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

[Diogenes]

And the intent was never to recreate games like ShTH or Sonic 06 in the same form as we originally had them, but to do them over completely from scratch, story, gameplay, even the game's very name, etc, while using lessons learned from a recreated SA1 to build from.

Why? Why tie this anchor around your neck, instead of just making new games? These games can't be redeemed, they're always going to be shit. Why taint a new project by making any association with such toxic garbage? If they would ever again make a Shadow spinoff, they should only be doing it if they have an actual good idea, not because of the one they fucked up.

This is just...I can't even comprehend what possible benefits could come from this.

[Meta77]

I still love  it. But now its one of those games I play on a slow day or the weekend for fun. Its still enjoyable and I enjoy the music. Actually I enjoy all sonic games. The only one that drags for me is sonic spinball. Dear sweet lord that game.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Why? Why tie this anchor around your neck, instead of just making new games? These games can't be redeemed, they're always going to be shit. Why taint a new project by making any association with such toxic garbage?

Bruh, why are you still missing the point, and after quoting the very part that spelled everything out to you? These are new games, we're not doing another Shadow spin-off to redeem anything about it, but rather putting a new game it its place, and using the lessons we learned from SA1. What else would "doing everything from scratch" mean if not that? And what other benefit would there not be in reducing the presence of the titles that stained this franchises reputation and doing away with the identity crisis it's suffering in addition?

Edited August 10, 2015 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[KHCast]

Because you're wording it really badly man, and making it seem like you want these games completely remade from the ground up. 

 

Like, just say "I want a new that takes what worked from the past games, and builds on them"  or "a spiritual successor that fixes what was broken" it's that's what you meant. 

[Tara]

The problem is that this route assumes that a reboot would necessitate the need for a new Shadow the Hedgehog game, when there's too many hypothetical directions the series could take that would either make such a game more or less relevant to the series.  Working from the ground up means that that you base future game ideas off what arises within the new series, not retreading on old ideas but from a different angle.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Because you're wording it really badly man, and making it seem like you want these games completely remade from the ground up. 

 

Like, just say "I want a new that takes what worked from the past games, and builds on them"  or "a spiritual successor that fixes what was broken" it's that's what you meant. 

Those were practically the words I used and repeated from the beginning, clarified in greater detail to how I'd like to see it, and it still led to this.

Some parts I probably did word badly, but it gets ridiculous when I flat out say:

some of the elements that got mucked up would be tossed out for something else (like rewriting the entirety of ShTH as I made in my initial point)...from scratch, story, gameplay, even the game's very name, etc, while using lessons learned from a recreated SA1 to build from.

 

and it still goes over people's heads.

[KHCast]

So, to understand this, you're wanting a reboot of the franchise that kicks off after the events of a hypothetical SA1 Remake, that doesn't hinge or rely on the past games in any way that happened after SA1 original?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

So, to understand this, you're wanting a reboot of the franchise that kicks off after the events of a hypothetical SA1 Remake, that doesn't hinge or rely on the past games in any way that happened after SA1 original?

Extend that to SA2, and that's basically it. Nice to see there's some understanding for once.

Edited August 10, 2015 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Wittymations]

There really wouldn't be a point to have a reboot, soft-reboot, or hard. Sure, we may clean out any lore, but that'd only mean anything to the Sonic fans. Anybody else, they still know that 'black Sonic that shoot people' was a thing, or that "terrible sonic game from 2006" existed.

Most neutral choice is to ignore and move forward.

[Shaddy Zaphod]

Technically, terrible game from 2006 stop existing the moment it was released.

But honestly, there's no reason for a reboot right now. What exactly are we restricted to with the plot writing? They don't seem to care about Knuckles guarding the emerald anymore, or Shadow's aggression towards GUN. I'd much rather see them just expand on what we've got, and replace anything that's outdated or unused. Hell, come up with real reasons that this stuff is the way it is. I've experimented for a while with the idea of Knuckles absorbing the master emerald and becoming basically superpowered, as a means to protect both it and himself. This in turn links Knuckles and the island, where if one perishes, so does the other, with Knuckles citing the reason for him doing it that if the island were to be destroyed, he'd have nothing to live for anyway.

