Does the Adventure series still stack up?

[Kuzu]

While I personally feel they're overratted, the games don't have most of the problems the series had before Unleashed/Colors, but even then I hear all the time "Unleashed/Colors is good, but not as good as Sa1/Sa2" so I wonder what do you guys think, does this series still stack up as it did back in the day?

[ArtFenix]

The adventure series is the best thing that happened to Sonic in 3D. Both games are still the best 3D Sonic games out there. Period.

Edited February 12, 2011 by ArtFenix

[batson]

Personally, i will probably never get tired of SA1. For nostalgic reasons, i love that game with all my nerdy heart.

Trying to be a bit more objective though... i still feel that it's a very good game. Sonic's and Tails levels are among the most thrilling 3D platform stages ever created IMO, and the only character whose levels truly suck are Big's. I also think it still has the best story ever told in a Sonic game, even if the English dialogue and voice acting kinda stink.

SA2 is more of a mixed bag for me due to how almost two thirds of the games levels are rather boring (you know, the treasure-hunting and shooting levels. And i say almost two thirds because i think that at least a few of the shooting levels are fun). But Sonic's and Shadow's levels are fun as hell.

I think what it all boils down to is; SA = a game with flaws but a great game nonetheless, SA2 = a fun game but with flaws that are to vast to forgive.

Oh yeah, and both those games (especially the first) have some of the best soundtracks in video game history.

Edited February 12, 2011 by batson

[Kuzu]

The adventure series is the best thing that happened to Sonic in 3D. Both games are still the best 3D Sonic games out there. Period.

Is that why they got slammed when they came of the XBLA?

[the blu blur]

Both games are still quite fun to play, and have done well in contributing to Sonic in the 3D world. They even contain elements that are, arguably, still superior to the current gaming formula present in Sonic Colors.

Is that why they got slammed when they came of the XBLA?

Some of the reasons don't even make sense, honestly(I recalled a complaint about side-scrolling sections that aren't even in SA1!) I honestly think some of the heat those two games get is a little too harsh, as they were great for their time, and many of the flaws those games have won't be repeated now because Sonic Team have learned so much since then in terms of camera, and a more solid gaming engine.

Edited February 12, 2011 by the blu blur

[ArtFenix]

Is that why they got slammed when they came of the XBLA?

I don't remember Sa2 being ported to xbla.

Haters gonna hate.

Besides, they ported a game which is already more than a 10 years old [Yeah, it is soo wise to criticise a game now when it came out more than 10 years ago xD] and didn't add anything new. It's a bad port of a not so good remake of an awesome game.

Edited February 12, 2011 by ArtFenix

[Mega]

The adventure series is the best thing that happened to Sonic in 3D. Both games are still the best 3D Sonic games out there. Period.

That might just be the nostalgia goggles talking. Mind you, I loved the first Adventure game, and SA2 is fun at times, but I wouldn't call them masterpieces. The treasure hunting gameplay in SA2 is clunky and tedious, not to mention that the five minute mission with Rouge annoys me to this day. Shooting stages are somewhat enjoyable, but they're also very clunky. Chao garden's fun, though.

The thing about the Adventure games is that they were cool at the time, but now they're very dated. Not only that, but the Adventure series is the cause of so many problems that have plagued the series for years, like overly serious stories, camera issues, lack of platforming after SA1, extraneous characters, and I could go on.

Say what you will about the story of Colors, but I think the gameplay was a much better step in the right direction, even with some of the Adventure problems still present. Just my opinion, tho'.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Mega

[ArtFenix]

the Adventure series is the cause of so many problems that have plagued the series for years, like overly serious stories, camera issues, lack of platforming after SA1, extraneous characters, and I could go on.

Most of those is your own subjective opinion. The camera wasn't that bad and it isn't perfect in any other Sonic game. There weren't overly serious stories in the adventures, even in Sa2 it was executed right. I loved both stories. The so-called large cast is not a problem either: i like almost every character. Your point?

