What do you want from Sonic 2?
Stephen Jonke
game (as I'm hopeing)? If so, how should they handle it? Possiblities are
a SMW approach where you have 70 (or whatever it is) different acts you
go through in order, or (my preference) a game in which there is NO battery
backup and instead of going through 70+ acts to finish you only go through
a series about as big or possibly smaller then the current Sonic, BUT each
time you play it, it picks a different selection of worlds from a choice
of many (thousands? Maybe, but the cost of the game might be frighteningly
high if they had to develop that many worlds). Or maybe the player has some
control over which worlds get picked. Either way you increase the longevity
of the game even beyond SMW, because the game would be different every time.
The other biggies I'd like to see are: greater randomness -- the problem with
Mario and Sonic and many other games is the lack of randomness that limits
the replayability of the game. This would be helped greatly by the above
random world select approach, but you'd still have a lack of randomness within
any given act. On the other hand, if you get carried away with randomness,
it's much more difficult to be clever with the game and it might end up being
too generic. One possibility and another way to take advantage of the CD-ROM
would be to have many copies of the same exact act, but each having a
different set up of characters within the act, one of which is selected
randomly. Once you have the basic setup of an act, it should be relatively
easy and quick to pump out different versions of it, so the development cost
would be low and yet the approach would add randomness to the game without
losing the human element.
Also, I want to see Sonic have more special abilities. It's possible to get
carried away with this also and end up with an unplayable game so Sega needs
to be careful here. Any body have ideas as to what abilities Sonic should
have (keep in mind that he's a hedgehog!).
Two player mode! This goes without saying -- Genesis doesn't have enough
two player games. To ensure that no one has to wait very long before playing,
the players should alternate on losses of life AND ends of acts.
Any body have comments on the above suggestions or ideas of their own?
Steve
Chuck Machala
>What would people like to see Sega do with Sonic 2? Should it be a CD-ROM
>game (as I'm hopeing)? If so, how should they handle it? Possiblities are
>a SMW approach where you have 70 (or whatever it is) different acts you
>go through in order, or (my preference) a game in which there is NO battery
>backup and instead of going through 70+ acts to finish you only go through
>a series about as big or possibly smaller then the current Sonic, BUT each
>time you play it, it picks a different selection of worlds from a choice
>of many (thousands?
Very good idea! Who on the net works for a video game company? ...Are
you listening?
>Maybe, but the cost of the game might be frighteningly
>high if they had to develop that many worlds). Or maybe the player has some
>control over which worlds get picked. Either way you increase the longevity
>of the game even beyond SMW, because the game would be different every time.
Very much so.
>The other biggies I'd like to see are: greater randomness -- the problem with
>Mario and Sonic and many other games is the lack of randomness that limits
>the replayability of the game.
This is what is missing from 99% (maybe 100%) of video games on the market
and why I still like to play nethack! Is there some fundamental problem
with doing random worlds on NES, Sega, etc...? I know diddly about the
insides of these machines. My guess is the memory limitation on game
packs (which is pratically solved by going to CD's).
>This would be helped greatly by the above
>random world select approach, but you'd still have a lack of randomness within
>any given act. On the other hand, if you get carried away with randomness,
>it's much more difficult to be clever with the game and it might end up being
>too generic. One possibility and another way to take advantage of the CD-ROM
>would be to have many copies of the same exact act, but each having a
>different set up of characters within the act, one of which is selected
>randomly. Once you have the basic setup of an act, it should be relatively
>easy and quick to pump out different versions of it, so the development cost
>would be low and yet the approach would add randomness to the game without
>losing the human element.
Another way would be to modularize the worlds and randomly pick a set
of modules whenever a new world is generated. New colors and creatures
could be stuck in for each new world also. Of course, the design would
have to be such that the worlds generated wouldn't be disjointed or
incongruent.
>Also, I want to see Sonic have more special abilities. It's possible to get
>carried away with this also and end up with an unplayable game so Sega needs
>to be careful here. Any body have ideas as to what abilities Sonic should
>have (keep in mind that he's a hedgehog!).
>Two player mode! This goes without saying -- Genesis doesn't have enough
>two player games. To ensure that no one has to wait very long before playing,
>the players should alternate on losses of life AND ends of acts.
>Any body have comments on the above suggestions or ideas of their own?
All very good ideas. We need more randomness!
>Steve
Chuck
--
Suspicion Breeds Confidence
Chuck Machala Texas Instruments
Tom Schenck
>sjonk...@postman.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:
>
>>What would people like to see Sega do with Sonic 2? Should it be a CD-ROM
>>game (as I'm hopeing)? If so, how should they handle it? Possiblities are
>>a SMW approach where you have 70 (or whatever it is) different acts you
>>go through in order, or (my preference) a game in which there is NO battery
>>backup and instead of going through 70+ acts to finish you only go through
>>a series about as big or possibly smaller then the current Sonic, BUT each
>>time you play it, it picks a different selection of worlds from a choice
>>of many (thousands?
>
>Very good idea! Who on the net works for a video game company? ...Are
>you listening?
>
on it. If enough people actually like the idea (no, you guys don't have to
send me mail by the truck(disk?)loads).
[ stuff deleted ]
>
>>The other biggies I'd like to see are: greater randomness -- the problem with
>>Mario and Sonic and many other games is the lack of randomness that limits
>>the replayability of the game.
>
>This is what is missing from 99% (maybe 100%) of video games on the market
>and why I still like to play nethack! Is there some fundamental problem
>with doing random worlds on NES, Sega, etc...? I know diddly about the
>insides of these machines. My guess is the memory limitation on game
>packs (which is pratically solved by going to CD's).
>
Randomness is not a problem, as far as programming. I like randomness. I even
started out my current project with that in mind, and put it in. The head
honcho (ie, the one who pays us) said we need more predictability. It's hard
to get these things through the heads of some people, and some people just
don't know what people think. Get some letters together about this, send them
to the companies (ie, Atari, Sega, NEC, Nintendo), not to the developers. If
the BIG guys ask for more randomness (because you, the players, asked for it)
then the developers will do it.
>>This would be helped greatly by the above
>>random world select approach but you'd still have a lack of randomness within
>>any given act. On the other hand, if you get carried away with randomness,
>>it's much more difficult to be clever with the game and it might end up being
>>too generic. One possibility and another way to take advantage of the CD-ROM
>>would be to have many copies of the same exact act, but each having a
>>different set up of characters within the act, one of which is selected
>>randomly. Once you have the basic setup of an act, it should be relatively
>>easy and quick to pump out different versions of it, so the development cost
>>would be low and yet the approach would add randomness to the game without
>>losing the human element.
>
>Another way would be to modularize the worlds and randomly pick a set
>of modules whenever a new world is generated. New colors and creatures
>could be stuck in for each new world also. Of course, the design would
>have to be such that the worlds generated wouldn't be disjointed or
>incongruent.
>
This can be done, and actually, *I* wanted to do it with my current project,
but (in this case) memory *DID* get in the way. No, not cartridge space, but
memory in the machine. Hopefully, if we do another game like this one, or a
sequel (NOT just different levels) we will get a chance to try this again.
Disclaimer: I speak for myself, and no one but myself.
=============================================================================
Tom Schenck | mad...@crash.cts.com
Knight Technologies | "I think, therefore, uh,
San Diego, CA | um..."
=============================================================================
Gregory N. Houston
I agree that sonic could use more randomness. That would add a bit of luck to a game that consists of running through the same world over and over.
Should it have 70+ acts, NO, I dont like the games to take forever to play. However, how about multiple paths? Each time you play, you can choose to take different routes to the final goal. Each route would then provide a different adventure with its own difficulties. I have played a couple of games that worked like this. I enjoy playing them because the overall game length is about right (i.e. not too long). Also, it is fun to replay because there are different things to try each time.
