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

[azoo]

I already explained why I thought it was bad: horrible camera, collision detection, glitches, etc.

We know. 

And you know what? We all believe that it has those problems. None of us are defending it! Not even the decisions made that weren't related to those type of things, like Big!

What we are saying is that it's not the ultimate detractors that make it a bad or irredeemable game. If we can excuse Mario 64's messy collision issues, Spyro 1's crappy camera, Crash 1's shoddy level design, OoT's archaic design decisions, and all of previously said games' glitches because of them being early 3D games that had room for improvement, we can do the same for Sonic Adventure.

Especially since, like these other games, Sonic Adventure was the first of it's kind: a 3D Sonic game. And not just that, but a game that was fast (old 3D games + fast = control issues most of the time). And required frequent collision/physics interactions with slopes and upside-down pathways (physics are hard, and no other company had to worry about it quite like Sonic Team).

If you think it's bullschlock that Adventure sort of gets a free pass from a lot of us for it's crappy camera and collision/control problems, then those other first attempts don't deserve them either. And if you're upset because those others improved while Sonic questionably flip-flopped from better to much much worse, then that's a valid opinion, but is neither here nor there in this conversation.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Azoo

[Nepenthe]

Oh, but I was talking in a metaphorical sense. Guess that's where the confusion came

 

I know you were talking metaphorically. I'm telling you know one else was, thus the debate wasn't ever defined by or even had room for your personal definitions. Yet you contined the argument based on said definitions for several pages and acted as if the comparison to other games were being made in bad faith or bad logic, all the while not realizing you weren't engaging anyone on the appropriate terms and thus the point was flying by. And yet you still refuse to admit the confusion was actually on your end. Everyone else is on the same page regarding the actual facts of DX's development and the development of its subsequent re-releases. As I said, you were dead wrong on that point, and at least need to change your argument if you're going to continue trying to tell people- including one person working on an actual game as we speak- what emulation really means. 

[Penny]

No, just because a lot of people liked it back then doesn't mean it was good back then.

Well just because a lot of people don't like it now doesn't mean it's bad now

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

Just one thing:

 

If a game got good reviews back when it was released, when standards were "worse" so to speak, wouldn't that still mean it was good back then? Even if the game is from back then and is bad today, wouldn't that mean it's only bad by today's standards? That wouldn't mean it was always bad or considered bad, just that it is nowadays.

That's...actually a pretty good point.

While some measures of quality are fairly objective, whether or not something is "good" overall is actually pretty darn subjective. It just depends on what measures of quality are most important to the audience.

Also, I just want to say that, while I personally haven't experienced a lot of glitches playing Sonic Adventure (and I've only ever played DX, GameCube and PC version), I don't doubt that glitches exist, since clearly many people have experienced them. And I guess I feel that might be an issue with you, Diesel. You claim that there's no difference between the various versions of the game, but just because that's been your experience doesn't mean it's been everyone's, yanno? There's ample evidence that there are MANY people who have experienced significant quality differences.

And, yeah...hate to break it to ya, but the way you're presenting your opinions, you DO have to back them up. If you were just saying "Personally I didn't enjoy this game a lot", well, that doesn't really need any justification. But if you're saying that something is not good and has always been not good to the point of claiming that critics of the past were essentially wrong, that's quite another deal.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Monkey Destruction Switch

[PKGaming]

Wow, I missed a lot! But I do wanna say one thing since I saw Sonic Adventure being compared to games like Super Mario 64, OoT, Crash, and Spyro. I won't say much about Crash and Spyro since I haven't played those games in a long time, but are we really comparing the aging of Super Mario 64 and OoT to Sonic Adventure?? Those two games haven't aged NEARLY as badly as Sonic Adventure, come on now! They have a few bugs, but they aren't as big of a technical mess as Sonic Adventure. There are glitches people like to exploit for speedruns, but you have to really know what you're doing to pull them off, while in Sonic Adventure there are times when you have to be careful of glitches that might just happen. I still feel like 64 and OoT still hold up to this day because they play how they're supposed to. They're solid and technically sound. The "aging" could be argued for their graphics and core design (which I still think are decent, ESPECIALLY for the time they were released, they were revolutionary), but Sonic Adventure's graphics and core design are also accompanied by tons of technical issues that games even older than it were able to get right. People can still enjoy Sonic Adventure despite all the flaws, but I would not say that games like Mario 64 and OoT are just as bad....

[azoo]

Oh make no mistake, they're definitely not as bad by any stretch of the imagination.

Its just that Sonic Adventure isn't a bad game for what it is just because it's worse than them.

[Diesel]

What we are saying is that it's not the ultimate detractors that make it a bad or irredeemable game. If we can excuse Mario 64's messy collision issues, Spyro 1's crappy camera, Crash 1's shoddy level design, OoT's archaic design decisions, and all of previously said games' glitches because of them being early 3D games that had room for improvement, we can do the same for Sonic Adventure.

The problems of Mario 64, Spyro, Crash and Ocarina of Time cannot be compared to the problems of Sonic Adventure. None of these games are as fundamentally broken as Sonic Adventure. The fact they have always received adequate reviews upon benig rereleased whereas Sonic Adventure hasn't bolsters this opinion of mine. That said, the rest of your post falls flat. The basis for your argument is that since older acclaimed games like Mario 64, Crash, Spyro, OoT are excused for their problems, Sonic Adventure should be excused for its problems as well. Sonic Adventure's problems aren't comparable to the problems of these games, however, so your argument is incorrect.

You might try to say the reason for this is because Sonic Adventure's rereleases are inferior to the original, but no, that's not the case. They're all identical to the original, despite the minor differences you and others pointed out earlier.

I know you were talking metaphorically. I'm telling you know one else was, thus the debate wasn't ever defined by or even had room for your personal definitions. Yet you contined the argument based on said definitions for several pages and acted as if the comparison to other games were being made in bad faith or bad logic, all the while not realizing you weren't engaging anyone on the appropriate terms and thus the point was flying by. And yet you still refuse to admit the confusion was actually on your end. Everyone else is on the same page regarding the actual facts of DX's development and the development of its subsequent re-releases. As I said, you were dead wrong on that point, and at least need to change your argument if you're going to continue trying to tell people- including one person working on an actual game as we speak- what emulation really means. 

Well, if nobody was talking metaphorically, then I guess I admit I was wrong in doing so. Sonic Adventure DX is not an emulation of the original game.

But it's still almost identical to the original game, so there's no reason to say it fared worse than the original game because it was substantially different.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Diesel

[Doctor63]

I never played SA1 when I was younger because I didn't own a Gamecube or a Dreamcast,I grew up playing PS2 games with my older Brother. Xbox 360  Dreamcast collection version is the one I played. Personally, I think the game is average at best, Camera can be a problem at times, Open world is a bit dull and the Stages didn't really impress me.

[Tornado]

The problems of Mario 64, Spyro, Crash and Ocarina of Time cannot be compared to the problems of Sonic Adventure. None of these games are as fundamentally broken as Sonic Adventure. The fact they have always received adequate reviews upon benig rereleased whereas Sonic Adventure hasn't bolsters this opinion of mine. That said, the rest of your post falls flat. The basis for your argument is that since older acclaimed games like Mario 64, Crash, Spyro, OoT are excused for their problems, Sonic Adventure should be excused for its problems as well. Sonic Adventure's problems aren't comparable to the problems of these games, however, so your argument is incorrect.

You might try to say the reason for this is because Sonic Adventure's rereleases are inferior to the original, but no, that's not the case. They're all identical to the original, despite the minor differences you and others pointed out earlier.

Well, if nobody was talking metaphorically, then I guess I admit I was wrong in doing so. Sonic Adventure DX is not an emulation of the original game.

But it's still almost identical to the original game, so there's no reason to say it fared worse than the original game because it was substantially different.

It's too bad this is just your opinion and everything, right? Otherwise you would have been able to provide some sort of independent clarification and it might have meant something different than the half dozen other times that you similarly insisted it was true.

[Komodin]

This whole argument of "Sonic Adventure is never good", besides it reeking of "I think this way and you're wrong if you don't agree", just spits in the face of the concept behind hindsight. Just because standards and opinions have changed over time, doesn't mean that the people of the past are wrong for thinking that a now-aged product was good at the time of its initial run.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

I'll throw my thoughts in here before.

If you guys didn't know, Adventure is one of my favourites in the series, just slightly beaten by Generations, and Adventure slightly beats out Sonic 3 & Knuckles.

Honestly, the game has aged pretty well for me (Fair enough, I didn't play it until 2007, or 2008). I'm not going to pretend it's a prefect game or anything but I always find the claims that it's totally hasn't aged well one bit and has never been good to be an exaggeration. Does the game have graphics and silly visuals? Of course it does, it was a 1998 game. It was Sega's first attempt at trying to put Sonic into 3D. Expecting it not to have glitches and the like is a rather silly, especially considering going back to that age, I can easily call out other games on their issues, such as the original Crash game's controls being a total pain, or Mario 64's camera being a pain to handle and such. But that isn't the topic here so I digress.

For me personally, I still find Adventure to be a whole load of fun. the Sonic portions of the game are a great first step for bringing Sonic into 3D, giving his body weight, and making the controls and world feel correct physics wise. Compare this to something like Sonic 06 where the characters has no weight to them whatsoever and always ran at the same speed no matter what surface they were on. 

Tails and Knuckles' stages were also pretty fun for me as well, Tails is my favourite character in the series, and I loved finally having a game which handled Tails in a good way in 3D, where he plays like Sonic but has his own attacks and tricks. The other games missed this with mech shooting, and just crappy controls altogether like in 06. 

Knuckles was pretty fun, since the areas you had to search for Master Emerald shards wasn't that big and was pretty manageable, along with Knuckles controlling smoothly for the most part.

As for the other three stories...Big's honestly the only one I can't stand. Amy's puzzle platformer approach was actually pretty fun in my opinion and thankfully never overstayed it's welcome, along with getting in some real atmosphere with Zero hunting her down, especially in Twinkle Park (You guys all know the section I'm talking about)

Gamma's shooting was also pretty fun, he moved at a reasonable speed, he had a cool gimmick of shooting enemies to keep the timer going, and the story behind Gamma was actually pretty good and made me want to keep playing with him because he was one of the most engaging stories in the game.

Then Big. How I hate Big's sections. Basically, to sum up my issues. He moves far too slow, his levels are unbelievably boring, his controls are freaking terrible when actually fishing, to the point where every time I replay Adventure, I need to actually look up how to pull off his terrible levels and I just overall really freaking hate his levels.

So yeah, in my opinion, the game is still pretty good. That said, that's just my opinion.

As for the Game Grumps thing. Meh. We've already done this whole song and dance before. I take anything Arin says regarding Sonic with a grain of salt, considering he was also calling bullshit during the Sonic 3 & Knuckles playthrough, despite the fact The Completionist was there and doing really good at the game, and in general, he's really nitpicked the games before. The clipping glitches in Adventure 1 are an issue, but from what you guys said, it sounds like he's overreacting when he says ''how can anyone defend this shit?'' when it was one clipping glitch. 

[azoo]

The problems of Mario 64, Spyro, Crash and Ocarina of Time cannot be compared to the problems of Sonic Adventure. None of these games are as fundamentally broken as Sonic Adventure. The fact they have always received adequate reviews upon benig rereleased whereas Sonic Adventure hasn't bolsters this opinion of mine. That said, the rest of your post falls flat. The basis for your argument is that since older acclaimed games like Mario 64, Crash, Spyro, OoT are excused for their problems, Sonic Adventure should be excused for its problems as well. Sonic Adventure's problems aren't comparable to the problems of these games, however, so your argument is incorrect.

You might try to say the reason for this is because Sonic Adventure's rereleases are inferior to the original, but no, that's not the case. They're all identical to the original, despite the minor differences you and others pointed out earlier.

Well, if nobody was talking metaphorically, then I guess I admit I was wrong in doing so. Sonic Adventure DX is not an emulation of the original game.

But it's still almost identical to the original game, so there's no reason to say it fared worse than the original game because it was substantially different.

Okay.

Prove it.

Prove to me that Sonic Adventure is inexcusably unplayable in every version of the game.

