Jump to content
Awoo.

I'm sorry but I hate SA2


castell-neath

Recommended Posts

Well, I can't say I hate it, but i certainly don't like it that much. I just feel like it did almost everything worse than SA1. The controls are worse, the level design is worse... the only thing I think it improved upon was the light dash.

 

About the controls. Sonic feels so slippery and loose in this game compared to SA1. When I wanted to turn Sonic, he'd turn just fine. When I do the same in SA2, it feels like he jerks to the left or right instantly and starts wigging out. Green Forest, I'm looking at you.

 

As for the level design, I mainly mean the hunting/shooting stages. The hunting stages are horribly butchered; you're only allowed to find one emerald at a time (unless you sequence break either by sheer luck or memorizing all the places the shards can be in the level), and they get needlessly big later on. It gets tedious.

 

The shooting stages' biggest crime is poor design. If I wanna get a bunch of points, I need to lock to every enemy I see in the room. Problem ism if you take too long doing it, they fire at you, and you have to lock on again.

 

People say SA1 has aged badly, and while they may be right in terms of the cutscenes, character models etc., I think its gameplay* holds up far better than SA2's.

 

I will say this, though: I like Knuckles' rap songs. Genuinely.

 

*Don't even think about bringing up Big. Not even as a joke. You know what I mean.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how the change in the name has affected other elements. We've still had things like Green Hill, Angel Island, small animals and Flickies (of which Lost World brought back) and the likes. None of these elements or the way things worked have changed because they decided to stick to one source of what the name of the world is, especially when these things haven't always been consistent themselves ever since the stuck with "Earth." Even more, nothing prevents them from going back to them while still referring to the world as "Earth." It seems almost like the "Eggman/Robotnik" bullshit, the only difference being that Eggman/Robotnik refers to the same consistent character no matter which name you use and people who claim otherwise just can't get their heads out of their asses when people refer to his alternate name, while Earth/Mobius is being immaturely argued over an already inconsistent world as it is.

 

The real point I'm trying to get across is that the apparent truth has no value in Sonic (as tends to be the case with videogames in general). "Robotnik or Eggman" matters less than what the villain used to expose and how the player used to interact with him versus what he became. It may not be a coincidence that "Robotnik" is what Eggman was when he was basically the only opposing (and therefore defining) element for Sonic, bringing along everything that Sonic wasn't and making it all look somehow evil. It's not in the name or appearance, but in essence and fuction. Eggman may have been a consistent character throughout the years, but his relation with the world certainly hasn't.

 

Which is only the case because the world and its relations have changed so much. Sonic's only "minions" used to be the flickies - which were the only thing that heavily populated the world we saw on screen, only remarkable for what they were as a group. Then we got introduced to the Chao and humans, which served basically the same purpose in the world. The enemy also changed - machinery hasn't been the main ominous factor for a long time. So the change of name isn't important in itself, of course, but all the changes that came along and that can't simply be reversed by reintroducing flickies are very important.

 

EDIT: Well, textbook example is that of Chaos Emeralds. They haven't even had their name changed and they still make Sonic go super - but haven't they changed in function and what they mean in sonic's context? It's not just a matter of overuse.

Edited by Palas
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WARNING:  Blind, nostalgia-charged fanboyism ahead.

 

SA2, especially its Battle counterpart, is probably one of my favorite Sonic games, if not one of my favorite games of all time.  A vastly different opinion from that of the OP, but I still believe so nonetheless.  I've essentially played all three releases of the game to death.

 

Besides the awesome music, the things I love most about the game pretty much involve Sonic himself.  I feel that it contains literally the ideal interpretation of Sonic's looks, voice, and overall gameplay that I'd like to see in the series.

 

Looks-wise, there's always been something about Sonic's proportions in the game that I liked, even as a kid.  He had a taller, more confident look (without being freakishly tall like in '06), and his decked-out Soap shoes had a badass feel that made running and grinding look even cooler.  In addition, his spikes also seemed like the perfect length to me.  This kind of stuff sounds obsessive, but as a budding artist I like to notice the little aesthetic details in a character's design, and something about SA2 Sonic's looks really inspires me.

