Teppo Holmqvist Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Yeah because virtually the same gameplay with other characters will magically redeem the game. Hilarious part here is that Matt brought length as a major reason for score, but quit even before seeing half of the game. Pretty questionable, I would say.
Guest Captain Falcon Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Hilarious part here is that Matt brought length as a major issue for score, but quit even before seeing half of the game. Pretty questionable, I would say. But if the levels don't change, there is only so much impact playing as a different character can have. Sure it's nice, but it makes no odds when you don't like the game in the first place. You're talking about replayability not game length.
Teppo Holmqvist Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 But if the levels don't change, there is only so much impact playing as a different character can have. Sure it's nice, but it makes no odds when you don't like the game in the first place. I don't debate about game's quality here, as I pressume it to be pap. But claiming that game is short, without even knowing it continues after credits is unprofessional and reeks for slapdash review.
Guest Captain Falcon Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 I don't debate about game's quality here, as I pressume it to be pap. But claiming that game is short, without even knowing it continues is unprofessional and reeks for slapdash review. But the content isn't new - you're just given an ever so slightly different take on it. It's like saying you can't review a racing game until you've beat every cup with every vehicle on every difficulty setting - they'd never get reviews out at that rate.
Teppo Holmqvist Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 It's like saying you can't review a racing game until you've beat every cup with every vehicle on every difficulty setting - they'd never get reviews out at that rate. This is not about repetitiviness, or quality of those extra hours. It is about fact that he didn't even know that those extra missions exist. There is fact that he made claim that game is short after playing to first credits. How he can claim anything about game's total length when he doesn't even know that game continue? It would be pretty much same that I would play through Super Mario World's first four levels, then write to my review that game lasts ten minutes.
Emasher Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 This is not about repetitiviness, or quality of those extra hours. It is about fact that he didn't even know that those extra missions exist. There is fact that he made claim that game is short after playing to first credits. How he can claim anything about game's total length when he doesn't even know that game continue? It would be pretty much same that I would play through Super Mario World's first four levels, then write to my review that game lasts ten minutes. Not quite, it would be more like playing up to the fight with bowser in SMW and then not playing star and special world. By then you know enough about the game to know if its good or bad. Its no different here. Why does it matter if he didn't know about some extra content. If its just playing the same levels with different characters, thats not going to change anyones mind about this game. I really doubt he gave it that score because it was too short.
Teppo Holmqvist Posted March 7, 2009 Posted March 7, 2009 Not quite, it would be more like playing up to the fight with bowser in SMW and then not playing star and special world. By then you know enough about the game to know if its good or bad. Certainly, but once again it is not about this. It is about inventing facts when you aren't sure. Matt didn't know how long game is, but still he stated it as a fact that it is X hours long, and used it as a major issue for score. This is very unprofessional and questionable. If you don't know something for sure, you don't use it as a fact (as facts are absolutes), and instead focus on things from angle that you are sure about.
James McGeachie Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Matt didn't say the full game was short, did you fully read that part? He only said Sonic's story mode but he acknowledged there was a lot of content, however if it's not fun enough to keep playing that content then that doesn't count as lifespan. If a game has 1 million 10 hour dungeons and they're all shit you dont give it a 10/10 for lifespan. Lifespan has to do with how long you'd actually WANT to play too. The game got a low score as he found the key, central gameplay mechanic to be terrible enough to ruin the rest of the game. That's a valid enough reason to slam something, even for a professional.
Ike Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 ONM gave it 78% according to gonintendo.com. The pros and cons they gave are: + Graphics are fantastic + Non-sword controls are great + Excellent soundtrack - Sword combat is horrible - Multiplayer is weak
Ike Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Mine arrived this morning and I've gave it a couple hours play. Combat feels really awkward though I'm not sure if this will improve as I get used to it or upgrade Sonic's skills. Graphics and music are good though. It was prett interesting seeing Sonic with a couple of chilidogs since I always thought that was a cartoon/comic thing.
mcj metroid Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 ONM gave it 78% according to gonintendo.com. The pros and cons they gave are: + Graphics are fantastic + Non-sword controls are great + Excellent soundtrack - Sword combat is horrible - Multiplayer is weak they gave it 78% even thought the sword control is horrible? Dear lord isn't that like MOST of the game... That's like giving an fps 78% when the gun controls are horrible.. or how about giving a racing game 78% when the driving is bad. lol.
Cube Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 they gave it 78% even thought the sword control is horrible? Dear lord isn't that like MOST of the game... That's like giving an fps 78% when the gun controls are horrible.. or how about giving a racing game 78% when the driving is bad.lol. Most reviewers gave LBP 90%+ despite poor jumping controls...
Serebii Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Most reviewers gave LBP 90%+ despite poor jumping controls... Yeah, big sacks (or should I say sackboys) of cash from Sony do wonders these days
Zechs Merquise Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Yeah, big sacks (or should I say sackboys) of cash from Sony do wonders these days Hahaha, awesome! But seriously, Sonic and the Black Knight most likely sucks. It's averaging 56% from about 10 sites over on Gamerankings. I know reviews aren't everything and I'm well aware that Wii games get much harsher reviews than games for the other platforms, but even taking that into account this still sounds VERY poor. It's getting lower scores than Sonic Unleashed did for the Wii.
mcj metroid Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Hahaha, awesome! But seriously, Sonic and the Black Knight most likely sucks. It's averaging 56% from about 10 sites over on Gamerankings. I know reviews aren't everything and I'm well aware that Wii games get much harsher reviews than games for the other platforms, but even taking that into account this still sounds VERY poor. It's getting lower scores than Sonic Unleashed did for the Wii. is there any point arguing to this anymore.. People will buy the game and enjoy it if theyre a sonic fan and try convince everyone its not as bad as everyone thinks it is.. Sonic games have a lot to do in them but theyre very unpolished and patchy.
darksnowman Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Anyone check out the review on GT? They ended up giving it a higher score than IGN but they pretty much said the same stuff about it. Basically, its all great til you actually get to playing the game.
Ganepark32 Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Just watched the GT review. Shame really as I think we all knew that the controls and the sword gimmick would be very off. Like I've previously said, I'll probably pick it up at some point purely for work related purposes but Sega really should take note of what does and doesn't work in the Sonic world. 3D environments can work however they can't offer the same fluidity as the 2D ones and so it seems that the only plausible way for which to return Sonic to what made it good is to go back to the way it was originally made, i.e. back to the 2D. Yet Sega persist on giving us 3D titles that don't work. Surely they must see that it's not working. The whole Storybook series on the Wii had great potential. Secret Rings, while not entirely capturing what made the original 2D titles great, managed to give a great sense of speed and some good level design. If this is how the continuing series is going to turn out though then perhaps they should just shelve it as it seems that they are going to look for the next gimmick to bash Sonic's brain in with in the next title.
Guest Captain Falcon Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 I watched the review earlier today. Bit surprised they marked the presentation low (relatively anyway) since they spent a good part of the review praising it.
CoolFunkMan Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 I saw the GT review, and I've been watching gameplay footage on Youtube. All I can say is, I'm glad I cancelled my pre-order, it looks terrible. However, I have to admit, the soundtrack is awesome!! Yeah, I know it's really cheesy, and very un-Sonicy, but I like it a lot. I think I'll be "obtaining" it when it's released next month.
Recommended Posts