Do people still think Sonic Adventure's a good game?

[Bowbowis]

As Komo has said, it's a product of its time so atleast it kind of has the excuse of being what it is since it is probably the most ambitious 3D platformer at the time. It wanted to do different things while most games like Banjo-Kazooie or Super Mario 64, where it has a clear focus in its design but Adventure 1 says fuck that noise, we're gonna be bigger and more awesomer than that.

Indeed. Not only was Sonic Adventure far more ambitious than its contemporaries, it was also sailing uncharted waters by being one of the first games to attempt a faithful translation of the 2D platformer into 3D, complete with point A - point B level structure, rather than going the collect-a-thon route like Mario 64. You also have to bear in mind SEGA's situation at the time. Unlike Sonic '06 or Rise of Lyric which could, and should, have been pushed back until they were actually finished, at worst missing the Christmas deadline and/or the anniversary, Sonic Adventure had no such luxury. After the Saturn bombed spectacularly SEGA needed a 3D Sonic game, and they needed it right then if the Dreamcast was to have any chance of success, even if that meant releasing Adventure without fully polishing it.

Ultimately even if Adventure, is a mess I prefer to look on the positive side of things. SEGA made a fun game which served as a solid proof of concept for bringing Sonic into 3D and not only that, but when the game turned out to be messy they put some actual effort into fixing many of the problems it had for the next game. As a result Sonic Adventure 2 was far more technically stable than its predecessor and fixed many of the other issues Adventure 1 had too (it's not an across the board improvement mind you, SA2 does fall short of SA1 in several areas, but from a technical perspective it's the better game). So props to the Sonic Team of the day for doing that instead of throwing everything away after one failure, regardless of how many successes it's had, or just changing things for no discernible reason at all like their modern counterpart does.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Bowbowis

[PKGaming]

Y'know, I was defending Arin against the people saying he was trying to mess up and exploit glitches on purpose to make the game look bad (I mean, it is bad, but worse), but after today's episode......yeah, I think they might be right. I'm not sure how much more of this series I can take. I've watched every episode of Game Grumps since the beginning so it'd be weird to stop now. But this series just isn't fun. They're just constantly crapping on the game with unfunny jokes and nothing productive to add. Have a conversation or something... -_-;

[ThePrinceOfSaiyans]

To be fair to Arin, apparently he's not the only one who's thought to himself, "Oh, I'm gonna jump while the wind carries me."

 

[Candescence]

While I have been lucky enough to avoid glitches in the GC version in the past, I can see why they're occuring in Arin and Danny's run. The first major glitch is clearly in an area where the game is trying to 'rail' the player but is actively fighting the player's controls, where it probably would've been better to just lock the player's movement to a rail in that instance. Not to mention how they'd get the idea that you're supposed to jump into the wind tunnel - they were talking while Tikal's advice was going on and thus didn't notice it, and it's not like that section is intuitive, either, I mean, how the hell else are you suppose to know you're just supposed to run towards what looks like a cliff that might kill you without being explicitly told what to do?

Yeah, SA1 didn't age well, and there are plenty of mis-steps in design. Not the worst 3D Sonic game (that title goes to 06, with Unleashed somewhat behind it), but it's not a good game.

[azoo]

As I expected, I've been seeing a lot of "Sonic Adventure is so effing terrible" going around the internet thanks to this. Scattered minorities have said it before, and some of their reasons are definitely founded, but...

I just don't see how Sonic Adventure is really that bad of a game as people are making it out to be. Sure, it's glitchy as hell and it has some shakier design decisions that we all know were made and there's no doubting that, but the game's maps really weren't that hard to navigate, and the gameplay for most of it was very fun. And sure it was glitchy, but has that really stopped any of Bethesda's games from being something people enjoy a lot?

I'm not defending it's shit aspects or trying to say it's anything close to a masterpiece, but how come it's reasonable to pit it as if the game was never good by any sense of the word, even at it's time of release?

