Sonic Forces Reviews Thread

[Jar Jar Analysis 1138]

1 hour ago, McGroose said:

While Polygon's review is incredibly satisfying to read and the score is well deserved, I'd hesitate before saying that Polygon would be an ideal indicator of what to expect from most reviewers based on their track record. Expect some sevens and maybe evens eights. I still think the review average will be around 7. Maybe 6.5.

It's a fuggin polygon review. They barely spoke about the actual game. It is a poor review that basically is a check list rather giving you information on what you're in for. Until then, I'll wait for a real one.

[KHCast]

45 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

A general consumer/gamer buying the game will see Sonic and know him due to how much of a big-name brand he is. This isn't talking about game quality, or play time. This is talking about bare bones recognition. Sonic will be considered a major release because he's a major name in terms of gaming. Assassin's Creed Unity sucks absolute ass considering how buggy it is, how much it locks shit behind micro-transaction upgrades, how much the game in general isn't very fun etc. And yet it's a major release because Assassin's Creed is arguably one of the biggest names in gaming as of now. 

So yes, of course Sonic is comparable to Mario, because the two are arguably the two longest running and biggest names in gaming. To a general consumer, Sonic will be a major release.

See with Unity tho, as shit as it was, it still was marketed and pushed and overall had earned goodwill to most of the market before shit it the fan. It was a big release in the sense of being promoted and talked about before release outside the core fanbase. Forces? It's had /some/ questionable marketing and a cheaper price compared to the competition  on top of it to boot, with memes generating discussion for maybe like a week after that CaC trailer. Promotion can really set the feel of the worth of a game, something with little or bad advertising probably isn't gonna come off like a title confident in itself. Unity at least presented itself beforehand as a product worth buying, and was highlighted and featured at tons of events and talked about. Sonic doesn't have that same luxury.

i won't be surprised if we see casual customers walk buy it and go "oh, a new Sonic's out? Huh." Vs "oh god finally yes!" Sonic's and iconic name, but being an icon doesn't mean much when the interest in your franchise has dwindled 

[Dr. Mechano]

10 minutes ago, Jar Jar Analysis 1138 said:

It's a fuggin polygon review. They barely spoke about the actual game. It is a poor review that basically is a check list rather giving you information on what you're in for. Until then, I'll wait for a real one.

This review is pretty detailed, actually.

Did you read it thoroughly? Because I felt it really explained the major problems (and even merits) with the game quite well.

[UpCDownCLeftCRightC]

10 minutes ago, Jar Jar Analysis 1138 said:

It's a fuggin polygon review. They barely spoke about the actual game. It is a poor review that basically is a check list rather giving you information on what you're in for. Until then, I'll wait for a real one.

I'm sorry but the review was fairly thorough in its criticisms against the actual gameplay. 

[Sean]

Next person who complains about this not being a "real review" or in any way suggests that the reviewer did not play the actual game gets a strike.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

5 minutes ago, Sean said:

Next person who complains about this not being a "real review" or in any way suggests that the reviewer did not play the actual game gets a strike.

That goes for both of the reviews right?

[Sean]

1 minute ago, Jovahexeon Ace Joranvexeon said:

That goes for both of the reviews right?

No.

[Dr. Mechano]

2 minutes ago, Jovahexeon Ace Joranvexeon said:

That goes for both of the reviews right?

I don't recall anyone saying that the Famitsu people didn't actually play the game or that they somehow faked their impressions.

But I assume that would be rightfully against the rules too.

[Jar Jar Analysis 1138]

32 minutes ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

I'm sorry but the review was fairly thorough in its criticisms against the actual gameplay. 

 

34 minutes ago, Super Mechanio said:

This review is pretty detailed, actually.

Did you read it thoroughly? Because I felt it really explained the major problems (and even merits) with the game quite well.

I have a bit higher of standards for full reviews. 

Went over the basic criticisms I expected to hear yet didn't talk about the other aspect of Classic Sonic's gameplay, music, sound, physics(which was marketed with Forces) story, level design or characters. 

This is fine of a review if you want some quick validation on the game to see if you'd want it or not but it glosses over things that matter to the player and what they'd experience. Poor might've been harsh bit it was at bare minimum okay...Nothing I'd deem worthy if you're trying to find more on the game. That is why I say wait for more(and better qualifying) reviews.

As the game gets closer to release we'll get good ones. 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

2 minutes ago, Super Mechanio said:

I don't recall anyone saying that the Famitsu people didn't actually play the game or that they somehow faked their impressions.

