we are the BEST sonic union!

That's because they don't play it for no more than an hour or so, then rank it based on what they were doing, which was most likley killing random people or blowing s*** up. They barley pay much attention to story, and if they do, it's way too summarized, even for a review.Soniczero1993

It's all about the hype factor in it. The more a game is hyped, the more the reviewers buy into it and inflate the score based on it.

Here's what I've realized the cycle is for "new generation Sonic fans."

Watch Sonic X on TV and say "wow, that's a cool show!" (similar responses to Pokemon and all other "kids battling magical 'things'" based shows that populate the 4Kids network)

Buy whatever Sonic game they found for their PS2. If they had a Gamecube, at least they got to play the two ported Adventure titles or hopefully the Sonic Mega Collection but in many cases their first was either Heroes or God save us Shadow the Hedgehog but as I said those who get a boner over Shadow's game only liked it because it was a shooter rated E10 meaning their parents would buy it for them as long as they didn't hear Shadow say "damn" because remember kids, it's perfectly fine to shoot people as long as you don't have sex or use potty mouth.

Start looking up Sonic online and find out there's a lot of games out there they haven't tried and hopefully seek out some of the better handheld adventures. Eventually learn that Sonic was once a lot more popular than he is now. And it always pleases me when I come across younger fans who discovered either the comics or SatAM (too bad there's no reruns of it on TV) and discovered what Sonic's like with stories that are actually well thought out.

or

Go onto board and get merciless flamed by me and others for gushing over crappy games and defending said crap is not crap. Find other unions with the more insane devotees, become a furrie and spend the rest of their days writing sexually explicit Sonic fanfiction and writing poorly spelled, fanboy blogs about all "teh biaz frm critcz." At the same time perfecting their fancharacter (aka pallet swap of Sonic with stupid clothes). Continue to make insanely long explinations as to why said game is the way it is when people ask "why would Sonic drive a car?" or "why would Sonic use a sword?" And only come off more insane in your logic in trying to explain what shouldn't exist in the first place.

or

Reach the age of 17, get exposed to some decent M rated games and realize there's more to gaming than medicore games with a fuzzy blue hedgehog. Realize you still kind of liked said game but realize that it might not have been as good as you thought it was when you went back and played it a few years later.

I used to think Bubsy on the SNES was a good game. Boy was I a stupid kid back then. At least back then I was smart enough to know that Mario is Missing was a crappy geography lesson disguised as a Mario game.

I actually changed my tastes when I reached 17-ish myself. But here's the gripper: It had nothing to do with getting M rated games. I still play more Teen games than Mature titles. And I just happened to pick up games with better aspects than Sonic games? I wanted a better story, I got Final Fantasy, I wanted better gameplay, I got Super Mario. I wanted more of a thrill with speed? I got Burnout.

Sonic to me now is just trying too hard to be a jack-of-all-trades, and he's definitely not doing well enough to be even that, let alone a master of them.

[QUOTE="Soniczero1993"]That's because they don't play it for no more than an hour or so, then rank it based on what they were doing, which was most likley killing random people or blowing s*** up. They barley pay much attention to story, and if they do, it's way too summarized, even for a review.kbaily

It's all about the hype factor in it. The more a game is hyped, the more the reviewers buy into it and inflate the score based on it.

hmm i dont think if a game is totally hyped up that it will recieve a better score than it desserves. for example: Resident Evil5. this was a VERY anticipated game being the sequal to what most people called one of the best games ever made (RE4 which in my opinion wasnt very good) and when it came back it did recieve good scores but mostly 8.5's or maybe a 9.0 heree and there but no 10.0's i can think of. but hype does sometimes help.

I wonder why it's mostly M-rated games that get 10s (On Gamespot)? Only game I ever saw that was lower and got a 10 is Zelda Orcania of Time back in the Nintendo 64/Playstation 1/Saturn days. mariostar0001

good question. prob because M games are mostly shooting games and they are really popular.

[QUOTE="mariostar0001"]I wonder why it's mostly M-rated games that get 10s (On Gamespot)? Only game I ever saw that was lower and got a 10 is Zelda Orcania of Time back in the Nintendo 64/Playstation 1/Saturn days. sonichedgehog45

good question. prob because M games are mostly shooting games and they are really popular.

Let me explain. It started with the PS1 ushering this "mature" era of games. Sure there were mature games prior to it (Shadowgate and Slaughterhouse say "hi") but with the PS1 they suddenly became a big deal and the industry and journalists started focusing heavily on the mature games as well as there came the assumption that most of gaming's audience were teenage males and more and more the industry started focusing solely on that demographic to the point where anything that came out that had more than 2 primary colors on screen at the same time and didn't feature copious amounts of blood and gore were deemed gay plus you had a shift in developers who were making games for themselves instead of the masses and most developers are males in the 20s and 30s and the industry itself sees demographics now that this game is for that person and that game is for that person instead of making games for everyone as Nintendo did back with the NES and now. Anything that was geared to a younger audience was seen as "unworthy of quality" because "kids are stupid and they'll buy anything." Just because something is made for kids is NOT an excuse for poor quality. Nintendo knows this. Probably why they have the best selling console on the market right now.

