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.
Yep, exactly. As long as there's a context, I'm okay with such things. I might not be a huge fan if I just want to grab a controller and veg out, but if there's suddenly a timer because of a time bomb, or the timer speeds up because someone cut the wrong wire on a time bomb, ok, sure, that works. Without context, whether included in the greater story of the game or not, to me it just becomes unnecessary and either lazy or bad game design. Omnipresent timers (or other such "trouble" mechanics) are also incredibly annoying sans context, but at least they're a known quantity if actually used throughout a given title. Some are arguing that that mechanic isn't lazy or bad; ok, fine, then the inability for the programmer to add context for that thrown in mechanic is the lazy/bad part if the PITA mechanic itself isn't to blame.
Note that I'm personally not talking about games where those mechanics are already present throughout the whole game. The timer on ever level of SMB isn't a surprise anywhere in the game, no matter how inconvenient it can get in the higher levels where it can take all of your time to safely reach the end of a level. I'm talking about where some new mechanic is seemingly randomly thrown in, all of a sudden, without any context, beyond any grokable rhyme or reason. Imagine if you just died randomly at the end of the timer on the water level of TMNT without the context of disarming the bombs and how annoying/frustrating that would be. In that hypothetical instance, it's lazy/poor game design to me to not take the moment to throw in, "There are bombs all over the bottom of the dam, if you don't disarm them all in xx:xx timeframe, the bombs will blow up the dam and you'll die." If a mechanic I don't like is present throughout a game, I'll know not to play that game (or play it when I just want to relax). If something just springs out of nowhere halfway through the game and then has no context, that's a totally unnecessary "gotcha" which can (and has) ruined the experience for me.
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.
Not once you learn how to beat him.
But he's different enough from anything else in the game that it will be a bad time the first couple times you get there.
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.
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.
No the whole game is pretty easy all around.
I'd personally rate it as tougher than the other early 2D Mario games, but that is more from lack of total playtime/familiarity, than anything else.
But you're right, it's not THAT hard, just that it manages to provide SOME challenge, without needing to force a pace with the timer.
(though, that said... the challenge that exists OFTEN comes from strictly "timed" elements like the phantom mask or bombs)
EDIT: and for clarity, I'm talking about a "full win" (i.e. play every level through) -- SMB2 lets you skip A LOT of the game, if you are so inclined.
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.
No the whole game is pretty easy all around.
I'd personally rate it as tougher than the other early 2D Mario games, but that is more from lack of total playtime/familiarity, than anything else.
But you're right, it's not THAT hard, just that it manages to provide SOME challenge, without needing to force a pace with the timer.
(though, that said... the challenge that exists OFTEN comes from strictly "timed" elements like the phantom mask or bombs)
EDIT: and for clarity, I'm talking about a "full win" (i.e. play every level through) -- SMB2 lets you skip A LOT of the game, if you are so inclined.
Yeah I took that into consideration too, if I had played SMB2 as much as the other two it would probably be the easier of the three overall.
I guess it kind of depends on who you want to use as your character as well, using Peach puts the difficultly down tremendously.
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.
No the whole game is pretty easy all around.
I'd personally rate it as tougher than the other early 2D Mario games, but that is more from lack of total playtime/familiarity, than anything else.
But you're right, it's not THAT hard, just that it manages to provide SOME challenge, without needing to force a pace with the timer.
(though, that said... the challenge that exists OFTEN comes from strictly "timed" elements like the phantom mask or bombs)
EDIT: and for clarity, I'm talking about a "full win" (i.e. play every level through) -- SMB2 lets you skip A LOT of the game, if you are so inclined.
Yeah I took that into consideration too, if I had played SMB2 as much as the other two it would probably be the easier of the three overall.
I guess it kind of depends on who you want to use as your character as well, using Peach puts the difficultly down tremendously.
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.
No the whole game is pretty easy all around.
I'd personally rate it as tougher than the other early 2D Mario games, but that is more from lack of total playtime/familiarity, than anything else.
But you're right, it's not THAT hard, just that it manages to provide SOME challenge, without needing to force a pace with the timer.
(though, that said... the challenge that exists OFTEN comes from strictly "timed" elements like the phantom mask or bombs)
EDIT: and for clarity, I'm talking about a "full win" (i.e. play every level through) -- SMB2 lets you skip A LOT of the game, if you are so inclined.
