Sonic-related pet peeves?

[Nepenthe]

We aren't in the classic era anymore.

Yes, the era in which the system isn't used all that much if at all anymore, which raises the question of why are you even complaining about it? The only games in which it is most relevant are the classic games which are still being played. Hence the games I'm talking about.

 

Yes, it is.

... Did you really separate this part of my entire point just to refute with "no u!" This isn't even a refutation, it's just repetitive disagreement. Seriously dude, don't. :/

 

But it's disproportionate. I don't care how "near-invulnerable" Sonic is, I shouldn't get penalized to such an extent just for making a tiny mistake. Anyway, some characters aren't near-invulnerable when they're moving, so what about them?

It's not disproportionate, especially when the awards you gain during gameplay for having high amounts are not deducted if you get hit. The moment you get 100, that extra life is yours forever regardless of whether or not you get hit later. And as Dio said, you can gather significant amounts of rings back the more of them you have, meaning your moment of invulnerability is nearly non-existent; it's not like they immediately disappear and you're just stuck with 0 again. And if you had a small number when you got hit, like five or even ten, the difference between that and one or zero is so minimal that one wonders how in the world anyone can be offended by losing them all. Really, there are so many checks in play that the only understandable reason I can imagine you being pissed at the system is if you're a score nut or something.

 

And huh? Everyone else tends to have the same moving attacks as Sonic as well in games where this system is used- jump attack, Spin Dash, and roll. So what about them? They're not exceptions.

 

The game shouldn't have a system that frustrates me in the first place.

 

Oh God, I can't. You are not the only game player on the planet. Sega's not your lap dog. Stop being so shortsightedly selfish and realize your frustration is on you and not the game.

 

I don't care. I hate the classic system! I want it to stop appearing in games, or at least be reserved for hard mode or something!

You can hate it all you want, but you've not presented a convincing argument on why it sucks beyond "it inconveniences me too much!"

[Splash the Otter]

You're in the minority though, you can't just say such a thing when the majority of people disagree, the games aren't built for one person (i.e. you) in mind.

The majority of people are wrong.

 

You losing all your rings is putting in a moment of 1 hit wonder and it makes the player either more tense when it just means you need to more cautious on how you play the game. Plus the games giving you a chance to get an amount of rings back is generous enough as it is.

When I lose all my rings I panic, and when I panic that usually means I lose any of the rings I managed to get back. Anyway, it breaks the flow and keeps me on edge for the rest of the act, which makes it hard (if not impossible) to enjoy the game!

 

Limiting how many rings you lose is just making the games easier than they should be meaning the only things that'll end up being a threat are bottomless pits and Crushers, since enemies, spikes, or most other obstacles have no chance of killing you because you'll always have rings in that case and might as well be invincible.

I don't care. I liked the system that had rings equate to health, and I want it to be used in more games! The classic system can stay, but I don't want it forced on me!

[Junko]

The majority of people are wrong.

Annd that's the kind shit that does not really get you points.

[Briraka]

The majority of people are wrong.

I'm so sorry I've been wrong. I'm going to log off for a while and re-think all the terrible decisions I've made in my life.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Wait you dont want to loose any rings when you bump into a enimy? I like that you only looe 10 rings when you did that or that you loose all but 30 of them are wating close to you

[Tara]

I'm so sorry I've been wrong. I'm going to log off for a while and re-think all the terrible decisions I've made in my life.

If you can't at least add something contributive, please refrain from the sarcastic commentary.  Thanks. @3@;

[Komodin]

The majority of people are wrong.

... Um, don't you think you're being a WEE bit overly reactionary here, bud?

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Its not all thrown together...they're trying to make the teams balanced, so for every advantage a team has there is also a disadvantage. If not an actual disadvantage, than its just something that the player doesn't like about that specific team pairing.

Might I say that you're expecting a bit too much from the game...you're not suppose to gain other character's main abilities that's not how the mechanic was meant to work. You get different traits from a team pairing along with the partner mechanic.

It may be useful like Tails being able to use the Hammer while flying being partnered with Amy, Knuckles getting extra height in his glide from being partnered with Tails, Amy getting a small glide with balloons from being partnered with cream or it could not be so useful like Knuckles getting a skull bash attack from being with Sonic, Sonic not being able to spin jump when partnered with Amy(I'm pretty sure he does anyway by pressing the button again), and Tails not being able to fly and only glide from being partnered with Knuckles...

I wanted them to gain ONE ablity from the character and make it there own. That was all.

[Splash the Otter]

Wait you dont want to loose any rings when you bump into a enimy? I like that you only looe 10 rings when you did that or that you loose all but 30 of them are wating close to you

No, I'm fine with losing rings. The first system you mentioned, where you only lose a set number of rings, is the one I want to see more of. When Lost World went back to the other system, that was just a step down in my opinion.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

No, I'm fine with losing rings. The first system you mentioned, where you only lose a set number of rings, is the one I want to see more of. When Lost World went back to the other system, that was just a step down in my opinion.

I like that as well. I like only losing a set about of rings. I also like with the werehog you dont loose any rings but you loose health. As long as its not like sonic shitvance 1 and 2 where rings scatter to where you cant catch them in 2.5 seconds... then its cool.

