[Volpino]

Molotok, on 29 March 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

serpx, on 29 March 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

I bet the time limit came from Mario, when they were taking ideas from it to compete against it. It probably just stuck as something to have, even though it really serves no purpose other than to be annoying.

I only quote this post because I was going to bring up Mario myself.

Really, it depends on the genre of the game in question. I suppose I must be one of these "oldfags" that someone (I won't say who) has been bitching about, but then that might be because I played games like Super Mario Bros. (and 2, 3, World, etc.) and Gauntlet where some sort of time limit could end your current life/game. Then again, I also enjoyed The Legend of Zelda, but that's why I mentioned that about genres before. Also, games across almost all genres have gotten easier through the years. Why I remember playing Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy and you didn't have this namby-pamby bullshit of saving everywhere. The later Final Fantasy games had a good medium: you could save on the overworld but not in the 'dungeons' unless you were in a special area. Old adventure games actually had dead-end paths if you didn't get the right item or other such situation and you could just wander around the game in frustration.

Also, if we're going to be complaining about something killing you if you dicked around for too long (and a perfect illustration of older games being harder), "Rat Race" from Battletoads, anyone? Or one-hit deaths in Contra?

Yes, I find myself agreeing with those that can't make the time limit just need practice. Not every game can be easy, you know?

You completely missed the point of my posts, and I'm assuming you're talking about me, in which case I'm not sure if you're trying to be nice by not pointing it out directly or trying to be rude by not acknowledging me, but it's not about being "easy" or "hard" all the god damn time.

But if it really bothers you, how about a difficulty setting in games? Minecraft has a mode where you can basically turn off monsters if you don't feel like dealing with them and I approve of that, although I mostly play on normal mode for the atmosphere of the game. (Keyword being "atmosphere, which isn't always related to challenge.)

Edit: I do not have anything against people who like a challenge, I have something against people who can't appreciate that not everybody wants that out of a video game, and I see a FUCKLOAD of that here.

This post has been edited by Volpino: 29 March 2012 - 11:13 PM

[Mercury]

serpx, on 29 March 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

I bet the time limit came from Mario, when they were taking ideas from it to compete against it. It probably just stuck as something to have, even though it really serves no purpose other than to be annoying.

It's almost certainly borrowed from Mario; 80% of the rest of Sonic's game mechanics are.

And that's another reason why I dislike the time limit (as it has traditionally been implemented in Sonic) - along with the score, it seems to have been thrown in with very little thought, and has never really been re-thought since.

Take Yoshi's Island, for example (the first Super Mario platformer game to be released post-Sonic, and almost certainly influenced by it). There's no time limit at all; when the game wants to put the pressure on you, they have chase sequences, rising/falling blocks, auto-scrolling areas, or unstable platforms. Other levels let you explore to your heart's content with no pressure.

That's an example of legitimately good, thoughtful design. Instead of slapping on a cheap global feature with no thought to how it might affect individual areas (as in Sonic 3, where a 10:00 limit means nothing in Angel Island but can be sorely felt in Carnival Night), each challenge in the game is presented in the best possible way, just like a director presenting each scene in a film. Surely there's room in the Sonic franchise to take these cues, rather than adhering to a holdover from the arcade era.

And there's a similar story with Score in Yoshi's Island. It's rethought to be a hugely important aspect of gameplay, interwoven with exploration (finding coins, flowers) and challenge (don't get hit too much) in a brilliant and satisfying way. And it rewards you with the greatest reward a game can give: bonus levels. But in Sonic? It's just vestigial.

I'm not crusading against the time limit here. But when - from a design perspective - these gameplay concepts are questioned instead of taken for granted, you can forge interesting new territory. Now, that's interesting to me primarily as a game designer (with a specific focus on Sonic) but might bore the hell out of others.

I think it's not just the time limit and score, either. Sonic game development seems to be plagued with safe, inside-the-box thinking, especially from Sega themselves. While Mario and Mega Man have healthy diversity, exploring all kinds of new gameplay and level environments, Sonic games seem to be stuck in a cookie cutter loop. It's almost as though the series is afraid of losing its identity if it doesn't recapitulate all of the tired tropes, and this carries over to the fan community, as well. I'm speaking largely from ignorance on this next point, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's nearly as much of a trend towards remaking in other communities; there's no Mario 2 HD.

