quote:Original post by TechnoGoth So I think to make the game more challenging is to have a single save slot for each player. You can save and quit and that your only option or save and rest those would be the players only options.
This would be the "Iron Man" mode that some games do provide for those people who want extra challenge. You can only save to one spot and must quit at the same time.
Though, I''m strongly against deleting the save file after loading, for reasons that I previously stated. It''s not worth the trouble.
Also, it''d be a major design blunder to make this the only way to play the game. Basically, it shuts out the rest of the "Joe Average" gamers.
[Edit]: It is entirely possible to play "Iron Man" regardless of the save system (limited or unlimited). It''s extremely simple. Just pick the same save spot/file every time you save. Also, save only when you exit from the game.
Heck, play the game without ever saving at all! Now that''s a real challenge.
Having a "need" for the game to force this upon you only shows a lack of self-control on your part. Nothing more.
Kami no Itte ga ore ni zettai naru!
[edited by - tangentz on April 12, 2004 8:20:02 PM]
I think you misunderstood a minor detial, I wasn''t suggesting that the save game is deleted after loading, that wouldn''t make much sense, unless it was soft save. Just that you have one save file that saves when you rest and when you quit. So if you wanted you could turn off your computer if something bad happened and contiune from the last time you quit or rested. The idea is that rather then have saving out side of the game play, instead saving and loading are like opening a book to where you last stopped reading.
----------------------------------------------------- Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades Current Design project: Ambitions Slave
I agree that ingame saves do improve the situation alot, unlimited but hard to use. Although for this to work especially well it has to be ALOT easier than in some RPGs where its just imposible to rest in ''dangerous'' areas without getting attacked (maybe the Jedi Outcast thing is better for such cases?).
Either way, I would propose a somewhat different way to handle the problem. From what I can gather a Journal in the context of filesystems like ReiserFS, Ext3 (Ext2 w/Journal I believe), and I think NTFS also has one, applying the same mechanism to savegames might inadvertantly solve the problem while also providing other benifits.
I see it like this, every choice the player makes is logged, or every action the player makes is logged or various other styles (designer''s choice). The player can then reload their game from any point in the journal creating a new ''journal branch'' that can also be browed seperately. This makes a savegame like a browsable and loadable replay (think Q3A and Warcraft3 style replays for filesize issues).
As was said above the its just damn stupid not to have player profiles and giving each player a Journal would be just trivial.
Lastly but not least in order for this to function the designer has to keep in mind that the player is no longer restricted from savegames, difficulty is no longer defined by how hard it is to save the game. Of course most games ''didn''t really'' suffer from this in the first place. After all, most games usually use other forms of difficulty like skill to captivate the player!
Lorenz (krysole) Pretterhofer sleep, caffeine for the weak minded
I wonder if pacman would have been played as much in the 70s if you could save your game state any time you liked and start from there when the ghosts got you?
You''d play 4 or 5 times, reach level 763 still on your first life, get bored, and go play something else.
First off, what kind of game are we talking about? Is it a good idea to just grant 1 save system to every game? I really think it''s better to tailor the save sysem to the game. Most puzzle games don''t even need a save system, or at most no more than 1 per play. Platformers do well enough with a save at the start of each level. The long each game is, the more saves are needed. From the look of it, most people are thinking of rpg/adventure games.
As far as rpgs go, I am not a big fan of save points. First off, they don''t seem to fit into the game world. Why are there these strange structures all over the place? Why can only heros use them? If only heros can use them, why do they show up in enemy strongholds? Granted, you could fix this by explaining them. Perhaps they have another purpose, but heros can use them for something extra. I don''t they''re that great from a gameplay perspective anyway. It can be annoying to play "find the save point" when you''re ready to quit. Granted, that problem can be softened by having an autosave. However, it still means having to hunt down a special location when I want to save. Hmm... big dramatic moment coming up and I need to make an impertant decision. What if I want to see all the different results? Save points this a bit more difficult. Also, does this really solve the "cheap save" problem? I could just wait to do my stupid stuff until right after I found a save point. If I know the game autosaves at certain intervals I can restart to take advantage of that. Any system can be abused, does only being able to save at certain locations really add anything to the game?
Now if the game is built around levels instead of a map, being able to save only at certain point is a bit better, especially if each level is relatively short. 15 minutes between saves is fine in a more linear game. It just get''s more annoying in games where you want to experiment.
Out of curiousity, could someone explain this "saving & loading must be punished" theory? Lets say the player reloads because they don''t like the outcome. Yes, this does mean they''re going to keep searching for the best result, but they get to try a lot of different things on the way there. Limiting saves also tends to limit experimentation. I''ve played plenty of adventure games and they''re trained me to try everything on everything. Sometimes doing something "stupid" is the answer to a puzzle, and other times it might get you killed. In any case, the character is most likely to reload after they just lost. Why do we need to add a punishment on top of failing? Is losing so minor that people need to be reminded it''s a bad thing?
On a lighter note, here''s a way to work the save system into the storyline. Say the main character has precognitive "visions". Everytime they load, assume everything that happened between saving and loading never happened. Instead treat it as a vision. This gives an in game reason for the character to have player knowledge. I''m not saying this is for every game, but I certainly think it could be integrated into a game. I admit it''s partly inspired by "Prince of Persia". In that game, when you die you hear "No. No. That didn''t happen." and the load game screen comes up.
