Gameplay vs. Spectacle.

[Platinumb]

Most of the exciting parts of the gameplay in Generations was done through a button...or three.

Can it even be called gameplay when it is...a pseudo-QTE? I find that more to be spectacle. Like, that GUN truck scene in City Escape; probably the biggest offender.

And one of the main problems with the Modern gameplay overall is that it relies too much on these flashy parts to sell you in instead of using intuitive gameplay.

Crash Bandicoot 3. Stage 5. That chase from the triceratops was exciting and fun because there was more input on your part and it sold you in that way, not with a flashy animation or just an extremely ridiculous chase from a truck using visuals.

Unleashed was even worst by using QTEs in place of actual gameplay or the corridor sections where you are dodging things with the shoulder buttons. Don't find that, in any way, fun at all. I actually had more fun with the Werehog because it was more demanding on my part (also, God of War).

To me, that is more like Heavy Rain on rails, but that is probably going a little too far.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Platinumb

[Nepenthe]

You know what? I think the definition of QTE has gotten obfuscated to the point where anything that requires a twitchy button press is a QTE and thus needs to be culled from games forevar, because a lot of the stuff considered a QTE in the modern gameplay isn't, or at the very least, such a ridiculous implied definition could encompass a whole lot beyond just the modern gameplay.

To me, a QTE is an unprompted or near-unprompted series of buttons with no real relationship to any of the previously-established controls. You are thrown into a situation and forced to hit whatever button or series of buttons the game decides to randomize for you, thus introducing a higher element of luck than what would otherwise be considered necessary for the action if it were done more manually and predictably. When there's a wall coming up, and you need to dodge it, and you use the button specifically denoted to dodging to dodge the wall, that isn't a QTE.

Please people: Stop calling everything that requires a quick reaction time a QTE.

Edited December 9, 2012 by North Pole Nepenthe

[Platinumb]

.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Platinumb

[Blue Blood]

Please people: Stop calling everything that requires a quick reaction time a QTE.

Sorry, but when most of players' input in a platformer is relegated to just a few quick reactions it's not really got much more depth than an extended QTE. It's not up to the levels of the Tornado Defence acts in Unleashed (which were literally just QTEs) and drifting for example requires too much input to be a QTE. Most of the gameplay can be summarised as this though: "Press a button at the right time to win, otherwise you fail". By fail I mean either you die, get hit or slip to the lower path. It's very touch and go. It's a spectacle that would do better by looking more impressive and being more immersive in an on-rails title ala SatSR.

What are these, then?

And that isn't even getting to the prior knowledge required for the (sorry) QTEs in Eggmanland.

In fairness, I think Nepenthe is going on about things like the Jungle Joyride bridges, air boosters, homing attacks, rail switching etc not being QTEs. She specifies that that there picture is a QTE-

To me, a QTE is an unprompted or near-unprompted series of buttons with no real relationship to any of the previously-established controls.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Blue Blood

[Kuzu]

You know what? I think the definition of QTE has gotten obfuscated to the point where anything that requires a twitchy button press is a QTE and thus needs to be culled from games forevar, because a lot of the stuff considered a QTE in the modern gameplay isn't, or at the very least, such a ridiculous implied definition could encompass a whole lot beyond just the modern gameplay.

To me, a QTE is an unprompted or near-unprompted series of buttons with no real relationship to any of the previously-established controls. You are thrown into a situation and forced to hit whatever button or series of buttons the game decides to randomize for you, thus introducing a higher element of luck than what would otherwise be considered necessary for the action if it were done more manually and predictably. When there's a wall coming up, and you need to dodge it, and you use the button specifically denoted to dodging to dodge the wall, that isn't a QTE.

Please people: Stop calling everything that requires a quick reaction time a QTE.

I don't really think you're being fair here, because people aren't just calling anything that requires a quick press of a button a quick time event, but the fact that it requires very little thought process and relies more on "Press this now or die" mentality, rather than giving you options on what to do with said buttons.

With Unleashed, you're given very little options in what you're capable of doing because avoiding most hazards require little more than the press of a button, or occasionally a series of, the game(or in this case the boost) does the rest of the work for you. So I don't really think people are wrong for wanting more to do, or the fact that this hyperbole exists in the first place because the Modern gameplay doesn't really pride itself on a lot more than raw speed and quick reaction.

[Platinumb]

Sorry, but when most of players' input in a platformer is relegated to just a few quick reactions it's not really got much more depth than an extended QTE. It's not up to the levels of the Tornado Defence acts in Unleashed (which were literally just QTEs) and drifting for example requires too much input to be a QTE. Most of the gameplay can be summarised as this though: "Press a button at the right time to win, otherwise you fail". By fail I mean either you die, get hit or slip to the lower path. It's very touch and go. It's a spectacle that would do better by looking more impressive and being more immersive in an on-rails title ala SatSR.

In fairness, I think Nepenthe is going on about things like the Jungle Joyride bridges, air boosters, homing attacks, rail switching etc not being QTEs. She specifies that that there picture is a QTE-

Oops. I'm getting sidetracked with something else.

Should probably edit that...

Edited December 9, 2012 by Platinumb

[Nepenthe]

What are these, then?

And that isn't even getting to the prior knowledge required for the (sorry) QTEs in Eggmanland.

a lot of the stuff considered a QTE in the modern gameplay isn't [a QTE]

I never said there is nothing in the game that is a QTE. What you're showing is definitely one, which might explain why they got rid of them in subsequent sequels.

However, you just literally misconstrued dodging stuff with the button permanently allocated for dodging as a QTE. Under the implied definition you presented with that example, nearly everything in any game is a QTE.

"Press a button at the right time to win, otherwise you fail". By fail I mean either you die, get hit or slip to the lower path. It's very touch and go. It's a spectacle that would do better by looking more impressive and being more immersive in an on-rails title ala SatSR.

Again, you are not describing anything out of the ordinary in a platformer because platformers are some pretty binary games. If you don't press the right button or do the right action at the right time, guess what: you're gonna fail, either by taking damage, falling back somewhere, or dying. That's pretty standard for the genre. The only significant difference I personally see is that the modern games merely have smaller margins for error.

