Sonic vs. the Critics

[FireBird75]

Reception[edit]  

Metacritic scores for Sonic Heroes

PS2: 64/100

Xbox: 73/100

Gamecube: 72/100

PC: 66/100

 

 

 

 

While most of Sonic's games have been received and scored positively, there are those games that have been reviewed and graded less than favorably. (You guys know the ones)                                                                                                                                                                           

My question to you all is where do YOU stand when it comes to the reception of Sonic's games?  Do you mostly agree? Mostly disagree?  Somewhere in the middle?

Also, don't feel limited to just the "professional" critics.  Feel free to discuss fan reception as well and don't be afraid to go into detail.

 

As for me, well to put it bluntly, I'm confused as all hell.  Which is why I made this topic in the first place: to get a better understanding of where I, myself, might stand in this very controversial issue.

Example:

Sonic Unleashed:

HD version- Fans liked it. Critics hated it!

SD version- Critics liked it. Fans hated it!

Me: WTF!?

 

Anyways, Give me your thoughts. This should be fun.

Edited June 8, 2013 by FireBird75

[Vertekins]

I do not trust reviews by "professional" videogame journalists and I make my own judgment on Sonic games from what I see before I buy them. That's the only thing that matters. Multiple aspects of Sonic game reviews in the past have cemented their lack of reliability to me.

 

I can not take a review seriously when it awards SONIC '06 and Unwiished a bigger score than HD Unleashed.

 

When it exalts Sonic Chronicles, an absolute fucking travesty on every tangent. Although bribery from EA/Bioware may have factored into that. Which if true only proves that reviewers aren't trustworthy on principle because they're more loyal to money than to doing their job correctly.

 

When it's blatantly obvious that the reviewer did not play the game for any reasonable length of time. This was extremely obvious in one SatBK review.

 

When it starts off with the bullshit "Sonic is dying"/"The Sonic series hasn't been great for years" Tell us something we don't know or something that doesn't stem from bandwagon-following oh original one.

 

When it irrationally screams about "Sonic's shitty friends" There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the characters, you just can't separate their 'questionable' gameplay and writing from the potential they hold.

[C4k3]

Eh...at most, Unleashed was very mixed. Not many people liked the Werehog and the new Boost gameplay while others loved it.

 

For me, I like Heroes because I find it a fun and enjoyable game, while the critics and a large portion of the fans dislike it either from the gameplay or the characters (which spawned the 'shitty friends' term that we all know and love).

 

Well Verte just pretty much hit the nail on the head, if you like the game that's all that matters. Don't always rely on a critics viewpoint, play the game for yourself.

Edited June 8, 2013 by TheCakeMiester

[MegasonicZX]

I do not trust reviews by "professional" videogame journalists and I make my own judgment on Sonic games from what I see before I buy them. That's the only thing that matters.

 

I can not take a review seriously when it awards SONIC '06 and Unwiished a bigger score than HD Unleashed.

 

When it exalts Sonic Chronicles, an absolute fucking travesty on every tangent. Although bribery from EA/Bioware may have factored into that. Which if true only proves that reviewers aren't trustworthy on principle because they're more loyal to money than to doing their job correctly.

 

When it's blatantly obvious that the reviewer did not play the game for any reasonable length of time. This was extremely obvious in one SatBK review.

 

When it starts off with the bullshit "Sonic is dying"/"The Sonic series hasn't been great for years" Tell us something we don't know or something that doesn't stem from bandwagon-following smarty.

 

When it irrationally screams about "Sonic's shitty friends" There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the characters, you just can't separate their 'questionable' gameplay and writing from the potential they hold.

This is pretty much my opinion on these too, reviewers are never trustworthy in my eyes and I feel sorry for anybody who actually takes them seriously when considering buying a game because if I had listened to most of them I wouldn't have the fun sonic games that I have now.

