NeoGAF thinks Matt didn't beat the game.

[Cinos]

Thats IGN for yah

[speedfreak]

Pfft, what's the point of this, anyways? Bad review is going to be bad, mmmkay? I mean, IGN and its staff are the kinds of people who would rather see Sonic in 2D bashing robots apart freeing animals and sending the doctor packing like he did in the old Genesis/Mega Drive days, than to see Sonic Team try something new. IGN and the majority of gaming sites are going to hate Modern Sonic until they get what they want. This is exactly how we were like when Unleashed came out. We totally thought that Unleashed was going to be like the best thing since sliced bread, but IGN goes and gives the game for the 360 version a 4 out of 10, pretty much because of the Werehog, thus causing us to look for answers as to why this game got the score, and we speculated that the reviewer only made it to the fourth continent before quitting. Same case for this game, we thought (most of us) that since this was a sequel to Secret Rings, which was decent, this was going to be pretty good as well, and then IGN goes and slaps the 3.9 on this game, and we find reasons as to why the game got such a bad score. I can understand that you're angry, but why force someone to play a game if they're not going to like it? If you have a problem with the content, then stop. Stop reading, and form your own opinion on the game, because in the long run, your opinion is what is going to make the game sell, not the opinion of a gaming website, they tell you whether you should buy the game or not. You can choose to listen to that, or you can choose not to listen to it.

Selective memory? They also gave SU Wii a very fair 7.2.

[Jay H]

At this point, I honestly don't care what IGN says anymore. If you want the game, then hell, just get it! Don't let anybody like IGN tell you whether to like the game or not. It's all based on personal opinions.

[famicommander]

None of you seem to understand what I'm getting at.

I don't give a rat's ass if IGN gave it a crappy review. My problem overall is with their lead Wii editor's total lack of professionalism. He is robbing we, the readers, of what is promised to us. He owes us a certain degree of quality and a certain degree of objectivity. We got neither.

This man has no right to review a game he hasn't completed. It's like reading half a book, then reviewing it. For all Matt knows, the levels he didn't play are the best in the history of video games. They certainly aren't, but how does he know that?

This game is very short, and not difficult to complete. Before informing us about the game, he should have experienced all it had to offer. What's the point of video game review sources like IGN, if their reviews are going to be made up of mechanics errors, offensive language, and half-formed ideas about a game he hasn't even completed?

We may as well just go to GameFAQs and read the user reviews of twelve year olds.

[Aregulardude]

Selective memory? They also gave SU Wii a very fair 7.2.

Yeah, but there was a person who reviewed the Wii version and another who reviewed the 360 (who obviously didn't feel the same way about the game as the other). Don't get me wrong, I was glad to hear this, because I thought that Sonic Unleashed on the 360 would possibly get a better score, but it got a terrible one, and honestly, no offense, but what is in the Wii version of the game that was left out of the 360 one, besides more Werehog stages and a solid framerate?

Regardless, even if Hilary didn't finish the game, it doesn't matter, like everyone has been saying before, he'd probably still give it a poor review. Same with the person who reviewed Black Knight, if he didn't finish the game before he reviewed, he would probably still give it a bad review if he did. I don't want to get into a huge debate about this, forgive me.

[Yong]

This man has no right to review a game he hasn't completed. It's like reading half a book, then reviewing it. For all Matt knows, the levels he didn't play are the best in the history of video games. They certainly aren't, but how does he know that?

That would be more reason why the game sucks. Why should he have to torture himself first before he gets to the good stuff? No one needs to put up with that, reviewer nor consumer.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

You guys should had saw this coming. Come on! From the first day Sonic and the Black Knight was confirmed, you couldn't expect this game to be fantastic-ly awesome. Sonic with the sword? What would IGN/Matt/other media think of this? Well if Sega managed to pull off such an amazing type of gameplay with Sonic holding a sword I would be totally shocked. But I never expected them to pull this off.

If Matt didn't go through the game from start to finish, and he was the person who GAVE Sonic Unleashed Wii a good 7 score - that shows BK's gameplay sucks. Heck, even worse than Unleashed.

[famicommander]

That would be more reason why the game sucks. Why should he have to torture himself first before he gets to the good stuff? No one needs to put up with that, reviewer nor consumer.

You're still missing the damned point.

He is a world-famous game journalist. He has an obligation to his readers to deliver quality, objective, and complete reviews of video games. He failed to do that. IGN has no right to claim objectivity, and IGN no longer has any credibility.

That's the point. I don't care a single bit if Matt doesn't like the game. He could give it a negative six out of ten, for all I care. But his review as it stands is constructed on minsinformation and contradictions. It's a lie.

The point of a review is to help the consumer decide how their 50 dollars are going to be spent. He needs to tell us what a game offers. He didn't experience everything the game offers, so how can he tell us?

Morally, he cannot.

[Mollfie]

IGN has no right to claim objectivity, and IGN no longer has any credibility.

