What YOU Think of Sonic Forces

[Tracker_TD]

20 minutes ago, NoKaine said:

There's both positive and negative impressions of the game, only the negative impressions just came out. Hey, maybe SEGA's suppressing negative press?

More likely is the more positive reaction was a more raw, immediate reaction to the game compared to previews that have allowed the demo to sink in somewhat and taken a more considered approach to what was played.

...or something. The burst of more clearly negative previews is slightly odd. 

[NoKaine]

3 minutes ago, Tracker_TD said:

More likely is the more positive reaction was a more raw, immediate reaction to the game compared to previews that have allowed the demo to sink in somewhat and taken a more considered approach to what was played.

...or something. The burst of more clearly negative previews is slightly odd. 

Most of the positive previews I read were indeed during or on the heels of the E3 Show Floor, but unless the negative previewers committed their opinions to memory, I don't think they were written that long after either.

[Tracker_TD]

2 minutes ago, NoKaine said:

Most of the positive previews I read were indeed during or on the heels of the E3 Show Floor, but unless the negative previewers committed their opinions to memory, I don't think they were written that long after either.

Truth be told, I forgot that these new previews are from a recent Switch press event, so my "while after E3" idea makes no sense. Maybe it's just since they've played it some more and formed a more considered opinion? Idk honestly. 

[Indigo Rush]

Either way, you didn't get this kind of turn-around for Colors or Generations between demo and release. Something is wrong with Forces.

[Badnik Mechanic]

10 hours ago, Sir Laptop said:

It truly is hard to believe that IGN, which has gone on record for saying that "Sonic was never good", has said more positive things about Forces than some people in our own fanbase. 

So IGN is wrong when they say Sonic was always bad.

But IGN is right when they say the thing you like is good.

 

... ... ..... Does anyone have to point out the huge flaw with this reasoning?

[Indigo Rush]

I didn't know all of IGN were those three guys on a YouTube video, once.

Also, I hate Sonic Heroes. This means SSMB as a whole hates Sonic Heroes and can't be trusted. 

[Badnik Mechanic]

Just now, Indigo Rush said:

This means SSMB as a whole hates Sonic Heroes and can't be trusted. 

We don't need a Sonic game to tell us that.

[Chris Knopps]

I'd hate to bring up this reminder but remember, despite the change in tone/locations this time around, remember the age Sonic Team is aiming for, it's going to show in SOME form in the game, and the soundtrack vocals along with stage layout is the telltale sign that at its core, nothing has changed in who Sonic Team want to market to most.

They're trying to lure in older folks with the tone and locations, but all else is for the kiddies. Easy peasy stage layouts, easy peasy enemy placements with easy peasy AI, keep this in mind first and foremost with Forces, you're playing something with game play meant to cater to 4 - 10 year-old's.

(Despite them being capable of beating something with the same difficulty if not more-so than older gamers)

But hey, that's just my unpopular two cents I suppose.

[NoKaine]

23 minutes ago, Indigo Rush said:

Either way, you didn't get this kind of turn-around for Colors or Generations between demo and release. Something is wrong with Forces.

Yeah, I can tell you the first problem; Forces isn't out, so comparing the previews of those two games and their release and this one is patently flawed.

If Colors and Generations had negative previews, then yes, this turnaround has happened.

If they didn't, then it doesn't make much sense to compare. The demos are four, early-game levels and the game is still being worked on. Maybe it gets worse. Maybe it gets better. Maybe the problems go bye-bye.

Nevermind the people who gave positive previews.

23 minutes ago, Mayor D said:

So IGN is wrong when they say Sonic was always bad.

But IGN is right when they say the thing you like is good.

 

... ... ..... Does anyone have to point out the huge flaw with this reasoning?

He did say it was truly hard to believe.

Personally I put no stake on IGN's word.

Edited July 8, 2017 by NoKaine

[Indigo Rush]

I'll patiently wait for the current negative previews to undo themselves. 

[NoKaine]

3 minutes ago, Indigo Rush said:

I'll patiently wait for the current negative previews to undo themselves. 

Guess I'll wait for the positive previews to undo themselves too.

[Badnik Mechanic]

 

17 minutes ago, NoKaine said:

The demos are four, early-game levels and the game is still being worked on. Maybe it gets worse. Maybe it gets better. Maybe the problems go bye-bye.

What exactly do you think they will do?

And how many people do you think will work on said problems?

[NoKaine]

2 minutes ago, Mayor D said:

 

What exactly do you think they will do?

And how many people do you think will work on said problems?

Fix the problems? Overall design choices won't change but at the least they're polishing the game.

As many people as there are in Sonic Team? (What does the number of people matter?)

