Gameplay vs. Spectacle.

[Kuzu]

Ok, two common criticisms for Sonic games tend to be either how "slow" and "boring" the game is, and wish the game had more edge to it, and more cool moments. Then you have the people who criticize that the game is all flash and no substance, and prides itself too much on being a cheap thrill ride with no very little gameplay involved on the player.

For the first argument, Sonic games tend to be different than most platformers out there, unlike the likes of Mario or R&C, Sonic advertises itself as a lot more "cool and edgy" and people expect his gameplay to follow that cool, edgieness. They want Sonic to do cool things during the game, be amazed at how awesome he is.

For the second, Sonic tho is at heart a platforming series, and is expected to be treated as such. Players want obstacles they need to overcome by thinking and maneuvering, not watching a roller coaster ride and superfluous feelings of awesome.

Both sides are right to an extent, but where is the line drawn? What type of levels should Sonic games strive for? Being the cool, edgy spectacle it advertises itself as, or something more akin to a traditional platforming title?

[Soniman]

Here is how I see things.

Sonic Unleashed: Spectacle > Substance

Sonic Colors: Substance > Spectacle

Generations: Spectacle = Substance

Feel free to disagree, but I thought Generations had a really good balance and I would like the general ratio that game brought to the table to be the general norm for future games.

[Nepenthe]

A level's edginess or orthodoxy should derive itself from context: in terms of where the level is placed in the game, where it physically takes place, and what would best serve the pacing at that moment. Sonic Adventure's levels housed a hell of a lot of variety both among themselves and within the stages due to being divided in segments. For example, Ice Cap has both some involved platforming that takes advantage of the mountainous landscape with some of its obstacles (they weren't just blocks), before throwing you into a snowboarding segment. Casinopolis gave you different valid outcomes altogether: you could either play the pinball levels for awhile or just go to the trash place which was more fast-paced. It all depends, really.

(Although frankly, if we're going to stick with this gameplay style for awhile, I would rather they either get the platforming up to par with the running bits, because the blocky shit kinda sucks, or just go back to Unleashed's level design philosophies. Nothing wrong with some style over substance.)

Edited December 8, 2012 by North Pole Nepenthe

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I think the line is drawn when the two don't have any synergy to complement one another.

Or to put it another way, people want to be able to do the cool things in the gameplay while avoiding the obstacles. That's not to say they won't enjoy sitting back and watching Sonic do cool things in a cutscene, but there's a disconnect when Sonic is bouncing around dropkicking foes like he's in a pinball machine in a cutscene and then when the player is given control over Sonic they can't do anything like that and only have Homing Attack Chains and a Boost mechanic that blasts him through everything at the press of a button.

It's like the difference between Final Fantasy 13 and MGR: Rising, one allows you to let the game do most of the stuff for you while the other has the game allow you to do a lot of the cool stuff when it comes to the action.

[Dizcrybe]

I thought Generations had a really good balance and I would like the general ratio that game brought to the table to be the general norm for future games.

I agree, and would love if Sonic Team kept up this balance.

[Ruby CUL Terumi]

I enjoy both, so games like Generations did it swell for me.

[Mr. Taxi]

(Although frankly, if we're going to stick with this gameplay style for awhile, I would rather they either get the platforming up to par with the running bits, because the blocky shit kinda sucks, or just go back to Unleashed's level design philosophies. Nothing wrong with some style over substance.)

A lot wrong with style over substance. Because, see, substance can generate style but not the other way around. Platforming with flow can be surpassed with style, should a player have enough skill, and that may even trigger a "stylish sequence". It's a curve, really. Treat it as an Olympic Qualifying time. There is absolutely nothing of the kind in Sonic Unleashed and to standardize the gameplay like that is not the best way to go.

Now that was a repetitive statement of mine.

[Blue Blood]

So long as the levels are going to be full of springs, boosters, scripted events and invisible walls, they're always going to be more spectacle than substance. It's important to realise that with the way they work in Modern games, springs are boosters are 100% scripted. I hate that everything in Sonic games now is so forced. You can't even go off a ramp with out hitting some scripting to determine whether you reach the exact high point or exact low point. It's an experience that the player has very, very little part in.

