Screwattack: Death Battle-Mario vs. Sonic

Well since there will never be a Mario/Sonic crossover game not involving olympics, might as well enjoy this. About time the death battle guys did this one.

http://screwattack.com/blogs/DEATH-BATTLE/Mario-VS-Sonic-DEATH-BATTLE

There was also Vegeta vs Shadow the Hedgehog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV47Il1o-Yo

There was also Vegeta vs Shadow the Hedgehog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV47Il1o-Yo

nintendoboy16

Some of their match-ups are as bad as Deadliest Warriors. Riptor vs Yoshi? Ze hell?
The only thing that saves the show is the voice of Nappa in DBZ Abridged (takahata, forget what he calls himself on that series) is a co-host. The other guy is boring.demoman_chaos

You mean GHOST NAPPA :D 

Yeah i guess its harder to make a good Sonic game than it is to make a good Mario gamesmashking777

Well Mario has the advantage of still having his original creator at the helm and being part of a studio that still makes hardware and software in the same building. It will be a sad day when Miyamoto retires but some hope someone just as good can take over the series like Anomoura did with Zelda.

Sonic on the other hand is still made by the "Sonic Team" but only exists in name. Most of the original Sonic team is gone and up until recently were tired of making Sonic games because Sega was just forcing them to crank out unfinished crap just to milk the cash cow but this has been toned back in recent years like handing some projects off to Dimps or in the case of Sonic and Sega All Star Racing to a company like Sumo so Sonic Team actually has time to finish and polish their games.

[QUOTE="smashking777"]Yeah i guess its harder to make a good Sonic game than it is to make a good Mario gamekbaily

Well Mario has the advantage of still having his original creator at the helm and being part of a studio that still makes hardware and software in the same building. It will be a sad day when Miyamoto retires but some hope someone just as good can take over the series like Anomoura did with Zelda.

Sonic on the other hand is still made by the "Sonic Team" but only exists in name. Most of the original Sonic team is gone and up until recently were tired of making Sonic games because Sega was just forcing them to crank out unfinished crap just to milk the cash cow but this has been toned back in recent years like handing some projects off to Dimps or in the case of Sonic and Sega All Star Racing to a company like Sumo so Sonic Team actually has time to finish and polish their games.

Just because the original Sonic Team is almost gone, that doesn't give them the exuse to make horrible Sonic games. There is NO exuse for making a game as broken as Sonic 0'6. To further prove my point, Sonic Unleashed (360) was terrible, but it was because someone at Sonic Team decided to make 75% of the game a frustrating beat'em up. SpaceSword

They were rushed, plain and simple. They had to get it out before the Christmas rush so it was sent out well before it was ready.

The problem when new people take over old franchises is they try to make a game match the old, not surpass it. The try to do "justice" to the franchise and instead make a game more for themselves than anyone else.

As for Mario having better games, this may be true for 3D but not for 2D. Frustrating percision platforming vs fluid and smooth platforming. Sonic 1 vs Mario 1, Sonic 1 is the clear superior (especially musicwise). Sonic 2 vs Mario 2 and Mario 2 Japan (our Mario 2 is the real one, Doki Doki Panic is the retexture made in a promotion with the company that holds the license so Nintendo just threw together some levels in the Mario 1 engine for Japan), again Sonic 2 is a clear winner. Mario 3 vs Sonic 3 is a draw. Mario 3 has more cryptic and frustrating nonsense, Sonic 3 has the red drum of DEATH!!!! Mario World vs S&K, again pretty close but you can't stick Mario 3 in World for some tag team pwning. And Sonic has much better Boss variety.
Music-wise, Mario is utterly thrashed by Sonic. Mario music is more known because it is the only 4 songs that play during the entire game (even World and 64 were very stingy on music). Sonic 1 and 2 have different music for each zone while 3 and  S&K have new music each level. Sonic doesn't sacrifice animals to reach higher places (poor Yoshi) or kill living beings by crushing them.

So in Mario vs Sonic 2D, Sonic wins hands down. In 3D, I'd give me edge to Mario, but not by much. 

[QUOTE="smashking777"]Yeah i guess its harder to make a good Sonic game than it is to make a good Mario gamekbaily

Well Mario has the advantage of still having his original creator at the helm and being part of a studio that still makes hardware and software in the same building. It will be a sad day when Miyamoto retires but some hope someone just as good can take over the series like Anomoura did with Zelda.

