Random Gaming Thoughts

Haha, I think I'll try another playthrough of SA2 one of these days to see how it aged after all these years. On one hand, I agree with @Truck_1_0_1_ in that it's the best 3D Sonic game that I can remember playing (not saying much, and I've only played Generations and Heroes that followed SA2). I definitely liked it a lot at the time and did think it was much better than SA1 when it first came out. Even simple things like having a solid 60fps over 30fps gives it a much better presentation and made it more fun to play.

On the other hand, I agree with @Mittens2317 in that it still doesn't feel that great to play overall, and my main complaint with 3D Sonic games is that they almost play themselves, and when they don't, it's poor controls and poor cameras that do you in. There's not great momentum with the controls, and your main attack is to continuously press the jump button, which auto targets the nearest enemy. Or you continuously grind on a rail and just have to time when to jump or when to change rails, or you're auto-running straight as fast as possible and press the bumpers to shift left and right.

I always thought that the main misconception about Sonic that made the transition to 3D not work super well is that in the 2D games you're not just pressing right to run through the stage as quickly as possible on a single plane. There are a bunch of different paths to take, times where things slow down and you explore (and even go to the left! *gasp*!). Yeah, there are a few sequences where you hit a spring or one of those speed boosters to propel you forward super fast through a loop, but those last for about 5 seconds and are flavor bits to say "look how fast this fucking hedgehog can run". Those moments are kind of similar to the killer whale in SA1 or the truck in SA2. Other than that, the art style has so much more personality in the 2D games, from the colorfulness of the levels, to the designs of all the enemies.

I came across this video when watching some videos on Digital Foundry. There's a fan made project called "Sonic Utopia" that explores a 3D concept in a level that is wide open in all directions instead of linear. I think it looks cool and I think if 3D Sonic had some more parkour elements it could be really fun to move around in 3D space. Think of things like being able to slide, then backflip, wall jump, wall run and chaining all of those movements together without the game going on autopilot. Maybe these folks can become the 3D equivalent of the Sonic Mania team.

(Clip starts at 10:48 if the timestamp doesn't work)
 
I really enjoyed SA2 when it was released on the Dreamcast, but aside from playing Battle a couple years after, when it was released on the Gamecube, I haven't touched it since. I don't know if I could do it. Even just watching speed runs and such reminds me of how difficult it can be to keep Sonic/Shadow running in the direction you want them to go, and not slamming into the sides of the course, or careening off into the abyss. I think the "production values" were probably a lot better for SA2, but I prefer the first Sonic Adventure (I'm sure partly out of nostalgia).

As for 3D Sonic, in general, there's some real chaff mixed in, but I do really like the non-werehog stages of Unleashed, all of Colors and Generations, and Lost Worlds is fairly decent. Aside from Mario Sunshine, I don't like any 3D Mario games any better, though. I personally don't think either mascot character has really been great in 3D.
 
Really, I can't believe those leakers that say "Sony is developing a new Silent Hill game".

It sounds very illogical.(Sony doesn't care about a niche horror franchise that wasn't popular after it's 2nd game when they can make a better one themselves.)

It will be either a Konami SH game or no SH game at all imo.

Makes me feel those leakers are just annoying Silent Hill fans for the pleasure of it.
 
Sonic Adventure 2 simply did two things that resonated with a lot of fans.

I). It streamlined the gameplay and pace of the first Adventure game while expanding and improving upon it.

II). Told a darker more serious story.

Sadly though, Adventure 2 has suffered from "Sonic 06 syndrome" where every flaw is exaggerated. Also, the ports (which were the games most gamers were first exposed to) only exacerbated the problem by introducing graphical (mostly layering) issues. In my opinion, the most definitive version is the PC port with Japanese voices, Dreamcast mod, mixed in with Battles' extra features.
 
Last edited:
Tsukuyomimagi99 said:
I). It streamlined the gameplay and pace of the first Adventure game while expanding and improving upon it.
Click to expand...

Whilst it did indeed streamline the gameplay, I can't see how any of it could possibly be seen as an improvement.

Tsukuyomimagi99 said:
II). Told a darker more serious story.

Sadly though, Adventure 2 has suffered from "Sonic 06 syndrome" where every flaw is exaggerated. Also the ports (which were the games most gamers were first exposed to) only exacerbated the problem by introducing graphical (mostly layering) issues. In my opinion, the most definitive version is the PC port with Japanese voices, Dreamcast mod, mixed in with Battles' extra features.
Click to expand...

In what way does darker story improve things? And c'mon, it certainly wasn't serious. If anything, it was completely all over the place.

Additionally, the fact that your idea of the "definitive versions" - on both counts - are both essentially fan-made mods, well, they kinda show that the (multiple versions of the) game were bad to begin with.