I don't really think you're being fair here, because people aren't just calling anything that requires a quick press of a button a quick time event, but the fact that it requires very little thought process and relies more on "Press this now or die" mentality, rather than giving you options on what to do with said buttons.

With Unleashed, you're given very little options in what you're capable of doing because avoiding most hazards require little more than the press of a button, or occasionally a series of, the game(or in this case the boost) does the rest of the work for you. So I don't really think people are wrong for wanting more to do, or the fact that this hyperbole exists in the first place because the Modern gameplay doesn't really pride itself on a lot more than raw speed and quick reaction.

Plenty of actions in any platformer do not require heavy thought process or input. That's the thing with platformers: you're given a small set of actions that react in a predictable manner to certain obstacles, thus utilizing them does not require any significant amount of effort or input, and this goes doubly-so for more modern platformers that are specifically and intentionally designed to be completed most optimally in a twitchy, reactionary manner. Most times in most platformers, a jump will do the trick, which amounts to only a single button press.

While I admit I was being testy, I subsequently don't think I'm being unfair by utilizing proper definitions when negative terms are being thrown around at any and everything someone doesn't like, at least not anymore than everyone else who get away consistently with blatant hyperbole all the time and I'm apparently expected as a fan of these games to just be perfectly fine with it. I also don't fault anyone for wanting more to do, however. I've agreed with this sentiment many times in the past. I don't fault anyone for not liking the modern gameplay either. But at the same time, I know what a QTE is.

[Anti Alias]

I kinda feel this one thing I will miss from Sonic 06 and the Adventure series.

theses games used to demand much more input from the player in my opinion, than the games using the Unleashed formula.

I miss that.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Anti Alias

[Blue Blood]

Again, you are not describing anything out of the ordinary in a platformer because platformers are some pretty binary games. If you don't press the right button or do the right action at the right time, guess what: you're gonna fail, either by taking damage, falling back somewhere, or dying. That's pretty standard for the genre. The only significant difference I personally see is that the modern games merely have smaller margins for error.

The difference is, all you're doing in modern games is running really fast in straight line, and that is purely the way you're encouraged to play. It's so straightforward. The only time you slow down is for some generic, uninteresting and blocky platforming as everyone says. Whatever you do to progress through the stages is so unsatisfying. Run fast and react on time. There's no margin for error or for more involvement. What I'm describing is out of the ordinary for other platformers because their gameplay isn't binary. And when it is, you know it sucks.

Oh look, it's this topic again.

[Dizcrybe]

Most of the exciting parts of the gameplay in Generations was done through a button...or three.

...really? I seem to remember actually having to manually navigate Sonic those platforming sections in Crisis City.

[Mr. Taxi]

Please people: Stop calling everything that requires a quick reaction time a QTE.

Alright, we will - except when said action that requires a quick reaction time is a QTE. Like in Sonic Unleashed.

But even if we discount those... if you have a game in which you press two or three buttons for 2 hours and then, in a split second, you need to use a fourth button (even if it was assigned beforehand), how is that any different from an actual QTE? If the problem with QTEs is not in itself, but in what it does to the flow, couldn't events that have the same effect be considered just as evil? If there is a move that is ridiculously underpowered and has no usage in 99% of the game, the other 1% being in a situation in which it's obligatory and you simply can't proceed without it, how - again - is that any different from a QTE?

Such events in Touhou, though, wouldn't be as startling as QTEs because the whole game is based around quick reaction times and knowing when to press each button. It would be different, because the usual controls wouldn't be suddenly broken. The established controls aren't more important than the controls a player is used to.

You need not be a computer and be able to "grasp the whole situation" in order to be able to favor certain concepts as a player, or to use concepts at the exclusion of others as a developer. Balance of general concepts also doesn't inherently ensure your bases as a developer are covered either.

It's because we can't that we have to favour certain concepts. We'll end up, inevitably. Right now you are favouring, well, favouring while I'm favouring balance, so it's really impossible not to do so. But the thing is that when you put a game on the market, you have to rely on something in order to be successful, be it the sheer craziness of the game or the safety of balancing the concepts it uses. You can't just favour it and let it at that.

This isn't true because it's not reflected in the market. Every Call of Duty game does significantly better than its prequel, and the last few installments have been the biggest entertainment openings of all time, yet you'll find no shortage of opposition to its near unchanging multiplayer systems and linear, set-piece laden campaigns. The games are linear and thus lack choice compared to something like Spec Ops, which is notable for including very meaningful choices in the game along with other qualities. So why is CoD selling more every year despite its relatively narrow gameplay possibilities? Because people find more fun within the existing game than in other shooters. It doesn't matter that the game itself is limited. Who is anyone to say to millions that their own genuine experiences of joy are invalid in some way just because the game isn't more open? An open game isn't the only way- or even the best way- to have fun.

Stop stealing my words. That's exactly what I'm saying. If you make an open game, you take out the possibility of the linearity. Openness is not inherently good, nor is linearity inherently bad. But to give the possibility, to a player, to taste both as s/he sees fit is to ensure both will not be disappointed by this particular duality. That's where "substance generates style, but style doesn't generate substance (at first)". If you have a game that has a solo campaign and a great multiplayer system like CoD does, you effectively raise the chances of more people liking the game. Because some may like for the linearity and some, for the possibilities of the multiplayer mode.

True balance, you see, includes balance between chaos and balance itself.

Instead, to me, the game market is dictated mainly by what is considered "popular," and this popularity is not necessarily and inherently always predicated on technical quality, fun, or whether the games are full of meaningful choice in comparison to their competition (yet you can still make easy correlations anyway). Call of Duty is popular, Mario is popular, Pokemon is popular, thus these will be the games that will be constantly topping the sales charts regardless of whether they're technically competent, innovative, or full of choice compared to the closest competition. In the case of Sonic, I've already lamented before that non-Mario platformers aren't popular anymore, so it doesn't inherently matter how much the quality of his games increase through whatever arbitrary means you believe are necessary (though we should still strive for good games!) The objective qualifications of the game cease to be a significant factor in his success because there is effectively little demand for a Sonic game anyway.

