I have come to discuss the logical fallacies of Sonic's fanbase and developers. Obviously because of the fanbase the Sonic franchise went to total and utter hell. The majority of the arguments that held today for the franchise has been fallacies in themselves and should have been called out as such before we ended up in the hell that was Lost World, Colors, and Runners.
----
"Sonic was always a kiddie franchise."
Fallacy: Texas Sharpshooter
Layman's Terms:
Sonic has been called this by "fans" that have insufficient evidence to back this up until the hell of 2008 and beyond came about. Cartoon-like effects from Sonic the Fighters, anthro characters that were (by the fans) associated with the Care Bears and Japanese cartoons. The OVA, which was a minority of the profits that SEGA had during its conception. Finally AoStH, which was dropped as soon as SatAM came around, which had more appeal and was more profitable.

All of this "evidence" was outweighed by the fact that most of the developers and the context of the plot and ideologies were heavily focused on things that would appeal to teenagers, (rebellion, complex morality, and unconventional interpretation of gender) and had a heavy focus.

The majority of the spirit that the games had during the "dark era" reflect SEGA's wishes for the franchise, which obviously meant that their mentality for Sonic was mostly focused on appealing to older and more unruly audiences.

Additional shit to know:
Combine the above with old people (growing up from the teenagers) saying "back in my day we didn't have black people on our lawn!" and we have an instantly volatile mix. The existence of these complaints come from the fact that complainers are made at a more rapid pace than a regular infant franchise.

Teenagers just say "that is babyish" to Max and Ruby, which they may have liked when they are toddlers. Adults on the other hand bitch and whine about the franchises they enjoyed (Michael Bay, Transformers and TMNT, anyone?) as teenaged adolescents. Heck, that makes teenagers more mature than adults! Ironic to the core.

The very EXISTENCE of people complaining that Sonic "was a kiddie franchise" validates the fact that it WASN'T.
----

I will come up with more points tomorrow.

At 3/8/15 10:10 PM, SansNumbers wrote:

At 3/8/15 09:21 PM, JJMAJR wrote: Fallacy: Texas Sharpshooter

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9

Fallacy fallacy, huh? Well guess what, there is at least some shit in my original post that addresses something not fallacy-based.

What is the significance of your counter-point? I have stated more significant evidence to counter the majority of claims that were made before 2008 in regards to "proving" that Sonic is (not) a kids' franchise. I brought bigger guns, and the fallacy fallacy is not going to mow me down anytime soon.

The only reason why Sonic became retarded is because of the fans that follow the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, and I will state this regardless of your opinion on the matter until you bring substantial evidence as to why my opinion is false.

Fallacy fallacy back, I brought better evidence in addition to calling out my opposition's opinion.

At 3/8/15 10:41 PM, SansNumbers wrote:

At 3/8/15 10:22 PM, JJMAJR wrote: What is the significance of your counter-point?

Providing humor in a manner that I did not intend to be relevant at all to the meat of your argument, but you seem to have missed that!

Well I have a policy of "better safe than sorry". Thank god.

The joy of that joke came after the stress.

Remember to go to Postmodern Entertainment's page! I have been trying to get that community up and running for a while now, not exactly working so far considering how small it is. You can find the group on Facebook.

You're spouting nonsense in a pitiful attempt to sound smart. Before you come up with any more points, be sure to elaborate on the ones you've already made:

most of the developers and the context of the plot and ideologies were heavily focused on things that would appeal to teenagers, (rebellion, complex morality, and unconventional interpretation of gender) and had a heavy focus.
unconventional interpretation of gender

This has never been brought up in a Sonic game.

At 3/8/15 11:46 PM, Chdonga wrote: You're spouting nonsense in a pitiful attempt to sound smart. Before you come up with any more points, be sure to elaborate on the ones you've already made:

most of the developers and the context of the plot and ideologies were heavily focused on things that would appeal to teenagers, (rebellion, complex morality, and unconventional interpretation of gender) and had a heavy focus.
unconventional interpretation of gender

This has never been brought up in a Sonic game.

It was brought up in marketing quite a bit. You are nitpicking, I was just about to edit that part out.

You should see the rest of my post. I elaborate on logical conclusions to specific things like how Sonic's focus on the teenaged demographic would inevitably result in Sonic being criticized by adults that see their franchise changing as time goes on and the perceived interpretations of maturity advance. Early games have not elaborated much on blood and gore, but Sonic targeted teenaged kids from its conception.

