Jump to content
PKGaming

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

Recommended Posts

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 by Diesel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're hilarious. You may as well just be posting in all caps "pls respond".

OK so I removd my earlier post because frankly after I posted I thought 'this is exactly the kind of reply I'll get.' Sure enough here it is before I can push it through on the mobile.

Look dude. You are the one who is going on about on the one hand saying "Yeah SA was always terrible" Then on the other saying "Well I still buy all the versions."

Add this together combined with some blatantly wrong claims about SA and SADX this really undermines your arguments and claims that you have acually played these games and suggests something odd is going on here.

If you're not going to answer something as simple as why you're still buying versions of a game you don't like. Especially when you don't consider anything different between them. Refusing to answer doesn't do anything for yur argument other than weaken it since it shows you obviously have some appeal for it or are making up this whole thing... otherwise...

Why buy it...

Which for 7 hours you've refused to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For fucks sake, if you're going to play the definition game, you have already lost.

m·u·late

 (ĕm′yə-lāt′)

tr.v. em·u·lat·ed, em·u·lat·ing, em·u·lates
1. To strive to equal or excel, especially through imitation: an older pupil whose accomplishments and style I emulated.
2. To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with.
3. Computers To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.

 

Sonic Adventure DX doesn't set out to imitate the original Sonic Adventure. It IS the original Sonic Adventure. Just a really badly built one with fancy-(er) graphics.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For fucks sake, if you're going to play the definition game, you have already lost.

 

Sonic Adventure DX doesn't set out to imitate the original Sonic Adventure. It IS the original Sonic Adventure. Just a really badly built one with fancy-(er) graphics.

 

 

Again, I never said Sonic Adventure DX was literally an emulation. It's essentially an emulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I never said Sonic Adventure DX was literally an emulation. It's essentially an emulation.

It is in no way shape or form ESSENTIALLY an EMULATION. It fulfills NEITHER of those two definitions. It's a shitty port of what was already a buggy game. That's all it is. It doesn't "in essence" "imitate" the original Sonic Adventure. Good God, I hope you're not a lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I never said Sonic Adventure DX was literally an emulation. It's essentially an emulation.

Now I could be wrong with this since I've not looked up the entire computer history of things... buuuut...

You cannot have 'essentially an emulation.' In Computer Science something is either an emulation or its not.

If it's an emulation. Its an emulation. If it's not. In terms of games it's a port.

Even some games which are downloaded through systems like Steam can include an emulation tool within them which run when he software does. This is still classified as an emulation. But otherwise. It's a port.

As far as I'm aware and I just also did a quick look up. There is no such thing as 'essentially an emulation'. 

It either is or it isn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is in no way shape or form ESSENTIALLY an EMULATION. It fulfills NEITHER of those two definitions. It's a shitty port of what was already a buggy game. That's all it is. It doesn't "in essence" "imitate" the original Sonic Adventure. Good God, I hope you're not a lawyer.

It's almost identical to the original Sonic Adventure. Thus it essentially emulates the original Sonic Adventure. Again, not literally, but essentially.

Basically, as long as something is very similar to something else, you can say it's essentially that other thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost identical to the original Sonic Adventure. Thus it essentially emulates the original Sonic Adventure. Again, not literally, but essentially.

Basically, as long as something is very similar to something else, you can say it's essentially that other thing.

for crying out loud.

No it doesnt.

It is a port. It has had its code modified in order to run on new hardware. That means it's a port. 

Emulation is the hardware/software pretending to be the original hardware in order for the original piece of software to run with no modification to the code.

There is nothing 'essentially' about it. It either is or it isn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

No it's not. Learn what words mean. It's obvious what you are trying to say (that it emulates the experience of the original game), but that doesn't apply to the original post you were responding to since said post was talking about emulations versus porting in the technical sense; and that you're still trying to weasel out a semantic victory over something that is an obviously false premise in the first place makes your insistence of using words incorrectly all the more odd.

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.

No it's not and no I didn't. I said the first Spyro had aged poorly (among other games) from a quality perspective, then went on to talk about a different Spyro title's rerelease procedure compared to Adventure's. Learn to actually read what people are posting before responding.

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.

A $6 straight emulation of a PSX game doesn't get as much scrutiny as a badly done but claimed to be definitive enhanced port of a Dreamcast title that cost $15 when it released and is in fact across the board worse than the original Dreamcast release?

 

Stop the fucking presses.

