Sonic Adventure PSN/XBLA Port

[Barry the Nomad]

I'm surprised the game still has no product page at Xbox.com or in the Marketplace there or on the Xbox 360.

Yeah! When I'm bored and have the 360 on I like to browse the arcade and every single time I look for SA1 only to find nothing. Odd that it doesn't have a single page.

[DaBatGuy]

Buying it day 1, I haven't played it in almost a decade and I'll take a shoddy port over nothing right now. Same goes for Crazy Taxi(PSN version better have custom soundtracks though).

[Cortez]

Is it known how much it's gonna cost on PSN yet? I have no idea how much MSP cost so I can't really convert the price for a rough estimate lmao

[DistantJ]

Upon closer inspection and reviewing footage of the DC and GC versions, it appears Sonic just looks like he's moving 8 directions but isn't. Based on the most recent footage of this he seems to be doing analog movement, which is good to know. Hoping it's true. Now if only it'd allow widescreen, or at least stretch mode, or turning the borders jet black. Still, at least they've gone for minimalist border design rather than all that decoratey crap they used in Mega Drive Ultimate Collection.

[Cortez]

After watching that E3 video I'm pretty much convinced that this game does have only 8-directional movement, Sonic seems to move in diagonals throughout the entire video =\

Oh well, we'll know for sure in 2 days.

[Gamerguy21]

Is it known how much it's gonna cost on PSN yet? I have no idea how much MSP cost so I can't really convert the price for a rough estimate lmao

800 MS points = $10

So it'll probably be $10 on the PSN.

[Detective Shadzter]

After watching that E3 video I'm pretty much convinced that this game does have only 8-directional movement, Sonic seems to move in diagonals throughout the entire video =\

Oh well, we'll know for sure in 2 days.

2 days? It's out tomorrow I won't be fussed either way about the movement myself, I still have fun with SA:DX.

[Robogaman]

IGN has just posted a review:

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/112/1120409p1.html

And of course, IGN hates it.

[mikeblastdude]

3.5, ouch. I wasn't expecting a good score or anything, I just didn't think it was going to be that bad. I was expecting more along the lines of 5.0.

Well I still might get this anyway, I know exactly what to expect.

[Gamerguy21]

...Ouch.

I admit, SA has definitely hasn't aged that well, but it's not that bad. From the way he describes it, it sounds like one of the worst games ever.

Unless the port is worse than I think it is...

[Detective Shadzter]

The game isn't that bad. I still have fun with the GC version and I can't imagine this port being any less fun, unless it has problems the GC version doesn't. Oh well, it's Arthur's opinion.

EDIT:

1UP gives it a D

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181366

[Indigo Rush]

WOW!

THAT'S A LOW SCORE!

[Blue Blood]

The game isn't that bad. I still have fun with the GC version and I can't imagine this port being any less fun, unless it has problems the GC version doesn't. Oh well, it's Arthur's opinion.

Being a port of the PC version, it actually does. What's more is that there was zero effort to improve the game over it's DC, GC or PC versions. It's a port of an old game that aged badly with nothing done to make it any better. It's kinda crappy. 3.5 though? That's stupid. IGN reviewed the game as though it was a new title.

[Rusty Spy]

This is what Sega gets for continuously releasing the same buggy game over and over until everyone realizes the immense flaws that were present. Pretty much everything the 1Up review said explains it perfectly.

[Sean]

I still highly enjoy Sonic Adventure to this day, and its physics engine really adds to its charm. Maybe because the game has heart.

[Robogaman]

I personally don't care about the score, I'm still getting this. LOL

[Badnik Mechanic]

Being a port of the PC version, it actually does. What's more is that there was zero effort to improve the game over it's DC, GC or PC versions. It's a port of an old game that aged badly with nothing done to make it any better. It's kinda crappy. 3.5 though? That's stupid. IGN reviewed the game as though it was a new title.

So whats 1UPs excuse?

Lets be honest here, we knew months ago that this port was going to be crap. There were even people in this topic saying that it looked so bad they wondered if it would actually pass some of the quality control tests over at Sony.

From both those reviews it doesn't sound like much of anything has been done to acomodate the X-box pad, so chances are the PS3 pad won't have had any attention either. The only thing that we're had since this game was rumoured that has brought us the slightest bit of positive anticipation... was last night when we all thought that they had actually improved some of the controls and what-have-you as we all enjoyed our hour long trip down nostalgia lane.

Even if you don't want to believe that Sonic Adventure can be a bad game, the advertising says it runs in stunning HD... when it doesn't!? If you have to outright lie on your own product, it really doesn't bode well for it... actually how is it even legally possible for the game to be released due to false advertising?

That said, what'll most likely happen is that we'll all rush out tomorrow/today and buy it, we'll play it do death and then buy the next release when it comes out. But some of us might have this underlying thought "couldn't they have at least tried?"

[Phos]

buh dah dah dah daaah duh

I wonder if the same thing will happen if/when an SA 2 port comes out. A lot of the problems with SA 1 were barely excusable when it first came out, SA 1 didn't come out in 96 or something, this game came out in 99. Mario 64 was already out. Metal Gear Solid was out. A lot of the stuff about the game doesn't even really work. Sonic behaves so strangely on the curved surfaces in the first part of speed highway it's easy to just randomly run to your death.

