Sonic Adventure PSN/XBLA

Oh look, Jonah fishing for more hits.

No, just posting an interesting news item in the appropriate forum thread.

That... could mean anything. Jeez.

Except for the fact Sega registered 6 Sonic Adventure domains.

Companies tend to do that in order to preserve copyright. You know, in case they use those later. It's not definite.

And that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be using Adventure's standard gameplay. Not without some kind of twist, at least.

edited 6th Feb '13 9:49:59 PM by KnownUnknown

Yeah, Jonah, just because, for example, Activision registers several COD-related domains is not necessarily confirmation of sequels, it just means that they want to snap those domains up before squatters get them.

This.

I don't understand why some people can't just get it through their heads that the Adventure name is dead. Not that it matters—the gameplay is more or less the same in the non-Adventure games, just more polished and with more features or gimmicks. (With the obvious exception, but we'll ignore that.)

edited 6th Feb '13 10:26:10 PM by 0dd1

People keep saying that Sega said that everytime it's brought up. Where? When?

edited 7th Feb '13 11:18:07 AM by unnoun

Well, if the XBLA/PSN versions of the Adventure games sold well, it wouldn't be the weirdest move, and it would actually make some sense. Also, companies can, and frequently do, change their minds.

edited 7th Feb '13 10:27:24 AM by Zendervai

Except they have never explicitly stated their opinion on this issue for them to change it.

Every single time "Sonic Adventure 3" is mentioned in this thread the response is "nope, series ended, never again Sega said so", even though that is not true, and Sega said no such thing.

...The absolute closest thing I could find was a quote from two years ago where Iizuka said there were "no plans" but if there was a lot of fan demand, it might happen.

That's not saying that I honestly think Sonic Adventure 3 will certainly, definitely happen, but it irritates me when the only argument against it is damned lies.

edited 7th Feb '13 11:17:57 AM by unnoun

There have been plenty of titles since with virtually the same gameplay. Why didn't they name those as part of the series?

And, really, why does the "Adventure" name matter so much? What would make it so much better if the next game was called Adventure 3? What makes the Adventure games so distinct from every other modern Sonic title?

Multiple playable characters (that are played as separately), full 3D gameplay, Super Sonic being reserved for the final boss, a Chao Garden...

Brand Name Recognition.

...Sonic Adventure 2 didn't have the characters played as separately. Both stories had you switching between the gameplay styles, and the Cannon's Core stage and its Biolizard boss fight had all of the characters playable.

And Sonic Adventure 1 does have an unused quote from Tikal about turning Super Sonic in normal gameplay. When combined with the gem that was meant to turn you Super Sonic in Sonic 2006, it seems to me like Super Sonic in every level was a gameplay feature they kept trying to implement but never got around to again until Colours.

edited 10th Feb '13 5:10:08 PM by unnoun

I was talking about features from the final product, not ones that Sonic team wanted in, but couldn't implement. And by "played as separately," I meant that as not being like in Sonic Heroes, where you control a group of characters simultaneously.

Sonic '06, that is all.

I picked up Sonic Adventure for the PC through one of the Humble Bundles. Man, but it shows its age... I'm also a bit thrown off by how the "wander around town" scenes look like something from an Illusion H-game...