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

[Tara]

You clearly have not played more than one version of the game, then.

[Diesel]

And you would know what games I've played.

I've played every version of the game except for the original Japanese, PC and PS4 versions.

[Badnik Mechanic]

And you would know what games I've played.

I've played every version of the game except for the original Japanese, PC and PS4 versions.

So how come you've made 10 posts on SSMB, 8 of which are 'Sonic Adventure isn't very good' yet not actually explained why you don't like it other than "Well this review said it's not very good."

PS4 versions.

 Yeah not many people have played that version.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Hogfather

[Tornado]

 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 always gotten bad reviews as standards increased after it was originally released. Games like Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Cash Bandicoot, etc have consistently gotten good reviews even after they were originally released.

And again your argument remains nothing more than "Adventure was a bad game because contemporary games haven't been considered bad games since then." The problem with that conclusion is that it assumes a like for like set of circumstances, and Sonic Adventure does not follow those same circumstances. All of the Spyro rereleases, except most notably one example, have been straight emulations of the original titles. All of the Crash rereleases have been straight emulations of the original titles. All of the Super Mario 64 rereleases (except SM64DS, which had its own problems itself) have been straight emulations of the original title. All of the Ocarina of Time rereleases (with one exception, arguably two) have been straight emulations of the original title.

None of the ports of Sonic Adventure have been of the original release that garnered all of that critical acclaim. They have all been slapdash ports built off the original buggy source code port of the very first release; and a port that even when it was new on the Gamecube was noted for being buggier than usual as opposed to the improved version of the game promised on the box. You said I can't compare a Spyro title to Sonic Adventure? Why not? Let's go back to that one example above. How many of those new reviews of the PSN release of Spyro Year of the Dragon were of the buggy, save game corrupting, frequently completely unwinnable original release that Insomniac put out?

 

 

That certainly isn't to say that Sonic Adventure even in its original guise would be as good to play in 2015 as Crash Bandicoot, but you're not comparing the original Crash Bandicoot to the original Sonic Adventure when you post Metacritic scores of a very lazily done and overpriced $15 HD port of an already rather lazy Gamecube port built off a much buggier earlier build of a game and compare them to an ISO dump of the original Crash Bandicoot running off of a PSX emulator for $6.

 

 

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.

Posting Metacritic scores and simply insisting that to be the case doesn't make it true, unfortunately. Especially when those same groups that contribute to the Metacritic don't really seem to agree.

 

[Tara]

And you would know what games I've played.

I've played every version of the game except for the original Japanese, PC and PS4 versions.

When you demonstrate a lack of knowledge on it, or a denial of said knowledge whichever it may be, then it's not a hard assumption to make.  The differences in the PC version versus the GameCube version (and by extension, versus the DC version) are immediately noticeable on a graphical level in addition to the bugs that were added in the gameplay as a result of terrible porting.

[Diesel]

 

So how come you've made 10 posts on SSMB, 8 of which are 'Sonic Adventure isn't very good' yet not actually explained why you don't like it other than "Well this review said it's not very good."

I already did:

 

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

And again your argument remains nothing more than "Adventure was a bad game because contemporary games haven't been considered bad games since then." The problem with that conclusion is that it assumes a like for like set of circumstances, and Sonic Adventure does not follow those same circumstances. All of the Spyro rereleases, except most notably one example, have been straight emulations of the original titles. All of the Crash rereleases have been straight emulations of the original titles. All of the Super Mario 64 rereleases (except SM64DS, which had its own problems itself) have been straight emulations of the original title. All of the Ocarina of Time rereleases (with one exception, arguably two) have been straight emulations of the original title.

None of the ports of Sonic Adventure have been of the original release that garnered all of that critical acclaim. They have all been slapdash ports built off the original buggy source code port of the very first release; and a port that even when it was new on the Gamecube was noted for being buggier than usual as opposed to the improved version of the game promised on the box. You said I can't compare a Spyro title to Sonic Adventure? Why not? Let's go back to that one example above. How many of those new reviews of the PSN release of Spyro Year of the Dragon were of the save game corrupting, frequently completely unwinnable original release that Insomniac put out?

