Do you prefer Sonic games that are short, but fun, or games that are long, but often tedious?

[ArtFenix]

Sa and Sa2 were both quite long and incredibly fun games with great storylines and lots of characters. I still have a blast playing them. Whether you think of them as fun enough and not having forced gameplay is up to you.

Colors and Generations, however, are short and it's a fact you cannot avoid.

So yeah, why not have both fun and long enough games with great storylines huh?

[Tani Coyote]

Sa and Sa2 were both quite long and incredibly fun games with great storylines and lots of characters. I still have a blast playing them. Whether you think of them as fun enough and not having forced gameplay is up to you.

Colors and Generations, however, are short and it's a fact you cannot avoid.

So yeah, why not have both fun and long enough games with great storylines huh?

I concur entirely. Big favorites of mine.

I'm just always concerned how marketable more diverse gameplay would be. It seems like many gamers just want a quick speed high, rather than any story or experimental gameplay types.

I don't mind emerald hunting or the shooting stages. But I know my opinion is hardly the popular one.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Ogilvie Maurice Hedgehog

[Dr. Homem]

We don't need necessarily long games, we need games with plenty of replay value. Which means, it must be fun to play and replay many times.

[Tani Coyote]

I've always replayed SA2 a ton just to watch the story over and over.

Though again, my likes are hardly the norm.

On that note, Sega, make it possible to replay Story Mode again in all your new titles. It was one of my favorite features of SA2. I can skip the levels/scenes I didn't really care about and focus on the ones I did. A separate cinema / level select thing for me just isn't as fun.

But yes. Replayability is the key factor. The rankings system and achievements are a good way to get the more hardcore gamers to do such. What about casual, though?

[BlueTidalGamer]

I love both styles. I tend to replay the shorter games a lot more. But i'm happy with a longer one as well.

[Old dead account]

What I want to know is why The genesis games feel so replayable yet colors and generations don't...

[Tani Coyote]

Most likely nostalgia.

Nostalgia is a powerful force. People often view what they grew up with as fun, proper, the way to go, etc.

It can be pretty hard to overcome it.

[Diogenes]

What I want to know is why The genesis games feel so replayable yet colors and generations don't...

Large levels with many routes, gameplay with a degree of complexity and subtlety, more possible outcomes leading to less direct repetition...

[ArtFenix]

Large levels with many routes, gameplay with a degree of complexity and subtlety, more possible outcomes leading to less direct repetition...

This an the possibility to play the games with 3 different characters with their unique abilities and alternate paths designed specifically for them (also different cutscenes and endings).

...and you may not believe it but some of Genesis classic games' levels are actually longer than most of Colors levels. And those were games from the 90-s.

Edited November 26, 2012 by ArtFenix

[Old dead account]

Except nostalgia doesn't have an effect on me for these games since I didn't really play them until just like 5-6 years ago and they weren't my first sonic games. Sonic 1's levels feel pretty repetitive each playthrough to me and I still like replaying it...

[Nepenthe]

I've been with the franchise since its very beginning and I don't find most of the titles within it all that replayable anymore regardless of my opinions on them. I guess my excuse is that I'm weird?

[Kuzu]

Sa and Sa2 were both quite long and incredibly fun games with great storylines and lots of characters. I still have a blast playing them. Whether you think of them as fun enough and not having forced gameplay is up to you.

Colors and Generations, however, are short and it's a fact you cannot avoid.

So yeah, why not have both fun and long enough games with great storylines huh?

Just a note, most longevity in the Adventure games are from padding, just saying.

[TheOcelot]

I like playing Sonic games where you have the option to either just breeze through them really fast, or you can play as was intended, like for example the time travel/time stones in Sonic CD.

Edited November 26, 2012 by NightwingKnux

[Nepenthe]

Just a note, most longevity in the Adventure games are from padding, just saying.

