The DX on XBLA could be worse than the original

Obviously, Sonic Adventure DX is coming to the XBOX Live Arcade, but that's not all. The game suffers slowdown, even during cutscenes, and even at 30FPS. Further, as you can tell from what we have below, don’t expect a nice HD update to the game. With pillars in tow, Sonic Adventure DX appears to run in 4:3, and not in true HD.

Keep in mind that this is running off of a developer network, and the product is subject to change.

"Oh lord, the graphics are awful!"

That's not a good picture to tell how good the graphics are. 30 fps is awful though.

Those look like SADC graphics, rather than SADX. Either way, not worth it if it's worse that both versions.

I was not aware that SADX was even coming to XBLA at all. How is it known about framerate and graphical quality?

... kinda looks like a vampire. The teeth are sharp

Gamma The Great wrote:Obviously, Sonic Adventure DX is coming to the XBOX Live Arcade, but that's not all. The game suffers slowdown, even during cutscenes, and even at 30FPS. Further, as you can tell from what we have below, don’t expect a nice HD update to the game. With pillars in tow, Sonic Adventure DX appears to run in 4:3, and not in true HD.

Keep in mind that this is running off of a developer network, and the product is subject to change.

"Oh lord, the graphics are awful!"

Hey, what the hell. The SA1DC graphics were the best.

There is no "original" Sonic Adventure DX.

The original is Sonic Adventure 1, on the SEGA DREAMCAST.
Those graphics are amazing.
The best ever.

Was there really any appreciable graphical difference between SA1 on the Dreamcast and SA DX on the Cube? I never played in on the Gamecube (I bought one and then took it back the following day. It was good, but not good enough to warrant the cost when I already had an original Xbox at the time. Me and my inability to spend money wisely, bah.).

Not buying.

The framerate on the original SADC was 30 frames as well. I think SADX was around 50.

wrote:The framerate on the original SADC was 30 frames as well. I think SADX was around 50.

My box cover says it goes up to 60.

I have it from a reliable source SADX was better for the most part than SADC, but that's beside the point. The point is, that if Sega still can't improve on SA after this many tries, and may now be making it worse, maybe they shouldn't bother at all.

They better revamp it if they want a seller!

In the poorly translated words of Vader: "Do not want."

Sir Buffton Shattles wrote:Was there really any appreciable graphical difference between SA1 on the Dreamcast and SA DX on the Cube? I never played in on the Gamecube (I bought one and then took it back the following day. It was good, but not good enough to warrant the cost when I already had an original Xbox at the time. Me and my inability to spend money wisely, bah.).

Yes. The graphics in SA1DX were more cartoony and brighter whereas the SA1 graphics were bolder and darker. I like the graphics of SA1 better personally, but the camera and framerate were definitely better in SADX.

Link451 wrote:

Sir Buffton Shattles wrote:Was there really any appreciable graphical difference between SA1 on the Dreamcast and SA DX on the Cube? I never played in on the Gamecube (I bought one and then took it back the following day. It was good, but not good enough to warrant the cost when I already had an original Xbox at the time. Me and my inability to spend money wisely, bah.).

Yes. The graphics in SA1DX were more cartoony and brighter whereas the SA1 graphics were bolder and darker. I like the graphics of SA1 better personally, but the camera and framerate were definitely better in SADX.

Plus, SA1 graphics were much smoother, that' why I prefer them.

Mly wrote:In the poorly translated words of Vader: "Do not want."

yeah that was freaking hilarious when I fisrt saw it

Sir, the camera in SADX was inferior and there were more glitches. The graphics in DX look'd uglier. Sure, some nice water effects, but that's it.

SA1's framerate was 30 and SADX's was 60s. SA1's was 30 because when the team try'd making it higher, the game kept slowing down to the point where it had to be 30, which is understandable. In SADX, it was 60 PARTIALLY but had far so much slowdown. Thus making SA1DC's framerate better.

SADX was not better than the original, it add'd inferior glitches and inferior camera. And inferior graphics. A Metal Sonic skin and Game Gear unlockables were nice, but they have no real effect on which is better.

Yo fools. Check dis.



Haven't played DX recently so I can't say whether it looks any better or not, but it looks a hell of alot better than the DC version *flameflameflame*.

Erazor, it looks the same as the DC version. Sure, maybe some shapes and places look realer, but it looks exactly as I played it on my DC. The only thing different would probably be Sonic's character model, as it looks darker and sharper. Looks like it plays well, too.

Maybe I should make that picture my new avatar.

i have both sonic adventure DX on gamecube and sonic adventure on dreamcast.

sonic adventure on DC plays smoother faster and overall better.
SADX( gamecube ) played far slower, and didn't touch up the graphics hardly at all, not to mention that the camera was awful and they didn't even add anything to make up for all of the things they messed up besides "missions" which were pretty pointless.

now, if they ported the original sonic adventure to xboxlivearcade and psn, that would be great. but if they plan on ported sonic adventure DX i will not purchase it.