Review: Sonic Adventure (XBLA)
Ten years can do a lot to change our perception of something. In 1999, we saw the release of Sonic Adventure, one of Sega and Sonic Team’s most ambitious games of that era. When you consider the scope of platformer games at the time, such as Crash Bandicoot or Banjo-Kazooie, the scale of Sonic Adventure was impressive. Six different characters, each with their own unique gameplay style, at least one hour of fully-voiced real-time cinematics, no fewer than eight monstrous hub-world maps, thirteen multi-part levels, a fleshed out virtual pet simulator… the list goes on. Sonic Adventure was a big deal, and its review scores for the era reflected that, with high marks from virtually all major publications.
But the ravages of time have not been kind to Sonic Adventure. By 2003’s Gamecube re-release in the form of Sonic Adventure DX, review scores were already slipping. Next to titles like Super Mario Sunshine and Sly Cooper, Sonic Adventure‘s archaic flaws stuck out like a sore thumb, and the half-hearted effort to spruce up the game’s visual fidelity did nothing to alleviate poor collision detection, bad voice acting, or dated animation. That brings us to the present: the latter half of the year 2010 – over 10 years since Sonic Adventure‘s original release. If Sonic Adventure was already looking dated in 2003, by today’s standards, it’s practically a dinosaur. In fact, by today’s standards, Sonic Adventure is almost as buggy and as broken as the legendary “Sonic 2006“. Both, not coincidentally, were the first Sonic games of a new generation; during a period where everybody was trying to figure out what, exactly, to do with all of this new technology. Both games were quite clearly rushed to market before they were fully completed. The key difference being, of course, that at the time, nobody had seen a game like Sonic Adventure before, so its faults were easier to overlook. When it came time for Sonic 2006, most were not willing to be so forgiving – and with good reason. It is with these same unforgiving eyes that we turn back to Sonic Adventure.
To put it delicately, the game has not aged gracefully. To the dedicated Sonic fan coasting on nostalgia, it’s still within the realm of what one would consider a “good game”, but to the world at large, the game is host to a myriad of problems. None will probably ever completely ruin the experience, but enough exist to gradually erode at the player’s level of enjoyment derived from the game straight out of the gate. This is Sonic Adventure, warts and all, with the atrocious camera system, poor lip-sync and at-times slippery controls. It’s not that uncommon to collide with a polygon the wrong way and fall through the floor entirely, resulting in an unfair, unpredictable death. None of this is aided by the poor job done in bringing the game to Xbox Live Arcade; the version on offer here is essentially an XBLA release of the PC port, which was a Gamecube port from the original Dreamcast version – in other words, a port of a port of a port. And while the PC version of Sonic Adventure can easily be adjusted to run at HD resolution on relatively dated hardware, the Xbox Live Arcade release is stuck in window-boxed 480p in a silly effort to remain “faithful” to the original game – despite previous Dreamcast XBLA ports, like Virtual-On: Oratorio Tangram running in full 720p HD. This is to say nothing of the missing effects and environmental details afforded to the Gamecube version of the game, such as reflective water shaders – an unfortunate omission carried over from the sloppy PC port.
The good news, I guess, is if you can tolerate the dated idiosyncrasies, there’s still a relatively good game underneath it all. There’s a reason people consistently point back to the original Sonic Adventure as the “best” 3D Sonic game, and that’s primarily because of its pacing. It really nails that feeling the old Genesis games had, striking that same balance between sections where speed is a priority and sections where you have to slow down a little bit to think about your next move. There’s a variety and a rhythm to these levels that you don’t really get in later 3D Sonic games, and it’s bolstered by being one of the rare entries in the series to let you play as just Sonic, uninterrupted – unless, of course, you’re a completionist who wants to see the game’s “final ending”, in which case you have to suffer through Gamma’s target practice, Amy Rose’s Hedgehog Hammer, and Big the Cat’s excruciatingly dull fishing sections.