 

Then there was the voice.  I actually like all three of the voice actors, but his best voice also happened to be Drummond's SA2 portrayal in my opinion.  He showed more vocal range than in SA1, but didn't sound overly hyper or high-pitched like in Heroes.  Plus, it contains my favorite line of Sonic's:  "You've turned into a big-time villain, Doctor!"

 

And finally, the gameplay.  Again, I should say that SA2 featured my ideal vision of how Sonic should "feel" in 3D.  He still had his essential speed, but also some of the tightest, most satisfying "slow" controls I've ever seen in a Sonic game.  You could stop on a dime, jump easily from platform to platform, and even somersault through enemies.  Also, Homing Attacks felt more satisfying and backtracking was quite easy to do if you were skilled enough.  Basically, playing as Sonic in this game just felt really good.  It's so easy to just jump into a level with him and still have fun.

 

So, yeah.  That's pretty much how I feel about SA2 and why I love it.  Say what you will about the hunting/shooting missions or the story, but when it came to Sonic himself, I feel like they got it perfect.

 

Also, I really liked Knuckles' gameplay and cool-headed personality

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, this highly overrated game is mediocre at best. Unlike in SA1, the out of place alternate gameplay styles take up the majority of the game (2/3rds instead of half), and even the Sonic/Shadow levels are not that great.

 

The Sonic/Shadow levels are extremely linear, very little depth to them outside of "run forward, do a homing attack chain, run forward some more" as they got rid of multiple pathways for the most part, and the game is quite a bit more automated than SA1 was. It is basically Unleashed without the Boost To Win (only saying the "To Win" part because the game reminds me a whole lot more of Unleashed than Colors or Generations).

 

The Treasure Hunting (out of place in a SONIC [which is a platformer series] game in the first place, so that's already a huge negative) is EVEN worse than in SA1 thanks to the excessively large levels and the radar which is a lot worse than in SA1.

 

The Mech Shooting is boring, though I'd much rather play it than the Treasure Hunting. Although I am glad there's no time limit.

 

I don't like the Chao Garden leeching off the main games' $$ and Time budget in any main series game it has been in (which is in SA1 and 2).

 

Really, aside from the great soundtrack, the ONLY thing I like about SA2 is the nostalgia I get from it because it was the first Sonic game I got outside of the copy of Sonic 1 I had since I was a tiny kid. Which, TBH, since SA2:B was the first major Sonic game on a Nintendo console, I think most of SA2's praise is nostalgia rather than the game's actual quality.

 

Overall, I'd give the game (SA2) a 5/10, or a 6/10 if I'm being generous.

 

 

Disclaimer: I think it is not a great game, nor a good one. But I CAN still play it, unlike 06 or Shadow or even Unleashed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I pretty much agree with SuperUsername64 here.

The amount of detail they put into the graphics, the design and animation still makes the game a pleasure to play and watch for me (and is also the reason why it looks rather good, even today). The funky mo-cap during the cutscenes is debateable, but the way the characters are animated during the actual stages looks more polished than in any other 3D Sonic to date. Like they really loved what they were doing. ShtH, Heroes and the unfinished animation work in Sonic 06 were a huge step back. And even if Sonic looks really good since Colours, he never felt as "substantial" again as he did in SA2.

 

Anyway, I just recently played the Steam port of the game and still had a lot of fun with it. The only thing that drives you up the walls is the camera, especially in Knux/Rouge stages. And that would probably also be the reason why I'd hesitate recommending the game to anyone at this point in time. As soon as you get used to the game's quirks, it flows just fine, but until then... well, you need a little ambition, which came easier when the game was brand-new, widely praised and the graphics still spectacular.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real point I'm trying to get across is that the apparent truth has no value in Sonic (as tends to be the case with videogames in general). "Robotnik or Eggman" matters less than what the villain used to expose and how the player used to interact with him versus what he became. It may not be a coincidence that "Robotnik" is what Eggman was when he was basically the only opposing (and therefore defining) element for Sonic, bringing along everything that Sonic wasn't and making it all look somehow evil. It's not in the name or appearance, but in essence and fuction. Eggman may have been a consistent character throughout the years, but his relation with the world certainly hasn't.

