[Tanks]

I really don't feel like reading all these posts so I'm just going to say this whether or not its already been said:

In a game where the premise is to get from Point A to Point B, awarding bonuses for lower time AND the collection of objects/destruction of enemies, it would only make sense to have a kill time. If anything, its something that sticks in the back of your heading as a reminder that you have little choice but to move forward. Sonic isn't about exploration of zones. Well, it is, but you don't spend your act running around various paths. You're supposed to play through the game over and over again until you find the smoothest path that offers the max amount of coins you can attain while gunning for the lowest time achievable within the act.

[Impish]

Volpino, on 31 March 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Jen, on 31 March 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

Video games are DESIGNED to be challenging.

Wrong.

Video games are not just a sport, they stopped being just a sport when artists got involved with them, now they are multi-purpose, and should accommodate as many people as possible because they're multi-purpose, and I'm not just talking about the "difficulty" thing which seems to disgustingly be a huge hangup with some of you, but has it ever, even one time, crossed your mind that someone plays a video game for other reasons than s "good sporting challenge"? Because I never have.

Parts of video games are challenging because limits help with balance - a game can't be too god-like an experience or people get bored and the experience is flat, rising and falling challenges help keep people interested and feeling something through the experience and that makes it last longer. People like to think, their brains are always working, but it should never be the be-all-end-all of game design ever, because that basically throws away half of the reason for playing video games.

Right, so ignoring the obvious opinion vs fact argument that has to be made, but which I won't be, the fact is that it is still called a GAME. If you want an "escapist experience" that has no challenge or means to improve, that's not a game, but some kind of weird interactive experience, like Minecraft creative mode, or Second Life.

The definition of game applied here is

Wiktionary said:

Game (countable and uncountable; plural games)

• (countable) A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others, for the purpose of entertainment. In many games, the objective is to win by defeating the other player or players or being the first to reach a specified goal, while in others, role-playing or cooperation is emphasized.
  
• (countable, sports) A contest between two individuals or teams. A game may refer to the entire encounter between the two (e.g. a basketball game), or to just one contest of several required to win (e.g. a tennis game).

If you don't want a challenge, don't play video games. I'm sorry Volpino, but a game isn't something that should simply be a work of art that is to be admired, that is interactive art, or whatever you want to call it. A video GAME is supposed to be a challenge, with some kind of competitive or challenging aspect. What you want isn't a game. What you are describing isn't a game.

This post has been edited by Impish: 31 March 2012 - 06:55 PM

[Mercury]

Impish, on 31 March 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

If you don't want a challenge, don't play video games. I'm sorry Volpino, but a game isn't something that should simply be a work of art that is to be admired, that is interactive art, or whatever you want to call it. A video GAME is supposed to be a challenge, with some kind of competitive or challenging aspect. What you want isn't a game. What you are describing isn't a game.

Not an entirely fair appraisal.

Wiktionary said:

A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others, for the purpose of entertainment. In many games, the objective is to win by defeating the other player or players or being the first to reach a specified goal, while in others, role-playing or cooperation is emphasized.

So, essentially: Game = Structured play. Nowhere is it implied that challenge is the raison d'etre of games.

And even if it was, "video games" is a hopelessly inadequate term that just stuck, like the equally stupid-when-you-think-about-it "movies". Adam Sessler has often said that they probably need a new term, but that by now anything else would just seem awkward.

The use of "game" in "video game" is idiomatic at best. It's not an invincible warrant for the inclusion of features whose sole contribution is challenge.

...Lest I be misunderstood, I should probably make a finer point. Yes, pretty much all games are / have to be challenging in some sense because structure = challenge (in the sense that if there's a wrong way, you must expend energy to find the right way). But what I mean is that the point of games is not "to be hard", so you can't justify a feature just because it makes the game hard(er). Yes, some genres, like shmups, are predicated on ridiculous difficulty, but I'd argue that Sonic games scratch another itch entirely.

And all of this aside, I think what the OP (and I) have implied (more than once) is that the time limit is hardly a real challenge at all; because of its poor implementation it's merely an annoyance. Where limited time actually has been a challenge in Sonic, for instance in Sonic CD's Time Attack or the clever continually speeding up Special Stages of Sonic 3 & Knuckles, I embrace it wholeheartedly.

[ICEknight]

Volpino, on 29 March 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

I get fed up with people who are too closed-minded to see gaming as anything but a fun challenge; partly because I think they're full of shit (I bet none of them would have played Sonic if all the mechanics were the same but they controlled a red circle in black and white environments) and partly because they never seem to get gaming's other appeals. Gaming is not just a sport, it stopped being "just" a challenge the very SECOND artists got involved with it. Now it's much, much, MUCH MORE.

Volpino, on 31 March 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Jen, on 31 March 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

Video games are DESIGNED to be challenging.

Wrong.

Video games are not just a sport, they stopped being just a sport when artists got involved with them, now they are multi-purpose, and should accommodate as many people as possible because they're multi-purpose, and I'm not just talking about the "difficulty" thing which seems to disgustingly be a huge hangup with some of you, but has it ever, even one time, crossed your mind that someone plays a video game for other reasons than s "good sporting challenge"? Because I never have.

