Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Play without save/load


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
72 replies to this topic

#21 glhf   Banned   -  Reputation: -585

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 January 2012 - 08:49 AM


Class based games, RNG based combat goes out the window if you want to have perma-death.

Wrong. The presence of "classes" does not imply unfairness. Some amount of randomness is tolerable as well as long as it averages out sufficiently and the player has enough tools to cope with it.


Like I said, I don't expect you to understand even if I would make a long and in depth post about class based combat.
Why do you think all class based games that have some sort of arena or tournament don't allow 1v1? Only 2v2 and up.

Sponsor:

#22 Yrjö P.   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1412

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 January 2012 - 01:20 PM



Class based games, RNG based combat goes out the window if you want to have perma-death.

Wrong. The presence of "classes" does not imply unfairness. Some amount of randomness is tolerable as well as long as it averages out sufficiently and the player has enough tools to cope with it.


Like I said, I don't expect you to understand even if I would make a long and in depth post about class based combat.
Why do you think all class based games that have some sort of arena or tournament don't allow 1v1? Only 2v2 and up.

Because those games aren't balanced for 1v1.

Street Fighter has about 40 "classes". Starcraft has three "classes". Blizzard could have balanced WoW's measly nine classes for 1v1 but they obviously didn't consider 1v1 or PVP in general to be important. Achieving simultaneous PVP and PVE balance requires achieving PVP balance first. PVE can then be balanced without disturbing the PVP balance by tuning the environment to the classes and not vice versa.

#23 glhf   Banned   -  Reputation: -585

Like
-1Likes
Like

Posted 02 January 2012 - 01:51 PM




Class based games, RNG based combat goes out the window if you want to have perma-death.

Wrong. The presence of "classes" does not imply unfairness. Some amount of randomness is tolerable as well as long as it averages out sufficiently and the player has enough tools to cope with it.


Like I said, I don't expect you to understand even if I would make a long and in depth post about class based combat.
Why do you think all class based games that have some sort of arena or tournament don't allow 1v1? Only 2v2 and up.

Because those games aren't balanced for 1v1.

Street Fighter has about 40 "classes". Starcraft has three "classes". Blizzard could have balanced WoW's measly nine classes for 1v1 but they obviously didn't consider 1v1 or PVP in general to be important. Achieving simultaneous PVP and PVE balance requires achieving PVP balance first. PVE can then be balanced without disturbing the PVP balance by tuning the environment to the classes and not vice versa.


You always made me decide to write you an essay on this subject but I'm not going to.
I'm just going to say that you're wrong and it's impossible for "classes" to be balanced..
I guess the only thing you did prove me wrong in was that there are a few games that have 1v1 in "class" based games but I think that is a big mistake.

One class will always have better abilities than the other one. Either it's a so called "hero class" or it's rock paper scissor.
Besides you haven't given any real arguments to why Class based combat is fair either. All you've pretty much said is "You're wrong."

#24 Yrjö P.   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1412

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 02 January 2012 - 09:43 PM

You always made me decide to write you an essay on this subject but I'm not going to.
I'm just going to say that you're wrong and it's impossible for "classes" to be balanced..
I guess the only thing you did prove me wrong in was that there are a few games that have 1v1 in "class" based games but I think that is a big mistake.

One class will always have better abilities than the other one. Either it's a so called "hero class" or it's rock paper scissor.

Entities with infinite calculation ability playing an asymmetric, discrete, deterministic game would surely find it to be unbalanced. How many folks like that do you know, though?

In the real world, the argument you are making is completely irrelevant, just like pointing out that no two objects are "really" the same length when we start poking at quantums. For all practical purposes, there are objects of same length - within some tolerance. The tolerance used depends on purpose, but it is lower bound by the limits of our ability to measure. We have no way of ever knowing exactly how balanced a given version of a game is. When we say "balanced", it really means "balanced for practical purposes", or "balanced as far as we know". What we can do is examine class matchup statistics, class picks and other data, then make educated estimates. Then we make a balance patch, take stock of the situation again, repeat. As long as the game is under good maintenance, either we are considering it to be balanced for now, or a balance patch is incoming and will on average improve the situation.

Take Starcraft, for instance; if players who have been playing the game full-time, professionally for the last five years cannot detect imbalance in the game's races, then the only sane option is to consider the game balanced until there's evidence it's not. An "imbalance" too small for master players to detect really doesn't make a difference.