Sega seems content to regurgitate the same broken, rushed, under-polished game that would be better off as a nostalgic memory to most. Drawing attention to Sonic‘s old, dirty laundry is no way to make gamers hopeful for the future of this franchise. And as if just having the original, relatively-unchanged game wasn’t bad enough, it’s further marred by being a sloppy port on top of a sloppy port. Ultimately, Sonic Adventure deserves better. Sega has once again squandered an opportunity to go back and give the game a proper overhaul to match that shine it had back in rose-tinted 1999. To me, Sonic Adventure feels like it’s being held together by chewing gum and duct tape, which makes it hard to recommend to anybody but the most hardcore Sonic fans.
![[ID: aeXH6P_wl-c] Youtube Automatic](https://lastminutecontinue.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/id-aexh6pwl-c-youtube-automatic-360x203.jpg)
![[ID: 6FaikIV2h7c] Youtube Automatic](https://lastminutecontinue.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/id-6faikiv2h7c-youtube-automatic-360x203.jpg)
![[ID: 8O6zQO0Q3qs] Youtube Automatic](https://lastminutecontinue.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/id-8o6zqo0q3qs-youtube-automatic-360x203.jpg)
how the heck is that even possible
And there wasn’t as many loading screens back in previous versions. I love SA, but it seems that the Dreamcast is the only place where it runs half decent. I thought having all these dreamcast games coming out was a good thing, but if the others are getting the same treatment :/
How is what possible, yvar? Good review I think.
I find that everything Ryan said rings true, and that’s coming from someone who just replayed the GC version. I can only imagine how it must suffer from the problems detailed above. He’s right, this would have been better left as a memory if they weren’t going to bother fixing it.
In other news though, I find SA2:B still holds up rather well (again of course if you can overlook the flaws).
@Gooch
There were that many loading screens, actually, it’s just Sonic Adventure XBLA actually says “Now Loading”. Sonic Adventure Dreamcast didn’t do that.
Did you just put it on the same level as 06?
Damn, 3D Sonic games must really all suck then, if the best one is of the same quality as the worst one.
Compared to the other reviews other publications have given Sonic Adventure, I can respect what Ryan wrote. Instead of bashing the game and calling it the worst shit ever to have been put out he gives good points as to why the game was good and why it is not as good now. Very good review.
Uh, the game is broken, and if TSSZ says so, don’t hold it against them. IGN and 1UP said it was, too. Just play an earlier incarnation on your DC, GC, or PC if you want Sonic Adventure.
Yeah, sounds about right to me.
I agree with it being as bad as Sonic 06, but standards were lower then, first one and all.
At first SA looked like a masterpiece and now the re-releases make the game look like a piece of shit.
Oh, come on. ‘Sonic Adventure, warts and all’? You’re making it sound like the original was terrible. Now I can’t comment on that, because I’ve never played the original. But from I’ve heard from reviews, it’s supposed to be a superb game.
But come on, guys. This is a port. Not an enhanced remake, but a port. Me and my friend play the PC version of SADX, and I know people will hit me with a brick for saying this, but we think it’s an amazing game. I don’t find any problems with it except for a few little camera problems.
Now, if we’d have played the original, my opinion would very much differ. The point is, this is either for those who didn’t get a chance to play it, and want it because they couldn’t get it in the past, or for REALLY hardcore Sonic fans. I myself might be getting it, simply because I want to play it on a console.
If they priced this game at a full 50-60 bucks, then judging the game by modern standards would be acceptable. But judging this game by today’s standards seems a bit harsh since they’re acknowledging the game’s age by only charging us a mere 10 bucks. This is just a port (of a port of a port, lol) made to be a near-perfect reflection of an older game and should be judged by the standards, IMO. And saying it’s almost as bad as Sonic 06 is really a stretch. Sonic 06 was way worse with load times, it didn’t attempt Sonic physics like SA1 did, and it was way more unpolished in its gameflow design. Oh, and for its time, the graphics weren’t anything special, SA1 however, was.
I do strike against this SA1 port for being only 480p since we were told it’d be 720p. That’s unacceptable. It is like Sega to do something like this and say “Well the screen display is set to 720, but the game only plays in aportion of the screen, so technically it’s 720 right?”
