Sonic Superstars writing notes, brainstorming, review outline:
-Discuss the arbitrary nature of rating scales and the nature of their subjectivity
-A "3 out of 5" is an ultimately good score in my eyes, but not everyone sees it that way; I tend to not when I see it, even when it likewise adheres as "good' to that rating giver/user
-Sonic Superstars is a 3 out of 5 game to me, because I think it is a good game. People also give Superstars a 3 out of 5, some as negative and some as positive, but I can only ever see it as negative
-This could be because the majority of 3 out of 5 reviews feel overly negative to me, often winded rants over perceived mediocrity (or in some strange cases, a maddening sense of distaste) with a sprinkled "but I still liked it" here and there, usually leaving me feeling lost, uninformed, ultimately confused on how I should feel
-Maybe it's because the classic IGN "7 out of 10" score is an industry staple-stamp of certified filth? It feels like any game, between a 1-6 or an 8-10 is a wild card, a Pandora's Box, but a 7 is unanimous for "bad." I think the "3 out of 5" is a similar case, just the same connotation on a different metric, even though the math doesn't even translate the same way
-Or maybe it's because people approach Sonic differently, we've been in an era where Sonic has been incapable of playing ball with the AAA giants like he used to (or was he ever?). Discussion on Sonic, as viewed through the increasing number of lengthy Twitter analysis threads these past few days, proves easily that there's an endless depth of nuance to how a Sonic game stacks up.
-Digress. I think Sonic Superstars is "Good", and that's it. It's a game with flaws that I enjoyed. I briefly considered it a 3.5 out of 5, which constitutes "Very Good," but I couldn't hold myself to that, as much as my enjoyment entails so
-Do I let myself adjust imaginary point values in my head to maintain a level of objectivity? I feel like that's utterly pointless. My rating curves on every adjacent site have the exact same distribution. The uniformity looks nice but I often wonder if I'm not rating with my heart because of it - my maybe obsession with order and numerical scales that dictate quality and value. I've been this way since a child; constantly cataloguing, journaling, organizing, rating. Maybe I watched too much Siskel & Ebert reruns with my dad as a kid. Maybe I shouldn't have wrote in Roger Ebert as my celebrity idol essay topic in third grade.
-I wonder if it's all just a response to witnessing a fandom, maybe my first and in my heart, only, a community I've been a part of since my earliest conscious gaming memories, continuously spiral into a black hole of discourse and toxicity, both positive and negative. All of it is hard, maybe pointless, to parse. Nobody should criticize Sonic because the series is supposedly taking steps to improve itself and we should be grateful. Sonic should always be subject to criticism because Sonic has never been able to stand toe-to-toe with Mario, or any big-name series since the 90s. Sonic himself is a product of marketibility. A mascot for profit. My favorite games are Sonic games. The Sonic series has some of the worst games I've ever played. I think Sonic Team might be one of the only prominent developer teams branching as far as they truly can, trying to cover every single avenue for where Sonic could evolve and experiment mechanically. Sonic Team makes unnecessary changes to the formula, so much of these changes and experiments suck. I love their willingness to try. These off-kilter takes also negatively impact the series. Lost World. Baldy McNosehair. Sonic '06. Elise kiss. Sonic's dumb friends. Sonic was never good.
-Long decided since jotting these unsorted thoughts down that I'm just going to upload these notes as my review. I don't have an answer to my confusion.
-Sonic Superstars is a "Good" game. I personally give Sonic Superstars 3 out of 5 stars.
-https://www.ign.com/games/sonic-superstars
-Discuss the arbitrary nature of rating scales and the nature of their subjectivity
-A "3 out of 5" is an ultimately good score in my eyes, but not everyone sees it that way; I tend to not when I see it, even when it likewise adheres as "good' to that rating giver/user
-Sonic Superstars is a 3 out of 5 game to me, because I think it is a good game. People also give Superstars a 3 out of 5, some as negative and some as positive, but I can only ever see it as negative
-This could be because the majority of 3 out of 5 reviews feel overly negative to me, often winded rants over perceived mediocrity (or in some strange cases, a maddening sense of distaste) with a sprinkled "but I still liked it" here and there, usually leaving me feeling lost, uninformed, ultimately confused on how I should feel
-Maybe it's because the classic IGN "7 out of 10" score is an industry staple-stamp of certified filth? It feels like any game, between a 1-6 or an 8-10 is a wild card, a Pandora's Box, but a 7 is unanimous for "bad." I think the "3 out of 5" is a similar case, just the same connotation on a different metric, even though the math doesn't even translate the same way
-Or maybe it's because people approach Sonic differently, we've been in an era where Sonic has been incapable of playing ball with the AAA giants like he used to (or was he ever?). Discussion on Sonic, as viewed through the increasing number of lengthy Twitter analysis threads these past few days, proves easily that there's an endless depth of nuance to how a Sonic game stacks up.
-Digress. I think Sonic Superstars is "Good", and that's it. It's a game with flaws that I enjoyed. I briefly considered it a 3.5 out of 5, which constitutes "Very Good," but I couldn't hold myself to that, as much as my enjoyment entails so
-Do I let myself adjust imaginary point values in my head to maintain a level of objectivity? I feel like that's utterly pointless. My rating curves on every adjacent site have the exact same distribution. The uniformity looks nice but I often wonder if I'm not rating with my heart because of it - my maybe obsession with order and numerical scales that dictate quality and value. I've been this way since a child; constantly cataloguing, journaling, organizing, rating. Maybe I watched too much Siskel & Ebert reruns with my dad as a kid. Maybe I shouldn't have wrote in Roger Ebert as my celebrity idol essay topic in third grade.
-I wonder if it's all just a response to witnessing a fandom, maybe my first and in my heart, only, a community I've been a part of since my earliest conscious gaming memories, continuously spiral into a black hole of discourse and toxicity, both positive and negative. All of it is hard, maybe pointless, to parse. Nobody should criticize Sonic because the series is supposedly taking steps to improve itself and we should be grateful. Sonic should always be subject to criticism because Sonic has never been able to stand toe-to-toe with Mario, or any big-name series since the 90s. Sonic himself is a product of marketibility. A mascot for profit. My favorite games are Sonic games. The Sonic series has some of the worst games I've ever played. I think Sonic Team might be one of the only prominent developer teams branching as far as they truly can, trying to cover every single avenue for where Sonic could evolve and experiment mechanically. Sonic Team makes unnecessary changes to the formula, so much of these changes and experiments suck. I love their willingness to try. These off-kilter takes also negatively impact the series. Lost World. Baldy McNosehair. Sonic '06. Elise kiss. Sonic's dumb friends. Sonic was never good.
-Long decided since jotting these unsorted thoughts down that I'm just going to upload these notes as my review. I don't have an answer to my confusion.
-Sonic Superstars is a "Good" game. I personally give Sonic Superstars 3 out of 5 stars.
-https://www.ign.com/games/sonic-superstars
smaench
6 months ago