This is exactly the comment I wanted to make. Some people dislike random encounters and others love them, and it just comes down to whether you want that gameplay or not. Pokemon is 100% built around that experience. It's also why as a fan of turn-based RPGs and random encounters I don't like the overworld Pokemon as much. I don't want to have to react and run away from things chasing after me. I would rather be able to take my time and not have overworld encounters hinder my experience exploring leisurely. For me overworld enemies are the obstruction to the core game loop. Player preference actually makes a huge difference to the idea of pacing.
Pokemons pacing problem is not the encounters. It's the incessant hand holding that happens constantly starting with sun and moon. Constantly walking you places and making you sit through dialog boxes with nothing entertaining to say and bare minimum shovelware worthy animations. Sorry for the rant. Just my 2 cents from a long time fan who finds the newer games a bit of a chore to play.
not to mention, there areas where you DO encounter pokemon are the areas where the only real thing to do is fight (at least, from what ive seen) eg routes or dungeons the tall grass also limits where pokemon can attack in the overworld, so you know where you have a chance of getting into a fight compare this to say, mother 1, where enemy encounters happen everywhere, all the time, and arent really as core to the "point of the game" compared to pokemon. there, its a MAJOR pacing issue, which makes me put down the game every time i try to give it a shot
All of you are right. The encounters in pokemon aren't really a pacing issue because they're a fundamental game mechanic. Just like how in Pikmin 1, the end of each of the 30 days isn't an issue. It does cut you off each day, but it's not a pacing issue because it's baked in to the game design and premise. Another thing I'm surprised nobody in this thread mentioned yet is the repels. You can pop a max repel whenever you don't need to train your pokemon, and once you do that, you're pretty in the clear from the random encounters. You can control whether you want to get jumped by wild pokemon or not, for the most part.
@@mrsnulch that's true but I've always found repels to be a small band-aid to this large complex issue. Not only does the player have to buy the repels themselves (unless they pick them up) but then they have to remember they have them and choose to use them during gameplay, AND they're locked behind gym progression so you only have access to regular repels for the majority of the game which run out super fast. Luckily you usually have a lot of money in these games but I still never found myself using them because I wanted to optimize my funds so much that it ended up slowing my exploration and progression to a crawl. If the game lets them, people are going to optimize the fun out of a game, myself included
One trend I noticed with your analysis is that a lot of the time bad low level pacing can be fixed by having the player initiate the “break”, rather than have the game take control away from you without you being able to stop it. For example, imagine how much worse the low leve pacing in Metroid Prime would be if the game FORCED you to scan every object the first time you saw it, or how much better the low level pacing in Pikmin 2 would be if you could activate the ship message with a button like in Zelda Skyward Sword.
You're absolutely right on all counts. Like in Skyward Sword Remastered, I still typically allow Fi to talk to me, so I'm probably watching roughly the same amount of Fi interruptions as I was in the original. But simply having the ability to see it coming and CHOOSE to speak to her feels far better psychologically than her popping up out of nowhere. Well said.
A lot of stuff is overexplained with poor accessibility or saving options. I know stories can vary too (3:00 especially skyward sword let alone they paywalled fast travel with amiibo). Did feel metroid dread was sluggish to start too as I really wanted to skip the story. Surprised people dedicate a ton of time to vids.
Thank you lol! I guess after intensely studying the eldritch truths of video game pacing, I was able to translate some of my findings into UA-cam pacing.
The first video games that come to mind when I think of good pacing are OG RE4, Chrono Trigger, and Arkham Asylum. RE4 especially has so much momentum and keeps throwing new things at the player and remixes previous ideas up to the very end of the game, and it gives the player enough time to breath and cool-down between combat encounters and set-pieces. The gameplay switches between shooting, light puzzle solving, boss battles, and other, one-off segments with such finesse that you're consistently engaged with the game.
There is also difficulty pacing ,which is if the game naturally builds from one challenge to the next, instead of either random difficulty, or stagnant/not changing difficulty. Things like an optional challenge do not disrupt the pacing because they are not required
I agree difficulty pacing is really important for more linear games, but (also for more linear games), difficulty pacing for optional content is important too, maybe as important. Keep in mind, there are three types of play styles when it comes to optional challenges; Ignore it, do it if you feel like it on a case by case basis, and take on all content they possibly can as they go through the game. All three are valid ways to play, but two of those require good difficulty pacing for the optional content to have a good time. Optional content can be Much more difficult than the "main" game, but it should still scale as if it were its own game, so your experience with the game, in any style of play, still feels fun. We have all banged our heads against the wall after coming across the hardest optional content in the game at stage 2-4, gotten through it (unhappily, I might add), then stopped feeling any sense of joy until the bad vibes wore off. Or worse, been unable to complete it at all so taking on optional content just didn't feel as good moving forward and led to the player dropping to a lower tier of OC engagement style. This is easily avoided by pacing the difficulty of optional content as its own standalone game (or games, if you want multiple tiers of optional content overlapping each other).
I think one thing that a) explains the Pokemon pacing thing and b) is a *huge* element of low-level pacing, if not a separate element in its own right, is Difference of Kind. Basically, variety in gameplay is extremely important, especially for medium length to long games. You can see this in how most classic game genres are composed of two or more core gameplay loops. For a turn-based RPG like Pokemon, the two main gameplay loops are battles and overworld exploration. Depending on the entry, the games will supplement with puzzles or narrative. Puzzles are a great example of why variety pacing is so important. People always complain about puzzles in JRPG dungeons, but to me, puzzles are a case of "this is the worst solution except for all the other solutions we've tried." The puzzles in non-puzzle games might be shallow, but take them out and see how mentally taxing the game becomes. FFXIII is a great example of this: because the environments in the game are too linear to have exploration and too simple to have puzzles, the game is left with just battle and cutscenes, and even though both elements are good to great in their own right, the overall package quickly becomes tiring to play. With Pokemon and its random battles, the reason that you were frustrated was that you were in a point in the game when you wanted to focus on a non-battle gameplay loop but were forced to take time for pointless battles. What you dont remember is all the times the random battles created fun tension about having enough resources to continue, or finding a new Pokemon. Most modern random battle games have additional features to allow the mechanic to shine without causing problems when it should be unobtrusive, such as turning off battles in puzzle rooms, or allowing the player to auto-win battles against low-level opponents. Overall, I really think Variety deserves recognition as its own separate and equally important type of pacing, especially given that it touches closer to the heart of a game's design, not just how the content is arranged or presented.
There's a pikmin 2 mod that fixes (probably almost) everything you complained about. It's called Quickmin 2. All cutscenes are skipped and everything is faster
There is also some great Pokemon rom hacks that keep faithful to the original while adding in balancing and early catchable rare pokemon Crystal Legacy
Ah, I think I've just understood why so many people hate the breakable weapon system in BOTW: every time a weapon breaks, it breaks the pacing of the battle and generates a lot of frustration, even if their inventory is full of weapons. I think that if the drop in durability lowered the weapon's attack stats rather than destroying it, it would have generated much less frustration, and would still have encouraged the player to seek out new weapons.
Definitely. I have a lot to say about those games, but TOTK also has another major low level pacing issue because every time you want to change the arrow type you are shooting, you have to scroll through the entire menu. Like why not let the player just mark their most use arrows for quick access? JEEZ.
@@mrsnulch I appreciate the concept TotK was going for with the whole fusing system, but for me, it really drags down the pacing of the game. Why should I spend 10 minutes making some crazy contraption to do a simple task, after grinding for hard-to-acquire Zonai parts, when I can do the task a lot quicker without them?
No it wouldn’t. It would continue to have players use the same weapon they like because it’s not expendable. The durability system is literally required for the game to operate at its grand scale. People who bitch abt durability frankly just suck at the game. Really no iffs abt it. Same losers who complain about Doom Eternal’s combat loop.
Pacing fundamentally is the balance between active time and downtime. It can be looked at from large scale, small scale and moment-to-moment scale. On a large scale, it's how long the game set pieces take, and how much calm time the game gives you between them. On a small scale, it's how dense the set pieces are and how often they let you breathe and collect your thoughts. On a moment-to-moment scale, it's how much action the game demands from you while playing at every stage.
Finally someone talks about it. Pacing is so incredibly important. I played skyward sword's re-release only and still thought the pacing was awful, I can't even imagine how bad it used to be. I like that you make distinctions between different kinds of pacing as well, it definitely depends on the game in some sense. I also like that you explained how it's not all subjective, which is a response I often see when good games have these issues. I recently finished persona 5, which has terrible pacing, but not many dare adress it. Narrative pacing is the worst, because everyone keeps talking about the same thing until enough time has passed, I just learned ehat I could skip without missing story. Many games nowadays have a problen with tutorials as well, walls of text avout the simplest mechanics just interrupting you every 5 minutes for the first 10 hours. Glad someone's talking about this ^^
Hahah you nailed it on all counts. Yeah a lot of people are saying the remaster fixes EVERYTHING about Skyward Sword, but the pacing is, at its core, still brutal. The fact that you couldn't get through it speaks to my point for sure. I haven't played Persona 5 but a similar thing happened to me with Xenoblade Chronicles back in the day. It starts off really strong, then the narrative loses all its tension in the middle so I stopped caring, and stopped playing 💁♂
One interesting thing about pacing that I realized rather recently is how being a little too fast tends to be much better to being too slow. I finally played through Undertale Yellow the other weekend, and while it's a fantastic game, the pacifist route does rush a little at the end. After the game's 4th main area, you get thrown into a number of story beats, and then you skedaddle right over to the final boss. There's no equivalent to the Core, no climactic dungeon to lead up to the finale, so there isn't quite enough time to digest everything... but the writing is so strong that it manages to hit home despite those pacing issues. By comparison, I remember a lot of Lets Players being extremely burnt-out by the time they were done with Skyward Sword. The ending sequence and final boss were well-liked, but they were still soured by how much time it took to get there. Fun as it was, every single LP I watched ended with the sentiment of "I'm just glad it's finally over with", which is kind of telling.
The bigger problem with Zelda Skyward Sword is the unnecessary Backtracking. You run through a Map and after getting to the goal, the Game forces you to run the same map again to collect stupid Sacred tears to move on with the Story. Game stretching at it's worst. Why not simple let us collect them, while we going to the end of the Map? Not to forget the copy pasting Bosses. You want to progress the story? "sry, the big bad black wobble feet monster needs your attention again".
@@UndeadCollector From a story/theme perspective I actually like "Mr. wobble feet monster". The main issue is just how annoying it can be to fight... at least when attacking it head on.
@@King_Luigi I have no problem with the Monster. It's the "fight him 3 times" thing. Even if the Fight get's harder and sligtly different, it's just copy paste low effort, to stretch the Game content.
@@UndeadCollector Well that's what I meant by "liking it from a story perspective". Normally, you'd go through an entire game that ends with you sealing something, or killing something after someone broke its seal at the end. But in this case, that thing is _so powerful_ that your only option is to re-seal it until you actually _can_ kill it. If the fight itself was more interesting, I don't think people would have minded it.. as much. At least they included a way to beat him really quickly, which works from the beginning. (Though a lot of people may not realize you could do that until the final time you fight him.)
@@UndeadCollectorI actually love the Sacred Tears quests. Even though we’re traversing the same maps, it didn’t really *feel* like backtracking to me, because it was different enough gameplay-wise. You’re no longer leisurely exploring the world and solving small environmental puzzles, you’re racing for your life. All the while hoping you paid enough attention to the layout before to pick the right route under high stress. *True* backtracking is when you had to go back to the first temple to… fill a basin of water or some shit?
Love your take on games, keep the videos coming! One interesting thing about pacing is when a game is too intense for too long, its why Vampire Survivor has such a long open chest animation. You don't see too many popular games get this wrong, but its critical that you give the player a break after a few minutes of intense action.
Wow that's such a good point. I've been holding out on VS because I fear I'd get WAY too addicted to that game, but it looks so sick. I just looked it up and see what you mean. The chest opening gives some breathing room to have a sip of water and mentally cleanse before getting back into the fray. That's huge. It's like a step lower than Low Level Pacing!
@@proggz39Just mash click or something, I forget what the actual control is but it's totally skippable. On the subject of the original comment: I have had the pacing-too-fast problem before where a game becomes a drag because it never breathes. Had a terrible experience with Breath of the Wild on my first playthrough because of over-using fast travel, but had a great time returning to the game when I stopped using it for a second playthrough.
I'm REALLY glad this video exists! Pacing is REALLY Important, especially when it comes to a Game's Long-lasting Replayability! One Good Example of Bad Pacing crippling that (even if only to an extent) is SpongeBob: Creature from the Krusty Krab! That Game's 3 Major Platforming Worlds (Diesel Dreaming, StarfishMan to the Rescue & Alaskan Belly Trouble) rely WAY too much on needless hand holding & stopping the action with too many mini cutscenes! Making gameplay that I already thought was a tad too simple much less enjoyable on replay! Admittedly, I remember not minding this too much (except for Alaskan Belly Trouble) during my 1st playthrough of the game around the early 2010's, but I DO remember when causally replaying each World just after finishing that playthrough, it really hit me on how much of a slog the 1st Two Worlds actually were due to the pacing issues I mentioned! It sucks too, because I actually really like the Concept & Presentation for both Diesel Dreaming & StarfishMan to the Rescue! Now Granted, outside of the Worlds focused on platforming, I would say the Rest of the Game thankfully doesn't suffer too badly in terms of pacing! At least, when it comes to low-level pacing anyway! But still, the fact the 1st Two Worlds have THAT level of Bad Pacing, the fact that a Much Younger Me was able to notice how bad those sections' pacing were, causing me to AVOID replaying said sections is... Inexcusable & honestly, Disappointing! Other Good Examples of Games that have Blatant Pacing Issues (whether High or Low): Shin Megami Tensei (1, 2 & If), Subspace Emissary, Crash: Wrath of Cortex & (of course) PLENTY of Sonic Games...
Shit, the only Spongebob game I played was Battle for Bikini Bottom and it was AWESOME! I can't comment on this game, but I will take what you say as true. When you say Subspace Emissary I assume you're referring to Smash Bros Brawl. Never actually thought about the pacing in that one, not sure if I agree with you there though as that shit slapped. But to each their own.
