Do you prefer Sonic games that are short, but fun, or games that are long, but often tedious?

[Dizcrybe]

Lengthy title, I know.

This came to mind in the Rooftop Run thread. A common complaint about modern Sonic games is that they're too short. Personally, I prefer shorter games that are genuinely fun to play (e.g. Colors, Generations) than games that feel like they need to pad themselves out to feel longer (e.g. Unleashed with its dumb medals). What do you all think?

[SonikkuXM]

I dunno, I kinda like the short games for Sonic. I gave up on the 360 version of Unleashed and just decided to stick with the crappy graphics of PS2, it was more fun that way and the story was just to the point. I liked it better. If you make them long anyway they seem to get repetitive.

[Tani Coyote]

I have 50 dollars to spend on a variety of games. For the sake of argument, let's assume I'm not a Sonic nerd and am an average gamer. Do I get that latest game with 20-30 hours of gameplay, or Sonic with 5, maybe 10 with a bunch of side stuff?

Forced replayability isn't too bad provided the levels are fresh. It's when you have to run yourself through the grinder that things become annoying.

But let's boil stuff down to simple economics.

Overall, if it's going to be short, a lower price is a must. Portal 1 is a short game, and was priced as such as memory serves. Whereas Sonic puts himself up next to all the other titans and says his new title will be just as much a buy as the others.

Of course, constant replayability solves that problem, but if replayability is what the game is selling itself on, the medals argument suddenly falls apart.

[Diogenes]

Who the fuck would prefer tedious games?

I vote for games that are fun, and neither short nor tedious.

[BlazingTales]

Personally, I'd prefer a Sonic title that is both long and fun, but that's just me.

[-Mark-]

I'd take short and sweet over something unnecessarily bloated and artificially lengthened any day.

I'd say 5-8 hours is a fine length for a Sonic game's main story. Unleashed HD was just so padded out with forced medal collecting that it wasn't even funny.

I still wish they'd put decent plots in the recent games though.

I do find that I tend to replay shorter games more, though. When you're trying to juggle gaming with so many other external real-world commitments (damn you, real world!), it can be hard to find the time to replay a 20+ hour game.

Edited November 26, 2012 by -Mark-

[Nepenthe]

My initial thought is that I dislike this unable-to-die-off-quick-enough false dichotomy that a long Sonic game is automatically tedious and the fun ones are shorter. A Sonic game can be tedious regardless of length. Sonic CD sucks nickels due to the physics cock-ups that took about 19 years to fix by a fan apparently, and Colors becomes a chore half way through because there is absolutely nothing ambitious about the gameplay and thus it devolves into some pretty boring motions similarly felt with bad time management Flash games, but both are shorter than Unleashed, which is a game I love to death even in all its flaws.

Overall, I don't find the longer Sonic games tedious, and tend to prefer them overall as a combination of their own qualities as games as a whole and because of my persistent opposition to the shorter games because I simultaneously feel we can do better than them and yet I can never escaped how much they're overhyped on the Internet.

[StaticMania]

Well when you put it that way, Short and Fun. But I would rather have a long and fun game, than long and tedious.

[Tani Coyote]

Personally, I'd prefer a Sonic title that is both long and fun, but that's just me.

With long development times, this would be very possible.

Unfortunately Sega needs to put Sonic on the market every year since he's such a major stake in their profits.

Now, if they staggered games long enough, this could probably be done more easily. Though really it highlights they need to expand their flagship franchises.

Also not being touched on is that a Sonic game is harder to make longer than most others. A beautifully rendered environment that takes Link or Mario hours to go through will be moved through by Sonic in minutes. Sonic's speed is, ironically, his killer. And if we slow him down, a panning so big ensues all the kitchens declare bankruptcy.

[Old dead account]

Between the 2, Short but fun. Why would I want to prolong a game that's tedious?

This is like asking if I want to ride a 1 minute rollercoaster or take a 3 hour 50 question complex nuclear physics calculus exam (barring phobias of course) why would I want the long tedious/boring one?

That's not to say a long sonic game is a boring one though. But I think of long and tedious as the games with forced unexpected gameplay changes/pointless missions taking up at least 50% of the game (Unleashed, SR, BK, SA2) and I don't think we've had a long sonic game without stuff like that.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Prince Solaris

[Diogenes]

And if we slow him down, a panning so big ensues all the kitchens declare bankruptcy.

Proof plz

[Tani Coyote]

Proof plz

Werehog. Emerald hunting. Shooting stages. Fishing.

People want Sonic for his speed. If you nerf it too much folks will get mad very quick.

While some platforming isn't minded, too much of it quickly becomes an irritant for many.

[Nepenthe]

...Has there ever been a time where a character- even an actual platforming one- was predominantly slow and yet still liked?

[Diogenes]

Werehog. Emerald hunting. Shooting stages. Fishing.

A bunch of shit that has nothing to do with Sonic gameplay, regardless of the speed you do it at. You don't need to have Sonic going at 500-fuckin'-MPH to make a game that feels fast and exciting, and from not going that fast you benefit from being able to make actual gameplay and not having to design 10 mile long tracks for every level.

