Social NintenZone Social 5 - Thanks, Everyone

[Swamp Sensei]

Uh-oh, spaghetti-o's.

https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/5/16609838/sonic-forces-review

Spoiler

They gave it a 5/10. Didn't seem like a very well written or informative review though.

Also something something it's Polygon.

That is not good, but admittedly...

Polygon.

They're kind of weird.

That said some of the complaints are odd.

 

[Deleted member]

It's okay, game, I hate you too

No worries I just did a Hard 25 to get those two points and now I'm done with the TTs
Getting to 99.999 was easier than I though

On other stuff, I finished the Rito Village segment in BotW.
This is my second favorite so fsr, I like how it goes right to the point(unlike the other two I have done, Zora and Goron, where you have to do some sidetracking), the bow minigame was fun, the Vah Medoh battle is tied with the Vah Ruta one imo and the dungeon was the most fun out of the three.
The only reason the Zora still win is because it's much more interesting story-wise, you feel that there are actual stakes as the rain integrates nicely into the gameplay AND you get to ride Sidon.

Gonna explore the northwestern segment of the map before going into the Gerudo Desert.

TFW you realize that the Rainbow Rocket Grunts are actually clones of the original Gold/Silver/Crystal protagonists.

That doesn't even look like Gold c'mon guys you can do better

 

[Chrono.]

I said before that Forces was gonna get ripped to shreds in reviews regardless of actual quality and so far that seems to be the case.

 

[Professor Pumpkaboo]

That is not good, but admittedly...

Polygon.

They're kind of weird.

That said some of the complaints are odd.

Why would I wanna listen to people who think the game rewarding for going fast in a sonic is a bad thing?

Why would I listen to review scores?

 

[AreJay25]

A modern Sonic game getting mixed reviews is basically a "water is wet" situation at this point.

It's only the second review but I don't exactly expect things to get better.

 

[Opossum]

I wouldn't describe their review as being disrespectfully worded, per se.

I just didn't think it was informative or accurate.

Like, they mentioned that "there is exploration and secrets, but you constantly have a timer ticking against you, which is annoying and frustrating because your time effects your rank".

But like...I'm pretty sure the timer counts up? There is no actual time limit for the stages. So there is no issue here. Just find the secrets on one run, and then go for a good time on another run. Replay value. People don't bring this up in games with ACTUAL time limits as well as secrets and collectibles, like many Super Mario games, so why would this be an issue here?

Also they get so hung up on how the game opens with Sonic getting defeated and captured, and make it sounds as if it's a bloody, M-rated affair that feels out of place, but I'm pretty sure he just gets bopped around a bit by Infinite and back splats against some walls DBZ-style and that's it.

Not gonna lie, I pictured something like a Netflix Daredevil-caliber fight scene with how they described it, despite knowing they wouldn't do that.

The mental image was just kinda funny.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Oh ****.

I just found out the gave Mania a 7.

Doesn't change the review but it made me lol.

 

[ChikoLad]

In any case, I've heard a lot of people have been getting their copies of Sonic Forces early from online retailers.

I hope mine arrives tomorrow. The retailer I ordered from has already changed the game from a "Pre-Order" to "Buy Now" on the game's product page, and my copy dispatched on Friday morning.

 

[Opossum]

Why would I wanna listen to people who think the game rewarding for going fast in a sonic is a bad thing?

Why would I listen to review scores?

I mean, without taking a stance on whether it was a good review, you are sorely misrepresenting the reviewer's argument.

They lamented that they didn't feel rewarded for going fast. They brought up how it was rewarding in the past games, but felt more like the game was rushing them here.

 

[Professor Pumpkaboo]

Now imagine Sonic forces was the same game and everything but insted if Modern sonic, It was focused around Classic Sonic. You think people in NA would like it more?

Also I hear SF is doing pretty good in Japan, that true?

I mean, without taking a stance on whether it was a good review, you are sorely misrepresenting the reviewer's argument.

They lamented that they didn't feel rewarded for going fast. They brought up how it was rewarding in the past games, but felt more like the game was rushing them here.

Ooh Oh ****, didnt reward?? i read did, my bad.

But yeah, I know I get flak for saying this but why not focus less on other peeps reviews and try for a personal experence? At least thats what I think

 

[Swamp Sensei]

They lamented that they didn't feel rewarded for going fast. They brought up how it was rewarding in the past games, but felt more like the game was rushing them here.