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

I explained in detail why I brought up Year of the Dragon, and even attached a rider that the same situation also applied (to a presumably lesser extent) to the original game. You dismissed my explanation out of hand, and have attempted multiple times to just claim that because you weren't talking about Year of the Dragon, it holds no relevance to the conversation. You've presented no logic for doing so, and have shown zero evidence of any understanding for why Year of the Dragon was brought up. In fact, your attempt to insist that I was comparing the games in terms of their initial quality instead of the differing contexts of their subsequent rereleases suggests the opposite.

 

So no, not really.

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.

There is crippling irony in you attempting to dismiss things (written by two outlets that actually contribute to Metacritic, no less) that directly contradict what you keep saying when the only evidence of anything you've actually said in this thread is a Metascore. You've provided nothing to contradict the statements from those two sites. You haven't even bothered to link to an actual review of the game, nevermind one by one of those two sites, that specifically outline the claims you're making about the original game never being good. And as I said to you two pages ago, if you're going to try and dismiss reviews from the time the game released as just being from hacks with no standards, you're going to have to put a bit more effort into proving it beyond simply repeatedly insisting that because the Metascores were successively lower, the original reviews must have had it wrong so it must have always been a bad game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not. Learn what words mean. That you're still trying to weasel out a semantic victory over something that is an obviously false premise in the first place makes your insistence of using words incorrectly all the more odd.

No it's not and no I didn't. Learn to actually read what people are posting before responding.

A $6 straight emulation of a PSX game doesn't get as much scrutiny as a badly done but supposedly definitive enhanced port of a Dreamcast title that cost $15 when it released and is across the board worse than the original Dreamcast release?

 

Stop the fucking presses.

I explained in detail why I brought up Year of the Dragon, and even attached a rider that the same situation also applied to the original game. You dismissed my explanation out of hand, and have attempted multiple times to just claim that because you weren't talking about Year of the Dragon, it holds no relevance to the conversation. You've presented no logic for doing so, and have shown zero evidence of any understanding for why Year of the Dragon was brought up. In fact, your attempt to insist that I was comparing the games in terms of their initial quality instead of the differing contexts of their subsequent rereleases suggests the opposite.

 

So no, not really.

There is crippling irony in you attempting to dismiss things that directly contradict what you keep saying when the only evidence of anything you've actually said in this thread is a Metascore. Not even excerpts from reviews that specifically outline the claims you're making about the original game never being good. And as I said to you two pages ago, if you're going to try and dismiss reviews from the time the game released as just being from hacks with no standards, you're going to have to put a bit more effort into proving it beyond simply repeatedly insisting that because the Metascores were successively lower, the original reviews must have had it wrong so it must have always been a bad game.

A lot of hypocrisy in your post. You should learn what words mean and to actually read what other people are posting yourself.

No, the first Spyro game get anywhere near as much scrutiny as Sonic Adventure. Sonic Adventure is hated game. If you think I'm wrong, then prove that this Spyro game is more hated.

The logic in Year of the Dragon not being relevant into this discussion is simple. I said that the first Spyro game couldn't be compared to SA1, not Year of the Dragon. You then proceeded to claim that I stated any Spyro game in general couldn't be compared to SA1, which isn't true.

As for me not doing much to prove my points like you seem to think, why should I go out of my way to prove my points when you won't prove yours? Simply put, pot calling the kettle black. I could post articles/reviews proving my argument, but if you won't do the same, there's no need. You don't understand how the burden of proof works.

Edited by Diesel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of hypocrisy in your post. You should learn what words mean and to actually read what other people are posting yourself.

What does emulation mean in this specific context:

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.

It very clearly doesn't mean "the experience is basically the same." It very clearly is talking about the differences between porting a game to new hardware and emulating a game's original hardware. And since this was the post where you went on a tangent for what emulation means, why do you keep claiming to mean a specific definition that has nothing to do with the post you were responding to?

 

The logic in Year of the Dragon not being relevant into this discussion is simple. I said that the first Spyro game couldn't be compared to SA1, not Year of the Dragon. You then proceeded to claim that I stated any Spyro game in general couldn't be compared to SA1, which isn't true.

Except you're still obviously not getting that Year of the Dragon was brought up to compare the circumstances of the subsequent rereleases of that game to the subsequent rereleases of Adventure, and the original Spyro the Dragon was brought up to compare the quality of the original releases.

 

As for me not doing much to prove my points like you seem to think, why should I go out of my way to prove my points when you won't prove yours?

Because you're pulling shit out of your ass, dismissing explanations for no other reason than they don't suit you, trying to misuse word definitions to avoid responding to what was actually said when a word was used and claiming things that are obviously untrue but then refusing to defend why your own authority on the subject should be considered credible over everyone else's experiences.