Show me how there's no way to find this game enjoyable or in any semblance playable. Show me how the game has a glitch at every virtual hedgehog footstep you take. Please, show me how it's so hilariously awful that it's gameplay is fundamentally garbage and doesn't deserve anyone's time. Also, show me how the game's technical issues have changed 0% between releases (despite that being hilariously incorrect). 

All you've done is said these same things tirelessly over and over for about seven or so pages, and backed it up with "oh it's my opinion". If you think it's dumb that you have to back that up with something besides that excuse, then you're not doing a good job giving people a reason to agree with you.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Azoo

[Ryannumber1gamer]

Alright. Let's dive into this.

First off, no matter what way you try to spin it. No matter what way you try say it. Sonic Adventure DX IS NOT EMULATED. And before you start trying to go into a load of crap how it's ''More or less the same game''. I don't care. An emulation is where a program recreates the original code of the original console (Example: Spyro Year of the Dragon). A port is where the game is visually touched up, and the code is rewritten to match that of a new console. That is what Sonic Adventure DX is. A port. A game that's code has been rewritten and altered to be playable on other systems. No matter what stupid arguments you try to throw out, that is a cold hard fact. It isn't a opinion, it isn't a review. It is simply a cold hard fucking fact and you can't change it no matter what crap you say.

Further more. Your view on ports is so unbelievably wrong that it's totally laughable. By your same logic. I can call Sonic 1 a awful bug ridden laggy piece of shit because the GBA port was garbage. I can say Sonic 2 controlled absolutely terribly because the mobile phone ports controls were terrible. Your argument does not work. A port is different on every technical level and can create a whole slew of new glitches and issues. They are simply not the same game end of story.

As for your constant claims that Tornado has been throwing irrelevant stuff into the debate, that is bullshit. You are the one who brought up Spyro 1 and before you start to claim ''Yeah but that doesn't have anything to do with Spyro 3!''. Then perhaps you missed the post where Tornado explained the fucking connection when he said that Spyro 1 had a lot of issues, so did Spyro 3, but they emulated the later edition that fixed the bugs for the PSN release. That ties into the fact that Sonic Team used the earlier buggier version of Adventure for the Adventure DX port, rather than using the fixed International version of the game. But somehow that doesn't tie into this debate in any way despite the fact it does because it gives an example of a developer who re-released the later fixed version of a game, while Sega used a early broken version for the port.

Then there's this post from you: 

No, just because a lot of people liked it back then doesn't mean it was good back then.

Alright then. How about I put that on it's head. Just because people hate it a lot now doesn't mean it's a bad game.

You never seemed to have mentioned the fact that when the ports were released, especially the Xbox 360/PS3 port released, it was during the time where Sonic was practically every reviewer's punching bag, and even when he did release anything good, they still nitpicked the game to fuck and gave it a bad score. Case in point, IGN's review of Unleashed doing stuff such as dying on purpose in order to make the speed sections look bad and broken. So excuse me if I don't find myself trusting the reviews of ''professionals'' who were currently in the period of Sonic hatred for views.  

How about you start providing evidence to back up your point? How about you start providing some part of basis that this game is broken, and has always been broken? Because considering I've never played the Dreamcast version, and have only played the DX version, and have managed to do multiple playthroughs without any bit of bother, I can tell you right here right now that this argument is full of shit. And no, don't even try to backpedal and claim that ''oh it's just my opinion, I don't have to prove my opinion''. When you make multiple posts claiming that the game has always been fundamentally bad, and everyone agrees that it is fundamentally bad except for those in the fanbase who still claims it as the best, then you better damn well have evidence beyond a fucking metacritic score to prove it. That's not the mention the fact that myself and other members have already given you multiple pieces of proof, including FACTS that Adventure DX is a port, and not emulation, then maybe it's time you provided some more proof, other than metacritic scores.

 

Edited July 26, 2015 by Ryannumber1gamer

[Bowbowis]

The basis for your argument is that since older acclaimed games like Mario 64, Crash, Spyro, OoT are excused for their problems, Sonic Adventure should be excused for its problems as well. Sonic Adventure's problems aren't comparable to the problems of these games, however, so your argument is incorrect.

If they're the same issues then how are they not comparable?

 

No, just because a lot of people liked it back then doesn't mean it was good back then.

None of these games are as fundamentally broken as Sonic Adventure. The fact they have always received adequate reviews upon benig rereleased whereas Sonic Adventure hasn't bolsters this opinion of mine.

Okay, just so we are on the same page, is your argument here that:

 

"The only opinions that matter are mine and those which fall in line with mine."?

or

"The only opinions that matter are mine and those of people who are paid to have opinions and who had them within a certain time-frame"?

 

It really doesn't matter either way though. I can say that I think Sonic Unleashed sucks (I don't by the way) and I can go pull up a plethora of negative professional reviews for the game, some of which scored it even lower than '06, despite it's biggest technical problem being that the frame-rate drops at a few points. Yet despite those low scores almost everybody seems to agree that Unleashed is, at worst, good. Critics have biases, just like everyone else, and unless you have your head in the sand it's pretty obvious that most modern critics hold biases against Sonic games like Adventure, regardless of their objective quality. They're just opinions, and trying to prove that Sonic Adventure is an objectively bad game just because professional critics say so is like trying to prove that a murderer is innocent just because his family and defense attorney say so; the opinion is not a fact, it has no bearing on whether or not he's actually guilty, and it's coming from people predisposed to hold it. The trial would be over faster than you could say "guilty a charged". Besides, critics are only a a drop in the ocean of the gaming populous, and they're not the ones buying the games. If the question is "Do people still think Sonic Adventure is a good game?" then shouldn't we be looking at what actual people think of the game? In fact let's do that right now:

 

Xbox Live Arcade Version: 

Reviews: 45,179

Score: 4.25 Stars

 

Playstation Store Version

Reviews: 43

Score: 4 Stars

 

Steam Version

Reviews: 1,089

Score 76% Positive*

 

And while we're at it SA2 scored equal or higher on all platforms (to the point that it's scored higher than even Generations on XBLA).

 

So do people still think Sonic Adventure is a good game? Well, according to the evidence, the answer is a resounding yes, regardless of your personal opinion.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* In addition to the majority of the reviews being positive, a significant portion of the negative reviews flat out state, in no uncertain terms, that the game is great, and that the only reason they're reviewing it negatively is the shitty porting job.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Bowbowis

[Nepenthe]

Well, if nobody was talking metaphorically, then I guess I admit I was wrong in doing so. Sonic Adventure DX is not an emulation of the original game.

