There's a question that needs to be asked with all the U.S. vs JP Sonic drama going around these days and the mindset that U.S. Sonic(Satam/Archie) sucked because it wasn't like the games. That question is this:

What did the games do that was better then what U.S. Sonic did?

Think about this, the game fandom has spent an entire 15 years of being torn apart thanks to countless arguments against the classic 3D games and on before 2010, otherwise known as the Dark Age, many arguments going against Sonic having a serious story and more new characters.

Up until 2010, the games are bashed by everyone and their grandma for practically everything they were doing, to this day in fact, yet whenever it comes time to talk about U.S. Sonic, all of a sudden, everyone is all "they suck cause they not like the games and Penders bad!"

So how can people sit here after all the drama they started over the games for all these years, only to bash other mediums for not being like the games despite constantly bashing them and everyone else that like them, including kids?

Most of these people only like the classics for being "colorful and simple" and like the games since 2010 because "they aren't edgy and are colorful and fun", like, you're literally praising shit for NOT having story telling or having bad story telling.

All the while, you'll pretend the continuity of the games are superior, despite openly hating them for years or only liking them when canon is nonexistent or lacking in depth and quality, which is what was demanded BTW.

So I need to know, how is the game canon better then the U.S. canon when you hate the game canon for having quality writing because "it's a blue hedgehog" while fighting over who Sonic should be shipped with.

I mean really, take the best parts of the archie comics and put them against the best parts of the games(which again, yall hate, despite being purists of them). BTW, I don't even need to get into said purists bashing Naka and Oshima now because they wanted Sonic to be cool.