That might just be the nostalgia goggles talking.

Partly. But they are great games nevertheless. I just didn't like Big's gameplay in Sa and too hard and boring for me treasure hunting in Sa2, but other than that, i loved every minute of the games.

[JezMM]

Both have aged badly (but especially the first) and wouldn't fly at all by current gen standards (SA:DX's XBLA reviews prove this).

I still love Sonic Adventure 2 myself though, and consider it the best of the previous-gen games. But they both had good ideas, and have a lot great going for them. It's just the bad stuff is REALLY distracting. You need the rose-tinted glasses of being there at the time to be able to enjoy them.

The stage design is good. Sonic Adventure's occasionally have awkward pacing but interesting design, whereas Sonic Adventure 2 focused almost a little too much on flow which lead to slightly more repetetive set-pieces.

[batson]

Is that why they got slammed when they came of the XBLA?

Speaking of which, the gaming worlds complete change of heart regarding SA1 has got to be the most severe such change in video game history. It went from "Yay! A great, super-fun new Sonic game!" to "BOOOO! A game stuck somewhere between bland and bad. This is where Sonic started to suck!". And in only a few years at that. I remember how already when it came out on the Gamecube in, what, 2002? And critics who loved it a few short years earlier now slammed it. The only significant Sonic-related thing that happened in between was Sonic Adventure 2, so i guess that game must have really destroyed the series in the eyes of many. ...But then again, the original Dreamcast release of that game fared relatively well with the press, so i guess it was SA2:Battle that truly made the "Sonic sucks nowadays"-mindset mainstream. Which is of course ironic since that game is famous in the fanbase for being many, many fans initial reason for becoming fans.

[Kuzu]

Most of those is your own subjective opinion. The camera wasn't that bad and it isn't perfect in any other Sonic game. There weren't overly serious stories in the adventures, even in Sa2 it was executed right. I loved both stories. The so-called large cast is not a problem either: i like almost every character. Your point?

Sa1 does have some glaring glitches, which have caused me problems.

The mech shooting levels in SA2, just feel so much more loose than the ones in SA1.

The cast isn't really that big of deal, in each game there were only 6 playable characters, in SA2 three of the play exactly alike.

Speaking of which, the gaming worlds complete change of heart regarding SA1 has got to be the most severe such change in video game history. It went from "Yay! A great, super-fun new Sonic game!" to "BOOOO! A game stuck somewhere between bland and bad. This is where Sonic started to suck!". And in only a few years at that. I remember how already when it came out on the Gamecube in, what, 2002? And critics who loved it a few short years earlier now slammed it. The only significant Sonic-related thing that happened in between was Sonic Adventure 2, so i guess that game must have really destroyed the series in the eyes of many. ...But then again, the original Dreamcast release of that game fared relatively well with the press, so i guess it was SA2:Battle that truly made the "Sonic sucks nowadays"-mindset mainstream. Which is of course ironic since that game is famous in the fanbase for being many, many fans initial reason for becoming fans.

Which makes me wonder? Did Super Mario 64 get slammed when it was ported to the VC?

[RidersDX]

Which makes me wonder? Did Super Mario 64 get slammed when it was ported to the VC?

I feel like it should, I honestly think the game has really bad controls and a horrible camera. I honestly don't get the hype of that game. Maybe they're lighter on it because Nintendo actually improved that formula as time went on. Or maybe it's praised cause it's Mario.

Anyway, the Adventure series is probably my favorite games in the Sonic series, but I am aware that they haven't aged as well as they could've. There are glitches, camera issues, unnecessary genre roulette, and some mediocre voice acting int he first Adventure, but I still really enjoy the games. Luckily, I actually enjoy the treasure hunting, mech shooting, and all the other different gameplay types. They're not as good as the Sonic stages, but they certainly aren't outright bad either. Except Big the cat's fishing, seriously, what kind of idiot at Sega thought FISHING belonged in a Sonic game?