Great video! Pacing should ultimately be up to the player most of the time, which is why I've always preferred RPGs like Paper Mario that allow you to decide when you enter combat. It's also why I feel some of the later Mario Party games aren't nearly as fun, because those games gets bogged down with so many animations that it starts to feel like one round of turns lasts forever.
@@mrsnulch I whole heartedly believe that unless the gameplay itself is somehow tied to the pacing aka its some sort "cinematic masterpiece" that focuses entirely too much on the narrative or one of those visual novels then I have my doubts about pacing being bad enough to affect how fun the game is to play. A game with the worst graphics and a story can have gameplay that will bring people back to it,.
I was surprised that you didn't mention all of the backtracking in Skyward Sword as being a pacing issue. The one that drove me up the wall was that you have to return to the song island after every dungeon in the second part. Why? I knew what was going on after the first visit. Talk about padding! I didn't even notice the zooming in whenever you bomb a wall issue you brought up (at least I don't remember it sticking out as much as the backtracking) that's cool that you did. Really entertaining video!
Very fitting that a video on pacing in games is itself well paced. Great job on this! I always drop the thumbs up when the first 10% of the video isn't a waste!
Love the UI you used at the end of each analysis! It was very clean and satisfying. Ironically, I think it made the high level pacing of your video really crisp too.
You are an inspiration to those(me) who want to start making video essays on video games as an art form, but otherwise struggle based on point of entry(knowledge, video editing, etc.). Keep going!
Thank you, I hope you start making videos one day! You don't really need knowledge, you just need... opinions. If you can state your opinion about a game / gameplay concept, do it in a compelling way, and have buckets of time to spend sifting through game footage and editing videos, it can be done. You also can get your footage from World of Longplays as long as you give them credit, so you don't necessarily have to record as much footage as I do. Wishing you the best!
I'm surprised you didn’t mention the high-level pacing problems of Skyward Sword, that you have to visit and traverse each main area 3 (or more) times. Yeah, it does flow into a new sub-area of the specific area each time, but for 30% of the time during later visits you're still moving around in the same (slightly modified) place. This kind of recycling was a much bigger issue to me than Fi, honestly. (And I say that as someone who likes Skyward Sword) Great video overall tho! Really enjoyed it, you visualized the meaning of pacing nicely :)
Yeah I went a little too easy on the high level for Skyward Sword. Personally I don't have an issue with re-visiting the three areas because I found that each area gets recontextualized enough to make it exciting. Like going back to the forest only to find this sprawling underwater kingdom, or Lanayru to cross a sand sea, and the late game dungeons (Ancient Cistern, Fire Temple, and Sand Ship) are all really strong. But the game does still meander, so yeah, I would deduct some points in hindsight. But surprised you didn't have an issue with Fi, I can't stand her 😂
Awesome breakdown on pacing. It’s nice seeing something so intangible broken down in a way to make it more understandable. I’m really looking forward to new videos from you too 😁
Great vid dude, liked the humor and appreciate the dive into defining a term that is so thrown around that it's easy to forget its meaning. Loved having good and bad examples and the high and low level definitions.
Thanks, I'm happy you like that! Those pacing analysis at the end of each section were a last-second addition, and I'm happy I added them. I feel like its nice to sum up what I just babbled about for 5 minutes before moving on to the next game!
I think pacing issues are more common in many Zelda games than one might think. Ocarina is an amazing game but boy does it not respect your time. It so frequently grinds down to a halt with its ubiquitous drawn-out cutscenes and dialogues and minigames and waiting games etc. it can be excruciating if you don't have a lot of patience. Link's Awakening also had some issues, most notably the mind-boggling tutorial text boxes, especially the one that you can't pick this stone up whenever you barely even touch one. This is one of the main reasons why LttP is my favourite Zelda game, because it just doesn't do that. 98% of it is pure uninterrupted game flow and I just love it.
Not only that. But Hyrule Field is so big & spacies that even with Epona, going from one place to another for progression or side quest doesn't make the pacing any quicker. It wouldn't be an big deal if they have some variety added in the field that you can do without wasting your time like an side fetch or mini games or some other goodies. But it's just blank and stale that I got pretty bored at looking at it. It's why I prefer Termina in Majora's Mask or other overworlds like A Link to the Past, Link Between Worlds and others cause they have thing going for and they have something for fast travel.
This is a very insightful video that brings up something new to think about in video games. I would love to see you do more case studies and maybe even make it a series! This is the first video I've watched from you but I was pleasantly surprised by its insightful content and excellent PACING.
Good video! As someone who cares a lot about game pacing, it's nice to see someone drawing attention to it, and try to put actual definitions on it with examples that will hopefully promote less nebulous discussions on the topic. Pacing gets brought up a lot in other mediums, but in my experience it seems more often overlooked in popular game analysis, or just mentioned without elaboration. I also find many games neglect it in their design, especially within certain spaces like AAA open worlds that prioritize scale and length over consistently meaningful content (even the almightly Elden Ring, as ridiculously impressive as its world is, still has a few high-level pacing problems IMO). For Skyward Sword specifically, I'd argue it also has some high-level padding in addition ti low-level interruptions. Besides all the optional boring fetch quests in the sky, the critical path still has sections like the forest's underwater note collection, the repeated Imprisoned fights, and a few less-than-exciting dousing sections. None of these added much to the gameplay with their inclusion; they just filled time, though The Imprisoned fights at least added a veneer of narrative urgency. Nice video pacing btw. :)
Pacing is something that needs to be balanced. You can have an fast paste game & an slow paste game together if done correctly. It doesn't need to be this long, but it also doesn't need to be that short either. It can be something that you can over with because the gameplay is addicting & fun or you couldn't handled because the gameplay isn't fun and you just wanted it to end. If you balanced them out and if you enjoyed these kind of things, than that's all that matter. If not, than it can be an problem. All those come from what the gameplay has it's store; which to me, is the most important thing in an video game.
I think Legends Arceus fixed that low-level pacing issue the older games had. Being able to hop in and out of battle quickly without losing control of your character and being able to choose when you do so feels so much better than being glued to the ground at random and watching the screen fade to black.
True it did solve this by keeping everything seamless! I still prefer the charm of the older pixel-based Pokemon games, I started to fall of the series a bit around Sun and Moon. My ideal Pokemon game would have the old style, but when getting jumped by a wild pokemon it should throw you into combat in less than 3 seconds. It should just go "DA NA NA" and boom, you're already in the combat menu without a fade to black. Arceus' total open world approach is also an effective fix though!
Another type of pacing I feel was missing here is "fast paced" vs "Slow paced" this is usually mentioned when talking about gameplay. Fast paced is something like Pizza Tower, Ultrakill, Doom Eternal etc.
I think Skyward Sword has a glaring high-level pacing issue, and that's how much it wants to remind you you're in a Nintendo game when "the plot moves forward" it's always go to the three areas, now go to the three areas again with stuff changed, now go again but to a shadow world version of them... and it's always the classic Nintendo game design convention of "Go talk to the 3 dragon dudes, go cleanse the 3 temples, go get the 3 master sword upgrades." And that's 40-50 or so hours in a first playthrough. It felt like a videogame excuse, not at all as organic as the previous ones that maybe did that once and the rest you discover on your own. Skyward Sword had a lot of potential I think. I just wish they did more with the combat. The Ghirahim fights and of course Demise were the highlights for me. The gadgets are kinda cool, it just takes too long to unlock them. I also think there is a better middle ground than going to the polar opposite like they did with BotW and TotK where you get them right from the start. I like finding stuff out in the world, auto build power was a highlight for me in TotK. The upgrading is also painful. If you want to get the best equipment, and you don't even need it on hard, your pace is dead. Time to chase rolling bushes and dung beetles for an hour or two. The sidequests also lacked the depth, emotional or otherwise (except for maybe one) that previous awesome Zelda titles had. It brings the pacing down since the curve of excitement should climax at the reward, but it usually never does. It almost always ends with an indifferent "Ok, cool" it sometimes goes into the "Ok, that's actually cool" territory but then it goes right back to "Ok, I'll never use that unless the game requires me to". That's what it lacked, variety, and the ability to condense all that into a shorter runtime.
You're right actually, in hindsight I went a bit too easy on Skyward Sword's high level pacing. I am probably the odd one out in that I actually like the repeat visits to the previous areas because I found they were re-contextualized enough to make them interesting. Like going back to the forest and finding a massive underwater civilization that leads to the Ancient Cistern, one of the coolest dungeons in the game. Or the sand desert. It was cool finding out there was all this extra stuff right under my nose all along. But I agree that the game does meander a lot and feels WAY more video-gamey than the others. I would definitely say BOTW is way better. I'm not very fond of TOTK personally and think they botched the auto-build ability by making you first have to drop all the parts on the ground one-by-one. It should auto-pull them from your inventory if you have them so you can auto-build something in 3 seconds. Much to analyze about all these games! But broadly speaking, I agree with your points.
@@mrsnulch You bring up a good point: you're not the first, a few others did as well, reading the comments. Some games have backtracking that are fundamental design choices, or for some reason work or feel good. I mostly find this is true with open-world RPG type games. More retro games cannot justify backtracking, unless you're meant to go through the level again for puzzles or whatever. I assume this began as a way to 'pad' the game, as most retro games were literally 4 minutes long without (a) difficult/endless deaths; and (b) backtracking. We've been used to this for about 50 years now. Naturally, it means that some people now view this as its own artistic choice and a real 'fun' game mechanic/core gameplay loop. It's just how they worked! However, if you make a game like Super Mario Bros. in 2024 but within a modern framework (i.e. generic 3D game), you'll be crushed. As you said in the video, nobody wants to do that sort of thing. Nonetheless, there is a clear positive backtracking feature/mechanic in some cases. Maybe it's because it's like playing the game twice in two different ways, almost layered, as the second time offers new content or collectibles or story, etc. Sometimes, they really lean into this as fundamental dev, as with The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds. Other times, it's just a way to force gameplay, collecting stuff, and exploration (such as Kya: Dark Lineage), but works well within the framework of a story-driven 3D, open-ish RPG world. Just imagine RPGs had zero backtracking, zero replays, zero unlockable areas, and hidden items that become unhidden after the fact. You'd just run through the game once, collect all the things you see, and that's it. Unless it had major difficulty and/or puzzles (this might explain why so many do). Many platformers and RPGs are nothing more than Pac-Man machines unless you add these elements into them. They are like terrible Nintendo games where you just collect items that you can clearly see in front of you. That's boring and 'pointless' after 1 hour. Of course, there are still terrible RPGs and you cannot justify it by saying, 'it's the only way to make it fun'. Sometimes, too much enforced gameplay is not fun at all. The worst example of all time (maybe) is Crash Bandicoot 4 with the N. Verted levels. The devs openly said on-camera that they wanted us to 'praise the hard work of the devs' and 'play through the core game, again and again, in interesting ways'. They made two fundamental flaws: first, I don't want to praise you beyond the game you've built. You cannot demand extra praise. You're a coder, not God. Secondly, if the core game is interesting in its own right, and you have good progression, pacing, and overall design, people will want to replay and complete it. I'd rather have 10 hours of perfection than 20 hours of nonsense. And, I'd rather spend just 50 hours (or, indeed, 500 hours) of great replay value for full completion than 100 hours of hell for 106% completion (in the case of Crash 4). I guess, they felt they had to force duration to modern standards (16+ hours) and needed to pad out almost half the base game. The price was AAA, but that is fine if the core game is good enough, and I think it was good enough. They should have stood by and said, 'here's Crash 4. It's an amazing, tight game. You're either willing to pay for it or you're not'. Adding in 20+ hours of nightmares for full completion with N. Verted Levels doesn't help sales; likely, it's a primary reason the sales were so terrible for Crash 4, actually. Sure, some people complete it in just a few hours for Gems, etc. But other players require dozens of hours. Just to run through the N. Verted Levels takes 4+ hours for many players, which is a large chunk of the game's base duration. (Yes, some people like the N. Verted levels, but 99% of gamers hate them, and most Crash fans hate them, too. They just accept them, but don't like them.) Here's a simple question: is the backtracking actually an artistic choice, offering new gameplay and a deeper journey into the game and story, and well-placed and paced within the entire game, or was it a choice purely to extend the gameplay and/or horribly placed and paced? I think that explains most cases of good vs. bad backtracking, at least. A good example of backtracking and replay value is LEGO Star Wars. They intentionally suggest that you replay the same levels for a completely different experience, new unlocks, new areas, and new items to collect. However, there's not much active backtracking during a level itself. I also think the backtracking in Ultimate Alliance is pretty good. Pacing is good, too, and to the degree gameplay pacing is stopped, it ties directly into the story and role-playing quality of the game, so it's reasonable. It's also not every five seconds, unlike textbox-driven games and such. A decent example of active backtracking is the two-route splits in Crash Bandicoot. They want you to go down route A, then go back to B (and sometimes then to A again to actually move forward in the game). Some people love this, some hate them. But, objectively, they are decent and were clearly an artistic choice to add extra puzzles/difficulty to the level. They are also very rare throughout the game (and, if they do exist, it's only once or twice in the level), so don't hurt the pacing. Nobody has become angry at Crash over them or quit the game because of them. That tells you they are at least reasonable. On the other hand, horrible examples of backtracking (often, contentless and/or needless backtracking) in various video games, or the N. Verted Levels from Crash 4, has caused players to quit/refuse to play. The backtracking and endlessly looking for well-hidden items in Warframe (2013) was not fun for me, but it's fun for some players. Some elements of the game are good, and certain backtracking is fine by me. When a large amount of your core game is 'backtracking and searching', it implies that you don't have much of a game or want to keep people signed in forever. It's clearly built this way on purpose. It's fairly easy to code and forces the players to endlessly repeat the gameplay/stay signed in. This isn't great, to my mind. More so, if you then have to do it another thousand times to collect large amounts of items to actually complete the game or progress to a serious degree. It's just a 'search and RNG simulator' for 200 or even 2,000 hours. Warframe is an extreme example, though. The same is true for many MMORPGs, however. There are a few types of 'backtracking'. The first is 'active' (forces you to move around or redo a section or the entire map/level). The second is 'collectible' (which is two-fold: forced and optional. This itself is split into two sub-categories. Sometimes, a game wants you to collect everything, sometimes it doesn't. If you miss something, you may have to go back. On the other hand, some games make it impossible for you to 'miss' anything). The third is 'replay', where you don't backtrack during the level, but replay the entire level again afterwards or sometime afterwards, and there are many ways of going about doing this, too. It's all about great game design. Backtracking is not objectively bad design, to my mind -- but certain types of backtracking, in certain types of games, in certain situations are always bad. That's an example of either bad game design or a terrible desire to 'pad' the game (extend the duration) by any means necessary. I don't agree with padding for the sake of it, or aiming for long duration at all costs. The game should be exactly what it needs to be, and nothing more. Nintendo are masters at this, and almost everybody else fails at it. Everybody cried about how short Luigi's Mansion was back in the 2000s. It was such a good game, they wanted more, or compared with long-duration games of the day (mostly on PC and PS2). The difference? Mansion was a great game and people loved it and kept replaying it. If it was 5 hours longer and trash, nobody would have ever played it.
