Sonic Adventure

Don't know much about this game as it is not talked about very often. Is it good or bad?

Good

It's comically bad at times, but you can still have a lot of fun with it.

very bad

in retrospect, sonic adventure was a terrible game. what made people remember it so fondly was the music, bad voice acting, and the chao garden.

There's so much to see and do, it's cool and fun, but janky as fuck. definition of flawed masterpiece

i suggest you live by your own feelings, like the song you hear a whole bunch in the game

It's horseshit. Try and play it without nostalgia goggles. I bought it on steam to see what the fuss was about and it's clunky as fuck, terrible physics, laughably bad dialogue and animations, I don't see what people like about it whatsoever.

It's one of the most overrated video games of all time.
It's painful to play, and I have 100%ed it multiple times just because I'm a fan of the Genesis games.
I even did all those dumb missions in the re-releases

the only way to play sonic adventure is on the dreamcast or gamecube. all the PC and other console ports were BADLY ported. missing features, graphics effects, sound degraded, etc.

Actually the 360 port of the GameCube release has the best visual quality of any release.

also it's funny how the opening riff of It Doesn't Matter puts me back to being thirteen in 1999 all over again, and 2004-2005 when I torrented the PC version with only Windy Valley WMA audio

Don't give me that. I've tried a physical copy of Adventure 2 on GC and it was no better. 2D sonic was fun because of momentum, not blind speed. The 3D games completely miss what made the originals interesting. Janky, floaty controls and reaching your max speed in around a second from standstill made any platforming section suck, the camera constantly fought against you... anything other than running along flat ground while listening to the OST sucks.

it's great, sonic environment, atmosphere, and story are pure entertainment. level design flows nicely

Sup Forums is cynnical because they miss the point of why people enjoy the game in the first place. glitches and graphical flaws only add to the experience imo, nothing gamebreaking, just something that makes it one of a kind

cult classic

It's almost 20 years old, user. The technology and design sensibilities of that period of 3D games makes it incredibly dated. That said, it's still a wonderful experience for the most part and worth playing but I would not expect a masterpiece or even a game that has aged well. I personally recommend the original version but that's hard to come by so just give DX a shot.

sonic adventure 1 and 2 are worth it for the chao garden alone. I'm mad Sega never expanded upon this.

I play a shit ton of PS1/N64 games; I'm very familiar with early 3D. It came out the same year as Spyro, Tenchu, MGS and Duke Nukem Time to Kill. They all crush Sonic in gameplay, polish, responsiveness, voice acting, everything. Sega should be embarrassed that was the best they could offer, especially on much more powerful hardware.

>MGS
>responsive
lol

That's what a 9-month cycle does to a game

Ocarina of Time, Banjo Kazooie, Rogue Squadron, Wipeout 64...

So how's the Dreamcast model project going? Are we closer to having the perfect port of SA1?

You're right, I just thought it was funny that you thought MGS had good gameplay and especially responsive controls, particularly when compared to Sonic Adventure.

sonic adventure 2 was technically not impressive, still nice to play,

would probably be MUCH better if they made pvp be online instead of just local on pc at least...

It's a great game, but if you're one of those people that can't accept the limitations of the era in which the game was made, you're not gonna like it.

That said, the gameplay is some of the best in the series, beaten only by it's sequel.

WHATS UP KNUCKLES?
SOMETHING BUGGIN YOU?

its the Evil Dead of video games

with SA2 being the Army of Darkness

If you don't like the SA games, your taste is prolly pedestrian at best

only the sonic levels were decent. everyone else was terrible.

You mean the one in the Dreamcast collection on 360?

I was referring more to production values, polish and graphical fidelity on a significantly weaker system. I honestly think gameplay is more thought-out and engaging in MGS. SA (1 especially) feels like a 6 month budget title. No excuse for it. People try and say its because of the limitations of the era but in 1998 I was playing Tomb Raider, Spyro and Wipeout all of which had highly complex 3D worlds and pushed the limits of what was possible back then, and did so without compromising gameplay.

Gameplay in MGS is pretty obviously crippled so they can show off the new tech. You're right about production values though.

>SA (1 especially) feels like a 6 month budget title.
That's because it was
SEGA's management and ability to cohesively function as a company was JUSTed after 1996

>Tomb Raider, Spyro
>had highly complex 3D worlds
>without compromising gameplay

Are you fucking retarded?

bad but fun

which is better than most modern AAA which are both bad and boring.