The Sonic Generations Review Topic

[Badnik Mechanic]

Moving on.

With regards to this mysterious Playstation 3 review.

This is the magazine you're looking for.

Now I will be out in the town tomorrow so I can go see if it's in WHSmith. I am NOT buying it, (unless someone paypals me the money). But... so long as it's not stapled shut or has a ballizion layers of tape on it, I might be able to take a look.

However, according to their facebook page, it's only just come out, which is probably why so few people are talking about it as only the subscribers have got their hands on it.

[Detective Shadzter]

Well, someone asked why people hated IGN so much, so I just said why, from what I knew. I honestly have nothing against IGN, and I think they'll give SG a good score, since they seem super-excited for it.

Yeah, we were just answering questions, no harm meant..

I was talking about people who say that stuff. I wasn't referring to you guys answering the question as to why they get hate.

[DarkOverord]

"Bluh bluh reviewers"

To most people on the forums, reviews on Sonic games mean little because you're likely to get it, however reviews sway those on the fence and help aid campaigns for advertising.

As for people complaining of the reviews being affected by story? Story is an integral part of gameplay, you may not like it but it is. Maybe not for Generic Shooter 5000, but for games like Sonic, Mario, Kirby, games that are aimed at kids. It's important. Granted, reviewers will be looking at the game from an adult perspective as opposed to a child's. And this is where a disconnect will occur, I cringed and admittedly hated Sonic's lines in Colours, but kids love cheesy lines, why do you think so many kids shows have them?

However to an adult, these will be irritating and actually put someone off the game. An example personally? Metroid: Other M, as I didn't enjoy the story that much, it actually detracted from my game experience. And likewise it happened with Colours, I found myself cringing and when I had to replay the game (Because Colours data won't copy between Wii's) I found myself skipping cutscenes 9 times out of 10 because I didn't like them. If you don't enjoy an aspect of the game, it will detract from the gameplay.

Even the "best gameplay evar" can't save that, you may choose to look over it, and that's fine from a gamers point of view. However a reviewer has to take that into account, they have to consider what another person may like/dislike about a game, they may not always be the best but in the end it's true. While I agree there is a bias, certain reviewers are clearly reviewing games that don't appeal to them, in fact for PS3/360/PC reviews, this probably will be the case. So getting a 80%, or a 8.5, or a B+ or whatever is quite good for someone who won't have a preference to that genre.

Allow me to address one thing from the comments on TSS

Renzy says:

October 24, 2011 at 12:59 pm

I just read the review in the google translate, it got marked down points for the story….yea the story *facepalm* and for the controls slightly messing up when they were platforming( AKA they fucking suck at the platforming sections) *falcon facepalm*!!!!

[Dark Qiviut]

Moving on.

With regards to this mysterious Playstation 3 review.

This is the magazine you're looking for.

Now I will be out in the town tomorrow so I can go see if it's in WHSmith. I am NOT buying it, (unless someone paypals me the money). But... so long as it's not stapled shut or has a ballizion layers of tape on it, I might be able to take a look.

However, according to their facebook page, it's only just come out, which is probably why so few people are talking about it as only the subscribers have got their hands on it.

Cool! Thanks for the heads-up here.

I don't read gaming magazines often, but I, too, might take a look at my local video game or electronic store to see if it's there sometime this week and flip through the pages…if I can, that is.

[Crazizzle]

I've never hated IGN. They are a huge website, with capable people and incompetent people. Mock the idiots, don't trash the site as a whole.

[Eternal EX]

15 pages off of 2 reviews (with a source). One can only imagine what will happen when GT, GI or IGN reviews the game. 600 pages by the end of the week.

[Megabox91(Renzy)]

"Bluh bluh reviewers"

To most people on the forums, reviews on Sonic games mean little because you're likely to get it, however reviews sway those on the fence and help aid campaigns for advertising.

