Sonic Lost World Reviews

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

This is easy to mock, but let's be real here - $60 is a lot of money. Are you going to shell out your hard-earned cash for a game that's "just okay"? 

I would if only as a learning experience to understand the workings of the game. To learn of what builds it, and what works; what ruins it, and how it could have done better.

 

It's easy to understand the good and how it does things right, but if you fail to understand the bad and how it does things wrong, you become oblivious over somethings and may easily run the risk of repeating that very mistake without learning what you could have done to avoid it. It's essentially trial and error by learning from the outcomes of others so that you yourself don't emulate them, and learning just from the good can only get you so far before you hit a dead end. Not saying you should try to do bad, but lets just say there's a reason it's a good thing we note the flaws in certain works.

 

Then again there's this other option on the table where you can get the game by shelling out a fraction of the price before you decide to pay the full price: renting.

 

Unless people no longer use Gamefly anymore, in which case nevermind then.

[Hyper-Shan]

Don't want to sound like an obvious idiot, but, wouldn't the instructions for the controls be in the, well, instructions booklet that comes with the game? =S

[Your Vest Friend]

Don't want to sound like an obvious idiot, but, wouldn't the instructions for the controls be in the, well, instructions booklet that comes with the game? =S

 

Instruction booklet? You mean instructional one side of paper. 

[Nepenthe]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and I want to ask you, the Sonic fans something:

 

Do you really think that most of these reviewers that you complain about (IGN, GameInformer, whoever) have a hate boner about Sonic and want to go out and destroy the Sonic franchise and his legacy or do you think there might be truth among the actual complaints because the developers/writers haven't changed much or worked problems through enough?

 

Because sometimes I think that the fans are just whining about the scores because they don't want to see their franchise get bad marks, and sometimes I see legitimate complaints from the reviewers - and also to cover all bases - legitimate complaints from the fans complaining about said reviewers.

 

I have been reading thoughts from people outside of the fanbase lately, and there are some people that still cringe at some of the newer dialogue and poke fun about how terrible the games do control (some of these people are old enough to have grown up with the series or they have grown up slightly before the series's debut and might currently also have children who play the games, or play the games themselves on a whim,) while others still admit that the series still has its flaws and needs a long way to come through, but nevertheless can be fun.

 

I want your perspective in this.

 

The problem isn't this choice between conspiring critics who hate the franchise and whiny Sonic fans who can't emotionally accept anything less than glowing adoration, and if anything this false dichotomy gives reviewing outlets unlimited leeway to say whatever they think is appropriate or relevant about the franchise, while putting fans in the untenable position of somehow proving that they are not blinded by their own biases; a test we always fail because apparently the par is "disagreement with the critics is wrong." The problem, to me, is that sometimes reviewers just don't know what the fuck they're talking about when it comes to this franchise through ignorance and/or apathy due to its lessened relevance, and it causes a disconnect with the fandom that is naturally more invested in said franchise and thus more on the ball when it comes to spotting both its strengths and flaws. 

 

For example, almost everyone on here dislikes Sonic 4 and the reasons why are clear-- there's a noticeable dissonance between its claim that it's a classic continuation and the way it actually plays, on top of being mediocre on its own merits anyway. Why then does it have positive reception? Why? Anyone who gives a damn and knows a thing or two about Sonic can just look at Sonic 4 and see how much of a failure it is on most levels, yet critical outlets tend to largely gloss over this fact. In some reviews for Lost World, it's been actively praised. Let's not forget the numerous editorials we get every year bitching about things like unnecessary characters and "Final Fantasy-esque" stories which, while you can argue are problematic all day long, you cannot deny they were only problematic seven years ago.

