Sonic Frontiers - Review Roundup.

[Kuzu]

Sega really need to actually listen and look at the constructive criticism for this game. I know that can be hard to parse on the internet, but I hope they just look at the positive review scores and assume no work needs to be done.

Sonic fans were going to like this game given they waited five years for it and it had a lot of things fans have been asking for a long time.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

While it is nice that things are positive, there still is room for improvement, and that they should analyze the reviews from both critics AND fans alike. See what they liked, and what needs to be worked on.

There's also some more detailed perspectives from reviews of players than those of the official critics to take into mind as well.

At the very least, I think that they're aware of the positive buzz, given tweets like this:

SEGA must at least be aware that something's being done right with this game. And given how Sonic Team are now enacting more heavy emphasis on playtesting feedback, I do believe this signifies a good chance that they'll analyze criticism on a deeper level than before.

[azoo]

That's maybe the most solid review yet, haha. It brings up much of my issues with the field design, the repetition, the mixed controls and even the combat.

It's also the first to mention my issue with how the Titan bosses feature Sonic clipping through them multiple times, particularly on the second boss in Ares. You'd think that would get more scrutiny than it has.. that led to a lot of frustrations.

[light-gaia]

I think the audience score is more accurate because the crítics' Metascore was lowered because of a few bad reviews. Such as the Digital Trends'. And I don't think these reviews should bê considered because they said absurd things, like the graphics are bad. What is obviously not true

[Shaddy Zaphod]

You can think whatever you want, but I don't really believe in that philosophy. Even if a criticism is bad, there's still something that can be learned from it, and just as a bad review can be unreasonable, so can a good one.

Also, audience scores are heavily skewed by response bias. Of course the game has a high user score, because the people most likely to contribute to that score are the ones who care the most about the game. After all, how does bad reviews lowering a score make it less accurate? The more people respond to a thing, the better sample size you're getting (without review-bombing obviously, but that has not happened to this game).

All this being said, it's not like I really agree with either the switch review or digital trends, but I just think outright dismissing X or Y because of Z isn't a good philosophy to approach discussion with.

[Sonicka]

1 hour ago, The Great Egg Emperor said:

Nintendo Life's review is in.

https://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/nintendo-switch/sonic-frontiers

Man were they harsh. I think the Switch version runs fine, but they hated it.

Actually this is an intriguing review, and one that I don't believe video staff on NL will share. What will be interesting to see is the video version of this article when it's up since they'll narrate the website review then share their personal opinions at the end. 

[Razule]

The audience are rating based off of how much they enjoyed it, and the critics are rating based off of its performance as an actual game in comparison to other games.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

3 minutes ago, Razule said:

The audience are rating based off of how much they enjoyed it, and the critics are rating based off of its performance as an actual game in comparison to other games.

In some regards, each are doing some of this or that. That's why analyzing takes is where the real value of each take comes from.

[light-gaia]

40 minutes ago, Shaddy Zaphod said:

You can think whatever you want, but I don't really believe in that philosophy. Even if a criticism is bad, there's still something that can be learned from it, and just as a bad review can be unreasonable, so can a good one.

Also, audience scores are heavily skewed by response bias. Of course the game has a high user score, because the people most likely to contribute to that score are the ones who care the most about the game. After all, how does bad reviews lowering a score make it less accurate? The more people respond to a thing, the better sample size you're getting (without review-bombing obviously, but that has not happened to this game).

All this being said, it's not like I really agree with either the switch review or digital trends, but I just think outright dismissing X or Y because of Z isn't a good philosophy to approach discussion with.

Because these specifuc 3 reviews are poorly written and have very bad arguments. Giving Frontiers 2/10 is simply unfair because for game to deserve a score that low It would need to be at the same level of something like Sonic Boom Rise of Lyric or Sonic 2006. Which is obviously not the case. I'm not talking about the majority of the reviews (good or bad), I'm talking about Just a few extremely negative reviews that don't make sense and have a lot if stupid arguments.

Also, it doesn't make sense to say user scores are not valid because they are "biased". Sonic Forces, Lost World and TSR all have mixed user scores. They also have mixed user scores on Steam

The fact Sonic Frontiers is having good user scores on both Metacritic and Steam only shows the game is being well-received by the audience 

 

 

 

[azoo]

A good tip would be to stop caring about Metacritic numbers.

