Jump to content


TSS Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Carbuncle

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2,097 profile views
  1. I'm only comparing them because they were some of the only members I saw who didn't think the game was the Holy Grail during reveals. Man, I had no idea everyone hated ArtFenix. Have I hit a fucking nerve or something?
  2. I want to make it clear that the game does get loads of things right though. I'm playing it right now on my Gamepad and the amount of 3D platforming is fantastic. I think the detractors of this game should at least play it and see what they think of it first-hand, in the same way I try to see their point of view.
  3. His attitude was annoying, perhaps, but he did point out worrying signs that everyone blatantly ignored. Same with Hogfather. How is it any different to how every Sonic fan in the universe got on their high horse about Sonic 4: Episode 1 when the game turned out less than stellar. I didn't see anyone go: "Well, don't say I told you so that the physics, rehashing and bosses were a worrying sign". A few members noted worrying signs about the game's direction and were completely ignored during hype. They have every right to finally discuss their problems now people are actually listening.
  4. To be fair to Artfenix, he did raise problems with the game that everyone ignored due to hysteria hype. He raised the issues with the simplified art design, he raised the problems with the 'it's a me Mario, no really' poor imitation design and he also raised the problems with the fact the game's story reveals looked like the story could potentially miss out on a lot of potential (what's Lost Hex etc) before the game was even out! Okay, he's acted a bit silly and is overly harsh with the game, but isn't that to be expected when everyone was gushing over the game simply because it had simple 3D platforming. The same can be said for Hogfather, whose opinions about the controls, wisp motion control and tutorial system was completely ignored and turned out to be completely true. Most of us are guilty of ignoring the tell-tale signs of the problems of this game in production. Hell, I'll be honest and said I did too. The simple nostalgia references, like the running animation and classic badniks, and the emphasis on platforming filled me with unrealistic expectations. I still like the game, but Artfenix has been right on certain scores. I don't agree with his hostility to the game, but the guy does have a point.
  5. I agree that reviewers sometimes fuck up and have no idea what they are talking about. It's this conspiracy theory that they hate Sonic that gets to me.
  6. I don't understand why people are so anti game reviews. They claimed the game has poor controls, cheap level design and is too slow and plonking for a Sonic title. All these points are pretty much agreed on by critics, fans and most people. The controls are very weak. Sonic doesn't turn properly when he runs (it's very stiff) and it messes up the game experience because of the jerky way he runs around. He also moves incredibly slow in mid-jump unless you are running, so unless you have a good momentum run then it is very likely to die by falling in an bottomless pit since the platforms never seem to accomodate the shorter walk-jump range. The game also does a terrible job at explaining the moves of the game, and I only just figured out how the wall-running mechanic actually worked after I... That is fucked up. There should be a bloody tutorial in some way. The tips in the gamepad were rubbish. The level design is just agonizing at times. Springs throw you into enemies, there are loads of insta-kill death hazards which happen randomly and without warning, the attack pattern for enemies (do I kick or homing attack) is incredibly unclear and often the wrong choice leaves you hurt and the tube levels randomly stop into an bottomless pit and you are expected to turn to the other side of the tube before dying. Essentially, you have to memorise when to turn in mid-run. In fact, the game is often trial and error. The game also is far too slow at times. I'm thinking of levels like the autoscroll ones, where you wait ages to do slow plodding platforming. There's nothing necessarily wrong about this, but Lost World is rubbish at it and it certainly isn't anywhere near the quality that Mario offers (which the game is ironically imitating). Then, there are the host of other things that aren't in the game, such as complex 2D level design and complete lack of rolling physics (this is probably the only game where they aren't even thought of), the fact rings are meaningless other than providing 'health' and the awful controls of the Wisps and Circus missions. I do like the game, but the critics aren't talking nonsense, this game does have many issues.
  7. Well the reviewer was found out and very heavily punished. I think this is a good indication of why this practice would be rare.