Sonic on the other hand is still made by the "Sonic Team" but only exists in name. Most of the original Sonic team is gone and up until recently were tired of making Sonic games because Sega was just forcing them to crank out unfinished crap just to milk the cash cow but this has been toned back in recent years like handing some projects off to Dimps or in the case of Sonic and Sega All Star Racing to a company like Sumo so Sonic Team actually has time to finish and polish their games.

Oh well no wonder then SEGA why sonic has bad games then they rush Sonic games unlike Mario games where they take their time i bet even the new Sonic team staff could Par the original Sonic games (or somewhere near there) if they took thier time

[QUOTE="SpaceSword"]Just because the original Sonic Team is almost gone, that doesn't give them the exuse to make horrible Sonic games. There is NO exuse for making a game as broken as Sonic 0'6. To further prove my point, Sonic Unleashed (360) was terrible, but it was because someone at Sonic Team decided to make 75% of the game a frustrating beat'em up. demoman_chaos

They were rushed, plain and simple. They had to get it out before the Christmas rush so it was sent out well before it was ready.

The problem when new people take over old franchises is they try to make a game match the old, not surpass it. The try to do "justice" to the franchise and instead make a game more for themselves than anyone else.

As for Mario having better games, this may be true for 3D but not for 2D. Frustrating percision platforming vs fluid and smooth platforming. Sonic 1 vs Mario 1, Sonic 1 is the clear superior (especially musicwise). Sonic 2 vs Mario 2 and Mario 2 Japan (our Mario 2 is the real one, Doki Doki Panic is the retexture made in a promotion with the company that holds the license so Nintendo just threw together some levels in the Mario 1 engine for Japan), again Sonic 2 is a clear winner. Mario 3 vs Sonic 3 is a draw. Mario 3 has more cryptic and frustrating nonsense, Sonic 3 has the red drum of DEATH!!!! Mario World vs S&K, again pretty close but you can't stick Mario 3 in World for some tag team pwning. And Sonic has much better Boss variety.
Music-wise, Mario is utterly thrashed by Sonic. Mario music is more known because it is the only 4 songs that play during the entire game (even World and 64 were very stingy on music). Sonic 1 and 2 have different music for each zone while 3 and S&K have new music each level. Sonic doesn't sacrifice animals to reach higher places (poor Yoshi) or kill living beings by crushing them.

So in Mario vs Sonic 2D, Sonic wins hands down. In 3D, I'd give me edge to Mario, but not by much.

What sort of surprised me in the video was Mario donning his frog suit to go underwater. Sure the frog suit is awesome but NSMBWii's Penguin suit blows it away as it's not totally useless out of the water. You get the smooth swimming of the frog suit plus the ability to slide on ice and shoot snowballs.

Penguin Suit > Frog Suit

I disagree. First of all, Mario 1&2 came out a generation BEFORE Sonic 1, so Sonic 1 would obviously win. But which game had a bigger impact on the gaming industry? Which one sold more? Mario 1. I'll admit Mario 2 is nothing compared to Sonic 2. But, in my honest opinion, I believe Mario 3 is way better. You said it was "frustrating nonsense", but did you look at Sonic 3?Having completed Sonic 3 many times, I think its mostly trial and error gameplay. And you said Sonic doesn't sacrifice animals, but look at Tails, and Sonic crushes enemies too, and I don't see how that could make Sonic better then Mario.SpaceSword

You forget all the pretenders who tried to overtake Sonic, there are far more of Sonic pretenders than Mario ones. Fellows like BUbsy the Cat, Ty the Tasmanian Tiger, and arguably Crash Bandicoot to name a few. Both had significant impact, but in different ways.

Sonic 3 is straightforward, once you realize the drums can be controlled with the D-pad after you get them moving (major facepalm moment). Mario 3 requires you to already know many things. Like the level in the cave where you have to grab a koopa shell, fly into a small area in the cieling and use the shell to clear the way to the exit.

Sonic doesn't crush, he stabs/slices with his spikes. He is not a fat plumber, he is a lean and mean speed machine. Face it, Genesis does what Nintendon't. :P

[QUOTE="SpaceSword"]I disagree. First of all, Mario 1&2 came out a generation BEFORE Sonic 1, so Sonic 1 would obviously win. But which game had a bigger impact on the gaming industry? Which one sold more? Mario 1. I'll admit Mario 2 is nothing compared to Sonic 2. But, in my honest opinion, I believe Mario 3 is way better. You said it was "frustrating nonsense", but did you look at Sonic 3?Having completed Sonic 3 many times, I think its mostly trial and error gameplay. And you said Sonic doesn't sacrifice animals, but look at Tails, and Sonic crushes enemies too, and I don't see how that could make Sonic better then Mario.demoman_chaos

You forget all the pretenders who tried to overtake Sonic, there are far more of Sonic pretenders than Mario ones. Fellows like BUbsy the Cat, Ty the Tasmanian Tiger, and arguably Crash Bandicoot to name a few. Both had significant impact, but in different ways.