Another good tip would be to not become consumed by hype, nor try to create a false narrative that people are biased against Sonic or whatever because they didn't like the game as much as you think they should've.

Sonic fans need to stop treating reviews or reception as some eternal underdog story, or some psychological war to prove the community is worth respecting to the outside gaming world. (If anything, that kinda behavior just makes the fandom look worse.) Sometimes people just say what they thought about the game and post it. Some people would call that "reviewing the game". There's not much more to it.

[light-gaia]

Mentioning a review might be unfair or has some incoeherent arguments is not the same thing as "creating a narrativa that people have biased againt Sonic".

[azoo]

There wasn't anything incoherent about that article, though. It just sounds like we're trying to make the criticisms sound unreasonable so we can silence them and get back to praising it. That's textbook "twisting the narrative".

[DaBigJ]

1 hour ago, light-gaia said:

 And I don't think these reviews should bê considered because they said absurd things, like the graphics are bad. What is obviously not true

Okay listen buddy, I'll agree that Digital's review was wack, but to discredit whole reviews because they said something as simple as "the graphics look bad" is fucking laughably absurd.

Come on now, you should know better than that.

[Shaddy Zaphod]

9 minutes ago, light-gaia said:

Because these specifuc 3 reviews are poorly written and have very bad arguments. Giving Frontiers 2/10 is simply unfair because for game to deserve a score that low It would need to be at the same level of something like Sonic Boom Rise of Lyric or Sonic 2006. Which is obviously not the case. I'm not talking about the majority of the reviews (good or bad), I'm talking about Just a few extremely negative reviews that don't make sense and have a lot if stupid arguments.

You don't get to decide how good someone thinks the game is. I mean, from my perspective, you're falsely equating Rise of Lyric, a slightly bland game, with Sonic 06, an offensively-terrible one. Am I making an objectively bad argument by drawing this distinction?

If you want to criticize an argument made by a review, then...do that. You know you haven't actually done that, right? I can find plenty of things wrong with these reviews, I'm just not particularly interested in having that discussion. If you are, then step the fuck up.

9 minutes ago, light-gaia said:

Also, it doesn't make sense to say user scores are not valid because they are "biased". Sonic Forces, Lost World and TSR all have mixed user scores. They also have mixed user scores on Steam

It makes exactly as much sense as claiming a reviewer is biased.

9 minutes ago, light-gaia said:

The fact Sonic Frontiers is having good user scores on both Metacritic and Steam only shows the game is being well-received by the audience 

It shows it is being well-received by the audience members that choose to say how they feel. That's not an insignificant thing, but it's not the same as reviewers.

 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

In-depth review from Choctopus:

 

7 hours ago, Sonicka said:

I hope Sonic Team pay particular attention to the user scores here - because whilst I think the overall critic reviews are on point for the technical aspects, it's the community they should be listening too. Achieving an average of 9.0 across 448+ members of the fanbase so far is nothing to scoff at, and (so far) this is beating the Sonic Mania juggernaut in that area. 

Hmmm. I wonder if part of the reason, is that while Mania is fantastic, the formula is more or less the same with some new bells and whistles. Nothing to scoff at, but it did have some things holding it back. Same with Frontiers obviously, but it boasts a new system, and one that really gels and works for Sonic, being a pretty delightful experience in its own regard while bringing great promise to the franchise's future.

[Rabbitearsblog]

1 hour ago, azoo said:

A good tip would be to stop caring about Metacritic numbers.

Another good tip would be to not become consumed by hype, nor try to create a false narrative that people are biased against Sonic or whatever because they didn't like the game as much as you think they should've.

Sonic fans need to stop treating reviews or reception as some eternal underdog story, or some psychological war to prove the community is worth respecting to the outside gaming world. (If anything, that kinda behavior just makes the fandom look worse.) Sometimes people just say what they thought about the game and post it. Some people would call that "reviewing the game". There's not much more to it.

I agree with this.  At the end of the day, the only person that you should really pay attention to in terms of whether or not the game is good is yourself.  You are the one who will buy the game and you are the one who will see the positives and the negatives of the game.  While it is interesting seeing what the critics and the general audience thinks, you will be the one who is invested in the game and if you have a platform to talk on like YouTube or Twitch, then you can give out your own opinions about the game itself.