As for people complaining of the reviews being affected by story? Story is an integral part of gameplay, you may not like it but it is. Maybe not for Generic Shooter 5000, but for games like Sonic, Mario, Kirby, games that are aimed at kids. It's important. Granted, reviewers will

M be looking at the game from an adult

perspective as opposed to a child's. And this is where a disconnect will occur, I cringed and admittedly hated Sonic's lines in Colours, but kids love cheesy lines, why do you think so many kids shows have them?

However to an adult, these will be irritating and actually put someone off the game. An example

personally? Metroid: Other M, as I didn't enjoy the story that much, it actually detracted from my game experience. And likewise it happened with Colours, I found myself cringing and when I had to replay the game (Because Colours data won't copy between Wii's) I found myself

skipping cutscenes 9 times out of 10 because I didn't like them. If you don't enjoy an aspect of the game, it will detract from the gameplay.

Even the "best gameplay evar" can't save that, you may choose to look over it, and that's fine

from a gamers point of view. However a

reviewer has to take that into account, they have to consider what another person may like/dislike about a game, they may not always be the best but in the end it's true. While I agree there is a bias, certain reviewers are clearly reviewing

games that don't appeal to them, in fact for PS3/360/PC reviews, this probably will be the case. So getting a 80%, or a 8.5, or a B+ or whatever is quite good for someone who won't have a preference to that genre.

Allow me to address one thing from the comments on TSS

A lot of people won't realise it because (specially with fans of the series (Be it Mario or Sonic or

CoD)) they're used to it. But a reviewer, A: Might not be or B: Will have to consider that the reader may not be. I personally had a few

moments on Sonic Colours where Sonic actually began to blend into the background because the screen was so zoomed out. This is

an issue, and I will personally right now fault Generations for it. It's not too bad if I have my face to the screen, but if I'm sitting on the other

end of the room, like most "gaming areas" are set up, then yes. It does become an issue believe it or not.

But hey, fandoms. Sure are fandumb sometimes and I'm sure someone will find fault no matter

what :V

I just find it incredibly pointless when a platformer game gets marked down just because they didn't like the story. I feel that a platformer's story shouldn't really distract you from the actual gameplay. But certain games like Batman Arkham City, Uncharted 3, Gears of war, etc need to have a good plot or story to compliment with the gameplay. But here's a question: has any popular platforming franchise like

Mario, Sonic, Kirby actually had a great story to go along with it? I really can't think of any at the moment

[Kuzu]

I just find it incredibly pointless when a platformer game gets marked down just because they didn't like the story. I feel that a platformer's story shouldn't really distract you from the actual gameplay. But certain games like Batman Arkham City, Uncharted 3, Gears of war, etc need to have a good plot or story to compliment with the gameplay. But here's a question: has any popular platforming franchise like

Mario, Sonic, Kirby actually had a great story to go along with it? I really can't think of any at the moment

This actually makes sense somewhat, platformers have never been exactly story heavy so why give it a score based on it? Nobody questions why Mario saves Peach all the time.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

This actually makes sense somewhat, platformers have never been exactly story heavy

Edited October 25, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[-Robin-]

One review site today just marked Kirby's Return to Dreamland down a few points in their review because the story's plot lacked context. It seems that nowadays a game, any game, needs to have a story with reason to accompany it or else it's just there with no purpose.

It's something that shouldn't actually be true, but w/e

Edited October 25, 2011 by Razor Wind

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Eh, I guess times really are changing and folks are starting to expect more from plots nowadays if it's actually there...

Edited October 25, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[azoo]

I've said it once and I'll say it again, it's almost as if they're just copy-pasting reviews made by other reviewers about previous Sonic games, for the sake of saving time & face. Especially since every time it's the same keywords previous reviews have used.

EXAMPLES: "cringeworthy storyline", "Sonic's horrible friends", "Sonic hasn't had a good run ever since his jump into the 3D era", "with a slew of bad games/ideas featuring hedgehogs toting guns, human on hedgehog romance, stretchy armed werewolves (in that respective order)", "Sonic cycle", etc etc etc.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Azukara

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

We should count the number of times they talk about how Sonic hasn't done well in 3D for this game while we're at it.