Arin's obviously flubbing the game to death due to his inadequacy he has in every other playthrough, so how is it suddenly the game's fault when he makes the same kind of mistakes? In fact, how is anything he says about a Sonic game credible whenever he's one to act like the classic games (games considered by a grand majority as great) are awful games with terrible design? He honestly has very little good to say about Sonic in the first place.

And let's be real: while Dan is sweet and a great person and all, I'm almost certain he would think different of the game if Arin praised it instead, since he seems really easy to persuade. Plus, from what I recall, he also has depth perception issues with 3D games, so there's that as well..

....

(Oh yeah, and the DX version of the game is a pizza shit. Should've played the Dreamcast version.)

Idk. I'm just a bit tired of being told that I'm blindly defending irredeemably shit games when I know I'm not and it's not.

 

And dear God, it's not just nostalgia.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Azoo

[Bowbowis]

I'm not defending it's shit aspects or trying to say it's anything close to a masterpiece, but how come it's reasonable to pit it as if the game was never good by any sense of the word, even at it's time of release?

Arin's obviously flubbing the game to death due to his inadequacy he has in every other playthrough, so how is it suddenly the game's fault when he makes the same kind of mistakes? In fact, how is anything he says about a Sonic game credible whenever he's one to act like the classic games (games considered by a grand majority as great) are awful games with terrible design? He honestly has very little good to say about Sonic in the first place.

That's humanity for you Azoo. People are drawn to success and learn through imitation, as such people will try to imitate the behavior of the successful in order to become successful themselves. Historically speaking it makes sense, if Bob is the best hunter in the group and brings in tons of food for himself and his family then you're going to want to imitate Bob's hunting techniques so that you too can bring in tons of food for you and your family. In the modern day however the conditions for success is no longer as simple as ensuring the survival of yourself and your family unit, nor is the punishment so severe as death; today we measure success by fame and fortune. Now I can't speak to Egoraptor's financial state, he could be rolling in cash or flat broke for all I know, but he is famous and therefore considered successful. As such our old instincts kick in, people will try to imitate Egoraptor's behavior in order to imitate his success. Egoraptor is successful and Egoraptor hates Sonic, therefore if you want to be successful you need to hate Sonic as well. Sure it's stupid and illogical, but it's how our brains work nonetheless.

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

When I was a little kid, I thought this game was the most amazing thing ever. Then I replayed it when I was older, and it was so, so much worse than I had remembered.

Personally, though, I'd still call it a good game without hesitating. Because, well, it's fun. It's conceptually strong. I find it a great experience overall, despite its weaknesses. Technical considerations are a lot less important than all those things, in my personal opinion. (It doesn't hurt that I personally haven't encountered many glitches in it...)

I really wouldn't say it's a great game, and it certainly doesn't hold a candle to the main series Genesis games, but I'd definitely say it's a good game. Without a doubt, really. You're free to disagree, but I'm just as free to hold my own opinion.

I'll second what others have said about its trying to be an adaption of classic Sonic gameplay into 3D being a definite point in its favor. It may not be as good as the classic gameplay, but it is trying to imitate it in a 3D environment, and it doesn't do a half-bad job. With some significant polishing and some improved level designs, I personally think it has the potential be a great model for new Sonic games. (Of course, they should also drop the genre roulette.)

You can tell I like this game, my username is from it!

Edited July 23, 2015 by Monkey Destruction Switch

[MiyaSaffron]

I agree with a lot of statements said in this topic. It has some definite problems and has aged pretty badly, but I still think it's an entertaining game that brought some cool concepts with it.

I got Sonic Adventure for the Gamecube as a young kid and I admit, I was absolutely amazed by it (but I was impressed by everything as a kid, hahah) and thought it was an amazing game. After collecting dust for a bit, I played it again and...yeah, I went through the game thinking, "This used to be a masterpiece to me...?" It's pretty glitchy, and the technical attributes of it are lacking a lot.