But it's still almost identical to the original game, so there's no reason to say it fared worse than the original game because it was substantially different.

No one is arguing it was substantially different. The argument is that the job of rewriting the code for modern consoles was done so poorly that extra problems were added that weren't there before, which compounds on top of the fact that the game was older and thus not representative of modern gaming sensibilities. And we are not just pulling this from nowhere. Aside from it being noted in some of the reviews that were directly quoted by Tara I believe, Sonic Retro- the undisputed leading authority on Sonic information- notes this directly on the game's page. So glitches were added, and it logically follows that a game with more glitches will be more panned than the same game with less glitches. You cannot keep denying this and barreling on like you were earlier while not understanding the technical definition of emulation.

This is also what we mean by proof. We're not asking for scientific evidence that your opinion is objective truth. We're asking for more than just assertions you keep throwing at us and expecting us to swallow blindly. For example, your assertion that the only reason Sonic Adventure was liked is because standards were lower when it came out (the implication of which is that people were too stupid to see a truth which is apparently so obvious to you.) If that is the case, you've actually dismissed the credibility of anyone reviewing games at the time, meaning you cannot suddenly start arguing that they were suddenly credible when people bring up comparisons to Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Crash Bandicoot, and Year of the Dragon.

Can't have it both ways. Either standards were different yet still valid at the time, or they were objectively bad and cannot be considered for any game's modern standing. If it's the former, you must accept that Sonic Adventure was genuinely loved on its own merits. If it's the latter, you must accept that these other games have also aged worse now that people have brought up objective criticisms against their designs. If you disagree with this, you must now demonstrate with proof how critics so blind that they couldn't see from the beginning that Sonic Adventure was always unplayable managed to get it right elsewhere at a high rate of success (4/5 games in this discussion).

If you cannot, then your logic is also wrong in this area, and you must either concede the point entirely or reframe your argument. Going forward, it will also help to actually provide some proof or clean logic that supports your statements. Saying "just because it was liked doesn't mean it was good" is not a statement that deserves to be put on a pedastal.

[Dorkave.]

 Sonic Adventure, honestly you will have some people who hate it some people who liked it, its a mixed reaction type of game overall by today's standards, some people think it was terrible some think it was good. And you will get each of both crowd. It was it's first attempt at 3D and you could do so many things that weren't in Mario 64.

  but it does has it's flaws that really don't match up to what Newer Sonic Games brought us, ((I'm not talking about Sonic 06' of course )) but Sonic Generations where you push a button and you slide to the other side and it has a more focused camera, while in Sonic Adventure you need to position it a right way, and position your thumb to move around in action sequences.

 

  I think it's sour, but sweet. Both Flawed but sometimes enjoyable. 

[Briraka]

My opinion on Sonic Adventure (well the DX version I don't have the original) can be summed up in one choice JonTron quote: "It's a bad game, but it's a bad game I enjoy."

I agree that it has good ideas that could be expanded upon in future games, but the game itself, though? Nah, I'd wager even for a game in '98, it's got pretty poor polish and presentation. I also disagree with the notion that it had the best controls in a 3D Sonic. Trying to keep Sonic from sticking to surfaces is a hassle in small corridors and keeping him in a straight line while running is a pipe dream at best.

The story gets the job done. It indeed gives better context to the situation more than recent games, but ehhhhhhh... aside from Tails and Amy's character development, there's not too much I find myself attached to. I find it odd how for a game about the past of the Echidna tribe that Knuckles himself is oddly not all that involved. His story can basically be summed up as "find emerald peices, muse on a flashback of my people's past for two seconds, put emerald back together."

As for a remake, I'd rather they use similar ideas on something new instead of wasting time on making a better version of a game that already exists...

... okay fuck it I'd want a remake just to hear Roger Craig's take on "Aw yeah! This is happenin'!"

[EXshad]

Man, I love Sonic Adventure to death, but sadly it hasn't aged as well as classics like Super Mario 64 or Majora's Mask. It just bit off more than it could chew - there's gameplay styles ranging from running, flying, gliding, treasure hunting, fishing, and... whatever the hell Amy does. But when the game gets good, it's pretty amazing, and while the game does reach some pretty deep lows, most of the game is spent with characters that are a total joy to play as. To this day the controls feel smooth, the sense of speed and momentum is gratifying, the music is a blast to listen to, and the graphics are a pleasure to look at. Even the voice acting is so whimsically bad that it just adds another layer of enjoyment to the experience. Still, some glitches and wonky level designs compound the other problems I mentioned, and prevent it from being immortalized to the same degree as those aforementioned classics. 

It's also important to remember that the game came out in 1998; people were much more forgiving of the occasional glitch or wonky camera than they are now. Hell, I still think the game has aged very well, even better than the second Adventure title has, but as much as it pains me to say it, it isn't quite worthy of all the accolades it received when it first came out. Still, if you say that this game is broken, especially when comparing it to something like Sonic 2006, then it's quite clear that you're talking out of your ass. 

That said, the Grumps playthrough is just absurd, for all the wrong reasons. For one, they're playing a gimped port of the game that is actually more unstable than the original, complete with more glitches, a fluctuating frame-rate riddled with slowdown, and graphics that lack the original life and color of the original. Not to mention that the "free camera" function takes an already screwed up camera and breaks it in half. I remember playing DX when it first came out and just feeling like something was wrong. Hell, I can personally guarantee you that half the glitches they experienced in Emerald Coast were not even present in the original. 

They're also playing this game with the taste of Sonic Boom, Sonic 2006, and Shadow the Hedgehog still fresh in their mouths, so of course they're going to see the worst in it. Still, it doesn't help that they play the game like a spastic 5-year-old with ADHD experiencing a bout of epilepsy, and then proceed to blame it on the game when something goes wrong. Again, they are playing a pretty crappy port of an old game that hasn't exactly aged perfectly, but there's only so much you can blame on the game before it becomes apparent that you're just trying justify your own preconceived notions of a franchise. And I think that's what really puts me off, especially considering that a lot of people who haven't played the game are experiencing it through the first time with this playthrough. 