 

Which is only the case because the world and its relations have changed so much. Sonic's only "minions" used to be the flickies - which were the only thing that heavily populated the world we saw on screen, only remarkable for what they were as a group. Then we got introduced to the Chao and humans, which served basically the same purpose in the world. The enemy also changed - machinery hasn't been the main ominous factor for a long time. So the change of name isn't important in itself, of course, but all the changes that came along and that can't simply be reversed by reintroducing flickies are very important.

 

EDIT: Well, textbook example is that of Chaos Emeralds. They haven't even had their name changed and they still make Sonic go super - but haven't they changed in function and what they mean in sonic's context? It's not just a matter of overuse.

That depends on the intent and period. For example, what exactly did Eggman use to expose as a villain? Or the flickies as a populance? What is it about the changes that came as time marched on that are apparently lost as a result? Why can't we find away to adapt that in a modern age instead of having people get anal for it not being different, or even expanding things further beyond just what they had in the past?

 

And when it comes to function, it's obvious what Eggman's function was as antagonist, and the only changes that have been done is him being sidelined for other more powerful entities. But what function did the flickies have beyond populating the setting? Or better yet, what value did their function have, and how does that compare any better or worse with the addition of Chao and Humans in the world?

 

It's worth noting that all these additions and changes came as a result of the franchise growing over time, but there's a sense of clinginess and neophobia as a result of nostalgia over these things from one faction's negative reaction to it as many don't exactly care about the apparent truth or the value it holds to Sonic and more for it's familiarity and name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what function did the flickies have beyond populating the setting? Or better yet, what value did their function have, and how does that compare any better or worse with the addition of Chao and Humans in the world?
During the 2D era the Sonic games seemed to depict a battle between man/technology and nature. That simple establishment of good and evil has shifted in a way that Robotnik/Eggman doesn't function as a representative of the "universally evil human race" anymore, but now is just someone who is viewed as evil and/or bad by humans and furries/animals/mobians/whateveryoucallthem alike. The change in setting that happened with the transistion into 3D suddenly made the world much more diverse, which can hardly be a bad thing. 
 
I've always perceived the world of the first Sonic Adventure game as an extension to the previous titles. They just moved to places where stuff was happening. The only disappointment is the lack of animal-NPCs in the games. I mean, Amy moved to Station Square of all places. As the only furry person around? And she wasn't even in chase of Sonic before doing so? Bold move, girl!
 
So, if Sega intended to make Sonic's World more diverse through the inclusion of large human settlements, they should've at least put some thought into the relations between the animal and human population of the planet. Other than that, I always found the change of scenery pretty cool.
 
... And now I somehow completely forgot about the Flickies...
Edited by Kat
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an okay game, but not the best game ever like everyone claims it is. I like the speed levels and most of the hunting levels. I hate Security Hall. The shooting levels can also go die in a hole. What else...

 

Soundtrack is crap in my opinion, with the exception of every Ted Poley/Tony Harnell song and Live and Learn. (I might be slightly biased because Ted played at my school a few years ago, in fact, the image on his Wikipedia article is from there, but whatever.)

 

Now, is there anything I missed? I'll tell you my opinion on anything in this game.

Edited by Johnny Boy92
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, don't worry. The majority of the fan base seems to be taking a disliking towards the game these days. Most of the criticism is justified. Though at the same time I can't help but feel that the game gets a lot more flack than it deserves.

Edited by Stritix
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, don't worry. The majority of the fan base seems to be taking a disliking towards the game these days. Most of the criticism is justified. Though at the same time I can't help but feel that the game gets a lot more flack than it deserves.

