously and aren't interested in that tone period, the kind of people I was talking about, that you are excluded from because you actually take the time to point out the flaws and not just say "this is stupid hurrr", which even then, keep far LESS people away from liking the franchise I like, the the greater number Colors has for being disliked, and not bought. Both games delivered their content in a completely different way that the issue can't even begin to be comparable, hence why this debate has taken place hundreds of times before now, and will hundreds of times after, I'm assuming.


And why is it invalid to not want to take Sonic seriously? Most of the Sonic stories are completely farcical even at their most serious. SA2 does not cohere on even a basic structural level in terms of its character priorities and adherence to its own themes. Sonic Heroes has a fascinating villain whose identity relies on incredibly powerful, grand nuances that imply so, so much about the protagonist...and his only meaningful emotional moment is with Shadow. Shadow the Hedgehog is a ridiculous farce of a tryhard action movie that never has the decency to notice it's a low grade b-movie. And as much as I love it, Sonic 06 is still a giant melodrama with bizarre juxtapositions of cartoonishness and realism that it NEVER makes an attempt to reconcile (and the fact that it actually does tell a real, thematically relevant story to this hot mess of a series feels like a happy accident; @#$%, most of what I love about the story feels accidental).

Under ANY standard that does not involve affection given to these games as either a pity medal or loving them when you were twelve, they do not live up to the dramatic standards they set up for themselves, instead involved in exploring themes and concepts that're not only completely divorced from ALL OF ITS CENTRAL CHARACTERS (and pretending that the supporting characters who exist to explore those ideas are main characters) and then not even ACTUALLY exploring or indulging those big, ambitious ideas to even NEARLY their fullest extent. They're not just distractions to the story that was being told before them: they're distractions that don't live up to the standards they set themselves. Metal Overlord's god complex, and all of its countless implications, goes nowhere. Shahra's abusive subtext is repeatedly downplayed, and the fact she knows she's fictional but has some sort of rebellious streak, and the existential crisis that presents, is not explored on any level. Gerald's status as a scientist seeking to cause pain goes from being a simple main's pain to a LITERAL DEAL WITH A SPACE DEVIL, essentially dumbing down and almost invalidating what little poignancy SA2 might've had. Nothing is made of the fact that Sonic fundamentally changed Elise's history and took away her emotionally repressed life, fundamentally changing her as a human being which is the most insane, unethical thing any character in these games has ever done.

And so on.

And so on.

And so on.

There's every valid reason for someone to not care for Sonic's storytelling in a serious context, because it never once actually lives up to the pay offs it promises. Because of course it doesn't, it's a bunch of goofy anime animals turned into a pseudo-religious parable that is either constantly repeating itself or invalidating and ignoring all the new ground it makes. It's a structural mess. It never coheres. The characters, including the protagonist, lack so much introspection and examination that they become increasingly more and more superfluous as the stakes continue to rise. There is no part of these games that feels like it should be some golden standard, because it's so bad at being serious.

But I love that. Sonic is way more interesting to think and talk about than it is to play or watch (with Ian Flynn's run being, generally, an actually good story...though, as a sacrifice, it's often not as fascinating, though I love the Sonic the Fighters adaptation and Spark of Life is genuinely great). Sonic is bad in a way that's more interesting than the ways a lot of stuff is good. And Sonic deciding to become more of an overt comedy...honestly...it's arguably better, if you're talking about "objectivity" (which, let's be real, you're not; you just think you are. Nobody who brushes away a story's proposed flaws with just "Yeah, but it's still good" cares about objectivity), Pontac and Graff can allocate and adhere to their own ambition LEAGUES AND LEAGUES better than Sonic Team's overdramatic scripts that repeatedly fall short of their self imposed potential.

Also, I do realize that I call Colors writing stupid with no further words in the bad writing, but the dialogue itself is THAT BAD without even having to get into all the details you had to get into about SA2. I don't have to point out that I learn nothing new or "Sonic Adventure 2's disconnect with the wider series", Colors is disconnected from quality, to the point of simply looking at it drove people away, morso Lost World and Boom, while you actually had to experience SA2's story to even notice the flaws you call out, that as I said before, the general audience would think nothing of because the surface of what they're getting actually correlates with their interest. This is the main reason why I said the problems between the games are no where near comparable. Colors needs to be written well and given a better tone for people to even care about it, outside the internet of course.


