I'm surprised more of you don't despise the early Super Mario Bros. games too, SMB1, 3, World, Land, Land 2 and so on all have a timer in each level.
Personally, I love both Majora's Mask and Pikmin 1. I don't find the timers stressful at all, but that might have to do with my knowing them inside out. When you get past that "stress" mindset, both Majora's Mask and Pikmin are finely tuned experiences. The timer allows for a far more convincing story and theme. The small restricted world with tons of variety is a lot better than big wide open barren landscapes, don't you think?
I'm glad I'm not the only one! lol
I remember getting to 8-1 in SMB and I remember hating that level as a kid. The timer was brutal if you don't run! I somehow made it that far without running, but not only do you have the timer the deal with, you have to use the run button to jump big gaps.
I think after playing Sonic, I was more comfortable with running in Mario games. Running = good for me. haha
For everyone that says the timer doesnt let you explore in MM, theres not exactly much exploring in the game anyway. Any path you take leads pretty much straight to a temple or adjective. Its not like you can take side paths and find some super secret room or something. Its a pretty linear game exploration wise. Each cardinal direction has a path that leads to a temple thats pretty much it. Most of the npc's you interact with are mostly contained within the town.
Um, actually there is some exploration. In Woodfall and Great Bay, there are the skulltula houses which are like mini-dungeons. There's also the Bomber's Notebook sidequests, mind you most of those focus on Clock Town. Any sort of exploration going on in Woodfall, Snow Head, Great Bay and Ikana Canyon goes towards beating the temples.
Majora's Mask is in no way restrictive. Play the Song of Time in reverse and it slows down time significantly, you get several hours of in-game time. Also consider that important quest items are always saved even if you return to Dawn of the First Day. If you run out of time, just reset to Day 1 after you get an important dungeon item, or gain access to the current dungeon. You only lose non-important items like rupees, arrows, bombs and such. You can save rupees by talking to the bank in East Clock Town. In every major area there are owl statues that when activated act like a savestate so you can return to the game at a later time.
My favorite part is there exists a speedrun where all 4 dungeons and the final battle were completed within the 3 day time limit, with time slowed down and no resetting to Dawn of the First Day. That is to say, there's tons of time in Majora's Mask to do things.
I always thought it was foolish and annoying for Mario games to have timers. Especially once 3D came into play and allowed for more exploration of the space, it is incredible that it wasn't dropped at some point. Another shock is the recent Wii U Luigi spinoff that limited every level to 100 instead of 300 seconds - totally moving in the wrong direction.
Another shock is the recent Wii U Luigi spinoff that limited every level to 100 instead of 300 seconds - totally moving in the wrong direction.
well that was kinda the whole gimmick behind that game. It was designed to be ran through speedily, and to be harder. I thought it was a nice change of pace, considering how easy the games have gotten
Idea: Limit all platform levels to just a few seconds. Thus, we only need to implement the initial static screen for each level and no additional features. $$$
In theory I think it's terrible for a game like Zelda (although to fair I haven't played the second Zelda 64 game), since the entire point of those games is to explore the world and fuck around with stuff. Adding a timer on top of that just kind of ruins the experience, and to me is bad game design.
I don't mind timers at all in platformers or action games though, they just add an additional level of challenge and require the player to perform more precisely. I recall before forced to get good at Ninja Gaiden III's final stage because the timer is pretty unforgiving.
I certainly can't speak for everyone, but for me, the primary reason I play video games is to relieve stress and timing mechanics in games often cause me stress. That doesn't mean I refuse to play them, but I find that I enjoy them a lot less.
This is exactly it for me. I don't mind that the creators had certain intentions and challenges in mind when they design their stuff and, at times, I'm perfectly ok playing by their rules. However, when it comes to a time that I just need to pick up a controller and shut off my brain for a while to decompress, I don't want to have to worry about (usually) doing some sort of impossible task or incredibly difficult, esoteric maneuver within a strict, unforgiving timeframe to proceed. In games where everything's like that, I'd just as soon have an option to play without that limitation. If that means I don't get to collect certain achievements or whatever, so be it, I'm primarily a solitary gamer anyway, so I could give to flips about what sooper seekrit badge I do or don't have on my online accounts.
Not that there's a lot that's timed (that I ever found), but this is one of the reasons that it literally took me years in Skyrim to ever actually get up to the top of High Hrothgar and talk to the Greybeards. My primary skills on my character were/are archery and blacksmithing, so I'd get done with whatever was immediately pressing, start heading up the mountain to go do (basically) the beginning of the main storyline and then get distracted over and over again as animals would leap across my path, leading to more animals, then more animals, and then suddenly it's an hour or two later and I'm overburdened with leather and having to slowly slink back to Whiterun to make some crap armor, level up my blacksmithing skill and upgrade any/all of my armor and weapons that I can. Rinse and repeat. For years, lol!
