Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I don't trust reviews, I bought a couple of games based on reviews a few years ago, they sucked.
One of the games was Infamous, IGN gave it 9.2, WTF? That game sucks in my opinion, it's way too bland and repetitive. I would give it something between 4-6.

At 10/19/13 02:32 PM, SmashLuigiFan1 wrote:

If you guys are going to go by reviews, at least look for independent reviewers as you'll have more of a chance coming across a genuine review. Even then, you guys should actually play through*the entire game* instead of just assuming it sucks.

I do like to check different review sites, and I do value highly the opinon of independant reviewers, and we're not assuming a game completely sucks. We have to make purchase decisions, and the games that are more universally praised are bound to look like better options for us. This game looks like fun, but I'd rather wait for Super Mario 3D world in my case.

At 10/20/13 04:15 PM, Bobbybroccoli wrote:

At 10/19/13 02:32 PM, SmashLuigiFan1 wrote:

I do like to check different review sites, and I do value highly the opinon of independant reviewers, and we're not assuming a game completely sucks. We have to make purchase decisions, and the games that are more universally praised are bound to look like better options for us. This game looks like fun, but I'd rather wait for Super Mario 3D world in my case.

This, I might read the bigger reviews just to see if they have any valid points but I usually look for fan reviews and independent reviewers as well.

The controls definitely take some time to get used to. Some reviewers have enough patience for this and others don't.

At 10/19/13 02:32 PM, SmashLuigiFan1 wrote: I find it funny you guys are listening to reviews by companies like IGN and GameSpot. Obviously those websites are paid for their reviews as well as being biased. Let me remind you guys that IGN gave Sonic 2006 a 4.8 but gave Sonic Unleashed for PS3/360, a significantly better game, a 4.5. Not only that, they gave the PS2 version of Unleashed a 7 and the Wii version a 7.2. GameSpot also gave the PS3/360 version a 3.5 but the Wii port a 7. I like the Wii version, but the HD ports are obviously better and had more time put into them.
And seriously guys, Sonic games have always gotten bad/mediocre reviews since Sonic Heroes. Are you honestly treating this any different?

If you guys are going to go by reviews, at least look for independent reviewers as you'll have more of a chance coming across a genuine review. Even then, you guys should actually play through*the entire game* instead of just assuming it sucks.

Sigh.

Saying that IGN and Gamespot are corrupt in the manner you just described (being paid under the table by publishers/studios to give good scores and possibly giving bad scores if not paid) is a huge accusation and you need to provide equally serious proof of these claims. I personally don't think they are corrupt in the manner you describe, but the burden of proof is on you.

Then you go on to point out some scores you disagree with. Ok? A game's review score is probably the least important aspect of the review to focus on. But regardless, not everyone is going to agree. I happen to agree. Generations was ok, pretty much every other Sonic game has been terrible. It was SEGA's mascot and pretty much all they had to try to keep their dying console line alive. Sonic is no Mario. Not even close.

And I'm pretty sure Metacritic is based on lots of independent reviewers. And guess what? The aggregate score there is pretty close to IGN's score as well. What more do you need?

And you suggest we buy this game.. to determine if it's good enough to buy?

I don't always agree with IGN and Gamespot. For example, Darksiders 1/2, Dead Space 3, Saints Row 4, and many others have been way underrated. Skyward Sword, Uncharted 3, and many others have been way overrated.

But when it comes to a score this low. And this nearly unanimously low. It definitely points towards this game sucking.

They tried too hard to be Mario Galaxy. Or not hard enough. Either way it was a failed attempt to be like Mario Galaxy.

At 10/21/13 06:51 AM, sharpnova wrote:

At 10/19/13 02:32 PM, SmashLuigiFan1 wrote: I find it funny you guys are listening to reviews by companies like IGN and GameSpot. Obviously those websites are paid for their reviews as well as being biased. Let me remind you guys that IGN gave Sonic 2006 a 4.8 but gave Sonic Unleashed for PS3/360, a significantly better game, a 4.5. Not only that, they gave the PS2 version of Unleashed a 7 and the Wii version a 7.2. GameSpot also gave the PS3/360 version a 3.5 but the Wii port a 7. I like the Wii version, but the HD ports are obviously better and had more time put into them.
And seriously guys, Sonic games have always gotten bad/mediocre reviews since Sonic Heroes. Are you honestly treating this any different?

