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

[Tornado]

The reason why I brought up Spyro 1

You didn't. I did. I did so to make a specific point of comparison between the two games.

 

See, here's your post:

You don't see games like Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Crash Bandicoot, etc receiving anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny Sonic Adventure gets these days.

 

And here is where it was first brought up:

the first Spyro game (while much more competently programmed than Adventure) has certain design ideas that make it nearly unplayable in spots regardless

I do have a second account on SSMB, but it's not named "Diesel"; so your still continued insistence on the supposed real reason I brought up two different games that happened to be in the same series simply gets more and more meaningless. Along those lines:

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.

As shown above, you said nothing about Spyro 1 either, so you can take your high horse right the fuck off this forum. The only reason Spyro 3's release is irrelevant is because it's more convenient for you to claim it is, but you're going to have to have a better basis for doing so than "I didn't bring it up so it doesn't have to be discussed". That ship sailed when you didn't bring up Spyro 1 either, but then proceeded to debate it so much that you eventually claimed you started the discussion in the first place.

 

 

With that out of the way, it's also laughable that you keep insisting that Spyro 3 can't be compared in any way Sonic Adventure just because you didn't personally bring it up. The game came out fucking 13 months after Adventure International. The time between Spyro 3 and Adventure International is almost identical to the time between Spyro 1 and Adventure International. YotD was still explicitly a contemporary game to Adventure, just like Donkey Kong 64 was. Just like Banjo Tooie was. Just like Toy Story 2 was. Just like everything at the time that was (and has continued to be since) compared directly to the Mario game that came out in 1996, all the way up to when the heavy hitters on the Gamecube and PS2 started landing in 2002.

Are you going to now claim that the journalistic standards of game reviewers changed so drastically in those 13 months that none of them can be compared either? What's the exact cutoff date between "hopelessly naive period reviewers" and "intelligent and cultured modern reviewers"?

 

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..

Which they did, and you were already told:

(Incidentally, Sony also did the same thing with the PSN version of the first game, though I'm not aware what the problems were with that one specifically).

The reason I didn't go into detail with the first game rerelease was because of that part at the end:

though I'm not aware what the problems were with that one specifically

And the reason I went into detail with Spyro 3 was because I knew exactly what they fixed for that rerelease. This isn't hard. I shouldn't have to directly quote what was said to you. I certainly shouldn't have to quote what you said to show what you said.

 

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.

Two things:

1. Simply repeating things over and over again doesn't make them more true. You need to add the word hypocrisy to that list of words you need to learn definitions for if you think it applies in this context.
2. It's impossible to provide evidence for claims if you dismiss anything that goes against your worldview as evidence simply because it does so; or outright ignore it like you've blatantly been doing half the time anyway.

And since you've even gone so far to say this:

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.

After spending your entire time demanding reviews and claiming nothing else (not reviews, not technical breakdowns, not contemporary comparisons, not modern retrospectives that explicitly comment on the game enjoyment after all these years and how it is hurt by shitty port jobs) was worth your time because you posted a Metascore intentionally divorced from all context and without even a single line from an actual review, and now you're going to even say that that isn't enough?

 

 

 

I was only disagreeing with your statements, so no, the burden of proof doesn't lie on me.

False.

 

 

 

[PKGaming]

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.

Actually....cutscenes in Crash Bandicoot 2 and 3 looked pretty good for PS1, even better than Adventure I'd say. The mouths moved pretty smoothly and matched what the characters said and the overall animation was smoother and didn't feel robotic like the animation in Adventure.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by PKGaming

[Neo_Fire_Sonic]

All the "glitches" in sonic adventure I wanted to try were fixed in the gamecube version

[Neo_Fire_Sonic]

I really hate to say this but, when I played SA2B, and SADX, there were really no "glitches" I encountered that weren't forceably caused by me

For ex, going off map in the normal chao garden in SA2B, that was me, in SADX, every glitch in there happened because i kept flying through things through the use of action replay.

The dreamcast version of sonic adventure was the one with the missing collision boxes or something, all of these were fixed in the gamecube version.

