Jump to content


TSS Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Diesel

  1. The majority of critics, numerous gamers in general as well as myself.
  2. I'll provide proof when you people do as well. Nice ad hominem on the second question; you have no way of even knowing when I was born. Still no proof. Keep telling yourself that. I had already admitted that Sonic Adventure DX isn't an emulation. You clearly don't read posts before you respond to them. Furthermore, that wasn't what Nepenthe and I were even discussing, so that's irrelevant. You're salty. Nope, at this moment, we can use reviews from now to discuss whether or not a game is good. Only in the future will that not be the case.
  3. Nah, that would be Sonic & Knuckles, not counting spin-offs. Anyway, the reason why most people like Sonic Adventure 2 is really just nostalgia. If a Sonic game like it were released today, even with all of the technical problems like the faulty camera fixed, it would be thrashed. The Sonic and Shadows stages are mostly fine. But the rest of the game is atrocious. Shooting and treasure hunting have no business in a Sonic game.
  4. If a port features glitches that make it notably worse than the original game, then it is substantially different to the original game. That is a fact no matter how you try to spin it. You are trying to argue that Sonic Adventure DX features glitches that make it notably worse than the original Sonic Adventure. Therefore, you're trying to argue that it's significantly different to the original game. Oh, no, I'm not trying to get you to agree with me. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic. I don't really care if you agree with me. It's not. Hilarious you're criticizing me for not providing any proof for my arguments, yet you aren't with your statement right here. Lol, that's not how a discussion works. Just because you don't care about what the other side has to say doesn't mean there's no reason for the other side to say anything in the first place. You're acting no different than a child covering his ears to keep him/herself from hearing something he/she doesn't want to hear. Your hypocrisy shows itself once again. You're criticizing me for not providing proof for my arguments, yet you're not providing any proof or evidence when you assert that Sonic Retro is reliable. I'm not gonna believe you just because you say so. Furthermore, this is all they say about Sonic Adventure DX being glitchier than the original game: http://info.sonicretro.org/Sonic_Adventure_DX:_Director's_Cut#Main_Game One sentence that isn't even backed up by proof of any sort. That's not proving anything. Nope, you asserted, in your words, that "DX is Sonic Adventure made worse through through bad porting". Again with your hypocrisy. You posted no proof for your argument, and you expect me to post proof for mine? Practice what you preach. What I meant when I said older reviews don't matter is that they can't be used to say whether or not a game has aged well. Standards were different when those reviews came out, so they're irrelevant. Only recent reviews can be used to say whether or not a game has aged well. Sure, older reviews are needed for a "starting point" with which to measure how its quality has held up, but the reviews themselves can't be used to say whether or not the game has aged well. @Bowbowis They may be the same TYPES of issues, but they're so much worse in Sonic Adventure that they can't be compared to the other games. Just because two things are in the same field doesn't mean they can be compared. If one is much, much worse than the other, there is no real comparison. You can't compare William Hung to Elvis Presley. What I stated to "just be my opinion" is that Sonic Adventure is a bad game. Whether or not a game is bad can't be proven as it's entirely up to opinion. Whether or not the majority of people consider a game to be good isn't up to opinion, though. It's up to fact. Nope, you stated that the majority like Sonic Unleashed as a fact. Those Amazon ratings/reviews you posted are actually mostly irrelevant as most of them came out back when Sonic Adventure first came out. Those ratings/reviews came out when a time standards were different, so they're irrelevant. But yeah, the ratings/reviews you posted for the rereleases of Sonic Adventure are pretty up to date, and you posted a lot of them. Alright, I admit the majority of people still like Sonic Adventure. And I admit the majority of people like Sonic Unleashed, seeing as the user ratings for it on multiple sites are fairly high. @Tornado Wrong, I did speak about Spyro 1. You had stated the following: I responded: After I posted this, you backpedaled and changed your argument to involve Spyro 3: We weren't talking about Spyro 3; we were only talking about Spyro 1, so there was no reason for you to bring up Spyro 3. Spyro 3 isn't irrelevant because I didn't personally bring it up. It's because irrelevant because you didn't bring it up at first, and thus it wasn't what we were talking about. You only brought it up when you backpedaled and changed your argument to whether or not it can be compared to Sonic Adventure. Fair enough. But Spyro 3 wasn't part of your original argument; you only brought it up when you backpedaled. The only Spyro game that's relevant here is Spyro 1, as that's the only one we were talking about. Even more baseless, hypocritical statements. Baseless statement and yeah, a few reviews and fan wiki aren't enough. No, the only time I wasn't responding to you guys was when I said Sonic Adventure was never a good game, which I admitted was just my opinion. Everything else was just responses.
