The last straw

As much as I like SA:DX, it's pretty glitchy. Have you even looked at the glitch guide at G'FAQ's?

I was actually playing SA:DX last night too, and getting stuck to walls while running on thin paths was a problem quite a bit of the time.

And I wouldn't try to compare it to Halo in a good way either, because that game isn't exactly bug free either.

 

Sonic Heroes TRIED to bring Sonic back to his roots, and that's exactly what the problem is. It's trying to emulate the 2D feel in three dimsensions - that doesn't work! It creates overly-linear gameplay. Look at Mario's transition, perhaps the best one ever, and see how different Super Mario 64 is from Super Mario World.

One of the reasons I liked Sonic Rush is because it reminded me more of the Genesis games than anything else this generation. It wasn't a copy of the Genesis games, in fact, it was extremely different in terms of graphic design, gameplay, and music. It didn't get good scores for being like the old games, it got good scores for being a good game. It's the quality of the game that reminds me of the Genesis games. I enjoyed Sonic Rush just as much, and it's the memory of me enjoying Sonic games in the past that I love about it, not that it's the same game.

Shadow the Hedgehog wasn't a gutsy move by Sega at all - they simply tried to milk the cash cow of the "video game badass criminal" movement. What they have right now is a totally uninspired design for the series in three dimensions. If Mario had gone the same way, it would be like Super Mario 64 using Mario Kart 64's levels instead of its own: you would run along a race track back and forth with repetitive visuals and events, with one or two unique effects per level. I don't know how Sonic can work in 3D, but I'm not the game designer either.

"Going back to our roots" is exactly the problem Sonic Team has right now. They need to get away from their roots if they want to create the same "wow" feeling they did 15 years ago. Sonic was so cool in the first place because there was nothing else like it, but now there's hardly anything that distinguishes the 3D games from other platformers other than its famous camera glitches.

SADX isn't too glitchy in comparison to a game like Enter the Matrix, but compared to anything else, it's pretty hard to do worse. Just making the section for Sonic World, I got stuck on the roof of Ice Cap zone SIX TIMES before I finished the level, each time resulting in my death after falling upwards off the level. I don't have these problems with any other games I buy. In fact, I didn't have half of the problems I do in SADX in the original Sonic Adventure for my Dreamcast. I would have expected somewhat of an improvement over a course of 4 (or 5?) years.

 

Any game has a good number of glitches - if you're willing to look for them. I compare SADX to Halo or even SSBM because, while those games have large numbers of "glitches," you have to make an effort to run into them. They're not something that crops up regularly during normal gameplay. Now I don't know what problems you've had with SADX, Guess_Who, but I can tell you that I've never fallen through floors or fallen off loops or anything like that. Not even once. So I can't really see how you can call it "glitchy." Maybe you just have bad luck. Then again, maybe I just have good luck?

Who here has constant problems with SADX when they aren't using "glitch guides" and such? I'm interested in finding out what the "problem/no problem" ratio is now.

 

I had way too many problems, and I've never used a glitch guide. I played it on the Dreamcast first. I frequently fall through floors, get stuck in walls, freeze up completely, or even lose parts of the character model. Tails has got stuck in Sonic before, and Sonic's eyes like to randomly disappear. I have none of these problems with Sonic Adventure on the Dreamcast, Sonic Adventure 2, or Sonic Adventure 2: Battle. There are a few problems like that in Sonic Heroes, but nowhere near as many. I've tried both the PC and Gamecube versions of SADX, and they're equally as bad.

