Regarding the Dreamcast & Gamecube versions of SA1 and SA2...

[Leon K Fox]

Okay, something I don't get at all is the fact that people go on about how much better the Dreamcast versions of the two Sonic Adventure games are, I know it's a matter of opinion but alot of people make the Gamecube ones out to be terrible ports/remakes that have an abundance of problems.

Seriously, I played the Dreamcast versions of both to death round a friends' before getting my Gamecube and then both of the Sonic Adventure games and I swear to god besides the graphics being a bit different on the Gamecube versions and better in my opinion there was no friggin' difference between them whatsoever.

Well, besides them having added content which made them better than the Dreamcast versions, especially SA2B from SA2.

Could someone please explain the hype behind the Dreamcast versions of these two games? Because I don't understand it at all and I'm actually quite curious as to just what people are getting at with this as it seems absurd to me.

So yeah, lookin' forward to some of your input here.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Leon K Fox

[FeathersMcGraw]

I'd agree with you to a point in regards to SA2:B being pretty simliar, if not better than the orignal (other than the retarded sticky jump glitch, and the removal of Big ) but SA itself is a far more complicated matter.

Bear in mind that SA came out in 1999, where as SA:DX came out in 2003, being touted as a "Delux Director's Cut" and you can start to see why people were a little underwhelmed. The title implied the game would feature cut content and concepts from the original (there was a lot of hype for it on this board at the time, people speculating if the long lost levels from the initial SA promo screens would return), where as it eventually turned out the game was the same as the original with some (pretty rubbish) missions added and some GameGear games, the graphics were also improved , the characters were given diferent models with a higher polygon count, but they decided to change the style of them (most obvious with Sonic and Knuckles) to bring them more in-line with their promotional renders and their appearance in later games, this is obviously a personal taste thing but one that could cause people to hold one in higher regard nonentheless.

So yeah, tl;dr: SA:DX was vastly underwhelming considering what it could've been and was implied as being, it was also pretty dated by the time of it's re-release.

There's also the obvious sentiment and nostalgia factor with the Dreamcast as well, I just find playing the Dreamcast vesion to be a lot most pleasant for that reason alone because I have fond memories of sitting with my Dreamcast when I first bought it and being totally gobsmacked at it all (Considering the large gap between the classics and SA filled with nothing but spinoffs, this was pretty special, playing a proper Sonic game again), it's kind of like how playing a game on a PC emulator is kind of hollow compared to playing it on the original hardware.

You just had to be there at the turn of the millenium, I guess.

Edited August 1, 2009 by FeathersMcGraw

[Leon K Fox]

Okay, I will give you that SADX was a 1998/1999 Dreamcast game just with better visuals and I can understand the lower review scores to some extent, but not the "omg the gamecube version is so terrible!" as if it were a flawed broken port when as I said in the first post it's the same game save for the visuals and extra content.

[The Adventurer]

Well, nostalgia is certainly a factor. For me personally, I have nostalgia working in the other direction, towards the Gamecube remakes. My first console was an N64, my second one was a gamecube, one day I saw Sonic Adventure 2 Battle advertsised on the television...and the rest is history.

[Dreadknux]

Basically, Sonic Adventure DX had game-breaking framerate problems.

You'll have noticed that the Gamecube version of SADX jutters. A lot. This does not happen in the Dreamcast original, because it maintains a steady 30 frames per second. SADX tries to do 60fps, like SA2 before it, but somehow the port couldn't do this consistently. Run from Tails' house towards the railcart to Mystic Ruins' forest. Isn't smooth, is it?

Everything else about the port is academic. Even though it says "Director's Cut", I'm pretty sure the lack of features wouldn't have really made a difference. If it was enjoyable to play in 1999 it'd be so in 2003. I'd have been perfectly happy with a 60fps SA1 with no extras whatsoever. But ultimately, the framerate kills any accuracy, enjoyment and immersion you had with the game and just gives you a headache.

That's why SADX is poor. Because technically, its framerate is broken.

[Sean]

DC version had better character models and no ugly gloss to it ('cept for Sky Chase). And better framerate!

Oh yeah, and SA2B removed most of Big, so it automatically sucks!

Edited August 1, 2009 by Jake

[Blue Blood]

I got a Dreamcast yesterday with a copy of SA1. It's great. What do I notice that's different? Collision. You may be surprised to hear that Sonic Adventure on the DC actually HAS collision detection. That's something that can hardly be said for the Gamecube/PC game where you clip through a great deal of corners.

