Thread by @RGXSuperSonic

Let's talk about a hypothetical #SonicAdventure3.

What makes a Sonic Adventure game a Sonic Adventure game? And why is Sonic Adventure 3 so significant to the fanbase? I see people desperately hoping for an SA3 and I feel like it means different things to people.

A thread:

Let's list some similarities between the 2 games:

- Both feature Yuji Uekawa's 2D promotional artwork on the boxart.

- Both contain multiple playable characters with their own "intersecting storylines & gameplay styles."

- Both contain "Chao Gardens."

- Both introduced new characters who were also playable.

- Both games' main themes were composed & played by Crush 40.

- Both contain a "Final Story" which is unlocked after completing all characters' campaigns.

- Both games' true final boss were NOT Dr. Eggman.

- The true final boss' theme is the main game's theme.

- Both contained collectible "Emblems" which are needed to unlock extra content. (DX & Battle included)

- Both games' storylines were pretty much self-contained.

- Both contained Sonic's speed-based platforming stages & Knuckles' Master Emerald hunting stages.

- Both games contained missions for each level.

- True Final boss featured playable Super Form character.

More or less, these are the main similarities between the two games.

Maybe what makes an Adventure game is something more precise & intricate. Perhaps it's Sonic's "gameplay?"

More or less, the "Modern Sonic gameplay" from 2008 & onward is an extension of how Sonic played in the Adventure games.

- Sonic can still run, jump, homing attack, light dash through rings, & grind on rails in the Modern games.

- Instead of bouncing in SA2, Sonic can perform a stomp.

- Instead of somersault kicking to get under obstacles like in SA2, it was replaced with crawling & sliding.

- Sonic can go into 2.5D sidescrolling sections.

- Additionally & most importantly, the Modern games have introduced NEW abilities such as side-stepping, vertical wall jumping, drifting, & boosting.

Both the Adventure & Modern games have introduced new abilities to Sonic.

The 2.5D sections in modern games, while welcomed at first, many feel it has overstayed it's welcome.

Many fans have criticized that there are far too many 2D sections in the current 3D games. And this is understandable for wanting to stay in 3D gameplay for a 3D game.

Boosting has also received a large amount of criticism from the fan-base. Many wish for it to away and for Sonic Team to revert back to the Adventure formula. So is boosting just the problem in the current 3D games? Or is it just Sonic's entire new move-set?

If we hypothetically remove just boost and inserted the rest of Sonic's abilities into a new Adventure game, does this still make it an "Adventure" game?

Or is the answer to remove all of the new abilities & revert back to a stagnant & simpler game-play with no evolution?

Maybe it's not the gameplay but the level design? I often see people criticize Modern Sonic stages as being tight corridors with no branching paths or being as open as the Adventure games. I really feel this is untrue.

Great examples of this are the Sonic Generation stages: Speed Highway & City Escape.

Let's look at Speed Highway in SA & Gens. Speed Highway in both games are confined to roads for the most part. As well, the SA version is much linear compared it's remake brother.

Now let's compare the City Escapes, again confined to roads, but the Gens version has larger roads with actual multiple paths & obstacles in it's board section.

Both SA&2 featured tight corridors in its stages. In Windy Valley, you're just running a good portion of the time without any obstacles. Metal harbor is a mostly tight / linear stage with a few homing attack chains and the only real obstacle & branching path is the rocket launch.

So I really don't get the whole "I'm tired of modern Sonic's linear & tight corridor stages" criticism when the Adventure games featured them.

And if the problem is the level design, maybe the level design just needs to be fixed, not the need to revert everything backwards.

Many want the Chao Gardens to return and feel like the only way that will ever happen is through a new adventure game.

While Chao Gardens are nice, I never felt they were a vital part of the games. They do not affect the main campaigns & are simply a bonus for players.

I play Sonic games for Sonic gameplay, not Chao.

Even so, why the want / need to revert to an Adventure formula game? Why not feature a Chao Garden in a Modern or future game? Or even Chao spinning off into it's own game/series? Is Chao really required to make an adventure game?

I can understand the desire for more characters. But are individual stories needed for an Adventure game?

Does a game with multiple characters and stories HAVE to be called an Adventure game? Looking at you Sonic Heroes & SONIC THE HEDGEHOG (2006).

Speaking of story, the stories were mostly self-contained with very little samples of continuity between them like the news report on Tails saving Station Square and Knuckles learning how to control the Master Emerald. All loose ends from SA2 were resolved in Heroes & ShTH.

Maybe it's the overall aesthetic with the Tie-dye colors, Yuji Uekawa, art and Crush 40 music? Or the Knuckles emerald hunting stages.. I don't know.

I know I joked about this before but I always felt SONIC (2006) was honestly Sonic Adventure 3.

Regardless of the game's quality and how you subjectively feel about the game, SONIC (2006) fits most of the criteria for an Adventure game minus:

- Uekawa box art
- Master Emerald stages
- Chao Garden

Which is very minor compared to rest of the stuff it fulfills.

Again I don't know. Maybe some people just want to hold on to the name Sonic Adventure 3. So my question to you is:

What makes an Adventure game to you, do you want an officially titled Sonic Adventure 3? What is it about Modern games that make you want to revert backwards?

@threadreaderapp unroll