[Nepenthe]

Considering the journalism industry is partially responsible for perpetuating notions about Sonic I consider asinine, restrictive, and revisionist, and because the likelihood of said industry making a concerted effort to knock it off versus perpetuating said notions is infinitesimal, the best reviewers for the games can do for me is to basically detail a list of the features then allow me to make a decision on whether or not I'll like it. Basically, I really don't give a shit about the opinion side of Sonic reviews anymore, because I can pretty much guarantee you if the game is- functional with no major issues, Sonic only, colorful, and sacrifices a decent story for painful puns- it's going to get some great scores, but these are the kinds of Sonic games I find painfully average, serviceable for only a few days before I'm merely left waiting for the next one.

[Crash]

I really don't listen to 'professional' reviews for Sonic games because they always downgrade it for being 'kiddy'. That would be my main problem with the critics, they downgrade Sonic for being 'kiddy', yet Mario gets solid 8's 9's or 10's.

[Maple the Witch]

Haven't we learned by now that critics will never be happy as long as Sonic's friends exist?

[Burnt Ash]

Sometimes I'll agree with the score (Example: I'd be happy to give Generations anywhere from a 6-8, consistent with most reviews) however, I often find I don't agree with their reasoning. In general, of course. And then there's what Verte said and giving Unleashed a score less than 06 and Shadow of all games. Nah, my reactions and critcisms come from arguments I've come to have on this forum or through playing it.

[Kiah]

Critics-I ususally don't like them, especially when it comes to Sonic. The majority of them from what I've seen is that they are overwhelming negative, like hating on Sonic is the cool thing to do, being a bandwagon of some sorts. It's rather annoying as it's like the critics refuse to see the good that the Sonic series has to offer and already has done and holding on forever to its mistakes and flaws, especially by referring to the Sonic cycle everytime you turn around.

 

The critics are the ones that always have to bring up the stupid Sonic Cycle. Which is constantly brought up, even when the Sonic games have been good. The critics are being extremely negative as well as inaccurate and unfair by bringing up the Sonic Cycle everytime a new Sonic game is announced. Critics bring it up in an effort to be witty, which they fail badly in doing so.

 

The critics are the ones that say that Sonic's friends are worthless and need to die. I know the term they are constantly referred to, but I refuse to even acknowledge it here, or anywhere else rather. I think it's stupid and uncalled for. There isn't a single character among Sonic's friends that doesn't have fans; so this request to get rid of them is selfish and unfair. What's more ridiculous is that SEGA holds a lot of weight to the critics' claims of Sonic's friends sucking, and that is why they have been given the shaft as of late.

 

The critics themselves have even said that Sonic himself should die off. Are you kidding me?! The fact that he has been around for more than 2 decades speaks for itself in regards to how awesome Sonic is being around that long, surviving through some pretty bad times even within those nearly 22 years. Things aren't perfect mind you, but Sonic is still standing despite those bad times, becoming one the best known video game characters in the world, selling millions and millions of games during that time. Yet, the critics say that Sonic is washed up and they still want him to permanently disappear.  Such ignorance and lack of consideration for Sonic's fanbase annoys me to no end.

 

I would like to see all the love and effort that Sonic Team puts in the games fairly recognized and appreciated without having their past mistakes constantly rubbed in their face. Especially regarding Sonic '06. It's been nearly 7 years already since that disaster and I wish the critics would let Sonic '06 and the other bad Sonic games stay in the past. Also they should move on seeing Sonic games have gotten a lot better as of late since then. Seeing the critics constantly dwelling on the negative aspects of the Sonic series and bringing it up all the time just boggles my mind. There's plenty good to focus on with Sonic now...Let's move on, shall we?

 

All that said, I find it a challenge to even respect, let alone trust what these critics are saying regarding Sonic. To be honest, I can care less about their reviews which are filled with bashing and negativity among other things I would rather not waste my time considering. I hate to say it, but I would be surprised seeing actual positive and favorable scores, whereas negative feedback wouldn't surprise me one bit...But nevertheless I'm not going to worry or concern myself with the possible, and usually inevitable bad reviews Sonic games get. More times than none scores and reviews in general tend to irritate me as they never seem to be justified for the most part. I'll just hope for the best, that the game does well with both sales and scores...but if not it's okay, as I won't let that ruin my experience playing the game and enjoying it and thinking that it is good, which I can usually do with Sonic games, as I won't allow some Metacritic score or some "professional" review from a critic to convince me otherwise.