Yeah I took that into consideration too, if I had played SMB2 as much as the other two it would probably be the easier of the three overall.
I guess it kind of depends on who you want to use as your character as well, using Peach puts the difficultly down tremendously.
Toad is the best character.
PRINCESS TOADSTOOL is best for the ice stages.
I usually played as Luigi for the better high jumping (and Princess for the ice stages and stages with an overly large number of pits).
Don't know that I've ever played more than one or two levels as Toad.
From a design perspective, time is generally a poor choice in nearly all cases. It works against the interest of the player to enjoy and explore the experience at a personal pace. Ironically, it prevents and limits the player's enjoyment of the game.
Rarely, if ever, is it even modestly appropriate to use time as a mechanic. Often, timing is arbitrarily applied to limit how long someone plays with no association to the gameplay context. For instance, an arcade game that makes people put in a quarter for every 5 minutes of play but whose story/setting have no relation to time is an example of poorly used time from the player perspective. A decent use of time is the run away fast self destruction sequence you mentioned - at least the time relates to the context. However, in such cases, I'd give 2-3x the time required by a first-time player (not the game's creator or a professional speed runner) to complete the task.
Generally speaking, I'd never design time into a game at this point. There are many more enjoyable and effective ways to get a design point across.
I think a lot of it is context and balance.
The 1-hour timer in Prince of Persia, for instance, makes a lot of sense and forces you to view the entire game as one larger experience, rather than allowing you to play poorly early on and make up for it later.
And you get a password each level, so you can easily go back and replay the level once you "solve" it to get a better time before you proceed.
The timer in Prince of Persia annoyed me. It just ment that you had to play each level two times. It's impossible to beat it within the time limit if it's your first time playing.
I also hate the time limit in James Bond Jr (NES). There's a lot to explore in that gaming and those puzzles in stage 1 take up a lot of time to solve.
However I'm OK with time limits in platformers which are pretty much straight forward such as the Mario games.
The 1-hour timer in Prince of Persia, for instance, makes a lot of sense and forces you to view the entire game as one larger experience, rather than allowing you to play poorly early on and make up for it later.
And you get a password each level, so you can easily go back and replay the level once you "solve" it to get a better time before you proceed.
The timer in Prince of Persia annoyed me. It just ment that you had to play each level two times. It's impossible to beat it within the time limit if it's your first time playing.
...
However I'm OK with time limits in platformers which are pretty much straight forward such as the Mario games.
I would hazard that pretty much ANYBODY that beats Prince of Persia ends up playing each stage WAY more than "two times"...
There are maybe one or two levels where twice will cut it, IMO. (talking about your FIRST introduction to the game, not revisiting the game once you know it)
Personally, I enjoy that motif and style of game, so I wasn't bothered by needing to play through it a few times to actually be able to finish within the time limit.
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.
Not once you learn how to beat him.
But he's different enough from anything else in the game that it will be a bad time the first couple times you get there.
That was my first time ever getting there. I think I died once? But I did know that you were supposed to throw veggies in his mouth... because that just seems common knowledge these days.
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.
Not once you learn how to beat him.
But he's different enough from anything else in the game that it will be a bad time the first couple times you get there.
That was my first time ever getting there. I think I died once? But I did know that you were supposed to throw veggies in his mouth... because that just seems common knowledge these days.
Wasn't common knowledge until some of us figured it out back in the 80's
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.
No the whole game is pretty easy all around.
I'd personally rate it as tougher than the other early 2D Mario games, but that is more from lack of total playtime/familiarity, than anything else.
But you're right, it's not THAT hard, just that it manages to provide SOME challenge, without needing to force a pace with the timer.
(though, that said... the challenge that exists OFTEN comes from strictly "timed" elements like the phantom mask or bombs)
EDIT: and for clarity, I'm talking about a "full win" (i.e. play every level through) -- SMB2 lets you skip A LOT of the game, if you are so inclined.
Yeah I took that into consideration too, if I had played SMB2 as much as the other two it would probably be the easier of the three overall.
I guess it kind of depends on who you want to use as your character as well, using Peach puts the difficultly down tremendously.
Toad is the best character.
PRINCESS TOADSTOOL is best for the ice stages.
I usually played as Luigi for the better high jumping (and Princess for the ice stages and stages with an overly large number of pits).
Don't know that I've ever played more than one or two levels as Toad.
Toad's strength makes him the best all around character. Being able to pick up items quickly is actually better than (floaty) jumps. And you can easily max out 1UPs by getting a nice patch of coins in a few stages, Toad is strong enough to pluck them all before time is up.
Imagine my pain, though, when I tried using Toad in Super Mario Advance.
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.
Not once you learn how to beat him.
But he's different enough from anything else in the game that it will be a bad time the first couple times you get there.
That was my first time ever getting there. I think I died once? But I did know that you were supposed to throw veggies in his mouth... because that just seems common knowledge these days.
Wasn't common knowledge until some of us figured it out back in the 80's
The manual says Wart doesn't like to eat his veggies.
What about Nintendo Power? SMB2 was in the first issue. Surely you had access to that.
Why would I surely have had access to the first year of NP? (let alone the first issue)
I wouldn't be surprised if MOST NP subscribers of that timeframe (those of us who got an NES in 1989/90) didn't have any magazines or subscription until the Dragon Warrior promotion.
My first issue was #21, I think.
(and believe it, or not, I don't think I actually had any other childhood friends that were subscribers to NP -- at least that I knew of)
EDIT: though I'll happily concede the point that how to kill Wart was "widely known"... just that I only had one friend who owned the game, at all, and he was younger than I was, so he certainly wouldn't have had NP #1, either
I had some of the earlier issues. Not sure how my brother got a subscription. Actually, I may even have the first one. The cover was ripped off, but is there a splash page inside where it shows various characters from SMB doing track and field stuff?
I had some of the earlier issues. Not sure how my brother got a subscription. Actually, I may even have the first one. The cover was ripped off, but is there a splash page inside where it shows various characters from SMB doing track and field stuff?
There were a handful of back issues that Toys R Us seemed to have a permanent supply of.
(I know that at one point I was able to buy the Tetris issue -- just to get the maps for Willow and that cool Dragon Warrior CYOA insert)
But I definitely remember back issues (ordered via the back pages of NP issues) being full price, so I wouldn't have had a lot of incentive to spend my money that way ($4/issue) when my parents had given me a subscription that worked out to less than $2/issue, on average.
I didn't have a NP sub until SNES, and I received the first issue for free (can't remember why).
Yes, the first issue has the SMB2 characters doing T&F.
Also has the map for Metroid, which is responsible for my ability to beat the game back in the day.
If your NP sub started in the SNES days, that would probably have been Nintendo cleaning out old stock via the "Super Power Club".
That method was responsible for how the flushed out a lot old stock of players guides (NES game atlas, for instance), as well as the re-issues of games like Metroid (yellow label), after a lot of those earlier NES games had been pulled from shelves. (it was definitely how I bought Metroid and Final Fantasy)
So sure, once Super Power Club rolled around, i received a promo copy of the Game Atlas (which certainly had the "how to" on everything about Mario 2) -- this just came a few years too late for my earlier gameplay sessions..
We didn't have a Toys R Us around us. Hhmmm. I really do wonder how he got one.
KB Toys?
Sears?
Service Merchandise?
Pretty much any serious toy store, and any retailer that sold consumer electronics, carried NES games, and probably had a couple magazine displays of old NP issues. (wouldn't surprise me AT ALL if a case of NP back issues was part of the retailer display set at the time, along with an M82 unit)
A per-level timer is fine, but a full-game timer isn't fun. I play games to lose track of time, not keep track of it.
I'm also not generally interested in repeatedly replaying games to achieve better times/completion %s too, so that has something to do with it. Give me a specific, unambiguous goal that's clear from the outset, so I can beat the game (even if it's ferociously hard) and move on -- not discover at the end that I need to replay it and all my efforts up to now have been wasted, because I didn't use a walkthrough from the start and play like a speed-runner.
A per-level timer is fine, but a full-game timer isn't fun. I play games to lose track of time, not keep track of it.
I'm also not generally interested in repeatedly replaying games to achieve better times/completion %s too, so that has something to do with it. Give me a specific, unambiguous goal that's clear from the outset, so I can beat the game (even if it's ferociously hard) and move on -- not discover at the end that I need to replay it and all my efforts up to now have been wasted, because I didn't use a walkthrough from the start and play like a speed-runner.
