[Palas]

Deef, on 28 September 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

Oh, to clarify about removing the "well balanced life system", I was really meaning the "well balanced" part of it. As in, a hit in Mario Bros. kills you dead. While Super Mario Bros. combines life and powerups in a way that works superbly for the game that it is. So I was really just saying "Imagine Super Mario Bros. 3 where 1 hit kills you, always."

I see, I see~! But, in that regard, Mario has a very interesting association of life and power. The powerups also give you "extra lives", and the more hits you take, the less power you have: the harder the game gets. It's an interesting logic that, in fact, thrives in shoot-em-ups more than in platformers.

Quote

Anyway, regarding your Jungle Act 2 example, you said "Still uses what is core to Sonic."
Well, what is core in that case? His motion play is gone. The rings play didn't exist. I believe there aren't even any enemies there upon which to exert his omni-directional attack. In other words, what's the uniquely Soniccy part? Because Mario's got most of that scenario covered already.

That section in the picture is the last one. There is much more down there. For instance, there are sections in which you can grab rings and jump on the next platform before the camera reaches you (which would kill you). The ring play is there and what's the most Sonic-y about it is that it's completely anti-Sonic in a way. See, Sonic's speed is still there, but you have to control it. The way you can bounce off the piranhas and monitors and land on another platform - at the cost of missing what was inbetween - has, to me, a very Sonic-y feeling. In fact, trying to take advantage of the momentum to climb up faster is one of the most complicated actions in the game, but it *is* possible.

Quote

Or perhaps that's what you're saying. "Sonic is a platformer too."

This, too. We've had, in the official titles, a very uninteresting focus on speed and the rest of the game is made in order to show you just how fast Sonic is. Well, before being a Sonic game, Sonic games are platformers - so Sonic's speed should come after the platforming in the equation, at least conceptually. That's his speed, go find out what it can do.

Quote

I did really like Jungle. I'm confused though how you say Jungle is like my sketch above; it seems the complete opposite to me. My image is meant to be highlighting just how much reach Sonic has with only a few curves. The only similarity is that they're both a big space making up their own rules, but one is not very Soniccy.

No, not the one with the baloon. The one with the big ring.

Quote

Meanwhile the freedom you mention, well a lot of that is still there even with the rings, the powerups, and the lives all in play. We can still create a level drowning in original platforming ideas after getting things Soniccy.

Of course, but that's where it becomes interesting. Freedom, when things become Sonic-y, transforms into a matter of choice. My interest is bent by the elements on the screen - my freedom is already attached to it. Complete, utter (and meaningless) freedom is completely devoid of choice - the rings have a meaning to them, but I may or I may not want them.

When we don't have any elements that bend the player's interest, which would be the case if we just left him there with no goals or rings or enemies or lives, the experience would be solely based on the movement in itself. This, and nothing else. This can't be the case, since the movement is what we give the player for him to have fun (and achieve goals) with, not the fun itself.

Quote

So identifying the Soniccy elements is the start of my question. And then I would pull apart gameplay ideas. Just stalled on how you say Jungle 2 was using what's core to Sonic.

There is this game - I think it was originated here at Retro, because it's so Retro-ish to do this kind of stuff - which puts Sonic in a maze and there's a rabbit... thing... that points you the way to the end. It's really tricky and has some neat ideas in it. But the point is - play it. Is it a Sonic game or a game with Sonic features? The line is blurry and we can't rely on the character and his abilities alone to take the decision. It's a very thin balance.

Quote

Tension:
Gotta take a disagreeing angle again. Good description of self fulfilling prophecies, but no I'm sure I was seeking tension for the sake of something to punish the player for not actively playing. The badniks in the classics do often fit your description, with Sandhiphopopopolis' ghosts being a good exception.

Badniks play a number of parts in the classic games. The Motobug, I think, is the most primitive example of badnik that punishes you for doing nothing. He's coming at you, and you MUST jump. In this case, I believe skill tolls like Spikes and that star from Metropolis are just the sort of difficulty you are talking about. They punish you for standing still or for playing the wrong way. Naturally, spiked balls from Marble Garden and Casino Night do the job, too. But it's difficult to tell. They may work as self-fulfilling prophecies or skill tolls - it depends on the player's behaviour and objectives more than the designer's intention.

This post has been edited by Palas: 28 September 2012 - 02:51 PM

[Deef]

This post is verbose because I'm confused.

Regarding the lives and powerups: (Parts hidden for the sake of the thread's direction.)

Spoiler

Yup. I really like this method too. It doesn't go soft on you for messing up, it doesn't create confusion about what a powerup is, and I just like the logic of "the closer you are to running out of hits, the more likely it is that you'll get hit." It's another kind of tension I suppose; instead of making each hit just a static "try again" (lives still do this), each hit increases the stress/play. I wonder if I'll find myself wanting to see this in a Sonic game. The shields do it actually, but something's definitely not working there.

Regarding speed and platforming:
Mmm I see what you're saying. Excluding perhaps Angel Island, every zone in Sonic 3 will at some point put the player at top speed with zero effort. What your point makes me think now is that there are different ways to apply the old "Speed vs platforming" shtick. It can be a reward, it can be sporadic areas of rest, it can be buried in the platforming. I think what you're referring to is visible in a fangame called Freedom Planet (it's a few threads down). It has rolling and loops and quarterpipes, and the speed is there, but it definitely is a case of "You want speed? Then go and fight for it," as the levels never just switch it on for you. As a result, the focus of the gameplay really is on something else.

Something for me to ponder anyway (it's going into the notes); I'm just very wary of putting Sonic's main focus up against the platforming of Mario.
As for the game you suggested... with the rabbit... I think I'm gonna need a little more info to find it heh.

· Relevance to topic:
Bringing this thought to the topic, do you have any ideas for how to bring your perspective of "Speed should come after the platforming" into a single screen game, in order to enhance it in a full zone game?


Regarding the image:

Spoiler

I'm still confused about the Jungle comparison because the big ring image I posted is all about terrain and momentum. Use the curves at the bottom like a halfpipe, with careful jumps and rolling to gradually jump higher and higher each lap until you're making god-like leaps that see you dealing with whatever's happening in the air while still needing to get your landing pinpointed on the right part of the slope. It would actually be a bit difficult I think, and the trees are there as vertical guidance.

Regarding freedom:
This is where a lot of the focus of this thread comes from, but I'm a bit confused about what you're saying with the freedom angle.

To be honest I think you were misinterpreting those opening questions somewhat. I wasn't asking "What happens if we remove these restrictions from Mario?" I was asking "What happens if we remove these so-called fundamentals from Mario? Wouldn't then we expect his games to suck?" Then I pointed to Mario Bros. 1983 to watch everyone suddenly remember "Oh yeah, Mario was already good, regardless of his Super Mario Bros. fundamentals." From there, I asked "Ok so how is Sonic 'already good'?"
The idea was to put focus on exactly how Mario played in 1983 that made him compelling before a full level even existed, to learn from that, and then apply the lesson to the tools that Sonic has.

So we come to the freedom point, where I said "We still have freedom to do what we want with the player's interests even after implementing Sonic's unique/defining features," but I'm not sure exactly what your response is pushing. I agree with it largely, but I don't know what it's actually trying to say. All I was pointing out is that focussing on making things "Soniccy" does not practically reduce the of possibilities, and therefore that I don't see the value in removing those Soniccy things for the sake of freedom. Otherwise you're just left with that game about the blue guy that jumps.

· Relevance:
I'm just confused about where you were going with that. I'll point out that when I say "Soniccy", I'm thinking motion.


Regarding motion and fun:
You're saying the movement (or control) is what we give the player in order to achieve goals that the designer defines, and that it is achieving the goals that is fun, not the movement itself. I say the goals are just an excuse to let the player enjoy the movement, and that the movement itself can even deliver some fun completely on its own, which is why it keeps people playing once given a little direction. As long as there is a point of reference and some kind of collision possible, there is the capacity for the player to get something out of the movement alone, even if collision, or distance, mean nothing.

This is represented by the fact that racers especially (but practically any genre involving motion) have some games that are simply "more fun" to play -in the controller- than others, regardless of features, objectives or whatever. Sega Rally would be my shining example here. I didn't focus on time attacking a lot in that game, and I raced a friend a bit but not a lot, but I would always play that game, driving around, and think "Jesus this is so good to play." The way it handles was utter playability for me personally; it's one of my most respected games and there is still no racer I find more enjoyable. It's glorious. My mate actually thanked me for making him buy it.