Really though, I think the main reason the Adventure series is on such high pedestals is because the Sonic stages really were incredible, and the storylines actually brought in alot of new fans as well, Shadow coming to mind, whether you like him or not. The soundtrack was also probably the best Sonic soundtracks in Sonic game history, but I guess that depends solely on taste. They were what the titles said they were, adventures, great adventures. The only things I really think new games should take from the Adventure games would be the music, the stories, and the Sonic/Shadow gameplay.

Although, I wouldn't mind a spin-off game expanding on the treasure hunting levels. In my opinion, it could be improved to the point where it'd be as fun as the LOZ games actually. Plus, a Knuckles game would just be plain awesome overall.

[Kuzu]

I haven't really played Super Mario 64, that much. But if its anything like Galaxy/Galaxy 2 it can't be that bad,.

I guess the fact, that the Adventure series at the time ,did things you never saw in the series, and you thought "HOLY CRAP"

[RidersDX]

I haven't really played Super Mario 64, that much. But if its anything like Galaxy/Galaxy 2 it can't be that bad,.

Trust me, the Galaxy games are WAY better. Better level designs, better controls, better camera, and just alot more fun overall. I feel like with the Galaxy games, Nintendo finally got 3D Mario right. Took em long enough.

[Kuzu]

Trust me, the Galaxy games are WAY better. Better level designs, better controls, better camera, and just alot more fun overall. I feel like with the Galaxy games, Nintendo finally got 3D Mario right. Took em long enough.

Because Nintendo don't shovel out games, year after year to make a quick buck. Or change the style of the games with each new release.

Hopefully Sega can take the Good from the Unleashed/Colors forumula(The high speed action, cutscene animations) and the good of the Adventure formula(3D platforming, a decent story) and make one orgasmlingly great game.

[Dark Qiviut]

Because Nintendo don't shovel out games, year after year to make a quick buck. Or change the style of the games with each new release.

Actually, Nintendo shovels out Mario games quite a bit (except smaller in budget compared to its main games and main spinoffs). Just not as much as before due to the Wii's popularity. Edited February 12, 2011 by Dark Qiviut

[ChikaBoing]

I still love Sonic Adventure 1 on the Dreamcast,it's fun all around. Altough I never thought Sonic Adventure 2 was that good of a game; out of the Speed Levels, only 5 are great, crazy gadget is boring and the Shadow levels are just good, but not oustanding. Adventure 2 also had probably the worst Speed Levels/alt. gameplay ratio in the entire series besides UnWiished. The Running Levels only last about 3 Minutes at the most, and the 20 Levels of other stuff last thrice or twice as long. Not to mention the Shooting/Hunting Levels aren't that good. Mech Shooting is bereable the first time through, but Hunting was awful to me. Sonic Adventure 2(and 06) is the only Mainstream Sonic game that I haven't finished on my own all the way through(the Dark Story), cause it's too tedious for me, and the Running segemnts wer too teasingly short.

Edited February 12, 2011 by ChikaBoing

[Kuzu]

I still love Sonic Adventure 1 on the Dreamcast. Altough I never thought Sonic Adventure 2 was that good of a game; out of the Speed Levels, only 5 are great, crazy gadget is boring and the Shadow levels are just good, but not oustanding. Adventure 2 also had probably the worst Speed Levels/alt. gameplay ratio in the entire series besides UnWiished. The Running Levels only last about 3 Minutes at the most, and the 20 Levels of other stuff last thrice or twice as long. Not to mention the Shooting/Hunting Levels aren't that good. Mech Shooting is bereable the first time through, but Hunting was awful to me. Sonic Adventure 2(and 06) is the only Mainstream Sonic game that I haven't finished on my own all the way through(the Dark Story), cause it's too tedious for me, and the Running segemnts were dissapointingly short.

