Gaming media that isn't Classic biased?

[Wraith]

The Adventure games, in their current form, aren't very friendly. Their controls are weird even compared to platformers back then, let alone now, the aesthetics of it all besides the music have aged really poorly, and every new port has new glitches, so the games are technical messes at this point. Some people are unfair to them, but let's face it: The Adventure games aren't going to grab you if you aren't already a fan. The Classics have a much better chance of doing that through sheer polish and ease of control and even then they have trouble grabbing people sometimes. You've probably heard "Sonic was never good" fairly often lately because of it.

It's up to Sega and Sonic Team to prove the worth of the Adventure games by at least giving a quarter of a shit when they remaster and rerelease them like they did the classics and hiring someone who knows what their doing, or making a new game in the same style that puts the strengths of the style at the forefront and cleans up the weaknesses....also like they did the classics. Hence, Sonic Mania

As a big fan of the first game, i would love EITHER to happen, but neither probably will. That's just how it be. 

Mania only sprung from a fan effort, so it's not completely hopeless, but the task is bigger and the pool of fans is younger. 

[knuckles20]

2 minutes ago, Josh said:

The Adventure games, in their current form, aren't very friendly. Their controls are weird even compared to platformers back then, let alone now, the aesthetics of it all besides the music have aged really poorly, and every new port has no glitches, so the games are technical messes at this point. Some people are unfair to them, but let's face it: The Adventure games aren't going to grab you if you aren't already a fan. The Classics have a much better chance of doing that through sheer polish and ease of control and even then they have trouble grabbing people sometimes. You've probably heard "Sonic was never good" fairly often lately because of it.

It's up to Sega and Sonic Team to prove the worth of the Adventure games by at least giving a quarter of a shit when they remaster and rerelease them like they did the classics and hiring someone who knows what their doing, or making a new game in the same style that puts the strengths of the style at the forefront and cleans up the weaknesses....also like they did the classics. Hence, Sonic Mania

As a big fan of the first game, i would love EITHER to happen, but neither probably will. That's just how it be. 

Mania only sprung from a fan effort, so it's not completely hopeless, but the task is bigger and the pool of fans is younger. 

Great, the "it didn't aged well" argument. I've heard that excuse so many times but surprisingly it doesn't make me switch gears to fanboying over the classic games. Also I never had any problems with the camera or controls, nor ran into any glitches people love to talk about so much. And who's to say that newcomers can't enjoy the adventure games for what they are. Or that playing Sonic CD will make them an instant fan of the classic era and shun everything after it. 

[Tracker_TD]

3 minutes ago, knuckles20 said:

Great, the "it didn't aged well" argument. I've heard that excuse so many times but surprisingly it doesn't make me switch gears to fanboying over the classic games. Also I never had any problems with the camera or controls, nor ran into any glitches people love to talk about so much. And who's to say that newcomers can't enjoy the adventure games for what they are. Or that playing Sonic CD will make them an instant fan of the classic era and shun everything after it. 

Nobody is trying to make you hate the Adventure games. It's trying to point out valid reasons why others don't. Including reviewers. You didn't run into those issues? Great! They did, and they gave an opinion based on their experience, not yours.

"They're biased" is no stronger a reason than "it hasn't aged well." In fact, it's considerably weaker.

[knuckles20]

14 minutes ago, Indigo Rush said:

I understand and respect that people like Sonic Adventures 1, 2 and 06, among others. I was 8-16 years old during that time period, and I lapped it up just like everyone else.

I also happen to think that the aspects of the Adventure games that are worth salvaging would render the Adventure series unrecognizable. I've grown to listen to analysis and take criticism to heart. The hard truth is that they haven't aged well. You could pick up Adventure 1 and polish it pretty nice with a remaster, but you're still stuck with a game that decided to divert the attention from the "Sonic" part of the "Sonic" game, to make it a winding narrative that's far-removed from the original game's tone and setting.

This isn't to say you couldn't make an Adventure 3 or something that hits a home run with a consistent gameplay style with a fitting narrative and different characters, it just wouldn't greatly resemble the original Adventures beyond the title. 

