The Sonic Generations Review Topic

[goku262002]

So overall this game really did get a lower score than Colors....damn

Read the posts man, Metacritic isn't acting right. the scores are all off.

[Crazizzle]

To be fair to Mario games, they include goofy side characters in a couple games then shunt them off to spinoff land. Sonic is infamous because they had games where you were forced to play as four teams of three characters(Heroes) or have other characters interrupt Sonic levels to play the stage('06).

That doesn't mean that using side characters in an appropriate fashion now should be criticized. Every game is it's own game.

[Gamerguy21]

The 70 from X360 Magazine UK on Thursday made the 360 version go down to 77, but the 84 from Pelit yesterday bumped it back up to 78.

[Dead3ye]

East of Nowhere Review: 3.5/5

http://east-of-nowhe...rations-review/

As the person who wrote this particular review I'm actually quite intrigued to see it on the boards. Even though a point of contention was pointed out from this community, I still appreciate those who took the time to read it.

This just in, having a social life is bad for video game characters.

...

...

I wonder what they would say if Mario used more than just the usual 3 or 4 characters in their games.

As for this. Well, I equate the majority of the characters added to the Sonic franchise (outside of Tails and Knuckles) as the point where the series took a down turn. Any Sonic game that featured them (which yes, wasn't many), suffered because of it. Sonic Generations suffered some because of them as well; the large majority of their challenge levels were the worst ones.

If you would like me to attempt an answer for the posed Mario question, I would love to. Otherwise, thank you again for link back guys. Sonic is a great character, and I honestly only want the very best for him. I did at one time stand by him in the war against Mario.

[sonfan1984]

Alot of the friends challenges is pretty easy. Vector's mission is really the only one that gave me trouble.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I'm actually surprised the actual reviewer came to me face-to-face. Gotta give the guy some respect since that doesn't happen often, but now he gets to hear things from part of the fandom who's more in-depth with these things.

As for this. Well, I equate the majority of the characters added to the Sonic franchise (outside of Tails and Knuckles) as the point where the series took a down turn. Any Sonic game that featured them (which yes, wasn't many), suffered because of it.

Not to be rude because this is going to be a very strong reply, but this is that same crap I hear from some people regarding the characters, and that's completely false because most veteran fans such as myself and many others who have been around since 2005 and earlier know full well it was ShTH that the series took a serious down turn. We were there when the fandom was at its very worst point to know, and it definitely wasn't when characters outside of Tails and Knuckles came around.

If you don't believe me, Here's a list linking to several members other than myself who've actually witnessed and took part of it to vouch this and each one can likely point to other members who've witnessed it:

• Flyboy Fox,
  
• Dreadknux,
  
• Hogfather,
  
• Marco,
  
• Nepenthe,
  
• Solid Soap,
  
• Tornado,
  
• Chooch,
  
• Remy,
  
• Nuclear Envoy,
  
• BlackLighting,
  
• Roary Racoon,
  
• Verte
  
• And even some banned members if they're still around the net.
  

And while their experience may differ, since according to some of the oldbies fan bickering has happened even before Sonic went into 3D, ShTH was seen as the game that dealt the biggest blow.

Games such as SA1, SA2, and Heroes were actually success even with characters other than Tails and Knuckles prior to the time they've been released, and they're still seen in a strong like to this day despite the series reputation and hindsight. So it's not because of the characters that faltered the quality. I'd tell you more, but I don't want to make this longer than it is.

Sonic Generations suffered some because of them as well; the large majority of their challenge levels were the worst ones.

The large majority of their challenge levels were either easy or (if actually terrible like Amy's challenge level) entirely optional considering there was only one challenge level per character and there were two other challenges for each level that lacked the characters. So that's absolutely no excuse, and I only bothered to play at least 3 of the ones with actual characters in them despite knowing that.

If you would like me to attempt an answer for the posed Mario question, I would love to.

Please do, because I really want to hear this. Edited December 11, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[HeroMystic]

As for this. Well, I equate the majority of the characters added to the Sonic franchise (outside of Tails and Knuckles) as the point where the series took a down turn.

I would really like to see a serious analysis of this, and this isn't really a negative remark, but it's more because you're an actual reviewer and I would like to see your perspective.

