Sonic Colours Review topic

[KrazyBean]

EDIT: Ah, really? Well...Unleashed's is pretty accurate, but 06's is being awfully generous. o__o

Indeed! What the Fudge?!

...

...how is Sonic Colors less interesting than Sonic 4? Sonic turns into a goddamn rocket. It baffles me.

I LOL'd at this!

[Sciz]

I don't know what's worse. The fact that you registered JUST to point out your lame copy pasted comment, or the fact that you post has +7 rep and his has -3.

Looks like the hivemind is less predictable than I thought it was.

I'd say the hivemind agrees that it's pretty damned weird to go around lifting posts from other forums, particularly from ones with a more cynical bent where the hyperbole doesn't stand out as much.

As for the "lame comment" itself, well, it really is astounding that the same general group of people that released one of the biggest disasters to ever carry a full retail price tag four years ago have managed to turn around and come up with a title that's garnering unanimous critical praise. The only plausible explanation is that the Sega higher ups finally realized, after Unleashed's critical thrashing, that the approach they'd been taking to the series for the last ten years was in fact catastrophically toxic to the franchise's long-term health and abruptly enacted a dramatic change in policy. And I applaud them for it, but it's been downright surreal watching such a stagnant company suddenly start learning from its mistakes and solving them so well.

To use an analogy, when a tragic hero finally falls on account of his own deep-seated flaws, he doesn't abruptly sit up, dust himself off, and say "Well gods, thanks for the lesson, I get it now," and go on to live happily ever after.

Or Colors could just be a massive fluke, but I guess we'll find that out when we see what next year's game is like.

Thanks for all the review reports in the meantime, they've been immensely cheering despite all of the above.

(The registration question didn't accept Bark, Bean, or Wendy Witchcart, by the way)

[SilentDoom]

Just to add, Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 got 79% and Sonic Unleashed got 80% in GameMaster. So take it with a grain of salt.

[sonfan1984]

They described it as the best 3D sonic game of this generation, yet believe that it's less interesting than Sonic 4: Episode 1

[Ammish]

Have they said why?

[goku262002]

Couldn't fucking care less as long as Colors stays in the 80%-90% range.

[Ammish]

Couldn't fucking care less as long as Colors stays in the 80%-90% range.

What does it matter? If a shit reviewer wrote a review for Sonic Colours and praised it without getting into why, it's still a shit reviewer.

[sjmaster92]

Gamemaster is just as retarded and lenient with Sonic games as nintendo power. I stopped caring what either of them say in their reviews

[Doctor MK]

I hereby proclaim 86% the "Sonic Colours score".

Seriously, how many more 86% scores is it going to get? Not complaining, just would like a little bit of variety

[Scar]

What does it matter? If a shit reviewer wrote a review for Sonic Colours and praised it without getting into why, it's still a shit reviewer.

That's not the point (or at least that's not my point).

We need Sonic Colours' Score to be between 80-90%, ideally 90%+. Why? Because the worlds perception of Sonic would improve.

Even if the reveiw praises everything for all the wrong reasons, people will still think that Sonic is back on form.

When people start thinking Sonic is back on form, they're more inclined to buy a Sonic game. This means that SEGA can take more financial risks with Sonic games (Thus far the games have been successful, yes, but not as successful as Mario games, and they had relatively low production values. If we want a quality game we need higher budgets, if we want higher budgets we need to ensure that everyone; not just us, have faith enough to buy a Sonic game)

TL;DR

If we want even bigger, even better Sonic games, we need Sonic Colours to review well so that people become interested in Sonic again.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Scar

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

While that is true, that still only shows how shallow people are in simply looking at the score and making judgement as opposed to reading the review along with it.

[Sean]

Would you guys have wanted Sonic 2006 to get 80-90% scores if it meant everyone would see Sonic in a better light? I don't think you realize the implications of what you're saying here!

[Voyant]

^

Agreed...sure scores are scores, but if this game was awesome in everyway and got ass scores just cause people like to troll on Sonic...you would care...a lot.

The point of Sonic Colors getting good scores is for the general public to believe that Sonic games (Despite a decade of stupid shit) is okay. The only way Sonic going to be back on Mario's level IS for him to get good scores.

