The game should be designed first and foremost so that it's fun to play with limited saves, but the player should also be given the opportunity to choose unlimited saves. The save game choice should be separate from other difficulty settings. That's all. The problem is just the "unlimited save-oriented game design" where sudden deaths are common because the game expects you to save a lot.

And as was suggested in the above thread, even in limited save game system one should always be given the possibility to exit the game at any point. But those save games would be temporary like in Nethack, i.e. you could continue from them only once.

[edited by - civguy on April 11, 2004 1:56:47 PM]

This subject is totally a matter of opinion, but I strongly believe that the player should be able to save his progress in a game at any time. I do not find "save points" to increase the suspense in a game. They merely add unneeded frustration. When playing games that only allow me to save at certain points, I don''t find myself feeling anxious as to what will happen next. I find myself worrying about where the next save point will be. Forcing the player to replay parts of your game over and over is stupid.

To quote Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams:

"We believe that these arguments against saving are spurious and the sign of a lazy designer. Making a game harder simply by preventing the player from saving the game is a cheap way of creating challenge out of nothing...If a player continuously reloads a game to avoid a random event or to solve some problem by trial and error rather than skill or intelligence, he is, in effect, cheating at solitaire."

Of course, allowing unlimited saves is not necessary. Limiting the number of saves per level/mission/whatever (ala Hitman 2) would increase the suspense but allow the player to save his progress at carefully chosen times.

These are just my thoughts, so feel free to disagree. However, be aware that the games we build are played (hopefully) by many people, and we as designers are here to provide entertainment to them. It is not our goal to "beat" the player, or prevent them from enjoying our games.

-Mike

Nice post!
Unlimited (anytime) saves is nice, for the right game. As been stated, it''s all opinion and what''s best for the game. I agree with a lot of what doctor6string said.
I prefer designers properly placing limited saves. Places, as an example, after puzzles, boss fights, etc. This way the player gets a huge sense of relief when they beat that area and reach the save. Recently I played through Sly Cooper, and the best feelings came from working my way through a tough area and reaching that checkpoint.
I''m currently designing an adventure/platform game with a checkpoint save system, very similar to saving system seen in sly cooper, farcry, etc. As a designer, I enjoy placing these in levels, just like any item, in strategic places that will give the player a sense of accomplishment and relief.

quote:Original post by doctorsixstring
This subject is totally a matter of opinion

It doesn''t matter if you make it an option and design the game so that it''s not overly frustrating even without save anywhere.

quote: I do not find "save points" to increase the suspense in a game. They merely add unneeded frustration.

I think the frustration is needed, as a punishment for playing badly and not thinking enough. With "save points" I won''t try foolish moves such as "what happens if I jump off that cliff" because I know trying dumb things costs me time. Trial and error won''t be a viable solution anymore. And for me, they do add a lot of suspense as well, because an enemy killing me actually has a real-life consequence.

quote:"Making a game harder simply by preventing the player from saving the game is a cheap way of creating challenge out of nothing."

If the game really is challenging when you can''t save everywhere, doesn''t it mean there is a real challenge in the game? I.e. it''s not "out of nothing". If solving it were to be made easier by adding the "save anywhere"-feature and not by designing the game to be manageable without "save anywhere" (the approach I prefer), then these fellows are actually encouraging what they describe as "cheating at solitaire". IMO, "save anywhere" is a cheap way to cover up game balance design errors.