Sonic vs. the Critics

[MamboCat]

I tend to trust the reviews of fellow fans more so than "professional" reviewers. They're looking for totally different things in my opinion; people view and judge quality in things in different ways. I would read such things only for general information on the game in question, rather than the professional reviewer's opinion.

[SegaSuperStar]

I find reviewers on game sites ect. to be...''fanboys'' so their opinion is narrow minded. Therefore i rely on other ''real'' gamers and obviously myself to take my/our time to give the game a chance and discuss/find the negative and positives about the game and tell it as it is. Simple.

[FireBird75]

The way you guys are putting it is that critics need to be totally ignored and I should just go by my opinion.  Which sounds good written but unwise in execution.  What I usually do is go by my opinion first (duh), make sure my opinions can be properly supported (<---IMPORTANT), and take what the critics say with a grain of a salt.  What I mean by that is that I take what they say into consideration, acknowledge whatever good points they make, and deem all biased opinions irrelevant.  I think that is a better alternative than just ignoring your critics altogether.

 

I also like how Sega has been handling their criticism in the past few years. Both from the critics and the fans.  They seem to have an understanding of what they need to in order to appease the majority of both mediums. For the fans, Sega has taken care to listen to the smarter side of the fanbase so they add and improve things in the games that better the overall quality of the products and ignoring those fans who want certain things implemented in the games that would certainly bring the quality of the games down.  I believe Takashi Iizuka said it best when he mentioned something along the lines of "creating games for the fans that we{Sega] have instead of the ones that we don't".  For the critics, Sega has limited the things critics have found annoying in the past and have better implemented the features in the games that critics have actually praised. This in turn has led to some much better reception for some of Sonic's recent console titles* and Sega could always use the good press.  Good press is good for business after all!

 

*Sonic's modern handleheld titles have always maintained positive reception (bar Sonic Genesis) and sadly a lot of fans don't recognize this.

[RK64]

I stopped listening to critics a few years ago when Unleashed 360 got a lower score than Sonic 06... 

 

I was baffled by this as once I played the 360 version at a friends house, I was stunned at how better it was than the wii version; levels had more platforming, the Werehogs combat was better, the hubs were more alive, dlc levels, ect...  I find that reviewers have a bias toward the series for no reason, yes some sonic games were sub-par and games like Adventure 2 or Heroes have aspects that are a bit dated, but the series has more good games over bad ones.

 

Now after Sonic Colors, Generations, and now Lost World, the series is back better than ever and the fact critics are STILL saying "Sonic went though some rough times..." is just unprofessional

[Mr. Taxi]

The thing is people tend to act Like the critics word is final, that the critic knows what they like and don't like and bag the critic knows best.

What genuinely qualifies someone to be a critic? Nothing, really it's nothing, as long as they have/had a passion for video games then a lot of critics are just normal people, any one of is could become a critic, it's not like they have to do years at Uni like an architect or doctor, there is no "critic degree", they just found a way to get ther voice heard more than others and publications picked them up.

A lot of casual gamers don't seem to recognise this and they treat the critics like almighty gaming gods, they don't think for themselves or even rent it to see if they would like it. A critic really, should have an open mind about any game they play, wipe the slate clean for a new game, it's not te game before, it's its own thing, maybe reference or compare to the game before, not games 3-4 games previous and 7 years old

 

From what I see in this thread, this isn't true. Unless people at SSMB are somehow more enlightened than others.

 

I, personally, think critics get way too much flack for things they haven't done.

 

"Finding a way to get their voice heard more than others" is no simple task. If it were, anyone would do it. Having a critic mind is much more than pointing out which games are fun and which aren't, because here's an important thing: critics are part of the industry. They may or may not work with games, but developers sure take their opinions with consideration. And so they should. You can't just ignore what they say and pay attention only to the public because the public is too chaotic. It's very fine for the industry to have a select few who are surely going to play your game and evaluate them using fixed standards and critical analysis.

 

"Casual gamers" is a very, very awkward definition to go by, since everyone is casual about some games, but hardcore about others. I find all of us here quite hardcore Sonic gamers, but if we suddenly start talking about any other media, there is little we can tell each other and, untilately, to the industry. Critics are a much better thermometer.