And truth be told, I find even Advance 2 to be more thrilling than Unleashed or Generations. For all its "hold right to win", there's at least very small consolations in that you can stop and explore if you want to and that the automation comes from the level design instead of scripted objects. For what amounts to a cutscene with QTEs, it just more satisfying.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Blue Blood

[Nepenthe]

A lot wrong with style over substance. Because, see, substance can generate style but not the other way around. Platforming with flow can be surpassed with style, should a player have enough skill, and that may even trigger a "stylish sequence". It's a curve, really. Treat it as an Olympic Qualifying time. There is absolutely nothing of the kind in Sonic Unleashed and to standardize the gameplay like that is not the best way to go.

Now that was a repetitive statement of mine.

The nasty thing about the reality of the matter is that to treat this kind of curve as some kind of "truth" means you have to go on ahead and make some assumptions that don't stand up to scrutiny by way of the existence of mere differing opinion, namely: that there can never be enough substance to warrant a good game should you choose a "stylish" gameplay style, that your substance is inherently good to begin with, that any such additions of "substance" will not inherently alter the existing game for the worse without serious consideration of the elements therein, that the fun of the stylish gameplay is, in and of itself, not possibly enough to warrant replayability, etc.

Sonic Unleashed largely works because of its strict adherence to the very ideas of speed-running. In the vain of Rayman Origins/Legends, or Donkey Kong Country Returns, the level design that exists caters to this because it permits the achievement of a very continuous and satisfying flow; this doesn't mean you won't be stopping or be stopped by something for whatever reason, or that there's no platforming whatsoever (stop perpetuating this lie, people) but the game does reward subsequent playthroughs on the basis of its own inherent challenges and qualities. No matter what people try to tell me or keep repeating around here, getting and then maintaining the kind of continuous flow and synergy from a perfect run in the Day levels by way of your own ability and knowledge is fun, fun enough that Unleashed is probably my most replayed Sonic game.

Cue Colors and Generations, whose platforming are both extremely blocky and more vertically-oriented (and your wall-jump is restricted to certain areas anyway in the latter's case, so bleh), which intentionally breaks that kind of flow permissible by the level design regardless of your skill level and thus and makes the entire potential of the game both slower and actually paced more worse. For what they try to actually emulate, Colors and Generations are inherently less fun and less replayable by default anyway. Now, divergence from Unleashed's philosophies would ultimately be fine if the actual platforming was more interesting and involved as I kind of explained with Adventure, but it's not. It's wholly arbitrary and basic, so the games aren't even all that engaging on the platforming front either. They're "consistent," yet mediocre. If I need my modern Sonic fix, I don't go to the so-called "superior" titles. Their level design just isn't that good to me, and it doesn't matter that they supposedly have more "substance" by way of merely having more shit in them that people can point to.

Now, I'm going back to bed. X.x

Edited for spelling and grammar. I was quite out of it.

Edited December 8, 2012 by North Pole Nepenthe

[Tornado]

Cue Colors and Generations, whose platforming are both extremely blocky and more vertically-oriented (and your wall-jump is restricted to certain areas anyway in the latter's case, so bleh), which intentionally breaks that kind of flow permissible by the level design regardless of your skill level and thus and makes the entire potential of the game both slower and actually paced more worse by default. For what they try to actually emulate, Colors and Generations are inherently less fun and less replayable by default anyway. Now, divergence from Unleashed's philosophies would ultimately be fine if the actual platforming was more interesting and involved as I kind of explained with Adventure, but it's not. It's wholly arbitrary and basic, so the games aren't even all that engaging on the platforming front either. They're "consistent," yet mediocre. If I need my modern Sonic fix, I don't go to the so-called "superior" titles. Their level design just isn't that good to me, and it doesn't matter that they supposedly have more "substance" by way of merely having more shit in them that people can point to.

Good example of it in the series can be the Advance titles.