However, I still think it's entertaining. Not the best, but I still had fun playing it. The glitches were frustrating, but not to the point of me throwing down the controller and giving up. It might be the nostalgia talking, but I think it's still fun today. No, it hasn't aged well at all, but the entertainment value is still there. Also, I like some of the concepts and things it did. I liked the story and the characters.

GG is a huge hit and miss for me. Some of their series are really funny, but when it comes to actual and critical commentary on a game, they definitely exaggerate and blow it out of proportion. Screaming how the game is a steaming pile of feces every five minutes and how it's the absolute worst and how you'd rather drown your dog than play it or whatever is not funny in the slightest. That, and they are just mediocre video game players.

Seriously, read the directions! READ THE DIRECTIONS! INSTEAD OF SCREAMING HOW A GAME IS HARD TO CONTROL AND HOW IT SUCKS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT, READ THE DIRECTIONS!!! DON'T SKIP OVER THEM!!!!!!!!! QUIT SKIPPING OVER THINGS THAT TELL YOU HOW TO PLAY THE GAME!!!

Sonic Adventure is still fun to me though. Glitchy, outdated, and limited, but still fun nonetheless.  

[Diesel]

It was never a good game.

[azoo]

It was never a good game.

That's nice.

Might want to contribute a bit more next time you make a post, please. I'll let you slip this one time since this is your first post, but I'm warning you that you're not gonna get far if you're only here to bring a rise out of people. :v

Edited July 25, 2015 by Azoo

[PKGaming]

It was never a good game.

Who are you!? Who are you!? Who are you!? Who are you!?

[ThePrinceOfSaiyans]

It was never a good game.

The DX Port? Maybe, but the Dreamcast version review scores beg to differ. Honestly, you can put any game from 1996-2000 under a microscope and you'll find once critically acclaimed games do not hold up by modern standards. Super Mario 64 for example is showing it's age. Hell, even the once great Ocarina of Time is now being criticized. It is completely unfair to say a game was never good just because it doesn't hold up today. The gaming standards of today have worked out a lot of kinks from the earlier generations.

[Diesel]

The DX Port? Maybe, but the Dreamcast version review scores beg to differ. Honestly, you can put any game from 1996-2000 under a microscope and you'll find once critically acclaimed games do not hold up by modern standards. Super Mario 64 for example is showing it's age. Hell, even the once great Ocarina of Time is now being criticized. It is completely unfair to say a game was never good just because it doesn't hold up today. The gaming standards of today have worked out a lot of kinks from the earlier generations.

The DX version is almost identical to the Dreamcast version. 

It's interesting how you're using the Dreamcast version's review scores to defend that version of the game, yet you acknowledge that gaming standards back then were different. Gaming standards were different back then (lower, in fact), which is the only reason the Dreamcast version of the game got good reviews, thus there's no reason to mention it got good reviews. 

[ThePrinceOfSaiyans]

The DX version is almost identical to the Dreamcast version. 

They're different enough. The DX port is more prone to glitch up. For example, that glitch Arin encountered during Emerald Coast is non-existent in the Dreamcast version. The textures and lighting are also much better in the Dreamcast version. I also found the collision detection was butchered in the DX port. It's much easier to get slowed down. Overall the Dreamcast version just a better version of the game. 

yet you acknowledge that gaming standards back then were different.

Yeah, which is why I think it's absurd to claim it was never good. I agree, it's not good by today's standards, but back then, it was great.  

[Milo]

Aside from agreeing with those who say the game is a period of its time, I think Sonic Adventure is also a case where the people in charge of making it were more interested in style over substance. The developers clearly went to town on the title and added/changed a bunch of material that I don't think was ever needed for the franchise in general, let alone needed to bring Sonic back to relevance. Meanwhile, the technical aspects of the game and how the gameplay objectives/controls used for the other characters for the game were designed I don't think were given much focus-it largely seems as if they threw out a fair amount of fundamental things they learned from game design concerning the earlier games. Despite all of this, it's one of the only games in the series I wish future 3D games could follow on from a gameplay standpoint-the Sonic segments of the game I felt were a surprisingly acceptable base that could had been the start translating Sonic's 2D/Genesis game design into the 3D space. I also do appreciate the game's musical variety and general narrative.

