Let's be honest about Sonic 2006

[Icarus]

Are there people out there who are seriously believing that even if they managed to remove the glitches, the long loading times and the convoluted bad story and the infamous kissing scene at the end the game would even be remotely good?

I'm not even trying to troll or anything but the game would just be a mediocre 7th gen 3D mascot platformer (you know, when the genre already started to decline in the late 6th gen/mid-2000's), honestly aside from Mario Galaxy the series such as Ratchet & Clank or Crash has also started to decline around that era.

I also don't get why and how people are still trying to defend this game in 2021 (while some are unironically saying that Colors isn't good).

I need some explanation please.

 

[time gear]

If honesty is what you truly desire, you must acknowledge that what's "good" and "bad" in gaming is purely subjective. "One mans trash is another mans treasure" as they say. I could go on a long rant about why I feel like hub worlds are a good idea for 3D Sonic games if handled correctly, but someone else's opinion that they should stick strictly to 2D menus to navigate from level to level is equally valid, as is someone else entirely with their opinion that the progression should be automatic like in the old Genesis/Mega Drive classics. You or I may consider Superman 64 to be genuine garbage better off in a trash can than inserted into a console, but someone out there might consider it their favorite game of all time, and that's okay.

Sonic 06 is a game that had tremendous potential that ultimately the majority of which went wasted. It's neither the first or the last game like this in the franchise, but it is probably the biggest offender. Considering we are not living in a version of history in which the game got the proper love and care in development it deserved and a delay or two to smooth things over, to say that we know for sure how the final product would have turned out under ideal conditions is frankly quite absurd and silly.

 

[RetroAcid]

Are there people out there who are seriously believing that even if they managed to remove the glitches, the long loading times and the convoluted bad story and the infamous kissing scene at the end the game would even be remotely good?

I'm not even trying to troll or anything but the game would just be a mediocre 7th gen 3D mascot platformer (you know, when the genre already started to decline in the late 6th gen/mid-2000's), honestly aside from Mario Galaxy the series such as Ratchet & Clank or Crash has also started to decline around that era.

I also don't get why and how people are still trying to defend this game in 2021 (while some are unironically saying that Colors isn't good).

I need some explanation please.

the game is good with or without glitches, what is not confortable is Elise... is like... why?, why a human have to kiss a hedgehog?

 

[Darknik]

I know and understand why many people don't like it, but there are not only bad things, there are many good things in the game one does not always have to go with the idea that a game is bad or good since even in the worst of games some may find something fun and enjoy them at least for me there are no bad games, only games that most do not like since everything in life is subjective

I personally enjoy playing Sonic 2006 even more than games like Colors or Unleashed

 

[Chezi]

even if they managed to remove the glitches, the long loading times and the convoluted bad story and the infamous kissing scene at the end the game would even be remotely good?

You kinda answered your own question here. Like Tike Gear said, it’s all opinion. This game was built in under a year to try and make both the Christmas season and to be a starting title on the Xbox 360, so there was hardly any time to smooth out the edges. Had those edges been smoothed out, we could’ve had a Sonic Adventure 3 on our hands.

“A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad.”

 

[D00D64]

“A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad.”

...And let's be honest, there was not much saving Sonic 06. A game like that was clearly designed to be controlled that way, and the game was built around it. Even if it was somehow bug free, even if the horrendous plot was thrown out wholesale, it's still bad to its core. At least the story and bugs give you something to laugh at.

 

[Linlam]

Honestly, Sonic 06 would have been a bad game even without the glitches, I agree 100% with you. The story is bad, Sonic is slow, the levels are pretty boring, etc.

 

[Icarus]

...And let's be honest, there was not much saving Sonic 06. A game like that was clearly designed to be controlled that way, and the game was built around it. Even if it was somehow bug free, even if the horrendous plot was thrown out wholesale, it's still bad to its core. At least the story and bugs give you something to laugh at.

I'm sorry but at least Cube World had the excuse of being the first game of an indie developper (unlike Sega being a AAA dev.)

And you're entirely right, there is no saving in the game because it was bad from the get-go and I can't believe that even today people are still remotely thinking it had any potential to begin with.

And this was basically Adventure 3 without the name.

 

[time gear]

A game like that was clearly designed to be controlled that way, and the game was built around it. Even if it was somehow bug free, even if the horrendous plot was thrown out wholesale, it's still bad to its core.

And you're entirely right, there is no saving in the game because it was bad from the get-go and I can't believe that even today people are still remotely thinking it had any potential to begin with.

This kind of thinking is limiting and tries to treat something subjective as an objective truth. No matter how much you try to tell someone that a game is bad, it's still just your opinion and they don't have to agree with you. I personally see Sonic 06 as garbage. I agree that the way it controls is flawed. However, there are some people who actually like the way it controls. It comes off as rather arrogant to me to treat these people as if they are wrong and/or stupid for feeling the way they do. It comes off as equally arrogant to pretend as if you know the game was automatically doomed to be "bad" no matter what.

