Sonic Adventure 2 - over rated or under rated?

[Nepenthe]

That's not how game design works. I'm pretty sure Sonic Adventure was designed as is from the outset and that Iizuka didn't just take out the time the programmers spent making levels one day in the middle of production and say "You guys should add some hubs now." As such, a reduction of hubs wouldn't have necessarily resulted in more levels. You might have gotten bigger ones or more cut scenes or something, or hell, maybe nothing would've changed at all. And they were probably taken out of later games because ST purposefully thought they went against the design of those particular games.

tl;dr: Saying "taking out x would have resulted in more time that could have been spent on y" is not necessarily true. [/nitpick]

[The Weeb with No Name]

Overrated or underrated...

Well, between the reception of the original Sa2 and the Battle remake, apparently they're both.

[Dr. Crusher]

It's no secret that I find SA2 to be overrated, for the same reasons as everyone else - namely, the beginning of the grimdark, alternate gameplay stages mixed up with traditional gameplay stages (unlike SA1 in which they were seperated), less variable locations, and all the usual. That's not to say there weren't elements that I did like (Robotnik pyramid? King Boom Boo? Gooood.), but for the most part I find it to get far more credit than it deserves.

Overall, it's not a bad game, but I do prefer SA1, Unleashed, Colours and Generations.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Dr. Crusher

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's neither, primarily because calling something "overrated" or "underrated" can easily be a snide way for someone to say "people are stupid for liking this game so much." Now considering the forum that we're in, and how closely knit we are, I doubt most of you would actually mean that in secret. But hearing the words "Over/underrated" give me that irking suspicion everytime someone uses it, and I tend to want to argue against that. It's as "rated" as it is, that much you should know.

But all in all, the fact that SA2 is something should say a lot about it. It has it's own charms compared to Heroes, ShTH, and Sonic 06 after it, and it's for those traits that people look at it so highly. Let's not fool ourselves, there are flaws with it's gameplay, some of which have been overhauled or enhanced in recent games. But while some of you guys may not like it, you can't be so blind as to see why others do like it; and the same applies for the opposite group. The Genre Roulettes are obviously a downer, but the maturity it held for darker elements are a plus; some of the shallower aspects of the game are a let down, while the more deeper areas add to it (and I'm just speaking generally here).

I still prefer Sonic 3&K, but I won't deny the power that SA2 has over the fandom. That says a lot about it than it does for other 3D games, and the fact that most members on GameTrailers up and defended the game when GT included it as part of the list of Bad Sonic games ought to tell the impact it can have even outside the fandom.

Just wanted to put that out their. It's fun looking at the world in such a grey perspective.

Edited March 27, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Rexeljet]

Really the thing I find annoying about the people that have a fetish for this game, is that they always say things like "It improved everything from Sonic adventure 1" but it didn't. Sure, it got rid of Big, but that was about it. Is making the levels more linear an improvement? Did they think that the exploration was a waste of programming in the first game? Is forcing characters you don't want to play as on you an improvement? I hate collecting things, so I don't want to aimlessly wander around Pumpkin Hill or Meteor Hard searching for emeralds.

They then complain about games like Sonic 06, Unleashed and Colours for having problems that were ever-present in Sonic adventure 2. They'll complain that Unleashed and Colours are too linear or that 06 and Unleashed force characters on you, but Sonic adventure 2 had the same problems!

But even worse than that, if someone reviews the game and gives it a low score, for perfectly legitimate reasons, these SA2 fanboys can't just say "I disagree, but respect your opinion", instead they outright tell the reviewer that they're wrong. It annoys me how a large chunk of these people simply cannot take opinions, and will actually claim that the game being good is hard fact, and not opinion. How does that work? Did the game end world hunger? Did it bring peace to the world? Obviously not, because those problems are still with us today!

But on the other hand, the people who complain about the adventure games for being dreadful aren't much better, even if the games (especially the 2nd one) didn't do the franchise the world of good for several years after.

[Alluusio]

Really the thing I find annoying about the people that have a fetish for this game, is that they always say things like "It improved everything from Sonic adventure 1" but it didn't. Sure, it got rid of Big, but that was about it. Is making the levels more linear an improvement? Did they think that the exploration was a waste of programming in the first game? Is forcing characters you don't want to play as on you an improvement? I hate collecting things, so I don't want to aimlessly wander around Pumpkin Hill or Meteor Hard searching for emeralds.