As far as I know, critics only say this because the Classic games were good and they just happened to have Tails and Knuckles... not because they actually did anything. I wanna know why Tails and Knuckles are always exempt from bashing while everyone else is (including Amy who's a CLASSIC character herself).

[Dead3ye]

If we look at the two characters that mainly get a pass; Tails and Knuckles, they were introduced into the franchise during the time that it was still considered direct competition for Mario. Sonic & Knuckles was the last great game in the series to be honest. Even then, Tails didn't escape criticism, and to this day is considered the weakest of the three core characters. Even though he introduced a flying mechanic as well as a co-op mechanic, most still wanted to play as Sonic. Knuckles was the exception, he was cool and did add something different to the way the levels played out when he was a playable character. Maybe tails came off as too much of a sissy? Cause honestly, I recall him being fun to play with.

What I feel really hurt the franchise was the turn to 3D. It just didn't play out as well as it did for the slower and more deliberate style of Mario. While I have fond memories of Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2, I have also made the mistake of returning to those games recently when they became available on the virtual market. Nostalgia did not serve me well, a lot of the problems that have been pointed out with later games in the franchise (bad camera, sloppy controls) are all present in SA.

While for the time, it was a fun and enjoyable game, it hasn't aged well. At least not in my opinion, and not in the opinion of many game journalists (I know IGN has a few articles that address the problems with SA when they returned to it after it got released on Live and PSN. The reviews alone were a dismal 3.5).

The other characters (even Amy, who wasn't playable until after the series had already begun to decline) just happened to come around when the series was struggling. The mistakes with them was that they just weren't that interesting, and Sonic Team was continuing to try to change a franchise that really needed to return to its roots and address its problems. Most of the added character's didn't add anything, they were unnecessary additions which by and large was their biggest crime.

Sonic Heroes I played for a short while, and mostly I recall being frustrated by the camera and feeling a sense of disappointment when stages would slow down (since this was when the technical flaws shined their brightest). When levels were fast and chaotic, going through loops, and making a player make quick twitch jumps is when it was at its best.

The challenge levels in Sonic Generations I actually enjoyed for the most part (time trials, races, and the ones that simply made the level more difficult by changing its design and adding more enemies were my favorites), and thank god some of them were optional. The score I gave wasn't because of his friend's levels, I did weight into account that those were optional. The score I gave was because when modern sonic was doing his 3D thing, bugs would often creep up and cause frustration. Something that always plagued the series. Most of the challenge stages with his friends were easy, yes, but they also weren't that fun. The only one I recall enjoying was with Espio, because the spotlight was a nice twist. Plus, Sonic Generations had an unfair fight against another platformer I was playing at the time in Rayman Origins.

I'm sure I could dig more into this analysis if asked questions, but for now I'll stop. It is already fairly lengthy.

Now, as for Mario. While I don't see Nintendo introducing new characters to the franchise, even though New Super Mario for the Wii brought back some of his friends for co-op purposes, (they all acted just like Mario and weren't given anything distinguishable other than their skins), I don't believe it would bother me if they did. The last time a new character was introduced to that series, it was a big deal. I think everyone knows of Yoshi. The introduction of that character changed some of the core dynamics, but it was handled in a way that improved on an already stellar formula.

My take on if Mario had new friends introduced has more to do with how I feel about that franchise. There is no doubt in my mind that Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 are some of the best 3D platformers to have ever been released. The level design, the camera, the game mechanics, they are top-notch. Especially level design. That is one thing Nintendo has done right, they have continued to evolve Mario, but still keep his games some of the best in their field. Unless you count Mario Sunshine, that was a bit of a mistake (yet it was still pretty fun). The reason I wouldn't have much of an issue with them adding in some more characters (outside of Luigi, Yoshi, Peach, and Toad) is because I trust them to integrate them well into the games' mechanics.

Yet, Nintendo I believe realizes that people play Mario games to play as Mario. Much like most people play Sonic games to play as Sonic.

(sorry for the length, I was asked for an analysis.)

