Recent reviews by Jeik

So far, so good. Love the design and and feel of the game.

I'll make this as simple as possible:
This should have been a separate game and IMO it would have been an excellent pick for 20/30 EUR respectively. But it feels like SEGA was so greedy that they pretty much put a delicious sandwich (Shadow generations) into the same box as a sandwich which is on the verge of spoiling (Sonic Generations), just so they could TRY to justify such a price tag.

The graphics look great (only in Shadow's part), high frame-rate is supported (sadly, again, only in Shadow's part) and it's actually running well even on the Steam Deck (once again, primarily on Shadow's part...).

Now, for more details on the negatives:
- no ultrawide support
- original Sonic Generations feels like an afterthought
You launch the game and it seems like both the original Sonic Generations + Shadow generations have been blended in.
But if you pick Sonic Generations, it becomes clear that it's just acting like a glorified launcher for the original game - you get a black screen, terminal pop-up and it switches to the Sonic Generations game... the frame rate gets locked to 60FPS, random stuttery moments start to happen and the graphics seem just slightly worse (lighting, textures, etc.), enough to make something feel "off".

I was at least hoping we'd finally get an option for enabling unlimited frame-rate, but it seems like that is only reserved for the Shadow Generations part.

As much as I'm happy with the way Shadow Generations looks, I'm equally disappointed in the Sonic Generations bit because it's almost the exact same thing as the 2010 release, flaws included (60fps, stutters, the camera being too zoomed in on the character models).

My take:
Not recommended at full price. If it gets a decent discount, sure.

If you want a positive rating, you will have to pay 10$ for the Positive Rating Pass and 10$ for the Temporary Positive Rating License. Time investment will get you nowhere. This is better value, trust me.

A no-brainer if you're looking for a live wallpaper on a Windows PC.

Loved it on the PS5 and love it just as much on my PC, now with better graphics and a higher framerate.

Unplayable offline on the Steam Deck.

Bought it last year on Epic Store and bought it here once more, only to find out that despite them apparently boasting about Steam Deck support (and the Steam variant running on it better, which I do acknowledge), you cannot get past the "Checking entitlements..." screen when you boot the game up.
I tried unlinking my account, all online functionality is disabled yet the single-player game is rendered useless when there's no internet.

This is both laughable and disgusting.

You know how sad the gaming scene is when you're happy that the game runs at 60fps...Only for the stutter to be replaced with a freeze and a crash every 5-10 minutes. I mean, the crashes will get fixed but like other recently released games with "pre-order" options, the studio released a product which was clearly not tested well.

For context:
My 5800H and RTX 3060 6GB laptop can actually run it at 1440p@60fps with Medium graphics settings and DLSS on (although there are annoying dips to 55-ish which in other games don't feel as "stuttery" as with this one so I locked it at 50 and called it a day). In the very least, it's performing better than the dumpster fire called Callisto Protocol if you disregard the crashes.

A personally disturbing but at the same time alluring and addictive game that I loved playing even before I bought it for myself. It's a great time spender on the Steam Deck.

Writing this 7 hours into the game and 20 days after the game came out on PC.
Just for context: Playing the game with an RTX 3060 laptop (which runs the game at minimum 60fps and 1440p with medium-ish settings and Balanced FSR).

The pros:
- the game is gorgeous (the character faces are *chef's kiss*)
- the story is pretty ok for me (although it doesn't have that "umpf" Dead Space had, I still like it)

The one and fatal con:
The devs of this game clearly couldn't give less f*cks about PC players, despite them probably being a fair share of potential buyers, otherwise the game wouldn't have been a straight-up fart on launch (at least PC-wise).

There's no kind way to put it: I thought Cyberpunk had become a textbook example of how not to release a game, but it seems it has become the game development Bible for this studio instead. At launch, the performance was absolutely horrible, no matter which setting you'd try.

Time-skip to now (after 20 days and a couple of "fixes" this cripple of a game received), it's still crap. Sure, it's better now, but the stutters are still there.

Don't get me wrong, the horror aspect of the game is quite promising, but it kinda gets neutered if you get FRAME DROPS EVERY TIME the game's supposed to load a new room. Not to mention frame drops when you're about to hit a jumpscare spot. Or better yet, during quick-time events where you have to avoid obstacles or die, only to have the game drop to almost constant 14-20fps during it. I literally only died in those events because I was seeing a PowerPoint-level presentation of frames.

I was genuinely hopeful, I genuinely wanted this game to be an excellent middle finger to EA and its greed. Instead, it was an argument FOR picking the upcoming Dead Space remake over it.

They didn't even need to assemble a PC with the help of Steam PC statistics (get the most used configuration), they JUST had to test THEIR OWN GAME on a PC to see what they've (not) done. This is a simple and unnecessary disrespect to a specific user-base.

If you TRULY want to eventually play this game, I warmly suggest that you wait until they fix all the issues because despite being better than its launch state, it's still IMO not ready for "quality gameplay".

Excellent, pretty much completely free-to-play ( even with cosmetics ) and full of great things one can enjoy without ever getting bored.