The DX version is almost identical to the Dreamcast version. 

Only if you're looking at things at a surface level. Changes made between the two go more than just shinier graphics and the added mission mode.

It's interesting how you're using the Dreamcast version's review scores to defend that version of the game, yet you acknowledge that gaming standards back then were different. Gaming standards were different back then (lower, in fact), which is the only reason the Dreamcast version of the game got good reviews, thus there's no reason to mention it got good reviews. 

That's really not a good argument, not to mention insultingly condescending to reviewers in said time period. With that kind of attitude you could dismiss the scores of any game made years ago and basically say "people back then didn't know any better" as your defense.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Señor Gabe

[azoo]

Okay so here's some history on Sonic Adventure.

Once upon a time, Sega asked Sonic Team to rush the hell out of a Sonic game (the first 3D one at that), because they needed to deliver a massive game to release for the Japanese launch date of the Sega Dreamcast in 1998. For that reason, plus the sudden spike in creativity and ambition they'd grown since not working on Sonic for a good four or so years, Sonic Adventure's Japanese version was baked in about 9 months, making one of the fastest development times for any game I can recall of the top of my head.

The result was... well, pretty bad, but with a lot of promise. The game was glitch incarnate, with all sorts of horrible issues that rendered the game by our (current) standards borderline unplayable. It also had some other minor differences in it's design (particularly that Sonic had a running blur effect which I wish was kept in all versions, but I digress) and yeah.

Sonic Adventure later got it's English release, and was also rereleased in Japan as the "International Version", which was a bugfix made by Sega of America's at-that-moment blossoming "Sonic Team USA" section that patched over a lot of issues with the original game. One of many glitches fixed, for example, was the one Arin constantly ran into in DX where he'd fall through the floor.

Now you may ask, "if they fixed it in the International release, how come it's back in the DX port?"

Well, DX was put together by Sonic Team Japan IIRC, because Sonic Team USA was busy putting together games like Sonic Heroes, SA2Battle and the Advance series with Dimps during that time. Since DX was put together by Sonic Team Japan, they didn't seem to have the same bugfixes as SA1's international release, and while fixing some glitches, it kept others, and sort of made a few of them worse.

Oh yeah, and the game got a visual rehaul that it honestly didn't need. A lot of textures were enhanced and models with higher polys were given to the main four in the cast (Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy) but the art style was made more dull to... I guess fit the more realistic look SA2 had? Anyways, different strokes for different folks there, but if you look at footage of SA1 vs DX you'll see that a lot of the textures between the versions had been.. well, made more realistic, washed out, and at times lack the lighting that made the Dreamcast version's color and style stand out so much. 

But yeah. To put it in short, SADX is a pretty messy port of Adventure with a lot more glitches than the International Dreamcast version, and some (arguably) worse art design decisions. It has some of it's own nice improvements (like a free movement camera, and a map for the hub worlds), but overall it's just not as solid of an experience as the original version.

 

All this said.. you really gotta give it to Naka and co. Making a game with this much developed for it in about 9 months is pretty dang impressive. It was a messy game, but given their amount of time put into it, that's pretty understandable! SA1 was a pretty commendable effort, I think.

Especially since Sonic's gameplay came in at a time where 3D was new, and trying to make characters that react heavily to slopes as well as move fast was already a risk enough on itself, considering how few games touched on that in the early days (which I think explains a lot of it's glitchiness).

Edited July 25, 2015 by Azoo

[Diesel]

 

They're different enough. The DX port is more prone to glitch up. For example, that glitch Arin encountered during Emerald Coast is non-existent in the Dreamcast version. The textures and lighting are also much better in the Dreamcast version. I also found the collision detection was butchered in the DX port. It's much easier to get slowed down. Overall the Dreamcast version just a better version of the game. 