If you guys are going to go by reviews, at least look for independent reviewers as you'll have more of a chance coming across a genuine review. Even then, you guys should actually play through*the entire game* instead of just assuming it sucks.

Sigh.

Saying that IGN and Gamespot are corrupt in the manner you just described (being paid under the table by publishers/studios to give good scores and possibly giving bad scores if not paid) is a huge accusation and you need to provide equally serious proof of these claims. I personally don't think they are corrupt in the manner you describe, but the burden of proof is on you.

I didn't mean that all their reviews are bought out, and the ones that aren't automatically get bad reviews. I'm just suggesting the really big releases are. I'm going to use Call Of Duty as an example here. Before it was a huge franchise, some of their games got mediocre scores, like Finest Hour. After Modern Warfare was released, the series always gets more than a 9. I'm not saying that these games don't deserve these scores, but is it a coincidence that they're unanimously loved once the franchise's most influential title is released? I don't know, maybe I'm looking a bit to into this. (Since I mentioned Call Of Duty, I feel obligated to say that I actually like the series and think the people who blindly hate it due to its popularity are idiots)

Then you go on to point out some scores you disagree with. Ok? A game's review score is probably the least important aspect of the review to focus on. But regardless, not everyone is going to agree. I happen to agree. Generations was ok, pretty much every other Sonic game has been terrible. It was SEGA's mascot and pretty much all they had to try to keep their dying console line alive. Sonic is no Mario. Not even close.

I agree, a game's score is definitely the least important part of a review, but you missed the point. Sonic 06 is often regarded as one of the worst games of all time (whether or not it is, I've yet to determine myself as I haven't played the game yet), yet Sonic Unleashed is apparently said to be a little worse according to IGN, even though it's better in practically every way.

I feel it's also important to address that IGN gave Sonic Adventure for the Dreamcast a 8.6, but Sonic Adventure DX, the exact same game that fixed some bugs, added an adjustable camera, improved the frame rate and added extra content a 5. You can't tell me that's completely justified. The Dreamcast review, while I don't necessarily agree with it, is very constructive. The GameCube review is much shorter and doesn't explain enough of the problems to warrant such a low score.

Going back to Sonic Unleashed, listen to how negative this is. He immediately says the game is awful and not worth your time. Another reason why I dislike these kind of reviewers is because reviewing is their job. They get paid to play through a game and never have to touch it again. They have no emotional connection to the game, and supposed to review the game the moment it comes out. In my opinion, a game can never be reviewed that quickly, it needs more time than that.

That's your opinion. But, how can you say "every other Sonic game has been terrible"? That's an incredibly broad statement! I'm curious as to what Sonic games you've played, and if you've played them all the way through. And how can you say Sonic is all Sega had back then? Do you realize how many other franchises they had, let alone popular ones? Games like Golden Axe, Streets of Rage, Phantasy Star, Toe Jam & Earl, Shinobi, Shining Force, Puyo Puyo, and much more.

And people, quit comparing Mario and Sonic to each other. I'm genuinely sick of it. We're not in the 90's anymore.

And I'm pretty sure Metacritic is based on lots of independent reviewers. And guess what? The aggregate score there is pretty close to IGN's score as well. What more do you need?

I don't go by averages when judging a game, I go by personal opinion.

And you suggest we buy this game.. to determine if it's good enough to buy?

No, I'm saying you could rent it, borrow it from a friend, or download a demo of it (the Wii U and 3DS have downloadable demos, right?). There are very few games where just watching it is enough to justify if it's worth a purchase. And reading about a game is definitely out of the question. You have to be the one to play it.

I don't always agree with IGN and Gamespot. For example, Darksiders 1/2, Dead Space 3, Saints Row 4, and many others have been way underrated. Skyward Sword, Uncharted 3, and many others have been way overrated.

Except Skyward Sword has gotten nothing but hate from what I've seen. I personally have never played it, but I doubt it's that bad.

But when it comes to a score this low. And this nearly unanimously low. It definitely points towards this game sucking.

Again, you shouldn't look at the average opinion to determine if a game sucks. The same thing applies if a game is unanimously loved, like Final Fantasy 7 or Ocarina Of Time. You can be one of the few people that personally dislike it.

