By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Sonic Lost World - Review Score List

ninjablade on 19 October 2013
Luck said:
Mythmaker1 said:
Luck said:

Exactly.

Gamespot's review is even worse as the reviewer also tries to demonstrate the idea that the game is difficult by showing clips where he intentionally die (or maybe he's just extremely bad at the game, not sure).

The game is most likely not great, but that Gamespot's review is really a joke, I can't believe one of the biggest site in the industry can be so unprofessionnal. 

The day I ceased to perceive video game media reviews as credible sources.

"Unprofessional?"

How So?

It's either one of those two reasons (only the reviewer knows the truth as he made the review):

1) Showing clips where he intentionally dies to falsely prove his stance that the game is too difficult (It could be too difficult, but why not really show why?)

2) Letting a reviewer who is either a) incapable of playing the game at a skill level achieved by 95% of the players who showed their playthrough or b) simply didn't spend nearly enough time playing the game before reviewing it (hence how much he sucks).

And for those who say ''How dare people defend this game'': for me at least, it's not about defending the game or trying to prove that it's good, the problem here is that some reviewers clearly did an extremely poor or dishonest work of reviewing this game.

its just not some reviewers the majority of reviews are below 7s, lots of them are 5 and below, reviwers are not digging the game and the controls, how is that being dishonest. 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/sonic-colors/critic-reviews take a look at sonic colors reviews, this has nothing to do with being dishonest, sonic colors actually almost got to 80



Around the Network
swii26 on 19 October 2013

It seems like, either you like it or you don't...

I've never been a big Sonic fan but I watched a playthrough and it looks appealing.



Steam/Origin ID: salorider

Nintendo Network ID: salorider

PSN: salorider

3DS Friend Code: 4983-4984-4179

 

Luck on 19 October 2013
ninjablade said:
Luck said:

It's either one of those two reasons (only the reviewer knows the truth as he made the review):

1) Showing clips where he intentionally dies to falsely prove his stance that the game is too difficult (It could be too difficult, but why not really show why?)

2) Letting a reviewer who is either a) incapable of playing the game at a skill level achieved by 95% of the players who showed their playthrough or b) simply didn't spend nearly enough time playing the game before reviewing it (hence how much he sucks).

And for those who say ''How dare people defend this game'': for me at least, it's not about defending the game or trying to prove that it's good, the problem here is that some reviewers clearly did an extremely poor or dishonest work of reviewing this game.

its just not some reviewers the majority of reviews are below 7s, lots of them are 5 and below, reviwers are not digging the game and the controls, how is that being dishonest.

I am certainly not saying that because a reviewer gives a low score he is being dishonest. Haha, really not! I think you didn't understood my post.

I'm talking about the content of the review, not the score of the review.

The allusion to dishonesty was in relation to a reviewer inserting clips of intentional deaths to try and prove that the game was too difficult (Point 1 in my previous post). And if he is not being dishonest, then (see Point 2 in my previous post) that reviewer just did a poor work and shouldn't have reviewed the game for a major gaming news site.



MegaDrive08 on 19 October 2013

When Sonics running at his slightly accelerated speed, to me it feels like the same speed as the original titles, then you have spin dash to go fast. it's not perfect but to me is a step in the right direction.



 

ninjablade on 19 October 2013
Luck said:
ninjablade said:
Luck said:
 

It's either one of those two reasons (only the reviewer knows the truth as he made the review):

1) Showing clips where he intentionally dies to falsely prove his stance that the game is too difficult (It could be too difficult, but why not really show why?)

2) Letting a reviewer who is either a) incapable of playing the game at a skill level achieved by 95% of the players who showed their playthrough or b) simply didn't spend nearly enough time playing the game before reviewing it (hence how much he sucks).

And for those who say ''How dare people defend this game'': for me at least, it's not about defending the game or trying to prove that it's good, the problem here is that some reviewers clearly did an extremely poor or dishonest work of reviewing this game.

its just not some reviewers the majority of reviews are below 7s, lots of them are 5 and below, reviwers are not digging the game and the controls, how is that being dishonest.

I am certainly not saying that because a reviewer gives a low score he is being dishonest. Haha, really not! I think you didn't understood my post.

I'm talking about the content of the review, not the score of the review.

The allusion to dishonesty was in relation to a reviewer inserting clips of intentional deaths to try and prove that the game was too difficult (Point 1 in my previous post). And if he is not being dishonest, then (see Point 2 in my previous post) that reviewer just did a poor work and shouldn't have reviewed the game for a major gaming news site.

you should never focus one reviewer, i would understand your point if its getting a small amount of bad reviews, but the majority are bad.