But I assume that would be rightfully against the rules too.

Something akin to that occurred in the translation thread. Not entirely the same thing, but similar.

 

 

[Sean]

People have complained about the integrity of Famitsu impressions in general (especially since the scores are handpicked from a sample of random people) but nobody has been accusing the Famitsu reviews of falsifying information or impressions. That's why my ultimatum applies to people complaining about the Polygon review and not the Famitsu one, because nobody is or has been accusing the latter of lying.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

2 minutes ago, Sean said:

People have complained about the integrity of Famitsu impressions in general (especially since the scores are handpicked from a sample of random people) but nobody has been accusing the Famitsu reviews of falsifying information or impressions. That's why my ultimatum applies to people complaining about the Polygon review and not the Famitsu one, because nobody is or has been accusing the latter of lying.

Well, that is a much nicer explanation. Thank you for that.

That said, in the case that someone does raise such equally faulty accusations against the latter, then what?

[Nintendoga]

5/10 is seems about right. Game doesn't look too good or too bad, just mediocre as hell. Expecting the same as Lost World tbh.

[Zaysho]

9 minutes ago, Jovahexeon Ace Joranvexeon said:

Well, that is a much nicer explanation. Thank you for that.

That said, in the case that someone does raise such equally faulty accusations against the latter, then what?

We'll cross that bridge when we get there, but Sean's point is that the Famitsu reviewers' integrity over playing the game hasn't been called into question like Polygon's reviewer has.

 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

4 minutes ago, Zaysho said:

We'll cross that bridge when we get there, but Sean's point is that the Famitsu reviewers' integrity over playing the game hasn't been called into question like Polygon's reviewer has.

Very well then. Carry on.

[Anymation]

While I am hoping that this negative feedback brings on some new form of Adventure style sonic gameplay, I really hope SEGA doesn’t pull and EA and kill the franchise, or prop up its corpse with more shallow and cheap games. I recently played Sonic Adventure when it became backwards compatible on Xbox One, and I had a lot of fun. I was really hyped for Forces, but all these tiny little things, including the short 4 hour to a single sitting completion time have knocked it down to my “wait for sale” list. 

One of the reoccurring annoyances of mine have been the constant slow “2.5D” sections of the modern sonic games when there’s literally a classic sonic mode. 

I saw someone point out how many level designers Forces had and I was a big warning sign for me. They got the Sonic part right but not the game part.

[UpCDownCLeftCRightC]

3 hours ago, Jar Jar Analysis 1138 said:

 

I have a bit higher of standards for full reviews. 

Went over the basic criticisms I expected to hear yet didn't talk about the other aspect of Classic Sonic's gameplay, music, sound, physics(which was marketed with Forces) story, level design or characters. 

This is fine of a review if you want some quick validation on the game to see if you'd want it or not but it glosses over things that matter to the player and what they'd experience. Poor might've been harsh bit it was at bare minimum okay...Nothing I'd deem worthy if you're trying to find more on the game. That is why I say wait for more(and better qualifying) reviews.

As the game gets closer to release we'll get good ones. 

Fair. I just think you should be clear about a review "not being worth it" (I'm paraphrasing you) as opposed to it being 'okay' for your tastes; there is a stark difference. Without judging polygon's past, I think this review was pretty fair and covered the basics of what one would look for in a review. And we should be able to agree that the basic point of a review is to let the player know if a game is worth buying or not, regardless of the audience. This one did that just fine.

In contrast, the famitsu review really did zero evaluation at all and just listed the game's basic features in a few lines, which is one reason why a few eyebrows were raised at the given score.

 

And everyone is waiting on more reviews, as I'd guess you already understand. This is just the first that many are guessing will be within this same score range (50-70%) and have similarly structured complaints.

 

2 hours ago, Anymation said:

While I am hoping that this negative feedback brings on some new form of Adventure style sonic gameplay, I really hope SEGA doesn’t pull and EA and kill the franchise, or prop up its corpse with more shallow and cheap games. I recently played Sonic Adventure when it became backwards compatible on Xbox One, and I had a lot of fun. I was really hyped for Forces, but all these tiny little things, including the short 4 hour to a single sitting completion time have knocked it down to my “wait for sale” list. 

One of the reoccurring annoyances of mine have been the constant slow “2.5D” sections of the modern sonic games when there’s literally a classic sonic mode. 

I saw someone point out how many level designers Forces had and I was a big warning sign for me. They got the Sonic part right but not then game part.

