Do the harshest critics of the Sonic franchise hurt the franchise?

[Rabbitearsblog]

So, do you think that the harshest critics of the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise hurt the franchise?  What I mean by "harshest critics" is that there are some critics who are never satisfied with this franchise and will say nothing but negative things about this franchise, despite overlooking some of the good games in this series.

Now, that's not to say that all criticisms against this franchise are unwarranted.  There are some pretty valid criticisms against this franchise, like how the gameplay hasn't been that good for the past decade or so or how the stories are not being written that well as of late.  And there are times where Sonic Team does listen to the criticisms, but the way they handled the criticisms tended to get bad results like say the fans wanted more comedy for the series, but then Sonic Team don't write the stories very well as a result.  Or whenever the fans asked for more gameplay for Sonic, but Sonic Team took that as "only Sonic should be the playable character" despite the fact that fans didn't say that they wanted to get rid of the other characters.

However, what about the critics who bashed the series without playing the games first or bash the series before any new games have been released?  Wouldn't that cause the fans to not want to play the games just because a critic said that the game is going to be bad, even though there's no concrete evidence about what the game is about yet?  Or what about when a critic says that "Sonic has always been a bad franchise" despite the fact that there were some good games that were released in the series?  So, do you think that the critics who bashed the series without playing any of the games or who judge the series without any concrete evidence on the developments hurt the franchise?

 

[Solister]

Absolutely! And not just Sonic, or video games by any manner. The fact there are countless talented artists, regardless of what they do, who are bashed and discouraged since the beginning, yet the media acclaims and praise "bad" stuff just because it's popular and gives money is a big proof of this.

Now, I really don't know until which point SEGA really takes their reviews up to debate on what they will change on the franchise. Is someone from them reading us and taking everything I say to be considered by the franchise? Very unlikely.

I also don't read lots of reviews, but I also never really seen someone bashing a franchise for no reason (I mean, from a big corporation, not your daily Redditor), but I do have seen lots of websites negative reviewing things I just love, yet this doesn't stop me from loving them, but I usually understand their points, but I don't think that's what most affect me on the final product.

But yeah... does there's really a proof of a reviewer who wrote something without even playing it? Does it be really nonsense? If so, which would be his/hers advantages of doing so? Bring a bad image of their company/themselves?

Last, I, at least, rarely decide to play something I really want based on the reviews. "I'm really interested on playing  this videogame, but a single company says it's trash, oh guess I'll not be playing it anymore." Honestly, if someone even does this, I really would call them dumb, so unless there's a huge consensus behind this (aka the reason I never played Sonic 06, despite still being unavailable for me),  I really go for it. Also, don't be afraid of liking/disliking something the media says.

Furthermore, the harshest critics are good for no one. Just think outside the gaming world. If someone comes to me and bash me down up until something I have really dedicated a good time if not my entire life of doing it, I'll probably not feel well and why not, I could develop a depression upon it. Of course, this doesn't mean you can't dislike or even tell them you disliked it (because we live on a hypersensitive society these days, it seems), but you can approach them in good manners.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

More like dishonest or hyperbolic critics.

No one will disagree with, say the critics criticizing the Werehog in Unleashed playing like a tank in a game people would like to speed through. But there’s a difference in doing that and critics complaining about Cream the Rabbit or the extended cast simply being background characters in Generations who don’t get in the way whatsoever—that’s just complaining for the sake of complaining.

It shouldn’t matter how harsh the critic is if they have a point, but having a point doesn’t mean making petty nitpicks for clout.

[Diogenes]

Bad criticism is always going to exist, it's the developers' job to separate signal from noise. If Sega makes terrible changes to the series because they listened to a couple of hate-rants, that's their mistake.

[Wraith]

The damage the harshest, loudest critics do is basically a footnote compared to the damage one bad Sonic game does. 

On the flip side, if you make content that is of unquestionable quality bad faith criticism doesn't have a leg to stand on. There's a reason why shitty meme arguments like "If it wasn't called "The Legend of Zelda" it wouldn't have gotten that score" don't get seriously entertained. If you actually play a Zelda game you realize how ridiculous of a point it is.

It all goes back to Sonic Team. If they just deliver good content, everything else will fall into place.

[charmsb]

I don't think its exactly bad criticism thats hurting Sonic as much as SEGA's response to the criticism is. They have a very knee-jerk wipe-the-slate-clean mentality. Every single god damn anniversary is the 'year of Sonic' where they want to recapture public appeal. This really only affects gameplay and it's entirely SEGA's fault. Like @Diogenes said, bad criticism is always going to exist.

This shitty criticism DOES hurt the public opinion of the fanbase though, and thats all because of a few bad fuckups by the company and a snowball effect from like 2010 cringe culture. It has also hurt the brand image but again, I don't think it has had a direct impact on the games.

[Rabbitearsblog]

2 hours ago, charmsb said:

I don't think its exactly bad criticism thats hurting Sonic as much as SEGA's response to the criticism is. They have a very knee-jerk wipe-the-slate-clean mentality. Every single god damn anniversary is the 'year of Sonic' where they want to recapture public appeal. This really only affects gameplay and it's entirely SEGA's fault. Like @Diogenes said, bad criticism is always going to exist.

