[Cyrus]

Sonic without a timer wouldn't feel right in my opinion.

[Sonic 65]

As it stands it's a pretty useless and dumb design decision, but I think it'd be more justifiable if the games had fairly strict level-specific time limits. Something like two to four minutes, varying depending on the level. Could make planning and exploring multiple routes matter a lot more during regular playthroughs, as opposed to just score/time/ring attack (exploration for the sake of exploration isn't very fun.) If linearity becomes a problem then you could balance the routes so that there are many near-optimal routes to take through each level instead of just one (easier said than done, but hey), and you could just have a separate "exploration mode" or whatever if people complained. As it stands the argument claiming the limit is supposed to make the game more "arcade style" doesn't work very well either; it's rare that you'll actually die because of the time limit unless you're going out of your way to cover the entire level (score/ring attack, etc.) An arcade game would have far more strict limits (if it chose to have them) as well as far higher difficulty, and the ring mechanic would probably be axed in that setting as well.

Quote

See: Flower, Journey, Proteus, Minecraft, To The Moon, Dear Esther, and a bunch of other games that all have questionable amounts of "difficulty" but which are still games and which some of have actually been critically acclaimed.

That'd be because most game journalists/critics will slap a 10/10 score on anything with the word "indie" attached to it. I don't think any of these are very good videogames (though all of them are videogames, without any doubt -- don't know how there's even any debate on that.) The point of games aren't to be challenging, and the challenge argument doesn't even work very well in this context (since the time limit doesn't add much of it if you aren't playing for rings/score), but challenge is a major part of what makes games engaging in the first place (it draws us into the world the game creates, which isn't only done with things like art and sound but also with things like level design, enemy design, etc. that demand the player directs his full attention to the game and what's going on inside it), especially with older 2D titles. This doesn't factor in too much to the Sonic series, but it's a general undercurrent in this thread so I figured I'd say something about it.

This post has been edited by Sonic 65: 02 April 2012 - 09:20 PM

[The Game Collector]

Billy, on 28 March 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

If I ever go on to make a hack or a fangame, the first things I'm doing is removing score, time, and lives. I'm serious.

Pretty much exactly what they did in Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee. Not having those score counters, time limits or lives was one of the features they used to describe the game as special.

[Volpino]

Sonic 65, on 02 April 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

That'd be because most game journalists/critics will slap a 10/10 score on anything with the word "indie" attached to it. I don't think any of these are very good videogames (though all of them are videogames, without any doubt -- don't know how there's even any debate on that.) The point of games aren't to be challenging, and the challenge argument doesn't even work very well in this context (since the time limit doesn't add much of it if you aren't playing for rings/score), but challenge is a major part of what makes games engaging in the first place (it draws us into the world the game creates, which isn't only done with things like art and sound but also with things like level design, enemy design, etc. that demand the player directs his full attention to the game and what's going on inside it), especially with older 2D titles. This doesn't factor in too much to the Sonic series, but it's a general undercurrent in this thread so I figured I'd say something about it.

The bit about indie games is not true, at all, I don't even know where it came from. Indie games get bad press too, you know.

I can agree with most of the rest but while I think some kind of task for the player is required for them to feel immersed, I think "challenge" is a bit of an inaccuracy; something doesn't need to be hard to be engaging.

Edit: I have also played all the games that I listed. Not sure if that counts for much around here since 99.9% of the populace disagrees with me on EVERYTHING related to game-quality and vice-versa. :l

This post has been edited by Volpino: 02 April 2012 - 09:49 PM

[Caniad Bach]

I feel it has to be pointed out that "challenge", doesn't have to be challenging. The challenge presented could be a fairly easy one, saying otherwise implies that turning down the difficulty level stops something from being a game.

[ICEknight]

Isn't the challenge precisely what differentiates between videogames and interactive programs, as in the difference between games and toys?

[Sonic 65]

ICEknight, on 03 April 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Isn't the challenge precisely what differentiates between videogames and interactive programs, as in the difference between games and toys?

Doesn't seem so. Building a complex 3D model with 3DS Max is probably just as or more challenging than playing through Kirby's Dreamland, for example, but the latter is considered a videogame and the former just a program. Even under the other definitions people provided, both are "pursuits or activities with rules," "structured play," etc. (since both are computer programs.) You could even think of many computer programs as sandbox games, like Minecraft's Creative Mode except with a larger range of possibilities. Ultimately I haven't seen an adequate definition anywhere that separates videogames from other types of computer programs without any major inconsistencies, it just seems to be a difference in degree that everyone gets instinctually without being able to put it in words. The difference between a game and a toy is easier to talk about; a game is an activity governed by collection of rules, a toy is just an object.