Edited December 11, 2011 by Dead3ye

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

If we look at the two characters that mainly get a pass; Tails and Knuckles, they were introduced into the franchise during the time that it was still considered direct competition for Mario. Sonic & Knuckles was the last great game in the series to be honest. Even then, Tails didn't escape criticism, and to this day is considered the weakest of the three core characters. Even though he introduced a flying mechanic as well as a co-op mechanic, most still wanted to play as Sonic. Knuckles was the exception, he was cool and did add something different to the way the levels played out when he was a playable character. Maybe tails came off as too much of a sissy? Cause honestly, I recall him being fun to play with.

Edited December 11, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Voyant]

Long Story Short: Sonic characters didn't fuck up the series...poor decision making and bad execution did. We at SSMB just find it strange that this fuel of character hate isn't be used to tell SEGA to fix their shit instead of just seeing them go away.

For example is all the criticism were directed at SEGA for using characters incompetently we would probably have gotten a "Sonic3&K" like game. Knuckles, Tails, Shadow, and Blaze can easily be implemented in Generations with some minor differences in order to ADD TO the game like Sonic 3&K did so magically.

And apart from the 3D titles...the 2D titles have always handled Sonic characters wonderfully...there nothing anyone would love more as a fan seeing the Sonic Advance like gameplay in 3D. (from how multiple Characters were handled).

***

Anyway props Dead3ye for actually coming out and explaining yourself, that alone took balls considering our community. I hope your time here is insightful.

Edited December 11, 2011 by V0YANT

[Ferno]

I know that's right. I mean, since Secret Rings it's basically been Sonic-only game after Sonic-only game, and I'm not blaming you, but alot of reviewers seem to keep praising Sega every time they do this, saying things like "finally a game with just Sonic for once" as if they've forgotten all the other games that did it before the latest one, and I feel that alot of those reviews are where Sega's getting their feedback from, they probably think that no one has any problem with all these games with only Sonic playable when alot of us actually do.

And as a side note, I'm tired of reviewers everywhere acting like every new Sonic game is "Sonic's last chance" when the quality of the games have actually been improving again over the last 4 years or so.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

and I feel that alot of those reviews are where Sega's getting their feedback from, they probably think that no one has any problem with all these games with only Sonic playable when alot of us actually do.

Edited December 11, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[turbojet]

For example is all the criticism were directed at SEGA for using characters incompetently we would probably have gotten a "Sonic3&K" like game. Knuckles, Tails, Shadow, and Blaze can easily be implemented in Generations with some minor differences in order to ADD TO the game like Sonic 3&K did so magically.

[HeroMystic]

I thought the last new character they introduced was Rosalina in Mario Galaxy? Reception of her has been pretty positive, although granted, she didn't have anything to do with the gameplay if that's what you're mostly concern with. I may have been missing your point here.

[Crazizzle]

I agree wholeheartedly that Mario games deserve a higher level of trust in regards to gameplay and alt. characters. It just seems to me that every game is it's own game. If Silver is a fun boss fight, his existence from '06 should be irrelevant. If Knuckles is a crappy character in a game, then his existence as a Classic character with good standing doesn't matter.

I get the idea that people dislike to be reminded of games they don't like, but you have to understand...it's gotten out of hand in the last few years. I'm happy without more playable characters. But as a longterm Sonic fan, I'd like to see what Shadow is up to. Or Blaze. Both characters appeared in good games before appearing in bad ones. At least they deserve the right to be redeemed.

I feel the best approach is to include friends...but only a few per game. Not Heroes/'06 style by throwing in everybody. Let Sonic run into Shadow in one game. Then, in another game he might see the Chaotix, Blaze or Silver. Nobody is going to stress over that.Sonic featuring friends is fine, not FRIENDS featuring sonic..

[Neon]

GamerPlex Review: 7.9

http://thegamerplex....rations-review/

Game Crunch: 8.7

http://gamecrunch.co...rations-review/

Edited December 11, 2011 by Neon

[Dead3ye]

I'm not one to quote bits and pieces very often, so I'll just address some things pointed in my direction.

