Why does anybody like the time limit in Sonic games?

This post is awesome, and so are you. Perhaps there needs to be a topic on the subject, I think.

I swear, I wake up to see this topic, and I see, of all things, people using the fucking "hardcore vs. casual" argument. Christ. I can't believe some people actually think this is about difficulty, because, for the most part, it really isn't. At all. And then there's people suggesting that the time limit isn't strict enough. Seriously, are you fucking kidding me?

The time limit death is a relic of the arcade era that should only be included if it's done in a way to make a game more fun, like in Mario 3D Land's special stages. But in Sonic, it's pretty much near-pointless, it's not at all integral to the difficulty or the design.

I should point out that the stone is a type of mechanic that Nintendo have been putting in some of their games lately - a "super guide" feature that is added purely for accessibility. Mario Galaxy 2, NSMBW and 3D Land have "super guide" mechanics that appear from dying several times in a single level, and even then, players don't even need to use it at all. It's there to help out players who aren't as good at a game while preserving the challenge for people who actually desire said challenge, mostly to deal with complaints of Nintendo games becoming "too easy" while simultaneously accommodating newer players. I think it works, since 'hardcore' players don't even need to use them if they don't want to.

It's not meant to be an insult to anyone's skill or intelligence, but rather a compromise, since Nintendo are trying to make their games accessible to as many people as possible.

 

I thought I'd also add to this by saying that, while the genesis games are old and newer Sonic games don't use it (Bar Sonic 4 but fuck Sonic 4) I think this can be directed at fangames as well - I noticed the creator of the Trilogy Complete is interested in adding an option to turn it off, for which I am immensely grateful and which has actually boosted my interest in their project (Even if they do have a lot of periods in their sentences :P) but there are some projects that do it for tradition - and nothing else, it seems. It's like it never occurs to them that it's dated.

And about the whole hardcore crowd having a period; I don't like Meat Boy, I tried it, I thought it was too hard, and I didn't feel rewarded enough for playing it (Steam achievements be damned, I'm not a trophy whore) but I don't go to an SMB thread and bitch about how hard it was and how people need to stop making games so hard and how hardcore gamers ruin gaming for me. (I don't mean any of that, I'm paraphrasing what I hear a lot of "hardcore" gamers say, especially the bit about "casual" gamers ruining games for them.)

I agree, and while I do hope that people would appreciate the puzzles in Zelda, if it makes the game more enjoyable for them, that's all that matters. I mean, it's not like some of that shit in OoT is obvious anyway and I will actually admit to asking a friend who to give the rabbit mask to. I mean, I don't really care much for arcade games, but some games I play feel the need to throw arcade-ish games into them for shits and giggles sometimes, and I really wish I could have a skip button for them. One example is Sly Cooper; fuck Sly Cooper's minigames, they all suck dong and I don't play a fucking platformer to control an RC helicopter. To use a more relevant example, a button to skip all of Gamma's levels on Sonic Adventure would have been nice since he was my least favorite character to play as. I don't like shooters and he felt like some cheap interpretation of classic FPSs for the PC or something. (Sorry if that's a bad relation, I've only played a couple FPS games and they were all on PC so I don't have anything else I could liken his gameplay to.) Likewise, I wouldn't mind it if someone wanted to skip Big; I love Big, I think it's a shame that SEGA didn't do a better job with him (River King comes to mind) but I also spent a lot of time in his levels determined to catch every fish, but some people don't like to fish, and since it's a fucking platformer, why would they? They should be able to get back to what's relevant to them.

 

I like the time limit. 10 minutes is perfect, as it allows for great exploration, that forces you to do it more than once, even in the larger zones from Sonic & Knuckles. It extends the gameplay value without forcing it. Think about it, average 30 second acts for Sonic 1, with 10 minutes to spare is simular to 18 days of a full year, where 18 days might be hard work, and the rest is for exploration and just having fun! But you still have a year, so you have to know what you are doing, and if there isn't time, you'll play the game the next year.

Time limits are part of the arcade style gaming. You must loose something if you fail that time, and in arcades you have to lose your paid money. What is better, than to lose lives instead of money?

However, some games take the Arcade too far in their home console port. Sonic was not derived from a Sonic arcade game, so that's why I think the time limit is okay. It is well balanced, compared to some arcade ports that become nearly impossible to beat because they stayed with an incompatible design.

Sonic CD's 3 minutes, is just to show off a cool attitude. I only saw it once while I played, and it was because I had to take a phone call at the time, and didn't pause the game. I wasn't too happy to be robbed of my life without any warning. At least he could have said "You want me out of here? Take the controls, or I'll kill myself"

 

I really like the time limit too. Dying for no reason in a level too big to be played properly within 10 minutes is fantastic. Here's looking at you Death Egg Act 2, Marble Garden Act 2, and Jackson Carnival Act 2.

