Sonic Adventure 2 - over rated or under rated?

[sonfan1984]

But even if they were good, what's your point? They're not console games, and that's where they are mostly judged upon. That's where all the publicity, advertisement, and fame is at.

My point is that there are still good or decent games after SA2 regardless if they're console games or not. If the public doesn't care or pay attention to them then that still doesn't change. Most of the handheld games is what kept me interested in Sonic during 2005-2009.

The handhelds did nothing. They were in their own little world that was absent from the general population.

That sounds like a huge understatement. The handhelds probably did something if most of the general population wanted Dimps to be the main developer back then during the time when Sonic Team is making games like Shadow, Sonic 06, Riders 1 and 2, etc..

Edited March 24, 2012 by sonfan1984

[Dreamhog]

Overrated. I just can't fathom how many people who aren't even Sonic fans, cite this as the last good Sonic game when so much of the game is not Sonic and instead it's boring, unrelated filler, same issue with Unleashed (but that's another story).

So they're not fans if they don't agree with you? I love unleashed. come at me bro.

[Soniman]

So they're not fans if they don't agree with you? I love unleashed. come at me bro.

Umm what? That isn't what I mean at all.

I was talking about people who generally aren't Sonic fans, will constantly say that Adventure 2 was the last good Sonic game and everything after that is a steaming pile.

[Sami]

Incredibly overrated, just like most people are saying.

The good part is... good. Nothing really great on the speed sections; I like them, but I consider them to be a tamer version of Unleashed and not much more. Unleashed is more fun to play, SA1 is more fun to play, Generations is more fun to play, Colors is more fun to play, etc.

Everything else is utter trash. I hate the mech shooting, and I loathe the treasure hunting. The fact that you have to like three games in order to enjoy this one game is such a massive flaw I can't even comprehend how they possibly thought it was a good idea at the time.

[HeroMystic]

Really? Because I seem to recall the entire Advance and Rush series being "the only good Sonic games for a time. Even stuff like Rivals weren't bad, just average to mediocre.

Except they weren't.

Advance 1 is good. Advance 2 is very meh, Advance 3 has the worst level design I've ever seen in a Sonic game. Sonic Rush is good, Sonic Rush Adventure was very bad.

Umm what? That isn't what I mean at all.

I was talking about people who generally aren't Sonic fans, will constantly say that Adventure 2 was the last good Sonic game and everything after that is a steaming pile.

So you're either saying I'm not a Sonic fan, or that SA2 wasn't a good game, because for the longest time I was one of those believers until Colors.

To note, saying SA2 was a bad game is completely fine with me, but your statement implies that the people who actually like Adventure 2 above the "steaming pile" aren't Sonic fans.

[Soniman]

Except they weren't.

Advance 1 is good. Advance 2 is very meh, Advance 3 has the worst level design I've ever seen in a Sonic game. Sonic Rush is good, Sonic Rush Adventure was very bad.

This all just boils down to opinion, Critically however, all those games were very well received and were constantly put on a pedestal as Sonic's only good games during his dark ages.

So you're either saying I'm not a Sonic fan, or that SA2 wasn't a good game, because for the longest time I was one of those believers until Colors.

To note, saying SA2 was a bad game is completely fine with me, but your statement implies that the people who actually like Adventure 2 above the "steaming pile" aren't Sonic fans.

Nononono. I was saying that people WHO WERE NEVER SONIC FANS IN THE FIRST PLACE, as in, play Sonic games casually (or just play a few of the games) and don't know very much about the series extensively, will usually say that SA2 was the last good Sonic games and whatever, and completely brush of anything after that. If you do happen to be a fan and have the same feelings, then whatever, more power to you, because I wasn't talking about you.

[Nepenthe]

The fact that you have to like three games in order to enjoy this one game is such a massive flaw I can't even comprehend how they possibly thought it was a good idea at the time.

I think they were thinking at the time that Sonic Adventure was such a massive success, both critically and financially, that it would be wise to do roughly the same thing again, albeit as a much more streamlined experience, if they wanted to see the same kind of success. And I think it pretty much worked when you look at reviews and impressions from the time period these games were released.

This is something I think is taken for granted with discussions about the Adventure games. It's easy in hindsight to criticize these games- or rather anything- for the flaws they have compared to the design standards of today. It's all too easy to be retroactive in your analysis of something that came out a decade or longer ago. But I think it's a mistake to say that these games were never good or that Sonic Team were seriously mistaken for doing something that- today- would be considered a disagreeable decision, because by all accounts, they weren't. They delivered games the public and critics enjoyed, games that received the praise and admiration we've been biting our nails about since 2005 and only just saw five years later. No one at the time was wrong- not Sonic Team for making the games as they made them, the critics for lauding them, or the public for having fun with them. Standards for 3D platformers were just far different at the time.