[Blue Blood]

The story is part of the game as a complete package. Mario games have practically no story at all, so it's fine in their case. But if the game DOES have a story, like Sonic games do, it plays an active role the game's presentation. And if you don't like it, it's off putting. Sonic '06 had a terrible story, and I'd sure as hell mark the game down for it just as much as I'd mark Okami up for having a great story.

[Johnny Boy]

We should count the number of times they talk about how Sonic hasn't done well in 3D for this game while we're at it.

Or the "sonic cycle".

[KrazyBean]

Or the "sonic cycle".

Oh God...

[Burnt Ash]

The story is part of the game as a complete package. Mario games have practically no story at all, so it's fine in their case. But if the game DOES have a story, like Sonic games do, it plays an active role the game's presentation. And if you don't like it, it's off putting. Sonic '06 had a terrible story, and I'd sure as hell mark the game down for it just as much as I'd mark Okami up for having a great story.

Off topic, but I really like the stories of Mario's RPGs. Just take what you already have, and add a little twist to it.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

The story is part of the game as a complete package. Mario games have practically no story at all, so it's fine in their case. But if the game DOES have a story, like Sonic games do, it plays an active role the game's presentation. And if you don't like it, it's off putting. Sonic '06 had a terrible story, and I'd sure as hell mark the game down for it just as much as I'd mark Okami up for having a great story.

I think the real caution is them marking down for it being around in the first place regarding Sonic since a lot of the classicism has leaked out to the press. We still had someone from GameInformer criticizing the Modern levels of game despite not playing them, and then ask one of those involved with the game if Eggman would have his name changed back to Robotnik.

Nowaday's it's toned down. But I think with Sonic games, people put on a whole new pair of glasses for the game than they would Okami. Given the track record in the past, that's understandable, but we've always known it reaches ridiculous levels. But I guess that's just how I look at this.

[Kuzu]

Ratchet and Clank and Jak and Daxter would like to have a word with you. I'd include some Megaman games too while I'm at it.

I should have worded that better, what I meant: Platformers aren't exactly revered for their stories in the gaming media, at least not to the extent as FPS or RPGs.

People have begun parodying it, and at the same time wonder why the hell Peach ends up getting captured most of the time because of how redundant it's gotten...they don't ever mark it down tho, as odd as you'd find that.

Yet, Sonic loses points for his stores, I don't get it.

[KrazyBean]

Off topic, but I really like the stories of Mario's RPGs. Just take what you already have, and add a little twist to it.

I really like them too...Bowser's Inside Story's story (HA!) was amazing hilarious!

Edited October 25, 2011 by KrazyBean14

[Indigo Rush]

Context in a platformer is usually expected nowadays, but some people feel that story and cutscenes could hinder the flow of gameplay. The reason, as I understand it, that Sonic gets so much flack for having an in-depth story mode, is because it appears to disrupt the flow of the game.

In the Genesis days, the most we had were transitional animations to lead from one Zone to the next, just enough to provide some context for what was going on. Aside from that, depth was relegated to the manuals. Since this is the consistency that the originals ran on, it's not too much of a stretch to find lengthy cutscenes to be a drag, especially when Sonic games left a strong impression of "get from point A to point B, defeat Robotnik, now do it about 5 more times."

Not that I'm against cutscenes and story, mind you, I'm just trying to relate to the majority of story-mode-haters out there. This is probably a reason why the handhelds have enjoyed so much praise, despite some questionable level design. It kept the classic structure that emphasized that sort of flow... at least the Advance series did. The Rush games, granted, had some meaty story in comparison, however it was relegated to cut-out art with text, so perhaps that's a reason why it didn't get much flack.

I liked the way Colors handled it, but unfortunately it doesn't leave much room for good storytelling if all we're going to get are some situational comedy skits in-between each world. For a well-written story with depth to make it's mark, we need more than a few minute-long cutscenes to tell a story. This presents a problem for those who also want to maintain flow. You could make them skippable, however this would also remove context from the game, which most platformers nowadays have the decency to provide. I believe Kirby Returns to Dreamland was marked down for a lack of story, not that they wanted a soap opera, but there was little-to-no explanation of what was going on.