You know there are fans who like Sonic for more than Sonic right. And I'm not asking for Sonic Adventure 3. The title means nothing to me.

Also you think adventure fans want direct clones of the adventure games, Throw in full 3D, multiple playable characters and complex plot and that should be enough.

1 minute ago, Tracker_TD said:

Nobody is trying to make you hate the Adventure games. It's trying to point out valid reasons why others don't. Including reviewers. You didn't run into those issues? Great! They did, and they gave an opinion based on their experience, not yours.

"They're biased" is no stronger a reason than "it hasn't aged well." In fact, it's considerably weaker.

Really because if you've been to SEGA forums you could understand why I feel that way. Because there have been users there who demonize anyone from liking the Adventure era games or doesn't routinely choke on Classic Sonic's chili dog.

[Indigo Rush]

To be fair you haven't really given me much else to work with. It does generally boil down to those bits, though.

This isn't my first rodeo. We've been discussing this mess for over a literal decade.

[Tracker_TD]

5 minutes ago, knuckles20 said:

You know there are fans who like Sonic for more than Sonic right. And I'm not asking for Sonic Adventure 3. The title means nothing to me.

Also you think adventure fans want direct clones of the adventure games, Throw in full 3D, multiple playable characters and complex plot and that should be enough.

Really because if you've been to SEGA forums you could understand why I feel that way. Because there have been users there who demonize anyone from liking the Adventure era games or doesn't routinely choke on Classic Sonic's chili dog.

Are you sure you want a complex plot?

cuz like

if you can't read the banner at the top of this forum, the one that quite clearly doesn't say "SEGA Forums," like

I dunno man

--

Real talk, yes. Really. Nobody here is trying to make you hate the Adventure games. They're trying to point out valid reasons why others don't. Including reviewers. You didn't run into those issues? Great! They did, and they gave an opinion based on their experience, not yours.

"They're biased" is no stronger a reason than "it hasn't aged well." In fact, it's considerably weaker.

...and yes, that was a copy-paste of the part you glossed over. Innit. 

[Wraith]

22 minutes ago, knuckles20 said:

 

Really because if you've been to SEGA forums you could understand why I feel that way. Because there have been users there who demonize anyone from liking the Adventure era games or doesn't routinely choke on Classic Sonic's chili dog.

That ain't got shit to do with us. Nobody here cares about whatever grudges you have. If you're not going to actually have a back and forth don't bother replying

[Indigo Rush]

10 minutes ago, knuckles20 said:

 Because there have been users there who demonize anyone from liking the Adventure era games or doesn't routinely choke on Classic Sonic's chili dog.

Yeah you're being kinda rude there.

[The Deleter]

15 minutes ago, knuckles20 said:

Sonic is more that just the gameplay to me. Because if that the only thing he can have, if he has to be so simplified to be good where only gameplay matters then why not just play Mario games.

Because Sonic is actually an amazing concept for a platforming video game and is able to do things Mario and other platformers never even think to do???
 

Sonic is about freedom.

Freedom in movement
Freedom in speed
Freedom in traversal

It's harnessing that innate desire to be able to rocket off at the speed of sound for some, the want to explore what you want to explore, to go about it in the way you want to.
 

Mario is about specific challenges and a set route to overcome with precision control and mastery, first and foremost

Sonic is all about being in an open sandbox of a world, with any route you choose, with routes to overcome and exceed, with the requirements as loose as can be for your abilities

It's about using the same amount of flow and control Mario has to make his games fun and engaging to play, but applying it to the exact opposite of design philosophies, with pure adrenaline and sheer liberation as the side products.

Story and a grander adventure than Mario is a bonus, to be sure, and it can help create an even more unique game experience, but that really shouldn't be the defining factor of what Sonic is compared to Mario. Gameplay, first and foremost, should be the hook to define Sonic as a video game. This is what the classics do better than any other game in the series, with almost no baggage to deal with. It's not a regression, it's a return to form. If you don't find that appealing, that's your preference, but don't get mad at it or the individuals when people merely prefer the solid foundation over all the failed attempts at bringing half-baked concepts into the mix. That's bias in and of itself.

