What more proof do people need that the critics don't really know what's good or bad about a Sonic game? They see Sonic on the cover, know its the popular opinion to shit on it and do just that.
That's how it has been for years now, the slightest little problem is overblown, even sometimes scores seem to be pulled out of nowhere... IGNs 7/10 for sound? 7/10 my arse.
Then Nintendo puts out a game called Wii Music, where you waggle the controller to make ugly onscreen characters 'play' midi crap and it's so impossible to make any recognisable tune that you get to rate yourself... Some critics gave that shit 8/10....
Woah... That was a rant.
This is not really fair unless you know the history of GameInformer.
They have, which you probably did not known, given multiple Nintendo games low scores and not just any, ranging from Paper Mario 2 to Mario & Luigi. It is not because they dislike the games, it is because they believe that those games will not be enjoyable to their audience, this is how they rate the games. A reviewer could enjoy the game tenfolds, however if GameInformer feels that the game will not be enjoyed by a mass audience, then the game will get low marks. Its why a lot of gritty games get high marks from them and low marks for stuff like Sonic, Mario etc. And yes I agree its a bad way to review games, but not fair to bet all reviews with the same brush.
And on the matter of Wii Music, the game did get a few good reviews, but Metacritic puts it at 63 and GameInformer gave the title a 3/10. So it is not like people went wild for that, Sonic Generations will have a significantly better rating than that game. Infact, Sonic Generations has 20 reviews above 8 (With even more coming in) Wii Music only had 9.