I do agree with you that Sonic Fans need to stop thinking that these negative reviews are like the end of the world for the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise, because they are not.  They are regular reviews like everything else and not everyone is going to like Sonic Frontiers, which is fine.  Now, I can understand if some of the negative reviews are just bashing the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise or they straight up insult the people working on the project or even insult the people who liked the game.  But if the negative reviews are like stating that the game mechanics need to be better, then I don't see what's wrong with pointing that out.  Any Sonic fan will definitely point out the flaws in the game, just like how the critics are doing it.  My only concern with the reviews from both the critics and the audience is how will SEGA take all that criticism?  We all know that SEGA had a nasty habit of looking at the criticisms for the Sonic games and taking the wrong ideas from them.  I just hope that they won't do the same thing with Sonic Frontiers and take the criticisms and not improve on the gameplay style because they read the criticisms the wrong way.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Another review to add to the ring.

[VO.SUPER]

5 hours ago, The Great Egg Emperor said:

Nintendo Life's review is in.

https://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/nintendo-switch/sonic-frontiers

Man were they harsh. I think the Switch version runs fine, but they hated it.

You have another review of the Switch version that gives it a good score.

I think how much someone likes or dislikes the Switch version is dependent on how much like the game itself. The Switch version is already the worst one despite being decent enough, but if you already don't like the game, you're playing the worst version of the game you really don't like.

But if you do like the game, I think some people are willing to let some Switch quirks slide. And if you have context that the pop-in is the same horrendous level on all systems, not much you can do there.

[light-gaia]

3 hours ago, Jake_LeOFFICIAL said:

Okay listen buddy, I'll agree that Digital's review was wack, but to discredit whole reviews because they said something as simple as "the graphics look bad" is fucking laughably absurd.

Come on now, you should know better than that.

Of course is not only because of that, I only mentionrd one example of the flawed arguments of some reviews.

3 hours ago, Shaddy Zaphod said:

You don't get to decide how good someone thinks the game is. I mean, from my perspective, you're falsely equating Rise of Lyric, a slightly bland game, with Sonic 06, an offensively-terrible one. Am I making an objectively bad argument by drawing this distinction?

If you want to criticize an argument made by a review, then...do that. You know you haven't actually done that, right? I can find plenty of things wrong with these reviews, I'm just not particularly interested in having that discussion. If you are, then step the fuck up.

It makes exactly as much sense as claiming a reviewer is biased.

It shows it is being well-received by the audience members that choose to say how they feel. That's not an insignificant thing, but it's not the same as reviewers.

Sonic 2006 and Sonic Boom Rise of Lyric were both unfinished games with tones of techinical issues that deserverd the extremely negative reviews they got. I don't see why comparing both games are absurd. Specially when most people consider Sonic Boom to be another "Sonic 2006 incident".

"You don't get to decide how good someone thinks the game is"

I'm alliwed tô have my personal opinion about what the reviews said.and what opinions are more accurate to describe the actual game's quality. The same way you are allowed to have tour opinion that the critics score is more accurate.

I don't get why are you being so randomly agressive with me out of nowhere. I think it's better for me to end this conversation here.

You think what you want to think, I think what I want to think, and we move on 

[Scritch the Cat]

I still need to play this game for myself to form a full opinion, but in the meantime, I have heard and read enough reviews that I can extrapolate some obvious details.

It feels like Sonic Team is essentially back in Sonic Adventure 1 mode, experimenting with a lot of gameplay ideas and just letting the pieces fall where they may.  Again, the one thing absent from back then is playing as multiple characters, but they have still in effect revived most of what was contentious about playing as multiple characters...and arguably also some of what was appealing, as apparently the other characters do play a big role in the plot and have some depth here.  All things considered, it seems like there's a lot to this game.

Now, consensus among reviewers seems to be that this game's core idea is a good one, but there is room for improvement, with the main disagreement being over just how much improvement is needed.  I intend to buy this game and I expect to enjoy it well enough, but right now, I will admit, I'm not sure how much I expect improvement from here, because unfortunately, I still see no reason to expect that from this company.  Undoubtedly, Sonic Team will be listening in order to decide where to go from here, but their historical precedent is often that they "improve" upon themselves mostly by not repeating the worse-received elements of prior games and repeating those elements that were better-received.  They aren't nearly so reliable when it comes to improving individual gameplay elements, and far too many times, those elements actually get worse.  Unfortunately, while Frontiers as a package deal is certainly more highly regarded than Forces, it's evident that has happened here, too.

