Sonic Lost World Review Thread [Embargo Ends: Oct. 18th, 4:00 AM EDT]

ViewtifulJC said:
Ah, the part of the review thread cycle where we circlejerk to REAL games, not fake easy mode hand-holding cinematic Western "games" dumbing everything down, etc. Why things were so much better back in the day, you had two lives and that was it! Games were games back then, what do these baby "ignorant sluts" (lolol get it its IGN lolol) know about that.

Funny how this keeps happening in Wii U threads, first ZombiU people clearly not understanding the game, then Wonderful 101 mixed reviews because of incompetent critics/rushed timetables/baby gamers/etc, now Sonic Lost World.
Click to expand...
Took the words from my mouth. Every time I cone across a poster on GAF with that attitude it gets under my skin in a way few things do.

I also despise this idea that reviews should be objective, as well as this notion that because you (the global you) like a game and the reviewer didn't, they're wrong, terrible at games, don't know quality, etc. Both attitudes are bullshit and I can only hope they die out as the medium matures.
 
ab.aeterno said:
Took the words from my mouth. Every time I cone across a poster on GAF with that attitude it gets under my skin in a way few things do.

I also despise this idea that reviews should be objective, as well as this notion that because you (the global you) like a game and the reviewer didn't, they're wrong, terrible at games, don't know quality, etc. Both attitudes are bullshit and I can only hope they die out as the medium matures.
Click to expand...

So you want forum posts to be more objective, but professional reviews to be less objective?
 
bart64 said:
So you want forum posts to be more objective, but professional reviews to be less objective?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how you got the first part out of that, but no. I just don't want people to be condescending and elitist assholes. The idea that there are "real" games is laughable in its contemptuous snobbery, and the snide and scornful attitude that accompanies anything not befitting that label turns the stomach.

It's exclusionary.
 
i'm going to use this platform to spring to a somewhat related topic. i'm also going to talk some shit about bioshock because i don't really like it that much and at the time i didn't want to rock the boat, but it's six years later and no one cares anymore. anyway, i totally understand the frustration some people are seeing from reviewers, and i don't think it's right to call out owners of a console as a group of people who all have the same problems.

a little consistency is all i ask. when i see a game like sonic or mirror's edge or fire emblem suddenly come under critical fire for the things they do wrong, and are perhaps appropriately scored, or at least judged more harshly than your assassin's creeds, bioshocks, heavy rains, or walking deads, i do wonder where priorities are among the gaming public and critics in general. i can assume that for a lot of the games that receive extremely high marks like grand theft auto iv or assassin's creed brotherhood, that there is some degree of bribery. without it, critics are free to springboard into discussions of maturity in dragon's crown or sexism in games in metroid other m.

but to me all i see are some people just yearning for their hobby, and sometimes their profession, to be taken seriously by mom and dad. so that when thanksgiving rolls around, they can proclaim they aren't wasting time, or that they do have a real job. bioshock isn't a very good game, and neither is the walking dead. bioshock's biggest contribution to the medium was explaining the linear level design through a plot twist. the walking dead offers nothing new. and what existing genres they do slot into, they could be considered competent at best. the reason these games get such a pass, to the point where they earn game of the year awards, is solely due to the parts that resemble other mediums the most. there's nothing about the gameplay or the design of either one that honestly stands out in the medium.

and it undermines the whole point of trying to have a respected medium. because when you're promoting poorly-rendered aspects like stories in games, when you say uncharted 2 is the best thing games have to offer in a year because nathan drake is such a well-developed character, you offer direct comparisons from other mediums with far, far better developed characters. and when the consensus is that bioshock is the best game ever made until the next year when grand theft auto iv comes out, or later when the walking dead comes out, or later when bioshock infinite or the last of us comes out, and it's because of the same reason that every one of those previous games was great, it starts to numb you to the praise.

