# Gameinformer Sonic Generations review



## Valwin (Oct 31, 2011)

> Sonic Generations aims to bridge the gap between old and new fans by revisiting stages throughout the series with both 2D and 3D gameplay. The result is a timeline that starts out strong and slowly deteriorates, serving as an apt history lesson for the struggling series.
> The quest begins with side-scrolling tributes to memorable Genesis-era stages as classic Sonic. These levels rekindled the magic of being a wide-eyed kid seeing Sonic’s world for the first time. Platforming is slightly tighter than in Sonic 4, which makes landing precise jumps easier. Tearing through loop de loops in Green Hill and bouncing across clouds in Sky Sanctuary are among my favorite Sonic moments, and they translate perfectly. Unfortunately, the good times fade when Sonic begins cruising through 2D versions of levels from post-Dreamcast Sonic games. Traversing the burning ruins of Crisis City from the awful 2006 Sonic the Hedgehog reboot is an exercise in frustration packed with unfair drop-offs and annoying gales.
> Playing as modern 3D Sonic presents the same steady drop in fun. Speeding across double helix pipes and dodging chemical geysers in Chemical Plant makes for some of the best 3D Sonic Adventure-style action the series has seen, but things go south when you break into the last-gen titles. Sonic Unleashed and Sonic Heroes didn’t thrill me, and revisiting reworked versions only serves to remind me of how uninspired they are. Legacy issues, like wonky platforming and poorly communicated pitfalls, plague these later levels.
> The last half of the game serves only to remind you of how far the series has fallen from its original form. I felt smothered by Sonic Team’s insistence on shoehorning recent Sonic games, no matter how awful, into the 20-year timeline. Why would Sega pass up full level tributes to Sonic 3 or Sonic CD in favor of a remixed version of a stage from Sonic Colors, which released only a year ago?
> At the end of the game, old and new Sonic part ways. As they do, modern Sonic says to his retro doppelganger, “Hey Sonic, enjoy your future, it’s going to be great!” If he only knew.



6.75
Source


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 31, 2011)

not sure if your "wow" comment was actual surprise or not at the "lower than many expected" score, but I'm not surprised in the least.  It wouldn't be the first time that previews, expectations, and screenshots made a game look better than it actually is.


----------



## ilman (Oct 31, 2011)

These guys just don't know how to review a good game.
Gameinformer, prepare to be raged on.


----------



## RupeeClock (Oct 31, 2011)

Nobody takes Gameinformer seriously, they're owned by Gamespot and have previously given bad review scores to very popular titles.
Paper Mario The Thousand Year Door was given a 6.75 as well, for being "Too Kiddy", they justified this by arguing "More people would dislike the game than like it", rather than expressing their own real opinion about the game.

Likewise this Sonic Generations review is total bullshit by arguing that, despite playing better than their original implementations, and playing the same as the earlier stages, the later stages representing later games somehow detract from the game.
They're taking marks off for celebrating the previous games they DIDN'T like, as though they should only celebrate the original Genesis games. Even if the new stages are actually as fun to play.

They're also ignoring that the 3DS version is there to celebrate even more levels from the old games, ones that weren't made for the console version.
Also about Sonic 3 not getting more levels, they treat Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles as the same game. Sky Sanctuary and Mushroom Hill were the chosen games for that case.


----------



## Nah3DS (Oct 31, 2011)

> Why would Sega pass up full level tributes to Sonic 3 or Sonic CD in favor of a remixed version of a stage from Sonic Colors, which released only a year ago?


I don't like the review, but he has a point there.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Oct 31, 2011)

I hear IGN sucks for reviews, and now Gameinformer?? What's a good site for reviews? I am playing this game regardless of the rating, like I did with Duke Nukem Forever.


----------



## RupeeClock (Oct 31, 2011)

NahuelDS said:


> > Why would Sega pass up full level tributes to Sonic 3 or Sonic CD in favor of a remixed version of a stage from Sonic Colors, which released only a year ago?
> 
> 
> I don't like the review, but he has a point there.