Sonic 3 is straightforward, once you realize the drums can be controlled with the D-pad after you get them moving (major facepalm moment). Mario 3 requires you to already know many things. Like the level in the cave where you have to grab a koopa shell, fly into a small area in the cieling and use the shell to clear the way to the exit.

Sonic doesn't crush, he stabs/slices with his spikes. He is not a fat plumber, he is a lean and mean speed machine. Face it, Genesis does what Nintendon't. :P

Actually, I recommend (if you havent already) watch AVGN's Super Mario 3 review. Its actually quite informative

http://youtu.be/7TWQz8TMsc0

Bubsy was a Mario 64 ripoff :P and back in the age of Super Mario 3, people talked about the game and shared secrets. Look at the original zelda, you had no idea were to go, but since so many people talked about the game, people found out about those secrets, and thats how the game became a classic. Same with Super Mario 3. I'm sure almost everyone was overjoyed when they found their first warp whistle. But it just wasnt the secrets that made Mario 3 great. The crazy enemies, that one world were everything was huge, and seeing Mario turn into a statue was all fun, and thats why I prefer Mario 3 :P

Actually, I recommend (if you havent already) watch AVGN's Super Mario 3 review. Its actually quite informative

http://youtu.be/7TWQz8TMsc0

SpaceSword

You are royally wrong about Bubsy. Bubsy first appeared on the Genesis and SNES, long before Mario 64. Watch THIS on Bubsy and laugh at how weak he was.

I was gonna use that AVGN video to prove Mario 3 is satanic.

[QUOTE="SpaceSword"]Bubsy was a Mario 64 ripoff :P and back in the age of Super Mario 3, people talked about the game and shared secrets. Look at the original zelda, you had no idea were to go, but since so many people talked about the game, people found out about those secrets, and thats how the game became a classic. Same with Super Mario 3. I'm sure almost everyone was overjoyed when they found their first warp whistle. But it just wasnt the secrets that made Mario 3 great. The crazy enemies, that one world were everything was huge, and seeing Mario turn into a statue was all fun, and thats why I prefer Mario 3 :P

Actually, I recommend (if you havent already) watch AVGN's Super Mario 3 review. Its actually quite informative

http://youtu.be/7TWQz8TMsc0

demoman_chaos

You are royally wrong about Bubsy. Bubsy first appeared on the Genesis and SNES, long before Mario 64. Watch THIS on Bubsy and laugh at how weak he was.

I was gonna use that AVGN video to prove Mario 3 is satanic.

Also, if you noticed, Mario can now die of falling. Sonic still can't be killed after falling from the Egg Carrier down to Earth, or after falling from a flagship on the Egg Fleet and landing on another ship.

[QUOTE="SpaceSword"]Bubsy was a Mario 64 ripoff :P and back in the age of Super Mario 3, people talked about the game and shared secrets. Look at the original zelda, you had no idea were to go, but since so many people talked about the game, people found out about those secrets, and thats how the game became a classic. Same with Super Mario 3. I'm sure almost everyone was overjoyed when they found their first warp whistle. But it just wasnt the secrets that made Mario 3 great. The crazy enemies, that one world were everything was huge, and seeing Mario turn into a statue was all fun, and thats why I prefer Mario 3 :P

Actually, I recommend (if you havent already) watch AVGN's Super Mario 3 review. Its actually quite informative

http://youtu.be/7TWQz8TMsc0

demoman_chaos

You are royally wrong about Bubsy. Bubsy first appeared on the Genesis and SNES, long before Mario 64. Watch THIS on Bubsy and laugh at how weak he was.

I was gonna use that AVGN video to prove Mario 3 is satanic.

There were a lot of other satanic things in their, and the premire of it during The Wizard movie with all teh gates and smoke is like the gates of hell opening.

I would love to see a flash crossover game pitting Mario & Sonic in each others worlds with only their own abilities (turn coins into rings). It would be interesting to see how far each could get. I think Mario wouldn't be able to get past Green Hill (the boss is too high for him to get above to stomp). Sonic would be able to win if he gets all the warp zones. If he gets to a water level, he is toast.