I'm opposed to calling these alternate play styles "padding" due to the implication being that they're only there to make the game longer or better than what it really is, when the fact remains that they are indispensable features of the games they reside in. To remove them would completely change the game so much that you would not have the same experience if you were to do so, regardless of if it's better or for worse, so to relegate them as mere "padding" completely underestimates their purpose in the grand scheme of these games, relegating them to the likes of useless alternate pathways Chao Gardens, completely optional missions and collectibles, mini-game modes, and Colors' Marathon mode. These are things you easily could chop away and not disrupt the fundamental design of the game.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Diogenes]

To remove them would completely change the game so much that you would not have the same experience if you were to do so

They use a lot of padding.

[Mr. Taxi]

...Has there ever been a time where a character- even an actual platforming one- was predominantly slow and yet still liked?

Tim, from Braid.

[Nepenthe]

I figure the moment the story gets dedicated to your gameplay is the moment your gameplay ceases to be padding and becomes relevant to the overall experience of playing it, forget the actual overall time spent with these different characters.

I mean, yeah, I guess you technically could somehow have SA2 functional as SA2, somehow, with only Sonic playable (no Shadow for the squeamish), and yet not change anything else about the rest of the game. I suppose. I'd just call you a shitty designer the moment you attempted to do it.

Tim, from Braid.

I already said I was referring to within the Sonic franchise. xP

Edited November 26, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Kuzu]

I'm opposed to calling these alternate play styles "padding" due to the implication being that they're only there to make the game longer or better than what it really is, when the fact remains that they are indispensable features of the games they reside in. To remove them would completely change the game so much that you would not have the same experience if you were to do so, regardless of if it's better or for worse, so to relegate them as mere "padding" completely underestimates their purpose in the grand scheme of these games, relegating them to the likes of useless alternate pathways Chao Gardens, completely optional missions and collectibles, mini-game modes, and Colors' Marathon mode. These are things you easily could chop away and not disrupt the fundamental design of the game.

So spending 30 minutes in a stage to find an item that might be right in front of you, in stages larger than what's really necessary isn't padding is what you're saying? Or a fishing minigame which controls like ass, and is ultimately made pointless by it's lack of importance in the overall game?

[Mr. Taxi]

Oh, you did? Sorry, I just jumped on the bus, I suppose.

Well yes, anyway, this is a ridiculous false dichotomy. However, I do see his point. You know, these days I finally finished a game which I only played as a child. It was the shareware version at the time, so of course I could never finish it. Point is, the game is old as Earth and it has the design choices people used to do at the time to make the game seem longer, like fucking invisible dungeons and despicable bridges-with-soft-spots-that-make-you-go-all-the-way-back.

That's artificial difficulty and doesn't add anything to the game. It's a resource that can be used in some situations, yes, but not as a staple. Similarly, Egoraptor has talked about time-consuming annoying stuff in Castlevania II - when you think about it, there is no practical difference between scenario I (kill the monster, get hearts) and scenario II (kill the monster, get money - that can only be used to get hearts - and get hearts). But it does make the game seem longer than it would if it was straightforward.

So, in Sonic, I do see some of this in Sonic Unleashed and in Sonic Adventure 1-2. Some features are just there to take your time. Fun as they can be, they end up being bothersome due to being obvious obligatory blocks.

EDIT: Oh, not the gameplay styles. I was thinking of the medals and Chao Garden.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Palas

[Nepenthe]

So spending 30 minutes in a stage to find an item that might be right in front of you, in stages larger than what's really necessary isn't padding is what you're saying? Or a fishing minigame which controls like ass, and is ultimately made pointless by it's lack of importance in the overall game?

The fishing is actually very easy and simple to control. You can beat Big's story in about an hour or less, no muss, no fuss. It got so easy to the point that I started fishing for fun.

And yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Big is ultimately more important to Sonic Adventure than the Chao Gardens are, or Sonic Colors' Marathon mode is to Colors, or Secret Rings' mini-game mode is to that game, as are the rest of the characters beyond Sonic himself; same goes for Adventure 2. My argument is not taking into account quality, but mere design intent and what we know the final product is. If you took out everyone aside from Sonic from all of these 3D games where other characters are playable but kept everything otherwise the same, the end product would ultimately break down as something functional or not be recognizable in the current form it's in; the experience would be completely different. This clearly exposes a keen intent from Sonic Team to have these things as relevant to the experience beyond merely something to do; a clear sign that they were designed from the outset of pre-production purposefully to be something significant for players to enjoy. I wouldn't reasonably considering something like that as mere padding that can be sloughed off and you would magically have the same game in everything but that missing element.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Kuzu]

The fishing is actually very easy and simple to control. You can beat Big's story in about an hour or less, no muss, no fuss. It got so easy to the point that I started fishing for fun.

And yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Big is ultimately more important to Sonic Adventure than the Chao Gardens are, or Sonic Colors' Marathon mode is to Colors, or Secret Rings' mini-game mode is to that game, as are the rest of the characters beyond Sonic himself; same goes for Adventure 2. My argument is not taking into account quality, but mere design intent and what we know the final product is. If you took out everyone aside from Sonic from all of these 3D games where other characters are playable but kept everything otherwise the same, the end product would ultimately break down as something functional or not be recognizable in the current form it's in; the experience would be completely different. This clearly exposes a keen intent from Sonic Team to have these things as relevant to the experience beyond merely something to do; a clear sign that they were designed from the outset of pre-production purposefully to be something relevant for players to enjoy. I wouldn't reasonably considering something like that as mere padding that can be sloughed off and you would magically have the same game in everything but that missing element.

Just because something is crucial to the design of the overall game doesn't mean it's somehow NEEDS to be there, or the game is somehow "bad" without it. If said mechanic is tedious, monotonous, and it forces the game to go longer than needed, then it's padding, plain and simple. It's like saying Silver's ball puzzles aren't padding because they're needed to beat the game.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Ragna the Bloodedge

[Dizcrybe]

Maybe I should clarify. The reason I say "long and tedious" because it seems to me that Sonic Team can't make a long game without finding some stupid way of padding it. Take the medals and Werehog out of Sonic Unleashed and the game would probably be about five to six hours long. Then there's... that game which has you playing levels twice in one story. I don't see why they just can't make more stages if they wanna make a long game.

Edited November 26, 2012 by thapoint09

[StaticMania]

Maybe I should clarify. The reason I say "long and tedious" because it seems to me that Sonic Team can't make a long game without finding some stupid way of padding it. Take the medals and Werehog out of Sonic Unleashed and the game would probably be about five to six hours long. Then there's... that game which has you playing levels twice in one story. I don't see why they just can't make more stages if they wanna make a long game.

Wouldn't that just be the same thing?

[LATER BUDDY]

What I like is enough level tropes to keep it interesting, yet still a pretty short game. If I can beat it all in like 5 hours for just the main game or something, that'd be great. I mean cool beans if it's longer, but what really keeps me playing Sonic games is the collectable crap after. Give me enough of that and at a challenge, and most importantly give me a worthwhile reward for it all, and I'm set as far as replayability and length goes. I'm not really into Sonic for the story, I just wanna play and explore.

[Nepenthe]

Just because something is crucial to the design of the overall game doesn't mean it's somehow NEEDS to be there, or the game is somehow "bad" without it. If said mechanic is tedious, monotonous, and it forces the game to go longer than needed, then it's padding, plain and simple. It's like saying Silver's ball puzzles aren't padding because they're needed to beat the game.

I've said none of that. I've said, if something is crucial to the design of the game in as much that you would fundamentally change the game's nature by removing it outright, that element ceases to be padding and becomes a relevant element to the game as the game currently exists.

My argument doesn't hinge on whether or not it was needed, it doesn't matter whether or not the element is bad, it doesn't matter if the game would be better for it, it doesn't matter if you yourself like it. It's still important enough to the experience of playing that game as we know it- for better or worse- to not be reduced to the likes of an unnecessary mini-game of some sorts. Big in SA1 isn't padding. The Chao Gardens are. Knuckles in SA2 isn't padding; the Kart mini-game is. The difference in these elements is clear regardless of any other qualitative characteristics they possess.

(For the record, you could remove Silver's ball puzzle and have mostly the same game, thus I'd consider it padding under my argument. However, you cannot remove Silver outright and expect mostly the same result because he is too entrenched in the game by design. I don't even know how you can argue otherwise.)