I think a lot of that has to do with SA2 still having its followers, plus that people like to vocalize their criticisms on games that are praised too much.

For example, everyone knows Sonic 06 is bad, so it isn't talked about as much, but SA2 is still treated as one of the best things ever, so people like to justify their criticisms more by talking about its flaws more.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends on the intent and period. For example, what exactly did Eggman use to expose as a villain? Or the flickies as a populance? What is it about the changes that came as time marched on that are apparently lost as a result? Why can't we find away to adapt that in a modern age instead of having people get anal for it not being different, or even expanding things further beyond just what they had in the past?

 

And when it comes to function, it's obvious what Eggman's function was as antagonist, and the only changes that have been done is him being sidelined for other more powerful entities. But what function did the flickies have beyond populating the setting? Or better yet, what value did their function have, and how does that compare any better or worse with the addition of Chao and Humans in the world?

 

It's worth noting that all these additions and changes came as a result of the franchise growing over time, but there's a sense of clinginess and neophobia as a result of nostalgia over these things from one faction's negative reaction to it as many don't exactly care about the apparent truth or the value it holds to Sonic and more for it's familiarity and name.

 

Kat has answered well. I'll compliment it by saying it has to do with the synergy all the elements create and hopw, ultimately, they make you perceive the hero.

 

Imagine a version of Sonic 1 in which Eggman robotizes furries instead of flickies, and they follow the same art style as Sonic. It poses the question of what would make Sonic visually distinct from the other elements and why, in terms of pure composition, he is the hero. The fact that flickies are the only thing heavily populating the world serves the purpose of making Sonic stand out even more.

 

Now here's the catch: they aren't needed. You can substitute them, you can put Chao or humans there, doing this job. Sonic's "message" is something that isn't in the hands of the developers, but ours. If Sonic were released 10 years before, it could be seen much more as a Cold War metaphor than an essay on ecology. That doesn't matter, though. What matters is the pure opposition and contrast of elements, which gives each of them a specific function and ultimately builds the world.

 

That said, "Robotnik" or "Eggman" is less important than "the villain". You could call him "that old guy with a mustache", but what really allows him to build the world with Sonic is that he comprehends a range of values, from machinery to building fortresses, that make you identify "evil" even when he isn't there. The "machinery is evil, things that move repeatedly and automatically are evil" logic is more of a gameplay logic, so it's nothing really ~artistic~. The world is built by how you interact with stuff, which is only possible through gameplay.

 

It's not neophobia, it's just some sort of uncanny valley of gameplay and general presentation. It's like if you put Batman to fight against Mechas - it's not the scope of fight we're used to see, but that doesn't mean Batman always needs to fight the same villains. Just means he is better off fighting villains of the same "class".

 

This is probably how Zelda managed to evolve and expand its own universe while mantaining a cohesive world. It's not in the name, but in your position in it.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Не пойму, почему некоторые так не любят Sonic Adventure 2. Игра имеет самый сильный сюжет в линейке игр о Сонике, характеры максимально прописаны, в то время SEGA не была под воздействием Nintendo. Настоящее приключение ежика. Хоть в ней и есть косяки, но их можно и не замечать, как некоторые это делают.

 

I don't understand why some don't like Sonic Adventure 2. The game has a very strong story line in games of Sonic characters as prescribed, while SEGA was not under the influence of Nintendo. Real adventure hedgehog. Though it is the shoals, but they can not ignore, as some are doing it.

Edited by Tim TH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

During the 2D era the Sonic games seemed to depict a battle between man/technology and nature. That simple establishment of good and evil has shifted in a way that Robotnik/Eggman doesn't function as a representative of the "universally evil human race" anymore, but now is just someone who is viewed as evil and/or bad by humans and furries/animals/mobians/whateveryoucallthem alike. The change in setting that happened with the transistion into 3D suddenly made the world much more diverse, which can hardly be a bad thing. 
 