So in short, yes, Sonic Adventure is a good game. It's just not the masterpiece we may remember it being.

Just my 0.02. I will say the comments are pretty entertaining though. Mindless mob mentality vs. extra salty Sonic fans = fun for the whole family. 

Edited July 28, 2015 by EXshad

[Diesel]

Okay.

Prove it.

Prove to me that Sonic Adventure is inexcusably unplayable in every version of the game.

Show me how there's no way to find this game enjoyable or in any semblance playable. Show me how the game has a glitch at every virtual hedgehog footstep you take. Please, show me how it's so hilariously awful that it's gameplay is fundamentally garbage and doesn't deserve anyone's time. Also, show me how the game's technical issues have changed 0% between releases (despite that being hilariously incorrect). 

Prove to you that the game is inexcusably unplayable? It's full of glitches and camera and collision detection problems. Those are objective problems in a game. I never said there was no way to find the game enjoyable though. One can enjoy something regardless of how bad it is. But it'd still be bad. As for me having to prove to you that the game's technical issues haven't changed much in the rereleases, no, that's not how it works. You were the one who claimed the technical issues changed significantly first, so the burden of proof lies on you.

Further more. Your view on ports is so unbelievably wrong that it's totally laughable. By your same logic. I can call Sonic 1 a awful bug ridden laggy piece of shit because the GBA port was garbage. I can say Sonic 2 controlled absolutely terribly because the mobile phone ports controls were terrible. Your argument does not work. A port is different on every technical level and can create a whole slew of new glitches and issues. They are simply not the same game end of story.

As for your constant claims that Tornado has been throwing irrelevant stuff into the debate, that is bullshit. You are the one who brought up Spyro 1 and before you start to claim ''Yeah but that doesn't have anything to do with Spyro 3!''. Then perhaps you missed the post where Tornado explained the fucking connection when he said that Spyro 1 had a lot of issues, so did Spyro 3, but they emulated the later edition that fixed the bugs for the PSN release. That ties into the fact that Sonic Team used the earlier buggier version of Adventure for the Adventure DX port, rather than using the fixed International version of the game. But somehow that doesn't tie into this debate in any way despite the fact it does because it gives an example of a developer who re-released the later fixed version of a game, while Sega used a early broken version for the port.

Then there's this post from you: 

Alright then. How about I put that on it's head. Just because people hate it a lot now doesn't mean it's a bad game.

You never seemed to have mentioned the fact that when the ports were released, especially the Xbox 360/PS3 port released, it was during the time where Sonic was practically every reviewer's punching bag, and even when he did release anything good, they still nitpicked the game to fuck and gave it a bad score. Case in point, IGN's review of Unleashed doing stuff such as dying on purpose in order to make the speed sections look bad and broken. So excuse me if I don't find myself trusting the reviews of ''professionals'' who were currently in the period of Sonic hatred for views.  

How about you start providing evidence to back up your point? How about you start providing some part of basis that this game is broken, and has always been broken? Because considering I've never played the Dreamcast version, and have only played the DX version, and have managed to do multiple playthroughs without any bit of bother, I can tell you right here right now that this argument is full of shit. And no, don't even try to backpedal and claim that ''oh it's just my opinion, I don't have to prove my opinion''. When you make multiple posts claiming that the game has always been fundamentally bad, and everyone agrees that it is fundamentally bad except for those in the fanbase who still claims it as the best, then you better damn well have evidence beyond a fucking metacritic score to prove it. That's not the mention the fact that myself and other members have already given you multiple pieces of proof, including FACTS that Adventure DX is a port, and not emulation, then maybe it's time you provided some more proof, other than metacritic scores.

 

I never said ports in general were hardly different from their original releases. All I said was Sonic Adventure DX is hardly different from its original release.

The reason why I brought up Spyro 1 was to use an example of a game that was acclaimed in its original release being well received in its rereleases, unlike Sonic Adventure. I had said nothing about Spyro 3, so there was no reason for Tornado to bring that game up. Whether or not Spyro 3's bugs were fixed for the PSN rerelease is irrelevant. What would only matter is whether or not Spyro 1's bugs were fixed for its rereleases, as unlike Spyro 3, Spyro 1 actually had to do with this discussion. As for Sonic Team porting an earlier, buggier version of Sonic Adventure for the DX port, prove it. It's odd that you ask me to provide evidence for my argument when you haven't provided any evidence yourself.

It's true that just because a lot of people hate a game now doesn't make it bad. And? I never said it did.

As for the ports being released at a time when Sonic was a "every reviewer's punching bag", that's irrelevant. Whether or not you think that had to do with the ports getting bad reviews is just your unproven speculation. And no, Sonic wasn't all that much of a punching bag when the DX port first came out in 2003.

If they're the same issues then how are they not comparable?

 

Okay, just so we are on the same page, is your argument here that:

 

"The only opinions that matter are mine and those which fall in line with mine."?

or

"The only opinions that matter are mine and those of people who are paid to have opinions and who had them within a certain time-frame"?

 

It really doesn't matter either way though. I can say that I think Sonic Unleashed sucks (I don't by the way) and I can go pull up a plethora of negative professional reviews for the game, some of which scored it even lower than '06, despite it's biggest technical problem being that the frame-rate drops at a few points. Yet despite those low scores almost everybody seems to agree that Unleashed is, at worst, good. Critics have biases, just like everyone else, and unless you have your head in the sand it's pretty obvious that most modern critics hold biases against Sonic games like Adventure, regardless of their objective quality. They're just opinions, and trying to prove that Sonic Adventure is an objectively bad game just because professional critics say so is like trying to prove that a murderer is innocent just because his family and defense attorney say so; the opinion is not a fact, it has no bearing on whether or not he's actually guilty, and it's coming from people predisposed to hold it. The trial would be over faster than you could say "guilty a charged". Besides, critics are only a a drop in the ocean of the gaming populous, and they're not the ones buying the games. If the question is "Do people still think Sonic Adventure is a good game?" then shouldn't we be looking at what actual people think of the game? In fact let's do that right now:

 

Xbox Live Arcade Version: 

Reviews: 45,179

Score: 4.25 Stars

 

Playstation Store Version

Reviews: 43

Score: 4 Stars

 

Steam Version

Reviews: 1,089

Score 76% Positive*

 

And while we're at it SA2 scored equal or higher on all platforms (to the point that it's scored higher than even Generations on XBLA).