[EuroMIX]

I suppose the only real difference progression-wise between '06 and Unleashed HD is one punishes you for playing and the other punishes you for playing (as the Werehog) AND doesn't let you progress unless you collect arbitrary numbers of collectibles. So from that point of view, I could see where the critics may be coming from. Perhaps what upset critics the most was the potential Unleashed HD had, that was held back by stupid choices on Sonic Team's part. I think that the hubs wouldn't be so bad if, like in Adventure and '06, you can find where you need to go mostly by running around and talking to people; it's annoying, but something you can suffer through and find where you're going eventually. Unleashed HD double-dips by having the aforementioned hubs AND a stupid collectible system that restricts how far you can go. So not only do you have to find the correct stages, but you have to earn the right to play them. This is especially bad for Werehog stages that people didn't want to play at all. In '06 any similar choices are just par for the course of a bad game, but in Unleashed it ruins what good there was to begin with.

 

On that same note I can see why Unleashed Wii would appeal because it's not only on a Nintendo platform, where Sonic tends to do better and feels more fitting, but it also had some really sound design changes from its HD brother. The collectible system is gone, and the hubs are little more than interactive cutscenes so you can quickly find out where you need to go by pointing and pressing A. Levels are also much easier to find within the Gaia Gates (literally just up in front of you) and the Werehog is a little easier and his stages shorter, albeit more numerous, but the game definitely dicks you over less since combat is simplified. Unleashed Wii doesn't do a lot, but it's fairly inoffensive in what it does do.

[KrazyBean]

I'll make it really brief of what I think about professional reviewers and Sonic...I don't give a damn, but the public does, so Sonic has to start getting high scores just to shut the people who still use the Sonic Cycle up. Even Colours and Generations got pretty bad scores from some reviewers and they were good games to the majority of people.

 

My opinion is all that matters. Critics hated HD Unleashed and I loved it even to this very day and rating it below 06 is just LOL. C'mon, at least Unleashed is a 100x more playable and more fun. I would play ONLY Werehog stages instead of playing Sonic 06...for real.

 

I really think that Lost World has the potential to get a 9, at least from IGN. The last Sonic game which got a 9 from them was Sonic Rush and that's a LONG time ago.

Edited June 8, 2013 by KrazyBean

[Splash the Otter]

In my opinion, people who don't like Sonic have no business reviewing his games. If they hate the games so much, everything they say will be inherently biased. Thus, reviews should only be done by fans of the series. At least their bias will encourage others to play the game!

[sonfan1984]

As soon as I read a preview for a new Sonic game or anything Sonic related article and they start referencing the cycle in the first paragraph I just click it right off. Right there they lose most of their credibility. How am I suppose to a take these gaming jounalist seriously if they keep using unfunny and seriously outdated internet memes?

Especially since they're using it all wrong and it's not even relevant anymore

Edited June 9, 2013 by sonfan1984

[Mr Useful]

As soon as I read a preview for a new Sonic game or anything Sonic related article and they start referencing the cycle in the first paragraph I just click it right off. Right there they lose most of their credibility. Especially since they're using it all wrong and it's not even relevant anymore.

How many games has it been relevant anyway? The only games that come to mind are 06 and Unleashed.(Maybe Shadow but I hear that the "hyping" step was skipped because no one wanted it)

 

A lot of the time critics seem to pull bullshit reasons to hate Sonic games.

Sonic 4 having a hard boss brings the score down?

Sonic Generations being a nostalgia fest brings the score down?

GTFO

 

I bet in an 06 review, some guy complained that Blaze sucks because she plays like Sonic or Can't Boost.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Dom

[Burnt Ash]

In my opinion, people who don't like Sonic have no business reviewing his games. If they hate the games so much, everything they say will be inherently biased. Thus, reviews should only be done by fans of the series. At least their bias will encourage others to play the game!

This is a possibility, but I wanted to touch upon the last point you made. What happens in the case the game is legitimately bad?

[sonfan1984]

How many games has it been relevant anyway? The only games that come to mind are 06 and Unleashed.