Not really, Sonic 3 is represented through Sonic and Knuckles already, they treat it as a full game.
Sonic CD is represented with a dedicated iconic boss battle.
Sonic Colors is entirely worth giving treatment in the timeline as it's a major Sonic title of significant acclaim and actually, plot significance.

The reviewer doesn't make an effort to understand Sega's motivation for including and excluding content.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 31, 2011)

I'm very angry that someone else doesn't like the game I like.  I must try to discredit their opinion on a forum board that they will never read to a bunch people who already agree with me.


----------



## Valwin (Oct 31, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:


> I hear IGN sucks for reviews, and now Gameinformer?? What's a good site for reviews? I am playing this game regardless of the rating, like I did with Duke Nukem Forever.




if more that 1 site says a game is not good well there a big chance they are rigth but is up to you the buyer to decided that


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 31, 2011)

Tbh, not that I discredit the viewer, but I disagree. One the reason is, no matter what, some people are really harsh on Sonic. Even for the smallest stuff.


----------



## RupeeClock (Oct 31, 2011)

Valwin said:


> if more that 1 site says a game is not good well there a big chance they are rigth but is up to you the buyer to decided that


This is the only negative review I've seen for the game. Others have admit there are issues but still say the game is quite fun.
This review just strikes me as hard to please for the wrong reasons.

What irritates me a lot is that Gameinformer is owned by Gamestop, Gamestop take pre-orders for Sonic Generations, Gamestop's Magazine gives the game an unfavourable review despite knowing pre-order figures, which Sega say are their highest ever.


----------



## Gaiaknight (Oct 31, 2011)

im still looking forward to thi s game


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 31, 2011)

RupeeClock said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > if more that 1 site says a game is not good well there a big chance they are rigth but is up to you the buyer to decided that
> ...



so are you saying that a magazine's reviews should be based on the number of pre-orders a game has at it's owner's stores?  that doesn't sound very objective.  I'm lost at what exactly you're upset about here...


----------



## RupeeClock (Oct 31, 2011)

Old8oy said:


> so are you saying that a magazine's reviews should be based on the number of pre-orders a game has at it's owner's stores?  that doesn't sound very objective.  I'm lost at what exactly you're upset about here...


What I'm saying is they obviously write reviews to sell games like Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3, why would they write a review that may cost them sales?
To be honest that's a lesser concern than the actual review taking points off for distaste towards earlier titles represented, or just being plain stubborn.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 31, 2011)

May I ask how many of you who currently posted have played the game? Just curious.

I haven't touched it beyond the demo myself. I'm just wondering if you guys have differing opinions because you played the game and loved the crap out of it or because you just think Sonic Generations is invulnerable to badness.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 31, 2011)

I think MW3 and BF3 might have different intended audiences than Sonic Generations...  Call me crazy...
If that's the case than why aren't all GameInformer reviews 10/10?  Would that get more people to buy the games??


----------



## _Chaz_ (Oct 31, 2011)

In my experience, I've found game review websites can be ironically inaccurate at times. The only way you can possibly be sure for yourself is to wait and play it.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 31, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> May I ask how many of you who currently posted have played the game? Just curious.
> 
> I haven't touched it beyond the demo myself. I'm just wondering if you guys have differing opinions because you played the game and loved the crap out of it or because you just think Sonic Generations is invulnerable to badness.


I'm basing it from what I seen, but at the same time I can't see how they could mess up that badly. (Other than to people who just don't like Sonic.)
I'm actually light on Sonic (maybe too much), so never *hated* a game with Sonic in it. I miss few games tho...


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 31, 2011)

KingVamp said:


> I'm basing it from what I seen, but at the same time I can't see how they could mess up that badly. (Other than to people who just don't like Sonic.)
> I'm actually light on Sonic (maybe too much), so never *hated* a game with Sonic in it. I miss few games tho...



You probably missed Sonic '06, Sonic and the Black Knight, Sonic and the Secret Rings (I don't care why people say, I really thought that game was shit), Sonic Unleashed (yeah, half the game is alright apparently, that still means half the game is shit), not to mention all the spinoffs (Sonic Rivals, Sonic Heroes, etc).