games should be recognized for the extreme amount of work goes into them, but not for the story. the story can still be there as a motivator or as part of the design in certain genres like an rpg, but in most cases it shouldn't be the star. games should be looked at as great pieces of architecture, that dozens and even hundreds of people could come together to create a world where hopefully things make sense, where we can do things we can't, or shouldn't in life. it's not exciting when a game offers me a binary choice of being mega hitler and killing little girls for some power or not killing little girls and still getting some power. it's exciting when a game tells me to go this way, but then i find a shortcut on my own that was made for me to find. it's exciting once i master new controls. it's exciting when i beat a level after persevering time and time again, getting closer to the goal and a little bit better with every replay.

i remember when mirror's edge came out, and while the consensus was not bad, too many reviews stated the simplistic or bad story, the short campaign, and the existence of some time trials. maybe the music and visuals received praise too, but i can't remember. in the end it was a checklist of what a game should have instead of what the game was. mirror's edge? it was a game that challenged the player, and not just to beat the campaign. it challenged the player not to use guns, to beat the time trials as fast as you could, to use that knowledge in the campaign levels. and it did it as a first-person realistic parkour platformer. on top of responsive controls and beautiful level design (and i mean that in a design sense, not a visual sense), it was fantastically original. it didn't care about the story. it shoved those bits into the loading screens. it let you skip those bits as soon as possible (and if it was in-game, usually it served as a way to point you where to go). at the end of the day, it didn't meet x, y, and z requirements, so it had points taken off for that. verdict? good game with flaws that may be improved in the sequel. oh. okay.

and like i said, i'd be fine if mirror's edge is an 8/10 or whatever- and the consensus is that it's considered a great game with flaws. we don't have to be afraid of marking a 13 year old ocarina of time 3d down because the design has noticeably aged. we don't have to ignore the poor level design of a ken levine game because it's metroid prime with audiobooks. i'd just like a little more effort into why games are enjoyable as games, and a little consistency, please.
 
I just got the Wii U version about 4 hours ago and I quit, it's one of the worst games I've played this year. I'm sorry GAF but it's just how I feel. And somebody compared the reviews for this game with the reviews for Wonderful 101, omg, why did you do that. That was such a silly thing to say.
 
Still really curious to try out this game, but man if my expectations aren't significantly lowered. Blagh.

Colors and Generations were so damn good too.
 
AniHawk said:
removed for the sake of space
Click to expand...

I was with ya until the bit about judging a game by the story. I think the story element is pretty important if that is what the game is designed for. Some games have great stories, and that really makes a strong impression on me when they are good (most video game stories are pretty terrible).

However, I agree that it's a shame when you have original games come out and try something new, but they get judged on the fact that they don't do what other games do, as if it was a requirement.

I have a feeling that if Dark Souls just came out on a whim without the 'hardcore' importers' praise because of the possibility that Demons Souls wouldn't have been released worldwide-- the game would have been critically panned. The game has a very strong 'niche' appeal, and it's very challenging, and doesn't really tell you at all what to do, which I think would have been judged poorly on a new release without word already out there that the style of gameplay was good and 'hardcore.'

It's also important that gamers on forums do not trust reviewers so much and that we get the benefit of having regular gamers' points of view who are separated from the gaming media and do not have a deadline to play a game. This can often affect the review negatively especially if the reviewer didn't want to play the game in the first place.

Often I find that hard games = poorer scores overall, mainly because it represents an obstacle from a reviewer completing the game and finishing his or her job. Sometimes though, there are people out there that love that challenge especially when it's not connected to a deadline and a written review.
 
Resilient said:
I just got the Wii U version about 4 hours ago and I quit, it's one of the worst games I've played this year. I'm sorry GAF but it's just how I feel. And somebody compared the reviews for this game with the reviews for Wonderful 101, omg, why did you do that. That was such a silly thing to say.
Click to expand...

What made you quit/what was bad about it for you?

Why is the comparison to W101 reviews bad?
 