Thank you for the compliments on coming forward, this is actually something that I enjoy doing. Getting direct contact with hardcore fans of something is the best way to really delve into that particular subject. Considering that what I do spreads me out all over the board (I don't only write about games, so this might be even more the case for me than some others), I may not have that distinct connection with a franchise that someone else will. With that said, this is fun for me, I enjoy the opportunity to continue to broaden my knowledge on the things I love and yes, this board is a bit more kind than some others.

Now when I talked about the extra Sonic characters being introduced into the series during the franchise's decline, I didn't mean sales. I meant in quality. As hindsight has shown, SA and SA2 are not as good as many fans would like to remember them. While as you pointed out, Sonic's friends may not deserve as much hate as they get, I do stand by my point that it is likely due to the more casual player attributing a fall of the franchise to those characters. While it may not be their fault, they are just a recognizable factor. The fault is clearly in that of controls, level design, the camera, and other technical issues that made the games flawed, while also using some characters to slow the game down (any of the big slow characters, especially that damn cat that fishes).

I was also asked how would I feel about the characters being used as something to drive the storyline, rather than something playable. Kind of like how Toad, Peach, and Rosalina (yes, new character, but I was referring to playable character's in my analysis) are often treated in the Mario series. Now of course, this wouldn't much bother me, as long as the game that surrounded it was good. That has essentially been the issue with Sonic games, as you all have pointed out as well. The games are full of flaws. Sonic doesn't need a sword, he doesn't need to turn into a werewolf, and what I should have said instead of a snarky comment about his friends; is that he doesn't need to have a large crew of friends until he, himself is fixed. I don't know exactly what Sonic Team can do to really change the franchise and make it compete on the level it use to, but whatever it is, I think they are possibly getting closer. I feel that a snarky comment towards Sonic's friends is due in large part to them being widely recognized as a reminder of when the series took a decline in quality and not necessarily popularity.

What if the character's were playable and actually good? I don't think anyone would give it anything other than praise. However, I would expect those characters to be held under the microscope a bit more than an average character in another platformer, but that is just history. If they were actually good and fun to play with, maybe even add variety and replayability; like Marco and V0yant pointed out, I would love it. The complaints about Sonic's friends is a round-about way of complaining about the series as I see it (with some help from you guys) the average reviewer or gaming journalist wants a Sonic game to be good (not just good, but great), and they feel it can't get there if Sonic Team continues to experiment and mess around with new ideas, until they first fix the technical problems with the game.

Recent history has been a bit more kind to the franchise, and I think Sonic Team is working to make a better game. While there are still technical issues, and the process is going slower than many would like. They have had some overall solid releases with Colors, Generations, episode 4, and those few on the DS (from what I heard, didn't play them). Trying to say that the friends need to be changed or integrated better is one way to go. More than anything though, for the old school fan that has walked away due to the decline, we just want our Sonic back, more than anything else, we want our Sonic. The one we loved, the one we held up as our defense against Nintendo, one of our main reasons for why we bought the Genesis instead of an SNES, and our underdog to the corporate gaming figure head; we want him back. We just don't care about the rest of it, it is likely as simple as that.

If Mario can stand alone in his game as the main playable option and still offer long hours of gameplay, massive replayability, and stellar mechanics, then why can't Sonic stand on his own too?

(should this be moved to its own topic at this point? I don't want to crowd a post that is about discussing the overall results of the accumulative reviews.)

Edited December 11, 2011 by Dead3ye

[Kuzu]

If Mario can stand alone in his game as the main playable option and still offer long hours of gameplay, massive replayability, and stellar mechanics, then why can't Sonic stand on his own too?

Not that I don't agree with most of what you said, but I just wanted to tackle this last point.

The thing with Mario is, he really doesn't change all that much, in terms of story, gameplay, and character and while he does get nothing but praise for it, I don't think Sonic needs to follow his example to be considered good, or worthwhile. Every franchise has their own way of making money and developing games, meaning; what may work for Mario doesn't necessarily work for everyone else. Sonic can undoubtedly stand alone, as the last few games have shown us, but does that mean he should? I mean even Nintendo have been playing with Luigi lately, so I don't see why a Sonic game can't have more options to choose from. If you want to play as Sonic, nobody is stopping you, but some would rather play as someone else to change things up a bit.