I mean at least for there the areas change and you get more stuff happening in them. Like with the test excuses and everything and the second set of dungeons you found there it felt kinda organic. There was some cool enemies and bosses and mini bosses they used the combat on well, I think it handled it better then previous 3D Zelda games did at least. How did the sidequests lack depth that previous Zeldas had? It has some good and entertaining ones (and some annoying ones too) like the whole Pumpkin restaurant bar quest line and the love letter quest. I mean...that curve is still there at the climax usually. I disagree, some of the quests and their stories are pretty good and you can get some pretty good stuff, heck you get the Hylian Shield in a side quest for the very first time in a game. I still don't get how it lacked variety compared to prior Zelda games. It even has a boss rush side quest.
I think VARIETY is also a big key to pacing. Even if your game is about one main thing, taking a few intelligently placed breaks from that thing to do something unique can be invaluable to setting a good pace. Been replaying Paper Mario TTYD thanks to the remake, and it’s a masterclass in shaking things up without overstaying it’s welcome. Chapters 1 & 2 are both fairly standard - you go to a place, help a group of people with a problem plaguing them, then dive into the “dungeon” beat the boss and leave. Then Chapter 3 becomes a wrestling tournament arc. No dungeons, a bit of mystery solving and exploration, but largely you’re just fighting your way to the championship. It’s great! Then 4 & 5 go back to a more traditional town-problem-dungeon formula, but add a few minor twists here and there to keep them fresh even within that formula. Chapter 6 meanwhile is an Agatha Christie novel. You’re on a train and have to solve a murder mystery. Brilliant. Then the last two acts return to your dungeon formula with two large final fortresses to storm before wrapping it all out. In between you have sidequests and fun little diversions you can do whenever the mood strikes. It’s truly some of the best pacing in any video game.
That's a good analysis right there, I totally agree. The reason why that game is one of the big boys is because it keeps throwing all these crazy ideas at you and they all are so unique and work SO well, and flow into eachother so well, that it's hard to feel bored with the pacing because it just keeps slapping. I explore that idea in my Animal Well video as well, glad you pointed it out!
@@mrsnulch I’m a sucker for romance, and SS is by far the most romantic installment. Plus, Zelda has never been more lively and funny. She is the best version of all the games.
I think this is my issue with something like uncharted 2 vs uncharted 4. In uncharted 2 if you wanted to play a fun section again you pick whatever level you want. You’ll get about equal parts story, dialouge and gameplay. Whereas uncharted 4 has an encounter select option so you dont have to climb and head dialouge for 20 minutes before a single 4 minute long combat section
This was a really informative video and I liked the definition of pacing you used and went in depth to explain. For me personally pacing means things like the economy or progression of a game, Like if a RPG never has any dull points in which you need to grind for EXP. And bosses scale accurately with the players level, same with currency to buy upgrades, or puzzles not having a good skill curve. pacing to me at least is about consistency with a games core mechanics and how they evolve.
what i love about hollow knight pacing is that they don't bother you with boring long dialogue trying to make the player empathize with the characters is the player who makes the decision to get intrested into knowing about the lore and characters and that makes me 100x more intrested in everything.
Overall, a good video, but there is one thing I wish you mentioned at least: Pacing isn't just about progression, you also NEED interruptions to some degree. And by that, I don't just mean interruptions that are born out of necessity, but deliberate points of relieve that actively take you out of the experience for a little while. Both a good and bad example of that is Monster Hunter: On average, I would say that most fights tend to clock around 20-30 minutes on first tries (and usually gets optimized to 15 with a bit more experience). These fights are regularly interrupted by Monsters just running away from you into a new area. On one hand, this is absolutely great, because engaging in a 30 minute bossfight non-stop is absolutely exhausting and sometimes even resource heavy. By pausing the fight and moving it to a new locale, you give the player a moment of rest and to reflect, regroup and resupply and change things up with different locales. At the same time though, it's also one of the most annoying parts of the game for more experienced players. "COME BACK HERE RIGHT NOW, SO I CAN LIBERATE YOUR BODY PARTS AND MAKE SOME AWESOME DRIP OUT OF IT!", do I need to say more? Another example are bossfights, or more importantly the events before and after. In many cases, right before a boss, you get a deliberate relief of action. Think of the long ass walk to the huge throne room that practically screams at you "BOSS FIGHT INCOMING". It helps you to prepare and immersive yourself, as well as hype you up for what is coming next. Throw in a cutscene/introduction of the boss and YES, you are SO ready for it. On the other side, we also do have post-boss-moments. Most of them go out with some delicious dying animation and often with some kind of cutscene. This serves as an instant gratification for your accomplishment and to cool down a little. And even after that, you usually standing around in a huge arena with nothing but your own thoughts, your pride and maybe a dead body. And on top of all that, most of the time, the gameplay immediately after a bossfight is also fairly slow compared to others. It's rare to encounter a lot of (strong) enemies immediately after, if any at all. Instead, it slowly leads you back into the state of flow after doing an absolutely nosedive down to 0. The way you presented your video, one might get the impression that all kinds of interruption (high or low) are potentially bad, and you should minimize them as much as possible, which absolutely is not the case. Now, I'm not saying that this is what you tried to convey, but it's definitive something some people might interpret it as. I forgot the exact term for this, but ultimately, you want to keep a steady stream of tension and relief, going up and down like a way. Usually, the bigger the tension, the strong the relief that follows. If the gap is too high, people get bored and/or annoyed and drop the game. If the tension curve is too long, people get exhausted and take breaks faster than you want them to. Naturally, this is also very different for each game. For example, there are some games that live almost exclusively of giving you a shit ton of action with barely any moments of relaxation. And you can even break your own flow within your game for special cases, like adding a boss rush mode. For example, Muramasa the Demonblade has an optional "sidequest" that's a gruesome onslaught of enemies with barely any moment of relaxation. Finished this wave? You get 2 seconds to breath before throwing the next wave of enemies/bosses at your face. Heck, the last part of this fight even let's you fight BOTH LAST BOSSES OF THE GAME SIMULTANOUSLY, which you only fight alone during the story missions. And they come 30 minutes after non-stop fighting! Yet, this works perfectly fine, because this is the last mission to do after finishing pretty much everything else in the game and is meant to be an "ultimate challenge" type of thing. Also, one of the best examples of my point would be the game Furi. This game is basically a simple boss rush mode. There are no other enemies, except for the 10 bosses you fight, and nothing else to do between the fights other than walk. Between each boss fight, you have a 2-5 minute walk, with some guy talking to you in the background. On paper, this is the one, if not the most boring "gameplay" you can put in a game. But it works so great in this game, because of the gap between the tension during the boss fights, and the relief between them. But during a boss fight, the action is constantly hold high. Even if you die during the fights, you are revived almost instantly and the fight goes on/restarts like nothing happened.
One more recent example of pacing issues I'd like to bring up is in Sonic Superstars. During the boss fights, which-by the way-happen after every level, there are so many moments of downtime where you cant really do anything meaningful. It's to the point where it gets boring to even watch gameplay of it, much less to actually play it yourself.
An even more vital element is progression. This is talked about, but not enough. And we typically don't use the term 'progression' clearly enough, and so many have a fundamental misunderstanding of its nature and purpose, too. This is almost always an all-encompassing feature that manifests itself from all the other elements, including pacing. Everything must be unified and harmonised perfectly for great progression. Even the exclusion of voice acting is sometimes ideal (not in modern games, as voice actors are typically high-quality and are primary to the creative process. But, Crash Bandicoot 1 comes to mind). This is what makes a game feel 'tight' and 'fun' and 'replayable' (at least, it's likely to give it longevity, and you're likely to at least reach the end of the game). Again, Crash Bandicoot 1 is a great example of remarkable progression and overall game design (in this case, we're primarily thinking about gameplay progression out of the core gameplay loop). Possibly an even better example would be the N. Sane Trilogy remake, taking full advantage of modern graphics, controls, and otherwise (though it's imperfect and some people like certain elements of the original more). It's also a great example of a remake that adheres strongly to the original. It's closer to a 'direct remake' than what often happens, which is a 'reimagining' (sometimes this works out, of course). Progression is the central quality many modern games are missing, and the terrible old games were always missing, coupled with overall good design and production. This is really what gives a game (or, most games) a sense of 'playability'. If a good game exists without progression, people quit instantly, and say, 'oh well, it could have been good'. In this way, we can understand there are two types of 'pacing': the first is story/visual pacing (closer to what you find in movies), and the second is gameplay pacing. I believe both are elements of progression, and inform each other and relate back to both the character and player. Sometimes, there is a blending between player and character if the GUI is synced with the character, for example. Other times, as with Crash Bandicoot, it's more in line with retro GUI design. The latter is more 'gamey' and often 'tighter' and linear (more like a roller coaster game), where the former is more 'cinematic' and 'immersive' and often looser, more open-world (and/or sandboxy). Both can work very well. There are dozens of great games in both camps. Many games are somewhere between the two in terms of GUI design and overall character-player duality (or the implied dyadic relationship. Only with VR do you truly feel like the character yourself, though many first-person POV games have come close). But, I digress. I believe gameplay progression is one of the most important aspects to game design, and one of the most important factors in terms of 'fun' -- that is, if a player will actually play. But, story and visual pacing and progression (implying not just the pace itself but the placement and images and the relationships between them) is also very important. This is closer to film editing. It's about how the shots link up, the colour psychology, the symbolism, and much more. Once again, Crash Bandicoot is a great example. The totality of this can be called the 'narrative-visual progression', where the gameplay side has the 'gameplay progression'. Looking at just the story itself, I'd call this the 'story structure', instead. Looking at just the character's existence across the game/plot, I'd call this the 'character's journey' (though this term is not always accurate).
HOLY SMOKES 1K!!!!!!! Thank you GhostBeebo, I appreciate you being my thousandth sub and hope you enjoyed the video! When I get home from work I'll make a 1k post of some sort, and I have more videos in the works! Cheers :)
I remember playing Mario and Luigi Dream Team on Hard Mode, having a good time. Then I cleaned the cartridge the wrong way, all my data got lost and I didn't even feel like playing it again at all due to how damn many tutorials it throws at you. The M&L series is my favorite RPG series of all time, and yet the fact it took them until Paper Jam to stop giving playerd mandatory unskippable tutorials on every playthrough is baffling.
I completely agree about Pikmin 2. I beat 1 and 3 and absolutely adore them. I'm currently 6 hours into Pikmin 2 and I just wanna quit. The dungeons are so segmented, so barren and uninteresting, that they just feel like a chore to play through. Great video by the way.
I'm glad you talked about Pikmin 2 here, because I feel like its horrible pacing ruins the game a lot, but its fans will shut you down any time you try to bring that up. The timed surface exploration is what made the first game so good to me, and the fact that the second game breaks that up with a fuckton of annoying caves feels bad to me. 🤷♂️
Playing Pikmin 2 gave me the idea to make this entire video hahaha. I agree the dungeons keep breaking up your immersion as you're exploring the surface, and once you're in them they don't really work well with the mechanics of the game. There are good things about the game so I see why it has fans, but for me, it ain't it.
The UA-cam algorithm pointed me here and looks like I'll be sticking around. Pacing is such an underrated issue in games and one of the biggest reasons I'll stop playing a game. I can't count the number of games I've tried and unceremoniously dropped because of those frustrating interruptions (or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, the lack of interruptions to provide narrative or guidance). And you're right I think that a lot of people intuitively understand that a game will be bad without realizing that it's the pacing that's the issue. Great editing on the video, by the way!
Hell yeah glad you saw where I was coming from! That's the funny thing about pacing, when it's bad you might not necessarily notice the game has bad pacing, you instead might just feel the sense that the game is boring and not for you. It's like a subconscious force hiding in the shadows lol.
Great video mate, you analyzed an aspect which is often overlooked but is very crucial on good game design! Thanks to the YT alogorithm that put this video on my feed! With this kind of content, you will soon have thousands of subs!
It's one of the many things I love about Fromsoft's games. Those madmen throw you in a world, seldom messing with pacing and just letting you figure stuff out on your own.
Oh yeah, agreed. I actually think DS1 and Bloodborne might both have perfect pacing on both the high and low levels, will have to think about it more. I never felt like there were any pacing issues with either of those games, pure immersion all the way through.
Fromsoft brought me back into gaming after a small hiatus in the middle 2010s and a lot of it was to do with the pacing. Their games made me realize what was annoying me about even games I basically liked. Unfortunately now I'm just a pacing grump who can't stand when a game gets in my way anymore
@@Schraiber That's a good point because at the time when FromSoft games were coming out, it was an era where most games had brutal pacing. FromSoft was considered to be going back to "oldschool" gaming roots, and that's one good thing from older games it carried - focusing on the gameplay.
