Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric (Wii U)

[Gabz Girl]

All right you won Sonic Boom is an unfixable shitty game I already want my refound blaaargh I'm so angry and negative right now are you happy!?!?!?!

God fucking dammit! Why can't I be POSITIVE?!?!?!?!?

You can be positive if you want, of course! But you have to admit there are flaws in these demos that will surely be in the final game. You can't defend that stuff, the flaws I mean.

[Dizcrybe]

Unless they deliberately chose mediocre levels because they didn't want to spoil the really fancy ones, I certainly don't have high hopes.  Of course in... good games, every level tends to be a "really fancy one".

 

Not really; even good games have that one level most agree to be incredibly annoying.

[azoo]

All right you won Sonic Boom is an unfixable shitty game I already want my refound blaaargh I'm so angry and negative right now are you happy!?!?!?!

 

God fucking dammit! Why can't I be POSITIVE?!?!?!?!?

 

Calm your shorts.

 

You have the right to be positive if you feel like, but if someone's making valid points in criticism of something, you shouldn't have to choose between trying to diminish/undermine said points or outright hate what you're seeing now that someone's said something bad about it. Not everything is black or white.

[JezMM]

All right you won Sonic Boom is an unfixable shitty game I already want my refound blaaargh I'm so angry and negative right now are you happy!?!?!?!

 

God fucking dammit! Why can't I be POSITIVE?!?!?!?!?

 

Don't let other people not liking the thing that you like get you down THAT much.  It doesn't affect whether you enjoy it or not in any way.

 

I'm taken back to the Generations Green Hill demo that was picked apart massively on the basis that everything was too easy, linear, and shitty. Then people buy the game and fawn over Seaside Hill's multiple paths and shit.

As for Mr. Frostman, he's either really busy, feels like there's no reason to bother anymore, or both. I don't blame him in any case.

 

I'd be overjoyed if it's the same case here, where these levels chosen turn out to be significantly less special compared to the rest of the game (though if I recall I always had faith in Generations and was among the "it's a tutorial level guys it's not gonna be overcomplicated" party).  I certainly hope Boom does surprise us, in fact I don't think anyone here WANTS the game to fail... well, nearly anyone.  What concerns me is that we've seen two stages of regular gameplay and two boss fights, which is a bit more of a sample size to work from.  The speed levels could still surprise us, since we've only seen one (presumably the first) of those.

 

Not really; even good games have that one level most agree to be incredibly annoying.

 

Fair enough, but I can't recall any game where said level was the one that was used to showcase the game early on.  These levels don't look annoying or like they have a unique gimmick that makes them sucky, they just look bland and boring.

[Kuzu]

If Boom turns out to be the type of game that gets better the more you play it, then I'll gladly accept it that way.

[Nepenthe]

You can be positive if you want, of course! But you have to admit there are flaws in these demos that will surely be in the final game. You can't defend that stuff, the flaws I mean.

 

To be fair, the only real flaw we've heard about are people reporting that the game physically ran like shit at E3. That is indefensible no matter what and should be fixed.

 

But that's about the extent of the objective issues we've seen. In all of the previews, people have no really noted any specific control issues, camera issues (I think), or anything of the sort as is usually noted in Sonic previews. The major brunt of the criticism has been design-based, and in that case there is actually far less to defend. For the people that have not played the game, you either like the look of Sonic Boom or you don't. And for people who do, what is there for them to defend, or better yet how should they be expected to defend their tastes beyond "I disagree; I think it looks like fun," which of course no one who dislikes Sonic Boom is going to accept at face value? This most basic, fundamental disagreement that will never be reconciled in this discussion is all we have to go on at length at this point. So I don't see the actual end-game or point of telling the optimists that they can't "defend the flaws" because what you and others inherently consider awful, someone else is not going to see the big deal about. And that right there should be the end of it.

