Would You Rather A Modern Or Classic Style Game For The 30th Anniversary Game

I do think it's interesting to think back to my childhood attitudes to Adventure 1 and 2. I admittidely didn't think there was a huge difference and thought it was a logical progression. I guess it's because I read Fleetway so the story seemed in tone to me.

I do remember though that when I played Green Hill in SA2 (I downloaded it because I couldn't do it myself lol) I did sharply recognise how much the series had changed. And I did think 'wow it would be really cool to get a whole game like this'.

But then when Heroes came out and continued in the Adventure tone (but lighter), I thought nothing of it and carried on.

So yeah, I'll admit that I largely didn't think Adventure 1 and 2 were much of a departure as a kid. But then I was a kid.
I can see now that Adventure did change a lot on a fundamental level.

I will say as an aside that I do accept Adventure is flawed with terrible voice acting, camera, annoying glitvhes, silly story, etc, but I've never bought the idea that it's a terrible broken mess. I find it utterly bewildering that it reviewed much worse on Gamecube than Dreamcast. There was a genuine change across games journalism in only a year about the quality of the Adventure games which I never really understood.

I don't really know what to say, but when I play SA1 and 2 I just don't think they are considerably worse than the likes of Mario 64/Sunshine, Banjo, Crash, Spyro. Now I get that the Adventure games have some annoying alternate playstyles which is a flaw, but it's not like contemporary platformers didn't have their fair share of annoying or boring levels. The games are generally good to control (I seriously dont get the control complaints), have well designed levels, excellent music (thankfully that complaint has gone away), and I think have aged incredibly well visually.

So while I do consider the Adventure games as seperate from the Classics, I do like them and would like to see them expanded upon.

 

This is something I've been wondering a lot about regarding the Adventure games.

I only got into Sonic four years ago, starting with the classics before moving onto the Adventure games on GC. While my impressions of the original games were mostly pretty strong, I was a lot more skeptical of the Adventures and I recall regarding them as rickety artifacts with bigger aspirations than they were able to achieve.

Yet in the time since, they've rocketed their way into my top 5 favorite games of all time. I think I'm generally hard to impress, which makes the shift in perspective even more remarkable to me.

I cannot agree with the "aged like milk" position because I still find them to be mechanically solid, aesthetically charming, and narratively engaging BUT, I can also understand that position because I felt similarly once upon a time.

If someone who didn't grow up with the Adventure games and didn't play them at a formative age could still grow to regard them as highly as I have, does that say more about me, or the games themselves and their inherent strengths?

 

Huh? When 3D All Stars came out a bunch of younger people who never played 64 wondered what the big deal about it was because a lot of parts have aged poorly. It clearly cut a lot of corners to work and those signs of age are apparent now, especially with the DS remake improving on a lot of it's flaws.

The worlds feel kind of empty, the hub world of Peach's castle in particular feeling empty. The lack of control over the camera causes many an unfair death. The Bowser boss fights are unnecessarily frustrating at times. The wing cap just straight up doesn't work, at times.

I get that 64 is a classic or whatever and gets passes on doing things many games wouldn't, but it hasn't aged COMPLETELY perfectly at all. I'd even argue some parts of Adventure aged better as whole, even without ignoring it's own flaws like the Big levels.

 

Yeah I played every Classic Sonic game before I got my hands on the SA series and I didn't even blink. I got SA2 first even and thought it fit right in. The idea that the Adventure games broke the series is more like a narrative people have been trying to build in hindsight that doesn't really track with the experiences of anyone I know.

The whole conversation about them just not aging well is something I'm more willing to buy, but I just got off of playing Spyro 3 and that had some awful alternate playstyles, so I'm not sure if it's fair to twist Sonic's arm about it. Only Mario really had it in him to resist that kind of thing and a water gun still snuck into one of the games as a prominent feature. Platformers just weren't really interested in being themselves in that era for w/e reason.

 

You do raise a good point about a lot of platformers of the era aging poorly, but it does mean they still aged poorly (that sounds weird that way but you know what I mean). As for the alternate playstyles, in Adventure 1 I actually find everyone but Big fun to play. I give Adventure 2 more flak because the playstyles that return are made worse. The Emerald radar nerf by itself really hurts Knuckles and Rouge, although the smaller treasure hunting levels are still kinda fun because that feeling of "IT WAS RIGHT HERE THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME?!" is greatly lessened by having less area to move in and look through. I do wonder if I might have found the larger ones more bearable without the radar nerf.