But what - I ask you - makes a game popular? Circumstances. It's not inherent to the game. The market also dictates the games that will be popular (not in such a literal way, but). If the market is lacking a character game with a strong personality that can be used to represent a rising value in society (or more than one), a game like Sonic will be bound to be successful. Cue someone to embody such things in a game.

I'm not discussing this in terms of an unrealistic binary "appealing to everyone or appealing to one" scenario. You can (or will be forced to) have a limited framework yet can still present a comparatively high number of choices within that framework. All games are limited, but some games can have more choices than others, which in turn allows comparisons and the words "linear" and "open" to be thrown around all willy-nilly with at least some semblance of common understanding as to what they mean in the context of a discussion.

Anyway, I completely disagree that a game has to be perfectly unique or reinvent the genre in order to effectively limit its options. This is completely unrealistic to me and again not reflected with what we see in people's buying habits. If nothing else, we like the same things over and over again, and things that are "unique" are generally pushed to the wayside because they're simply too niche (Of course there are exceptions, but I would argue Journey owes a lot of its success on the excellent rapport of the studio that made it as its actual gameplay). Many of the highest-selling franchises have comparatively little innovation or differentiation between installments or to its competitors, yet they're still the high-sellers. Sometimes, they only appeal to a certain demographics, like teenage males. It doesn't hamper their success. Again, it goes back to my idea that what's "popular" is ultimately what sells, quality, choice, openness, and uniqueness be damned.

And, once again, nothing becomes popular out of the blue. Because gameplay is not even the most important thing in making a game popular, but how it is presented. Present a Sonic game as a fast-paced character game and make it mean something. It will become popular because people will get attached to it - or to what it means. Once this ceases to exist, the appeal also vanishes. It's not the game, it's the role it plays - damn quality, choices, openness or whatever. Uniqueness, though, plays a factor because it creates roles.

We must be talking about different things, because I'm not sure what you're talking about right here. Could you elaborate?

Take that post from Dio in which he talks about the sections in SMG2 in which he "wasn't supposed to go" but he can anyway. This definition of "wasn't supposed to go" refers to where the game is (not) pointing. Level design bends the interest of the player with certain elements - namely risk, reward, collectables, challenges. The nature of the player can lead him or her to abide to these directions or not. Perfection in time or exploring are both valid ways to play, but if a game doesn't reward both, it will be already boring for some. Or that particular section anyway. This is, of course, small compared to choices of destiny and stuff like the comparison between ShTH and Sonic Unleashed, but just as important. There are too many instances of choice and bending to simply dismiss one. That's the substance.

[Platinumb]

...really? I seem to remember actually having to manually navigate Sonic those platforming sections in Crisis City.

That wasn't the "exciting parts" I was talking about.

The parts I am talking about is the Big Chomper scene in GHZ,

falling platforms in Sky Sanctuary,

skyscraper scene in Speed Highway,

GUN Truck chase in City Escape,

and Rooftop Run's corridor sections that have you utilising the shoulder buttons to dodge incoming barrels or lasers.

I am not talking about the platforming sections.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Platinumb

[Mr. Taxi]

Now it must look like I loathe stylish show-off. I don't. Substance is nothing if there isn't anything to highlight it. Sonic Advance suffered from this... even though Egg Rocket and Cosmic Angel do have their share of style. Sonic & Knuckles would be nothing without the amazing transition between SKy Sanctuary and Death Egg. Not everything has to be playable. Let's put it like this: the game is a baloon; substance is the air that fills it and style is the needle that pops it. If you have a lot of substance in the game but it doesn't pop, it's dull. However, a game that gets popped a lot of times with too little air in it is equally dull.

[Nepenthe]

The difference is, all you're doing in modern games is running really fast in straight line, and that is purely the way you're encouraged to play. It's so straightforward. The only time you slow down is for some generic, uninteresting and blocky platforming as everyone says. Whatever you do to progress through the stages is so unsatisfying. Run fast and react on time. There's no margin for error or for more involvement. What I'm describing is out of the ordinary for other platformers because their gameplay isn't binary. And when it is, you know it sucks.

Oh look, it's this topic again.

All you do in most platformers, or what their level design generally encourages you to do, is to run from point A to point B, and the overwhelming majority of obstacles and enemies in platformers generally do have binary outcomes, and subsequently singular methods for defeating them. They are not inherently so divorced from the modern games in the regard of offering genuine choice other than them merely having larger margins for error: you have more space to complete a given action that you may in the modern games. But fucking up is generally fucking up.

Regardless, you're right about one thing: this is certainly a dead-horse topic.

But even if we discount those... if you have a game in which you press two or three buttons for 2 hours and then, in a split second, you need to use a fourth button (even if it was assigned beforehand), how is that any different from an actual QTE? If the problem with QTEs is not in itself, but in what it does to the flow, couldn't events that have the same effect be considered just as evil? If there is a move that is ridiculously underpowered and has no usage in 99% of the game, the other 1% being in a situation in which it's obligatory and you simply can't proceed without it, how - again - is that any different from a QTE?

I don't remember a case, much less an overwhelming number of cases in Unleashed, where the pacing was broken because you were told to do an action you hadn't done before at all, either in terms of the basic actions you had at the outset or the abilities you would gain later like the Stomp, because they would take the time to give you a benign instance to use this ability on in the hubs to take advantage of these abilities and to be aware of them. So while you can argue this can be considered a QTE (I wouldn't under my definition; I'd just call it plain ol' dickery), the situation you're talking about effectively doesn't exist to any notable degree for the modern games anyway.

It's because we can't that we have to favour certain concepts. We'll end up, inevitably. Right now you are favouring, well, favouring while I'm favouring balance, so it's really impossible not to do so. But the thing is that when you put a game on the market, you have to rely on something in order to be successful, be it the sheer craziness of the game or the safety of balancing the concepts it uses. You can't just favour it and let it at that.

I'm not sure what you're talking about as I don't believe I've said what you indicated. Of course you need to rely on something for your game to be successful, but in terms of relying on your game's objective qualities to help determine success, that something does not have to be mere balance or openness. A game can be closed, or linear, or limited in choice, either inherently or compared to its closes competition, and still be successful.