SA2 improved some of the moves and added new ones as well. Grinding, for example, was only ever done right in SA2. Later games only used it for cinematic effects rather than actual gameplay. SA2 may be more linear than SA1, but it was also a lot less glitchy and felt more refined. It still had some exploration aspects, but unfortunately those were only present in a few levels. The exploration aspect kind of got moved onto the treasure hunting stages. And I did somewhat enjoy them, but I can totally see why someone wouldn't. I hate how they got rid of the radar which showed all the emeralds at the same time. That is a significant downgrade from SA1.

They then complain about games like Sonic 06, Unleashed and Colours for having problems that were ever-present in Sonic adventure 2. They'll complain that Unleashed and Colours are too linear or that 06 and Unleashed force characters on you, but Sonic adventure 2 had the same problems!

The thing about 06 is that the game doesn't work, no matter who you play as. It's not necessarily the characters that people complain about. It's about the glitches, loading screens, god-awful story and overall lack of speed and good controls. Unleashed made the levels even more linear than SA2 did. Seriously, play the levels without using the boost and see how much the game loses it's appeal. You keep doing the same things over and over again in every run, while in SA2 every run feels at least somewhat different. At least this is how I feel. Colors did improve this with the Wisps, which I really liked. Drilling through the ground always feels like a fresh experience since there is a lot to explore. However, since there are levels which are just a part of a bigger level and the 3D sections are pretty linear the game didn't really stand out to some people. Generations fits somewhere between Unleashed and Colors. Not quite as expansive as some of the sections in Colors, but not as linear as Unleashed either. Also Sonic feels more stiff than he does in SA2.

About the different characters. Well, to be honest I actually preferred the night stages in Unleashed to the day stages. More exploring, more freedom. I think I like werehog just as much as I do the treasure hunting stages, maybe even more. But I still prefer the shooting stages, since they still feel fast paced with lots of action going on and levels like Cosmic Wall just never get old.

But even worse than that, if someone reviews the game and gives it a low score, for perfectly legitimate reasons, these SA2 fanboys can't just say "I disagree, but respect your opinion", instead they outright tell the reviewer that they're wrong. It annoys me how a large chunk of these people simply cannot take opinions, and will actually claim that the game being good is hard fact, and not opinion. How does that work? Did the game end world hunger? Did it bring peace to the world? Obviously not, because those problems are still with us today!

You know, it's not only the Sonic fanbase which does this. Trust me, there are a lot of people in the world who get offended if someone dares to have a different opinion than they do, Obviously some of these people happen to like SA2. That's all there is to it.

[Burnt Ash]

Tbh, I'm not sure how much an SA1 type radar would benefit SA2's hunting stages, given their size.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

A bit of a bone to pick here...

Really the thing I find annoying about the people that have a fetish for this game, is that they always say things like "It improved everything from Sonic adventure 1" but it didn't. Sure, it got rid of Big, but that was about it. Is making the levels more linear an improvement? Did they think that the exploration was a waste of programming in the first game? Is forcing characters you don't want to play as on you an improvement? I hate collecting things, so I don't want to aimlessly wander around Pumpkin Hill or Meteor Hard searching for emeralds.

Seriously? Getting rid of Big was the only improvement?

How about levels that didn't have you pause for a brief moment before switching to something else? SA2 levels were no less linear than SA1, as it had parts where you could move around with more room (although it was more character specific than SA1, that much is true). And you were forced to play as all the other characters regardless of which of the Adventure titles you played, the good part for SA1 being that you didn't switch characters every level.

They then complain about games like Sonic 06, Unleashed and Colours for having problems that were ever-present in Sonic adventure 2. They'll complain that Unleashed and Colours are too linear or that 06 and Unleashed force characters on you, but Sonic adventure 2 had the same problems!

Um, no. Let's go one-by-one.

Sonic 06

Sonic 06 combines BOTH problems of SA1 and 2 and makes them worse. Like SA1, it pauses each time you go to a new segment of a level, but with the added dread of even longer load times. Like SA2, it switches characters on you, but does it a step further by doing so in mid-level and even with characters who have their own stories. You could be playing Sonic's story and then switch into playing as Silver in Kingdom Valley despite the two having separate stories. Then there's the exploration bits, which are made worse because the hub worlds are so big and yet they are so empty. That's more SA1's valley than SA2.

But one think Sonic 06 had that neither Adventure had was such glaringly bad glitches. In the Adventures, you often had to find the glitches on accident; in Sonic 06, the glitches find YOU.