I've always perceived the world of the first Sonic Adventure game as an extension to the previous titles. They just moved to places where stuff was happening. The only disappointment is the lack of animal-NPCs in the games. I mean, Amy moved to Station Square of all places. As the only furry person around? And she wasn't even in chase of Sonic before doing so? Bold move, girl!
 
So, if Sega intended to make Sonic's World more diverse through the inclusion of large human settlements, they should've at least put some thought into the relations between the animal and human population of the planet. Other than that, I always found the change of scenery pretty cool.

 

Which is funny, because in the 2D era was games like Sonic CD have Sonic in worlds where technology and nature co-exist in harmony instead of battling it out when you look at their Good Futures to the rampant and misuse of technology polluting the scenery in the Bad Futures. So I don't think it's the typical message of environmentalism here with that perspective people keep latching onto when bringing it up when that game in itself knocks that whole "man/technology vs nature" right off it's seat.

 

Tho I would agree they could put more thought in the relations between the animal and human populations.

It's not neophobia, it's just some sort of uncanny valley of gameplay and general presentation. It's like if you put Batman to fight against Mechas - it's not the scope of fight we're used to see, but that doesn't mean Batman always needs to fight the same villains. Just means he is better off fighting villains of the same "class".

 

This is probably how Zelda managed to evolve and expand its own universe while mantaining a cohesive world. It's not in the name, but in your position in it.

Singling this part out, because I need to say something about that Batman comparison: we have the Justice League where Batman is fighting villains far outside of his class than we usually see him, fighting villains beyond the strength of his normal rogue gallery and working with a larger team more often than his usual solo route. But he is still in essence the same Batman we recognize him as despite him going out into space fighting aliens, other superhumans, or Superman's rogues instead of his own.

 

And I'm not sure Zelda is a good example considering it's position has far greater changes in each installment.

Edited by ChaosSupremeSonîc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but SA2 is still treated as one of the best things ever

I'm pretty sure one look in this topic kinda proves that false :U

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is funny, because in the 2D era was games like Sonic CD have Sonic in worlds where technology and nature co-exist in harmony instead of battling it out when you look at their Good Futures to the rampant and misuse of technology polluting the scenery in the Bad Futures. So I don't think it's the typical message of environmentalism here with that perspective people keep latching onto when bringing it up when that game in itself knocks that whole "man/technology vs nature" right off it's seat.

True. I didn't even state that that was what the games tried to convey. It was what I read into it when I played Sonic 1 and 2 during a time when, at least in Germany, ecology was a really big new thing.

 

In the end though, Sonic CD does come off a little as: You can have nature and technology co-exist, you just have to do it right. So I'd say it was an underlying theme to the earlier games but not prevalent. The early Japanese games had some kind of motivational motto on their covers - "Live life to the fullest..."; things like that, which probably rather reflect what the games wanted to get across.

Edited by Kat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tho I would agree they could put more thought in the relations between the animal and human populations.

Singling this part out, because I need to say something about that Batman comparison: we have the Justice League where Batman is fighting villains far outside of his class than we usually see him, fighting villains beyond the strength of his normal rogue gallery and working with a larger team more often than his usual solo route. But he is still in essence the same Batman we recognize him as despite him going out into space fighting aliens, other superhumans, or Superman's rogues instead of his own.

 

And I'm not sure Zelda is a good example considering it's position has far greater changes in each installment.

 

It's worth noting that crossovers have a world of their own that mimic elements from the characters' original worlds, giving them different functions, but preserving the identity. It's a curious and often fun case of form being used as content. That said, even though we do recognize Batman, it's hardly the same guy in face of the world - the most interesting questions of morality concerning Batman, his dubious character and credibility simply can't be there, as "his" setting isn't there.

 

So yes, it's a complicated balance. Nothing wrong with restructuring the series as long as you make it clear that it's what you're going for. Sonic pretends to be the same thing, but it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that crossovers have a world of their own that mimic elements from the characters' original worlds, giving them different functions, but preserving the identity. It's a curious and often fun case of form being used as content. That said, even though we do recognize Batman, it's hardly the same guy in face of the world - the most interesting questions of morality concerning Batman, his dubious character and credibility simply can't be there, as "his" setting isn't there.