[Indigo Rush]

Most of the handhelds were actually pretty bad.

I have come to a realization that no matter what kind of argument I or any other Advance/Rush supporter will put forth, it won't change the minds of people who just pass them off as terrible games, despite their critical praise and solid gameplay, Advance 3 aside.

But pardon me as I say... mmmmnope, they were actually pretty good. Not quite Genesis good, but miles better than Shadow, Sonic '06 and the Storybook games. Not that it would matter, I suppose.

However we're veering off-topic quite a bit. Does anybody want to make a topic dedicated to the Nintendo handhelds? I'm certainly too lazy to at the moment, but I think I'd like to discuss this a tad further if the other parties are willing.

[HeroMystic]

However we're veering off-topic quite a bit. Does anybody want to make a topic dedicated to the Nintendo handhelds? I'm certainly too lazy to at the moment, but I think I'd like to discuss this a tad further if the other parties are willing.

There's plenty of old threads about them, the most recent I believe was Advance 3. I'd be willing to go far more in-depth on each game, and there's certainly more discussion involved than the original question here, which is steadily becoming a dead horse topic.

This is something I think is taken for granted with discussions about the Adventure games. It's easy in hindsight to criticize these games- or rather anything- for the flaws they have compared to the design standards of today. It's all too easy to be retroactive in your analysis of something that came out a decade or longer ago. But I think it's a mistake to say that these games were never good or that Sonic Team were seriously mistaken for doing something that- today- would be considered a disagreeable decision, because by all accounts, they weren't. They delivered games the public and critics enjoyed, games that received the praise and admiration we've been biting our nails about since 2005 and only just saw five years later. No one at the time was wrong- not Sonic Team for making the games as they made them, the critics for lauding them, or the public for having fun with them. Standards for 3D platformers were just far different at the time.

Just wanted to say I 100% agree with this. The problem isn't that the adventure series weren't good games, but they didn't age well. Platformers, particularly Sonic games began to experiment more and standards began to mold outside of the gimmick-reliant gameplay. When SA1/SA2 came out, they were good games by critics, but from SA2:B onwards their score declined more and more as time went on.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Marco

[Kuzu]

I don't think the game itself is bad, just that people have different standards when it comes to Sonic.

[lounge]

I don't think it's overrated. I rarely hear anyone talk about it anymore. The gameplay was actually well programmed. Hell, the mech gameplay was better programmed than the gun gameplay in ShtH. The controls were tight and accurate. The sound effects were better than later games. The music was so diverse and amazing. Mulitplayer was addicting. The final story was incredible. All these things were lacking in later games. Playing the game now, the textures still look good today. Not HD, but the detail looks really photorealistic. You look at ShtH and Riders and the textures are all stretched out and blurry. The game just had a cool attitude.

Today, the game isn't as impressive in this decade. I don't think it stands the test of time like most Nintendo games. The speed stages are pretty linear, the cutscene animation is just weird, and sonic is slower that in other games. I don't know how a newcomer would react to the game playing it today. I still don't think it's overrated. If somebody mentions how good sonic used to be, they always mention the genesis games. I never hear SA2. Everyone I knew who played SA2B liked it though.

[HeroMystic]

Why?

Because riding on a boat is fun.

What started out as blasting through stage by stage, spamming the trick button, and collecting Chaos Emeralds was a fun rollercoaster ride in Sonic Rush. Rush Adventure puts you through a sluggish tedium just to get from stage to stage, and the stages themselves weren't all that great. I stopped playing early on because of that.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Marco

[Scar]

If somebody mentions how good sonic used to be, they always mention the genesis games. I never hear SA2. Everyone I knew who played SA2B liked it though.

That is because, SA2 cannot hold a candle to the Mega Drive games. It simply cannot hope to compare. SA2 is mediocre at best. S1-3K were all outstanding.

[Ekaje]

I'd argue that a bit with Sonic 1. It's mostly good, but there are some aspects of the gameplay and level design that aren't as good as they became it the later Genesis games.

On topic, I think it's a little bit of both. It's definitely overrated by people who claim it's the best Sonic game ever, but they're just a small, vocal group. It's also a bit underrated by most other people who say it's garbage.

Then again this is coming from someone who likes the mech stages and the treasure stages that aren't so stupidly big and long that they become a chore to play (which is only the first few, sadly).

Edited March 24, 2012 by Ekaje

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Definitely overrated. How can it be underrated. Sonic Adventure 2 has been mentioned as the best Sonic game ever in the sites I go to and it's like...I strongly disagree. Can't argue with them though, because it's a good game. Personally I think it's ok game but I don't think Adventure 2 was God.