Unleashed

Unleashed's only similarity with SA2 is that it switched you to play as a character you didn't want. I can't think of anything else. But unlike SA2 Unleashed gives you more of a choice to pick when to play as said character. Granted, you still have to play as him to complete the game, but that's been an issue with a lot of 3D games, not just SA2.

Colors

Now this is where you're just flat out bullshiting, and you know it. Exactly what issue did Colors have that SA2 had as well?

Linear levels? So did Heroes, as did SA1 and even ShTH.

No exploration? Heroes, ShTH.

Forcing you to play as other characters? Completely non-existent.

Colors is so far away from SA2 that you're reaching for straws trying to compare the two.

But even worse than that, if someone reviews the game and gives it a low score, for perfectly legitimate reasons, these SA2 fanboys can't just say "I disagree, but respect your opinion", instead they outright tell the reviewer that they're wrong. It annoys me how a large chunk of these people simply cannot take opinions, and will actually claim that the game being good is hard fact, and not opinion. How does that work?

First off, SA2 fans aren't the only fans that do this, and you'd do well to remember that. You could do that for any well known game out their and you'd get flack.

Second, I think that has more to do with how reviewers praised the game in the past decade before turning around and saying the game sucks, and to top it off they did so more vocally during the "Sonic Sux" Period of ShTH-Sonic 06. That gives people the impression that the reviewers are being flip-flops who are jumping the bandwagon like everyone else, and that's not the best impression you want to give if you change your mind.

[Scar]

Though, I do agree that SA2 is a pretty poor game (at least to me) compared to its predecessor, the reasons that CSS pointed out are either poorly justified or generally aimed in the wrong directions, sometimes even irrelevant. Colours? I mean really?

SA2 honestly was nowhere near as fun as SA1 to me. SA1 was simplistic fun, if a little rough around the edges. SA2 made some significant improvements with regards to polish, but seemed to exaggerate SA1's flaws as well. Lets start with Sonic's gameplay. Improvements include a much better camera system and a VASTLY superior light-speed-dash and slightly better physics. Problems that were exascerbated....well, lets get stuck in. Firstly, movement. SA1's controls were a little twitchy and slightly over-responsive, SA2 exaggerated this, so that a slight movement of the analogue stick would send Sonic (or Shadow) careening in that direction with absolutely no change in speed......at all. To the extent that you could turn 90 degrees on a dime. In SA1 at least there was a degree of fluidity, and Sonic would at least attempt to make an arc to turn 90 degrees rather than just instantly switching to that direction. To that end, Sonic's movement felt a lot more sluggish and way too heavy. SA1 felt alright, light and nimble and most importantly quick, but once again a little too rapid, and at times you could lose control. SA2 over compensated for this and slowed Sonic right down. Don't know if there was actually that much of a difference, but Sonic felt a lot slower.

Moving on, lets talk about alternate characters. SA1 had them, but you didn't really need to play them. Particularly if the story or 100% completion wasn't on your mind. Most importantly, each character was seperate. You played as one character from the beginning of their story till the end. There was no forced switching. For whatever reasons, beit time, or story streamlining, this wasn't the case in SA2, you played as Sonic and then were immediately forced to play a completely different game, just when you were getting into the rhythm of Sonic's gameplay. It was jarring as all hell. Talking about specifics, Knuckles' gameplay received no upgrades, just a severe gimping. The camera remained just as finnicky (though that wasn't that much of an issue to begin with), Knux controlled almost exactly the same, just maybe - like Sonic - slightly heavier than before. Everything else was made much worse, the radar....oh GOD the radar. It worked just fine in SA1. Find the emeralds in any order, slightly larger effective range. But no, they made it so you would have to find them in a specific order. Additionally, they decided to make the emerald shards smaller and they got rid of their neon green glow that made them simple to spot. Furthermore, they made the stages much larger. That I could understand if they had kept the original radar and size and appearance of emeralds, but now that they were smaller and less visible and had a retarded radar, they became a chore to find. Then there was the hint system which with Rouge became exceedingly hideous and tried to fucking trick you; backwards text to backwards text AND backwards instructions. Total bollocks. Sure you can enjoy it, much like you can enjoy '06 or S4E1, doesn't make it any less awfully designed. Tails and Eggman were OK. There was far more platforming in their stages than I cared for, especially considering they were in slow, clunky tanks which didn't at all have good jumping mechanics, not to mention they were more cramped, narrow and linear than Windmill Isle Day or Green Hill Act 2 in Unleashed and Generations respectively. Just average and quite boring.

