No. By 1999, the industry had 3D platformers down. It would be pretty kick donkey for 1995, but there was no excuse for how it played even when it came out. Glitches, some poor level design, camera, and movement, as well as a scattershot approach that missed more than hit, would be "bad" for almost any time period in gaming.
No. By 1999, the industry had 3D platformers down. It would be pretty kick donkey for 1995, but there was no excuse for how it played even when it came out. Glitches, some poor level design, camera, and movement, as well as a scattershot approach that missed more than hit, would be "bad" for almost any time period in gaming.
Not to say i disagree, but technically Sonic Adventure came out in 1998...in japan.
Anyway out of all the more famous 3d-platformers from the late 90s to early 2000s, i think Sonic Adventure is the weakest one. Less fun than Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, or Mario.
Though to be quiet fair, I think i remember preferring Sonic Adventure 2 and i keep on hearing on how it is better than Sonic Adventure, so i will have to check it out on PSN
And Super Mario 64 came out in 1996, with lots of competant 3D platformers following quickly on its heels.
Look, I enjoy Sonic Adventure a lot, but mostly because of the good ideas that are there, as well as the occasional shining moments when those ideas actually coalesce. It was never really a well-made game.
Destiny is one of the best games in recent memory and its pretty much PSO/MH for Western Audiences.
I disagree simply because while that's clearly what its going for...it doesn't have nearly as much content and depth that actually makes those games work.
I think the Sonic Advance titles were solid games. They never seem to get any recognition, though.
They used to get a lot of recognition. Even writers on sites like IGN would go on about how the handheld entries are the last bastion of good Sonic games. By now, though, they're just kinda forgotten by the gaming public because they were on handhelds. And we all know how handheld games don't matter.
By now, though, they're just kinda forgotten by the gaming public because they were on handhelds. And we all know how handheld games don't matter.
You say that sarcastically, but in my experience handheld games don't seem to matter as much. It's so weird since for Nintendo they're frequently more popular, yet the console games are frequently the ones gamers seem to care about. I'm trying to think of a reason, and the closest I've gotten is that Nintendo in particular use their handheld games as similar to previous console games (as in games from the console/s before the current one) in...at least enough of a way that it doesn't compare to the changes and upgrades for their console games. Like Gameboy mostly got what were the handheld equivalent of Mario 1 and 3 but...different and Zelda remained 2d for a looooong time on handheld despite revolutionizing everything on consoles in 1998. Maybe also because you can't impress people as much or make an immediate impact outside of actual gameplay. That's just guesses though. Graphics are usually a tool partially for impressing an audience before they actually play it and obviously the consoles > the handhelds in that regard. Even for 3DS, the footage you find online makes the already weaker graphics look worse because the games usually look better on an actual 3DS.
Forums
Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions
Posts 1,701 to 1,720 of 12,984
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic