Can someone tell me why SA2 is so highly regarded?

[Bowbowis]

 As far as shooting gameplay in Sonic goes I think that Shadow handled it the best. Regardless of whether or not you think guns in Sonic are a good idea Shadow's game demonstrated that not only can they work mechanically, but they can also compliment the core gameplay very well. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to the basic mechanic returning for a character like Omega or maybe Tails, with his blaster from Battle.

Actually I really of have to commend Shadow for at least attempting to blend most of the previous gameplay styles into a cohesive whole. The core gameplay is pretty much the same as the speed levels from the Adventure games, the guns add in the Gamma/Mech shooting, the keys and missions are similar to the Treasure Hunting/Chaotix Missions (and there's even one where you race Sonic like Tails in SA1), the segments where you fly on the Black Hawks are very similar to Sky Chase, and the vehicles even bring in SA2's driving levels as well as actual Mechs. Whether or not the game succeeded in merging the various styles is a matter of opinion, but I respect them for trying at least.

Speaking of Shadow's missions I think that retooling them into unique optional objectives for each level (sort of like Assassin's Creed's 100% Sync objectives) could be a great way to facilitate exploration in newer games. Your primary objective would be to race to the goal as usual, but on the loading screen or at the beginning of the stage you would be shown the optional objectives for that level. For example, on an airship type level for example one of those objectives might be "destroy the four computers controlling the ship's cannons". If you don't feel like doing that then you can just rush straight to the end of the level no problem, but if you do take the time to explore and destroy those computers you could be rewarded with an emblem, new upgrades, extra rings for the Chao Garden, or something along those lines. Alternatively they could do something like Sonic CD's good future/bad future where completing the objective provides some kind of benefit in this level or the next; destroying the computers means the cannons no longer fire at you, or that they go haywire and blow open new shortcuts, or them being offline allows Tails to provide air support with the Tornado, the list goes on. Regardless of the reward though the point is that such optional objectives provide a way to incorporate exploration that's both optional and consequential (something which SEGA seems to have a hard time with), and, as an added bonus, is also integrated into the level itself instead of simply being: "Find five red star rings in each level because... Just do."

Edited August 4, 2015 by Bowbowis

[Weh]

This post is so blatantly baity that it baited me into making an account. Oops! Hello.

In order for a game to be overrated, it has to be rated well in the first place. The general opinion surrounding SA2 nowadays seems to be overwhelmingly "meh". To me, it appears that the only people who really hold it in high regard are those who grew up with it and are so familiar with it that they're willing to look past all of its glaring flaws and enjoy it anyway, like myself. It's my favorite Sonic game, but there's absolutely no way I could call it the best.

So... point being, the game isn't overrated, and you're silly.

[Tara]

But treasure hunting in 3D basically surmounts to being a collectathon, so I don't see how the addition of the Z-axis makes the concept problematic. Sure, things work differently in 2D than 3D, but it's still a matter of good/bad level design and mechanics regardless.

It would be like having Knuckles race to the end and finding emerald pieces as a side option.

Well yeah, hence I said "works better" and not "can only work in."  It's less of a matter that it can't be done in 3D as much as that many level design pitfalls are more easily avoided in 2D.  There's less room for error ad a result of bad camera angles, or bending into the background.  It essentially boils down to the fact that it will almost always be right in front of you when you do find it, which makes conveyance easier.  Can be done in 3D too, by I think 2D has its advantages for this gameplay style.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Well yeah, hence I said "works better" and not "can only work in."  It's less of a matter that it can't be done in 3D as much as that many level design pitfalls are more easily avoided in 2D.  There's less room for error ad a result of bad camera angles, or bending into the background.  It essentially boils down to the fact that it will almost always be right in front of you when you do find it, which makes conveyance easier.  Can be done in 3D too, by I think 2D has its advantages for this gameplay style.

I never claimed you said or implied "can only work in," so no need to make that defense.