 

 

That certainly isn't to say that Sonic Adventure even in its original guise would be as good to play in 2015 as Crash Bandicoot, but you're not comparing the original Crash Bandicoot to the original Sonic Adventure when you post Metacritic scores of a very lazily done and overpriced $15 HD port of a Gamecube port built off a much buggier earlier build of a game and compare them to the original Crash Bandicoot running off of a PSX emulator for $7.

 

 

Posting Metacritic scores and simply insisting that to be the case doesn't make it true, unfortunately. Especially when those same groups that contribute to the Metacritic don't really seem to agree.

 

All of Sonic Adventure's rereleases are essentially straight emulations of the original title. You're under the impression the rereleases were significantly different from the original, when they really weren't.

And I said you couldn't compare the first Spyro game to Sonic Advneture. Year of the Dragon is irrelevant, because it wasn't even part of this discussion at all.

Those links you just posted aren't really relevant. Those weren't reviews.

When you demonstrate a lack of knowledge on it, or a denial of said knowledge whichever it may be, then it's not a hard assumption to make.  The differences in the PC version versus the GameCube version (and by extension, versus the DC version) are immediately noticeable on a graphical level in addition to the bugs that were added in the gameplay as a result of terrible porting.

I don't demonstrate a lack of knowledge on it. The rereleases of Sonic Adventure don't differentiate much from the original. Simple as. If anything, you're displaying a lack of knowledge on it.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Diesel

[Badnik Mechanic]

So if it's so bad how come you've played every version of it except for the PC and the PS4 version?

Surely if it's so bad you wouldn't play it? lol this seems a tad daft to me "I really don't like this game, I must therefore buy and play every incarnation of it."

The rereleases of Sonic Adventure don't differentiate much from the original.

LOL! Now come on, we all know this isn't true.

[Tornado]

All of Sonic Adventure's rereleases are essentially straight emulations of the original title. You're under the impression the rereleases were significantly different from the original, when they really weren't.

Words like "emulations" and "ports" actually have a distinct meaning, so no. The various Adventure DX releases weren't "essentially" anything of the sort, whereas the Crash Bandicoot/Spyro/Virtual Console ones literally were emulations. I know you're trying really hard to divorce all context beyond Metacritic scores, because that's the only way your conclusion works without being subject to scrutiny, but unfortunately you don't get to redefine words to suit that purpose

 

Year of the Dragon is irrelevant, because it wasn't even part of this discussion at all.

Year of the Dragon was a game that released with rather horrendous bugs, some of which much more serious than anything that cropped up in Sonic Adventure's US/PAL release. Year of the Dragon on PSN is not that game, but rather the later released version with almost all of them corrected (Incidentally, Sony also did the same thing with the PSN version of the first game, though I'm not aware what the problems were with that one specifically). Any modern review of this emulation of a 2000 title (and the original version of the original game) that cost $6 will therefore not include those bugs because they were fixed in the version of the game being rereleased.

Sonic Adventure International was a game that released with notable (but generally not gamebreaking unless you did on purpose) bugs, most of which tended to just make you lose some lives or screw up a level. Sonic Adventure DX is not that game, but rather an earlier released version with even more bugs as well as a bunch put on top of that after it was badly ported several times; plus the problems the game has with presentation that came from being so lazily enhanced. Any modern review of this supposedly enhanced port of a 1998 title that cost $15 will therefore include all of the bugs that are in the International release, and all of the bugs that weren't fixed from the 1998 release they used to port it, and all of the bugs included in the Gamecube version, and all of the bugs that are included from porting it again, and all of the newly introduced problems from making the game run at 1080p with minimal effort.

 

 

You can't see the correlation there? How something like that could skew a review score for a game independent of whether it is still fun?

 

Those links you just posted aren't really relevant. Those weren't reviews.