In theory I think it's terrible for a game like Zelda (although to fair I haven't played the second Zelda 64 game), since the entire point of those games is to explore the world and fuck around with stuff. Adding a timer on top of that just kind of ruins the experience, and to me is bad game design.
I don't mind timers at all in platformers or action games though, they just add an additional level of challenge and require the player to perform more precisely. I recall before forced to get good at Ninja Gaiden III's final stage because the timer is pretty unforgiving.
The main draw of Majora's Mask isn't so much that you're exploring the landscape, but you're exploring the daily lives of the people in that world. Many of the sidequests will follow the 2 or 3-day period in each person's life, and you see how things go for them as they slowly realize they're about to die (or, in some cases, as they realize they have run out of toilet paper). It's actually really dark for a Nintendo game, but I think it was done really well and does a good job of making it stand out from other Zelda games where they follow the same formula for the most part. It really adds to the atmosphere of the game. The world is ending in 3 days, and it makes completing the dungeons feel that much more crucial.
Plus MM has song warping like ALTTP/Ocarina, and you can manipulate the flow of time once you beat the first half hour of the game. The only real limiting factor is you have to beat a temple in one 3-day cycle, but I've honestly never encountered any issues going over that. I'm pretty sure that doors and stuff stay unlocked and you keep the key items, so your progress isn't totally lost. It certainly isn't a game for everyone, and I understand why people might not enjoy it compared to other Zelda games, but it definitely isn't poor game design.
Would you include forced movement stages in with timed? The level I have in mind is towards the end of Hagane where it's just kind of a platforming level but there is a spiked wall moving behind you to make sure you're keeping a forward momentum. I hate that level and it's generally why I have second thoughts about popping that game in.
Would you include forced movement stages in with timed? The level I have in mind is towards the end of Hagane where it's just kind of a platforming level but there is a spiked wall moving behind you to make sure you're keeping a forward momentum. I hate that level and it's generally why I have second thoughts about popping that game in.
I would definitely lump them in with "equally annoying and arbitrary" (here's looking at you, SMB3 pirate ship levels!). Again, they may have their place, for example, if the basis of the level was to run across a bridge as it collapses under your feet, or if you're being chased by a monster or something. Otherwise, it's just an annoying mechanic to up the difficulty.
Would you include forced movement stages in with timed? The level I have in mind is towards the end of Hagane where it's just kind of a platforming level but there is a spiked wall moving behind you to make sure you're keeping a forward momentum. I hate that level and it's generally why I have second thoughts about popping that game in.
I would definitely lump them in with "equally annoying and arbitrary" (here's looking at you, SMB3 pirate ship levels!). Again, they may have their place, for example, if the basis of the level was to run across a bridge as it collapses under your feet, or if you're being chased by a monster or something. Otherwise, it's just an annoying mechanic to up the difficulty.
Could those be legitimately be chalked up to lazy/poor game design, then? I certainly think so personally, but I know that not everyone agrees (especially given the recent disagreement about LOZ:MM). To me, if you've just gotta add a timer/speed up the timer/throw in a bunch more enemies/make enemies much tougher/etc. to extend your game, you're doing something wrong and are either trying to cut corners (lazy) or are just bad at your job (poor game design).
Would you include forced movement stages in with timed? The level I have in mind is towards the end of Hagane where it's just kind of a platforming level but there is a spiked wall moving behind you to make sure you're keeping a forward momentum. I hate that level and it's generally why I have second thoughts about popping that game in.
I would definitely lump them in with "equally annoying and arbitrary" (here's looking at you, SMB3 pirate ship levels!). Again, they may have their place, for example, if the basis of the level was to run across a bridge as it collapses under your feet, or if you're being chased by a monster or something. Otherwise, it's just an annoying mechanic to up the difficulty.
Could those be legitimately be chalked up to lazy/poor game design, then? I certainly think so personally, but I know that not everyone agrees (especially given the recent disagreement about LOZ:MM). To me, if you've just gotta add a timer/speed up the timer/throw in a bunch more enemies/make enemies much tougher/etc. to extend your game, you're doing something wrong and are either trying to cut corners (lazy) or are just bad at your job (poor game design).
Difficulty has to come from somewhere.