The full-game timer in Prince of Persia, for instance, is shown every time a minute decrements from the clock, I think.
(certainly you're aware of it, as the player, at the start of the first level)
To each his own, but "solving" a route through the game, combined with executing it well (given the tenuous nature of some of the leap-of-faith jumps), is a pretty decent challenge that I felt provided adequate "replay value" within each level to make it a fun challenge rather than a frustrating nuissance.
A per-level timer is fine, but a full-game timer isn't fun. I play games to lose track of time, not keep track of it.
I'm also not generally interested in repeatedly replaying games to achieve better times/completion %s too, so that has something to do with it. Give me a specific, unambiguous goal that's clear from the outset, so I can beat the game (even if it's ferociously hard) and move on -- not discover at the end that I need to replay it and all my efforts up to now have been wasted, because I didn't use a walkthrough from the start and play like a speed-runner.
The full-game timer in Prince of Persia, for instance, is shown every time a minute decrements from the clock, I think.
(certainly you're aware of it, as the player, at the start of the first level)
Prince of Persia is a rare example where it's done well and doesn't detract from the game, because the levels are short and more-or-less linear, you constantly get fresh passwords so your time is never wasted, the timer is forgiving, and the game is completely upfront about what it expects. I don't know if I'd miss the timer if it were gone, but I don't remember it as a source of frustration.
I guess I just don't think this mechanic is a good fit for any non-linear game (Metroid/Super Metroid, Simon's Quest, etc.) because it fundamentally discourages exploration. At least in Metroid you don't get a "bad" ending for not speedrunning the game.
But it makes the experience like having some mouthbreathing cousin looking over your shoulder the whole time you play, barking that "You're doing it wrong!"
Prince of Persia is a rare example where it's done well and doesn't detract from the game, because the levels are short and more-or-less linear, you constantly get fresh passwords so your time is never wasted, the timer is forgiving, and the game is completely upfront about what it expects. I don't know if I'd miss the timer if it were gone, but I don't remember it as a source of frustration.
I guess I just don't think this mechanic is a good fit for any non-linear game (Metroid/Super Metroid, Simon's Quest, etc.) because it fundamentally discourages exploration. At least in Metroid you don't get a "bad" ending for not speedrunning the game.
But it makes the experience like having some mouthbreathing cousin looking over your shoulder the whole time you play, barking that "You're doing it wrong!"
I think I would miss the timer in Prince of Persia, since there are numerous levels that you're basically expected to complete at an all-out sprint.
Making that easier going would make for a lesser game, IMO.
But games with "bad endings" (based on time), I don't find those kind of timers problematic.
That is just an alternate ending, where better play is rewarded with a better ending.
That is different than a timer that out-right kills you, mid-game, IMO.
But I will agree that Metroid handles it well, in that, if you didn't even know about the timer, you're not disappointed by the ending screen.
I think I would miss the timer in Prince of Persia, since there are numerous levels that you're basically expected to complete at an all-out sprint.
I should mention that the only version of PoP I've completed is the SNES game (though I beat the sequel on Macintosh), so I'm used to its longer-form structure. I've never bothered completing the other versions since they all seemed like a comparative step down, with fewer levels and less appealing presentation.
I don't mind a better ending as a reward, and I agree that by making it a pleasant bonus, Metroid handles it well (and Super Metroid even better since it gives you an ingame timer). But Simon's Quest carries it too far and isn't upfront about its requirements: does the manual even mention anything about the time limit?
For me the bottom line is that I just don't enjoy this mechanic. Anytime a game wastes my time for any reason, or has deliberately unclear win conditions, I get very grumpy and find myself wishing horrible fates on the designers. Finding out that hours of my gametime have been for naught -- or that the game was designed to more or less require a strategy guide for optimal completion without endless replays, but isn't 100% upfront about its expectations -- these things irritate me.
Comments
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.
Yep, exactly. As long as there's a context, I'm okay with such things. I might not be a huge fan if I just want to grab a controller and veg out, but if there's suddenly a timer because of a time bomb, or the timer speeds up because someone cut the wrong wire on a time bomb, ok, sure, that works. Without context, whether included in the greater story of the game or not, to me it just becomes unnecessary and either lazy or bad game design. Omnipresent timers (or other such "trouble" mechanics) are also incredibly annoying sans context, but at least they're a known quantity if actually used throughout a given title. Some are arguing that that mechanic isn't lazy or bad; ok, fine, then the inability for the programmer to add context for that thrown in mechanic is the lazy/bad part if the PITA mechanic itself isn't to blame.