  5. Prove to you that the game is inexcusably unplayable? It's full of glitches and camera and collision detection problems. Those are objective problems in a game. I never said there was no way to find the game enjoyable though. One can enjoy something regardless of how bad it is. But it'd still be bad. As for me having to prove to you that the game's technical issues haven't changed much in the rereleases, no, that's not how it works. You were the one who claimed the technical issues changed significantly first, so the burden of proof lies on you. I never said ports in general were hardly different from their original releases. All I said was Sonic Adventure DX is hardly different from its original release. The reason why I brought up Spyro 1 was to use an example of a game that was acclaimed in its original release being well received in its rereleases, unlike Sonic Adventure. I had said nothing about Spyro 3, so there was no reason for Tornado to bring that game up. Whether or not Spyro 3's bugs were fixed for the PSN rerelease is irrelevant. What would only matter is whether or not Spyro 1's bugs were fixed for its rereleases, as unlike Spyro 3, Spyro 1 actually had to do with this discussion. As for Sonic Team porting an earlier, buggier version of Sonic Adventure for the DX port, prove it. It's odd that you ask me to provide evidence for my argument when you haven't provided any evidence yourself. It's true that just because a lot of people hate a game now doesn't make it bad. And? I never said it did. As for the ports being released at a time when Sonic was a "every reviewer's punching bag", that's irrelevant. Whether or not you think that had to do with the ports getting bad reviews is just your unproven speculation. And no, Sonic wasn't all that much of a punching bag when the DX port first came out in 2003. They're not the same issues, so they can't be compared. Almost everyone does not seem to agree that Sonic Unleashed is good. You've provided no evidence for your statement that almost everyone does. And those ratings you pulled up are biased. Just because users on one site voted Sonic Adventure to be a good game doesn't mean the majority of people consider it to be good. User ratings vary from site to site. If you're trying to argue that the DX port added glitches that would make the experience worse for players, then yes, you are trying to argue that the DX port is substantially different. Furthermore, I never said DX didn't add any glitches; what I said was that none of the glitches it added were anything significant enough to make the overall experience worse. You're going to need more than a few reviews and a fan wiki with questionable reliability to prove there were any significant glitches in the DX port. That said, you haven't posted much evidence to bolster your arguments yourself, so why should I? Hypocrisy. Furthermore, you were the ones who made your statements first, so the burden of proof lies on you people. I was only disagreeing with your statements, so no, the burden of proof doesn't lie on me. Obviously, I am dismissing the credibility of critics who reviewed games at the time of Sonic Adventure's original release. Standards were lower then, so there is no merit in reviews back then. I never said the reviews back then for games such as Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Crash Bandicoot or any Spyro game were relevant.
  6. I'm surprised at the number of favorites and retweets that tweet got. I wouldn't want it to be a habit for Sega to respond when a website criticizes Sonic, though. And GameTrailers didn't say Sonic Generations was bad. They were saying it's delusional for people to think Sonic Generations being supposedly means Sonic shouldn't die. As far as GameTrailers is concerned, it doesn't matter how good Sonic Generations was; they still think Sonic should die.
  7. I can certainly understand why people would say Sonic deserves to die. The series has been terrible for over 20 years by this point. But it would be silly of Sega to kill Sonic off. He's still commercially viable; Sonic Boom is a pretty popular TV show.
  8. The problems of Mario 64, Spyro, Crash and Ocarina of Time cannot be compared to the problems of Sonic Adventure. None of these games are as fundamentally broken as Sonic Adventure. The fact they have always received adequate reviews upon benig rereleased whereas Sonic Adventure hasn't bolsters this opinion of mine. That said, the rest of your post falls flat. The basis for your argument is that since older acclaimed games like Mario 64, Crash, Spyro, OoT are excused for their problems, Sonic Adventure should be excused for its problems as well. Sonic Adventure's problems aren't comparable to the problems of these games, however, so your argument is incorrect. You might try to say the reason for this is because Sonic Adventure's rereleases are inferior to the original, but no, that's not the case. They're all identical to the original, despite the minor differences you and others pointed out earlier. Well, if nobody was talking metaphorically, then I guess I admit I was wrong in doing so. Sonic Adventure DX is not an emulation of the original game. But it's still almost identical to the original game, so there's no reason to say it fared worse than the original game because it was substantially different.