There are only a few ways to make a platformer challenging:
1) tricky, precise jumps (i.e. the single-tile platforms with long-jump pits in SMB1)
2) timers that force the player to act, in turn forcings quick action that may lead to errors on the player's part
3) tricky, precise obstacle avoidance (i.e. areas where you have to fall past a bunch of wall spikes)
4) overuse of obstacles
Any of those COULD be used in a lazy way, but I think only (4) is lazy, across the board.
In terms of timers in platformers, though, I think some of it can come from the designer wanting to enforce a certain pacing to the game.
Think about timers and autoscrolling this way... how is their use in a platformer in ANY way fundamentally different (or lazier) from autoscrolling in top-down shooters? (which is practically the default for the genre)
The only real limiting factor is you have to beat a temple in one 3-day cycle, but I've honestly never encountered any issues going over that. I'm pretty sure that doors and stuff stay unlocked and you keep the key items, so your progress isn't totally lost. It certainly isn't a game for everyone, and I understand why people might not enjoy it compared to other Zelda games, but it definitely isn't poor game design.
Majora's Mask always saves important items and dungeon entrances no matter how many times you return to the first day. For example, for those who find Snow Head tough, just get up there, find the Lens of Truth, return to dawn of the first day (saves the game), then make your way to Snow Head Temple, you'll have several hours to clear the dungeon.
Also, for the side quests that require a temple to be beaten, after you finish one for the first time, there will always be a warp to the boss in the temple entrance, no matter how many times you return to the first day.
Would you include forced movement stages in with timed? The level I have in mind is towards the end of Hagane where it's just kind of a platforming level but there is a spiked wall moving behind you to make sure you're keeping a forward momentum. I hate that level and it's generally why I have second thoughts about popping that game in.
I would definitely lump them in with "equally annoying and arbitrary" (here's looking at you, SMB3 pirate ship levels!). Again, they may have their place, for example, if the basis of the level was to run across a bridge as it collapses under your feet, or if you're being chased by a monster or something. Otherwise, it's just an annoying mechanic to up the difficulty.
Could those be legitimately be chalked up to lazy/poor game design, then? I certainly think so personally, but I know that not everyone agrees (especially given the recent disagreement about LOZ:MM). To me, if you've just gotta add a timer/speed up the timer/throw in a bunch more enemies/make enemies much tougher/etc. to extend your game, you're doing something wrong and are either trying to cut corners (lazy) or are just bad at your job (poor game design).
Difficulty has to come from somewhere.
There are only a few ways to make a platformer challenging:
1) tricky, precise jumps (i.e. the single-tile platforms with long-jump pits in SMB1)
2) timers that force the player to act, in turn forcings quick action that may lead to errors on the player's part
3) tricky, precise obstacle avoidance (i.e. areas where you have to fall past a bunch of wall spikes)
4) overuse of obstacles
Any of those COULD be used in a lazy way, but I think only (4) is lazy, across the board.
In terms of timers in platformers, though, I think some of it can come from the designer wanting to enforce a certain pacing to the game.
Think about timers and autoscrolling this way... how is their use in a platformer in ANY way fundamentally different (or lazier) from autoscrolling in top-down shooters? (which is practically the default for the genre)
Yes all very true, which is why this is sort of one of those issues that begs the question "where's the line?". If we removed everything that seemingly made a game "arbitrarily" difficult (those gaps are too big, that enemy can take too much damage/deals too much damage, my character is underpowered, my gun doesn't hold enough bullets, I'm too slow, there's too many enemies etc), games would all be just effortless straight sprints to the finish line. I'm talking about the instances where the shoehorning of a mechanic to add something to a game seems glaringly out of context. Timer countdowns that only count down the allotted time to finish something before you die, without being used in a greater context like disarming a timebomb in the game, or resurfacing for air while holding your breath underwater or something.
I'm talking about the instances where the shoehorning of a mechanic to add something to a game seems glaringly out of context. Timer countdowns that only count down the allotted time to finish something before you die, without being used in a greater context like disarming a timebomb in the game, or resurfacing for air while holding your breath underwater or something.
I guess I just have a fundamental disagreement about that representing a "lazy" mechanic.
It's a way for a designer to encourage a pace of play, without invoking auto scrolling.
It's hard to imagine a platformer where you can't envision why the timer should or could exist (i.e. x-amount-of-time before the princess gets eaten/assaulted/etc by Bowser)
I'm talking about the instances where the shoehorning of a mechanic to add something to a game seems glaringly out of context. Timer countdowns that only count down the allotted time to finish something before you die, without being used in a greater context like disarming a timebomb in the game, or resurfacing for air while holding your breath underwater or something.