Note that I'm personally not talking about games where those mechanics are already present throughout the whole game. The timer on ever level of SMB isn't a surprise anywhere in the game, no matter how inconvenient it can get in the higher levels where it can take all of your time to safely reach the end of a level. I'm talking about where some new mechanic is seemingly randomly thrown in, all of a sudden, without any context, beyond any grokable rhyme or reason. Imagine if you just died randomly at the end of the timer on the water level of TMNT without the context of disarming the bombs and how annoying/frustrating that would be. In that hypothetical instance, it's lazy/poor game design to me to not take the moment to throw in, "There are bombs all over the bottom of the dam, if you don't disarm them all in xx:xx timeframe, the bombs will blow up the dam and you'll die." If a mechanic I don't like is present throughout a game, I'll know not to play that game (or play it when I just want to relax). If something just springs out of nowhere halfway through the game and then has no context, that's a totally unnecessary "gotcha" which can (and has) ruined the experience for me.
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.
Not once you learn how to beat him.
But he's different enough from anything else in the game that it will be a bad time the first couple times you get there.
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.
No the whole game is pretty easy all around.
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.
No the whole game is pretty easy all around.
I'd personally rate it as tougher than the other early 2D Mario games, but that is more from lack of total playtime/familiarity, than anything else.
But you're right, it's not THAT hard, just that it manages to provide SOME challenge, without needing to force a pace with the timer.
(though, that said... the challenge that exists OFTEN comes from strictly "timed" elements like the phantom mask or bombs)
EDIT: and for clarity, I'm talking about a "full win" (i.e. play every level through) -- SMB2 lets you skip A LOT of the game, if you are so inclined.
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.
No the whole game is pretty easy all around.
I'd personally rate it as tougher than the other early 2D Mario games, but that is more from lack of total playtime/familiarity, than anything else.
But you're right, it's not THAT hard, just that it manages to provide SOME challenge, without needing to force a pace with the timer.
(though, that said... the challenge that exists OFTEN comes from strictly "timed" elements like the phantom mask or bombs)
EDIT: and for clarity, I'm talking about a "full win" (i.e. play every level through) -- SMB2 lets you skip A LOT of the game, if you are so inclined.
Yeah I took that into consideration too, if I had played SMB2 as much as the other two it would probably be the easier of the three overall.
I guess it kind of depends on who you want to use as your character as well, using Peach puts the difficultly down tremendously.
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.
No the whole game is pretty easy all around.
I'd personally rate it as tougher than the other early 2D Mario games, but that is more from lack of total playtime/familiarity, than anything else.
But you're right, it's not THAT hard, just that it manages to provide SOME challenge, without needing to force a pace with the timer.
(though, that said... the challenge that exists OFTEN comes from strictly "timed" elements like the phantom mask or bombs)
EDIT: and for clarity, I'm talking about a "full win" (i.e. play every level through) -- SMB2 lets you skip A LOT of the game, if you are so inclined.
Yeah I took that into consideration too, if I had played SMB2 as much as the other two it would probably be the easier of the three overall.
I guess it kind of depends on who you want to use as your character as well, using Peach puts the difficultly down tremendously.
Toad is the best character.
PRINCESS TOADSTOOL is best for the ice stages.
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.
No the whole game is pretty easy all around.
I'd personally rate it as tougher than the other early 2D Mario games, but that is more from lack of total playtime/familiarity, than anything else.
But you're right, it's not THAT hard, just that it manages to provide SOME challenge, without needing to force a pace with the timer.
(though, that said... the challenge that exists OFTEN comes from strictly "timed" elements like the phantom mask or bombs)
EDIT: and for clarity, I'm talking about a "full win" (i.e. play every level through) -- SMB2 lets you skip A LOT of the game, if you are so inclined.
Yeah I took that into consideration too, if I had played SMB2 as much as the other two it would probably be the easier of the three overall.
I guess it kind of depends on who you want to use as your character as well, using Peach puts the difficultly down tremendously.