Sonic isn't going to outright "die", if you're worried about that. The games still sell enough to warrant production on some level.

The scale of the future games is worthy of your concern however....and mine too. I still think we've yet to see that 9/10 scored, widely-praised, phenomenal 3D Sonic game that turns the series reputation around...and Sonic is capable of that. But because Modern Sonic has been inconsistent and problematic throughout his entire history, I fear that SEGA is going to have to evaluate whether or not the 3D games are worth further investment at this juncture. Because if I'm CEO, I would too. If Forces sells okay, I think 3D Sonic will live for now (though changes are inevitably coming regardless) but if it doesn't, Sonic will be in trouble.

(Small note: Modern Sonic =/= 3D Sonic. Modern has been in both 2D and 3D games and is just a alternative focus of the character)

Until someone designs a convincing proof of concept for an excellent 3D Sonic game foundation, its going to be difficult to justify the continued production of these games in the near future when they're not reviewing well and not selling well in proportion to their budget. I mean, I really hope not but I think this may be our reality.

[Jar Jar Analysis 1138]

6 minutes ago, UpCDownCLeftCRightC said:

Fair. I just think you should be clear about a review "not being worth it" (I'm paraphrasing you) as opposed to it being 'okay' for your tastes; there is a stark difference.

 It's both okay and worthless.

Quote

Without judging polygon's past, I think this review was pretty fair and covered the basics of what one would look for in a review. And we should be able to agree that the basic point of a review is to let the player know if a game is worth buying or not, regardless of the audience.

I absolutely agree that it is fair write up. 

But the basics leave out half of the other content of what the game consist of. How is that a good review by not providing the full picture? Why should the audience or fans go by such hollow content? The story is a mess. The stages aren't good. So give us a detailed response why.

 A reminder; This is coming from someone who dislikes Forces as you do. I just don't think this warrants something to be recommended.

[Nicky Nicardo]

No matter what, I just hope that people here don't love and praise every single negative review that comes out about the game, while ripping apart and/or disregarding any positive reviews that come out.

[UpCDownCLeftCRightC]

15 minutes ago, Jar Jar Analysis 1138 said:

 It's both okay and worthless.

I absolutely agree that it is fair write up. 

But the basics leave out half of the other content of what the game consist of. How is that a good review by not providing the full picture? Why should the audience or fans go by such hollow content? The story is a mess. The stages aren't good. So give us a detailed response why.

 A reminder; This is coming from someone who dislikes Forces as you do. I just don't think this warrants something to be recommended.

I think I understand where you're coming from but I disagree that its "worthless". Logically speaking, if its okay and did its basic job, its not worthless because it will influence some X amount of consumers on their next purchase. It did what it was supposed to do. Worthless means that it did not, in any capacity. (I think the famitsu review can fairly be called "worthless" by these standards.)

If you want to say they could have gone into more detail since they missed the classic sonic portion of the game, that's totally valid. 

 

Just my opinion: I suspect the classic portion of this game will probably be glossed over and/or ignored by many reviewers during this cycle because it has less of a focus and presentation here than the CaC and Modern do. Good thing for Forces too because if anyone remembers what it was like to play Mania just two months ago, it'll be another black mark on the classic elements of this game.

[LATER BUDDY]

[DELETED]

[GentlemanX]

I do have some problems within the review itself.

Quote

The handful of stages that do offer players opportunities for exploration and discovery — generally in order to acquire hidden tokens scattered in slightly inconvenient places — do so accompanied by a relentless timer that suffocates the joy of poking into obscure corners of the world. Forcesseems determined at every moment to remind you of how long you've been playing each stage, and when the game ranks your performance once you cross the finish line, your score is weighted most heavily toward how little time you've taken to complete a stage. "Gotta go fast" may be the de facto motto for Sonic, but the franchise’s best games approach that mindset with some nuance. Forces does not.

As someone familiar with Sonic games but hasn't seen any of Forces, I don't know what this means. There's some sort of "timer" in the levels? Are they time trials, because nothing I've seen of the game has indicated that they are. The reviewer complains about the ranking system putting emphasis on how quickly one completes the level, but I think that would be common sense in a Sonic game. Sonic games have always rewarded a player for how quickly they can get themselves through a level, so I don't see why anything else would play as big a role in determining your score for the level as how quickly you were able to do it. He also mentions "hidden tokens" (which I assume are Red Rings) in relation to this, as though exploration and collectables are intended to be accomplished at the same time as a speed run. You'd think it'd be obvious you're supposed to replay the level in order to accomplish these tasks.

