Sonic Adventure in Retrospect

I think the problem was that Gamma's levels were TOO short. Final Egg had a nice concept for example (Sonic's final level played backwards) however it lasts for all of a minute and doesn't offer much of a challenge. Emerald Coast is similar but is all of a quarter or less of Sonic's version of the level. I will grant that what was there was far more fun and less linear than the SA2 stages, though I thought the E-Series bosses would have been a lot more fun if given more complex AI like the mech battles in the latter game. SA2 overall seemed like a 'one step forward, two steps back' concept. SA1 had all the different characters, but lacked SA2's clunkiness and still felt like you were playing a Sonic game with all of the characters.

Most of SA1 suffered similar problems. While SA2 and Heroes had notoriously difficult (and sometimes outright cheap) stages and obstacles, SA1 was over too quick.

Possibly a reason Gamma's story seems a lot better handled than the other six/seven (par maybe Big as well whose supposed to sound dumb). I think Sonic X handled his story brilliantly as well (the Japanese version, the dub destroyed it) and has an even more poignant feel than the game enterpretation (largely due to the better acting of the other characters, Amy outright cries over the poor robot), the only thing missing was Theme of E-102 blaring in the background.

I always thought the pink possibly female bird was to leave ambiguity over whether Gamma was the bird or simply the robotic shell that was being powered by it. I think that left a sad note that Gamma to an extent was 'free' and alive in some manner but another element of him died along with his robotic carcass.

 

To make a Sonic game that would please me would be very easy for SEGA, yet they continually fail. Just:

Take the Sonic gameplay from Sonic Adventure.
Make new levels of similar length and style.
Make enough of these levels to make the game long enough.

Do that and we should have the best Sonic game since Sonic 3 & Knuckles and the best 3D Sonic game that there is.

 

I don't know, I didnt like the way Sonic moved to the left (or right, I forgot)) slightly whenever he ran, as well as the awkward camera and the way going through the loops sometimes made you stop suddenly and fall down. A few engine fixes would be needed in addition.

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly; one thing that I always felt needed to happen in adventure was real flying shortcuts for Tails, like higher, Sonic-inaccessible routes that only flying characters could reach. This was especially expected in stages like Windy Valley and Ice Cap (part 1), where Tails' flight, if used by the player well, would absolutely break Sonic in a race (without the "flight rings"), not to mention be much more in depth and interesting.

 

I agree, the engine needs cleaning and deglitching, but in terms of the basic feel of it, I think it's good.

 

I have tryed on 3 occasions to like Sonic adventure 1, (Dreamcast, Gamecube and Xbox360) as far as I could gather is its a passable attempt at getting into 3D, something that SA2 improved apon although still not without issues from other directions.

I still prefer SA2 over Colours but thats only because I don't hate the Tails/Eggman stages and Chao garden like everyone else XD

But I think if Colours had a Chao Garden, it probbaly would have totally won me over

 

Sonic Adventure is still good.

The problem is, people compare it to modern games, refusing to acknowledge it's ten years old. It looks a bit like a low budget Wii game so people assume it's still eligable to the same sort of critisism, but it isn't, because it's ten years old. We didn't know Sonic Adventure's flaws were flaws in 1998 because nobody had done it better. All we knew is that it was Sonic, in 3D, and on an amazing system that at the time, was well ahead of the competition.

There is nothing wrong with Sonic Adventure. It hasn't aged amazingly well because it didn't take long for other games to handle things like cameras better, but to fully understand why it was a great game you'd have to have been there in 1998/1999. I was.


SADX was a little poor though. If it had been marked as a budget re-release perhaps people would have given it a bit more slack, but it was marketed as an update, despite not really fixing some of the critical flaws. The XBLA version gets bashed because it doesn't play as nicely as other XBLA games. Perhaps it's still a bit too new for people to wear the same retro glasses used with Sonics 1 through 3.

One thing I'd like to point out though - the whole "widescreen" debate. Not many people pick up on the fact that a lot of Xbox 360/PS3 games are only designed with 720p HD in mind. Far more pixels unused when running 720p on a 1080p set than 4:3 on 16:9 (unless the 4:3 display isn't upscaled at all). You also would get issues when it came to artwork, the camera (which IIRC "bounces" off objects) and various other things. The engine isn't all that great at maintaining steady framerates.

Basically I think that if it were to be truly updated, large parts of the engine would need to be re-written and if you're going to do that, you might as well release a new game. I don't know exactly how it works.




The score should not have decreased over time if you take the view that it's a Dreamcast game. Compared to other Dreamcast game, it's still worth the 8s and 9s. Compared to post Dreamcast games, of course it will suffer. But so will anything. People are quite happy to put on nostalgia goggles for the recently released Super Mario All-Stars Wii port, so I reckon there's bias or bandwagoning going on. Maybe people aren't old enough to be able to call it a classic.