Games like Majora's Mask and Pikmin are all about context. A giant moon will come crashing down and destroy everything in 3 days. Your oxygen tanks will only last 30 days. What's hard to understand about that?
It's important to note that timers are also a carryover from the realities of arcade gaming. You can't just have someone dump a coin in and sit there forever chewing up time on the machine.
I'm talking about the instances where the shoehorning of a mechanic to add something to a game seems glaringly out of context. Timer countdowns that only count down the allotted time to finish something before you die, without being used in a greater context like disarming a timebomb in the game, or resurfacing for air while holding your breath underwater or something.
Games like Majora's Mask and Pikmin are all about context. A giant moon will come crashing down and destroy everything in 3 days. Your oxygen tanks will only last 30 days. What's hard to understand about that?
Nothing, I'm expressly talking about games that have no such greater context. What's hard to understand about that?
I'm talking about the instances where the shoehorning of a mechanic to add something to a game seems glaringly out of context. Timer countdowns that only count down the allotted time to finish something before you die, without being used in a greater context like disarming a timebomb in the game, or resurfacing for air while holding your breath underwater or something.
I guess I just have a fundamental disagreement about that representing a "lazy" mechanic.
It's a way for a designer to encourage a pace of play, without invoking auto scrolling.
It's hard to imagine a platformer where you can't envision why the timer should or could exist (i.e. x-amount-of-time before the princess gets eaten/assaulted/etc by Bowser)
Yep, definite fundamental disagreement then. I don't think a designer should add those mechanicsif they serve no further purpose within the game other than to just end your run if you take what the developer decides is too long.
"Why'd you die?"
"Time ran out."
"So what?"
If the answer that goes here doesn't make any sense, neither does the mechanic to me.
"Because the bomb detonated/the moon crashed into the Earth/your oxygen ran out" makes sense and has a context within the game.
"Just because" makes no sense, and falls into the lazy design category in my opinion.
I'm talking about the instances where the shoehorning of a mechanic to add something to a game seems glaringly out of context. Timer countdowns that only count down the allotted time to finish something before you die, without being used in a greater context like disarming a timebomb in the game, or resurfacing for air while holding your breath underwater or something.
I guess I just have a fundamental disagreement about that representing a "lazy" mechanic.
It's a way for a designer to encourage a pace of play, without invoking auto scrolling.
It's hard to imagine a platformer where you can't envision why the timer should or could exist (i.e. x-amount-of-time before the princess gets eaten/assaulted/etc by Bowser)
Yep, definite fundamental disagreement then. I don't think a designer should add those mechanicsif they serve no further purpose within the game other than to just end your run if you take what the developer decides is too long.
"Why'd you die?"
"Time ran out."
"So what?"
If the answer that goes here doesn't make any sense, neither does the mechanic to me.
"Because the bomb detonated" makes sense and has a context.
"Just because" makes no sense, and falls into the lazy category in my opinion.
There is very little in life that doesn't operate on some kind of time limit.
Doesn't strike me as arbitrary or strange, at all, to include it in a game that you want to be fast paced.
The purpose in the game was often to add challenge and to provide pacing.
That is a totally adequate purpose.
(yes, the mechanic itself originated in arcade games, to force you to pay to play, but the use in home console games is generally more about sustaining a level of challenge)
I can't think of too many un-timed platformers that are particularly challenging, because a pace that causes you to make errors IS the majority of the challenge in any platformer.
Aren't Kirby games considered absurdly easy, though?
They are, but I feel like that has little do with whatever challenge was taken away from the removal of timers. Pretty much everything about the Kirby games has had the difficulty sapped from it.
Mario 2 is one that could qualify, since some of the mid-game worlds have some decent challenge, IMO.
I would call Mario 2 very hard. It's the one Mario game I have yet to finish. I've even beaten Super Mario Land 2 and the final level (Mario's Castle) is a significant spike in difficulty compared to the rest of the game. One of these days I'll beat Mario 2...
Mario 2 is one that could qualify, since some of the mid-game worlds have some decent challenge, IMO.
I would call Mario 2 very hard. It's the one Mario game I have yet to finish. I've even beaten Super Mario Land 2 and the final level (Mario's Castle) is a significant spike in difficulty compared to the rest of the game. One of these days I'll beat Mario 2...
Don't go read Arnpoly's blog/review, then (he gave it a 2-out-of-10, for difficulty)
SMB2, IMO, derives challenge simply from how unusual some of the mechanics are.
