Jump to content
Awoo.

Can someone tell me why SA2 is so highly regarded?


kdotj24

Recommended Posts

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?

Probably brought a few bugs over with it in the port. I think the HD ports received a bad score as well, if not worse.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also got a lot to do with the standards of the genre evolving over time. 3D platforming was still a relatively new thing when the first two Adventures came out, and like most other advances before it people were willing to put up with some growing pains in the process because well, a lot of 3D games prior literally controlled like tanks so it was still a step up despite their flaws. As it turns out, the gap between SA2 and B was plenty of time to reflect on the deeper issues of both games, as it always has been since, and a fresh release in the face of a brand new audience (bearing in mind here that SA2 is the first cross-platform Sonic game) only accentuated that.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider SA2 overrated now. Maybe not when it was released, but to be sure it has not aged well at all.

The Sonic levels, for the most part, are pretty fun and just what you'd expect in any good Sonic game.

The Tails levels are really meh, and have a lot of strange decisions (if X and B both shoot Vulcan, AND lock on for a missile, why didn't they map one to Vulcan and the other to missile? feels sloppy to me). Also, Artificial Chaos might be one of the most stupidly aggravating enemies I've ever encountered in a game.

The Knuckles levels, however, REALLY harm the experience for me. They suck, bad. Knuckles moves way too quickly for these levels (and, really, there's never any time where Knuckles moving fast is a terribly useful thing), you only ever get an indicator for one shard at a time (and sometimes you have to do random things to make an emerald shard appear which are just about impossible to guess without hints), and the emerald locations are randomized so you can't even just GameFAQ your way through the levels (goddamn it SEGA, why not just leave them in set locations and let me enjoy the game how I want to enjoy the game!?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Aside from being fun? It had an out of this world aesthetic that realled hooked into a lot of people. Mainly Sonic fans, but betweent eh design, style, and overall ambiance of the game from the menus to the booklets to the cinematics to the story down to the gameplay and whatever else you can think of that's subjective from an artistic/aesthetic sense, a lot of people absolutley felt for it. So yeah, I don't think it was a stunner game, but the presentation was really great.

So yes, for most fans I do think it's a largely aesthetic thing in combo with the fact that the game is fun.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As many people said, it's not that highly regarded. It might seem that way because it was a jumping in point for a lot of Sonic fans, especially gamecube owners who never had a Sega console before. They also marketed the crap out of it, I can't remember the last time I even saw a commercial for a Sonic game, but I will always remember "Good Hedgehog, Evil Hedgehog."  But it's under as much heavy fire as most 3D Sonics. The only "Highly regarded" games in this series are the original trilogy, and maybe Generations or Colors.

But if I had to say why anyone could like it, most easy way to say it is that they played it at the time of release, when rough edges were easier to put up with. And in my opinion, the game is built well enough it wouldn't take much tweaking to remove the wear of aging. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Sega marketed the crap out of the game, causing hype to build up and stay for years.

2. You could play as the 'villains', even today that can cause people to want to play a game.

3. Even with all the plot-holes the story still causes the player to feel for the characters, which is rare for a Sonic game.

 

Of course nowadays most people don't think too highly of the game, either because they outgrew it or because 'you have to hate Sonic'. I personally never thought the game was that great or fun to play, the story was the only thing that drew me to play it.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has some unfitting elements, but nothing really god awful about it that would twist your face, and the gameplay is pretty fast, for the most part. What sold it for me was the atmosphere. I can play the game 5 times over and still feel like the pressure like I was playing it for the first time. It's a fun game but more importantly engaging, which is one of the most important elements of a game for me. And that's not something I can say for all Sonic games.

I don't see many people hailing this game like they did before though, I'm pretty sure this is just a stereotype about the game. Hopefully that provides some insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely see more hate for the game nowadays than I see people praising it. I still like just as much as I did when I first played it however many years ago. I actually bought it again for Steam last night because it was only 5 bucks, and since I had nothing else to do this Thanksgiving weekend. I already have 160 emblems on that save file. So yeah, I've played the hell out of it the past few days lmfao. I still have a blast with it (and that's including the shooting and treasure hunting) and it's such a nostalgia trip, takes me back to my teenage years. So yeah, I still love the game and can't be bothered to care what anyone can say against it.

Edited by Weedy Speedy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could stand to at least explain why you feel that way.

It's not possible for something to be overrated or underrated. It's rated exactly what it deserves to be.

Saying something is overrated is saying that your experience with and resulting opinion on it is the factual truth and that any differing opinion is a deviation from that truth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not possible for something to be overrated or underrated. It's rated exactly what it deserves to be.

If this were actually true, consensuses about artwork would never change over time.