First game was all substance with very little flash, and as a result even when it was new it was lambasted for how dull it seemed at times (even though it was still fun to play).

Second game was mostly style, in that even though you could stop and walk around and enjoy all the fancy new things Dimps pulled out of their hat for it in terms of design, and even though hold right to win isn't a completely accurate criticism, it still applies. And just like Nepenthe, there is a lot of fun to be had in getting it all just perfect, and even though I dislike Unleashed I still replay the absolute shit out of Advance 2.

And the third game does a very good job showing why there needs to be the mesh between the concepts that Nepenthe mentioned above for it to be any good, because one of Advance 3's biggest problems was that that mesh just wasn't there so much as they stuck the two things together so they would both be present. Heroes was really bad about that as well.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Tornado

[Chaos Warp]

I believe that spectacle should mostly depend on how good the player is at moving through the areas, which obviously contain substance. Obviously, there should be occasional easy spectacle, ala the Classics, but most of the style should come from playing the levels well in my opinion.

[Wraith]

I don't understand why people say Generations doesn't have any flow just because the game makes you stop and clear a few platforms. I mean, Generations wins out on the whole flow thing to me at least because it doesn't just hand it to you. Sure, you have to platform, but the flow comes from moving through these segments quickly, and the game USUALLY provides ways for you to do so(There are points where stopping to platform seemed a bit out of place and annoying, not going to lie.). If you have the skill and know the shortcuts, the game flows much better than any other sonic game.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Wreath

[Salamander]

I've said this before, but Generations 3DS has a great (and by that I mean terrible) sense of spectacle over substance in the set-pieces that come towards the end of most of the levels. A giant totem pole falling on you or a whale chasing you or zooming through a cave... these look flashy but control is almost entirely taken away from you. You need to press Boost for some of them but mostly that's it. For Emerald Coast Modern's orca chase then you can literally put the game down for several seconds until it comes to a quick-time event that has nothing to do with standard gameplay at all (just like press A to writhe). Half of these scenes have nothing to do with the original levels either, so it's even worse - it's not even an internally-consistent spectacle.

[Kuzu]

I do think Unleashed overall had a better flow than Generations on the basis of being more consistent, but Generations has the better level design to play through. I'm more of a substance person myself, but I do think there needs to be some degree of spectacle in Sonic games so they stand out from the rest.

[Diogenes]

I just finished replaying SMG2 recently, so I've got that game on my mind. I find that the parts I enjoyed most weren't the raw spectacle or the barebones substance. The best parts were when I went beyond just completing a section and did something cool of my own volition. The time I long jumped onto that goomba instead of just going around or jumping on him normally. The time I walljumped up somewhere I didn't think I was supposed to be able to go (and found out they had known about this, and left some extra lives for anyone who found out about it). The time when I bounced off an enemy and went straight into a series of walljumps, or when I swung from flower-poles with Yoshi and grabbed a guy right out of the air.

What I'm trying to say is, the things I enjoy most aren't the cool things they show me, or the cool things they make me do. They're the cool things I choose to do. The best spectacle is that which you create yourself from the substance. One of the problems with modern Sonic games is that they don't have much room for you to do this. Nearly everything you do that's in any way beneficial is decided on beforehand. Every homing attack you land is a known quantity to the designers. Every sequence of springs and hoops spits you out at a particular place. Most moves you have only really do one thing. Most sections/obstacles only have one thing to do. The games just don't give you enough room to find your own way through, to create your own path from what's available.

[Nepenthe]

I don't understand why people say Generations doesn't have any flow just because the game makes you stop and clear a few platforms. I mean, Generations wins out on the whole flow thing to me at least because it doesn't just hand it to you. Sure, you have to platform, but the flow comes from moving through these segments quickly, and the game USUALLY provides ways for you to do so(There are points where stopping to platform seemed a bit out of place and annoying, not going to lie.). If you have the skill and know the shortcuts, the game flows much better than any other sonic game.