Yeah, which is why I think it's absurd to claim it was never good. I agree, it's not good by today's standards, but back then, it was great.  

A few glitches added in the DX version doesn't make much of a difference. And no, the game was never good, even when it came out. Did it get good reviews? Yes, but that doesn't mean it was good. There were also reviewers who didn't think the game was good back then.

That's really not a good argument, not to mention insultingly condescending to reviewers in said time period. With that kind of attitude you could dismiss the scores of any game made years ago and basically say "people back then didn't know any better" as your defense.

No, because a number of games back then still hold up today. Sonic Adventure is not one of them. You don't see games like Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Crash Bandicoot, etc receiving anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny Sonic Adventure gets these days.

 

Sonic Adventure later got it's English release, and was also rereleased in Japan as the "International Version", which was a bugfix made by Sega of America's at-that-moment blossoming "Sonic Team USA" section that patched over a lot of issues with the original game. One of many glitches fixed, for example, was the one Arin constantly ran into in DX where he'd fall through the floor.

Now you may ask, "if they fixed it in the International release, how come it's back in the DX port?"

Well, DX was put together by Sonic Team Japan IIRC, because Sonic Team USA was busy putting together games like Sonic Heroes, SA2Battle and the Advance series with Dimps during that time. Since DX was put together by Sonic Team Japan, they didn't seem to have the same bugfixes as SA1's international release, and while fixing some glitches, it kept others, and sort of made a few of them worse.

But yeah. To put it in short, SADX is a pretty messy port of Adventure with a lot more glitches than the International Dreamcast version, and some (arguably) worse art design decisions. It has some of it's own nice improvements (like a free movement camera, and a map for the hub worlds), but overall it's just not as solid of an experience as the original version.

The "International" version was still very glitchy. Not being as glitchy as the original Japanese version isn't saying much; the game was still broken.

And no, the DX version isn't much glitchier than the Dreamcast version.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Diesel

[Tara]

I don't know what you're talking about.  People (at least those on this forum and dedicated fan sites to their respective properties) have been saying SM64, Ocarina of Time, Crash Bandicoot, etc. haven't aged well at all for awhile now.  In fact, I see more scrutiny for OoT than SA1, namely because more people owned OoT than SA1 as a result of it being on an arguably more successful console.  I do agree that "good reviews" does not mean "good game," but so far you've yet to put any effort into explaining why it was bad, even for the time, when you have several fans, critics, and casual players who disagree with you and have used actual design principles to justify their arguments.

[azoo]

 

A few glitches added in the DX version doesn't make much of a differences. And no, the game was never good, even when it came out. Did it get good reviews? Yes, but that doesn't mean it was good. There were also reviewers who didn't think the game was good back then.

Once again, acting as if anyone's opinion back then didn't matter.

There's always going to be those kind of people who disagree and say they didn't like it, too. 

No, because a number of games back then still hold up today. Sonic Adventure is not one of them. You don't see games like Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Crash Bandicoot, etc receiving anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny Sonic Adventure gets these days.

Of course they don't! They weren't made in 9 months, they didn't go over the top with ambitions and biting off more they could chew, and (most of all) none of them were very fast games that required heavy usage of slope interaction and physics.

Their camera systems and collision issues were often as miserable as Adventure's, but the games didn't require you to move as fast as it did, and neither did they require most of the level design to base itself around running on sharp inclines, up walls, and on ceilings. No wonder Adventure was so glitchy, because 3D was so new at the time that trying to do Sonic's gameplay just as it was in 2D was already too ambitious for it's own good!

And look at that! While it was still a glitchfest, it happened to turn out being playable, and actually kind of fun. 