No they weren't. They were just retrospectives that included that specific game as something that still held up relatively well in spite of its technical problems. One of them even went so far as to outright state technical problems that weren't in the original release (or even the Gamecube one), and that said technical problems are more inexcusable than they were in 1999. So the reviews (or, rather, the review scores) you're using to prove that the game was always bad don't actually seem to suggest what you're saying they do.

 

[azoo]

All of Sonic Adventure's rereleases are essentially straight emulations of the original title. You're under the impression the rereleases were significantly different from the original, when they really weren't. 

I don't know how someone could miss the point this severely.

Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Crash Bandicoot, what have you, have all been emulations. They are the exact same game with the exact same code, written for the console they were built on, and are being played through programs meant to emulate the processing/graphical/technical/whatever aspects of a console. That work is done by the program, not the game, and thus if the emulation is perfect, the game plays exactly as it used to.

Sonic Adventure's rereleases have been ports. Unlike emulations, ports are the game's code being... well, ported to another language meant to be read by a different console. This is exactly how the Adventure games have been handled.

When a game is ported carefully (Mario 64 DS, Ocarina of Time / Majora's Mask 3D, Starfox 64 3D, the Mario Advance series) it can manage to feel as authentic, if not even better (if you prefer it that way) than the original, due to bugfixes, various additions and what have you. 

If it is handled carelessly by it's developers, however (like Sonic Adventure), ports tend to mutate and differentiate from the original game in regards to technical adequacy, causing glitches that may have not even been in the previous forms of the game. Sonic Adventure DX is exactly that, and the succeeding ports are exponentially worse, due to the PC version being a port of the GC version, which the PS3 / Xbox 360 version is a port of the PC version, and the Steam version (yes, they're different things) is a port of the 360/PS3 version is a port of the PC version is a port of the GC version is a port of the original game.

No shit the game's actual content hasn't changed, of course it's the same game in all of those regards, unless accounted for like DX did with it's "updated visuals" and mission mode and whatever. Regardless if the game was glitchy at the start or not, DX and onward are even glitchier and perform much worse, giving no actual attempt to fix what was busted. Probably because they don't know how to at this point.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Azoo

[Cradily Lover]

Honestly, while Sonic Adventure is by no means a perfect game, I still have great fun replaying it every year or so. Maybe part of it is nostalgia, but does that really matter? As long as I'm enjoying myself, why should I care what other people think of the game

I don't remember ever encountering any bugs that weren't simply minor graphical errors in my many playthroughs of the game despite most of them being the PC version of DX.

Also I don't find Big's levels that bad, if nothing else I can get through them quickly.

[Tara]

You're ignoring valid sources by deliberately dodging the point.  The fact that they are not reviews isn't relevant.  You're saying that the reason the scores were lower is because of the evidently poor aging of the game and that the different versions of the game are nearly identical when the critics you're quoting have literally gone on record to say that they're not.  In fact, even one look at Wikipedia suggests that they are not the same-

 

Reviews for the PlayStation Network and Xbox Live Arcade versions of Sonic Adventure were mixed. IGN UK's Arthur Gies gave the Xbox 360 version a score of 3.5/10 and calling it "so fundamentally flawed that it borders on unplayable--the sections that move the fastest, that work best, require the least input from the player."^[72] 1UP.com criticized both the game's dated mechanics and the perceived lack of effort put into the port, which "feels like it wasn't even tuned for the Xbox 360 controller."^[59] By contrast, Gamer 2.0 claimed that the controls were "slightly more responsive than those of the Dreamcast original,"^[73] and PlayStation LifeStyle scored it 8/10, complimenting the "frantic, fun gameplay" and "tons of replayability", concluding that "If you manage to overlook the glitches and dinky camera, you'll easily find a gem (or emerald) in this Dreamcast classic."^[74]

 

If you were to argue that the gameplay engine were the same, then you'd have a point.  If you were to argue that they use all the same source files, then yeah, you would have a point.  But to argue they play the same is literally incorrect, and literally every source, rather the anecdotal accounts on this forum, Wikipedia, or dedicated fansites, confirms that they are notedly different.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Tara

[Diesel]

So if it's so bad how come you've played every version of it except for the PC and the PS4 version?