Meanwhile, a generation later in V-Rally 2, I would get frustrated at how the cars felt. I found myself designing tracks in the track editor purely to create ways to make the cars' handling more fun (a particular corner just after a particular elevation on a particular gravel type). Being a track editor where I'm defining the length of the course already, it proves that goals were not influencing my enjoyment, but the movement itself. You could say this is about the goals that the player is setting up for themselves on the fly; they just wanna see what they can do. It's a very dynamic thing and all the player needs is motion, limits to that motion, and a way to tell they're moving. Make that fun first, THEN chuck a game on it. I reckon anyway. Despite all my Mario comparisons, I'm quite "anti-Mario" in the idea of "Here is what you have to do, go do it." I much prefer the "That wasn't really in the script" feeling that I get from Sonic games.

Sorry for going on, but another example is NiGHTS. It's just a dumb score attack....... that is awesome. It's fantastically playable because you are working the controls in a very fun way. Yes in the name of achieving something, but that achievement is not the only thing driving the player's enjoyment. It's easy to pick up NiGHTS and just faff about, especially with the L+R controls. The score attacking is just an excuse to do more of it.

I don't moan about the boost or homing attack because they make goals too easy to achieve. I moan because they make the motion too plain.
I imagine this is all pretty obvious to you anway and we're just fumbling semantics, but yeah, now I've gone and written it.

So movement isn't just what we use to reach fun, it is a large part of the fun itself. It is in fact the real core of almost any action gameplay in my opinion, and this is what I have always seen as Sonic's biggest card.

· Relevance:
What does this have to do with the thread though? Well, if we don't value Sonic's motion, all we have are goals that can be chucked into any game with a platforming basis. That's why much earlier I replied to someone that I don't care about score attacking. It's generic, and it comes after the play. It drives the play but isn't the play itself, just like score attacking drives Mario's headbutting and jumping, but isn't the skill or fun of headbutting and jumping itself (and likewise for death motivating dodging). Ie, of being Mario himself.

So when you talk about Jungle working Sonic's core (lol, Ab Sculptor Relief), and about movement not defining the fun, I'm a bit lost. I'm really looking at literally how the movement creates compulsion that the player feels, like it did in Mario Bros. 1983. A desire to test their control, at being Sonic himself.


Regarding tension:
Yeah there are a few examples in the Sonic games, but when this thread heard the idea of a single-screen Sonic game that focussed on a Casino-Night-esque chamber, I was still comparing to Mario and that's what jumped out at me. Sonic is missing tension in this single-screen idea, and apart from a few examples, and bosses, there's quite a low amount of it in all his levels too. Maybe not a bad thing at all; it's ironic that Mario has the pressing timer, not Sonic, but I wouldn't want that to change.

· Relevance:
I was just pushing the exploration of tension for a single-screen game, to tear it apart later for a real level once it's more fully formed.


The end:
Since you're not focussing on terrain handling at all I won't bug you about that point of post #28. But I do ask if you are onto something else you could suggest for creating compelling Sonic play without leaving the screen. And any more tension thoughts if you have any?

This post has been edited by Deef: 29 September 2012 - 02:17 AM

[Palas]

It would appear I was the one to confuse things. I somehow assumed I could relate Jungle Act 2 with your sketch just because both had a vertical orientation. I'm so sorry, don't mind me on that point.

Quote

Regarding speed and platforming:
Mmm I see what you're saying. Excluding perhaps Angel Island, every zone in Sonic 3 will at some point put the player at top speed with zero effort. What your point makes me think now is that there are different ways to apply the old "Speed vs platforming" shtick. It can be a reward, it can be sporadic areas of rest, it can be buried in the platforming. I think what you're referring to is visible in a fangame called Freedom Planet (it's a few threads down). It has rolling and loops and quarterpipes, and the speed is there, but it definitely is a case of "You want speed? Then go and fight for it," as the levels never just switch it on for you. As a result, the focus of the gameplay really is on something else.

Something for me to ponder anyway (it's going into the notes); I'm just very wary of putting Sonic's main focus up against the platforming of Mario.
As for the game you suggested... with the rabbit... I think I'm gonna need a little more info to find it heh.

· Relevance to topic:
Bringing this thought to the topic, do you have any ideas for how to bring your perspective of "Speed should come after the platforming" into a single screen game, in order to enhance it in a full zone game?

Well, there are, indeed, various ways of mixing them. It's but a matter of harmony in giving and taking - which is why ideas for a single screen game must be taken with a bigger picture in mind. Or, at least, so I think. So, I mean, you give the player some sense of speed and then stop it, as to say "do you like that? Come get more!" In that sense, I think I must agree that Sonic's movement is a piece of fun in itself. Playing around with him is fun, but I find it difficult to make a game out of this alone. Bending the player's interest and access to it, alternating between putting speed as a reward and as a gift perhaps is what it is all about.

The game with the rabbit... I can't seem to find it. On anywhere. I must have dreamed of it at some point. It was a game with only one stage, a maze, and sometimes you would find a weird creature that, if I remember correctly, resembled a rabbit, who would point you the way to the finish. But the point is: take away from the player the sense of having to go forward (no matter the direction you consider "forward"). Is it still Sonic? This can be applied in a single screen, too.

Now, as for single screen game ideas: speed has many faces. Movement is one of them, sure, but reflex is another one. Many bosses have the ideas and force the player to use speed without movement. Aquatic Ruin, for example. It could be a lot faster. More arrows, more levels to climb. Another example...? Star Light Zone, with its clever and simple design. You can hit Robotnik both with his own bombs or launching yourself to the air (which is the interesting part that we could use here).

It's nothing too special, though. You may find this frustrating, but that's what I think: what's special about Sonic is how he overcomes the obstacles, not the obstacles in themselves. So force the payer to explore everything Sonic has, making him dodge threats and hop quickly between falling platforms. The sense of speed may not be there, but the speed is and so is momentum.

Quote

Regarding freedom:
This is where a lot of the focus of this thread comes from, but I'm a bit confused about what you're saying with the freedom angle.

To be honest I think you were misinterpreting those opening questions somewhat. I wasn't asking "What happens if we remove these restrictions from Mario?" I was asking "What happens if we remove these so-called fundamentals from Mario? Wouldn't then we expect his games to suck?" Then I pointed to Mario Bros. 1983 to watch everyone suddenly remember "Oh yeah, Mario was already good, regardless of his Super Mario Bros. fundamentals." From there, I asked "Ok so how is Sonic 'already good'?"
The idea was to put focus on exactly how Mario played in 1983 that made him compelling before a full level even existed, to learn from that, and then apply the lesson to the tools that Sonic has.

So we come to the freedom point, where I said "We still have freedom to do what we want with the player's interests even after implementing Sonic's unique/defining features," but I'm not sure exactly what your response is pushing. I agree with it largely, but I don't know what it's actually trying to say. All I was pointing out is that focussing on making things "Soniccy" does not practically reduce the of possibilities, and therefore that I don't see the value in removing those Soniccy things for the sake of freedom. Otherwise you're just left with that game about the blue guy that jumps.

· Relevance:
I'm just confused about where you were going with that. I'll point out that when I say "Soniccy", I'm thinking motion.

This is a very deep question; the one about freedom. Don't make me dwell in it or you'll see A LOT of rambling about the most abstract of things. But, basically, I agree with you - making things Sonic-y don't take away your freedom. Just transforms it. Freedom, as a concept of mine, is like the air. It's there, but you don't notice it unless there's smoke around. The smoke, in this case, is Sonic's unique features.

Alright, this is confusing. Allow me to try and explain better. There you are, at your house. There is nothing impeding you from breaking all of your windows and chewing the glass pieces obtained from this action. You are free to do that. However, unless I point this out to you and offer you other options. That's the thing, options. Freedom only becomes tangible (and therefore experienceable) when you are given options. You could have broken the windows of your house, but, instead, you just opened them so that some fresh air would come in.

Coming down to Earth and games: when you present a gimmick to the player on a place where he's not, you give him/her a choice, which will affect the player's behaviour based on their preferences over what is more important or urgent. If there is nothing there, the player will not even consider the possibility. There is no freedom in this case (not in the player's mind), because he couldn't grasp the options at his hand, simply because nothing called the attention. This is why alternate pathways don't mean much by themselves and why I think Sonic's motion play is insufficient. There must be a motive and an end. Now, I'm sure you know this and are just pointing out we must know what's in the middle, what's unique to Sonic. I'm just being nitpicky and boring - mind me not.

[Crappy Blue Luigi]

Palas, on 29 September 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

The game with the rabbit... I can't seem to find it. On anywhere. I must have dreamed of it at some point. It was a game with only one stage, a maze, and sometimes you would find a weird creature that, if I remember correctly, resembled a rabbit, who would point you the way to the finish. But the point is: take away from the player the sense of having to go forward (no matter the direction you consider "forward"). Is it still Sonic? This can be applied in a single screen, too.

