*(Sonic Adventure 2 - Exaggerations Meet Their Maker)*

[Chris Knopps]

Even the most die hard fans admit the title had both good and bad in it, however in recent years since the titles re-release on digital shops, those against the title have used and abused the most common arguments against the game and originality has all but vanished in anything people against the game have to say, instead imitating the most popular negative quotations and rubbing it in peoples faces until the skins gone.

However, originality does still exist at the bottom of the barrel nonetheless, and this time around one fan brings up the most popular exaggerations about the game and puts them to rest, returning these negative thoughts back to the realm where they belong, in easy to stomach, and even agreeable bad points about the game and nothing worth calling the game terrible whatsoever. Not the best perhaps, unlikable maybe, but not outright bad and/or the worst.

"Sometimes it's worth taking the bad with the good for the sake of enjoying a game that's worth enjoying, and Sonic Adventure 2 is a game worth enjoying."

"Yes, the game has aged and there are definitely better 2D and 3D Sonic games out there."

"Is Sonic Adventure 2 really as bad as all the big reviewers are making it out to be? Most of their arguments are taken for granted, personal preferences of what THEY think Sonic should be, rather than honest, truthful evaluations of the game on its own objective merits."

"Those of us who still like Adventure 2 would appreciate it if you'd cease shoving your opinions of big reviewers down our throats and calling us nostalgic ### for liking something you don't like."

"SA2 may be a flawed game, but it's still mostly a good one. And there's a lot to like about it if you're willing to give it a fair chance."

 

[Tracker_TD]

22 minutes ago, Chris Knopps said:

returning these negative thoughts back to the realm where they belong

My thoughts on SA2 being a load of wank belong wherever the hell I say they do.

[Chris Knopps]

Just now, Tracker said:

My thoughts on SA2 being a load of wank belong wherever the hell I say they do.

"in easy to stomach, and even agreeable bad points about the game"

Focus on everything, not just what strikes your nerve, that aside, why not give the video a watch and share your thoughts? Bring more discussion than that to the table.

[FriendBot]

Adventure 2 is definitely one of the more well-known Sonic games, it's either that, Sonic 2 or Generations that non-Sonic fans remember atleast. While I still do enjoy Adventure 2, I can't entirely say it was a great game. It was a fun ride but not the greatest Sonic game I've played (Unleashed and 3&K are still up there).

Also I think why people nowadays give the Adventures so much crap is because a lot of the fans always say how great the Adventure games were so those who haven't really played it are probably curious if what they say is true (let's live in a world where Sonic fans aren't constantly ridiculed, k. :P). And that's where stuff like the Game Grumps playing through Adventure 1 or ProJared reviewing Adventure 2 comes from, to sort of "break" the nostalgia glasses and see how poorly aged the Adventures were.

And to be fair, they've haven't aged all that well. Adventure 1 probably aged the worst since all of it's re-releases were all poorly made, some to Sonic Genesis levels of bad. And it's a game to show off what Sonic Team are capable of doing with Sonic on the Dreamcast at the time so obviously, its praise is going to be pretty short-sighted. Its concept is perfectly redeemable and I would love to see a complete remake with modern visuals and a better focus.

Adventure 2 didn't aged that great either but it took most of the backlash because it was the more popular game out of the 2. So I guess both Adventures aged about the same. The story is pretty nice but I find myself nowadays, not really digging as much but I do enjoy it. It had some of the iconic cutscenes in the series' history and the pacing is pretty fast and always keeps things going. But I feel this fast pace has become a detriment to the story itself, it wasn't able to spend that much time going indepth with the characters, any of that time was about Shadow and even then, there was still plenty of questions about his creation (which Shadow's game did an absolute terrible job at doing). But I'm going to guess that Adventure 2 gets shat on because of what it did for the series' direction, specifically Shadow and 06. No longer, was Sonic the Hedgehog about a cartoony blue hedgehog doing over-the-top action sequences fighting an egg-shaped scientist. No, back then, Sonic was about government conspiracies, shooting massacres and very dramatic and super serious stories. Talk about jumping the shark. 

Adventure 2 for what it is now, can be considered as average, I guess? (But then, average = bad nowadays so whatever :/) The Speed Stages can still be fun but stuff like the Mech-Shooting and Treasure Hunting becoming a lot more tedious didn't win people over in the later years. 

I literally have no idea what I'm saying right now.

[Chris Knopps]

5 minutes ago, Soni said:

Adventure 2 is definitely one of the more well-known Sonic games, it's either that, Sonic 2 or Generations that non-Sonic fans remember atleast.