The shooting stages, though...Even though Gamma played differently from Sonic, he still felt like a Sonic character in the way he moved. He still had a high, somewhat floaty jump. He still moved decently quickly and could turn just as easily. Despite his vastly different body type, he was still as nimble as you expect from a Sonic character. When 2 gave that playstyle to Eggman's walker while simultaneously grounding the game in the real world, it all went to shit. His jump was pathetic, he was slower, turning was much more awkward. In a game built first and foremost for mecha walker action, it might have worked, but too many levels stuck to Sonic's level design philosophy from that game by having you navigate small corridors (or worse, tiny walkways suspended over inescapable quicksand) and playing as them became a nightmare. Hell, even to a lesser extent Sonic's gameplay has some changes that I think are for the worse, even if he's still fun to play in it.

EDIT: Paragraph break because I didn't realize how long that was.

 

I've never really gelled with the idea SA2 made all of the alternate playstyles worse. Sonic Adventure is a lot of fun, but it was built in a way where you really don't have to engage with the level design a lot of the time. Sonic's spindash is a fun tool to experiment with but it broke the level design with a little too much ease imo. It was fun to discover a lot of those shortcuts and nuances when I was younger, but now I want some of that stuff to be more difficult to access. Most of Knuckles's stages can be over in half a minute without too much effort and that feels like kind of a waste to me. The shooting stages are a pretty direct downgrade but I wasn't too into those to start with.

SA2 made a lot of changes to try and address this. People largely focus on the ones that were for the worse but Sonic had a lot of new moves like grinding, tricks, the instant light dash and the bounce bracelet that were good additions. Giving Knuckles his own levels that required some thought to get around in was a pretty direct step up for me, too. I get the complaints with the Radar, but it really doesn't add that much more flailing around in practice outside the space stages.

Basically, I think it's more of a case of give and take then one game just being worse than the other.

 

I don't think Josh is being disgenious when he says how Adventure affected the fanbase divisively back in the day. What I think he's trying to use that as a point to support the classic and modern split since fans have preferences of each aesthetic.

I think that premise is flawed though, because that implies those voices were louder than they actually were. The fact remains is that Adventure was popular, despite the controversy; some of you can downplay that as much as you want, but you're not gonna change history. Most of us grew up in that era and there's enough evidence to support the Adventure games being popular in spite of their flaws.

 

Fair, I didn't mean to imply that every change was for the worse. Instant Light Dash is a definite improvement, the Spindash definitely needed a nerf, and barring the wonky rail-changing Adventure 2 had the best implementation of grinding. For Sonic specifically I was referring to the Light Dash not having its own button, leading to context-sensitive move issues, and putting the pace-breaking Somersault in to break boxes instead of just letting regular rolling break boxes. Tapping B should've make Sonic just curl up, like the classics went you press Down. I'd even go a step further and not let you Spindash if you're already going fast.

 

I do think the Adventure games signaled a major shift from the Classics, it was just more subtle than people make out. The very fact it was in 3D and had a homing attack is a major change in itself. The music was obviously a shift, but I'd argue that can be traced back to Sonic 3 really. It was the first game to have a major story, voice acting, etc. Adventure 1 and 2 had a more realistic tone, even if partially that may have been a product of pixel art leaving a ot to the imagination.

But I also think the Adventure games in aesthetic are more similar than people make out. It's generally accepted for SA1 now, but even SA2 had similarities. Pyramid Cave is like a reimagining of Sandopolis. Pumpkin Hill, Wild Canyon and Aquatic Mine aren't anything completely crazy. It did introduce stages that were very different like City Escape, the Ark Stages, etc, but I think people tend to overblow it.

I think you can say the same even of Shadow the Hedgehog. I remember a contemporary game magazine review (which funnily enough gave it a 7/10) saying that it seems like it will be really over the top and grim-dark with the opening cutscene and 'Westopolis', but after stage one it calms down and the stages resemble traditional Sonic stages. They even said it would be fun for small children. I do think there's truth to that, and the same can be said about Sonic 2006.