I'm still waiting for Sonic to grow up and become vital again, from a design perspective. But I think I've strayed way too far from the topic of the time limit.

[Ravenfreak]

Just a heads up on the people who want to explore Sonic 3K with no time limit, I hacked S3k. You can get it here.

[Molotok]

Volpino, on 29 March 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

Molotok, on 29 March 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

serpx, on 29 March 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

I bet the time limit came from Mario, when they were taking ideas from it to compete against it. It probably just stuck as something to have, even though it really serves no purpose other than to be annoying.

I only quote this post because I was going to bring up Mario myself.

Really, it depends on the genre of the game in question. I suppose I must be one of these "oldfags" that someone (I won't say who) has been bitching about, but then that might be because I played games like Super Mario Bros. (and 2, 3, World, etc.) and Gauntlet where some sort of time limit could end your current life/game. Then again, I also enjoyed The Legend of Zelda, but that's why I mentioned that about genres before. Also, games across almost all genres have gotten easier through the years. Why I remember playing Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy and you didn't have this namby-pamby bullshit of saving everywhere. The later Final Fantasy games had a good medium: you could save on the overworld but not in the 'dungeons' unless you were in a special area. Old adventure games actually had dead-end paths if you didn't get the right item or other such situation and you could just wander around the game in frustration.

Also, if we're going to be complaining about something killing you if you dicked around for too long (and a perfect illustration of older games being harder), "Rat Race" from Battletoads, anyone? Or one-hit deaths in Contra?

Yes, I find myself agreeing with those that can't make the time limit just need practice. Not every game can be easy, you know?

You completely missed the point of my posts, and I'm assuming you're talking about me, in which case I'm not sure if you're trying to be nice by not pointing it out directly or trying to be rude by not acknowledging me, but it's not about being "easy" or "hard" all the god damn time.

But if it really bothers you, how about a difficulty setting in games? Minecraft has a mode where you can basically turn off monsters if you don't feel like dealing with them and I approve of that, although I mostly play on normal mode for the atmosphere of the game. (Keyword being "atmosphere, which isn't always related to challenge.)

Edit: I do not have anything against people who like a challenge, I have something against people who can't appreciate that not everybody wants that out of a video game, and I see a FUCKLOAD of that here.

I'd be fine with a difficulty setting. I'm just sort of a person who does want a little challenge and the post was more me reminiscing than anything else, along with a little observation about gaming trends.

[Volpino]

Ravenfreak, on 29 March 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

Just a heads up on the people who want to explore Sonic 3K with no time limit, I hacked S3k. You can get it here.

Awesome, I will check this out later. :D

Molotok, on 29 March 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

I'd be fine with a difficulty setting. I'm just sort of a person who does want a little challenge and the post was more me reminiscing than anything else, along with a little observation about gaming trends.

I understand there's a shitton of handholding in newer games - Skyward Sword comes to mind with all the talking Fi did and how pointless the dowsing gimmick was - but I can't think of new games' handholding without thinking of OoT3D, a game which I not only enjoy, but which has THE most pointless, cheap kind of handholding ever - a freaking stone that tells you how to solve a puzzle. I disdain that stone, I never use it, but at the same time, I was only required to notice it one time, it is not obtrusive, and I never have to use it, so I do not mind it being in the game even though I'm amazed it even had to be.

However, after even considering the insult that stone posed to me, I remembered that I have quite a few friends that have confided in me that puzzle games "Make them feel stupid" and they are just not very good at them, so if someone really needs the stone to tell them the answer, more power to them. (I guess Nintendo figured they're just cutting out the middle man with walkthroughs anyway.) Now, I can completely sympathize with a lack of interest in handholding when it's literally unavoidable. A good example being the Harvest Moon games for the Wii. You cannot skip the tutorial, which is annoying enough, but what used to take one virtual day off your first Spring now needs to spread itself out over the span of a week, either because Natsume was worried about the accessibility of a game like Harvest Moon or because there is so much to do in a game like Harvest Moon, or both, I don't know, but what I do know is, I don't need it. I'm not bashing people who do, I don't want to take away the possibility that vital information they needed to know might be in those tutorials, but why the hell can't I turn them off? That really drives me insane.