I love Sonic Adventure on my Dreamcast, though. Don't get me wrong, I bought the system just for that game when it was released. >>;;

 

Well, SA has what we call a "path system" - A "path" is just a form of auto controlling the character for special parts of the level (narrow ledges, loops, etc). Many parts of the game would be rather hard without them. A path is a bunch of points placed in the level with a beginning and an end that trace a path through an obstacle in the level. If you hit any point on a path, you are accelerated to the next one. Because the game tries to do the work for you but doesn't take control from you completely (you can fight the pull of the path), you can fuck yourself over by deviating from the path and then the game trying to correct for your mistake. In the DX version of SA they added extra collision to a path in EC before the second loop to keep players from falling off the path. However, they made a mistake by using push collision blocks instead of solid ones. By their very nature, push collision blocks cause collision problems because they force the player to move in a direction. In the case of EC, if you fight the path then you end up INSIDE a push collision box, which will in turn have you stuck between a push block and a wall. At this point the game's collision engine doesn't know what to do because of all the forces acting on the player and you just get pushed out into empty space.


There, EC collision situation explaned.

 

Ahh, but that's JUST the problem. There are people who are always going on and on about how much the new games suck, and how the older ones are better. They constantly moan and complain about how Sega/Sonic Team should go back to the old stuff, and get Sonic back to his roots. And then when they finally do that, people STILL complain about the game, and say that it's worst than the others. So in other words, people are never satisfied, either way.

 

The bottom line is: Some like the various games, while others don't like those same games. The masses will never be in total agreement, and one section is always gauranteed to be unhappy about something.

I for one agree with Mystical Ninja.

 

SA2 ghz doesn't do it for you?

 

All the Super Mario Advances are remakes of previous games, and they got these scores in IGN:
SMA1: 8
SMA2: 9.3
SMA3: 9.4
SMA4: 9.5
And they are nearly IDENTICAL to the originals, except some minimal changes (none of them affects the gameplay, except by some little details in SMA2). And SADX got improved graphics, a Mission Mode and a improved Chao Garden (with the Hero and Dark Chao, the Black Chao Market and a lot of new items), and IGN gave them a 5, while they gave the original a 8.6. I don't see the logic there.

And anyway, why can't the give the game a score by his own, instead of comparing it with other? If someone is searching for good games for the gamecube, based in reviews, he will see that IGN gave SADX a 5 a then he don't will bother to try it. However, the original SA was very sucessfull and at first, and nearly everyone though of it as the best Sonic game. SADX is a improved version, so someone who hasn't played the original, should enjoy a lot it too. That is the reason because I hate the IGN reviews.

And by the way, you are wrong: Sonic Rush got a high score from everyone.

Note: Sorry for my bad english. I hope I made myself clear.

 

It's because in those games, Mario didn't fall through the floor or [insert glitch here]. I mean, the games would have been higher ranked if they not only added the features but debugged problems.

 

So? That's justifies them to give it a 5? I don't think so. That's bullshit for me. In SADX, some few glitches were fixed, and most of the ones left are only accesibles if you find them, not in normal gameplay. Plus they gave the game a lot of upgrades and new features (including the Game Gear games). The Super Mario Advances had the exact same graphics, same music, same glitchs, etc. And these graphics and music are awful to for a GBA game. They could have changed a lot, even when they are remakes (see: Pok?mon FR/LG or Shining Force GBA). In SADX they upgraded the graphics, fixed some bugs and added a lot of things. They didn't remixed the music, but it was already pretty good even for the GameCube, so there wasn't any need to change it.

 

That's pure bullshit IMO.

1.The Mission Mode added a lot of extra hout of gameplay
2."The only upgrade"? Have you tried the Chao Garden? No? I guessed so.

Speak for yourself. Some of the Sonic games are some of the best 8-bits plataform games by many. I don't care whatever you think.

Again, pure bullshit. The Adventure Fields were improved a lot, and the graphics of the entire game looks more advanced now, not to mention that the game runs now at 60 fps.

... the heck? "STILL sucks"? The original Sonic Adventure was the game with the best graphics when it was released. And the SADX graphics don't sucks. There are a lot of Gamecube games with worse graphics than SADX. And definitely they are a lot better than many of the last Nintendo games.

And you know what? For a remake, the Super Mario Advances are a lot more flawed. They suck for a GBA game.