[Strickerx5]

I honestly see where this mindset of wanting wider representation for the later games in media is coming from. Personally, as someone who simply doesn't hold the classics on that high of a pedestal as many here do and would much prefer the adventure and modern elements of the series, it can get pretty damn aggravating watching recent Sonic videos always start off with "the first good Sonic game in 20 years" or some bs like that. Though, to say there isn't any merit behind some claims is a bit off. Mania, as much as I may not mesh with it, is one of the best pieces of coding this series has seen yet.  The adventure and modern games, as much as I love them, do have their more notable flaws. While Mania is no where near where I want the series as a whole to stick to, nor do I think it's perfect, there's more than enough objective polish there for the reception it's gotten.

With that being said, you also have to consider the fact that the generation that, atm, is up on these higher review sites are of the group who grew up with it. Media in general has been moving towards 90s content recently because of it, quality or not. I imagine that when the generation that grew up with the adventure titles start finding themselves in the workplace we'll see a shift to that mindset and more early 2000s content as well. Though, for now, there just aren't many out there.

For big names, the best you can do are Youtubers like SomecallmeJohnny who are able to analyse everything by their own merits. People who often don't hop on those bandwagon quotes when writing scripts. These are people who have, at least in my opinion, built up enough trust to actually respect their critiques. So when they say that games like Mania and Splatoon are worth a look or games like RoL aren't, I consider it. Though, that still doesn't mean I take their impressions as law.

Sonic is a series that has taken on many, many faces in its time. It's up to you to decide which one to personally hold above others, if any. I myself often scoff at the notion that there is a certain way Sonic games "should" be handled. It's honestly like saying I'd rather have a pinball machine rather than a race car. Both options have their pros and cons, fans and enemies. Also, hell, some want both (raises hand).

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that this notion of "classic is always better" really isn't just some bias; nor is it the law. There are a multitude of reasons behind it so, at the end of the day, you can't really avoid it as it would just make yourself bias. Though, that also doesn't mean that you really have to give a shit either. Like what you like. There are plenty of people out their on both sides of the fence that make good content, big names or not.

like this tho, itz all just opinionz men :v

[knuckles20]

40 minutes ago, Josh said:

That ain't got shit to do with us. Nobody here cares about whatever grudges you have. If you're not going to actually have a back and forth don't bother replying

The point I'm trying to make is that the "Sonic was never good in 3D" mentality from the media is one of the factors of why the fandom has become so hostile. 

It gives fans the excuse to ridicule anyone who doesn't love classic games or wants more from the plots we've been getting from Pontaff.

It not only makes things harder for existing fans but for anyone who's genuinely interested in Sonic. Because why would anyone join a fandom where people get brutally attacked for liking a game made after 1994.

 It would be nice to have a review of a game that doesn't make unnecessary jabs at the 3D games or Sonic's dumb friends. Because from what I've heard Somecallmejohnny is the only review for Mania that doesn't go for the easy targets.

The problem is that I don't think he's in Sega's radar to understand there are people who want 3D, complex plots, more characters. People who want more effort than just rehashing the 2D games. 

I know that critics have their issues with the Adventure games but it doesn't make the Classic games perfect, it doesn't make the Modern games perfect, and it doesn't mean SEGA should stay in their safe bubble longer than they should have.

[Tracker_TD]

16 minutes ago, knuckles20 said:

I know that critics have their issues with the Adventure games but it doesn't make the Classic games perfect, it doesn't make the Modern games perfect, and it doesn't mean SEGA should stay in their safe bubble longer than they should have.

*Again,* Iterating on the Classic formula is not a "safe bubble," it's a logical step based on what was well received. 

What may well be next is a new Classic-style title, with no level concepts taken from past games; just entirely original levels. But would that still be "safe" to you, merely because it uses an established, acclaimed formula that happens to have originated a fair while ago? 