 

So do people still think Sonic Adventure is a good game? Well, according to the evidence, the answer is a resounding yes, regardless of your personal opinion.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* In addition to the majority of the reviews being positive, a significant portion of the negative reviews flat out state, in no uncertain terms, that the game is great, and that the only reason they're reviewing it negatively is the shitty porting job.

They're not the same issues, so they can't be compared.

Almost everyone does not seem to agree that Sonic Unleashed is good. You've provided no evidence for your statement that almost everyone does.

And those ratings you pulled up are biased. Just because users on one site voted Sonic Adventure to be a good game doesn't mean the majority of people consider it to be good. User ratings vary from site to site. 

No one is arguing it was substantially different. The argument is that the job of rewriting the code for modern consoles was done so poorly that extra problems were added that weren't there before, which compounds on top of the fact that the game was older and thus not representative of modern gaming sensibilities. And we are not just pulling this from nowhere. Aside from it being noted in some of the reviews that were directly quoted by Tara I believe, Sonic Retro- the undisputed leading authority on Sonic information- notes this directly on the game's page. So glitches were added, and it logically follows that a game with more glitches will be more panned than the same game with less glitches. You cannot keep denying this and barreling on like you were earlier while not understanding the technical definition of emulation.

This is also what we mean by proof. We're not asking for scientific evidence that your opinion is objective truth. We're asking for more than just assertions you keep throwing at us and expecting us to swallow blindly. For example, your assertion that the only reason Sonic Adventure was liked is because standards were lower when it came out (the implication of which is that people were too stupid to see a truth which is apparently so obvious to you.) If that is the case, you've actually dismissed the credibility of anyone reviewing games at the time, meaning you cannot suddenly start arguing that they were suddenly credible when people bring up comparisons to Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Crash Bandicoot, and Year of the Dragon.

Can't have it both ways. Either standards were different yet still valid at the time, or they were objectively bad and cannot be considered for any game's modern standing. If it's the former, you must accept that Sonic Adventure was genuinely loved on its own merits. If it's the latter, you must accept that these other games have also aged worse now that people have brought up objective criticisms against their designs. If you disagree with this, you must now demonstrate with proof how critics so blind that they couldn't see from the beginning that Sonic Adventure was always unplayable managed to get it right elsewhere at a high rate of success (4/5 games in this discussion).

If you cannot, then your logic is also wrong in this area, and you must either concede the point entirely or reframe your argument. Going forward, it will also help to actually provide some proof or clean logic that supports your statements. Saying "just because it was liked doesn't mean it was good" is not a statement that deserves to be put on a pedastal.

If you're trying to argue that the DX port added glitches that would make the experience worse for players, then yes, you are trying to argue that the DX port is substantially different. Furthermore, I never said DX didn't add any glitches; what I said was that none of the glitches it added were anything significant enough to make the overall experience worse. You're going to need more than a few reviews and a fan wiki with questionable reliability to prove there were any significant glitches in the DX port.

That said, you haven't posted much evidence to bolster your arguments yourself, so why should I? Hypocrisy. Furthermore, you were the ones who made your statements first, so the burden of proof lies on you people. I was only disagreeing with your statements, so no, the burden of proof doesn't lie on me.

Obviously, I am dismissing the credibility of critics who reviewed games at the time of Sonic Adventure's original release. Standards were lower then, so there is no merit in reviews back then. I never said the reviews back then for games such as Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Crash Bandicoot or any Spyro game were relevant.

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Diesel

[Badnik Mechanic]

 

Obviously, I am dismissing the credibility of critics who reviewed games at the time of Sonic Adventure's original release. Standards were lower then, so there is no merit in reviews back then. I never said the reviews back then for games such as Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Crash Bandicoot or any Spyro game were relevant.

lol this guy man... this logic man. This logic guys...

By this logic you have to dismiss every review ever made prior to 1999 because according to this guy standards were lower... For any game ever made.

You have to claim that all the scores for any game ever made or any opinion ever made on any game which has not had a re release or a re review after 1999 do not count and that there should be no opinion or serious academic study on any game should be made invalid... because it doesn't count.

This is laughable. 

This is selective cherry picking at its finest when you have a weak argument. Nobody would do this when trying to argue for or against something critically unless their argument was weak.

I'd ask you for the exact date in which reviews are valid but since we're still waiting on an answer as to why you keep buying a anf playing game you hate somehow I doubt we'll get an answer to this simple question either.

[Nepenthe]

"Substantially different" is a phrase that is relative in the way you used it and subsequently I reject the definition you tried to hoist upon me. I consider a game substantially different if the artistic design and technical specifications have been altered to great extent, as is the case with remakes. DX is a port- even if it possesses save-wiping bugs its intent was to preserve the original game in its original state as much as possible. So to that I say your argument is nonsense, and an obvious, weasely ploy to get me to agree with your yet-to-be-supported assertion that the original game is literally exactly the same technically as the ports. DX is Sonic Adventure made worse through through bad porting. I'm sure you'll disagree but that's a clarification I don't care to read so you needn't type anything on that front.

Your assumption that Sonic Retro is unreliable further proves your own ignorance. They verify their info through intense research and verification, interviews of industry workers, and technical examination of the games themselves, easily possessing more knowledge of the franchise than can be gleaned from Sega's own official channels. You'd do well not to dismiss them like this again lest I further conclude you don't know what you're talking about.

I also haven't posted any assertions about DX and its ports. This entire time I've been refuting yours through clarification. Read the topic and you'll notice I've never given my opinion on these titles. Even if what you said were true, this doesn't actually get you off the hook. The way debate works is that all positive assertions made in a debate hold the burden of proof. It doesn't matter which side "went first" which I must say is childish thinking; all positive assertions must adhere to burden of proof or they're equally unconvincing, and in your case your positive assumption is "DX and its ports are literally the same game as the original Sonic Adventure" amongst others. So do you have any proof or not? It's a simple yes or no question, of which the answer will actually move the debate along. If yes, we can get somewhere in hashing out our disagreement. If no, I will suggest you concede that you've been stating your opinion and not fact, thus this argument will be over. Or I'll just do it for you. I'm not a stickler for going "nuh-uh!" for hours on end.