 

It's not that I think reviewers actively hate Sonic. It's that I think they have the luxury to be severely ignorant and sloppy in their reporting about it, while simultaneously maintaining a position where they are able to influence the public narrative of both the franchise and the fans. We don't have similar resources and a voice so we're stuck here listening to their bullshit all the time, and then we have to take constant chastising for having the audacity at being annoyed that bullshit is being spouted, lest we be seen as a problem. I personally would love to just have a big ol' roundtable with some SSMB and Retro peeps and select critics, so we could at least clarify things and hash things out, to let critics know "Hey, sometimes the stuff you say is just outright wrong or misguided and here's why."

[JezMM]

Don't want to sound like an obvious idiot, but, wouldn't the instructions for the controls be in the, well, instructions booklet that comes with the game? =S

 

 

Instruction booklet? You mean instructional one side of paper. 

 

Ironically the quickguide leaflet with the controls in the box taught me more about the parkour than the game ever (successfully) did.  Shame I only found this leaflet after finishing the game.

 

 

Anyway, this isn't the 90's anymore.  Games shouldn't need supplementary material to be enjoyable unless said material is actually part of the gameplay experience (for example, games that are sneaky and use real life props or charts included with the game to solve puzzles).

Edited October 21, 2013 by JezMM

[MegasonicZX]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and I want to ask you, the Sonic fans something:

 

Do you really think that most of these reviewers that you complain about (IGN, GameInformer, whoever) have a hate boner about Sonic and want to go out and destroy the Sonic franchise and his legacy or do you think there might be truth among the actual complaints because the developers/writers haven't changed much or worked problems through enough?

 

Because sometimes I think that the fans are just whining about the scores because they don't want to see their franchise get bad marks, and sometimes I see legitimate complaints from the reviewers - and also to cover all bases - legitimate complaints from the fans complaining about said reviewers.

 

I have been reading thoughts from people outside of the fanbase lately, and there are some people that still cringe at some of the newer dialogue and poke fun about how terrible the games do control (some of these people are old enough to have grown up with the series or they have grown up slightly before the series's debut and might currently also have children who play the games, or play the games themselves on a whim,) while others still admit that the series still has its flaws and needs a long way to come through, but nevertheless can be fun.

 

I want your perspective in this.

To be honest ive not really cared about reviews in a long time but I will comment on how well or badly they portray something in a game to make a point, I don't deny some faults and positives but most of the time I just look at a video of someone playing it to judge if I like it or not.

[Carbuncle]

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...

 

unlocked Super Sonic.

 

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.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Carbuncle

[Kuzu]

That may be true, but sometime the reviewers simply have no clue what they're talking about, and it can somewhat annoying when they're ones who influence the opinions of the gaming media.

It's not about the game having problems, but how the reviewers go about reviewing the game.

[Carbuncle]

That may be true, but sometime the reviewers simply have no clue what they're talking about, and it can somewhat annoying when they're ones who influence the opinions of the gaming media.

It's not about the game having problems, but how the reviewers go about reviewing the game.

 

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.

[Nepenthe]

The Sonic Conspiracy is about the only conspiracy going around, but remember: it's not a subject most people here are discussing in regards to that specific video review.

[Autosaver]

Chill out guys, it's the PREVIEW, not the REVIEW.

That's the point I was making. The preview praises slow Sonic, praises the control, and praises the level design.

 

...But the final review blasts the controls, blasts the speed, and blasts the level design.

[Hyper-Shan]

Clearly whoever did the review was a different person to that of the person who did the preview. The question, is why didn't they bring her back for the review?

Edited October 21, 2013 by Hyper-Shan

[TheUltimateZ-MAN]

I don't get why Gamespot and IGN didn't just get the people who interviewed Aaron Webber to review the game. I mean they should've gotten that guy who was shown the very first E3 demo before E3, and from Gamespot they should've gotten the guy who interviewed Aaron Webber when they showed it off at San Diego Comic Con, I mean that dude seemed pretty damn interested in the game. Not saying both reviewers are right and wrong, but they seemed more like they made a review by just watching videos of the gameplay than actually playing the game. 