Stop stealing my words. That's exactly what I'm saying. If you make an open game, you take out the possibility of the linearity. Openness is not inherently good, nor is linearity inherently bad. But to give the possibility, to a player, to taste both as s/he sees fit is to ensure both will not be disappointed by this particular duality. That's where "substance generates style, but style doesn't generate substance (at first)". If you have a game that has a solo campaign and a great multiplayer system like CoD does, you effectively raise the chances of more people liking the game. Because some may like for the linearity and some, for the possibilities of the multiplayer mode.

But that doesn't ensure there will be no disappointment. All that means that you're catering to two groups. But if one thing takes precedence over the other, either through popularity or quality, you are still in some way disappointing the group whose favorite feature of the game is not taking precedence. Or, in the worst case scenario, if a "balanced approach" sinks both elements because they are not given the elaboration they deserve, everyone walks away unhappy. True balance is very difficult to achieve in this vain and has sunk games before who have attempted the "appeal to everyone" approach. I hear Resident Evil 6 pretty much got blasted for that approach, and of course, most of the 3D Sonic games for including things the core audience- the Sonic fans- did not want, even though these other genres have found appeal in other places.

But what - I ask you - makes a game popular? Circumstances. It's not inherent to the game. The market also dictates the games that will be popular (not in such a literal way, but). If the market is lacking a character game with a strong personality that can be used to represent a rising value in society (or more than one), a game like Sonic will be bound to be successful. Cue someone to embody such things in a game.

Holes in the market do not necessarily mean that the games that fill them will be massively successful. There's probably a significant lack of accurate horse domestication sims out there that would probably sit very well for young girls interested about horses, especially if they're farm hands, but there being a lacking supply, or a hole so to speak, doesn't in turn imply that the demand is large enough or will ever become large enough to warrant bothering investing the funds. Subsequently, I absolutely don't see a future for Sonic where he's selling ten million copies (not that he even ever did before in the first place,) in the same way I don't see major animation studios in America ever pumping out tens of theatrical shorts a year as they did in the 40s and 50s. Just as the theatrical animation short had their golden era, platformers have had theirs.

Take that post from Dio in which he talks about the sections in SMG2 in which he "wasn't supposed to go" but he can anyway. This definition of "wasn't supposed to go" refers to where the game is (not) pointing. Level design bends the interest of the player with certain elements - namely risk, reward, collectables, challenges. The nature of the player can lead him or her to abide to these directions or not. Perfection in time or exploring are both valid ways to play, but if a game doesn't reward both, it will be already boring for some. Or that particular section anyway. This is, of course, small compared to choices of destiny and stuff like the comparison between ShTH and Sonic Unleashed, but just as important. There are too many instances of choice and bending to simply dismiss one. That's the substance.

What I'm getting from this is that any game that basically allows you to go to some area that may or may not compensate you for bothering to go there is inherently better or more substantial than the one that restricts your focus to some degree- whether it be by focusing on precision or exploration- but will always adequately reward you for the effort?

[Mr. Taxi]

I don't remember a case, much less an overwhelming number of cases in Unleashed, where the pacing was broken because you were told to do an action you hadn't done before at all, either in terms of the basic actions you had at the outset or the abilities you would gain later like the Stomp, because they would take the time to give you a benign instance to use this ability on in the hubs to take advantage of these abilities and to be aware of them. So while you can argue this can be considered a QTE (I wouldn't under my definition; I'd just call it plain ol' dickery), the situation you're talking about effectively doesn't exist to any notable degree for the modern games anyway.

Well, I'm not pointing fingers to Unleashed anyway - I'm just saying that not only QTEs are QTEs (but dickery is a great way to call it, too). I can, though, remember sections in Sonic Colors that do that. Planet Wisp, with the slide. You could say that or those weird rocket(s) in Eggmanland is an example too, but it's not... quite.

I'm not sure what you're talking about as I don't believe I've said what you indicated. Of course you need to rely on something for your game to be successful, but in terms of relying on your game's objective qualities to help determine success, that something does not have to be mere balance or openness. A game can be closed, or linear, or limited in choice, either inherently or compared to its closes competition, and still be successful.

That I don't see how. I have never seen a case of a game to be considered generally limited upon its release, especially under comparison with direct competitors, but that was succesful anyway. Games can be successful being limited in one aspect or other, but I don't know of an example of a popular game without saving graces whatsoever in terms of uniqueness or distinctive presentation.

But that doesn't ensure there will be no disappointment. All that means that you're catering to two groups. But if one thing takes precedence over the other, either through popularity or quality, you are still in some way disappointing the group whose favorite feature of the game is not taking precedence. Or, in the worst case scenario, if a "balanced approach" sinks both elements because they are not given the elaboration they deserve, everyone walks away unhappy. True balance is very difficult to achieve in this vain and has sunk games before who have attempted the "appeal to everyone" approach. I hear Resident Evil 6 pretty much got blasted for that approach, and of course, most of the 3D Sonic games for including things the core audience- the Sonic fans- did not want, even though these other genres have found appeal in other places.

But that's yet another issue. To do something doesn't mean you'll do it well. Disappointment usually comes after expectations and, in this case, expectations comes with marketing. If you only advertise a game as fast and make it slow, there's no payoff. But if it's supposedly fast and edgy, but it's actually slow, the edgy factor may still stand. And then it will all depend on whether the person was taken by the "fast" or the "edgy" part of it.

And, once again, it's a matter of comparison. In order to be fast, you just need to be faster than your competition. It was somewhat easy for Sonic to be faster than Mario, but when games like F-Zero and Burnout come into play, your appeal must go somewhere else. And that disappoints.

Holes in the market do not necessarily mean that the games that fill them will be massively successful. There's probably a significant lack of accurate horse domestication sims out there that would probably sit very well for young girls interested about horses, especially if they're farm hands, but there being a lacking supply, or a hole so to speak, doesn't in turn imply that the demand is large enough or will ever become large enough to warrant bothering investing the funds. Subsequently, I absolutely don't see a future for Sonic where he's selling ten million copies (not that he even ever did before in the first place,) in the same way I don't see major animation studios in America ever pumping out tens of theatrical shorts a year as they did in the 40s and 50s. Just as the theatrical animation short had their golden era, platformers have had theirs.

