So are Sonic Colors and Sonic Generations not considered good games now?

[Detective Kaito]

With every release of a good Sonic game, there's always reviews that say that this is the best Sonic game in decades, and it's especially apparent with Sonic Mania reviews. Everyone dismisses games such as the Advance Trilogy, the Rush games, Sonic Colors, Sonic Generations, etc. for some reason.

Which gives me the impression that many people never even considered literally any Sonic game besides the classic to be actually good. Why is that?

[Polkadi~☆]

You can't exaggerate "Sonic's best game in two decades" unless you stretch the truth.

Plus, people go for the low hanging fruits and claim Sonic is shit, whilst completely leaving his good games in the dust so they can prove their point.

[Strickerx5]

I can not see this thread ending well...

But anyways, yes and no. You saw the same thing happen with Generations even with Colors having come out the year before. Even then, from what I've read here, many people don't consider them good games simply due to them not matching their taste or general opinion of what a Sonic game "should" be. While these games did well both critically and financially, you can't change someone's base opinion of them. Due to this, whenever you do get a video or post on here dismissing them and saying something like "for the last 20 years, Sonic hasn't been good" or something along those lines you know it's basically someone who chooses not to acknowledge them as good games (which is fine, don't kill me plz :V) when the general public consensus says otherwise.

That or they just forget that they were a thing/ never played them. Can't expect someone who isn't as engraved in this franchise like us to know about everyone one of the dozens of games out there. Hell, these days you're lucky if they even believe Sonic was ever "good".

[JezMM]

To be fair, while the "Sonic's been so bad lately" rhetoric opening every review has gotten old... nothing is TECHNICALLY wrong with saying "Mania is the best Sonic game in decades".  That's not saying the others are bad.  It's just saying Mania is better than them.

[Soniman]

Yes? I mean even so you probably wont see many people arguing that Mania isnt better which is why I assume the hyperoblic statements of its quality are said.

Colors and Generations are seen as good games, but Mania is seen as exceptional, I think that's the key diffrence here

 

[Dejimon11]

11 minutes ago, Strickerx5 said:

I can not see this thread ending well...

But anyways, yes and no. You saw the same thing happen with Generations even with Colors having come out the year before. Even then, from what I've read here, many people don't consider them good games simply due to them not matching their taste or general opinion of what a Sonic game "should" be. While these games did well both critically and financially, you can't change someone's base opinion of them. Due to this, whenever you do get a video or post on here dismissing them and saying something like "for the last 20 years, Sonic hasn't been good" or something along those lines you know it's basically someone who chooses not to acknowledge them as good games (which is fine, don't kill me plz :V) when the general public consensus says otherwise.

That or they just forget that they were a thing/ never played them. Can't expect someone who isn't as engraved in this franchise like us to know about everyone one of the dozens of games out there. Hell, these days you're lucky if they even believe Sonic was ever "good".

I still never got this. Really as long as I've been on the internet the general opinion for folks who don't like Sonic these days usually say that "He peaked during the Genesis days." Like ever since that IGN video last year the Sonic was never good thing has been  over exaggerated. 

[Tracker_TD]

Colours kinda blows. I was iffy about that game as soon as finishing my first playthrough, and going back hasn't helped that.

I still think Generations is a very good game though; but if others don't, then whatever. I'm sure they have their reasons. JezMM covered this pretty well; they're perhaps good games, but they don't come close to the heights of S3&K, which Mania has done (arguably even exceeded it). 

[Cornelius Fudge]

Part of it is that people choose to dwell on the negatives and in order to fit with the crowd, people actually start bashing Sonic believing that it is such a cool thing to do. Even when Sonic the Hedgehog actually has plenty of good games, the constant bashing has been so bad that even many of my friends chooses to believe it and are not willing to give Sonic the light of day. That, and the fact that it's significantly easier to focus on the negatives makes people turn a blind eye to Colors and Generations when it comes to looking at the Sonic franchise as whole, but plenty of reviewers would admit that those two games are actually pretty damn good.

As for Sonic Mania being regarded as the best Sonic game in two decades? Part of it is that it's what people want to hear. They know they're hyped and they would thereby gain more publicity if they reconciled with people's views. Another large part of it is that most of the reviewers grew up with Sonic and likely have a bias for Classic Sonic games to begin with and Mania having expanded on previous Classic Sonic games would make Mania a prime candidate for the best Sonic game in two decades because no Sonic game has ever come close to replicating that experience other than the Adventure games which still has its problems believe it or not.

[Tracker_TD]

3 minutes ago, Cornelius Fudge said:

As for Sonic Mania being regarded as the best Sonic game in two decades? Part of it is that it's what people want to hear. They know they're hyped and they would thereby gain more publicity if they reconciled with people's views. Another large part of it is that most of the reviewers grew up with Sonic and likely have a bias for Classic Sonic games to begin with and Mania having expanded on previous Classic Sonic games would make Mania a prime candidate for the best Sonic game in two decades because no Sonic game has ever come close to replicating that experience other than the Adventure games which still has its problems believe it or not.