[Sami]

That's the point I was making. The preview praises slow Sonic, praises the control, and praises the level design.

 

...But the final review blasts the controls, blasts the speed, and blasts the level design.

 

For fuck's sake, I've already... you know what? Fine, I'll check myself.

 

WOW WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT GOLLY GEE WHIZ HM ISN'T THAT INTERESTING?

 

Come on guys, use your heads. Ugh.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Discoid

[KHCast]

I just never get why you would create a preview using a different person, if that viewpoint really won't matter when you use someone completely that has a drastically different viewpoint. Why not use the same person all the way through?

[MegasonicZX]

I just never get why you would create a preview using a different person, if that viewpoint really won't matter when you use someone completely that has a drastically different viewpoint. Why not use the same person all the way through?

im guessing the industry just doesn't worked that way and once I think about it even if they did voice their complaints to sega and then they were fixed I think there would still be some problems that the specific IGN reviewer in question would find.

Edited October 22, 2013 by megadude001

[Phos]

My friend had Unleashed for months before me and was tapping the boost button as well. I had to show the poor darling how it's done. It's such a weird thing to see people not understand the fundamentals of any of these games; are they honestly that difficult?

Unleashed doesn't give you any feedback that just tapping the button is incorrect, It's only from watching trailers prior to the game's release that you and I really knew that's how it was to be used.

 

Saw this video that makes so much sense.

Guys stop not liking games I like.

[Narukami07]

For fuck's sake, I've already... you know what? Fine, I'll check myself.

 

 

 

WOW WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT GOLLY GEE WHIZ HM ISN'T THAT INTERESTING?

 

Come on guys, use your heads. Ugh.

Vince is obviously Hilary Goldstein in disguise, why? Because i f'ing said so.

;P

Edited October 22, 2013 by Narukami07

[Autosaver]

For fuck's sake, I've already... you know what? Fine, I'll check myself.

 

 

 

WOW WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT GOLLY GEE WHIZ HM ISN'T THAT INTERESTING?

 

Come on guys, use your heads. Ugh.

1) There's no need to be a dick about it.

 

2) That's not the point. Nobody is throwing conspiracies. The point is that the game was praised heavily by a previewer who spoke for IGN as a whole. When you saw those initial previews, did you look at the immediate author or just the name IGN? Case closed.

 

It's completely ironic for a publication to release press news praising a game, even making videos about the game praising it and then having a completely different person smash it to the ground. That sounds awful as a publication to hype up a game as "one of the best Sonic games" but have somebody else name it the complete opposite.

 

"IGN gave x game a 10/10!!!"

 

NOT

 

"Eggy underpants gave the game a 10/10 at IGN!!"

 

3) It also proves how the game isn't necessarily one sided in that it's good, or that it's bad. The preview LOVED it, while the review HATED it. I personally prefer the preview as it looks at the game in an objective way and tries to find the positives of the new system. The review on the other hand as pointed out looks like they didn't bother adjusting to the new system and that they tried playing the game like Sonic Generations.

 

This is one of the reasons why I feel many developers don't listen to fans that ask for radical changes in their franchises. Once these changes are done, people will try to play it like the last game and completely ignore the new system being used. If a game was developed to be played one way and you're trying to play it like another, it's just not going to work out so well.

 

So maybe there's hope for a sequel using the parkour system. Maybe people will have adjusted to Lost World's gameplay by then and Sonic Team will have it polished.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Autosaver

[Sami]

1. This exact discussion has been around since the Unleashed days and quite frankly it's annoying.

 

2. So you have a problem with the way journalism works. That's fine, but that doesn't mean there's some "they're purposely giving it a bad score!" thing going on, or that the reviewer himself is completely untrustworthy.

 

3. Don't read reviews then, because differing opinions seem to greatly upset you. Let's say that, yeah, the guy wanted it to play like Generations and was disappointed that it wasn't, and didn't have fun as a result. This makes his opinion worthless? To you, maybe. You don't agree. I'm the opposite. I don't like the new gameplay style and I adored Generations, so I'm rather inclined to agree with someone who feels that way, and disagree with those who don't. That's just how reviews are. 