Quote

And pose a challenge it does, but these tests of skill rarely create the sensation of having achieved any meaningful mastery. I found that most of my failures resulted from a combination of high speeds and poorly telegraphed obstacles. Hazards either appear on-screen too quickly to react or else they vanish into the overly busy backgrounds. None of the enemies actually do much to stop Sonic besides simply standing in place. S-ranking a stage ultimately boils down to rote memorization, not skill or reflex.

This one is confusing because it seems to contradict itself a lot. It mentions that the player's deaths were due to problems with the level design and obstacles to avoid, but then says that enemies don't do much to actually stop Sonic. So which is it, are the obstacles (are they not talking about enemies? no other specifics are referenced) frustrating or are they not challenging? They also are talking about utilizing high speed and getting S-ranks but complain that you're memorizing the levels in order to do so. Again, this is how all Sonic games are designed, way back to Sonic 1. Speed is a reward the player gets after having played through a level enough times that you remember where things are and you can find the fastest possible option. You can argue that the linear level design forces you to complete the level a particular way, but I feel that's splitting hairs and getting away from the core complaint of this paragraph since it seems to focus on the control of Modern Sonic instead with the use of "mastery".

And, once again, almost the entire review is about Modern Sonic's gameplay what that's I believe only a quarter of the game. No actual review of Classic Sonic, the Avatar, or really even the Tag Team levels actually occurs. As so many people have talked about Classic and the Avatar feeling clunky, I figured something like that would be in the review but it's never mentioned making me assume those levels played fine. Given that Mania is brought up a couple of different times, I'm even more confused as to why no direct comparisons were made between how Classic Sonic plays between the two titles.

Do I like that the review is talking about pros and cons? Of course, the first paragraph talking about automation and the "hold right or up" sounds justified (though I question how much one really achieves with the holding right or up if they had to memorize the level - wouldn't it be one or the other?) is a legitimate problem I can buy. But there are several points where I don't understand the what the reviewer is having a problem with. Either the level is too easy or it's too hard, or sometimes apparently both? A quarter of the game's levels are talked about in detail, while the other three quarters are given a quick acknowledgment at the end with no clear verdict.

Hopefully future reviews cover everything and give me a frame of reference as to what this game is doing differently from past Sonic titles.

[Blue Blood]

I'm going to echo opinions that seeing this game achieve a 5/10 in its first proper review is satisfying. But frankly, it's the content of this review and the rest to come that are of the most concern to me.

The core gameplay is primarily 2D, which is a problem itself but also is worse that Mania in every way from layouts to control. The 3D sections tend to be linear boost fests that are somehow put to shame by its predecessors. We've also ended up with yet another nonsense story that leaves the player to deal with a great deal of confusion. And really, the use of other characters in the story isn't the best. Set pieces in the levels might look nice, but they amount to very little and the everyone is often talking about things that we never even see nor experience. Plus it's a really strange and very unfitting tone that Sonic Team went for; Why on earth did they choose to make this story about a war? I hope that other reviews will pick up on all of these, particularly the gameplay. 

One thing that does worry me is the avatar. I loathe the concept of a custom character being involved in the story of a Sonic game. Their gameplay isn't fun here either. But I'm already prepared to see the customisation being praised as one of the high points. 

Middling scores are one thing, but to really send a message to SEGA about what's wrong with Forces, this game has to sell poorly and be criticised for the right reasons. If all we get  "Sonic friends won't shut up and Sonic doesn't need a story, but the graphics are good and the gameplay is very fast", then things are hardly going to improve. Mania was praised for all the right reasons and duly criticised for being yet another trip down memory lane, so I hope the same will be the case for Forces. There's a lot less to praise in Forces and a lot more to criticise.

[Rummy]

After How Refreshing Mania was, it's a good idea to give Forces some Tough Love to be honest.

Maybe i'm in the minority but i want to actually play a game and not a interactive movie.

[Swing]

2 hours ago, Anymation said:

While I am hoping that this negative feedback brings on some new form of Adventure style sonic gameplay, I really hope SEGA doesn’t pull and EA and kill the franchise, or prop up its corpse with more shallow and cheap games.

I do not think this will happen. Sonic is just a way to popular character to be killed of. I also do not think that Sonic Forces will hurt the Franchises that much. Sonic will be still going on in some sort of form. Sonic is actually the only franchise I know that is still popular to this day with a bunch of mediocre and down right horrible games.