I never said Generations has no pacing. Every work with a duration has pacing; game, movies, music, books; it's an inevitable and inseparable consequence of those mediums. My argument is that Generations has worse pacing than Unleashed due in part to the things I mentioned above and also probably because of the existing level designs they had to ape, and no, it's not because you have to slow down because there's platforming. Plenty of moments like these exist in Unleashed too that you can also move through quickly (again, we need to stop acting like Unleashed is literally nothing but lines you only boost through and that you never stop or slow down).

Edited December 8, 2012 by North Pole Nepenthe

[Alluusio]

I have to agree with Dio here. I enjoy spectacle as much as anyone, but I want to be a part of it rather than just spectate. See this video for example.

Pretty spectacular, right? Now which parts were the most dull to watch? The springs and loops where the player didn't have any control over what is happening in the game, perhaps? Now guess which parts are the most dull to play. The answer is again the loops and springs. When the player is skilled enough the spectacle parts of the game quickly become the most unimpressive part of the game and it greatly limits the player. In fact, the most impressive speed runs always try to find a way to skip as much of this "spectacle" as possible because not only is it a waste of time, but it also break the flow of the performance the speed runner is trying to create.

Now, not all of us are speed runners and I understand that even those people want to experience a good spectacle. But taking the control away from the player and showing them a nice, short cutscene mid-stage is not the way to do it. One way to create spectacle which actually adds to the gameplay is expending the moveset. To do that we probably have to remove some of the already existing moves, but moves like slide and drift are pointless anyway and are only effectively used by speed runners and even then that is because they have found ways to exploit them. Adding a move which would let you attach to surfaces and run along them would be pretty good, and this could even be used against enemies. Remember what Sonic did to that one robot in the Unleashed opening? Well, using the attaching move to enemies could do something like that, but it would also increase his speed after the robot is destroyed. Pulling this off would require careful timing so the more attacks you make, the harder it gets to repeat the attack and it would really make you think if the extra speed is worth the risk. Well, I'm just throwing some ideas here and this is clearly off topic so I won't take this any further. But I'm sure you get the idea.

[Wraith]

I never said Generations has no pacing. Every work with a duration has pacing; game, movies, music, books; it's an inevitable and inseparable consequence of those mediums. My argument is that Generations has worse pacing than Unleashed due in part to the things I mentioned above and also probably because of the existing level designs they had to ape, and no, it's not because you have to slow down because there's platforming. Plenty of moments like these exist in Unleashed too that you can also move through quickly (again, we need to stop acting like Unleashed is literally nothing but lines you only boost through and that you never stop or slow down).

My argument wasn't that Unleashed didn't HAVE platforming. A lot of it was just so basic and a quick boost could get you past that it really didn't have much of a reason to be there.

[Nepenthe]

I disagree with that. A lot of the platforming outright discouraged the boost because- unless you stood there timing it right, by which case you might as well have done it the ol' fashioned way- you would more than likely fall, either back at the starting point or into a pit. Some of it was also vertically-oriented, rendering the boost unnecessary on that front. The only platforming I habitually skip over with any actual confidence using the boost is some bits in Windmill Isle.

[Mr. Taxi]

The nasty thing about the reality of the matter is that to treat this kind of curve as some kind of "truth" means you have to go on ahead and make some assumptions that don't stand up to scrutiny by way of the existence of mere differing opinion, namely: that there can never be enough substance to warrant a good game should you choose a "stylish" gameplay style, that your substance is inherently good to begin with, that any such additions of "substance" will not inherently alter the existing game for the worse without serious consideration of the elements therein, that the fun of the stylish gameplay is, in and of itself, not possibly enough to warrant replayability, etc.

Nothing is true, nothing is inherent. This curve is a concept built a posteriori. Even style and substance are. That's the problem - no gameplay is inherently "stylish" or "substantial". These perceptions are only created in comparison. Chess is not inherently substantial - it's just less thrilling than an actual war. So when you create a "stylish" gameplay that has nothing to compare with, it becomes dull. Such is the case with Sonic Unleashed and Sonic Advance 2. "Substance" is not good in itself, nor is "style" - but the interaction of the player and the game is what creates a pleasant or (sometimes intentionally) unpleasant effect.