[Tara]

A reboot doesn't necessarily have to be born from restriction or be significant to anyone outside the core fanbase.  I don't think the DC reboot impacted anyone except people who read the comics religiously, and subsequently, some of the more jarring changes tend to be inconsequential to those outside that demographic.  In Sonic's current state, it could be argued that he currently suffers from stagnation, and a reboot would be one, but certainly not the only, way to start over and work with a completely blank slate.

[LindseyWalker]

Bruh, why are you still missing the point, and after quoting the very part that spelled everything out to you? These are new games, we're not doing another Shadow spin-off to redeem anything about it, but rather putting a new game it its place, and using the lessons we learned from SA1. And what other benefit would there not be in reducing the presence of the titles that stained this franchises reputation and doing away with the identity crisis it's suffering in addition?

I am in exactly the same position as Diogenes here. Sorry but this really makes no sense at all.

Why on earth would we want a remake of Shadow the Hedgehog or even something like Sonic 2006? What possible benefit is there in remaking such terrible games rather than just making new titles? I can get a Sonic Adventure remake. It has a huge fan cult following, it was a significant title and it actually has some real good concepts behind it that did shine through. I mean, I still wouldn't want to see a Sonic Adventure remake (I'd prefer a spiritual successor) but I can at least see the reasoning behind it. A remake of Shadow and Sonic Heroes...makes no fucking sense at all, sorry. They are downright bad with cardinal game design sins that, to get a good remake, you would essentially be making a new game, albeit it one with the trappings of association with terrible past games. What's the point in digging up old game corpses that fans don't even particularly care about?

I know you don't want something like a Shadow Remaster like Halo Anniversary, but why do we need a good Shadow game to put in the place of the old Shadow game? Like...what? It isn't going to make people forget how terrible Shadow was, if you want Shadow to be taken more seriously it's better to put him in a good new game that has nothing to do with Shadow the Hedgehog. Why not just make good Sonic games? You know, before Sonic Boom the Blue Hedgehog was getting his dignity back. Sonic 4 was polarising but some liked it, Sonic Colours was a good game, Sonic Generations was perhaps even great, Taxman's ports were popular on IOS and the Sonic Racing Games were phenomenal. People were actually willing to forgive Sonic: Lost World's mediocrity due to the calibre of the games that came before it, it wasn't until Sonic Boom came and nuked the franchise that Sonic's reputation fell into the gutter. No one cried for a good remake of Devil May Cry 2 to heal the franchise after its release. 

Imagine if someone at Ubisoft was at a Rayman Board Meeting and wanted to remake all the Rayman games after Rayman 2 to put better titles in their place. How could that possibly have been a good thing compared to the brand new Rayman Origins, a game that was deliberately new , fresh and distanced itself from the poorer games? It would be like someone remaking all the Crash games after Crash Team Racing, it makes no damn sense, especially when you think how old these games are and how irrelevant they have become since no one really remembers them fondly.

We don't need to put good games in the place of the poor games. We don't need a good Sonic Boom to put in the place of Rise of Lyric. We just need more good new Sonic games.

And the intent was never to recreate games like ShTH or Sonic 06 in the same form as we originally had them, but to do them over completely from scratch, story, gameplay, even the game's very name, etc, while using lessons learned from a recreated SA1 to build from. In otherwords, while a remade SA1/2 would be an enhanced version that fixes their problems, beyond those two games would be different, so a new ShTH =/= original ShTH, for example.

This is the problem right here. The effort it would take to remake Shadow and Sonic 06 in such radical ways to make them actually good would be so major that you would effectively be left with a different game. I know that's what you want and you somehow think that would heal the franchise, but it really wouldn't. Aside from the viral shock a Sonic 2006 remake would cause, it would be associated with such a godawful product and have all it's trappings that it would be like desperately trying to glue up a vase that's shattered on the floor. Instead of gluing that vase up, how about make a new vase that has its own identity and that can stand on its own merits, mertis that have nothing to do with Sonic 2006 and are new and fresh.