[Leon K Fox]

Oh yeah, and SA2B removed most of Big, so it automatically sucks!

I do hope that was sarcasm, since they were only minor cameos from a pretty poor character to begin with and shouldn't even be a minor complaint with the game, let alone a major one.

[Blue Blood]

I do hope that was sarcasm, since they were only minor cameos from a pretty poor character to begin with and shouldn't even be a minor complaint with the game, let alone a major one.

Big the Cat held Chronicles together. If he was absent, then the game would have flopped so massively that the DS got killed. His role in SA2 ensured that SEGA didn't go under shortly after.

Frankly, I was miffed that SA2:B was pretty much Bigless, but it's not a major issue.

[Leon K Fox]

Big the Cat held Chronicles together. If he was absent, then the game would have flopped so massively that the DS got killed. His role in SA2 ensured that SEGA didn't go under shortly after.

Ummm...when did Sonic Chronicles come into this?

Sorry to come off as a smartass but I fail to see how that was relevant to his meaningless cameos in SA2B.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Leon K Fox

[Blue Blood]

Ummm...when did Sonic Chronicles come into this?

I was using sarcasm to prove a point. Big had about as much purpose in Chronicles as he did in Adventure 2. Regardless, he's still brilliantly awesome.

The chao gardens were changed between games. The Dreamcast games had big gardens, though they were shrunk in SA2:B and re-designed in SADX.

[Sean]

Big was the most important character in SA2 and his removal caused many plotholes. Just play the game and see for yourself!

Big was the evil mastermind behind the game's plot

Edited August 1, 2009 by Jake

[CreamyBagel]

I was using sarcasm to prove a point. Big had about as much purpose in Chronicles as he did in Adventure 2. Regardless, he's still brilliantly awesome.

The chao gardens were changed between games. The Dreamcast games had big gardens, though they were shrunk in SA2:B and re-designed in SADX.

I prefer the Dreamcast chao gardens to the gamecube versions, there was more ground to cover. Some of the glitches were also removed in SA:DX, not sure about SA2B though.

SA2B also got the chao walker.

[redmenace]

I do hope that was sarcasm, since they were only minor cameos from a pretty poor character to begin with and shouldn't even be a minor complaint with the game, let alone a major one.

No one is joking. It was a "puzzle" thing you could do. Finding Big in every level was like a self set goal that most of us had. Like finish Lava Reef without a fire shield, do Green Hill under a minute, etc etc. At the very least, you were pleasently surprised when you saw him.

SA and SA2 in their DC versions is superior to their GC versions, for all the reasons people posted already. Sure it was interesting some of the extra content, but they're not worth what was lost.

Edited August 1, 2009 by redmenace

[Sean]

Question: was Big in Green Hill? Remember reading somewhere that he was like, inside one of the structures somehow, but I never found him...

One of my favorite Big locations was seeing Big in Lost Colony (or one of Eggman's stages), his back turned as he fished off one of the girders as you rode up on an elevator lift.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Jake

[Tornado]

Some of the glitches were also removed in SA:DX,

Example?

I find Adventure 2B superior in every way (as I have never noticed the sticky jump glitch, or noticed it but thought it was something else), but Adventure DX is a mess rerelease of a game that wasn't particularly well glued together in the first place. The "better" graphics fail (subjectively of course), the framerate "improvement" fails and the bug detection, 4 years after the International edition, fails.

Regarding Adventure 2, was it Battle that had the ugly looking real time shadows or the original? I don't remember and I don't want to bother hooking up my Gamecube to check.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Tornado

[Gabz Girl]

I've never played SA2 (nor SA1) on Dreamcast but I always felt the Gamecube version was superior. Smaller Chao gardens and no Big locations is a shame of course. But come on! Do people REALLY need a humongous Chao garden? I only ever keep 4 or 5 Chao. XD

Besides, Big does appear in SA2B, but only in three cutscenes if you press the A button or something.

I don't know what to say about SADX though. That never was my favourite Adventure game anyway. It just feels and looks so dated, even on the Gamecube!

[Rusty Spy]

Basically, Sonic Adventure DX had game-breaking framerate problems.

You'll have noticed that the Gamecube version of SADX jutters. A lot. This does not happen in the Dreamcast original, because it maintains a steady 30 frames per second. SADX tries to do 60fps, like SA2 before it, but somehow the port couldn't do this consistently. Run from Tails' house towards the railcart to Mystic Ruins' forest. Isn't smooth, is it?