Balance, not substance, is the key.

As Dio said, the best way to go is to make the player free to move. To create an intentionally stylish section is to eliminate all other possibilities for the experience. On the other hand, once you create a playground for the player, it's up to him or her to decide (or not really decide, but to feel like deciding anyway).

Sonic Unleashed largely works because of its strict adherence to the very ideas of speed-running. In the vain of Rayman Origins/Legends, or Donkey Kong Country Returns, the level design that exists caters to this because it permits the achievement of a very continuous and satisfying flow; this doesn't mean you won't be stopping or be stopped by something for whatever reason, or that there's no platforming whatsoever (stop perpetuating this lie, people) but the game does reward subsequent playthroughs on the basis of its own inherent challenges and qualities. No matter what people try to tell me or keep repeating around here, getting and then maintaining the kind of continuous flow and synergy from a perfect run in the Day levels by way of your own ability and knowledge is fun, fun enough that Unleashed is probably my most replayed Sonic game.

This probably has more to do with you than with the game. For some reason, you like to be challenged time and time again with the same parameters, to attain perfection. The problem with "adhering to the idea of speed-running" is that, again, it eliminates the other possibilities. Speed running is not the only way to play a game (not in terms of flow only, but in terms of objectives. Stopping is not fun in itself (nor is platforming), but what it brings must be. It never is, in Sonic Unleashed. You just said it).

Cue Colors and Generations, whose platforming are both extremely blocky and more vertically-oriented (and your wall-jump is restricted to certain areas anyway in the latter's case, so bleh), which intentionally breaks that kind of flow permissible by the level design regardless of your skill level and thus and makes the entire potential of the game both slower and actually paced more worse. For what they try to actually emulate, Colors and Generations are inherently less fun and less replayable by default anyway. Now, divergence from Unleashed's philosophies would ultimately be fine if the actual platforming was more interesting and involved as I kind of explained with Adventure, but it's not. It's wholly arbitrary and basic, so the games aren't even all that engaging on the platforming front either. They're "consistent," yet mediocre. If I need my modern Sonic fix, I don't go to the so-called "superior" titles. Their level design just isn't that good to me, and it doesn't matter that they supposedly have more "substance" by way of merely having more shit in them that people can point to.

They don't have any substance either. What's so great about Taj Mahal, may I ask? Is it the marble or is it its shape? A combination of both, of course. But an origami Taj Mahal "emulates" the original, while piles of raw marble don't. So what I mean is that Colours and Generations are all blocks and no shape. They don't try to bring something into the table - there are just sections of platforming because... yeah, because. They don't bend your interest, they don't stimulate or refrain anything.

[Nepenthe]

Nothing is true, nothing is inherent. This curve is a concept built a posteriori. Even style and substance are. That's the problem - no gameplay is inherently "stylish" or "substantial". These perceptions are only created in comparison. Chess is not inherently substantial - it's just less thrilling than an actual war. So when you create a "stylish" gameplay that has nothing to compare with, it becomes dull. Such is the case with Sonic Unleashed and Sonic Advance 2. "Substance" is not good in itself, nor is "style" - but the interaction of the player and the game is what creates a pleasant or (sometimes intentionally) unpleasant effect.

The modern gameplay doesn't exist in some vacuum; nothing does. There is always a comparison to be made, either in-game, in-franchise, or in the medium, hence why no one has expressed any problem in this topic with the general denoting of some of these games as either mainly "stylish" or mainly "substantial," and both Unleashed and Adv2 take advantage of that. Unleashed specifically has comparisons for what is stylish both in-game (Day gameplay isn't the only component to the game) and in-franchise (it's a Sonic game which will naturally draw comparisons and contrasts with other Sonic games). This in part allows me to find the games fun.

This probably has more to do with you than with the game. For some reason, you like to be challenged time and time again with the same parameters, to attain perfection. The problem with "adhering to the idea of speed-running" is that, again, it eliminates the other possibilities. Speed running is not the only way to play a game (not in terms of flow only, but in terms of objectives. Stopping is not fun in itself (nor is platforming), but what it brings must be. It never is, in Sonic Unleashed. You just said it).

