Save games are for weenies! Hardcore mode forever!
Of course, I allow saving in town (or at base, whatever). You do have to go to work some time. But if you die out in the adventure, it''s OVER BABY!
Saving Games
Okay. {picks up BIG claymore and walks around the room glaring at everybody...}
Why is it that designers feel the URGE to impose THEIR play style on players? Is this machismo, or what? Repeat and die gameplay appeals to 13 year olds. Now, I've got nothing against 13 year olds, but I'm not 13. I don't have much time to play games, and so the ABSOLUTE LAST THING I want to do is repeat Level 16 a half dozen times because I've got to reload from my friggin' save point.
As designers, we've GOT to think like chefs. No, seriously. We've got to think about what people want, not what we think they should have. If people want to save anywhere, let 'em save anywhere, and let's not be moralistic about it.
Look, this issue has even costs the big guys money. Anybody remember the Aliens vs. Predator save patch? That certainly wasn't figured into Fox's development budget, and I for one didn't even buy the game until it came out.
A lot of you seem to want to create RPGs, where death has many more consequences. I would strongly {with claymore
} encourage you to use the carrot, not the stick. DO NOT PENALIZE free savers. Sometimes they just want to experiment. Sometimes they just want to explore. Sometimes they don't want to suffer whatever loss we high and mighty designers choose to inflict on them.
If freesavers really irritate you, then why don't you reward the repeat-and-diers? Give 'em extra points, a higher score, special potions, whatever. Use the carrot, not the stick...
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
Edited by - Wavinator on August 15, 2000 7:19:38 PM
Why is it that designers feel the URGE to impose THEIR play style on players? Is this machismo, or what? Repeat and die gameplay appeals to 13 year olds. Now, I've got nothing against 13 year olds, but I'm not 13. I don't have much time to play games, and so the ABSOLUTE LAST THING I want to do is repeat Level 16 a half dozen times because I've got to reload from my friggin' save point.
As designers, we've GOT to think like chefs. No, seriously. We've got to think about what people want, not what we think they should have. If people want to save anywhere, let 'em save anywhere, and let's not be moralistic about it.
Look, this issue has even costs the big guys money. Anybody remember the Aliens vs. Predator save patch? That certainly wasn't figured into Fox's development budget, and I for one didn't even buy the game until it came out.
A lot of you seem to want to create RPGs, where death has many more consequences. I would strongly {with claymore
} encourage you to use the carrot, not the stick. DO NOT PENALIZE free savers. Sometimes they just want to experiment. Sometimes they just want to explore. Sometimes they don't want to suffer whatever loss we high and mighty designers choose to inflict on them.If freesavers really irritate you, then why don't you reward the repeat-and-diers? Give 'em extra points, a higher score, special potions, whatever. Use the carrot, not the stick...
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
Edited by - Wavinator on August 15, 2000 7:19:38 PM
Author
Wavinator,
It seems your design philosophy is distinctly different from mine. Striving to determine what "the people" want seems to me rather naive. While designers should certainly be aware of the way players might respond to certain design choices, I don''t really believe in democratic design. Some people feel that pandering to the masses will lead to formulaic, regurgitated crap. True or not, I prefer to write games according to the things that I might enjoy. What better criteria is there?
It seems your design philosophy is distinctly different from mine. Striving to determine what "the people" want seems to me rather naive. While designers should certainly be aware of the way players might respond to certain design choices, I don''t really believe in democratic design. Some people feel that pandering to the masses will lead to formulaic, regurgitated crap. True or not, I prefer to write games according to the things that I might enjoy. What better criteria is there?
Author
Wavinator,
I can agree with not penalizing players for free saving. That does not, however, mean that one should implement a free save function. As for penalizing death, I think that pretty much necessary, or else it serves no function.
I can agree with not penalizing players for free saving. That does not, however, mean that one should implement a free save function. As for penalizing death, I think that pretty much necessary, or else it serves no function.
I think Soul Reaver did a pretty interesting thing with this whole issue. I''ll try to explain this game to those who haven''t played it. This is a 3rd person 3D puzzle game, some may say similar to Tomb Raider, but I think it''s much better.
First of all, the whole game was very nicely designed. There were no save points, instead there were gateways which took you to different places (similar to Diablo 2''s system). There also were no levels, the whole game world was one BIG level. The storyline called for two realms, a material one and a soul one. Originally you exist in the soul realm, and you are able to materialize in the material realm at certain points. These two realms are pretty much the same (some differences do exist which are used for some puzzles), except that you can''t physically touch or move anything in the soul realm. Initially you can''t stay in the material realm forever, your life slowly degrades.
When you die in the material realm, you simply go to the soul realm. When you die in the soul realm, you go back to the beginning of the game, but you are still able to use any gateways you activated. When you save the game and re-load, you always start at the beginning, and you have to use gateways to continue your quest.
It may sound like there is no penalty for death, and there isn''t. This however goes with the storyline and the whole concept of the game. The gateways are also a part of the story, so basically everything is very nicely integrated into the game, and you rarely have to leave the game world mentally. You only save when you''re going to quit, because there is no penalty for dying anyway.
The point I''m trying to make is this: you don''t have to have save points or free saves. I think a better solution would be (as someone mentioned before) to use a system similar to Diablo 2''s (meaning use way points, or gateways).
First of all, the whole game was very nicely designed. There were no save points, instead there were gateways which took you to different places (similar to Diablo 2''s system). There also were no levels, the whole game world was one BIG level. The storyline called for two realms, a material one and a soul one. Originally you exist in the soul realm, and you are able to materialize in the material realm at certain points. These two realms are pretty much the same (some differences do exist which are used for some puzzles), except that you can''t physically touch or move anything in the soul realm. Initially you can''t stay in the material realm forever, your life slowly degrades.