Surely if it's so bad you wouldn't play it? lol this seems a tad daft to me "I really don't like this game, I must therefore buy and play every incarnation of it."

This is totally irrelevant and almost insulting. One can think a game's bad regardless of how many versions they've played of it. There are many reasons why someone would play multiple versions of a game. Perhaps they wanted to see if there were any differences among the versions. Perhaps they're a critic. Perhaps they're just a collector/completionist. The only thing that's daft is you bringing this up. Enough with your lousy ad hominem and backpedaling.

Words like "emulations" and "ports" actually have a distinct meaning, so no. The various Adventure DX releases weren't "essentially" anything of the sort, whereas the Crash Bandicoot/Spyro/Virtual Console ones literally were emulations. I know you're trying really hard to divorce all context beyond Metacritic scores, because that's the only way your conclusion works without being subject to scrutiny, but unfortunately you don't get to redefine words to suit that purpose.

 

I already did. You can keep saying that the two can't be compared all you want, but any technical proficiency and (arguable) production values that the original Spyro game has over Adventure falls apart when you go to actually play it. You know that it had five levels that basically are the same thing as the flight levels from Superman 64, with the main distinction being that they control a little bit better?

 

 

Year of the Dragon was a game that released with rather horrendous bugs, some of which much more serious than anything that cropped up in Sonic Adventure's US/PAL release. Year of the Dragon on PSN is not that game, but rather the later released version with almost all of them corrected (Incidentally, Sony also did the same thing with the PSN version of the first game, though I'm not aware what the problems were with that one specifically).

Sonic Adventure International was a game that released with notable (but generally not gamebreaking unless you did on purpose) bugs, most of which tended to just make you lose some lives or screw up a level. Sonic Adventure DX is not that game, but rather an earlier released version with even more bugs as well as a bunch put on top of that after it was badly ported several times; plus the problems the game has with presentation that came from being so lazily enhanced.

 

 

You can't see the correlation there?

 

 

No they weren't. They were just retrospectives that included that specific game as something that still held up relatively well in spite of its technical problems. One of them even went so far as to outright state technical problems that weren't in the original release (or even the Gamecube one), and that said technical problems are more inexcusable than they were in 1999.

 

The various DX rereleases are essentially emulations of the original game, because they hardly differentiate from the original version of the game. They may not technically be emulations, but they have the essence of emulations because they're hardly different from the original game.

And you're severely missing my point in your second, third and fourth paragraphs. You said that I said you couldn't compare a Spyro game to Sonic Adventure and proceeded to compare Year of the Dragon to Sonic Adventure. What I actually said was just that you couldn't compare the first Spyro, NOT Year of the Dragon, to Sonic Adventure. I wasn't talking about Year of the Dragon, so there is no reason for you to bring it up. All this crap you've mentioned about Year of the Dragon is irrelevant, because nobody was even talking about it in the first place.

And those links you posted weren't reviews, so they're irrelevant. A retrospective article isn't the same thing as a review.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Diesel

[Doctor63]

I've never owned SA1 or SA2 because I didn't have a Gamecube or a Dreamcast. The Dreamcast Collection for Xbox 360 was the first time I played SA1. Personally, I don't think the game is one of best, it's more average. The stages didn't impress me, Camera can be a bit tricky and the open world can be a bit boring sometimes. 

[Badnik Mechanic]

The only thing that's daft is you bringing this up. Enough with your lousy ad hominem and backpedaling

I think the only thing daft is posting a ton of reasons as to why someone may own or have to play multiple copies of a game you don't like and then don't actually say which you are.

Also no matter how you spin this it's still idiotic. 

"I really hate this game! So I'm going to collect all the versions of it!"

"I really hate this game! My god! I must see how it differs from the other versions!"

