Ok Sup Forums please explain me

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KilXe7EtmwA
tcrf.net/Sonic_Adventure_2:_Battle/Changes_from_the_Dreamcast_Version
youtu.be/MxcCauqLscs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

If I had to guess, it's because of bitterness that SEGA dropped out of the console market and started developing games for Nintendo hardware.

Because Battle is just a straight up better version of SA2 unlike SA:DX which was a somewhat botched port.

>Not even a year later
Really? I thought it wasn't released until late 2002?

I noticed reviews of ports back then were pretty rough if the port didn't have some major new features and content.

Spider-Man for the Dreamcast got lukewarm reception by the press despite being a pretty big improvement perfromance wise over the Playstation version.

Nope, it even came out in December 2001 in Japan.

easy. It was overrated as fuck when it came out on DC because it was one of the last games. It was always a shit game.

Where are these averages coming from? On metacritic, SA2 has an 89 and SA2:B has a 73

this. sonic adventure 2 was always weird to me because it feels like the game has soul because its the last sega sonic game, but in game it just feels so soulless and robotic to play. adventure 1 was decent, sa2 sucked, and heroes was better than both of em.

games don't have souls

Because opinion would change that much about it in 6 months? Don't be retarded. Reception of 3D Sonic was pretty high until Shadow the Hedgehog was announced at E3.

Sure they do. Everything has a soul.

Not you

it's not that opinions changed. It's that the game was reviewed again by a whole crop of people who were not attached to the game sentimentally. As a final hurrah for a great system, the game was always going to do well with a certain crowd (DC reviewers). However as a game on a new console it was scored based on its own merits by a different (arguably more objective) crowd and found extremely lacking.

youtube.com/watch?v=KilXe7EtmwA

...

So sega/dreamcast players were smarter and were able to figure out the game and get good times and the nintendo kids and autists who have been conditioned on decades of shit easy games found it to hard? Suddenly every review of sonic makes sense now

Dig up reviews backing up your bullshit conclusion.

The ones I've found say that the game is fun, but the port is a disappointment because it's a straight up port with no real improvements to the base game other than some new multiplayer fluff.

One is a review of the game
The other is a review of a port

Battle was actually a pretty mediocre port outside of the multi-player features.

tcrf.net/Sonic_Adventure_2:_Battle/Changes_from_the_Dreamcast_Version

why would it be a bad port when its the same game with better controls, the emerald fix, and more multiplayer stuff? Its always been nintendrone bias

...

Was this when people started realising Sonic was shit? Dreamcast had few games so obviously the mascot gets a high rating but compared to the multitude of games on other consoles did people realise it didn't stack up?

Battle only added things though. DX was the shit port that had glitches that weren't present in the original, made some textures worse, and made everyone's model really shiny for some reason.

The only reason SA2 is hard is because it's a buggy mess.

Because the original was superior? Not hard to figure it out.

>Mediocre = Bad

I forgot this was Sup Forums. There is no middle ground. It's either shit or 10/10 GOTY.

how to play as Tails in sonic 2?

there is literally nothing but upgrades in the gamecube port, and yet it was knocked down significantly. something was up

I always thought Battle was superior

can I run Sonic Adventure 2 on NullDC?

>Sonic 2 title screen
>Sonic and Tails
>Sonic
>Tails
I have NO fucking idea.

True but that didn't hold for NES Classic GBA ports. I believe the Donkey Kong port got a perfect score in one of the bigger mags.

>Dreamcast had few games

Yeah, if you had shit taste

Maybe it's because the Dreamcast version was reviewed when people thought a mediocre Sonic game was a huge step up in quality, and when it got a chance to simmer down by the time Battle came out, people saw it for the shitshow it was.

OPs asshole

It took people a while to realise how shitty the adventure games were

Here's your (You)s now get out of the thread you didn't even bother to read.

Critics will never give those game low scores. Just like how Super Mario Bros. or Legend of Zelda will never stop being the #1 game in Top 100 games of all time list with the reasoning being that they exist.

Better games have come and improved on what they established, even within their own series, but you'll never see the press stop dick riding those games. The industry is a joke.

*nintendrones are a joke

ftffy

Does my soul have a soul?

youtu.be/MxcCauqLscs

It's funny because I also remember Shining Force on GBA, with tons of new features, coming out around the same time and getting a low score in the same mag.

I love that you're getting all butt hurt now that someone shot holes all over your theory. Plenty of ports reviewed just fine. Valkyria chronicles, a Sega game, got great reviews when it was released on PC years after its original release. The truth is SA2 was a shit game through and through.

PSO also got great reviews across all iterations. So it's not even an anti sega bias you twat.

Games back then were generally rated relative to what else was available for that platform. The Dreamcast mainly dealt in arcade-style games, so the bar for platformers and action/adventure games was lower than on the Gamecube, where those motifs were the system's bread and butter.

What? How did you even come remotely close to thinking difficulty was a reason for bad reviews. I've never heard difficulty as complaint. The game had reasonable challenge like the final mission of each story and final story along with getting all A ranks but it was by no means a reason to give it a bad review.

No, it's a problem that extends beyond Nintendrones.

People just will not stop romanticizing those games. Even if you port them with bare minimum features (like those GBA Classics), you will see the press throw their love at it because "oh man, they're so fun and legendary and still influential to this day :^]"

Meanwhile shit like or Castlevania Chronicles gets thrown under the bus because of a nitpick or bringing up how those games have an archaic design that makes them unplayable or a joke that someone would dare release those games in their condition in this day and age.

What the fuck are you even talking about? I'm not even part of the SA2 argument. I'm talking about the dick sucking a GBA port gets because of the game's legacy.

Yes but this only happens to nintendo games

The nintendrone bias in the industry is huge. If youre not AAA fps/open world, emotional walking sim, or nintendo, youre exposed to criticism