Jester's Challenge.

[Deef]

Palas, on 29 September 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

In that sense, I think I must agree that Sonic's movement is a piece of fun in itself. Playing around with him is fun, but I find it difficult to make a game out of this alone.

...

... and why I think Sonic's motion play is insufficient.

Yep. I do agree; I don't think motion play alone is enough either. It's just that I see it as the first reason the player is there even if the game is saying otherwise. So while goals provide a reason to keep playing that would not exist otherwise, in my mind they're definitely lower down the list of priorities. A necessity, but a clear secondary of two necessities. My mind thinks "Design the motion first, then just chuck in whatever for goals as long as they complement the motion." Maybe that's just me.

I checked out Jester's Challenge (ty CBL). In my eyes that's definitely something I would call "Only a game with Sonic features, not a Sonic game." The speed and the rolling would be the only things to give it away should it be reskinned to Mario visuals, but the speed and rolling are not complemented at all anyway. Whereas if you took the approach of no goals, no direction, but at least a hill or two and rolling that works, I would say "Yep, that's Sonic. Shame there isn't much to do." You raised this example to point out the thin line of identifying what is and isn't "Soniccy", but to me it doesn't feel so grey.

Anyway, yes goals are necessary, completely. Not disagreeing. We might just have different perspectives on what matters more. (There's also the part about goals that is confirming good performance to the player; something that current gen developers wouldn't dream of forgetting to do, but I usually fail to consider. You pressed the A button?! Amazing! Out-freaking-standing! -_- But this is going off point.)


Since goals are like an afterthought for me but somewhat important for you :D , do you have any more suggestions of goals to work in a single-screen game that generate compulsion to play? That can then be transferred to a full game?

Palas, on 29 September 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Now, as for single screen game ideas: speed has many faces. Movement is one of them, sure, but reflex is another one. Many bosses have the ideas and force the player to use speed without movement. Aquatic Ruin, for example. It could be a lot faster. More arrows, more levels to climb. Another example...? Star Light Zone, with its clever and simple design. You can hit Robotnik both with his own bombs or launching yourself to the air (which is the interesting part that we could use here).

...

... So force the payer to explore everything Sonic has, making him dodge threats and hop quickly between falling platforms.

Funny, I was think of exactly this today and thought up an addition to Sonic's/Tails'/Knuckles' moveset that would seem cool, not tacky, and increase the amount of potential for reflex play, hopefully without breaking the influence of momentum (very important I believe, that the player often knows they can't stop easily). I say this because as cool as Sonic CD's intro looks, Sonic is not huge on twitch gaming. Almost entirely not, with bosses being the only real suggestion otherwise.

Anyway I'm all for exploring every way to exploit Sonic's movements to further gameplay options. Reflex is definitely a part of that even if I don't praise the classics for it. Now I'm wondering why I didn't think of it explicitly adding to the terrain-handling concept. So now I can say:

Mario has headbutting (aiming test), jumping (pursuing over obstacles test), and dodging (twitch/reflexes test).
Sonic has flowing (terrain understanding test), and really, all of the above. I was unwilling to champion Sonic's gameplay as being the same as Mario's but, in my mind, if the flow aspect is the most prominent, the rest are ok.

Still, pushing twitch gameplay is a bit tricky to imagine. I still am uneasy to try and celebrate it for a Sonic game. I think the best way to challenge this thinking is to literally take Mario Bros. 1983, chuck Sonic in it, and ask "Ok what do I need to change to make it feel as fair, balanced, and tense?" Hmmm... See, I just can't escape this soggy feeling about the way Sonic moves, but I am not eager to go messing with that either. Stuck. Starlight's boss is a great boss, but it still feels slow to me. But any faster and Sonic would not really be up to the pace. On that note, Ep 2 has much faster jumping. Probably better? So I'm maybe a tweak to the ph-ph-physics perhaps? To improve Sonic's reflex play. Don't know.

Or do you think Sonic is already nimble enough?

Palas, on 29 September 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Freedom stuff.

Nah, yeah, gottit.



_____

This post has been edited by Deef: 30 September 2012 - 05:58 AM

[Palas]

Crappy Blue Luigi, on 29 September 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

Jester's Challenge.

Thank you, thank you~!

Deef, on 30 September 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

Yep. I do agree; I don't think motion play alone is enough either. It's just that I see it as the first reason the player is there even if the game is saying otherwise. So while goals provide a reason to keep playing that would not exist otherwise, in my mind they're definitely lower down the list of priorities. A necessity, but a clear secondary of two necessities. My mind thinks "Design the motion first, then just chuck in whatever for goals as long as they complement the motion." Maybe that's just me.

I think you're right in this aspect. Can't disagree. It's just that I think that one will not achieve its full potential without the other. You mentioned something interesting - there is a point where goals and motion converge, and that is exactly what seems to drive modern gen developers to point out that you did something trivial and try to chunk in some sensation of achievement in this alone.

Yes, I find that stupid, but we can draw something interesting from that. different goals stimulate different uses of Sonic's speed. So, for example, let's take Sonic CD 2011. There is that "find the statue in Wacky Workbench" achievement. This adds replay value as much as a "complete Wacky Workbench in under X minutes" (Time Attack) achievement, but it's a different kind of play that is not necessarily un-Sonic-y. And, in fact, there are plenty of other ways to reward the player other than a screen with words.

Say you have a platform and say this platform has a 1Up monitor, but~! You can only reach it if you can use spindash+jump, hit a badnik and bounce off in perfect timing and input. Now, we have double fun! Bouncing off and stuff is an awesome feeling, but a player wouldn't even consider doing it if there wasn't a reward for it. And it's the same sensation of a "OH MY GOD! AMAZING! YOU'VE JUST USED SPINDASH+JUMP IN A ROW! YOU'RE SO CLEVER!".

It's a puzzle. Like in your common puzzle game, but it's hidden by Sonic's unique way to overcome it. You have an ability, but there's an optimal way to use it in every occasion. It's ok to add this every now and again in a Sonic game.

Quote

I checked out Jester's Challenge (ty CBL). In my eyes that's definitely something I would call "Only a game with Sonic features, not a Sonic game."

[...]

Since goals are like an afterthought for me but somewhat important for you :D , do you have any more suggestions of goals to work in a single-screen game that generate compulsion to play? That can then be transferred to a full game?

Sure~!

• S = Sonic
  
• M = monitor (or any minor reward)
  
• G = Goal
  
• B = Badnik
  
• Cyan-colored stuff = Encased in ice. Can only move/be broken if lever is pulled
  
• L = Lever. Releases frozen badniks, platforms and monitors

Now, tell me. What do you see?

Quote

Or do you think Sonic is already nimble enough?

I think Sonic is fine as is (in the classics). It depends on the sorroundings and how they move. I'm sure you're familiar with Egoraptor's Castlevania sequelitis. You know that part in which he compares how the delay in the whip attack is perceived in both games? That's the thing. If the speed or height of your jump is made to be enough, then it's enough. If you make a game that accomodates the character's moveset, it'll be perceived as fine. Make a displaced environment and the character will be the one to feel displaced.

[Palas]

Or, since you're so fond of motion play, here is something that appeals more to you:



I still ask: what do you see?

This post has been edited by Palas: 30 September 2012 - 06:11 PM

[ManicRemix]

I almost never post-- However this was so compelling that I just had to give my input!

I see what you're going for here, please read my entire post:

I remember long ago I used to play that site called Neopets, you've heard of it, right?

Within Neopets, there was a game called Snow Muncher. It was a simple but addicting game. Its gameplay mechanics are fairly simple, watch this video to see what I mean:



Now let's break the game down:

*Your goal is to reach the bottom of the level without overfeeding you Polar Bear. However, the only way to reach the bottom of the level is to feed your Polar Bear.

*As you progress through the level, your Polar Bear slowly gains "Weight". 5% per block, until he reached 100% and dies. However in the game there are special potions hidden called "Bloat-B-Gone", once touched it relieves 50% of your bloat percentage. However, these are usually hidden under other Snow Blocks, and if you aquire thr Bloat B Gone and do not move quickly enough the snow above will fall and kill you.

*Throughout the levels, you have several challenges. Obviously the first being your Polar Bear becoming bloated. Secondly the ever ticking clock, once it reaches 0 regardless of your progress within the level you die and start over. And third being the risks. Your Polar Bear is currently at 85%, and Bloat-B-Gone is just a couple of bites away. Will you risk getting further Bloated or crushed for slight relief? Or keep progressing and seeing of you can make it down in time? Or perhaps will you take the previous risks to reach a diamond for extra points?