Nice to see there's some understanding for once.

We are understanding you, we just don't agree with you. 

Edited August 10, 2015 by LindseyWalker

[Kuzu]

If we'd make a reboot..why go back down the very same path we did before? I'm not saying things would be exactly the same, but it sounds less like a remake and more like a updated release.

[Wraith]

IMO, if they ever remake Sonic Adventure, they should probably just use that as a jumping off point and make a "proper" sequel to Sonic Adventure using the same engine. Make a game that actually expands on Sonic Adventure 1 and what it did instead of continuing to remake the entire series. Most of the other games after that don't have many concepts worth revisiting, anyway.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Wraith

[Bowbowis]

I really have to question what a reboot would even accomplish at this point, besides shattering the fanbase even further that is. I mean it's been seven years since a game (Chronicles) really rooted itself in the old lore, and it's been a whole decade since a main series title (Shadow) did so. Pretty much every game since Unleashed has been standalone, Generations is the sole exception and even that didn't really do anything with the stories of the old game outside of occasionally acknowledging that they existed. SEGA seems content to simply ignore the existing continuity, and with Colors and on being completely different from everything that came before, the series has been all but rebooted anyway. All we're missing is an official statement from SEGA confirming as much.

I honestly think that that a reboot is the worst way for SEGA to go about things. Even ignoring the massive waste of potential and the backlash that rebooting the franchise would inevitably cause I just can't seem to find a good reason to reboot it to begin with. There's no lawsuit like the Archie comics had, they have all the staff they need to carry on with the old continuity, they don't need to prevent the rights from reverting back to Marvel, and there are very few problems in the existing continuity that can't be resolved with a little elaboration. Rebooting doesn't erase games like '06 from existence, nor does it defend the reputation of the original continuity if the new one sucks, and throwing out the lore doesn't do jackshit when it comes to the gameplay either. If gameplay sucks, it sucks; if it's good, it's good; it doesn't make a lick of difference whether Shadow fought Black Doom in this universe or not. Rebooting the franchise doesn't revert it to a "tabula rasa" state, it still carries the baggage of the old continuity, and Rise of Lyric is a testament to that. I simply don't see any good coming from a reboot over simply building on the current continuity while working out it's flaws.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Bowbowis

[Nepenthe]

How did the mere idea for a remake of the game that's actually relevant to the topic at hand, an idea that the person who originally posed it said wasn't even necessary, turn into a debate about whether or not we should remake every 3D game or reboot the franchise? Stop it. All of you.

[LindseyWalker]

How did the mere idea for a remake of the game that's actually relevant to the topic at hand, an idea that the person who originally posed it said wasn't even necessary, turn into a debate about whether or not we should remake every 3D game or reboot the franchise? Stop it. All of you.

Do you think we should remake Sonic Adventure then, seeing as you want us to get back on topic (vaguely) I'd be interested to hear what you think about the idea?

[Nepenthe]

"Should" implies obligation, and I don't think Sonic Team is obligated to remake any game, especially since I more so crave new games than seeing old ones remade in any capacity. However, my argument mirrors Azoo's: If they were going to remake any game at this point, the best candidate is Sonic Adventure considering it's old enough to be considered irrelevant (tosses out all of the 7th and 8th gen games), it's aged badly and its ports have done the game no real justice on a technical front (tosses out the classic games and SA2), and yet it still has enough good ideas that could exist comfortably in a modern context and not require totally changing what the original product was (tosses out Heroes, ShtH, and Sonic 06).

[LindseyWalker]

"Should" implies obligation, and I don't think Sonic Team is obligated to remake any game, especially since I more so crave new games than seeing old ones remade in any capacity. However, my argument mirrors Azoo's: If they were going to remake any game at this point, the best candidate at this point is Sonic Adventure considering it's old enough to be considered irrelevant (tosses out the 7th and 8th gen games), it's aged badly and its ports have done the game no real justice on a technical front (tosses out the classic games and SA2), and yet it still has enough good ideas that could exist comfortably in a modern context and not require totally changing what the original product was (tosses out Heroes, ShtH, and Sonic 06).