Wrote this before seeing AniHawk's insightful reply, but it may still be worth a read:

ab.aeterno said:
I'm not sure how you got the first part out of that, but no. I just don't want people to be condescending and elitist assholes. The idea that there are "real" games is laughable in its contemptuous snobbery, and the snide and scornful attitude that accompanies anything not befitting that label turns the stomach.

It's exclusionary.
Click to expand...

Nicely put, thanks. I suppose a lot more can be accomplished when everyone is polite.

I wouldn't want to be viewed as a snob, and putting people down can always seem that way without context, but what if it's just frustration? What if you're yearning for an intelligent read about your hobby, or want to hear from someone that has more insight into a particular product, and it's nowhere to be found? It doesn't matter how long you've been gaming, you just want something substantive to reflect on?

You can read dozens of inspired movie reviews on every movie ever made, and allthough there are poor movie sites and mags, and some of the biggest mouths are tied financially to ad spending, there are places that can reliably deliver an honest and well written review. In my experience, just a few eurogamer reviews do this, and some random reviews on much smaller sites, and maybe the older edge and next generation stuff--but I may have been too young to know the difference.

So I'm frustrated that mainstream sites can spout bullshit (objective) at a high-school writing level (objective) and be heard by most of the market, and be taken seriously, and there is no counter-point. You can call a game imprecise, but not when it's just challenging. You can call a game lazy, but not when it's just iterative. On the flip side, you can call a game a "real game," but not when it has no rules and concequences. You can call something anything, but expect people to call you on it and demand better (not directed at you).

Early games were made by tiny teams with lots of freedom, now they are made using $100M investments with mega-corporation oversight and marketing strategies more involved than the actual gameplay. Recent games can have amazingly complex mechanics and be beautiful visually, but there is such a large barrier to entry that the experimentation is mostly done on the marginal indy level. Yet all over the Internet, voices are blindly supporting a tiny number a huge companies, and pointing out obvious mistakes and blatantly retarded commentary is viewed as contentious. It reminds me very much of US politics, where two parties control the dialog and keep each side pitted against each other while the long-term trend is things getting worse for the general public.

I'm not a great writer, or great gamer, so a little more of both in my daily slice of journalism would be fantastic! It's ok to demand more, to ask for a better product, to challenge convention and popular opinion. Those are the only things that have ever made a difference.
 
ViewtifulJC said:
Ah, the part of the review thread cycle where we circlejerk to REAL games, not fake easy mode hand-holding cinematic Western "games" dumbing everything down, etc. Why things were so much better back in the day, you had two lives and that was it! Games were games back then, what do these baby "ignorant sluts" (lolol get it its IGN lolol) know about that.

Funny how this keeps happening in Wii U threads, first ZombiU people clearly not understanding the game, then Wonderful 101 mixed reviews because of incompetent critics/rushed timetables/baby gamers/etc, now Sonic Lost World.
Click to expand...

So I wasn't the only one to notice this pattern heh.
 
thesolidshark said:
What made you quit/what was bad about it for you?

Why is the comparison to W101 reviews bad?
Click to expand...

Every level feels extremely disconnected. Nothing flows. The homing attack is glitchy as hell. There were a lot of deaths that reminded me of Sonic Heroes, things I don't want to remember. The bosses were an absolute joke.

I got to the second world, desert level 1. Sonic controls like a fucking asshole. The best way to put it is that he is not designed to manoeuvre these levels.

As for the comparisons to 101? That game is refined as hell, everything fits perfectly. The controls can be mastered. The controls are designed around the game, they fit together. All reviews saying the Wii U version is a pile of shit are 100% warranted. It stinks. This coming from somebody who enjoyed Unleashed and Generations. I have sifted through shit game design. I finished Sonic Heroes to 100%. I know shit.
 