(i.e. picking up and throwing enemies, needing to ride enemies or move them to reach high places, the log/waterfall mechanics, the style of the boss fights -- and the fact that the last boss is particularly unforgiving, IMO)
I wouldn't rate it as "very hard", though. (I reserve that for something like Battle Kid, or low-continue-count play on Ghosts and Goblins -- if you waste that rating on SMB2, you have no superlative left for the REALLY tough stuff)
Is the last boss of SMB2 really that tough, though? When I beat it in the 30x30 challenge I had never actually beaten the game before... and I was pretty drunk and took out the bird head thing and Wart fairly easily.
Comments
I'm surprised more of you don't despise the early Super Mario Bros. games too, SMB1, 3, World, Land, Land 2 and so on all have a timer in each level.
Personally, I love both Majora's Mask and Pikmin 1. I don't find the timers stressful at all, but that might have to do with my knowing them inside out. When you get past that "stress" mindset, both Majora's Mask and Pikmin are finely tuned experiences. The timer allows for a far more convincing story and theme. The small restricted world with tons of variety is a lot better than big wide open barren landscapes, don't you think?
I'm glad I'm not the only one! lol
I remember getting to 8-1 in SMB and I remember hating that level as a kid. The timer was brutal if you don't run! I somehow made it that far without running, but not only do you have the timer the deal with, you have to use the run button to jump big gaps.
I think after playing Sonic, I was more comfortable with running in Mario games. Running = good for me. haha
Majora's Mask is in no way restrictive. Play the Song of Time in reverse and it slows down time significantly, you get several hours of in-game time. Also consider that important quest items are always saved even if you return to Dawn of the First Day. If you run out of time, just reset to Day 1 after you get an important dungeon item, or gain access to the current dungeon. You only lose non-important items like rupees, arrows, bombs and such. You can save rupees by talking to the bank in East Clock Town. In every major area there are owl statues that when activated act like a savestate so you can return to the game at a later time.
My favorite part is there exists a speedrun where all 4 dungeons and the final battle were completed within the 3 day time limit, with time slowed down and no resetting to Dawn of the First Day. That is to say, there's tons of time in Majora's Mask to do things.
Another shock is the recent Wii U Luigi spinoff that limited every level to 100 instead of 300 seconds - totally moving in the wrong direction.
well that was kinda the whole gimmick behind that game. It was designed to be ran through speedily, and to be harder. I thought it was a nice change of pace, considering how easy the games have gotten
I don't mind timers at all in platformers or action games though, they just add an additional level of challenge and require the player to perform more precisely. I recall before forced to get good at Ninja Gaiden III's final stage because the timer is pretty unforgiving.
I certainly can't speak for everyone, but for me, the primary reason I play video games is to relieve stress and timing mechanics in games often cause me stress. That doesn't mean I refuse to play them, but I find that I enjoy them a lot less.
This is exactly it for me. I don't mind that the creators had certain intentions and challenges in mind when they design their stuff and, at times, I'm perfectly ok playing by their rules. However, when it comes to a time that I just need to pick up a controller and shut off my brain for a while to decompress, I don't want to have to worry about (usually) doing some sort of impossible task or incredibly difficult, esoteric maneuver within a strict, unforgiving timeframe to proceed. In games where everything's like that, I'd just as soon have an option to play without that limitation. If that means I don't get to collect certain achievements or whatever, so be it, I'm primarily a solitary gamer anyway, so I could give to flips about what sooper seekrit badge I do or don't have on my online accounts.
Not that there's a lot that's timed (that I ever found), but this is one of the reasons that it literally took me years in Skyrim to ever actually get up to the top of High Hrothgar and talk to the Greybeards. My primary skills on my character were/are archery and blacksmithing, so I'd get done with whatever was immediately pressing, start heading up the mountain to go do (basically) the beginning of the main storyline and then get distracted over and over again as animals would leap across my path, leading to more animals, then more animals, and then suddenly it's an hour or two later and I'm overburdened with leather and having to slowly slink back to Whiterun to make some crap armor, level up my blacksmithing skill and upgrade any/all of my armor and weapons that I can. Rinse and repeat. For years, lol!
In theory I think it's terrible for a game like Zelda (although to fair I haven't played the second Zelda 64 game), since the entire point of those games is to explore the world and fuck around with stuff. Adding a timer on top of that just kind of ruins the experience, and to me is bad game design.
I don't mind timers at all in platformers or action games though, they just add an additional level of challenge and require the player to perform more precisely. I recall before forced to get good at Ninja Gaiden III's final stage because the timer is pretty unforgiving.