They tried too hard to be Mario Galaxy. Or not hard enough. Either way it was a failed attempt to be like Mario Galaxy.

While it is similar to Galaxy, it doesn't look like a blatant rip-off. The gravity gimmick isn't copyrighted, you know. That being said, have you actually played the game to say it sucks?

At 10/21/13 06:51 AM, sharpnova wrote:
Saying that IGN and Gamespot are corrupt in the manner you just described (being paid under the table by publishers/studios to give good scores and possibly giving bad scores if not paid) is a huge accusation and you need to provide equally serious proof of these claims. I personally don't think they are corrupt in the manner you describe, but the burden of proof is on you.

http://www.zeldainformer.com/news/former-ign-employee-admits-review-scores-are-skewed-due-to-public-relations

http://www.p4rgaming.com/ex-ign-employee-leaks-list-of-review-scores-for-games-that-arent-even-close-to-release-like-gta-v/

http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/paying-for-reviews.206760555/

Then you go on to point out some scores you disagree with. Ok? A game's review score is probably the least important aspect of the review to focus on. But regardless, not everyone is going to agree. I happen to agree. Generations was ok, pretty much every other Sonic game has been terrible. It was SEGA's mascot and pretty much all they had to try to keep their dying console line alive. Sonic is no Mario. Not even close.

Then why did Nintendo choose to partner with them this year?

And I'm pretty sure Metacritic is based on lots of independent reviewers. And guess what? The aggregate score there is pretty close to IGN's score as well. What more do you need?

And you suggest we buy this game.. to determine if it's good enough to buy?

I don't always agree with IGN and Gamespot. For example, Darksiders 1/2, Dead Space 3, Saints Row 4, and many others have been way underrated. Skyward Sword, Uncharted 3, and many others have been way overrated.

But when it comes to a score this low. And this nearly unanimously low. It definitely points towards this game sucking.

They tried too hard to be Mario Galaxy. Or not hard enough. Either way it was a failed attempt to be like Mario Galaxy.

More like Sonic X-treme. I've already talked about this more than enough. You want proof? Well, one of the conceptual storylines for X-treme had Sonic chase six deadly monsters that had betrayed Eggman through multiple levels with half-pipes, cylinders, and spheres playing a huge part in the level design.

Mario Galaxy only had the one last tidbit at the end of that paragraph.

At 10/26/13 10:05 PM, oobooglunk wrote: Mario Galaxy only had the one last tidbit at the end of that paragraph.

Uhm.. and yet it looked ten times better, was ten times more fun, sold way more copies, etc. etc.

What are you even talking about that's an absurdly stupid point.

Anyway, I'll take a look at those links.

Reception doesn't make sense. I just dont understand. IGN of course is a last resort, they never make any sense. They bitched about the game not being fast enough or some stupid shit.

I love game trailers. They're always so unbiased and reasonable. Their review is the best one but it seems like all they did was praise the game and still gave it a 7. Hmmm. Seems like Sonic lost world is another case of sonic colors, reviews are so indecisive you have to make the decision yourself.
This game is great in my opinion. Levels are varied and fun.

At 10/27/13 08:21 PM, sharpnova wrote:
Uhm.. and yet it looked ten times better, was ten times more fun, sold way more copies, etc. etc.

Well, OBVIOUSLY Mario Galaxy sold more copies! Sonic X-treme was never released as a full game! And do you really think this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzvS_beXtXk

...has such horrible graphics compared to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk9G3XMlrhc

Of course, there's the leaked engine test of Sonic X-treme, which may look barren by comparison but is the only existing part of the game that is actually playable...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGJRvclHXuc

...and the fan-made stuff like Project AXSX, which is currently the only existing version of Sonic X-treme that is actively being revived by fans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALUQNclZTQo

There were some other similar projects like Project S, which was cancelled, and Project S: Reboot, which I can't talk about at the moment. However, this link I posted leads to the only active fan project involving Sonic X-treme--that is, with existing level design.

Anyway, I'll take a look at those links.

Go right ahead. In a word, they all discuss IGN's corrupt nature due to bribery from various game developers. In fact, to bring the irony of the point home, one of the links leads to IGN's own discussion boards.