Around the Network
Luck on 19 October 2013

Again it's not about the score... Im not saying this game is good... IGN and Gamespot reviews of this game are just poor quality content wise, that's all. And as I explained in regards to Gamespot, it's quite unprofessional and discredit the site as a credible source when it comes to reviews in general.



Mythmaker1 on 19 October 2013
Luck said:

It's either one of those two reasons (only the reviewer knows the truth as he made the review):

1) Showing clips where he intentionally dies to falsely prove his stance that the game is too difficult (It could be too difficult, but why not really show why?)

2) Letting a reviewer who is either a) incapable of playing the game at a skill level achieved by 95% of the players who showed their playthrough or b) simply didn't spend nearly enough time playing the game before reviewing it (hence how much he sucks).

And for those who say ''How dare people defend this game'': for me at least, it's not about defending the game or trying to prove that it's good, the problem here is that some reviewers clearly did an extremely poor or dishonest work of reviewing this game.

As I recall, there were three deaths shown in the review.

The first was the player fumbling on collapsible platforms on the first level, while discussing the way the first level wasn't designed well for new players because of its complexity and difficulty curve. It's the kind of mistake someone might reasonably make if they weren't used to the controls yet (which is likely, since it was from the first level). Bit of a stretch to call it unprofessional.

The second was the player running into a wall during a discussion of features, not difficulty, so I don't see how that's unprofessional.

The third was the player falling after overshooting their jump, amid a discussion about how easy it is to overshoot jumps. Again, on the first level, when a reasonable person would still be getting used to the controls and would make that kind of obvious mistake.

The point I'm trying to make is that someone could have reasonably died these ways, and it doesn't have to be because they're being disingenuous or because, in your opinion, they "suck" too much to be allowed to review this game.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

Luck on 19 October 2013
Mythmaker1 said:
 

As I recall, there were three deaths shown in the review.

The first was the player fumbling on collapsible platforms on the first level, while discussing the way the first level wasn't designed well for new players because of its complexity and difficulty curve. It's the kind of mistake someone might reasonably make if they weren't used to the controls yet (which is likely, since it was from the first level). Bit of a stretch to call it unprofessional.

The second was the player running into a wall during a discussion of features, not difficulty, so I don't see how that's unprofessional.

The third was the player falling after overshooting their jump, amid a discussion about how easy it is to overshoot jumps. Again, on the first level, when a reasonable person would still be getting used to the controls and would make that kind of obvious mistake.

The point I'm trying to make is that someone could have reasonably died these ways, and it doesn't have to be because they're being disingenuous or because, in your opinion, they "suck" too much to be allowed to review this game.

You remember well, although I disagree with the first and third deaths being revelant to the review of the game. And you might say that it's a stretch to call it unprofessional, I call it an even bigger stretch to hold these deaths as negatives against the game. I'll rent the game and then reply properly. Until then I'll agree to disagree, i.e. I still think Gamespot's review is a joke.

(Just in case somebody still thinks I do, Im not saying this game is good or bashing Gamespot for their low score)



oniyide on 19 October 2013
ninjablade said:
oniyide said:
ninjablade said:
Runa216 said:
people really will bend over backwards to find an excuse to like something that sucks.

Sonic was poorly made with shitty controls and poor level design, which is why it was 'hard', not an intentional decision. it's just bad. Sometimes, you gotta accept that and move on.


the game is averaging 62 on metracritic and people still defend it, at least it it was in the 70s, and 20 out of the 38 reviews are below 7s

thats even less than what it started with, but at least its closer to the 3ds version

http://www.gamerankings.com/wii-u/715775-sonic-lost-world/articles.html

http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/sonic-lost-world/critic-reviews

 

look at the sites giving it good reviews.

ive seen those already and about half of them ive never heard off. I think thats gonna be a problem its the really popular ones that are giving it mediocore scores and there are more of those, but thats just my opinion



zippy on 20 October 2013

I picked it up, very decent game and better than generations in my honest opinion. Deffo an 8/10 game for me, i cant understand the low scores..the game is very playable, nice and polished with a rock solid framerate. Yet these reviewers will give broken games like skyrim great scores. I said before, a game that scores 4/10 in my eyes has to be an ugly broken mess and Sonic lost world is none of them.