  8. I'm not sucking up to the critics, I just hate this attitude that game critics are paid off by game corporations. It is simply a conspiracy theory, sorry. I have yet to see any hard evidence that gaming critics are paid off by game corporations. And in regard to what you just said That sounds more like the review company was at fault than the publisher. It was the review company that would have fired him anyway. That's true, but they are still humans like you and me. It's not like they are spacemen off the planet Mars who are nothing alike us. Well you can't start to pick and choose which reviews are the result of bribery. 'Ooh look, this review is clearly the result of a bribe because I like the game and the reviewer didn't'. It doesn't work like that. If reviewers are influenced by bribery, you could bet that virtually all reviews would have some element of bribery in them. Of course I don't think reviews are unmitigated fact. As I said, a critic is paid to simply give their opinion. However, the majority of critics had the same problems: poor controls, cheap level design e.t.c. It's also a problem I had with the game and many fans judging by the various forums and people I have talked to personally. The problems the critics had with the game are legitimate is the point I am putting across. Also, whilst the game has had some amazing and terrible reviews, the majority of the reviews have been roughly average (5/10 - 6/10). The game hasn't really had that much of a mixed reception. The problem with misleading trailers and previews is on the game developers, not the journalists. They simply report on what they see. They aren't in legion with the developers to fool everyone. The controls in Lost World are the kind where they kick in unexpectedly and you can't simply force them to happen. Thus, I can understand why the reviewer would fake their own death to try to demonstrate the point when you consider they will have a ton of other work that needs to be done besides this Lost World review. It's lazy and pretty incompetent, but it's not dishonest. Dishonest would suggest that the reviewer is making up that the controls screw him over. Yes, perhaps the controls did not screw him over in that gif (and I too admit it's probably faked), but he's trying to show what the game can do with the small time he has to get a review together for Lost World. As I said, it's laziness and incompetence rather than dishonesty.
  9. I've looked at the GIF, and I concede it's possible that the reviewer intentionally died. However, that's not proof that the reviewers secretly hate the Sonic franchise, only that this specific reviewer was lazy and recorded a fake death that was meant to emulate a death he actually suffered through poor controls rather than record a genuine death. The GIF can only prove that the reviewer is lazy and does not prove that the reviewer, and all other critics by extension, secretly hate Sonic.
  10. I was actually kind of stunned by the Deadly Six final bosses, because I actually think Sonic kills them. The lines they have, such as 'death's cold embrace', and the way some of them fall in lava. Man, Sonic doesn't fuck around anymore.
  11. The idea that gaming critics are paid off by companies to give certain games a good score is a massive conspiracy theory that has very little, if any, evidence to support it. Gaming critics are just like you and me and are employed to give their personal opinion about games, nothing more. Oh, but I guess the positive reviews for Sonic Rush, Sonic Rush Adventure, Sonic 4: Episode 1, Sonic Colors and Sonic Generations were just the result of Sonic Team paying off the critics. Shame they didn't pay the critics off with all their games! WHOOPISE! The reviewers for Lost World tended to criticize the game for poor controls, being too slow and cheap level design. All of these points are true about the game and it's just denying the facts to disagree. And with that GIF, it's possible that the reviewer faked the death to try to get the point across about the poor controls. However, that's more to do with reviewer laziness and incompetence and does not equate to critics giving certain Sonic games bad scores because they aren't get bribed by Sonic Team. That's not to say that people shouldn't make up their minds about the game, of course they should! I really like Lost World, but I can see why the reviewers, who aren't hardcore Sonic fans like us, found reason to dislike this game. This whole conspiracy theory about game critics is fucking stupid and needs to die in a fire.
  12. Welcome to the forums! I love Carbuncle, my online name was even Carbuncle1991 back in '03!

    1. Carbuncle


      Haha! Thanks! Carbuncle is pretty cute!

  13. It's more likely than the reviewer having a secret evil hatred of Sonic and recording them-self intentionally dying to slam the game. Let's just put it that way.
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.