Besides you haven't given any real arguments to why Class based combat is fair either. All you've pretty much said is "You're wrong."

You are failing at reading comprehension and/or elementary logic. I have not claimed "class based combat is fair". That would be ridiculous; obviously there are plenty of unbalanced games around, and therefore not all class based combat is fair.

Instead, I have shown by counterexample that your equally ridiculous claim "every game with class-based combat is unfair" is false.

#25 glhf   Banned   -  Reputation: -585

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 January 2012 - 06:45 AM

Entities with infinite calculation ability playing an asymmetric, discrete, deterministic game would surely find it to be unbalanced. How many folks like that do you know, though?

In the real world, the argument you are making is completely irrelevant, just like pointing out that no two objects are "really" the same length when we start poking at quantums. For all practical purposes, there are objects of same length - within some tolerance. The tolerance used depends on purpose, but it is lower bound by the limits of our ability to measure. We have no way of ever knowing exactly how balanced a given version of a game is. When we say "balanced", it really means "balanced for practical purposes", or "balanced as far as we know". What we can do is examine class matchup statistics, class picks and other data, then make educated estimates. Then we make a balance patch, take stock of the situation again, repeat. As long as the game is under good maintenance, either we are considering it to be balanced for now, or a balance patch is incoming and will on average improve the situation.

Take Starcraft, for instance; if players who have been playing the game full-time, professionally for the last five years cannot detect imbalance in the game's races, then the only sane option is to consider the game balanced until there's evidence it's not. An "imbalance" too small for master players to detect really doesn't make a difference.

You are failing at reading comprehension and/or elementary logic. I have not claimed "class based combat is fair". That would be ridiculous; obviously there are plenty of unbalanced games around, and therefore not all class based combat is fair.

Instead, I have shown by counterexample that your equally ridiculous claim "every game with class-based combat is unfair" is false.


This feels so pointless to discuss but let's do it anyway.

My argument:
"Class" vs "Class" is theoretically impossible to balance because when you play both "classes" to their max potential then the "class" with the better tool set will always win.

Your arguments:
1. Look at the pros in those games.. They make money playing the game and they don't complain.
2. We can't assume players will be able to play their "classes" to their max potential, That would be ridiculous. We are not robots.

My Answers:
1. So?
2. We should assume they can. I'm not a RTS player but I can imagine it's harder to play an RTS race/faction to it's max potential than it is a single character in a RPG. But still doesn't mean we should assume they won't reach that max potential. Also just because one class might be better than the other one doesn't mean it always wins. It's up to the player playing the character too. But there will always be that unfair advantage. That unfair advantage is often enough to let the worse player win if they aren't far away from each other in skills. Especially if you add RNG to the game as well.

#26 Yrjö P.   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1412

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 January 2012 - 07:33 AM

Your arguments:
2. We can't assume players will be able to play their "classes" to their max potential, That would be ridiculous. We are not robots.
My Answers:
2. We should assume they can. I'm not a RTS player but I can imagine it's harder to play an RTS race/faction to it's max potential than it is a single character in a RPG. But still doesn't mean we should assume they won't reach that max potential. Also just because one class might be better than the other one doesn't mean it always wins. It's up to the player playing the character too. But there will always be that unfair advantage. That unfair advantage is often enough to let the worse player win if they aren't far away from each other in skills. Especially if you add RNG to the game as well.

OK, so you are either trolling or completely retarded.

Has it occurred to you that Chess and Go are asymmetrical "class-based" games? Human beings will never solve those games. It's simply not going to happen with the computational ability we have.
Even if you lack the slightest understanding of computational complexity, you should realize human cognitive limits will never allow a human being to play even the first 0.1 seconds of a Starcraft match perfectly. "Perfect" play would take reflexes at least three orders of magnitude better than the best human has. And that's just the very first instant of the game, where there is absolutely no strategic decision to make.

My other point had nothing to do with whether professional players of Starcraft "complain". The point is they are the best Starcraft players in existence. If they are unable to find imbalances strong enough to matter, then so is everyone else. A theoretical imbalance we cannot even detect is completely meaningless and has no effect on the quality of a game. There is no reason for us to hamstring our game designs to avoid this meaningless imbalance.