Also I think why people nowadays give the Adventures so much crap is because a lot of the fans always say how great the Adventure games were so those who haven't really played it are probably curious if what they say is true (let's live in a world where Sonic fans aren't constantly ridiculed, k. :P). And that's where stuff like the Game Grumps playing through Adventure 1 or ProJared reviewing Adventure 2 comes from, to sort of "break" the nostalgia glasses and see how poorly aged the Adventures were.

Adventure 2 didn't aged that great either but it took most of the backlash because it was the more popular game out of the 2. So I guess both Adventures aged about the same.

Adventure 2 for what it is now, can be considered as average, I guess? (But then, average = bad nowadays so whatever :/)

It seems like in general, the greatest Sonic games of their time wind up the most common points for ridicule later on. The best have become the most important thing to smash down because everything else is already seemingly crushed in general so people are reversing the process and are doing their best to turn the diamonds in the rough into coal as well.

Reason being beyond me...

But the highlight of the series throughout the timeline are the constant target, and why people want to destroy the FEW high points of the franchise to where they too are just as terrible as the rest, I just don't understand.

Genesis games are getting it, Adventure, primarily 2, heck even Generations is getting it here and there now. Seems like the ONLY game still on the high horse praise train is Colors and that's where it begins and ends currently.

[RaceProUK]

5 minutes ago, Chris Knopps said:

Seems like the ONLY game still on the high horse praise train is Colors and that's where it begins and ends currently.

Believe me, Colors gets a lot of hate too, though that's mostly from the 'bad story ≡ bad game' crowd.

[Chris Knopps]

8 minutes ago, RaceProUK said:

Believe me, Colors gets a lot of hate too, though that's mostly from the 'bad story ≡ bad game' crowd.

I've yet to really see any Colors/Colours bashing so that's news to me.

That being the case, there you go. Turning the diamonds into coal.

Story was always one of the weakest arguments to me regarding a games worth/quality in general when it comes to Sonic at least. Granted even I'd argue they need to do something about story the way its been between Colors/Colours-Now, but it doesn't make the whole games bad.

[Diogenes]

37 minutes ago, Chris Knopps said:

It seems like in general, the greatest Sonic games of their time wind up the most common points for ridicule later on.

Like what? No one's ridiculing S3&K. No one rags on Unleashed or Generations for anything other than the same problems that were pointed out when they were new.

[Chris Knopps]

Just now, Diogenes said:

Like what? No one's ridiculing S3&K. No one rags on Unleashed or Generations for anything other than the same problems that were pointed out when they were new.

Yes, the issue is said things have found themselves emphasized and blown way too far out of proportion throughout the years. The more time that passes, the more people emphasize the already tired issues with every title the older it gets. There is never any originality in what people have to say negatively about titles, therein lying another issue. It's a hive mind problem.

1 Person Says Something = I Must Repeat This Same Quote Overbearingly

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Even with "good games" it has its flaws so it is not without critisim. Same goes for Sonic Adventure 2. I do say it did alot of things right however I still hate Sonic Adventure 2 to where I call it Sonic Shitventure 2. ><

[Diogenes]

1 minute ago, Chris Knopps said:

Yes, the issue is said things have found themselves emphasized and blown way too far out of proportion throughout the years. The more time that passes, the more people emphasize the already tired issues with every title the older it gets. There is never any originality in what people have to say negatively about titles, therein lying another issue. It's a hive mind problem.

1 Person Says Something = I Must Repeat This Same Quote Overbearingly

Or...a game is a static thing, so of course the complaints are going to be the same?

If people were inventing new, inaccurate reasons to dislike those games, that would be unfairly ridiculing them. Continuing to acknowledge their problems is just...being honest.

[Chris Knopps]

Just now, Mikyeong said:

Even with "good games" it has its flaws so it is not without critisim. Same goes for Sonic Adventure 2. I do say it did alot of things right however I still hate Sonic Adventure 2 to where I call it Sonic Shitventure 2. ><

Eh, that's fine. The main issue is when there is no good, but rather only bad in ones mind, and often it's a case of ignorance more-so than constructive criticism and fair judgement. Just as the guy in the video says, an opinion is fine, but no opinion is ever absolute and shouldn't be forced upon others as being such, which is primarily the problem fans of titles between 91-08 now face.

[Ratcicle King]

1 minute ago, Chris Knopps said:

Eh, that's fine. The main issue is when there is no good, but rather only bad in ones mind, and often it's a case of ignorance more-so than constructive criticism and fair judgement. Just as the guy in the video says, an opinion is fine, but no opinion is ever absolute and shouldn't be forced upon others as being such, which is primarily the problem fans of titles between 91-08 now face.

But what if I share the same opinion as a reviewer, but can't find a better way to say it than he did, so I make his words my own because I like the way he put it?

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

1 minute ago, Diogenes said:

Or...a game is a static thing, so of course the complaints are going to be the same?