I may sound like a "truther", but people, please, you can say you enjoyed it, but please do not lie to yourselves by saying they Sonic Adventure 2 is a good game. It's objectively bad on so many levels it's actually insulting.
 
Last edited:
Both the Sonic Adventure games were great back when I initially played it. Through PlayStation Now I booted up that sonic game where he turns into a "werehog" ("were" actually means 'man' so if anything it should have been "HedgeWolf" or something along those lines), played it for 3 minutes and deleted it from the home screen.

Sonics 3D problem is the over-focus of him having to go fast, they've essentially turned it into a rail-runner with stages that are probably better suited to a racing game than what is supposed to be a platformer. It's sad that these mechanics are the best anyone at Sega can come up with when designing a Sonic game.

I had a vision for a Sonic game that played like Horizon, Breath of the Wild and Spiderman but with graphics similar to the movie, combat that was a lot deeper than just a jump attack and a prequel story, back when Sonic was brown. His speed would be limited (similar to how a cheetah can't go full pelt all the time) to a point he's just a very fast character most of the time but is not going at Sonic speed (until near the end and in the sequels when he develops this ability).
 
You asked a question, I gave you an answer about how some fans feel. Also, I suggest you take your own advice. Just because you think Adventure 2 is "objectively bad" doesn't mean others see it that way. Saying that fans who like Adventure 2 are "lying to themselves" is just as insulting if not downright arrogant.

In either case, this will be my last post on this topic.
 
Last edited:
Tsukuyomimagi99 said:
Just because you think Adventure 2 is "objectively bad" doesn't mean others see it that way. Saying that fans who like Adventure 2 are "lying to themselves" is just as insulting if not downright arrogant.
Click to expand...

I really don't think it is arrogant though. I can't see any reason at all as to why anyone has a positive opinion on it. For me it's like saying that Barbie Girl by Aqua is a brilliant song. It clearly isn't, and I don't know if I'm the sane one in the nuthouse, or I'm going round town smearing shit on the walls.

There is absolutely nothing I can see - especially (but not exclusively) considering the quality of the previous entry - that could make it seem like a good game.

And nobody can articulate it.

People just seem to wave their hand, ignoring the overwhelming number of undeniable issues with it, and say "I just prefer it". That's fine. Humans are a mad species, but literally every aspect of that game is a complete mess.

I really, really don't get it.
 
Mittens2317 said:
I can't see any reason at all as to why anyone has a positive opinion on it. For me it's like saying that Barbie Girl by Aqua is a brilliant song.
Click to expand...
Music is extremely personal and subjective and whtever ticks to that person brain based on their past experiences would make that song brilliant, yes. For example, I mostly detest hiphop as those monotone voices are not my thing but I would not be such an elitist to call those who like mad people as that is quite an elitist view of life.

However,I do agree on the design being a mess, SA2 trying to focus on 3 gameplay styles was not ideal and IMHo hurt all 3 gameplay styles being shallower than they should. I did only really enjoy the sonic/shadow ones at the time, trying to speedrun those were fun.
 
Creward said:
Music is extremely personal and subjective and whtever ticks to that person brain based on their past experiences would make that song brilliant, yes. For example, I mostly detest hiphop as those monotone voices are not my thing but I would not be such an elitist to call those who like mad people as that is quite an elitist view of life.
Click to expand...

I do get that, but some things are objectively bad. People can like them in spite of the flaws, that's fine, but a rotten apple is a rotten apple, and saying that it brings down the taste of the bag of apples overall isn't elitist, it's just stating a fact.

Also, saying people must be mad for liking it, that's how much I fail to see why it's considered any good, and - as I keep saying - no one has ever been able to offer anything besides vague points that often don't even pertain to nullifying how bad it is.

"I like Sonic Adventure 2 because it introduced Shadow" for example offers nothing.
 
All I have to do is put Sonic Adventure 1/2 against something like Mario 64 and Mario Galaxy, and the obvious contrast in quality and workmanship is GLARING. 3D Sonic games get little love or attention from Sega. When Yuji Naka left, Sega might as well have shut Sonic Team's doors. Even during the Saturn era, we got NiGHTS and Burning Rangers, two quality games. Sonic Team's pretty much been a joke since then as far as I'm concerned.

Their Sonic games lack major polish and are full of bugs. The Sonic levels can be fun, but really do seem to lack clever level design and do 'play themselves' to an extent, unlike the 2D Sonic games. I'm aware the side characters' stories are included to pad the games' playtime, but these levels typically offer uninteresting gameplay. Sega might as well just release five-hour Sonic games if they can't make the additional content fun. I loathed the Knuckles/Rouge levels in SA2, and I didn't find the Mecha-Tails levels fun either. I find few Sonic fans/gamers enjoy these side stories. Perhaps it's time for Sonic Team to re-imagine what a 3D Sonic should play like--for instance, the Sonic Utopia demo shows there's more to Sonic than speed and running forward.