#27 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2488

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 January 2012 - 09:04 AM

Rock always seems to beat scissors. OMG! Rock-paper-scissors is so unbalanced!
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#28 glhf   Banned   -  Reputation: -585

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 January 2012 - 12:48 PM


Your arguments:
2. We can't assume players will be able to play their "classes" to their max potential, That would be ridiculous. We are not robots.
My Answers:
2. We should assume they can. I'm not a RTS player but I can imagine it's harder to play an RTS race/faction to it's max potential than it is a single character in a RPG. But still doesn't mean we should assume they won't reach that max potential. Also just because one class might be better than the other one doesn't mean it always wins. It's up to the player playing the character too. But there will always be that unfair advantage. That unfair advantage is often enough to let the worse player win if they aren't far away from each other in skills. Especially if you add RNG to the game as well.

OK, so you are either trolling or completely retarded.

Has it occurred to you that Chess and Go are asymmetrical "class-based" games? Human beings will never solve those games. It's simply not going to happen with the computational ability we have.
Even if you lack the slightest understanding of computational complexity, you should realize human cognitive limits will never allow a human being to play even the first 0.1 seconds of a Starcraft match perfectly. "Perfect" play would take reflexes at least three orders of magnitude better than the best human has. And that's just the very first instant of the game, where there is absolutely no strategic decision to make.

My other point had nothing to do with whether professional players of Starcraft "complain". The point is they are the best Starcraft players in existence. If they are unable to find imbalances strong enough to matter, then so is everyone else. A theoretical imbalance we cannot even detect is completely meaningless and has no effect on the quality of a game. There is no reason for us to hamstring our game designs to avoid this meaningless imbalance.


Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Hope we have moderators in this forum to give you at least an infraction for calling me a retard.
Even calling me a troll should be enough for an infraction since it's baiting and provocative and insulting.

Do you read your own posts btw?
Your defense is that players won't be able to play 100% perfectly every 0.1 second during a fight/match.
Also, I'm not talking about starcraft now since I never played it but if a game is too fast paced for human reflexes etc to play then it's flawed and need to be slowed down.
Personally, my reflexes are good enough to counter abilties that have only a 0.3 second animation.
If a game only has 0.1 second animations then it sounds like it's way too fast paced (unless someone can prove it's possible to react to 0.1 second animations).

We're designing the game to be played by players, not by bots.

P.S: There's chess masters that can beat the best bots in chess.

#29 Yrjö P.   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1412

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 03 January 2012 - 02:51 PM

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In other words, you are going to hold onto your opinion regardless of how thoroughly it is demonstrated to be false.

Your defense is that players won't be able to play 100% perfectly every 0.1 second during a fight/match.

Sigh.
You said we should assume that players can play perfectly. It's blindingly obvious that such is never going to be the case due to computational complexity and cognitive limits.

Also, I'm not talking about starcraft now since I never played it but if a game is too fast paced for human reflexes etc to play then it's flawed and need to be slowed down.

Not too fast to play. Too fast to play perfectly. And it's not Starcraft specifically, but every single videogame that isn't a pure puzzle or strategy game. Humans do not play videogames perfectly.

Personally, my reflexes are good enough to counter abilties that have only a 0.3 second animation.
If a game only has 0.1 second animations then it sounds like it's way too fast paced (unless someone can prove it's possible to react to 0.1 second animations).

It seems you don't understand what "perfect" means. A perfect Starcraft opening would require the player to make several accurate clicks and keypresses per millisecond during the first frame of the game.

We're designing the game to be played by players, not by bots.

That's sort of what I have been trying to tell you when I say any "unfairness" which human players cannot find is not relevant.

P.S: There's chess masters that can beat the best bots in chess.

Dunno what that has to do with anything. But according to you, chess is "unfair" since it has classes Black and White. We cannot solve Chess. After a few thousand years of play, we cannot even know whether Black or White is supposed to be the overpowered class. It's pretty obvious that your definition of "unfair" is completely meaningless.

#30 Casey Hardman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2211

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 03 January 2012 - 03:44 PM

In games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim, the save/load feature never really made me feel less immersed. In fact, if I felt I had to go through with my decision to lop someone's head off and face the entire city full of guards and citizens afterwards, I would rarely do it and wouldn't end up having much fun...

Maybe it's just because these games are the type where, if you die, you load your last save and try again instead of having the storyline changed. However, I still feel like I'd like to win if I can, whether it's on the first try or the seventh. I'd prefer trying multiple times.