As I said earlier, Mania does a great deal to push various elements of the Classic titles forward; it's just not the evolution *you* want, so you ignore it for convenience. 

You also keep playing the "I'm being attacked!" card when literally nobody is doing that. If you're taking bad reviews of the Adventure titles as a "brutal attack", then I fear the moment you step outside the house, cuz life's gonna hurt.

[Daisy]

Somecallmejohnny is the only YouTube personality I actually like and respect; everything he says seems completely objective and unbiased, even if I disagree with some of it.

Also, I like to think of myself as unbiased, and I have a few Sonic reviews on my blog that's on my profile.

[Tracker_TD]

1 minute ago, Daisy said:

Somecallmejohnny is the only YouTube personality I actually like and respect; everything he says seems completely objective and unbiased, even if I disagree with some of it.

Also, I like to think of myself as unbiased, and I have a few Sonic reviews on my blog that's on my profile.

There is no such thing as an objective review. The entire point of a review is to give someone's subjective opinion on something. 

Actually, that's a lie; an "objective review" of something would be something like Wikipedia, a list of facts about a product.

[Shadowlax]

2 hours ago, Tracker_TD said:

So basically: "I need stuff that agrees with me, rather than stuff that challenges me to think about the stuff I like critically." Got it. Is confirmation bias the word? 

You never think like, maybe those people aren't "biased"? Like, maybe they just consider the Classic games to be better structured, with more consistent gameplay and a narrative that isn't naff, with fair reasons for said opinions? Man, what a concept!

Anyway yeah, SomeCallMeJohnny's neat. He won't open with the "3D Sonic was never good" but he still gives a fair critical analysis of any game he plays, what works, what doesn't, and whether he can generally just recommend it.

I feel like like maybe this is an entirely  too cynical response to this. 

You ever think they want a different non "I only really like classic " perspective on sonic. Because that's kind of all they get in a lot of games media, and telling him there's a reason for that doesn't fix the problem. That doesn't stop him from liking other types of sonic games, that doesn't stop him from wanting perspectives, also that doesn't even really say that things that disagree with the OP challenge him mentally. 

I like comic books, you know one of the most common criticisms I hear about comics is " Super man sucks" , most of these people lodging this criticism I encounter, when you actually engage with them, why do they think super man sucks, they break down and reveal they never actually knew much about super man in the first place. Or they insult you for knowing as much as you do or enjoying comic books. My point is, not every criticism that goes against you is interesting or good criticism, sometimes its not new, or good, or interesting or built on fact, or in fact built in memes and misinformation a lot of the criticisms against sonic's " shitty friends" . And saying ' well there's a reason for that" doesn't fix those people, and doesn't help the op. 

I feel like your rhetoric is for a issue far more serous , and it purposefully instigating a conflict that doesn't really need to be there. Wanting to " backfire " a thread instead of actually engaging in any meaningful way. 

[Tracker_TD]

18 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

I feel like like maybe this is an entirely  too cynical response to this. 

You ever think they want a different non "I only really like classic " perspective on sonic. Because that's kind of all they get in a lot of games media, and telling him there's a reason for that doesn't fix the problem. That doesn't stop him from liking other types of sonic games, that doesn't stop him from wanting perspectives, also that doesn't even really say that things that disagree with the OP challenge him mentally. 

I like comic books, you know one of the most common criticisms I hear about comics is " Super man sucks" , most of these people lodging this criticism I encounter, when you actually engage with them, why do they think super man sucks, they break down and reveal they never actually knew much about super man in the first place. Or they insult you for knowing as much as you do or enjoying comic books. My point is, not every criticism that goes against you is interesting or good criticism, sometimes its not new, or good, or interesting or built on fact, or in fact built in memes and misinformation a lot of the criticisms against sonic's " shitty friends" . And saying ' well there's a reason for that" doesn't fix those people, and doesn't help the op. 

I feel like your rhetoric is for a issue far more serous , and it purposefully instigating a conflict that doesn't really need to be there. 