Basically Sonic having a huge cast doesn't detract from Sonic at all, as nobody's stopping you from playing as him, he's still the main character he just isn't the only who matters in the grand scheme of things.

[HeroMystic]

(should this be moved to its own topic at this point? I don't want to crowd a post that is about discussing the overall results of the accumulative reviews.)

A thread meant for one member replying to many doesn't warrant a new thread. There would have to be a group of reviewers agreeing to answer questions to make that type of topic.

Now, I've been hearing this way too much from everyone, even inside these Sonic boards, so I want to take down this point:

If Mario can stand alone in his game as the main playable option and still offer long hours of gameplay, massive replayability, and stellar mechanics, then why can't Sonic stand on his own too?

Mario is not alone.

He has these Guys.

It's due to his fellow franchises that Mario has been able to essentially play as the same as before, because whenever you get tired of Mario, there's always his fellow top-tier franchise, Zelda; the Exploration-based shooter franchise, Metroid; even the high combat-based shooter, Starfox.

Without these other franchises, Mario would've gotten boring as hell a loooooong time ago.

[Neon]

NZGamer 3DS Review: 6.0

http://nzgamer.com/3...enerations.html

You’ve had your shot Sega. Like Lucas and the Star Wars franchise, every touch you make seems to destroy what little grip we have on our pleasant memories of what once was. Please leave us with the fragment that remains.

Kind of a shame that the 3DS version is making some critics lose more faith in the Sonic series despite the good console version of Generations.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Neon

[KHCast]

NZGamer 3DS Review: 6.0

http://nzgamer.com/3...enerations.html

Kind of a shame that the 3DS version is making some critics lose more faith in the Sonic series despite the good console version of Generations.

Did they do a console review?

Edit:Yep they did. It got a 6.5. A real shame.

Edited December 12, 2011 by The Boostin Reinhog

[Dead3ye]

Mario is not alone.

He has these Guys.

It's due to his fellow franchises that Mario has been able to essentially play as the same as before, because whenever you get tired of Mario, there's always his fellow top-tier franchise, Zelda; the Exploration-based shooter franchise, Metroid; even the high combat-based shooter, Starfox.

Without these other franchises, Mario would've gotten boring as hell a loooooong time ago.

While I can see the point, I don't exactly agree. I am one who sees each of those franchises as completely separate entities rather than a support for one another. While they are all a part of Nintendo's excellent first party platform, they each get their individual critiques without relevance to the others.

The reason I feel Mario is held with such high standards is because his games are consistently at the top of their respectable genre (2D or 3D platformers). His core games do star mainly him, and when other characters are used, they add an element to an experience that is still all about Mario (Mario II and Yoshi's Island being the exceptions). I don't think anyone will get tired with a franchise if it stays consistently good.

When New Super Mario Bros. Wii entered the fray, it was well received, but also suffered some negative comments for it seemingly not bringing much new to the Mario experience. As far as the media was concerned, old school Mario belonged on the DS, and the multi-player experience was more of a negative than a positive. What Mario continues to do well is re-invent itself, and that is why he is still a highly beloved character. Mario Galaxy is far from the experience of Mario 64. While it kept its core mechanics, it turned expectations on their head and was better off for it. Mario stays fresh by continuously innovating upon its already stellar experience. Those innovations is what keeps it from suffering from what some would call the "Call of Duty syndrome."

The new 3DS Mario game brings 3D Mario to the portable console, and it does so with incredible level design and some slight changes that suit its platform. As long as he continues to be a quality experience, he wont get old. The other franchises in Nintendo's catalog support themselves, not the core Mario games (I recognize he is the spokesperson for Nintendo, and having those other characters around makes games like Smash Bros. and his multiple sports outings possible. That is Nintendo celebrating themselves though, not exactly distracting people from getting bored of Mario platformers).

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I'm not one to quote bits and pieces very often, so I'll just address some things pointed in my direction.

Thank you for the compliments on coming forward, this is actually something that I enjoy doing. Getting direct contact with hardcore fans of something is the best way to really delve into that particular subject. Considering that what I do spreads me out all over the board (I don't only write about games, so this might be even more the case for me than some others), I may not have that distinct connection with a franchise that someone else will. With that said, this is fun for me, I enjoy the opportunity to continue to broaden my knowledge on the things I love and yes, this board is a bit more kind than some others.