[PKGaming]

^That's...surprising. I haven't played the Dreamcast version in a long time, but from my own experience with the DX version, it's a glitchy mess. Not on quite the same level as 06 or Boom, but still very noticeable. And most of the time, it's not really glitches per say, but stuff that makes me see how the game severely lacks polish. Like Sonic running into a wall and jittering there for a moment, or getting stuck to a wall and forcing yourself to jump out, or being magnetized to the side of a wall as you run through a narrow strip (a lot of wall examples). Nothing that'll make me die or hinder my progress, but still just makes me go "Ugh!!" 

[Diesel]

    "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.

 If a port features glitches that make it notably worse than the original game, then it is substantially different to the original game. That is a fact no matter how you try to spin it. You are trying to argue that Sonic Adventure DX features glitches that make it notably worse than the original Sonic Adventure. Therefore, you're trying to argue that it's significantly different to the original game.

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.

Oh, no, I'm not trying to get you to agree with me. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic. I don't really care if you agree with me.

DX is Sonic Adventure made worse through through bad porting. 

 It's not. Hilarious you're criticizing me for not providing any proof for my arguments, yet you aren't with your statement right here.

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.

Lol, that's not how a discussion works. Just because you don't care about what the other side has to say doesn't mean there's no reason for the other side to say anything in the first place. You're acting no different than a child covering his ears to keep him/herself from hearing something he/she doesn't want to hear.

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.

 Your hypocrisy shows itself once again. You're criticizing me for not providing proof for my arguments, yet you're not providing any proof or evidence when you assert that Sonic Retro is reliable. I'm not gonna believe you just because you say so. Furthermore, this is all they say about Sonic Adventure DX being glitchier than the original game: http://info.sonicretro.org/Sonic_Adventure_DX:_Director's_Cut#Main_Game

• New glitches were introduced, related to inconsistencies in the port (for example, some windows still reflect the original Dreamcast graphics).

 One sentence that isn't even backed up by proof of any sort. That's not proving anything.

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.

Nope, you asserted, in your words, that "DX is Sonic Adventure made worse through through bad porting".

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. 

Again with your hypocrisy. You posted no proof for your argument, and you expect me to post proof for mine? Practice what you preach.

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.

What I meant when I said older reviews don't matter is that they can't be used to say whether or not a game has aged well. Standards were different when those reviews came out, so they're irrelevant. Only recent reviews can be used to say whether or not a game has aged well. Sure, older reviews are needed for a "starting point" with which to measure how its quality has held up, but the reviews themselves can't be used to say whether or not the game has aged well.

@Bowbowis

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.

They may be the same TYPES of issues, but they're so much worse in Sonic Adventure that they can't be compared to the other games. Just because two things are in the same field doesn't mean they can be compared. If one is much, much worse than the other, there is no real comparison. You can't compare William Hung to Elvis Presley.

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:

What I stated to "just be my opinion" is that Sonic Adventure is a bad game. Whether or not a game is bad can't be proven as it's entirely up to opinion. Whether or not the majority of people consider a game to be good isn't up to opinion, though. It's up to fact.

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.

 Nope, you stated that the majority like Sonic Unleashed as a fact.

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.

Those Amazon ratings/reviews you posted are actually mostly irrelevant as most of them came out back when Sonic Adventure first came out. Those ratings/reviews came out when a time standards were different, so they're irrelevant.

But yeah, the ratings/reviews you posted for the rereleases of Sonic Adventure are pretty up to date, and you posted a lot of them. Alright, I admit the majority of people still like Sonic Adventure. And I admit the majority of people like Sonic Unleashed, seeing as the user ratings for it on multiple sites are fairly high.

@Tornado

As shown above, you said nothing about Spyro 1 either, so you can take your high horse right the fuck off this forum. The only reason Spyro 3's release is irrelevant is because it's more convenient for you to claim it is, but you're going to have to have a better basis for doing so than "I didn't bring it up so it doesn't have to be discussed". That ship sailed when you didn't bring up Spyro 1 either, but then proceeded to debate it so much that you eventually claimed you started the discussion in the first place.

