I grew on Sonic 2. I didnt get Sonic 1 until 2005. While it's fun, I think starting with 2 ruined it. While 2 is gottagofast, 1 has neither spin dash nor fast levels. Every level has enemies every 20 feet and just when you get a running start you hit another obstacle.
1 was good, 2 really polished the sonic system
>>3266521
>tfw started with Sonic 1 and Sonic Adventure 2
Nowhere to go but up
>>3266521
1 definitely feels more primitive than 2, I agree, but I enjoyed how slow 1 was. It was a nice comfy platformer with cool physics.
>and just when you get a running start you hit another obstacle
That's because you suck. Once you git gud you can gun through levels like a boss.
>>3266521
It's challenging and a lot of fun if you try to maintain your top speed. Lots of slope optimizations.
i'm the same way (grew up with sonic 2). but you're an idiot if you can't play it slower than the later ones/suck at regular ass platforming.
>and just when you get a running start you hit another obstacle.
Find me one retro review that made this complaint. I swear, nu-gamers are retards.
>>3266825
Reviewers used to value carefully balanced, escalating challenge in games as a way of extending the life of a vidya. Nowadays people just want a movie where you hold up and play simon says