I never liked Mario. As a kid I actually hated him. Sonic was my hero.Soniczero1993

heh heh werernt those good days Nintendo and Sega in the bit wars

[QUOTE="Soniczero1993"]I never liked Mario. As a kid I actually hated him. Sonic was my hero.smashking777

heh heh werernt those good days Nintendo and Sega in the bit wars

But yeah, those were the days. But for me, there was no bit war, I had a genesis and snes :twisted:

The debate of who is better still rages on... :Pmacrules_640

Let's see who still has his own console and who's now working for the guy who has his own console? Oh right the Dreamcast DIED. Nintendo lives on.kbaily

*that was sarcasm

Let's see who still has his own console and who's now working for the guy who has his own console? Oh right the Dreamcast DIED. Nintendo lives on.kbaily

Sega's poor marketing and internal conflict led to their console department failing. The Saturn never got a Sonic game due to internal politics. They tried their hardest to make the Genesis last via the Sega CD and 32x when they should have just  made a new console. There are many many more mistakes I could list.
The Gamecube was a very distant 3rd when compared to the PS2 and XBox. If they didn't completly switch direction with the Wii, Nintendo would have fallen. Even now, their sales have dwindle rapidly as people have gotten bored of the waggle control gimmick. The 3DS is doing poorly, since again it relies on a gimmick it otherwise does nothing the DS can't do besides have an analog stick. It is really just a PSP with a touchscreen on the bottom and a 3D gimmick. The entire 3DS library consists of ports/remakes and Wii-esque minigame fests. Once they run out of gimmicks to exploit, Nintendo will fall.

[QUOTE="kbaily"]Let's see who still has his own console and who's now working for the guy who has his own console? Oh right the Dreamcast DIED. Nintendo lives on.demoman_chaos

Sega's poor marketing and internal conflict led to their console department failing. The Saturn never got a Sonic game due to internal politics. They tried their hardest to make the Genesis last via the Sega CD and 32x when they should have just  made a new console. There are many many more mistakes I could list.
The Gamecube was a very distant 3rd when compared to the PS2 and XBox. If they didn't completly switch direction with the Wii, Nintendo would have fallen. Even now, their sales have dwindle rapidly as people have gotten bored of the waggle control gimmick. The 3DS is doing poorly, since again it relies on a gimmick it otherwise does nothing the DS can't do besides have an analog stick. It is really just a PSP with a touchscreen on the bottom and a 3D gimmick. The entire 3DS library consists of ports/remakes and Wii-esque minigame fests. Once they run out of gimmicks to exploit, Nintendo will fall.

I would not call touchscreen control and IR control gimmicks. The touchscreen revolutionized handheld gaming, IMO, and IR pointer control has been used brilliantly by a lot of devs. Yeah, there are gimmicky party games, but there's tons of amazing software out there for the DS/Wii that couldn't exist, or wouldn't exist nearly as well, without the augmented control options. Nintendo doesn't do random gimmicks. They go for a revolution. Now, Kinect COULD have been a revolution, but MS is marketing it like a gimmick. There's a major difference there in the handling of the issue. Also, no good 1st or 3rd party kinect software hurts. Child of Eden helps, but it's just one game.sonicphc

Consdiering in almost all DS games, teh touchscreen is used for some gimmicky mini-game that doesn't need to be there (like in GTA Chinatown the hotwiring cars thing). They way its setup, you can't use the buttons and the touchscreen at the same time. Even when itis used right, doesn't do anything normal buttons can't do easier.
When playing the Wii the only thing you need to remember is this, WAGGLE! Tennis ball near you, waggle. Sword fight, waggle. Motion controls lack feedback. You hitting with a sword is the same as you missing with the sword. Again, the waggle control does nothing regular buttons can't faster.
Shooters on the Wii are poop, mainly due to the awkward turning. If they had 2 joysticks and used the pointer just to aim (2nd stick to turn), then it would be better but the current system is bad. The best Wii games don't use the motion control (Mario Galaxy save for a few annoying minigames, SSBB, Monster Hunter Tri).

As for Kinect, it does nothing the Eyetoy didn't for the PS2. Different and more expensive tech, but functions exactly the same. It is worse than the Wii because at least with the Wii you are actually holding something and have real buttons to use. The delay on Kinect makes any fast paced action game unplayable. All Kinect can be used for is voice comms and minigames that would work better on a controller.

TLDR: Controllers with buttons are and always will be better than motion controls which have no feedback and do nothing buttons can't do. You can't hold your shirt together with kinect, but you can with buttons.