 Wrong, I did speak about Spyro 1. You had stated the following:

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

I responded:

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

After I posted this, you backpedaled and changed your argument to involve Spyro 3:

You said I can't compare a Spyro title to Sonic Adventure? Why not? Let's go back to that one example above. How many of those new reviews of the PSN release of Spyro Year of the Dragon were of the buggy, save game corrupting, frequently completely unwinnable original release that Insomniac put out?

We weren't talking about Spyro 3; we were only talking about Spyro 1, so there was no reason for you to bring up Spyro 3.

With that out of the way, it's also laughable that you keep insisting that Spyro 3 can't be compared in any way Sonic Adventure just because you didn't personally bring it up. The game came out fucking 13 months after Adventure International. The time between Spyro 3 and Adventure International is almost identical to the time between Spyro 1 and Adventure International. YotD was still explicitly a contemporary game to Adventure, just like Donkey Kong 64 was. Just like Banjo Tooie was. Just like Toy Story 2 was. Just like everything at the time that was (and has continued to be since) compared directly to the Mario game that came out in 1996, all the way up to when the heavy hitters on the Gamecube and PS2 started landing in 2002.

Spyro 3 isn't irrelevant because I didn't personally bring it up. It's because irrelevant because you didn't bring it up at first, and thus it wasn't what we were talking about. You only brought it up when you backpedaled and changed your argument to whether or not it can be compared to Sonic Adventure.

Which they did, and you were already told:

Fair enough.

And the reason I went into detail with Spyro 3 was because I knew exactly what they fixed for that rerelease. This isn't hard. I shouldn't have to directly quote what was said to you. I certainly shouldn't have to quote what you said to show what you said.

But Spyro 3 wasn't part of your original argument; you only brought it up when you backpedaled. The only Spyro game that's relevant here is Spyro 1, as that's the only one we were talking about.

Two things:

1. Simply repeating things over and over again doesn't make them more true. You need to add the word hypocrisy to that list of words you need to learn definitions for if you think it applies in this context.
2. It's impossible to provide evidence for claims if you dismiss anything that goes against your worldview as evidence simply because it does so; or outright ignore it like you've blatantly been doing half the time anyway.

 

Even more baseless, hypocritical statements.

After spending your entire time demanding reviews and claiming nothing else (not reviews, not technical breakdowns, not contemporary comparisons, not modern retrospectives that explicitly comment on the game enjoyment after all these years and how it is hurt by shitty port jobs) was worth your time because you posted a Metascore intentionally divorced from all context and without even a single line from an actual review, and now you're going to even say that that isn't enough?

Baseless statement and yeah, a few reviews and fan wiki aren't enough.

False.

 No, the only time I wasn't responding to you guys was when I said Sonic Adventure was never a good game, which I admitted was just my opinion. Everything else was just responses.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Diesel

[Badnik Mechanic]

 

 Your hypocrisy shows itself once again. You're criticizing me for not providing proof my arguments, 

So when are you actually going to provide some? 

And not discredit older sources on the grounds of it being made before you were born?

yet you're not providing any proof or evidence when you assert that Sonic Retro is reliable. I'm not gonna believe you just because you say so.

Are you that closed minded? Retro is a reliable website, it's quite obvious that it is if you've bothered to actually read the content on it or their forums? From a technical standpoint it's one of the most accurate and reliable around.

 Hilarious you're criticizing me for not providing any proof for my arguments, yet you aren't with your statement right here.

You don't even know the difference between porting and emulation. The only thing hilarious here is you trying to argue against people who do. 

 

P.S. Why do you keep buying and playing Sonic Adventure when you claim not to like it?

[Penny]

But Diesel, by your logic, we can't even use reviews from now, because when gaming standards change in the future, they'll be rendered irrelevant. All reviews from anytime are irrelevant because standards and tastes will change. Therefore we can't judge games based on review scores because they'll always end up being irrelevant in the end.

[Diesel]

So when are you actually going to provide some? 

And not discredit older sources on the grounds of it being made before you were born?

I'll provide proof when you people do as well. Nice ad hominem on the second question; you have no way of even knowing when I was born.

Are you that closed minded? Retro is a reliable website, it's quite obvious that it is if you've bothered to actually read the content on it or their forums? From a technical standpoint it's one of the most accurate and reliable around.