 

Of course critics are normal people! But they are normal people who are paid to play games. This may not be that much fun. It's true that they may not be Sonic fans, but then again don't we need a thermometer to tell what the game will mean for people who weren't going to play it anyway? If we employ only fans to play their games, there is no standard whatsoever.

 

The public can't be heard, only measured. The public doesn't necessarily need to listen to the critics, but they are more reliable than the guys who made the game. If it was the case of renting the games ourselves, what would be the filter? If it's our taste anyway, there's no point in blaming the critics. There are always more factors than this. Like, you know, the time we have at our disposal, the opinions of our friends etc.

 

And there's more: if there aren't enough Sonic fans among the critics, doesn't that already tell us something about the state Sonic is in? Is it really absurd that the games don't get that much praise? It's not like people who aren't Sonic fans have an agenda against it. Also, even though we've had better games lately, they've also sold less. So is it really relevant that "everyone" liked them? Because it's a question of "everyone" who?

 

There's something I don't like about media critics in general: rating systems. They are the way they found to quantify opinions, but the standards are always different. So sites like Game Rankings and Metacritic will often present us some distortion in what each critic actually said about the game. These systems could be unified and refined.

[MamboCat]

^^

 

That last bit is pretty much what I mean. Critics have a list of criteria to comment on and sometimes score. These criteria aren't necessarily the same things a consumer looks for when looking to buy a game, movie etc...

[Tara]

When it comes to anything, be it movies, games, or anything at all, I tend to not trust critics, professional or otherwise.

 

It's not that I don't trust their word or that I disrespect their occupation, and it's not even because there is corruption and monetary motivations that occasionally surface.  It's just that, honestly, I don't always know what it is in a game I'm looking for and what makes it work or not work.  That being said, I don't typically agree or disagree with fans and critics, it's just that what may be tropes of a bad game to some might be things I just look past.  Everyone tells me the Werehog had bad controls.  Really?  I thought they were okay.  Not super solid, mind you, but okay even in the Wii version.  Of course, after people have explained it to me, I do see where they're coming from, but even in acknowledging the flaws as flaws and seeing them for myself, they don't bother me as much as it does most fans.

 

Case in point, the story to a lot of Sonic games.  I'm not saying they're Shakespearean in quality or anything, but in my opinion, they're far from terrible.  Yet, a lot of people, including me, will point out several flaws with the story and why it suffers narratively.  I agree that they're problems, and I would definitely like to see them work harder to improve on these weak points, but that hardly hinders my ability to enjoy them for what they are.

 

But... that's another reason I'm here.  I enjoy talking about the strengths and weaknesses of Sonic games, rather they truly bother me or not.  I enjoy that we all have different opinions on the same subject, even if I disagree with the vast majority of the members here on some subjects.  However, if someone here told me to stay away from a game at any and all cost, I probably wouldn't listen unless they revealed something to me that didn't appeal to my specific taste.  (ex. "It's filled with blood and gore!"  "Stupidly dark and gritty!"  "It's Sonic Chronicles!")

 

So, I guess to summarize in just a few words, I don't really care one way or the other about what critics and fans say because I'll end buying and perhaps enjoying the game anyway.  But critics are an important voice to listen to if you're a developer because at least critics have a certain degree of uniformity.  A certain degree.  Sega reps may occasionally make their way to this forum, but we'd be lying to ourselves if we ever entertained the idea that our often divided mixed bags of critiques and suggestions hold any greater weight, let alone equal weight, to IGN, GameInformer, and other such publications.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Akito

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

"Sonic hasn't been good in 3D"

"Sonic was never good in 3D"

"3D has always been a rocky start for Sonic"

"Sonic and 3D don't seem to get along very well"

"3D bad"

"3 yadda yadda D"

~(Almost) Every critic ever.

 

The fact that they can't seem to say anything new within the first 2 sentences for the past several years is a major case of bandwagon jumping of making Sonic the whipping boy,. And even to this day with Colors and Generations actually putting Sonic in a better light than he was during the Dark Ages after ShtH, what what does the first sentence say?