People want Sonic for his speed.

Stupid people want Sonic for his speed.

[Stritix]

Why isn't long and fun an option? It's very possible. It simply means being in development longer and having a higher budget.

[Tani Coyote]

...Has there ever been a time where a character- even an actual platforming one- was predominantly slow and yet still liked?

Outside of Sonic, of course.

But Sonic is a franchise that was built on speed and beautiful environments.

The speed of Unleashed was warmly received as memory serves (even if it's become the butt of many jokes), and with the gorgeous backgrounds of more modern games, we certainly can't downgrade those to increase the amount of stages.

At times, I think designing the next Sonic game has to be the biggest ulcer since politics.

A bunch of shit that has nothing to do with Sonic gameplay, regardless of the speed you do it at. You don't need to have Sonic going at 500-fuckin'-MPH to make a game that feels fast and exciting, and from not going that fast you benefit from being able to make actual gameplay and not having to design 10 mile long tracks for every level.

See, I don't mind Sonic being something besides "This is your brain on drugs," myself. But a lot of folks aren't as open about the concept.

Anyway my point was slower gameplay types that didn't go over well with a lot of folks.

Stupid people want Sonic for his speed.

This'll end well.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Ogilvie Maurice Hedgehog

[Uphex]

Jeff pretty much summed it up, but even with a tedious title I'd still prefer the longer one. The tediousness is a lot better then beating a game fast then being bored for hours.

[Nepenthe]

Outside of Sonic, of course.

I'm referring to inside the franchise. There's never been a time where I can recall even a traditionally/mostly-traditionally platforming character being well-received if they were relegated to being slow for most of the game, and in fact I imagine some better speed on some of them would've given them slightly better reception, namely Amy and Silver.

[Diogenes]

But Sonic is a franchise that was built on speed and beautiful environments.

Can we maybe get games built on gameplay?

The speed of Unleashed was warmly received as memory serves (even if it's become the butt of many jokes),

Yeah, because it was the shiny new toy. It's shiny and colorful and it goes "zoom", but that's all it does.

and with the gorgeous backgrounds of more modern games, we certainly can't downgrade those to increase the amount of stages.

They already downgraded the graphics a bit for Generations, if I recall correctly.

[Kuzu]

I'll take the third option and take a good and fun game thank you.

[Frogging101]

Stupid people want Sonic for his speed.

Well you can't deny that Sonic being fast is kinda important, considering the fact that he is Sonic. Being fast is part of the essence of his character. It's like removing Tails' flying ability. He wouldn't really be Tails anymore.

[SonikkuXM]

I like Sonic because of how fast paced the games are. I like being able to fly right through the stages. It's what you DO while you're going that fast that makes it even cooler. You know, beating up robots. Doing tricks when you're airborne. That or like in Unleashed where you can beat the crap out of stuff. That's okay to be slow. 'Course I'm talking about the Wii/PS2 version.

[Tani Coyote]

Can we maybe get games built on gameplay?

Yeah, because it was the shiny new toy. It's shiny and colorful and it goes "zoom", but that's all it does.

You know, you're assuming the arguments I'm making are mine. I'm moreso pointing out how hard it is to appease some - well, a lot - folks.

I'm not opposed to experimentation, which as memory serves, is one trait Sonic definitely has always had over Mario. Many of his pitfalls were caused by that same experimentation.

They already downgraded the graphics a bit for Generations, if I recall correctly.

Le what? Generations looked freaking gorgeous to me.

Though we must remember Sonic 1's release I think. Though Nintendo technically had better graphical capabilities, Sonic 1 blew its competitors socks off by making more use of what it had rather than bragging about what it could have. Based on Colors, it's not unreasonable to assume beautiful environments can be created without going high-end graphics on our asses.

I'm referring to inside the franchise. There's never been a time where I can recall even a traditionally/mostly-traditionally platforming character being well-received if they were relegated to being slow for most of the game, and in fact I imagine some better speed on some of them would've given them slightly better reception, namely Amy and Silver.

Indeed, which is my argument. Slowing characters down has to be done EXACTLY right or it'll cause problems.

Classic Sonic's mixture of platforming and speed is probably the approach the be emulated accordingly. There's the speed Sonic sells itself on, but there's also the light puzzle or swarm of enemies that requires one do more than just press forward / right.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Ogilvie Maurice Hedgehog

[Diogenes]

Well you can't deny that Sonic being fast is kinda important,

And I don't. I deny that this is the only important thing, at least for people who aren't stupid.

[-blank-]

Why do long games HAVE to be tedious? Can't I just have a game that's fun regardless of the length? I mean, I can play pretty much every single main level in Unleashed HD and never get bored of them, I enjoy the speed game-play of both Adventure games, I like running through the levels of the Classic games, I love trying to beat my times in Generations' Modern stages, and I sometimes get the urge just to go back and complete the main campaign of Colors again. Why? Because I have freaking fun doing it.