Even if the way the game controls was left unchanged and they just focused on designing levels around the way it does control, given the proper time to polish it, there would have been people who liked it. Maybe even more than there are now. The whole idea of "I can't see any potential in this thing so anyone else who does is just wrong" always rubs me the wrong way. "Nothing will ever make me like this thing" is a valid opinion. Adding "And anyone else who does like it is wrong" is just arrogance.

 

[geosonic]

I like to replay Sonic 06 a lot. The original and the remake by Chaos x. The athmosphere, level design and music are for me perfect, because I like media with a light dark tone and so "generic" level design in some place, but it doesn´t stop me from loving this game.
Even with glithes it is a good game (even if I prefer Sonic Adventure and Adventure 2).

 

[DiscardedBiscuit]

Sonic 06's story is a mess but honestly I still kinda like it, or at least Shadow and Silver's arc, this was a time when there was a more consistent growth of character development so I appreciated just seeing the series continue.

The characters were definitely slower and that was kinda atrocious to play, I think the level designs are passable aside from a few obnoxious puzzles and combat sections.
Overall it's just another 3D Sonic game love it or hate it so yeah I guess it is "mediocre" but honestly I kinda think all 3D Sonic games are.

 

[Icarus]

This kind of thinking is limiting and tries to treat something subjective as an objective truth. No matter how much you try to tell someone that a game is bad, it's still just your opinion and they don't have to agree with you. I personally see Sonic 06 as garbage. I agree that the way it controls is flawed. However, there are some people who actually like the way it controls. It comes off as rather arrogant to me to treat these people as if they are wrong and/or stupid for feeling the way they do. It comes off as equally arrogant to pretend as if you know the game was automatically doomed to be "bad" no matter what.

Even if the way the game controls was left unchanged and they just focused on designing levels around the way it does control, given the proper time to polish it, there would have been people who liked it. Maybe even more than there are now. The whole idea of "I can't see any potential in this thing so anyone else who does is just wrong" always rubs me the wrong way. "Nothing will ever make me like this thing" is a valid opinion. Adding "And anyone else who does like it is wrong" is just arrogance.

Sonic 2006 is an objectively bad game.

 

[time gear]

Sonic 2006 is an objectively bad game.

There's no such thing.

 

[Icarus]

There's no such thing.

What do you mean?

Big Rigs over the Road is also an objectively bad game.

Games are products and you expect to have some quality when you buy one.

 

[Chezi]

What do you mean?

Big Rigs over the Road is also an objectively bad game.

Games are products and you expect to have some quality when you buy one.

The point of this thread was to ask whether 06 would have still been bad if it had a longer dev cycle. That is not objective. That is subjective.

 

[time gear]

What do you mean?

Big Rigs over the Road is also an objectively bad game.

Games are products and you expect to have some quality when you buy one.

Quality when it comes to this sort of thing is subjective. The purpose of a game is to entertain. What entertains you might not entertain someone else. What you consider good or bad, someone else might not. There's no such thing as an objectively good or bad game. Everyone has their own tastes, everyone has their own standards, every person isn't going to feel the same way about every game.

To say that a game is objectively good or bad is to say that your opinion is inherently true and better than anyone's who disagrees, which is pure arrogance.

 

[Icarus]

Quality when it comes to this sort of thing is subjective. The purpose of a game is to entertain. What entertains you might not entertain someone else. What you consider good or bad, someone else might not. There's no such thing as an objectively good or bad game. Everyone has their own tastes, everyone has their own standards, every person isn't going to feel the same way about every game.

To say that a game is objectively good or bad is to say that your opinion is inherently true and better than anyone's who disagrees, which is pure arrogance.

Wait... Many people are agreeing that games such as Atari ET, Superman 64 and Bubsy 3D are garbage, how is it arrogant?

 

[time gear]

Wait... Many people are agreeing that games such as Atari ET, Superman 64 and Bubsy 3D are garbage, how is it arrogant?

To agree that certain games are garbage is fine. That's just a shared opinion. A subjective one. The arrogance comes in when you add in that little "Objective" word, which mucks everything up. Just because a lot of people share a subjective opinion doesn't mean that it stops being subjective. It just makes it popular. Opinions inherently can't be right or wrong due to their inherently subjective nature, so to go that extra mile and demand others to accept your opinions as objective fact is where the arrogance comes in.

 

[Linlam]

I consider games art, so it's totally subjective by nature. However, there are art works that are considered bad by a majority of people, by a lot of reasons. I personally consider Sonic 06 a bad game, and there are some reasons to it, but I know it's my subjective opinion.

 

[Icarus]

I consider games art, so it's totally subjective by nature. However, there are art works that are considered bad by a majority of people, by a lot of reasons. I personally consider Sonic 06 a bad game, and there are some reasons to it, but I know it's my subjective opinion.

Then sorry if I don't agree.

A videogame is an entertainment product where I put money into it, if it fails at what it does there is no excuse.

People may use the "but it's art" as an argument but then again there are also trash art and I wasted money on a bad product.

Also nobody could ever convince me that Fifa 12 is art, no it's just the same product made to milk money from consumers, it has no artistic value whatsoever.