[Indigo Rush]

Speaking of positive previews, I'm curious to know what exactly was praised. I've been looking and most of it is "it's like Generations/Colors" and not much more. The negative reviews that just spilled out en masse are the only ones offering any real substance to it. Even Nintendo Life's Alex (the dude who was optimistic at first then did a 180) was able to provide some kind of explanation beyond the basics. 

I legit do not remember Colors or Generations receiving any kind of pre-release slagging like Forces.

1 minute ago, NoKaine said:

Fix the problems? Overall design choices won't change but at the least they're polishing the game.

So when you say polish, does this include changing the level design and physics?

[Speedi]

5 minutes ago, Indigo Rush said:

Speaking of positive previews, I'm curious to know what exactly was praised. I've been looking and most of it is "it's like Generations/Colors" and not much more. The negative reviews that just spilled out en masse are the only ones offering any real substance to it. Even Nintendo Life's Alex (the dude who was optimistic at first then did a 180) was able to provide some kind of explanation beyond the basics. 

I legit do not remember Colors or Generations receiving any kind of pre-release slagging like Forces.

Maybe people are just so happy to see Sonic Team go back to a working formula that they didn't pay enough attention to stuff like the level design and control. 

[Diogenes]

7 minutes ago, NoKaine said:

Overall design choices won't change

And that's why I've got no hope for this game. Forces' problems aren't just a matter of polish, they're about the fundamental design choices they made. It's far too late to make the kind of changes that would be necessary to make this a good game.

[NoKaine]

2 minutes ago, Indigo Rush said:

Speaking of positive previews, I'm curious to know what exactly was praised

 

This one in particular mentions that Modern and Classic actually feel better than in Generations.

 

Quote

I've been looking and most of it is "it's like Generations/Colors" and not much more. The negative reviews that just spilled out en masse are the only ones offering any real substance to it.

Do they? Do they really have "substance" to them? What kind of "substance"?

Quote

Even Nintendo Life's Alex (the dude who was optimistic at first then did a 180) was able to provide some kind of explanation beyond the basics. 

You mean the one with the clickbait video title ("Sonic Forces is as Bad as we Feared", yeah, he was totally optimistic) and contradictory statements ("Colors and Generations were the last good Sonic games." [...] "Sonic hasn't been good in a while.")? The one that compares this game's Modern Sonic (and by extension, Colors, Generations, and Unleashed's) to '06's mach speed sections? The one that compares the Avatar levels to Shadow the Hedgehog?

I mean, I'm reading the article right now, besides what I've already said it's pretty much "Classic Sonic is Classic Sonic, but not quite. Modern Sonic is boring because I go too fast. Avatar sucks because I go too slow".

I don't even have a problem with the other negative previews but this one in particular...

Let's be honest here, though; we're both just looking for what we want...

4 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

And that's why I've got no hope for this game. Forces' problems aren't just a matter of polish, they're about the fundamental design choices they made. It's far too late to make the kind of changes that would be necessary to make this a good game.

Err, no. The fundamental game designs are all fine on their own. There's nothing inherently bad about any of them, but whether or not it works well in practice includes, yes, the polish. Polish in this case making it less rough.

[Speedi]

6 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

And that's why I've got no hope for this game. Forces' problems aren't just a matter of polish, they're about the fundamental design choices they made. It's far too late to make the kind of changes that would be necessary to make this a good game.

I am somewhat cautiously optimistic that the level design becomes less linear in 3D sections and faster paced in 2D ones as the game gradually progresses in difficulty. However, as you mentioned stuff like the severe lack of physics interaction in Classic Sonic's mediocre Green Hill level, and the Avatar's brainless weapon gameplay don't jive with me well at all.

 

[Diogenes]

1 minute ago, NoKaine said:

The one that compares the Avatar levels to Shadow the Hedgehog?

That doesn't seem like an unfair comparison in terms of gameplay, to be honest. Obviously the tone isn't a match, but both have Sonic-like gameplay bogged down by awkward weapon-based combat.

[NoKaine]

2 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

That doesn't seem like an unfair comparison in terms of gameplay, to be honest.

The comparison stops at being guns and the Avatar's gun has more functionality than being a gun.

 

[Indigo Rush]

10 minutes ago, NoKaine said:

Yep.

Quote

everything else

Quote dissection is a venial sin so I'll just go ahead and say if you're willing to dismiss one man's opinion based off of his opinions, you'll probably find a way to dismiss everyone else's. 

I could use that petty rhetoric of yours on any of the positive reviews you shovel in here. I'm not invested enough. Arguing with you has been fun, mind. 