Interesting video. I think pacing is a really tricky thing in some genres. Metroidvanias are usually a bit slower in the beginning due to having no abilities yet, and they also have backtracking kind of built in. However, I for one love both of those details. Yet I see people often complain about a game like Hollow Knight, which I consider a crown jewel of all games ever, because they felt too lost and the game kind of stalled out for them. To me, that blind exploration and organic discovery make the games click. I would be devastated to have waypoints pointing me in a direction. I’m inclined to say those people are just playing the wrong genre of game but wish there was a way to help people appreciate it more.
I personally agree with you, there is a lot of preference to be had especially when it comes to the High Level pacing stuff, as sequences that come off as time-wasters to some players would be beloved by others. I love backtracking in Metroidvanias (unless it's obviously shoe-horned padding like the artifact hunts in prime) and have 0 issue with it, but many do. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion........ With that said, anyone who trashes Hollow Knight is my enemy. Foreshadowing for a video to come, hopefully in a few months ;)
A related but distinct idea is structure. BOTW has a long middle between tutorial and final dungeon. TOTK has a midpoint, the Zelda chase in Hyrule Castle, before settling down again for the fifth temple. More structure gives the sequel more narrative focus.
That's a fair argument, I suppose on a narrative level TOTK has a more steady pace than BOTW. However, I still have major issues with TOTK, and in a lot of ways I consider BOTW the more well-rounded game. Let this not be a fight between us! But I will consider that point if I make a video on those games.
Rpgs have horrible pacing. Actually a lot of games people play have horrible pacing. Yet we still play them. I think most people tend to ignore pacing issues but for some of us it drives us up the wall. Ultimately there’s a cost benefit analysis happening in our brains whether wasting our time is worth the other enjoyable aspects of the game. For example, i hate botw because i don’t enjoy the mindless wandering, spending hours where all you did was find some koroks and maybe do a few generic shrines. I think the _true_ motivator is the immersion factor. If you can truly get invested in a game you will look past any pacing issues.
An amazingly paced and super fun tactical JRPG I started playing recently is Unicorn Overlord. 8 hours in, and not a single part has dragged on for me. I highly recommend it.
@@peterpeladon Its mostly lots of anime style jrpgs that really suffers from bad pacing because gotta have lots of cutscenes for mundane things. Trails series is one of the worst offenders with cold steel arc being just filled with pacing issues.
Actually pacing is the intensity curve. You bring in slow moments and fast moments. Moments where tons of enemies try to kill you and moments where you can lean back because a cutscene is playing. Same in movies - you have intense parts where everything explodes and calm parts where they sit at a campfire and talk. Pacing is also what keeps you hooked. You could probably get a metric of how good the pacing of a game is, by comparing the average completion rate (like "have 20% of players completed the game, or 30%").
The problem with random encounters in Pokémon isn't the frequency. The frequency is what gives the game the little challenge it's supposed to have, with the Bat Pokémon punishing you for not stocking up on Antidotes and Potions with its high speed and formidable status moves. The problem is how damn slow the animations are. See classic Dragon Quest or SMT for games that have fast REs without wasting your time.
I agree, I don't really mind it since it's a huge part of the game, it's that black screen and slow build-in that gets frustrating when you're grinding and have to see it over and over again. The opening animation should only be 1-2 seconds, unless it's a rare or shiny pokemon, in which case they could do a slower crawl to really pump the player up.
Great video! Thank you for actually defining pacing, it often is just said and nobody has the exact same definition. I also think you went a little too easy on skyward swords high level pacing, the song quest doesn't deserve a pass lol.
Metroid Prime's pacing is great. You get to go back through the world now that you're its master. It wouldn't work without this section. That's the whole idea of the game.
I personally agree with you, it's one of my favorite games of all time and I don't have an issue backtracking, especially because as you collect more upgrades you can blaze through old areas faster. I didn't want to get too in the weeds there though. This is still a common issue a lot of people have with Metroidvanias in general - in that sense pacing is subjective. With that said, the artifact hunt at the end of the game I would still call a pacing issue, there's no reason to force players to find them. And don't get me started on how screwed you are if you enter the sunk Frigate Orpheon without the gravity suit !
Something about Pikmin 2 that I didn’t figure out until I got older is that when they made the Wii port (and by extension the Switch one) is they forgot to let you skip cutscenes with start like you could in the Gamecube original. Now you couldn’t skip things like item collecting but growing up I always skipped past discovering the caves, the ship saying something pointless ect. Now in a perfect world this wouldn’t be a problem to begin with but it was interesting learning how you were forced to mash through the ship's dialog in the ports. (Still less pointless text than Pikmin 4)
Don't forget the core gameplay pacing such as Bloodborne and Sekiro being fast paced and Dark Souls 2 being slow paced. Generally action games shouldn't be too slow or it'll become "boring" for most players, other kinds of games can just pick and choose to whatever is appropriate or fit a certain vision.
LOL, I really liked your video and expected to see a catalogue of videos on your channel. Very well thought out and polished for a new channel. Love topics around game design, hope you make more in the future!
I felt this in the game Nights into dreams on the Sega Saturn. The first game was great, you went from level to level, straight to the point. When they announced a sequel for the Wii many years later, I was very excited until I started playing. Conversations and more conversations, including boring characters, a boring Hub, it takes more than an hour to reach the first stage. I just wanted to fly a little!
On the topic of random encounters in Pokémon, I’m a VERY new player to the series. Even though I’m 38 and have been gaming my whole life, I never got into the Pokémon games until a few years ago. Actually starting with Let’s Go Pikachu, which notoriously has the Pokémon visible on screen so you can just ignore them if you don’t want to battle at any given time. After playing that and going back to play the older games in the series, I prefer the way Let’s Go Pikachu does it for the very reason you mentioned. I hate getting bombarded by random battles when I DON’T want them, and feel like you should have the choice, because sometimes you want to grind and level up, but other times, you are just trying to get from point a to point b and don’t want to be bothered. But I’ve seen a crazy amount of criticism from old school players about how Let’s Go Pikachu does it, some going as far as to say that having the Pokémon appear on screen “ruins” the experience. I don’t know HOW, in my opinion, it’s a quality of life improvement. But apparently I am in the very small minority on that lol
That's an interesting point. Personally I can't stand Let's Go Pikachu for various reasons, I find it simplified and stripped back the formula a bit and I don't like the graphics or music or anything. I prefer the sprite-based games, that's what Pokemon is all about to me. But I will at least agree that having a bit of warning before an encounter is a good thing it did since it doesn't have those random interrupts, this was by no means a bad move.
I find the 2 definitions of pacing to be really interesting because of how you show that one game can be good at one and bad at the other. So games that people have deemed to have "bad pacing" could still be enjoyable because it excels at the other aspect of pacing. This creates two distinct feelings for bad pacing, one of high-level where there are long periods of dull gameplay but the game overall is still fun and one of low-level where the gameplay is poor, but the overall game experience brings it all together.
Playing thru FF7 Rebirth rn and it’s def a great game. It’s just… can I please GET TO THE GOOD PARTS?!?!?! It’s actually insane! Amazing video man! Really well made!
Its mostly because of the boring constant long backtracking to get items needed because no magical chests like in every other old style RE game. It mostly bad of first run when you still dont know where and what you need.
Sonic Unleashed is an interesting example where the pacing is determined by whether you like the gameplay of Werehog sections or not. Let's take the HD version. If you like the werehog gameplay, then high-level pacing still isn't perfect. There's travelling back and forth, there are a few sections where you do quicktime events and there's medal collecting that can stop the game in its tracks. However, if you hate the werehog gameplay, the pacing goes down the drain. You spend disproportionately large amount of time not doing regular Sonic stages that they feel like a reward for doing the less fun parts. I think in that case, less than 30% of the game is spent doing the fun stuff.
Dude it's so funny you say that, you're absolutely right. Somebody commented that Sonic Adventure 2 has horrible pacing because you spend "two thirds of the game" doing boring stuff, and I almost wanted to slap him in the face because I LOVE SA2. But I realized he only enjoys the racing parts as sonic, so he sees the knuckles and tails sections as a major high level pacing issue / waste of time. Whereas I love the treasure hunting and mech parts as well as the cutscenes and story, so for me the game has perfect pacing. So yeah personal preference definitely plays a roll. I actually skipped Sonic Unleashed back in the day because all my friends told me the Werehog sections sucked. Never formed my own opinion on that one, but maybe I would have enjoyed those sections!
@@mrsnulch Heck, even the very first Sonic game had high-level pacing issues but mostly due to level design. Marble and Labyrinth zones bring the pace down a lot with Scrap Brain Zone not being far behind. Spring Yard Zone also has questionable pacing with sections where you have to wait. Starlight Zone fares much better and it's the Green Hill Zone that made the series what it was. But then there are also bonus stages which many players are not looking towards playing.
I think Pokemon’s Random Encounters work because each encounter gives some mystery in the opening seconds: what Pokemon will I encounter? Should I catch it? Is it a rare pokemon? Encountering trainers on the road, on the other hand, were a pain for me. I would avoid them if possible because the only thing to gain from them is exp. Random encounters in other games, like classic FF7, suck and I’m turning that option off everytime.
That's a great point, that opening crawl does build a bit of suspense which is definitely exciting, but I'd still prefer if it was just slighthhly faster especially when you've been grinding and have to keep watching it. Then maybe have a slightly longer opening crawl for a legendary or rare pokemon so that it clicks right before you see it that this is gonna be a big fish
Persona 5 is weird cause the people who play it for the JRPG dungeon crawling hate the story dragging the pacing, and people who play it for the visual novel slice of life high school drama hate the forced timer dungeons dragging the pacing lol Still 10/10 game IMO
I will say it has some terrible pacing in the beginning of the game. No way to save for at least an hour into the game, the first dungeon being filled with so many tutorials with some I believe you can't skip or even if you say you don't need Morgana to explain it the game will still give you a tutorial box. Not new information/criticism, but I'm replaying it after playing 1-4 and my goodness it is an absolute DRAG. Alongside what Skandi said about the people playing for combat vs the daily life sim having an annoyance with the other half of the game, it can either be very fun and rewarding or a chore to get through depending on the player. (Which tbf a little, that can apply to any genre as well) I feel like Persona 1 had fine pacing, 2 IS was goof after the beginning where you have to run back and forth in two schools repeatedly, 2 EP is a little better, 3 did very good with the calendar pacing vs dungeons and bosses imo, and 4 was the slowest especially with nothing to do on many in game days toward the end (no/few social links in the rain, no jobs in the rain, if youve maxed your stats you cant really go to the diner anymore you wktn het anything, studying wont do shit, you can basically either go home early or train a little and that gets old after a few in game days).
The pacing of one of the final fantasy games killed it for me... Move 2 feet, battle cutscene, battle, victory, victory music/celebration, move 2 feet, battle cutscene... I don't think I even made it out of the tutorial
I would've liked a look at how more active and less active moments need to be balanced for good pacing (take the way left 4 dead carefully manages how many zombies it's throwing at you so there's a rhythm to the combat for instance. More action/gameplay does not necessarily result in better pacing) but overall I really liked how you described low-level and high-level pacing. Great video!
Great point, a few other people have mentioned that in addition to high level, low level, and narrative pacing, there is also "combat pacing" which is what you described. How frequently the game throws enemies at you, how many, and how the fight sequences fit in with the total game. I agree with this 100%, that is a component of pacing that must be studied and analyzed.
The thing about Pokemon is that it doesn’t break the cardinal rule of low level pacing, because the encounters are the entire point of the game
This is exactly the comment I wanted to make. Some people dislike random encounters and others love them, and it just comes down to whether you want that gameplay or not. Pokemon is 100% built around that experience.
It's also why as a fan of turn-based RPGs and random encounters I don't like the overworld Pokemon as much. I don't want to have to react and run away from things chasing after me. I would rather be able to take my time and not have overworld encounters hinder my experience exploring leisurely. For me overworld enemies are the obstruction to the core game loop. Player preference actually makes a huge difference to the idea of pacing.
Pokemons pacing problem is not the encounters. It's the incessant hand holding that happens constantly starting with sun and moon. Constantly walking you places and making you sit through dialog boxes with nothing entertaining to say and bare minimum shovelware worthy animations. Sorry for the rant. Just my 2 cents from a long time fan who finds the newer games a bit of a chore to play.
not to mention, there areas where you DO encounter pokemon are the areas where the only real thing to do is fight (at least, from what ive seen) eg routes or dungeons
the tall grass also limits where pokemon can attack in the overworld, so you know where you have a chance of getting into a fight
compare this to say, mother 1, where enemy encounters happen everywhere, all the time, and arent really as core to the "point of the game" compared to pokemon. there, its a MAJOR pacing issue, which makes me put down the game every time i try to give it a shot
All of you are right. The encounters in pokemon aren't really a pacing issue because they're a fundamental game mechanic. Just like how in Pikmin 1, the end of each of the 30 days isn't an issue. It does cut you off each day, but it's not a pacing issue because it's baked in to the game design and premise.
Another thing I'm surprised nobody in this thread mentioned yet is the repels. You can pop a max repel whenever you don't need to train your pokemon, and once you do that, you're pretty in the clear from the random encounters. You can control whether you want to get jumped by wild pokemon or not, for the most part.
@@mrsnulch that's true but I've always found repels to be a small band-aid to this large complex issue. Not only does the player have to buy the repels themselves (unless they pick them up) but then they have to remember they have them and choose to use them during gameplay, AND they're locked behind gym progression so you only have access to regular repels for the majority of the game which run out super fast. Luckily you usually have a lot of money in these games but I still never found myself using them because I wanted to optimize my funds so much that it ended up slowing my exploration and progression to a crawl. If the game lets them, people are going to optimize the fun out of a game, myself included
One trend I noticed with your analysis is that a lot of the time bad low level pacing can be fixed by having the player initiate the “break”, rather than have the game take control away from you without you being able to stop it. For example, imagine how much worse the low leve pacing in Metroid Prime would be if the game FORCED you to scan every object the first time you saw it, or how much better the low level pacing in Pikmin 2 would be if you could activate the ship message with a button like in Zelda Skyward Sword.