The reason for that is that it's the reviewer's opinion. What do you want me to do, lie and say "yeah, all the reviewers are hacks! Biased arseholes, they mean nothing because the byline is beneath the IGN logo!" Obviously not every criticism of Sonic is well-founded, but that goes for everything ever. 

If there's a consensus that the Adventure-era onwards isn't very good, *maybe* there's some reasoning for that beyond "it's bias/a meme/[other excuse]"

There's a difference between cynicism and being realistic. Likewise, claiming I'm trying to "backfire" the thread because I introduced a debate with basic logic, is just kinda daft, innit.

[Shadowlax]

 

52 minutes ago, Strickerx5 said:

With that being said, you also have to consider the fact that the generation that, atm, is up on these higher review sites are of the group who grew up with it. Media in general has been moving towards 90s content recently because of it, quality or not. I imagine that when the generation that grew up with the adventure titles start finding themselves in the workplace we'll see a shift to that mindset and more early 2000s content as well. Though, for now, there just aren't many out there.

I feel like this is a flawed sentiment. Simply because, I did grow up in the early 2000's. I am in the work place, I graduated college recently. I'm a grown ass man. And the slant is still 90's.Sega says things like this themselves like " the older audience"  I AM the older audience. It doesn't make sense. I feel like this isn't a major generational difference. Its just a few years. 

Wow the quote formatting on this site is weird as hell and i'm not fond of it, any away onto the next thing

4 minutes ago, Tracker_TD said:

The reason for that is that it's the reviewer's opinion. What do you want me to do, lie and say "yeah, all the reviewers are hacks! Biased arseholes, they mean nothing because the byline is beneath the IGN logo!" Obviously not every criticism of Sonic is well-founded, but that goes for everything ever. 

I don't want you to say that. I don't believe that, one of my favorite reviewers shits on new and old sonic games. 

4 minutes ago, Tracker_TD said:

If there's a consensus that the Adventure-era onwards isn't very good, *maybe* there's some reasoning for that beyond "it's bias/a meme/[other excuse]"

But there's isn't a consensus really? Like if they announced sonic adventure 3, tomorrow, hell the day after forces. And forces is Gar Bage, the internet would loose their damn minds. And if forces was just focused on something, it would probably be revived better. Not to mention the number of games adventure forward that have been received well.  So there isn't a consensus at all really. 

Also, what if they like the parts that the other people don't like. You telling them " there's a reason " for that doesn't really help, or fix anything.

[Tracker_TD]

6 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

But there's isn't a consensus really? Like if they announced sonic adventure 3, tomorrow, hell the day after forces. And forces is Gar Bage, the internet would loose their damn minds. And if forces was just focused on something, it would probably be revived better. Not to mention the number of games adventure forward that have been received well.  So there isn't a consensus at all really. 

Also, what if they like the parts that the other people don't like. You telling them " there's a reason " for that doesn't really help, or fix anything.

That right there is a critical consensus saying Sonic Adventure is overwhelmingly mediocre, as of its most recent review period. SA2 doesn't exactly fare much better.

This is bearing in mind SA1 is amongst my favourite Sonic games; I don't need to put this consensus down to "bias" or some nonsense like that. 

The idea behind telling them there's a "reason for it" is to drop the whole "it's just Classic bias" nonsense. I don't particularly give much of a toss if they want to wall themselves away from dissenting opinion of a game, whatever. But attributing it to some made-up concept is silly.

[Maxtiis]

It's not like their bias isn't exactly justified. Sonic Mania is such a good game that it probably deserves to be called the "best Sonic game in 20+ years." And considering these review sites live off clicks, having a headliner like that is a great way to draw attention, so I don't blame the lot of them for using it repeatedly. 

If I could take umbrage with anything it's critics claiming that Mania is the "first good Sonic game in 20+ years," completely disregarding the original releases of SA1 & 2, the Advance trilogy, Rush series, Colors, and Generations, which while they're not perfect are still certainly what many would consider good or at least quality. But that doesn't mean their review isn't worth reading, and besides that's just my bias.