 

I'd be overjoyed if it's the same case here, where these levels chosen turn out to be significantly less special compared to the rest of the game (though if I recall I always had faith in Generations and was among the "it's a tutorial level guys it's not gonna be overcomplicated" party).  I certainly hope Boom does surprise us, in fact I don't think anyone here WANTS the game to fail... well, nearly anyone.  What concerns me is that we've seen two stages of regular gameplay and two boss fights, which is a bit more of a sample size to work from.  The speed levels could still surprise us, since we've only seen one (presumably the first) of those.

 

Well, if you want a more comparative example, then Lost World had three full stages at E3 to show off. And again, it was only until critics played the game in full context that we were able to get a consensus about it. Previews on Sonic games are weird because they always rely inherently on the idea that the game will follow a consistent trajectory of design and difficulty from beginning to end based on what was initially demoed, when developers for the games have consistently proven this wrong time and time again for better or for worse. In general though, I do hope that the game has much more to offer than what we're seeing right now. Despite all of the negativity, my hopes have somehow not been dashed. Rather, my interest has been maintained.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Nepenthe

[Briraka]

You can be positive if you want, of course! But you have to admit there are flaws in these demos that will surely be in the final game. You can't defend that stuff, the flaws I mean.

Why should they? This is like saying "You can like this game, but have to rag on it like the rest of us who don't."

 

What you might consider flaws, to someone else it might be considered good or at least, not as much of a problem.

[TearForFear]

Yeah, sorry for my temper-tantruming. I'm serene now.

 

What I meant with my... relationship with these "flaws" is that, if there'll be some in the final game, I'll try my best to tolerate them and don't let them ruin my enjoyment of the story.

 

Of course, I won't be so calm and collected if the game will turn out to be more broken than '06 but I'm at least optimistic that this won't be the case

[T-Min]

You can be positive if you want, of course! But you have to admit there are flaws in these demos that will surely be in the final game. You can't defend that stuff, the flaws I mean.

You know, while "it's subjective" may not really be a good argument against the criticisms, I don't think it's exactly helpful to go in the opposite direction and declare the game is somehow impossible to defend. Honestly, I think "you can like it but you still have to admit it's bad" is almost as much of a cop-out, especially since the game isn't even out yet.

 

Then again, I take umbrage with the "THIS IS INDEFENSIBLE!!!!" position on, well...gamey things in general. Forcing people to admit to flaws in things they like kinda detracts from the point of enjoying them, you know? Maybe what some people see as flaws are "objective" in some respects, maybe they're not, but if someone genuinely believes something is/looks good, I don't think they should be treated like they're somehow blind for trying to ignore or "rationalize" the flaws. (Of course, this isn't necessarily a response toward your post - just some stuff here in general.)

 

Personally, I'm fine with what I've seen of the design for the most part - it's just the way the game feels to play that I'm worried about, and we won't have any way to know what that will be like ourselves until it finally comes out.

[SlickEvan]

Thing is I haven't said there isn't flaws but I did note that flaws for some aren't as apparent because they don't mind as much but I may have said it subliminally. I didn't say oh ignore the flaws but I did say that they have a chance of being fixed. It's like an all or nothing sort of deal where if I like it all I get no respect in my decision. I understand there is flaws but I'm being positive, do I need to point out every flaw before I can say good things about it?!

Man that wasn't well constructed. Posted on mobile.

[Sami]

Why should they? This is like saying "You can like this game, but have to rag on it like the rest of us who don't."

 

What you might consider flaws, to someone else it might be considered good or at least, not as much of a problem.

 

I feel there should be a certain consistency to the argument, though - mainly, the aforementioned "but it's just the first level", or some similar variation of that statement. Saying this implicitly establishes an agreed upon consensus that what we've been shown is not worthy of judging, which is a fair stance to take. If one chooses to be optimistic regardless, that's fine. 

 

But to also say that what we've been shown is good is inconsistent. Do we need to wait for more to judge the quality, or not? If you don't agree that what we've been shown is of a certain quality, don't turn around and say that we shouldn't be judging at all until we've seen more. 

 

I agree with your point, though.

[The Deleter]

Except, because it's so bland, it's not "high-impact" (and barely qualifies as "action").