The point of a review is to help the consumer decide how their 50 dollars are going to be spent. He needs to tell us what a game offers. He didn't experience everything the game offers, so how can he tell us?

Morally, he cannot.

Exactly. I write anime, manga and book reviews, I can't write an accurate review on something I havn't watch/read all of.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Mollfie

[Yong]

Well it's apparent what he did experience wasn't to his liking. So should the consumer be told to spend their 50 on a game that's only "possibly" 10% good (the part he hasn't played), or should someone spend it on a game the reviewer thought was 80-90% good with the time he actually spent on it?

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Well I have to agree actually, it's kinda stupid that he did a review...yet he didn't complete the game. If he didn't like it, he should had passed it on to somebody else to do the work for him...but at least complete the whole story before writing a public review. DX

[Yong]

Well I have to agree actually, it's kinda stupid that he did a review...yet he didn't complete the game. If he didn't like it, he should had passed it on to somebody else to do the work for him...but at least complete the whole story before writing a public review. DX

Yeah, keep passing it on. I'm sure there's someone in the IGN office who's biased enough to give the bad games good scores, in a timely fashion no less.

If the game was so bad that he no longer had any desire to play it of his own free will, well that's just saying a lot about the game, isn't it?

Not to say that the game this topic seems to be focused on is bad. Nor am I defending any valid reason why IGN does poor reviews.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Yong

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

We're not going to bring this up each and every time someone gives a Sonic game a bad review, are we? We had this going on for a while during the whole Sonic Unleashed fiasco pre-wipeout.

He played the game, he knows what it's like he gave a good/shitty (your pick, just don't make a fuss of it) review. Just go find the game, pop it in, play it yourself. If you like it, good for you, say the guy is wrong and move on. If you didn't like it, say why, watch how you say it (cuz members will whine and chew you out for it), and move on.

Besides, I doubt this will be like Sonic 06 where it sold pretty poor. On a Nintendo console, Sonic sells pretty big, so let him get a 3.2 or whatever. They'll know they're not doing anything if it sells over a million units, which it more than likely will.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Yeah, keep passing it on. I'm sure there's someone in the IGN office who's biased enough to give the bad games good scores, in a timely fashion no less.

Yeah! Give Black Knight to Hilary Goldstein! I'm sure he'll do a great job! XD

[Tornado]

Since it seems people seem to have selective reading switch on, I'll make this easy:

People are not seriously under the impression that most reviewers actually finsih the game they're reviewing are they?

What difference does it make, really?

Also:

You're still missing the damned point.

*Irrelevant tirade preaching moral values about a fanbase made up of largely rabid sociopaths*

The point of a review is to help the consumer decide how their 50 dollars are going to be spent. He needs to tell us what a game offers. He didn't experience everything the game offers, so how can he tell us?

You're making up a point that has no meaning. Lets say I go into a restaurant and order a meal. If, while I was waiting for the meal, I got kicked in the nuts every 2 minutes until the meal's twenty minute prep time is completed, who gives a shit if the meal is the best thing that was ever cooked (which is a huge assumption to make)? I still got kicked in the nuts 10 times.

Lets put this into video game terms:

Games like the GTA series can take dozens of hours to get 100% completion (which is apparently what you want every reviewer to do when reviewing the game). Yet you can get a complete picture of the game just by playing the story mode. You don't even have to finish the story mode. I can play San Andreas for twenty minutes and know whats going on enough to make a fair review on the gameplay merits if I was paying attention. Plot twists and stuff like that are largely irrelevant to the gameplay, and its arguable (there was a big topic pre-crash) as to whether game journalists even have any credibility when discussing a story's merits. So, I ask, if your point is so relevant: what exactly would have changed had the IGN review covered the second parts of the game? I can guess: "The game then throws an asinine twist at you, and you have to continue playing the game even longer with other characters with miniscule changes for no reason other than to mask the lack of ideas." I wouldn't be surprised if a sentence much like that had been used, and I wouldn't be surprised if it caused the game to be have a lower score (whats better, getting kicked in the nuts for 10 minutes or 20 minutes).

Anyways, do we actually even know if this is the case? Because when the same thing was claimed for Unleashed, it turned out to be, you know, bullshit.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Tornado

[Carbo]

Lets put this into video game terms:

Ok, sure thing

Games like the GTA series

Ok, stop. How would you know from what point on a certain reviewer recieves their review copy of the game? Games like GTA and Killzone are recieved far before the release dates already burst through. These "big budget games". A reviewer is still supposed to make it through the main campaign of the story. That's all there is to it.

Yes people, it turns out that the life of a videogame reviewer isn't as easy as it seems! People all think it's oh, I can play through this for a while and I can write a review. Bullshit, the guys need to go through it all, its their job for crying out loud. If you'd be building computers for some big company would you half-arse on it, leave it as it is and then expect your boss to appreciate the work you put down in it when the computer fries after 2 days of use? You're writing something for the general public, not for your school teacher.