Cutscenes should be enjoyable enough to sit through to provide a reason for Sonic and friends to run through one level or another, but at the same time they shouldn't be so lengthy that they disrupt the flow of game progression. The foundations of the early Sonic games were built on flow, and it's kind of a difficult situation to figure out how to provide a good story without compromising decent game progression.

It's a sticky situation for the writers and game developers, and I think we as a fanbase should try to respect that more.

[Kuzu]

Context in a platformer is usually expected nowadays, but some people feel that story and cutscenes could hinder the flow of gameplay. The reason, as I understand it, that Sonic gets so much flack for having an in-depth story mode, is because it appears to disrupt the flow of the game.

In the Genesis days, the most we had were transitional animations to lead from one Zone to the next, just enough to provide some context for what was going on. Aside from that, depth was relegated to the manuals. Since this is the consistency that the originals ran on, it's not too much of a stretch to find lengthy cutscenes to be a drag, especially when Sonic games left a strong impression of "get from point A to point B, defeat Robotnik, now do it about 5 more times."

Not that I'm against cutscenes and story, mind you, I'm just trying to relate to the majority of story-mode-haters out there. This is probably a reason why the handhelds have enjoyed so much praise, despite some questionable level design. It kept the classic structure that emphasized that sort of flow... at least the Advance series did. The Rush games, granted, had some meaty story in comparison, however it was relegated to cut-out art with text, so perhaps that's a reason why it didn't get much flack.

I liked the way Colors handled it, but unfortunately it doesn't leave much room for good storytelling if all we're going to get are some situational comedy skits in-between each world. For a well-written story with depth to make it's mark, we need more than a few minute-long cutscenes to tell a story. This presents a problem for those who also want to maintain flow. You could make them skippable, however this would also remove context from the game, which most platformers nowadays have the decency to provide. I believe Kirby Returns to Dreamland was marked down for a lack of story, not that they wanted a soap opera, but there was little-to-no explanation of what was going on.

Cutscenes should be enjoyable enough to sit through to provide a reason for Sonic and friends to run through one level or another, but at the same time they shouldn't be so lengthy that they disrupt the flow of game progression. The foundations of the early Sonic games were built on flow, and it's kind of a difficult situation to figure out how to provide a good story without compromising decent game progression.

It's a sticky situation for the writers and game developers, and I think we as a fanbase should try to respect that more.

So basically its either:

Have a game with a good story, but watch it get slammed for disrupting the flow and people moan and groan about wanting gameplay.

or

Have a game with little to no story, and watch it get slammed for having no plot or anything?

Wonderful, so we lose no matter what we do.

EDIT: Ok I won't say that, but will it kill this series to actually let the series` plot flow naturally, while being self-reverential? I mean its not hard.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Shadic93

[Mike]

Or the "sonic cycle".

Don't you mean Re-cycle?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Context in a platformer is usually expected nowadays, but some people feel that story and cutscenes could hinder the flow of gameplay. The reason, as I understand it, that Sonic gets so much flack for having an in-depth story mode, is because it appears to disrupt the flow of the game.

Which comes with the fridge logic of why they don't bother with skipping them if it disrupts the flow of the game that badly. It's one thing to criticize the story for how it's presented, but if you're criticizing it because it's there and breaks the flow, then video games truly are rocket science if people can't be hardpressed to press start to skip them.

They've pressed every other button while playing the actual game, surely it doesn't take to much to get past a cutscene.

So basically its either:

Have a game with a good story, but watch it get slammed for disrupting the flow and people moan and groan about wanting gameplay.

or

Have a game with little to no story, and watch it get slammed for having no plot or anything?

Wonderful, so we lose no matter what we do.

Not exactly. I'm betting they wouldn't bother if there was no story, but a good fraction of the fandom would be disappointed.

But if they truly do mark Sonic down for not having a story, then these guys are just being asses about it.

Edited October 25, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Burnt Ash]

Well, except ShTH, you couldn't skip those cutscenes. >.<

Edit:Well, the first time you see them.

Edited October 25, 2011 by thebluehedgehog