It's not a hole. It's a new nerve and having a new nerve doesn't mean it'll be used. It's a process of natural selection, really, just like in real life. A horse domestication sim may not only appeal to farm hands - it depends on other features that will, in turn, make people like horse domestication sims. How the new game handles that determines how its market will expand.

I like to think that a game doesn't attract or cater a market, but, rather, creates one around it. It's made of different interests. Liking Sonic because he's fast or because he's blue doesn't really matter in the end, but making the whole franchise unidimensional is not creating potential.

What I'm getting from this is that any game that basically allows you to go to some area that may or may not compensate you for bothering to go there is inherently better or more substantial than the one that restricts your focus to some degree- whether it be by focusing on precision or exploration- but will always adequately reward you for the effort?

These are not the only options to satisfy a player's needs, but in a section in which you can only have both, yes. If you, as a player, will (for your own reasons) keep going ahead, what's counter-productive in making a more complete level design that also satisfies one's desire not to go ahead? The desire, though, is only created and fulfilled once the section happens to exist - but then it boils down to expectations. Restricting the focus is not the adequate expression, no. The focus is created and recreated in each section.

[KHCast]

personally I think it goes either way for how i like the balance of the two. I love those moments where Im able to actually explore and find new things,but I also love those thrilling moments when Im in aww(say what you want about Crisis city Gen. but that glass shattering part was one of the best spectacle moments in that game.) Thing like that or the RR clocktower segment are examples of the spectacle moments I want to stay. Just not be all over the place.

I just wonder if it is possible to have the Boost formula in some form or way work with a style Similar to what Dio was talking about whil having a bit of spectacle flare.

[Platinumb]

I can mind automated sections and the slightly less automated sections, but they must be used wisely. When used in places where you should be in control, it becomes a missed opportunity and then, for some, it will become a flaw.

[Diogenes]

All you do in most platformers, or what their level design generally encourages you to do, is to run from point A to point B, and the overwhelming majority of obstacles and enemies in platformers generally do have binary outcomes, and subsequently singular methods for defeating them. They are not inherently so divorced from the modern games in the regard of offering genuine choice other than them merely having larger margins for error: you have more space to complete a given action that you may in the modern games. But fucking up is generally fucking up.

Well, how do you deal with a goomba. In Super Mario World, let's say.

-You can avoid it. Jump over it, or run under it if it's on a ledge.

-You can jump on it. Since this is a SMW goomba, this'll stun it, but not destroy it.

--You can bounce a bit higher off the goomba by holding the jump button.

--You can pick up the stunned goomba to use it as a weapon.

--You can also try to combo-bounce enemies to get lives.

-You can spin jump on it. This'll destroy it, but you can't bounce from it.

-You can throw a shell or another goomba at it. This, of course, requires you to be carrying one.

--If it's another goomba, both will be killed.

--If it's a shell, it'll continue on, possibly hitting more enemies or ricocheting back at you.

-You can use a powerup (provided you have one)

--You can throw a fireball at it. This will destroy it and turn it into a coin.

--You can hit it with your cape. This stuns it.

--You can simply run through it with a star.

---Killing enough enemies with star power gives you lives.

This isn't even everything you can do with a goomba, and that's just one enemy; different enemies you can interact with in different ways to different ends.

[Chaos Warp]

Well, how do you deal with a goomba. In Super Mario World, let's say.

-You can avoid it. Jump over it, or run under it if it's on a ledge.

-You can jump on it. Since this is a SMW goomba, this'll stun it, but not destroy it.

--You can bounce a bit higher off the goomba by holding the jump button.

--You can pick up the stunned goomba to use it as a weapon.

--You can also try to combo-bounce enemies to get lives.

-You can spin jump on it. This'll destroy it, but you can't bounce from it.

-You can throw a shell or another goomba at it. This, of course, requires you to be carrying one.

--If it's another goomba, both will be killed.

--If it's a shell, it'll continue on, possibly hitting more enemies or ricocheting back at you.

-You can use a powerup (provided you have one)

--You can throw a fireball at it. This will destroy it and turn it into a coin.

--You can hit it with your cape. This stuns it.

--You can simply run through it with a star.

---Killing enough enemies with star power gives you lives.

This isn't even everything you can do with a goomba, and that's just one enemy; different enemies you can interact with in different ways to different ends.

Well, to be fair, Sonic always never had as many ways to interact with enemies as Mario did. Even in the classics, it was always either jump on them, roll/spindash through them, run through them with invincibility, or use one of the shield attacks, and they always died in 1 hit regardless. You could never pick them up or use them to interact with anything else or anything.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Chaos Wrapping Paper

[Diogenes]

Well, to be fair, Sonic always never had as many ways to interact with enemies as Mario did. Even in the classics, it was always either jump on them, roll/spindash through them, run through them with invincibility, or use one of the shield attacks, and they always died in 1 hit regardless. You could never pick them up or use them to interact with anything else or anything.

True, but I'm not comparing Mario to Sonic 1-to-1, just giving an example of how platformers can have a lot of different choices and a lot of different interactions even if the overall gameplay is just "get to the goal". It's not just success or failure, there's a whole range of options and possibilities.

[Nepenthe]

Well, I'm not pointing fingers to Unleashed anyway - I'm just saying that not only QTEs are QTEs (but dickery is a great way to call it, too). I can, though, remember sections in Sonic Colors that do that. Planet Wisp, with the slide. You could say that or those weird rocket(s) in Eggmanland is an example too, but it's not... quite.

There was a slide in Planet Wisp?

Anyway, my whole spiel in that vain was mostly that what the poster lamented about as a QTE wasn't really a QTE either literally or under the rather stretched hypothetical you presented either, thus I don't agree with lambasting the entirety of the modern gameplay as nothing more than just "lol QTEs."

That I don't see how. I have never seen a case of a game to be considered generally limited upon its release, especially under comparison with direct competitors, but that was succesful anyway. Games can be successful being limited in one aspect or other, but I don't know of an example of a popular game without saving graces whatsoever in terms of uniqueness or distinctive presentation.