This shitty criticism DOES hurt the public opinion of the fanbase though, and thats all because of a few bad fuckups by the company and a snowball effect from like 2010 cringe culture. It has also hurt the brand image but again, I don't think it has had a direct impact on the games.

I agree that SEGA is to blame for how the games turned out since they seem to do the opposite of what the fans demanded or they tried to do what the fans asked for, but either the writing is terrible or the gameplay is terrible.

2 hours ago, Diogenes said:

Bad criticism is always going to exist, it's the developers' job to separate signal from noise. If Sega makes terrible changes to the series because they listened to a couple of hate-rants, that's their mistake.

That's the problem with SEGA at times.  They seem to listen to the wrong group of people and their games tend to suffer because of it.

 

2 hours ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

More like dishonest or hyperbolic critics.

No one will disagree with, say the critics criticizing the Werehog in Unleashed playing like a tank in a game people would like to speed through. But there’s a difference in doing that and critics complaining about Cream the Rabbit or the extended cast simply being background characters in Generations who don’t get in the way whatsoever—that’s just complaining for the sake of complaining.

It shouldn’t matter how harsh the critic is if they have a point, but having a point doesn’t mean making petty nitpicks for clout.

I agree that some of the problems with some of the criticisms is that they criticized about little things that has nothing to do with the story or the gameplay, like you mentioned, some critics criticizing about Cream the Rabbit in Generations despite the fact that she doesn't play a crucial role in the game.

[SBR2]

I feel like the hyperbole people tend to get into shit like "Sonic was never goid" and "all 3D games suck" really does do a lot more damage than people like to believe. 

Obviously criticism is good but being overly critical can be a very bad thing. Not just in how Sega can't get a good grasp of what works in a largely considered bad game because any good things are drowned out by a sea of "This is literally the worst Sonic game ever! Why can't Sega make good games anymore?" but also because it makes the fandom look completely impossible to please and especially like they just want to focus exclusively on the negatives and never focus on anything that works.

I'm not saying that you have to like a game like Forces but just some balanced opinion instead of just going on and on about how bad it is especially before the game even comes out just kinda makes us look like petulant children. 

[MetalSkulkBane]

I used to think that around 2011, maybe 2013.

"Haha, very funny guys, How about we stop? Look, Sonic 06 was ages ago, we're doing fine now. You jerks."

And then Rise of Lyric came out and now I'm a little jaded, Forces not sweetening things (despite me kinda liking it).

It's sad that Sonic is punching bag of internet, something fairly recognizable that everyone can make fun of knowing the backlash will be minimal, like Star Wars prequels or Donald Trump. But how about we go 5 good games in a row, then start making demands

[batson]

4 hours ago, SBR2 said:

I feel like the hyperbole people tend to get into shit like "Sonic was never goid" and "all 3D games suck" really does do a lot more damage than people like to believe.

Indeed. Especially among people with little or no personal experience with Sonic games, the "there are no good Sonic games" mantra as it's expoused by both professional video game critics as well as popular online content creators (such as Game Grumps) does a tremendous amount of damage against the franchises image.

Of course though, as others have pointed out, the biggest factor in Sonic's poor reputation is that many of his games actually does suck, but even so...

[Cosmos Rogue]

At this point Sonic fans are harder on the series than the critics are. The awful/memetic reputation this series has is unfortunate/infuriating, but it is also fading. Outside of the community, most people seemed to react to Forces with either a shrug or mild disappointment before moving on to other games.

If people want to see Sonic's reputation restored, they should direct their ire at Sega, not the critics and memers. The unfortunate truth is that no one can reasonably expect the next Sonic game to be good, and until that changes, Sonic's reputation isn't going to improve.

[Rabbitearsblog]

3 hours ago, Cosmos Rogue said:

At this point Sonic fans are harder on the series than the critics are. The awful/memetic reputation this series has is unfortunate/infuriating, but it is also fading. Outside of the community, most people seemed to react to Forces with either a shrug or mild disappointment before moving on to other games.

If people want to see Sonic's reputation restored, they should direct their ire at Sega, not the critics and memers. The unfortunate truth is that no one can reasonably expect the next Sonic game to be good, and until that changes, Sonic's reputation isn't going to improve.

Yeah, I think that Sonic gets a lot of ire when it comes to the games because SEGA is not doing a good job with the games.  If we got nothing but good Sonic games, then the complaints would definitely stop.  But unless SEGA change their approach to the franchise, nothing's going to change any time soon.

[Scritch the Cat]

Those critics who make their opinions clear and are consistent about them give readers a solid idea of how seriously those opinions ought to be taken.  A critics' opinion on whether something new that I haven't experienced is good or bad is not as innately useful if I don't know that critic's opinion on whether something old that I have experienced is good or bad, and furthermore, why.  The classic example of this I cite is Super Mario Sunshine .  I never finished the game and for at least a while, it made me quit the Mario series.  While it was even then generally agreed that the game was a step down from Super Mario 64, something I kept hearing from people is that the highlights of the game were those secret levels where your hover ability is taken away and you're forced to make a lot of difficult jumps through barely textured environments, with limited lives.  Meanwhile, I hated those bits; they were the reason I quit SMS, so for a while after that, whenever someone insisted that a new Mario game was good, I asked that person's opinion on those Fludd-less stages of SMS.  If that was what someone thought of as fun Mario gameplay, I chose to ignore that person's opinion.