What I'm saying is that it's just a matter of good level design regardless of the dimensions. While 2D may make this easier due its lesser dimension, its not exactly an advantage for the gameplay style than it is an advantage in implementing it due to the level design not having too much to work with. But that last part can serve as a disadvantage, as 2D is more limited than 3D and can be hollow or cheap if the level design is schizophrenic when you're trying to search for said treasures (which examples like Sonic Advance 2 and 3 perfectly highlight in trying to find all the Special Rings or Chao in order to access the Special Stages in their sometimes frustrating layouts - especially Advance 3, which I like more than 2). And likewise, 3D has its own advantages that 2D doesn't have, such as greater range of movement and the abilities and mechanics that come with it which can expand the style, but that still has more to do with the level design working with it than the style itself.

Basically, the concept is neutral to the dimensions, and 2D can just as easily be as bad as 3D when done wrong.

Edited August 4, 2015 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Diesel]

This post is so blatantly baity that it baited me into making an account. Oops! Hello.

There's nothing "baity" about someone asking why people like a game he/she doesn't like.

So... point being, the game isn't overrated, and you're silly.

He's being silly because he doesn't like a game you like? Lol

I just want to point out the irony that for a lot of people, Sonic Adventure and Sonic Heroes are both considered to be awful games as well, so in addition to all the decent analytical responses above, it would probably be worth trying to step back and look at your preferred Sonic games a little more objectively.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what other people say about those games; if OP likes those games but dislikes Sonic Adventure 2, then that's that. What the majority likes has nothing to do with objectivity.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Diesel

[JezMM]

 

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what other people say about those games; if OP likes those games but dislikes Sonic Adventure 2, then that's that. What the majority likes has nothing to do with objectivity.

I'd agree with your response if my post was just that and nothing else, but I clearly went into detail afterwards stating how if he applied his own thought process about why SA1 is acceptable ("yes it did a lot of things wrong, but there are these things that appealed to me that make up for them") and imagined a SA2 fan going through that same thought process about their preferred game of the two, he might be able to better understand why people like Sonic Adventure 2, which is what he was asking for.

I was using his liking of SA1 and Heroes as an example of how it is possible for someone to like something that is disliked by others, just as he couldn't comprehend people liking something that he disliked.  His OP read to me as if it was an objective given that Sonic Adventure and Heroes were good games (or at least better than SA2) when it so so isn't an objective given.

 

EDIT: Though to be fair I just caught up with this topic in full and considering this is the only post the OP has made since the start of the topic and all of it's very insightful and kindly written responses:

SA2 SUCKED!

I think it's safe to say the OP was entirely either baiting or just plain not worth being taken seriously (or both of course).  So most responses for the OP's sake were probably a waste of everyone's time, shame.

Edited August 4, 2015 by JezMM

[Weh]

 

There's nothing "baity" about someone asking why people like a game he/she doesn't like.

He's being silly because he doesn't like a game you like? Lol

Correct, there's nothing inherently baity about that. His obviously antagonistic wording, however, was very baity.

And ...No? At the risk of sounding rude, I think you missed the point of my post. The purpose of my post was to explain that nowadays SA2 is not highly regarded by most people, and is therefore not overrated, making the OP's point just kind of silly. I certainly never hear overwhelming amounts of people claiming SA2 is a masterpiece like the OP implies he has.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Weh

[Diesel]

Correct, there's nothing inherently baity about that. His obviously antagonistic wording, however, was very baity.

And ...No? At the risk of sounding rude, I think you missed the point of my post. The purpose of my post was to explain that nowadays SA2 is not highly regarded by most people, and is therefore not overrated, making the OP's point just kind of silly. I certainly never hear overwhelming amounts of people claiming SA2 is a masterpiece like the OP implies he has.

Antagonistic? Brah literally all he said was:

Sonic Adventure 2 is a grossly overrated game. I have no idea why people regard it as the best Sonic game of all time. SA1, now THAT was a good game. Sure, you had to deal with the treasure hunting and mech stages, but at least you played most of the game as Sonic. In SA2 however, you spent 1/3 of the game as Sonic, and the other 2/3 in crappy mech stages and UNGODLY treasure hunting stages. Sonic Heroes was better than this trash.