By far the most disheartening thing about this game is how flawed the Cyberspace segment is, and I'm not talking about the reused assets.  Rather, Sonic's basic functioning in them is, according to many who played it, pretty bad.  It somehow has gotten into an anti-Goldilocks Zone where the custom physics you give Sonic in the Open Zone don't translate to Cyberspace, but meanwhile other aspects of his movements in the Open Zone do get transferred; for example Sonic's bumper actions have been designed to help him roll with punches in Open Zone combat, and this same roll has replaced Quick-Stepping in Cyberspace and is thus unsuited to do the sort of tasks that would be simple in past Boost titles.  Whether it merely feels uncomfortable or is so terrible it throws Sonic off cliffs is something I can't determine without playing the game for myself, but either way, this would have been an extremely basic and easy issue to fix.

Now let's factor that back into what I said two paragraphs ago.  This is the latest of many Sonic games to have multiple gameplay elements that are not all equally good, but for maybe the first time, conventional Sonic fast platforming seems like it's not the highlight of the game.  So if Sonic Team persists in its policy of improving games by dropping what wasn't so good last time, well, does that mean next game will be "improved" by being just an open-world Sonic game with even less of what Sonic used to be?

Maybe not.  But that has been essentially my biggest worry from the moment I saw the first trailer of this game.  Not that it looked bad, but that it looked more like other open-world games than it looked like a Sonic game, as if it was, on some level, ashamed of being a Sonic game.  If being an open-world game is enough for gamers as a whole, do we, the old Sonic fans, even matter to SEGA anymore?  Undoubtedly, we do to the likes of Ian Flynn and Tyson Hesse, but to the heavies, I'm really not sure.

[Shaddy Zaphod]

6 hours ago, light-gaia said:

Sonic 2006 and Sonic Boom Rise of Lyric were both unfinished games with tones of techinical issues that deserverd the extremely negative reviews they got. I don't see why comparing both games are absurd. Specially when most people consider Sonic Boom to be another "Sonic 2006 incident".

There are a myriad of reasons that they're not comparable, the same amount of reasons that Sonic Frontiers can be criticized.

6 hours ago, light-gaia said:

"You don't get to decide how good someone thinks the game is"

I'm alliwed tô have my personal opinion about what the reviews said.and what opinions are more accurate to describe the actual game's quality. The same way you are allowed to have tour opinion that the critics score is more accurate.

...And? The whole point of this was that you were claiming they did not make cogent arguments. If all you're going to do is backtrack to "it's just my opinion", you may as well not have bothered.

6 hours ago, light-gaia said:

I don't get why are you being so randomly agressive with me out of nowhere.

I'm not? I think I've been pretty collected here.

 

 

 

 

[light-gaia]

7 hours ago, Shaddy Zaphod said:

There are a myriad of reasons that they're not comparable, the same amount of reasons that Sonic Frontiers can be criticized.

They are both games that had pretty low critics scores and deserved that. The reasons why are irrelevant to my point, because I only mentioned that a review giving Frontiers 2/10 is the same thing as saying Frontiers is at the same level of quality as these games. I've never said they got the low scores because of the same reasons, I only said they are at the same level (according to the critics).

I've never said Sonic Frontiers cannot be criticized. Not only that, but I even criticized the game after playing it So, I have no idea where you got that from.

I think you didn't understand what I was talking about initially. I said that, in my personal opinion, there are a FEW extremely negative reviews Sonic Frontiers got that I don't think should be considered because they have very weak and hyperbolic arguments. One of those reviews is Digital Trends'. However, because they gave Frontiers an extremely low score, it pushed Frontiers' Metascore down because it's an average between all registered reviews.

I only said that if we remove those reviews from the calculation, the Metascore would be more accurate with the actual games' quality. What I said doesn't apply to the majority of the reviews, and I haven't said anything like "they gave Frontiers' bad reviews because they are biased agains Sonic". I have no idea where you got that from, either.

You are free to disagree, but I don't think it's reasonable to force me to think the same way as you.
 

8 hours ago, Shaddy Zaphod said:

...And? The whole point of this was that you were claiming they did not make cogent arguments. If all you're going to do is backtrack to "it's just my opinion", you may as well not have bothered.

