Sonic Adventure 2 Discussion, Speculation, Media Topic

[Stritix]

True, it would be easier if they were optional, but if they were, we'd have a pretty darn short game.

And Amy wasn't that hard to control, not to mention you could knock Zero away.

It'd be just as short as the current titles.

Also she wasn't hard to control, but she was certainly annoying to control. You could knock Zero away, yes. Though only for a couple of seconds, and he'd then come back faster.

[Jin.]

It'd be just as short as the current titles.

Also she wasn't hard to control, but she was certainly annoying to control. You could knock Zero away, yes. Though only for a couple of seconds, and he'd then come back faster.

As short as Generations or the downloadable titles, maybe. But way shorter then Colours, Unleashed, or even '06,

[Stritix]

As short as Generations or the downloadable titles, maybe. But way shorter then Colours, Unleashed, or even '06,

Colours was just as short as Generations. The additional optional stories would make it a longer game. Just Sonic's part would be over.

[Jin.]

Colours was just as short as Generations. The additional optional stories would make it a longer game. Just Sonic's part would be over.

Colours was much longer then Generations.

And you just said it yourself. The additional stories make it a longer game. Which is why SEGA put them in there, and because they, at the time, didn't want a short game, they're not optional.

[Sami]

Knuckles, Gamma, Amy, and Big took up roughly half the game as far as playtime goes. That would be why I'm not a big fan of Adventure. Knuckles and Gamma played better than their SA2 counterparts, so it isn't nearly as awful as SA2 most of the time, but it still holds the game back from being as fun as I would like.

Colours was much longer then Generations.

And you just said it yourself. The additional stories make it a longer game. Which is why SEGA put them in there, and because they, at the time, didn't want a short game, they're not optional.

They could have actually designed the levels properly (i.e. actually playing like one would expect a Sonic game to) if length was such a priority. There's really no excuse for bad design.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Desudash Demonhoof

[Stritix]

Colours was much longer then Generations.

And you just said it yourself. The additional stories make it a longer game. Which is why SEGA put them in there, and because they, at the time, didn't want a short game, they're not optional.

Much longer? Barely.

The additional stories make the game longer, but being forced to play through them is a bad idea. Making them optional doesn't make the game any shorter. It just removes the annoyances.

[Jango]

I would like to join the normal thread's related subjects, but there's is too much flying rage and colliding tastes and opinions coming in my direction.

[Jin.]

Knuckles, Gamma, Amy, and Big took up roughly half the game as far as playtime goes. That would be why I'm not a big fan of Adventure. Knuckles and Gamma played better than their SA2 counterparts, so it isn't nearly as awful as SA2 most of the time, but it still holds the game back from being as fun as I would like.

Admittingly, the game would be a little better if it weren't for Big. Amy is still a somewhat large part of the story and Gamma was decent. Big is kind of... In there.

Much longer? Barely.

The additional stories make the game longer, but being forced to play through them is a bad idea. Making them optional doesn't make the game any shorter. It just removes the annoyances.

I can beat Generations in one, maybe two hours.

Colours takes about two to three with me. SADX (SA) takes about four.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Lelouch Vi Britannia

[Cola]

So, if there's hopefully online multiplayer, who's up for doing the Pyramid Cave Grinding Level?

Dibs.

I get firsties on you, Ed. You're going downnnnnnnnn

Edited July 8, 2012 by Cola

[Jin.]

In any case its four in the morning and I'm going to get some shut-eye. Seeya.

[LoseR]

Well this port is looking pretty cool. And it's got no stupid border around the screen.

Really hoping there's online multiplayer, since I've been waiting to replay this game for a while since it's coming to PS3 probably. :V It'd suck if it didn't since it's the only reason I'd buy it again. <.<

[Stritix]

It is. One of those screenshots shows the PS3 circle button.

[Sami]

The Xbox Live page would have advertised online multiplayer if there were any. It isn't happening.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Desudash Demonhoof

[Jango]

The Xbox Live would have advertised online multiplayer if there were any. It isn't happening.

The Xbox Live page advertised a screenshot that belongs to the Sony's version. Everything can happen.

[Stritix]

The Xbox Live page advertised a screenshot that belongs to the Sony's version. Everything can happen.

That isn't uncommon. I remember Sonic 06 having the same screenshots on both 360 and PS3 pages. Same with Sonic Heroes.

I highly doubt we'll get online multiplayer. I'd love it if we did, but it's rather unlikely.

[Crazizzle]

Opinions are opinions, but I'm not sure it's fair to say a game sucks because it hasn't aged well. A lot of games don't age well, but they were still good...at their time of release. Like....Pong. GREAT game when it was released. Nobody would ever play it now. And yeah, I know...it's an exaggeration. SA2 isn't as important or good for it's time, I'm just talking general principle.

It is true that some games get a pass critically due to the nature of the audience at that time. LOTS of gamers played 2D platformers in the 90's, and I know mediocre games like Bubsy and Boogerman got good scores. Because the audience was interested in mediocre platformers. Nowadays, second tier FPS's get good scores. How will they age? Who knows?

Back on topic, I still enjoy SA2. Flawed game, but most games are. It's kind of like Megaman 8 to me. Good game with tons of little nagging problems caused by changing the Franchise's core elements.

[tenchibr]

My final nail on the coffin is this: the Adventure games were not hyped so much as innovative. It didn't age well, but it set the foundation for what we have today.