You're absolutely right on all counts. Like in Skyward Sword Remastered, I still typically allow Fi to talk to me, so I'm probably watching roughly the same amount of Fi interruptions as I was in the original. But simply having the ability to see it coming and CHOOSE to speak to her feels far better psychologically than her popping up out of nowhere. Well said.
A lot of stuff is overexplained with poor accessibility or saving options. I know stories can vary too (3:00 especially skyward sword let alone they paywalled fast travel with amiibo). Did feel metroid dread was sluggish to start too as I really wanted to skip the story. Surprised people dedicate a ton of time to vids.
I like the pacing of this video
Thank you lol! I guess after intensely studying the eldritch truths of video game pacing, I was able to translate some of my findings into UA-cam pacing.
actually the first game analysis (pikmin) was a little bit too long
but the whole video has a very useful information
@@NikitaShershakov smh too much high level pacing. UNSUBBED DISLIKED REPORTED COPYRIGHT STRIKED
The first video games that come to mind when I think of good pacing are OG RE4, Chrono Trigger, and Arkham Asylum. RE4 especially has so much momentum and keeps throwing new things at the player and remixes previous ideas up to the very end of the game, and it gives the player enough time to breath and cool-down between combat encounters and set-pieces. The gameplay switches between shooting, light puzzle solving, boss battles, and other, one-off segments with such finesse that you're consistently engaged with the game.
Yup, all good examples. RE4 has perfect pacing across the board high level and low level, 100%.
There is also difficulty pacing ,which is if the game naturally builds from one challenge to the next, instead of either random difficulty, or stagnant/not changing difficulty. Things like an optional challenge do not disrupt the pacing because they are not required
I agree difficulty pacing is really important for more linear games, but (also for more linear games), difficulty pacing for optional content is important too, maybe as important.
Keep in mind, there are three types of play styles when it comes to optional challenges; Ignore it, do it if you feel like it on a case by case basis, and take on all content they possibly can as they go through the game. All three are valid ways to play, but two of those require good difficulty pacing for the optional content to have a good time. Optional content can be Much more difficult than the "main" game, but it should still scale as if it were its own game, so your experience with the game, in any style of play, still feels fun.
We have all banged our heads against the wall after coming across the hardest optional content in the game at stage 2-4, gotten through it (unhappily, I might add), then stopped feeling any sense of joy until the bad vibes wore off. Or worse, been unable to complete it at all so taking on optional content just didn't feel as good moving forward and led to the player dropping to a lower tier of OC engagement style. This is easily avoided by pacing the difficulty of optional content as its own standalone game (or games, if you want multiple tiers of optional content overlapping each other).
I think one thing that a) explains the Pokemon pacing thing and b) is a *huge* element of low-level pacing, if not a separate element in its own right, is Difference of Kind. Basically, variety in gameplay is extremely important, especially for medium length to long games.
You can see this in how most classic game genres are composed of two or more core gameplay loops. For a turn-based RPG like Pokemon, the two main gameplay loops are battles and overworld exploration. Depending on the entry, the games will supplement with puzzles or narrative.
Puzzles are a great example of why variety pacing is so important. People always complain about puzzles in JRPG dungeons, but to me, puzzles are a case of "this is the worst solution except for all the other solutions we've tried." The puzzles in non-puzzle games might be shallow, but take them out and see how mentally taxing the game becomes. FFXIII is a great example of this: because the environments in the game are too linear to have exploration and too simple to have puzzles, the game is left with just battle and cutscenes, and even though both elements are good to great in their own right, the overall package quickly becomes tiring to play.
With Pokemon and its random battles, the reason that you were frustrated was that you were in a point in the game when you wanted to focus on a non-battle gameplay loop but were forced to take time for pointless battles. What you dont remember is all the times the random battles created fun tension about having enough resources to continue, or finding a new Pokemon. Most modern random battle games have additional features to allow the mechanic to shine without causing problems when it should be unobtrusive, such as turning off battles in puzzle rooms, or allowing the player to auto-win battles against low-level opponents.
Overall, I really think Variety deserves recognition as its own separate and equally important type of pacing, especially given that it touches closer to the heart of a game's design, not just how the content is arranged or presented.
There's a pikmin 2 mod that fixes (probably almost) everything you complained about. It's called Quickmin 2. All cutscenes are skipped and everything is faster
Get out of here, really?! I will TOTALLY try that and see how it improves the game. That's insane.
There is also some great Pokemon rom hacks that keep faithful to the original while adding in balancing and early catchable rare pokemon
Crystal Legacy
Ah, I think I've just understood why so many people hate the breakable weapon system in BOTW: every time a weapon breaks, it breaks the pacing of the battle and generates a lot of frustration, even if their inventory is full of weapons.
I think that if the drop in durability lowered the weapon's attack stats rather than destroying it, it would have generated much less frustration, and would still have encouraged the player to seek out new weapons.
Definitely. I have a lot to say about those games, but TOTK also has another major low level pacing issue because every time you want to change the arrow type you are shooting, you have to scroll through the entire menu. Like why not let the player just mark their most use arrows for quick access? JEEZ.
@@mrsnulchoh yeah this is major one. I’m surprised they didn’t let you bookmark items, it seems so obvious
Well that, and also how much it sucks to lose a cool looking weapon you really like
@@mrsnulch I appreciate the concept TotK was going for with the whole fusing system, but for me, it really drags down the pacing of the game. Why should I spend 10 minutes making some crazy contraption to do a simple task, after grinding for hard-to-acquire Zonai parts, when I can do the task a lot quicker without them?
No it wouldn’t. It would continue to have players use the same weapon they like because it’s not expendable. The durability system is literally required for the game to operate at its grand scale.
People who bitch abt durability frankly just suck at the game. Really no iffs abt it. Same losers who complain about Doom Eternal’s combat loop.
Drifter from the tides here. I'm gonna to leave a comment to hopefully push you further.
Really enjoying this.
I thank you, O Drifter
Pacing fundamentally is the balance between active time and downtime. It can be looked at from large scale, small scale and moment-to-moment scale.
On a large scale, it's how long the game set pieces take, and how much calm time the game gives you between them.
On a small scale, it's how dense the set pieces are and how often they let you breathe and collect your thoughts.
On a moment-to-moment scale, it's how much action the game demands from you while playing at every stage.
kinda gay af. vid did good job tho
@@cl8804how is it “gay af”? What is wrong with you?
@@mick2287 sumtingwong
I've also seen this mentioned in the context of "primary", "secondary", and "tertiary" gameplay loops.
@@mick2287 they unironically use "gay af" as derogatory. My bet is, a lot.
Bruh the pikmin example is too real 😭
Pikmin 2 does at least do non-linear gameplay well but ye there is quite a lot of patience required
Finally someone talks about it. Pacing is so incredibly important. I played skyward sword's re-release only and still thought the pacing was awful, I can't even imagine how bad it used to be.
I like that you make distinctions between different kinds of pacing as well, it definitely depends on the game in some sense. I also like that you explained how it's not all subjective, which is a response I often see when good games have these issues.
I recently finished persona 5, which has terrible pacing, but not many dare adress it. Narrative pacing is the worst, because everyone keeps talking about the same thing until enough time has passed, I just learned ehat I could skip without missing story.
Many games nowadays have a problen with tutorials as well, walls of text avout the simplest mechanics just interrupting you every 5 minutes for the first 10 hours.
Glad someone's talking about this ^^
Hahah you nailed it on all counts. Yeah a lot of people are saying the remaster fixes EVERYTHING about Skyward Sword, but the pacing is, at its core, still brutal. The fact that you couldn't get through it speaks to my point for sure. I haven't played Persona 5 but a similar thing happened to me with Xenoblade Chronicles back in the day. It starts off really strong, then the narrative loses all its tension in the middle so I stopped caring, and stopped playing 💁♂
Twilight Princess for the first 3 hours probably has the worst pacing ever and kills replayability.
Just checked your channel and man… this is only your second video. Keep it up!
One interesting thing about pacing that I realized rather recently is how being a little too fast tends to be much better to being too slow.
I finally played through Undertale Yellow the other weekend, and while it's a fantastic game, the pacifist route does rush a little at the end. After the game's 4th main area, you get thrown into a number of story beats, and then you skedaddle right over to the final boss. There's no equivalent to the Core, no climactic dungeon to lead up to the finale, so there isn't quite enough time to digest everything... but the writing is so strong that it manages to hit home despite those pacing issues.
By comparison, I remember a lot of Lets Players being extremely burnt-out by the time they were done with Skyward Sword. The ending sequence and final boss were well-liked, but they were still soured by how much time it took to get there. Fun as it was, every single LP I watched ended with the sentiment of "I'm just glad it's finally over with", which is kind of telling.
The bigger problem with Zelda Skyward Sword is the unnecessary Backtracking. You run through a Map and after getting to the goal, the Game forces you to run the same map again to collect stupid Sacred tears to move on with the Story. Game stretching at it's worst. Why not simple let us collect them, while we going to the end of the Map?
Not to forget the copy pasting Bosses. You want to progress the story? "sry, the big bad black wobble feet monster needs your attention again".
@@UndeadCollector From a story/theme perspective I actually like "Mr. wobble feet monster".
The main issue is just how annoying it can be to fight... at least when attacking it head on.
@@King_Luigi I have no problem with the Monster. It's the "fight him 3 times" thing. Even if the Fight get's harder and sligtly different, it's just copy paste low effort, to stretch the Game content.
@@UndeadCollector Well that's what I meant by "liking it from a story perspective".
Normally, you'd go through an entire game that ends with you sealing something,
or killing something after someone broke its seal at the end.
But in this case, that thing is _so powerful_ that your only option is to re-seal it until you actually _can_ kill it.
If the fight itself was more interesting, I don't think people would have minded it.. as much.
At least they included a way to beat him really quickly, which works from the beginning.
(Though a lot of people may not realize you could do that until the final time you fight him.)
@@UndeadCollectorI actually love the Sacred Tears quests. Even though we’re traversing the same maps, it didn’t really *feel* like backtracking to me, because it was different enough gameplay-wise. You’re no longer leisurely exploring the world and solving small environmental puzzles, you’re racing for your life. All the while hoping you paid enough attention to the layout before to pick the right route under high stress.
*True* backtracking is when you had to go back to the first temple to… fill a basin of water or some shit?
Love your take on games, keep the videos coming!
One interesting thing about pacing is when a game is too intense for too long, its why Vampire Survivor has such a long open chest animation. You don't see too many popular games get this wrong, but its critical that you give the player a break after a few minutes of intense action.
Wow that's such a good point. I've been holding out on VS because I fear I'd get WAY too addicted to that game, but it looks so sick. I just looked it up and see what you mean. The chest opening gives some breathing room to have a sip of water and mentally cleanse before getting back into the fray. That's huge. It's like a step lower than Low Level Pacing!
I honestly hate how long it takes to open a chest in that game
@@proggz39Just mash click or something, I forget what the actual control is but it's totally skippable.
On the subject of the original comment:
I have had the pacing-too-fast problem before where a game becomes a drag because it never breathes. Had a terrible experience with Breath of the Wild on my first playthrough because of over-using fast travel, but had a great time returning to the game when I stopped using it for a second playthrough.
shocked by the size of this channel. professional quality and well worth the watch!
You are going to grow very quickly if your content is this high quality. Great work!
I'm REALLY glad this video exists! Pacing is REALLY Important, especially when it comes to a Game's Long-lasting Replayability!
One Good Example of Bad Pacing crippling that (even if only to an extent) is SpongeBob: Creature from the Krusty Krab! That Game's 3 Major Platforming Worlds (Diesel Dreaming, StarfishMan to the Rescue & Alaskan Belly Trouble) rely WAY too much on needless hand holding & stopping the action with too many mini cutscenes! Making gameplay that I already thought was a tad too simple much less enjoyable on replay!
Admittedly, I remember not minding this too much (except for Alaskan Belly Trouble) during my 1st playthrough of the game around the early 2010's, but I DO remember when causally replaying each World just after finishing that playthrough, it really hit me on how much of a slog the 1st Two Worlds actually were due to the pacing issues I mentioned! It sucks too, because I actually really like the Concept & Presentation for both Diesel Dreaming & StarfishMan to the Rescue!
Now Granted, outside of the Worlds focused on platforming, I would say the Rest of the Game thankfully doesn't suffer too badly in terms of pacing! At least, when it comes to low-level pacing anyway! But still, the fact the 1st Two Worlds have THAT level of Bad Pacing, the fact that a Much Younger Me was able to notice how bad those sections' pacing were, causing me to AVOID replaying said sections is... Inexcusable & honestly, Disappointing!
Other Good Examples of Games that have Blatant Pacing Issues (whether High or Low): Shin Megami Tensei (1, 2 & If), Subspace Emissary, Crash: Wrath of Cortex & (of course) PLENTY of Sonic Games...
Shit, the only Spongebob game I played was Battle for Bikini Bottom and it was AWESOME! I can't comment on this game, but I will take what you say as true. When you say Subspace Emissary I assume you're referring to Smash Bros Brawl. Never actually thought about the pacing in that one, not sure if I agree with you there though as that shit slapped. But to each their own.
Great video! Pacing should ultimately be up to the player most of the time, which is why I've always preferred RPGs like Paper Mario that allow you to decide when you enter combat. It's also why I feel some of the later Mario Party games aren't nearly as fun, because those games gets bogged down with so many animations that it starts to feel like one round of turns lasts forever.
The gameplay is and will always be tthe most important part of any video game. Everything else exists to enhance it.
True but if the gameplay is good but the pacing is bad the game can still be shit.
@@mrsnulch I whole heartedly believe that unless the gameplay itself is somehow tied to the pacing aka its some sort "cinematic masterpiece" that focuses entirely too much on the narrative or one of those visual novels then I have my doubts about pacing being bad enough to affect how fun the game is to play. A game with the worst graphics and a story can have gameplay that will bring people back to it,.
I was surprised that you didn't mention all of the backtracking in Skyward Sword as being a pacing issue. The one that drove me up the wall was that you have to return to the song island after every dungeon in the second part. Why? I knew what was going on after the first visit. Talk about padding!