Toad is the best character.
PRINCESS TOADSTOOL is best for the ice stages.
I usually played as Luigi for the better high jumping (and Princess for the ice stages and stages with an overly large number of pits).
Don't know that I've ever played more than one or two levels as Toad.
From a design perspective, time is generally a poor choice in nearly all cases. It works against the interest of the player to enjoy and explore the experience at a personal pace. Ironically, it prevents and limits the player's enjoyment of the game.
Rarely, if ever, is it even modestly appropriate to use time as a mechanic. Often, timing is arbitrarily applied to limit how long someone plays with no association to the gameplay context. For instance, an arcade game that makes people put in a quarter for every 5 minutes of play but whose story/setting have no relation to time is an example of poorly used time from the player perspective. A decent use of time is the run away fast self destruction sequence you mentioned - at least the time relates to the context. However, in such cases, I'd give 2-3x the time required by a first-time player (not the game's creator or a professional speed runner) to complete the task.
Generally speaking, I'd never design time into a game at this point. There are many more enjoyable and effective ways to get a design point across.
I think a lot of it is context and balance.
The 1-hour timer in Prince of Persia, for instance, makes a lot of sense and forces you to view the entire game as one larger experience, rather than allowing you to play poorly early on and make up for it later.
And you get a password each level, so you can easily go back and replay the level once you "solve" it to get a better time before you proceed.
The timer in Prince of Persia annoyed me. It just ment that you had to play each level two times. It's impossible to beat it within the time limit if it's your first time playing.
I also hate the time limit in James Bond Jr (NES). There's a lot to explore in that gaming and those puzzles in stage 1 take up a lot of time to solve.
However I'm OK with time limits in platformers which are pretty much straight forward such as the Mario games.
I think a lot of it is context and balance.
The 1-hour timer in Prince of Persia, for instance, makes a lot of sense and forces you to view the entire game as one larger experience, rather than allowing you to play poorly early on and make up for it later.
And you get a password each level, so you can easily go back and replay the level once you "solve" it to get a better time before you proceed.
The timer in Prince of Persia annoyed me. It just ment that you had to play each level two times. It's impossible to beat it within the time limit if it's your first time playing.
...
However I'm OK with time limits in platformers which are pretty much straight forward such as the Mario games.
I would hazard that pretty much ANYBODY that beats Prince of Persia ends up playing each stage WAY more than "two times"...
There are maybe one or two levels where twice will cut it, IMO. (talking about your FIRST introduction to the game, not revisiting the game once you know it)
Personally, I enjoy that motif and style of game, so I wasn't bothered by needing to play through it a few times to actually be able to finish within the time limit.
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.
Not once you learn how to beat him.
But he's different enough from anything else in the game that it will be a bad time the first couple times you get there.
That was my first time ever getting there. I think I died once? But I did know that you were supposed to throw veggies in his mouth... because that just seems common knowledge these days.
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.
Not once you learn how to beat him.
But he's different enough from anything else in the game that it will be a bad time the first couple times you get there.
That was my first time ever getting there. I think I died once? But I did know that you were supposed to throw veggies in his mouth... because that just seems common knowledge these days.
Wasn't common knowledge until some of us figured it out back in the 80's
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.
No the whole game is pretty easy all around.
I'd personally rate it as tougher than the other early 2D Mario games, but that is more from lack of total playtime/familiarity, than anything else.
But you're right, it's not THAT hard, just that it manages to provide SOME challenge, without needing to force a pace with the timer.
(though, that said... the challenge that exists OFTEN comes from strictly "timed" elements like the phantom mask or bombs)
EDIT: and for clarity, I'm talking about a "full win" (i.e. play every level through) -- SMB2 lets you skip A LOT of the game, if you are so inclined.
Yeah I took that into consideration too, if I had played SMB2 as much as the other two it would probably be the easier of the three overall.
I guess it kind of depends on who you want to use as your character as well, using Peach puts the difficultly down tremendously.
Toad is the best character.
PRINCESS TOADSTOOL is best for the ice stages.
I usually played as Luigi for the better high jumping (and Princess for the ice stages and stages with an overly large number of pits).
Don't know that I've ever played more than one or two levels as Toad.