 

I could post articles/reviews proving my argument, but if you won't do the same, there's no need. You don't understand how the burden of proof works.

The burden of proof lies on the one who made the original claim. That was this:

It was never a good game.

This isn't proof of that conclusion:

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

And this isn't proof of that conclusion:

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

And this doesn't even manage to avoid being a fallacy:

 The only reviews that are acceptable for this conversation are ones that aren't from a period when standards were astonishingly lower.

And the reason that none of those are proof of your initial conclusion have all been explained to you in far greater detail than you've even bothered to acknowledge. So by all means post something that actually is proof of that conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if we're using the same logic that the Steam version of SADX are essentially identical to the GameCube and Dreamcast versions, then you must concede that the Game Boy Advance version of Sonic 1 must be virtually identical to the Genesis counterpart.  If Metacritic is any indication, the game has aged considerably poorly and was thus given notably poor review scores when released.  Even though all subsequent rereleases have scored considerably higher on the list.  It must have stopped aging bad or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Steam release of Sonic Adventure DX is actually WORSE. I literally couldn't get it to RUN for almost 2 years. That might be Intel's crappy drivers to blame, but the end result is the same. The PC version of DX is absolutely awful.

Just to give you a frame a reference just how mind-bogglingly BAD this version of the game is just... Just look at this.

Look at it! Look at the water in the PC version! It's completely still! Look at how the transparency is broken!

And that's just scratching the surface!

Edited by shdowhunt60

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Yes, and...no. I did find myself enjoying the Sonic Parts, and just purely having fun but there is some things that, do really destroy the experience. The Camera is god awful and I just fall off of objects, the controls are really slippery and trying to control Sonic on the Loops and everything is hard when I keep falling off and when collecting rings I gotta position my thumb in a uncomfortable position and ugh, Yeah. Though, They updated the graphics on the Ps3. I do think it needs a remake for these reasons and some things do kinda hurt this game. But over-looking this, its really fun. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does emulation mean in this specific context:

 

It very clearly doesn't mean "the experience is basically the same." It very clearly is talking about the differences between porting a game to new hardware and emulating a game's original hardware. And since this was the post where you went on a tangent for what emulation means, why do you keep claiming to mean a specific definition that has nothing to do with the post you were responding to?

 

Except you're still obviously not getting that Year of the Dragon was brought up to compare the circumstances of the subsequent rereleases of that game to the subsequent rereleases of Adventure, and the original Spyro the Dragon was brought up to compare the quality of the original releases.

 

Because you're pulling shit out of your ass, dismissing explanations for no other reason than they don't suit you, trying to misuse word definitions to avoid responding to what was actually said when a word was used and claiming things that are obviously untrue but then refusing to defend why your own authority on the subject should be considered credible over everyone else's experiences.

 

The burden of proof lies on the one who made the original claim. That was this:

 

This isn't proof of that conclusion:

 

And this isn't proof of that conclusion:

 

And this doesn't even manage to avoid being a fallacy:

 

And the reason that none of those are proof of your initial conclusion have all been explained to you in far greater detail than you've even bothered to acknowledge. So by all means post something that actually is proof of that conclusion.

The experiences in those Mario, Spyro, Zelda and Crash rereleases are all basically the same as their original releases. Thus they are essentially emulations. And I had never said those games were emulations in the first place before, so it's ridiculous that you're even bringing this up. My claims about emulation were only about Sonic Adventure. You're just shifting attention from Sonic Adventure to those games.

And once again, I wasn't talking about Year of the Dragon. I was only talking about the FIRST Spyro. Year of the Dragon is not the first Spyro, therefore it is irrelevant to the discussion subject. Stop attention shifting.

As for me "pulling shit out of my ass, dismissing explanations for no other reason than they don't suit me, trying to misuse word definitions to avoid responding to what was actually said when a word was used and claiming things that are obviously untrue but then refusing to defend why my own authority on the subject should be considered credible over everyone else's experiences", again, pot calling the kettle black. I don't need to respond to that.

As for the burden of proof lying on me for claiming that SA1 was always bad, opinions can't be proven, so no, the burden of proof doesn't rely on me.What can proven are review scores and what the general consensus of a game is. You people were the ones who made claims that the game was still held in high regard first, so the burden of proof lies on you people by your logic.

 

Edited by Diesel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The experiences in those Mario, Spyro, Zelda and Crash rereleases are all basically the same as their original releases. Thus they're emulations.

That's fantastic. I was still using them specifically to describe how they were rereleased compared to the different way Sonic Adventure was, and you were still responding to my post; so your different usage of the word "emulation" has nothing to do with how I used it.