Saying something is overrated is saying that your experience with and resulting opinion on it is the factual truth and that any differing opinion is a deviation from that truth.

No, it's saying that a work of art isn't given the credit it deserves by the public at large, which is an inherently opinionated statement. Opinions about opinions are still opinions.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this were actually true, consensuses about artwork would never change over time.

No, it's saying that a work of art isn't given the credit it deserves by the public at large, which is an inherently opinionated statement. Opinions about opinions are still opinions.

When people say something is overrated or underrated, they're saying that there is a factual value deserved by that thing, but the value given to it is not equal to said factual value.

saying something is overrated isn't just about your own opinion disagreeing with others; if you claim something is overrated it's a a matter of saying everyone's opinion on something is wrong. But wrong  relative to what? Right of course.  And what is right? Usually, their own opinion. 

It's not just an opinion to say something is over or underrated, because the only way an opinion can be invalidated is with facts. So claiming something as over or underrated is a matter of elevating your own evaluation of something over the majority opinion as factual, when it is really just another opinion. If there is *anything* that can be claimed as factual in a world of opinions, it is the opinion of the majority . And that's a fact.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people say something is overrated or underrated, they're saying that there is a factual value deserved by that thing, but the value given to it is not equal to said factual value.

When people say something is over/underrated, they're disagreeing with a subjective conclusion (the opinion) that was derived from examining objective data (experiencing the art) which just so happens to be shared with a lot of people. However, this implicitly happens whenever you disagree with a single person. When I say to a person who likes Colors that "Colors is a bad game" I'm also inherently saying "Colors is overrated" if there is a context where most people like Colors. Something being overrated or underrated (or neutral) is simply the logical end of disagreement.

saying something is overrated isn't just about your own opinion disagreeing with others; if you claim something is overrated it's a a matter of saying everyone's opinion on something is wrong. But wrong  relative to what? Right of course.  And what is right? Usually, their own opinion. 

Replace "overrated" with "good" or "bad" in this sentence and you'll understand why getting hung up on people disagreeing with the majority isn't some big deal.

It's not just an opinion to say something is over or underrated, because the only way an opinion can be invalidated is with facts. So claiming something as over or underrated is a matter of elevating your own evaluation of something over the majority opinion as factual, when it is really just another opinion. If there is anything that can be claimed as fact in a situation of opinion, it is the opinion of the majority . And that's a fact.

This is a logical fallacy, really uncomfortable in certain subtexts, and defeats your own argument to boot. If there is no factual value about an artwork's quality to be derived, then no opinion is inherently strengthened by the number of people who hold that opinion.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rate


Google comes in handy for these types of discussions. From these sentences, i would say that to underrate, overrate or to rate in general is a bit more than simply saying that something is bad or good. In some cases whats evaluated becomes fact that society abides by. For example the value of each country's currency, or the value of your property. But these are temporarly man made facts since they can change on a dime. Thats because estimating somethings "true" value isnt possible. An example would be recorces that countries deem important. Its highly based on each countries need of said resorce and its ability to extract it. thus if you have plenty of something it wont be valued as highly as what you have little of, but for another country what you value a lot isnt worth much cause they have a lot of it.

But art in itself is a different topic since its only rated on what you think when seeing it, some art have historical value which is very important for some and other forms of art just speaks to people. There is even art that is made to challenge society norms. All of these are different ideals, different opinions of people who induvidualy judges these things. 

and since its just about "judging" something, people will judge it differently. thus having an opinion that others overrated/underrated something is fair game. Hell, technicaly we do it all the time when comparing prices of products.

estimateappraiseevaluatevaluerateassess mean to judge something with respect to its worth or significance. estimate implies a judgment, considered or casual, that precedes or takes the place of actual measuring or counting or testing out <estimated the crowd at two hundred>.appraise commonly implies the fixing by an expert of the monetary worth of a thing, but it may be used of any critical judgment <having their house appraised>evaluate suggests an attempt to determine relative or intrinsic worth in terms other than monetary <evaluate a student's work>.value equals appraise but without implying expertness of judgment <a watercolor valued by the donor at $500>rate adds to estimate the notion of placing a thing according to a scale of values<a highly rated restaurant>assess implies a critical appraisal for the purpose of understanding or interpreting, or as a guide in taking action <officials are trying to assess the damage>.
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I prefer not to use "over/underrated" and have long purged that from my vocabulary. Nowadays, it's become a passive-aggressive way of saying "mine is better than yours" or "you're wrong for liking something I don't" or "what you like sucks because I don't like it" without actually saying it by petty and entitled bastards on the internet.

You want to say that something isn't your fancy, that's fine; think something needs more attention, get as many eyes on it as you can. There are just more respectful ways to go about it, if you ask me.