Volpino said:

The bit about indie games is not true, at all, I don't even know where it came from. Indie games get bad press too, you know.

C'mon, when was the last time you saw a high-profile game released under the "indie" marketing label get a Metacritic rating below 80%? I can't think of one off the top of my head.

[Jayextee]

ICEknight, on 03 April 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Isn't the challenge precisely what differentiates between videogames and interactive programs, as in the difference between games and toys?

For great truth, I have quoted this. I wouldn't mind the Sonic series being more challenging with regards time limits; it's a fast series, with a fast character. Why not have the incentive to play fast? It's not rocket science.

[The Sentinel]

I guess the 10 minute rule is supposed to be a fail-safe in case of getting stucked into solid blocks. Maybe it was a work around for some bug in Sonic 1 and stayed for the later games. Though, I don't remember ever getting stucked in Sonic 1, but that gimmic came in quite handy countless times in Sonic 3.
If that's the origin of the 10-min Rule, then I guess it's more pitiful to have a "Suicide" option when you pause the game.
Despite the time limit Rule, something is certain: The clock is so very much important in a game that is supposed to be fast! Is as if there were no timer in car games.

Personally, I find it quite challenging to go through levels as a "collector" and try to beat them below the 10 min mark. But I also agree that breaking the rule with and paying with losing everything isn't a cool balance.

Maybe a time extension could work well. A 1 minute extension could be achieved per 100 or 200 rings. So, if you fool around, it'd better be for a good reason. And if you lose your rings, you go back to the 10 min.
Or it could be completely disabled, but leave the suicide option available in case of running into a wall.

[Impish]

To find the definition of Video Game, we have to remember it's a type of game, so lets take a look at some definitions of games.

Chris Crawford said:

Computer game designer Chris Crawford attempted to define the term game[6] using a series of dichotomies:

• Creative expression is art if made for its own beauty, and entertainment if made for money.
  
• A piece of entertainment is a plaything if it is interactive. Movies and books are cited as examples of non-interactive entertainment.
  
• If no goals are associated with a plaything, it is a toy. (Crawford notes that by his definition, (a) a toy can become a game element if the player makes up rules, and (b) The Sims and SimCity are toys, not games.) If it has goals, a plaything is a challenge.
  
• If a challenge has no "active agent against whom you compete," it is a puzzle; if there is one, it is a conflict. (Crawford admits that this is a subjective test. Video games with noticeably algorithmic artificial intelligence can be played as puzzles; these include the patterns used to evade ghosts in Pac-Man.)
  
• Finally, if the player can only outperform the opponent, but not attack them to interfere with their performance, the conflict is a competition. (Competitions include racing and figure skating.) However, if attacks are allowed, then the conflict qualifies as a game.

Crawford's definition may thus be rendered as: an interactive, goal-oriented activity, with active agents to play against, in which players (including active agents) can interfere with each other.

This one seems to make the most sense to me.

[Mercury]

I love that there's not even consensus on what the definition of "video game" is. =)

Jayextee, on 03 April 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

It's a fast series, with a fast character. Why not have the incentive to play fast? It's not rocket science.

This comes back to what I was saying about Yoshi's Island; I don't mind an incentive to play fast, but it should be a fluent part of game design and not an arbitrarily imposed abstraction.

Also, this fucking brilliant article by Scarred Sun touches on why I think one should be wary of adding too many such "incentives" to Sonic games. We all play Sonic differently and like it for different reasons, and the games' capacity for that is part of their appeal.

[Volpino]

Sonic 65, on 03 April 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

ICEknight, on 03 April 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Isn't the challenge precisely what differentiates between videogames and interactive programs, as in the difference between games and toys?

Doesn't seem so. Building a complex 3D model with 3DS Max is probably just as or more challenging than playing through Kirby's Dreamland, for example, but the latter is considered a videogame and the former just a program. Even under the other definitions people provided, both are "pursuits or activities with rules," "structured play," etc. (since both are computer programs.) You could even think of many computer programs as sandbox games, like Minecraft's Creative Mode except with a larger range of possibilities. Ultimately I haven't seen an adequate definition anywhere that separates videogames from other types of computer programs without any major inconsistencies, it just seems to be a difference in degree that everyone gets instinctually without being able to put it in words. The difference between a game and a toy is easier to talk about; a game is an activity governed by collection of rules, a toy is just an object.

Volpino said:

The bit about indie games is not true, at all, I don't even know where it came from. Indie games get bad press too, you know.

C'mon, when was the last time you saw a high-profile game released under the "indie" marketing label get a Metacritic rating below 80%? I can't think of one off the top of my head.