  9. No, just because a lot of people liked it back then doesn't mean it was good back then.
  10. Oh, but I was talking in a metaphorical sense when I said it was "essentially" an emulation. Guess that's where the confusion came. I already explained why I thought it was bad: horrible camera, collision detection, glitches, etc. Seems well explained enough to me, seeing as these are problems many people have had with the game. Not to say the rest of my arguments were "poorly constructed", which they weren't, or that I had not given a single well-explained/backed up reason why I believe what I believe, as I did give plenty of well-explained/backed up reasons why I believe what I believe.
  11. You want me to prove my opinion that the game was bad? How laughable. Asking for elaboration is one thing, but proof? lol
  12. The experiences in those Mario, Spyro, Zelda and Crash rereleases are all basically the same as their original releases. Thus they are essentially emulations. And I had never said those games were emulations in the first place before, so it's ridiculous that you're even bringing this up. My claims about emulation were only about Sonic Adventure. You're just shifting attention from Sonic Adventure to those games. And once again, I wasn't talking about Year of the Dragon. I was only talking about the FIRST Spyro. Year of the Dragon is not the first Spyro, therefore it is irrelevant to the discussion subject. Stop attention shifting. As for me "pulling shit out of my ass, dismissing explanations for no other reason than they don't suit me, trying to misuse word definitions to avoid responding to what was actually said when a word was used and claiming things that are obviously untrue but then refusing to defend why my own authority on the subject should be considered credible over everyone else's experiences", again, pot calling the kettle black. I don't need to respond to that. As for the burden of proof lying on me for claiming that SA1 was always bad, opinions can't be proven, so no, the burden of proof doesn't rely on me.What can proven are review scores and what the general consensus of a game is. You people were the ones who made claims that the game was still held in high regard first, so the burden of proof lies on you people by your logic.
  13. A lot of hypocrisy in your post. You should learn what words mean and to actually read what other people are posting yourself. No, the first Spyro game get anywhere near as much scrutiny as Sonic Adventure. Sonic Adventure is hated game. If you think I'm wrong, then prove that this Spyro game is more hated. The logic in Year of the Dragon not being relevant into this discussion is simple. I said that the first Spyro game couldn't be compared to SA1, not Year of the Dragon. You then proceeded to claim that I stated any Spyro game in general couldn't be compared to SA1, which isn't true. As for me not doing much to prove my points like you seem to think, why should I go out of my way to prove my points when you won't prove yours? Simply put, pot calling the kettle black. I could post articles/reviews proving my argument, but if you won't do the same, there's no need. You don't understand how the burden of proof works.
  14. Because if it's unnecessary, it's likely bad. And the Knuckles subplot was bad. It was detrimental to the game's story at large with how stupid it was. Did it add to the experience? Yes, but not in a good way. A lot of times, less is more.
  15. It's almost identical to the original Sonic Adventure. Thus it essentially emulates the original Sonic Adventure. Again, not literally, but essentially. Basically, as long as something is very similar to something else, you can say it's essentially that other thing.
  16. And? Fitting in thematically doesn't justify how unnecessary it was.
  17. Again, I never said Sonic Adventure DX was literally an emulation. It's essentially an emulation.
  18. The tone is a very important part of a story, last I checked. And it's really not just the tone. It's also numerous crap that happened in the story. While this topic isn't about gameplay, the Knuckles' subplot did pave way for the horrible treasure hunting. That's definitely a bad thing. And no, the Knuckles and Rouge subplot doesn't add to the game's central narrative. Them "fighting and making up" did nothing but hint at a creepy romance between a bat and an echidna, which sparked creepy Internet fanfiction and shipping. Remove the whole subplot with Knuckles, and nothing really changes in the story. Granted, the Master Emerald was needed to stop the Chaos Emeralds at the end of the game, but a plot device only revealing its purpose way late in the game is just cheap. Furthermore, Knuckles could have just been written to have never lost the Emerald in the first place.
  19. You're hilarious. You may as well just be posting in all caps "pls respond".
  20. I never said SA2 not having a clear narrative focus was what made it not much better than Shadow. The reason why it's not much better than Shadow in terms of story is because it's almost in the same exact same tone as Shadow's game. As I said before, SA2 had Eggman pointing a gun at Amy and threatening to kill her, Eggman telling the president to his face that he will blow up his country, GUN killing most of everyone who was on the ark, including a helpless girl who they're implied to have shot in cold blood, Gerald going insane, Gerald announcing his plans to kill everyone on Earth and Gerald being implied to be executed. Eggman was seriously out of character; he's not supposed to be this dark, gritty villain. He's supposed to be immature and goofy. And Shadow;s whole back story of being a science project to cure a fictional equivalent to AIDS was stupid. None of this nonsense is acceptable for a Sonic game. Shadow's tone was hardly different from this. As for the Knuckles subplot, yes, it was detrimental. It just shoehorned Knuckles into the game and contained those awful treasure hunting levels.