Toad's strength makes him the best all around character. Being able to pick up items quickly is actually better than (floaty) jumps. And you can easily max out 1UPs by getting a nice patch of coins in a few stages, Toad is strong enough to pluck them all before time is up.
Imagine my pain, though, when I tried using Toad in Super Mario Advance.
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.
Not once you learn how to beat him.
But he's different enough from anything else in the game that it will be a bad time the first couple times you get there.
That was my first time ever getting there. I think I died once? But I did know that you were supposed to throw veggies in his mouth... because that just seems common knowledge these days.
Wasn't common knowledge until some of us figured it out back in the 80's
The manual says Wart doesn't like to eat his veggies.
The manual says Wart doesn't like to eat his veggies.
When you only get to play the game at a friend's house, or get it as a rental, you don't usually get to read the full manual
The manual says Wart doesn't like to eat his veggies.
When you only get to play the game at a friend's house, or get it as a rental, you don't usually get to read the full manual
You never owned SMB2? Only rented? What kind of a monster are you?
The manual says Wart doesn't like to eat his veggies.
When you only get to play the game at a friend's house, or get it as a rental, you don't usually get to read the full manual
You never owned SMB2? Only rented? What kind of a monster are you?
Never rented it, only played it at a friends house, once a week, along with Marble Madness and Double Dragon.
Didn't own any of those games until I was an adult.
I was too busy spending my allowance on LoZ, MegaMan 2, and an assortment of rentals.
What about Nintendo Power? SMB2 was in the first issue. Surely you had access to that.
Why would I surely have had access to the first year of NP? (let alone the first issue)
I wouldn't be surprised if MOST NP subscribers of that timeframe (those of us who got an NES in 1989/90) didn't have any magazines or subscription until the Dragon Warrior promotion.
My first issue was #21, I think.
(and believe it, or not, I don't think I actually had any other childhood friends that were subscribers to NP -- at least that I knew of)
EDIT: though I'll happily concede the point that how to kill Wart was "widely known"... just that I only had one friend who owned the game, at all, and he was younger than I was, so he certainly wouldn't have had NP #1, either
Yes, the first issue has the SMB2 characters doing T&F.
Also has the map for Metroid, which is responsible for my ability to beat the game back in the day.
I had some of the earlier issues. Not sure how my brother got a subscription. Actually, I may even have the first one. The cover was ripped off, but is there a splash page inside where it shows various characters from SMB doing track and field stuff?
There were a handful of back issues that Toys R Us seemed to have a permanent supply of.
(I know that at one point I was able to buy the Tetris issue -- just to get the maps for Willow and that cool Dragon Warrior CYOA insert)
But I definitely remember back issues (ordered via the back pages of NP issues) being full price, so I wouldn't have had a lot of incentive to spend my money that way ($4/issue) when my parents had given me a subscription that worked out to less than $2/issue, on average.
I didn't have a NP sub until SNES, and I received the first issue for free (can't remember why).
Yes, the first issue has the SMB2 characters doing T&F.
Also has the map for Metroid, which is responsible for my ability to beat the game back in the day.
If your NP sub started in the SNES days, that would probably have been Nintendo cleaning out old stock via the "Super Power Club".
That method was responsible for how the flushed out a lot old stock of players guides (NES game atlas, for instance), as well as the re-issues of games like Metroid (yellow label), after a lot of those earlier NES games had been pulled from shelves. (it was definitely how I bought Metroid and Final Fantasy)
So sure, once Super Power Club rolled around, i received a promo copy of the Game Atlas (which certainly had the "how to" on everything about Mario 2) -- this just came a few years too late for my earlier gameplay sessions..
We didn't have a Toys R Us around us. Hhmmm. I really do wonder how he got one.
KB Toys?
Sears?
Service Merchandise?
Pretty much any serious toy store, and any retailer that sold consumer electronics, carried NES games, and probably had a couple magazine displays of old NP issues. (wouldn't surprise me AT ALL if a case of NP back issues was part of the retailer display set at the time, along with an M82 unit)
I'm also not generally interested in repeatedly replaying games to achieve better times/completion %s too, so that has something to do with it. Give me a specific, unambiguous goal that's clear from the outset, so I can beat the game (even if it's ferociously hard) and move on -- not discover at the end that I need to replay it and all my efforts up to now have been wasted, because I didn't use a walkthrough from the start and play like a speed-runner.
