User blog comment:Journalistic/Sonic is ranked number 1 on GT's "Worst Blockbusters"/@comment-4018912-20120317134001

Y'know, I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but seriously, this "Sonic hating" crap is getting OLD. And what's worse is this: there are many crappy reasons as to why they hate the games. Now, I'll admit, there are some things I don't prefer in Sonic games, such as these:

Sonic 2/Sonic3: I just don't like Tails being controlled by AI. I don't know if anyone else has trouble with it, but I do. He just gets in the way in some situations, like attacking a boss or a Special Stage. But, I don't complain too much; I just move on by playing as Sonic alone.

Big's levels in Sonic Adventure DX: These levels were completely out of place in my opinion, and all the more frustrating (obviously, I would not make a good fisherman in the real world).

Chao Races in SADX: It'd be a tad nice to be able to only cheer for my own Chao.

Sonic Heroes: I'd just say too many bottomless pits. And Tails' voice is the worst in this game...

Sonic's Homing Attack from SADX to 2006: I'll just say it'd be nice if there was a targeting reticle, like in the newer games.

Despite all of these complaints, I don't think these games are completely bad or not worth playing; I just plug my way through them, not like these so-called "experts" who think they know everything about a videogame series. GameInformer's the same way: no matter who reviews a Sonic title, they give it a bad review (for the most part). Look at these examples:

They gave Sonic Unleashed (PS3/360) a 6 out of 10, merely because they didn't care for the Werehog levels. Note that there are far fewer Werehog levels than there are Hedgehog levels; every area has 2-3 Hedgehog levels and 1-2 Werehog levels. Now, they decided to give the Wii version a 6.5 out of 10. Now, I'm not concerned that they gave the Wii version the better score; I own both versions, and they're both really good. What confuses me is that they gave the Wii version a better score because of better controls and Werehog level design. Note that the Wii version is the opposite of 360; the Werehog levels outnumber the Hedgehog levels. Now, I don't know if anyone else can make sense of this (If you can, kudos to you), but I cannot: why would you give a game a higher rating because of the levels you dislike? Just don't make sense.

For Sonic Generations, they also gave several lame reasons why it isn't that good: It is claimed that "the first half of the game is a nostalgic treat, while the second half only serves to remind us of Sonic's more recent bad games." (Not sure if the quote is correct; but it's along the lines of that) Not only that, the reviewer also questioned as to why SEGA spanned 20 years' worth of games instead of just the first 5. Uh, hello? Anybody in there? It's an anniversary game that spans 20 years of the franchise, not just the first 5. He has also claimed that "things fall apart when you try to complete a level quickly." Uh, hello again? THAT'S THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF EVERY LEVEL!!! Another complaint he had was that it's "hard to run in a straight line in the Modern levels." He must be drunk (I'm kidding here) while he's playing, because I have no problem (and I'm sure other players don't have too much trouble either) running in a straight line.

To put it plainly, critics will criticize, and they are entitled to their opinion. But if an opinion is going to be said, it helps if it has legitimate reasons as to why they have said opinion.