  21. No. You say I'm "ignoring" the "differences" as if there are any substantial ones to begin with. There aren't any substantial differences. The similarities aren't vague. And I never said Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure DX were identical to each other just because they have the "same general design". They're identical to each other because they're almost exactly the same. Modified graphics and a few added glitches in DX do make for substantial differences. As for my argument that DX is "essentially" an emualtion of SA1, it is essentially an emulation. The definition to "essence": Sonic Adventure DX has the basic, fundamental and intrinsic nature of Sonic Adventure as it's almost identical to that game. Thus, it's "essentially" an emulation. It's not that hard to understand. If DX wasn't identical to SA1, then you would have a point. But it is.
  22. It is irrelevant, and you've no explanation as to why it wouldn't be. This discussion is about whether or not Sonic Adventure is a good game, not why I'm playing games I don't like. I'm not going to answer your questions because they're irrelevant. As for the PS4 version, it's identical to the 360 version, which I've already played, so there's no reason for me to play it.
  23. I agree that Shadow didn't have much of a narrative focus with all of its subplots, and I can see why one wouldn't like its story because of that. But not everything in SA2 had a clear narrative focus. Knuckles was shoehorned into the game's story; the whole subplot with him trying to get back the Master Emerald was pointless.
  24. Again, SADX is not literally an emulation of the original game, but it's still hardly different from the original game. Thus, it's essentially an emulation. You can say it's not all you want, but you've failed to mention any real differences between it and the original game. Year of the Dragon is irrelevant to this discussion, so there is no reason for you to bring it up. You just took my comments on the first Spyro out of context and assumed I was talking any Spyro in general. As for your comments on the original Spyro game, whether or not you think the game is as bad as Sonic Adventure or Superman 64 is irrelevant. What I had said was that the original Spyro doesn't get anywhere near as much scrutiny as the original Sonic Adventure. You may criticize the game all you want, but that doesn't change the fact it's held in a much higher regard than Sonic Adventure. And just because you've proven yourself incapable of grasping the irrelevancy doesn't make something relevant. Your faulty logic works both ways. The magazine/website comments you linked to are irrelevant for a number of reasons. For one, they're not reviews. Random retrospective articles aren't the same thing as actual, professional reviews. The reviews those magazines/websites gave Sonic Adventure's rereleases are more reflective of what they think of the game than those articles. And even if those articles were legitimately reflective of what those magazines/articles thought of the game, you've only posted a few articles. Posting a few articles doesn't bolster your argument that a good amount of people outside the fanbase still like Sonic Adventure; any opinion can be found if one searches hard enough. A dog isn't essentially a cat just because it doesn't walk flat-footed, because there is far more to a cat than not walking flat footed. The similarities between Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure DX aren't as superficial as that similarity between a dog and a cat, because Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure DX are virtually identical to each other. Thus, Sonic Adventure DX is essentially an emulation of Sonic Adventure. Am I saying it's literally an emulation? No, so there's no reason for you to post those literal definitions of what an emulation is. Why I would play multiple versions of a game I don't like is irrelevant to this discussion. Me stating that I played virtually every version of the game doesn't validate your question at all. There is no correlation. And I haven't played the PC and PS4 versions, but there's no need for me to as I've played the 360 version, which is identical to those versions of the game. I've played enough versions of the game to know there isn't any real difference among them, with the exception of the Japanese version, which I've already admitted is different from the rest. And me avoiding your question about why I would play multiple versions of the game if I didn't like it isn't backpedaling. Avoiding an irrelevant question =/= backpedaling. You don't know what backpedaling is.
  25. There is no reason for me to say why I would play multiple versions of a game I don't like. That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Backpedaling is simply changing your argument in a discussion, generally when you can't think of anything to say when someone has debunked your original argument. And that's exactly what you did. You argued that I had given no reason why I thought Sonic Adventure was bad other than its reviews. After I had proven you wrong by pointing out I had already stated the reason why I didn't like the game was because of its glitches, camera problems, etc, you changed your argument into randomly questioning why I would be playing multiple versions of Sonic Adventure I didn't like it. That's backpedaling by definition.
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.