I dunno, SA2 had a lot of problems in it. Definately overrated, especially if there are a large number of people who consider it to be the pinnacle of 3D Sonic, which it most certainly is not.

[Burnt Ash]

I've thought about this before, although I dunno how thoroughly (if at all) I looked into it. The hunting stages in SA2 would probably benefit from a better hint system rather than an SA1-type radar. As for the radar itself, I don't fault it. Instead, I fault the massive design of the levels. If the radar in SA2 was to be like in SA1, by looking for any emerald at any time, each emerald would have to have a larger range in which the radar can detect the emeralds, so the ranges can overlap each other. Now here's the problem. Given the size of Knux and Rouge's stages, having these large ranges may make it more difficult to find the emeralds than without the SA1-type radar, which might be more due to confusion than anything. In a smaller stage, sure. SA1's stages were perfect for having that type of radar, as the stages were compact, so emerald finding was easier. In SA2, if there's one thing that I can say its hunting stages did wrong, it was that crappy hint system. To me at least, the hints were only helpful after beating the levels several times, to the point where I pretty much knew what some of the hints referred to. The hints don't necessarily have to outright give the location of the emeralds away, but they don't have to be too vague either.

tl;dr :

I don't think an SA1 radar would benefit SA2's Hunting stages, although a better hint system would.

Edited March 27, 2012 by thebluehedgehog

[Nepenthe]

I can't think of any 3D Sonic game where horizontal analogue movement whilst going forward has actually resulted in a noticeable change in speed or wasn't at its most sensitive at the highest attainable speeds. SA1 is plenty guilty of both, but especially the latter in levels with small corridors to traverse like Casinopolis, Sky Deck, and Final Egg. I can't be the only one who had Sonic catch along walls and stop outright because I was under the impression that I actually needed to navigate him around bends.

I also don't know why people consider the separation of the campaigns a particular strength in regards to SA1's design. Playing only 1/6 of the game because the other 5/6 of it is potentially too offensive to stomach is never a point in any game's favor, nor have I heard of anyone actually doing this out of exercising a positive expression of "choice" that Sonic Team gave them; it's usually the result of ragequitting because they can't stand Big's or Amy's levels. The differences between the two games in this regard don't seem like any real good trade-off.

This attitude also completely devalues the rest of the campaigns as not being all that integral to the experience, as if they are of the same significance as, say, the Chao Garden, thus playing them will result and comparatively little lost over the course of playing the game. No; playing only Sonic's mission doesn't give you the true breadth of what the game has to offer because it is an extremely story-oriented game. Playing Sonic Adventure under the guise of not giving a damn about the story is about as foolish as playing Call of Duty and not giving a damn about gunfights.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Diogenes]

I've thought about this before, although I dunno how thoroughly (if at all) I looked into it. The hunting stages in SA2 would probably benefit from a better hint system rather than an SA1-type radar. As for the radar itself, I don't fault it. Instead, I fault the massive design of the levels. If the radar in SA2 was to be like in SA1, by looking for any emerald at any time, each emerald would have to have a larger range in which the radar can detect the emeralds, so the ranges can overlap each other. Now here's the problem. Given the size of Knux and Rouge's stages, having these large ranges may make it more difficult to find the emeralds than without the SA1-type radar, which might be more due to confusion than anything. In a smaller stage, sure. SA1's stages were perfect for having that type of radar, as the stages were compact, so emerald finding was easier.

What?

No dude, the problem with SA2's radar is that you can walk right near a shard and not get a ping, if it's not the one you're supposed to be looking for. The ability to track other shards is in no way confusing.

[Scar]

I can't think of any 3D Sonic game where horizontal analogue movement whilst going forward has actually resulted in a noticeable change in speed or wasn't at its most sensitive at the highest attainable speeds. SA1 is plenty guilty of both, but especially the latter in levels with small corridors to traverse like Casinopolis, Sky Deck, and Final Egg. I can't be the only one who had Sonic catch along walls and stop outright because I was under the impression that I actually needed to navigate him around bends.

I also don't know why people consider the separation of the campaigns a particular strength in regards to SA1's design. Playing only 1/6 of the game because the other 5/6 of it is potentially too offensive to stomach is never a point in any game's favor, nor have I heard of anyone actually doing this out of exercising a positive expression of "choice" that Sonic Team gave them; it's usually the result of ragequitting because they can't stand Big's or Amy's levels. The differences between the two games in this regard don't seem like any real good trade-off.

