The myth of the Sonic Downfall: the ultimate version.

[Palas]

If there's one reviewer nobody trusts it's IGN. Their reviews of anything not CoD or Gears should be taken with more grains of salt than their reviews of those franchises.

Question: What will stop me from disregarding GameMasters as much as people disregard IGN?

Yes they're a reference, and it's fine to look at it to know what you're dealing with, but you wouldn't know if you would like it or not if you're taking that reference at heart.

My opinions on all of these games aren't expressed in any way. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant in the discussion we're having, anyway.

[MrBadger]

IGN are biased against Sonic and towards CoD. Totally. That's why Black Ops got the same as Sonic Generations. Can you guys see how biased these guys are against Sonic? It's ridiculous.

[Captain Linebeck]

Do we really need 2 threads about Sonic's downfall and recent attempts to claw his way out of a hole?

[tikal]

its not tehy reviewers fualt they get paid to give bad reivews not lying atleast i think

[B-rad]

My opinions on all of these games aren't expressed in any way. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant in the discussion we're having, anyway.

I'm not saying it in regards of your opinions, no offense, but what I'm trying to get my point across is that using a review as a reference to say if a game is going to be good or not is not the best way because it's that an individual's opinions. Not every reviewer will have the same opinion as others because it's a different person. Which is why I said earlier it's best to check out the game, in general, yourself (the audience) and see what you think about it.

[Captain Linebeck]

its not tehy reviewers fualt they get paid to give bad reivews not lying atleast i think

What makes you say that?

[Sky Hedgehogian Maestro]

I've made a similar thread about this but I made it hastily written. I believe I can express myself better in another thread.

-Please note I am only talking about critical reviews in this post. What I write is not neccesarily what I think of the games of the franchise-

Ok i'm going to start off by defining what I mean. There is (what I believe a myth) that back in the past Sonic was great (loved by critics and popular) and, beginning with Sonic Adventure and properly starting with Sonic Heroes, Sonic has had a massive downfall and is only starting to rise up again with Colours and Generations.

This is what I mean by the 'Sonic Downfall' Myth. I'm going to argue against it and try to show that this myth never really happened, that Sonic was never so critically acclaimed and that Sonic never had such a long run of, critically rated, bad games.

POINT 1: Sonic was loved in the past

Sonic was indeed popular in his humble beginnings. Sonic The Hedgehog 1 was immensely popular and saved the Genesis from near death. The game also got high reviews for its original speedy plat-forming!

But, things change with Sonic 2. I'm afraid that as much as I love Sonic 2 the game got poor reviews upon the time of its release. Sonic 2 got 65% from Issue 1 (January 1993- go look it up) of Gamesmaster who criticised it of being a re-hash and terrible music (no, really I know that's hard to believe. Despite this, the game was a massive success.

Sonic CD? Well watch this review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xor6Ar5zDuI . The game also faded into obscurity due to the lack of support for the Sega CD.

Things were unfortunately going downhill for Sonic and he was losing popularity upon the release of Sonic 3. This factor coupled with the Genesis losing support saw Sonic 3 have far weaker sales then the original two games.


I am afraid that Sonic never had critical acclaim in the past and his massively popularity was only for a very brief period. The classics are clearly great games and have brilliant reviews nowadays but I am afraid it is simply incorrect to claim that Sonic always had support in the past.

Let's also not forget the terrible spin-offs the classic era had.

POINT 2: Sonic Adventure was the foundation of the downfall.

I'm afraid that this point, from a historical perspective, is incorrect too. The Sonic Adventure series outperformed the classics in reviews and got critical acclaim upon its release:

http://www.ign.com/games/sonic-adventure/dc-10140 . This review is a perfect example.

Sonic Adventure 2 received 90% from Gamesmaster (both of these sources are non Dreamcast affiliated)

So why does the game have bad reviews nowadays? The game has aged terribly in a way more extreme way but similar to other 3D 90s platformers (Super Mario 64, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon although all are top games I might add). Nowadays it deserves about 60% but back in 1998 it was a technical feat.

For this reason, it is incorrect that Sonic Adventure started some kind of foundation for a downfall. In fact, in terms of serious critical opinion, Sonic was massively on the way up!

POINT 3: Sonic Heroes started the Downfall

This is a mystery simply because Sonic Heroes got good reviews. 72 on Metacritic:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/gamecube/sonic-heroes

Yes, this is not an amazing mark but it is hardly the abomination of the earth either. It seems to call this a start of a critical downfall is simply incorrect.

POINT 4: Start the slew of unusually horrendous bad games

After this point there are many critically bad games such as Sonic Riders, Sonic Black Knight, Shadow the Hedgehog E.T.C. but these are spin off games that fared no worse than Sonic 3D Blast, Sonic Drift and Sonic Labyrinth E.T.C.

Sonic did have two critically poor main games: Sonic 06 and Sonic Unleashed. Sonic 06 was an abomination but other series have had similar games that are below the expected quality (Link 2, Metal Gear Solid 2, Devil May Cry 2 and Final Fantasy 13. These games are not as terrible as 06 and some are ok games but they are clearly below the benchmark quality).

What about Unleashed? It did not fare so bad with a mediocre 60% on Metacritic (only 5% below Gamesmaster's Sonic 2) :

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/sonic-unleashed

But even if you wish to include this one that is only two bad mainstream games. Colours and Generations did very well in terms of critical acclaim. It is hardly the start of a slew of unusually horrendous games for the series.






So then, what is my point about the 'Sonic Downfall' Myth? It never happened. Sonic was never as critically acclaimed back in the day as people think (and in fact his popularity faded around the time of Sonic 3 and almost crashed around the utter failure of Sonic X-treme. If it were not for Sonic Adventure his career might have been over). The Sonic Adventure series was, for the time, critically lauded and he has never had a long string of poorly reviewed games.

The simple truth is that Sonic has had some games that have been favoured by critics (Sonic 1, Sonic Adventure and Sonic Generations) and some that were less so. This myth that Sonic had critical glory days and fell from grace is simply incorrect.

In the age of the Internet, which wasn't around all that expansively in 1991-1994, these common feelings spread around far more quickly. That's why we generally feel Sonic's had a downfall. If the Internet were around and were as pervasive in our world in 1994, we'd have been saying Sonic 3 and Knuckles was a terrible game and that Sonic 1 was where we needed to get back to- or perhaps, that we needed a game like Sonic Adventure.
But the Internet wasn't that pervasive. It was brand new. Debating across lunchroom tables and reading video game magazines were the way back then. You were bound to know one dissenter, but most of the group probably thought like you. Also, with the word of mouth thing, you could see each others' faces. The Internet makes you faceless. 98% of the stuff we say on the Internet we'd never say to another person to their face- at least, not with the same tones.

[Palas]

The internet issue... well.

I don't think a huge part of the people actually discuss on the internet. We're a small community, you know, and even the largest of the communities will still be small if compared to the whole potential market. So, while it's true that now we're exposed to all kinds of opinions, we only do so if we try to anyway.