Of course, you can criticise the lack of effort in improving the game for XBLA. There isn't really a reason to leave it in its Dreamcast state but if that was intentional it doesn't make any sense to criticise it. That's like me putting down an RPG because "it's not a driving game" or something.

 

An old and bad game is still old and bad. In that sense, and old and good game is still old and good. So Sonic Adventure's 10 years old. That doesn't make up for it's flaws. Not even a little.

Granted, the flaws aren't glaring or game breaking, but "good compared to other dreamcast games" or "because its better than other games released at the time" also doesn't make up for the flaws.

I still enjoy Adventure and all, but yeah. It hasn't aged well.

 

About 1/3 of the games I play are from the 1980s. They're still fun to play. Sonic Adventure isn't. Comparison to modern games or no, if it isn't fun, it's not a good game. Good gameplay is timeless.

 

The XBLA/PSN ports of SA get bad reviews simply because it's a bad game made worse. In the past few months I've played through all three versions: DC, GC, and PS3. Guess which one I enjoyed?

That's right. The Dreamcast one. It's no where near perfect, and at the time it was great but it doesn't stack up against todays games, but for what it is it's still a fun game.

I agree full-heartedly with Black Squirrel, the game isn't timeless like Super Mario World or Sonic 2, but if you put yourself back in the days of WWF, Saliva, Mountain Dew, Doritos, P.O.D., MTV playing music AND jackass, and being EXTREME, then yeah it's a good game. Just like how Doctor Detroit is an 80's movie that wouldn't work today, Sonic Adventure is 1999 all the way.

 

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that the game was good at its time but not today.

Actually, even when I played for the first time back then, I didn't think it was all that great. I mean, I played Sonic Adventure 2 extensively and thought 3D Sonic couldn't get better (lol), but then I heard they're "remaking" the first game for the GCN and I'm all like "OMGYES". I heard Open Your Heart in Sonic Mega Collection and thought it was much better than Live and Learn, so at the very least I get to fight in a much cooler Final Battle, right?

Well, I enjoyed the game but I didn't like nearly as much as I did (and still do) as Adventure 2. I was even super disappointed with the Final Battle because it only played Open Your Heart for the first half of the battle.

So yeah, I like it but probably only because it's Sonic.

And yes, I realize I hold Adventure 2 in a higher standard than most people would but I have very fond memories of it. I played it last year again and determined that it still holds up the test of time for me. Of course, I think Sonic Colours is the best 3D Sonic game now.

 

Adventure was and is a great game, and the fact that I own it for the Dreamcast, PC, and the Gamecube is a testament to that. Gameplay was beautiful (though Big was kind of ehh) and it was one of two (that I can think of) games where Sonic was ever allowed to roam freely. All of the characters' stories tied in a way that wasn't idiotic (sort of contrast to SA2:B), and all of the bosses were above satisfactory, except for maybe Perfect Chaos, because he seems to just be frustrating to the first time player rather than a challenge where something is at stake.

Actually, in relation, Sonic Adventure 2 was just terrible. Gameplay was less than meh, where you were forced to play the character they wanted you to. The story was trying to hard to pull at the heartstrings of players (a very poor attempt, I might add) and the new characters were all "troubled."

EDIT:I hadn't yet read all the way to Vinchenz's post before posting mine. Seems we have two completely opposing opinions. Don't meant to offend you with the above though. :p

 

Sonic Adventure has some awesome points to it, and some not so awesome points to it.
I loved the story, but the cut scenes did not do the story justice, especially when the animation of the mouths don't even attempt to line up with the dialogue. (although I eventually made a big joke about it once upon a time)
I loved playing with Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, and Gamma. Big sucks, and Amy sucks. Big should just not exist, and I hate how slow Amy was. If she was a bit faster, they could have made Zero a bit faster, which would have made her entire game (as short as it was) a bit more exciting than it was.
I hate Chao anyway, there's nothing you can do about that bias.

Still, while Sonic Adventure was good, I found Sonic Adventure 2 better in every aspect except treasure hunting and the Chao Garden, which I hate anyway. And I love the 2 player mode... well, I love the foot racing, everything else is just extra, so to speak.

Overall, I do not feel, however, that the series has aged well. I don't want to do anymore treasure hunting (unless it's better executed than it was in Sonic Adventure), I don't want to do anymore shooting (unless it's better executed than it was in Sonic Adventure 2. Yes, I do think SA2 did it better than SA1), I do not want slow ass characters, and I do not want fishing. I simply want a beautiful combo of speed and platforming with physics that work, pinball or otherwise. I wouldn't mind an "HD Update" of Sonic Adventure 1 and/or 2. But this "Sonic Adventure 3" that people claim they want... I do not want it. I'd rather have Sonic Colors 2, especially since Robotnik "already has his revenge planned out."