If anything he was just being antagonistic to the game. And the game's not even a real person, so he wasn't being antagonistic to anyone.

I fucking hate Sushi. Am I being antagonistic to sushi? I guess? Who cares, it's just sushi.

[Badnik Mechanic]

 

There's nothing "baity" about someone asking why people like a game he/she doesn't like.

The irony here is incredible...

[Bowbowis]

 

Antagonistic? Brah literally all he said was:

If anything he was just being antagonistic to the game. And the game's not even a real person, so he wasn't being antagonistic to anyone.

I fucking hate Sushi. Am I being antagonistic to sushi? I guess? Who cares, it's just sushi.

The devil is in the details Diesel. There is a very big difference between your example and what the OP said. Allow me to demonstrate. 

Compare the following statements:

"I hate rap music. I think rock is much better."

vs

"Rap music is overrated. How could anybody like that garbage? Rock is so much better."

 

The first statement expresses personal tastes. "I think", "I hate", "I like",  denote whatever they preface as a statement of opinion. I don't like rap, I think rock is better. I doubt a statement like that would be very controversial. After all what does it matter to you if I like rap or not? Even if you love rap and hate rock there's no contradiction between the statements; "I hate rap and love rock" and "You hate rock and love rap." and as such there's no real argument to be had. We might argue the merits, of rap versus those of rock but the fact that I dislike rap and favor rock while you are the opposite is really not up for debate.

The second statement on the other hand is one of (alleged) fact. Without anything identifying it as an opinion the meaning instead becomes; "Rap is bad. Rock is superior." and it carries the implication that anybody who does like rap is an idiot. A statement like that seeks to proclaim something as an objective and universal truth, so when you have an opinion like "I love rap and think it's the best type of music ever," you now have a contradiction (and an implicit insult to your intelligence) on you're hands. That's the sort of thing that starts arguments. When you state an opinion that is nowhere near universally held as fact, especially when you attack something that's beloved by many people and effectively tell them they're wrong for liking it in the process, then yes, that's antagonistic. Anyone who does so is probably either looking for a fight (baiting) or hopelessly naive to think that they can say something like that without repercussions. I don't know which is worse.

[Diesel]

Lol, no. The second example of yours "Rap music is overrated. How can anyone like this garbage? Rock music is better" still states an opinion.

A person's wording doesn't have to have "I think", "I hate", "I like" for their to statement to be asserted as an opinion. Unless they actually say they're asserting their statement as a fact, you should just assume they're expressing their opinion. You're just jumping to conclusions if they think they're asserting their statement as a fact unless they actually say they are.

When someone says "This song sucks!" in real life, do you just go up to them and say "Why are you stating your opinion as a fact?" Don't be silly.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Diesel

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

The main point that Bowbowis is trying to get across is that "Attitudes and presentation mean everything."

While both his examples have similar opinions, one example is being respectful to those with different tastes, while the other is being insulting and arrogant.

[JezMM]

Tbh Diesel I don't even understand why you're being so defensive of an OP that clearly doesn't actually care about other people's opinions considering the lack of response from them to anything that has been said in this topic.  They clearly just wanted to rant because they think they're right.  I'm 90% sure the question posed in the topic title was intended as rhetorical from their perspective.

[Diesel]

The main point that Bowbowis is trying to get across is that "Attitudes and presentation mean everything."

While both his examples have similar opinions, one example is being respectful to those with different tastes, while the other is being insulting and arrogant.

Insulting to the game? Sure, but a game isn't a person, so who cares.

Arrogant? Not really.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Diesel

[FriendBot]

Insulting to the game? Sure, but a game isn't a person, so who cares.

Arrogant? Not really.

You are aware that he's talking about people who liked the game that would be insulted or are you acting like a wise guy, either way you missed the point.

"Rap music is overrated. How could anybody like that garbage? Rock is so much better."

I don't know about you but that's a pretty arrogant statement, if you don't know what I'm talking about, it's in bold.

Think of it as when GT said that people who thought Colors and Gens were pretty good games are delusional.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Insulting to the game? Sure, but a game isn't a person, so who cares.

