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

#41 Paul Franzen   Members   -  Reputation: 334

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 19 January 2012 - 06:51 AM

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...


Still though, I think it's on the player not to abuse it--or, more to the point, if the player's abusing save/load and, as a direct result, isn't enjoying the game, then it's completely their fault; they don't need to do it. Though I will concede that just allowing a quick save would suit me just as well as save/load.

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

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


Sponsor:

#42 n00b0dy   Members   -  Reputation: 103

Like
-1Likes
Like

Posted 30 January 2012 - 04:03 PM

How about an omega hard elite mode after you beat the main game that :
1) has "i wanna be that guy" difficulty, every step has a 1hit kill trap, simple trash monsters can only be killed by kiting and exploiting its dump ai pathfinding, forcing you to save every step.

#43 Karnot   Members   -  Reputation: 179

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2012 - 07:15 PM

How about an omega hard elite mode after you beat the main game

No.

Anyways...
I've watched this... "thing" with John Wick about P&P roleplaying games, where he basically argues that player should have control over failures as much as over successes, and that negative can become positive if you incorporate it into your design properly. He calls it "style points", and basically the more spectacular the failure - the more style points you get, which in turn are nessessary to achieve cool stuff and get more spectacular successes. One interesting example he gives is players romancing each other gives them both bonus rolls when it is something that concerns them both, but when romance is over - they get bonus rolls when trying to hurt each other because of the broken hearts. And i was thinking if such a thing was possible to implement in any way in videogames...

What i was thinking is to establish a kind of higher level system that would award the player for behaviour that i had in mind when designing the game. For instance, game only saves on exit and reloading deletes the save, but you have combat ahead. How do you determine the risk ? By gathering information about the enemy. Therefore we set a "scouting meter", which will fill as we get more details about the encounter ahead. Someone told you that there is an ambush on the road ahead, and there are likely to be 7 men, 4 of them are likely archers, etc. So the scouting meter is up to 80%, meaning that there is a 80% chance that the enemy will have exactly 7 men and 4 of them archers. So you decide to take your chances in combat, and get defeated. But the amount of struggle you produce gets added to the scouting meter, and fill the "failure meter" which is a bonus you can then spend on getting yourself back on track in some fashion you cant achieve any other way.

So what this does, in my mind, is encourages the player to earnestly try and win every encounter, through preparation, evaluation, and information gathering, and then applying as much of it as possible on the field.

What do you think ?

#44 Seongjun Kim   Members   -  Reputation: 227

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 23 April 2012 - 01:45 AM

How about a system where each save takes some kind of penalty if you're saving on the fly instead of back in inn/camp?
Let's say you need certain amount of gold to save a game (and loading it deletes that save file)
What this would do is limit the number of saves someone can do to cheat their way through while still providing a way for those busy people to save when they need to stop playing.

On the same thought, instead of gold limit, you can only save once every 5 minutes in real time (also deleting the load files once save file is loaded)? I don't think you would start a game to play less than 5 minutes (unless it's really casual arcade game, but those usually don't have save/load feature anyways), but also if you want to cheat your way through you would have to wait for 5 minutes, which could accumulate to over hours if you wish to spam save/load your way through, giving the players some penalties for doing so.

#45 Heaven   Members   -  Reputation: 533

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 23 April 2012 - 05:45 AM

This is all coming from someone who likes the idea of perma-death, so....

I don't understand why games don't allow you to do whatever you want. If you want to save every 5 seconds after every move you should be able to. If you want to go die-hard and yippie ki-yay your way through the game until you die then start over you should be able to do that too. After all, as game designers shouldn't we be trying to make a game that as many people as possible will play while minimizing the lack of enjoyment any one type of gamer will have to experience as a result of catering to any other type? I'm a firm believer in more options = more gameplay = more game longevity.

With that in mind as someone who is a firm believer in permadeath how can I encourage players to want to go die-hard? Easy. It's already been done. Diablo. Tailor the rewards for any given playstyle to the level of difficulty of that playstyle. The players want to start a game where they can save at any time? Make the rewards in their game as weak or as little valued as possible. They want to go die-hard and start over if they die? Make the rewards as strong and valued as possible. Players want something in between, like only being able to save X times? Make the rewards somewhere in between.