I don't think this would ruin immersion, because in my opinion, immersion isn't "thinking you're inside the game" - you'll almost always be aware that you're playing a game, but if you're immersed, you'll care more about what happens in the game. If your players care enough to repeatedly try to beat the specific fight, then why stop them?

I say, let them save/load, but tell them and remind them throughout the game that they don't have to win to progress.

#31 glhf   Banned   -  Reputation: -585

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 04 January 2012 - 06:40 AM


Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In other words, you are going to hold onto your opinion regardless of how thoroughly it is demonstrated to be false.

Your defense is that players won't be able to play 100% perfectly every 0.1 second during a fight/match.

Sigh.
You said we should assume that players can play perfectly. It's blindingly obvious that such is never going to be the case due to computational complexity and cognitive limits.

Also, I'm not talking about starcraft now since I never played it but if a game is too fast paced for human reflexes etc to play then it's flawed and need to be slowed down.

Not too fast to play. Too fast to play perfectly. And it's not Starcraft specifically, but every single videogame that isn't a pure puzzle or strategy game. Humans do not play videogames perfectly.

Personally, my reflexes are good enough to counter abilties that have only a 0.3 second animation.
If a game only has 0.1 second animations then it sounds like it's way too fast paced (unless someone can prove it's possible to react to 0.1 second animations).

It seems you don't understand what "perfect" means. A perfect Starcraft opening would require the player to make several accurate clicks and keypresses per millisecond during the first frame of the game.

We're designing the game to be played by players, not by bots.

That's sort of what I have been trying to tell you when I say any "unfairness" which human players cannot find is not relevant.

P.S: There's chess masters that can beat the best bots in chess.

Dunno what that has to do with anything. But according to you, chess is "unfair" since it has classes Black and White. We cannot solve Chess. After a few thousand years of play, we cannot even know whether Black or White is supposed to be the overpowered class. It's pretty obvious that your definition of "unfair" is completely meaningless.


If you want to last say in this pointless discussion then you can have it.
You still haven't proved me wrong.

I'm telling you that when you think about the max potential the "class" has then you have to think about how close to the max potential a player can go.. Because that is the "effective" max potential. Those hairlines and micro milliseconds and micropscopical things you're talking about that only a Ultra advanced alien bot can do is nonsense that shouldn't even be taken into consideration.

#32 Yrjö P.   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1412

Like
-1Likes
Like

Posted 04 January 2012 - 06:25 PM

You still haven't proved me wrong.

OK, once more with simple sentences.

You said that a class-based game is always imbalanced. Starcraft is class-based and is balanced. Therefore, you are wrong.
(Feel free to replace SC with Virtua Fighter, Guilty Gear or another highly balanced competitive game.)

#33 Paul Franzen   Members   -  Reputation: 334

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 05 January 2012 - 10:20 AM

In games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim, the save/load feature never really made me feel less immersed. In fact, if I felt I had to go through with my decision to lop someone's head off and face the entire city full of guards and citizens afterwards, I would rarely do it and wouldn't end up having much fun...

Maybe it's just because these games are the type where, if you die, you load your last save and try again instead of having the storyline changed. However, I still feel like I'd like to win if I can, whether it's on the first try or the seventh. I'd prefer trying multiple times.

I don't think this would ruin immersion, because in my opinion, immersion isn't "thinking you're inside the game" - you'll almost always be aware that you're playing a game, but if you're immersed, you'll care more about what happens in the game. If your players care enough to repeatedly try to beat the specific fight, then why stop them?

I say, let them save/load, but tell them and remind them throughout the game that they don't have to win to progress.


Not to derail this post back on-topic, but...this! All of this! It's fun to have the option to try out a few strategies before settling on just one, and sometimes it's fun to just go total rampage on a village, without having the consequences of such permanently tied to your character. Save/load gives players greater options to play the game the way they want to play it; it causes less anxiety about making sure you're always doing the "right" thing, regardless of what you actually feel like doing.

But really, for me it still all boils down to the simple fact that I need to be able to quit and turn off the game when I'm done playing. If a game's going to hold me hostage, making me play for another half-hour before I can save and quit, then I'm not going to be playing that game all that much. Period.

Life in the Dorms -- comedic point-and-click adventure game out now for Xbox Live Indie Games!