For example, lets say the first stage is call "A". Somewhere in the stage, you will be able to go to stage "B" or stage "C". "B" then goes to stages "D" or "E". "C" goes to "F" or "G". At the end, all the stages could move to some common ending in stage "Z". Otherwise, they could lead to multiple endings. I would like to see two bosses at the end. One final boss that is common regardless of the paths choosen (i.e. the boss of stage "Z"). However, before reaching stage "Z", each seperate path would
have its own boss that you must pass before getting to stage Z. Note, I used the term "boss" here, however, the boss could be replaced by a puzzle.
Sonic could use puzzles to solve. He could find objects that he has to use to complete the stages. Here, multiple paths would come in handy. Harder puzzles would lead to higher scoring paths. However, easier puzzles would still allow players to enjoy conquering thoose paths until they figure out the more difficult ones.
Two player would be nice, however that would be hard to have two sonics running on the screen at the same time. At the least, the game needs to alternate turns between two or more players.
In summary, I would like to see: randomness, multiple paths, puzzles, multi player option, and multiple endings.
Greg Houston
ghou...@eng.auburn.edu
James Hague
>
>What would people like to see Sega do with Sonic 2?
My personal opinion is that Sega shouldn't waste its time with Sonic
2. The Sonic/Mario/Bonk sorta things aren't really games, just a bunch
of completely unrelated stuff all mashed together into a single
cartridge. The only common thread throughout the game is the fact that
there is a hedgehog (or caveman or plumber) onscreen.
This is completely against the way that most "real" games work.
Baseball is fun (if you like baseball) even though all the innings
follow the same structure. You don't need to add an Alien Inning (in
which aliens swoop down and interfere with the ball), a Dinosaur
Inning, a Fireball Inning, and so on, just to keep the players'
interest. The game is fun because it is a fun game, not because it is
chock-full of hidden surprises. If you want lots of variety, then play
several different games--there's no point in one game trying to be
everything. All of the superficial little additions are entertaining
the first few times, but just get old after that.
>The other biggies I'd like to see are: greater randomness -- the problem with
>Mario and Sonic and many other games is the lack of randomness that limits
>the replayability of the game.
I agree that one of the biggest problems with this type of game is
that there is practically no replay value. Heck, the enemies in
Sonic are always in exactly the same places! That's because Sonic is
really just a little script that the player runs through, it's not a
"live" environment.
My philosophy of game design is that first you design a world and the
laws and characteristics of that world, then you create creatures which
can live in this world and set them free in it. The buzzards in Joust
all have specific traits and a low form of intelligence--they don't
just follow a script, they interact with the playfield and player
according to a set of rules, with some random variation thrown in.
The designers of games like Sonic try to second guess everyone and
prescribe exactly what the player can and cannot do. If the designers
thought of it then you can do it, if they didn't then you can't. But
look at Klax. Atari's designers developed rules for scoring the tile
formations in the bin, but they didn't dictate specifically what
patterns you could create. This is demonstrated by the fact that some
high scoring patterns the designers hadn't thought of were discovered
after the game was completed. "Live" games such as Klax let the player
develop his own strategies and not be forced to follow a restricted set
of moves. Remember "hunting" in Asteroids? The designer's obviously
didn't think of that...
>One possibility and another way to take advantage of the CD-ROM
>would be to have many copies of the same exact act, but each having a
>different set up of characters within the act, one of which is selected
>randomly.
This is not really randomness, as each copy still follows a pattern. Each version of the same board would basically be a separate pattern-based level.
Does anyone agree with any of these points or you just putting up with
ramblings of a warped mind? I've done some game design before so I
have rather strong opinions on the subject. I like to think of game
designers having some form of artistic integrity. 'Course if Sega
offered me a bundle to crank out Sonic II and III I'd send my integrity
on vacation. Unfortunately, this is the way the industry works these
days.
--
James Hague
exu...@exu.ericsson.se
Martin F. Rose
exu...@exu.ericsson.se (James Hague) writes:
>Stephen Jonke writes:
>>
>>What would people like to see Sega do with Sonic 2?
>
>My personal opinion is that Sega shouldn't waste its time with Sonic 2.
[Mr. Hague's opinion of Sonic/Bonk/Mario continuity removed for no good reason]
>This is completely against the way that most "real" games work.
>Baseball is fun (if you like baseball) even though all the innings
>follow the same structure. You don't need to add an Alien Inning (in
>which aliens swoop down and interfere with the ball), a Dinosaur
>Inning, a Fireball Inning, and so on...
Hey, now *THERE*'s an idea!!! ;)
[more of Mr. Hague's philosophy deleted, still for no good reason]
>Does anyone agree with any of these points or you just putting up with
>ramblings of a warped mind?
I could say something at this point, but... ;) Seriously though (yeah,
right), your points about Klax and Joust are valid and well taken. Of
course, the playfield was much smaller in Klax and Joust...
> I've done some game design before so I
>have rather strong opinions on the subject. I like to think of game
>designers having some form of artistic integrity. 'Course if Sega
>offered me a bundle to crank out Sonic II and III I'd send my integrity
>on vacation.
That's the good ol' American spirit! :)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
The High Diggy-Doo of | Free TV | "Stupid" is a
Koala-Wala Land (Martin Rose) | -------------------------- | boundless
mfr...@engin.umich.edu | You Get What You Pay For | concept.
Stephen Jonke
>
> Stephen Jonke writes:
> >
> >What would people like to see Sega do with Sonic 2?
>
> My personal opinion is that Sega shouldn't waste its time with Sonic
> 2. The Sonic/Mario/Bonk sorta things aren't really games, just a bunch
> of completely unrelated stuff all mashed together into a single
> cartridge. The only common thread throughout the game is the fact that
> there is a hedgehog (or caveman or plumber) onscreen.
>
> This is completely against the way that most "real" games work.
> Baseball is fun (if you like baseball) even though all the innings
> follow the same structure. You don't need to add an Alien Inning (in
> which aliens swoop down and interfere with the ball), a Dinosaur
> Inning, a Fireball Inning, and so on, just to keep the players'
> interest. The game is fun because it is a fun game, not because it is
> chock-full of hidden surprises. If you want lots of variety, then play
> several different games--there's no point in one game trying to be
> everything. All of the superficial little additions are entertaining
> the first few times, but just get old after that.
>
Sonic/Mario/Bonk are an entirely different type of game from baseball, Klax,
etc.. I enjoy the "little additions" as you call them and yes after finishing
the game a several times you don't play it that much, but while I am playing
Sonic I enjoy it more then Klax, Tommy Lasorda, etc.. So, I want Sonic 2,
but I want it to be even better. I think the CD-ROM offers the possibility
to do that via the techniques I've mentioned and I hope that others will
come up with good ideas to improve it as well. With a little luck, someone
involved in the development of Sonic 2 will be listening and maybe we'll
see some of our ideas or some variation on them incorporated in to it! And
if not, it's still fun to think about ways it can be improved.
Clearly there are people who like Sonic and there are people who don't --
it's all a matter of taste. So, please lets NOT have a "I like
Sonic/Mario/Bonk VS I hate Sonic/Mario/Bonk" thread -- we've already had
enough of them!
Steve
Milton W. Kuo
>>
>>What would people like to see Sega do with Sonic 2?
>
>My personal opinion is that Sega shouldn't waste its time with Sonic
>2. The Sonic/Mario/Bonk sorta things aren't really games, just a bunch
>of completely unrelated stuff all mashed together into a single
>cartridge. The only common thread throughout the game is the fact that
>there is a hedgehog (or caveman or plumber) onscreen.
Why would you say such a thing like this? Especially about a
game like Super Mario World? I definitely don't think that SMW is
"just a bunch of unrelated stuff all mashed together into a single
cartridge" and I think just about everybody else on this newsgroup
will agree with me. While I was not totally thrilled with Sonic,
I'm open for a sequel and it would be nice if it had some of the
puzzles Super Mario World does.