This attitude also completely devalues the rest of the campaigns as not being all that integral to the experience, as if they are of the same significance as, say, the Chao Garden, thus playing them will result and comparatively little lost over the course of playing the game. No; playing only Sonic's mission doesn't give you the true breadth of what the game has to offer because it is an extremely story-oriented game. Playing Sonic Adventure under the guise of not giving a damn about the story is about as foolish as playing Call of Duty and not giving a damn about gunfights.

I don't know which post you're referring to, but I assuming that its mine I think you missed the point I was trying to make. In SA2 you were forced to play as other characters, regardless of whether you wanted to or not. More often than not it interrupted your rhythmn for a particular gameplay style. Not that it would have made that much of a difference given that the alternate gameplay was so poorly designed anyway, but it would have at least made it more tolerable, seeing as you knew that you were going to be playing just as Knuckles or Tails, not get rudely interrupted on your City Escape high by Wild Canyon.

[Burnt Ash]

That could be true for stages like Wild Canyon, but it's still a ridiculously large area to search through in stages like Meteor Herd and Pumpkin Hill.

@Dio

Edited March 27, 2012 by thebluehedgehog

[Diogenes]

That could be true for stages like Wild Canyon, but it's still a ridiculously large area to search through in stages like Meteor Herd and Pumpkin Hill.

@Dio

What does the size of the level change? Having your radar track all 3 shards at once is absolutely, 100% better with not a single downside (unless I guess the extra pinging sounds drive you nuts? But that's just a consequence of playing a treasure hunting level). It doesn't solve every problem ("not having fucking treasure hunting" would solve all of its problems...), but it is an unambiguous improvement.

[Burnt Ash]

What does the size of the level change? Having your radar track all 3 shards at once is absolutely, 100% better with not a single downside (unless I guess the extra pinging sounds drive you nuts? But that's just a consequence of playing a treasure hunting level). It doesn't solve every problem ("not having fucking treasure hunting" would solve all of its problems...), but it is an unambiguous improvement.

I thought that the size of the level would have changed the range of the radar, but after thinking through it again, size wouldn't make much of a difference. So, you're right.

[Nepenthe]

I don't know which post you're referring to, but I assuming that its mine I think you missed the point I was trying to make. In SA2 you were forced to play as other characters, regardless of whether you wanted to or not. More often than not it interrupted your rhythmn for a particular gameplay style. Not that it would have made that much of a difference given that the alternate gameplay was so poorly designed anyway, but it would have at least made it more tolerable, seeing as you knew that you were going to be playing just as Knuckles or Tails, not get rudely interrupted on your City Escape high by Wild Canyon.

I understand this point. I just don't think it's considerably worse in terms of comparing each game's system of level progression within the broader context of what are ultimately two different gaming experiences anyway.

Unlike SA1, SA2 establishes a narrative of two teams working together for roughly common goals with each team member specializing in something, shining the spotlight on each as the plot calls for it. You're not expected to work up any significant "rhythm" for one character in the first place by this design choice alone, as well as other things like the plotting and boss placement: Your City Escape high isn't actually interrupted by Wild Canyon, but rather a comparatively slower, arena-situated boss fight with Big Foot that inevitably leads to your capture by GUN again. Taking this narrative opportunity to switch to another character that isn't in the process of being incarcerated by federal agents isn't jarring at all, but rather the sensible thing to do.

Overall, taking a characteristic of two different games, comparing them directly, and then deciding that one game on the whole is definitely worse without having fully considered how the differences are meant to facilitate different gameplay experiences in the first place is a flawed way to compare and contrast games.

[Diogenes]

What if I consider how SA2's "opposing teams" conceit applies to the story and still think SA2's worse than SA for forcing unrelated gameplay on the player at near-random intervals compared to sectioning it off into their own stories?

[Nepenthe]

Then that's your opinion to have; I just don't agree with it. I find something inherently valuable in having a story-oriented game wherein gaining access to multiple viewpoints of the narrative is streamlined in this manner compared to the other option of having such content separated in completely different campaigns wherein each piece of the puzzle is some hours' worth of wandering around on top of the genre roulette in the first place. It all depends on how you like your bloat served.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Soniman]

I It has it's own charms compared to Heroes, ShTH, and Sonic 06 after it, and it's for those traits that people look at it so highly.

Eh, I know it's probably just me. But I find a game like Heroes infinitely more charming and stylistic than SA2 (which it's actually similar to Shadow and 06 in that regard, but on a far FAR more reasonable extent).

