Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming Discussion' started by Valwin, 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.
These guys just don't know how to review a good game.
Gameinformer, prepare to be raged on.
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.
I don't like the review, but he has a point there.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
im still looking forward to thi s game
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.
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 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??
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.
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...
Some people have the game already.
Also, Tim Turi does some horrible reviews, He's pretty horrible at video games.