You know what they say: You can't spell "ignorant" without "IGN".

SUPER SONIC galaxy!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually people say Sonic Lost Worlds rips off Mario Gallexy, but you know Sonic Adventure 2 a well known Sonic game, did it first, with Rouge the Bats Mad Space level, Mario Gallexy is an entire gae based around that all whole level.

Secondly Sonic the Hedgehog 3 and Knuckles did the whole Gravity gimmick first with the Deathegg, so if anything Mario Gallexy is rip off of Rouge's Mad Space and the Deathegg zones gravity gimmick from Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

Because the Wii U is failing, Nintendo is desperate, because Sonic fans will blindly buy a Wii U just for Sonic Lost Worlds, If Tails, Knuckles or Amy were playable character, I might of found it worth it too, but because Sonic is the only playable character AGAIN, it's not.

At 11/28/13 05:09 PM, Skye-Izumi wrote: If Tails, Knuckles or Amy were playable character, I might of found it worth it too, but because Sonic is the only playable character AGAIN, it's not.

Here's what I don't get, when multiple characters are in a Sonic game, then everyone complains and wants it to be sonic focused, but when It's just Sonic, then they want multiple characters!

At 11/28/13 05:03 PM, Skye-Izumi wrote: anything Mario Gallexy is rip off of Rouge's Mad Space and the Deathegg zones gravity gimmick from Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

please fucking off yourself.

Looks pretty sweet. So I'm guessing this is Nintendo exclusive?

At 11/29/13 01:31 AM, FuSiOn-3D wrote: Looks pretty sweet. So I'm guessing this is Nintendo exclusive?

Yes, and it has Nintendo themed levels as well.

This Yoshi's island level is out now for free download. A good way to farm lives it looks like. There is another Nintendo themed DLC for this coming soon, any thoughts on what it will be?

At 12/18/13 10:14 PM, Bobbybroccoli wrote:

Yes, and it has Nintendo themed levels as well.

This Yoshi's island level is out now for free download. A good way to farm lives it looks like. There is another Nintendo themed DLC for this coming soon, any thoughts on what it will be?

We'll At least Sega is being honest about their plagiarism.

At 12/18/13 10:17 PM, kisame wrote:

At 12/18/13 10:14 PM, Bobbybroccoli wrote:

Yes, and it has Nintendo themed levels as well.

This Yoshi's island level is out now for free download. A good way to farm lives it looks like. There is another Nintendo themed DLC for this coming soon, any thoughts on what it will be?

Well, at least Sega is being honest about their plagiarism.

I see your point, buuuuuuut they're working together now. Nintendo owns SEGA for a year. They're working as one. Your argument is invalid. Also, does nobody else see the significance of SEGA becoming a second-party company?

At 12/19/13 12:40 AM, oobooglunk wrote: Also, does nobody else see the significance of SEGA becoming a second-party company?

Not after how Lost World turned out to be honest.

At 12/19/13 06:43 AM, kmau wrote:

At 12/19/13 12:40 AM, oobooglunk wrote: Also, does nobody else see the significance of SEGA becoming a second-party company?

Not after how Lost World turned out to be honest.

True, true. Still, I don't want to lose hope that the Wii U version is better. Look, they released a new patch that fixes the Wisps' controls (among other things)!

http://blogs.sega.com/2013/12/10/sonic-lost-world-for-wii-u-gets-free-update/

Also, besides Lost World and the newest Olympic Games installment, there was slated to be a mysterious third game that was postponed to 2014. I'm assuming that was Smash Bros., but...

At 12/19/13 11:41 PM, oobooglunk wrote: True, true. Still, I don't want to lose hope that the Wii U version is better. Look, they released a new patch that fixes the Wisps' controls (among other things)!

It's great that they have the opportunity to patch stuff now, but some faults are so ingrained into the game that they can't be removed anymore, like the overall controls and some level designs.

Also, besides Lost World and the newest Olympic Games installment, there was slated to be a mysterious third game that was postponed to 2014. I'm assuming that was Smash Bros., but...

I hope the third game isn't just Sonic on the Smash Bros rooster too. Time will tell.

Can I just say that fuck you guys for thinking the Sonic cycle was broken and I was wrong.