But ultimately, the framerate kills any accuracy, enjoyment and immersion you had with the game and just gives you a headache.

That's why SADX is poor. Because technically, its framerate is broken.

I don't know about you, but that seems like a major over exaggeration. I never had any sort of framerate problem, at least not to the point of being broken or any sort of hassle, as you say.

[PSI Wind]

I've never noticed framerate issues in SA1:DX. I don't understand o_0.

[JezMM]

Yeah, I never noticed any frame rate problems in SADX either. "Broken" and "unplayable" are a total exaggeration.

[Leon K Fox]

I don't know about you, but that seems like a major over exaggeration. I never had any sort of framerate problem, at least not to the point of being broken or any sort of hassle, as you say.

Same, I played the game from start to finish and never had any issues with the frame rate at all

I might play the Dreamcast version sometime of SA1 just to see if there really is a difference in that regard, but I will say I honestly don't think there is from what I remember playing of both.

No one is joking. It was a "puzzle" thing you could do. Finding Big in every level was like a self set goal that most of us had. Like finish Lava Reef without a fire shield, do Green Hill under a minute, etc etc. At the very least, you were pleasently surprised when you saw him.

SA and SA2 in their DC versions is superior to their GC versions, for all the reasons people posted already. Sure it was interesting some of the extra content, but they're not worth what was lost. /quote]

So Big was a huge loss to the game then? (that's how that reads to me )

And I fail to see how either game lost anything, I honestly think it's nothing but nostalgia causing very cloudy judgement myself, I'm sorry if I sound harsh but that's the way I see it. :/

Edited August 2, 2009 by Leon K Fox

[EuroMIX]

SA2B just made a great game better. I almost see it as a game patch which allowed Sonic Team to tweak some of the original features of the first and fix some minor issues (example being the City Escape Chao mission where the enemies on the side of the building were destructible and thus messing up would require a restart, SA2B made these enemies the invincible spring versions fixing such a problem). The Chao garden was also much better now allowing you to view individual stats as they increase, a huge thing for a Chao lover such as myself.

The multiplayer mode receives the biggest upgrade and features a greatly expanded selection of battle types, levels and characters. The Dreamcast version struggled heavily in this area featuring some horrible slowdown in places and being very small, almost as an afterthought. The much better multiplayer mode really helps put the 'battle' in Sonic Adventure 2: Battle.

The reverse could be true for Sonic Adventure and DX. DX definitely isn't all it promises to be and the frame rate is certainly slightly shaky in places. To be fair though, it isn't that bad, it's certainly still playable and fun. You pick it up for pennies these days for the PC and I bet the GC version isn't too pricey so long as you shop around. The better character models are certainly appreciated and more in line with the game art and Adventure 2 versions makeing the two games flow into each other better (rather than Sonic growing a few inches between games).

I guess the original SA wins out on consistency and nostalgia but DX is certainly appreciated due to being available for more systems and of greater convenience if you're a Wii or PC owner.

[Crystal Kingfisher]

I like both the DC and GC versions of SA1 and 2, but the DC version of SA1 is better because the framerate is smoother, and the graphics look more dark so it gives you that "dark feeling", on the GC version the graphics were too colorful and shiny, making it look more like Sonic Heroes.

[SuperStingray]

Basically, Sonic Adventure DX had game-breaking framerate problems.

You'll have noticed that the Gamecube version of SADX jutters. A lot. This does not happen in the Dreamcast original, because it maintains a steady 30 frames per second. SADX tries to do 60fps, like SA2 before it, but somehow the port couldn't do this consistently. Run from Tails' house towards the railcart to Mystic Ruins' forest. Isn't smooth, is it?

Everything else about the port is academic. Even though it says "Director's Cut", I'm pretty sure the lack of features wouldn't have really made a difference. If it was enjoyable to play in 1999 it'd be so in 2003. I'd have been perfectly happy with a 60fps SA1 with no extras whatsoever. But ultimately, the framerate kills any accuracy, enjoyment and immersion you had with the game and just gives you a headache.

That's why SADX is poor. Because technically, its framerate is broken.

I had absolutely no framerate issues whatsoever.

[HeroMystic]

SA > SADX

SA2:B > SA2

The problem with SADX wasn't with the silly framerate (despite it being a problem though), it was the fact that SADX was nothing more than a port, despite the fact there could've been so much more on a game from 1999. SA2:B did -much- more on a good game, and as said before fixed glitches.

There wasn't really a reason to remove Big from SA2:B though, but that's a very minor setback. Hardly anything I'd call game-breaking.