I just find the attitude of "save as many times as you want" being called cheating to be so stupid. How can it be cheating if the game lets you do it? My goal as a designer should be to get the players to WANT to do what I want them to do, not to FORCE them to do it by demeaning them. And yeah, being called a cheater is demeaning.

So yeah, I think the way Diablo does it is an excellent way to encourage players to want to play "for real" with all of the intense drama that perma-death provides while at the same time allowing players who aren't as "hardcore" to have their own fun with the game.

Take care.
Florida, USA
Current Project
Jesus is LORD!

#46 Karnot   Members   -  Reputation: 179

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:58 PM

How about a system where each save takes some kind of penalty

Personally, i never found these systems working for me. I dont mind anytime save or iron man save, but for everything in-between...
Say, in Hitman you had amount of saves on a level proportionate to difficulty, so on a moderate difficulty you could save 3 times per level. In my mind this is basically a false promise. What this does, is make the player to constantly keep in his head the status of the saving ability. I consider that to be a harmful thing, generally. If you can save whenever - you dont think about it, you just save when you want to, anytime. If you cant save - you also dont think about it, and just play.

My goal as a designer should be to get the players to WANT to do what I want them to do, not to FORCE them

No disagreement from me here.

If you want to save every 5 seconds after every move you should be able to

But i do disagree here. You should not be able to save every 5 seconds in every game ever. It actually does deliver a different experience, which you may or may not want. If you confer free saving ability on Dungeon Crawl players - it will not nessessarily become a bad game, but it will be quite different. I do not understand how people can argue that saving ability does not affect player's experience, it so obviously does.
Just because you are looking out for your customers - doesnt mean you should cater to their every whim.

#47 Seongjun Kim   Members   -  Reputation: 227

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 24 April 2012 - 07:52 PM

Personally, i never found these systems working for me. I dont mind anytime save or iron man save, but for everything in-between...
Say, in Hitman you had amount of saves on a level proportionate to difficulty, so on a moderate difficulty you could save 3 times per level.

It wouldn't be good to limit the number of saves you can do per whatever area you choose. There should be unlimited saves possible, but it should somehow stop you from saving/loading every 3 seconds.

What this does, is make the player to constantly keep in his head the status of the saving ability. I consider that to be a harmful thing, generally. If you can save whenever - you dont think about it, you just save when you want to, anytime. If you cant save - you also dont think about it, and just play.

I agree with this part. That's why in my post I mentioned in my post there should be penalty only if you're saving on the fly,and also there should be a save without penalty if you're in an area that does not need save/load spamming, such as inn.

How about a system where each save takes some kind of penalty if you're saving on the fly instead of back in inn/camp?

And that penalty should be balanced so that player should not have to worry about it while playing game, and it only matters when there is a huge amount of saving/loading in a short amount of time.

#48 PyroDragn   Members   -  Reputation: 404

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 April 2012 - 03:43 AM

I don't understand why games don't allow you to do whatever you want. If you want to save every 5 seconds after every move you should be able to. If you want to go die-hard and yippie ki-yay your way through the game until you die then start over you should be able to do that too. After all, as game designers shouldn't we be trying to make a game that as many people as possible will play while minimizing the lack of enjoyment any one type of gamer will have to experience as a result of catering to any other type? I'm a firm believer in more options = more gameplay = more game longevity.

So yeah, I think the way Diablo does it is an excellent way to encourage players to want to play "for real" with all of the intense drama that perma-death provides while at the same time allowing players who aren't as "hardcore" to have their own fun with the game.


You give the argument that players should be able to play however they want. If they want to save every 5 seconds then they should be able to. Diablo tailors the different difficulties with different levels of reward. Allowing players to save however they want, load whenever they want, is a problem with giving players the same reward for different difficulties.

If we allowed quicksaving and quickloading in D3, then you could have the hardcore players, playing through, only saving seldomly, restarting entire levels if/when they die, and eventually getting a reward out of it.

Or you'd have the so-called cheaters, quicksaving after every mob they've killed, or before every group they engage. If they die on a group, they reload and try a different attack, or reload and approach from a different angle, or reload and reload and reload and just spam until they get lucky, then quicksave.

