Sonic 4 Episode 2 Reviews

[Marcello]

I'm sure that first paragraph will make a lot of people happy.

[Vec]

Well, I didn't try Google translate because well...you know it tends to be not so accurate

But thanks Barry

EDIT: Wait...8 special stages? Maybe he made a typo?

Edited May 11, 2012 by Vex

[Blue Blood]

EDIT: Wait...8 special stages? Maybe he made a typo?

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Google translated:

Who would have ever thought that there would ever be a time in which a new and good Sonic game would be the norm and expectation, rather than a clear indication of the approach of higher things. But here we are, 4 Episode 1, Colours and Generations in the last few years into it, and that Sonic holds 4 Episode 2 this quality does not surprise anymore. How quickly you get used to things yet.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Enigmatus

[TheOcelot]

If there were 8 special stages, the whole world would know by now. It's just a typo.

[Komodin]

Interesting review. Are there any other Sonic games that had an extra special stage i.e. more than the normal seven stages which was never used? Like Sonic CD's 8th special stage which is rock hard.

[pppp]

Just read Jim Sterling's review. All I have to say to him is this:

LEAVE SONIC ALONE, LEAVE HIM ALONE!!

[Autosaver]

5/10 is a good score though.

[Blue Blood]

5/10 is a good score though.

By the skewed standard of the system, a 5/10 is pretty bad. By the way the system is supposed to work/by Destructoids standard, it's merely average.

[Your Vest Friend]

It's quite sad if you overthink about it. The fact that the Germans are more willing to notice Sonic's steady progress back up the ranks than the more narrowminded guys in the US.

Given that Europe has always been more loving of Sonic than anywhere else, it's not even surprising, let alone sad.

Edited May 11, 2012 by VEDJ-F

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Given that Europe has always been more loving of Sonic than anywhere else, it's not even surprising, let alone sad.

We Americans are not a forgiving bunch are we...

(Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question...)

[KrazyBean]

It's quite sad if you overthink about it. The fact that the Germans are more willing to notice Sonic's steady progress back up the ranks than the more narrowminded guys in the US.

Europeans have a more friendly attitude towards Sonic.

EDIT: 'd

Edited May 12, 2012 by KrazyBean14

[Sami]

To those defending the review on account of Destructoid's take on the number system, all I have to say is this:

The fact that this even has to be mentioned at all proves to me how fucking stupid and pointless the number system is. If every website's definition of a five is different, then how the hell am I, as a consumer, supposed to be able to judge whether or not a game is worth buying by looking at the score. "But Dissident, that's what the review is for. You can't just look at the score and not read the review!" Okay, so why the fuck is it there at all? Have a review and leave it at that. A confusing number system is not mandatory.

Oh, and I also dislike Destructoid on account of their total lack of professionalism, so whatever. Jim Sterling and the rest of the site can piss off for all I care.

[SilentDoom]

5/10 is a good score though.

Since when? 5/10 has always been mid range or average at best and by modern gaming standards and their screwed up scores it's a mediocre or bad score. 5/10 has never been a "good" score in anything. It's borderline pass.

[Indigo Rush]

Since when? 5/10 has always been mid range or average at best and by modern gaming standards and their screwed up scores it's a mediocre or bad score. 5/10 has never been a "good" score in anything. It's borderline pass.

Well, by Destructoid's standards, a 50% is relative to a 70% by modern gaming reviewing standards... so it is relatively good.

Still doesn't mean it ain't silly. As Dissident said, numbers shouldn't indicate quality. Unless it's like... 0's all across the board or something.

[Carbo]

The fact that this even has to be mentioned at all proves to me how fucking stupid and pointless the number system is. If every website's definition of a five is different, then how the hell am I, as a consumer, supposed to be able to judge whether or not a game is worth buying by looking at the score. "But Dissident, that's what the review is for. You can't just look at the score and not read the review!" Okay, so why the fuck is it there at all? Have a review and leave it at that. A confusing number system is not mandatory.

You know, the irony here is that if he would give it an eight or a nine, most people wouldn't even need to vindicate themselves with an explanation like this. They'd scream from a megaphone at a rooftop; "look, Sonic got a good score from that website, Sonic Cycle is broken, our savior has returned etc".

A grade is not an inherently bad thing in and of itself. It never has been. It's a matter of perception, and that's the only real "confusing" part about numbers. Destructoid isn't the only site that identifies a 5 as "average/mediocre". They're the only site that explicitly state it in a rating's description blurb.

[Sami]

You know, the irony here is that if he would give it an eight or a nine, most people wouldn't even need to vindicate themselves with an explanation like this. They'd scream from a megaphone at a rooftop; "look, Sonic got a good score from that website, Sonic Cycle is broken, our savior has returned etc".

A grade is not an inherently bad thing in and of itself. It never has been. It's a matter of perception, and that's the only real "confusing" part about numbers. Destructoid isn't the only site that identifies a 5 as "average/mediocre". They're the only site that explicitly state it in a rating's description blurb.

I'm not really talking about Episode 2 in this case; moreso Destructoid's other reviews that suffer from the use of a number system that's radically different from everyone else's. Why even list it on a site like Metacritic when they're guaranteed to give the game a lower score despite having liked it as much as some other reviewers? It's a dumb, obsolete system that needs to be ditched in favor of a more simple one that actually helps the consumer ("Skip it, Rent it, Buy it").

[Marcello]

I think GameNOW had a section that used that system.