If people were inventing new, inaccurate reasons to dislike those games, that would be unfairly ridiculing them. Continuing to acknowledge their problems is just...being honest.

Yeah, its not like they are saying "I hate Sonic Adventure 2 because they used yellow for the logo, wtf is up with that shit???". But they are mostly critising it for the real problems, even the people who are die hard fans. You can love something and still crituqe it. Like me and Sonic 4. Love that game but it is a fucked up game in many ways.

[Chris Knopps]

1 minute ago, Ratcicle King said:

But what if I share the same opinion as a reviewer, but can't find a better way to say it than he did, so I make his words my own because I like the way he put it?

I'd still say TRY to be original in the long run. A similar opinion is all well and good, but the issue is nobody ever bothers to share a similar opinion in their own way, it's always the same exact quote from another. While you may try to be original in how you word a similar complaint, few people care to.

And I can agree with that statement as well Mikyeong. But the thing is there usually isn't an "I love the game despite its flaws" kind of statement thrown in, it's just pure resentment for the sake of being like the other guy/girl.

[CottonCandy]

To be honest Sonic Adventure is a pretty flawed one. Some people don't mind those flaws but to other people it can ruin their experience playing the game. Every recent review I've seen of Sonic Adventure 2 were being completely honest, whether they enjoyed the game or not.  :/ 

 

 

 

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

I didn't watch the video...maybe I will someday, but there are so many video reviews in the world that I want to watch that I might not get around to it.

I do think that both Adventures are treated worse than they deserve these days, but I can't get too worked up about it. It almost seems like "compensation" for the fact that they used to be praised beyond what they deserved, lol. I personally enjoy both games, but they both have large flaws, so I can't be too bothered by the fact that, for some people, the flaws eclipse the positive qualities.

I have to say, I find a lot to disagree with in this statement:

1 hour ago, Chris Knopps said:

"Is Sonic Adventure 2 really as bad as all the big reviewers are making it out to be? Most of their arguments are taken for granted, personal preferences of what THEY think Sonic should be, rather than honest, truthful evaluations of the game on its own objective merits."

There are definitely flaws with SA2 that don't have to do with being untrue to what a Sonic game should be. For example, platforming combined with a very poor jump (SA2's mech stages) would be likely to be annoying to a lot of people even if it wasn't in a Sonic game. Also, even my sister, who actually loves the treasure hunting stages, admits that they took many replays to actually become that fun to her. It's easy to see why having to rely on often-unhelpful hints, linearity forced by the radar, a weak radar, and other issues could make the stages quite frustrating at times, even if it wasn't a Sonic game at all. I guess I could frame it this way: if there existed a game that was JUST treasure hunting stages with the very same gameplay as SA2 but with no connection to Sonic, would everyone basically be satisfied with how they played? I doubt it, personally. Now, all these problems are exacerbated by the fact that many people think the stages shouldn't be in a Sonic game in the first place, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't exist if it wasn't a Sonic game. (Also, I really don't think the mech shooting and treasure hunting are complete garbage with no redeeming value, but they both have flaws big enough that I generally want to avoid them and not have to play through them. I do get some genuine fun out of them, honestly, but I also have to endure a lot of junk I would rather not.)

Of course, wherever opinions are involved, there's going to be disagreements. Some people simply value different things, and get more or less enjoyment out of something compared to others. Even if there may be exceptions, most people probably aren't trying to maliciously malign Sonic's reputation. They just think that Sonic Adventure 2 legitimately isn't that good, and they have legitimate reasons for doing so. Don't assume the worst, that it's a "hive mind" or that people are just trying to undermine something you like because they have an anti-Sonic agenda. Sure, there are some bad apples, but many people simply don't like the game. Just because they use the same words as others doesn't mean that they didn't arrive to that opinion on their own. Sometimes, a person has difficulty understanding and articulating what exactly they disliked about an experience, and a reviewer helps them realize what exactly the issue was.

Also, others aren't forcing their opinion that the game is bad on you any more than you're forcing the opinion that the game is good on anyone else. They're just stating what they believe to be true about the game's quality, like you are. Don't assume that bias is responsible. Heck, I had a big problem with the alternate game play styles of both Adventures from early on, back when the games were generally smiled upon.

[Chris Knopps]

Just now, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

Also, others aren't forcing their opinion that the game is bad on you any more than you're forcing the opinion that the game is good on anyone else. They're just stating what they believe to be true about the game's quality, like you are. Don't assume that bias is responsible. Heck, I had a big problem with the alternate game play styles of both Adventures from early on, back when the games were generally smiled upon.

Your quote was not from me, the reviewer stated that in the video.

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

I know that. Most of my post was actually based on things you said - only the paragraph right below the quote is based primarily on the quote. I suppose I could've made that clearer and actually quoted you more often, but I guess I just didn't feel like putting in too many quotes, which may or may not have been a good decision.