Still no proof. Keep telling yourself that.

You don't even know the difference between porting and emulation. The only thing hilarious here is you trying to argue against people who do. 

I had already admitted that Sonic Adventure DX isn't an emulation. You clearly don't read posts before you respond to them.

Furthermore, that wasn't what Nepenthe and I were even discussing, so that's irrelevant. You're salty.

But Diesel, by your logic, we can't even use reviews from now, because when gaming standards change in the future, they'll be rendered irrelevant. All reviews from anytime are irrelevant because standards and tastes will change. Therefore we can't judge games based on review scores because they'll always end up being irrelevant in the end.

Nope, at this moment, we can use reviews from now to discuss whether or not a game is good. Only in the future will that not be the case.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Diesel

[Badnik Mechanic]

I'll provide proof when you people do as well. Nice ad hominem on the second question; you have no way of even knowing when I was born.

If it was after 2001 then I fail to recognise that birthday since birthday standards have changed since then, we now have stricter standards on birthday parties, anyone without a gold wristband cannot come in. 

I had already admitted that Sonic Adventure DX isn't an emulation. You clearly don't read posts before you respond to them.

Not much point when you ignore/discredit the majority because the information is older than... well we're still waiting for you to give a date on when information is valid.

Still no proof. Keep telling yourself that. 

You are basically saying.

"I have never heard of Stack Overflow, their advice on programming cannot be trusted!"

 Just because you've not heard of a varied and respected group which is accurate and demand proof of it doesn't make your argument stronger, it makes you an idiot for sticking with it.

Furthermore, that wasn't what Nepenthe and I were even discussing, so that's irrelevant. You're salty.

You constantly argue something, claim it's something else, get tons of stuff wrong, yet I'm the one being salty? lol. 

[Nepenthe]

 

 If a port features glitches that make it notably worse than the original game, then it is substantially different to the original game. That is a fact no matter how you try to spin it. You are trying to argue that Sonic Adventure DX features glitches that make it notably worse than the original Sonic Adventure. Therefore, you're trying to argue that it's significantly different to the original game.

If a port of a game has a 5% differential from the original game, and that 5% is the addition of new glitches, it would be fair to say that the game is not substantially different. This is why I say your argument is easily dismissed- you're not including any parameters by which to reasonably measure what the degree of difference is. (Probably because you can't).

Oh, no, I'm not trying to get you to agree with me. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.

You're actually not.

I don't really care if you agree with me.

Uh-huh.

 It's not. Hilarious you're criticizing me for not providing any proof for my arguments, yet you aren't with your statement right here.

I did provide proof, which is the Retro article, which is on top of what everything else everyone has said. You continuously applying the one single proof fallacy and dismissing everything people have handed you isn't a logical refutation.

Lol, that's not how a discussion works. Just because you don't care about what the other side has to say doesn't mean there's no reason for the other side to say anything in the first place. You're acting no different than a child covering his ears to keep him/herself from hearing something he/she doesn't want to hear.

No, it's that I've been in the scene for over a decade, and I know how these quote dissections go and I've seen the extent of your logic. Straight-up: I'm trying to save you and me some time in terms word count.

 Your hypocrisy shows itself once again. You're criticizing me for not providing proof my arguments, yet you're not providing any proof or evidence when you assert that Sonic Retro is reliable. I'm not gonna believe you just because you say so. Furthermore, this is all they say about Sonic Adventure DX being glitchier than the original game: http://info.sonicretro.org/Sonic_Adventure_DX:_Director's_Cut#Main_Game

 One sentence that isn't even backed up by proof of any sort. That's not proving anything.

Again, one single proof fallacy.

Now then, you asserted that Sonic Retro has no credentials. It should be easy in the Internet age to find a story, a string of articles, or something that proves this. If not, you're only successful in digging your own hole.

On top of that, you still refuse to provide proof of your own claims. I again ask the question: Are you going to provide proof of your own claims or can we stop talking? Yes or no? If yes, what is it?

Nope, you asserted, in your words, that "DX is Sonic Adventure made worse through through bad porting".

Fair enough, but I already provided proof of that. See above.