In the end they get the same reward, but the difficulty is not the same. The first guy had to think, plan, maybe adjust his plans if things went less than perfectly. The second guy just continuously charged until things went his way.


Putting it a different way: play a game of monopoly, but you're allowed to keep re-rolling the dice until you get the roll you want. The game is the same, the mechanics are the same, but if players can repeatedly try and try and try again, the gameplay is completely changed.


You have to encourage players to do what you want. Sometimes you have to forcefully make them behave like you want. In my mind, being able to quicksave and quickload whenever you like will more often than not, ruin gameplay.

#49 Ashaman73   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 7992

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 April 2012 - 05:31 AM

I just find the attitude of "save as many times as you want" being called cheating to be so stupid. How can it be cheating if the game lets you do it? My goal as a designer should be to get the players to WANT to do what I want them to do, not to FORCE them to do it by demeaning them.

Well, you're right and wrong. Games have rules, else we would have not a game, right ?

I just find the attitude of "save as many times as you want" being called cheating to be so stupid. How can it be cheating if the game lets you do it?

This is valid, when the game let you save/load, it could be seen as rule and therefore is part of the game design.

My goal as a designer should be to get the players to WANT to do what I want them to do, not to FORCE them to do it by demeaning them.

And here you're wrong. As said, the game designer designs the game, that is, he defines the rules, and if one rule is 'game over once you die', then that is valid.

The problem is, that most gamers don't see or accept, that load/save/permadeath is a game design rule. They see it as simple feature, but a simple feature is something that would not affect the game design in such a way. Loading/saving mechanism should be part of the game design.

Soccer/Football example:
The FIFA could define the rule, that the players can choose to attempt as often as the like to execute a penalty kick. The result is predictable, they just need to grind to "win", but every player will not be forced to play this way, the can stop whenever they want. A valid rule, but I fear that this will not gain a lot of popularity.

#50 asdzxc   Members   -  Reputation: 104

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 April 2012 - 06:17 AM

Addressing the OP:

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"


This is the most interesting aspect of the discussion for me: rather than how a save system should be implemented, instead what should happen in the case of a "failure".

Probably the obvious thing to do is just make sure you tell the player that loosing isn't a big deal. But if your game has some particular 'optimal ending' (assuming there is an ending) the a player is likely to do what he can to head straight for it. And if an event occurs that makes that optimal result no longer attainable, he's going to feel disappointed and want to change the outcome of the event even if there may still be an interesting experience ahead of him. If there isn't really an optimal result and the player knows it then the he probably won't be focusing on looking for a specific end but rather on exploring what possibilities are available.


Quoted for sound logic and bolded what I feel is the most insightful part of that post Posted Image

For instance, game only saves on exit and reloading deletes the save, but you have combat ahead. How do you determine the risk ?
By gathering information about the enemy. Therefore we set a "scouting meter", which will fill as we get more details about the encounter ahead. Someone told you that there is an ambush on the road ahead, and there are likely to be 7 men, 4 of them are likely archers, etc. So the scouting meter is up to 80%, meaning that there is a 80% chance that the enemy will have exactly 7 men and 4 of them archers. So you decide to take your chances in combat, and get defeated. But the amount of struggle you produce gets added to the scouting meter, and fill the "failure meter" which is a bonus you can then spend on getting yourself back on track in some fashion you cant achieve any other way.

So what this does, in my mind, is encourages the player to earnestly try and win every encounter, through preparation, evaluation, and information gathering, and then applying as much of it as possible on the field.

What do you think ?


I've tried hard to "re-factor" that paragraph in my head since I feel that this is a good idea, but I don't quite understand the implementation. Can you think of another gameplay scenario where a similar system could be applied Karnot?

In my opinion, it's a hard problem to address in any conventional game I can think of, and considering how your average gamer these days seems to have a severe case of obsessive compulsive disorder (meaning they can't control themselves from reloading in the case of a less than optimum result) I'd say the easiest way to address this is to make a game where no reloading of prior saves is allowed at all, but there is no true "proper" ending, nor is there a "permadeath", and neither is the game very long.

