/vr/ - Retro Games

>>7428919
I noticed this on /v/, and I really do think it's shitposting for (You)s
I understand what autism is and there are going to be cases these are what is fueling this shit, but come on. Naturally, at least with Sonic, I know it's to pull a bait and switch where "the later games are bad because Sonic 2 was the "prime" cultperate of where it all goes wrong despite the fact one "flaw" like being more linear than the rest of the 2D games isn't why Sonic later in the modern era became dogshit, just because it's used as a reason as to why modern Sonic era games are bad

It's called context. It's a fucking 2D game. Of COURSE it can be more linear, that's the point. S3K doing more to give a 2D game more depth doesn't make the more linear game bad, it just adds flavor to a working formula. 3D Sonic however, is THREE D. It has least if any reason to be 2.5D from behind where physics that used to dicate gameplay and control is now replaced with either broken coding or boost2win. And I personally believe this is where the shitposting lie. It comes from a lack of understanding, context. People want to bash on the classic games because "if it's bad for modern, it's bad for classic" without understand context

No, Sonic 1 isn't a bad game, but games like S2 and S3K are just more focused on what people really expect out of Sonic. He isn't Mario but fast. He's a fast platformer, and if that conflicts with your idea of Sonic, too bad. Just stick to Sonic 1. It's not like the game disappeared or something just because Sonic 2 is the foundation of what people like from Sonic.