Arrogant? Not really.

Love how you completely missed the point, dude.

[Raavi]

Y'know, I started Sonic out with Mega Collection and SA2B at the same time, so I can't say I started with classic/or Dreamcast era. 
I'm not going to say that it was a good game; especially by today's standards (though I think SA1 aged a lot worse), since I'm kind of known to love games with terrible gameplay mechanics and controls. (i.e. anything SEGA Saturn and newer, EyeToy/Kinect games, gimmicky music games), but I love SA2 and I'll leave it at that.

For people who started out with classic games, I can definitely see why you would dislike SA2. Except for Sonic/Shadows stages, it's totally not a Sonic game to you. But as a person that started out with this game along side the classics, there was no formula to me. There was nothing saying that Sonic was only a speed/platforming based game. I hate the newer Spyro games because they're not anything similar to the classics. I have no reason to hate them, but I still do/probably always will.

I love the treasure hunting stages, since you can get to almost every area in the levels and since they're non linear. As a kid, Tails/Eggman's stages were seen in the same light as Sonic's since they were just "get to the goal" stages. Of course I didn't enjoy them as much as the hedgehogs', but they were still fun. 

I play a lot of games for the artistic side of them, even if the gameplay's horrendous. I love SA2's gameplay, but it's clear as day many of you do not. :V SA2 had STYLE. It had a monster of a soundtrack with quality tracks in unique genres that you don't hear too much from other companies. Alt Rock, Hip-Hop, Bossa Nova Jazz, Gothic Industrial, it was all there, so there're a few points going into SA2's artistic praise. The level themes were beautiful, the textures at the time were crazy good, the little details like the ads in City Escape made exploring the levels nooks and crannies a great time. Even if you hate how they did the gameplay, I will actually argue if you don't believe SA2 had great style. 

Also one huge thing that you're all forgetting as to why the game is so highly regarded, and it's not even that popular with die hard Sonic fans, but the Chao Gardens. Seriously. I was more of a fan of chao as a child than I was of Sonic. A lot of people who remember and love this game outside of the general fandom remember and loved this aspect. SEGA's A-Life system in this game was insanely complex. It was fun, they were cute, etc. 

In the end though, I really have no idea why you all have a need to call games out on being overrated. Who cares if it's overrated? You legit do not need to play it. Arguments are fun, but if you act like someone thinking a game is good personally offends you it's kind of ridiculous. :V I remember seeing everyone get so pissed that SA2 was getting a rerelease and I'm all... "but why?" The push for getting S3&K rereleased is great, but I personally couldn't care less. I can't think of a single reason to get mad about it at all.

TLDR: It's not Sonic formula, It had style, chao are great, don't hate.

[Classified]

This is a good wisdom.

[FantasticMrRobb]

I just like the story better, but that's just me. I don't usually see anything about Sonic Adventure 2 anymore but hate and why it's so "overrated". I really don't see anything too out of the blue about it, it's just another Sonic game to me.

[Bolt]

 As far as shooting gameplay in Sonic goes I think that Shadow handled it the best. Regardless of whether or not you think guns in Sonic are a good idea Shadow's game demonstrated that not only can they work mechanically, but they can also compliment the core gameplay very well. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to the basic mechanic returning for a character like Omega or maybe Tails, with his blaster from Battle.

Actually I really of have to commend Shadow for at least attempting to blend most of the previous gameplay styles into a cohesive whole. The core gameplay is pretty much the same as the speed levels from the Adventure games, the guns add in the Gamma/Mech shooting, the keys and missions are similar to the Treasure Hunting/Chaotix Missions (and there's even one where you race Sonic like Tails in SA1), the segments where you fly on the Black Hawks are very similar to Sky Chase, and the vehicles even bring in SA2's driving levels as well as actual Mechs. Whether or not the game succeeded in merging the various styles is a matter of opinion, but I respect them for trying at least.