 

There isn't some super secret underground group of reviewers that hate Sonic. There isn't some completely unfair bias towards anything and everything Sonic-related. Different people have different opinions. That's really it.

 

I've come to realize that there's no point in fussing over badly written or "biased" reviews. In the end, the guy just didn't have fun playing the game. Whether or not his reasons were deemed "legitimate" by you won't change that fact.

 

Quit getting upset and just enjoy the game yourself.

[Narukami07]

Discoid, i forgot who you actually were until i realized you were the guy who used to sport a Terra Avatar from FF. O.o

 

I suck. My bad. DX

Edited October 22, 2013 by Narukami07

[Autosaver]

 

1. This exact discussion has been around since the Unleashed days and quite frankly it's annoying.

 

The problem with Unleashed is that it had two sides and people have come to a common consensus that it wasn't that good of a game.

 

However, people did point out that reviewers at IGN pulled out some of the dumbest clip to illustrate the 'flaws' of the Daytime stages. This includes jumping over a boost pad for no reason or just running into obstacles that are clearly in view. This happened with Lost World.

 

 

2. So you have a problem with the way journalism works. That's fine, but that doesn't mean there's some "they're purposely giving it a bad score!" thing going on, or that the reviewer himself is completely untrustworthy.

Nobody has ever said that bold. Ever! If you think people are saying IGN has some sort of conspiracy to give it a bad score, then I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about.

 

When the reviewer in general gives footage such as the above as reasons why the games sucks, you can easily pin point why people are going to have an issue or cast doubts on it.

 

Flaws such as

 

"Sonic isn't fast as Generations!" is completely irrelevant to how good a game is. The reviewer shouldn't focus if the speed is close to Generations, they should focus on how the new mechanics work. Reviewers should be open-minded and objective, not blatant give up or refuse to adopt the new style because they're used to the old one.

 

So what if it's slower? Why is this a big deal? Sonic Lost World adopted a new gameplay style. Reviewers should judge it on it's unique merits.

 

Don't read reviews then, because differing opinions seem to greatly upset you.

 

This logic is terribly broken and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

Nobody cares that much about differing opinions. It's the fact that many points made by reviewers have been beyond silly. One reviewer gave the game a 1/5 and had a complaint that Sonic loses his rings when getting hit. Another review complained that the controls caused him to go backwards into a bottomless pit. Another reviewer complained about platforming when he held down the run button the entire time.  Another reviewer complained about speed and yet, never mentioned or used the spindash in any of his playthroughs. Yet, apparently it's getting upset when people make videos showing that when using the mechanics properly such as spindash, the game instantly becomes full of speed.

 

Now lets be realistic. When people are listing Sonic's staple features as flaws or play the game wrong, people are going to look twice at reviews.

 

Let's say that, yeah, the guy wanted it to play like Generations and was disappointed that it wasn't, and didn't have fun as a result. This makes his opinion worthless?

It's OK to be disappointed in that it wasn't like Generations. However, it's stupid to blast a game for being different and not even bother trying to adopt the new style. You're not supposed to hold forward and pass everything in Lost World. Lost World actually has you platforming and the user interacting with the environment.

 

Do you complain that Forza isn't like Need for Speed? No, you don't. Being different is not a flaw. Refusing to try the difference and base the game on it's own unique playstyle makes for a flawed review.

 

I don't like the new gameplay style

You're from the US. You haven't even tried the new gameplay style and you're already throwing it out. This is not something you should be doing. You should be open to trying the game out. Then form the opinion that it's good or bad.
 

 

There isn't some super secret underground group of reviewers that hate Sonic.

Nobody has ever said this, ever. Trying to make it look like Sonic fans are being stupid and misinterpreting what they're saying is unfair. Please stop distorting messages and putting words into other peoples' mouth. No matter how many times you repeat it, it's not true.