"I really hate this game! I purchase must review all versions of it!" <--- This one may have some sense if you are being paid to do it.

You are spending money on something you don't like and have apparently never liked. 

 

Enough with your lousy ad hominem and backpedaling.

Do you even know what back-pedalling is?  

Edited July 25, 2015 by Hogfather

[Tara]

I generally agree that why they're paying for several copies of a game they reportedly think was never good is not relevant to the current discussion at hand.  But I also don't necessarily think it's beyond questioning, either.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Tara

[Tornado]

The various DX rereleases are essentially emulations of the original game, because they hardly differentiate from the original version of the game. They may not technically be emulations, but they have the essence of emulations because they're hardly different from the original game.

No they aren't, no they don't and yes they are. Emulation means a specific thing, and Adventure DX even at a glance at Station Square is obviously not that.

 

You said that I said you couldn't compare a Spyro game to Sonic Adventure and proceeded to compare Year of the Dragon to Sonic Adventure.

Nope. You've just repeatedly failed to understand why I brought up Year of the Dragon in the context of game rereleases. I can't really explain it any clearer to you, though, so c'est la vie.

What I actually said was that you couldn't compare the first Spyro, NOT Year of the Dragon, to Sonic Adventure.

 

And I said you couldn't compare the first Spyro game to Sonic Advneture.

 

I already did. You can keep saying that the two can't be compared all you want, but any technical proficiency and (arguable) production values that the original Spyro game has over Adventure falls apart when you go to actually play it. I know this because I did so last weekend to polish the game off to 100% completion. You know that it had five levels that basically are the same thing as the flight levels from Superman 64, with the main distinction being that they control a little bit better (but are even harder to navigate)? That it had a camera that bugged out just as often as Sonic Adventure's did no matter which mode you put it on? That the analog controls don't work in a linear fashion so the game actually controls better with the D-Pad? That the level design was occasionally so esoteric and confusing that it rivals the very worst of what Rare was also doing at the time?

 

All of these things were fixed for Ripto's Rage, and there isn't a doubt in my mind that it blows Adventure (and almost everything on the N64, for that matter, as well as the first Ratchet and Clank) out of the water, but you're going to sit there and tell me that I'm just not allowed to comment on the failings of a game because Metacritic says I'm wrong?

 

 

All this crap you've mentioned about Year of the Dragon is irrelevant, because nobody was even talking about it in the first place.

Just because you've proven yourself incapable of grasping the relevance doesn't make something irrelevant.

 

And those links you posted weren't reviews, so they're irrelevant. A retrospective article isn't the same thing as a review.

So that is to say, when you say this:

And no, casual players generally agree Sonic Adventure is a bad game. Only the Sonic fanbase still holds the game in high regard now.

And a videogame magazine says this:

Even though the Dreamcast is a relic of the past, Sonic Adventure is still one of the best, and perhaps the last good Sonic game.

And a video game website says this:

The number of times Sonic glitched through the floor, got stuck on a step or juddered around like a rogue pneumatic drill did take a little of the shine off the jewel in the crown of Dreamcast's launch. And when you start looking for ways to break the game… well, it all just falls apart. But it didn't matter. Not really.

 

Or when you say this:

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.

And a video game website says this:

That said, there was no excuse for the bugs reappearing in the subsequent GameCube remake, and even less the XBLA re-release. That last one not only left bugs in, but even added some more of its own.

 

They don't count because they aren't reviews, but your opinions counts because you've got a Metascore?

 

[Diesel]

I think the only thing daft is posting a ton of reasons as to why you own and play multiple copies of a game you don't like and then don't actually say which you are.

 

Do you even know what back-pedalling is?  