Now see thats what I don't get.

Maybe playing the game will change that but...

This complaint is just odd.

 

[N3ON]

Should Forces hypothetically continue to get mostly mediocre scores, I wonder how many it will take before people shift the blame from the reviewers to the game.

I don't want to put the cart before the horse though, current reviews may prove misleading.

 

[Wario Bros.]

So Sonic Cycle again?

 

[Opossum]

Now imagine Sonic forces was the same game and everything but insted if Modern sonic, It was focused around Classic Sonic. You think people in NA would like it more?

Also I hear SF is doing pretty good in Japan, that true?

Ooh Oh ****, didnt reward?? i read did, my bad.

But yeah, I know I get flak for saying this but why not focus less on other peeps reviews and try for a personal experence? At least thats what I think

I mean I get what you're saying, but some people may not want to gamble on what might not be a good purchase (especially since the notoriously short demo may not have given them a good idea of whether or not they enjoy the game). It's one thing to gamble on a ten dollar movie ticket, but a sixty dollar game may be another thing for some.

So reviews are helpful for them.

 

[Coricus]

I mean I get what you're saying, but some people may not want to gamble on what might not be a good purchase (especially since the notoriously short demo may not have given them a good idea of whether or not they enjoy the game). It's one thing to gamble on a ten dollar movie ticket, but a sixty dollar game may be another thing for some.

So reviews are helpful for them.

It's not a $60 game, though.

 

[Schnee117]

It's not a $60 game, though.

$40.
$60.

It's still a far bigger investment than a ticket to see a film.

I still see myself enjoying Forces more than I "enjoyed" Mania but that's how it is.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Should Forces hypothetically continue to get mostly mediocre scores, I wonder how many it will take before people shift the blame from the reviewers to the game.

After the whole "Sonic was never good" fiasco, fans have a reason not to trust reviewers, whether justified or not.


I think we'll have to wait not on reviews but on fans playing the game itself before people accept whereever it is.



That said, its gonna be polarizing.

 

[Professor Pumpkaboo]

I mean I get what you're saying, but some people may not want to gamble on what might not be a good purchase (especially since the notoriously short demo may not have given them a good idea of whether or not they enjoy the game). It's one thing to gamble on a ten dollar movie ticket, but a sixty dollar game may be another thing for some.

So reviews are helpful for them.

You is right and that demo was pretty dumb lol
I guess I kinda see it as a double edged sword. If you go for personal experience, you may be betting your chips on the wrong thing and will regret it but if you just listen to review, you are probably gonna end up listening to someone probably talk out of their ass and get the wrong impression.

 

[ChikoLad]

The "no reward for going fast" complaint doesn't make sense because that's generally how it's always been in Sonic games, and platformers and action games in general. Speed is it's own reward. A reward for skillful play and understanding the game mechanics.

Some games might reward you with something tangible for getting higher ranks which generally involves getting good times (like Sonic Adventure 2 and Sonic Heroes) but generally, there is no inherent and tangible reward for beating a level quickly. People go fast because it's fun to go fast and push the game to its limits. It's where the speedrun community comes from.

Sonic Forces has no countdown timer for the levels, so for a reviewer to say the timer puts pressure on them is pretty silly. It's just displaying the current amount of time spent in the level. It's a useful tool for speed runners but it seems silly for a casual player to be bothered by it, especially since I've literally never seen this complaint for this mechanic in any other game, and even games like many Super Mario games and Sonic Mania/Classic Sonic games have actual countdown timers that kill you, punishing exploration directly, don't get scrutinised for that by reviewers.

 

[N3ON]

Regardless of veracity, I feel "reviews don't matter" is only really a maxim you hear when personal sentiment contrasts with the game's acclaim or lack thereof.

I mean wasn't everyone flipping out about how many perfect/near-perfect scores BotW and Odyssey received?

After the whole "Sonic was never good" fiasco, fans have a reason not to trust reviewers, whether justified or not.

I think we'll have to wait not on reviews but on fans playing the game itself before people accept whereever it is.

That's quite the blanket generalization to relegate the true measure of quality onto a biased fanbase while disregarding the opinions of, seemingly, the entire professional field.