I own Sonic Forces and I find little to like about it. Sonic Team lacks passion...
 
Last edited:
mjqjazzbar said:
All I have to do is put Sonic Adventure 1/2 against something like Mario 64 and Mario Galaxy, and the obvious contrast in quality and workmanship is GLARING. 3D Sonic games get little love or attention from Sega. When Yuji Naka left, Sega might as well have shut Sonic Team's doors. Even during the Saturn era, we got NiGHTS and Burning Rangers, two quality games. Sonic Team's pretty much been a joke since then as far as I'm concerned.

Their Sonic games lack major polish and are full of bugs. The Sonic levels can be fun, but really do seem to lack clever level design and do 'play themselves' to an extent, unlike the 2D Sonic games. I'm aware the side characters' stories are included to pad the games' playtime, but these levels typically offer uninteresting gameplay. Sega might as well just release five-hour Sonic games if they can't make the additional content fun. I loathed the Knuckles/Rouge levels in SA2, and I didn't particularly find the Mecha-Tails levels fun either. I find few Sonic fans/gamers enjoy these side stories. Perhaps it's time for Sonic Team to re-imagine what a 3D Sonic should play like--for instance, the Sonic Utopia demo shows there's more to Sonic than speed and running forward.

I own Sonic Forces and I find little to like about it. Sonic Team lacks passion...
Click to expand...

That's why I would like to see Sega partner up with Nintendo. I believe Nintendo could really push Sega 1st party games back in the limelight. That's the one thing Nintrndo has is 1st party longevity.

I know alot of people here say that Sega and Nintendo ideologies don't mix but at this point Sega doesn't have anything to lose. Increased gaming sells could put Sega in a position to make some significant moves. IMO
 
Mittens2317 said:
I do get that, but some things are objectively bad. People can like them in spite of the flaws, that's fine, but a rotten apple is a rotten apple, and saying that it brings down the taste of the bag of apples overall isn't elitist, it's just stating a fact.

Also, saying people must be mad for liking it, that's how much I fail to see why it's considered any good, and - as I keep saying - no one has ever been able to offer anything besides vague points that often don't even pertain to nullifying how bad it is.

"I like Sonic Adventure 2 because it introduced Shadow" for example offers nothing.
Click to expand...
there is no objective metrics for videogames, musics and art in general. And believe me, as a software engineer/scientist minded person, I would love them to be around and stop the stupid scale of 7 bad, 8 normal, 9 good that we have in videogames...

Mittens2317 said:
You only really need to look at F-Zero on the Gamecube to see how well they work together.
Click to expand...
Best F-Zero IMHO. Shame they did no make more.
 
Creward said:
there is no objective metrics for videogames, musics and art in general. And believe me, as a software engineer/scientist minded person, I would love them to be around and stop the stupid scale of 7 bad, 8 normal, 9 good that we have in videogames...
Click to expand...

It's the kinda situation where common sense needs applying. A two year old randomly banging on pots and pans is not a good drum beat, even if some weirdo tries selling it as such.

Likewise, broken or otherwise poorly implemented mechanics are definitively a bad thing.

Look, I get the kinda thing where someone can say "yeah, but I enjoyed it", but that doesn't mean that it's good. How something operates on a functional level is entirely different to how it makes one feel.
 
Mittens2317 said:
It's the kinda situation where common sense needs applying. A two year old randomly banging on pots and pans is not a good drum beat, even if some weirdo tries selling it as such.

Likewise, broken or otherwise poorly implemented mechanics are definitively a bad thing.

Look, I get the kinda thing where someone can say "yeah, but I enjoyed it", but that doesn't mean that it's good. How something operates on a functional level is entirely different to how it makes one feel.
Click to expand...
Well I know what you are trying to say but reality is quite more complex than that. Ibehold wall of text incoming.

First topic I want to touch is the common sense one. Since that is quite a fuzzy concept with no real meaning and quite varies from person to person and is a cultural adquired.