[Mad Convoy]

1 minute ago, Indigo Rush said:

Speaking of positive previews, I'm curious to know what exactly was praised. I've been looking and most of it is "it's like Generations/Colors" and not much more. The negative reviews that just spilled out en masse are the only ones offering any real substance to it. Even Nintendo Life's Alex (the dude who was optimistic at first then did a 180) was able to provide some kind of explanation beyond the basics. 

A lot of them praised the graphical direction. Here's one example:

Quote

In the hands-off demo, I was first shown in more depth the level shown at SXSW, which was described to me as a Sonic world in which Eggman has won. In terms of the new engine – dubbed “Hedgehog 2.0”, there is a lot more focus in the little details, from how standing water shimmers, to the reflections in water showing detail from the far-reaches in the background.

Even when Sonic was running at full pelt, there were things happening in the background, such as the giant Eggman robots destroying the city. Details such as this were present in all parts of the level, from the 3D running sections to the 2D platforming, which all seemed to be as you’d expect.

The same author also described gameplay. Though he does say that its like Sonic Generations and Colors but without the gimmicks he didn't like, which is really vague.

Quote

It genuinely looked like decent gameplay, which is what they were going for. Stages played remarkably similar to Modern Sonic in most cases, with the character showing off moves that aren’t exactly too far from what gamers have experienced previously. Sure, it’s not wildly different from first glance, but wildly different meant gimmicks that didn’t work the first time around.

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2017/05/16/why-sonic-forces-custom-hero-characters-arent-such-a-bad-thing/

Here's another one that went into detail about the level design and what parts the author liked and what parts she didn't. She seemed to find the avatar to be a happy medium between the chaos of Modern Sonic and the reservedness of Classic Sonic.

Quote

If Modern Sonic was a bit too chaotic and Classic Sonic more reserved, the “avatar stage” I played found a happy medium. I wasn’t able to create my own personal freedom fighting animal gal and instead ran through the level with a prefab character. What I did have a choice over was my gear, a piece of technology that would alter my play experience by granting a special skill. My options were a flamethrower or a lightning whip. I chose the latter and it allowed me to attack waves of enemies in front of me, clearing paths as I moved onwards. This was the toughest stage, with platforming sections that were difficult to navigate due to a stiff-feeling jump without much fall control. It did, however, offer a great number of branching pathways and interesting power-ups. I could follow a path down through spinning tunnels or pick up a different lightning based powerup that allowed me to leap to nearby rings and find new paths. It was my favorite section, held aloft by strong level design and challenge.

http://kotaku.com/sonic-forces-impressions-great-when-it-sticks-to-its-r-1796106738

----

But yeah, the turnaround really wasn't this bad with Colors and Gens. It was taken as "Yeah! Sonic Team is sticking to something that we like for once!" or "Alright, I don't agree with this but I can roll with this.", whereas Sonic Forces is divisive but generally people fall in a range from "A good step forward" to "Why are you trolling us Sega?".

What consoles were the games played on? I ask because I recall the E3 demo using the PS4/XB version whereas the later preview used the Switch version. Its very possible that the PS4/XB version is simply very good whereas the Switch version is a pile of doo-doo.

Either way, unless Sonic Team indicates that they want to pull a Metroid Fusion and rework the game from bottom to top, we'll probably see improvements along the lines of Fire and Ice (another game that was adjusted according to criticism when it was months away from being released). Better controls, more detailed graphics, better quality writing, and a different level design philosophy-- but still running the same engine as before with all the faults that come with it, as well as still having some issues with level design and controls.

[Indigo Rush]

I actually really appreciate you for giving me something to work with, @Mad Convoy! Cheers.

My main point isn't that Sonic Forces doesn't have positive previews, and that Colors/Generations didn't have any negative ones; the point is that neither games to my recollection had a huge onslaught of negativity leading up to their release like Forces has. That's all!

[Diogenes]

1 minute ago, NoKaine said:

The comparison stops at being guns and the Avatar's gun has more functionality than being a gun.

If you read my whole post you'd see how far the comparison actually goes. If you disagree that in both games the combat bogs down the experience you can argue that, but you're not going to convince anyone by just ignoring it.

[NoKaine]

3 minutes ago, Indigo Rush said:

Quote dissection is a venial sin so I'll just go ahead and say if you're willing to dismiss one man's opinion based off of his opinions, you'll probably find a way to dismiss everyone else's. 

I could use that petty rhetoric of yours on any of the positive reviews you shovel in here.

Interesting how you claim I'm dismissing opinions while you literally just dismissed all of my post. At least I said what I thought was wrong.

You don't even defend it, apparently me pointing out flaws or what I don't like about an opinion is a sin.

"Petty rhetoric" Is that what we call criticism now? Oh and as I thought you were willing and ready to shout down any positive previews (not reviews, there's a difference...) I would post anyway.