The opinions I trust most come from an aggregate of impartial consumers, whether they be journalists or just your typical gamers.

That said, its gonna be polarizing.

Perhaps, but from what I've seen, a great deal of Sonic games are polarizing only insofar as the fanbase extends.

 

[A Distant Demon]

I think the problem with "don't trust reviewers" is that in this case, there has been negative reception pretty much for the last year.

Yeah there was hype at the announcement, but after the avatar release and the slow drip of gameplay met with such negative reception, and early impressions have also been wildly negative I feel like just assuming it's the reviewers is jumping to conclusions.

 

[Chrono.]

I think we'll have to wait not on reviews but on fans playing the game itself before people accept whereever it is.

At least the ones who didn't write off the game as a failure months ago.

(Honestly I feel this is one of those games you gotta play yourself because there won't be a general consensus, but that comes with the risk of spending your own money so)

 

[ChikoLad]

That's quite the blanket generalization to relegate the true measure of quality onto a biased fanbase while disregarding the opinions of, seemingly, the entire professional field.

I mean, most critics aren't exactly professionals either.

They're just gamers and fans who have to play these games under a rushed timeframe and therefore can't provide a strong analysis most of the time.

 

[Schnee117]

After the whole "Sonic was never good" fiasco, fans have a reason not to trust reviewers, whether justified or not.

Did anyone other than four guys from IGN say that?
Because if not then the only reviewers who should be held to scrutiny for anything like that is that group of four from IGN assuming one of those four ends up reviewing the game.

 

[N3ON]

I think the problem with "don't trust reviewers" is that in this case, there has been negative reception pretty much for the last year.

Yeah there was hype at the announcement, but after the avatar release and the slow drip of gameplay met with such negative reception, and early impressions have also been wildly negative I feel like just assuming it's the reviewers is jumping to conclusions.

Right, but if that's the majority trend, does that not indicate more a lacklustre product than a uniformly biased industry? Earlier this year Sonic Mania was lauded, it's not like the universal predisposition of the media is to lambast Sonic games simply because they exist. It just seems incredibly tone-deaf to write off negative reception simply because it's directed at a series that has legitimately had a lot of less than stellar games.

If negative reception isn't to be taken serious while positive reception presumably is, you're working with a very biased filter. Basically this line of logic ostensibly foregoes the conclusion that the game could actually be mediocre.

 

[PLATINUM7]

It's not a $60 game, though.

It's $60AU

Well $59.95 but whatever.

 

[Chrono.]

Did anyone other than four guys from IGN say that?
Because if not then the only reviewers who should be held to scrutiny for anything like that is that group of four from IGN assuming one of those four ends up reviewing the game.

There was some Polygon dude who agreed with them on that and made a long thread on Twitter on his thoughts.

Doubt it's the same guy who just reviewed Forces though.

I unfortunately can't remember who they guy was since this was months ago. Like early Summer months ago.

 

[A Distant Demon]

Right, but if that's the majority trend, does that not indicate more a lacklustre product than a uniformly biased industry? Earlier this year Sonic Mania was lauded, it's not like the universal predisposition of the media is to lambast Sonic games simply because they exist. It just seems incredibly tone-deaf to write off negative reception simply because it's directed at a series that has legitimately had a lot of less than stellar games.

If negative reception isn't to be taken serious while positive reception presumably is, you're working with a very biased filter. Basically this line of logic ostensibly foregoes the conclusion that the game could actually be mediocre.

. . .I thought I was writing that Sonic Forces is probably bad because the general consnsus is negative and that reviewers are probably on the mark, but reading it again it looks more like I wrote abotu negativity than anything regarding the game. Oops

Did anyone other than four guys from IGN say that?

An absurd amount of videogame fans. They do every day everywhere.

 

[Schnee117]

There was some Polygon dude who agreed with them on that and made a long thread on Twitter on his thoughts.

Doubt it's the same guy who just reviewed Forces though.

I unfortunately can't remember who they guy was since this was months ago. Like early Summer months ago.

Ah.
I feel like that might have been Arthur Gies who left Polygon (and Games Journalism/Reviews) recently.

An absurd amount of videogame fans. They do every day everywhere.

That's... not what I meant by that.

 

[mario123007]

That doesn't even look like Gold c'mon guys you can do better

Yeah, I don't see any similarities...

