Support NeoGAF

[Luminescent]

I know it was released a while back, but I was considering purchasing a used copy for my DC and was wondering about framerate. In a few places I've read it runs at a solid 60, but some others mention slowdown in places like the chaos garden and multiplayer.

My question is, how bad is the slowdown? Does it drop below 30 fps? As long as it maintains 60, with a rare drop to 30 (no, less, I hope), I'll be a happy camper with a game like sonic.

 

[callous]

You, too, will feel the agony of treasure hunting.

 

[AeroGod]

I havnt played in in awhile but I dont remember it being terrible. Im sure it had its occasional hiccups but nothing sticks out in my mind as making it unplayable.

Its a good game. PLay it!@

EDIT: Yeah Treasure hunting with Knuckles and that other thing was kinda meh, but the shooting parts were pretty fun and Sonic and Shadow had some really sweet levels

 

[Koshiro]

No, the shooting bits sucked too. But the Sonic/Shadow levels are the best Sonic levels I've experienced in 3D.

 

[XS+]

The framerate is rock-solid from start to finish. Multiplayer games are at 30fps, singleplayer is 60.

The Tails/Robotnik bits (and the Knuckles rap music, and the storyline/cutscenes) were horrible imo, and all the minigames are crap. I didn't really have a problem with anything else in SA2.

 

[BenT]

The framerate is pretty excellent and rarely slips from 60, IIRC.

 

[FortNinety]

You, too, will feel the agony of treasure hunting.

The treasure hunting levels were so bad they are the sole reasons why I gave up on Sonic series, and I used to be a certified Sonic nut.

And the shooting levels were pretty lame IMHO.

 

[Saturnman]

Yep, 60 fps consistently throughout the levels. Only split-screen and Choa garden are not like this.

 

[Luminescent]

Any visible pop-up?

 

[XS+]

No.

It's basically the nicest-looking and most polished DC game in the library, and there's hardly any room to nitpick at the visuals (other than it looks dated compared to top games on other systems). Everything that's wrong with SA2 has nothing to do with the graphics.

 

[goodcow]

Any visible pop-up?

Not in terms of level geometry itself, but objects such as rings, props (trees/boxes) and enemies pop in without fade in. It's the same as SA1 in this regard.

 

[goodcow]

No.

It's basically the nicest-looking and most polished DC game in the library, and there's hardly any room to nitpick at the visuals (other than it looks dated compared to top games on other systems). Everything that's wrong with SA2 has nothing to do with the graphics.

To be fair, SA1 does in many ways look better than SA2, mainly because it's pushing a hell of a lot more geometry for a more rounded level look, and less of the "copy/paste block design" of SA2. There's also an orgy of enviornmental mapping in SA1 which practically doesn't exist in SA2. This comes at a price, 30fps which can barely maintain it though. However you'd think in those two years Sonic Team could've squeezed more juice out. SA2 looks graphically amazing, mainly due to the high res textures, but I don't think it's too shocking that it runs at 60fps... all they did was chop down level geometry a lot from SA1. Then again, SA2 also had a staff of about 20, and SA1 had the full brunt of Sonic Team working on it.

 

[Ronin]

Isn't SA2:Battle's multiplayer at 60 fps?

 

[belgurdo]

Except for the space stages, treasure hunting was piss easy because of the small stages. Just remember the level layouts and you can finish them in two minutes on average.

Shooting did suck, yes. But there was a charm in getting a massive lock on combo before eating lasers yourself

Running sections were okay, but God I hated having to do tricks for points. Trying to accomplish that in Metal Harbor and the jungle led to a lot of lost lives

 

[XS+]

...

When I say polish, that means the game doesn't suffer from the clipping problems that its predecessor did, and the framerate remains constant from start to finish. SA1 looks better in 'many' ways and sports different (and more appealing) design, but SA2 in its own way manages to look much nicer and clearer than SA1 while doing less work.

Plus SA2 has it's share of geometry (Rouge's meteor stage, the final boss) and effects (particles, trailing, the outline effect on the ghost boss) that dwarfed anything seen in SA1. And most of the environments in SA2 are larger than most of SA1's with a few exceptions.

 

[jett]

SA2 runs at a steady 60fps 99% of the time. The game drops to 30fps on the worthless multiplayer mode.

Speaking of SA...I booted up SA1 earlier today after months of not touching it. The textures still look fucking great...after 6 years. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many(if any) PS2 games with better texture quality.

 

[dark10x]

Speaking of SA...I booted up SA1 earlier today after months of not touching it. The textures still look fucking great...after 6 years. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many(if any) PS2 games with better texture quality.

The rest of the game looks like GARBAGE though. It has aged very poorly...

Rocking textures, though. The GC and PC versions took massve hits in the texture department.

 

[XS+]

The rest of the game looks like GARBAGE though. It has aged very poorly...

Rocking textures, though. The GC and PC versions took massve hits in the texture department.

Are you lacking in adjectives? 'GARBAGE' is the wrong word to use.

The small scale of some of the levels, framerate, and the overall glitchy-ness of the game made it age really quickly, granted. The artwork/design is still fantastic though.

 

[dark10x]

Are you lacking in adjectives? 'GARBAGE' is the wrong word to use.

The small scale of some of the levels, framerate, and the overall glitchy-ness of the game made it age really quickly, granted. The artwork/design is still fantastic though.

Yeah, you're right...

Garbage is way too harsh. The game is appealing, visually, but the engine is a technical mess. It always was a mess, and it's magnified 100x nowadays.

SA2, on the other hand, is still very very good looking.