I'm talking about "limited" in the context of the number of potential options you are given in the gameplay to do something. For example, Call of Duty is pretty much a hallway shooter. There isn't much area to travel, enemies can spawn from predictable areas and defeat the challenge in some places, many sequences are completely scripted to appear flashy but require no input whatsoever, and sometimes when presented with a choices (ex. "shoot this guy or that guy"), the outcome is ultimately pre-determined or pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. There's other shooters that are more open in terms of combat strategy and campaign, such as Spec Ops, and they also have good multiplayer modes. But Call of Duty is doing gangbusters compared to these anyway. CoD is pretty limited, but this doesn't mean it isn't fun.

But that's yet another issue. To do something doesn't mean you'll do it well. Disappointment usually comes after expectations and, in this case, expectations comes with marketing. If you only advertise a game as fast and make it slow, there's no payoff. But if it's supposedly fast and edgy, but it's actually slow, the edgy factor may still stand. And then it will all depend on whether the person was taken by the "fast" or the "edgy" part of it.

Essentially, I think what we're both getting at is that there's a lot of variables in play that will determine how successful a game is for someone or in the market. This has ultimately been the point I've been trying to put across in this argument and many others for quite some time: there's not many hard and fast rules on what specific qualities are ultimately better for games. So when someone says, "Openness/balance are always better than linearity," or a statement to that extent, my mind immediately thinks they're full of shit. Games with these qualities compared to others can fail. Games that are linear can succeed. Games are an art and thus entirely free to coalesce any existing qualities they so choose into their own experiences, depending on what the intent of the developer is, so I'm not entirely on board with this crusade against mere linearity that's been going on. This doesn't prohibit you from having preferences of course, but they're just that; preferences.

And, once again, it's a matter of comparison. In order to be fast, you just need to be faster than your competition. It was somewhat easy for Sonic to be faster than Mario, but when games like F-Zero and Burnout come into play, your appeal must go somewhere else. And that disappoints.

Sonic is not directly competing with F-Zero and Burnout; they're in completely different genres. If I want to go fast in a car, I'll play Burnout. If I want to go fast in a platformer, Sonic's always been the obvious choice. Similarly, the existence and my love of Contra does not draw me away from playing CoD just because they both have guns.

It's not a hole. It's a new nerve and having a new nerve doesn't mean it'll be used. It's a process of natural selection, really, just like in real life. A horse domestication sim may not only appeal to farm hands - it depends on other features that will, in turn, make people like horse domestication sims. How the new game handles that determines how its market will expand.

You specifically called it a hole in the market. xP

Anyway, if people are being drawn to a horse domestication sim because of the "other features" and not inherently because it's a horse domestication sim, then that effectively says nothing about the demand for a horse domestication sim. I could just take those same "features" and repackage them under any other related theme and theoretically get the exact same result in terms of success. But again, I don't think this is something effectively replicated in real life. There aren't too many instances of clones of the "successful" game completely dominating the original, even if the successful game was a clone itself.

I like to think that a game doesn't attract or cater a market, but, rather, creates one around it. It's made of different interests. Liking Sonic because he's fast or because he's blue doesn't really matter in the end, but making the whole franchise unidimensional is not creating potential.

I think it's potentially a mix of both, or sometimes just one or the other. People are attracted to specific ideas and gameplay styles. If I make a fighting game in this day and age, I am theoretically already targeting anyone and everyone who plays fighting games. I'm not creating a fighting game market around me. It already exists due to the success of the genre. I can potentially create a new demand depending upon how successfully I make my game unique from the competition, or even just how well I manage to become popular (again, a game doesn't have to be totally unique or the first of its kind to be successful), but at the same time, I'm not starting from nothing either.

These are not the only options to satisfy a player's needs, but in a section in which you can only have both, yes. If you, as a player, will (for your own reasons) keep going ahead, what's counter-productive in making a more complete level design that also satisfies one's desire not to go ahead?

Nothing is counter-productive about that, but there is nothing counter-productive or wrong in forcing an exclusively forward-thinking or an exclusively exploratory mindset either. All three choices are perfectly valid concepts.

[Scar]

This is a tricky issue.

See, games which many in the fanbase consider to be flashy all-style, no substance; like Unleashed, are only spectacular if the player is good enough to make it spectacular. See any of the face-melting speed-runs of various stages in Unleashed and/or Generations and you see players exploit mechanics like the boost and air boost in ways Sonic Team didn't really intend them to be used and end up doing all sorts of cool shit, by bouncing off walls and small objects and sending themselves careening at pace through chunks of the stage (they're using the game's physics engine to do this shockingly enough)

Yes, these games do have their set-peices which barely involve interaction but at the same time, the spectacle isn't given to you, unless you consider the mere notion of going fast to be spectacular. It may indeed be spectacular at first, but then when you start getting better at the game, you find its not the speed that is spectacular, its the stuff you have to pull off at full pelt in order get a perfect run that really sends a nice jolt of seratonin down your spine. Its not just about going fast, but its about going fast in the most awesome way possible, without getting slowed down by obstacles.

The only problem Unleashed has with this, is that you need to be face-meltingly awesome at the game to get those levels of "FUCK YEAH" coursing through your veins. The biggest issue is that the spectacular-ness beyond the the blistering speed the boost allows, is simply inaccessible to the majority of players. I simply cannot do Arid Sands Day properly, no matter how hard I try. I simply do not have it in me. What Sonic Team needs to address in that respect is making the crowing moments of awesome more easily accessible to all the players. Make something a seasoned Sonic pro would consider mundane, seem completely and utterly mind-blowing to a noob. Get the so-called "self-fulfilling spectacle" to infiltrate ever layer of player skill and not just be there for those playing at the highest level.

Yeah, there also needs to be a balance and a little more "substance" to the Sonic gameplay. Something that boosting may simply not provide (hey, here's an idea, how about making the boost a Skill Shop upgrade?). I think its entirely plausible for a Sonic game to reach blinding speeds like Unleashed and deliver the same thrills without the boost in certain stages. In said stages, pulling off a maximum velocity perfect run would be crazy awesome. In a different type of stage, simply peforming the platforming perfectly fluidly, without stopping and starting, would feel awesome, because its offering up a different set of challenges to the player.