Parts of video games are challenging because limits help with balance - a game can't be too god-like an experience or people get bored and the experience is flat, rising and falling challenges help keep people interested and feeling something through the experience and that makes it last longer. People like to think, their brains are always working, but it should never be the be-all-end-all of game design ever, because that basically throws away half of the reason for playing video games.

Not all videogames are designed around offering a challenge, but Sonic games indeed were. Artists created their art, and musicians composed their music precisely to accomodate a game where you needed to reach the goal as fast as you could. Even the Time Over is part of the whole arcade-ish design.


That's part of what makes them exciting and not a walk in the park, having the pressure of dying not only if your reflexes fail on you, but also if you don't think and react fast enough.

Spoiler

That said, that damn Time Over fucked up my latest try at doing a Perfect Bonus in Emerald Hill 2, just as I was about to fall onto the Egg Prison's button.

This post has been edited by ICEknight: 31 March 2012 - 07:44 PM

[Impish]

Mercury, on 31 March 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

And all of this aside, I think what the OP (and I) have implied (more than once) is that the time limit is hardly a real challenge at all; because of its poor implementation it's merely an annoyance. Where limited time actually has been a challenge in Sonic, for instance in Sonic CD's Time Attack or the clever continually speeding up Special Stages of Sonic 3 & Knuckles, I embrace it wholeheartedly.

I can agree with that. I just find the stance that a game specifically shouldn't have challenge in it wrong, because that's an inherent part of game design, and game theory. As a game designer yourself, I hope you can understand what I mean.
quick Edit: Read the introduction of wikipedia article on "Game", specifically the part about a game's "key components" to understand where I'm coming from.

This post has been edited by Impish: 31 March 2012 - 08:25 PM

[Volpino]

Impish, on 31 March 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

Mercury, on 31 March 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

And all of this aside, I think what the OP (and I) have implied (more than once) is that the time limit is hardly a real challenge at all; because of its poor implementation it's merely an annoyance. Where limited time actually has been a challenge in Sonic, for instance in Sonic CD's Time Attack or the clever continually speeding up Special Stages of Sonic 3 & Knuckles, I embrace it wholeheartedly.

I can agree with that. I just find the stance that a game specifically shouldn't have challenge in it wrong, because that's an inherent part of game design, and game theory. As a game designer yourself, I hope you can understand what I mean.
quick Edit: Read the introduction of wikipedia article on "Game", specifically the part about a game's "key components" to understand where I'm coming from.

I never said a game shouldn't have challenge, I even implied it needs it so that the experience isn't completely flat, but that is not the most important part of games anymore, in fact, it's dated to believe "hard" is what makes a game "good" at all.

Also I agree with everything Mercury said, he did a better job at responding than I could.

Edit: Much as this makes the blood of alleged "0m6 1337 h4rd(0r3" gamers' blood boil, a lot of what said gamers would call "interactive art" still qualifies as a video game. See: Flower, Journey, Proteus, Minecraft, To The Moon, Dear Esther, and a bunch of other games that all have questionable amounts of "difficulty" but which are still games and which some of have actually been critically acclaimed.

Edit2: Not directed at you Impish, mostly at some people posting on some earlier pages.

Edit3:

ICEknight, on 31 March 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

Not all videogames are designed around offering a challenge, but Sonic games indeed were. Artists created their art, and musicians composed their music precisely to accomodate a game where you needed to reach the goal as fast as you could. Even the Time Over is part of the whole arcade-ish design.

That's part of what makes them exciting and not a walk in the park, having the pressure of dying not only if your reflexes fail on you, but also if you don't think and react fast enough.

Spoiler

That said, that damn Time Over fucked up my latest try at doing a Perfect Bonus in Emerald Hill 2, just as I was about to fall onto the Egg Prison's button.

I guess that's fair enough but seeing as the games themselves have gotten rid of it recently, I'm surprised barely anyone considers what it actually contributed in the first place.

This post has been edited by Volpino: 31 March 2012 - 09:06 PM

[Ross-Irving]

I like the time limits in the classic games. The games have quite a bit of depth, but they still feel like arcade games to me. High risk, high reward, fast-paced type stuff. If anything, I'd argue that the time limits in the classic games should have been shorter. Five minutes max. It forces you to move faster and would increase the replay value by making you want to go to a different path the next time you play, since you wouldn't have had the ample time before to dick around. Sonic games are not about exploration. They are about being flowing and smartly accommodating to your actions. Be good at the game and you shouldn't have to go out of your way to get the best opportunities for points. Not to get too off-track, but that's why I like games with points. It gives you another reason to play.

Maybe being forced to go through a level quickly could be frustrating, but only if the game doesn't have a lot of levels. Taking classic gameplay mechanics into account, acts should be between forty-five seconds to two and a half minutes. Taking modern gameplay mechanics into account (homing attack , rail grinding, boost rings, etc.), each act should be between seventy-five seconds to three and a half minutes.

In short, Sonic games should be for people who want a challenge and who respect the concept of death and consequences in a video game.

