I'm more of a SEGA guy, but I can say Mario Bros. Sonic 1 took the industry by surprise, but Sonic did not become great until Sonic 2.

Seems a lot of people find Sonic 3 v Mario Bros 3 to be a better comparison… I’ll hopefully have Sonic 3 played through next weekend, so I’ll save that thread until then. Also, funny coincidence: I posted this thread on the 40th anniversary (US) of NES.

I don't think even Sonic's highs can match Mario's. Sonic 2 is probably the best Sonic game to this day but it can't match Mario World which to me is the best Mario game ever made and one of those games you can call perfect. Mark Cerny did work on Sonic 2 tho and Sonic 2 is a damn fine game. Sonic 3 while still good. Kinda a step down. Tho they fucked up the visuals and Sonic's design in 3. If you do this comparison. Are you including the Sonic & Knuckles add-on cart?

Yes, “& Knuckles” will be accounted for as the game’s original full release was supposed to include it (but ended up post-poned allegedly (i.e. I’ve heard many sources say this but have yet to fact check) to release Sonic 3 in time for a McDonald’s promotional lol).

Judging by today's standards, Sonic is the better game, but the 6 year gap between the two is gigantic for the time they came out.

If we compare Sonic 2 to Mario World I would again give a slight edge to Sonic. Comparing anything else, like CD, Sonic 3, or Sonic and Knuckles, no 2D Mario game can provide any contest to these legendary monsters. It's better to compare them to DKC.

I never found the 2D Mario games to be very good, they are too easy and too abstract in their environments. Sonic and DK are the 2D platformer kings in my opinion.

Neither of these games are ones I will go back to all that often, because I'd generally prefer to play the better entries in each series. But of the two, I'm more likely to play through Sonic.

That said it seems like a better comparison would be Mario 3 or Mario World which came out closer to the same time, and in the latter case, on more comparable hardware. Either of those is better than Sonic.

Super Mario bros wins pretty easily here. The first sonic completely falls apart after green hill zone. Sonic 2 is when the series got good.

Yeah, much of this rings true for me as well, it always felt like the super speed gimmick clashed with the basic requirements of a platformer.

Sonic was a pop culture hit due to the spectacle and style, as a game it's kind of poor.

Calling the Sonic games poor is something that is very far removed from the truth. They may not be your kind of game, but they offer something unique, and do it in a mechanically deep way, while being presented with exquisite graphics and music. 

As far the 16 but era is concerned the level design in the Sonic games is vastly different from other platformers, with gigantic, labyrinthine levels that are very difficult to map and most of the time block your way back, forcing you to constantly choose paths. This forces you to play the game slow,  explore and find the best paths among the multiple choices. 

After you become familiar with the stages and the games physics, which are more complex and crucial to the gameplay than, say, Mario's, you now start getting your reward, which is going fast and doing extremely cool stuff!

I get that these kind of games are not for everyone, it is not as accessible as Mario, but it is also more deep and engaging, if you are of the mindset to play again and again and perfect your runs. You don't have to speedrun the games, but just being good at them makes you enjoy them so much more. 

And, of course, the graphics, settings, environmental storytelling and MUSIC are some of the best in any game that has ever come out, making the 16bit Sonic contestants for best games of all time in a lot of peoples minds, including mine. 

There's no real "truth" when it comes to game quality as everyone experiences them differently.

To me, Sonic was a poor experience. I can see why it was popular though.