[Mr. Taxi]

There was a slide in Planet Wisp?

Anyway, my whole spiel in that vain was mostly that what the poster lamented about as a QTE wasn't really a QTE either literally or under the rather stretched hypothetical you presented either, thus I don't agree with lambasting the entirety of the modern gameplay as nothing more than just "lol QTEs."

The entirety, no... but the sections that act like that do bother me. And there isn't a slide in Planet Wisp but a part in which you have to slide.

I'm talking about "limited" in the context of the number of potential options you are given in the gameplay to do something. For example, Call of Duty is pretty much a hallway shooter. There isn't much area to travel, enemies can spawn from predictable areas and defeat the challenge in some places, many sequences are completely scripted to appear flashy but require no input whatsoever, and sometimes when presented with a choices (ex. "shoot this guy or that guy"), the outcome is ultimately pre-determined or pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. There's other shooters that are more open in terms of combat strategy and campaign, such as Spec Ops, and they also have good multiplayer modes. But Call of Duty is doing gangbusters compared to these anyway. CoD is pretty limited, but this doesn't mean it isn't fun.

Fun is elementary here. Sonic Unleashed is fun too. That doesn't eliminate the fact that there are other systems in the game that were new to the genre and most likely were influential to the point of making the others seem like copies of Call of Duty. I don't know much, but it seems it was more arcadeish than its competitors back then, with a forgiving life system and easy controls. This enhances the feeling derived from killing mindlessly as much as openness would, under the right circumstances.

It's that story all over again - a randomly-generated single screen level and an infinite maze deliver, in the end, the same thing. The ominous feeling in Space Invaders and in Majora's Mask is similar. So we must look everywhere to find the principles we are looking for.

Additionally... that's not actually related to the topic, but your analysis about "the grand scheme of things" - I don't know if it's too cunning. I mean, take Dynasty Warriors as an example. Even though its story is as linear as can be (understandably), the levels are all very open and have a life of their own. There are many choices to make at all times, but none is important. However, since the characters all play a small role in the grand scheme of things, this feeling of emptiness is blurred and the meaningless choices sort of... gain meaning anyway. I don't know, maybe it's the case with Call of Duty somehow.

Essentially, I think what we're both getting at is that there's a lot of variables in play that will determine how successful a game is for someone or in the market. This has ultimately been the point I've been trying to put across in this argument and many others for quite some time: there's not many hard and fast rules on what specific qualities are ultimately better for games. So when someone says, "Openness/balance are always better than linearity," or a statement to that extent, my mind immediately thinks they're full of shit. Games with these qualities compared to others can fail. Games that are linear can succeed. Games are an art and thus entirely free to coalesce any existing qualities they so choose into their own experiences, depending on what the intent of the developer is, so I'm not entirely on board with this crusade against mere linearity that's been going on. This doesn't prohibit you from having preferences of course, but they're just that; preferences.

Games that are linear can succeed and games that are open can both fail or succeed. The question is where and when. And here I am advocating that, with Sonic and right now, balance is more important.

Sonic is not directly competing with F-Zero and Burnout; they're in completely different genres. If I want to go fast in a car, I'll play Burnout. If I want to go fast in a platformer, Sonic's always been the obvious choice. Similarly, the existence and my love of Contra does not draw me away from playing CoD just because they both have guns.

Sonic is not directly competing with F-Zero and Burnout, comma, but both can compete. It's silly to ask whether Sonic is faster than Flash, but there is an underlying reason for people to do that: there can only be one avatar for the word "fast" in each one's mind. In gaming, if you advertise a franchise as the most violent, that's abstract enough for you to compare Madworld with Mortal Kombat. Some values do tie games from different genres together.

You specifically called it a hole in the market. xP

I did? Allow me to readjust the metaphor then. So there are holes, but games aren't solid - they are liquid in that there is never an exact match for the (latent, that's important) demands, but they are appropriate and can attend various demands according to its project and charisma.

Anyway, if people are being drawn to a horse domestication sim because of the "other features" and not inherently because it's a horse domestication sim, then that effectively says nothing about the demand for a horse domestication sim. I could just take those same "features" and repackage them under any other related theme and theoretically get the exact same result in terms of success. But again, I don't think this is something effectively replicated in real life. There aren't too many instances of clones of the "successful" game completely dominating the original, even if the successful game was a clone itself.

It does say a lot about the demand because a horse domestication sim is a lot of things, too many to call anything too inherent. It's a horse, a domestication and a sim game. Not everyone that likes horses will like it because it's about domesticating them (and not racing, for instance). Not everyone that likes horses and domestication will like it because it's a sim game (and not, I don't know, a shooter (?)). But, on the other hand, if an innovation under the sim genre is brought up, the sim fans will be automatically interested in spite of its general presentation - if such innovations are brought from other genres, that will also appeal to advocates of said genre. It's a world of possibilities, really.

Because games are art.

I think it's potentially a mix of both, or sometimes just one or the other. People are attracted to specific ideas and gameplay styles. If I make a fighting game in this day and age, I am theoretically already targeting anyone and everyone who plays fighting games. I'm not creating a fighting game market around me. It already exists due to the success of the genre. I can potentially create a new demand depending upon how successfully I make my game unique from the competition, or even just how well I manage to become popular (again, a game doesn't have to be totally unique or the first of its kind to be successful), but at the same time, I'm not starting from nothing either.

You are creating a market around it because you are uniting the fans of the fighting games (with - hopefully - new mechanics that said fans may or may not like) with the fans of the theme of the game. It's like you said: the mechanics can be ported between games, yes. Many variables define the success, as we said. Would Soul Calibur be as successful if it didn't have swords (even if having the very same mechanics)? It's important to notice that.

Same for Dead or Alive.

I may not be a fan of fighting games, but then what will define which fighting game I will pick? And once I do choose, I will meet the expectations of hardcore fighting game fans that like the same game as me for different reasons. In that sense, you do create a sect of fans completely different from any other. In fact, this creates a lot of double standards. I'm only this opinionated when Sonic is the subject, while I'm a complete, blind fanboy for Fate/Stay Night.