[Chris Knopps]

Just now, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

I know that. Most of my post was actually based on things you said - only the paragraph right below the quote is based primarily on the quote. I suppose I could've made that clearer and actually quoted you more often, but I guess I just didn't feel like putting in too many quotes, which may or may not have been a good decision.

Dad gum, ain't never seen quote said so many times in one post...

But thanks for the clarification.

[ThePrinceOfSaiyans]

"Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the people who hate the speed stages for being too linear are the same people who hate the treasure hunting stages for not being linear?"

Ok, who actually says this? The treasure hunting stages are bad because they are too expansive in some cases, not because they aren't linear.

[Wraith]

4 hours ago, Chris Knopps said:

Even the most die hard fans admit the title had both good and bad in it, however in recent years since the titles re-release on digital shops, those against the title have used and abused the most common arguments against the game and originality has all but vanished in anything people against the game have to say, instead imitating the most popular negative quotations and rubbing it in peoples faces until the skins gone.

However, originality does still exist at the bottom of the barrel nonetheless, and this time around one fan brings up the most popular exaggerations about the game and puts them to rest, returning these negative thoughts back to the realm where they belong, in easy to stomach, and even agreeable bad points about the game and nothing worth calling the game terrible whatsoever. Not the best perhaps, unlikable maybe, but not outright bad and/or the worst.

"Sometimes it's worth taking the bad with the good for the sake of enjoying a game that's worth enjoying, and Sonic Adventure 2 is a game worth enjoying."

"Yes, the game has aged and there are definitely better 2D and 3D Sonic games out there."

"Is Sonic Adventure 2 really as bad as all the big reviewers are making it out to be? Most of their arguments are taken for granted, personal preferences of what THEY think Sonic should be, rather than honest, truthful evaluations of the game on its own objective merits."

"Those of us who still like Adventure 2 would appreciate it if you'd cease shoving your opinions of big reviewers down our throats and calling us nostalgic ### for liking something you don't like."

"SA2 may be a flawed game, but it's still mostly a good one. And there's a lot to like about it if you're willing to give it a fair chance."

This video was kind of hard to watch. 

It had the tendency to group people who don't like Sonic Adventure 2 together to make it look like their views clash for the sake of trying to make what they had to say invalid. For a video constantly slamming people for "nitpicks" at Sonic Adventure 2, it sure did find minor things to dig at for Sonic Adventure 1 repeatedly. It tries to hammer home subjective statements as objective ones a lot. It seems to act like Sonic Adventure 2 is some poor victim that's suffered unwarranted criticism, instead of actually considering why those criticisms are present. It seems more focused on defending Sonic Adventure 2 and invalidating those who don't like it than actually reviewing SA2.

This quote in particular stuck out to me.

Quote

"Is Sonic Adventure 2 really as bad as all the big reviewers are making it out to be? Most of their arguments are taken for granted, personal preferences of what THEY think Sonic should be, rather than honest, truthful evaluations of the game on its own objective merits."

What does this even mean? Everyone has their own opinion on what makes a good game. The reviewer himself even has a framework for what he thinks makes a good Sonic game that he refers to repeatedly throughout the video. I have no idea what point he's trying to make here. 

 

[Chris Knopps]

7 minutes ago, Wraith said:

What does this even mean? Everyone has their own opinion on what makes a good game. The reviewer himself even has a framework for what he thinks makes a good Sonic game that he refers to repeatedly throughout the video. I have no idea what point he's trying to make here. 

 

It's a complaint about the "hive mind" gamers have taken on and live solely based on reviewers opinions regarding Sonic nowadays.

[PandoloFox]

11 minutes ago, Wraith said:

 

What does this even mean? Everyone has their own opinion on what makes a good game. The reviewer himself even has a framework for what he thinks makes a good Sonic game that he refers to repeatedly throughout the video. I have no idea what point he's trying to make here. 

 

Not defending it, but what I interpret from it is that he thinks reviewers dont review the game as a game. But rather reviews it based on their values on how "sonic games" work.

Basicaly he is saying that it shouldnt be reviewed as a sonic game, but rather as any other game.

[Wraith]

3 minutes ago, PandoloFox said:

Not defending it, but what I interpret from it is that he thinks reviewers dont review the game as a game. But rather reviews it based on their values on how "sonic games" work.

Basicaly he is saying that it shouldnt be reviewed as a sonic game, but rather as any other game.

If you're reviewing something in an ongoing series, some comparison to what came before needs to be provided. Odds are your audience played and liked the previous thing so you need to tell them what's different, for the better and for the worse. Judging it and comparing it to past games in the series shouldn't be a bad thing.