Sympathy for a game reviewer in all its might, cause they work hard. But if they work like shit, then you can't honestly say that they're people who should limit it down to say 50% of the game.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Carbo

[Tornado]

Ok, stop. How would you know from what point on a certain reviewer recieves their review copy of the game? Games like GTA and Killzone are recieved far before the release dates already burst through. These "big budget games".

So? What does that have to do with anything? If Sega didn't give them a review copy in advance and that was why the game may have possibly been short-changed, that's their own damn fault. However, since it seems like it was an honest mistake on behalf of the reviewer, that doesn't apply anyways.

A reviewer is still supposed to make it through the main campaign of the story. That's all there is to it.

And, once again, what difference might that have made? "This game was 2X crap rather than 1X crap, where X is equal to the length." Whoop de doo. Much like the Unleashed babble over the similar topic, we have the community jumping on an IGN review mostly on the (completely unproven) off-chance that the reviewer didn't finish the game. If the gameplay doesn't change in a notable way, and the game continues on in its suckage with the new characters, why should it matter if he didn't play the game to the finish?

famicommander's entire point for starting this thread is that the review is somehow null and void because the IGN reviewer possibly didn't play the probably equally-shitty second half of the story mode. Since a game reviewer isn't really qualified to critique the story, it makes no difference whether he didn't finish the story mode or not (especially since it doesn't seem that the game changes in the second half), and famicommander's point has no merit in the way he is trying to present it.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Tornado

[Carbo]

And, once again, what difference might that have made? "This game was 2X crap rather than 1X crap, where X is equal to the length." Whoop de doo. Much like the Unleashed babble over the similar topic, we have the community jumping on an IGN review mostly on the (completely unproven) off-chance that the reviewer didn't finish the game. If the gameplay doesn't change in a notable way, and the game continues on in its suckage with the new characters, why should it matter if he didn't play the game to the finish?

famicommander's entire point for starting this thread is that the review is somehow null and void because the IGN reviewer possibly didn't play the probably equally-shitty second half of the story mode. Since a game reviewer isn't really qualified to critique the story, it makes no difference whether he didn't finish the story mode or not (especially since it doesn't seem that the game changes in the second half), and famicommander's point has no merit in the way he is trying to present it.

I wasn't trying to disprove the theories of the story continuing to be shit. I was saying how it works. Replay Value is also an important aspect, sometimes once you beat a game you unlock extras. This is obviously a case of "if"s, but frankly if there are such they add onto the replayability if you unlock new functions and so on, you never know what to expect of a game once you finish it.

That's just how it works. The main campaign should always be completed, always. Regardless over how good a game is or not. That's what reviewers are for, they play through the entire game and tell you if it's actually worth entire your time.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Carbo

[TheGerkuman]

So, we have two positive reviews to one negative, one of the positives being freaking Famitsu, and yet everyone focusses on the negative one as if it's the only important one. (people on both sides, I might add). Metacritic doesn't even have the 4 reviews needed to make their weighted average. XD So aren't we getting all worked up over nothing, early?

[Carbo]

So, we have two positive reviews to one negative, one of the positives being freaking Famitsu, and yet everyone focusses on the negative one as if it's the only important one. (people on both sides, I might add). Metacritic doesn't even have the 4 reviews needed to make their weighted average. XD So aren't we getting all worked up over nothing, early?

3 reviews. Famitsu, Nintendo Power and Game Daily.

It is true that people are being worked up on everything, but the purpose of the topic was really more about the general review at hand. It was quite poorly written, IGN's been a bit lazy with things as of lately.

[TheGerkuman]

Right, so that's like a 8, 7, 6.5, 4 then. XD Which adds to about 6. Which as scores go isn't the end of the world by any means. XD

[SuperLink]

They're pretty decent scores for Sonic to be honest, and so far it's looking better than Unleashed, minus IGN's score. It's still very early days though, so it could (and probably will) go downhill quickly. To IGN need a kick up the butt? I don't know, but they seem to hype things up that they choose, follow a certain set of ideals, etc. They've given bad reviews to a good amount of games I like (not just Sonic) and good reviews to games I don't like; people follow them like gaming gods though, and they really suck up.

What annoys me is when people say "Have you even read IGN's review of that game? It's shit!" when they clearly haven't played the game themselves, and show no intention of doing so, probably because of the review in the first place.

So yeah, reception of media can have huge influences on peoples' opinions. It does help, because obviously you don't wanna buy everything, but if a reviewer with authority tells you about a game in this way, you're going to see the game in this way, and not that way.

[jackskellinghog]

Tsk tsk, typico IGN.

I pity them. =F

How do you know this is typical? Because of Sonic so many people claim to know things they don't. There are tons of games that get bad reviews. Yet I love them, reviews mean shit. End of story. Wish somebody would lock this excuse for a thread. Can we have an all out ban on review discussion? It's just like spam except more rage filled.