Great insight Ani.
Way back when Mirror's Edge was released, instead of paying attention to its horrible metacritic score, I read the experiences gaffers were having.
I have to say, it was one of my favourite purchases from last gen.
There should be no strict definition of what a game should have. It's the quality of experience of the product that is important, be it whatever combinations of gameplay, music, story, etc.
 
AniHawk said:
and like i said, i'd be fine if mirror's edge is an 8/10 or whatever- and the consensus is that it's considered a great game with flaws. we don't have to be afraid of marking a 13 year old ocarina of time 3d down because the design has noticeably aged. we don't have to ignore the poor level design of a ken levine game because it's metroid prime with audiobooks. i'd just like a little more effort into why games are enjoyable as games, and a little consistency, please.
Click to expand...

That consistency is going to be hard to come by, especially if most publicated reviews are judging based on just one playthrough. Some games are meant to utilize the most, or most of what it can do in one single run through the story campaign. Other games might require 2 or 3+ playthroughs to truly get the most out of playing a game (several Platinum games come to mind).

MilkBeard said:
Often I find that hard games = poorer scores overall, mainly because it represents an obstacle from a reviewer completing the game and finishing his or her job. Sometimes though, there are people out there that love that challenge especially when it's not connected to a deadline and a written review.
Click to expand...

I'd be very afraid of things like this were true, but not surprised. It would be nice publicated reviews could note how replayable a title could be, but I'd have to leave that to user reviews because they're the ones most likely to go at it more than once, or at least more guaranteed to finish a title (if PS3 Skyrim was really a case of no reviewer took that version very far).
 
MilkBeard said:
I was with ya until the bit about judging a game by the story. I think the story element is pretty important if that is what the game is designed for. Some games have great stories, and that really makes a strong impression on me when they are good (most video game stories are pretty terrible).
Click to expand...

there are some games where the story is the star and it's supported by extraordinarily good design. 999, portal 2, and the last of us are two recent examples. i might even through journey in there too. the difference between those and a lot of other games is the distinct lack of design skill. unfortunately that's what makes the walking dead such a bore to play. there's nothing interesting propping up the story. it pretty much relies on the script and some smoke and mirrors to make you feel like you're doing something important. 999, portal 2, and the last of us all do a good job at trying to involve the player in the story, and they support it with great design decisions.

thesolidshark said:
That consistency is going to be hard to come by, especially if most publicated reviews are judging based on just one playthrough. Some games are meant to utilize the most, or most of what it can do in one single run through the story campaign. Other games might require 2 or 3+ playthroughs to truly get the most out of playing a game (several Platinum games come to mind).
Click to expand...

that's true. and i know that reviewers have to slot in a bunch of games in addition to non-review stuff. i feel that if you're going to talk about video games, you should know video games. like, design courses should be a prerequisite for a full-time job.
 
Was playing the 3ds version over the weekend and been having a blast
Wiiu version arrived in post yesterday
Fired it up with trepidation ... Admittedly only played through to the second main world, but love it, so much fun

I think the 3ds does a better job with walking you through all the controls and moves better, especially the way a move is introduced where you can see the benefit, and having started to master them on 3ds I think it helped me on the wiiu

Wiiu version had much much less of this and only showed you if you were paying attention to press the info button on the gamepad

So yeah maybe the reviewers just picked it up didn't read the controls properly or just didn't give it a chance as the control scheme is... Dare I say it... Different?

Reviewers be damned, I'm loving this more than generations right now (on both platforms)
 
-COOLIO- said:
This doesnt look like a first run through through. It looks like a planned speed run which isn't how mist people would play the game. Just saying. I'm sorry.
Click to expand...
until he started doing the crazy-ass jumps about halfway through that level, it resembled what i played at e3 this year. of course, i am a platforming god, so that might have something to do with it.

also, i am glad eurogamer is around to thoughtfully explain what they feel doesn't work in sonic lost world, because ign's review is fucking terrible. and this is coming from someone who just wrote one rambling-ass mess of a wall of text.
 