Alternatively we can all admit obvious flaws and not be isolated, self-imposed dufuses about it (leave that to our programming methods). Or we can all blame the level designers for not considering the time limit, which they should have.

 

I used to get Time Overs all the time in the Launch Base Big Arm boss in Sonic 3. The first few times, my heart was pounding so fast because it used to be scary as shit and on top of that I'd usually start the boss with about 7 minutes on the timer. It made me so god damn nervous. I thought I was free and clear....until SECURITY HALL and CANNON'S CORE happened.

There are way too many people who voted "I don't care" and "Yes" in this poll. Timers themselves are ok, but when it causes a death? They make me sick. I love exploring levels and always want as much time as I need to look around. I also hate this feature in arcade racing games. This crap happens even when one ISN'T in last place!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loF8Q15b2-I

 

I hate time limits on every game ever made. The need of rushing a level is pretty much "NNNGGHH" when the time is almost up. That's the main reason I loved Mario 64. You could just chill out there, doing NOTHING, exploring each detail of each level.

 

I won't deny, the time limit in the home ports of, say, Virtua Racing is entirely vestigial and probably ought to have been done away with. Still not the strictest time limit in an AM2 game; that probably belongs to Racing Hero, which was arcade-only.

But yes, Security Hall was terrible. Maybe if it had the emerald detection from SADX where you could get alerts for all 3, but like that it was nearly unplayable. What time limit was there in Cannon's Core, though?

 

In Cannon's Core, you control 5 out of the 6 characters from SA2B in one level and to get the fourth emblem, you have to beat the entire thing in 8 minutes. Like, what the fuck? Anyone who knows what a bitch that level was will understand, although once you get to play as Sonic, you're in the clear.

 

You know... These might have been their original intentions, with the clock item and all.

 

The bold text makes this a non-issue for me, because it's supposed to be hard enough to make the player get better at the game. Just like every other last emblem in the Adventure Games. As an extra and a challenge, it can be as hard as the developer wants it to be, because it is not actually required for completion of the basic game.

 

I feel that games should be easier, at least give a difficulty setting. I'm not a huge fan of making something in a game really hard and then putting a reward (beyond an achievement) that effects the game at the end because that will probably be more work than I'm willing to invest in something in my free time. I've never been a huge fan of players getting some special thing for playing on the hardest difficulty that's impossible to obtain on lower difficulties, it defeats the purpose of playing on lower difficulties. It says to me the developers intended the game to be really hard and basically want to shaft anyone who doesn't play it on "their" preferred difficulty, and I feel they aren't accommodating me properly by doing that.

 

...and why change it for those who WANT A CHALLANGE.
If you find it too hard, either get better or deal with it. It's called a challange. Not a playful event.

 

If you want a challenge, you should be able to set it to hard mode and have hard mode only give you a challenge, that's what you want, right?

Also last time I checked, a video game IS a playful event.

 

I meant compared to a challange- a hard game is still a game yes- but it's hard to be hard...and like a damn stuck record if you practise something you are not very good at...over time you will improve...and that is where the feeling of acomplishment comes in! Where is the fun in a game that is piss easy to beat just because someone can't be bothered to learn. You're not born knowing how to do everything in life and you learn.

 

I don't mind that you want to play a game for a challenge but it sounds to me like you demand that I do, and fuck that shit. I have enough bullshit to put up with. The feeling of accomplishment is not nearly as important as how the game makes me feel, I don't appreciate it like you do, I shouldn't have to.

I only attempt to improve at things when I have to, video games should not even be considered in that category. Things that I do consider in that category are generally more productive than sitting on my ass and holding a controller.

 

Personally, I think time limit deaths should largely depend on the gameplay itself. I can understand a 10-minute killzone if the player is in a situation where it makes sense - I.e. Sonic is trying to escape before the whole place explodes or before Robotnik escapes and can no longer be stopped. Sonic Advance 1's Egg Rocket was a terrific example of this, since you had to climb up through the various layers of his rocket before they broke off. In other situations, though, I don't see any reason for it other than to whittle down extra lives. I would have enjoyed Sonic CD so much more if I knew that I could explore all of the time periods at my leisure without worrying about running out of time. :/

While I generally dislike time limits, I think it's okay if they're optional, as they were in most of the stages in SA2. At least then, it's up to you whether or not you want to race against the clock.

 

I like time limits in old school platformers because it makes the player choose between finishing faster for a better score/ possible bonuses or try to gather items to help in the later stages (lifes, coins, rings, B-o-n-u-s items, etc) but the scoring system isn't as relevant today as it used to be, every manual had a place in the end where you could keep track of your scores and magazines, gaming clubs also used to maintain a highscore leaderboard sometimes even giving prizes for the best players.