My portfolio: http://paulfranzen.wordpress.com/


#34 Sandman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2122

Like
5Likes
Like

Posted 05 January 2012 - 03:19 PM

(blah)


(blah)


Please keep it civil guys. Balance is a complex issue, and extremely difficult to evaluate for all but the simplest rulesets. Strong statements such as 'Starcraft is balanced' or 'Classes are always imbalanced' are actually pretty difficult to support, and frankly, off topic for this thread. If you want to discuss balance, please do so in a new thread.

#35 Casey Hardman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2211

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 January 2012 - 04:09 AM


In games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim, the save/load feature never really made me feel less immersed. In fact, if I felt I had to go through with my decision to lop someone's head off and face the entire city full of guards and citizens afterwards, I would rarely do it and wouldn't end up having much fun...

Maybe it's just because these games are the type where, if you die, you load your last save and try again instead of having the storyline changed. However, I still feel like I'd like to win if I can, whether it's on the first try or the seventh. I'd prefer trying multiple times.

I don't think this would ruin immersion, because in my opinion, immersion isn't "thinking you're inside the game" - you'll almost always be aware that you're playing a game, but if you're immersed, you'll care more about what happens in the game. If your players care enough to repeatedly try to beat the specific fight, then why stop them?

I say, let them save/load, but tell them and remind them throughout the game that they don't have to win to progress.


Not to derail this post back on-topic, but...this! All of this! It's fun to have the option to try out a few strategies before settling on just one, and sometimes it's fun to just go total rampage on a village, without having the consequences of such permanently tied to your character. Save/load gives players greater options to play the game the way they want to play it; it causes less anxiety about making sure you're always doing the "right" thing, regardless of what you actually feel like doing.

But really, for me it still all boils down to the simple fact that I need to be able to quit and turn off the game when I'm done playing. If a game's going to hold me hostage, making me play for another half-hour before I can save and quit, then I'm not going to be playing that game all that much. Period.

I agree. It's annoying when you feel like you "have" to play longer because you'll lose progress if you stop now. Quick-save features like Fallout 3 and Skyrim had were life-savers in situations like these, and both of those games were ones I was immersed with.


(blah)


(blah)


Please keep it civil guys. Balance is a complex issue, and extremely difficult to evaluate for all but the simplest rulesets. Strong statements such as 'Starcraft is balanced' or 'Classes are always imbalanced' are actually pretty difficult to support, and frankly, off topic for this thread. If you want to discuss balance, please do so in a new thread.

You made my night with those quotes...they were so fitting of the situation.

#36 Art Whiz   Members   -  Reputation: 194

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 16 January 2012 - 09:53 AM

I remember playing Half-Life back in 1998 and constantly abusing the Quick Save hotkey. That was such an immersion breaker, yet I had a lot of fun with that FPS due to its awesome scripted events, scary encounters and, of course, its original story. Ten years later, in 2008, I play Fallout 3 because, to be honest, I was a huge fan of the Fallout series. Didn't think F3 would make it and yet, I was pleasantly surprise.

What a great game! The experience was very immersive for me: I was stopping to watch the water, I care for every NPC who was killed by rebels, I remember I was very angry about those people in Andale. I didn't felt the need to save in F3. Every time you enter a building or travel on the map, the game AUTO-SAVES my progress, which worked great for me.


What if you want to make a game, any game whatsoever, where combat is involved, and you really want for player to lose some battles. Not that the battles are scripted for player to lose, any given battle is winnable, but rather that winning or losing a battle will direct the story in different directions...

All games should be made that way in my opinion. A rigid game is a dead game in a short time. I remember in Fallout 3 a Brotherhood commander asking for my help to rescue his apprentice from a building guarded by mutants. I accepted but failed to protect the commander and he died. I entered the building looking for that boy and I found him dead. What's interesting is that, a couple of months later when I played again the game, I managed to keep the commander safe and I rescued the apprentice from the mutants. To my surprise, the boy was now alive. To recap: accept quest to save apprentice from commander. If commander dies, you found the boy dead. If the commander survives, you can rescue the boy. You succeed or you don't, the world goes on. ;)

♥♥♥ Legen... wait for it... dary Game Art for your every needs! ♥♥♥


#37 Ashaman73   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 7569

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 17 January 2012 - 01:10 AM

To recap: accept quest to save apprentice from commander. If commander dies, you found the boy dead. If the commander survives, you can rescue the boy. You succeed or you don't, the world goes on. ;)

This is only one side of the coin. The fact that the game makes a certain decision transparent to you, that is , you believe that your decision was without an alternative, avoids a load/save session, but on the other side, you want to give the player a challenge.