AniHawk said:
there are some games where the story is the star and it's supported by extraordinarily good design. 999, portal 2, and the last of us are two recent examples. i might even through journey in there too. the difference between those and a lot of other games is the distinct lack of design skill. unfortunately that's what makes the walking dead such a bore to play. there's nothing interesting propping up the story. it pretty much relies on the script and some smoke and mirrors to make you feel like you're doing something important. 999, portal 2, and the last of us all do a good job at trying to involve the player in the story, and they support it with great design decisions.
Click to expand...

That's true in a lot of ways. Sometimes it depends on what the reviewer pays attention to. If the story is gripping then it might make people not notice the shit mechanics (TWD) or the fact that you're just shooting hordes of dudes while running through corridors yet again (Bioshock: Infinite).

I guess the only game I can think of where the story and mechanics were completely at odds with each other was with my experience with Xenoblade. I'm happy a lot of people liked the game, I really am. The story was great, but it literally took 40 hours before you got anything storywise, and I felt the gameplay mechanics were so boring that once the twists of the story were reached, there was nothing the game could have done to make me like it.
 
-COOLIO- said:
My mistake. I suppose the general tone of this thread had me thinking you were :p
Click to expand...

Nah, I kinda figured this would happen.

I never looked too much into review scores, to me it's a pretty flawed system, and as someone who actually reads reviews and not the score. I find that a hefty amount of written review do not match their numerical score unless it's a negative review. And even with that some of those reviews are shitty. With that said, Sonic has been polarizing for a while, I'd say after the Genesis era.

So I usually reserve judgment until I get to try it, unless it's something like Black Knight which is basically a gigantic shit mountain you can spot a continent away.
 
-COOLIO- said:
On the other hand these discussions only seem to come up when a hyped game scores a series of sub 8s.
Click to expand...

or the other way around, where a game gets a great reception among critics, but the game itself isn't as well-received among enthusiasts. gta iv and heavy rain for example.
 
AniHawk said:
or the other way around, where a game gets a great reception among critics, but the game itself isn't as well-received among enthusiasts. gta iv and heavy rain for example.
Click to expand...

Yea, if we go by Metacritic, GTA IV might be the most overrated game in history.

Talk about media darling.
 
AniHawk said:
or the other way around, where a game gets a great reception among critics, but the game itself isn't as well-received among enthusiasts. gta iv and heavy rain for example.
Click to expand...
I guess I meant that these discussions only happen immediately after the reviews when its due to a series of sub 8 scores.
 
Whats up with Wii U reviews?

Looks like every game on the system falls shorts of all the hype they get (that is not much btw).

Except if the game is a remake of a 10 year old game.
 
I don't think I've ever seen a game with such a wide review scores.

I wish the demo would land. Any news on that?
 
-COOLIO- said:
I guess I meant that these discussions only happen immediately after the reviews when its due to a series of sub 8 scores.
Click to expand...

well in this case a lot of people have already purchased and played the game at this point, and offered their impressions that run contrary to the reviews. i guess that's probably where a lot of this is coming from.

i'm not too thrilled with the homing attack stuff. that was an issue in generations and colors so i'm guessing it's either worse in lost world or at best, the same.

slash3584 said:
Whats up with Wii U reviews?

Looks like every game on the system falls shorts of all the hype they get (that is not much btw).

Except if the game is a remake of a 10 year old game.
Click to expand...

yeah tww hd is sitting with a pretty warm welcome to say the least. not sure what is going on there- the same thing happened with oot3d. it's not like tww has aged really well either. for all of nintendo's fixes, it still has the most problems out of all the 3d zeldas. really strange that most reviewers give the zeldas a pass.
 
slash3584 said:
Whats up with Wii U reviews?

Looks like every game on the system falls shorts of all the hype they get (that is not much btw).

Except if the game is a remake of a 10 year old game.
Click to expand...