The main draw of Majora's Mask isn't so much that you're exploring the landscape, but you're exploring the daily lives of the people in that world. Many of the sidequests will follow the 2 or 3-day period in each person's life, and you see how things go for them as they slowly realize they're about to die (or, in some cases, as they realize they have run out of toilet paper). It's actually really dark for a Nintendo game, but I think it was done really well and does a good job of making it stand out from other Zelda games where they follow the same formula for the most part. It really adds to the atmosphere of the game. The world is ending in 3 days, and it makes completing the dungeons feel that much more crucial.
Plus MM has song warping like ALTTP/Ocarina, and you can manipulate the flow of time once you beat the first half hour of the game. The only real limiting factor is you have to beat a temple in one 3-day cycle, but I've honestly never encountered any issues going over that. I'm pretty sure that doors and stuff stay unlocked and you keep the key items, so your progress isn't totally lost. It certainly isn't a game for everyone, and I understand why people might not enjoy it compared to other Zelda games, but it definitely isn't poor game design.
Would you include forced movement stages in with timed? The level I have in mind is towards the end of Hagane where it's just kind of a platforming level but there is a spiked wall moving behind you to make sure you're keeping a forward momentum. I hate that level and it's generally why I have second thoughts about popping that game in.
I would definitely lump them in with "equally annoying and arbitrary" (here's looking at you, SMB3 pirate ship levels!). Again, they may have their place, for example, if the basis of the level was to run across a bridge as it collapses under your feet, or if you're being chased by a monster or something. Otherwise, it's just an annoying mechanic to up the difficulty.
Would you include forced movement stages in with timed? The level I have in mind is towards the end of Hagane where it's just kind of a platforming level but there is a spiked wall moving behind you to make sure you're keeping a forward momentum. I hate that level and it's generally why I have second thoughts about popping that game in.
I would definitely lump them in with "equally annoying and arbitrary" (here's looking at you, SMB3 pirate ship levels!). Again, they may have their place, for example, if the basis of the level was to run across a bridge as it collapses under your feet, or if you're being chased by a monster or something. Otherwise, it's just an annoying mechanic to up the difficulty.
Could those be legitimately be chalked up to lazy/poor game design, then? I certainly think so personally, but I know that not everyone agrees (especially given the recent disagreement about LOZ:MM). To me, if you've just gotta add a timer/speed up the timer/throw in a bunch more enemies/make enemies much tougher/etc. to extend your game, you're doing something wrong and are either trying to cut corners (lazy) or are just bad at your job (poor game design).
Would you include forced movement stages in with timed? The level I have in mind is towards the end of Hagane where it's just kind of a platforming level but there is a spiked wall moving behind you to make sure you're keeping a forward momentum. I hate that level and it's generally why I have second thoughts about popping that game in.
I would definitely lump them in with "equally annoying and arbitrary" (here's looking at you, SMB3 pirate ship levels!). Again, they may have their place, for example, if the basis of the level was to run across a bridge as it collapses under your feet, or if you're being chased by a monster or something. Otherwise, it's just an annoying mechanic to up the difficulty.
Could those be legitimately be chalked up to lazy/poor game design, then? I certainly think so personally, but I know that not everyone agrees (especially given the recent disagreement about LOZ:MM). To me, if you've just gotta add a timer/speed up the timer/throw in a bunch more enemies/make enemies much tougher/etc. to extend your game, you're doing something wrong and are either trying to cut corners (lazy) or are just bad at your job (poor game design).
Difficulty has to come from somewhere.
There are only a few ways to make a platformer challenging:
1) tricky, precise jumps (i.e. the single-tile platforms with long-jump pits in SMB1)
2) timers that force the player to act, in turn forcings quick action that may lead to errors on the player's part
3) tricky, precise obstacle avoidance (i.e. areas where you have to fall past a bunch of wall spikes)
4) overuse of obstacles
Any of those COULD be used in a lazy way, but I think only (4) is lazy, across the board.
In terms of timers in platformers, though, I think some of it can come from the designer wanting to enforce a certain pacing to the game.
Think about timers and autoscrolling this way... how is their use in a platformer in ANY way fundamentally different (or lazier) from autoscrolling in top-down shooters? (which is practically the default for the genre)
Originally posted by: ZBomber
The only real limiting factor is you have to beat a temple in one 3-day cycle, but I've honestly never encountered any issues going over that. I'm pretty sure that doors and stuff stay unlocked and you keep the key items, so your progress isn't totally lost. It certainly isn't a game for everyone, and I understand why people might not enjoy it compared to other Zelda games, but it definitely isn't poor game design.