 

Quit getting upset and just enjoy the game yourself.

 

"let's just kill all discussion based on reviews"

 

This is the fucking review thread. There's going to be discussion on whether or not a review has flaws. Many flaws have been pointed out within these 30 pages, especially from IGN and Gamespot. I honestly don't get why people aren't allowed to bring up valid points that some of these reviews have problems with them and that they shouldn't be looked at 100%.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Autosaver

[Sami]

Look man, I don't care to get into quote wars over this. It won't change anything.

Don't tell me how I should form my opinion, okay? I've seen gameplay videos, and I can see that I don't like the current direction the series has taken. I don't appreciate you rushing to invalidate my opinion; I'm not wasting my money just to try a game I'm almost positive I won't even like when I could spend that money on much better things.

And for that matter, don't go demanding that reviewers form their thoughts in a particular way either. You said one guy complained that Sonic was too slow - whether you agree or not, that's his opinion. Reviews are not objective. Reviews have never been objective. They literally can't be due to their nature. The very point of a review is to give an opinion about the subject material - in his opinion, Sonic is too slow. To him, that is a flaw, and he wrote it as such. Some readers may like Sonic to be slow, and would take that as a good point rather than a bad one.

Oh, and your Forza comparison makes no sense, by the way. If I'm reviewing Forza when I prefer Gran Turismo, I'll put my preference aside and try to enjoy it for what it is, yes. But this isn't Forza. This is Need For Speed ditching it's entire direction in order to be a poor man's imitation of Forza. And yes, if I were reviewing that, I'd be sure to mention it.

When it comes to reviews, there's no such thing as being right or wrong. Someone who enjoyed a game will write that, someone who didn't would express that as well. I don't care if he didn't meet your expectations, and he probably doesn't some 15 year old kid on a Sonic forum thinks either.

Quit being so arrogant and vilifying your opinion as "objective" and just move on. I guess I'm supposed to take it as a coincidence that nobody complains about objectivity in the reviews that gave a positive score?

[DistantJ]

Honestly I think all these reviews are justified, the game is pretty poor, I've been playing it since it came out here on Friday and I can't find much good to say about it =/

 

"Slowing down is a good thing" I guess, I can see why people would say this, and I know a lot of people here want it, but there are other franchises that do slow platforming a hell of a lot better and it sucks that this one pretty much throws out the one thing which makes Sonic stand out. Everything about Sonic but the speed has been done better elsewhere and with the speed removed this shows just how little there is to 3D Sonic without it. In a way it's helped me appreciate "boostboostboost" as its own gameplay style and its own type of challenge which sets Sonic aside from Ratchet, Mario and so on.

 

It does a really poor job of Mimmicking Mario Galaxy, so for those type of levels a person is better off getting the two Mario Galaxy games, it does a pretty crappy job of doing the 'platformer with a story' so a person is better off getting Ratchet & Clank if they're after that, the parkour is messy, you'd do better to play an Uncharted game or Tomb Raider... This was always the case, but Sonic had the intense speed and white-knuckle exhilaration which none of the competitors ever even tried, but it's completely absent here leaving pretty much an empty husk.

 

It's not that unusual for a preview to be good and that same person's review to be bad. When you preview something you really don't get much of a chance to get a feel for the level design, especially when your previews are often the tutorial levels or even levels that are used specifically for previews. Yep, I guess slowing Sonic down was necessary for more complex platforming, but this game doesn't really do a very good job of the complex platforming, which leaves it with nothing.

 

I honestly think a return to boostboostboost is what Sonic needs now. Sidescrolling platforming and boost 3D worked and offered something no competitors do. For me, Lost World has been the lowest point in the series since '06, mayyybe a little better than Black Knight (at least Black Knight kept it dumb and simple...).

[Kuzu]

Is rather the series not go back to becoming a glorified racer.