The running segments only seem short, because everything else is longer, trust me I felt the same way at first until I realized it.

[ChikaBoing]

The running segments only seem short, because everything else is longer, trust me I felt the same way at first until I realized it.

I guess, but length on it's own is still dissapointing, when I finished a SA2 level I was like:"Aw that's it?", where as in SA1 and Unleashed and to an extent Heroes sometimes, the strecthes where in perfect length.

Also in my case, SA2 never really dated. I just never thought that it was that great of a game to begin with really.Infact it got better as I got older, since for a Kid, the Treasure Hunting was just way too hard.

Edited February 12, 2011 by ChikaBoing

[azoo]

Sonic Adventure is a well-rounded Sonic experience, especially since it features a pretty good storyline and ten levels of gameplay that is closest that 3D Sonic has ever got to replicating the Genesis games. The only characters that didn't play like an ordinary Sonic game (yet somewhat altered for character-specific purpose) was Amy and Big, which came off as downright useless; but Sonic, Tails, Gamma, and (somewhat) Knuckles all kept Sonic-y gameplay tendencies. However, due to it's terrible voice acting, even worse graphics and often game-breaking bugs, SA1 would never make it if it was released today. Critics would throw it in the dirt as the worst Sonic of all time, and that's without adding the offenders of the extra unneeded gameplay modes. Sure, it stands triumphant as the first 3D Sonic, and it wasn't half bad for a first try. But that was a first try. It doesn't stack up today because of said reasons.

Sonic Adventure 2 was better put together, much more impressive on a technical standpoint, and featured an impressive storyline. This means the game would've fared better than SA1. However it would've been put down for the reasons that the game didn't feel all too much like what they saw on the tin: in other words, a Sonic game. Running, rolling and jumping wasn't the gameplay focus anymore; now they had implemented several random (and somewhat useless) melee attacks that complicated the control scheme and made the player focus more on somersaulting, grinding, bouncing, somersaulting, light dashing, mystic melody-ing, somersaulting, magic glov-ing, and somersaulting. Then after that, putting a third of the characters in ridiculous mechs that played like a hacked-up clunky Gamma, and the other third with jerky controls running and digging open fields with vague objectives, branches even farther from a Sonic game.. and don't forget the melodramatic dark, realistic and moody art direction the game had taken. All of these things (as well as having late DC / early GC graphics and still rather bleh voice acting (THE VOICE OVERLAPPING)) would've made this game sink even farther than SA1, and thats because it didn't really feel like a Sonic title. Today, it stacks up as a pretty good game, but I doubt it can be considered a good Sonic game. Sorry.

[RootingForTheEmpire]

Don't be dissin' Mario 64. That shit was cash, and also what I grew up with. /Nostalgia goggles

I think the Adventures are pretty badly dated. Even with my nostalgia goggles on, I don't quite see the shining, brilliant games many others do. Don't get me wrong- they were definitely good...they just had their fair share of glitches, bugs and shit fishing sections the occasional control issue. And some very questionable voice acting. But the Chao garden. SA2's Chao garden. UNF. Replayability up the arse. I'm one of those people who have Chaos Chao(a devil one, naturally).

In any case, I think if Sonic Team keep up the Colourful good work, both Adventure games can easily be outdone, what with their often irksome, mandatory breaks from the fun speedy levels and all.

[ChikaBoing]

I'm wondering how the XBLA/PSN releases of SA2 will fair, probably not very good since the Gamecube release got scores about under 7. I'd love to see a low score just to see the fanboy rage lol...

[SykoTech]

Aging isn't really the reason why the Adventure games don't hold water. Plenty of other games haved aged poorly, but are still loved. Mario 64 is very glitchy and has a faulty camera, and Marvel vs Capcom 2 is horribly unbalanced with well over half the cast useless. But both are still beloved games.