Sega sadly took this mindset in the post Dreamcast era with Sonic. They got Sonic X on the air with the idea that kids will watch the show and want to buy the games because look at all the crappy Spongebob and Dora games that sell. So Sega started treating Sonic as something for kids meaning if the controls were perfect or the gameplay was broken, kids wouldn't care as long as it was bright and colorful.

And that's the saddest part is that kids have been deprived of quality video game entertainment for so long because all the time and effort gets put into the next gray brown blood soaked violence wank and eventually what happens is you start accepting lesser things because a crappy version of something you like is better than nothing at all.

I teach a Sunday school cla$$ and last Sunday we had some downtime and the kids were telling me about the games they got for Christmas (these are 2nd and 3rd graders). I had a boy and two girls. The boy said he's not allowed to play things rated T or M and they all have Wiis. And they LOVE Mario. They love Mario Kart. They love Smash Bros. They love New Super Mario Bros. Wii and the only other "kid's" game they spoke of were the Lego "Insert Movie Here" games which are half decent. I mean they've played their share of liscened crap but those are the ones they go back to. Kids do remember which games are good. For the record I asked them about Sonic and they said "who?"

But this video by the Game Overthinker probably describes the situation best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9joAb4XMaUs&feature=PlayList&p=59D6E46F8D8E546E&index=10

This is also due to the fact that games are expensive. I remember when I was a kid, I saved up for weeks for a game I wanted. Games are expensive to make and even if they sell a million, that barely makes back production costs because the techonolgy moved too fast and for many, it's hard to put $50-$60 into something that might not be that good.

It is just a shame thought that kids games are a lot like kids movies with Nintendo as Pixar in that the only one who is truly trying to make worthwhile entertainment for children (Sega's more like Dreamworks, hit or miss).

At times I see why so many kids became enamored with Sonic despite the crappier newer games. Last gen most kids had PS2's and it did have a few games that younger audiences could enjoy but still the industry focused more on the gory, cinematic shooters assuming that "kids are stupid" and tossing out liscened games for them. Not many of them having Gamecubes couldn't turn to Mario and pals and parents looking for a family friendly face turned to Sonic remembering him from their younger days on the Genesis and sometimes a crappy version of something you like is better than nothing at all.

It's a shame because it didn't used to be that way. Once upon a time even games based on popular cartoons were decent. Many old school NES players will tell you about the excellent Capcom/Disney pairings which brought about games based on Ducktales, Chip N' Dale, Darkwing Duck, Aladdin (bitter debates arise over SNES vs. Genesis versions), Mickey Mouse Castle of Illusion and Magical Quest. Devs had a different mindset back then. These were people happy to be making games in general. Now game developers are stuck up their own asses more interested in being "artists" and having "cult hits" then opposed to making good games the masses can enjoy.

[QUOTE="sonichedgehog45"]

[QUOTE="mariostar0001"]I wonder why it's mostly M-rated games that get 10s (On Gamespot)? Only game I ever saw that was lower and got a 10 is Zelda Orcania of Time back in the Nintendo 64/Playstation 1/Saturn days. kbaily

good question. prob because M games are mostly shooting games and they are really popular.

Let me explain. It started with the PS1 ushering this "mature" era of games. Sure there were mature games prior to it (Shadowgate and Slaughterhouse say "hi") but with the PS1 they suddenly became a big deal and the industry and journalists started focusing heavily on the mature games as well as there came the assumption that most of gaming's audience were teenage males and more and more the industry started focusing solely on that demographic to the point where anything that came out that had more than 2 primary colors on screen at the same time and didn't feature copious amounts of blood and gore were deemed gay plus you had a shift in developers who were making games for themselves instead of the masses and most developers are males in the 20s and 30s and the industry itself sees demographics now that this game is for that person and that game is for that person instead of making games for everyone as Nintendo did back with the NES and now. Anything that was geared to a younger audience was seen as "unworthy of quality" because "kids are stupid and they'll buy anything." Just because something is made for kids is NOT an excuse for poor quality. Nintendo knows this. Probably why they have the best selling console on the market right now.

Sega sadly took this mindset in the post Dreamcast era with Sonic. They got Sonic X on the air with the idea that kids will watch the show and want to buy the games because look at all the crappy Spongebob and Dora games that sell. So Sega started treating Sonic as something for kids meaning if the controls were perfect or the gameplay was broken, kids wouldn't care as long as it was bright and colorful.

And that's the saddest part is that kids have been deprived of quality video game entertainment for so long because all the time and effort gets put into the next gray brown blood soaked violence wank and eventually what happens is you start accepting lesser things because a crappy version of something you like is better than nothing at all.

I teach a Sunday school cla$$ and last Sunday we had some downtime and the kids were telling me about the games they got for Christmas (these are 2nd and 3rd graders). I had a boy and two girls. The boy said he's not allowed to play things rated T or M and they all have Wiis. And they LOVE Mario. They love Mario Kart. They love Smash Bros. They love New Super Mario Bros. Wii and the only other "kid's" game they spoke of were the Lego "Insert Movie Here" games which are half decent. I mean they've played their share of liscened crap but those are the ones they go back to. Kids do remember which games are good. For the record I asked them about Sonic and they said "who?"

But this video by the Game Overthinker probably describes the situation best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9joAb4XMaUs&feature=PlayList&p=59D6E46F8D8E546E&index=10

wow these may be some of the truest words i ever heard:D lolz