Ever played the first Guitar Hero? Granted, Guitar Hero/Rock Band relatively speaking have aged as bad as Sonic has, but it still has their loyal fans, etc... The first GH/RB is now utterly boring in comparison to its sequels, but nevertheless, they set the foundations.

That's all I am asking to be acknowledged. You think Adventure 2 is a pile of crap, fine. But at least you should know without it, there wouldn't be Heroes or GASP! - Generations.

Edited July 8, 2012 by tenchibr

[Sami]

Yet the idiotic design decisions employed by the Adventure games proved to be more detrimental to the series as a whole than actually good. If the Adventure games didn't make us fish as Big the Cat, shoot robots as Tails, or glide around aimlessly as Knuckles, I'd imagine the series would actually be GASP! - respectable.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Desudash Demonhoof

[Kuzu]

Yet the idiotic design decisions employed by the Adventure games proved to be more detrimental to the series as a whole than actually good. If the Adventure games didn't make us fish as Big the Cat, shoot robots as Tails, or glide around aimlessly as Knuckles, I'd imagine the series would actually be GASP! - respectable.

Ironically enough, Sa2 is still regarded as the last good Sonic game.

[T-Min]

Ironically enough, Sa2 is still regarded as the last good Sonic game.

I'd say it's the last good 3-D Sonic game before Colors. :V

Also, some seem to be arguing that SA1 and SA2 sucked even at the time and that lower standards were the only reason why they got away with good scores? Honestly, I'm not sure I buy that. Didn't good reviews at the time actually compliment the alternate gameplay styles and such? Few negative opinions from gaming journalism websites even mention them anyway, usually just harping on "HERP DERP SANICZ FRENZ" as if the characters themselves were the problem. Really, I think that the quality of the play styles themselves is pretty "YMMV" anyway; personally, I enjoy the mech shooting and treasure hunting plenty, even if they're a bit out of place. And, of course, if you hated the genre roulette, the games did still have plenty to love besides the (at the time) beautiful visuals: the speed stages of both games were almost unanimously praised, and both games had the Chao Gardens and plenty of replay value. Hype, HOLY SHIZZ THREE DEE and OMG LOOK AT DEM GREEFIX might have had something to do with the good critical reception, but those really couldn't have been the only reasons.

And not to come off as one of those "HERPADERP OPINYIN NAWT FAKT" posts, buuuut I do think the way people are saying it implies a bit more objectivity (OH SNAP WE'RE GOIN' INTO "O"-CARD TERRITORY HERE) than can really be applied to the statement. There are definitely legitimate arguments for it and I'd say both games have some objective faults, but I think that to say that both games objectively sucked even for their time (although that may not quite be what you mean) is probably going a bit far...but that's just me.

Anyway, on the subject of the port itself, since I haven't brought it up yet: Meh. Probably won't be getting it, since I'm perfectly happy with the Dreamcast version. But hey, it's nice that they're making it, I guess. Hopefully it won't completely suck like the XBLA/PSN port of SA. Of course, it will probably get soul-destroyingly scathing reviews anyway :I

So yeah d:

Edited July 8, 2012 by T-Bert Fizzlewut

[Sami]

You've pointed out the issue yourself, though;

Really, I think that the quality of the play styles themselves is pretty "YMMV" anyway;

While I'd never be ignorant enough to pass off my own contempt for the alternate playstyles in Sonic Adventure 2 as objective fact, I will stand by my stance that the very concept of genre roulette is an objective flaw.

The reason less and less people seem to be liking Sonic Adventure 2 isn't because of some inane bias against the game; it's because it has legitimate flaws that are far more noticeable now that standards have increased.

[T-Min]

The reason less and less people seem to be liking Sonic Adventure 2 isn't because of some inane bias against the game; it's because it has legitimate flaws that are far more noticeable now that standards have increased.

As I have acknowledged myself, but I was just pointing out that there were legitimate reasons to love them at the time (and I would argue even now), as well. I believe that saying "they sucked from the get-go" is a bit much. Standards were only raised because better games came out; at the time, this was considered cutting edge.

And about "inane bias", you've got to keep in mind, I was primarily referring to gaming journalists. :U And, in that case, it likely wouldn't be bias against this one game, but rather the franchise as a whole (or at least, the periphery cast). I certainly don't believe that the reason more and more fans seem to be disliking them is because of bias. Good Lord, even mentioning "bias" in a discussion about SA2 brings back memories of a certain other forum...

Edited July 8, 2012 by T-Bert Fizzlewut

[Eternlo]

Wow, what the hell happend here? I dont check the thread for a day or two and all im seeing now is pages of "the adventure series sucks". What ever happend to just having fun and enjoying the games, thats what i do and i hardly run into any glitches.

[Sami]

Wow, what the hell happend here? I dont check the thread for a day or two and all im seeing now is pages of "the adventure series sucks". What ever happend to just having fun and enjoying the games, thats what i do and i hardly run into any glitches.

I can't do that if they suck.

I seriously don't get this argument. Do you honestly think I buy video games with the intent of hating them?

[T-Min]

Wow, what the hell happend here? I dont check the thread for a day or two and all im seeing now is pages of "the adventure series sucks". What ever happend to just having fun and enjoying the games, thats what i do and i hardly run into any glitches.

In addition to what Desudash (lol) said, couldn't this logic be applied to ANY game a lot of people happen to dislike? Not to mention that you're basically stating that no discussion on the quality of the games or expression of a negative opinion thereof should be taking place here. Why not, might I ask?

Edited July 8, 2012 by T-Bert Fizzlewut