Honestly, so what if major gaming news sites are more biased towards Classic Sonic than Modern? You shouldn't need "professional game critics" to reassure your opinion of anything, let alone Sonic. You should be able to speak for yourself, not rely on others to act as a mouthpiece to parrot your opinions back at you.

[Tracker_TD]

1 minute ago, Maxtiis said:

Honestly, so what if major gaming news sites are more biased towards Classic Sonic than Modern? You shouldn't need "professional game critics" to reassure your opinion of anything, let alone Sonic. You should be able to speak for yourself, not rely on others to act as a mouthpiece to parrot your opinions back at you.

I feel incredibly stupid for not thinking to say something along these lines earlier.

Because holy hell, this. I don't need validation for what I enjoy; neither should anyone, really. 

[Shadowlax]

Just now, Tracker_TD said:

That right there is a critical consensus saying Sonic Adventure is overwhelmingly mediocre, as of its most recent review period.

Not really? One because the user score is higher than that. But, I don't take meta critic scores as a consensus for anything. 

There's still bunches of people who will tell you they flat out enjoy sonic adventure and want a game like that. A few critic's reviewing a port... doesn't really show a consensus. It showed a few reviewers reviewing a port.

But whatever gets you to sleep. 

Just now, Tracker_TD said:

The idea behind telling them there's a "reason for it" is to drop the whole "it's just Classic bias" nonsense. I don't particularly give much of a toss if they want to wall themselves away from dissenting opinion of a game, whatever. But attributing it to some made-up concept is silly.

I don't think they were attributing to classic bias, although that is a thing that is quite real. Maybe they just want a review from a different perspective, with a different bias. And that's ok, and doesn't really require this much sass. Nor does it require making up " consesus's " about adventure games. 

[Tracker_TD]

6 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

Not really? One because the user score is higher than that. But, I don't take meta critic scores as a consensus for anything. 

There's still bunches of people who will tell you they flat out enjoy sonic adventure and want a game like that. A few critic's reviewing a port... doesn't really show a consensus. It showed a few reviewers reviewing a port.

But whatever gets you to sleep. 

I don't think they were attributing to classic bias, although that is a thing that is quite real. Maybe they just want a review from a different perspective, with a different bias. And that's ok, and doesn't really require this much sass. Nor does it require making up " consesus's " about adventure games. 

No, a critical consensus is a critical consensus. You don't get to brush it aside because "well, *I* don't take Metacritic for much!" or some flimsy excuse like that. User score is irrelevant because we're discussing games media here.

Classic bias is not a thing that is quite real. People liking games because they think they are good, and not liking games that they do not think are good, is a thing that is quite real.

And replacing a "Classic bias" with an "Adventure bias?" What's the point to that beyond some weird need for validation (as mentioned a moment ago)? Inherently biased journalism is relatively pointless, at least in this context.

[knuckles20]

9 minutes ago, Tracker_TD said:

I feel incredibly stupid for not thinking to say something along these lines earlier.

Because holy hell, this. I don't need validation for what I enjoy; neither should anyone, really. 

At least we're not at Star Wars level of obnoxious where people try point you to a article or reviewer for why you're wrong for liking the games you do.

Because the last thing this fandom needs is a Sonic version of Mr. Plinklett.

[Maxtiis]

Just now, knuckles20 said:

At least we're not at Star Wars level of obnoxious where people try show you why you're wrong for liking the games we do.

Because the last thing this fandom needs a Sonic version of Mr. Plinklett.

Hey man don't you go knockin' Mr. Plinkett! He sent me a moldy pizza roll in the mail for posting on his webzone and I only had to cancel 2 credit cards afterwards, so I consider that a win for me!

Joking aside, whether you like Mike Stoklasa's (the guy that voices Mr. Plinkett) reviews or not, you have to admit he articulates his opinions with such a clear understanding of the original source material (in regards to Star Wars) and the nuances that go into making a good film, that his words carry a lot of weight. I'm fairly certain many of his critiques were considered when the Force Awakens was filmed, such as the greater use of practical effects and actual film sets instead compositing the actors through a blue screen just to name a few, and that film went on to be well regarded. So if his reviews could hold that much influence maybe Sonic could use a Mr. Plinkett.