There is no reason for me to say why I would play multiple versions of a game I don't like. That's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Backpedaling is simply changing your argument in a discussion, generally when you can't think of anything to say when someone has debunked your original argument. And that's exactly what you did. You argued that I had given no reason why I thought Sonic Adventure was bad other than its reviews. After I had proven you wrong by pointing out I had already stated the reason why I didn't like the game was because of its glitches, camera problems, etc, you changed your argument into randomly questioning why I would be playing multiple versions of Sonic Adventure I didn't like it. That's backpedaling by definition.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Diesel

[Nepenthe]

The various DX rereleases are essentially emulations of the original game, because they hardly differentiate from the original version of the game. They may not technically be emulations, but they have the essence of emulations because they're hardly different from the original game.

Saying the DX rereleases are "essentially" emulations because they don't change the design is like saying a dog is essentially a cat because it doesn't walk flat-footed. You're completely ignoring the definitions that exist for these specific terms.

Simply put, an emulation is when a game is running in an environment that recreates the console it was actually made for, so the game's language is preserved. A port is when the language is rewritten for another console. They are two distinct processes that have notably different effects on the original's code depending upon how well they're done, and ignoring this distinction is a fundamental hole in the argument that DX and its ports (not emulations) are pretty much the exact same game architecturally. You either need to prove that your terms are more accurate, or you need to demonstrate that SA1 International has an equivalent level of glitchiness as DX. Ignoring definitions and quoting review numbers isn't enough.

[Badnik Mechanic]

There is no reason for me to say why I would play multiple versions of a game I don't like. That's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

lol no it's not. You're the one who said when challenged that you had had played virtually every version of the game except for the Japanese version, the PC version, and I'm amazed this still hasn't been fixed. The PS4 version.

Yet still claim "There are no differences between the versions."

Given that you've been so vocal in expressing why you don't like the game... I have to ask... why even buy them all? Especially when some of those you've claimed to have played are digital titles which have never been updated from their original counterparts. 

lol who does that except for someone reviewing under paid commission/contract? "I really don't like this game, but I'm going to buy all the physical and most of the digital editions!" 

Oh I don't doubt that some people buy bad Sonic games/games that they don't like to collect for reasons such as boxart or some kind of collection, but the digital versions too? And to then actually play and complete them as you're suggesting? lol no way. 

So... back to your 'reasons to buy them' We're still waiting for an answer as to which you are... yet I'm the one back-peddling? 

[Diesel]

No they aren't, no they don't and yes they are. Emulation means a specific thing, and Adventure DX even at a glance at Station Square is obviously not that.

 

Nope. You've just repeatedly failed to understand why I brought up Year of the Dragon in the context of game rereleases. I can't really explain it any clearer to you, though, so c'est la vie.

 

I already did. You can keep saying that the two can't be compared all you want, but any technical proficiency and (arguable) production values that the original Spyro game has over Adventure falls apart when you go to actually play it. I know this because I did so last weekend to polish the game off to 100% completion. You know that it had five levels that basically are the same thing as the flight levels from Superman 64, with the main distinction being that they control a little bit better (but are even harder to navigate)? That it had a camera that bugged out just as often as Sonic Adventure's did no matter which mode you put it on? That the analog controls don't work in a linear fashion so the game actually controls better with the D-Pad? That the level design was occasionally so esoteric and confusing that it rivals the very worst of what Rare was also doing at the time?

 

All of these things were fixed for Ripto's Rage, and there isn't a doubt in my mind that it blows Adventure (and almost everything on the N64, for that matter, as well as the first Ratchet and Clank) out of the water, but you're going to sit there and tell me that I'm just not allowed to comment on the failings of a game because Metacritic says I'm wrong?

 

Just because you've proven yourself incapable of grasping the relevance doesn't make something irrelevant.

So that is to say, when you say this:

 

And a videogame magazine says this:

 

And a video game website says this:

 

 

Or when you say this:

 

And a video game website says this:

 

 

They don't count because they aren't reviews, but your opinions counts because you've got a Metascore?

 

Again, SADX is not literally an emulation of the original game, but it's still hardly different from the original game. Thus, it's essentially an emulation. You can say it's not all you want, but you've failed to mention any real differences between it and the original game.