 

"Sonic hasn't done well in 3D"

 

Yeah, thanks for telling us for the millionth time. Think you can give some new criticism that doesn't have the words "Sonic", "Doesn't", "Do", "Well", "In", and "3D" in the same sentence? We've heard it so many times that now you're just beating a dead horse.

[Kamakai]

"Sonic hasn't been good in 3D"

"Sonic was never good in 3D"

"3D has always been a rocky start for Sonic"

"Sonic and 3D don't seem to get along very well"

"3D bad"

"3 yadda yadda D"

~(Almost) Every critic ever.

 

The fact that they can't seem to say anything new within the first 2 sentences for the past several years is a major case of bandwagon jumping of making Sonic the whipping boy,. And even to this day with Colors and Generations actually putting Sonic in a better light than he was during the Dark Ages after ShtH, what what does the first sentence say?

 

"Sonic hasn't done well in 3D"

 

Yeah, thanks for telling us for the millionth time. Think you can give some new criticism that doesn't have the words "Sonic", "Doesn't", "Do", "Well", "In", and "3D" in the same sentence? We've heard it so many times that now you're just beating a dead horse.

 

Funny, seeing how many of them call Sonic a dead horse.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Funny, seeing how many of them call Sonic a dead horse.

That horse was poisoned and shot to death yet it miraculously survived and is still going. I'd say they're calling it a live horse that they want dead.

[Chaos Incarnate]

Gameinformer lost all credibility the moment I read their Sonic Generations review. They gave it the same score as Sonic 06, a 6.75. The score wouldn't bother me so much if their reasoning supported it. Dear god, Tim Turi comes off as the most butthurt, biased 2d Sonic fan I've ever seen. He spends half of the review crying about how Sonic is basically on life support and has been dying for years before finally moving on to the game itself. His main problem with the game is that the classic era wasn't represented well enough, before moving on and stating that the modern era gives him bad memories, and the game suffers for it. To his credit, he does say he has problems with the levels themselves, but doesn't even bother stating what they are.

 

Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.

 

Here is the link to this "brilliant" review.

 

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/sonic_generations/b/xbox360/archive/2011/10/31/sonic-generations-review-a-suffering-hedgehog-s-life-flashes-before-his-eyes.aspx

Edited June 10, 2013 by Knightofthewind417

[sonfan1984]

The guys at GameInformer pretty much made it loud and clear that they only the classics and 2D Sonic and hates 3D Sonic. I really don't like their attitude for Sonic and the fanbase in general. 

Edited June 11, 2013 by sonfan1984

[Sonictrainer]

Gameinformer lost all credibility the moment I read their Sonic Generations review. They gave it the same score as Sonic 06, a 6.75. The score wouldn't bother me so much if their reasoning supported it. Dear god, Tim Turi comes off as the most butthurt, biased 2d Sonic fan I've ever seen. He spends half of the review crying about how Sonic is basically on life support and has been dying for years before finally moving on to the game itself. His main problem with the game is that the classic era wasn't represented well enough, before moving on and stating that the modern era gives him bad memories, and the game suffers for it. To his credit, he does say he has problems with the levels themselves, but doesn't even bother stating what they are.

 

Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.

 

Here is the link to this "brilliant" review.

 

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/sonic_generations/b/xbox360/archive/2011/10/31/sonic-generations-review-a-suffering-hedgehog-s-life-flashes-before-his-eyes.aspx

 

Is he the one who couldn't tell the difference between Classic and Modern Sonic?

[NocturnalTwilight]

Honestly, I couldn't care less about what critics think about Sonic Games, I plan on getting them either way so I can make my own judgement. Especially critics from GameInformer, if it's a Sonic Game, no way in hell they're going to go easy on it. Not only Sonic Games, but just games in General, that's why I use IGN, they give a fair fight. But still, like I said, I'll always get the game then make my judgement. 

[Chaos Incarnate]

Is he the one who couldn't tell the difference between Classic and Modern Sonic?

I don't recall Tim Turi not knowing the difference between classic and modern Sonic, but I remember in the Generations 3ds review, he thought it was Sonic's 25th anniversary. Seriously.