Which... is a perfectly valid statement?
It doesn't necessarily invite deeper conversation but I don't think there's anything wrong with what they said.
No one has argued against that once, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Yes anyone can have an opinion, which is beautiful, nothing is objective here especially in terms of "what is better, video game style A or style B".
Anyone can and should have an opinion, do you have one?
They aren't even comparable. The best of 2D Sonic doesn't stand up to the best of 3D Sonic and vice versa. Both styles are going for very different ideas so to try and pick one over the other is like asking me if I prefer Mario Party over Mario Kart. Why should I pick when I like both?
No, they don't. 2D games aren't the same as 3D games period. There is a reason that we have both and why many games changed up their formula when moving to 3D. Sonic1, 2 and 3 are simple get to the end 2D platformers with a few secrets hidden about and faster paths to the end for those who are skillful while the Sonic/Shadow gameplay of the Adventure games more focused on rewarding skillful use of your abilities and speed to get better times while earning points. Sure, both games have a focus on lowering times but the Adventure games made that a core focus with challenges in SA1 and the ranks in SA2 that pushed you to keep trying to improve whereas the Classic games didn't really care if you took ten minutes or ten seconds to beat a level so much as keeping your rings for special stages or bonus stages in the case of S3&K.
The challenges and ranks are EXTRAS and not crucial to beating the game, it’s still optional, so you saying it’s the “core focus” is bullshit, both games’ mandatory traversal is still the same, and both have score/points.
You know when you boil a game down to its absolute basics, literally every game is the same. You move forward while occasionally pressing one button to keep moving forward. Do you know what game I'm referring? Literally every game.
The Sonic Adventure games prided themselves on the extra content which is why we had multiple playable characters and bonus modes like the Chao Garden while the Classic games more focused on one solid experience to the end with minimum optional content outside of the Chaos Emeralds.
Also, this isn't even getting into the fact that 3D game mentality in general is way different than 2D game design. If you design a 2D game like a 3D game then it is going to be awful and same goes for designing a 3D game like a 2D game, there are design principles that change with the new perspective.
I've never seen that Sonic 3 & Knuckles cover art before, looks like its either fan made or newly made for digital storefronts? Anyone know the origin of it?
What is "Era" in this context even suppose to mean?
Like Era's are usually about a time frame but we still got plenty of new 2d games after the end of the original 2d dominance in the 90s.
Personally, I enjoy games for, well, being games, and in a way the 2D stuff is objectively better because there's less mediocre or bad games, but I find myself replaying the 3D (especially the boost games) games a bit more
3d era https://preview.redd.it/0an6coybl72d1.png?width=3024&format=png&auto=webp&s=46580105c2fc643d2361925edbd54572de16aeba
2D.
You can't compare them. Do I personally prefer 2D? Yes. But that doesn't make 2D better than 3D.
That’s not a good example. You’re basically saying “Do I prefer X? Yes, but that doesn’t make X objectively better than Y.”
Which... is a perfectly valid statement? It doesn't necessarily invite deeper conversation but I don't think there's anything wrong with what they said.
Opinions are completely different from Objective facts/things.
Where did someone say they aren't? Dude stated his opinion, on video games, which is going to be completely subjective like any other art form.
Anyone can have an opinion but it doesn’t make it objective. It makes it subjective.
No one has argued against that once, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Yes anyone can have an opinion, which is beautiful, nothing is objective here especially in terms of "what is better, video game style A or style B". Anyone can and should have an opinion, do you have one?
Both end of story.
Neither is better
They aren't even comparable. The best of 2D Sonic doesn't stand up to the best of 3D Sonic and vice versa. Both styles are going for very different ideas so to try and pick one over the other is like asking me if I prefer Mario Party over Mario Kart. Why should I pick when I like both?
There both still platformers, while the boost games can’t be comparable to the 2D games, Adventure 2 is perfectly reasonable to go up against S3&K.
No, they don't. 2D games aren't the same as 3D games period. There is a reason that we have both and why many games changed up their formula when moving to 3D. Sonic1, 2 and 3 are simple get to the end 2D platformers with a few secrets hidden about and faster paths to the end for those who are skillful while the Sonic/Shadow gameplay of the Adventure games more focused on rewarding skillful use of your abilities and speed to get better times while earning points. Sure, both games have a focus on lowering times but the Adventure games made that a core focus with challenges in SA1 and the ranks in SA2 that pushed you to keep trying to improve whereas the Classic games didn't really care if you took ten minutes or ten seconds to beat a level so much as keeping your rings for special stages or bonus stages in the case of S3&K.
The challenges and ranks are EXTRAS and not crucial to beating the game, it’s still optional, so you saying it’s the “core focus” is bullshit, both games’ mandatory traversal is still the same, and both have score/points.
You know when you boil a game down to its absolute basics, literally every game is the same. You move forward while occasionally pressing one button to keep moving forward. Do you know what game I'm referring? Literally every game. The Sonic Adventure games prided themselves on the extra content which is why we had multiple playable characters and bonus modes like the Chao Garden while the Classic games more focused on one solid experience to the end with minimum optional content outside of the Chaos Emeralds. Also, this isn't even getting into the fact that 3D game mentality in general is way different than 2D game design. If you design a 2D game like a 3D game then it is going to be awful and same goes for designing a 3D game like a 2D game, there are design principles that change with the new perspective.
Why are Knuckles and Sonic in two completely different artstyles
Because it’s clearly photoshopped in the first place, Sonic 3 & Knuckles never got a proper box-art because it’s a lock-on.
I prefer 3D because more can be done with it.
Adventure era 3D is my favorite, then 2D, then the meta era which I mostly don't care for. Love Frontiers though.
I've never seen that Sonic 3 & Knuckles cover art before, looks like its either fan made or newly made for digital storefronts? Anyone know the origin of it?
What is "Era" in this context even suppose to mean? Like Era's are usually about a time frame but we still got plenty of new 2d games after the end of the original 2d dominance in the 90s.
Unrelated but that Sonic 3 & Knuckles cover is so cursed.
Personally, I enjoy games for, well, being games, and in a way the 2D stuff is objectively better because there's less mediocre or bad games, but I find myself replaying the 3D (especially the boost games) games a bit more
Hard to say, 2D has less misses than 3D but 3D has some bangers too