Year of the Dragon is irrelevant to this discussion, so there is no reason for you to bring it up. You just took my comments on the first Spyro out of context and assumed I was talking any Spyro in general.

As for your comments on the original Spyro game, whether or not you think the game is as bad as Sonic Adventure or Superman 64 is irrelevant. What I had said was that the original Spyro doesn't get anywhere near as much scrutiny as the original Sonic Adventure. You may criticize the game all you want, but that doesn't change the fact it's held in a much higher regard than Sonic Adventure.

And just because you've proven yourself incapable of grasping the irrelevancy doesn't make something relevant. Your faulty logic works both ways. 

The magazine/website comments you linked to are irrelevant for a number of reasons. For one, they're not reviews. Random retrospective articles aren't the same thing as actual, professional reviews. The reviews those magazines/websites gave Sonic Adventure's rereleases are more reflective of what they think of the game than those articles. And even if those articles were legitimately reflective of what those magazines/articles thought of the game, you've only posted a few articles. Posting a few articles doesn't bolster your argument that a good amount of people outside the fanbase still like Sonic Adventure; any opinion can be found if one searches hard enough.

Saying the DX rereleases are "essentially" emulations because they don't change the design is like saying a dog is essentially a cat because it doesn't walk flat-footed. You're completely ignoring the definitions that exist for these specific terms.

Simply put, an emulation is when a game is running in an environment that recreates the console it was actually made for, so the game's language is preserved. A port is when the language is rewritten for another console. They are two distinct processes that have notably different effects on the original's code depending upon how well they're done, and ignoring this distinction is a fundamental hole in the argument that DX and its ports (not emulations) are pretty much the exact same game architecturally. You either need to prove that your terms are more accurate, or you need to demonstrate that SA1 International has an equivalent level of glitchiness as DX. Ignoring definitions and quoting review numbers isn't enough.

 

A dog isn't essentially a cat just because it doesn't walk flat-footed, because there is far more to a cat than not walking flat footed. The similarities between Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure DX aren't as superficial as that similarity between a dog and a cat, because Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure DX are virtually identical to each other. Thus, Sonic Adventure DX is essentially an emulation of Sonic Adventure. Am I saying it's literally an emulation? No, so there's no reason for you to post those literal definitions of what an emulation is.

lol no it's not. You're the one who said when challenged that you had had played virtually every version of the game except for the Japanese version, the PC version, and I'm amazed this still hasn't been fixed. The PS4 version.

Yet still claim "There are no differences between the versions."

Given that you've been so vocal in expressing why you don't like the game... I have to ask... why even buy them all? Especially when some of those you've claimed to have played are digital titles which have never been updated from their original counterparts. 

lol who does that except for someone reviewing under paid commission/contract? "I really don't like this game, but I'm going to buy all the physical and most of the digital editions!" 

Oh I don't doubt that some people buy bad Sonic games/games that they don't like to collect for reasons such as boxart or some kind of collection, but the digital versions too? And to then actually play and complete them as you're suggesting? lol no way. 

So... back to your 'reasons to buy them' We're still waiting for an answer as to which you are... yet I'm the one back-peddling? 

Why I would play multiple versions of a game I don't like is irrelevant to this discussion. Me stating that I played virtually every version of the game doesn't validate your question at all. There is no correlation. And I haven't played the PC and PS4 versions, but there's no need for me to as I've played the 360 version, which is identical to those versions of the game. I've played enough versions of the game to know there isn't any real difference among them, with the exception of the Japanese version, which I've already admitted is different from the rest.

And me avoiding your question about why I would play multiple versions of the game if I didn't like it isn't backpedaling. Avoiding an irrelevant question =/= backpedaling. You don't know what backpedaling is.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Diesel

[Badnik Mechanic]

 

Why I would play multiple versions of a game I don't like is irrelevant to this discussion.

It's really not. Especially when you're making claims which are so ridiculously wrong e.g. "there's no difference between each version." It greatly casts doubt over your claims that you have played so many versions. 