Although on a different subject, I might as well say that, if I'm playing a Sonic game like what I assume most people play a Sonic game, I almost never time out, although Sonic 3 gave me a lot of trouble as a kid, it's not really that I can't play the game, it's just that sometimes, I outright don't want to leave a certain area for whatever reason, usually because, for varying reasons, it makes me feel good to be there. I realize this wasn't really all that intentional in earlier games, and in some newer ones, but it just kind of mystifies me that a lot of people have never considered this before. A lot of the thread's previous pages seem to be people who are blaming the disdain for a time limit on people just sucking, but I just have to wonder at what some of them think about when they think about video games.

I attempted to get people to elaborate, but apparently that didn't really work.

And yeah I know my posts are long. It's difficult to abridge posts for me. -.-

Mercury, on 29 March 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

serpx, on 29 March 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

I bet the time limit came from Mario, when they were taking ideas from it to compete against it. It probably just stuck as something to have, even though it really serves no purpose other than to be annoying.

It's almost certainly borrowed from Mario; 80% of the rest of Sonic's game mechanics are.

And that's another reason why I dislike the time limit (as it has traditionally been implemented in Sonic) - along with the score, it seems to have been thrown in with very little thought, and has never really been re-thought since.

Take Yoshi's Island, for example (the first Super Mario platformer game to be released post-Sonic, and almost certainly influenced by it). There's no time limit at all; when the game wants to put the pressure on you, they have chase sequences, rising/falling blocks, auto-scrolling areas, or unstable platforms. Other levels let you explore to your heart's content with no pressure.

That's an example of legitimately good, thoughtful design. Instead of slapping on a cheap global feature with no thought to how it might affect individual areas (as in Sonic 3, where a 10:00 limit means nothing in Angel Island but can be sorely felt in Carnival Night), each challenge in the game is presented in the best possible way, just like a director presenting each scene in a film. Surely there's room in the Sonic franchise to take these cues, rather than adhering to a holdover from the arcade era.

And there's a similar story with Score in Yoshi's Island. It's rethought to be a hugely important aspect of gameplay, interwoven with exploration (finding coins, flowers) and challenge (don't get hit too much) in a brilliant and satisfying way. And it rewards you with the greatest reward a game can give: bonus levels. But in Sonic? It's just vestigial.

I'm not crusading against the time limit here. But when - from a design perspective - these gameplay concepts are questioned instead of taken for granted, you can forge interesting new territory. Now, that's interesting to me primarily as a game designer (with a specific focus on Sonic) but might bore the hell out of others.

I think it's not just the time limit and score, either. Sonic game development seems to be plagued with safe, inside-the-box thinking, especially from Sega themselves. While Mario and Mega Man have healthy diversity, exploring all kinds of new gameplay and level environments, Sonic games seem to be stuck in a cookie cutter loop. It's almost as though the series is afraid of losing its identity if it doesn't recapitulate all of the tired tropes, and this carries over to the fan community, as well. I'm speaking largely from ignorance on this next point, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's nearly as much of a trend towards remaking in other communities; there's no Mario 2 HD.

I'm still waiting for Sonic to grow up and become vital again, from a design perspective. But I think I've strayed way too far from the topic of the time limit.

You seem to have a lot to say on this, why not make a thread with your observations?

This post has been edited by Volpino: 30 March 2012 - 12:37 AM

[Candescence]

Mercury, on 29 March 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

serpx, on 29 March 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

I bet the time limit came from Mario, when they were taking ideas from it to compete against it. It probably just stuck as something to have, even though it really serves no purpose other than to be annoying.

It's almost certainly borrowed from Mario; 80% of the rest of Sonic's game mechanics are.