Or you know, Sega could capitalize on the success of Mania and take what worked in that and try to apply it to future titles. Provided the levels are fully original of course.

[Shadowlax]

40 minutes ago, Tracker_TD said:

Because holy hell, this. I don't need validation for what I enjoy; neither should anyone, really. 

 

42 minutes ago, Maxtiis said:

 

Honestly, so what if major gaming news sites are more biased towards Classic Sonic than Modern? You shouldn't need "professional game critics" to reassure your opinion of anything, let alone Sonic. You should be able to speak for yourself, not rely on others to act as a mouthpiece to parrot your opinions back at you.

Eh, you kinda do.

Because you don't own , sonic. Some else owns sonic. And that's where we get to the issue with this whole thing entirely. Because I feel like a lot of people like the OP, it comes out of fear. The don't own sonic, they like other parts of sonic, that reviewers might not like. And reviewers every much effect the conversation around a game. How much, depends on the franchise, but they very much do. The last time this happened, a lot of stuff people from the adventure era liked, went away. 

People  are afraid that with forces on the horizon and that thing seeming to ape a bunch of adventure era stuff with no creative intent whatsoever, so the removal of such elements might actually be worse than before.  Now I think I mentioned this in several other threads, but don't blame reviewers , or fans blame sega for putting the franchise in such positions. And their inability to actually internalize criticism or praise in any meaningful capacity, its why i'm scared for any future 2d sonic game because the folks in charge are still in charge, George Lucas all over this thing.

You do need that confirmation, well not you specifically but you do. You need people to communicate they like something or want something larger than a single person. So a company can continue to produce something that works for you. So if you want more of the thing you like, whether it be from fans or critics you actually need confirmation bais, this needs to be communicated.

The thing is... people have been doing that for decades. Any other company would have deciphered the criticism and praise parced out who and what people liked and didn't and would have solved this a decade ago.  So here's the question of the hour I feel a lot of fan will be asking themselves soon enough depending on forces quality, " if I have to act like a community manager while not under sega's employ while they have several and they are still unable to parce out what I want in a meaningful capacity, why am I giving them my dollerydoos" 

So yeah, you do need confirmation bias because that shared conversations, companies listen to. But if a company doesn't understand or hasn't tried to, why engage. 

36 minutes ago, Tracker_TD said:

No, a critical consensus is a critical consensus. You don't get to brush it aside because "well, *I* don't take Metacritic for much!" or some flimsy excuse like that. User score is irrelevant because we're discussing games media here.

You didn't say critical consensus you said consensus and I responded to that. 

Quote

Classic bias is not a thing that is quite real. People liking games because they think they are good, and not liking games that they do not think are good, is a thing that is quite real.

That's bias. I think sonic adventure is my favorite sonic era, this will color my views of certain aspects of not just sonic games, but other platformers. This is bias, it is ok to have. Its ok that other people have the classic version of this, that is also ok. Or the mario version, or the kirby version and on and on and on colors your views on the world. You said it yourself there is no such thing as an unbiased review. 

Quote

And replacing a "Classic bias" with an "Adventure bias?" What's the point to that beyond some weird need for validation (as mentioned a moment ago)?

To hear possibly a different perspective on a matter?To maybe not hear people shitting on the thing they like all the time?

I feel like both of those are kinda valid. You can say " you shouldn't need confirmation bias all you want " but you know damn well confrimation bias is why sites like these and for other games exist. Because they want to have a conversation about whatever thing they like with out someone just grating conversation where everyone is shitting on said thing. This whole site, these forums, confirmation bias towards sonic the hedgehog as a franchise. So i don't know you talking about not needing validation is... hypocritical to the nature of dedicated forums of... everything.

I'm not saying everyone needs to be coddled but hearing the thing you like shat on all the time isn't really intellectually challenging after a point when you are talking about video game or a movie or its just not fun for a lot of folks. And I get that