Finally, your argument inherently implies that reviews for other games back then are relevant, because it's the only way you can argue those games didn't age in the same way Adventure did. The concept of aging is one whose context relies on acceptance of the past. Something can't age- well or badly- if we do not accept a starting point with which to measure how its quality has held up. So then, either you accept that past reviews are relevant or irrelevant, and that goes for all games. You can't pick and choose for when it suits you.

[Remy]

I agree that it has good ideas that could be expanded upon in future games, but the game itself, though? Nah, I'd wager even for a game in '98, it's got pretty poor polish and presentation. I also disagree with the notion that it had the best controls in a 3D Sonic. Trying to keep Sonic from sticking to surfaces is a hassle in small corridors and keeping him in a straight line while running is a pipe dream at best.

Sonic Adventure is pretty much the first game I remember where the characters have lipsynced mouths and crazy 3D facial expressions. I remember the presentation being amazing at the time, nothing on the PS1 or N64 looked close.

[Nepenthe]

Sonic Adventure is pretty much the first game I remember where the characters have lipsynced mouths and crazy 3D facial expressions. I remember the presentation being amazing at the time, nothing on the PS1 or N64 looked close.

But you made this opinion in 1999 so it doesn't count. Opinions about any game in 1999 are invalid because standards were merely lower. I suggest you play SA1 and Super Mario 64 again with smarter, modern sensibilities so you can conclude that the measurable technological difference means nothing.

[Bowbowis]

 

They're not the same issues, so they can't be compared.

Azoo listed the issues with those games as follows:

If we can excuse Mario 64's messy collision issues, Spyro 1's crappy camera, Crash 1's shoddy level design, OoT's archaic design decisions, and all of previously said games' glitches because of them being early 3D games that had room for improvement, we can do the same for Sonic Adventure.

You yourself listed the following as reasons why you think SA1 is bad:

I already explained why I thought it was bad: horrible camera, collision detection, glitches, etc.

Notice anything? Like the fact that the issues on Azoo listed in the other games are exactly the same as the ones you yourself noted as being present in Sonic Adventure and more. Just accept that they're the same issues, and therefor comparable, or give me some valid reason that their not, despite being exactly the same.

 

Almost everyone does not seem to agree that Sonic Unleashed is good. You've provided no evidence for your statement that almost everyone does.

Oh, so that's how we're going to play it, huh? Well in that case it's just my opinion, and as we all know:

Opinions can't be proven, so no, the burden of proof doesn't rely on me.

See. I'm above reproach.

In all seriousness though, I thought I made it quite clear that the statement was based on my own experience, not any hard evidence. Even if not everybody thinks Unleashed is good it does't change the fact that critic reviews are not the gospel. There's really only one way I could provide any evidence, and if the next point is anything to go by you'd simply dismiss it anyway.

 

 

And those ratings you pulled up are biased. Just because users on one site voted Sonic Adventure to be a good game doesn't mean the majority of people consider it to be good. User ratings vary from site to site. 

All ratings are biased, they're opinions, and that's literally what opinions are, biases. You want to know what a completely unbiased review looks like? This is what a completely unbiased review looks like. And it's not like I just gave you one site, I gave you three. If you want more then here, both the Dreamcast and Gamecube versions sit at or above four stars on Amazon, with reviews dating from now all the way back to release. It's not like these are sites like IGN either, where there's only one review from one critic for the whole site. These are sites like Xbox Live Arcade, Playstation Store, Steam, and Amazon; anybody who purchased the game and formulated an opinion about it within your "acceptable time frame" probably did so through one of those channels, that makes these sites some of the most commonly trodden ground among those with "valid" opinions and so it follows that those sites are where I'd likely find the bulk of the reviews from them. As it stands though, regardless of how many sites we each looked at, your argument that the majority of people consider Sonic Adventure bad is backed up by 28 professional critics, who's reviews average out to say the game is mediocre; my argument that the majority still consider the game to be good is backed up by 46,311+ reviews from the general public, which average out to say the game is good.

Let's define majority quick:

ma·jor·i·ty

məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/

noun

noun: majority; plural noun: majorities

1. 1.

   the greater number.

   "in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"

   synonyms:

   larger part/number, greater part/number, best/better part, most, more than half;  plurality, bulk, mass, weight, (main) body, preponderance,predominance, generality, lion's share "the majority of cases"

   antonyms:

   minority

   • US

     the number by which votes for one candidate in an election are more than those for all other candidates combined.

     synonyms:

     (winning) margin, superiority of numbers/votes;  landslide "a majority in the election"

   • BRITISH

     the number by which the votes for one party or candidate exceed those of the next in rank.
   • a party or group receiving the greater number of votes.
2. 2.

   the age when a person is legally considered a full adult, in most contexts either 18 or 21.

   synonyms:

   legal age, adulthood, manhood/womanhood, maturity;  age of consent,coming of age "my youngest child has reached majority"

3. 3.

   the rank or office of a major.

    

Translation: I Win

[Ryannumber1gamer]

Prove to you that the game is inexcusably unplayable? It's full of glitches and camera and collision detection problems. Those are objective problems in a game. I never said there was no way to find the game enjoyable though. One can enjoy something regardless of how bad it is. But it'd still be bad. As for me having to prove to you that the game's technical issues haven't changed much in the rereleases, no, that's not how it works. You were the one who claimed the technical issues changed significantly first, so the burden of proof lies on you.

 

I'm sorry. But that is one of the most laughable overexaggerations I have ever seen on SSMB since I've joined.

Sonic Adventure is unplayable? Are you being serious? This isn't a joke?

A few camera issues and one or two cheap deaths make the game completely unplayable? Are you fucking joking? Since it bares repeating. A unplayable game would be a game where the controls are so utterly shit, you couldn't play, which is wrong, the controls in Adventure are simple and easy to get a grip with, or a glitch which impedes progression, and makes it impossible to go onward without a full game restart. A few fucking collision detection issues don't make it unplayable, especially when they are few and far between, and for the most part fixed in the international Dreamcast release. So stop fucking overreacting.