The second topic, and the main one, about how to defining a good videogame. Lets start a bit on the discussed poorly implemented mechanics or broken, we have a few real cases that this seems to not resonate with what critics and users consider a good videogame:
  • Mass Effect 1: had broken mako controls (vehicle) and shooting mechanics quite unbalanced broken where the normal gun outclasses any assault rifle/shotgun/etc... It is still a beloved game because the characters, engaging story and roleplay aspect which were the main focus.
  • Bethesda elder scrolls/fallouts: one of the buggiest games, also quite unbalanced mechanics and in some cases the bug fixes comes from modders. Still loved for the exploration aspect.
  • Paradox Interactive Grand Strategy games: Another set of games known to be quite broken often, with lots of bugs. It still gets quite praised since it fulfills the map painting/inbreeding/strategy need of that niche demographic
  • Bordelands: This is quite my personal opinion, the gunplay is quite bad, no feedback from the enemies, sponge bullets. It is a loved franchise.
Those are more like that, after all a lot of games are a mess even in latter stage of development and become playable quite late, but that wouls cover some of the ideas of bad mechanics/broken stuff does not necessarily equate to a bad game.

There are also some circumstances that influences on the perception of quality in videogames.

One would be price, user expectations and what they are willing to tolerate is relatively linked on the perceived value of the product. The lower the price the more likely is that those kind of "half baked" or "bad" mechanics are overlooked or glossed over.

Second is historical context of the product. A lot of "classics" today they would be considered bad games if we analyze them "objectively" with the knowledge of mechanics that we have today, specially the early 3d era (or psx/saturn era). Examples of games that probably could be considered bad games if you had no historical context Resident Evil 1, Metal gear Solid, Deus ex, probably Half Life 1 even maybe Super Mario 64.

And that is all for now, I do enjoy this kind of discussions on objectivism vs subjectivism on scoring games.
 
Creward said:
I do enjoy this kind of discussions on objectivism vs subjectivism on scoring games.
Click to expand...

Likewise, I just don't like using diplomatic language.

As per your examples, I agree massively, on both counts: the broken mechanics and historical context. The latter of which I'd previously covered, as I played both the DC and GC versions almost immediately after they were released. My criticisms still stand.

I believe that the balance matters from good to bad aspects. So I'm willing to concede that, okay, maybe I can't say that Sonic Adventure 2 is definitively a bad game. I can however say that the vast majority of its features are not only broken, but poorly thought out. Designed and implemented in a way that forces players to find other aspects they deem enjoyable, away from the core experience.

I can also say that, without a shadow (lol) of a doubt, Sonic Adventure 2 cannot be considered a well made game. Maybe the idea is good, maybe a lot of people enjoyed it, but the number of fundamental flaws, and mind boggling oversights (seriously, the audio levels are literally the easiest issue to solve and they released without fixing it anyway) mean that it cannot be revered on a technical level by anyone other than Tom Green standing in front of a mirror with his clothes on the wrong way round.
 
mjqjazzbar said:
All I have to do is put Sonic Adventure 1/2 against something like Mario 64 and Mario Galaxy, and the obvious contrast in quality and workmanship is GLARING.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know what you mean. Mario 64 and Galaxy are so bad I can hardly stand to look at them. At least I can play the Sonic Adventures without falling asleep, or wanting to bust the N64 controller into little bits.


Mittens2317 said:
You only really need to look at F-Zero on the Gamecube to see how well they work together.
Click to expand...
That's kind of the opposite scenario, though. That was Sega taking a Nintendo property, and doing what they did best in order to make an actually fun game out of it.

Mittens2317 said:
I can also say that, without a shadow (lol) of a doubt, Sonic Adventure 2 cannot be considered a well made game. Maybe the idea is good, maybe a lot of people enjoyed it, but the number of fundamental flaws, and mind boggling oversights (seriously, the audio levels are literally the easiest issue to solve and they released without fixing it anyway) mean that it cannot be revered on a technical level by anyone other than Tom Green standing in front of a mirror with his clothes on the wrong way round.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure there are really that many "fundamental flaws," though. I think you could definitely say that the collision detection is problematic at times, but most of the other criticisms are potentially just perceived flaws. I'm not sure I really see your point on the audio thing. I was scanning through cutscenes from the game, and the only voice audio that seems consistently low is Eggman. Also instances where the BGM has vocals while characters are talking seems to be rather rare. Besides that, aren't there audio level sliders in the options? I recall the audio options for both Sonic Adventures being fairly extensive, even including dual-audio for voices.

Story, level design, progression, sfx use, English VA, treasure hunter stages? Yeah, SA2 is not my preference, but for some people it is. I'd agree that in retrospect I don't feel SA2 is exactly a 9/10 game, but it's not really a broken mess like Sonic '06 or Sonic Heroes, either.
 
Perhaps you don’t love Mario, but I really don’t see how you can argue 3D Mario games have not generally advanced the platformer genre or been developed with the utmost care and quality. I’m not exactly sure what Sonic Team have achieved with the 3D Sonic series beyond damaging Sonic’s reputation with most gamers.

The 2D games are something else entirely. 3D Sonic is a huge disappointment compared to what Sonic Team achieved on the Genesis.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top