 

So yes, it's a complicated balance. Nothing wrong with restructuring the series as long as you make it clear that it's what you're going for. Sonic pretends to be the same thing, but it isn't.

Yeah, we're just gonna have to disagree on that part. I see Sonic as the same guy I always knew him as, only with him and his world more developed than it ever was in the past while still having a lot of room for mystery, not a pretender. It's the same case with Batman in the Justice League crossover, with him being hyperaware, hyperprepared, still human limitations and capable of follies, and one who is hardly likely to break his no killing code while facing different threats from his ally's rogue galleries - in fact, these very traits that we've known him for in his own self-contained setting are still put to the test outside of that setting in one episode to the point where that episode and those character traits of his being used as a springboard for an entire season later on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the hate for SA2 but to say that you hate SA2 but don't mind SA1 is a bit strange. The only good part of SA2 is Sonic/Shadow gameplay (as most people say) but Sonic's gameplay in SA1 is also the only good part about that game. Amy and Big are slow and boring, Gamma's stages are way too short and not that much better than Tails/Eggman stages, Knux/Rouge stages in SA2 while take too long due to the radar only showing one emerald at a time the levels design felt better more like made for this kind of gamplay because characters doesn't share stages like SA1. Tails stages piss me of the most (well not more than Big) all of them are just small parts of Sonic stages, so your playing the stages again but without the homing attack and the spin dash however you can fly to make the stages even shorter, the only stage worth playing as Tails is Speed Highway this is how they should have made all if Tails Stages. My point is Sonic's gameplay (and Shadow obviously) is the only fun part of both SA1 and 2 all the other characters are boring so when you say that SA2 is bad don't make SA1 look better because it really isn't or at least in my opinion it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never played SA2 lest I get upset about low quality :o

 

I hear many fables about how SA2 is actually very bad. I want to never play a bad Sonic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the hate for SA2 but to say that you hate SA2 but don't mind SA1 is a bit strange. The only good part of SA2 is Sonic/Shadow gameplay (as most people say) but Sonic's gameplay in SA1 is also the only good part about that game. Amy and Big are slow and boring, Gamma's stages are way too short and not that much better than Tails/Eggman stages, Knux/Rouge stages in SA2 while take too long due to the radar only showing one emerald at a time the levels design felt better more like made for this kind of gamplay because characters doesn't share stages like SA1. Tails stages piss me of the most (well not more than Big) all of them are just small parts of Sonic stages, so your playing the stages again but without the homing attack and the spin dash however you can fly to make the stages even shorter, the only stage worth playing as Tails is Speed Highway this is how they should have made all if Tails Stages. My point is Sonic's gameplay (and Shadow obviously) is the only fun part of both SA1 and 2 all the other characters are boring so when you say that SA2 is bad don't make SA1 look better because it really isn't or at least in my opinion it isn't.

Well SA1 allows you to stick with the character you selected while SA2 switches them every level. Didn't fix any of SA1's problems, but that's not doing SA1 any favors either. And a cache of other elements that have contributed to it not aging very well.

 

SA2 does somethings better than SA1, or at least more unique, and the inverse is true. So it's which ever you find managable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its true that in SA1 you can stick to the character until the end but both games weren't that long to beat and the true measure of a Sonic game is the replay value (to me at least). Both games have 10 Sonic/Shadow stages which are almost the only fun parts of both games and I agree that it up to the players which game they prefer but it just doesn't seem right to put SA2 in a list of worst Sonic games while SA1 is in the list of best games as some people do since both games aren't that different in terms good and boring gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its true that in SA1 you can stick to the character until the end but both games weren't that long to beat and the true measure of a Sonic game is the replay value (to me at least). Both games have 10 Sonic/Shadow stages which are almost the only fun parts of both games and I agree that it up to the players which game they prefer but it just doesn't seem right to put SA2 in a list of worst Sonic games while SA1 is in the list of best games as some people do since both games aren't that different in terms good and boring gameplay.