Still though, I don't think people should be calling his review shit and trying to defame him unless they've played the game themselves. Yes, I'm the giant hypocrite, but it's also a professional review, maybe from someone who doesn't have the same mindset as all of you. Maybe this reviewer and I are long lost brothers...


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 31, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> May I ask how many of you who currently posted have played the game? Just curious.
> 
> I haven't touched it beyond the demo myself. I'm just wondering if you guys have differing opinions because you played the game and loved the crap out of it or because you just think Sonic Generations is invulnerable to badness.


Some people have the game already.
Also, Tim Turi does some horrible reviews, He's pretty horrible at video games.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 31, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Also, Tim Turi does some horrible reviews, He's pretty horrible at video games.



Can I have some examples? I looked under the reviews tab at the Game Informer page for him and there were none. IDK why. I'd just like a comparison to see if his reviews are "shit" or just "not what everyone else thinks".

I think there's a difference between giving a game a bad score because you're shit at it and complaining about bad level design.

EDIT: Also, reviews aren't news, moving to General Consoles.


----------



## prowler (Oct 31, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> but it's also a professional review


>Professional review
>Game Informer
>Gamestop
>laughinggamestopemployees.jpg


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 31, 2011)

http://www.gameinfor...t-deserves.aspx
 

 He doesnt do a lot of reviews, but when he does he overrates or underrates them.

Re4 HD is full of bugs and he still gave it a 9.5, the game is a solid 7.

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/ratchet_amp_clank__all_4_one/b/ps3/archive/2011/10/18/this-is-one-for-all-the-fans-of-co-op-platforming.aspx
Gave it a 8.75, game is fucking horrible.

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/dead_island/b/xbox360/archive/2011/09/05/a-few-missing-limbs-can-t-hold-back-this-undead-romp.aspx
Gave it an 8.5 Game is a solid 7, you spam one button and loot.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 31, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> http://www.gameinfor...t-deserves.aspx
> 
> He doesnt do a lot of reviews, but when he does he overrates or underrates them.
> 
> Re4 HD is full of bugs and he still gave it a 9.5, the game is a solid 7.



That's pretty crazy.  Resident Evil 4 a 9.5?  Madness.  Oh wait, I actually own that game.  And...I actually agree with that score.  I guess if you personally played the game and ran into bugs, that sucks for you.  The only complaints I've seen about RE4:HD come from people who don't know what HD means...


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 31, 2011)

Old8oy said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.gameinfor...t-deserves.aspx
> ...


Yeah, I Played RE4 day one on Gamecube, I know what HIGH DEFINITION MEANS.

The port for Xbox 360 is shit, If it was as good as gamecube it would have its 96 on metacritic.


----------



## Devin (Oct 31, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Old8oy said:
> 
> 
> > brandonspikes said:
> ...



Not to mention that the controls were horrible.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 31, 2011)

Trust me, look at this guys reviews, and then look them up on Metacritic, he's under avg by 20 points in the high or low, most of the time.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 31, 2011)

lol...the controls were exactly the same.  6 years ago, the port would have a 96 on metacritic...  Gears of War had a 94 on metacritic... I wonder how it will score as a re-release/port in a couple years?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 31, 2011)

Old8oy said:


> lol...the controls were exactly the same.  6 years ago, the port would have a 96 on metacritic...  Gears of War had a 94 on metacritic... I wonder how it will score as a re-release/port in a couple years?


Ocarina of time.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 31, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Old8oy said:
> 
> 
> > lol...the controls were exactly the same.  6 years ago, the port would have a 96 on metacritic...  Gears of War had a 94 on metacritic... I wonder how it will score as a re-release/port in a couple years?
> ...



Metal Gear Solid


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 31, 2011)

Old8oy said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > Old8oy said:
> ...