In which case, I'd suggest a game which features some type of randomly generated scenarios is best, with the outcome of the next depending on the outcome of the previous, or seeded to some particular gameplay aspect, or possibly even totally random in a way that can't be predicted by the player.

Perhaps grand strategy games like Shogun Total War have an aspect of this, since if you are defeated in a particular battle you may loose some territory, but gain an advantage due to the other AI opponents no longer viewing you as the greatest threat, and instead targeting the winner of that battle rather than yourself. That would be an example of a less than optimal result which ends up yielding the player a (not immediately obvious) advantage. Then again that's more along the lines of “gameplay” rather than “story”.

Can anyone think of an example game with vastly branching storylines though? Specifically, rather than each encounter/mission/quest being “able” to be failed by the player, while the player is still able to continue with the “main” storyline, instead I mean that the outcome of each mission truly impacts the conclusion, and not in the sense that “if I did everything bad/good/perfectly then I get the bad/good/perfect ending”.

Or perhaps just examples of sub optimum play that yields a non obvious advantage, or examples of "carrying forward" some benefit in the case of failure – the "game-play" side is probably the easier problem to solve lol Posted Image

#51 Paul Franzen   Members   -  Reputation: 334

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:05 AM

It still really boils down to this for me--if a game doesn't let me stop playing when I want to stop playing (via quick-save or save-anywhere, it doesn't matter which), then the game is less fun to me, because I'm stressed about the decision to turn the game off and lose my progress, or to keep playing when I should be sleeping/working, instead. It doesn't have anything to do with re-rolling a die or making a different decision; I just don't want the game to hold me hostage!

Having a quick-save makes the game more fun for some people, and its inclusion doesn't make it less fun for others, because they can just ignore it. (And as I said before, if the game's less-fun because they're abusing it--that's totally on them. They can't be mad at you, the game developer, because they made the decision to "cheat.")

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

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


#52 swiftcoder   Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 10369

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:29 AM

It still really boils down to this for me--if a game doesn't let me stop playing when I want to stop playing (via quick-save or save-anywhere, it doesn't matter which), then the game is less fun to me, because I'm stressed about the decision to turn the game off and lose my progress, or to keep playing when I should be sleeping/working, instead. It doesn't have anything to do with re-rolling a die or making a different decision; I just don't want the game to hold me hostage!

I thought we settled this particular month-long forum-wide debate back in 2004, but:

Persistence is not the same as save/load.

If you quit the game and reopen it, finding yourself in exactly the same place, that is persistence (and pretty much every game should support persistence, though some still don't). Save/load on demand is an entirely orthogonal concept - save/load is one way of providing persistence, but a persistent game need not provide arbitrary save/load (only saving automatically when the player quits).

Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @Amazon - [swiftcoding]


#53 Paul Franzen   Members   -  Reputation: 334

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:34 AM

Aha! Well then, that's what I get for only joining the forums a year or so ago. Thanks for the clarification.

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

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


#54 Karnot   Members   -  Reputation: 179

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 April 2012 - 03:03 PM

rather than how a save system should be implemented, instead what should happen in the case of a "failure".

True. Some people mistakenly thought that the issue with saving is that it breaks the so-called "immersion", which i have nothing against, but this topic isnt about that. Its about breaking the connection between failure and gameover, making failure a viable path to take and keep playing.

I'd say the easiest way to address this is to make a game where no reloading of prior saves is allowed at all, but there is no true "proper" ending, nor is there a "permadeath", and neither is the game very long.In which case, I'd suggest a game which features some type of randomly generated scenarios is best, with the outcome of the next depending on the outcome of the previous, or seeded to some particular gameplay aspect, or possibly even totally random in a way that can't be predicted by the player.

As i have begun to actually work on the project, i guess i will go on and be more specific about an actual game i am making.
If anyone remembers the Battletech books, there was once a Gray Legion trilogy. What i want to make is basically "Gray Legion : The Game". (though obviously not using Battletech license or books storyline). A tactical game involving giant robots and other military forces. The game would work on two levels : there is the player - a leader of interplanetary mercenary unit, free agent who can pick his own battles; and then there is a global war - something not even remotely under player's direct control, and having a timer for conclusion. After a set amount of time has passed - the war (and the game) ends, one way or another, that is not in question. The question is in what position will the player turn out to be when the war ends. So there are "endings", but no "winning" for the game. And i want to stylize it all as a kind of future historical chronicles, so every game will tell the story of both the war and the player. Losing a battle will not mean losing a war.

