Gameplay vs. Spectacle.

[Mr. Taxi]

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

But that's what I'm talking about down there. I'll come back to it in a minute.

EDIT: Ended up not coming back to it. Well, CoD's specific forgiving life system seems to have worked better, for whatever reason. So much so that GoldenEye - and that's the only one I can speak for - ended up copying it in the remake, even though the original was already forgiving enough.

It's a matter of synergy, I believe.

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).

Yes, even though it's not the same due to the fact that there is hope in MM (you can win the game, after all), while Space Invaders is a play-until-you-die game. The ominous feeling is shared in that both games have an ever-present element of destruction that is much bigger than you or your capabilities and you have to run against the time to prevent it from happening.

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.

So, with the premise that we disagree, we reach the conclusion that we disagree. Well, we should have seen that coming.

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.

Naturally, having one doesn't stop havng the other. You can read both the Archie Comics and whatever context The Flash is in. What I'm talking about is a much more subjective matter, though, in which you build an image for the franchise and for everything sorrounding it. It's lampshaded by Sonic's very purpose of existence: showing what the Mega Drive/Genesis could do. If he's fast enough, it shows how fluid the console could be - Sonic not only being a trademark for himself, but a trademark for SEGA.

In the current context, though, Sonic can't do much. His speed doesn't advertise for anyone but himself and, thus, the relevance of his speed character for Sonic himself is enhanced, hence - I suppose - why they've decided to focus on it. But, then, it acts almost as a flanderization of the franchise, which exposes this very enhanced component. Instead of being a SEGA game, it's a game for itself.

I don't know if I'm even expressing this adequately.

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.

But that's how it is. The horse sim part, though, is important, too, because the said innovations will be associated with the horse game. It could have been associated, yes, with whatever else, but happened to come with the horses and so it will stay. Pokémon's battle system could have come with any other game, but it's a staple in the Pokémon series. So the innovations under the RPG scene end up associated with the other aspects of the game, effectively creating the demand for the whole Pokémon package which can be copied further.

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.

See it from a distance. If a game has enough momentum to spread to other media, you'll have fans coming from all directions to the same franchise, which creates a small market of contradicting demands. The action figure section, the anime or cartoon section, the game section. Those who were introduced to anime by Sonic can start other interests. From this perspective, I think you can call it a market inserted in another market, yes. The conglomerate of such markets creates a culture.

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..

Sure, but the interaction between all of this creates a unique impression. If you take anything out, it will seem like it's no longer the same game. I must agree that we like the same things over and over (hence why people get married?), but the "thing" is made of thousand of small things.

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

Ah, it's not an inherent flaw, no. The same can be said about FFXIII, for instance. "Well it's linear" yes, so what?

Edited December 10, 2012 by Palas

[Anti Alias]

Don't you guys feel that Sonic Colors did a better job in that than Unleashed and Generations?

I mean, balancing speed vs input.

I don't know, but going fast in Colors feelt much more satisfying than in Sonic Unleashed or Generations for me.

[Platinumb]

It is not really about speed as if it was, this would have been the main complaint in Sonic 2 and so forth.

The issue is more like input vs. automation.

[Diogenes]

Don't you guys feel that Sonic Colors did a better job in that than Unleashed and Generations?

I mean, balancing speed vs input.

I don't know, but going fast in Colors feelt much more satisfying than in Sonic Unleashed or Generations for me.

In some ways. Not having you boost 99% of the time helped. But it was still a very linear and limited game, with most of the variety coming from the wisps rather than anything that's part of Sonic's own abilities.

[Skull Leader]

Both sides are right to an extent, but where is the line drawn? What type of levels should Sonic games strive for? Being the cool, edgy spectacle it advertises itself as, or something more akin to a traditional platforming title?

Personally I think the line is drawn whenever one approaches any of the two extremes: Sonic is not a methodic platformer like Mario nor a racing game.

As for what it should strive for: Balance between platforming and speed. After all the reason why the Genesis games were great was because the games were accessible and anyone could finish them at decent times, but like with the Sega games I love, only the most dedicated players could make a true spectacle with impressing speedruns that marvel those who see them.