[Carbo]

I'm not really talking about Episode 2 in this case; moreso Destructoid's other reviews that suffer from the use of a number system that's radically different from everyone else's. Why even list it on a site like Metacritic when they're guaranteed to give the game a lower score despite having liked it as much as some other reviewers? It's a dumb, obsolete system that needs to be ditched in favor of a more simple one that actually helps the consumer ("Skip it, Rent it, Buy it").

Mind pointing out what's exactly "radically different" here apart from DToid and Jim Sterling merely being infamous for not having enough roses in a lot of their reviews?

[Blue Blood]

Mind pointing out what's exactly "radically different" here apart from DToid and Jim Sterling merely being infamous for not having enough roses in a lot of their reviews?

5's really aren't percieved as that, even if it's what the description says. If it's below a 7, it's not worth it.

[Carbo]

5's really aren't percieved as that, even if it's what the description says. If it's below a 7, it's not worth it.

Then that says less about the reviewer and more about you.

[Sami]

Then that says less about the reviewer and more about you.

I'd argue it says more about the general public and the reviewing industry in general for allowing it to happen in the first place.

[Carbo]

I'd argue it says more about the general public and the reviewing industry in general for allowing it to happen in the first place.

Unfortunately it's not that easy. Gameinformer gained a lot of notoriety for their review of Paper Mario 2 which outright stated that "even though it was a great game, we gave it a low score because our audience expects better from us than to like it". A reviewer shouldn't pander, nor should the populous expect them to, and a reviewer can't expect to babysit half of the mindless sheep who merely look at the score. If we're supposed to blame publications for "allowing it to happen" I frankly see it as rather hypocritical to state that a publication shouldn't be accounted for when they outright state that a "5 is the middle ground", pretending that it's in any way different than what others consider it.

Are grades arbitrary? Perhaps, I prefer reading reviews. But discounting their credibility in overall statistics is foolish, and if the excuse is "well these guys are vastly different than those guys", it's still nothing more than another angle, and should in that case be taken for just as much face value as positive ones.

[Badnik Mechanic]

Really? A lot of tests I take require a 50% completion to be approved.

Then that says less about the reviewer and more about you.

If I take a GCSE exam, the teachers and the paper itself says "Get a grade D or above and you pass"

I then look at what grades I need to get in order to any A level class, I find that they won't accept anyone unless they get a grade C or above. Ok well maybe the job listings have something... hmmm nope... needs to be a C or above at GCSE level.

Exactly how is a grade D a pass when it's considered a failure by every single thing except for the exam itself? Even if GCSE's/A-levels were a number based grading system. Eventually that 50/100 is going to look like a failure.

Frankly back in the early 2000's if I saw 50% as a score, I'd certainly consider that a failure, as more and more people/things score above 70 and even into the 90's why on earth would you consider 50% anything but a failure when theres something better out there? Thats the perception. Is it right is it wrong? This topic probably isn't the one to debate that, but it's certainly a very strong factor in deciding success.

Now with Meta-critics system, it only works if every reviewer is reviewing something by the same guidelines... which they don't so it's totally broken in every respect.

I've seen people here say "Ah well destructoids 5 is really a 7 compared to other sites...." Well give the game a fucking 7 then or take them off Meta-critic!

You can't say "Look here is an average score of the game" if you have different boundaries for grading at the source material you gather from.

Wasn't there some controversy in the Sonic Generations review topic back in November when one website gave Generations something like a 4 or a 5 and then turned around and said "Oh we grade games based on what we think our website fans like and not what the game is actually like" Sorry what kind of bull is that!? Not only is that kind of reviewing completely wrong and the fault of the reviewer, but it's absolutely beyond me how this kind of review score should even make it onto a collective grading system.

So you have grade 5's which are actually grade 7's being listed as grade 5's.

At the same time you have grade 4's/5's which have been given to a small minority group yet being displayed and ranked into a grading criteria which is supposed to represent the mainstream audience.

The solution to the review problem? Scrap all grades.

Just give us the review to read and if the reviewer is good and the person behind it is a good writer, they'll be able to get across their opinion and thought of the game far superior than a random number or grade ever could. And if people complain or can't be bothered to read an entire review, bugger them.

[Sami]

Unfortunately it's not that easy. Gameinformer gained a lot of notoriety for their review of Paper Mario 2 which outright stated that "even though it was a great game, we gave it a low score because our audience expects better from us than to like it". A reviewer shouldn't pander, nor should the populous expect them to, and a reviewer can't expect to babysit half of the mindless sheep who merely look at the score. If we're supposed to blame publications for "allowing it to happen" I frankly see it as rather hypocritical to state that a publication shouldn't be accounted for when they outright state that a "5 is the middle ground", pretending that it's in any way different than what others consider it.

Are grades arbitrary? Perhaps, I prefer reading reviews. But discounting their credibility in overall statistics is foolish, and if the excuse is "well these guys are vastly different than those guys", it's still nothing more than another angle, and should in that case be taken for just as much face value as positive ones.

This would be fine if the gaming news outlets were completely separate and unrelated, but they aren't. Sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings exist, and people will always want to look at the overall reception of a game they're unsure about. Problem is, it's more difficult than it should be to do this because sites like Destructoid are proud of the fact that they rates games differently because they rate games differently.

Compare Metacritic to Rotten Tomatoes, for example. While a lot of gaming sites have varying views on what a 5/10 means in regards to how good a game is, a 4/4 for a movie is a 4/4 for a movie. Sites like Destructoid completely destroy the purpose of a universal review site that collects multiple scores, and I'd rather be able to quickly judge a game's quality by looking at multiple scores than sit down and read every review just to make sure they all mean the same thing.