Now we ask, why would users even take the risk of losing the entire game just to increase their score with onr Jewel? Well on Neopets.com, there a these things called "Avatars". They are small images that you can unlock, and can be use as an Avatar on the site. These are highly sought after, snd only the best players have very many at all.

Well in this game called Snowmuncher, once you aquire a certain score you are awarded an exclusive and hard to obtain avatar. Additionally if your score is within the Top 3 for that month that you are awarded a Trophey, which are just as rare and sought after as Avatars. This gives the users potential reasons to take risks.

Now let's connect that to Mario. The "New Super Mario Bros." titles, there are both Red Coins & Golden Medals.

Red coins are aquired a certain way. One must pass through a Red Ring to activate Red coins, which disappear after a short period. 8 Red coins appear, and collecting all 8 will grant the user a prize.

Now here's where we use startegy with this feature:

In the New Super Mario Bros. series, you have the ability to retain powerups. For example if you are Fire Mario, then you collect another Fire Flower, then this Fire Flower is then stored and can be accessed at any time to relieve you. Now the red Coins will always award you one Power-up above your current Power-Up. Lets say youre Small Mario. Then getting all 8 coins gives a Mushroom to become Normal Mario. If Normal Mario gets all 8 coins he is given a Fire Flower. If Fire Mario gets all 8 coins then he gets a life.

Now, let's say you're Racoon/Tanooki Mario, and you have a Fire Flower stored, and you want to eliminate your Tanooki/Racoon Power and have Fire Power + a stored Fire Flower because an up coming enemy hates fire. You find a red ring which grants 8 red coins. You would then purposefully damage yourself so that you become Normal Mario and then collect all 8 coins to aquire another Fire Flower.

Then we have Gold Medals. Each level contains 3, usually risky and difficult to aquire. Now why would the player risk their life tl aquire these Medals? In various Mario Titles, these medals are used to unlock new Levels & secret areas. The user feels a desire to aquire medals because they a) Grant a Gold Star status to that user when all are aquired and b) they unlock new levels & areas. It's a win win. Now where is Sonic lacking that risk or strategic game play?

While most modern Sonic Games contain a similar Red Ring system, how do they really reward the player? By unlocking dull & hard Sonic Simulator levels that play just like the level whose red rings you aquired just to play this? By giving extra music/artwork? There is no risk factor that will ultimately effect you abilities & gameplay throughout the level, other than aquiring Super Sonic which usually requires you to simply press forward. Now what I'm seeing with Mario Bros. is that you want to jump on as many Koopas as possible to encrease your score, or that you will take the risk & brave that Blue Crab for a hammer. Sonic offers risks not nearly as complicated or thought provoking. You don't think "If I finish this level at x time, then the Rainbow Level will be unlocked" or "If I risk my life to get this Red ring, then I may defeat x enemy later on".

Overall, I see no obvious single screen game play.

[Deef]

Mmm-hmm. I feel like I need someone to explain to me just WTF Sonic Generations is doing with such loud you-pressed-the-A-button celebrations. This is gaming now? It would embarrass me to play through that in front of friends my age. Lol, this makes me realise I haven't even bothered playing the modern half of the Generations demo.

I believe I address everything this post, but it's not in order.


Regarding the statue example:
Honestly that's a tricky example, because the main reason it works is actually the exception, not the rule. The biggest enjoyment of finding that statue comes from the statue itself, and how incredibly unique its reward is among not just that game, but all classic Sonics. It might be hidden, but how much its discovery is related to the game's motion is actually pretty low.

The perfect standard example of what you're suggesting is something more like Episode 2's red rings, minus the frequently patronising placement. (Or, Sonic 3's/CD's/Advance 3's hidden items assuming they all did nothing but stay hidden.)

Begin first tangent.

Spoiler

Anyway whatever the instance, it's an example of discovery from exploration. So yes, that's a way to reward Sonic's motion. The great thing about exploration in a Sonic game is that before the player even has a place to search, he/she has to push themselves to merely reach that place first. Sonic designers can put secrets in places that other games can't even put places. :D Like the first top route in Marble Garden Act 1. Before you can even search its nooks and crannies you have to make the landing to escape the hill you've been screaming down. THEN you can explore. So good.

Gotta admit though, there are almost as many "Use your strengths to reach this spot to explore" sections in the game that actually break it, than there are legitimate ones heh. Did you know that without cheats, Tails alone can access a broken, ghost town skeleton of Hydrocity?

Anyway, end tangent. Exploration good. Such a pointless tangent too because exploration is one of the things this thread isn't about. For one, exploration is an aspect of level design that I believe does come naturally to many people. Hiding not only things, but obfuscating access to places that have things, is something I couldn't forget to do.
For two, exploration is pretty much the last thing a single-screen game could do well without reverting to metagame exploration anyway. So I don't think this topic has much to teach on the matter.

Coming out of that tangent, I agree. There are different ways to stimulate use of Sonic's motion. And different uses of his motion, at that.

Use it to stay alive. (He supports fast escapes, rolling safety, and all directional attacks.)
Use it to maintain flow. (He supports terrain handling to maintain momentum.)
Use it to speed run. (He supports frequent choice between control and speed, plus tense accuracy in speed runs.)
Use it to explore. (He supports perfectly playable, clean transitions to upwards and downwards travel, as well as secrets hidden behind nothing but physics, as well as speed meaning large spaces can be created.)
Use it to push reflexes. (Mmmm............. dunno about this one heh!)

The above list actually sounds pretty cool heh.

Different goals push different uses of the game's motion, and as long as a goal doesn't push something that the game's motion can't handle well, we're all good. This agrees with what you raised about Castlevania and Sequelitis (yep I know the one). But I'm still going to come back to reflex chit chat soon.

Regarding the different ways of rewarding, I actually pull out three methods:
¬ Explicitly tell the player he did good.
¬ Give the player the carrot they had been chasing.
¬ Do nothing. The do nothing system.

Begin second tangent.

Spoiler

Obviously the first one has to be kept on a leash, preferably a leash manufactured before the year 2000.
The second system is the go to system. Still in danger of being patronising, but it's a balance that isn't hard to manage. Two good examples:
1. A water shield on top of a loop in Hydrocity. Its base is patrolled by a Turbo Spiker. Invincibility and red spring inside a room to the left. Dear Lord how many years passed before I realised how to get that water shield. It's hilarious how easily they hide things behind the "just turn around" mechanism. Anyway it's not that it was easy or hard, it's that it wasn't spelt out.
2. The lightning shield inside a wall in Mushroom Hill. The player frequently sees it from the wrong side of the wall and spends ages faffing about a solid wall, trying to get it. Good stuff.

The third system though? Do nothing.
The basis is that the player has invented their own goal, and has felt accordingly smug once they achieved it. No words, no lightning shield, nothing.
One can argue that this is far too subjective; anyone can invent any random goal that pleases their simple little mind and thus earn simple little smug feelings in any number of ways that can't be discussed objectively. But I beg to differ and Sonic games do a lot of this for me. I think this system can have some objective, reproducible discussion because I am yet again coming back to how the motion itself works. Examples:
1. The first fire shield in Carnival Night Zone. Get it by walking upside down.
2. A long section of watery pits and bobbing barrels, again in CNZ. Use SuperSonic and bumpers to attach to the ceiling and run upside down past the whole thing.
3. The Bouncing Challenge in Emerald Hill Zone. Rebounds built from nothing but momentum and gravity.
4. The loop jump trick.

Is it just me seizing every opportunity to be smug? Or is it that Sonic motion does indeed allow a player to feel more frequently chuffed about things they're doing without needing a single graphic to assert it for them? I think it's the latter. It's a sandbox approach to rewards. The flow of his motion responds to skill. The reach of his motion generates freedom. These things combined create more potential for smugasmic play, with no rewards.

Jesus, again with the meandering.

Oh yeah, so you were talking about methods of rewards and using that 1-Up example that you concluded with "a player wouldn't even consider doing it if there wasn't a reward for it." I am simply saying there's also the possibility of rewards that aren't even explicit, but simply invented by the player, and that the designer can actually deliberately nurture how frequently these possibilities occur. Heck, people still debate about whether the Bouncing Challenge was deliberately set up all along.

