Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25542775-20140213234732/@comment-1669199-20140310215320

PyroGothNerd wrote: Genesjs wrote:

YoshiWii1 wrote:

Genesjs wrote:

YoshiWii1 wrote:

Genesjs wrote:

YoshiWii1 wrote:

Eddie.mattison.5 wrote: Did anyone else notice a figure similair to enerjack in the game trailer.

look at both and respond with your thoughts It's not thankfully. Because if it was? I will cancel my pre-order of Sonic Boom and refuse to watch the show. You would do this... over a mere reference to another work? I don't want anything Archie being in any Sonic games. I just don't want anything to do with them. I'm not even going to justify this with further argument. Look all I am saying is I don't want Archie stuff in Sonic games. Respect that I do respect that, but in my opinion its unreasonable to distance yourself from something just over a small, insignificant reference that makes no impact on anything whatsoever (assuming what we're seeing IS a reference to anything Archie/SatAM to begin with). Respect that. Yeah! There's nothing wrong with Archie characters. Choosing to distance yourself from something over something as stupid as "Oh I don't like that one character" is pretty hard to respect. What if SEGA decides to have Archie stuff in the games?

It would make sense, because, first, some fans are actually asking for that.

Second, there are a lot of good characters in the comics.

Thrid, many characters (such as Bean the Dynamite and Nack the Weasel) were originally in the games, but were used more in the comics

Fourth, because it could also apeal to people who miss the old cartoons, and SEGA would want to appeal to as many audiences as it can.

And fifth, because they can if they want to. I know that last one sounds dumb, but it's true. They wanted to give Sonic a sword? They did it. They wanted to buff up Knuckles? Done. They wanted Sonic to have what BlackNerd Comedy referred to as a "hipster scarf?" Done. Archie would probably let them use their characters if they wanted, because Sega owns many of the characters they're using in their comics, and they'd get paid royalties.

Besides, if they decide they want Archie characters, they have the right to do so, and there aren't going to be nearly enough angry fans to make them decide otherwise.

Seriously, you sound like one of the "Genwunners" in the Pokemon fandom.

"Hipster scarf?" How about "Scarf of Egg-Scrambling?"