I just don't understand your viewpoint on games sometimes. I
do not get taken away with graphics so much that I ignore gameplay
so I feel that if I like a game, it probably won't be too bad even
in other people's eyes. Yet you don't seem to like any game other
than the old, "classic" ones. Are they really that good or is it
just nostalgia? I think the latter since I've played some oldies
recently and after I was done, I thought, "Gee. This wasn't as
fun as I remembered." Sure, there are some truly great old games
but there are also some really great new games and SMW is one of
them -- why else would there be four in the series so far? I per-
sonally feel that you have never really played these games for a
good amount of time and are just making gross generalizations.
>This is completely against the way that most "real" games work.
>Baseball is fun (if you like baseball) even though all the innings
>follow the same structure. You don't need to add an Alien Inning (in
>which aliens swoop down and interfere with the ball), a Dinosaur
>Inning, a Fireball Inning, and so on, just to keep the players'
>interest. The game is fun because it is a fun game, not because it is
>chock-full of hidden surprises. If you want lots of variety, then play
>several different games--there's no point in one game trying to be
>everything. All of the superficial little additions are entertaining
>the first few times, but just get old after that.
I don't think so. The surprises are intrinsic to the games
since the worlds that games take place in aren't the real world.
Furthermore, the additions are not superficial. In SMW, the addi-
tions are kind of like rewards for being good at the game. They
involve a risk incentive and reward you for being good at the game
with extra lives or other neat stuff. Note I'm using SMW as the
example and not Sonic. I do believe that Sonic does have superfi-
cial extras -- just running around everywhere and running into
walls looking for fake walls just to get a shield, more rings, or
something like that just isn't fun. Those of you who've played
both Super Mario World and Sonic The Hedgehog extensively will al-
most have to agree with me.
Back when I had my NES, I used to play Super Mario Brothers 1
all the time even though I had already finished the game. It was
just that fun. While I had other games for that system, there was
no other game that got as much play as SMB1 (Mega Man 2 came close
but I still played SMB1 at least twice as often).
>>The other biggies I'd like to see are: greater randomness -- the problem with
>>Mario and Sonic and many other games is the lack of randomness that limits
>>the replayability of the game.
[stuff deleted]
>The designers of games like Sonic try to second guess everyone and
>prescribe exactly what the player can and cannot do. If the designers
>thought of it then you can do it, if they didn't then you can't. But
>look at Klax. Atari's designers developed rules for scoring the tile
>formations in the bin, but they didn't dictate specifically what
>patterns you could create. This is demonstrated by the fact that some
>high scoring patterns the designers hadn't thought of were discovered
>after the game was completed. "Live" games such as Klax let the player
>develop his own strategies and not be forced to follow a restricted set
>of moves. Remember "hunting" in Asteroids? The designer's obviously
>didn't think of that...
Klax doesn't count because I can't think of any puzzle games
with patterns. Columns and Tetris don't have patterns as far as I
can tell. Furthermore, lurking in Asteroids is no big deal. In
fact, that is what I call a boring game. Nothing but level after
level of shooting rocks. Of course, Blasteroids was much better
but the most awesome shooting game I've seen is Strike Force.
>>One possibility and another way to take advantage of the CD-ROM
>>would be to have many copies of the same exact act, but each having a
>>different set up of characters within the act, one of which is selected
>>randomly.
>
>This is not really randomness, as each copy still follows a pattern. Each version of the same board would basically be a separate pattern-based level.
This is true. What I don't want to see in Sonic 2, if there
one, is just more of the stuff in the first one. If Sega could in-
clude most (well, actually all! :-) of the play elements from SMW,
then I would get Sonic 2 without second thought. As it stands, it
will be a game that I rent first.
>Does anyone agree with any of these points or you just putting up with
>ramblings of a warped mind? I've done some game design before so I
>have rather strong opinions on the subject. I like to think of game
>designers having some form of artistic integrity. 'Course if Sega
>offered me a bundle to crank out Sonic II and III I'd send my integrity
>on vacation. Unfortunately, this is the way the industry works these
>days.
I kind of wonder if this is the way industry works. Maybe at
Electronic Arts, yes. Why else would they crank out so many %$#@!
ports? I think that some of the software houses writing games are
putting out some pretty good stuff. While truly exceptional games
are extremely hard to find (and they weren't that abundant in the
"good ole days" either), they do exist and there are always very
good games. In many instances, very good games are enough since I
think it's expecting too much to always ask for exceptional games.
We'd never see games come out except maybe at the pace Lynx games
are coming out. :-) Sorry about that jab, Lynx folks. :-)
>--
>James Hague
>exu...@exu.ericsson.se
--
Milton W. Kuo
mil...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
James Hague
>
>>The other biggies I'd like to see are: greater randomness -- the problem with
>>Mario and Sonic and many other games is the lack of randomness that limits
>>the replayability of the game.
>
>This is what is missing from 99% (maybe 100%) of video games on the market
>and why I still like to play nethack! Is there some fundamental problem
>with doing random worlds on NES, Sega, etc...? I know diddly about the
>insides of these machines. My guess is the memory limitation on game
>packs (which is pratically solved by going to CD's).
The problem is that most games these days are fundamentally pattern
based. The objective is more to learn the patterns than to just play.
Nintendo started this trend, most likely because pattern-based games
don't require any skill or strategy, just a good memory and a high
tolerance for repetition, and thus can be "solved" by anyone willing to
invest enough time in front of the TV. Considering that Nintendo was
originally (and still is) targeting the younger set, this is a good
plan--it keeps kids from getting frustrated and gives them a sense of
mastery and complete familiarity. Remember, most kids can read the
same book (or watch _Home Alone_) 200 times without getting bored.
But I just don't have the patience to keep spending an hour plodding
through the first five maddeningly unchanging levels of Sonic just to
memorize a bit more of the Scrap Brain Zone (thank goodness for the
level select). Unfortunately, Nintendo started a trend and now these
sort of games are considered standard.
Of course, another major factor is that it is MUCH EASIER to design a
script-based follow-the-pattern game than to come up with a "live" game
which is different every time. With a script-based game, you know
*exactly* everything that can happen at any time, and you pretty much
know how the game will play before it is even written. The designers
of, say, Joust had no idea how playable or difficult their game would
be until they had a preliminary version. They didn't have to develop
the players' strategies for them, they just created a GAME and players
could do what they wanted. Anyhow, I agree with Chuck, this pattern
based junk is really screwing up most video games, especially the home
market.
I'm happy to see that Nintendo is working on two REAL games: Trog and
Smash TV (both for the Super NES). I'd appreciate any comments and/or
criticism, either via follow-ups or email.
--
James Hague
exu...@exu.ericsson.se
Bryan Newell
About Sonic 2 being on CD or not...
According to the owner of the Sega of America store here in Fayetteville,
Arkansas, Sonic 2 WILL be released on CD, as well as Super Monaco GP 2,
ToeJam & Earl, SimEarth, and Phantasy Star IV.
And, bad news, the American release of the Mega CD is being delayed from
January to sometime around March.
bryan newell (v...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu)
Michael Portuesi
My personal opinion is that Sega shouldn't waste its
time with Sonic 2.
Well, considering that Sonic is Sega's best-selling game,
it seems pretty likely there will be a sequel.
The Sonic/Mario/Bonk sorta things aren't really
games, just a bunch of completely unrelated stuff
all mashed together into a single cartridge. The
only common thread throughout the game is the
fact that there is a hedgehog (or caveman or
plumber) onscreen.
This may be true, but it does not invalidate the concept of
it being a game, or rule out the possibility that it is fun. I
had lots of fun playing Chip's Challenge on the Lynx, a game
which is chock-full of unrelated things. The fun thing it
did offer was some very creative puzzles to solve.
If you want lots of variety, then play several different
games--there's no point in one game trying to be
everything. All of the superficial little additions are
entertaining the first few times, but just get old after
that.
I really don't see any evidence that the Mario/Sonic/Bonk
games *are* trying to be everything. Their main challenge
is to present several timing/technique exercises, and some
puzzles to solve. That they have cute little additions is
pretty much akin to changing the kinds of enemies in a
shooting game.
I agree that one of the biggest problems with this
type of game is that there is practically no replay value.
Heck, the enemies in Sonic are always in exactly
the same places! That's because Sonic is really just a
little script that the player runs through, it's not a
"live" environment.
