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.