Majora's Mask always saves important items and dungeon entrances no matter how many times you return to the first day. For example, for those who find Snow Head tough, just get up there, find the Lens of Truth, return to dawn of the first day (saves the game), then make your way to Snow Head Temple, you'll have several hours to clear the dungeon.
Also, for the side quests that require a temple to be beaten, after you finish one for the first time, there will always be a warp to the boss in the temple entrance, no matter how many times you return to the first day.
Would you include forced movement stages in with timed? The level I have in mind is towards the end of Hagane where it's just kind of a platforming level but there is a spiked wall moving behind you to make sure you're keeping a forward momentum. I hate that level and it's generally why I have second thoughts about popping that game in.
I would definitely lump them in with "equally annoying and arbitrary" (here's looking at you, SMB3 pirate ship levels!). Again, they may have their place, for example, if the basis of the level was to run across a bridge as it collapses under your feet, or if you're being chased by a monster or something. Otherwise, it's just an annoying mechanic to up the difficulty.
Could those be legitimately be chalked up to lazy/poor game design, then? I certainly think so personally, but I know that not everyone agrees (especially given the recent disagreement about LOZ:MM). To me, if you've just gotta add a timer/speed up the timer/throw in a bunch more enemies/make enemies much tougher/etc. to extend your game, you're doing something wrong and are either trying to cut corners (lazy) or are just bad at your job (poor game design).
Difficulty has to come from somewhere.
There are only a few ways to make a platformer challenging:
1) tricky, precise jumps (i.e. the single-tile platforms with long-jump pits in SMB1)
2) timers that force the player to act, in turn forcings quick action that may lead to errors on the player's part
3) tricky, precise obstacle avoidance (i.e. areas where you have to fall past a bunch of wall spikes)
4) overuse of obstacles
Any of those COULD be used in a lazy way, but I think only (4) is lazy, across the board.
In terms of timers in platformers, though, I think some of it can come from the designer wanting to enforce a certain pacing to the game.
Think about timers and autoscrolling this way... how is their use in a platformer in ANY way fundamentally different (or lazier) from autoscrolling in top-down shooters? (which is practically the default for the genre)
Yes all very true, which is why this is sort of one of those issues that begs the question "where's the line?". If we removed everything that seemingly made a game "arbitrarily" difficult (those gaps are too big, that enemy can take too much damage/deals too much damage, my character is underpowered, my gun doesn't hold enough bullets, I'm too slow, there's too many enemies etc), games would all be just effortless straight sprints to the finish line. I'm talking about the instances where the shoehorning of a mechanic to add something to a game seems glaringly out of context. Timer countdowns that only count down the allotted time to finish something before you die, without being used in a greater context like disarming a timebomb in the game, or resurfacing for air while holding your breath underwater or something.
I'm talking about the instances where the shoehorning of a mechanic to add something to a game seems glaringly out of context. Timer countdowns that only count down the allotted time to finish something before you die, without being used in a greater context like disarming a timebomb in the game, or resurfacing for air while holding your breath underwater or something.
I guess I just have a fundamental disagreement about that representing a "lazy" mechanic.
It's a way for a designer to encourage a pace of play, without invoking auto scrolling.
It's hard to imagine a platformer where you can't envision why the timer should or could exist (i.e. x-amount-of-time before the princess gets eaten/assaulted/etc by Bowser)
Originally posted by: Quazonk
I'm talking about the instances where the shoehorning of a mechanic to add something to a game seems glaringly out of context. Timer countdowns that only count down the allotted time to finish something before you die, without being used in a greater context like disarming a timebomb in the game, or resurfacing for air while holding your breath underwater or something.
Games like Majora's Mask and Pikmin are all about context. A giant moon will come crashing down and destroy everything in 3 days. Your oxygen tanks will only last 30 days. What's hard to understand about that?
I'm talking about the instances where the shoehorning of a mechanic to add something to a game seems glaringly out of context. Timer countdowns that only count down the allotted time to finish something before you die, without being used in a greater context like disarming a timebomb in the game, or resurfacing for air while holding your breath underwater or something.
Games like Majora's Mask and Pikmin are all about context. A giant moon will come crashing down and destroy everything in 3 days. Your oxygen tanks will only last 30 days. What's hard to understand about that?
Nothing, I'm expressly talking about games that have no such greater context. What's hard to understand about that?