I didn't bring more arguments because we already discussed the Digital Trends review pages ago and I assumed everyone knew what they said.

8 hours ago, Shaddy Zaphod said:

I'm not? I think I've been pretty collected here.

Saying "step the fuck up" doesn't seem to be a friendly attitude...

[Shaddy Zaphod]

1 hour ago, light-gaia said:

They are both games that had pretty low critics scores and deserved that. The reasons why are irrelevant to my point, because I only mentioned that a review giving Frontiers 2/10 is the same thing as saying Frontiers is at the same level of quality as these games. I've never said they got the low scores because of the same reasons, I only said they are at the same level (according to the critics).

Who gets to decide whether a game "deserves" its score? I don't think Boom and 06 are on the same level in the slightest, so in fact, the reasons are indeed relevant when you're trying to tell me that someone else's reasons for making a similar judgement aren't well-articulated. It seems like the only thing you're citing here is that the 2/10 review is in a minority compared to the reviews in the 60-80s.

 

1 hour ago, light-gaia said:

I've never said Sonic Frontiers cannot be criticized. Not only that, but I even criticized the game after playing it So, I have no idea where you got that from.

 

That's not what the thing you're replying to says.

1 hour ago, light-gaia said:

I think you didn't understand what I was talking about initially. I said that, in my personal opinion, there are a FEW extremely negative reviews Sonic Frontiers got that I don't think should be considered because they have very weak and hyperbolic arguments. One of those reviews is Digital Trends'. However, because they gave Frontiers an extremely low score, it pushed Frontiers' Metascore down because it's an average between all registered reviews.

"Considered" by whom? It's not like I agree with any of this shit, but if I personally disagree with a judgement and don't particularly feel like articulating why, I keep it to myself. I must then assume that you are trying to say...something to someone here.

1 hour ago, light-gaia said:

I only said that if we remove those reviews from the calculation, the Metascore would be more accurate with the actual games' quality.

And I'm saying that's a flawed perspective. The "actual games' quality" is not a thing that exists. I mean, someone could just as easily say that we should remove the positive reviews because they're misrepresenting the game's quality by raising the score above what it deserves. What are we doing here?

1 hour ago, light-gaia said:

What I said doesn't apply to the majority of the reviews, and I haven't said anything like "they gave Frontiers' bad reviews because they are biased agains Sonic". I have no idea where you got that from, either.

I didn't say anything about bias against Sonic, just bias in general. You're claiming the review is unfair, you're claiming it's not giving the game a fair shot...so obviously you think it's biased against something, otherwise it wouldn't do that and you wouldn't claim it's illegitimate.

1 hour ago, light-gaia said:

You are free to disagree, but I don't think it's reasonable to force me to think the same way as you.

You were the one who said "I'm just giving my opinion on the review", am I not allowed to give my opinion on your judgement without being slandered as "forcing you to think like me"?

1 hour ago, light-gaia said:

I didn't bring more arguments because we already discussed the Digital Trends review pages ago and I assumed everyone knew what they said.

That's an unintuitive way of discussing anything in general, but I also don't really buy that. If it were that simple you could simply direct me there instead of me needing to ask multiple times, but even still, the most you seemed to say there was that you were justified in wholesale dismissing a review you didn't like as "inaccurate" because you thought it wasn't well put-together.

1 hour ago, light-gaia said:

Saying "step the fuck up" doesn't seem to be a friendly attitude...

I mean, that's mostly just how I talk, but also I didn't say "friendly". Of course I'm not being particularly peppy here, because I think your perspective is kind of fundamentally rude and encourages the idea that any game with a 7/10 average should just have its worst reviews not count.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[light-gaia]

1 hour ago, Shaddy Zaphod said:

Who gets to decide whether a game "deserves" its score? I don't think Boom and 06 are on the same level in the slightest, so in fact, the reasons are indeed relevant when you're trying to tell me that someone else's reasons for making a similar judgement aren't well-articulated. It seems like the only thing you're citing here is that the 2/10 review is in a minority compared to the reviews in the 60-80s.

That's why it's called opinion. I can have an opinion that a game deserved more, or deserved less. What's the problem with that? You are basically doing the same thing here when you say Sonic Boom deserved more than 2006. But, for some reason, you think I'm not allowed to do the same.