It's downright annoying because they think Sonic Adventure 2's the last awesome Sonic game, they want Sonic Adventure 3. They think Adventure 3 will revive Sonic to his golden best. No, it's just a freaking title. Sega closed the Adventure series with a high, let's not ruin it. Like Sega already made a mistake, Sega should have not revived Shadow and should have left him on a high note. But nope and look at him today.

[Nepenthe]

SA2 being mentioned as the greatest Sonic game ever by some people does not make it overrated when simultaneously, there are people of the opposite viewpoint who will proceed to call it one of the shittiest games the series has ever had. Under the same logic, I could just as well call it underrated if I only took into account one side of the conversation.

Personally, after playing a few levels some months ago, I like SA2 well enough and still find it enjoyable in this day and age- from a gameplay, storyline, and aesthetic perspective- outside of only a handful of hunting stages. I was particularly surprised at how precise Sonic and Shadow felt in the game, and the amount of effort it took to learn the lay of the land and be able to skillfully pull off A ranks on their levels. People called Unleashed and Riders hard? No. SA2 is hard, and I applaud it for that.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Nepenthe

[-Mark-]

Even as someone who considers Sonic Adventure 2 as their all-time favourite Sonic game, I can still see that it's overrate to an extent. Much of its praise comes from nostalgia goggles coupled with the 10th anniversary hype (because let's face it, everything's more exciting as a kid), but then, as someone who holds it in such regard for those very reasons, it's not hard to see why so many other people do as well.

Is Sonic Adventure 2 actually the best Sonic game ever made? Of course not. It is, however, the one that I enjoyed more than any of the others and have the fondest memories of.

[NiGHTS]

Mark had a point there. We enjoyed it alot more as a kid. If say, that game came out now days (with more flashy graphics) I don't think we will praise it as much as we do now. Its not one of my favorite games, but it is an amazing game. It also started SEGA's route with insense story telling which brought the series down. More Sonic friends ect, which people didn't like as the series went on.

[Old dead account]

Very overrated, it seems to get praised for the same reason Unleashed was panned (inconsistent gameplay) I call nostalgia goggles.

Also, people that act like this:

http://forums.sega.com/showthread.php?385870-Why-are-there-so-many-Sonic-Adventure-haters-nowadays-!

[Kuzu]

As being "The Breakfast Club" IN SPACE, it's definitly NOT overrated. All the teen archetypes are there, just like in the film. The Shadow/Judd Nelson connection is just awsome.

And it was made in 2001, when the 90's style was dead and the retro 80's style was "new". It makes total sense.

......Why is it this post showed up when I was just reading about the "Breakfast Club"?...WHO ARE YOU, AND WHY ARE YOU IN MY HEAD.

[Megabox!]

It's really overrated but I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the hell out of it when I was younger. In my honest opinion I think Unleashed, Colors and definitely Generations are better games though.

[Stritix]

It certainly is overrated at times, but it's still one of the best Sonic titles. It's not underrated at all.

You also have to play through more unwanted characters in the first to continue the story. I don't see why so many point this out in the second, but ignore it in the first.

[Shane]

I just watched The Breakfast Club last night. Whoa.

I agree with the camp that thinks it was okay for its time but hasn't aged well and is unnecessarily praised by non-fans who haven't even played the newer games - I had one of these people attack me recently on a Facebook status where I said Colours was a good game. .-.

He pretty much said that like Crash: Warped, "Sonic Adventure 2 Battle" (yes, Battle) is the last good Sonic game, but that the half of Generations that will be 2D is gonna be good too.

Because we've never had a bad 2D game, have we?

Edited March 25, 2012 by XD375

[sonfan1984]

You also have to play through more unwanted characters in the first to continue the story. I don't see why so many point this out in the second, but ignore it in the first.

In Sonic Adventure you can play through Sonic's portion of the story and not touch the other characters at all if you don't care to finish the whole game. Sonic Adventure 2 the treasure hunting and shooting levels are forced upon you. You have to play through them to progress the story.

[Nepenthe]

You have to play the other characters' campaigns in SA1 to progress the story as well. Sonic's portion doesn't give you the entire scope of the situation, nor will you even be able to unlock the final battle just by completing his campaign and leaving the others alone. The fact that Sonic's campaign isn't interspersed with other characters' stages doesn't mean they're not being "forced" upon you regardless.

But this is kind of a terrible argument in the first place, don't you think? "I'm not forced to play a whopping 83% of the rest of the game, so it's automatically better than the one where I am forced to play everything." Wat?