So I guess I have a complex attitude to it. I do see Adventure 1 and 2 as games which signalled a major design shift, I just also think it isn't nearly as straightforward as is often made out.

And regardless, I love SA1 and SA2 despite how flawed they are

 

Even as someone who likes the game I can acknowledge a lot of things are more frustrating then they should be because of poor design choices or compromises required to make the game work in the first place. As charming as it is, it's still clearly a 3D platformer that is 25 years old now.

You're probably bias because you played it when it first came out, but I didn't, so I won't just ignore the games problems the way you can.

 

You can add me to the list of people who started with the classic games and made the "transition" to the Dreamcast era just fine. The only things that bothered me about SA1 were the automatization, the more linear levels, and how Tails and Knuckles were restricted to a few stripped down levels and alternate play styles, but those weren't deal breakers. The visuals, music, story, characterizations etc. were spot on.

I do agree with Sid Starkiller that SA2 made the treasure hunting and shooting stages worse, though. They might have been more polished, but the Knuckles/Rouge stages took too long, and Tails and Eggman's clunky, heavy mechs weren't as fun to control as Gamma. In SA1, Knuckles' stages were short and ended before they got tedious, and Gamma controlled closer to Sonic.

 

I do think there was a shift, but in the same way that Zelda had to give up nonlinearity and Mario had to rethink it's entire design philosophy to maximize the potential of fewer levels, a lot of it is growing pains. There were some stylistic changes, but imo that's also inevitable and should be leaned into. The only way to have a truly timeless character is to be able to adapt. Sonic shouldn't change so much that it becomes unrecognizable, but he can't just stay the same either.


And as much as people try to paint Sonic fans as dramatic and unpleasable, all of these changes were met with bitching. Everyone has completely forgotten the venom Metroid Prime got from longtime fans for 'selling out and going FPS' because the game itself is immaculate. Other M was a much worse game despite pandering a lot more to classic Metroid fans on the surface level. To me, change is healthy and leaning on old iconography usually sets off red flags for a franchise's vision.

 

SA1 has for sure “aged worse” than Mario 64 but I think the same of a lot of games from the 5th and 6th gen, including some of Nintendo’s own. It’s not really fair to put SA1 and M64 in a vacuum and ignore everything surrounding them.

Besides I’m not sure what aging worse or better even matters when loads of people young and old still love these games anyways, and all for reasons as valid as one would like the classic games. I think we all took what game journalists have had to say a bit too seriously. lol

 

I think Mario 64 has actually aged far worse than people let on

 

I mean yeah, agreed. I don't even think 64 has aged much better than SA1, it kinda struggles in a lot of the same departments SA1 does (shoddy collision, unruly camera, empty hub, lack of clarity on what to do / where to go), and they only came out two years apart of each other.

SA1 just gets the short end of it for trying to do a lot more, where 64 gets by forgiven more often for its comparatively reigned in angle. I've said it before but I'm actually proud that Sonic Team managed to make a non-racing 3D game before 2000 that went fast and would only wig out sometimes. lol

 

I think you are right about this point but I also think this is something about the Sonic series in general. A lot of people don't like the Classic Sonic games because they are less forgiving to go back to and don't have as broad as an appeal as the 2D Mario titles. My best friend hates Classic Sonic because he doesn't like going super fast in a 2D platformer and he doesn't like how stop and start it is when you aren't good at the games. And I don't really blame him lol.

I admit that Sonic Adventure is even more niche than the Classic Sonic games but I really see it as an extension of that aspect of the series.

 

I understand what you're saying and agree for the most part with everything.

The industry went through a lot of growth from 1999-2003 in understanding 3D and how to design games for it, so a "director's cut" of Sonic Adventure hardly doing anything to the game rightfully did a number on it's reputation. I don't think it affected Sonic Adventure 2 nearly as much, though, since reception on that title even today is still fairly warm, perhaps even warmer than Sunshine is for people these days. Then again, SA2B only came out a few months after SA2.

Spoiler

Of course neither Mario 64 or Sonic Adventure aged as well as Rayman 2, but that's neither here nor there. (Play Rayman 2, everybody.)