Twin Snakes was shit compared to MGS 1, point invalid.
Mgs1 94
twin snakes 85


----------



## BrightNeko (Oct 31, 2011)

this is why I wish gamestop would let me switch subscriptions to magazines I like  like nintendo power. GI reviews are like G4 reviews completely derp'd


----------



## GameWinner (Oct 31, 2011)

No matter what this guy says, I played the demo and it was extremely fun. Still gonna pick it up.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 31, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Old8oy said:
> 
> 
> > brandonspikes said:
> ...



and if you're basing your opinion on the scores you just listed, that's exactly my point.  same damn game with updated graphics and scored lower based on what else was available at the time...

If that point doesn't make sense, here's another point:
if you give any weight to "professional" reviews and/or metacritic, you are lacking in the ability to think for yourself.  Reviews = someone else's opinion.  Try forming some of your own


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 31, 2011)

Old8oy said:


> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> > Old8oy said:
> ...


Its not the same game, they added unneeded features and gave it first person.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 31, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Old8oy said:
> 
> 
> > brandonspikes said:
> ...



sorry, my mistake.  you win.  fixed your post by the way


----------



## Gahars (Oct 31, 2011)

ilman said:


> These guys just don't know how to review a good game.
> Gameinformer, prepare to be raged on.



Coming from the user with a Sonic avatar; completely unbiased, I'm sure.

I do love how, as soon as one reviewer doesn't like a game with a shit ton of hype, they become the critic equivalent of the Anti-Christ. Besides, a Sonic game not reviewing well isn't much of a shocker; where have you been for the past 10 or so years?


----------



## RoMee (Oct 31, 2011)

Gahars said:


> ilman said:
> 
> 
> > These guys just don't know how to review a good game.
> ...



Exactly what I was thinking.
Wonder why they won't release this for the Wii, because I doubt it'll sell well on the xbox or ps3


----------



## Devin (Oct 31, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> May I ask how many of you who currently posted have played the game? Just curious.
> 
> I haven't touched it beyond the demo myself. I'm just wondering if you guys have differing opinions because you played the game and loved the crap out of it or because you just think Sonic Generations is invulnerable to badness.



*Raises hand* I'm finding the game to be quite good. It has a few flaws here, and there (Have to complete challenges, in order to gain access to the area to fight the bosses.), but overall a nice experience. Would I recommend buying the game? No. The story's a bit short, so you could most likely complete it in a day, or two. Not counting if you like to 100% games.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 31, 2011)

RoMee said:


> Wonder why they won't release this for the Wii, because I doubt it'll sell well on the xbox or ps3




Probably due to Sega not wanting to release it on a non-HD console (*cough* 3DS isn't HD either *cough*). Something I find to be very odd. If High Voltage Software can pull off the kind of graphics they did with The Conduit 2 (despite being an overrated game), surely, other developers could do that as well. The Wii may be the weakest in terms of hardware, but developers are being really half-a**ed about using the GPU's potential.


----------



## Canonbeat234 (Nov 1, 2011)

I have learned that ALL the times someone reviews a Sonic game, its either two things. 1) I luv sawnik nuts to death!! HE'S AWESOME!! Or 2) From the level design and the gameplay controls you know this game is going to suck. Even though I give SEGA credit to for trying their *scoff*hardest*scoff* they still lack the results to make a Sonic classic.


Right there is the truth, you either a Sonic fan or a hater. Period! Although, when a unbias person plays a Sonic game. They will give their honest opinion, FFS let them review the games for crying out loud.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 1, 2011)

brandonspikes said:


> Twin Snakes was shit compared to MGS 1, point invalid.
> Mgs1 94
> twin snakes 85



Even though The Twin Snakes was pretty much identical to MGS except it had better graphics and used the superior mechanics of MGS2. Only reason it probably didn't review as well was because MGS became outdated really quickly. Even nowadays MGS2 is considered outdated.


----------



## KingAsix (Nov 1, 2011)

Don't know what's been said but I'll throw my two sense.....The review doesn't really seem to talk about gameplay much, just their selections of levels to put in there. Some say they should have more genesis titles, but I think people fail to realize this is called Sonic Generations, not Sonic Genesis or Just the good Sonics. The game is meant to travel through Sonic's entire Leagcy not just one part of it.....but regardless, the review didn't mention game play a lot just gameplay(unless I read wrong)


----------



## Hadrian (Nov 1, 2011)

NahuelDS said:


> > Why would Sega pass up full level tributes to Sonic 3 or Sonic CD in favor of a remixed version of a stage from Sonic Colors, which released only a year ago?
> 
> 
> I don't like the review, but he has a point there.