Nothing is counter-productive about that, but there is nothing counter-productive or wrong in forcing an exclusively forward-thinking or an exclusively exploratory mindset either. All three choices are perfectly valid concepts.

Indeed, no. But when? And why? This must be analyzed. Nothing is inherently wrong, but nothing is inherently right either.

[720]

I don't really mind the automated springs too much since the level design is usually quite linear anyway, but one thing I would really like the developers to consider is to scrap the boost and allow more free running. Even when you were just going to run forward anyway it still felt like you were in control of Sonic when you had to dodge obstacles without the boost to hold your hand.

[Nepenthe]

Fun is elementary here. Sonic Unleashed is fun too. That doesn't eliminate the fact that there are other systems in the game that were new to the genre and most likely were influential to the point of making the others seem like copies of Call of Duty. I don't know much, but it seems it was more arcadeish than its competitors back then, with a forgiving life system and easy controls. This enhances the feeling derived from killing mindlessly as much as openness would, under the right circumstances.

Competitive shooters like CoD are generally arcade-y by nature, nor is CoD really the first with a forgiving life system or easy-to-pick up controls. Halo, Unreal Tournament, Counterstrike, GoldenEye; just one of many examples of similarly-functioning titles before CoD rebranded itself into what it is today and took off. I would imagine the answers to CoD's success- like Sonic Adventure- lie in the fact that was indeed completely retooled, as well as the way its specific physics and systems actually feel to the player versus these other titles. After awhile, other shooters just don't feel as right or satisfying to play in a competitive ring simply because they're not CoD, at least to me. xP

It's that story all over again - a randomly-generated single screen level and an infinite maze deliver, in the end, the same thing. The ominous feeling in Space Invaders and in Majora's Mask is similar. So we must look everywhere to find the principles we are looking for.

Is the ominous feeling one gains in Space Invader's really all that similar to the one in Majora's mask? They present the concepts in such wildly different ways under wildly different circumstances that I find it hard to believe they're comparable on any notable level (and this is coming from someone who has not played MM).

Games that are linear can succeed and games that are open can both fail or succeed. The question is where and when. And here I am advocating that, with Sonic and right now, balance is more important.

Naturally I disagree, not only on the basis of my thoughts about the platformer genre in general, but also because the modern games are by and large successful if you're not only paying attention to the constant nagging in insular hardcore circles on the web.

Sonic is not directly competing with F-Zero and Burnout, comma, but both can compete. It's silly to ask whether Sonic is faster than Flash, but there is an underlying reason for people to do that: there can only be one avatar for the word "fast" in each one's mind. In gaming, if you advertise a franchise as the most violent, that's abstract enough for you to compare Madworld with Mortal Kombat. Some values do tie games from different genres together.

Sonic and The Flash are compared arbitrarily because they're both supersonic characters; this doesn't mean both cannot stand for the concept of speed, and subsequently that doesn't mean speed cannot be validly had in different contexts. For example, almost every game is "violent" to some degree. You could make an near-infinite number of comparisons for such a common element in games. But this doesn't mean all violence is comparable meaningfully. I highly doubt anyone ever said "Well, I already have Mortal Kombat; why would I ever need to play Madworld? Both are violent." The context is what's more important.

It does say a lot about the demand because a horse domestication sim is a lot of things, too many to call anything too inherent. It's a horse, a domestication and a sim game. Not everyone that likes horses will like it because it's about domesticating them (and not racing, for instance). Not everyone that likes horses and domestication will like it because it's a sim game (and not, I don't know, a shooter (?)). But, on the other hand, if an innovation under the sim genre is brought up, the sim fans will be automatically interested in spite of its general presentation - if such innovations are brought from other genres, that will also appeal to advocates of said genre. It's a world of possibilities, really.

Because games are art.

But this once again raises the question: are the sim fans staying for the innovation or for the actual horse simulator? If it's the innovation as you said, then if it is copied perfectly somewhere else in another instance, would they not theoretically buy just as well into the other game as they would the horse sim? Not even abandon it, but enjoy the game alongside the original? If that's true, you are effectively arguing that it is not the horse sim that was in demand after all, but the actual innovation. It just happened to be attached to a horse sim. This doesn't mean more horse sims will become the norm because there is now some clear "market need" for a horse sim. Rather, more sims will come out with that specific innovation, at least if the industry is smart.

You are creating a market around it because you are uniting the fans of the fighting games (with - hopefully - new mechanics that said fans may or may not like) with the fans of the theme of the game. It's like you said: the mechanics can be ported between games, yes. Many variables define the success, as we said. Would Soul Calibur be as successful if it didn't have swords (even if having the very same mechanics)? It's important to notice that.

Same for Dead or Alive.

I may not be a fan of fighting games, but then what will define which fighting game I will pick? And once I do choose, I will meet the expectations of hardcore fighting game fans that like the same game as me for different reasons. In that sense, you do create a sect of fans completely different from any other. In fact, this creates a lot of double standards. I'm only this opinionated when Sonic is the subject, while I'm a complete, blind fanboy for Fate/Stay Night.

To me, that's not a market so much as it is competition- while you are creating a fanbase, you are also effectively taking away buyers from someone else in that particular industry. But the market itself is the social systems under which you are able to sell something, one such being the potential people who may be interested in your product which in turn gives you incentive to make a game, not the mere fact that you did sell something successfully to some people. If that were the case, selling something without any competition whatsoever would be a market, but that's not; that's a pure monopoly. There's certainly a difference.

Anyway, Soul Caliber's success in the context of whether it's reliant on swords depends on whether or not people are coming to that specific fighting game specifically for swords or not. I can't answer for certain, but I highly doubt it; I imagine you could potentially replace the model of the swords with bo staffs and get roughly the same result. Rather, people are probably coming for a certain experience that Soul Calibur offers as a result of several of its properties: the arena styles, the hit detection, the moves, the blocks, checks, and counters, the actual cast of characters, etc..

Indeed, no. But when? And why? This must be analyzed. Nothing is inherently wrong, but nothing is inherently right either.

I agree with that, hence why I will always disagree when anyone says a game merely being linear is an inherent flaw in and of itself, which again is the ultimate point I'm arguing here. Analyzation is a whole other conversation. xP