This many words and I've only made two points, and one of them just might relate to the topic. -_-


OK FIRST PICTURE:

You've sucked everything Soniccy right out of it.
No curves, no slopes, not even enough space anywhere to use his roll, except the ground, which has nothing to roll for.
Now, the player is going to pull the lever and go back for the thawed monitor, only to have a badnik to deal with. This badnik MIGHT push Soniccy play... but... . See? That is what my brain is trying to do with your picture. "Well I might have to run, then jump off the east wall of a loop to double back with enough speed to roll." But no. Can't do that here. Ok well we might get a nice little rebound and that's it. Mario does that.

The same goes for exploring the rest of it. I mean, I hear you. It's easy to imagine playing that scene as Sonic. And there's something fun going on with the whole bit about not thawing the eastern platform. But it's easy to put Bubsy the Bobcat in there too if we just reskin the obvious giveaways. The only exception really is that spin dash jump.

But this is exactly what you're saying. "Sonic is a platformer too."
Just because Mario is pure platforming doesn't mean other games can't contain platforming too.
And as soon as a Sonic game has 1 little piece of (significantly) unique Sonic play to its platforming, then that's it; it has started to free itself from competing with Mario and the designer can relax a little.

I'm still itchy about this though. I do understand with what you're saying, I just put a lot of importance in not having something where the player goes "Well for the most part, this is better in Mario."

What I really want to do with your picture is run to the bottom right, stop, turn, duck, spin dash, release, jump, get height, insta-shield, land on the spring with all that speed and then rocket up and away to a place that's about 3 screens left of where you're reading now in a glorious blaze of "F*** YOU MONITORS, I'm SONIC!!"

Which just raises the point that this design does not allow the player to stretch the game's motion at all. But I do acknowledge that it's not meant to; you're only presenting one thing.


SECOND PICTURE:

The first thing that jumps out at me is the path of destruction I'm about to create. Lol.
Can't someone get both the lever and the shoes?

Anyway, see, this scene appeals to me MUCH MUCH more. The player can roar in to Sonic play, all the half pipes appear carefully designed be be un-abusable, the ceiling connection = win even if there's not much we can do with it.

Ok so this scene does lose the joy of poking around with sliding platforms and ambush-ready badniks. It doesn't have to be all flight and mayhem, I know. Plus the more "flowing" things get in a full game, the harder a time a designer has putting screens together in a way in a way the player can actually react to. So normal platforming is important, yes, ok.

I think this comparison is helping my mind form its own idea of where the balance is.

But I still am cautious about traditional platforming for Sonic. But I won't say it shouldn't exist; it should. But I'm still cautious. But I won't s-.... etc.


The reflexes chit chat/Castlevania:

Yes, the game caters to the controls, not the other way around. Otherwise we'd be doing a Ken Balough "Yo we need the retardo-Tails combo-moves to pass the levels, duh!"

Hmm, I've written a lot on this and scrubbed it all. I might come back to it later and just post this for now.





______________________________________________________________

@ManicRemix
Glad to hear it was compelling!

*reads*

Honestly, I'm not gonna reply yet. I've read it all; it's a great point I want to think about because it sounds like a definite factor to address in Sonic games. I already believe Sonic's shields are no match for the appeal of Mario's suits; maybe that's related here. Or maybe not. Either way, my brain is too full of other things now and I've spent too much time on the above ramble already heh, so I gotta get onto other things. I will reply later though.



- - - - -

Note to self: 5 uses, reflexes.

When this hits the 2nd page I'll post a summary of things so far.


___________

This post has been edited by Deef: 01 October 2012 - 11:37 AM

[Palas]

I'm going to give a more complete answer later, but, for all that matters, I think what I'm going to post next summarizes a very important point of mine:

Yes, Sonic is a platformer. But that's not the most important. Well, you want Sonic-y elements. Here you go:



I only changed the geometry. Much better, huh? What's in red is Sonic at his Sonic-iest. But, now, let me make two small changes that will ruin everything.



See? I just destroyed the the level's harmony. There is now the easy way and the hard way. Guess what is the player going to choose? The easy way, most likely, no matter how much more fun the slopes are. What I just presented you here is terrible level design, even if it's overall much more Sonic-y than the first sketch. Why would I not jump on the empty platform and then on the moving one? Much easier, nothing to do.

So, my point is: think about the play, then worry about the Sonic-y apects of it. Adding possibilities for momentum is not hard - making the player notice the posibilities is much, much harder.

ManicRemix, on 01 October 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

A NEW CHARACTER JOINS THE BRAWL

I love Snowmuncher. It's one of my favourites from Neopets. The reverse feedback the game offers is brilliant - let me just add that if you eat a block, all adjacent blocks that share the same color as the eaten one disappear too at no additional cost, which stimulates thinking ahead in lieu of (or in addition to) moving fast. The risk vs. reward dilemma is instrinsical to the game. It's what it's made of. It's brilliant and lots of fun.

Deef, on 01 October 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

The perfect standard example of what you're suggesting is something more like Episode 2's red rings, minus the frequently patronising placement. (Or, Sonic 3's/CD's/Advance 3's hidden items assuming they all did nothing but stay hidden.)

[...]

Coming out of that tangent, I agree. There are different ways to stimulate use of Sonic's motion. And different uses of his motion, at that.

Use it to stay alive. (He supports fast escapes, rolling safety, and all directional attacks.)
Use it to maintain flow. (He supports terrain handling to maintain momentum.)
Use it to speed run. (He supports frequent choice between control and speed, plus tense accuracy in speed runs.)
Use it to explore. (He supports perfectly playable, clean transitions to upwards and downwards travel, as well as secrets hidden behind nothing but physics, as well as speed meaning large spaces can be created.)
Use it to push reflexes. (Mmmm............. dunno about this one heh!)

The above list actually sounds pretty cool heh.

Different goals push different uses of the game's motion, and as long as a goal doesn't push something that the game's motion can't handle well, we're all good. This agrees with what you raised about Castlevania and Sequelitis (yep I know the one). But I'm still going to come back to reflex chit chat soon.

I like that list. Seems to cover what we've discussed so far - but hey, we do have stimuli to use your reflex in classic Sonic. From the batbrains in Marble Zone to the intermittent platforms at Flying Battery/Metallic Madness/Scrap Brain to those rotating mini-platforms at Metallic Madness - think of how not enough reflex and skill, I mean, a quick response sends you to a lower level. Especially in Scrap Brain.

Quote

Regarding the different ways of rewarding, I actually pull out three methods:
¬ Explicitly tell the player he did good.
¬ Give the player the carrot they had been chasing.
¬ Do nothing. The do nothing system.

Begin second tangent.

Spoiler

Obviously the first one has to be kept on a leash, preferably a leash manufactured before the year 2000.
The second system is the go to system. Still in danger of being patronising, but it's a balance that isn't hard to manage. Two good examples:
1. A water shield on top of a loop in Hydrocity. Its base is patrolled by a Turbo Spiker. Invincibility and red spring inside a room to the left. Dear Lord how many years passed before I realised how to get that water shield. It's hilarious how easily they hide things behind the "just turn around" mechanism. Anyway it's not that it was easy or hard, it's that it wasn't spelt out.
2. The lightning shield inside a wall in Mushroom Hill. The player frequently sees it from the wrong side of the wall and spends ages faffing about a solid wall, trying to get it. Good stuff.

The third system though? Do nothing.
The basis is that the player has invented their own goal, and has felt accordingly smug once they achieved it. No words, no lightning shield, nothing.
One can argue that this is far too subjective; anyone can invent any random goal that pleases their simple little mind and thus earn simple little smug feelings in any number of ways that can't be discussed objectively. But I beg to differ and Sonic games do a lot of this for me. I think this system can have some objective, reproducible discussion because I am yet again coming back to how the motion itself works. Examples:
1. The first fire shield in Carnival Night Zone. Get it by walking upside down.
2. A long section of watery pits and bobbing barrels, again in CNZ. Use SuperSonic and bumpers to attach to the ceiling and run upside down past the whole thing.
3. The Bouncing Challenge in Emerald Hill Zone. Rebounds built from nothing but momentum and gravity.
4. The loop jump trick.

Is it just me seizing every opportunity to be smug? Or is it that Sonic motion does indeed allow a player to feel more frequently chuffed about things they're doing without needing a single graphic to assert it for them? I think it's the latter. It's a sandbox approach to rewards. The flow of his motion responds to skill. The reach of his motion generates freedom. These things combined create more potential for smugasmic play, with no rewards.

Jesus, again with the meandering.

Oh yeah, so you were talking about methods of rewards and using that 1-Up example that you concluded with "a player wouldn't even consider doing it if there wasn't a reward for it." I am simply saying there's also the possibility of rewards that aren't even explicit, but simply invented by the player, and that the designer can actually deliberately nurture how frequently these possibilities occur. Heck, people still debate about whether the Bouncing Challenge was deliberately set up all along.

