IGN think Sonic's downfall started at Sonic 2

In a Top 10 list posted on IGN entitled "Videogame Characters That Should Die", every Sonic character except himself and Robotnik were lumped in at #2. The reason? Sonic games were best when it was just Sonic and Robotnik.

Apparently, "as soon as Tails, Knuckles, and the slew of other weird, furry folks showed up, things started getting iffy with this franchise". This means that Sonic 1 is the only "good" Sonic game, making every single game after that bad.

Most people would place Sonic's downfall during the late '90s and early '00s, but clearly IGN think Sonic's downfall was as early as 1992 after just one game. Yes, Sonic's downfall started at Sonic 2.

I certainly agree with IGN's comment on how Sonic games need to go "back to basics", but deleting every character bar two? That's stupid. Tails, Knuckles and Amy should stay, but all the more recent characters can take a back seat - there's more new characters in every Sonic game than there are in every episode of Emmerdale. Like that soap, we don't need constant new characters to keep things fresh and retain the audience.

So, while I partly agree that some Sonic characters can die, the classic characters should be kept. Sonic 2 was certainly not the downfall of Sonic, but rather his continual rise. Up until 2003 of course...