Think about a simple game: the rule is, you need to throw a basketball in the basket 10 times in a row. When you fail, you need to start again.

This is hard for an unexperiented player, but with time and practise he will master this challenge. Now think about a save/load mechanism, this would allow the player to count every hit and even an unexperiented player will archieve the goal after 40,60 or maybe 100 tries. An experienced player will need only 15-20 tries first time. After this, just ask the player and most likely the experienced player will say, that it was too easy, not really a challenge at all, boring...

The funny thing about this is, that we often tell our children that every hit counts, when we see that they are not able to master the challenge yet and don't have the ambition to archive it. In the game designer world we react in a similar way. We see that the casual player is not able to master the challenge, nor has he the ambition to do so, that is the reason we reduce the challenge or take it away completly to get their cash... to get them on board.

The 'truth' is Posted Image , when you want to deliver a challenge, you need to get rid of the save/load mechanism. When the game gets too hard, you need to change the challenge instead (easy = 5 hits, normal=10 hits, hard=20 hits in a row). Thought a 'stop now and continue later' option is always useful to give the player the choice to when and how much to play your game.

I believe that this is one of the reasons that multiplayer games like MW3,BF3,L4D,TF2 gets so popular, because they deliver a much higher challenge than current single player games.

#38 Paul Franzen   Members   -  Reputation: 334

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 18 January 2012 - 06:06 PM

This is hard for an unexperiented player, but with time and practise he will master this challenge. Now think about a save/load mechanism, this would allow the player to count every hit and even an unexperiented player will archieve the goal after 40,60 or maybe 100 tries. An experienced player will need only 15-20 tries first time. After this, just ask the player and most likely the experienced player will say, that it was too easy, not really a challenge at all, boring...


Here's a question, though: if the player thinks that playing that way--saving after every throw--is boring, then why would they play that way? Save/load doesn't require you to save all the time, it just gives you the option. It's like how in some fighting games, you can get through them by just mashing buttons, but if you're doing that, and you're not having fun, it's totally your fault, not the game designer's. Or like in Scribblenauts--people complained about how you could keep using the same few items to solve every puzzle, but it's not like the game's making you do that; you're choosing to play the game in a way that makes it uninteresting to you.

Life in the Dorms -- comedic point-and-click adventure game out now for Xbox Live Indie Games!

My portfolio: http://paulfranzen.wordpress.com/


#39 Heath   Members   -  Reputation: 344

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 18 January 2012 - 09:30 PM

I, for one, love it when games let me put in a password. I may not have seen this since Rainbow Six on N64, but if you can save/load, and alternatively put in a password (as in most NES games that are 25 years old now) that, too, is pretty cool, at least. I have a very fond memory of playing Aladdin (SNES) all the way to the end and losing to Jafar. Years later, I found the game again, and somehow managed to remember the password (I probably still could if I saw the menu), and I was able to beat it. It was bliss. :)

Yes, I understand all the reasons why it could be impractical, impossible, or undesirable. I also don't care. :P

#40 Ashaman73   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 7569

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 19 January 2012 - 12:40 AM

Here's a question, though: if the player thinks that playing that way--saving after every throw--is boring, then why would they play that way?

I think, that it could be our nature. Many people eat too much, when food is available en mass and cheap, even knowing that it is unhealthy. Many people eat to much and don't feel any better afterward, they even don't enjoy eating any longer, maybe doing it just out of habit. The same could be said about smoking and drinking.

I believe, that when we deliver a tool which is more or less a legal cheat, the player base will use it out of habit, but they don't enjoy the progress any longer. It is like grinding... save/load until you have mastered the 'challenge'. A harsh metaphor would be an ex-alcoholic who doesn't have any alcohol at home to avoid a fallback. Now at his birthday his best friend comes around and put a bottle of wiskey on the table, saying 'come on, have a drink, it is only for once'...

All the multiplayer games don't have any save/load feature and are still fun, still we dig our claws into this feature when developing a singleplayer game, why ? It is time to think about new ways to give the player a continuous way to experience a game without abusing save/load, thought save/load is the easier way for the game designer...




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