That's ridiculous though. I could easily argue that they're just snubbed on the basis of BEING overt comedies, regardless of their quality. Think of all the Power Rangers fans who love Time Force for it being a "serious drama" even though they don't notice it's basically pro-fascism. I can think of SO MANY PEOPLE I've met who liked the first Bayformers movie and really loved Optimus Prime's ending monologue only to be shocked by how little the monologue made sense when I pointed out the "epic song" at the end was a plea for redemption when his monologue had nothing to do with it.

@#$%, think of how many comedies you were required to read in English literature classes in high school versus how many dramas you read? I guarantee you read more dramatic novels or short stories than comedic (if you read any comedies at all).

Or how about the LONG HISTORY of comedies being snubbed during film awards or by film scholars because they're not considered as prestigious or important as dramas, JUST on the basis of being comedies? How many conversations have you encountered where someone says "Well, it's a comedy, the plot doesn't really matter", as if they've never encountered an abstract dramatic piece relying less on plot than many comedies I can name?

Dramas have, historically and culturally, gotten a pass WAY MORE than comedies have on the grand scale. Our obligated literary education cares almost exclusively about dramas. If something is dramatic, it's just ASSUMED more important than comedy regardless of the actual content. And again, as much as I actually really do appreciate you telling me my criticisms are valid, think about how easily you initially brushed aside my complaints when later revealing your big problem is people refusing to take Sonic seriously as a dramatic piece. The fact that there might have actually been immense thematic, structural, narrative problems with Sonic Adventure 2 to the point of it making its own main protagonist completely emotionally superfluous in a serialized game series named after him and you were so willing to dismiss it with ''Who cares? It's good", and no other real reasoning, speaks volumes. For all you rail on "People must hate SA2 because of huge personal biases", that is ABUNDANTLY evident in your posts, with you having refused to give reasons for why a flaw shouldn't matter as you were criticizing people for (supposedly) not giving reasons for how THEY felt. All the while railing about some objective rubric you've never even defined.

I appreciate you willing to meet me in the middle on this, but you're not nearly as objective as you're claiming to be.
User avatar
Mordum
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:58 am

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby The KKM » Wed Dec 30, 2015 10:05 am

ToaArcan wrote:3DS sales are still down and 06 was technically a great success, even as flawed as it was, and the brand damage would explain it if it was a quick dropoff. Shadow and 06 happened, and then immediately the sales were in the toilet for everything since then. But that hasn't happened. Unleashed also made Platinum on the 360, and that was with three other versions cutting into its sales, including a better-reviewed version for two cheaper consoles, one of which being the ever-popular PS2. The dropoff has been a steady decline since that point, noticeably, since the switch to external and the "No friends, no plot, no stakes" mentality of Pontaff. The dropoff has been its most apparent since they started using their misguided efforts to recreate Sonic 1 and 2 as a selling point. Every press release about a new game is "Sonic goes back to his roots!" Sonic's been going back to his roots since 2010, do something else!


Image
User avatar
The KKM
BumbleClan
 
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:40 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby DJGameFreakTheIguana » Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:01 pm

Ok, so to break away from the arguments currently proceeding, I'm going to try going into this subject matter in a little more depth, though because I don't feel like typing another long post right now, I'm gonna try to simplify the points as best I can.

First of all, Internal Logic(how the character overall works ). The examples given about Sonic in the video are:
-He's a thrill seeker who loves adventure
-Doesn't like seeing people in need
-Doesn't like Injustice
At this point, characters are given context and foundation, where the actions and personality of the characters were based.

External Logic examples(Real world logic, what we expect from him, internet logic):
-Sonic is the main character
-His name is in the title
-It's what we expect him to be
At this point, which we're in now, Sonic is a video game, where things happen because that's the game, therefor reconfirming the truth of the game.