Or y'know

Maybe it's just because it's a really, really good game. Just a thought, innit. 

[Cornelius Fudge]

3 minutes ago, Tracker_TD said:

Or y'know

Maybe it's just because it's a really, really good game. Just a thought, innit. 

That is also true, but it certainly helps that these reviewers grew up with the Classic Sonic games and therefore have a bias for them. That was my main point.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

I think what the OP is trying to get to is that somewhere down the road there will be a better game than Mania and then everyone is gonna say that "Sonic Mania wasn't a good game". Is that correct?

[Sega DogTagz]

Its human nature to have bad memories resonate longer and more significantly than good ones. There is a reason why a puppy or a kid never touches a stovetop twice. For all the Unleashed, Colors, and Generations in the past years, there have been 06's, Free Riders and RoL right beside them to taint perception. Any momentum the series gains is almost immediately given right back, so we get stuck in this negative perception rut. We've been down this road before. Even back during 06 era, Sonic Rush had came out just a year before to critical acclaim. Popular culture widely considered that game good, if not great. But none of that mattered in the aftermath of 06. All of the sudden, no Sonic game moving forward was given the benefit of the doubt.

 

Its not so much that Gens and Colors are looked down on as bad now, just that the memories of bad entries in the series will take some more time, and some more positive entries before this narrative can be buried. We gotta get more consistently good games. Even stuff like ASR-Transformed helps push the envelope in the right direction.

[Tracker_TD]

4 minutes ago, Miki said:

I think what the OP is trying to get to is that somewhere down the road there will be a better game than Mania and then everyone is gonna say that "Sonic Mania wasn't a good game". Is that correct?

Nobody's saying S3&K or Sonic 2 are bad games now Mania's happened, so that'd be a silly thing to get at.

 

10 minutes ago, Cornelius Fudge said:

That is also true, but it certainly helps that these reviewers grew up with the Classic Sonic games and therefore have a bias for them. That was my main point.

Or maybe they just thought those games were better? Because that's kinda the majority opinion, beyond just "reviewers"? 

[Cornelius Fudge]

Just now, Tracker_TD said:

Nobody's saying S3&K or Sonic 2 are bad games now Mania's happened, so that'd be a silly thing to get at.

 

Or maybe they just thought those games were better? Because that's kinda the majority opinion, beyond just "reviewers"? 

OP was not referring to the majority's opinion. He just claimed that there's always reviews that adhere to a certain behavior. Part of those reviews are from reviewers who have a bias for these games. There's nothing wrong with that, but it certainly helps explain why people who view Mania so highly chooses to dismiss many of the future iterations of Sonic when looking at is as a whole.

[Tracker_TD]

2 minutes ago, Cornelius Fudge said:

OP was not referring to the majority's opinion. He just claimed that there's always reviews that adhere to a certain behavior. Part of those reviews are from reviewers who have a bias for these games. There's nothing wrong with that, but it certainly helps explain why people who view Mania so highly chooses to dismiss many of the future iterations of Sonic when looking at is as a whole.

Handily, I wrote something about Sonic and the media lately; time to copy-paste!

Quote

 

“BUT TRACKER, THE MEDIA HATES SONIC!”

No, no they don’t. The media isn’t this weird hivemind of pure Sonic hatred that much of the Sonic fanbase has painted it out to be; Mania’s good press is proof as much. From here, it looks like – and this may surprise some of you – that the secret to the press not shitting on Sonic, is for Sonic to be in good games. Dang. Real revelation there.

“BUT TRACKER, THEY SAID SONIC HASN’T BEEN GOOD IN YEARS!”

And he hasn’t! Sonic Generations was, terrifyingly, 6 years ago! Since then we’ve had Lost World, which was bad, and the Boom games, which ranged from mediocre to absolutely terrible. Frankly, I can’t exactly blame them for leading with that anymore. It’s not exactly an original opener, and I wish they’d come up with some new material, but I sure as hell can’t get insulted over it. Same goes for the “SONIC WAS NEVER GOOD” thing. This was said like, once, in an IGN podcast (rather than it being some kind of company mantra, as many Sonic fans would have you believe). Is it daft? Pretty much. But I don’t feel the need to get insulted by such a statement, nor pitch a tent outside IGN screaming about it, because I’m 19 years old and have better things to do with my life. Like playing the good Sonic games.

Games media is far, far from perfect, but this suggestion that the press opinions are worthless purely because the byline’s beneath the logo of an established site is nonsense.

 

[Kuzu]

20 minutes ago, Tracker_TD said:

Games media is far, far from perfect, but this suggestion that the press opinions are worthless purely because the byline’s beneath the logo of an established site is nonsense.

