Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Saving Games


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
48 replies to this topic

#21 dwarfsoft   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1210

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 August 2000 - 06:03 PM

Symbol idea sounds interesting, but I think that it might interfere with my magic system . How about you just save the actions up to the players current position. They can choose to play on, if they die then they are dead, because they don''t choose to load. That is how my RPG will handle it

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

Sponsor:

#22 The President   Members   -  Reputation: 200

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 August 2000 - 06:14 PM

!&%#@ ... You just died.. now what?
Why not go back to the days or limited memory, and passwords. We could do something like metroid for the nes. When you die, you recieve a password. And when you return to your game, you start a designated spot.. a lot of games did this.

I personally wouldn''t want to ever see this again since its a major pain in the ass, but its just another option that I think was overlooked.

Please, don''t ever put this in your game.. by doing so, I''ll be forced to claim no responsibility.

Go Go Go!!!!
Prez

#23 dwarfsoft   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1210

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 August 2000 - 06:25 PM

I want the player who dies to BE DEAD. Either that or include my reincarnation system. I think it is rather unique and definitely a good read. Tell me what you think, or else I may be forced to post the whole document in this thread (I wonder if it allows posts of 10,000 letters? )

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

#24 chronos   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 August 2000 - 06:47 PM

SonicSilcion,

Sorry for not replying to your post. Didn't feel like I had anything to add to the thread. I really like the idea of using a symbol to represent a save point. I'm curious: what would your symbol look like?

Dwarfsoft,

What does a player do when he dies a permanent death? Does he have to play the game from scratch? I don't like that. Then again, it might make sense in a multiplayer game.

Edited by - chronos on August 13, 2000 1:49:49 AM

#25 dwarfsoft   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1210

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 August 2000 - 06:52 PM

I was just mentioning that my magic system requires symbols to be drawn, so the symbol save might be confusing. But I still like the idea... I will add it to my doc. I think that the symbols are just to be created as keys, so they are all different. Maybe you could also make it a combination of a couple of these symbols.

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

#26 chronos   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 August 2000 - 07:14 PM

Oops... it seems like dwarfsoft replied to my message just as I decided to edit it. For the sake of the other readers, in the original version of my reply I told dwarfsoft that I didn''t understand what he meant by his post.


#27 dwarfsoft   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1210

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 August 2000 - 07:19 PM

Noted

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

#28 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 12 August 2000 - 07:30 PM

how about having then both, and let the player deside, have an option where there is free save and another where is save spots. know u cant complain. also another good one will be choosing it according to the difficulty level, easy is free save, hard is savespot

#29 dwarfsoft   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1210

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 August 2000 - 07:34 PM

I don''t know about letting the player check the box, but difficulty levels sounds promising. It also depends on how you advance the difficulty level. You could require the character to have gone a certain distance through the game and then switch it. I would like to see freesave->Savespot->Hardcore... that would be cool!


-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

#30 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 15 August 2000 - 11:28 AM

A good example of atmosphere-preserving save points is in the Playstation game Parasite Eve, where the save points are telephones, located at natural places within the environment. They always also have a blinking red light so that you can always identify them.

Believe me, there were times I was never happier to see a phone.

#31 Buster   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 August 2000 - 11:49 AM

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!

#32 Wavinator   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1565

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 August 2000 - 12:15 PM

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

#33 chronos   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 August 2000 - 01:03 PM

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?


#34 chronos   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 August 2000 - 01:17 PM

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.

#35 Supernova   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 August 2000 - 01:49 PM

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).

#36 Wavinator   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1565

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 August 2000 - 01:56 PM

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...

#37 chronos   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 August 2000 - 02:08 PM

Supernova,

But there is a penalty for dying in your example. You''re either moved to the soul world, or back to the beginning.

#38 chronos   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 August 2000 - 02:30 PM

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

#39 Supernova   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 August 2000 - 02:46 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.

#40 chronos   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 August 2000 - 03:10 PM

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




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS