My opinion of every Sonic game released.

[MrPopo]

When I read the review it sounded like "This game was great back in the day, but now we can see just how flawed it was." Thus explaining why it got good scores back then and not-so-good scores now.

[Gamerforlife]

When I read the review it sounded like "This game was great back in the day, but now we can see just how flawed it was." Thus explaining why it got good scores back then and not-so-good scores now.

I get that it's flawed, but those scores are basically saying that the game is complete shit, which it isn't

[dsheinem]

When I read the review it sounded like "This game was great back in the day, but now we can see just how flawed it was." Thus explaining why it got good scores back then and not-so-good scores now.

I get that it's flawed, but those scores are basically saying that the game is complete shit, which it isn't

As you describe them, the recent IGN/1UP scores are dead on, actually. I can't believe the DC version scored so high back in the day!

[Gamerforlife]

When I read the review it sounded like "This game was great back in the day, but now we can see just how flawed it was." Thus explaining why it got good scores back then and not-so-good scores now.

I get that it's flawed, but those scores are basically saying that the game is complete shit, which it isn't

As you describe them, the recent IGN/1UP scores are dead on, actually. I can't believe the DC version scored so high back in the day!

Well, I'll just agree to disagree, you and I don't seem to see eye on eye on a lot of games. I think Sonic Adventure is a solid game that captured Sonic gameplay in 3D pretty well. In my honest opinion, anyone giving the game that low a score needs to stop writing reviews. I mean that's like putting Sonic Adventure on the same level as Superman 64, which is just wrong

[dsheinem]

I mean that's like putting Sonic Adventure on the same level as Superman 64, which is just wrong

We do agree on that!

Even though my comments earlier in this thread were half in jest about the "worsererererer" stuff, I do sincerely think that every Sonic game made has gotten progressively worse, though all the original 2D ones are still excellent. Once he made the move to 3D I found very little if anything redeeming in any of the Sonic games. SA looks nice and plays fast, but it is disorienting (in a bad way), cutesy (I prefer Sonic's original loner/flippant/rebel 'tude), and often tedious (especially anything you have to do between the disorienting stages).

[Hatta]

I recently replayed Sonic Adventure. It's still as much fun today as it was in 1999. There are a few camera problems, but they're minimal. The "adventure" sections are pretty useless, but they're not a major part of the game either.

I'd easily choose to replay Sonic Adventure again today over, say, Mario 64. You want to talk about disorienting camera problems... Hardly a fair comparison as Mario 64 was breaking ground 4 years before Sonic Adventure was out, I know. But why have reviewers been so forgiving about the flaws of Mario 64, and so unforgiving towards Sonic Adventure?

[Gamerforlife]

I recently replayed Sonic Adventure. It's still as much fun today as it was in 1999. There are a few camera problems, but they're minimal. The "adventure" sections are pretty useless, but they're not a major part of the game either.

I'd easily choose to replay Sonic Adventure again today over, say, Mario 64. You want to talk about disorienting camera problems... Hardly a fair comparison as Mario 64 was breaking ground 4 years before Sonic Adventure was out, I know. But why have reviewers been so forgiving about the flaws of Mario 64, and so unforgiving towards Sonic Adventure?

That's true, I was annoyed with Mario 64's camera and while I recognize the game's place in history as laying the groundwork for some other 3d platformers, it wasn't a perfect game yet it is exalted by so many gamers for some reason. I didn't like the mission based gameplay, much of which I found boring and I actually prefer Sonic Adventure's fast placed play. Generally speaking, I always like faster paced games. Give me Sonic over Mario, Dishwasher Dead Samurai over Scott Pilgrim, or X-Men vs Streetfighter over Street Fighter Alpha.

I also enjoyed Crash Bandicoot more than Mario 64 as it stuck to more linear gameplay rather than the boring mission based stuff in Mario 64. I think Crash came out first too, even though some talk about Mario 64 like it's the first 3d platformer

What's interesting to me is that I didn't seem to have as many problems playing Sonic Adventure as others seemed to. Getting disoriented wasn't an issue for me, though I do remember occasional camera problems(but Mario 64 is guilty of that too)and occasionally I would get stuck on a loop de loop, but that happened in the 2D Sonic games too. I don't think anything changed about Sonic's attitude either. He was never a loner(see Tales in Sonic 2, 3 and S&K)and his attitude doesn't seem noticeably different in Sonic Adventure. I think people just don't like that they gave him an actual voice, which I can understand. I also don't think they needed to focus so much on the other characters either, which became a bigger problem in Sonic Adventure 2

[Jrecee]

I think the wide range of review scores is because of multiple things. 1.) The game was scored higher than it should have when it first came out. 2.) The game hasn't aged that well 3.) The port is done poorly 4.) There's a general hatred for all things sonic (the hatred has been earned though)

IGN gave it a 3.5. It's only $10. I really can't imagine it being that bad for what it costs. Even if all you got for $10 was the Sonic stages it'd probably be worth it (or maybe better for it). I recently played through his game and running through those stages is still fun. The slower characters are still pretty crappy, although E-102's game is somewhat entertaining.

[Gamerforlife]

I think the wide range of review scores is because of multiple things. 1.) The game was scored higher than it should have when it first came out. 2.) The game hasn't aged that well 3.) The port is done poorly 4.) There's a general hatred for all things sonic (the hatred has been earned though)

IGN gave it a 3.5. It's only $10. I really can't imagine it being that bad for what it costs. Even if all you got for $10 was the Sonic stages it'd probably be worth it (or maybe better for it). I recently played through his game and running through those stages is still fun. The slower characters are still pretty crappy, although E-102's game is somewhat entertaining.

Your first three points should probably have netted the game a score of like a 7 out of 10. However, your fourth point seems to be the only thing that affected those review scores that I have seen, a biased hatred of all things Sonic these days. Whatever happened to reviewers being objective? I should expect this of IGN. I don't like God Hand, yet even I cannot justify the bullshit score IGN gave that game too

A 3.5 means the game has NO redeeming value. That score essentially says the graphics are shit, the sound is shit, the controls are shit and the gameplay is shit. Now honestly, can any of the smart people on this forum truly say that Sonic Adventure is THAT bad? The scores they've given this game are shameful. Seriously, I can't take any reviews by these guys seriously after that. Not I typically care that much about reviewers anyway, but still, those scores are just biased and unprofessional. Opinions are one thing, but there's something seriously wrong with someone who can't even find reason to give the game even a MEDIOCRE score(which would be a 5 out of 10). Gamezone, a site I never heard of before, seems to have the only fair score so far(7 out of 10)

[Jrecee]

The IGN score was extreme, but if you take a point away, from the 9/10 scores it got in 1999, for every thing I stated, you end up with a 5/10.

Like I said, I recently played it again, but outside of sonic, there's very little good about the game. Amy seems to run on the same acceleration as the other characters, but has just been slowed down. There's points where getting her up a hill or getting moving is a chore. Floating around as big is kinda cool in a laid back sort of way but not really good "game" material. Tails game is basically a duplicate of sonic's with 50% of the content taken out. Knuckles game sucks. E-102's is fun though, like I said.

Still it's probably worth $10 for someone who likes sonic and hasn't played it.