[KingofHarts]

BlazeHedgehog, on 29 March 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

High score doesn't tie in to anything, though. It's sort of weird, but despite keeping score, none of the Sonic games seem to have any kind of leaderboard system or anything. I mean, I guess score meant something in later games once you start talking ranks and stuff, but there exist a lot of people out there who hate the idea of being constantly graded on performance like that, too, because it's "too stressful".

So we get rid of time limits and we get rid of score ranking and then what? Enemies are pretty stressful, let's get rid of them. If enemies cease to exist, then why do we need health? No more rings.

"Challenge for those who want it" always comes off as a way to accommodate lazy tendencies. Instead of dig in and beat something tough and "feel accomplished", I can just take the lazy way out. So can a lot of people. It's like a built in-cheat code that has no penalties.

Sometimes you just have to man up.

This post nailed it... Seriously... this topic should just be closed now, with this post pinned and decorated or something... Maybe a Post of the Year award is in order...

I'll reinforce this by saying I support grades in the newer games, and IMO score and time were the classics' way of implementing the same thing. Beat an act as quickly as possible while getting as much as possible for the fastest time & highest score. Able to rack up a chain? Your score, and MAYBE time... in certain instances (EHZ I'm looking at you), will reflect this. Get a lot of rings, you get bonuses for that in your score... Do it all in a fast time? There's a good time bonus to add to it... and voila... that's how you achieve a high score. I do think a highscore system should be implemented... something you can look at in an option menu or something... but there you go. That's why time limits are there... you can do whatever you want, but to do well in scores or RANKS, you gotta be fast. What a novel fucking concept for a game about the fastest creature in the world trying to save the world... Who would've ever thought?

BTW want to have high scores and leaderboards? Take a screen grab at the end of the game and post it online... That's the best I can offer you for a solution.

[TheInvisibleSun]

KingofHarts, on 29 March 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

BlazeHedgehog, on 29 March 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

High score doesn't tie in to anything, though. It's sort of weird, but despite keeping score, none of the Sonic games seem to have any kind of leaderboard system or anything. I mean, I guess score meant something in later games once you start talking ranks and stuff, but there exist a lot of people out there who hate the idea of being constantly graded on performance like that, too, because it's "too stressful".

So we get rid of time limits and we get rid of score ranking and then what? Enemies are pretty stressful, let's get rid of them. If enemies cease to exist, then why do we need health? No more rings.

"Challenge for those who want it" always comes off as a way to accommodate lazy tendencies. Instead of dig in and beat something tough and "feel accomplished", I can just take the lazy way out. So can a lot of people. It's like a built in-cheat code that has no penalties.

Sometimes you just have to man up.

This post nailed it... Seriously... this topic should just be closed now, with this post pinned and decorated or something... Maybe a Post of the Year award is in order...

I'll reinforce this by saying I support grades in the newer games, and IMO score and time were the classics' way of implementing the same thing. Beat an act as quickly as possible while getting as much as possible for the fastest time & highest score. Able to rack up a chain? Your score, and MAYBE time... in certain instances (EHZ I'm looking at you), will reflect this. Get a lot of rings, you get bonuses for that in your score... Do it all in a fast time? There's a good time bonus to add to it... and voila... that's how you achieve a high score. I do think a highscore system should be implemented... something you can look at in an option menu or something... but there you go. That's why time limits are there... you can do whatever you want, but to do well in scores or RANKS, you gotta be fast. What a novel fucking concept for a game about the fastest creature in the world trying to save the world... Who would've ever thought?

I agree to this, to an extent. However, I feel that the 10-minute time limit works because it's a decent medium between beating the stage quickly and being able to screw around in the stage for whatever reason (secrets, items, ring, exploration, etc.). I feel the time limit is necessary to compel the player to complete the stage (due to the games' forward moving, perpetual nature), but it is nice that it is long enough for some breathing room for newer and/or more exploratory players. Another thing to remember, is that a lot of the fun in 1-3K for many players comes from playing with the physics within the terrain, not speeding to the end as fast as possible; straining the time limit too much kind of dims this concept a little (though I do like the concept of varying time limits, based on how the stage is designed, kind of like how the old Mario games did it). However, finishing a stage quickly and skillfully should be rewarded and encouraged, which is why rankings and scores need to stay. Basically, if you want to use the time to play around with the game, fine, just don't take forever. If you want a decent score, time and ranking, then you're going to have to play with skill and earn it. Also, the game should gradually enforce skillful play more as the game progresses, because it would require the player to get better at the game to the point where beating it feels worthwhile.

[FuzzballFox]

I'll be honest here- why the hell should you NOT have one? The game isn't when you learn it.
If you go over the limit TOUGH. Get better. Sounds blunt but that's because many older games used to be and are still fucking hard.
Sonic is piss easy compared to many other games and yet it encourages skill building and practise. Didn't make it in time? Then practise and try again.

Same goes for lives...loss them all and you're not playing well- Game overs show you are not doing well. Again, practise and you'll get better at it.

[SpeedStarTMQ]

I like the time limit because the games are easy enough as it is, and if you suck and get killed then, well you need to try harder until you can memorize the stage you're dying on.

[Dark Sonic]

I'm not arguing that beating a level under 10 minutes is hard. With the exception of Sandopolis Act 2, the average player can easily beat a level under 10 minutes. But why bother punishing those who truly suck and punish those who wish to take a walk in the park and explore. The only advantage I can see to the Time Over of yore is that it's a way for you to escape the Carnival Night Barrel room or one of Robotnik's traps.

[KingofHarts]

Perhaps a design change could be an option for either standard 10:00 time limits, fixed time limits varying upon the zone... OR no limits. This could accommodate all players, and the ability to change this at will would make everyone happy. (At least in regards to time limits.)