A per-level timer is fine, but a full-game timer isn't fun. I play games to lose track of time, not keep track of it.
I'm also not generally interested in repeatedly replaying games to achieve better times/completion %s too, so that has something to do with it. Give me a specific, unambiguous goal that's clear from the outset, so I can beat the game (even if it's ferociously hard) and move on -- not discover at the end that I need to replay it and all my efforts up to now have been wasted, because I didn't use a walkthrough from the start and play like a speed-runner.
The full-game timer in Prince of Persia, for instance, is shown every time a minute decrements from the clock, I think.
(certainly you're aware of it, as the player, at the start of the first level)
To each his own, but "solving" a route through the game, combined with executing it well (given the tenuous nature of some of the leap-of-faith jumps), is a pretty decent challenge that I felt provided adequate "replay value" within each level to make it a fun challenge rather than a frustrating nuissance.
A per-level timer is fine, but a full-game timer isn't fun. I play games to lose track of time, not keep track of it.
I'm also not generally interested in repeatedly replaying games to achieve better times/completion %s too, so that has something to do with it. Give me a specific, unambiguous goal that's clear from the outset, so I can beat the game (even if it's ferociously hard) and move on -- not discover at the end that I need to replay it and all my efforts up to now have been wasted, because I didn't use a walkthrough from the start and play like a speed-runner.
The full-game timer in Prince of Persia, for instance, is shown every time a minute decrements from the clock, I think.
(certainly you're aware of it, as the player, at the start of the first level)
Prince of Persia is a rare example where it's done well and doesn't detract from the game, because the levels are short and more-or-less linear, you constantly get fresh passwords so your time is never wasted, the timer is forgiving, and the game is completely upfront about what it expects. I don't know if I'd miss the timer if it were gone, but I don't remember it as a source of frustration.
I guess I just don't think this mechanic is a good fit for any non-linear game (Metroid/Super Metroid, Simon's Quest, etc.) because it fundamentally discourages exploration. At least in Metroid you don't get a "bad" ending for not speedrunning the game.
But it makes the experience like having some mouthbreathing cousin looking over your shoulder the whole time you play, barking that "You're doing it wrong!"
Prince of Persia is a rare example where it's done well and doesn't detract from the game, because the levels are short and more-or-less linear, you constantly get fresh passwords so your time is never wasted, the timer is forgiving, and the game is completely upfront about what it expects. I don't know if I'd miss the timer if it were gone, but I don't remember it as a source of frustration.
I guess I just don't think this mechanic is a good fit for any non-linear game (Metroid/Super Metroid, Simon's Quest, etc.) because it fundamentally discourages exploration. At least in Metroid you don't get a "bad" ending for not speedrunning the game.
But it makes the experience like having some mouthbreathing cousin looking over your shoulder the whole time you play, barking that "You're doing it wrong!"
I think I would miss the timer in Prince of Persia, since there are numerous levels that you're basically expected to complete at an all-out sprint.
Making that easier going would make for a lesser game, IMO.
But games with "bad endings" (based on time), I don't find those kind of timers problematic.
That is just an alternate ending, where better play is rewarded with a better ending.
That is different than a timer that out-right kills you, mid-game, IMO.
But I will agree that Metroid handles it well, in that, if you didn't even know about the timer, you're not disappointed by the ending screen.
I think I would miss the timer in Prince of Persia, since there are numerous levels that you're basically expected to complete at an all-out sprint.
I should mention that the only version of PoP I've completed is the SNES game (though I beat the sequel on Macintosh), so I'm used to its longer-form structure. I've never bothered completing the other versions since they all seemed like a comparative step down, with fewer levels and less appealing presentation.
I don't mind a better ending as a reward, and I agree that by making it a pleasant bonus, Metroid handles it well (and Super Metroid even better since it gives you an ingame timer). But Simon's Quest carries it too far and isn't upfront about its requirements: does the manual even mention anything about the time limit?
For me the bottom line is that I just don't enjoy this mechanic. Anytime a game wastes my time for any reason, or has deliberately unclear win conditions, I get very grumpy and find myself wishing horrible fates on the designers. Finding out that hours of my gametime have been for naught -- or that the game was designed to more or less require a strategy guide for optimal completion without endless replays, but isn't 100% upfront about its expectations -- these things irritate me.