Hmm… Review makes no sense to me. SADX isn’t bad as it adds a ton of features that the original didn’t have. Metal Sonic alone is enough to make it an awesome remake.
This isn’t a remake either. It’s a port, usually ports don’t really fix big things like that. And no, SADX isn’t a simple port, it’s a remake but its just on a different system.
@MrsMoo
Did you read the entire first paragraph where I basically said “Sonic Adventure was amazing for its time?” It’s time, however, has quite clearly passed.
@DoctorEggman
A game is a game, man. I doubt it would be very hard to find a better, probably newer game for $10, assuming you have no problem buying Used. I could name a dozen other XBLA games that are probably more worth buying, for as cheap, if not cheaper.
@OBJECTION
This isn’t Sonic Adventure DX. This is Sonic Adventure. It looks like Sonic Adventure DX, but all of the “DX” content has been cut out and will be available for separate purchase. Plus, the “DX” content isn’t even that great, anyway, and Metal Sonic is just a (broken) re-skin of Sonic with different sound effects.
UHM.. Was surprised at how bad the controls were on xbox, so I played it on my gamecube as a comparison and had no issues.. Anyone else do this? Is it just my imagination?
Personally I think it´s miles better than Sonic 06, but it hasn´t aged well anyway. Sonic Adventure 2 is a lot better IMO, it´s really cool replaying it today, even the chao parts.
720p and 16:9 would have helped a bit, but being a lazy port…
I kinda agree with many of the points this review makes. When I was much younger, I had as much fun playing Sonic Adventure, or any other new Sonic game that came after it, as I did when I played the classic games back when I was even younger. Both games were excellent games during their respective times, but there’s a difference between the classic games and Sonic Adventure. The classic games generally had excellent quality that would make them great games to play no matter how old and dated they would get. Sonic Adventure on the other hand only had the element of time going for it, so it wouldn’t be praised in the same way the classic games would be in years to come. I figured that much out when I started playing all my old Sonic games again.
screw that review!!! 5 Stars to Sonic Adventure
SA1? Comparable to Nextgen? A little overboard don’t you think?
Sonic’s gameplay is really fun and not NEARLY as glitchy as you say it is. Gamma’s gameplay and Tails’ and Knuckles’ are pretty good too. I think your opinion has soured because of the uglier, glitchier port of port of a port of Sonic Adventure. The Dreamcast version is miles better than SADX (be it for the PC, Gamecube or 360) on all fronts, regardless of the stupid mission mode.
Still sort of disoriented by hearing SA1 was as bad as Nextgen though. SADX,.. I could understand, especially the pc port, which is the version on the 360. But SA1 for the Dreamcast? Loads better than any other 3D Sonic and better than most 3D platformers.
@Azukara
I think your memory of what Sonic Adventure was in 1999 is clouding your judgment as to what Sonic Adventure is today. Arguably, Sonic Adventure IS better than Sonic 2006, which I do note – I did use the word “almost” in my review to describe it.
the Xbox Live Arcade release is stuck in window-boxed 480p
Really? I mean, it runs in a 4:3 window, obviously, but are you sure the resolution isn’t 720p? I ask because 720p screenshots of this game (like the Emerald Coast one linked in the review) look crisp and clean, rather than upscaled, to my eyes. (Alas, I can’t use my own TV to check because it’s ancient!)
This isn’t Sonic Adventure DX. This is Sonic Adventure.
It’s neither, actually. Yes, the Mission Mode and Metal Sonic require the DX upgrade, but from what I’ve read (I’ve yet to buy the thing), the upgraded SA2B-style Chao system — the only reason I ever even wanted DX in the first place, TBH — is in there even without the DX upgrade.
SA1? Comparable to Nextgen? A little overboard don’t you think?
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. SA1 clearly hasn’t aged well, but it’s no 2K6.
Oh well, onto Sonic 4 and Sonic Colors then! 😀
“This isn’t Sonic Adventure DX. This is Sonic Adventure. It looks like Sonic Adventure DX, but all of the “DX” content has been cut out and will be available for separate purchase. Plus, the “DX” content isn’t even that great, anyway, and Metal Sonic is just a (broken) re-skin of Sonic with different sound effects.”