And that's another reason why I dislike the time limit (as it has traditionally been implemented in Sonic) - along with the score, it seems to have been thrown in with very little thought, and has never really been re-thought since.

Take Yoshi's Island, for example (the first Super Mario platformer game to be released post-Sonic, and almost certainly influenced by it). There's no time limit at all; when the game wants to put the pressure on you, they have chase sequences, rising/falling blocks, auto-scrolling areas, or unstable platforms. Other levels let you explore to your heart's content with no pressure.

That's an example of legitimately good, thoughtful design. Instead of slapping on a cheap global feature with no thought to how it might affect individual areas (as in Sonic 3, where a 10:00 limit means nothing in Angel Island but can be sorely felt in Carnival Night), each challenge in the game is presented in the best possible way, just like a director presenting each scene in a film. Surely there's room in the Sonic franchise to take these cues, rather than adhering to a holdover from the arcade era.

And there's a similar story with Score in Yoshi's Island. It's rethought to be a hugely important aspect of gameplay, interwoven with exploration (finding coins, flowers) and challenge (don't get hit too much) in a brilliant and satisfying way. And it rewards you with the greatest reward a game can give: bonus levels. But in Sonic? It's just vestigial.

I'm not crusading against the time limit here. But when - from a design perspective - these gameplay concepts are questioned instead of taken for granted, you can forge interesting new territory. Now, that's interesting to me primarily as a game designer (with a specific focus on Sonic) but might bore the hell out of others.

I think it's not just the time limit and score, either. Sonic game development seems to be plagued with safe, inside-the-box thinking, especially from Sega themselves. While Mario and Mega Man have healthy diversity, exploring all kinds of new gameplay and level environments, Sonic games seem to be stuck in a cookie cutter loop. It's almost as though the series is afraid of losing its identity if it doesn't recapitulate all of the tired tropes, and this carries over to the fan community, as well. I'm speaking largely from ignorance on this next point, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's nearly as much of a trend towards remaking in other communities; there's no Mario 2 HD.

I'm still waiting for Sonic to grow up and become vital again, from a design perspective. But I think I've strayed way too far from the topic of the time limit.

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.

Quote

I understand there's a shitton of handholding in newer games - Skyward Sword comes to mind with all the talking Fi did and how pointless the dowsing gimmick was - but I can't think of new games' handholding without thinking of OoT3D, a game which I not only enjoy, but which has THE most pointless, cheap kind of handholding ever - a freaking stone that tells you how to solve a puzzle. I disdain that stone, I never use it, but at the same time, I was only required to notice it one time, it is not obtrusive, and I never have to use it, so I do not mind it being in the game even though I'm amazed it even had to be.

However, after even considering the insult that stone posed to me, I remembered that I have quite a few friends that have confided in me that puzzle games "Make them feel stupid" and they are just not very good at them, so if someone really needs the stone to tell them the answer, more power to them. (I guess Nintendo figured they're just cutting out the middle man with walkthroughs anyway.)

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.

This post has been edited by Candescence: 30 March 2012 - 12:54 AM

[W.A.C.]

Mercury, on 29 March 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

It's almost certainly borrowed from Mario; 80% of the rest of Sonic's game mechanics are...I'm still waiting for Sonic to grow up and become vital again, from a design perspective. But I think I've strayed way too far from the topic of the time limit.

Best post of the thread, hands down. I could not agree with you more.

Ravenfreak, on 29 March 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

Just a heads up on the people who want to explore Sonic 3K with no time limit, I hacked S3k. You can get it here.

THANK YOU! I'll play it sometime soon. ^_^

[Volpino]

Candescence, on 30 March 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

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 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.)

Candescence, on 30 March 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

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.

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.

[LOst]

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"

[Kogen]

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.

[Skyler]

The time limit's not nearly as big a deal as a lot of you are making it out to be. I don't mind it at all, and it's only bothersome in Sonic CD.

Related:

[XCubed]

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!

[Kogen]

XCubed, on 30 March 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

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!

[Elratauru]

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.

[muteKi]

XCubed, on 30 March 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

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!

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?