Again with your hypocrisy. You posted no proof for your argument, and you expect me to post proof for mine? Practice what you preach.

Tu quoque fallacy. It actually doesn't matter what I'm doing. You still need to live up to your own expectations as set by the debate. Do you have proof that SA1 is the same as SA:DX and its ports or not?

What I meant when I said older reviews don't matter is that they can't be used to say whether or not a game has aged well. Standards were different when those reviews came out, so they're irrelevant. Only recent reviews can be used to say whether or not a game has aged well. Sure, older reviews are needed for a "starting point" with which to measure how its quality has held up, but the reviews themselves can't be used to say whether or not the game has aged well.

This makes no sense. A game ages by being compared with past viewpoints, meaning the reviews are valid in the discussion.

[Tornado]

I guess we can add "backpedaling" to "words Diesel uses without understanding"

 

 

[Penny]

hey guys remember that awesome game known as "Sonic the Hedgehog"? you know, the one that started the series? wasn't that a great game?

 

http://www.gamerankings.com/genesis/454495-sonic-the-hedgehog/index.html

 

and hey look, they released an updated port (which is essentially an emulation) about 15 years later. people still thought it was good, righ--

 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/game-boy-advance/sonic-the-hedgehog-genesis

 

oh dear. well since these reviews of an updated port, which is you know essentially an emulation, are newer, they are the correct ones. those old ones are irrelevant because they are older. therefore Sonic the Hedgehog 1 is a terrible game.

 

guys we've been living under a lie for the past 24 years

[Ryannumber1gamer]

Still waiting on that proof to back up your statements.

You know, might have given your above post a point beyond ''I can't provide any proof so I'll just make a post with absolutely nothing to do with the conversation whatsoever''

and considering you are desperately trying to avoid answering Hogfather's question of why you keep buying a game you supposedly hate, and you haven't provided the proof that Nepenthe asked for, nor have you backed up your own statements, I'm beginning to wonder if we've reached the point in the debate where you can't provide any evidence, so you're just gonna use pointless stuff just to make it seem like you haven't lost just yet.

TL;DR

 

Edited August 4, 2015 by Ryannumber1gamer

[Ryannumber1gamer]

Going back a bit, NickonAquaMangna called out Egorator's shit on the game, and defended the game.

 

Edited August 6, 2015 by Ryannumber1gamer

[Penny]

I've been watching the Grumps playthrough, and later they end up saying that their reactions and statements in the earlier episodes weren't completely serious. Dan even ends up saying that the game has grown on him over the course of the playthrough and that he kind of likes the Sonic levels. And Arin ends up saying that even though he doesn't like the game at all, at least it's competent (mostly, he says).

 

Though in the newest episode he says that he has the International version of Adventure with less glitches, but he didn't play it because he wanted all the extra glitches to make the playthrough more entertaining. His said that "well I don't like the game anyway so why would i play the version that's less entertaining".

[Ryannumber1gamer]

I've been watching the Grumps playthrough, and later they end up saying that their reactions and statements in the earlier episodes weren't completely serious. Dan even ends up saying that the game has grown on him over the course of the playthrough and that he kind of likes the Sonic levels. And Arin ends up saying that even though he doesn't like the game at all, at least it's competent (mostly, he says).

 

Though in the newest episode he says that he has the International version of Adventure with less glitches, but he didn't play it because he wanted all the extra glitches to make the playthrough more entertaining. His said that "well I don't like the game anyway so why would i play the version that's less entertaining".

When I hear that, I hear ''Using a overreaction excuse to back off any criticism''. I don't care if he's trying to play it up and exaggerate. When he's saying this kind of stupid shit, he's handing excuses to Sonic haters to say the games have always been shit. Might I remind you that when Jon gave his honest opinion that Adventure 1 & 2 was good games, Arin said that they were just as bad as 06. It sounds like backpedaling now that people have called him out on what he said.

Going even further, it's fucking bullshit that he knowingly choosed the more glitchy version of the game in order to get more glitches. That proves to me that the point in the video was true, that Arin was purposely trying to play up glitches to make the game look worse than it really was. 

Edited August 6, 2015 by Ryannumber1gamer

[Penny]

If anything, I'm at least happy that Dan is enjoying himself.