Also, the burden of proof actually lies on you, considering that you are the one trying to rewrite the meaning of port and emulation, as well as claim Adventure was always a buggy, unplayable mess (Which it isn't considering even by playing the DX Port alone, I can easily complete and have fun with Adventure). So how about you start backing up your own claims before trying to make others do it for you?

I never said ports in general were hardly different from their original releases. All I said was Sonic Adventure DX is hardly different from its original release.

 Sorry, it doesn't make a difference if it's barely any different from the original. No matter what crap you say, A Port is not emulation and is going to create new issues and bugs. That was your entire point. Because you said it was ''virtually emulation'' because content wise, the game was the same, despite the fact that a port is taking the same content, rewriting the code, and making it work with another console's code altogether. Which means that new bugs can be created due to the code of the game being rewritten. 

The reason why I brought up Spyro 1 was to use an example of a game that was acclaimed in its original release being well received in its rereleases, unlike Sonic Adventure. I had said nothing about Spyro 3, so there was no reason for Tornado to bring that game up. Whether or not Spyro 3's bugs were fixed for the PSN rerelease is irrelevant. What would only matter is whether or not Spyro 1's bugs were fixed for its rereleases, as unlike Spyro 3, Spyro 1 actually had to do with this discussion. As for Sonic Team porting an earlier, buggier version of Sonic Adventure for the DX port, prove it. It's odd that you ask me to provide evidence for my argument when you haven't provided any evidence yourself.

You know what this sounds like to me? Cherrypicking. Are you seriously trying to claim that you can pick what examples of games are relevant and what examples are irrelevant? Exactly why the fuck do you get to decide what does and doesn't have to do with this discussion? Explain to me exactly how Spyro 1 is relevant but Spyro 3 isn't? 

It has been explained multiple fucking times why Spyro 3 is relevant and is just as relevant to this topic as Spyro 1. Both games are glitches and bugs that were ironed out in later re-releases. Sony then made the correct choice and took those fixed re-releases and used those for the PSN re-release. In comparison, a later version of Sonic Adventure, entitled Sonic Adventure International, which was basically the worldwide release which fixed a ton of the issues, wasn't chosen by Sega for the port, but the early, buggy Japan version of the game was chosen for the port. 

That's why Spyro 1 & 3 are relevant to this topic. Because they offer contrasts to how Sega handled the DX port. But considering this was already mentioned multiple times and still you choose to ignore it every time we explained how it is in fact relevant. 

As for the ports being released at a time when Sonic was a "every reviewer's punching bag", that's irrelevant. Whether or not you think that had to do with the ports getting bad reviews is just your unproven speculation. And no, Sonic wasn't all that much of a punching bag when the DX port first came out in 2003.

And might I remind you that your chosen piece of ''proof'' was Metacritic scores, scores which for the record could have been up much later than 2003? So no, your ''proof'' isn't relevant to this because it doesn't prove anything. 

They're not the same issues, so they can't be compared.

Almost everyone does not seem to agree that Sonic Unleashed is good. You've provided no evidence for your statement that almost everyone does.

And those ratings you pulled up are biased. Just because users on one site voted Sonic Adventure to be a good game doesn't mean the majority of people consider it to be good. User ratings vary from site to site. 

Excuse me. But you were the one who claimed that Sonic Adventure was virtually the same among every single version and that it was a bad game no matter what version. So how is it suddenly now when it's a conflicting argument about that other systems, suddenly that changes to ''Oh, they aren't the same version, so they can't be compared''

And you trying to claim that he presents no evidence that Unleashed is good? Alright, perhaps you can try presenting some evidence that everyone thinks Adventure is bad, and I mean more proof than some random metacritic scores.

And those ratings are biased? But the Metacritic scores that you posted aren't? How about you start looking back at the stuff you claimed ''backed up your claim'' before you start giving others shit for it. And by the way, you mean opinions are biased? [sarcasm] who would have guessed! [/sarcasm]

If you're trying to argue that the DX port added glitches that would make the experience worse for players, then yes, you are trying to argue that the DX port is substantially different. Furthermore, I never said DX didn't add any glitches; what I said was that none of the glitches it added were anything significant enough to make the overall experience worse. You're going to need more than a few reviews and a fan wiki with questionable reliability to prove there were any significant glitches in the DX port.

That said, you haven't posted much evidence to bolster your arguments yourself, so why should I? Hypocrisy. Furthermore, you were the ones who made your statements first, so the burden of proof lies on you people. I was only disagreeing with your statements, so no, the burden of proof doesn't lie on me.

Obviously, I am dismissing the credibility of critics who reviewed games at the time of Sonic Adventure's original release. Standards were lower then, so there is no merit in reviews back then. I never said the reviews back then for games such as Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Crash Bandicoot or any Spyro game were relevant.

The amount of backpedaling here is amazing. Really it is.

You are the one who claimed the versions were all virtually alike, despite the fact that it's been explained multiple times that the DX port added in many of the supposed issues you claim have been there to begin with.

Also, I'm so sick of hearing this stupid argument that ''opinions are invalid back then because standards were lower!''

Oh yes, because standards have grown so much better now right? What a load of fucking bullshit. How about I fucking remind you that we're currently in a period of time where getting a great review for a game is as easy as the developer handing the reviewer some prizes and money to give the game a glowing review. Which we've seen this year with the big thing with The Witcher 3 developers flying out reviewers like Angry Joe out to places and shit, and surprise surprise, when Angry Joe posted his review, it was a perfect 10/10 despite having massive issues and glitches in the game. 

Considering we're also in the period where games like Call of Duty, and broken pieces of shit are released to brilliant reviews yearly, then maybe it's time you stop trying to claim our standards are much higher, when right now, ''professional'' reviewers are worse now than ever before, especially with the unbelievably amount of bias they have towards Sonic especially. I've already mentioned the Unleashed mess from IGN, but now there's currently GameTrailers' bullshit where they gave Generations 8/10 only to backpedal this year and try to claim Sonic once again never had anything good and should just die. 

So, before you start dismissing credibility of reviewers at the time, how about you start fucking looking at the credibility of reviewers right now before you claim that all reviews back then are totally invalid and that only our current ''high standards'' reviews count.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Ryannumber1gamer