I still find it enjoyable to play, though I think that has to do with me remembering how to avoid the problem areas, and because Ice Cap is in this game.

actually how is it even legally possible for the game to be released due to false advertising?

The console scales it up. It would be false advertising if they were to take screenshots of a fan enhanced version of the PC version that does run at an HD resolution and passed them off as official. <-Why does that sentence exists?

Edited September 15, 2010 by Phos

[EXshad]

Wow, seriously? A 3.5? A D?!?!?

What the fuck is this world coming to? Sonic Adventure was a great game. The graphics were unmatched, the music was excellent, the story was..... a story, and the gameplay (besides Amy and Big, DEFINITELY besides Big) was very fun. Nearly all of the glitches he mentioned on never had a problem with. Borderline unplayable? Go fuck yourself, it plays like a buttered pig, ESPECIALLY compared to the newer 3D Sonic games. Sonic behaves strangely? Yeah, the fucking game came out in 98 you dumbass, Mario behaved strangely in Super Mario 64, and Spiro behaved strangely in his games.And Sonic was extremely responsive. I pressed forward, he moved forward. Left, right, it all worked. And the high-speed sections worked nice if you weren't jiggling your control stick like a monkey with ADD.

Some levels were pretty bad at times, though. That I concede. The beginning of Ice Cap, or the ship-tilting section of Sky Deck, as well as the sideways running in Speed Highway all had their moments. But those are outstanding examples. Besides those, Sonic Adventure had some of the best 3D Sonic levels I can remember. The puzzles were great, and while it was fast-paced, speed was not the main focus. Sonic played like a dream... at the time, anyway. By today's standards, it has aged a bit. But not nearly as much as IGN's score would indicate.

Tails was fun too. And considering you were meant to fly over the "broken levels" as indicated by how he fucking plays, that's a moot point. And once again, he controlled smoothly. AND he only had 5 levels. So yeah, that's bullshit too.

Knuckles was... where we get some trouble. His levels were kinda clunky, and climbing with him was a pain. And the punching didn't always work. I can sympathize with some bitching here. But overall, he was just a Sonic clone that could climb walls. His mechanics worked for the most part, and while his levels weren't as fun as Sonic and Tails', they still weren't all that terrible.

But E-101 was just awesome. It was fast shoot-'em-up action, and the smooth controls complemented his gameplay. It mixed things up in a good way. And once again, only 5 levels.

Amy and Big I actually 100% agree on. There's no alibi; they are borderline broken and should not have been in the final game.

But do NOT fucking complain about the Chao garden. That's a fun little option that has no bearing on the main game. And hell, I thought it worked just fine.

And the camera? Ape Escape had a shitty camera. Super Mario 64 had a shitty camera. Spiro had a shitty camera. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 had a shitty camera. What do all these games have in common? They're excellent, and they were old. It comes with the territory.

So fuck IGN. I was expecting... eh, a 6. It didn't age the greatest, we all know. Thanks to Amy, Big, and some wonky level designs for Sonic and Knuckles. But the general control scheme itself worked beautifully, and better than most Sonic games do today. So what the hell, why did it get almost half that score?!

I seriously do think these sites are biased. Before, I laughed it off as a total joke when someone called these sites biased for saying a Sonic game sucked ('cause a good chunk of the time, they did, besides a couple exceptions). But unless the 360 port itself is fundamentally flawed to a point that is worse than the original, these scores really have absolutely no justification.

EDIT: Apparently the port itself IS fundamentally flawed compared to the original. So my bad there. Still, they can't say these problems with the port were apparently in the original game. 'cause that's bullcrap.

Edited September 15, 2010 by EXshad

[Barry the Nomad]

I'm still buying it.

[Badnik Mechanic]

I bring Good news!

Sonic and the Black Knight is no longer the lowest scoring Sonic game ever made! Sonic Adventure now holds that title!

1Up gave black Knight aC+ and IGN gave it a 3.9! lol I bet if you're a fan of Sonic Adventure... like a really really really really really huge fan, today is not a good day XD

I'm still buying it.

Me too!

Edited September 15, 2010 by Gnasher

[Chaosmaster8753]

Anyone remember any of the older Resident Evil games being rereleased on Gamecube and getting lower scores? This is kind of a similar situation.

[Cortez]

Eurgghhhh why is this being reviewed like it's a new game?

The IGN article even fucking lies on multiple occassions, at no point in Sonic Adventure are there 2D sections, the ability to boost or being expected to walk through the Adventure Fields. The camera isn't as fucking god awful as they make it out to be either, I sincerely doubt it ever left the player completely, that just sounds like sheer exaggeration.

Also, if I could find ALL the Action Stages with no trouble at the age of 8 this reviewer must be fucking stupid.

Fair enough it IS a shit port, nobody is denying that but fuck sake there's no need to exaggerate problems like they have.

[PSI Wind]

Well, if this "Lower the Sonic games score for every new game" pattern continues, Sonic Colors, Free Riders, and 4 will take that spot next .

[Barry the Nomad]

The reviews didn't really get into the controls aside from complaints that have been made about the Dreamcast and Gamecube releases, so it looks like tomorrow morning I'll be getting my answer. However, this portion from the IGN review is worth the price of admission alone:

Performance is good, at least, as I can't remember any point where the game dropped below 60FPS.

If I can play through the game once at 60 fps I consider it a worthwhile buy.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Doctor Eggman