The problem with the Adventure series isn't technical, it's fundamental. While Mario 64 and MvC2 suffer from excution that isn't as good as what today's standards go by, the Adventure games suffer from using a formula that was never that good in the first place. Trying to take several, very different mediums and combine them together equally does not make an outstanding game....or anything really. If a director tried to combine action movie, a horror moive, and a romance all into one I don't think it would turn out too well. Now an action movie with horror and romance elements sprinkled in for variety could work great, but that's not how the Adventure formula operates.

This is made even worse since most of the other stuff is there simply as filler because they couldn't come up with a more sufficient way to make a longer game. Sega even admitted it themselves.

Honestly I'm willingly to bet that the Adventure games would have never received acclaim to begin with if it wasn't for Sonic's good reputation back then. Had the Adventure games been new IPs, people would have probably been much more critical of them. But Sonic was still a hot shot mascot of a console making company then. There's no way that people would be quick to downplay him. But when Sonic and Sega's reps have declined considerably (and standards for 3D games had risen), the masses could go back and realize what poor design it was to have so much unrelated and mediocre gameplay styles padding out the games. And even as a fan of SA1, it's easy for me to see that the game has flaws at its very core.

Unfortunately, it took Sega a bit longer to catch on. I enjoyed Unleashed (PS3) quite well, but it had so many Adventure-induced issues plaguing it. And Sonic '06 was...Sonic '06. Finished or not, it was just a poorly conceived attempt to relive the Adventure days. I'm still not sure if they completely understand, but they're catching on. The Anniversary game will be the true testament to whether they get it or not.

[Gamenerd]

I think the main thing that harms the fun factor of the Adventure games is an undeniable lack of focus. It's like they threw everything they had into a melting pot and hoped it worked out for the best. Sometimes it's immense, and sometimes it isn't. Through this unfocused atmosphere comes a lack of polish and an engine that works better at some times than others.

Colours is basically the polar opposite. It's one gameplay style, one solid, sturdy engine, a clear focus and an amount of polish that most Sonic games and Wii games in general could only dream of having. It cuts the crap and delivers a purer experience, without lots of graphical errors, engine glitches or pisspoor voice acting.

However, Colours isn't necessarily the better game. It's got the solid structure and direction but not necessarily in the right direction. A game with the perks, level design styles and fun factor of the Adventure games (more specifically the speed levels) with the solidity, polish, focus and strength of direction that Colours (and Unleashed at parts) had would be the best of both worlds. So yeah, I'd say elements of the Adventure series are as fun as ever, but they're still fundamentally flawed as overall packages. I haven't replayed Adventure 2 Battle in ages because I simply cannot be bothered with the Treasure Hunting levels.

[Ragnak]

I think that a re-make of Sonic Adventure will be a waste of time. It's a nice game and should stay in the past. Don't get me wrong, it's very fun, I'm playing it right now (Finished it with Sonic and the stupid cat, now I'm going to play with Amy. God, I hate her). But you can't look at the past all the time looking for references.

These are some thoughts about the series that are in my mind:

-First of all, I would like the "Adventure" things to be put out of a Sonic mainstream game. Like being in a town and talking to people saying word of wisdom like: "My mom loves me so much". And Sonic can go through levels with cutscenes in the middle to explain the current situation, for me that's enough. Doesn't need the travels to cities and the social stuff.

-If there were two or more (careful with that) characters to play (that makes the game last longer), try to make different things in the levels, like in S&K, that Knuckles levels were sligthly different from the Sonic levels. And, exterminate Big The Cat, Cream the Rabbit and all that fucking animals, I hate them. Put them on a spin-off series.

-If Shadow is going to be playable, put the dark drama outside once in a while. It's an interesting character but sometimes I think that creators go too far with him.

-Slow down the speed. Ok, I know, Sonic is super-faster, but there are times in which he has to slow down a little. In a Marble Zone-like level, going from 0 to 200 km/h in less than a second may kill you. Running that fast also makes you lose control sometimes. In need of acceleration put another boost button, or something like that.