The reason those get high scores is because nobody bothers to pay attention to anything lower. Steam, for example, has quality control any legit company would be able to pass but an indie developer would struggle with. The vast majority of indie titles go unnoticed by the mainstream and even someone like me who plows through indie-dedicated sites has to look for a lot of them. My point is, if it's not "high profile" for a regular company, it gets a bad score, if it's not "high profile" for an indie game, it doesn't get mentioned.

Also I think one thing that separates a game from a program is that you can't normally do anything productive with a game, it's just there to be fun. You can use a model you make in Blender, but you can't do much with a Minecraft sculpture. Other than that, I have the same problem, since I have so much fun using Artweaver (Even if it is just to smear colors around and make something I might not save) but that is considered an application.

Mercury, on 03 April 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

I love that there's not even consensus on what the definition of "video game" is. =)

Jayextee, on 03 April 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

It's a fast series, with a fast character. Why not have the incentive to play fast? It's not rocket science.

This comes back to what I was saying about Yoshi's Island; I don't mind an incentive to play fast, but it should be a fluent part of game design and not an arbitrarily imposed abstraction.

Also, this fucking brilliant article by Scarred Sun touches on why I think one should be wary of adding too many such "incentives" to Sonic games. We all play Sonic differently and like it for different reasons, and the games' capacity for that is part of their appeal.

You people are so much better at saying what I wish I could. I just read that, I will carry those thoughts if I ever manage to do something remotely successful with programming.

This post has been edited by Volpino: 03 April 2012 - 06:17 PM

[RuRi]

Just making the time limit be something you can optionally turn on seems like the best idea for me. You want a challenge? Here, have it where you gotta complete the level within a certain time limit! Wanna just mess around and explore? Knock yourself out, there's no time limit to screw you over!

In the end, having a time limit is all about how you enjoy playing the games. Some people really enjoy racing against the clock, giving them a sense of adrenaline, while others enjoy finding the secrets that the levels contain.

I had an interesting idea after playing the recent Kid Icarus game though. In the game, before you start the level, you can move a slider to make the game harder or easier. Well, what if Sonic had something similar? the farther to the right the slider is, the shorter the time limit is, but you'd get better rewards if you complete the level under this time limit. Don't feel like trying to clear a level in a minute? just slide it back, give yourself some breathing space. Don't wanna bother with a time limit? just slide it the opposite direction. Sure, you won't get rewards for doing it, but you can enjoy the level in all it's splendor, and there'd be secrets in the level you could try finding instead that offer different rewards for exploring.

[BlazeHedgehog]

Sonic 65, on 02 April 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

As it stands it's a pretty useless and dumb design decision, but I think it'd be more justifiable if the games had fairly strict level-specific time limits. Something like two to four minutes, varying depending on the level.

But that's kind of missing the point; the idea behind Sonic's time limit isn't that it's supposed to be strict, it's just that it's there. It's not supposed to be "I can't stop moving or else I'll die" levels of panic-inducing. Buttoning down the time limit to make it more strict would discourage exploration and experimentation.

The pressure to finish a stage does not have to always be suffocating in its intensity; ten minutes is usually long enough that you can still be pretty leisurely and finish with four or more minutes to spare. And that's fine, but somewhere in the back of your mind, you were at least aware that there was an impending time limit, and that had an effect on you.

Not everything has to be black and white, "in your face at all times" or "completely non-existent". There's something to be said for subtlety.

This post has been edited by BlazeHedgehog: 04 April 2012 - 11:42 AM

[Tiberious]

I dunno. I never really had problems with the timer, except Carnival Night 2 early on, but I think that's due to that dick-move barrel, combined with the (usually) slow as hell boss fight (benefit of experience has made these trivial).

Of course, Security Hall, well, that was a pure dick move, and I hated that pants-on-head retarded setup, while giving you only 5 minutes with a gimped radar. Worse, the remake removed the very helpful bug that let you actually clear it in any decent time, making you go through, find the emerald, trudge back up to the switches, hit the right one, go back down, collect, and repeat. Stupid if you hated using the hint screens.

But, games are meant to be a challenge, hmm? Alright then. Let's dream up a 'Hardcore' hack of Sonic 3 & Knuckles. We'll give it 5-minute time limits, only 14 big rings leading to instant top-speed special stages where you have to Perfect the stage to get the emerald. Oh yeah, take out the extra life routine, disable SRAM, change the 'bad ending' to instant game over, and just to discourage cheating, if changes to RAM are made outside their normal write routines, error the game out. Fail at this Sonic equivalent to Kaizo Mario? Well, guess you suck. Get better at it.



Bad example? Maybe. But how well do you think the game would have sold if that were the retail release? My guess is that would have killed the series outright and we wouldn't even be here today.