"Some levels delight with their speed and kinetic energy, keeping Sonic spinning through loops and bouncing off of springs like a pinball as he speeds his way to the goal. Other levels frustrate at every turn, encouraging you to take it slowly lest you go flying into some deadly obstacle you had no way of knowing was there. There are even a few scattered sections where just figuring out where you're supposed to be going or how to proceed past some obstacle can be a bit tricky, which saps the momentum in a game that places an emphasis on speed. Most stages fall somewhere in between, offering a confusing mix of speedy satisfaction and hindrances that bring the action to a standstill."
Source: Gamespot's review of Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1
By no means would I consider myself a strong advocate for Sega's blue mascot, but something that does concern me is when reviewers suffer selective amnesia when comparing new entries in a game series to previous entries. Such seems to be the case with Gamespot and Sonic 4, if only for this one comment that I clipped out. The section that I bolded comes across to me as an odd statement from anybody who has played the three oldie Sonic games on the Master System or Genesis. If Gamespot's reviewer had never played one of the older Sonic games, I would understand this comment, but based on the remainder of the review I think it's safe to say that she has played the original trio.
We are left to assume that GS' reviewer suffered from laser-guided amnesia and specifically forgot the parts of the original Sonic trilogy that were exactly what she described as frustrating and confusing above. Yes, it's true: The old Sonic games actually forced you to slow down and carefully place jumps, push boxes, and be in every way not speedy on quite a few occasions. Anybody remember the Marble Hill Zone from Sonic 1? It was exactly the sort of confusing mix of "speedy satisfaction" and slow segments that GS' reviewer describes as being a hindrance to Sonic 4. Her criticism here would make more sense if she also thought this was a problem in those older games, but she makes no such connection. It's as if she has forgotten that there was anything but constant, exhilarating speed in the original Sonic titles.
On that note, I think many people have forgotten about those sections in the old Sonic games.
"To truly be victorious, Sonic must not only complete each level and defeat Eggman, but he must also collect the seven chaos emeralds. These are kept in special stages where Sonic is perpetually spinning against a background of kaleidoscopic psychedelia, and rather than control Sonic directly, you rotate the stage around him to guide him to the emerald buried within while trying to avoid certain bumpers that immediately kick you out of the level. To gain access to the special stages where these are hidden, you must reach the end of a stage with at least 50 rings, which is no easy feat on most stages because a single hit from an enemy sends all your rings flying. Whether you had 50 rings or 250 to your name, a single error when nearing the end of a stage spoils your shot at the emerald, and if you gain access to the special stage where the emerald is kept but fail to complete it, you must begin your pursuit for the emerald anew. This structure is true to the original Sonic games, but by today's standards, it feels needlessly ruthless."
Source: Gamespot's review of Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1
Really? "Needlessly ruthless"? I find this comment strange in a day and age where developers have discovered increasingly innovative ways to redefine challenging and/or frustrating gameplay. The Ninja Gaiden reboot on 360 and PS3, that's ruthlessly difficult. Demon's Souls on the PS3, that's ruthless. Being required to hold onto 50 rings for one level so that you can access an optional special stage and aim for a game's secret ending, that's hardly ruthless. That's not even in the same league as the other two game's I just mentioned, and I don't know how an optional challenge of this nature can be considered "needless". Would it have been better if Sonic 4 had no chaos emeralds or special stages? How about if you just beat Eggman and there was nothing else to do after that? Then maybe Sega could release Super Sonic and the special stages as DLC and charge more money for it.
Again, the idea of special stages and the notion of collecting and maintaining a set number of rings was a hallmark of the original Sonic trilogy. Sonic 4 is a throwback to those gameplay mechanics, not just the speedy segments but also the platforming, light puzzles, and special challenge stages. To criticize Sonic 4 for possessing these traits is paradoxical unless one also criticizes the original games for those same mechanics. This is not about me defending Sonic 4 from the score it received, but questioning on what grounds that score is supported. Does the old Sonic formula have flaws that we just didn't ever address because it has been 16 years since those games were relevant? Or have we just forgotten what that old Sonic formula plays like?
From what I've played and seen, Sonic 4 is about as close to an imitation of that original formula as gamers are likely to get outside of the Sonic Advance titles on Game Boy Advance, or the Rush series on DS.
"Some may be able to overlook the frustrations of Sonic 4 and have an enjoyable experience, but Sonic deserves better, and so do we."
Source: Gamespot's review of Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1
If there was a way for me to type out a sigh of confusion, I'd use it here. I'm not sure how any of us deserve better from Sonic, especially if the game is "faithful" to the original games as the title of Gamespot's review suggests. That same title also states that there Sonic 4 is marred by "inconsistency" in gameplay, which is the entire reason I've made this posting at all. If Sonic 4 is inconsistent in its gameplay, so then are all of the original Sonic games. If Sonic 4 deserves a 6.5/10 solely for the reasons stated in Gamespot's review, why then should the original three Sonic titles be considered any better?
I'd encourage anybody who reads this to go out and track down one of the original Sonic games, play it for a while, and then play Sonic 4 and tell me that they aren't using the same, 16 year old formula. Sonic may not be every person's cup of tea, but don't write this one off just yet if you're any sort of fan of the original games, especially.
- VengefulMetroid