 

[ChikoLad]

Forces doesn't seem like a bad game from what I've played and seen. Perfectly solid to play.

But it's gonna be underwhelming to some degree because they forgot to put Blaze in. :V

 

[Deleted member]

Only tust reviews with unusual rating systems.
You can't trust numbers but you can trust a "Hydlide/10"

 

[N3ON]

. . .I thought I was writing that Sonic Forces is probably bad because the general consnsus is negative and that reviewers are probably on the mark, but reading it again it looks more like I wrote abotu negativity than anything regarding the game. Oops.

Ah, no, my bad. I misinterpreted your post I guess. ^_^;

 

[A Distant Demon]

That's... not what I meant by that.

Apparently I can neither read nor write today.


Gonna go finish watching this splatoon 2 tournament and then play Shadow, since I clearly cant be of any use here

 

[ChikoLad]

I thought I was writing that Sonic Forces is probably bad because the general consnsus is negative

It hasn't really been though.

The only places that seem especially negative about it are Sonic Stadium and Sonic Retro.

Sonic Stadium has had a hate ***** for the game since literally the initial teaser trailer that had no gameplay. I got driven off the site and banned for stating mildly positive feelings about the game. One of the admins there has always hated the "Boost" games so he's been trying to spread negative propaganda since day one.

Sonic Retro has always had a bias towards Classic Sonic (the name implies as much) and happens to be the birthplace of Mania. They've had a huge bias towards Mania because of that.

The general public seems to be excited for the game though. It's only on actual Sonic fan sites that things are divided.

 

[The Stoopid Unikorn]

I'm proud of myself for this one.

The twin princesses. #MarioGX #SuperMarioOdyssey #NintendoSwitch pic.twitter.com/kYQa5cSNB2

— The Stoopid Unikorn (@spicyguac9000) November 5, 2017

 

[Professor Pumpkaboo]

I'm proud of myself for this one.

The twin princesses. #MarioGX #SuperMarioOdyssey #NintendoSwitch pic.twitter.com/kYQa5cSNB2

— The Stoopid Unikorn (@spicyguac9000) November 5, 2017

Not "Who wore it better"?
Smh

 

[Coricus]

It hasn't really been though.

The only places that seem especially negative about it are Sonic Stadium and Sonic Retro.

Sonic Stadium has had a hate ***** for the game since literally the initial teaser trailer that had no gameplay. I got driven off the site and banned for stating mildly positive feelings about the game. One of the admins there has always hated the "Boost" games so he's been trying to spread negative propaganda since day one.

Sonic Retro has always had a bias towards Classic Sonic (the name implies as much) and happens to be the birthplace of Mania. They've had a huge bias towards Mania because of that.

The general public seems to be excited for the game though. It's only on actual Sonic fan sites that things are divided.

Well ResetERA also seems to be pretty heavily disappointed in it, although considering how quickly Sonic Stadium and Sonic Retro got me to nope away almost instantly even during my prime as a Sonic fan where I was willing to brave lurking SEGA's toxic hellhole forums just to read Sonic discussion I doubt it's nearly as intense.

You can ask @Great Witch Kurri ★ if you want a reference on that, though, she's been pretty vocal over there about being disappointed and could most likely back up that the consensus is overwhelmingly far more negative than she is.

Sometimes I'm a bit jealous of how you seem to be so good at finding places where people are positive on games that you sometimes need a bit of a break to find some place where you can criticize them, haha. I wish I had that kind of problem.

 

[The Stoopid Unikorn]

Not "Who wore it better"?
Smh

The answer was too obvious for the question to be asked.

#MarioBestWaifu

 

[mario123007]

Forces doesn't seem like a bad game from what I've played and seen. Perfectly solid to play.

But it's gonna be underwhelming to some degree because they forgot to put Blaze in. :V

Agreed, and I don't really understand why Polygon release a review on a Sonic Forces that soon and it's after their Botw Twitter rant debacle....

Only tust reviews with unusual rating systems.
You can't trust numbers but you can trust a "Hydlide/10"

This is why I love Projared's review score on the special games he introduces, sadly when it comes to upcoming game reviews he still uses traditional scores.

I had to... Do it. pic.twitter.com/ChzM1mXrmK

— MyaRR (@keiidakamya) November 5, 2017

Aizwa is more convincing than Shia Labeouf.