And once again, I wasn't talking about Year of the Dragon.

I don't care. I didn't bring it up in comparison to Adventure in the same context that you were talking about for the other games anyway, nor did I bring it up in the same context that I (not you) brought up the original Spyro title in comparison to Adventure.

I was only talking about the FIRST Spyro. Year of the Dragon is not the first Spyro, therefore it is irrelevant to the discussion subject.

Nope. Try again. You don't get to dictate how people respond to your posts when you weren't even the one to originally raise the specific subject.

again, pot calling the kettle black.

Nope, try again. I've actually provided sources for viewpoints and explanations for why Adventure's rereleases can't be directly compared to the rereleases of its contemporaries. You've repeated logical fallacies and gone out of your way to do neither.

As for the burden of proof lying on me for claiming that SA1 was always bad, opinions can't be proven, so no, the burden of proof doesn't rely on me.

So if Sonic Adventure always being bad was nothing more than your opinion, and you therefore have to do nothing to support it, than you have nothing else to contribute to the conversation about it always being bad.

What can proven are review scores and what the general consensus of a game is.

You didn't do the latter.

You people were the ones who made claims that the game was still held in high regard first, so the burden of proof lies on you people by your logic.

I personally said nothing of the sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one was talking about emulating in a metaphorical sense. We were talking about it in a technical sense of which there is no grey area for sloppy language. You tried to redefine the terms of the debate without explaining why they were more suitable for discussion, which isn't going to fly. DX and its ports are not emulated games. You are wrong on this, full stop. If you are not going to admit this, or still do not understand the difference between porting and emulating, there is no reason for you to continue the argument on this tangent. Because now the topic is turning to shit mostly due to your refusal to admit this and simply reformat your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want me to prove my opinion that the game was bad? How laughable. Asking for elaboration is one thing, but proof? lol

If you're going to spend 6 pages of this topic spiraling everything in a circle with poorly constructed arguments, you might as well have the gall to give a reason why you're doing it. After all, everybody else has the nerve to give reasons for their arguments while you have went out of your way to not give a single well-explained or backed up reason why you believe what you believe.

But hey. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Edited by Azoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one was talking about emulating in a metaphorical sense. We were talking about it in a technical sense of which there is no grey area for sloppy language. You tried to redefine the terms of the debate without explaining why they were more suitable for discussion, which isn't going to fly. DX and its ports are not emulated games. You are wrong on this, full stop. If you are not going to admit this, or still do not understand the difference between porting and emulating, there is no reason for you to continue the argument on this tangent. Because now the topic is turning to shit mostly due to your refusal to admit this and simply reformat your argument.

Oh, but I was talking in a metaphorical sense when I said it was "essentially" an emulation. Guess that's where the confusion came.

If you're going to spend 6 pages of this topic spiraling everything in a circle with poorly constructed arguments, you might as well have the gall to give a reason why you're doing it. After all, everybody else has the nerve to give reasons for their arguments while you have went out of your way to not give a single well-explained or backed up reason why you believe what you believe.

But hey. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I already explained why I thought it was bad: horrible camera, collision detection, glitches, etc. Seems well explained enough to me, seeing as these are problems many people have had with the game.

Not to say the rest of my arguments were "poorly constructed", which they weren't, or that I had not given a single well-explained/backed up reason why I believe what I believe, as I did give plenty of well-explained/backed up reasons why I believe what I believe.

Edited by Diesel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want me to prove my opinion that the game was bad? How laughable. Asking for elaboration is one thing, but proof? lol

These statements:

It was never a good game.

Gaming standards were different back then (lower, in fact), which is the only reason the Dreamcast version of the game got good reviews, thus there's no reason to mention it got good reviews. 

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.

Were not presented as simply being your opinion. In one particular case, you presented the apparent universal loathing of the game as being a tautology:

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

There is absolutely no context that that statement can be considered "just my opinion".

Furthermore, you attempted to justify the above assertions of fact multiple times, and went so far as to claim that the original positive opinions and any current positive opinions of the game were not valid because the future opinions of the game from journalists were more negative with each rerelease and that the newer journalist opinions must be inherently more correct. And now you are once again backpedaling to get away from a definitive statement that you originally made.

 

So if Sonic Adventure always being bad was nothing more than your opinion, and you therefore have to do nothing to support it, than you have nothing else to contribute to the conversation about it always being bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

     I will admit, it was one of the first attempts at 3D, but you're absolutely right about the camera, and collision detection, though I never really ran into to many glitches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.