I didn't even notice the zooming in whenever you bomb a wall issue you brought up (at least I don't remember it sticking out as much as the backtracking) that's cool that you did. Really entertaining video!
usually skip around a bit on those type of videos but you kept me engaged throughout, really funny too. Subscribed!
I guess you could say that this video has good pacing
This is a fanastic video. I'm shocked that you have so few subscribers.
Such a banger video, suprised this is only your 2nd
Hope you appear on more feeds, this is excellent content. Looking forward to what's next
Very fitting that a video on pacing in games is itself well paced. Great job on this! I always drop the thumbs up when the first 10% of the video isn't a waste!
I thought you were an established channel on youtube with your quality, your passion really shines through
Keep doing you :)
Thank you! I'm new to UA-cam but I'm starting to figure out my style, and have lots of videos planned 🙂
Love the UI you used at the end of each analysis! It was very clean and satisfying. Ironically, I think it made the high level pacing of your video really crisp too.
You are an inspiration to those(me) who want to start making video essays on video games as an art form, but otherwise struggle based on point of entry(knowledge, video editing, etc.). Keep going!
Thank you, I hope you start making videos one day! You don't really need knowledge, you just need... opinions. If you can state your opinion about a game / gameplay concept, do it in a compelling way, and have buckets of time to spend sifting through game footage and editing videos, it can be done. You also can get your footage from World of Longplays as long as you give them credit, so you don't necessarily have to record as much footage as I do. Wishing you the best!
Amazing vid man! i was shocked when i saw your channel was fairly new and didnt have 200k+ subscribers!
I'm surprised you didn’t mention the high-level pacing problems of Skyward Sword, that you have to visit and traverse each main area 3 (or more) times. Yeah, it does flow into a new sub-area of the specific area each time, but for 30% of the time during later visits you're still moving around in the same (slightly modified) place. This kind of recycling was a much bigger issue to me than Fi, honestly.
(And I say that as someone who likes Skyward Sword)
Great video overall tho! Really enjoyed it, you visualized the meaning of pacing nicely :)
Yeah I went a little too easy on the high level for Skyward Sword. Personally I don't have an issue with re-visiting the three areas because I found that each area gets recontextualized enough to make it exciting. Like going back to the forest only to find this sprawling underwater kingdom, or Lanayru to cross a sand sea, and the late game dungeons (Ancient Cistern, Fire Temple, and Sand Ship) are all really strong. But the game does still meander, so yeah, I would deduct some points in hindsight.
But surprised you didn't have an issue with Fi, I can't stand her 😂
Awesome breakdown on pacing. It’s nice seeing something so intangible broken down in a way to make it more understandable. I’m really looking forward to new videos from you too 😁
Princess Zelda has some NERVE talking to my boy Snulch that way
Ayyyy I'm glad you caught that my dude! I couldn't believe it myself. The AUDACITY.
Great vid dude, liked the humor and appreciate the dive into defining a term that is so thrown around that it's easy to forget its meaning. Loved having good and bad examples and the high and low level definitions.
Thanks, I'm happy you like that! Those pacing analysis at the end of each section were a last-second addition, and I'm happy I added them. I feel like its nice to sum up what I just babbled about for 5 minutes before moving on to the next game!
I think pacing issues are more common in many Zelda games than one might think. Ocarina is an amazing game but boy does it not respect your time. It so frequently grinds down to a halt with its ubiquitous drawn-out cutscenes and dialogues and minigames and waiting games etc. it can be excruciating if you don't have a lot of patience. Link's Awakening also had some issues, most notably the mind-boggling tutorial text boxes, especially the one that you can't pick this stone up whenever you barely even touch one.
This is one of the main reasons why LttP is my favourite Zelda game, because it just doesn't do that. 98% of it is pure uninterrupted game flow and I just love it.
The "you can lift this rock" text boxes were fixed in LA HD.
Not only that. But Hyrule Field is so big & spacies that even with Epona, going from one place to another for progression or side quest doesn't make the pacing any quicker. It wouldn't be an big deal if they have some variety added in the field that you can do without wasting your time like an side fetch or mini games or some other goodies. But it's just blank and stale that I got pretty bored at looking at it. It's why I prefer Termina in Majora's Mask or other overworlds like A Link to the Past, Link Between Worlds and others cause they have thing going for and they have something for fast travel.
twilight princess early game pacing is so bad I can't bring myself to play it ever again
This is a very insightful video that brings up something new to think about in video games. I would love to see you do more case studies and maybe even make it a series! This is the first video I've watched from you but I was pleasantly surprised by its insightful content and excellent PACING.
Good video! As someone who cares a lot about game pacing, it's nice to see someone drawing attention to it, and try to put actual definitions on it with examples that will hopefully promote less nebulous discussions on the topic.
Pacing gets brought up a lot in other mediums, but in my experience it seems more often overlooked in popular game analysis, or just mentioned without elaboration. I also find many games neglect it in their design, especially within certain spaces like AAA open worlds that prioritize scale and length over consistently meaningful content (even the almightly Elden Ring, as ridiculously impressive as its world is, still has a few high-level pacing problems IMO).
For Skyward Sword specifically, I'd argue it also has some high-level padding in addition ti low-level interruptions. Besides all the optional boring fetch quests in the sky, the critical path still has sections like the forest's underwater note collection, the repeated Imprisoned fights, and a few less-than-exciting dousing sections. None of these added much to the gameplay with their inclusion; they just filled time, though The Imprisoned fights at least added a veneer of narrative urgency.
Nice video pacing btw. :)
Pacing is something that needs to be balanced. You can have an fast paste game & an slow paste game together if done correctly. It doesn't need to be this long, but it also doesn't need to be that short either. It can be something that you can over with because the gameplay is addicting & fun or you couldn't handled because the gameplay isn't fun and you just wanted it to end. If you balanced them out and if you enjoyed these kind of things, than that's all that matter. If not, than it can be an problem. All those come from what the gameplay has it's store; which to me, is the most important thing in an video game.
I love Pikmin 2, but the bit about the tutorials made me die of laughter. It truly is the biggest issue of Pikmin 2 xD
Pikmin 4 is much worse in this regard
@@geschnitztekiste4111 That's true!
bro you’re killin it and this is only your 2nd vid? subscribed, hope to see more soon king 👑
I think Legends Arceus fixed that low-level pacing issue the older games had. Being able to hop in and out of battle quickly without losing control of your character and being able to choose when you do so feels so much better than being glued to the ground at random and watching the screen fade to black.
True it did solve this by keeping everything seamless! I still prefer the charm of the older pixel-based Pokemon games, I started to fall of the series a bit around Sun and Moon. My ideal Pokemon game would have the old style, but when getting jumped by a wild pokemon it should throw you into combat in less than 3 seconds. It should just go "DA NA NA" and boom, you're already in the combat menu without a fade to black. Arceus' total open world approach is also an effective fix though!
Another type of pacing I feel was missing here is "fast paced" vs "Slow paced" this is usually mentioned when talking about gameplay. Fast paced is something like Pizza Tower, Ultrakill, Doom Eternal etc.
I think Skyward Sword has a glaring high-level pacing issue, and that's how much it wants to remind you you're in a Nintendo game when "the plot moves forward" it's always go to the three areas, now go to the three areas again with stuff changed, now go again but to a shadow world version of them... and it's always the classic Nintendo game design convention of "Go talk to the 3 dragon dudes, go cleanse the 3 temples, go get the 3 master sword upgrades." And that's 40-50 or so hours in a first playthrough. It felt like a videogame excuse, not at all as organic as the previous ones that maybe did that once and the rest you discover on your own.
Skyward Sword had a lot of potential I think.
I just wish they did more with the combat. The Ghirahim fights and of course Demise were the highlights for me. The gadgets are kinda cool, it just takes too long to unlock them. I also think there is a better middle ground than going to the polar opposite like they did with BotW and TotK where you get them right from the start.
I like finding stuff out in the world, auto build power was a highlight for me in TotK. The upgrading is also painful. If you want to get the best equipment, and you don't even need it on hard, your pace is dead. Time to chase rolling bushes and dung beetles for an hour or two.
The sidequests also lacked the depth, emotional or otherwise (except for maybe one) that previous awesome Zelda titles had. It brings the pacing down since the curve of excitement should climax at the reward, but it usually never does. It almost always ends with an indifferent "Ok, cool" it sometimes goes into the "Ok, that's actually cool" territory but then it goes right back to "Ok, I'll never use that unless the game requires me to".
That's what it lacked, variety, and the ability to condense all that into a shorter runtime.
You're right actually, in hindsight I went a bit too easy on Skyward Sword's high level pacing. I am probably the odd one out in that I actually like the repeat visits to the previous areas because I found they were re-contextualized enough to make them interesting. Like going back to the forest and finding a massive underwater civilization that leads to the Ancient Cistern, one of the coolest dungeons in the game. Or the sand desert. It was cool finding out there was all this extra stuff right under my nose all along.
But I agree that the game does meander a lot and feels WAY more video-gamey than the others. I would definitely say BOTW is way better. I'm not very fond of TOTK personally and think they botched the auto-build ability by making you first have to drop all the parts on the ground one-by-one. It should auto-pull them from your inventory if you have them so you can auto-build something in 3 seconds.
Much to analyze about all these games! But broadly speaking, I agree with your points.
@@mrsnulch You bring up a good point: you're not the first, a few others did as well, reading the comments. Some games have backtracking that are fundamental design choices, or for some reason work or feel good. I mostly find this is true with open-world RPG type games. More retro games cannot justify backtracking, unless you're meant to go through the level again for puzzles or whatever. I assume this began as a way to 'pad' the game, as most retro games were literally 4 minutes long without (a) difficult/endless deaths; and (b) backtracking. We've been used to this for about 50 years now. Naturally, it means that some people now view this as its own artistic choice and a real 'fun' game mechanic/core gameplay loop. It's just how they worked!
However, if you make a game like Super Mario Bros. in 2024 but within a modern framework (i.e. generic 3D game), you'll be crushed. As you said in the video, nobody wants to do that sort of thing.
Nonetheless, there is a clear positive backtracking feature/mechanic in some cases. Maybe it's because it's like playing the game twice in two different ways, almost layered, as the second time offers new content or collectibles or story, etc. Sometimes, they really lean into this as fundamental dev, as with The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds. Other times, it's just a way to force gameplay, collecting stuff, and exploration (such as Kya: Dark Lineage), but works well within the framework of a story-driven 3D, open-ish RPG world.
Just imagine RPGs had zero backtracking, zero replays, zero unlockable areas, and hidden items that become unhidden after the fact. You'd just run through the game once, collect all the things you see, and that's it. Unless it had major difficulty and/or puzzles (this might explain why so many do). Many platformers and RPGs are nothing more than Pac-Man machines unless you add these elements into them. They are like terrible Nintendo games where you just collect items that you can clearly see in front of you. That's boring and 'pointless' after 1 hour.
Of course, there are still terrible RPGs and you cannot justify it by saying, 'it's the only way to make it fun'. Sometimes, too much enforced gameplay is not fun at all. The worst example of all time (maybe) is Crash Bandicoot 4 with the N. Verted levels. The devs openly said on-camera that they wanted us to 'praise the hard work of the devs' and 'play through the core game, again and again, in interesting ways'. They made two fundamental flaws: first, I don't want to praise you beyond the game you've built. You cannot demand extra praise. You're a coder, not God. Secondly, if the core game is interesting in its own right, and you have good progression, pacing, and overall design, people will want to replay and complete it.
I'd rather have 10 hours of perfection than 20 hours of nonsense. And, I'd rather spend just 50 hours (or, indeed, 500 hours) of great replay value for full completion than 100 hours of hell for 106% completion (in the case of Crash 4). I guess, they felt they had to force duration to modern standards (16+ hours) and needed to pad out almost half the base game. The price was AAA, but that is fine if the core game is good enough, and I think it was good enough. They should have stood by and said, 'here's Crash 4. It's an amazing, tight game. You're either willing to pay for it or you're not'. Adding in 20+ hours of nightmares for full completion with N. Verted Levels doesn't help sales; likely, it's a primary reason the sales were so terrible for Crash 4, actually. Sure, some people complete it in just a few hours for Gems, etc. But other players require dozens of hours. Just to run through the N. Verted Levels takes 4+ hours for many players, which is a large chunk of the game's base duration. (Yes, some people like the N. Verted levels, but 99% of gamers hate them, and most Crash fans hate them, too. They just accept them, but don't like them.)
Here's a simple question: is the backtracking actually an artistic choice, offering new gameplay and a deeper journey into the game and story, and well-placed and paced within the entire game, or was it a choice purely to extend the gameplay and/or horribly placed and paced? I think that explains most cases of good vs. bad backtracking, at least.
A good example of backtracking and replay value is LEGO Star Wars. They intentionally suggest that you replay the same levels for a completely different experience, new unlocks, new areas, and new items to collect. However, there's not much active backtracking during a level itself.
I also think the backtracking in Ultimate Alliance is pretty good. Pacing is good, too, and to the degree gameplay pacing is stopped, it ties directly into the story and role-playing quality of the game, so it's reasonable. It's also not every five seconds, unlike textbox-driven games and such.
A decent example of active backtracking is the two-route splits in Crash Bandicoot. They want you to go down route A, then go back to B (and sometimes then to A again to actually move forward in the game). Some people love this, some hate them. But, objectively, they are decent and were clearly an artistic choice to add extra puzzles/difficulty to the level. They are also very rare throughout the game (and, if they do exist, it's only once or twice in the level), so don't hurt the pacing. Nobody has become angry at Crash over them or quit the game because of them. That tells you they are at least reasonable. On the other hand, horrible examples of backtracking (often, contentless and/or needless backtracking) in various video games, or the N. Verted Levels from Crash 4, has caused players to quit/refuse to play.
The backtracking and endlessly looking for well-hidden items in Warframe (2013) was not fun for me, but it's fun for some players. Some elements of the game are good, and certain backtracking is fine by me. When a large amount of your core game is 'backtracking and searching', it implies that you don't have much of a game or want to keep people signed in forever. It's clearly built this way on purpose. It's fairly easy to code and forces the players to endlessly repeat the gameplay/stay signed in. This isn't great, to my mind. More so, if you then have to do it another thousand times to collect large amounts of items to actually complete the game or progress to a serious degree. It's just a 'search and RNG simulator' for 200 or even 2,000 hours. Warframe is an extreme example, though. The same is true for many MMORPGs, however.