So yes, by today's standards it's a pretty bad game. But to act like it had no good ideas, no worth to anyone, or even any dosage of fun in how it played is total bullhonkus, and bandwagoning a hate-train at most.

(Also, what Tara said.) 

Edited July 25, 2015 by Azoo

[Tornado]

The first Crash game doesn't really hold up too well either (particularly the bits that attempt to recreate those horrible chase levels that Adventure did as well) the first Spyro game (while much more competently programmed than Adventure) has certain design ideas that make it nearly unplayable in spots regardless, most of Rare's creative output from that time period was being chewed out before the Gamecube even released, etc. How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? 

[Diesel]

I don't know what you're talking about.  People (at least those on this forum and dedicated fan sites to their respective properties) have been saying SM64, Ocarina of Time, Crash Bandicoot, etc. haven't aged well at all for awhile now.  In fact, I see more scrutiny for OoT than SA1, namely because more people owned OoT than SA1 as a result of it being on an arguably more successful console.  I do agree that "good reviews" does not mean "good game," but so far you've yet to put any effort into explaining why it was bad, even for the time, when you have several fans, critics, and casual players who disagree with you and have used actual design principles to justify their arguments.

When Sonic Adventure was first released worldwide in 1999, it averaged an 86.51% on GameRankings. When it was ported to the GameCube in 2003, it only averaged a 64.43%. When it was ported to the Xbox 360 in 2010, it only averaged 52.02%.

Games like Super Mario 64, Crash Bandicoot, Ocarnia of Time, etc, on the other hand, still average adequately when they're rereleased. And Ocarina of Time does not receive anywhere near as much as scruntity as Sonic Adventure.

As for why I think it was a bad game, I think it's bad because it is full of glitches, has a bad camera, bad collision detection and just reeks of being unpolished. And no, casual players generally agree Sonic Adventure is a bad game. Only the Sonic fanbase still holds the game in high regard now.

 

Once again, acting as if anyone's opinion back then didn't matter.

There's always going to be those kind of people who disagree and say they didn't like it, too. 

Of course they don't! They weren't made in 9 months, they didn't go over the top with ambitions and biting off more they could chew, and (most of all) none of them were very fast games that required heavy usage of slope interaction and physics.

Their camera systems and collision issues were often as miserable as Adventure's, but the games didn't require you to move as fast as it did, and neither did they require most of the level design to base itself around running on sharp inclines, up walls, and on ceilings. No wonder Adventure was so glitchy, because 3D was so new at the time that trying to do Sonic's gameplay just as it was in 2D was already too ambitious for it's own good!

And look at that! While it was still a glitchfest, it happened to turn out being playable, and actually kind of fun. 

So yes, by today's standards it's a pretty bad game. But to act like it had no good ideas, no worth to anyone, or even any dosage of fun in how it played is total bullhonkus, and bandwagoning a hate-train at most.

(Also, what Tara said.) 

 

Considering the fact most people's standards were much lower back then, most people's opinions back then don't matter.

As for Sonic Adventure being "made in 9 months, going over the top with ambitions and biting off more than it could chew", that's no excuse at all. The problems still exist. You may as well be defending Sonic 2006 if you think being rushed, over the top and overly ambitious justifies a game's problems.

As for Sonic Adventure being among the first 3D platformers to "be very fast and require heavy usage of slope interaction and physics", that still doesn't excuse the game's flaws. Perhaps the game should have been slower. Perhaps it should required less usage of slope interaction and physics.

As for Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time and Crash Bandicoot having camera system and collision issues "as miserable as Adventure's, that's not true at all.

As for Sonic Adventure turning out to be "playable" despite being a glitchfest, no, it wasn't playable. It was broken.

And nobody here is acting like Sonic Adventure "had no good idea, no worth to anyone or even any dosage of fun". It may have done a few things right, but for the most part, it was bad.