Now, does being deliberately set up really matter? Especially now, more than 10 years later? I do believe allowing this kind of more abstract freedom is very important and adds up a lot to the overall sense of motion, but... I want to give the player a strong impression in the first playthrough, mostly. It's important, to me, that the game gives off a huge impression.

Quote

SECOND PICTURE:

The first thing that jumps out at me is the path of destruction I'm about to create. Lol.
Can't someone get both the lever and the shoes?

No, and let me explain why not:

First-case scenario: the player is too slow and is left with the speed shoes. Wow, am I rewarding him for being slow? Heck, no! I'm demanding more player input. This Sonic needs more blast processing: there, you have it, now deal with it. The stage remains with the same level of difficulty, but now has a faster pace. I'm using speed as tool to stimulate the player to be better, have more skill.

Second-case scenario: the player is skilled enough to reach the lever within 5 seconds! Great, now the effort is rewarded with less need for effort. "Oh, Palas, fuck you. How do you want the player to keep his motion?" Well, I don't. Or, at least, I don't mind. He already showed me he can do it. And, most importantly, showed him/herself, having an experience related with speed. He used Sonic's speed. Good.

Now, let's exchange it. The lever on the top, the shoes on the bottom. Now we have less speed = less demand for speed; more speed = more demand for speed. This much I find horribly wrong and actually applies to full games.

Look, there is that theory of the three layers, right? "The higher you go, the more rewards, but it's more difficult to stay there". I'm against this. Let's take Spring Yard or Collision Chaos or Casino Night or Quartz Quadrant or, heck, even Jungle Act 1 to some degree. The bottom layer is actually harder. Has more threats and whatnot (sure, Jungle Act 1 has the log, but everything that's not the log will fucking kill you) - and the game constantly tries to push you down, but once you avoid it, the path is clear. It's punishing you for not having enough skill - but, if you do, the game gets actually easier and you can now perform speedruns and whatnot. It's a demand for input from the player, but, once you succeed, the game opens a gate.

If it were always the other way around, the easier path being the easier to stay on, the player would never ever be required to show skill! What a bland game that would be. Less rewards, less threats, less everything. No, that's not the way to go.

This post has been edited by Palas: 01 October 2012 - 03:01 PM

[Deef]

(Ok so being the new page, here is a summary of things so far. You'll have to forgive how much this is my interpretation of/response to things, but I guess that's unavoidable since I'm the one writing here heh.)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The object of the thread is to identify, for a Sonic game, which aspects of gameplay provide instant, right-there-in-the-controller, compulsion to play. And to then discuss how to nurture or refine those aspects so they form a solid basis upon which to base a full game.

This topic is inspired by the original Mario Bros. of 1983.



Mario Bros. contained instantly compelling aspects of gameplay that carried over into a full game, quite convincingly, two years later. That full game was Super Mario Bros. for the NES, and in it we can see those compelling elements from 1983 forming a strong, persistent basis for the whole of Super Mario Bros.

Following from that inspiration, this thread encourages readers to consider what Sonic gameplay would be compelling on only a single screen, purely for the purpose of focussing, refining then translating that gameplay back into a full-level Sonic game.

To give a better idea of what I'm talking about, I frequently refer to three compelling gameplay aspects of 1983's Mario Bros.:
¬ aiming headbutts
¬ jumping to/reaching new locations with time pressure
¬ dodging

Discussing all this in terms of Sonic is what this thread is about.

The rest of this post is a quick rundown of what has been talked about so far.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1.
The clearest gameplay element discussed so far has been motion play; Sonic's strong focus on using terrain and gimmicks to affect his motion and flow.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

2.
A question raised about motion play was how far we can push the growth of this gameplay (as in the challenge presented and pushing player skill) before having to change the terrain. I considered shrinking badniks, increasing enemy speed, etc.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3.
Another question I raised was whether the single aspect of motion play was enough. I identified three aspects to Mario's play that all survived the transition to a full game. I also mentioned Miyamoto's approach of layering simple gameplay upon simple gameplay upon simply gameplay to form complex, involving gameplay. Next to this, identifying only 1 aspect of compulsion for Sonic play looks quite bare.

This question is being addressed naturally as the thread rolls on, but I'll quote myself for the thoughts I only recently recognised, suggesting other aspects of gameplay that are quite relevant.

Quote

...I agree. There are different ways to stimulate use of Sonic's motion. And different uses of his motion, at that.

Use it to stay alive. (He supports fast escapes, rolling safety, and all directional attacks.)
Use it to maintain flow. (He supports terrain handling to maintain momentum.)
Use it to speed run. (He supports frequent choice between control and speed, plus tense accuracy in speed runs.)
Use it to explore. (He supports perfectly playable, clean transitions to upwards and downwards travel, as well as secrets hidden behind nothing but physics, as well as speed meaning large spaces can be created.)
Use it to push reflexes. (Mmmm............. dunno about this one heh!)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4.
The point of tension was raised, and is a point I intend to get back to. The idea of tension is that something is urging the player to keep their attention focussed on the play to avoid losing at the game. Breaking it into logical approaches, we have:
¬ tension that increases in intensity the closer the player gets to complete failure (from big Mario to little Mario)
¬ tension that decreases in intensity the closer the player gets to complete failure (not punishing the player further for low skill)
¬ tension that does not change, and simply leaves the player closer to complete failure (lose a life, repeat a level with a clean slate)

Which of these is a stronger approach is going to be hotly debated. >:D

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

5.
The question of how much to separate "Soniccy" gameplay from "common platforming" gameplay is being discussed.
I don't know that we are still also trying to identify what the differences are. I think we aren't.
(Are we? It feels fine in my mind.)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

6.
The existence of more than one way to balance speed and platforming has been mentioned. Speed can be presented as gifts, or as rewards, or as rests, or carefully interwoven into the platforming. Perhaps there are more ways. I don't think the topic has really made it far enough to explore this yet, but I could be wrong.
I suggested Freedom Planet as an example of speed being present in the game, but literally never handed to the player; very much unlike Sonic 3.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7.
Goal handling is where a lot of discussion is currently. Again breaking it down, I suggested that it can go 3 ways:
¬ Explicitly telling the player they achieved something, which is often horrific and excruciatingly patronising if you ask me.
¬ Giving the player something to not only acknowledge the achievement, but to encourage its pursuit in the first place.
¬ Doing nothing and allowing the player to enjoy achieving their own goals, only possible if a game has the structure to support this well.

This ties in to the discussion of Soniccy vs unSoniccy play, as it is clear neither playable motion nor achievable goals are enough on their own. Where everyone's priorities lie around this matter might be personal differences, or might just be a matter of recognising semantics.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

8.
Reflex play is another sub-topic raised. I had asked if Sonic is nimble enough.
I think the only thing going on here is waiting for me to decide if I have any further response.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

9.
The lack of upgrades has been raised, but discussion on this has not started at all. Sorry, just frick I have much less time than these posts would have you believe.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

10.
And capping off page 1 (for those who can't stand anything less than 40 posts per page) is the assertion that deliberately designed goals are a higher priority than creating a game that supports player-defined goals, which I completely agree with short of creating a sandbox game.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

That's the summary so far. I numbered the sub-topics just in case it makes it easier to refer to them later. It's a coincidence that there are exactly 10.

Manic and Palas, I will still address each of your last posts.

It's worth using this space to thank you, Palas, for the images you're taking the time to construct and the help they bring to the discussion.



____

This post has been edited by Deef: 02 October 2012 - 11:23 AM

[Flipside]

For me, there won't be a new page until we hit 46 posts. It makes your post look so out of place. :P

There may not be a lot of split second/twitch gameplay, but there's some. There's sometimes you have to avoid a spring that would send you into a hazard. It seems hard to have level layouts like that without being cheap though. Hard to do on a single screen too.

There's some things that haven't been mentioned that are important though... Tutorials, intimidation, and multipliers.

When I say tutorials, it doesn't just mean omochao. Doesn't just mean a wall of boring words. The game is paced so it feels like you learned it yourself, and it's not irritating if you already played the level before.

You know that part in Marble Zone Act 1 with that stone block and the button you're obviously meant to push it on? That's a tutorial so you're not lost when you have to push blocks on lava.

Egoroptor went over how awesome MegamanX's first level is too. There have been whole videos on tutorials...

Spoiler

I think someone on the S1HD or Sonic 3 Game Gear threads posted one of their videos and I've been hooked ever since.