As those kids became adults, Sonic grew along with the rest of the industry, and seeing this, adults try to play the conservative idiot ball and try to bring Sonic "back to the good old days" where their perception of the game would be to have Sonic become incredibly sterile. In comparison, kids that grew up from one of their toddler-level shows would only say the words "I am too old for that". The irony here is that the kids literally are acting more mature than the adults now.

Similar things happened to franchises like Transformers and TMNT, and Michael Bay as a director had his reputation literally raped because of his knowledge of what demographic his stories are targeting. The odds are stacked against him from the get-go because that the content he is trying to make relevant had its past fanbase turned to a bunch of cranky adults. I actually feel pity for the director, sympathize with him even.

I feel sympathy for him because the odds are stacked against him because that the adults just cannot let go of the stuff they loved as teenagers. Sadly, it is a pattern that is inherently a part of human nature. Look at the 80's nostalgia affect going on right now!

At 3/9/15 12:08 AM, JJMAJR wrote: Sonic targeted teenaged kids from its conception.

No it didn't. It was targeted towards an audience similar to Mario's. From conception he's been depicted as a cooler Mario. Sonic may have been for a more jaded audience, but it was for kids nonetheless. The most "mature" Sonic games were Shadow the Hedgehog and Sonic '06, and the mature themes were shallow at best.

You should see the rest of my post. I elaborate on logical conclusions...

You really didn't. You just made more baseless statements. You didn't even specify what the "dark era" was. Because for me it was ~2004 to 2008. But you said that Lost World, Colors, and Sonic Runners were hell, so I doubt we have the same idea of a "dark era".

The fanbase doesn't have any hand in Sonic's development. Sonic's state of disarray is the result of SEGA/Sonic Team not knowing what to do with a speedy blue hedgehog in this day and age.

The fanbase isn't a hivemind. Each new game has completely different gameplay mechanics so there are different factions of the fanbase with clashing opinions. There is no single fanbase mentality. You're just complaining about irrational nostalgic veterans.

Also you're rambling. A lot.

At 3/9/15 01:00 AM, Chdonga wrote:

At 3/9/15 12:08 AM, JJMAJR wrote: Sonic targeted teenaged kids from its conception.

No it didn't. It was targeted towards an audience similar to Mario's. From conception he's been depicted as a cooler Mario. Sonic may have been for a more jaded audience, but it was for kids nonetheless. The most "mature" Sonic games were Shadow the Hedgehog and Sonic '06, and the mature themes were shallow at best.

Yes it did. You are acting like a Splinter Cell fan raging on at a Metal Gear fan. You think the story is crap, I think it is good. You make me appear shallow, I say you do not have the patience to have the story elaborated.

Except this time, it is one sided, I am the defender, you are the attacker. Mutual Assured Destruction does not apply to you, and you nuke my story.

If you had a game with story-based content that you want to defend, and I want to attack, and I had nothing that I need to defend myself, I would take you down in less than a second. This is a cheap shot.

Also, the behaviour of SEGA during that time seriously contradicts your claims.

You should see the rest of my post. I elaborate on logical conclusions...

You really didn't. You just made more baseless statements. You didn't even specify what the "dark era" was. Because for me it was ~2004 to 2008. But you said that Lost World, Colors, and Sonic Runners were hell, so I doubt we have the same idea of a "dark era".

The "dark era" I am referring to here is a derogatory term that is used in the most popular sense.
I never call a bad spot in video games a "dark era" because that I honestly find the term insulting because of its usage during the 2004-2008 period. I instead call it hell.

The fanbase doesn't have any hand in Sonic's development. Sonic's state of disarray is the result of SEGA/Sonic Team not knowing what to do with a speedy blue hedgehog in this day and age.

The fanbase has all the blood on their hands here. They were the ones that criticized SEGA's direction when SEGA was still in control from 2004-08. Sonic Team gave up control and thus they really started a downwards spiral.

The fanbase isn't a hivemind. Each new game has completely different gameplay mechanics so there are different factions of the fanbase with clashing opinions. There is no single fanbase mentality. You're just complaining about irrational nostalgic veterans.

And what was the most vocal, the most powerful faction during the time before we got to 2008? Definitely wasn't the nostalgic veterans. /sarcasm

Appeal to seniority fallacy. Japan's branch, the superior and the one with the most control, would have fell for this as if they had DD boobs on a 100-pound body.

Does all this even matter holy shit

At 3/9/15 05:28 AM, Jin wrote: Does all this even matter holy shit

My guess is OP had just learned about logical fallacies and now he's trying to show off his ability to identify them. If my guess is correct, then he should take a look at this.

At 3/9/15 08:48 AM, Chdonga wrote:

At 3/9/15 05:28 AM, Jin wrote: Does all this even matter holy shit

My guess is OP had just learned about logical fallacies and now he's trying to show off his ability to identify them. If my guess is correct, then he should take a look at this.

And my guess is that you didn't even bother to look five seconds at the entirety of my post. I stated why the fallacy I have identified is substantial by bringing additional evidence to back my opinion up.

I could have just spammed a bunch of logical fallacies without evidence to back it up, but I know of the fallacy fallacy. If I were to bring up a fallacy and try to show that it is significant I need to back it up with more evidence to show that the fallacy really matters.

Evidence summary: Behaviour does not match up with if Sonic was a "kiddie franchise".

Evidence point one: Sonic Team tried to make sure that they attracted as many fans as possible. They did this through trying to appeal to popular culture at any cost, and popular culture is most significant to the teenaged demographic.

Evidence point two: The fanbase did not act in the lieu of what a kiddie franchise acts like. Fans of that franchise grew up from teenagers to adults. Being adults they are much more resistant to change than teenagers and have more of a voice.

Evidence point three: Teenagers are able to move on from a piece of fiction they do not like anymore, and would identify that the piece does not appeal to them anymore and they would easily move on.

I brought evidence to back up my claim in the original post. Fallacy fallacy only applies if there is not a significant amount of evidence to back up the significance of the fallacy that is being attacked. To call this evidence insignificant would require you to back your opinion up with more evidence. I have more evidence to back my opinion up as to why today we got to this shithole with Runners, (plotwise it is crap, P2W, and visuals are garbage) Lost Whore, and Colours; I gotten this evidence to counter your complaints about the fanbase not being a hive-mind.

Evidence point four: SoJ has management blind spots that are cultural in nature. This is easily represented in the fact that their studios outside SoJ are given less control, subject to racism, and et cetera. Seniority is another issue they have.

Evidence point five: SoJ would fall for the faction that claims to be the oldest of fans, regardless of how healthy it may be for them. This refers to the seniority blind spot they have and this also refers to the fans of Sonic becoming adults.

Evidence point six: Any management for SEGA would easily go for the route that would give them the safest PR representation. SoJ does not want to contradict their Japanese fanbase's mentality, or the guys playing seniority.

Evidence point seven: All of the above results in SoJ stating that "Sonic is for kids" because to them it is the easiest way to not get shit thrown on them by their perceived overpowered aggressors or from their fans at home.

Evidence point eight: Other employees and representatives at SEGA stated things that contradict SoJ in terms of Sonic's direction. This further drives the point home that SoJ is stating something for PR and is generally false in the matter.

Sonic fans like Sonic. The end.

OP is friggin nuts - like sonic fans. ba dum tssh

AD HOMINEM!!!!!!!!!!11

Has it not occurred to anyone else to point out that OP is in fact demonstrating Sonic fanbase mentality himself, in a thread meant to deride the very same, being as how OP is clearly a Sonic fan?

Most of the stuff in the original post is meaningless to me and I would assume to almost anyone else who wasn't a diehard Sonic fan that stuck with it to the present day.

What Sonic was was a marketing ploy from the very beginning. Sonic was never good. He was just meant to be "edgy" and "cool" to "beat" Nintendo. But this tactic failed, as it has for literally every other game company that ever tried it. So then Knuckles was introduced as an "edgier" character.... and when they felt they needed an even "edgier" character years later they went with Shadow.

It was initially marketed toward teenagers from what I can tell, or at least older kids. Later stuff was clearly marketed towards kids.

Also, on a completely different note, OP seems to be arguing that it's okay to completely shit on once-good franchises just to make a buck based on their former reputation and nobody should care, and if anyone dares to criticize this practice they're being "immature". That's bullshit. People don't have to like everything and in fact blindly liking something just because you liked the earlier work would be more immature than coming to the realization things change and sometimes not for the better. Know what companies should do instead of trying to "reinvent" and milk their cash cow franchises to death? Oh, how about make new franchises? But no they won't do that because they're more interested in baiting people based off the old reputation and they know it. Bait-and-switch.

If you bait someone, and then you give them something other than what they were expecting (bait-and-switch), and they don't like that, you really can't blame them for not liking that.

All I see here is personal opinions dressed up to sound like facts. How about we leave it at Sonic will always have some fans (even if the series is a dead horse) and not everybody is going to like it. If you like it or don't like it, you are more than welcomed to your opinion but you shouldn't force it on others. End of story.

At 3/10/15 05:44 PM, NeonSpider wrote: Has it not occurred to anyone else to point out that OP is in fact demonstrating Sonic fanbase mentality himself, in a thread meant to deride the very same, being as how OP is clearly a Sonic fan?

Most of the stuff in the original post is meaningless to me and I would assume to almost anyone else who wasn't a diehard Sonic fan that stuck with it to the present day.

What Sonic was was a marketing ploy from the very beginning. Sonic was never good. He was just meant to be "edgy" and "cool" to "beat" Nintendo. But this tactic failed, as it has for literally every other game company that ever tried it. So then Knuckles was introduced as an "edgier" character.... and when they felt they needed an even "edgier" character years later they went with Shadow.

It was initially marketed toward teenagers from what I can tell, or at least older kids. Later stuff was clearly marketed towards kids.

Also, on a completely different note, OP seems to be arguing that it's okay to completely shit on once-good franchises just to make a buck based on their former reputation and nobody should care, and if anyone dares to criticize this practice they're being "immature". That's bullshit. People don't have to like everything and in fact blindly liking something just because you liked the earlier work would be more immature than coming to the realization things change and sometimes not for the better. Know what companies should do instead of trying to "reinvent" and milk their cash cow franchises to death? Oh, how about make new franchises? But no they won't do that because they're more interested in baiting people based off the old reputation and they know it. Bait-and-switch.

If you bait someone, and then you give them something other than what they were expecting (bait-and-switch), and they don't like that, you really can't blame them for not liking that.

I am merely observing the behaviours and how they match up to what arguments that the fans have made and seeing if they match up. Truth be told, they do not.

I am calling the "kids" that would have been fans of a franchise the ones that are ironically being more mature than adults. They are more adaptable to change, and they are easily going to let go of something when they need to, despite how typical it may seem to do otherwise. They see that something doesn't appeal to them anymore? They would just say, "meh, it is for kids". Adults that see their teenaged lives go down the drain would be the first to complain about it in comparison.

I am stating that Sonic is NOT for kids, because that the fact that the fanbase is so broken from teenagers that reach adulthood that are seeing what they loved go down a path they do not like, and complaining about it rather than doing the right thing and just adapt to the new circumstances.

I highlighted an irony where the older and more experienced are acting LESS mature than the children they are raising, and that made the franchise go downhill post-2008.

You seem to be implying that you have to like all changes. No, you do not. And it's perfectly fine and acceptable to say "The new stuff is garbage. The old stuff was better" about anything, provided there is a difference. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

I'm not even a fan of Sonic, but I can see how someone might like the old Sonic games but not the new ones, and that's a perfectly fine and valid position. Likewise if someone liked only the new stuff but not the older stuff, that's fine too.

To say if you've ever liked any of it you then must like all of it, is a bit strange I'd say.

And while I'd agree with you that Sonic wasn't originally for kids but was more geared towards teenagers with the whole "edgy attitude" thing, I would say in recent years it very much has been geared towards kids. Things change.

I would say majority of people who liked the old Sonic stuff most likely moved on to other things.

The main problem with Sonic from the very start is he's kind of a broken concept. His specialty is "going fast" but that doesn't really translate well into video games people can actually play, so the games were mostly slow-paced until you hit some automated loops or such anyway, at which point you weren't really controlling the character anyway.

The old games had good music. That's probably the one thing they did right. I wouldn't know too much about the newer Sonic games. I don't play a lot of new games anyway. Not usually my cup of tea.

At 3/10/15 08:50 PM, NeonSpider wrote: You seem to be implying that you have to like all changes. No, you do not. And it's perfectly fine and acceptable to say "The new stuff is garbage. The old stuff was better" about anything, provided there is a difference. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

I'm not even a fan of Sonic, but I can see how someone might like the old Sonic games but not the new ones, and that's a perfectly fine and valid position. Likewise if someone liked only the new stuff but not the older stuff, that's fine too.

To say if you've ever liked any of it you then must like all of it, is a bit strange I'd say.

And while I'd agree with you that Sonic wasn't originally for kids but was more geared towards teenagers with the whole "edgy attitude" thing, I would say in recent years it very much has been geared towards kids. Things change.

I would say majority of people who liked the old Sonic stuff most likely moved on to other things.

The main problem with Sonic from the very start is he's kind of a broken concept. His specialty is "going fast" but that doesn't really translate well into video games people can actually play, so the games were mostly slow-paced until you hit some automated loops or such anyway, at which point you weren't really controlling the character anyway.

The old games had good music. That's probably the one thing they did right. I wouldn't know too much about the newer Sonic games. I don't play a lot of new games anyway. Not usually my cup of tea.

I never wanted to say that not liking change is ever wrong. Sonic fans taken it way too far and I did most of my maturity-based ironies in order to put them down for making the fanbase so broken in the first place. Nothing more about that.

I also pointed out that the saying "Sonic is for kids" does not match up with the majority of the behaviour of SEGA and the fanbase of Sonic. Had it been this way there wouldn't have been a contradiction between Sonic and his attitude towards children before 2008, and had it been this way kids wouldn't be complaining about the games and they would have moved on if they do not find appeal in the games anymore.

I am saying that I find it wrong that these fallacies are the reasoning behind Sonic taking this rather poor route in the first place. Had the changes been based off of factual information that matches up with the behaviour of SEGA in the past and the fanbase's development in the present and before I would not have been complaining about this in the first place.

At 3/9/15 12:49 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Sonic fans like Sonic. The end.

Kek. No fucking shit.

I will never understand the Sonic fanbase, the people that criticise it, the "muh neutrality hurr durr" cucks and the direction the series wants to take. Everyone is just as fucking bad, but the people who criticise the fanbase at least arent blinded by "muh favrit gaem".

And the neutrality cucks with the "i dunt haev 2 liek evrything" should either choose which side they want to help or fuck off.

At 3/11/15 03:16 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Are we all ignoring the elephant in the room here?

Why is that man in your room? Why did you allow it? Why? Why!?

Well I guess you're stuck with him now. (At least he's not Pamperchu .. ROFL .. but still)

I suppose there is nothing left to do except board up the room so he can't get out to infect others. You have already been infected. It's too late for you. Your sacrifice will not be forgotten. We salute you brave soldier!

At 3/11/15 03:16 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Are we all ignoring the elephant in the room here?

Okay, who is that and what does he represent?

At 3/11/15 06:55 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

At 3/11/15 03:16 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Are we all ignoring the elephant in the room here?

Okay, who is that and what does he represent?

He's Chris Chan and he represents one of, but not the final, bosses of the Internet. He's a late stage boss maybe somewhere around stage 8, if the Internet was a video game and had 10 stages.

He's kind of like the Mr. Sandman of Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!

I dont care about Sonic

A thread born as a train wreck, unless it earns a derailing they just aren't worth the attention.

At 3/11/15 07:51 PM, NeonSpider wrote: He's Chris Chan and he represents one of, but not the final, bosses of the Internet. He's a late stage boss maybe somewhere around stage 8, if the Internet was a video game and had 10 stages.
He's kind of like the Mr. Sandman of Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!

Wait, the internet has stages now? The internet can be defeated?

At 3/11/15 09:06 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: A thread born as a train wreck, unless it earns a derailing they just aren't worth the attention.

Ad hominem. All of it just one ad hominem.

We get it, OP. You can point out logical fallacies. Do you want a medal for your endeavors?

I honestly have no real idea what the OP is talking about, it's almost like he's trying to sound smart by using nonsensical opinions instead the games themselves.

If we are talking about the franchise itself, there was a time that Sonic was considered "edgy" and "cool" compared to Mario, even though it was largely just skin deep and based on the concept that he goes fast and spouting 90's one-liners. One of the biggest problems is that Sonic Team doesn't really know what to do with him, which in turn means that they give him gimmick after gimmick and never stick on any one thing aside from running fast. Because of the inconsistency involved, the quality of the games themselves suffer, and even the good Sonic games of the modern era tends to slightly above average at best, and the worst ones are the worst games in recent memory.

Also, Sonic has always been a "kiddie" franchise, considering that the only people who enjoy the franchise are either kids or adults who grew up playing Sonic. Even Shadow the hedgehog {originally a T game, though other than the occasional cursing, wasn't really that kid-offensive} was only slightly more mature than the rest of them, and it was trying too hard to do just that. Personally, I didn't mind the edgier version of Sonic in Shadow, though he would be better off as a Deadpool-esque kind of character instead of totally grim, angsty character who comes off as a total prick. While teens do play Sonic games then and now, it's only because then, he was basically about as 90's as you can get and now, it's either because of nostalgia {think about how many devices and collections are out there that have the first 2 Sonic games in them} or because the perception is that it's much deeper than Sonic running fast and kicking Robotnik's/Eggman's ass, when it really didn't need to be.

At 3/11/15 07:51 PM, NeonSpider wrote: He's Chris Chan and he represents one of, but not the final, bosses of the Internet. He's a late stage boss maybe somewhere around stage 8, if the Internet was a video game and had 10 stages.

He's kind of like the Mr. Sandman of Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!

Best Post in this thread.

Friend request sent!