[Afti]

Also- Sonic CD is brought up as an example of a game that doesn't need the time limit? Speak for yourself- time limit is BEAUTIFUL in that game. If you want the good ending you need to explore heavily, and you have 10 minutes per Act in which to do that; searching through a huge level for the capsule while the clock counts down to your inevitable death is fantastic, and it's an example of what should be done with the time limit- make it something that you might actually run into. A threat.

And, yeah- there are games that are more about the experience than anything. Sonic games don't number among those.

[Chibisteven]

Volpino, on 30 March 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

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.

I played Sonic Adventure 2 (Dreamcast). Anyway. A stratigy guide is useful for looking at maps of such levels at and what the points you need to get an A rank, which is certainly lower then the first mission. Got one after trying to find lost chao and upgrades were difficult.

Security Hall isn't terrible in the first mission. 5 minutes is easier then the 3 something minutes you get for the time mission (that is where I draw the line). Some trick to it that I can't remember since it's been a few years. Storywise I remember Rouge saying she only needed 5 minutes.

Hard mode for Mad Space will really piss you off trying to get an A rank for.

This post has been edited by Chibisteven: 31 March 2012 - 10:52 PM

[steveswede]

Ross-Irving, on 31 March 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Sonic games are not about exploration. They are about being flowing and smartly accommodating to your actions.

Sonic CD is though.

[Chibisteven]

steveswede, on 31 March 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Ross-Irving, on 31 March 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Sonic games are not about exploration. They are about being flowing and smartly accommodating to your actions.

Sonic CD is though.

If you're able to clear the special stages and get all time stones it's a free ride afterwards. On the otherhand there is the other method that envolves alot of exploring. Both achieve the same goal as far as the good ending is concerned.

[TheInvisibleSun]

Chibisteven, on 31 March 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

steveswede, on 31 March 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Ross-Irving, on 31 March 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Sonic games are not about exploration. They are about being flowing and smartly accommodating to your actions.

Sonic CD is though.

If you're able to clear the special stages and get all time stones it's a free ride afterwards. On the otherhand there is the other method that envolves alot of exploring. Both achieve the same goal as far as the good ending is concerned.

This doesn't change the fact that exploring is what the game is about...

[steveswede]

Chibisteven, on 31 March 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

steveswede, on 31 March 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Ross-Irving, on 31 March 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Sonic games are not about exploration. They are about being flowing and smartly accommodating to your actions.

Sonic CD is though.

If you're able to clear the special stages and get all time stones it's a free ride afterwards. On the otherhand there is the other method that envolves alot of exploring. Both achieve the same goal as far as the good ending is concerned.

The point I'm making is that stuff has been put in there to encourage exploration. I'm not debating the fact you can only do that to get the good ending.

[W.A.C.]

Tanks, on 31 March 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

In a game where the premise is to get from Point A to Point B, awarding bonuses for lower time AND the collection of objects/destruction of enemies, it would only make sense to have a kill time. If anything, its something that sticks in the back of your heading as a reminder that you have little choice but to move forward. Sonic isn't about exploration of zones. Well, it is, but you don't spend your act running around various paths. You're supposed to play through the game over and over again until you find the smoothest path that offers the max amount of coins you can attain while gunning for the lowest time achievable within the act.

A lot of the paths in a game like S3&K are very well designed. Some are slower paths than others, but a Sonic game shouldn't feel like I'm supposed to only be taking only one path every single time because it's the superior path and all of the other paths are inferior. One of the biggest problems I had with Sonic Generations' level design for the Classic stages is that some levels (most specifically act 1 of City Escape) made the gamer feel like there was only one good path. I never felt this way whenever I played S3&K but some (definitely not all) of the level design in Sonic Generations promotes that idea which isn't a great approach to level design that has tons of multiple paths. It can work out well for some stages, but to have that as the basis for every stage in a game can get boring and make a game feel less interesting.

steveswede, on 31 March 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Ross-Irving, on 31 March 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Sonic games are not about exploration. They are about being flowing and smartly accommodating to your actions.

Sonic CD is though.

Which makes the time limit even more maddening. I have never viewed the Sonic series as very arcade like and I have never felt the time limit was a great addition to arcade styled games in the first place. For example, the original Sin & Punishment had a time limit where you can earn additional time but the sequel scrapped that element entirely which I felt was a great decision. I also don't understand why so many people here are opposed to long Sonic levels. The only problem I have with them is when there's a time limit.

[Volpino]

W.A.C., on 31 March 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Which makes the time limit even more maddening. I have never viewed the Sonic series as very arcade like and I have never felt the time limit was a great addition to arcade styled games in the first place. For example, the original Sin & Punishment had a time limit where you can earn additional time but the sequel scrapped that element entirely which I felt was a great decision. I also don't understand why so many people here are opposed to long Sonic levels. The only problem I have with them is when there's a time limit.

I've never seen them as arcade style either. A lot of arcade games I played as a kid didn't have time limits anyway.

I actually think arcade games are completely obsolete now; I cannot think of any reason they'd be remotely more appealing than any other genre that has evolved for more than nostalgic or historical reasons.