And now intimidation... Would that drill car boss be the same if you put bunny ears on it? Not really... You don't want the player to be ashamed of playing the game in front of other people. Also, I think defeating intimidating bosses just feel more rewarding. Back in the 16 bit days, the easiest way to make something look good was to make it move in intricate ways. An angry orb thing isn't that cool. Spikey orbs are alright... Now make an angry orb with spikey orbs swirling around it, and it's cool. It's rewarding dodging the spike orbs that orbonaught throws and bonking him on the head. Even if it's just different colored blocks like the World's Hardest Game, or the World's Hardest Game 2, it still looks good.

There's no reason bosses can't show up on the single screen.

Ok, multipliers... The player wants it, but it's not instant death if they loose the multiplier. I tink it would be cool if every time Sonic defeated an enemy, a blue fliky came out and instead of running away, stuck with him. The more flikys you have the more the rings are worth, but if the fliky gets hit, it runs off. When you get 10 blue flikys, they turn into a pink fliky. 10 pink flikys make a green fliky, then red, then super sonic flikys. After you get all 10 super flikys, the enemies would just drop a ring. Since it takes 10,000 badies to get a super fliky, it would act like a shield and can protect itself.

If you thought tails messed you up in the special stages, these little guys would drive ya mad. :P If you wanted a shorter arcade game, you could change it to 5 of each fliky. A gold fliky would be worth 625. Instead of the MAX number of super flikys being worth 100,000 it would be 3,125. I think this would work very well in a full fledged Sonic game.

There's no reason we couldn't drop in powerups in the single screen game either. After you beat so many levels, a S3K style capsule flys in and drops an elemental shield, invincibility, or something nice like that. You could also have an upgradable Sonic 1 shield. If you have it when you get another, then you get a double shield. Do it again and you have 3, 4, or up to 5 shields. If you have the Sonic 1 shield and try to get an elemental shield, you lose all the other shields.

I guess there could be other powerups like reverse gravity, 20 second Super Sonic, the orange homing attack shield, or a "nuke everything on the screen then laugh" item. I think I would enjoy that one.

This fan game of yours had better be good... lol

[Deef]

@Manic

I'm going to dismiss large chunks of your post, and then discuss what's left.

Your post was focussing on the rewards that the player gets, which makes me antsy. If you're going to say "give rewards to make it fun" then the counter is "ok now they have the rewards from the start, is it more fun?" Obviously it isn't; what they go through getting them is where the fun lies. Definitely rewards or goals are needed to motivate that, but if it only encourages the current gameplay rather than manipulate and define it, it's off-topic. Why? Because if the reward has nothing to do with what the player is doing right now, the player will absolutely need to know what it does later before even considering it. That later reward might be good, might be bad, it might be cash payment straight out of your controller. But whatever compulsion it creates is entirely dependent on that reward, and not at all on the game as it is happening in the moment, which is what this thread is about. Player sees the game, player wants to play because of how the game plays, the game keeps these compelling fundamentals of play for the whole game.

To give it some perspective from Snowmuncher, there's the situation where a player is about to grab a Bloat-B-Gone from under some snow blocks, at the risk of getting crushed, in the interest of being more able to grab a diamond for points, then possibly an avatar. This thread is talking about the risk of getting crushed. That bit.

You mentioned 3 types of reward:
· Affect the game (Bloat-B-Gone)
· Score attack
· Community-validated prizes

Big ramble about score attack:

Spoiler

The problem with score attack for this thread is that score attack is what makes a player want to keep playing, but not what makes a player want to play in the first place. Perhaps a good way to put it is that score attacking is an excuse, not a reason, because the desire to play was already there. Score attack gets layered on; it complements and it can be applied to practically any game. But if the things that the player can do are not appealing in their own right, score attacking is not going to save it.

I'm a little glad it has been raised again for the chance it provides to really make that distinction. This topic isn't about how to make a game last, or about how to get the player to look forward to future achievements. That stuff is important but is also a later step of consideration that gets wrapped on top of what this thread is looking at, which is how to make things fun in the moment, so clearly that a player sees it and just registers desire to pick up a controller. Certainly some kind of goals will soon have to come into the equation, one approach being score attack, but again, later consideration I think.

Personally I'm not big on score attack for a full Sonic game and I could go into why, but that's just me and I can't say it's bad thing if that's the focus someone prefers a game to have. NiGHTS, Ski Safari and Velociraptor Jungle Safari are great games that rely on score attack quite a bit, if not entirely, but in all three cases the score is not why I started to play and wanted to play more. NiGHTS and Ski Safari are great examples of being able to fail at a score attack but still know you had a fun game. Just today I had an awesome ski, then was surprised that I'd reached my 2nd highest score. Wasn't even noticing.

Brendan Watts, Ski Safari co-developer said:

Once the fundamentals are fun at the core you can go crazy.

Small ramble about community-validated prizes:

Spoiler

One problem with community-validated prizes is, of course, that they require a community. More to the point, it brings enjoyment from something external to the game itself, and has little to do with the compulsion formed on the game's own merits. Like score attacking, if the game itself isn't fun, community-validated prizes aren't going to make the game itself more fun. This doesn't mean they won't make it more played however, and that's a kind of mind-game I don't like to design.

Basically for this topic I just shy away from anything where the sense of desire to play doesn't come from the actual play. Get that right first, then chuck all the other stuff on top.


Moving onto your Mario points:
· The red coins example affects the game as it happens.
· The golden medals do not.

I'm basically cutting that down again and saying the golden medals are off-topic. Yes, they encourage the player to push their skills to get the reward, but that's all they are: a reward. Their value might be great and it might thus encourage some fun gameplay that wouldn't have been encouraged otherwise, but that value is external to what the player is doing now, and this thread is about what the player is doing now. You said it yourself when discussing Sonic's red rings; even unlocking extra stages can be dull. Whatever the reward is, it's going to be in the game. The game has to be fun already.

Red coins however, feeding new powerups to the player, are a different story. Big Mario is desirable in a way that gets the player a little hyped then and there when he sees that mushroom. But you're not just talking about the powerup aspect (which Sonic has but its quality compared to Mario's is arguable); you're talking about the strategy aspect (which Sonic doesn't have).

I'm gonna go both ways and ask both questions.

Would a single screen Sonic game need a more prominent use of powerups to be fun?
Would a single screen Sonic game need an aspect of gameplay that is about strategising powerup achievement to be fun?

Can Sonic not be fun on a single screen without the gameplay of chasing powerups? Mario managed it:



Because creating completely new aspects of compelling gameplay wouldn't be that hard to do, but I'm more wondering if we can identify, nurture and refine what we've already got.

Sonic's powerups are definitely a topic that would be interesting to look at, but are possibly not in the topic of this thread. But you're free to challenge that.

This post has been edited by Deef: 07 October 2012 - 11:19 PM

[Deef]

@Palas

So where were we...

Palas, on 01 October 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

See? I just destroyed the the level's harmony.

Palas, on 01 October 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

There is now the easy way and the hard way. Guess what is the player going to choose? The easy way, most likely, no matter how much more fun the slopes are. What I just presented you here is terrible level design, even if it's overall much more Sonic-y than the first sketch. Why would I not jump on the empty platform and then on the moving one? Much easier, nothing to do.

So, my point is: think about the play, then worry about the Sonic-y apects of it. Adding possibilities for momentum is not hard - making the player notice the possibilities is much, much harder.

Dunno. I agree and disagree with things here. I think the image is putting a few concepts together so it's hard to respond to.

Yes it is an example of bad level design. But I'm not sure what it's saying other than one can still make bad levels with good motion play. Well, one can make bad levels with anything. You're saying that the availability of well-crafted Soniccy play won't save a game from bad goal-setting and I agree, it probably won't (depending on what we call bad), and that goals focus is what helps give direction to the level design; something motion play will not do. And bad level design means bad game.

To all that I say that I agree that it's an important role of goal setting. This doesn't mean however that I'm on board with the idea of goals first, Soniccy play later, but that's discussed later in this post.

I believe you explained this because I was dissin' (yo) the first design you showed for being less Soniccy, so you had to defend the value of goals. Fair enough.

I think we should keep an eye on what's off-topic though, and discuss that stuff in spoilers just to help keep things clean. Thread in a nutshell = "What compels?"



I've spent way too long dwelling on this so I'll reduce it down to plain questions and statements. First, some motion wordage which is too boring not to hide:

Spoiler

Motion is one thing, Soniccy motion is another. It is possible I just harped on about motion being "Soniccy" so much that I confused and distracted the question about compulsion that comes from goals (as opposed to motion), so my apologies for that.

"Motion" is a fits-all term for the immediate interaction between the player and the game. Not literally just the character's motion itself, but the the control the player has over it, and the feedback the game applies to it.