What do you think they should do with Genre Roulette, the most troubling aspect of the game? How would you like to see Knuckles, Amy and Gamma play in a Sonic title? And, we are all thinking it, Big the Cat?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

We are understanding you, we just don't agree with you. 

Actually, no you're not. Your post still completely missed the point after someone finally managed to narrow down what I was saying. But we've been told to stop on the subject, so that's all I have to say.

[LindseyWalker]

Actually, no you're not. Your post still completely missed the point after someone finally managed to narrow down what I was saying. But we've been told to stop on the subject, so that's all I have to say.

Maybe make your own topic on it then to try to clear up the misunderstanding?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's already been cleared up? So that's not necessary.

[Nepenthe]

What do you think they should do with Genre Roulette, the most troubling aspect of the game? How would you like to see Knuckles, Amy and Gamma play in a Sonic title? And, we are all thinking it, Big the Cat?

I don't find the gameplay of anyone aside from Big troubling on a theoretical front; instead I find the pervasiveness of the belief that any deviation from Sonic's gameplay or goals is "genre roulette" and thus an automatic negative is both an impediment to more creative, less restrictive Sonic games and a hypocritical stance in light of the fact that other platforming series like Mario, Rayman, Crash, and Donkey Kong easily get away with having different gameplay styles and/or gameplay content in their platformers without complaint.

Even if you put everyone in a bog standard A-to-B platformer, if you took this mode of thinking to its most logical conclusion you'd be cutting out some of the more interesting parts of Sonic's gameplay out which would leave the game a little less exciting and a lot more soulless. You'd have to gut the humor and charm of Casinopolis' front as a pinball casino (not Sonic gameplay) which punishes you for losing by throwing you in the sewers (the actual Sonic level), you'd have to take out the Twinkle Park go-kart section because that's a driving mini-game and thus not "suitable"- same with the Tornado stages- and you'd also have to take out Ice Cap's boarding half. To make these cuts would be to eliminate some of the logical context of the settings and story, some of the interactivity from the more story-based moments, and the general playfulness and energy of the game that says it's harmless fun for Sonic to drive around a little bit versus some super serious, egregious violation of game design principles. It goes against Adventure's very spirit.

Furthermore, considering everyone is basically already working under Sonic's general framework whether that be in their controls, level design, linear gameplay goals, or some of these things, I don't see why having Amy being chased or having Knuckles find three items is out of bounds. Change some parameters, sure- Make Amy faster and more maneuverable, or give Gamma more platforming-oriented obstacles to contend with in comparison to the shooting. But to simply constrain them all to Sonic's gameplay robs them of their narrative relevance and autonomy as characters, as well as present situations that wouldn't make much sense. For example, why wouldn't Knuckles be looking for the Master Emerald shards? Why would you put such an important facet of his character and goals off into the story and not in the gameplay? What logical sense does it make for Knuckles' end-stage goal to have the Emerald shards already there in a neat little pile instead of scattered all over the place, as that's the only way I'd feel his arc would work in the context of Sonic's gameplay? It's kind of ridiculous.

So ultimately, I would give everyone the same gameplay but just update it for modern standards and sensibilities, with the exception of Big who can most easily stand to be thrown into a generic platforming vehicle and have Froggy at the end of his stages. Make his fishing pole the basis of a swinging or grappling mechanic, throw his fishing back in as an optional mini-game (or even more creatively, something optional to also do in-levels since Big isn't a particularly focused character) and be done with it.

[Indigo Rush]

Considering their controversy, the only fundamental thing I'd be alright changing for a Sonic Adventure remake is for Amy, Gamma and Big to be optional to reach the final story. They're either slow or too far out there, and the only reason I didn't lob Knuckles into that group is because his campaign reveals the more important bits of the backstory of the Knuckles Tribe, which is necessary to piece together what's going on. Regardless, I wouldn't think twice about removing them. They all contribute something to the story, if only a little, and their gameplay differences are part of what makes Sonic Adventure what it is. 

Edited August 10, 2015 by Indigo Rush

[Shaddy Zaphod]

You could make them optional, but you could also just make them fun to play.