Well, I came in here to say something about how that's way too many statues, but everyone else as already thoroughly covered that joke.
Jabberwock xeno said:
Sonic was bad only AFTER adventure 2, damnit!
So that means they stopped being good after... 2002-ish.
I would disagree. The Sonic and Tails stages in Sonic Adventure were great, E-102 was a nice little diversion that didn't overstay its welcome, and Knuckles, Amy, and especially Big were shit. Some of the game is good, but sadly most of it is bad and I wouldn't begrudge anyone who said it was the start of Sonic's downfall. It's kind of a toss-up: Playing as Sonic was pretty good for his first 3D outing, but it was also where they started throwing in tons of extra characters that play like ass.
Then Adventure 2 got worse by taking those nifty little E-102 stages that again, didn't overstay their welcome as there were not many of them and they were short, and turned a third of the damn game into those, then further rubbed salt in the wound by taking away the great Tails gameplay we saw in Adventure 1 and turning him into one of the shooter characters.
And of course another 3rd of the game saw the return of the treasure hunting with new and improved awfulness thanks to terrible background music (I absolutely needed to hear some clowns rapping about the Master Emerald and how Knuckles totally does not love the random pair of tits they created to mirror him on the bad guy team, so thanks for that Sega).
Then the last third is Sonic (and that Shadow thing), except they found a way to make that worse too by adding in the grinding, which wasn't bad at first when it was a rail here or a rail there but mostly running. But then when you get to the final levels and it's 25-50% grinding, it sucks. Plus, there was some room for improvement in the Sonic stages from Adventure 1, and sadly not a thing was done towards improvement.
Toss in one of the most stupid stories of all time, and not only is Adventure 2 a much worse game than Adventure 1, but it certainly falls into the category of "bad Sonic games", at least on my list.
Even if you strongly disagree with my thoughts on both of those games though, note that the article says "decade or so." You claim "2002-ish", which makes it about 9 years. This still falls squarely with the time period of a decade or so, meaning the statement is still quite accurate.
DustArma[]With the exception of a troll review by Jim Sterling
...Okay, was it actually a troll review, or did he just happen to dislike the game and thus you're calling him a troll because he has the audacity to have an opinion that differs from yours. I'm going to go find the review now, but I'm putting my money on the latter because so many people act like that towards reviews that they don't agree with.
...reading...
Yep, it was the latter. His review is fine. I don't see anything trollish about it. Here's a link if anyone is interested:
http://www.destructoid.com/review-sonic-colors-187691.phtml
