(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
(This post is missing and can not be restored)
Ok, you might notice my previous thread here about the critics and Sonic games. Yes, I defended all the 3-D Sonic games, but don't let this give you the wrong impression. When thinking about it, SA2B has recently just marginally become my favourite 3-D Sonic game. I enjoyed SADX and Sonic Heroes almost as much, but when I thought about it, SA2B has more quality. I'll try to be a bit more brief this time...
I feel Sonic Adventure 2 Battle is a bit underrated. It seems to me to have the most quality of the 3-D Sonic games, yet people treat it like it has the least. For example, Sonic Adventure 2 Battle manages to avoid the glitchiness that Sonic Adventure DX and possibly even Sonic Heroes had, as well as manages to have more variety and possibly even originality than Sonic Heroes and possibly even Sonic Adventure DX had. Yet people not just including, but ESPECIALLY the critics, are constantly picking out "flaws" like the uncooperative camera, inclusion of other stages, simplicity, not-so-amazing voicework, and the fact that it has other characters than Sonic.
Well the uncooperative camera wasn't too big a problem. The camera angles were well chosen enough that you shouldn't need to change them, and as long as you were using the right strategy for a level, the camera shouldn't get too much in the way of you beating the level. Unlike SADX's auto camera mode, the camera didn't automatically snap to a completely different camera angle, resulting in your direction automatically and unnecessarily changing, and unlike SADX's free camera mode, it didn't end up getting stuck very often. (Then again, it's unlike SADX to begin with, because in SA2B you weren't falling through the ground/floors anyway) So the problem wasn't a quality problem. It might not have been a great choice for replay value but what we had there was more carefully put together than SADX's camera, yet people are constantly referencing that to call it a terrible game. Yes I know SADX has been criticized for having a bad camera. If I didn't, I wouldn't have created a thread not so long ago partially to rant about the fact that it has been criticized for that. What I'm saying is, SADX's problems more than put SA2B's in perspective. Ok, I see I'm kinda stating the obvious here, so I'll go on to the next reference...
Then there's the example of different stages than running stages. Now remember, just because not all the stages are Sonic/Shadow stages, that does not mean they aren't well put together. They were very well done. The fact that they aren't the exact same things they used to be doesn't make them terrible. In fact, this was more of an indication of quality, because Sonic Team chose to put variety into the game. Of course, you could call SADX variety too, but it didn't have a multiplayer mode like SA2B did, which really helped in SA2B's case. But to the people who think that the fact that they added different stages to SADX and SA2B is a sign that Sonic Team doesn't listen to fans, think again. If I remember correctly, Sonic Team said that when the classic games were out, people were complaining that there WEREN'T hunting and shooting stages. I think I remember it being mentioned in [url= http://www.gamespot.com/live/streamer_new2.html?title=Sonic+Adventure+DX+Directo r's+Cut+Developer]this interview[/url] but I haven't watched the video in a while, so I'm not sure if I heard right. (Mind you, you have to have a Gamespot account that you're logged into for the video to work, I remember seeing it on another site a long time about but I forget the URL.)
Another complaint is the simplicity. Not only does that pretty much apply to the other 3-D Sonic games, but who cares? I mean come on, people are complaining about the presence of hunting and shooting stages not being like the old days. Well excuse me, but the older Sonic games weren't exactly supercomplex either. Really, how can you expect to go back to what Sonic used to be and make it complicated? It makes no sense whatsoever. Thing is, Sonic isn't SUPPOSED to be complicated. Part of Sonic basically IS about being simplistic. While the simplicity doesn't exactly do wonders for the quality, trying to make Sonic games complicated would probably do more harm than good.
Then there's the issue of voicework. Now in SADX, the characters often have the wrong tones of voice in their lines (For example, when Tikal said "Huh." like her tone of voice suggested instead of "Huh?" like the subtitling at the bottom said) and in Sonic Heroes, the characters actually mispronounce, well, most likely there's cases of mispronouncing the lines because there's actually mispronounciations of the sound bites! (Such as when Knux said "@#%$! ROUGH!" instead of "SHIFT THRUST!" which makes me still surprised the ESRB apparenlty didn't notice it) Yet the complaints about SA2B's voicework are about a couple characters' voices being a little too monotone? Really, not only is that not necessarily too signifigant to mention, but how do you know it wasn't intentional? Really, for example, when people say that the sound is low quality because Knuckles' voice makes him sound a little bit indifferent, do they ever stop to consider that maybe he's supposed to be? Really, that might be the developers' way of saying "Deep down, he doesn't really care about what's going on as much as the other characters do" but did so through the slightly indifferent voice as a way of adding hidden quality. Heck, that might have even been something to lighten the load. Come on now, I think Knux calling someone an idiot over them not knowing what Knux was doing did not need much more expression than it already had. (Heck, and THAT line WAS done with expression)
Basically, what's ranted about even worse nowadays is the whole aspect of focusing more on the other characters than Sonic and Robotnik. Think about it though, a game's quality is not determined by which characters are in it, just to act like it is would be ridiculous. Actually, doesn't adding new characters add to depth? If so, then that's another example of a feature added by Sonic Team for more quality that got misinterpreted as being non-quality. Just because it isn't dominated by Sonic, that doesn't prove it's terrible. The comics aren't necessarily dominated by Sonic, (Last time I checked) so does that make them terrible? I doubt it.
Basically, what I'm saying here is Sonic Adventure 2 Battle has more quality than most people seem to think. From what I've seen, Sonic Adventure 2 Battle was classified as being among the 3-D Sonic games in the level of quality, but I doubt it.
Like I said before, Sonic Adventure 2 Battle didn't have the glitchiness that Sonic Adventure DX had. Sonic Adventure 2 Battle didn't have the repetitiveness that Sonic Heroes had. Furthermore, many of the complaints against Sonic Adventure 2 Battle apply as much as, if not more so, in the other 3-D Sonic games. Sonic Adventure 2 Battle apparently seems like a game Sonic Team put a lot of production values into, but those production values went unnoticed. Perhaps the fact that they went so unnoticed might have led to a belief that quality gets interpreted as lack thereof.
Really, it's a funny thing though. Sonic Team, after realizing the love given for Sonic Adventure 2, decided to port it to the Gamecube, and many people criticized it quite harshly. Perhaps they might have thought "Oh I see, the more production values we have, the less they'll think we have, and vice versa!"
Then came SADX, and mostly the same people complained even more.
Who knows? Those people might have partly caused it!
Never mind. That's not likely... it's probably a coincidence.
Then again, you never know...
unknown
EZboard was hacked and all old posts were deleted. "Unknown" posts are ones which were deleted and no data could be recovered.
Well that sucks. Thanx 4 teh info, Craig.
And I can assure you, this thread will definitely not be missed.
I thought this was one of the best threads going. Even if was for the "four car pile-up, ten people dead on the side of the road; I'm sickened but I can't stop staring" quality of it.