And we're still waiting for an answer as to why you keep buying games you hate. If indeed you have actually played any of these which as of yet you've not provided a convincing argument to suggest you have.

Also who wants to tell him about he PS4 version? 

[Diesel]

It is irrelevant, and you've no explanation as to why it wouldn't be. This discussion is about whether or not Sonic Adventure is a good game, not why I'm playing games I don't like. I'm not going to answer your questions because they're irrelevant.

As for the PS4 version, it's identical to the 360 version, which I've already played, so there's no reason for me to play it.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Diesel

[Badnik Mechanic]

It is irrelevant, and you've no explanation as to why it would be. This discussion is about whether or not Sonic Adventure is a good game, not why I'm playing games I don't like. 

As for the PS4 version, it's identical to the 360 version, which I've already played, so there's no reason for me to play it.

Just answer already.

Considering youve been so vocal as to why the game is crap. I think it would be handy to know why you continue to buy the games if you dislike them so much. It's really not hard to do.

It would help negate any doubts that you actually have played these games... especially since you keep making a lot of wrong claims about the game and still insisting there's a PS4 version of the game... when the PS4 does not have this game in it's library? For someone so in tune with SA and it's versions... this seems like a very silly mistake to make for the past... how many hours?

 

[Nepenthe]

A dog isn't essentially a cat just because it doesn't walk flat-footed, because there is far more to a cat than not walking flat footed. The similarities between Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure DX aren't as superficial as that similarity between a dog and a cat, because Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure DX are virtually identical to each other. Thus, Sonic Adventure DX is essentially an emulation of Sonic Adventure. Am I saying it's literally an emulation? No, so there's no reason for you to post those literal definitions of what an emulation is.

You're missing the point of the comparison. You are ignoring the differences and their context and still acting as if the terms can be used interchangeably or loosely because of a vague similarity (in which flat-footedness is equated with adherence to the same general design). Saying you're not being literal doesn't allow you to weasel out of addressing this refutation properly, because there is no wiggle room, no grey area, to be had in the terms we're using. They are objective. Games are not "essentially" emulations. They are either the original game, an emulation, or a port, and subsequently these different states for code to exist in come with implications and explanations for why the same game can behave differently in different iterations. If you don't agree with these definitions, then you need to provide a convincing argument as to why your definitions are better for the discussion at hand. If not, you need to retract your statement that DX is "essentially an emulation" and present another argument for how DX is an accurate recreation of SA1 International.

[Diesel]

Just answer already.

No.

You're missing the point of the comparison. You are ignoring the differences and their context and still acting as if the terms can be used interchangeably or loosely because of a vague similarity (in which flat-footedness is equated with adherence to the same general design). Saying you're not being literal doesn't allow you to weasel out of addressing this refutation properly, because there is no wiggle room, no grey area, to be had in the terms we're using. They are objective. Games are not "essentially" emulations. They are either the original game, an emulation, or a port, and subsequently these different states for code to exist in come with implications and explanations for why the same game can behave differently in different iterations. If you don't agree with these definitions, then you need to provide a convincing argument as to why your definitions are better for the discussion at hand. If not, you need to retract your statement that DX is "essentially an emulation" and present another argument for how DX is an accurate recreation of SA1 International.

You say I'm "ignoring" the "differences" as if there are any substantial ones to begin with. There aren't any substantial differences. The similarities aren't vague. And I never said Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure DX were identical to each other just because they have the "same general design". They're identical to each other because they're almost exactly the same. Modified graphics and a few added glitches in DX do make for substantial differences.

As for my argument that DX is "essentially" an emualtion of SA1, it is essentially an emulation. The definition to "essence":

 

used to emphasize the basic, fundamental, or intrinsic nature of a person, thing, or situation.

Sonic Adventure DX has the basic, fundamental and intrinsic nature of Sonic Adventure as it's almost identical to that game. Thus, it's "essentially" an emulation. It's not that hard to understand. If DX wasn't identical to SA1, then you would have a point. But it is. 

Edited July 26, 2015 by Diesel