Could I not say that your problem with modern Sonic titles is also on your own prejudices? Who's this authority around here saying a game has to cater to many possibilities in terms of the way to play it or else it's a bad game; that this is always and unequivocably the best way? Sometimes a game can only cater to very few, as there are titles and genres predicated on limiting the potential choice without any substantial decrease in engagement either through intentional design choice or the sake of functionality of that genre. That's the beauty of games as art, at least if you believe they're an art (I do): strict focus on an objective or a way to play, linearity, and limitations are actually valid design choices, hence I'm inherently never going to agree with anyone who strangely believes they're not.

Let's not also ignore the margins of error and potential problems of games that fail in their given goal of trying to be open or meaningful in terms of allowing "choice:" giving you false choices that are either not differential at all or not in actuality "choices," a failure to properly balance against things such as player skill or inputs and outputs of power which will, in turn, make even logical choices pointless, exploration that isn't made to be objectively rewarding and instead turns out to be dull, etc.. I don't enjoy ShtH more than Unleashed just because it's got ten possible endings and presents the innumerable choices within its framework to allow you to achieve these endings at your own pace.

Edited December 9, 2012 by North Pole Nepenthe

[Mr. Taxi]

The modern gameplay doesn't exist in some vacuum; nothing does. There is always a comparison to be made, either in-game, in-franchise, or in the medium, hence why no one has expressed any problem in this topic with the general denoting of some of these games as either mainly "stylish" or mainly "substantial," and both Unleashed and Adv2 take advantage of that. Unleashed specifically has comparisons for what is stylish both in-game (Day gameplay isn't the only component to the game) and in-franchise (it's a Sonic game which will naturally draw comparisons and contrasts with other Sonic games). This in part allows me to find the games fun.

This, of course. The games weren't built upon a vacuum, no. On the contrary, they were built upon so many variables and so many possibilities for comparison that we simply can't predict it. How many times haven't you seen Sonic games be considered to be "for children", no matter how stylish they were? Since we can't get the grasp of the whole situation the game is inserted in, I don't think favouring one aspect over the other works too well.

Could I not say that your problem with modern Sonic titles is also on your own prejudices?

Yes. I'm a part of the spectrum, too. But... so?

Who's this authority around here saying a game has to cater to many possibilities in terms of the way to play it or else it's a bad game; that this is always and unequivocably the best way?

The market. Actually, the market doesn't judge, so no, the modern games aren't bad. Or they are, I don't know. What I know is that if you appeal to less people, you'll sell to less people. It's simple as that. I wouldn't care too much about whether the games are good or bad. No one holds the absolute judgement over them, but the cash you get or cease to get won't go anywhere. So my point is: should you make a game that narrows the possibilities of gameplay, the number of people who buy or consider buying it will inevitably decrease.

Sometimes a game can only cater to very few, as there are titles and genres predicated on limiting the potential choice without any substantial decrease in engagement either through intentional design choice or the sake of functionality of that genre. That's the beauty of games as art, at least if you believe they're an art (I do): strict focus on an objective or a way to play, linearity, and limitations are actually valid design choices, hence I'm inherently never going to agree with anyone who strangely believes they're not.

They are obviously valid. Actually, they are so valid that they are the only way to make a game. If you are building a world and giving the player an objective, you are obviously already narrowing those who will get something positive out of it. The only way to cater to absolutely everyone would be to make a game that emulates the Nirvana. And that's not going to happen because the Nirvana is said to be an inhuman, irreproduceable experience. What defines, though, whether your game will be effective or not is how it stands in the market.

If there aren't any games out there with a particular, specific gameplay possibility, your game will be ten times more likely to achieve success if it does deliver that to the player. Art, and games are art, behaves much more like a brain than like lungs - new cells are created all the time, unexpectd connections between said cells are created al the time as well. It's impossible to predict how much and in which direction it will grow (unlike lungs stuffed with air). So if you create a game that has a narrow margin for experience, it will only be effective if it's one of a kind. Like Journey. Games like Journey start a new genre, reinvent concepts. That's the use of "catering to few people", because the principle that caters to these few people can expand.