For a second, I wanna bring other examples of content that worked in internal logic again:
X-Men:
-A team formed by Charles Xavier at his academy for mutants to cope with and learn their powers
-Mutants who use their powers for the good of human and mutant kind
-Feared or even hated by the very humans they protect because they're mutants

Ninja Turtles:
-4 brothers who are turtles and mutated in bipedal form, raised in the sewer by a rat who's also mutated, Master Splinter
-Splinter teaches the 4 turtles the ways of the Ninja and discipline
-4 Ninja Turtles use their teachings to fight crime

Jak and Daxter(Have to copy info from Wikipedia because I haven't played the first game, and can barely explain the others since it's been a long time since I played them):
-Jak accidentally turns Daxter into an ottsel (a fictional hybrid of an otter and weasel) and sets out to undo the transformation
-Jak and company are sent to the future and captured, where Jak is infused with Dark Eco due to experimentation's performed by Baron Praxis, causing a change in his character with more attitude, and later broken out by Daxter
-Jak is banished to a wasteland for supposed "crimes" against the people of Haven City

When you look at this, you can see where the characters actions come from, though most of these are about groups of characters rather then a single one like Sonic, so it's more of looking at where all their actions come from. Even with different personalities though, many actions of these characters are still based on something of internal logic, where their comedy or seriousness comes from in the first place, rather then external logic, what we expect out of them because of what they are or because it's the title of the content, it's more in depth then that.

When you look at Sonic Boom, a lot of things are happening because that's just what we may think is to be expected. Knuckles is dumb simply because he's big and strong, Tails is a nerd simply because he's smart, and Sonic, despite being bored most of the time and considered adventuring to be a chore, is the Hero because of the title. There's even Shadow, who's in Boom. He could have character and something to drive him, but no, he's just the second most popular character in canon. Internal Logic is out of the window for external, what we think of them as a character, not really what points their character is based on, or better yet, what their actions, seriousness, and/or comedy, comes from.
User avatar
DJGameFreakTheIguana
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:46 am

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby The Swordsman » Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:24 pm

Mordum wrote:

I kinda don't know how to answer this question, based on from what I'm reading, you're criticizing SA2, simply for not being like anything before it.


You either didn't grasp my point or you're just willfully misconstruing me. My ENTIRE POINT is that it's perfectly valid to dislike Sonic Adventure 2 because it's not really an organic progression of the story that was being told in the games up to that point and completely deviates focus and significance from its core protagonist to a guest character. A grander tangible, emotional, thematic, and philosophical scope presented that has nothing to do with any of the important characters in the series cast is a completely valid reason to not like a story where those important characters play a prominent role.


I didn't know that Eggman wasn't a important character in the series cast, I could've sworn he was the main villain or something. SA2 expanded his backstory and gave us a look into what might be the spark that made him decide to rule the world in the first place. SA2 also is a direct sequel to SA1 as Tails was given a chaos emerald as a reward for saving Station Square from Eggman's missile and are a lot of call backs to Sonic 2 and Sonic 3 & Knuckles.
User avatar
The Swordsman
BumbleCitizen
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:05 pm
Location: Somewhere fighting the Eggman Empire for the United Federation.

Re: Internal Logic vs External Logic in Mainline Sonic

Postby ToaArcan » Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:54 pm

You also have Knuckles deliberately breaking the ME since he knows he can rebuild it after SA1's events. Amy, while she isn't playable, gets to Prison Island by herself, finds Sonic by herself, teases him a bit, and eventually goes on to convince Shadow to help the Heroes. SHe's not being an action hero, but she's showing a clear agency, which is what she decided to do after SA1.

While Tails' story does seem to be retread, he's still got agency at the beginning. He's going to save Sonic by himself, and bringing a mech for extra firepower rather than relying on his friends. He's the one making all the plans that the heroes try to pull off, he creates the synthetic Emerald, which is the crux of their plan, and what saves Sonic when he gets jettisoned. He then defeats Eggman by himself again, twice, and isn't afraid of him at all, unlike SA1.

Hey, even Big gets a satisfying conclusion in the Dreamcast version of the game: He gets run over by the GUN Truck in City Escape.
User avatar
ToaArcan
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:13 pm
Location: Right behind you

PreviousNext

Return to This Side of Mobius



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests