SONIC1.... stood the test of time?

[Breetai]

Sonic 2 was way better, Sonic 1 does not stand the test of time at all. If you want to talk platformers that stood the test of time, talk Rayman on any console. Sonic 1 one was never that amazing, and this is coming from someone who has no nostalgia for any Sonic Genesis games so I have a more fair judge of which is better.

So then, if you are "more fair" judge, what are your reasons for saying that Sonic 1 does not stand the test of time. I know plenty of younger people who did not play it when it was new and love the game.

-It still looks good.
-The control is spot on.
-The stages are varied and interesting (although one could argue that 3 Acts per zone is stretching it).
-The boss battles are interesting.
-The music is very catchy and professionally done.
-Many people think it is fun.
-It is not complicated to play.

Are these things somehow not true in your eyes?

[cowboyscowboys]

The stages are varied and interesting (although one could argue that 3 Acts per zone is stretching it).

I disagree I think a few of Sonic 2's zones should of kept 3 acts or have been extended. Then they wouldn't have felt the need to artificially prolong the end of the games with b.s.

[GameMaster600]

So then, if you are "more fair" judge, what are your reasons for saying that Sonic 1 does not stand the test of time. I know plenty of younger people who did not play it when it was new and love the game.

-It still looks good.
-The control is spot on.
-The stages are varied and interesting (although one could argue that 3 Acts per zone is stretching it).
-The boss battles are interesting.
-The music is very catchy and professionally done.
-Many people think it is fun.
-It is not complicated to play.

Are these things somehow not true in your eyes?

Did I ever say it was bad? It's a great game, but test of time means as fun as is now then it was back then. You say you know younger people who like it but you did not say what they thought of the other sonic games. When sonic 1 is compared to 2, it does not stand the test of time.

[j_factor]

The Labyrinth Zone boss is annoying, and the game makes no attempt to note that there are multiple ways of defeating him.

[Guntz]

I'm probably alone in this opinion, but I don't think Sonic 1 has stood the test of time at all. It's immediate sequels are all much better.

[GameMaster600]

I'm probably alone in this opinion, but I don't think Sonic 1 has stood the test of time at all. It's immediate sequels are all much better.

Yep, I knew I wasn't the only one on the forum who though the same. (see my post on page 1)

[Breetai]

Did I ever say it was bad? It's a great game, but test of time means as fun as is now then it was back then. You say you know younger people who like it but you did not say what they thought of the other sonic games. When sonic 1 is compared to 2, it does not stand the test of time.

What does "the test of time" even mean? Does it mean it's better than the sequels? Of course not! Why would it? It means that it is still a good game now.

If fact, you said it is a "great" game now. In what world does that not mean "stood the test of time." Furthermore, you said yourself that you have no nostalgia for it. That would imply that you didn't really spend much time with it back when it was new. If that is the case, how can you make the claim that it is not as fun now as it was back then? You have no basis for that claim, if I read into what you said correctly.

It was fun, looked good and played well when it was new, and that is still the case today. Someone might not think much of the game, but it still holds up as being "good/great" today.


I even looked up a quick definition of "stood the test of time":

To remain useful or valued over a long period of time; to last a long time.

I'd say Sonic 1 has better than most other games. This is not a comparison to Sonic 2, 3 or S&K, so I don't understand why you are comparing them.



*silly rant post over*

[Breetai]

Did I ever say it was bad? It's a great game, but test of time means as fun as is now then it was back then. You say you know younger people who like it but you did not say what they thought of the other sonic games. When sonic 1 is compared to 2, it does not stand the test of time.

What does "the test of time" even mean? Does it mean it's better than the sequels? Of course not! Why would it? It means that it is still a good game now.

If fact, you said it is a "great" game now. In what world does that not mean "stood the test of time." Furthermore, you said yourself that you have no nostalgia for it. That would imply that you didn't really spend much time with it back when it was new. If that is the case, how can you make the claim that it is not as fun now as it was back then? You have no basis for that claim, if I read into what you said correctly.

It was fun, looked good and played well when it was new, and that is still the case today. Someone might not think much of the game, but it still holds up as being "good/great" today.


I even looked up a quick definition of "stood the test of time":

To remain useful or valued over a long period of time; to last a long time.

I'd say Sonic 1 has better than most other games. This is not a comparison to Sonic 2, 3 or S&K, so I don't understand why you are comparing them.



*silly rant post over*


*or not*

I'm probably alone in this opinion, but I don't think Sonic 1 has stood the test of time at all. It's immediate sequels are all much better.

But Guntz, this isn't a comparison. If the sequels did not exist, would not Sonic 1 still be looked back on as being a game that still looks good as is very playable today (still useful or valued)?

[Kamahl]

The test of time is whether or not a game is still fun to play today (or is still pleasant to look at), not how it compares to it's sequels.
Sonic 1 is still extremely fun, so it passes.

Close this thread.

[Olls]

I can pop this game in at any time and have as much fun with it as I had 20 years ago.
Stood the test of time? It fucking killed it.

[Kamahl]

I can pop this game in at any time and have as much fun with it as I had 20 years ago.
Stood the test of time? It fucking killed it.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Olls again."

[TheSonicRetard]

Only Sonic CD is better. Sonic 1 is the best Sonic game on the plain-jane sega genesis.

[Kamahl]

Only Sonic CD is better. Sonic 1 is the best Sonic game on the plain-jane sega genesis.

S3&K is still the best for me. Don't really care for the whole time travel mechanic in Sonic CD (or the abysmally broken spindash).
Sonic CD looks the best though, the art direction is amazing and the colors just perfect. S3&K has some horrible colors at times.
And the music in Sonic CD (particularly the JP soundtrack) just kills everything.

[GameMaster600]

What does "the test of time" even mean? Does it mean it's better than the sequels? Of course not! Why would it? It means that it is still a good game now.

If fact, you said it is a "great" game now. In what world does that not mean "stood the test of time." Furthermore, you said yourself that you have no nostalgia for it. That would imply that you didn't really spend much time with it back when it was new. If that is the case, how can you make the claim that it is not as fun now as it was back then? You have no basis for that claim, if I read into what you said correctly.

It was fun, looked good and played well when it was new, and that is still the case today. Someone might not think much of the game, but it still holds up as being "good/great" today.


I even looked up a quick definition of "stood the test of time":

I'd say Sonic 1 has better than most other games. This is not a comparison to Sonic 2, 3 or S&K, so I don't understand why you are comparing them.



*silly rant post over*

Sonic 1 is better than most other games, Sonic 1 is better than most other games, SONIC 1 IS BETTER THAN MOST OTHER GAMES. Considering how many bad games there are in the world, that means nothing in the slightest. Games that are OK or worse I could say are better than most other games. BUBSY is better than most other games.

It's been OBVIOUS that I've been comparing Sonic 1 & 2 to each other so why get so mad if I'm looking at it from that perspective? I mean, Kirby's Dreamland 2 does not stand the test of time when compared to Super Star, Dreamland 3, and 64 The Crystal Shards, and that was a great game! Splatterhouse does not stand the test of time when compared to Splatterhouse 2 and 3, and that was also a great game! Bonk's Adventure does not stand the test of time when compared to Bonk's Revenge and that was another great game!

I never said it didn't stand the test of time when it wasn't being compared to the sequels, and that's where your argument fails. I said "Sonic 2 was way better, Sonic 1 does not stand the test of time at all." not "Sonic 1 doesn't stand the test of time at all."

EDIT: Why does a thread about Sonic 1 being a timeless game exist anyway? We all already knew that!

[Kamahl]

I said "Sonic 2 was way better, Sonic 1 does not stand the test of time at all." not "Sonic 1 doesn't stand the test of time at all."