I feel like this was born because the fanbase just got collecitvely tired of being the gaming community's punching bag. Let's beat around the bush here, Sonic is a laughing stock and the easiest target for mockery in the gaming community. It's not unwarranted because the series hasn't consistently been putting quality games for over a decade now, but it does get tiring to see something you're passionate about get consistently trashed on. So the fanbase just decided to fire back and not be everyone's punching bag.

 

 

To answer the topic...No. Saying one game is good is not the equivalent of saying another game is bad. 

[blueneedlemouse]

Do people really believe that?

[Wraith]

It's possible that the games just didn't age that well guys...like, they're hot topics, whether or not they're that good even here. It's possible that Colors and Generations don't stick out much in retrospect. It's been 6 years. 

 

[Soniman]

32 minutes ago, Josh said:

It's possible that the games just didn't age that well guys...like, they're hot topics, whether or not they're that good even here. It's possible that Colors and Generations don't stick out much in retrospect. It's been 6 years. 

 

These games werent made in the late 90s early 00s, they arent even ten years old. "Maybe they didnt age well" is a pretty weak justification honestly, especially when we're talking about games Tthat arent janky glitch fest and are more or less mechanically sound.

[Wraith]

27 minutes ago, Soniman said:

These games werent made in the late 90s early 00s, they arent even ten years old. "Maybe they didnt age well" is a pretty weak justification honestly, especially when we're talking about games Tthat arent janky glitch fest and are more or less mechanically sound.

It's possible for games to not be as good in hindsight. It doesn't actually matter how old they are. 

They don't actually have to be glitchy either. They could just be not that interesting as games. 

[Wittymations]

I'm no fan of Colors or Gens, myself -- even if I can admit they're technically sound. When we look at reviews, however, you'll notice that they love to take shots at Sonic because it's easy to grab the audience attentions. So, they will ignore other games that have received positive reviews to sell that "Sonic has had a lot of downs" lately narrative, get that article published and grab that check.

[The Deleter]

1 hour ago, Soniman said:

These games werent made in the late 90s early 00s, they arent even ten years old. "Maybe they didnt age well" is a pretty weak justification honestly, especially when we're talking about games Tthat arent janky glitch fest and are more or less mechanically sound.

Why not? Technically the phrase "Hasn't aged well" is only viable as critique due to the fact that, while one thing was made and considered "well made" for it's time, more recent standards cast a more antiquated and lackluster image on them, due to how high those standards are by now. This can apply to anything. Cameras in 3D, controls and physics, and level and game design.

Colors (and kinda Generations) can easily fall into the latter two categories. They came out in a time when mediocre, if not outright bad Sonic games were the norm, with Werehogs, motion controls, guns, swords, and glitches all got in the way of the experience. Colors came out and not only was technically competent and focused, but also introduced new gimmicks that actually added to the core gameplay experience in a solid manner. Compared to everything else, this was fantastic design. Same applies to Generations, only more ambitious with what it was trying to accomplish.

But now that Sonic Mania has released... the potential issues that those games had all along are brought into the limelight, and easily comparable to something recently made and fantastically designed. The feel or accuracy of the physics, the quality or depth of the level design, and just the gameplay design philosophies and ambition in general - all things that weren't considered that important at the time, suddenly become a million times more relevant with the comparison.

I mean really, "hasn't aged well" isn't an actually legit reason why those things are poor. If any outdated games and their designs existed in a vacuum, they could still be improved upon in a relatively objective sense with enough analysis and refinement. So really, they've "always" been "bad", in those regards. It's just most people don't tend to think that far ahead, and just compare it to the standards they are already familiar with. It's the easiest thing to do, for anything, really.

[Soniman]

I'm just saying I've never really  seen anyone (other then sonic fans for some reason) go on about how Colors and Generations "aren't that good" as some retroactive type deal. Just because those games aren't mentioned as frequently now doesn't mean the general public thinks their bad, outside of the critics that thought they were lackluster from day 1 at least. Hell I seem to recall many reviewers STILL praising their name when titles like SLW and Boom were comming out and leaving critics less than impressed. So always using the excuse "they were only liked because past games were bad" can only hold so much weight as time goes on 

[Wraith]

6 minutes ago, Soniman said:

I'm just saying I've never really  seen anyone (other then sonic fans for some reason) go on about how Colors and Generations "aren't that good" as some retroactive type deal. Just because those games aren't mentioned as frequently now doesn't mean the general public thinks their bad, outside of the critics that thought they were lackluster from day 1 at least. Hell I seem to recall many reviewers STILL praising their name when titles like SLW and Boom were comming out and leaving critics less than impressed. So always using the excuse "they were only liked because past games were bad" can only hold so much weight as time goes on 

I never implied that they were only liked because past games were bad. I'm suggesting that maybe they don't leave that strong of an impression on their own merits, if people are having trouble recalling them or don't really think about them when they think about the reputation of the series. 

This goes hand in hand with how much more divisive they've become in the fanbase over time. Time simply could end up not being kind to them. 

[Tyranno]

This will happen to Mania too.