This game looks amazing and runs well at 60fps, and the art direction is, while safe, pretty well done. The Wii U version just plays shockingly and that's from somebody who gave it a chance, but there are too many glaring issues for me to justify paying $79AUD for it. And trust me, there were a lot. It doesn't feel complete even though it is...you'll understand when (if) you get it. The fact that the scores are so varied should tell you enough about the game. You'll have to judge it for yourself but it's likely you won't enjoy it.
 
bart64 said:
Wrote this before seeing AniHawk's insightful reply, but it may still be worth a read:



Nicely put, thanks. I suppose a lot more can be accomplished when everyone is polite.

I wouldn't want to be viewed as a snob, and putting people down can always seem that way without context, but what if it's just frustration? What if you're yearning for an intelligent read about your hobby, or want to hear from someone that has more insight into a particular product, and it's nowhere to be found? It doesn't matter how long you've been gaming, you just want something substantive to reflect on?

You can read dozens of inspired movie reviews on every movie ever made, and allthough there are poor movie sites and mags, and some of the biggest mouths are tied financially to ad spending, there are places that can reliably deliver an honest and well written review. In my experience, just a few eurogamer reviews do this, and some random reviews on much smaller sites, and maybe the older edge and next generation stuff--but I may have been too young to know the difference.

So I'm frustrated that mainstream sites can spout bullshit (objective) at a high-school writing level (objective) and be heard by most of the market, and be taken seriously, and there is no counter-point. You can call a game imprecise, but not when it's just challenging. You can call a game lazy, but not when it's just iterative. On the flip side, you can call a game a "real game," but not when it has no rules and concequences. You can call something anything, but expect people to call you on it and demand better (not directed at you).

Early games were made by tiny teams with lots of freedom, now they are made using $100M investments with mega-corporation oversight and marketing strategies more involved than the actual gameplay. Recent games can have amazingly complex mechanics and be beautiful visually, but there is such a large barrier to entry that the experimentation is mostly done on the marginal indy level. Yet all over the Internet, voices are blindly supporting a tiny number a huge companies, and pointing out obvious mistakes and blatantly retarded commentary is viewed as contentious. It reminds me very much of US politics, where two parties control the dialog and keep each side pitted against each other while the long-term trend is things getting worse for the general public.

I'm not a great writer, or great gamer, so a little more of both in my daily slice of journalism would be fantastic! It's ok to demand more, to ask for a better product, to challenge convention and popular opinion. Those are the only things that have ever made a difference.
Click to expand...

Genuinely a great post. Hopefully it's clear I was never directing that specifically at you, but just venting regarding an attitude I come across on GAF in abundance.

I don't have the time (or sadly energy) to give this the response it deserves but in short I think one problem lies in the definition one uses for what a game is, as concerns the "real" games point. I would speculate there's a lot of overlap between people who talk about "real" games and who narrowly define games in terms of mechanics, mastery, and challenge -- rejecting games like Journey or Heavy Rain which are focused on other parts of the medium.

As for your concerns about the quality of games media coverage, we do agree. I generally find the lack of deeper intellectual coverage and analysis disappointing, but reviewers are trapped within the confines of a broken system of expectations. I don't have the time to go more in depth yet but the short of it is that people want product reviews, not critique. Video games are trapped between artform and product due to its unique interactive nature. People want reviews to boil down to "is the game fun and worth my money?" which clearly is a strange thing to ask of art; I wouldn't call Hotel Rwanda or Precious fun movies, but they are good.

And that's seeing side this nonsense about controls, where people freak out and call reviewers talentless or stupid or wrong for struggling against controls, when controls are a very subjective thing to try and assess -- much like enjoyment of mechanics. Mechanics can't be inherently good or bad, just entertaining to different people. Thus why I consider objective reviews impossible.

Long and rambling I'll cut it off, spent longer than I intended, but it's worth discussing, perhaps in a new thread. Got my thinking juices going in a way they haven't for a while.
 
I'll probably get the 3DS version when it's cheap since I already paid full price for the Wii U version.