This is such the cop out, it's not even funny.

 

Does the fighting include recoil? Yes it does. Does the fighting include rapid combos? Yes it does. Do the robots attact back? Yes they do.

It's like you're stuck on this really literal definition of things where as long as you can check off "you fight things" and "you go places", it's a competent game. It may technically be an adventure, but it's a boring-ass adventure from everything we've seen so far.

And likewise, it's like you think if you can call it bland and generic from your point of view, you can call it incompetent, and claim it's an actual flaw.

 

Still adventure, whether you like casual pacing when characters are exploring areas or not.

It's only "like a roller coaster" if you're including spending a half hour waiting in line between rides as part of the experience.

The wait time between exploring, platforming, brawling, and running is no where near that long in normal levels and you know it.

 

And you're going to cling to this "but, opinions!" argument regardless of what anyone says.

 

Now why would I be arguing opinions when they're being stated as fact? Hmmm...

 

It doesn't matter how "boring" you make it out to be, it's still an adventure that has plenty of action in it. It most definitely succeeds at what it's trying to do. I consider Sonic Generations' boost gameplay to be dull, (as it honestly feels like I'm running on a treadmill half the time) but that doesn't change the fact that it's high speed gameplay worthy of being attached Sonic.

 

Opinions aren't flaws, they're just preferences. And if the game doesn't cater to your almighty taste buds, that doesn't factually make it flawed.

 

Now "but it's uninspired!" or "it's generic!" are to some degree valid criticisms, as indeed, the game could have been something more. But that something more would just be the changing point on whether it's a usual good game, or a great game, not a terrible one. This exaggeration is way too common in this place, and seriously needs to be stopped being stated as fact.

[Celestia]

Then again, I take umbrage with the "THIS IS INDEFENSIBLE!!!!" position on, well...gamey things in general.

For the longest time, I've been trying to figure out what kind of attitude bothers me in the gaming community in general, and I think this is exactly it. It's not exclusive to gamers of course, but in my experience it's where the attitude is most...extreme, I guess. It doesn't help that people take opposing viewpoints on fandom stuff very, very personally, whether the person you disagree with is actually being a jerk or not.

 

Personally I'm still intrigued by this game, but my tastes on this sort of thing are probably going to be questionable in most people's eyes. I actually kind of enjoy mindless beat 'em ups after all, so even if the combat remains simple I'll enjoy mashing buttons. ;P It's the rest of the game that'll determine if I enjoy it as a whole, I think.

[Sami]

This is such the cop out, it's not even funny.

 

Does the fighting include recoil? Yes it does. Does the fighting include rapid combos? Yes it does. Do the robots attact back? Yes they do.

You could say this about pretty much any game with an attack button, regardless of quality.

 

It doesn't matter how "boring" you make it out to be, it's still an adventure that has plenty of action in it. It most definitely succeeds at what it's trying to do. I consider Sonic Generations' boost gameplay to be dull, (as it honestly feels like I'm running on a treadmill half the time) but that doesn't change the fact that it's high speed gameplay worthy of being attached Sonic.

 

Opinions aren't flaws, they're just preferences. And if the game doesn't cater to your almighty judgement, that doesn't factually make it flawed.

Now "but it's uninspired!" or "it's generic!" are to some degree valid criticisms, as indeed, the game could have been something more. But that something more would just be the changing point on whether it's a usual good game, or a great game, not a terrible one. This exaggeration is way too common in this place, and seriously needs to be stopped being stated as fact.

You're muddying your argument. It's unclear what you're actually trying to say.

You seem to be really fiercely standing by your "opinions are not facts, so stop pretending they are" argument, and yet in the very next sentence you say the game "most definitely succeeds at what it tries to do". You go on to say that Generations' gameplay is factually "worthy of being attached to Sonic", whatever that means.

 

For someone guilty of doing exactly what they're getting angry about, you're being awfully condescending. 

[Diogenes]

This is such the cop out, it's not even funny.

 

Does the fighting include recoil? Yes it does. Does the fighting include rapid combos? Yes it does. Do the robots attact back? Yes they do.