There's just something about SA2 that's ...kinda unappealing. Nothing really pops out (excluding the ARK levels and Green Hill) the general colors that are used are kinda dull and just....boring to look at. I think that was the cost in trying a bit to hard to make it "real" and just.....Un-Sonicy (as puritist as that sounds), to me at least.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Groosenator032

[Nepenthe]

The only major difference I see between the two in terms of color is the result of the lighting; SA2's got a lot more shadows going on which can make areas look comparatively dark. But the actual colors in SA2 are pretty heavily saturated, about on par with SA1's best at a quick glance. The sky, foliage, and dirt are unnatural Crayola hues of blues, greens, and reds respectively. And coupled with the lighting, special landmarks like the Golden Gate or the characters themselves could stand out more in comparison. It wasn't really an ShtH or Black Knight affair.

Also, let's remember that not every single level in SA1 was particularly bright either. Lost World for example marvels in grey/tan hues and low-saturated light blues. In fact, I think the brightest thing in that level is the picture you see at the third part. Same goes for a great deal of Ice Cap, the Tornado in Windy Valley, the Sky Chase acts, Hot Shelter, and Sky Deck.

[Scar]

Then that's your opinion to have; I just don't agree with it. I find something inherently valuable in having a story-oriented game wherein gaining access to multiple viewpoints of the narrative is streamlined in this manner compared to the other option of having such content separated in completely different campaigns wherein each piece of the puzzle is some hours' worth of wandering around on top of the genre roulette in the first place. It all depends on how you like your bloat served.

Its a neat idea. Call of Duty 4 used a similar system almost perfectly. Only difference is that SA2 had immediate dissonance, at least to me, with how contrasting each of the 3 gameplay styles are. One is a straight up race to the goal, the other is a slow trundle to the goal while bowling a ton of shit up, and the third is wandering around a large arena looking for 3 very small objects. If each of the characters had gameplay which were built from the same core principles, with slight variations, the result would have been a lot smoother.

The other issue is that Treasure Hunting and Mech shooting seemed to be much worse designed than the Speed stages. There was also the issue that I just found those two to be massively boring and uninteresting.

I'm not saying the idea is inherantly wrong, what I'm saying that the execution is extremely poor, especially for a game that is often touted to be the best 3D (and in some cases best overall) Sonic game of all time. I too would like a Sonic game that is more narrative driven with a strong interplay between narrative and gameplay, it just needs to be executed well for it to work. If I'm playing as Sonic and enjoying it, and then I have to play what is functionally an entirely different game, it pulls me out of the experience and dilutes any value the narrative had up until that point.

[Soniman]

The only major difference I see between the two in terms of color is the result of the lighting; SA2's got a lot more shadows going on which can make areas look comparatively dark. But the actual colors in SA2 are pretty heavily saturated, about on par with SA1's best at a quick glance. The sky, foliage, and dirt are unnatural Crayola hues of blues, greens, and reds respectively. And coupled with the lighting, special landmarks like the Golden Gate or the characters themselves could stand out more in comparison. It wasn't really an ShtH or Black Knight affair.

Also, let's remember that not every single level in SA1 was particularly bright either. Lost World for example marvels in grey/tan hues and low-saturated light blues. In fact, I think the brightest thing in that level is the picture you see at the third part. Same goes for a great deal of Ice Cap, the Tornado in Windy Valley, the Sky Chase acts, Hot Shelter, and Sky Deck.

Yeah, okay fair enough. I guess when I think of SA2's asthetics, it's usually stuff like Aquatic Mine and Sky Rail which were ungodly bland and boring to look at.

[Rawpowered]

Can anyone say it was underrated? I certainly can't. It was generally well received by critics and the majority of the fanbase and it sold like hotcakes back in it's day. To say it's underrated is like saying Call of Duty or Fifa is underrated.

[Phos]

There's an important difference in the genre roulette between SA1 and 2, two actually, one for each gameplay style they carried over. First is that the controls for the shooting bits was changed such that slowing from any kind of speed causes this unskippable stopping animation that screwed up the fundimental gameplay. The levels also suck, but that's another story. The treasure hunting in 2 got its own set of levels that seem to have no rhyme or reason to their layout, they're just a bunch of hiding spots connected by hallways. The one shard at a time radar is pretty obviously a means to just make these levels take longer, now you have to explore the entire level 3 times to find them.

Calling them under or overrated is tricky considering how many people have played this game at some point. For example, I'm posative that there are some people who like it just because it introduced Shadow. If that's their criteria for liking it then it's the best game to ever introduce Shadow the Hedgehog.

What I really don't get is the praise this game gets for its story.