4 Common Criticisms Toward Sonic and Why They're Stupid

[Soniman]

Assault has a 71% review aggregate, a good reception,

Sonic Heroes recieved a 72%, and yet its a mostly hated game.

[lounge]

That was a good read, but like others have said, I don't really appreciate the Star Fox part. Adventures was great and it gave us memorable characters like Tricky and Krystal. Nobody complains about them being in future games. Assault while not as good as 64 is widely remembered for having a really fun, deep mulitplayer.

[Legendary Emerald]

Starfox Command is an absolutely amazing game. I've unlocked every ending. It's the only real time strategy game I've ever enjoyed (League of Legends doesn't really count).

[jennytablina]

Sort of appreciate what your going for here, but as mentioned elsewhere - you need more facts to back up what your saying, look at review scores and what critics actually said about the titles, rather than relying on memory

Like with the discussion about all post Genesis/DC Sonic titles being bad. I seem to recall that Sonic 3D and Sonic R scored pretty well back in the day (regardless what people think today of the two) and Sonic Adventure and it's sequel did well, heck SA2:B itself scored well thanks to the improvements made to the title and it's improved multiplayer mode. Though I think the seeds of issues were sowed in those titles in regards to level design and approach to the franchise. (Sonic Adventure suffers from rather limited enviroments in comparison to the huge levels and hubs that Mario 64 has, the grading and level design of SA2 fixed that - but then level design suffered even more over time...)

A lot of Sonic titles seem to suffer from highly positive reviews on launch with a come-down where people decide those titles were actually "not that good after all" - in particular DIMPS' titles have suffered this since Advance 3 with increasing spread to Rush and now have been considered totally discredited because of Sonic 4: Ep 1. It isn't cool to say Advance or Rush was okay because Press Right to win/pit syndrome/unfair badnik and trap placements apparently totally ruined them all. Not saying those are not valid issues, only DIMPS have themselves to blame for their current doghouse position, but before Rush onwards the Advance series was generally welcomed with open arms

That said, it's worth noting that any studio should know their reputation rests on every new release, if you release a turkey - the rest of your output suffers as a result, including past sucesses, which get a new critical lookover if you start screwing up. Sonic 2006 caused that because it was a huge downfall - while Heroes was lackluster - it was at least playable and credit had to be given for trying something a little different with the gameplay. 06 was supposed to be this huge impressive reboot. It looked that way till hints of trouble with development filtered out, and then the release of that demo...

I think fans need to accept that not everyone is going to be as forgiving to the series as some, not because they have any "agenda" - but sad fact of the matter is that it's always an uphill battle to convince people you've turned over a new leaf. Sonic 4 is the only widespread title that got a positive response in media (and it still had major issues that marred it) and the fantastic Sonic Colours suffers due to being released for the Wii. Thus Colours got looked over by a lot of the gaming crowd and there are still people who avoided Colours simply because it was a Sonic game. Generations may solve the series problems, but I think SEGA needs to prove it's committed to making sure every game after Generations is high quality too before they are willing to let the ghost of 06 go

[KrazyBean]

PREACH...PREACH!!!!!

My God, you're article makes SO MUCH SENSE that it's not even funny!

[Vulpine]

The Star Fox series did not go downhill in my opinion. People just did not like the later games as much as they did with 64. Even though, there are still some similarities between the Sonic and Star Fox series, you don't know how to count.

Then again, there will be lousy fans in each and every fanbase, so nothing is perfect I'm afraid. The best thing you can do is to ignore them and just look at the things that you actually like.

[Skull Leader]

I don't see why having them around is so big of a problem, all the dislike of the other characters stems from the fact they were brought up the wrong way, Shadow started off good, but ended in a trainwreck.

The Chaotix honestly didn't get a good chance, they debuted officially in a game barely known by many outside the fanbase, and come back as Modern Characters in a game where nothing can be taken seriously at all.

Agree with examples like the Chaotix because even in the game was released in a console add-on that few actually played, or the game not being as exciting, the characters still added gameplay elements that could work on the more popular genesis style games. Similar to the case of Amy, who despite appearing in the first advance and that game according to some not being up to the "genesis standard" (something with which I strongly disagree), it does not mean the character is bad since she still made a contribution (just like how Tails and Knuckles are not good only because they appeared on the genesis trilogy, they are good because they added gameplay elements as well) Personally I do not classify a character's quality by the game in which they appeared but rather by gameplay elements. (especially when said gameplay elements can be implemented via hack as proof of concept, like the ones E-122 Psi from Retro has made some time ago, proving that other characters can keep up pretty well [especially Amy] against S/T/K in the quality of their styles and proving false the idea that S/T/K are the only good characters as many people claim as if it where a true fact)

Edited October 7, 2011 by Skull Leader

[Crazizzle]

I think the frustrating element for me is that generally well received Sonic titles are branded as "awful" or "terrible" in retrospect. Up until Shadow the Hedgehog, the series had mostly good or mediocre offerings. Shadow was generally received as poor and '06 was a trainwreck. Yet even in '07, Rush Adventure got good reviews and Secret Rings was mediocre/above average.

I think Shadow and '06 made people more upset at the flaws in earlier 3D offerings, since they were there(if not as prominent) during the entire Adventure era (SA1-2, Heroes). Genre roulette, bad camera, too many characters, complicated storylines(minus Heroes). Therefore, people started developing a dislike for the other games, blaming them for what happened to the series. There's some truth to that thought,but that doesn't mean those games were "shit" or "terrible". They were flawed but good. Shadow and '06 weren't.

Now that Sonic Team has erased the Adventure era flaws by changing gameplay styles, I'd imagine this will ease after awhile and earlier games will go back to being regarded as decent or good.

And yes, I know some of you always hated Heroes. Personally, I like Shadow the Hedgehog a lot. Personal tastes aren't the issue, it's overall critical reaction. Mediocre games are now perceived as 'bad" entirely in hindsight. This will correct itself. It's just overhyped hate. Eventually, it backfires and I've already seen how a lot of previews are genuinely excited about the Adventure era stages returning in Generations. The hate has gotten less passionate and more focused since Unleashed came out. It'll die down.

It is odd how well reviewed games can be perceived as awful, though. It's like how a lot of people think Final Fantasy XIII was bad, and now FF fans have retroactively decided the series jumped the shark in the PS era. A lot of fanbases get this, the Sonic hate just went mainstream because bitter fans started Running the Asylum.