Yes, I agree with you that lack of replay value is a
big (probably the biggest) problem with this genre of game.
I'm still playing Mickey Mouse right now, but when I solve
it I don't expect to be playing it very often.
But that doesn't completely invalidate the concept of
such a game. Take a look at the Infocom series of adventure
games -- all of them solid, playable games in their own
right, lots of fun while you play them, zero play value after
you solve them.
Examples of zero replay value can be found in books and
movies, as well. A really good book can be an incredible
experience to read, but that doesn't mean that I want to
read it again after finishing it. The same goes for a movie.
Other art forms have lots of replay value -- paintings and
music are two examples.
Video games are an example of an art form where the
creation can have either a lot or a little replay value,
depending on the design. Because one type of game has
no replay value after a certain point doesn't mean that it
is automatically inferior to another.
My philosophy of game design is that first you design
a world and the laws and characteristics of that world,
then you create creatures which can live in this world
and set them free in it. The buzzards in Joust all have
specific traits and a low form of intelligence--they don't
just follow a script, they interact with the playfield and
player according to a set of rules, with some random
variation thrown in.
I just wanted to point out there is nothing preventing
something like this to be worked into a pattern-oriented
design. In Mickey Mouse, for example, the fish on Level
3 have some minimal intelligence, and try to follow Mickey
around when he swims through the water.
The designers of games like Sonic try to second guess
everyone and prescribe exactly what the player can and
cannot do. If the designers thought of it then you can
do it, if they didn't then you can't.
When you solve a crossword puzzle, you can only put in the
words that the designers thought up. When you watch a
movie or read a book, the only story is the one which is
filmed or written.
But look at Klax.
Atari's designers developed rules for scoring the tile
formations in the bin, but they didn't dictate specifically
what patterns you could create. This is demonstrated
by the fact that some high scoring patterns the
designers hadn't thought of were discovered after the
game was completed. "Live" games such as Klax let
the player develop his own strategies and not be
forced to follow a restricted set of moves. Remember
"hunting" in Asteroids? The designer's obviously
didn't think of that...
Which is something the video game can offer over other
media, because it is interactive and it is driven by a
computer. That does not mean that a game must make
use of the ability in order to play well. It can offer
solid play value in other ways. In the case of Mario,
Sonic, and Bonk, it offers play value through
timing/skill contests and puzzles to solve.
Does anyone agree with any of these points or you
just putting up with ramblings of a warped mind?
I've done some game design before so I have rather
strong opinions on the subject. I like to think of
game designers having some form of artistic integrity.
I don't disagree with your points. Certainly, excellent video
games do make good use of the things that the computer
can offer as no other medium can, like simulation and artificial
intelligence.
Most of the games which are very random within certain
limits are also pretty simple as well, because the work
required to program a true simulation rises pretty quickly as
the detail of the "world" being created increases. That's
why games which have big worlds tend to be either
pattern-based, like Mario/Sonic/Book, or tend to be
interactive books, like most of the fantasy RPG's
currently available (which a friend of mine claims are
actually tactical adventure games -- a claim with which,
I, and anybody else who has played true fantasy role-
playing games, would agree).
Perhaps one day somebody will create a game with
a huge, well-detailed world, populated with artifically
intelligent creatures and complex rules of behavior.
Games like Populous, Powermonger, SimCity, and
SimEarth point in this direction.
But I still maintain that Mario and Sonic, as limited
as they are, still manage to offer solid play value. The
real problem is that the gaming industry isn't giving
us enough variety - If all I could choose to eat were
ice cream and pizza at every restaurant I went
to, I'd get tired of them eventually.
m
--
Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics, Inc. port...@sgi.com
James Hague
>
>What to do with Sonic 2?
>
>I agree that sonic could use more randomness. That would add a bit of
>luck to a game that consists of running through the same world over and
>over.
Plus it would make the game require a bit more skill. The downside of
randomness is that is would frustrate players a bit more ("the game
cheated!"). You could be in a really tight spot, trying to time a
precise jump, and a robot bee-thing comes sailing on by...
One problem with Sonic is that some levels have lots of places to
explore and paths to take, but this is cancelled out by the only
objective being "get to the end of each level as fast as possible."
You even get a bonus depending on how fast you finish, which enforces
the "take the easiest/fastest path" philosophy.
An idea would be to repeat the same level multiple times (not
necessarily in a row), with each "trip" having a particular goal which
you need to achieve in order to finish--get 50 rings, or pick up 3 of a
new kind of video monitor, rescue two dozen animals, etc. This would
add depth to the game without requring more levels. If this idea was
done correctly, you would only need maybe six boards to have a really
nice game. Of course the "bottleneck boards" (all of Zone 2) would
have to be eliminated...
The emphasis should be on the game itself, not on "getting to the end"
or making it longer by adding nine zillion levels...
--
James Hague
exu...@exu.ericsson.se
Stephen Jonke
post (thanks to those that stuck to the original subject!). It doesn't seem
to matter what the original subject was, threads on usenet always seem to
turn into "X vs. Y" and "How do I hate X? Let me count the ways..." battles.
Well, if this keeps up, I'll be limiting my posts and what I read to for
sale messages. So please, PLEASE, if you wish to discuss why you hate Sonic
or Mario or all video games or people who enjoy playing any video game,
please take the discussion to another thread! Let me clarify who the
original post was intended for -- people who LIKED Sonic 1 and want to see
Sonic 2. We've already had about 1.2 billion threads discussing whether or
not people who like Sonic should be executed, and we don't need another one!
Steve
James Hague
>
> Why would you say such a thing like this? Especially about a
>game like Super Mario World?
> I just don't understand your viewpoint on games sometimes
WHAP! Thanks Milton, I needed that! :-) I tend to wax a bit
philisophical and get overly idealistic now and then, but I'll try to
tone it down.
My rantings were mostly directed at memorize-the-pattern games in
general. First of all, I know that there have been such games in the
past, Super Cobra for example. IMO, Nintendo started writing games
which are exactly the same every time you play because they were
targeting a very young audience and patterns give little kids a sense
of familiarity and let them more easily master the games--kids thrive
on patterns and don't get bored by repetition very easily. My
complaint was that everyone seems to have blindly followed this trend
and now pattern-based games are the norm.
This is my big complaint with Sonic, that EVERYTHING is always the same
every time you play. Don't get me wrong, I like Sonic. And I also
like the Mario games. In fact, I think the that Super Mario Brothers
games are very well designed and really introduced a new type of video
game. But IMO, the designers of Sonic didn't really understand what
makes the Mario games tick and created a superficial clone that is
visually incredible. Still, Sonic is fun and is one of the few high
points of the Genesis market.
You are right in that there are very few good games, especially for
home systems. You are also right in that many so-called classic games
have only become so through years of nostalgic build-up. There are
some really lousy games out there, and there always have been. But now
they cost $50-$70 a pop, so I have higher expectations...
Just for the record, Klax is cool. So is Super Monaco GP. And
Strike Force is GREAT!
--
James Hague
exu...@exu.ericsson.se
Jason Glor
>Gregory N. Houston writes:
>>
>>What to do with Sonic 2?
>>
>>I agree that sonic could use more randomness. That would add a bit of
>>luck to a game that consists of running through the same world over and
>>over.
>
>Plus it would make the game require a bit more skill. The downside of
>randomness is that is would frustrate players a bit more ("the game
>cheated!"). You could be in a really tight spot, trying to time a
>precise jump, and a robot bee-thing comes sailing on by...
>
of like the randomness, but I really hate it when a ghost gets in
the way when you are going to make a springboard jump. You have to
wait for him to go away and then Sue comes after you. Or you can
risk it either 1) You hit him. Oops, now you're dead. 2) You land on
his head, run across it and fall of into the water (because you've
lost that magical springboard floating power. or 3) You actually
made it, you lucky dog. If there are two ghosts in your way, #3
never happens.