I'm talking about the instances where the shoehorning of a mechanic to add something to a game seems glaringly out of context. Timer countdowns that only count down the allotted time to finish something before you die, without being used in a greater context like disarming a timebomb in the game, or resurfacing for air while holding your breath underwater or something.
I guess I just have a fundamental disagreement about that representing a "lazy" mechanic.
It's a way for a designer to encourage a pace of play, without invoking auto scrolling.
It's hard to imagine a platformer where you can't envision why the timer should or could exist (i.e. x-amount-of-time before the princess gets eaten/assaulted/etc by Bowser)
Yep, definite fundamental disagreement then. I don't think a designer should add those mechanics if they serve no further purpose within the game other than to just end your run if you take what the developer decides is too long.
"Why'd you die?"
"Time ran out."
"So what?"
If the answer that goes here doesn't make any sense, neither does the mechanic to me.
"Because the bomb detonated/the moon crashed into the Earth/your oxygen ran out" makes sense and has a context within the game.
"Just because" makes no sense, and falls into the lazy design category in my opinion.
I'm talking about the instances where the shoehorning of a mechanic to add something to a game seems glaringly out of context. Timer countdowns that only count down the allotted time to finish something before you die, without being used in a greater context like disarming a timebomb in the game, or resurfacing for air while holding your breath underwater or something.
I guess I just have a fundamental disagreement about that representing a "lazy" mechanic.
It's a way for a designer to encourage a pace of play, without invoking auto scrolling.
It's hard to imagine a platformer where you can't envision why the timer should or could exist (i.e. x-amount-of-time before the princess gets eaten/assaulted/etc by Bowser)
Yep, definite fundamental disagreement then. I don't think a designer should add those mechanics if they serve no further purpose within the game other than to just end your run if you take what the developer decides is too long.
"Why'd you die?"
"Time ran out."
"So what?"
If the answer that goes here doesn't make any sense, neither does the mechanic to me.
"Because the bomb detonated" makes sense and has a context.
"Just because" makes no sense, and falls into the lazy category in my opinion.
There is very little in life that doesn't operate on some kind of time limit.
Doesn't strike me as arbitrary or strange, at all, to include it in a game that you want to be fast paced.
The purpose in the game was often to add challenge and to provide pacing.
That is a totally adequate purpose.
(yes, the mechanic itself originated in arcade games, to force you to pay to play, but the use in home console games is generally more about sustaining a level of challenge)
I can't think of too many un-timed platformers that are particularly challenging, because a pace that causes you to make errors IS the majority of the challenge in any platformer.
None of the Kirby platformer games have a time limit during stages.
My quote: "I can't think of too many un-timed platformers that are particularly challenging..."
I would definitely never accuse the Kirby platformers of being anywhere close to "particularly challenging".
Mario 2 is one that could qualify, since some of the mid-game worlds have some decent challenge, IMO.
Battle Kid is the obvious exception to the rule, since it instead relies on extreme precision.
(and some rooms are "timed" in the sense that events within the room naturally force you to act-or-die, with very little warning)
Some puzzle-platformers, like Alter Ego, could also make-the-grade.
Aren't Kirby games considered absurdly easy, though?
They are, but I feel like that has little do with whatever challenge was taken away from the removal of timers. Pretty much everything about the Kirby games has had the difficulty sapped from it.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Mario 2 is one that could qualify, since some of the mid-game worlds have some decent challenge, IMO.
I would call Mario 2 very hard. It's the one Mario game I have yet to finish. I've even beaten Super Mario Land 2 and the final level (Mario's Castle) is a significant spike in difficulty compared to the rest of the game. One of these days I'll beat Mario 2...
Originally posted by: Guntz
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Mario 2 is one that could qualify, since some of the mid-game worlds have some decent challenge, IMO.
I would call Mario 2 very hard. It's the one Mario game I have yet to finish. I've even beaten Super Mario Land 2 and the final level (Mario's Castle) is a significant spike in difficulty compared to the rest of the game. One of these days I'll beat Mario 2...
Don't go read Arnpoly's blog/review, then (he gave it a 2-out-of-10, for difficulty)
SMB2, IMO, derives challenge simply from how unusual some of the mechanics are.
(i.e. picking up and throwing enemies, needing to ride enemies or move them to reach high places, the log/waterfall mechanics, the style of the boss fights -- and the fact that the last boss is particularly unforgiving, IMO)
I wouldn't rate it as "very hard", though. (I reserve that for something like Battle Kid, or low-continue-count play on Ghosts and Goblins -- if you waste that rating on SMB2, you have no superlative left for the REALLY tough stuff)