I've tried hard to "re-factor" that paragraph in my head since I feel that this is a good idea, but I don't quite understand the implementation.

I was just throwing a draft of an idea, it hasnt formed fully just yet, so i probably wont be able to be as clear as i want it to be, but i'll try.
Let's say that in the game, your primary resource is "money" (note the quotes). And you have two "accounts". If you win - you get "money" put into one account, the one which you can use in any way you wish, including the way to achieve your meta-goal. If you lose - you also get "money", maybe only a fraction of winning prize, but they are put into another account, which you can ONLY use to build back your team's strength, buy equipment and recruit men. The more glorious your victory - the more "money" you get, but also you get more "money" for more spectacular failures.

How i came to this idea was, i thought of player losing a battle. What do i do with him ? Make him start basically from scratch, and give him some access to low-tier equipment and let him grind the money to build up all over again ? Not good. What then ? I want to pull them back into regualr gameplay as soon as possible, but not simply "respawn" the player as if nothing happened. So i started inventing ways for player to do that, for example i thought of having to rent out your spaceship as space cargo truck, and make it all automated, so it will make money for each turnaround. I wanted it to be no more than a couple minutes of real time, but in game time it will take months as a trade-off. And you really have to treasure your time. But i wanted an even faster way. So i thought "why not use the same mechanics for losing, as i do for winning ?". No need for grinding, no need for additional mechanics, losing is exactly the same as winning, only with a minus put in front of it. The consequences are different, but the gameplay is the same.

Can anyone think of an example game with vastly branching storylines though? Specifically, rather than each encounter/mission/quest being “able” to be failed by the player, while the player is still able to continue with the “main” storyline, instead I mean that the outcome of each mission truly impacts the conclusion, and not in the sense that “if I did everything bad/good/perfectly then I get the bad/good/perfect ending”.Or perhaps just examples of sub optimum play that yields a non obvious advantage, or examples of "carrying forward" some benefit in the case of failure

Well...
In Super Robot Taisen games, the story is often quite branched, and often the choice of a story branch is determined by amount of "skill points" awarded for special merits in previous levels. Amount of "skill points" is also proportionate to difficulty level, so the more of them you get - the harder versions of the level you get.
Panzer Corps has kind of the same deal, if you perform good - you advance your Nazi army on Moscow, if you are underachiever - you spend the second half of the game in Western Europe.

if a game doesn't let me stop playing when I want to stop playing. I just don't want the game to hold me hostage!

I have never advocated that. You are fighting a strawman, my friend.

#55 Paul Franzen   Members   -  Reputation: 334

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 April 2012 - 03:05 PM

I have never advocated that. You are fighting a strawman, my friend.


So I see! My apologies. I thought there was an argument of save anywhere vs. no save anywhere; I was misreading the thread.

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

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


#56 Sik_the_hedgehog   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1833

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 April 2012 - 04:14 PM


How about a system where each save takes some kind of penalty if you're saving on the fly instead of back in inn/camp?

And that penalty should be balanced so that player should not have to worry about it while playing game, and it only matters when there is a huge amount of saving/loading in a short amount of time.

Suggestion: remove quickload (as in the shortcut) and require the player to quit the game back to the main menu to load (well, maybe except if e.g. the player dies, it makes sense to show an option to load immediately when that happens). This means that loading mid-game takes longer, and discourages players from abusing it (limiting its use only to when it's really needed rather than every few seconds).

Though granted, there's also the fact some designers consider that there is no concept of "abuse" for starters...
Don't pay much attention to "the hedgehog" in my nick, it's just because "Sik" was already taken =/ By the way, Sik is pronounced like seek, not like sick.

#57 Yrjö P.   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1412

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:42 AM

If you quit the game and reopen it, finding yourself in exactly the same place, that is persistence (and pretty much every game should support persistence, though some still don't). Save/load on demand is an entirely orthogonal concept - save/load is one way of providing persistence, but a persistent game need not provide arbitrary save/load (only saving automatically when the player quits).