--
| In the beginning the Universe was
Jason Glor | created. This has made a lot of
jg...@sdcc13.ucsd.edu | people angry and been widely
| regarded as a bad move.
Peter C. Sun
>sjonk...@postman.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:
>What would people like to see Sega do with Sonic 2? Should it be a CD-ROM
>game (as I'm hopeing)? If so, how should they handle it? Possiblities are
I absolutely disagree with Sonic 2 being done in CD-ROM and it deals with
my opinion about CD-ROM and games written for it.
Even though I'm an avid video and arcade game player, I see no reason why I
have to shell out $300 or so dollars to by a CD-ROM player. Please understand
this is merely my opinion. I am sure there are many of you who feel $300 is a
small price to pay for such a machine - I do not wish to dispute your opinion.
In my opinion CD-ROM for any game system is more or less a novelty item -
something the general public does not have the money or interest for. I feel if
Sonic 2 were written for CD-ROM then what SEGA would have done is alienize a
majority of its customers. This I feel is the reason Sonic 2 should not be
CD-ROM.
Concerning game replayability:
I feel games like Sonic, Mario, Bonks, in general have serious problems with
replayability. Sometime so serious so that you hesitate to restart a game
before solving. I remember a period of time when I quit playing Bonks Revenge
,prior to solving, because I was so sick of having to play levels over again.
A simple solution to this problem could be something like a level save option.
This is already implemented in many games by allowing a player to write down a
continueation code.
In addition, after I solved Sonic I had very little desire to play it again.
Why? Simply because there was nothing new to see. I've read many suggestions
for this remedy like... 'an obscene number of levels' or 'randomness'. But my
favorite is a variation on the 'Path thing'. A fairly large number of paths
but instead of a triangle:
G - Finish
/
F
/ \
B H - Finish
/ \ /
A E
\ / \
C I - Finish
\ /
D
\
J - Finish
1 2 3 4 - Level of difficulty
Have some kind of overall path that allows a player who has finished G to be
able to visit all other scenarios with lesser or equal level of difficulty IE.
A-F. Of course scenarios at each level of difficulty can be much more than
illustrated in addition to number of levels. This would invite a player who has
finished the game the extra incentive to truly explore the world of Sonic,
Bonks, Mario or whatever by playing other scenerios.
This is where I must make serious note on a fellow posting.
>This is completely against the way that most "real" games work.
>Baseball is fun (if you like baseball) even though all the innings
>follow the same structure. You don't need to add an Alien Inning (in
>which aliens swoop down and interfere with the ball), a Dinosaur
>Inning, a Fireball Inning, and so on, just to keep the players'
>interest. The game is fun because it is a fun game, not because it is
>chock-full of hidden surprises. If you want lots of variety, then play
>several different games--there's no point in one game trying to be
>everything. All of the superficial little additions are entertaining
>the first few times, but just get old after that.
I feel one of the greatest strengths of sonic are its different acts. More
specificly the different "worlds" and the "moods" each creates for the player.
This can also be seen in other games of the same character
For 2 reasons I feel Sonics worlds are beneficial:
1. The obvious reason is it breaks monotony. This is self explanitory however
let further say - Wouldn't Sonic SUCK REAL BAD if everything was marble
world? Yick what a revolting thought. I'm not putting down marble world,
in fact That's one of my favorite, but several hours of it would just
KILL ME!
2. This one is harder to grasp but those of you who read fantasy and other
books for the following reason should understand. I like the levels because
they take me to another world. I enjoy playing in the Water act of Sonic
just because I need air. Why? Because it adds realism! This aids me in
believing in the world and allows me to have a greater connection with
Sonic. The same could be said of a well written book. So I think Sonic's
well designed levels takes it beyond just a video game but into the realm
of fantasy. This in my opinion is also very true in Castle of Illusion.
So what's the big advantage to this? Well it adds another reason to the list
of "Why play Sonic over again?" To reexperence the adventure, fantasy and
illusion.
Elements that contribute to this mood creation are music (I just love
Sonic's BGM), Realism like stated before(having to get air when in water),
Great scenery(I don't mean functional objects like springs but stuff like
decorations), and Entertaining monsters/opponents(like smart monsters -
stated in many other posts, and monsters with character).
Back to the posting stated above - I would be very interested in a version of
John Madden Football played on the moon or underwater - especially now since
I've reached my personal, maximum level of mastery.
>Two player would be nice, however that would be hard to have two sonics
>running on the screen at the same time. At the least, the game needs to
>alternate turns between two or more players.
>In summary, I would like to see: randomness, multiple paths, puzzles, multi
>player option, and multiple endings.
I am ALL FOR this suggestion of 2 player Sonic mainly because I feel MORE
2-PLAYER GAMES ARE NEEDED for home video systems! How many of you have a
brother or close friend who always watches you play while sitting on the side?
Or perhaps you have watched someone play Sonic or some other game while you
coached on the side. Didn't you want to just jump in and help/hinder? I know I
have. I've had many fun hours of playing AeroBlaster for TurboGraphx not
because AeroBlasters is an incredible game but instead because its much more
fun playing it with my friends than alone. I think the same can be said for
many other game. Further proof - Just look at the abundance of games at the
arcade like Altered Beast, Two Crude, Pit fighter, TMNT, where more than one
player are essential for a fun game. This abundance of multiplayer games
indicates to me the enlargening market for multiplayer games.
What do you think about what I've said?
Pete
----
email to:ps...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
Robert Jung
> [Lots about SONIC and game design deleted]
>
>I am ALL FOR this suggestion of 2 player Sonic mainly because I feel MORE
>2-PLAYER GAMES ARE NEEDED for home video systems! How many of you have a
>brother or close friend who always watches you play while sitting on the side?
>Or perhaps you have watched someone play Sonic or some other game while you
>coached on the side. Didn't you want to just jump in and help/hinder? I know I
>have. I've had many fun hours of playing AeroBlaster for TurboGraphx not
>because AeroBlasters is an incredible game but instead because its much more
>fun playing it with my friends than alone. I think the same can be said for
>many other game. Further proof - Just look at the abundance of games at the
>arcade like Altered Beast, Two Crude, Pit fighter, TMNT, where more than one
>player are essential for a fun game. This abundance of multiplayer games
>indicates to me the enlargening market for multiplayer games.
>
>What do you think about what I've said?
This is one of the big reasons I'm all for portable game systems.
Multiplayer games on home machines now are fairly limited; either everybody
is crammed on the same screen (you can't go all over the place), or the screen
is dividen into n viewscreens (smaller display, and little privacy). With the
portalbe systems, though, you can give everybody their own view. This means
(in theory) total freedom of movement, and more potential for true
head-to-head competition.
Besides, I _love_ competition. B-)
--R.J.
B-)
P.S. Finally played four-player WARBIRDS on the Atari Lynx this weekend.
It's a REALLY big thrill to pick off the survivor of a two-plane dogfight,
then straife the daylights out of the coward who thought he could "wait it
out"...
//////////////////////////////////////|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Send whatevers to rj...@usc.edu | If it has pixels, I'm for it.
--------------------------------------+------------------------------Lynx up!
"If it moves, shoot it. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway."
James Hague
>
>Well, considering that Sonic is Sega's best-selling game,
>it seems pretty likely there will be a sequel.
I don't doubt it. Probably a whole string of 'em...
>Yes, I agree with you that lack of replay value is a
>big (probably the biggest) problem with this genre of game.
>I'm still playing Mickey Mouse right now, but when I solve
>it I don't expect to be playing it very often.
>
>Examples of zero replay value can be found in books and
>movies, as well. A really good book can be an incredible
>experience to read, but that doesn't mean that I want to
>read it again after finishing it. The same goes for a movie.
>Other art forms have lots of replay value -- paintings and
>music are two examples.
Paperbacks cost $5, CDs cost $15, movies cost $1 to rent of $6
to see in a theater (yes, concerts and paintings are more expensive).
Video games costs $40-70 a shot. That's a bit much for something
which provides only a few hours or maybe a weekend of entertainment.
And people complain about movies being a rip-off...