"Combat exists", basically.

When I think of "high-impact action" I think of something like Bayonetta or...well, basically anything from Platinum Games. Boom is a damp sponge in comparison to that.

And likewise, it's like you think if you can call it bland and generic from your point of view, you can call it incompetent, and claim it's an actual flaw.

Being bland, generic, and incompetent: apparently not a flaw anymore.

The wait time between exploring, platforming, brawling, and running is no where near that long in normal levels and you know it.

I'm saying the only part that's like being on a rollercoaster is the speed sections, and to get to them requires wading through the mind-numbingly dull combat/exploration areas.

It doesn't matter how "boring" you make it out to be, it's still an adventure that has plenty of action in it. It most definitely succeeds at what it's trying to do.

If you're going to complain about me stating my opinions as fact, you really shouldn't be acting as if yours are.

Unless BRB is criminally lazy, Boom is trying to do more than simply have a non-zero amount of "action" and "adventure". It is trying to use those qualities to attract people to buy it. But myself and quite a lot of other people are not impressed. So to say that the game is absolutely accomplishing what it set out to achieve is...merely an opinion in the best of cases.

I consider Sonic Generations' boost gameplay to be dull, (as it honestly feels like I'm running on a treadmill half the time) but that doesn't change the fact that it's high speed gameplay worthy of being attached Sonic.

It's high speed gameplay, but it's dull as shit and therefore shouldn't be pursued.

[Detective Shadzter]

‘Sonic Boom’: Top 10 Facts You Need to Know
http://heavy.com/games/2014/07/sonic-boom-game-wii-u-3ds-show-cartoon-toys-action-figures/

[Jason Berry]

‘Sonic Boom’: Top 10 Facts You Need to Know

http://heavy.com/games/2014/07/sonic-boom-game-wii-u-3ds-show-cartoon-toys-action-figures/

 

LOL More like "Top Ten Facts You Already Knew About" 

[The Deleter]

You could say this about pretty much any game with an attack button, regardless of quality.

Not exactly. The pre-lego movie Lego games spring to mind.

You're muddying your argument. It's unclear what you're actually trying to say.

You seem to be really fiercely standing by your "opinions are not facts, so stop pretending they are" argument, and yet in the very next sentence you say the game "most definitely succeeds at what it tries to do". You go on to say that Generations' gameplay is factually "worthy of being attached to Sonic", whatever that means.

 

For someone guilty of doing exactly what they're getting angry about, you're being awfully condescending. 

Are you denying that all of those factors constitute what is called an "action adventure"? Because I'm basing that "assumption" on those facts. Only way for that to be proven wrong is through the dismissal of those facts, not of an opinion.

 

Though I wasn't really saying that Generations game play was worthy--poor choice of words on my part--just fitting for his character traits, and what he does.

 

"Combat exists", basically.

When I think of "high-impact action" I think of something like Bayonetta or...well, basically anything from Platinum Games. Boom is a damp sponge in comparison to that.

Oh, so since something is more intense, that suddenly makes Boom's point for having action null and void, because it's "not as intense as others"?

 

It's this attitude that's ruining the movie genre of the same kind.

Being bland, generic, and incompetent: apparently not a flaw anymore.

Actually, no, their not.

 

Bland, in this case, is only based on pre-concived expectations, and personal tastes. Bland can be very subjective, so no, not objective.

Generic may be a slight flaw in that it holds the game back from being more unique than other stuff, but that doesn't make it automatically bad, just more of the same thing.

And incompetent is so not a genuine flaw in this case. You are basing your expectations on what you want from this game, not what it's trying to actually do. If the developers fail to develop an above-par game that they were aiming to make, then you could call them incompetent. Sonic 4 was incompetent. Sonic Boom, is not.

I'm saying the only part that's like being on a rollercoaster is the speed sections, and to get to them requires wading through the mind-numbingly dull combat/exploration areas.

I mean in a story/scene-based concept, not literal gameplay.

If you're going to complain about me stating my opinions as fact, you really shouldn't be acting as if yours are.