So don't sit here with stupid hypocrisy about not caring about scoring...when you really don't mean it.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Voyant

[Scar]

Would you guys have wanted Sonic 2006 to get 80-90% scores if it meant everyone would see Sonic in a better light? I don't think you realize the implications of what you're saying here!

Didn't quite mean it in that sense.

Nonetheless you make a good point. Either way though, we better hope this game reviews well, and sells well. We need the SEGA directors to realise that this leve of effort is a good investment.

[Blue Blood]

I hereby proclaim 86% the "Sonic Colours score".

Seriously, how many more 86% scores is it going to get? Not complaining, just would like a little bit of variety

Agreed. We need some 29% and 12%!

Or maybe that's too extreme?

[Gotta Go Rational]

Agreed. We need some 29% and 12%!

Or maybe that's too extreme?

Don't worry, I'm sure Gamespot is one step ahead of you.

[Chaosmaster8753]

As for the "lame comment" itself, well, it really is astounding that the same general group of people that released one of the biggest disasters to ever carry a full retail price tag four years ago have managed to turn around and come up with a title that's garnering unanimous critical praise. The only plausible explanation is that the Sega higher ups finally realized, after Unleashed's critical thrashing, that the approach they'd been taking to the series for the last ten years was in fact catastrophically toxic to the franchise's long-term health and abruptly enacted a dramatic change in policy. And I applaud them for it, but it's been downright surreal watching such a stagnant company suddenly start learning from its mistakes and solving them so well.

I dunno if it what you said is truely impossible, i mean Devil May Cry 3 is probably the best reviewed game in the series, yet the same team also developed Devil May Cry 2, which alot of people hated.

Yeah, because everything in SA is glitchy and awkward, no matter what speed you're going at. Platforming as Big and Amy is no less (and I'd say, a fair bit more) awkward than it is as Sonic.

To be fair, it was made when 3D was still new, and it was the first time ST worked on a complete 3D game. Lately I've been wondering if most people are too hard on early 3D games. I mean, people were just getting into it, it's more complicated to make those kind of games then 2D games, and standards were different back then.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Chaosmaster8753

[Diogenes]

To be fair, it was made when 3D was still new, and it was the first time ST worked on a complete 3D game. Lately I've been wondering if most people are too hard on early 3D games. I mean, people were just getting into it, it's more complicated to make those kind of games then 2D games, and standards were different back then.

I'm well aware of why SA is the way it is. But that's irrelevant to my point; my point was, SA can't be used as evidence that more open variations of 3D Sonic gameplay can't work, because nothing in SA worked well, 'cause it's a rather shoddy game overall.

And no, I don't think people are being unfair to the game. Acknowledging why it's got problems does not do anything to make those problems go away. And the game simply did not hold up well as it aged.

[Sean]

It has problems, but the game ages well in terms of being fun. I wouldn't bother defending SA1 for anything besides that, though.

Even though it is the best game in the series HERP DERP.

[Vulpine]

It has problems, but the game ages well in terms of being fun. I wouldn't bother defending SA1 for anything besides that, though.

Even though it is the best game in the series HERP DERP.

What do you mean 'it has problems'? People better not criticize Sonic Colors like they did with previous recent games or else we're doomed. Especially the fact that Colors is going to be one of the better games in the series.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I wouldn't bother defending SA1 for anything besides that, though.

Even though it is the best game in the series HERP DERP.

I oughta throw a brick at your head.

SA1 ain't got shit on S3&K

Edited November 7, 2010 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Saint Nathan]

You're both in the wrong.

Sonic 2, motherfuckas. Nothing has any sort of shit on it.

[Sean]

I don't think so dumbasses.

Sonic 1 is the best in the series.

[Mega]

What do you mean 'it has problems'? People better not criticize Sonic Colors like they did with previous recent games or else we're doomed. Especially the fact that Colors is going to be one of the better games in the series.

Even good games have problems. Critics' jobs are to review games, the good and the bad.

Does this mean I want it to get bad scores? No, but criticism is inevitable. No game is perfect, and the past 3D Sonics have had plenty of flaws (though I do like SA1).

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I don't think so dumbasses.

Sonic 1 is the best in the series.

Oh PUH-lease

Everyone knows that Sonic Labyrinth holds the title of the all-time best game in the series. *shot*