When you die in the material realm, you simply go to the soul realm. When you die in the soul realm, you go back to the beginning of the game, but you are still able to use any gateways you activated. When you save the game and re-load, you always start at the beginning, and you have to use gateways to continue your quest.
It may sound like there is no penalty for death, and there isn''t. This however goes with the storyline and the whole concept of the game. The gateways are also a part of the story, so basically everything is very nicely integrated into the game, and you rarely have to leave the game world mentally. You only save when you''re going to quit, because there is no penalty for dying anyway.
The point I''m trying to make is this: you don''t have to have save points or free saves. I think a better solution would be (as someone mentioned before) to use a system similar to Diablo 2''s (meaning use way points, or gateways).
quote:Original post by chronos
Wavinator,
It seems your design philosophy is distinctly different from mine. Striving to determine what "the people" want seems to me rather naive. While designers should certainly be aware of the way players might respond to certain design choices, I don''t really believe in democratic design. Some people feel that pandering to the masses will lead to formulaic, regurgitated crap. True or not, I prefer to write games according to the things that I might enjoy. What better criteria is there?
Allow me to suggest very relevant criteria: Your game ships, or it does not.
I approve wholeheartedly of designing solely for yourself. It can be fun and very creative. But I wouldn''t assume for a second that designing in a vacuum, without a thought as to what my audience would or wouldn''t like, is going to give me a shippable product.
This highlights what I consider a big problem among would be designers. Designing for your audience is not pandering. We are not high culture artists, and any arrogance we may have toward "the masses" is unfounded. We are, instead, more like cooks-- we blend together a bunch of ingredients that we hope others will enjoy.
Now we are best at our craft when we like the same things our audience likes. Professionals like Meier and Miyamoto have said that this is the secret to their success: they and their audience share similar tastes. But they never forget their audience, and must be constantly aware of where they and their audience diverge.
Remember, it''s all about the players . Game creation is a business, and NO business survives by ignoring the will or wishes of its customers.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
Author
Supernova,
But there is a penalty for dying in your example. You''re either moved to the soul world, or back to the beginning.
But there is a penalty for dying in your example. You''re either moved to the soul world, or back to the beginning.
Author
Wavinator,
There's a very big difference between considering the players and giving the players "what they want". The latter attempts to assign a preference to a collective whose preferences, taken together, may be quite contradictory. That's why I think it's naive. Please note that I never said we should ignore the players. The vacuum you speak of is hard to achieve.
I suppose what I'm saying is that market demands should not determine design, but rather the designer should. That a designer considers the player as part of his design does not necessarily mean he's trying to satisfy some kind of perceived demand ("what players want").
For me games are primarily and art form and only secondarily a business. I'm sure many people feel otherwise. Burger king appeals to the masses, a chef's culinary art might not. Hollywood special effects appeal to the masses, Woody Allen might not.
Edited by - chronos on August 15, 2000 9:44:42 PM
There's a very big difference between considering the players and giving the players "what they want". The latter attempts to assign a preference to a collective whose preferences, taken together, may be quite contradictory. That's why I think it's naive. Please note that I never said we should ignore the players. The vacuum you speak of is hard to achieve.
I suppose what I'm saying is that market demands should not determine design, but rather the designer should. That a designer considers the player as part of his design does not necessarily mean he's trying to satisfy some kind of perceived demand ("what players want").
For me games are primarily and art form and only secondarily a business. I'm sure many people feel otherwise. Burger king appeals to the masses, a chef's culinary art might not. Hollywood special effects appeal to the masses, Woody Allen might not.
Edited by - chronos on August 15, 2000 9:44:42 PM
chronos,
Yeah I guess you can say that''s a penalty. What that does though is eliminate the need for the player to save every 2 seconds because they''re afraid they''ll die. Here, the player can just go find a "portal" where they can materialize in the physical realm. Though yeah, you still have to go through the trouble of finding a portal so that can be seen as a penalty.
I think this kind of system is better than making the player have to save very often. The designers must''ve assumed that everyone will be saving like crazy, so they made it unnecessary to save at all.
Yeah I guess you can say that''s a penalty. What that does though is eliminate the need for the player to save every 2 seconds because they''re afraid they''ll die. Here, the player can just go find a "portal" where they can materialize in the physical realm. Though yeah, you still have to go through the trouble of finding a portal so that can be seen as a penalty.
I think this kind of system is better than making the player have to save very often. The designers must''ve assumed that everyone will be saving like crazy, so they made it unnecessary to save at all.
Author
Supernova,
I see what you mean. The game is designed in a way that makes compulsive saving irrelevant. I don't think there's anything wrong with free saving. It's just that save points can have a certain strategic design value that free saving lacks. Even so, save points are certainly not the only valid alternative.
[rambling mode: on]
To think of it, I should ammend my statement about death. Death should mean something, and that meaning is usually negative. I suppose in some quirky games death might lead to a positive result.
[rambling mode: off]
Edited by - chronos on August 15, 2000 10:15:17 PM
I see what you mean. The game is designed in a way that makes compulsive saving irrelevant. I don't think there's anything wrong with free saving. It's just that save points can have a certain strategic design value that free saving lacks. Even so, save points are certainly not the only valid alternative.
[rambling mode: on]
To think of it, I should ammend my statement about death. Death should mean something, and that meaning is usually negative. I suppose in some quirky games death might lead to a positive result.
[rambling mode: off]
Edited by - chronos on August 15, 2000 10:15:17 PM
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