Unless BRB is criminally lazy, Boom is trying to do more than simply have a non-zero amount of "action" and "adventure". It is trying to use those qualities to attract people to buy it. But myself and quite a lot of other people are not impressed. So to say that the game is absolutely accomplishing what it set out to achieve is...merely an opinion in the best of cases.

Well the Wonderful 101 set out to get sales, too, but it failed. Does that determine whether it succeeded at what it was trying to do?

 

Yes and no. Yes because, at the end of the day, games are meant to gain sales and, in the proccess, money. Overall, though, no it doesn't, because the quality of game in and of itself is not determined by sales, but by itself. This is just a cop out to say "my opinion does matter!", honestly.

It's high speed gameplay, but it's dull as shit and therefore shouldn't be pursued.

Another opinion, not necessarily based on factual overall potential of the gameplay or a collective consciousness.

[TearForFear]

 

Ahem. Established that everyone has a different taste, I have a question.

 

When and where do you think it's more likely possible for SEGA to leak new information about Sonic Boom?

[Nepenthe]

No one is denying that Boom has specific characteristics pertinent to the genre it's being marketed as.

People are saying that they are looking at the game and don't find that it looks fun to them. Despite "it doesn't look fun" not being an objective flaw like frame rate dips, a game not being fun can- in all reasonableness- be considered a flaw to the person who is espousing the opinion. Like, how can you deny this?

Really, what is the problem? What is this conversation even about??????

[Sami]

Not exactly. The pre-lego movie Lego games spring to mind.

Are you denying that all of those factors constitute what is called an "action adventure"? Because I'm basing that "assumption" on those facts. Only way for that to be proven wrong is through the dismissal of those facts, not of an opinion.

 

Though I wasn't really saying that Generations game play was worthy--poor choice of words on my part--just fitting for his character traits, and what he does.

 

You're playing a completely meaningless game of semantics at this point. 

[Diogenes]

Oh, so since something is more intense, that suddenly makes Boom's point for having action null and void, because it's "not as intense as others"?

It certainly makes calling it "high-intensity" action questionable.

I'm not even going to respond to the rest, because neither of us is going to convince the other. Our views are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Kuzu]

....What are we even arguing at this point?

[The Deleter]

No one is denying that Boom has specific characteristics pertinent to the genre it's being marketed as.

People are saying that they are looking at the game and don't find that it looks fun to them. Despite "it doesn't look fun" not being an objective flaw like frame rate dips, a game not being fun can- in all reasonableness- be considered a flaw to the person who is espousing the opinion. Like, how can you deny this?

Really, what is the problem? What is this conversation even about??????

Uh, yes they were. Look a few pages back.

 

I realize that many people have personal gripes with the game, and I'm not trying to change their minds on that front exactly. They can either be interested in the game or not, that's their business.

 

What I do have a problem with is them stating these hugely subjective statements all over the forum, as if they're fact, should be applied as a collective conscious, and (possibly unintentionally) talking down to the developers as if they are failing hard at what they're trying to accomplish, and should end up catering to them instead. Not only is this forcing an opinion down someone's throat, ("You can't just ignore these flaws!", "Incompetence isn't a flaw anymore?", and "Sonic Boom is HORRIBLE game, everyone in asia hates it" comes to mind) it's degrading the moral of the forum, and possibly BRB itself, especially if more members than Steven Frost visit here. That's why I want to make a distinction between objective and personal flaws, as constructive criticism is far more helpful and worthwhile than a false perception on what is genuinely good and bad for a game.

 

It certainly makes calling it "high-intensity" action questionable.

I never said it was high in intensity, just impact. The game has recoil in it's combat, therefore it has impact. Nothing questionable about it.

[TheLaw34]

Seems like we have hit the what are we talking about phase atleast twice in this topic now. Anyway, just wanted to mention a while ago someone said that the game running like crap was the only completely objective complaint. I would say you need to add graphics to that list. Low quality textures and lighting are as much of an objective flaw as a low framerate and glitches.