[Komodin]

Honestly, I strongly prefer the classic-styled ring loss setup over the whole "only lose a set amount of rings" nonsense. The latter just makes the games that it was in way too unchallenging for my liking.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Actually I must admit I agree with kyrem sense my first game was Sonic 06 and you only lose a set amount instead of all in that game. And they were easy to pick up to.

[Junko]

I like that as well. I like only losing a set about of rings. I also like with the werehog you dont loose any rings but you loose health. As long as its not like sonic shitvance 1 and 2 where rings scatter to where you cant catch them in 2.5 seconds... then its cool.

Advance 1 lasts 5 seconds, Advance 2 lasts 3...

[Nepenthe]

If nothing else, I feel whatever ring loss system a game has should be determined by the overall difficulty and their purpose in the game. It is fine to lose all of them in some games like the classics that are short, arcade-hard experiences, and only lose a set amount in others where the challenge lies not necessarily in cheating death but in performing your best under multiple circumstances, or in games that have shops and the like. Ultimately, the ring system is only as strong and meaningful as the surrounding game design is.

[SlickEvan]

*This was started before the other replies to the topic* 

About the ring discussion:

 

Sorry but losing them all is completely fair if not outright too fair. Because you get up to 32 of those rings to collect back. Collecting them is practically bound to happen. Loose them at least 5 are going to hot you and be collected. 

 

I lost my train of thought during this post

 

Anyways that was and still IS a way to balance the fierce moveset he has and isn't just part of the "classics" because as you see in games like Adventure, you lose ALL of your rings but they're more than easy to recollect and make you want to get hit less for the rewards (1-ups). He in Adventure could Spin Dash, Jump, Roll, Light Speed Attack and Homing Attack enemies most of which had no way to defend themselves so you could feel like it was your fault you got hit. And-- *9 Replies to this topic* Wow how long have I forgotten to type this out ._. Well yeah guess this has already been settled.

[Diogenes]

When I lose all my rings I panic, and when I panic that usually means I lose any of the rings I managed to get back. Anyway, it breaks the flow and keeps me on edge for the rest of the act, which makes it hard (if not impossible) to enjoy the game!

That's kind of a personal problem, though. I mean fine if you don't like it, but it doesn't make it a bad system if you, personally, get too hung up on it.

The classic system can stay, but I don't want it forced on me!

What exactly would that entail? How could they keep it without it being forced on you?

[Tara]

Something I thought might be interesting.  Instead of losing a fixed amount every time you get hit, what if you lost a different amount based on the number of rings you currently have?  That way it retains the challenge without punishing the player for every misstep?  Basically, what if you lose percentages as opposed to specified quantities.

 

That might be too complicated for basic gameplay, though, but I don't think it's without merits that some obstacles allow you to only lose a few rings depending on how hard and severe it is.  Especially in the 3D games.

[Junko]

Something I thought might be interesting.  Instead of losing a fixed amount every time you get hit, what if you lost a different amount based on the number of rings you currently have?  That way it retains the challenge without punishing the player for every misstep?  Basically, what if you lose percentages as opposed to specified quantities.

 

That might be too complicated for basic gameplay, though, but I don't think it's without merits that some obstacles allow you to only lose a few rings depending on how hard and severe it is.  Especially in the 3D games.

Like, 50% of the rings you currently have? Which I think ShtH did.

[Tara]

Like, 50% of the rings you currently have? Which I think ShtH did.

Yes, but not 50% every time.  Some things only damage you a little and others take ALL your rings.  In addition, you don't lose all your rings simply running into the enemies.  That shouldn't remove the challenge as long as you build the enemies around this system as opposed to just using the same mechanics as before.

[Junko]

Yes, but not 50% every time.  Some things only damage you a little and others take ALL your rings.  In addition, you don't lose all your rings simply running into the enemies.  That shouldn't remove the challenge as long as you build the enemies around this system as opposed to just using the same mechanics as before.

Oh so, like, an Egg Pawn would take 10 rings and an Egg Pawn with a sword would take 15? I could see that working to be honest.

[Tara]

Oh so, like, an Egg Pawn would take 10 rings and an Egg Pawn with a sword would take 15? I could see that working to be honest.

Well, not a fixed amount like that, but yeah, I guess something like that.

[Briraka]

How about a 3-point health system? Collecting 10 rings would give the player 1 point of health, having 20 you would have 2, and anything after that would be 3. If you get hit with 3 HP, you lose whatever rings you had minus the 20 for the last 2 hits. Then you would only louse 10 per hit.

[Tara]

How about a 3-point health system? Collecting 10 rings would give the player 1 point of health, having 20 would give 2, and anything after that would be 3. If you get hit with 3 HP, you lose whatever rings you had minus the 20 for the last 2 hits. Then you would only louse 10 per hit.

Eh, I honestly don't like that system.  Not that it's a hard system to understand, but it seems like it overcomplicates what should be a simple matter.

[Briraka]

Eh, I honestly don't like that system.  Not that it's a hard system to understand, but it seems like it overcomplicates what should be a simple matter.

I thought it would help in the 3D games, since getting hit is a fair bit easier to do when traveling in the z-axis.

[jords]

I wasn't much of a ring collector in sonic games unless I have to. So any kind of system wouldn't matter to me because I'm always having at least 1 ring on those difficult stages because I'm careless with keeping rings.