 

Even Unleashed doesn't follow it cause it never made bold claims that the series will go back to it's roots.

[Tornado]

I'm honestly not sure what the intended point behind the link to the Heroes review in the OP is. That it should have been rated lower? Higher?

That the versions shouldn't have such a difference? Because the PS2 version was baaaaad; and the PC one was pretty poorly done too.

 

 

 

 

Just kinda at a loss.

[Splash the Otter]

This is a possibility, but I wanted to touch upon the last point you made. What happens in the case the game is legitimately bad?

I don't know, but I think most of us would have the sense to recognize if that was the case. The difference is that unlike the critics, we have a right to complain!

Edited June 8, 2013 by ElectroKyurem

[FireBird75]

I'm honestly not sure what the intended point behind the link to the Heroes review in the OP is. That it should have been rated lower? Higher?

That the versions shouldn't have such a difference? Because the PS2 version was baaaaad; and the PC one was pretty poorly done too.

 

 

 

 

Just kinda at a loss.

I simply used it for an example of critical reception of a Sonic game.  It has nothing to do with the game itself.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

As far as I'm concerned, the "critics" nowadays only care about these things: Ratings, page views, and whatever cool stuff they can get from bribes. Everything they say should only be treated as a rough guideline, not an absolute, and the specifics they give should also be treated with a grain of salt, since opinions are subjective. I pity the fools who treat the word of the "critic" as absolute gospel and refuse to think for themselves.

In regards to Sonic, I don't expect these critics to ever stop their bias since it probably rakes in the views from the sheep who believe the critics word as gospel, and because they probably believe it themselves and are too stubborn and inflexible to even take even minor improvements into consideration, only seeing what they want to see as opposed to the full picture.

Edited June 8, 2013 by 743-E.D. Missile

[Splash the Otter]

As far as I'm concerned, the "critics" nowadays only care about these things: Ratings, page views, and whatever cool stuff they can get from bribes. Everything they say should only be treated as a rough guideline, not an absolute, and the specifics they give should also be treated with a grain of salt, since opinions are subjective. I pity the fools who treat the word of the "critic" as absolute gospel and refuse to think for themselves.

In regards to Sonic, I don't expect these critics to ever stop their bias since it probably rakes in the views from the sheep who believe the critics word as gospel, and because they probably believe it themselves and are too stubborn and inflexible to even take even minor improvements into consideration, only seeing what they want to see as opposed to the full picture.

I'm just worried that SEGA are among those people who consider the critics' words to be gospel. If they are, then Sonic is a dead hog running...

[MegasonicZX]

I'm just worried that SEGA are among those people who consider the critics' words to be gospel. If they are, then Sonic is a dead hog running...

Yeah, that's the one sole problem for this because unlike most people business companies take these reviews seriously and if sonic keeps on getting so much negative criticism on some things that aren't even bad (same with most other games) than sega's gonna take that word to mouth.

Edited June 9, 2013 by megadude001

[-blank-]

If there's one thing that bothers me about the critics, it's that they can't let things go. How many times have they said 'Sonic hasn't been good for years?' 'Sonic has had it hard in recent years'? Way too many times to freaking count.

[Potada]

Honestly, I'm more likely to use a Let's Play as the basis for my choice than a review. At least with those, you can get a peek at what things look like, even if it means a few spoilers here and there. Bonus points if there's entertaining or informative commentary.

[Jolt_TH]

The thing is people tend to act Like the critics word is final, that the critic knows what they like and don't like and bag the critic knows best.

What genuinely qualifies someone to be a critic? Nothing, really it's nothing, as long as they have/had a passion for video games then a lot of critics are just normal people, any one of is could become a critic, it's not like they have to do years at Uni like an architect or doctor, there is no "critic degree", they just found a way to get ther voice heard more than others and publications picked them up.

A lot of casual gamers don't seem to recognise this and they treat the critics like almighty gaming gods, they don't think for themselves or even rent it to see if they would like it. A critic really, should have an open mind about any game they play, wipe the slate clean for a new game, it's not te game before, it's its own thing, maybe reference or compare to the game before, not games 3-4 games previous and 7 years old