Speaking of Shadow's missions I think that retooling them into unique optional objectives for each level (sort of like Assassin's Creed's 100% Sync objectives) could be a great way to facilitate exploration in newer games. Your primary objective would be to race to the goal as usual, but on the loading screen or at the beginning of the stage you would be shown the optional objectives for that level. For example, on an airship type level for example one of those objectives might be "destroy the four computers controlling the ship's cannons". If you don't feel like doing that then you can just rush straight to the end of the level no problem, but if you do take the time to explore and destroy those computers you could be rewarded with an emblem, new upgrades, extra rings for the Chao Garden, or something along those lines. Alternatively they could do something like Sonic CD's good future/bad future where completing the objective provides some kind of benefit in this level or the next; destroying the computers means the cannons no longer fire at you, or that they go haywire and blow open new shortcuts, or them being offline allows Tails to provide air support with the Tornado, the list goes on. Regardless of the reward though the point is that such optional objectives provide a way to incorporate exploration that's both optional and consequential (something which SEGA seems to have a hard time with), and, as an added bonus, is also integrated into the level itself instead of simply being: "Find five red star rings in each level because... Just do."

I was going to make a post here, but then I saw this (older) comment that explained everything I wanted to say, but 10x better.

I adore Shadow's game to death, and the re-playabilty and choice in the levels is what makes it my 3rd favorite game, after SA1 and SA2, that is.

SA2, is, of course, my favorite, and to this day I enjoy playing it again and again. I love all of it, even the non-speed stages, and in some levels, I like treasure or shooting stages more than speed ones (like Crazy Gadget...) the Chao keep me coming back again and again, and the music just fills me with good feelings and makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside~

[Regen]

 As far as shooting gameplay in Sonic goes I think that Shadow handled it the best. Regardless of whether or not you think guns in Sonic are a good idea Shadow's game demonstrated that not only can they work mechanically, but they can also compliment the core gameplay very well. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to the basic mechanic returning for a character like Omega or maybe Tails, with his blaster from Battle.

What?

The shooting in Shadow was terrible. It's way weaker than the shooting mechanics of Gamma from SA1 even if it can be done at a faster running speed. The idea of run and gun is cool but It's complete potluck where you shoot because Shadow is so fast and there's no targeting system so unless you are running in a straight line at the enemy the bullets will go all over the place. And keep in mind that it takes multiple bullets to kill enemies so you have to line up multiple shots with terrible aiming mechanics whilst with Gamma it tends to be one hit kills.

It wasn't just that giving Shadow a gun was a terrible idea but the execution was horrible. Aside from Gamma being slower, Shadow's shooting mechanics are way worse than Gamma's in every single way. 

Edited November 4, 2015 by Regen

[Stritix]

I will say- it's odd how the Dreamcast version scored 9.5/10's (on average) yet the Battle port scored 6.5/10's (again on average). Does anyone have a theory for this?

[Bolt]

What?

The shooting in Shadow was terrible. It's way weaker than the shooting mechanics of Gamma from SA1 even if it can be done at a faster running speed. The idea of run and gun is cool but It's complete potluck where you shoot because Shadow is so fast and there's no targeting system so unless you are running in a straight line at the enemy the bullets will go all over the place. And keep in mind that it takes multiple bullets to kill enemies so you have to line up multiple shots with terrible aiming mechanics whilst with Gamma it tends to be one hit kills.

It wasn't just that giving Shadow a gun was a terrible idea but the execution was horrible. Aside from Gamma being slower, Shadow's shooting mechanics are way worse than Gamma's in every single way. 

Shadow isn't an android robot or a mech-suit with a lock-on ability. Makes sense that his aim wouldn't always be 100% to me.

[Regen]

Shadow isn't an android robot or a mech-suit with a lock-on ability. Makes sense that his aim wouldn't always be 100% to me.

I think simple gameplay mechanics don't need to be justified to that absurd degree. The shooting mechanics just suck because they are badly executed.

[CF3635]

I respect your opinion. I find the storyline a bit out of place and there are some boring parts of its gameplay. Maybe people think that it has the best storyline in any Sonic game, or maybe they found the game addictive enough. Well, Majority wins. Many people find that Sonic Adventure 2 is 'One of the best Sonic games out there', but overall, I would give it a 6/10.