He forgot that Sega needs something to drawn people in to a possible sequel.


----------



## BoxmanWTF (Nov 1, 2011)

> Why would Sega pass up full level tributes to Sonic 3 or Sonic CD in favor of a remixed version of a stage from Sonic Colors, which released only a year ago?


Because it's called "sonic generations", not "Sonic-we're remaking every level in our first couple really popular games and forgetting about the fun levels in our mostly meh recent games"
The point of the game is to revisit *some* of Sonic's greatest levels and bosses, just because it doesn't feature your favortie levels doesn't mean that should be a negatve point.
and I know "why did they add a Sonic '06 level?" I think it was smart they did that, at least now we have an idea of how that level could've been if the game wasn't shit.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 1, 2011)

RupeeClock said:


> *Paper Mario The Thousand Year Door was given a 6.75 as well, for being "Too Kiddy",* they justified this by arguing "More people would dislike the game than like it", rather than expressing their own real opinion about the game.



Son of a b.... That game is fucking awesome. Gameinformer is worst than IGN. Holy crap.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 1, 2011)

Gahars said:


> ilman said:
> 
> 
> > These guys just don't know how to review a good game.
> ...



When the hell did the day come when we can base someone's post off of a picture? :/


----------



## Gahars (Nov 1, 2011)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > ilman said:
> ...



I think it is fair to say that someone with a Sonic avatar would be a big fan in the series. That seems pretty logical to me.


----------



## Devin (Nov 1, 2011)

Old8oy said:


> lol...the controls were exactly the same.  6 years ago, the port would have a 96 on metacritic...  Gears of War had a 94 on metacritic... I wonder how it will score as a re-release/port in a couple years?



Call me crazy, but I preferred the Wii version.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 1, 2011)

Gahars said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > Gahars said:
> ...


Yeah.. no. I hate Borderlands, but I'd still put up an avatar of the Psycho on the cover because it's cool. You may be right here, but dont assume anything just based on a picture.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 1, 2011)

You would be the exception, not the rule, in that case. After all, when you give yourself an avatar, you are sending the message that "This is something I want to reflect my interests and who I am in general." It really shouldn't be a surprise, then, when someone uses it for just that purpose.

So yeah, it would still be totally fair to make that assumption.


----------



## TheBlueBadger (Nov 1, 2011)

Honestly I think he has a point when he said it'd be better to have remakes from Sonic 3 and CD than Colours. I know why Sega made it like they did, tribute to all that's Sonic n all, but it still seems a tad pointless paying homage to a level we just saw. Anyhoot, I can't agree or disagree with the review since I've yet to play the game but these guys said Ghost Trick sucked and that's a personal favourite of mine. So yeah. Not taking this review too seriously.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 1, 2011)

TheBlueBadger said:


> Honestly I think he has a point when he said it'd be better to have remakes from Sonic 3 and CD than Colours. I know why Sega made it like they did, tribute to all that's Sonic n all, but it still seems a tad pointless paying homage to a level we just saw. Anyhoot, I can't agree or disagree with the review since I've yet to play the game but these guys said Ghost Trick sucked and that's a personal favourite of mine. So yeah. Not taking this review too seriously.


Ghost trick is one of the best DS games ever made(fact), if they said it sucks, then well... screw them.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Nov 2, 2011)

Well, I got Sonic Generations to try it out. I actually think it did a very awesome job. Modern Sonic goes so fast it makes you want to yell as he runs. Haha Anyways, pretty short game as I already beat it when I got it yesterday. I think it was about 4-6 hours, but if you do all the side stuff (challenges and red rings) should be about 7-9 hours I would guess. Anyways, I would say about an 8.0+ rating for sure and I am not even a Sonic fan.


----------