[Dark Sonic]

KingofHarts, on 29 March 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Perhaps a design change could be an option for either standard 10:00 time limits, fixed time limits varying upon the zone... OR no limits. This could accommodate all players, and the ability to change this at will would make everyone happy. (At least in regards to time limits.)

The advance series actually sorta does this. It gives you the option for a time over or not.

There is only one level in Sonic history where a 10 minute time limit wouldn't work, and that's Eggmanland for Unleashed on the PS3 and 360. That level took me 45 minutes the first time, and I can't get under 11. However this exception aside, most levels can be beat in like 4 minutes or less (Sonic Heroes had some long levels though). Which is why a 10 minute limit seems pointless, because it'll only apply to like 5% of the people.

I support ranks more then time limits. It takes into the account that people may suck, and penalizes them appropriately by saying you failed (Except Generations, I can't not get at least a rank A 95% of the time). This way you don't have to die, yet you still face the sting of sucking something fierce.

[Aesculapius Piranha]

Dark Sonic, on 29 March 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

I'm not arguing that beating a level under 10 minutes is hard. With the exception of Sandopolis Act 2, the average player can easily beat a level under 10 minutes. But why bother punishing those who truly suck and punish those who wish to take a walk in the park and explore. The only advantage I can see to the Time Over of yore is that it's a way for you to escape the Carnival Night Barrel room or one of Robotnik's traps.

Punish those who truly suck so they do better next time. Thats generally the nature of games.

[KingofHarts]

Dark Sonic, on 29 March 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

KingofHarts, on 29 March 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Perhaps a design change could be an option for either standard 10:00 time limits, fixed time limits varying upon the zone... OR no limits. This could accommodate all players, and the ability to change this at will would make everyone happy. (At least in regards to time limits.)

The advance series actually sorta does this. It gives you the option for a time over or not.

There is only one level in Sonic history where a 10 minute time limit wouldn't work, and that's Eggmanland for Unleashed on the PS3 and 360. That level took me 45 minutes the first time, and I can't get under 11. However this exception aside, most levels can be beat in like 4 minutes or less (Sonic Heroes had some long levels though). Which is why a 10 minute limit seems pointless, because it'll only apply to like 5% of the people.

I support ranks more then time limits. It takes into the account that people may suck, and penalizes them appropriately by saying you failed (Except Generations, I can't not get at least a rank A 95% of the time). This way you don't have to die, yet you still face the sting of sucking something fierce.

In the case of the classics though, I'm ok with the 10:00 time limit + time bonus system.
I wanna hack one thing though... I wanna see time bonuses based not simply on the time when you finish... but based on the time when you finish compared to how long it takes to get through a zone. That is something I don't think anyone has done in hacks... to my knowledge at least... and it should be done IMO.

This post has been edited by KingofHarts: 29 March 2012 - 01:54 PM

[Morph]

I'm perfectly OK with the time limit. In fact, I quite like it. It's never been a hindrance to me, even when I explore. It's not like Sonic levels are all that big to begin with, there's really not all that much to explore in the first place. On top of that, you just die go back to a checkpoint when you pass the limit, and your time is reset to 0:00 anyway, which gives you even more time to explore, especially if that checkpoint is far into the level.

[Chibisteven]

Some Sonic games can be cruel with time limits like Sonic 3 & Knuckles for first timers or if don't know the quickiest routes.

The time limits in Sonic Advance (that one level) and Sonic Adventure 2's time limits on the first mission of some levels did serve a valid purpose when you think about it. Though some levels added frustalation with this.

Most Sonic games I've played the levels aren't that long where it's a big issue, but I don't really like time limits that much myself.

[trakker]

Time limits never bothered me, the 10min limit would be a problem in some modern Sonic stages (I'm looking at you Eggmanland and Generations Planet Wisp, just went onnnnn and onnnnnnnnn and onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn)

I don't think a level should take much more than 5 mins to beat, the other 5 is time to smell the roses and explore a bit, its just there to keep you moving, someone at SEGA way back when obviouly decided that 10mins was ample time (and it is) to beat a level

There arnt time limits now are they? Or are they optional? I don't like time limits personally, but in the case of Sonic games, its's ok, because it's barely an issue XD

[Mercury]

BlazeHedgehog, on 29 March 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Sometimes you just have to man up.

I don't think you're getting it.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think anyone who dislikes the time limit dislikes it because it's too challenging. You'd have to totally suck at life, let alone Sonic, for it to be a serious hindrance.

No, like some have been saying in this thread, the time limits need to be even stricter to be a real challenge - perhaps even tailored to the specific zone rather than a lazy 10:00 slapped on everything.

The problem is the time limit is never a real challenge, so the only time you ever come up against it is when you're dicking around in the game for fun - suddenly the limit has nothing to do with challenge, it's merely an annoyance, a lazy design feature that's not doing its job.

Also, I personally hate how abstract it is. Rings counting down 'cos you're Hyper and in space? Fine. Air running out underwater? Fine. Wall of fire chasing you? Fine. Spent ten minutes in the zone? Not fine - it doesn't make any sense at all.

Time attacking, however, makes perfect sense, does tailor the limit to each zone, and with an online score board will give you plenty of opportunity to "man up".

...I hate how a legitimate topic about game design can so quickly turn into "hurr hurr you guys suck at Sonic don't be so lazy".

[OKei]

I like time limits. They create a motivation to get you to finish a level (faster), you get awarded points for how soon you finish it, and it helps with time management in real life.

[Morph]

Oh, on the note of the time limit, I believe the Sonic Jam editions of Sonic 1-3&k allow you to disable the time overs. If only they didn't have really awkward sound effects...