So no; if a critic flat-out hates Sonic at least that critic shouldn't have any influence on someone who doesn't.  At least, not when it comes to Sonic.  If a critic hates some Sonic games you like, maybe examine that critic's opinion enough to see why, and then ignore the critic's opinion if you disagree on what's a quality feature.

Naturally, you were asking about the franchise rather than just fans, so then my opinion would be sort of yes.  But it really shouldn't.  We never should have reached a point where SEGA tried chumming with the Game Grumps.

[Rabbitearsblog]

1 hour ago, Scritch the Cat said:

Those critics who make their opinions clear and are consistent about them give readers a solid idea of how seriously those opinions ought to be taken.  A critics' opinion on whether something new that I haven't experienced is good or bad is not as innately useful if I don't know that critic's opinion on whether something old that I have experienced is good or bad, and furthermore, why.  The classic example of this I cite is Super Mario Sunshine .  I never finished the game and for at least a while, it made me quit the Mario series.  While it was even then generally agreed that the game was a step down from Super Mario 64, something I kept hearing from people is that the highlights of the game were those secret levels where your hover ability is taken away and you're forced to make a lot of difficult jumps through barely textured environments, with limited lives.  Meanwhile, I hated those bits; they were the reason I quit SMS, so for a while after that, whenever someone insisted that a new Mario game was good, I asked that person's opinion on those Fludd-less stages of SMS.  If that was what someone thought of as fun Mario gameplay, I chose to ignore that person's opinion.

So no; if a critic flat-out hates Sonic at least that critic shouldn't have any influence on someone who doesn't.  At least, not when it comes to Sonic.  If a critic hates some Sonic games you like, maybe examine that critic's opinion enough to see why, and then ignore the critic's opinion if you disagree on what's a quality feature.

Naturally, you were asking about the franchise rather than just fans, so then my opinion would be sort of yes.  But it really shouldn't.  We never should have reached a point where SEGA tried chumming with the Game Grumps.

I agree with all this.  It's how you approach the series that really should affect how you feel about a franchise.  So even if a critic or a popular reviewer said that a game was bad or good, it ultimately comes down to you to decide for yourselves about whether or not this game or franchise is worth investing in.

[Rabbitearsblog]

On 7/31/2021 at 8:24 PM, Solister said:

Absolutely! And not just Sonic, or video games by any manner. The fact there are countless talented artists, regardless of what they do, who are bashed and discouraged since the beginning, yet the media acclaims and praise "bad" stuff just because it's popular and gives money is a big proof of this.

Now, I really don't know until which point SEGA really takes their reviews up to debate on what they will change on the franchise. Is someone from them reading us and taking everything I say to be considered by the franchise? Very unlikely.

I also don't read lots of reviews, but I also never really seen someone bashing a franchise for no reason (I mean, from a big corporation, not your daily Redditor), but I do have seen lots of websites negative reviewing things I just love, yet this doesn't stop me from loving them, but I usually understand their points, but I don't think that's what most affect me on the final product.

But yeah... does there's really a proof of a reviewer who wrote something without even playing it? Does it be really nonsense? If so, which would be his/hers advantages of doing so? Bring a bad image of their company/themselves?

Last, I, at least, rarely decide to play something I really want based on the reviews. "I'm really interested on playing  this videogame, but a single company says it's trash, oh guess I'll not be playing it anymore." Honestly, if someone even does this, I really would call them dumb, so unless there's a huge consensus behind this (aka the reason I never played Sonic 06, despite still being unavailable for me),  I really go for it. Also, don't be afraid of liking/disliking something the media says.

Furthermore, the harshest critics are good for no one. Just think outside the gaming world. If someone comes to me and bash me down up until something I have really dedicated a good time if not my entire life of doing it, I'll probably not feel well and why not, I could develop a depression upon it. Of course, this doesn't mean you can't dislike or even tell them you disliked it (because we live on a hypersensitive society these days, it seems), but you can approach them in good manners.

I agree that I don't let any negative reviews or other people's opinions affect how I personally feel about a franchise.  If I liked the game, but critics hated it, then that's fine.  I still like the game anyway.  If the critics loved a game that I hated, then I will always hate the game no matter what the critics say, because it's my personal opinion about the game that I care more about.

[Zoomzeta]

I think a lot of things hurt this franchise, where it from some group or self-inflicted.

[Rabbitearsblog]

9 hours ago, Zoomzeta said:

I think a lot of things hurt this franchise, where it from some group or self-inflicted.

Yeah, I agree that some of the fans do hurt the franchise when they suggest things that wouldn't work well with the franchise like having Sonic being the only playable character while everyone else stands to the side (I don't know if that was the fans' request or something that Sonic Team decided on) and then there's Sonic's Team's poor handling of the series as of late.