There are a few types of 'backtracking'. The first is 'active' (forces you to move around or redo a section or the entire map/level). The second is 'collectible' (which is two-fold: forced and optional. This itself is split into two sub-categories. Sometimes, a game wants you to collect everything, sometimes it doesn't. If you miss something, you may have to go back. On the other hand, some games make it impossible for you to 'miss' anything). The third is 'replay', where you don't backtrack during the level, but replay the entire level again afterwards or sometime afterwards, and there are many ways of going about doing this, too. It's all about great game design. Backtracking is not objectively bad design, to my mind -- but certain types of backtracking, in certain types of games, in certain situations are always bad. That's an example of either bad game design or a terrible desire to 'pad' the game (extend the duration) by any means necessary. I don't agree with padding for the sake of it, or aiming for long duration at all costs. The game should be exactly what it needs to be, and nothing more. Nintendo are masters at this, and almost everybody else fails at it.
Everybody cried about how short Luigi's Mansion was back in the 2000s. It was such a good game, they wanted more, or compared with long-duration games of the day (mostly on PC and PS2). The difference? Mansion was a great game and people loved it and kept replaying it. If it was 5 hours longer and trash, nobody would have ever played it.
@@mrsnulch Do you have to do that for auto build? I though it does auto pull them....huh.
I mean at least for there the areas change and you get more stuff happening in them. Like with the test excuses and everything and the second set of dungeons you found there it felt kinda organic.
There was some cool enemies and bosses and mini bosses they used the combat on well, I think it handled it better then previous 3D Zelda games did at least.
How did the sidequests lack depth that previous Zeldas had? It has some good and entertaining ones (and some annoying ones too) like the whole Pumpkin restaurant bar quest line and the love letter quest. I mean...that curve is still there at the climax usually. I disagree, some of the quests and their stories are pretty good and you can get some pretty good stuff, heck you get the Hylian Shield in a side quest for the very first time in a game.
I still don't get how it lacked variety compared to prior Zelda games. It even has a boss rush side quest.
I think VARIETY is also a big key to pacing. Even if your game is about one main thing, taking a few intelligently placed breaks from that thing to do something unique can be invaluable to setting a good pace.
Been replaying Paper Mario TTYD thanks to the remake, and it’s a masterclass in shaking things up without overstaying it’s welcome.
Chapters 1 & 2 are both fairly standard - you go to a place, help a group of people with a problem plaguing them, then dive into the “dungeon” beat the boss and leave.
Then Chapter 3 becomes a wrestling tournament arc. No dungeons, a bit of mystery solving and exploration, but largely you’re just fighting your way to the championship. It’s great!
Then 4 & 5 go back to a more traditional town-problem-dungeon formula, but add a few minor twists here and there to keep them fresh even within that formula.
Chapter 6 meanwhile is an Agatha Christie novel. You’re on a train and have to solve a murder mystery. Brilliant.
Then the last two acts return to your dungeon formula with two large final fortresses to storm before wrapping it all out. In between you have sidequests and fun little diversions you can do whenever the mood strikes. It’s truly some of the best pacing in any video game.
That's a good analysis right there, I totally agree. The reason why that game is one of the big boys is because it keeps throwing all these crazy ideas at you and they all are so unique and work SO well, and flow into eachother so well, that it's hard to feel bored with the pacing because it just keeps slapping. I explore that idea in my Animal Well video as well, glad you pointed it out!
Skyward Sword is my favorite Zelda of all time. Played it for the first time on the Switch just before TotK
That's an uncommon opinion but hey fair enough it does have a lot of good stuff in it!
@@mrsnulch I’m a sucker for romance, and SS is by far the most romantic installment. Plus, Zelda has never been more lively and funny. She is the best version of all the games.
I think this is my issue with something like uncharted 2 vs uncharted 4. In uncharted 2 if you wanted to play a fun section again you pick whatever level you want. You’ll get about equal parts story, dialouge and gameplay. Whereas uncharted 4 has an encounter select option so you dont have to climb and head dialouge for 20 minutes before a single 4 minute long combat section
This was a really informative video and I liked the definition of pacing you used and went in depth to explain. For me personally pacing means things like the economy or progression of a game, Like if a RPG never has any dull points in which you need to grind for EXP. And bosses scale accurately with the players level, same with currency to buy upgrades, or puzzles not having a good skill curve. pacing to me at least is about consistency with a games core mechanics and how they evolve.
You only have 2 videos?? This is so well put together pls do more
what i love about hollow knight pacing is that they don't bother you with boring long dialogue trying to make the player empathize with the characters is the player who makes the decision to get intrested into knowing about the lore and characters and that makes me 100x more intrested in everything.
Overall, a good video, but there is one thing I wish you mentioned at least:
Pacing isn't just about progression, you also NEED interruptions to some degree.
And by that, I don't just mean interruptions that are born out of necessity, but deliberate points of relieve that actively take you out of the experience for a little while.
Both a good and bad example of that is Monster Hunter:
On average, I would say that most fights tend to clock around 20-30 minutes on first tries (and usually gets optimized to 15 with a bit more experience). These fights are regularly interrupted by Monsters just running away from you into a new area.
On one hand, this is absolutely great, because engaging in a 30 minute bossfight non-stop is absolutely exhausting and sometimes even resource heavy. By pausing the fight and moving it to a new locale, you give the player a moment of rest and to reflect, regroup and resupply and change things up with different locales.
At the same time though, it's also one of the most annoying parts of the game for more experienced players. "COME BACK HERE RIGHT NOW, SO I CAN LIBERATE YOUR BODY PARTS AND MAKE SOME AWESOME DRIP OUT OF IT!", do I need to say more?
Another example are bossfights, or more importantly the events before and after. In many cases, right before a boss, you get a deliberate relief of action. Think of the long ass walk to the huge throne room that practically screams at you "BOSS FIGHT INCOMING". It helps you to prepare and immersive yourself, as well as hype you up for what is coming next. Throw in a cutscene/introduction of the boss and YES, you are SO ready for it.
On the other side, we also do have post-boss-moments. Most of them go out with some delicious dying animation and often with some kind of cutscene. This serves as an instant gratification for your accomplishment and to cool down a little. And even after that, you usually standing around in a huge arena with nothing but your own thoughts, your pride and maybe a dead body. And on top of all that, most of the time, the gameplay immediately after a bossfight is also fairly slow compared to others. It's rare to encounter a lot of (strong) enemies immediately after, if any at all. Instead, it slowly leads you back into the state of flow after doing an absolutely nosedive down to 0.
The way you presented your video, one might get the impression that all kinds of interruption (high or low) are potentially bad, and you should minimize them as much as possible, which absolutely is not the case. Now, I'm not saying that this is what you tried to convey, but it's definitive something some people might interpret it as.
I forgot the exact term for this, but ultimately, you want to keep a steady stream of tension and relief, going up and down like a way. Usually, the bigger the tension, the strong the relief that follows.
If the gap is too high, people get bored and/or annoyed and drop the game. If the tension curve is too long, people get exhausted and take breaks faster than you want them to.
Naturally, this is also very different for each game. For example, there are some games that live almost exclusively of giving you a shit ton of action with barely any moments of relaxation. And you can even break your own flow within your game for special cases, like adding a boss rush mode.
For example, Muramasa the Demonblade has an optional "sidequest" that's a gruesome onslaught of enemies with barely any moment of relaxation. Finished this wave? You get 2 seconds to breath before throwing the next wave of enemies/bosses at your face. Heck, the last part of this fight even let's you fight BOTH LAST BOSSES OF THE GAME SIMULTANOUSLY, which you only fight alone during the story missions. And they come 30 minutes after non-stop fighting! Yet, this works perfectly fine, because this is the last mission to do after finishing pretty much everything else in the game and is meant to be an "ultimate challenge" type of thing.
Also, one of the best examples of my point would be the game Furi. This game is basically a simple boss rush mode. There are no other enemies, except for the 10 bosses you fight, and nothing else to do between the fights other than walk. Between each boss fight, you have a 2-5 minute walk, with some guy talking to you in the background. On paper, this is the one, if not the most boring "gameplay" you can put in a game. But it works so great in this game, because of the gap between the tension during the boss fights, and the relief between them.
But during a boss fight, the action is constantly hold high. Even if you die during the fights, you are revived almost instantly and the fight goes on/restarts like nothing happened.
One more recent example of pacing issues I'd like to bring up is in Sonic Superstars. During the boss fights, which-by the way-happen after every level, there are so many moments of downtime where you cant really do anything meaningful. It's to the point where it gets boring to even watch gameplay of it, much less to actually play it yourself.
An even more vital element is progression. This is talked about, but not enough. And we typically don't use the term 'progression' clearly enough, and so many have a fundamental misunderstanding of its nature and purpose, too.
This is almost always an all-encompassing feature that manifests itself from all the other elements, including pacing. Everything must be unified and harmonised perfectly for great progression. Even the exclusion of voice acting is sometimes ideal (not in modern games, as voice actors are typically high-quality and are primary to the creative process. But, Crash Bandicoot 1 comes to mind). This is what makes a game feel 'tight' and 'fun' and 'replayable' (at least, it's likely to give it longevity, and you're likely to at least reach the end of the game).
Again, Crash Bandicoot 1 is a great example of remarkable progression and overall game design (in this case, we're primarily thinking about gameplay progression out of the core gameplay loop). Possibly an even better example would be the N. Sane Trilogy remake, taking full advantage of modern graphics, controls, and otherwise (though it's imperfect and some people like certain elements of the original more). It's also a great example of a remake that adheres strongly to the original. It's closer to a 'direct remake' than what often happens, which is a 'reimagining' (sometimes this works out, of course).
Progression is the central quality many modern games are missing, and the terrible old games were always missing, coupled with overall good design and production. This is really what gives a game (or, most games) a sense of 'playability'. If a good game exists without progression, people quit instantly, and say, 'oh well, it could have been good'.
In this way, we can understand there are two types of 'pacing': the first is story/visual pacing (closer to what you find in movies), and the second is gameplay pacing. I believe both are elements of progression, and inform each other and relate back to both the character and player. Sometimes, there is a blending between player and character if the GUI is synced with the character, for example. Other times, as with Crash Bandicoot, it's more in line with retro GUI design. The latter is more 'gamey' and often 'tighter' and linear (more like a roller coaster game), where the former is more 'cinematic' and 'immersive' and often looser, more open-world (and/or sandboxy). Both can work very well. There are dozens of great games in both camps. Many games are somewhere between the two in terms of GUI design and overall character-player duality (or the implied dyadic relationship. Only with VR do you truly feel like the character yourself, though many first-person POV games have come close). But, I digress.
I believe gameplay progression is one of the most important aspects to game design, and one of the most important factors in terms of 'fun' -- that is, if a player will actually play. But, story and visual pacing and progression (implying not just the pace itself but the placement and images and the relationships between them) is also very important. This is closer to film editing. It's about how the shots link up, the colour psychology, the symbolism, and much more. Once again, Crash Bandicoot is a great example. The totality of this can be called the 'narrative-visual progression', where the gameplay side has the 'gameplay progression'. Looking at just the story itself, I'd call this the 'story structure', instead. Looking at just the character's existence across the game/plot, I'd call this the 'character's journey' (though this term is not always accurate).
yeah this channel is gonna be big, good stuff man love the editing:)
nice video bro, loved it, almost nobody talks about this 🙌🏻
Glad to be your thousandth subscriber, congrats!
HOLY SMOKES 1K!!!!!!! Thank you GhostBeebo, I appreciate you being my thousandth sub and hope you enjoyed the video! When I get home from work I'll make a 1k post of some sort, and I have more videos in the works! Cheers :)
I remember playing Mario and Luigi Dream Team on Hard Mode, having a good time. Then I cleaned the cartridge the wrong way, all my data got lost and I didn't even feel like playing it again at all due to how damn many tutorials it throws at you.
The M&L series is my favorite RPG series of all time, and yet the fact it took them until Paper Jam to stop giving playerd mandatory unskippable tutorials on every playthrough is baffling.
You're a great speaker! The video was unexpectedly entertaining and funny.
Thank you! 😃
I completely agree about Pikmin 2. I beat 1 and 3 and absolutely adore them. I'm currently 6 hours into Pikmin 2 and I just wanna quit. The dungeons are so segmented, so barren and uninteresting, that they just feel like a chore to play through.
Great video by the way.
Fantastic video! This was well edited and flowed nicely.
I guess you could say... it had good pacing? 🥸
Don't think i've said this before, because i don't wanna sound like a bot. But your editing and writing is really great. Cheers
Thanks for this well paced video! You have a clear passion for the hobby and articulate it well with good sense humor. Subscribed
I'm glad you talked about Pikmin 2 here, because I feel like its horrible pacing ruins the game a lot, but its fans will shut you down any time you try to bring that up. The timed surface exploration is what made the first game so good to me, and the fact that the second game breaks that up with a fuckton of annoying caves feels bad to me. 🤷♂️
Playing Pikmin 2 gave me the idea to make this entire video hahaha. I agree the dungeons keep breaking up your immersion as you're exploring the surface, and once you're in them they don't really work well with the mechanics of the game. There are good things about the game so I see why it has fans, but for me, it ain't it.
The UA-cam algorithm pointed me here and looks like I'll be sticking around. Pacing is such an underrated issue in games and one of the biggest reasons I'll stop playing a game. I can't count the number of games I've tried and unceremoniously dropped because of those frustrating interruptions (or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, the lack of interruptions to provide narrative or guidance). And you're right I think that a lot of people intuitively understand that a game will be bad without realizing that it's the pacing that's the issue.
Great editing on the video, by the way!
Thank you for the great video! Really interesting theme and you explored it in a cool way
leaving an engagement comment to push this bad boy a little further
I laughed out loud at the Pikmin 2 criticism...so true. Was my first Pikmin game and I quit about halfway through thinking it wasn't for me
Hell yeah glad you saw where I was coming from! That's the funny thing about pacing, when it's bad you might not necessarily notice the game has bad pacing, you instead might just feel the sense that the game is boring and not for you. It's like a subconscious force hiding in the shadows lol.