[Nepenthe]

So after all the meaningless arguing, the ridiculous comparisons to RoL, the attempts at enforcing doubt, the loaded questions of "You can't POSSIBLY think it's any good!" and the rest of the bullshit that's resulted from this GG series, Arin then comes out and admits he's overreacting on purpose as well as the fact that he didn't play the original version just to play up the port's flaws and slam the game as a whole.

This is half the reason I've just given up.

[shdowhunt60]

So, yeah. Fuck Egoraptor.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

I don't care if Egoraptor is trying to be funny and is overreacting on purpose. Trying to claim that ''it's just a persona I use to overreact to games'' isn't an excuse. He knowingly picked the more glitchy version of the game, he took every single chance to slam the fucking game and claim it's as bad if not worse than 06 and Rise of Lyric (Don't even fucking tell me that it's meant to be taken as a joke. He said multiple times that Adventure is just as bad as them), and on top of that, Dan's been just blindly following along. 

And no, don't tell me ''Oh, that didn't know Adventure was released in 1998''. A fucking Wikipedia search takes one minute to do. Considering what Arin's done so far, including going with a more glitchy version of the game on purpose, and then very seriously claiming everything is the game's fault, despite knowing the game's glitches have already been fixed in another version, it's getting progressively more harder to believe he's not trying his hardest to make the game look like total shit.

The best thing is I'm almost sure that if Jon was still in GGs, there is no way that Arin would have gotten away with this shit. Jon's defended games from Arin's stupid bullshit before, and argued with him that he's overreacting with some games. This time, without Jon, Arin is taking every fucking chance to make this game look downright broken, exactly like he did back in the 06 Let's Play, and without Jon being there, Dan's just blindly following along with whatever stupid thing Arin's saying about the game.

[Penny]

I don't care if Egoraptor is trying to be funny and is overreacting on purpose. Trying to claim that ''it's just a persona I use to overreact to games'' isn't an excuse. He knowingly picked the more glitchy version of the game, he took every single chance to slam the fucking game and claim it's as bad if not worse than 06 and Rise of Lyric (Don't even fucking tell me that it's meant to be taken as a joke. He said multiple times that Adventure is just as bad as them), and on top of that, Dan's been just blindly following along. 

And no, don't tell me ''Oh, that didn't know Adventure was released in 1998''. A fucking Wikipedia search takes one minute to do. Considering what Arin's done so far, including going with a more glitchy version of the game on purpose, and then very seriously claiming everything is the game's fault, despite knowing the game's glitches have already been fixed in another version, it's getting progressively more harder to believe he's not trying his hardest to make the game look like total shit.

The best thing is I'm almost sure that if Jon was still in GGs, there is no way that Arin would have gotten away with this shit. Jon's defended games from Arin's stupid bullshit before, and argued with him that he's overreacting with some games. This time, without Jon, Arin is taking every fucking chance to make this game look downright broken, exactly like he did back in the 06 Let's Play, and without Jon being there, Dan's just blindly following along with whatever stupid thing Arin's saying about the game.

Maybe at the beginning, but not really through the whole thing. 

[Failinhearts]

I don't watch Game Grumps but this is just shameful. He's pretty much intentionally giving this game crap and giving us a bad name when he can just get a better copy. It feels kinda surreal, like some movie villain. You know what I mean by villain, right? That guy who acts like the good guy, intentionally finding ways to bring the protagonists down and make them look like the bad guys? Like that one Doctor Who episode I just saw where the Master frames The Doctor and sends him on the run. Arin's that kinda guy.

[ThePrinceOfSaiyans]

Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaalled it. In all seriousness though, I have to admit, I've been enjoying the Game Grumps playthrough of Sonic Adventure. Dan is there to offset Arin's criticisms, and their reactions are absolutely hilarious. 

[Penny]

Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaalled it. In all seriousness though, I have to admit, I've been enjoying the Game Grumps playthrough of Sonic Adventure. Dan is there to offset Arin's criticisms, and their reactions are absolutely hilarious. 

This is essentially me. I won't let Arin's annoying hateboner for Sonic ruin my opinion on Game Grumps or Arin himself.