- Some people have claimed to enjoy this game, but they are lying.
That's a big Opinion Myopia right there.
Sounds like a pretty good game, I think I'll try it out
This is a bad review. This is not opinion, it is truth.
Okay, joking aside, how do you see rushed development and pressure from reviewers as excuses? They are the actual reasons why this was Sonic 2006 and not Sonic 2007 (or even 2008). It could have been good if it were given more time. Unfortunately it wasn't, but to say that it never stood a chance is unfair. Besides, what killed the Sonic Adventure style gameplay wasn't just this game; Sonic Unleashed was the final nail in the (admittedly long-closed) coffin. So yes, Sonic 2006 is, both subjectively and objectively, atrocious. But it didn't have to be that way.
I'm replaying it for the second time, and while there are a huge number of problems with the game, I do feel it has potential. I liked Sonic Adventure - both of them (the one with "adventure" style gameplay and the level-by-level one), and I don't think the "adventure" style of gameplay should be retired permanently, as I like the idea of a hub world connecting to levels.
This could have been a good game, and while it's clearly a very very broken one with many things wrong, I'm glad I gave it a second chance.
Sad that not even the ever godly Dan Green could save this game...
They aren't "defending" the game- if they were, they would be saying the game wasn't flawed at all. Rushed development and reviewer pressure are more like attempts to try and justify/explain/just freaking figure out why the game ended up sucking as much as it did (which was sooooooooooo much, natch).
BTW, a single failure with a gameplay style doesn't mean it's never gonna work anymore. People still like the original Adventure games, so that alone means the format still has some merit.
but HOW?
What you're saying is that at its core, this game had no potential. Glitches, broken physics engine, slow speeds, and crappy storyline aside, it would have played exactly like an Adventure game, which are pretty decent.
It's not defending when they say that the game suffered from rushed development— that's truth. People found out that it was Christmas Rushed. It doesn't change the fact that the game sucked as an official release, but it explains why it sucked so much.
And I still found it a very enjoyable game and mediocre overall.
It is not objectively bad at all. Just subjectively.
Also, way too much vitriol in this review. It sounds less like a review and instead a giant excuse to bash a game. No, that's pretty much what it is as is.
Amy was an excellent character and one of her few good roles that isn't just "chase Sonic" as well. She had heart, a good voice actor, and very good characterization overall.
seg162 has it right. It could've been way better, and it didn't do well for an anniversary, which is fully understandable considering everything. Nobody's surprised. But something cannot objectively suck.
Wow. It's people like you that forced DIMPS to cut out all 3D gameplay from Colora and Generations.
Sonic 2006 might have had it's problems, but this review is so elitist that I am wondering if it is a parody of the Sonic fanbase.
Not defending this game, but the soundtrack is awesome, and at least it was trying to get Sonic back to his roots as a fast-paced platformer, unlike Shadow The Hedgehog, which morphed the basic gameplay into a slow, tedious scavenger hunt with a pathetic attempt to come off as edgy.
I'd say 06 was a bad attempt to be good, while Shadow was a good attempt to be bad.
¿?¡!
Sonic 06 was objectively bad. When the vast majority of people find a game extremely difficult to play simply because of the sheer number of glitches, there is something objectively wrong with it. If people find a game difficult because it was designed to be difficult, that's fine, that's challenging; but if it's simply because of how rushed the game was...
You can quantify that.
That does not, however, make it objectively unenjoyable, as enjoyment is subjective. Many people find it to be So Bad, It's Good, and others just have absurdly low standards and/or are masochists.
I'm so sorry that my avatar doesn't appear fully in the shot, but the cat was threatening the photographer.
You speak the fucking brutally honest truth, Arashi Edit: Ok, I'll admit, the review contains huge Opinion Myopia but eh, I mostly agree with it.
Leave a Comment:
Proof that even shit can have defenders
Sonic The Hedgehog 2006 is a bad game. This is not opinion, it is truth. Some people have claimed to enjoy this game, but they are lying. This game is a failure on almost every conceivable level. The graphics are ugly, and the animation is stilted, the controls are an affront to all things good in this world, and the "Deep," story is an abomination. The one positive feature of this game is the music, but the sound design and voice cast is absolutely atrocious. The removal of the 4kids cast is one of the greatest additions to the Sonic series, as the entire cast (With the exception of Mike Pollock and Dan Green) is comprised of shrill, incompetent hacks who make the already abysmal script even worse. The most interesting thing is that this game has defenders. These people defend this train wreck by blaming "rushed development," and "Pressure from reviewers,". This game could not have been good. This game proves that the "Adventure," style gameplay should be retired permanently. Do not play this game.