Moreover, persistence is (almost) entirely orthogonal to game design and game difficulty whereas saving tends to have a drastic effect on how the game is played.
It's not necessarily 100% wrong to make a single player game run in real time without a possibility to pause (and quit in a persistent game is effectively a pause), but I think it would be a good design decision only very rarely. Maybe in some kind of horror game where decisionmaking under time pressure is key.

#58 jefferytitan   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2243

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 April 2012 - 05:21 PM

I like the separation between save/load and persistence. I also like the idea of failure consequences which are neither grinding nor reloading. I think the failure=death mindset is what keeps people hovering over that save button. Perhaps you have two main paths; the hero story and the underdog story.

I'm of two minds over people wanting to replay to see all endings/best ending. Maybe you implicitly save at the major decision points they've encountered, but they can't go back up the tree of save points until they've clocked the current branch? Maybe glorious failure points earn you the choice to go back a certain distance in the tree?

#59 Karnot   Members   -  Reputation: 179

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:14 PM

I'm of two minds over people wanting to replay to see all endings/best ending.

Well, how is this different from people wanting to replay the game to see the same ending ? For example, grand strategy games, like Civilization, are specifically created to be replayable, but the ending is always the same "your nation is the greatest blah blah blah". Oh, and there might be a short video if you won through space race. So i dont quite see the problem there. People play games not to see the ending, it is simply a way to give closure to the whole playthrough.

You are (i suppose) coming from the mindset where the game is 98% the same no matter how many times you play it, like Bioshock, and one decision in the end is all it takes to get a different ending. Am i right ?

#60 Heaven   Members   -  Reputation: 533

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:14 PM

I do not understand how people can argue that saving ability does not affect player's experience, it so obviously does.
Just because you are looking out for your customers - doesnt mean you should cater to their every whim.

My turn to disagree.

Me allowing a player to save any time, any where does not affect the player's experience. I'm with Paul on this one, whatever OPTIONS (make sure you understand the meaning of that word before proceeding) I include in my game, it's the PLAYER who chooses to use them. Or not. And it bears repeating: I'm talking options. As in things that are OPTIONAL.

The players are tailoring their experience through use of the options I've given them. All the way from macro options like Save Anywhere Anytime and allowable screen resolutions down to micro options dealing with Inventory, Combat, Crafting, etc.

And me adding the ability to save anytime/anywhere isn't catering to a whim. It's simply providing an option. It doesn't in any way force a player to use it. If I fail elsewhere in my design such that the option is generally recognized as the only way to accomplish some in-game goal, then yeah. That's wrong. But the simple act of coding in more options...I don't see that as a bad thing. I want every potential player of my game to be able to play the game how THEY want to play it.

Again, if I want them to play it a certain way isn't it better to offer them rewards for doing so instead of flat out disallowing it? Or worse (IMHO) punishing them for it?

But now let me apologize. I kind've went off on a tangent to your original idea. Like another poster I was led astray by the Title of the thread. :) Let me remedy that at once by attempting to respond to your idea, if I'm getting this right, that non-game-ending failure should be an option.

I love it. It strikes a chord with my own desire to implement as many gameplay options as possible. Why should the game end because a player lost a battle? After playing through many levels in RTS games (e.g., Warcraft III) I've been left wanting for a level design that didn't force me to restart when I "lost the mission". Why can't I recoup my losses and attempt to accomplish my goal through another method or strategy? That would entail a lot more work on the part of the game designer no doubt, but it would absolutely be worth it. The idea of a beaten player being enslaved by their captor, or imprisoned...the possibilities are exciting.

If we allowed quicksaving and quickloading in D3, then you could have the hardcore players, playing through, only saving seldomly, restarting entire levels if/when they die, and eventually getting a reward out of it.

I apologize. If you understood me thusly I came across the wrong way. Put simply I meant EXACTLY how Diablo did it. If I chose Hardcore more I would NOT be allowed to save and if I died my character would be wiped but game rewards would be boosted/enhanced. If I chose Easy mode I would be allowed to save any time/any where but game rewards would be scaled way down from Hardcore.

Awesome discussion!

Take care.
Florida, USA
Current Project
Jesus is LORD!




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