I know, but you called it SADX just without the awesome SADX features.
And the added content in DX isn’t bad. They added a ton of extra Chao options, Missions, way better graphics(And better textures), better framerate, ability to use the Tiny Chao Garden, different item placement etc.
Really, I don’t see what’s NOT to like about SADX. It’s a much better version. But anyways, my point was this review didn’t make any sense to me. If it WAS good, in fact, STILL IS GOOD, why would you rate a port of the SAME GAME a LOWER SCORE when the original(s) are STILL GOOD?
@BlazeHedgehog: not really. Not meaning to raise argument, but just because I think the gameplay for Sonic, Knuckles and Gamma was genuinely good doesn’t mean I’m blinded by nostalgia. I’m not blinded because I will admit they had their flaws and bugs. However I know SADX was much buggier and sloppily put together than the original, which just makes this worse since this was a port of a port of SADX that suffered worse issues than the Gamecube port.
“which just makes this worse since this was a port of a port of SADX that suffered worse issues than the Gamecube port”
No. This uses SA’s original engine, it just has SADX’s updated graphics.
In fact, they even made the graphics a little better, the Rings at least are rounder.
Please forgive me if I’ve already stated this on another site, but my stance on reviews is this:
A review should never become ‘outdated.’ I consider myself a hardcore gamer, but there are simply too many good games that come out every year. I tend to wait a few years, sometimes more, to pick up games I want and after purchase, truly value. The Sonic Adventure titles threw me through some pretty big controversy- not but a few years after SA2 for the Dreamcast, the (arguably) improved port is released on the Gamecube, yet with lower scores.
I don’t believe ports with IMPROVEMENTS should receive lower scores or more criticism since it’s the exact freakin’ same game but better. It doesn’t make sense to me at all. Go check out this review if you want to know more about the game at its time of release:
http://dreamcast.ign.com/articles/160/160140p1.html
Whenever I hear of a game being a port, I always check out the original reviews since those are the ones to most likely be the most informative to me. It just seems inconsistent, especially on the reviewer’s part, to not stick with a score and stand behind it.
(Just to defend myself here.. I played SA on the DC, GCN, and now the 360. I will say I agree with many of Ryan’s points, but this isn’t an original title for the 360, this is a port.)
@IceHedge:
Games age, though. You can’t keep claiming Sonic Adventure was a revolution forever, and if it’s being ported to a new platform, it should be judged versus what is available when it was ported. There’s no doubt about how revolutionary Pitfall was for the Atari 2600, but who wants to buy a copy of the original Pitfall nowadays? It’s not worth it.
I bought Pitfall in XBLA’s Game Room 🙂 Still fun.
Ryan Bloom, the review still looks like you are judging it like original game for Xbox Live. They are selling retro-games as combination of ROM+emulator without any changes and people buy them without any complains. Nobody I think here judges original Sonic the Hedgehog by today’s standards, then why Sonic Adventure should be? Of course, SEGA could at least make widescreen support, but still it’s just a port, not a remake, updated version or something. If they wanted the same price as for original game, I could understand.
@NeKit
The thing is, the original Sonic the Hedgehog has aged a lot better than Sonic Adventure has. The original Sega Genesis Sonics are among the pinnacle of 2D platformers. When somebody asks you, “What are the best 2D platformers ever made?”, the Genesis Sonic games are on that list. That is why people keep buying them, even today.
3D platformers have improved since the original Sonic Adventure. Even by 1999 standards it was kind of a funky game, but it was forgivable, because it was a new type of Sonic game. But what was once innovative has since been greatly surpassed by other, better games. When somebody asks you, “What are the best 3D platformers ever made?”, Sonic Adventure is not on that list. There are games that came out before Sonic Adventure that have aged better and games that came out after Sonic Adventure that have aged better. Trying to proclaim otherwise is letting your nostalgia for the game and your fondness for the character get in the way of what the game truly is in today’s gaming landscape.