I did enjoy most of the Wii U version really. There's just a few bits in the later worlds that kind of let it down. They should remove the side scrolling flying bits too, those control rather badly.
 
My son loves the WiiU version. He has a easier time navigating around the 3D world, making jumps and stuff then when he plays NSMBU for some reason. I would have thought it to be the oposite. Granted, he seems to have the same problems many of the reviewers had, grasping the concept of the run button and homin attacks.

Heh, when my fiancee picked up our kids at daycare today the teachers told her my sons along with a few other kids had been running around like crazy, pretending to be Sonic. Will sleep tight tonight. God bless Sonic.
 
I wonder if they are waiting to put up the demo until after the game is released next week... Really wanted to try out both the 3DS and WiiU ver so I can determine which version I'd rent from Gamefly -_-...
 
Resilient said:
Every level feels extremely disconnected. Nothing flows. The homing attack is glitchy as hell. There were a lot of deaths that reminded me of Sonic Heroes, things I don't want to remember. The bosses were an absolute joke.

I got to the second world, desert level 1. Sonic controls like a fucking asshole. The best way to put it is that he is not designed to manoeuvre these levels.

As for the comparisons to 101? That game is refined as hell, everything fits perfectly. The controls can be mastered. The controls are designed around the game, they fit together. All reviews saying the Wii U version is a pile of shit are 100% warranted. It stinks. This coming from somebody who enjoyed Unleashed and Generations. I have sifted through shit game design. I finished Sonic Heroes to 100%. I know shit.
Click to expand...

This is why I hesitated, with Sonic games its like I want to play them, but you truly can get a feel for if the game is shitty by looking at reviews of them, if its uneven that means there are things WRONG with the game, but can be tolerated depending on the person. Not just a mere difference in taste. You told me everything I need to know man. Thank you.

Generations was great, this looks like fucking shit now that I'm looking at full video and not small doses or clips. I'll pick up the 3DS version at least.

But why does Sonic Team need to try? Kids (the main demographic) don't know the difference between shit and gold, they just want to see Sonic run around and be cool and control it.
 
R0ckman said:
This is why I hesitated, with Sonic games its like I want to play them, but you truly can get a feel for if the game is shitty by looking at reviews of them, if its uneven that means there are things WRONG with the game, but can be tolerated depending on the person. Not just a mere difference in taste. You told me everything I need to know man. Thank you.

Generations was great, this looks like fucking shit now that I'm looking at full video and not small doses or clips. I'll pick up the 3DS version at least.

But why does Sonic Team need to try? Kids (the main demographic) don't know the difference between shit and gold, they just want to see Sonic run around and be cool and control it.
Click to expand...
Not really. Polarising reviews always suggest it's something people are going to love it or hate it, rather than it being a flawed game.

Not to say the game is perfect or anything, but it's far from awful.
 
Zafir said:
Not really. Polarising reviews always suggest it's something people are going to love it or hate it, rather than it being a flawed game.

Not to say the game is perfect or anything, but it's far from awful.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the game isn't flawed?
EDIT: Didn't see your last sentence lol Sorry :P I do think it's a bad game, but that's another matter.
 
Played Lost World 3DS and the game is great! Really fun while the controls aren't the best in the series :) Can't wait to play the Wii U version tomorrow :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Doom: The Dark Ages Review Embargo Lifts May 9, at 7 am/10 am PDT/EDT, 3 pm/4 pm BST/CEST
12
52
Efren is G.O.A.T. replied
Silent Hill 2 review embargo ends on October 4.
41
4K
Arsic replied
Silent Hill 2 Remake Review Embargo Lifts October 4
9
2K
Northeastmonk replied
  • Poll
Sonic Racing Cross Worlds : Sega characters prediction thread
25
94
DeVeAn replied
  • Poll
Mario Kart World VS Sonic Racing Cross World
2
65
1K
Fat Frog replied
Top Bottom