 

Fact of the matter is, in SA2, the Sonic levels are few and far in between. You have 2 stages between City Escape and Metal Harbor, 5 stages between Green Forest and Pyramid Cave and 3 stages between Pyramid Cave and Crazy Gadget. Most of the time, people find themselves just saying "When can I play another Sonic stage!?"

 

Tails also plays similarly to Sonic in SA1, akin to how he worked in the classics. Placing him in a mech in SA2 was blatant and lazy padding. 

 

Also, in SA1, physics are still a large pinpoint of Sonic's gameplay. See that slope in Emerald Coast? Spindash and jump and using the force given, you can skip a large chunk of the level. SA2's speed levels are mostly straight lines with little to no curves or slopes, preventing Sonic from using his true momentum to pull off tricks. Sonic's levels in SA1 are also wide open and have several secrets intact, something that near all of SA2's speed stages lack.

Edited by Super Spindash
  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the hate for SA2 but to say that you hate SA2 but don't mind SA1 is a bit strange.

I'd disagree on various measures.  For one...

 

 

 

The only good part of SA2 is Sonic/Shadow gameplay (as most people say) but Sonic's gameplay in SA1 is also the only good part about that game.

 

 

I actually really enjoyed the other characters, with the exception of Big.  Most of them played like a modified Sonic anyway, so it's not like SA2 where you were constantly thrusted into something completely different.

 

 

 

Amy and Big are slow and boring,

 

 

Big, maybe.  Amy may be slower than Sonic, but she's not dreadfully slow.  In addition, her gameplay still relies heavily on platforming, so it's still well within the game's perimeters. (Unlike fishing, which would have been a nice little mini-game if it weren't required to obtain all the emblems)

 

 

 

Gamma's stages are way too short and not that much better than Tails/Eggman stages...

 

 

Gamma's stages seem to be of perfectly reasonable length, in my opinion.  Unless you just rush right through them, I don't see how they could be "too short."  But whatever.  Anyway, I disagree that they aren't much better than the Tails/Eggman stages in SA2.  In my opinion, Gamma's stages were considerably better designed.  Primarily, they are much more fast paced and are built in such a way where running and shooting is encouraged, as opposed to SA2's level designs that seemed to encourage you to stop and aim carefully.  Plus, you were playing as a robot whose primary objective is simply to shoot.  You weren't playing as a character whom you'd much rather play as outside the walker.

 

 

 

Knux/Rouge stages in SA2 while take too long due to the radar only showing one emerald at a time the levels design felt better more like made for this kind of gamplay because characters doesn't share stages like SA1.

 

 

While I'll agree that SA2's Knuckles/Rouge stages are more appropriately designed for treasure hunting, the dumbed-down radar really sort of hindered the enjoyment.  When you're only able to track down one emerald at a time, it just feels frustrating when you can't find it and you can't take a breather to look for the other Emeralds.  Of course, most of the treasure hunting stages aren't quite that hard, but there are some elusive spots that are just a pain to get to.

 

 

 

Tails stages piss me of the most (well not more than Big) all of them are just small parts of Sonic stages, so your playing the stages again but without the homing attack and the spin dash however you can fly to make the stages even shorter, the only stage worth playing as Tails is Speed Highway this is how they should have made all if Tails Stages.

 

 

I'll agree to all of that, but I still think that was more fun than his stages in SA2.  But that's just a matter of preference, really.

 

When you consider that, in addition to the vastly different stories, aesthetic atmospheres, control schemes, boss and enemy designs, soundtracks, and many other defining factors, it's not exactly strange to drastically prefer one over the other, even though they do share many common gameplay elements.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'l admit that I'm not too fond of this game either compared to others, through I at least liked it better than 06, Shadow, and Heroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.