>When you solve a crossword puzzle, you can only put in the
>words that the designers thought up. When you watch a
>movie or read a book, the only story is the one which is
>filmed or written.
Video games make expensive crossword puzzles.
>But I still maintain that Mario and Sonic, as limited
>as they are, still manage to offer solid play value. The
>real problem is that the gaming industry isn't giving
>us enough variety - If all I could choose to eat were
>ice cream and pizza at every restaurant I went
>to, I'd get tired of them eventually.
I agree completely. But I think that with the release of Bonk's
Revenge and Super Mario World, this genre is getting a bit played
out. Imagine if game companies had spent the last decade all pumping
out marginally improved versions of Pac-Man...
--
James Hague
exu...@exu.ericsson.se
Stephen Jonke
>
>
>
> >sjonk...@postman.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:
>
> >What would people like to see Sega do with Sonic 2? Should it be a CD-ROM
> >game (as I'm hopeing)? If so, how should they handle it? Possiblities are
>
> I absolutely disagree with Sonic 2 being done in CD-ROM and it deals with
> my opinion about CD-ROM and games written for it.
>
> Even though I'm an avid video and arcade game player, I see no reason why I
> have to shell out $300 or so dollars to by a CD-ROM player. Please understand
> this is merely my opinion. I am sure there are many of you who feel $300 is a
> small price to pay for such a machine - I do not wish to dispute your opinion.
> In my opinion CD-ROM for any game system is more or less a novelty item -
> something the general public does not have the money or interest for. I feel if
> Sonic 2 were written for CD-ROM then what SEGA would have done is alienize a
> majority of its customers. This I feel is the reason Sonic 2 should not be
> CD-ROM.
>
I can certainly understand this. If it's any incentive though, the MEGA-CD
is also a music CD player and can be hooked up to your stereo. Since I
currently have only a portable CD player hooked up to my home system (which
is less convienent then a home CD player), I have somewhat of an excuse to
buy it! At any rate, this is why I said that I'd like to see Sonic 2 or
AT LEAST SONIC 3 on CD. That way, people who don't want to buy the MEGA-CD
can have at least two Sonic's to enjoy. Incidentally, rumour has it that
Sonic 2 will be a CD-ROM game (only rumour though) and it has recently been
pointed out that the release of the MEGA-CD in the US has been delayed.
They may be doing this so that they can release it with Sonic 2 -- it would
certainly make sense from their standpoint (seeing how well Sonic sold and
how it help sales of the Genesis system).
I think this is a good idea, but maybe there's still a way to mix in a little
randomness into the setup to make the game different every time. For instance,
how about after finishing a world (or act) the player has a choice of several
worlds to go to in something like the pattern you show, but the A, B, Cs would
be different on each play. Either way, I think that the only way you could do
it would be to go with CD for the extra space for worlds.
I agree completely. However, I would like to see Sonic 2 only have 2 acts per
world in most cases, but then have more worlds. I found that I was somewhat
tired of each world by the time I got to act 3 on any given playing.
(som deletions of stuff about John Madden Football -- nothing to do with Sonic!)
> >Two player would be nice, however that would be hard to have two sonics
> >running on the screen at the same time. At the least, the game needs to
> >alternate turns between two or more players.
>
Absolutely. In order to accomadate a two player simultaineous mode, you'd have
to lose something else, because you need to ensure that both players on the screen
at the same time. You would be forced to design worlds where it was impossible for
the two Sonics to become seperated. An alternating two player mode is definitely
the best way to go.
> >In summary, I would like to see: randomness, multiple paths, puzzles, multi
> >player option, and multiple endings.
>
> I am ALL FOR this suggestion of 2 player Sonic mainly because I feel MORE
> 2-PLAYER GAMES ARE NEEDED for home video systems! How many of you have a
> brother or close friend who always watches you play while sitting on the side?
> Or perhaps you have watched someone play Sonic or some other game while you
> coached on the side. Didn't you want to just jump in and help/hinder? I know I
> have. I've had many fun hours of playing AeroBlaster for TurboGraphx not
> because AeroBlasters is an incredible game but instead because its much more
> fun playing it with my friends than alone. I think the same can be said for
> many other game. Further proof - Just look at the abundance of games at the
> arcade like Altered Beast, Two Crude, Pit fighter, TMNT, where more than one
> player are essential for a fun game. This abundance of multiplayer games
> indicates to me the enlargening market for multiplayer games.
>
> What do you think about what I've said?
>
> Pete
> ----
> email to:ps...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
>
Steve
James Hague
>
>Absolutely. In order to accomadate a two player simultaineous mode, you'd have
>to lose something else, because you need to ensure that both players on the screen
>at the same time. You would be forced to design worlds where it was impossible for
>the two Sonics to become seperated. An alternating two player mode is definitely
>the best way to go.
You really haven't given much thought to other options. For example,
Sonic could have some sort of "buddy" which is dragged along on a
"leash." Maybe a bird which could help out by getting things for Sonic
or protecting his back. This way, player two could control the bird
making it a cooperative game. And player two could screw-up without
sending Sonic to his doom, so it would be lots of fun for a lesser
skilled player. In the one player game, the bird would either not
exist, be computer controlled, or could be minimally controlled by
player 1. The animation would be cool when Sonic rockets off a spring,
yanking the bird along with him. The more I think about this idea, the
more I like it--maybe I should write a completely different game which
incorporates it...
The classic alternating two-player bit is not a good idea for a game
such as Sonic. One player could just stall around exploring and really
annoy the other guy.
--
James Hague
exu...@exu.ericsson.se
Larry Yaeger
If you insist on having randomness, you either should A) provide a method for
turning it off, or B) put lots of thought, attention, and preliminary game-
play into assuring that the randomness doesn't ruin the game. I don't mind
having to learn a play-skill rather than a particular pattern. In fact, it
sounds kind of nice for a change. But I've played several too many games
that weren't careful about limiting the places and times that the bad guys
could pop up, and the randomness ended up preventing me from ever playing
the game through - it wasn't worth my time learning the game when a completely
random event could just suddenly kill me. For all the philosophizing and
idealizing going on about random elements to games, my experience with them
has almost always been negative (even though I've often thought that some
simple hacks like not letting the baddie appear within X units of the player,
or come onscreen from the side the player is within Y units of if his speed
is greater than Z, or some such rules could have fixed most of the problems).
Don't trot out baseball as a simple game that isn't boring. First of all,
it isn't that simple. (The main thing about it that *isn't* simple is that
it's significantly multi-player.) And, secondly, it's horribly boring (IMO).
Last time I went to a live BB game, I almost gnawed my own leg off for
entertainment (I couldn't leave due to the ride-sharing arrangements).
In support of others postings, interconnected paths through games seems like a
good way to keep return play interesting.
Not that it's new, but putting things around the play area that aren't
necessary to the games "completion", but are themselves enjoyable to master,
or that lead to alternate areas of the game are always fun.
--
-lar...@apple.com
"You wouldn't recognize a *subtle plan* if it painted itself purple,
and danced naked upon a harpsichord, singing, 'Subtle Plans are Here Again'."
- Edmund Blackadder
Stephen Jonke
>
>
> You really haven't given much thought to other options. For example,
> Sonic could have some sort of "buddy" which is dragged along on a
> "leash." Maybe a bird which could help out by getting things for Sonic
> or protecting his back. This way, player two could control the bird
> making it a cooperative game. And player two could screw-up without
> sending Sonic to his doom, so it would be lots of fun for a lesser
> skilled player. In the one player game, the bird would either not
> exist, be computer controlled, or could be minimally controlled by
> player 1. The animation would be cool when Sonic rockets off a spring,
> yanking the bird along with him. The more I think about this idea, the
> more I like it--maybe I should write a completely different game which
> incorporates it...