 

@MarkoMan

HD update? That would be sweet

Especially considering, by today's standards in console technology, SA1 is horribly outdated. If they could fix the many bugs in the engine (I'm looking at you, camera) and spiffy up the graphics with ? new models and levels. Maybe an emphases on speed should be kept to a minimum? There are a number of possibilities out there for a remake! Too bad
SEGA has a 99.9% chance of not living up to my expectations :/

But yeah, SA1 was pretty good for 1999, but the test of time? Sonic Adventure's test probably got a D+

 

I think SADX screwed up the opportunity for a refined "Director's Cut" of the game, it didn't even utilize that many of the basic minor ideas planned while the game was in development (eg. the Adventure Fields being streamed rather than segmented, Super Sonic being fully playable, perhaps the biggest wallbanger is not making the online content like the Twinkle Circuit extra tracks unlockable, despite it in perfect working condition in the game's memory via hacking).

If there's anything Next Gen got right it was elements of SA1's gameplay concept (on paper at least, the engine suffered of course). The alternate pathways for the different characters are far more consistantly innovative and entertaining (eg. compare Sonic vs Gamma's Emerald Coast to Sonic vs Blaze's Wave Ocean). It also utilizes the hub worlds better with much more area exploration and innovative missions. Granted Next Gen had two generations to improve on this but the better elements of SA1 show it could have easily topped this in places.

As for SA2 I admit the split screen mode was a big plus, but I still think it was something that would have been just as fun utilized in SA1, it's just there weren't as many characters that could gel with the different gameplay modes (par Metal with Sonic in the DX version). I really like the idea of an E-Series battle mode utilizing the Adventure fields, like a strategy shooter.

 

No.

Why? A few reasons come to mind, INPO:

• Sonic's personality is atrocious. "Aw, yeah! This should be fun!" *cringe*
• Everyone is ugly - there's no good reason for their brows and mouths to wiggle so retardedly, no matter what generation it's from.
• The music, while mostly good on its own, sounds hollow and weird and grating while playing it.
• Which isn't helped by the apocalyptically bad sound design. Everything makes noises - horrible, repetitive, loud noises - which makes the whole experience put my teeth on edge.
• It's too short. Take out the cinemas and it could be beaten in the time it takes to play Death Egg Zone from S&K.
• The "adventure" is a pointless run around with inexplicable heaven-sent ID cards and Chaos Emeralds in casinos. The Keystone Kops have better story. (At one point Robotnik gasses Sonic and Tails unconscious. Why doesn't he kill them then?)
• Inexcusably glitchy physics and camera. It's one thing to have some problems, it's another to have unavoidable problems. Show me a YouTube playthrough of SA that doesn't look like ass.
• The all-pervasive and unshakable feeling that's it's less a Sonic game and more a Dreamcast tech-demo. Why is successful and fine-tuned gameplay replaced with a 3D mess that's less fun? Don't ask me, ask the industry and its soul-crushing march of inevitability.

So, no, it was never good. I still - oddly - like it, though.

 

I've only ever played the 2 adventures on the gamecube.

I've always found Sonic adventure to be really fun... While playing as Sonic and Tails... Otherwise, it more or less falls on it's face like Adventure 2 did while playing as characters outside of Sonic and Shadow. Interestingly, I do tolerate Sonic Adventure's emerald hunting/shooting far more than Sonic Adventure 2's, though it's probably 'cause Knuckles and Gamma's story and levels were pretty short. I actually found Amy's levels to be somewhat enjoyable in comparison to the other character's levels, dunno why. Maybe I just enjoyed beating the crap out of Zero every time he appeared or something *shrugs* Big was stupid boring though, good thing his levels and story was the shortest of them all...

Overall, it was still a fun game, probably more fun than adventure 2 and most other 3d platformers that I've played. I think Colors might be the better game, though.

 

This is where I would link my review for Sonic Adventure DX for XBLA, but last time I tried to link a review I was suspended for being associated with TSSZ and no seriously what the fuck.

Sonic Adventure was amazing in 1999. It was a platformer with scope far beyond other games in its genre.

Then everybody caught up. And not only did they catch up, but they very rapidly surpassed. Sonic Adventure had a lot of clunky implementation of certain things, and games like Jak & Daxter, Super Mario Sunshine, Ratchet & Clank and Sly Cooper took those clunky concepts and either polished them up or ditched them altogether.

Sega and Sonic Team, meanwhile, clung to many of Sonic Adventure's clunky implementations for more than a decade (even making them worse, I'd argue), poisoning the entire franchise.

It's a good game through rose-tinted nostalgia/fanboy glasses but compared to other games in the genre it's janky as hell. There's some charm, in terms of level variety and design, but the whole entire game would have to be remade from the ground up for any of that to matter nowadays.

 

I do not want Adventure 3, but I wouldn't complain if they make a remake of Adventure 1 with Unleashed's Hedgehog Engine.