 

The first Crash game doesn't really hold up too well either (particularly the bits that attempt to recreate those horrible chase levels that Adventure did as well) the first Spyro game (while much more competently programmed than Adventure) has certain design ideas that make it nearly unplayable in spots regardless, most of Rare's creative output from that time period was being chewed out before the Gamecube even released, etc. How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? 

And yet, the first Crash and Spyro games still got good reviews every time they were rereleased and still aren't anywhere near as bad as Sonic Adventure. No use comparing them to a game as broken as Sonic Adventure.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Diesel

[Tornado]

So reviews that support your viewpoint are acceptable for this conversation, but reviews that don't are not? You're going to have to do a bit better than post Metascores for proof why reviewers back then were just dumb hacks and reviewers now are enlightened geniuses of game design.

 

 

 

[Diesel]

So reviews that support your viewpoint are acceptable for this conversation, but reviews that don't are not?

 The only reviews that are acceptable for this conversation are ones that aren't from a period when standards were astonishingly lower. Sonic Adventure has consistently gotten bad reviews every time it was rereleased. Games like Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Cash Bandicoot, etc have consistently gotten good reviews even every time they were rereleased.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Diesel

[Tara]

You're attempting to justify it being bad at the time using ports of the game that are literally notorious for having an increased number of glitches due to compression and generally being ports of other ports.  You keep saying that "a few" additional glitches (when they're not "a few" at all) don't make that big of a difference, but that was ultimately why the review score is that much lower.  The reason SM64, OoT, etc. are still given adequate, though still lower, review scores is because they were competently ported and didn't add a plethora of noticeable blemishes and glitches.

Calling SA1 broken assures me you have a very loose definition of the word.  I can get from Point A to Point B without the game's controls or programming refusing me.  I can perform every maneuver in the game without the framerate dropping or otherwise getting caught in a loop.  There are very few instances where the game itself hinders me from my ultimate goal of completion, very few instances where I feel the challenge stems from the game's functionality and not the actual design of the levels.  I will concede, however, that Big's fishing was often broken in all versions of the game, with the horizontal axis often inverting and then returning to normal through seemingly no provocation whatsoever.  But that's the only instance where it takes up the majority of that character's selective playthrough as opposed to being a nuance that occasionally happens.

The same can not be said for the Steam version of DX, as when viewing playing the GameCube and PC versions side-by-side, I immediately notice a difference.  Namely in that the GameCube version never had me teleporting from one end of the earth to the middle of the ocean for no reason.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Tara

[Diesel]

You're using ports of the game that are literally notorious for having an increased number of glitches due to compression and generally being ports of other ports.  You keep saying that "a few" additional glitches (when they're not "a few" at all) don't make that big of a difference, but that was ultimately why the review score is that much lower.  The reason SM64, OoT, etc. are still given adequate, though still lower, review scores is because they were competently ported and didn't add a plethora of noticeable blemishes and glitches.

Calling SA1 broken assures me you have a very loose definition of the word.  I can get from Point A to Point B without the game's controls or programming refusing me.  I can perform every maneuver in the game without the framerate dropping or otherwise getting caught in a loop.  There are very few instances where the game itself hinders me from my ultimate goal of completion, very few instances where I feel the challenge stems from the game's functionality and not the actual design of the levels.  I will concede, however, that Big's fishing was often broken in all versions of the game, with the horizontal axis often inverting and then returning to normal through seemingly no provocation whatsoever.  But that's the only instance where it takes up the majority of that character's selective playthrough as opposed to being a nuance that occasionally happens.

The same can not be said for the Steam version of DX, as when viewing playing the GameCube and PC versions side-by-side, I immediately notice a difference.  Namely in that the GameCube version never had me teleporting from one end of the earth to the middle of the ocean for no reason.

Again, Sonic Adventure's rereleases don't add many problems in the first place. The reason why they got lower reviews than the Dreamcast original wasn't because of the problems they added; it was because they were almost identical to the original version. People realized the game hadn't aged well at all, which is why the rereleases got worse reviews.

 

Edited July 25, 2015 by Diesel