We certainly welcome you to stay then.

A little forewarning: As kind as this board is, even the nicest members have a fierce streak. And that's not because they're angry or rabid, it's that they have passion for this series that you won't find in many other places.

A great way to sum it up is that you can be any kind of fan you want here, but as long as you can back up your points strongly no one will give you shit for it; in fact, if anyone does give you shit, we tend to attack that person for being an asshole. But at the end of the day, most of us are rather connected. Fanboyism is obviously not advised; we had a Shadow fanboy who was such an ass that even Shadow fans themselves didn't like him here.

Now when I talked about the extra Sonic characters being introduced into the series during the franchise's decline, I didn't mean sales. I meant in quality. As hindsight has shown, SA and SA2 are not as good as many fans would like to remember them.

I kinda sorta disagree in terms of quality depending on the time. Granted, SA1 and SA2 didn't stand the test of time well, but the decline came a few years after those games from what I've witnessed. But each to their own I guess.

Sonic doesn't need a sword, he doesn't need to turn into a werewolf, and what I should have said instead of a snarky comment about his friends; is that he doesn't need to have a large crew of friends until he, himself is fixed.

That would have definitely avoided the flak you got...unfortunately, you would've never came on these message boards. Funny how that snarky comment of yours worked out a silver lining and brought you to us.

I don't know exactly what Sonic Team can do to really change the franchise and make it compete on the level it use to, but whatever it is, I think they are possibly getting closer. I feel that a snarky comment towards Sonic's friends is due in large part to them being widely recognized as a reminder of when the series took a decline in quality and not necessarily popularity.

Understandable, but that's still no excuse for people to be shallow about it simply because of them serving as a reminder. That's no different to holding a petty grudge, which criticism shouldn't fall back on when there's not much to criticize about.

That has more to do with other reviewers than you. One of the reviewers listed Cream the Rabbit as one of the cons of the game, and that was so petty and shallow that even the people who don't care about the character such as myself got ticked off that they felt a need to list that as one of the faults of the game.

What if the character's were playable and actually good? I don't think anyone would give it anything other than praise. However, I would expect those characters to be held under the microscope a bit more than an average character in another platformer, but that is just history. If they were actually good and fun to play with, maybe even add variety and replayability; like Marco and V0yant pointed out, I would love it.

A number of us are very skeptical of whether that would actually be the case with other gamers out there. These comments about "Sonic's Shitty Friends" that we hear across the net kind make us doubtful people would praise it than they would look for another excuse to bash them. We have that happen in our own community, so call us pessimistic.

However, if they were good, then the silver lining here would be they have even less of an excuse to bash them. We've seen on a number of reviewing sites that some have became skeptical towards reviews that rate Generations less than average after seeing the other scores, so I guess that attitude may very well be changing.

If Mario can stand alone in his game as the main playable option and still offer long hours of gameplay, massive replayability, and stellar mechanics, then why can't Sonic stand on his own too?

We don't have a problem with Sonic standing on his own...okay, that's kind of not true as some of us here have gotten a little bored of the Sonic-only phase.

But that's not to say that we don't believe Sonic is incapable of standing by himself. It's more that we want him to stand strong whether he's by himself or not. That probably didn't make a lot of sense, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that many of us would like the characters to actually get a bit more involved. They don't have to be playable, but if they are we don't want them to be forced.

,..eh, I lost track of what I was actually going to say.

(should this be moved to its own topic at this point? I don't want to crowd a post that is about discussing the overall results of the accumulative reviews.)

You could probably make a topic regarding this in the General Sonic forum, if you so please. Although it would be interesting to hear things from a reviewer since we don't get them too often here, and we've talked most of the points to death from a fan perspective.

Edited December 12, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[KrazyBean]

So...many...massive...walls...of...text!! Can't...read them all!!

Edited December 12, 2011 by KrazySanta14

[Soniman]

So I guessed this debate can be summed up as.....

Characters didn't ruin the franchise, poor decisions on Sega's part do

Right?

Edited December 12, 2011 by Sonimas032