>
Only problem with this is that it might be boring for the second player
since they don't have any control over where Sonic is going. One way
(and not a good choice) to allow a two player simultaneous in which both
players have control over movement would be to limit where both could go
in the fashion that (the awful) Altered Beast does (you can't go back
the way you came and there's only one way to go -- no choices). One of
the best things about Sonic is that most of the worlds leave you with
lots of options of ways to go, none of which are wrong, they just take
you to different things. It helps to add to the longevity of the game
and I think it would be a big, big mistake to lose that aspect of the
game. The only other alternative I can think of would be a split screen
approach which might be interesting, but leaves the programers with a lot
less screen space to work with and possibly leaving the players feeling
claustraphobic!
> The classic alternating two-player bit is not a good idea for a game
> such as Sonic. One player could just stall around exploring and really
> annoy the other guy.
>
I don't think so. The key would be to alternate players at the ends of lives
AND acts. Or if neccessary there could be "checkpoints" within acts at
which players alternate. The checkpoints would be similar to the lamp
posts in Sonic I in that they would be distributed throughout the world
and you wouldn't necessarily see all of them (it would depend on which
way you went). It would be very easy to add a 2 player alternating feature
without effecting the rest of the game in any way and I for one would have
liked to have seen this feature in Sonic 1.
On a different subject (still Sonic 2 though!) I was wondering how others
felt about the difficulty level of Sonic 1 and how they should change it
for Sonic 2. I think that although Sonic 1 is somewhat too easy, it is
still infinitely more enjoyable then a game that is too hard (Fantasia
for instance). Therefore, I'd like to see the difficultly level remain
about the same or only slightly harder. Especially important is to not
make any "boss fights" (gad, I hate that term) ridiculously difficult as
is the trend. All that does is make you have to try fighting the boss
over and over again, which gets pretty dull, pretty quick.
Comments?
Steve
Stephen Jonke
>
> Few quick opinions...
>
> If you insist on having randomness, you either should A) provide a method for
> turning it off, or B) put lots of thought, attention, and preliminary game-
> play into assuring that the randomness doesn't ruin the game. I don't mind
> having to learn a play-skill rather than a particular pattern. In fact, it
> sounds kind of nice for a change. But I've played several too many games
> that weren't careful about limiting the places and times that the bad guys
> could pop up, and the randomness ended up preventing me from ever playing
> the game through - it wasn't worth my time learning the game when a completely
> random event could just suddenly kill me. For all the philosophizing and
> idealizing going on about random elements to games, my experience with them
> has almost always been negative (even though I've often thought that some
> simple hacks like not letting the baddie appear within X units of the player,
> or come onscreen from the side the player is within Y units of if his speed
> is greater than Z, or some such rules could have fixed most of the problems).
>
Basically, I agree. That's why I said that too much randomness would make
it generic and suggested the idea of having many copies of the same act,
but with the characters and objects within it placed differently (with
human thought!). However, I think a limited degree of true randomness would
help the game as well. Why must creature 3b always start at point A and
fly off to the right? Why not make it possible that it starts at A and
flys to the left? And so forth.
Steve
James Hague
>
>If you insist on having randomness, you either should A) provide a method for
>turning it off, or B) put lots of thought, attention, and preliminary game-
>play into assuring that the randomness doesn't ruin the game.
B isn't that hard. I'm not saying that everything should be COMPLETELY
random and enemies can zip out whenever they want to--the randomness
should be more controlled. I wrote a fairly simple little scrolling
game a few years back in which you had to collect certain objects lying
about the terrain (it was a lot less like Sonic than it sounds).
Anyway, instead of always having the objects appear in exactly the same
positions, I defined short stretches of land in which each object could
be placed. The effect was that the objects always seemed to be in
different areas, but the difficulty of collecting them was always
pretty much the same. It wouldn't be too difficult to implement a
similar scheme for Sonic's robot enemies. Just a wee bit of randomness
can make a big difference.
>Don't trot out baseball as a simple game that isn't boring. First of all,
>it isn't that simple. (The main thing about it that *isn't* simple is that
>it's significantly multi-player.) And, secondly, it's horribly boring (IMO).
I believe I originally qualified this example with "if you like
baseball." I was just trying to give an example of a classic non-video
game which *seems* rather simplistic and repetitive but is still fun
and has lots of replay value. If you don't like baseball, try poker or
Monopoly or Risk or chess or Scrabble or basketball or golf or go or
Solitaire, etc. Or if you prefer a more modern example: pinball. The
concept of having to constantly introduce new enemies and scenery in
order to keep a player entertained is strictly a video game thing.
--
James Hague
exu...@exu.ericsson.se
Jon Loeliger
> is James Hague
>>If you insist on having randomness, you either should A) provide a method for
>>turning it off, or B) put lots of thought, attention, and preliminary game-
>>play into assuring that the randomness doesn't ruin the game.
>
>B isn't that hard. I'm not saying that everything should be COMPLETELY
>random and enemies can zip out whenever they want to--the randomness
>should be more controlled.
Points well taken. As a case in (bad) point, consider the randomness of
games like Wizardry. I've spent hundreds of hours beefing up characters
only to have a purely chance encounter with a life-stealer (or equivalent)
drain a character level or two on a player or two and completely ruin
any forward progress I've made... Then, do it again. Quite frustrating
at times. You've been there.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Loeliger | loel...@convex.com
Convex Computer Corporation | I'm the thirteenth at your table,
3000 Waterview, Richardson TX 75080 | I'm the uninvited guest. - Marillion
James Hague
>
>> You really haven't given much thought to other options. For example,
>> Sonic could have some sort of "buddy" which is dragged along on a
>> "leash." Maybe a bird which could help out by getting things for Sonic
>> or protecting his back. This way, player two could control the bird
>> making it a cooperative game.
>
>since they don't have any control over where Sonic is going.
My idea was not to allow two people to play completely independently,
but to have them cooperate, with one of the players "in charge" and the
other one just helping out. This would be fun for a lesser player who
just wanted to play for fun--the main player could worry about the
important stuff and the second player would just assist. For example,
think of the classic five-year old video whiz and his rather klutzy
parent. It is an idea with potential.
I have nothing against two-player alternating games, if they are
handled correctly, but I'd much rather see some sort of cooperative
play.
--
James Hague
exu...@exu.ericsson.se
James Hague
>
>It would be very easy to add a 2 player alternating feature
>without effecting the rest of the game in any way and I for one would have
>liked to have seen this feature in Sonic 1.
The classic problem with this is that all players are not created
equal. Player two may be a relative novice and get wasted by the end
of the Green Hill Zone, while player two plays until the Star Light
Zone. That's an hour of dead time for player two. Or what if one
player just has a bad game and keeps screwing up his jumps in the
Marble Zone? The alternating player bit is just an easy way to allow
two people to play a one-player game at the same time. Any comments
from anyone other than Stephen?
--
James Hague
exu...@exu.ericsson.se
Isao Takeda
Did you know that Thunder Force III can become a 2-player game?
If you are sick of lack of 2-player games for Genesis, it may be worth
trying this.
Plug in two controller pads and start playing. That's it! Both player
one and two control the same ship. What I used to do is to let one
player control the firepower (Buttons B, C) and the other player take
care of navigation (Buttons D, A). The player controlling the firepower
can become an emergency backup pilot in case the main pilot screws up.
You don't want two players to try to go to the opposite directions to
each other, though.
This makes Thunder Force III a very fun 2-player simutaneous game for
Genesis along with Air Buster. I think this option makes TF III more
playable than any Genesis shooter.
Have fun.
Chinarut Ruangchotvit
>AND acts. Or if neccessary there could be "checkpoints" within acts at
>which players alternate. The checkpoints would be similar to the lamp
>posts in Sonic I in that they would be distributed throughout the world
>and you wouldn't necessarily see all of them (it would depend on which
>way you went). It would be very easy to add a 2 player alternating feature
>without effecting the rest of the game in any way and I for one would have
>liked to have seen this feature in Sonic 1.
If you ask me, sounds a little to much like the style of Super Mario Bros. 3!