But Sonic Unleashed isn't one of a kind, no. Sonic in general isn't one of a kind either. So trying to appeal to as many people as you can - and that is done by adhering to as few concepts as you can - would, yes, be the best way to go in this circumstance.

Let's not also ignore the margins of error and potential problems of games that fail in their given goal of trying to be open or meaningful in terms of allowing "choice:" giving you false choices that are either not differential at all or not, a failure to properly balance against things such as player skill or inputs and outputs of power which will, in turn, make even logical choices pointless, exploration that isn't made to be objectively rewarding and instead turns out to be dull, etc.. I don't enjoy ShtH more than Unleashed just because it's got ten possible endings and presents the innumerable choices within its framework to allow you to achieve these endings at your own pace.

We must be talking about different things, because ShTH is as narrow as Unleashed to me. And Unleashed is actually more widely-appealing than Colours and Generations combined. It's also about this kind of choice, but much more about the choices you don't notice you are making because that's where automatic, almost visceral interest took you.

[T-Min]

The market. Actually, the market doesn't judge, so no, the modern games aren't bad. Or they are, I don't know. What I know is that if you appeal to less people, you'll sell to less people. It's simple as that. I wouldn't care too much about whether the games are good or bad. No one holds the absolute judgement over them, but the cash you get or cease to get won't go anywhere. So my point is: should you make a game that narrows the possibilities of gameplay, the number of people who buy or consider buying it will inevitably decrease.

Final Fantasy XIII is one of the fastest-selling (and possibly even highest-selling) entries in its respective franchise.

XIII-2, touted as being a much more "player driven" experience, was a bit of a commercial flop by comparison.

One could potentially argue that XIII's alienating design and, by extension, poor fan reception resulted in low hype and turned people away from this direct sequel (and the fact that XIII-2 was a steaming pile even in comparison to its predecessor probably didn't help much, either), but it does go to show that things aren't so black and white.

(Man, I have to bring FF13 into everything, don't I?)

[Mr. Taxi]

Final Fantasy XIII is one of the fastest-selling (and possibly even highest-selling) entries in its respective franchise.

XIII-2, touted as being a much more "player driven" experience, was a bit of a commercial flop by comparison.

One could potentially argue that XIII's alienating design and, by extension, poor fan reception resulted in low hype and turned people away from this direct sequel (and the fact that XIII-2 was a steaming pile even in comparison to its predecessor probably didn't help much, either), but it does go to show that things aren't so black and white.

(Man, I have to bring FF13 into everything, don't I?)

I don't see how this is related, but well, no - gameplay isn't the only thing to take into account. General presentation is just as important, styles of music and stuff. It's not black and white - nothing is. It's a continuum.

[Nepenthe]

This, of course. The games weren't built upon a vacuum, no. On the contrary, they were built upon so many variables and so many possibilities for comparison that we simply can't predict it. How many times haven't you seen Sonic games be considered to be "for children", no matter how stylish they were? Since we can't get the grasp of the whole situation the game is inserted in, I don't think favouring one aspect over the other works too well.

You need not be a computer and be able to "grasp the whole situation" in order to be able to favor certain concepts as a player, or to use concepts at the exclusion of others as a developer. Balance of general concepts also doesn't inherently ensure your bases as a developer are covered either.

The market. Actually, the market doesn't judge, so no, the modern games aren't bad. Or they are, I don't know. What I know is that if you appeal to less people, you'll sell to less people. It's simple as that. I wouldn't care too much about whether the games are good or bad. No one holds the absolute judgement over them, but the cash you get or cease to get won't go anywhere. So my point is: should you make a game that narrows the possibilities of gameplay, the number of people who buy or consider buying it will inevitably decrease.