1 hour ago, Shaddy Zaphod said:

"Considered" by whom? It's not like I agree with any of this shit, but if I personally disagree with a judgement and don't particularly feel like articulating why, I keep it to myself. I must then assume that you are trying to say...something to someone here.

By people who agree with me that their arguments aren't good. Dude, reviews are not a sacred word, they are subject to other people's judgement the same way the game is. If criticizing a review is rude, then criticizing a game would be rude, too. And that doesn't make any sense. Saying a review is bad it's not personal, the same way saying a game is bad is not personal. Simple as that.

1 hour ago, Shaddy Zaphod said:

You were the one who said "I'm just giving my opinion on the review", am I not allowed to give my opinion on your judgement without being slandered as "forcing you to think like me"?

Because you are not only disagreeing with me, you are also saying I can't have this opinion and that my opinion is "rude".

1 hour ago, Shaddy Zaphod said:

I didn't say anything about bias against Sonic, just bias in general. You're claiming the review is unfair, you're claiming it's not giving the game a fair shot...so obviously you think it's biased against something, otherwise it wouldn't do that and you wouldn't claim it's illegitimate.

I said it's illegitimate because I think the review is poorly written and have incoherent arguments. The rest is speculation of yours. Or should I say straw man fallacy?

And my comment wasn't directed towards anyone. I was just sharing my perspective in a thread that the main objective is to discuss Sonic Frontiers' reviews. Saying I was trying to provoke other users in some way is totally weird because most people in this thread agreed that Digital Trends' review is bad.

1 hour ago, Shaddy Zaphod said:

That's an unintuitive way of discussing anything in general, but I also don't really buy that. If it were that simple you could simply direct me there instead of me needing to ask multiple times, but even still, the most you seemed to say there was that you were justified in wholesale dismissing a review you didn't like as "inaccurate" because you thought it wasn't well put-together.

I was not expecting that my comment would trigger this discussion, so I didn't feel the need to specify in detail what were the arguments. However, I brought the example that they said Frontiers has awful graphics. And that was one of the reasons why they gave the game a score that low. It's objectively not true because graphics is a technical and objective topic. They didn't say they don't like Frontiers' art style or presentation, which would be subjective, they said the graphics are awful. The fact that the review doesn't know that graphics is not subjective and there is a difference between art style, presentation and graphics (from a technical standpoint), is one of the indicatives of how bad their review is.

Other thing is when they say the game shouldn't have a story. They didn't say they think the story has flaws, they criticize the mere existence of the story. That doesn't make any sense. Specially when, again, that was one of the reasons they lowered the score. The cutscenes are not mandatory to watch, if you don't care about the story, you can just skip all of them and focus on the gameplay. Therefore, this argument is also incoherent. Their whole review is a disaster, and it doesn't take that long to conclude that, just open and read.

I didn't answer that before because you said you aren't interested in this discussion, and I was responding your speculative and straw man fallacy arguments about me.

1 hour ago, Shaddy Zaphod said:

And I'm saying that's a flawed perspective. The "actual games' quality" is not a thing that exists. I mean, someone could just as easily say that we should remove the positive reviews because they're misrepresenting the game's quality by raising the score above what it deserves. What are we doing here?

Well, first of all, I wasn't referring to all reviews, I was referring to just a few that are poorly written. The biggest example is Digital Trends'. That are negative reviews Frontiers got that I don't think are poorly written. For example, Arlo made a negative review about Frontiers and I don't think his review is poor, even if I don't agree with some of his points. You are apparently thinking I'm defending ALL reviews that are not favorable to Frontiers should be removed, and that's not the case at all.

EDIT: I mistook the name of the YouTuber I was actually referring too, but it was not Arlo, but anyway, I hope you get the point.

Second, it's totally possible that some overly-positive reviews about Frontiers' is as incoherent, poorly written and hyperbolic as Digital Trends', but in the opposite direction. I haven't read all 50+ reviews to say for sure. If someone thinks a positive review is flawed and is inaccurate, I don't have any problem with the person having this opinion.

Again, it's a matter of perspective. If you think my perspective is flawed. Keep thinking it, that doesn't change what I think.

Now, can we please move on?

[DaBigJ]

Arlo literally said he enjoyed Sonic Frontiers what the fuck are you talking about