--
Chinarut Rangchotvit
cr...@andrew.cmu.edu
Stephen Jonke
Sorry, me again! :-) As I said, the trick is that the players would always
alternate at a loss of life OR the end of an act. That way, regardless of
how good player two is (in your example), player one won't have to wait
too long. And yes, this is an easy way to allow two people to play a
one player game at the same time -- that's the point! This idea was used
in Super Mario Brothers 3 and I think it worked effectively (though in
that game it always meant that after finishing up a tough world, the
other player often got the goodies in the bonus world, which was a flaw).
Steve
> --
> James Hague
> exu...@exu.ericsson.se
>
>
Tom Schenck
As a player:
1> I like to have some degree of "Outsmart the bad guys," as opposed to
"Remeber where the bad guys are and shoot them as the come out." This
means that the bad guys can come out is (approxamatly) the same places
but follow not a pattern, but a thought process (get as close as I can
and beat the **** out of the player, or stay WAY back and take pot-shots).
2> My favorite type of game (and that of most people I've seen replying to
this thread) is somewhat of an "Action RPG." A game that requires some
thinking about what to do and where to do it, along with where the heck
to go next. If you take Tron (from the arcades), Chip 'n' Dale (from the
NES) throw some elements of Floppy or Lode Runner in there and you'd get
a really good game.
As a developer:
1> One of my current projects, a Lynx game (yes, there are lots comming out
real soon now, fellow Lynx'ers), started out as just the sort of game I
was talking about in #2 above there (ie, 4 or 5 DIFFERENT paths to
sucessfully finish the game). The enemies came out from pre-set locations
but had rudamentary intellicence (ie, surround the player, and blow him
away) some would stay back out of "punching" range and throw things,
others would get right in your face and flail away, while still others
would just charge across the screen. You had the ability to go anywhere
on the "level" you wished, and enemies would constantly come at you
(ie, no limit to how many). All in all, it was turning out to be a really
good game, but needed a lot more cart space to work well. Our game
overseer decided that: a) we didn't have the time to make this workable,
b) the cart space we had was what we had to make do with, and c) what
they really wanted was a very predictable game anyways. Needless to say,
the game is now a scrolling (from right to left or left to right, can't
go back) shoot 'em up with enemies in certain places following patterns.
2> A trade-off that we developers have to make is how much space is used for
what parts of the game? As an example, in the above game, one "level" map
(ie, where the background and foreground objects go, what enemies go where
and so forth, not including the actual GRAPHICS) would take 4-10k. What
we wanted to do was just what was menchioned before, several levels with
the same GRAPHICS but entirely DIFFERENT placement. We couldn't fit it
on the cart.
I would like to make an open invitation. Those of you willing to sit down and
think about what kinds of things you would like to see in games are more than
welcome to send me email. I would like to make games that you, the players,
would like to play. If you have an opinion on what makes a good or a bad game,
please let me know. If I get enough suggestions about a particular idea, I'll
even try to convice the big-wigs to see it your way, using YOUR letters. You
see, *I* can't always change the way a game plays, even though I program it.
The person who designs it has a lot of say, and the person who is buying it
(to sell to the public, people like Electronic Arts, Telegames, Atari, etc.)
always has the final word. They sometimes hold old ideas or even ideas that
don't work, and stick them in games. YOUR opinion can change the face of
gaming.
DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for Knight Technologies, Atari Corp., Electronic
Arts, Telegames, Inc., or any other company. Nor do I intend to
slander any company. I'm just stating my own opinion. It's mine
and mine alone.
=============================================================================
Tom Schenck | mad...@crash.cts.com
Knight Technologies | "I think, therefore, uh,
San Diego, CA | um..."
=============================================================================
Jeff Dinkins
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Machala writes:
>sjonk...@postman.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:
>>What would people like to see Sega do with Sonic 2? Should it be a CD-ROM
>>game (as I'm hopeing)? If so, how should they handle it? Possiblities are
>
>you listening?
Welp, I grabbed all "What do you want from Sonic 2" posts (well, most the
coherent ones at least (10 or so)) and am having them forwarded to someone at
Visions (a Genesis game design house) and Sega itself.
If there are any people really interested in discussing game design concepts,
send some email and I can point you at someone who is interested, or at least
point them at you.
jeff
--
wokka wokka wokka - fozzy bear jdin...@eng.eng.sun.com
James Hague
>
>Sorry, me again! :-) As I said, the trick is that the players would always
>alternate at a loss of life OR the end of an act. That way, regardless of
>how good player two is (in your example), player one won't have to wait
>too long.
I hope you don't think I'm being stubborn, but I still don't agree.
What if player one picks up two extra Sonics and player two doesn't?
Even disregarding this, it is possible to play for a LONG time in Sonic
without dying, so the second player's last life could drag on for quite
a while--and he could pick up one or more extra lives to boot.
I agree, it is better to use this scheme than to not allow any sort of
two player play. But there are other solutions to the problem.
--
James Hague
exu...@exu.ericsson.se
Milton W. Kuo
Okay, I'll bite. :-) I think the best way to have a two-player ver-
sion of Sonic would be for Sega to release a modem (or at least have sup-
port for a null modem). This way, both players could get an independent
view of the playfield. The problem with someone finishing first and hav-
ing to wait can be fixed by having both players moved to the next level if
one of them finished the level. Give the winner some bonus stuff and go
on. Actually, this could be quite cool -- have one player be Sonic and
the other can be some other new character and the game could be centered
around a race between Sonic and this new character. They have to run a
gauntlet of worlds with mechanical monsters and bosses. Make it kind of
like "The Running Man." :-) I don't know -- this idea actually sounds
very good to me. Maybe I should (tm) or (c) it. :-) Oh yeah, of course,
the funnest thing would be the opportunity for both players to either help
one another or fight it out. This is what truly makes two-player games
fun -- fighting it out. That's why I feel Altered Beast is not as bad as
everyone says (Try taking all the Spirit Balls leaving none for the other
player :-).
Of course, this is all contingent upon having a (null) modem. It's a
real shame the Mega Modem is a piece of trash -- Sega really screwed up by
making it a 1200 baud slug. Maybe they should come out with a Mega Modem
II and really support it. With the Mega CD coming out soon, the addition-
al code necessary to support the modem wouldn't be a problem.
>--
>James Hague
>exu...@exu.ericsson.se
--
Milton W. Kuo
mil...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Ed Driscoll
>equal. Player two may be a relative novice and get wasted by the end
>of the Green Hill Zone, while player two plays until the Star Light
>Zone. That's an hour of dead time for player two. Or what if one
>player just has a bad game and keeps screwing up his jumps in the
>Marble Zone? The alternating player bit is just an easy way to allow
>two people to play a one-player game at the same time. Any comments
>from anyone other than Stephen?
>
As a big fan of truly cooperative games, I agree that this is really
just a cheap way to turn a game which is essentially 1-player into a
2-player game. However, I think it's still better than nothing. My
siblings and I had much more fun alternating players in Super Mario (Oh, no!
The "M" word!!) 1 than we did in Mario 2. In fact, in Mario 2, we ended
up passing the joypad around after one of us died just to keep everyone
involved. The problem of excessive dead-time for the weaker player
is easily addressed ala Mario 3, by having the players alternate after
each screen/level/whatever rather than letting them play until they
lose their first plumber/hog/spaceship. Come to think of it, this is
how Super Mario World does its player alternating as well.
On the other hand, I find that *some* amount of dead-time is OK, because
it gives you a chance to see all the details of the game without
worrying about keeping yourself alive. I tend to notice a lot of things
while other people are playing that I just don't have time to notice
during my playing frenzy. If the players are so unbalanced that the
weaker player has much more dead time, then the weaker player is
probably seeing a lot in the way of details/techniques that they might
enjoy and/or learn from anyway, so it sort of balances out somtimes.
Still, I much prefer some sort of quick-paced alternation over the
play-until-you-die scheme.
--
Ed Driscoll
Cimage Corp.
e...@cimage.com
Kerry Go
Are there any other games like this? I have a five-year-old nephew who loves
to play Altered Beast with me just so I can kill the bosses; when he dies, he
takes my controller so he can experience the "higher levels". A cooperative
mode which doesn't have to be cooperative would be good for us.