  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I prefer not to use "over/underrated" and have long purged that from my vocabulary. Nowadays, it's become a passive-aggressive way of saying "mine is better than yours" or "you're wrong for liking something I don't" or "what you like sucks because I don't like it" without actually saying it by petty and entitled bastards on the internet.

You want to say that something isn't your fancy, that's fine; think something needs more attention, get as many eyes on it as you can. There are just more respectful ways to go about it, if you ask me.

Yes, and so much yes to this. Not much thought goes into actualy rating something anymore. people just say these stuff in order to dismiss others or empower their own opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the way people say it.... overrated now means "i hate it.... why does everyone like it so much" and underrated means "i like it... why the hell doesnt anyone else like it".

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to discredit anyone that has legitimate  issues with it,  but I get really annoyed when the genre palette of playstyles is pushed as a factual problem with Adventure 2 and that's all that's said and done. 

Specifically I'm referring to folks who simply say that the mere presence of other stages was the problem and don't even bother addressing their content. 

Seriously,  that does present inconsistency to an extent but it doesn't mean they're automatically  bad and actually bring the game down. 

I'd even go as far to say that (the more agonizing treasure hunting stages notwithstanding ) they weren't even that much an issue and actually rather fun. I bring that up,  since the multiple playstyles these days,  at least from the majority of people I've experienced  and/or come into contact with are shat on the most by those of the "crap friends" mentality. 

Not to say it wasn't jarring at times,  but a little variety never hurt ( again,  agonizing treasure hunting aside).

Edited by Jovahexeon Ace Joranvexeon
  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH I find it a little hard to call Sonic Adventure 2 a really bad game as much as a hit-or-miss one, even when looking back at it without nostalgia goggles.

The reason I say that is because Sonic/Shadow's stages were very, very fun despite their small issues I have with them (like the somersault, or the 'three moves on one button' thing), the extremely fun multiplayer, the Chao Garden (do I even need to go into why), the mission system is super fun, and the story and characterization isn't that bad either, making the events feel pretty important and the characters all pretty likeable.

All of those aspects to the game made for one of the most solid and wholesome 3D Sonic games to date in regards of good content, so I find it hard to say that the mech and treasure hunting stages really sink the whole game down into "bad game" territory, because if it was a straight-up bad game then nothing would be too fun or great, would it? People remember this game very fondly for good reasons that I don't think can just be pinned on nostalgia.

That's not to say I'm blindly defending it, no. Game's got problems, and the alt gameplay styles count in on that, as well as cutscene issues, wonky stuff like the kart racing (though the idea was a nice thought), and I don't think the leaning on darker and edgier for Sonic was a good thing at all. But none of that really kept SA2 from shining, because it's still a lovable game with a large chunk of good content. 

So I think the game's a kinda middle-of-the-road title. Half of a great game, half of a not so great one. The overwhelming praise it gets from the general gaming public and outer fanbase is pretty uncalled for and definitely puts it in the 'overrated' category, but the amount of hate it gets from the inner fanbase also feels a bit misplaced.

SA1's a better game anyways lol.

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

the way people say it.... overrated now means "i hate it.... why does everyone like it so much" and underrated means "i like it... why the hell doesnt anyone else like it".

If you're interested in examining media in comparison to larger social concepts and trends, these are perfectly fair questions to ask. I wonder all the time why some media clicks or doesn't click with the larger populous, and I like talking about these things and trying to gain insight or conclusions about what things mean in terms of the big social picture. I mean, it's not as if media studies and literacy is not a thing. People have been making theoretical and philosophical comments, essays, and conclusions about how people respond to art and mediums for decades now, if not centuries, and it can be said to basically stem from these two questions. "Why do people like/not like this shit?" The terms "underrated" and "overrated" are just easy shorthand terms to express some of these general ideas. If we're going to conclude that anyone using them is simply being a passive-aggressive asshole and nothing more, then I again say that's more of a personal problem with disagreement. It shouldn't be wrong to disagree with a consensus.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH I find it a little hard to call Sonic Adventure 2 a really bad game as much as a hit-or-miss one, even when looking back at it without nostalgia goggles.

[...]

So I think the game's a kinda middle-of-the-road title. Half of a great game, half of a not so great one.

Personally, my overall enjoyment of games in general tend to follow a "weakest link" pattern. The quality of a game's worst mandatory parts generally define how much I enjoy the game. If the game, at its worst parts, is still not that bad, I will consider it a good game. But if the worst parts are boring, frustrating, or just plain bad, especially if those parts are frequent, then I just can't enjoy the game or recommend it no matter how good the other parts are, particularly when the game keeps returning to those parts over and over again. I find it exceedingly difficult to enjoy SA2 when every two or three levels I find myself saying "oh come on, not this crap again!"

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.