Catering to motion play is important. Setting goals carefully is important.

I still believe our confusion on what creates compulsion might just be semantics. I do have to admit that Jester's Challenge shows that goals can indeed be the reason someone plays, and so maybe it's not semantics; maybe that's the kind of compulsion you're referring to. But I'm not sure that it is. Jester's compulsion (as I will now call it) is exactly what this topic isn't about; it's far away and deliberately described to the player, and not connected to what's happening right now on the screen/in the controller.

· So if that is what you're thinking, then you're still challenged with the question of how/whether goals can create compulsion in a single-screen game.

· And if that isn't what you're thinking, then I'm still thinking it's only semantics. I don't think goals create the fun, I think they just give it reason to happen. When it does happen it's because something else was handled carefully, and the goals are what got the player there for that something else to do its thing.

Like coconut milk. You've got a drill and a coconut, and the fun is the coconut milk. If the milk is sour, you're buggered. If the drill is broken, you're buggered. But ultimately it's the milk that the player enjoys, not the drill.

Happiness is the journey, not the destination, and such. It's what you do in achieving the goal that is the fun bit, not actually possessing the achieved goal.

If you're still seeing this another way, perhaps could you post another example of goals that compel play rather than (any) motion that compels play. If you want, try to suggest goal-chasing that would create compulsion for a whole single screen game. It's just that I think I would pull it apart to the point of saying "That's motion."


Meanwhile, putting aside the question of which creates compulsion, we certainly appear to have a different focus on what's important:

Deef said:

[Goals are] A necessity, but a clear secondary of two necessities. My mind thinks "Design the motion first, then just chuck in whatever for goals as long as they complement the motion."

Palas said:

So, my point is: think about the play, then worry about the Sonic-y aspects of it. Adding possibilities for momentum is not hard - making the player notice the possibilities is much, much harder.

Not so much semantics that time (although you did initially agree with my quote there).
I say get the motion right, then chuck in the goals. You say get the goals right, then chuck in the Soniccy motion. Heh. Really a designer doesn't want to get either wrong; we just appear to focus our interest from different angles.

It doesn't matter, just as long as we remember that the thread is only looking at one segment of design: to try to identify compelling aspects of gameplay that are immediate, and that can be nurtured into a full game.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The rest in spoilers because it's off topic.

Spoiler

I'll chuck these both here for easier reference. There's one thing worth poking at in sketch 2.

Spoiler

Sketch 1


Sketch 2

In sketch 2, you would choose the easy way? Why?
Sure it's a bad design of a level but saying the player isn't going to play on the curves is like saying that the player didn't really want to play in the first place. In reality, when didn't we deliberately take a different route in the classics just to mess around some more? If I was playing that level you sketched, I would pretty much head to the right and not even approach the goal until I'm convinced there's no other way I can play that stuff on the right side. I would try to lure the left badnik over there and mess around with that too.

Yes, the extra play is too obvious to the player as being meaningless, but I believe that's the scale of this particular example of yours talking. The problem of the easy way being in the player's face wouldn't carry into a full game so directly.

It would be more difficult in a real game for a sub-optimal path to permanently remind the player of how pointless it is. In a real game, it's more like this:



The player would simply enjoy the hard path because the easy path is out of sight. It wouldn't even need to be more Soniccy than the other. And it doesn't help that you've gone and put an extra reward up there too. It's almost the perfect skill = reward alternative. But yes the difference is too great, it is patronising. But here's a fun question:

If you only got one sketch to play Sonic in ever again, would you prefer sketch 1 or 2? See, I'd easily go for 2. And if you genuinely prefer 1, that pretty much sums up how huge our difference is in approach. I guess the real triumph of what I'd aim for, in a full game, is when a player gets near the end of an act, they turn around and head back into it. SFR and Sonic Classic Heroes both gave me a fair few time overs in EHZ1.

Finally, it's funny to me how you say "making the player notice the possibilities is much harder." I'm more of the approach where I practically try to hide those possibilities from the player.

I'll get to the rest of your reply tomorrow.

This post has been edited by Deef: 08 October 2012 - 01:20 AM

[Deef]

@ Palas (again)

I figure it's clearer to use a new post for new points; break up the wall and all that.

Palas said:

I like that list. Seems to cover what we've discussed so far - but hey, we do have stimuli to use your reflex in classic Sonic. From the batbrains in Marble Zone to the intermittent platforms at Flying Battery/Metallic Madness/Scrap Brain to those rotating mini-platforms at Metallic Madness - think of how not enough reflex and skill, I mean, a quick response sends you to a lower level. Especially in Scrap Brain.

I intend to go into that list more in due course. But I can at least note here what nags at me about reflex gameplay in a Sonic game: low acceleration.

A successful reaction involves the timing of two things:
#1. Time to react to the presence of danger
#2. Time, once reacted, to travel from being in danger to being out of danger.

Focussing on reflex gameplay involves the timing of a third thing:
#3. Time, once out of danger, to recover to a state for a new reaction.

The first depends on the human so that's ok.
The second and third depend on the game, and Sonic has some slow acceleration on his feet and some slow recovery in practically anything he does.

Should this be changed?! What would, can we, could it, blah blah blah?
I'm not really asking right here; I'm just saying that the timing of #2 and #3 pretty much break the idea of reflex play. Sure you still have to react fast enough (#1), but then you have to wait, and keep holding right, and keep watching, and now a second has passed, should be landing soon... ... . The perfect example is Sonic 1's final boss.

So looking at your examples, Batbrains get you hung up on recovery time, while the most of those temperamental platforms aren't reaction, they're timing. Metallic Madness has those falling grey spiked-underneath platforms; that's reflex/reaction play, right? But yeah, see how slow it feels?

Again, I'm not arguing for or against anything here, I'm just clearing up some thoughts and terms. (On that note, I'm using reflex play and reaction play interchangeably.)

Sonic has 3 tools I can think of that address #2 at least. Jump, spin dash, and insta-shield. All three allow a very fast reaction. Jumping is still quite slow in motion, but instant in its changing of state.

None of these moves address #3. Even the insta-shield is tied to the slowness of recovering from a jump.

Anyway, just throwing this stuff down. <Customary re-alignment of this point to the thread topic of compulsive play goes here.>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Palas said:

Now, does being deliberately set up really matter?

Well, logically, deliberately setting things up is all we can really do. Otherwise we'd be deliberately trying to create a feeling of "the designer didn't create this feeling." We both agree this kind of freedom is important, so to just answer your question of whether it really matters, I just point out that players who play the Bouncing Challenge would feel much less enjoyment if they knew it was deliberate. In fact, they probably wouldn't even go back to it. We agree it's important, and that's why it matters to me, BUT to meet what you're saying I agree that this:

Palas said:

I want to give the player a strong impression in the first playthrough, mostly. It's important, to me, that the game gives off a huge impression.

... is, yes, more important. The abstract freedom thing is a big deal to me, but I still wouldn't look at it until after this strong impression you're talking about is defined. Making stuff not-deliberate is too shaky a foundation for anything but a sandbox game. It has to be spare enjoyment, permitted to not even happen, and not something to rely on.

Relevance: I think the freedom to do unexpected things, unexpected by even the developer, is important to compulsion. The player will recognise the potential on display, and if they're interested in the game, that will generate further interest. I agree that this will not be why the player is playing at first.

You know, I think I just really dislike the idea of being told what I have to achieve at all. It's like I need the game to manage its push to the end very carefully; as if that's the boring part for me. :S


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Palas said:

Now, let's exchange it. The lever on the top, the shoes on the bottom. Now we have less speed = less demand for speed; more speed = more demand for speed. This much I find horribly wrong and actually applies to full games.

Look, there is that theory of the three layers, right? "The higher you go, the more rewards, but it's more difficult to stay there". I'm against this. Let's take Spring Yard or Collision Chaos or Casino Night or Quartz Quadrant or, heck, even Jungle Act 1 to some degree. The bottom layer is actually harder. Has more threats and whatnot (sure, Jungle Act 1 has the log, but everything that's not the log will fucking kill you) - and the game constantly tries to push you down, but once you avoid it, the path is clear. It's punishing you for not having enough skill - but, if you do, the game gets actually easier and you can now perform speedruns and whatnot. It's a demand for input from the player, but, once you succeed, the game opens a gate.

If it were always the other way around, the easier path being the easier to stay on, the player would never ever be required to show skill! What a bland game that would be. Less rewards, less threats, less everything. No, that's not the way to go.

Pretty sure I disagree here, but as is becoming a habit of mine, I'll reply later.