This isn't true because it's not reflected in the market. Every Call of Duty game does significantly better than its prequel, and the last few installments have been the biggest entertainment openings of all time, yet you'll find no shortage of opposition to its near unchanging multiplayer systems and linear, set-piece laden campaigns. The games are linear and thus lack choice compared to something like Spec Ops, which is notable for including very meaningful choices in the game along with other qualities. So why is CoD selling more every year despite its relatively narrow gameplay possibilities? Because people find more fun within the existing game than in other shooters. It doesn't matter that the game itself is limited. Who is anyone to say to millions that their own genuine experiences of joy are invalid in some way just because the game isn't more open? An open game isn't the only way- or even the best way- to have fun.

Instead, to me, the game market is dictated mainly by what is considered "popular," and this popularity is not necessarily and inherently always predicated on technical quality, fun, or whether the games are full of meaningful choice in comparison to their competition (yet you can still make easy correlations anyway). Call of Duty is popular, Mario is popular, Pokemon is popular, thus these will be the games that will be constantly topping the sales charts regardless of whether they're technically competent, innovative, or full of choice compared to the closest competition. In the case of Sonic, I've already lamented before that non-Mario platformers aren't popular anymore, so it doesn't inherently matter how much the quality of his games increase through whatever arbitrary means you believe are necessary (though we should still strive for good games!) The objective qualifications of the game cease to be a significant factor in his success because there is effectively little demand for a Sonic game anyway.

They are obviously valid. Actually, they are so valid that they are the only way to make a game. If you are building a world and giving the player an objective, you are obviously already narrowing those who will get something positive out of it. The only way to cater to absolutely everyone would be to make a game that emulates the Nirvana. And that's not going to happen because the Nirvana is said to be an inhuman, irreproduceable experience. What defines, though, whether your game will be effective or not is how it stands in the market.

If there aren't any games out there with a particular, specific gameplay possibility, your game will be ten times more likely to achieve success if it does deliver that to the player. Art, and games are art, behaves much more like a brain than like lungs - new cells are created all the time, unexpectd connections between said cells are created al the time as well. It's impossible to predict how much and in which direction it will grow (unlike lungs stuffed with air). So if you create a game that has a narrow margin for experience, it will only be effective if it's one of a kind. Like Journey. Games like Journey start a new genre, reinvent concepts. That's the use of "catering to few people", because the principle that caters to these few people can expand.

But Sonic Unleashed isn't one of a kind, no. Sonic in general isn't one of a kind either. So trying to appeal to as many people as you can - and that is done by adhering to as few concepts as you can - would, yes, be the best way to go in this circumstance.

I'm not discussing this in terms of an unrealistic binary "appealing to everyone or appealing to one" scenario. You can (or will be forced to) have a limited framework yet can still present a comparatively high number of choices within that framework. All games are limited, but some games can have more choices than others, which in turn allows comparisons and the words "linear" and "open" to be thrown around all willy-nilly with at least some semblance of common understanding as to what they mean in the context of a discussion.

Anyway, I completely disagree that a game has to be perfectly unique or reinvent the genre in order to effectively limit its options. This is completely unrealistic to me and again not reflected with what we see in people's buying habits. If nothing else, we like the same things over and over again, and things that are "unique" are generally pushed to the wayside because they're simply too niche (Of course there are exceptions, but I would argue Journey owes a lot of its success on the excellent rapport of the studio that made it as its actual gameplay). Many of the highest-selling franchises have comparatively little innovation or differentiation between installments or to its competitors, yet they're still the high-sellers. Sometimes, they only appeal to a certain demographics, like teenage males. It doesn't hamper their success. Again, it goes back to my idea that what's "popular" is ultimately what sells, quality, choice, openness, and uniqueness be damned.

We must be talking about different things, because ShTH is as narrow as Unleashed to me. And Unleashed is actually more widely-appealing than Colours and Generations combined. It's also about this kind of choice, but much more about the choices you don't notice you are making because that's where automatic, almost visceral interest took you.

We must be talking about different things, because I'm not sure what you're talking about right here. Could you elaborate?