Amazing video man, I'm a starting gamedev and i haven't thought about pacing that way at all, thanks a lot man
Excellent analysis, I hope you keep making more and become popular. Keep it up, man.
Great video mate, you analyzed an aspect which is often overlooked but is very crucial on good game design! Thanks to the YT alogorithm that put this video on my feed!
With this kind of content, you will soon have thousands of subs!
It's one of the many things I love about Fromsoft's games. Those madmen throw you in a world, seldom messing with pacing and just letting you figure stuff out on your own.
Oh yeah, agreed. I actually think DS1 and Bloodborne might both have perfect pacing on both the high and low levels, will have to think about it more. I never felt like there were any pacing issues with either of those games, pure immersion all the way through.
Fromsoft brought me back into gaming after a small hiatus in the middle 2010s and a lot of it was to do with the pacing. Their games made me realize what was annoying me about even games I basically liked.
Unfortunately now I'm just a pacing grump who can't stand when a game gets in my way anymore
@@Schraiber That's a good point because at the time when FromSoft games were coming out, it was an era where most games had brutal pacing. FromSoft was considered to be going back to "oldschool" gaming roots, and that's one good thing from older games it carried - focusing on the gameplay.
Interesting video. I think pacing is a really tricky thing in some genres. Metroidvanias are usually a bit slower in the beginning due to having no abilities yet, and they also have backtracking kind of built in. However, I for one love both of those details. Yet I see people often complain about a game like Hollow Knight, which I consider a crown jewel of all games ever, because they felt too lost and the game kind of stalled out for them. To me, that blind exploration and organic discovery make the games click. I would be devastated to have waypoints pointing me in a direction. I’m inclined to say those people are just playing the wrong genre of game but wish there was a way to help people appreciate it more.
I personally agree with you, there is a lot of preference to be had especially when it comes to the High Level pacing stuff, as sequences that come off as time-wasters to some players would be beloved by others. I love backtracking in Metroidvanias (unless it's obviously shoe-horned padding like the artifact hunts in prime) and have 0 issue with it, but many do. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion........
With that said, anyone who trashes Hollow Knight is my enemy. Foreshadowing for a video to come, hopefully in a few months ;)
A related but distinct idea is structure. BOTW has a long middle between tutorial and final dungeon. TOTK has a midpoint, the Zelda chase in Hyrule Castle, before settling down again for the fifth temple. More structure gives the sequel more narrative focus.
That's a fair argument, I suppose on a narrative level TOTK has a more steady pace than BOTW. However, I still have major issues with TOTK, and in a lot of ways I consider BOTW the more well-rounded game. Let this not be a fight between us! But I will consider that point if I make a video on those games.
Rpgs have horrible pacing. Actually a lot of games people play have horrible pacing. Yet we still play them. I think most people tend to ignore pacing issues but for some of us it drives us up the wall. Ultimately there’s a cost benefit analysis happening in our brains whether wasting our time is worth the other enjoyable aspects of the game. For example, i hate botw because i don’t enjoy the mindless wandering, spending hours where all you did was find some koroks and maybe do a few generic shrines. I think the _true_ motivator is the immersion factor. If you can truly get invested in a game you will look past any pacing issues.
Not all RPGs have horrible pacing; it might just be a genre you don't want to spend time on
@@peterpeladon not all but most. One of the few RPGs i can think of that had excellent pacing was Chrono Trigger
FF7 has really bad pacing, especially the Kalm and lifestream sections. Good thing that Kalm is now skippable with a glitch.
An amazingly paced and super fun tactical JRPG I started playing recently is Unicorn Overlord. 8 hours in, and not a single part has dragged on for me. I highly recommend it.
@@peterpeladon Its mostly lots of anime style jrpgs that really suffers from bad pacing because gotta have lots of cutscenes for mundane things.
Trails series is one of the worst offenders with cold steel arc being just filled with pacing issues.
Actually pacing is the intensity curve. You bring in slow moments and fast moments. Moments where tons of enemies try to kill you and moments where you can lean back because a cutscene is playing. Same in movies - you have intense parts where everything explodes and calm parts where they sit at a campfire and talk.
Pacing is also what keeps you hooked. You could probably get a metric of how good the pacing of a game is, by comparing the average completion rate (like "have 20% of players completed the game, or 30%").
The problem with random encounters in Pokémon isn't the frequency. The frequency is what gives the game the little challenge it's supposed to have, with the Bat Pokémon punishing you for not stocking up on Antidotes and Potions with its high speed and formidable status moves. The problem is how damn slow the animations are. See classic Dragon Quest or SMT for games that have fast REs without wasting your time.
I agree, I don't really mind it since it's a huge part of the game, it's that black screen and slow build-in that gets frustrating when you're grinding and have to see it over and over again. The opening animation should only be 1-2 seconds, unless it's a rare or shiny pokemon, in which case they could do a slower crawl to really pump the player up.
Great video! Thank you for actually defining pacing, it often is just said and nobody has the exact same definition. I also think you went a little too easy on skyward swords high level pacing, the song quest doesn't deserve a pass lol.
Metroid Prime's pacing is great. You get to go back through the world now that you're its master. It wouldn't work without this section. That's the whole idea of the game.
I personally agree with you, it's one of my favorite games of all time and I don't have an issue backtracking, especially because as you collect more upgrades you can blaze through old areas faster. I didn't want to get too in the weeds there though. This is still a common issue a lot of people have with Metroidvanias in general - in that sense pacing is subjective.
With that said, the artifact hunt at the end of the game I would still call a pacing issue, there's no reason to force players to find them. And don't get me started on how screwed you are if you enter the sunk Frigate Orpheon without the gravity suit !
Something about Pikmin 2 that I didn’t figure out until I got older is that when they made the Wii port (and by extension the Switch one) is they forgot to let you skip cutscenes with start like you could in the Gamecube original.
Now you couldn’t skip things like item collecting but growing up I always skipped past discovering the caves, the ship saying something pointless ect.
Now in a perfect world this wouldn’t be a problem to begin with but it was interesting learning how you were forced to mash through the ship's dialog in the ports.
(Still less pointless text than Pikmin 4)
Very fun video and fresh topic! Thanks man
Love the in depth analysis 👀
Great writing and editing!
Don't forget the core gameplay pacing such as Bloodborne and Sekiro being fast paced and Dark Souls 2 being slow paced. Generally action games shouldn't be too slow or it'll become "boring" for most players, other kinds of games can just pick and choose to whatever is appropriate or fit a certain vision.
LOL, I really liked your video and expected to see a catalogue of videos on your channel. Very well thought out and polished for a new channel. Love topics around game design, hope you make more in the future!
I felt this in the game Nights into dreams on the Sega Saturn. The first game was great, you went from level to level, straight to the point. When they announced a sequel for the Wii many years later, I was very excited until I started playing. Conversations and more conversations, including boring characters, a boring Hub, it takes more than an hour to reach the first stage. I just wanted to fly a little!
On the topic of random encounters in Pokémon, I’m a VERY new player to the series. Even though I’m 38 and have been gaming my whole life, I never got into the Pokémon games until a few years ago. Actually starting with Let’s Go Pikachu, which notoriously has the Pokémon visible on screen so you can just ignore them if you don’t want to battle at any given time.
After playing that and going back to play the older games in the series, I prefer the way Let’s Go Pikachu does it for the very reason you mentioned. I hate getting bombarded by random battles when I DON’T want them, and feel like you should have the choice, because sometimes you want to grind and level up, but other times, you are just trying to get from point a to point b and don’t want to be bothered.
But I’ve seen a crazy amount of criticism from old school players about how Let’s Go Pikachu does it, some going as far as to say that having the Pokémon appear on screen “ruins” the experience. I don’t know HOW, in my opinion, it’s a quality of life improvement. But apparently I am in the very small minority on that lol
That's an interesting point. Personally I can't stand Let's Go Pikachu for various reasons, I find it simplified and stripped back the formula a bit and I don't like the graphics or music or anything. I prefer the sprite-based games, that's what Pokemon is all about to me. But I will at least agree that having a bit of warning before an encounter is a good thing it did since it doesn't have those random interrupts, this was by no means a bad move.
I hope you'll do narrative pacing next. Great video!
I find the 2 definitions of pacing to be really interesting because of how you show that one game can be good at one and bad at the other. So games that people have deemed to have "bad pacing" could still be enjoyable because it excels at the other aspect of pacing. This creates two distinct feelings for bad pacing, one of high-level where there are long periods of dull gameplay but the game overall is still fun and one of low-level where the gameplay is poor, but the overall game experience brings it all together.
Playing thru FF7 Rebirth rn and it’s def a great game. It’s just… can I please GET TO THE GOOD PARTS?!?!?! It’s actually insane! Amazing video man! Really well made!
People complaining about the pacing of Resident Evil Zero. Me playing and thinking it is great
I thought RE0 was OK, but nothing really stood out about it other than how much it could have used an item box
Its mostly because of the boring constant long backtracking to get items needed because no magical chests like in every other old style RE game.
It mostly bad of first run when you still dont know where and what you need.
Sonic Unleashed is an interesting example where the pacing is determined by whether you like the gameplay of Werehog sections or not.
Let's take the HD version. If you like the werehog gameplay, then high-level pacing still isn't perfect. There's travelling back and forth, there are a few sections where you do quicktime events and there's medal collecting that can stop the game in its tracks. However, if you hate the werehog gameplay, the pacing goes down the drain. You spend disproportionately large amount of time not doing regular Sonic stages that they feel like a reward for doing the less fun parts. I think in that case, less than 30% of the game is spent doing the fun stuff.
Dude it's so funny you say that, you're absolutely right. Somebody commented that Sonic Adventure 2 has horrible pacing because you spend "two thirds of the game" doing boring stuff, and I almost wanted to slap him in the face because I LOVE SA2. But I realized he only enjoys the racing parts as sonic, so he sees the knuckles and tails sections as a major high level pacing issue / waste of time. Whereas I love the treasure hunting and mech parts as well as the cutscenes and story, so for me the game has perfect pacing.
So yeah personal preference definitely plays a roll. I actually skipped Sonic Unleashed back in the day because all my friends told me the Werehog sections sucked. Never formed my own opinion on that one, but maybe I would have enjoyed those sections!
@@mrsnulch Heck, even the very first Sonic game had high-level pacing issues but mostly due to level design. Marble and Labyrinth zones bring the pace down a lot with Scrap Brain Zone not being far behind. Spring Yard Zone also has questionable pacing with sections where you have to wait. Starlight Zone fares much better and it's the Green Hill Zone that made the series what it was.
But then there are also bonus stages which many players are not looking towards playing.
Fantastic video my man
Fantastic video man, hope you get some traction with this! 😊
Keep doing these types of videos!!
I think Pokemon’s Random Encounters work because each encounter gives some mystery in the opening seconds: what Pokemon will I encounter? Should I catch it? Is it a rare pokemon?
Encountering trainers on the road, on the other hand, were a pain for me. I would avoid them if possible because the only thing to gain from them is exp.
Random encounters in other games, like classic FF7, suck and I’m turning that option off everytime.
That's a great point, that opening crawl does build a bit of suspense which is definitely exciting, but I'd still prefer if it was just slighthhly faster especially when you've been grinding and have to keep watching it. Then maybe have a slightly longer opening crawl for a legendary or rare pokemon so that it clicks right before you see it that this is gonna be a big fish
i will argue Persona 5 has bad pacing yet its universally loved
Persona 5 is weird cause the people who play it for the JRPG dungeon crawling hate the story dragging the pacing, and people who play it for the visual novel slice of life high school drama hate the forced timer dungeons dragging the pacing lol
Still 10/10 game IMO
I will say it has some terrible pacing in the beginning of the game. No way to save for at least an hour into the game, the first dungeon being filled with so many tutorials with some I believe you can't skip or even if you say you don't need Morgana to explain it the game will still give you a tutorial box. Not new information/criticism, but I'm replaying it after playing 1-4 and my goodness it is an absolute DRAG. Alongside what Skandi said about the people playing for combat vs the daily life sim having an annoyance with the other half of the game, it can either be very fun and rewarding or a chore to get through depending on the player. (Which tbf a little, that can apply to any genre as well)
I feel like Persona 1 had fine pacing, 2 IS was goof after the beginning where you have to run back and forth in two schools repeatedly, 2 EP is a little better, 3 did very good with the calendar pacing vs dungeons and bosses imo, and 4 was the slowest especially with nothing to do on many in game days toward the end (no/few social links in the rain, no jobs in the rain, if youve maxed your stats you cant really go to the diner anymore you wktn het anything, studying wont do shit, you can basically either go home early or train a little and that gets old after a few in game days).
omg the detail that the gui between games literally breaks the pace of the video is so clever lol
Whoops! I guess that would be a LOW LEVEL PACING ISSUE.
As somebody who loves desert levels, AC Origins is in my top 10 fav games despite barely caring for the series otherwise.
The pacing of one of the final fantasy games killed it for me... Move 2 feet, battle cutscene, battle, victory, victory music/celebration, move 2 feet, battle cutscene...
I don't think I even made it out of the tutorial
This is an excellent video. Great analysis and explanation, well spoken, and well…. paced 😏. Subscribed. Can’t wait to see what other videos you make.
Thanks, Fronkus! I have more videos in the pipeline, working on them whenever I can 🙏
I would've liked a look at how more active and less active moments need to be balanced for good pacing (take the way left 4 dead carefully manages how many zombies it's throwing at you so there's a rhythm to the combat for instance. More action/gameplay does not necessarily result in better pacing) but overall I really liked how you described low-level and high-level pacing. Great video!
Great point, a few other people have mentioned that in addition to high level, low level, and narrative pacing, there is also "combat pacing" which is what you described. How frequently the game throws enemies at you, how many, and how the fight sequences fit in with the total game. I agree with this 100%, that is a component of pacing that must be studied and analyzed.
this channel is gonna blow up I know it