Sign in to follow this  
Wavinator

Death detection == Resolution Screen

Recommended Posts

What if, rather than kill you, a game detected your manner of death and instead presented some sort of resolution screen which kept you in the game? Imagine these situations: 1) You die immediately due to damage (most likely case: combat; but could include poison or some other progressive effect, like radiation) 2) You will die in a few seconds (likely either due to falling, or being struck by somthing that will collide with you) 3) You will die as a result of some long term mistake (rarely happens, but could be "walking into the desert with no food" or not bringing enough health restoration, etc.) What if, instead of death, you experienced some sort of resolution that made you lose something you cared about, but let you stay in the game? Take example 1: The enemies pick your carcass clean of all the cool stuff you've acquired, and leave you (the hero) to die. But you're able to stagger your way back to help. Exmple 2: Maybe instead of falling, you lose your weapon but are shown hanging on to the ledge you should have died going over. Or instead of colliding, you're knocked aside with some gameplay modifying injury. Example 3: Harder to compensate for, but maybe the game generates a cache of stuff around the corner as you're advancing.
I can see two responses, based on the type of player: Either you want to have won the game because of your own skills, or you're in it for the experience. How many do you think are in each category?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The second I read this I thought "the classic movie hero 'underdog' position," and I thought it was a good idea. But the more I think about it, I realize that its good in a movie because everything is controlled. The movie hero will never experience more than one or two of these situations...

Games are "uncontrollable." What happens when the player walks off the cliff for the 15th time, and somehow manages to hold on? Or when the enemy shoots him for the 45th time, but he somehow manages to play dead and sneak away?

Sometimes, you just have to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not entirely related, but I don't know if you've looked at Prey. When you 'die', you don't go back to a screen right away, instead, you get a chance to fight your way through a sort of purgatory, back to life(if you die here, you go back to the menu as I understand it), and I thought that was a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by visage
The second I read this I thought "the classic movie hero 'underdog' position," and I thought it was a good idea. But the more I think about it, I realize that its good in a movie because everything is controlled. The movie hero will never experience more than one or two of these situations...

Games are "uncontrollable." What happens when the player walks off the cliff for the 15th time, and somehow manages to hold on? Or when the enemy shoots him for the 45th time, but he somehow manages to play dead and sneak away?

Sometimes, you just have to die.


Good point, repetition is a problem. However, it raises the question, "are you playing to beat the game, or are you playing for the experience of playing?"

What if your focus was on the latter? You just want to see more stuff, experience more plotlines, go on more adventures.

Also, what about a mix of both systems: What if you have some sort of "karma points" that you collect, save up, and can spend (depending on the death)? I haven't really thought that out, but my guess is that mixing the two systems could be fresh and new or monstrously confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by HemoGloben
Not entirely related, but I don't know if you've looked at Prey. When you 'die', you don't go back to a screen right away, instead, you get a chance to fight your way through a sort of purgatory, back to life(if you die here, you go back to the menu as I understand it), and I thought that was a good idea.


Okay, based on a scene I saw in the video, I wonder what happens if you're fighting one of those huge monsters, cut him down to 1/2 health, escape purgatory, then come back? Do you have full health? What if you died because of low ammo?

(I think it's cool that such a hard fought game concept is finally getting to be born, btw. Things like that give me hope! [smile])

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the idea of having some sort of last ditch effort type of gameplay where I can avoid death. It would be nice if there was some player interaction involved in this. So if I'me shot in the gut by a mugger in an alley, I'm switched to the near death UI. Where I can make an attempt to save my life. The UI might present me with several options and 60 seconds to make a choice. The options might be fire back, press the panic button on my PDA, try and walk to the street, and dive through the nearby window. In this way I have some control on the outcome. Perhaps this could be abstacted into a symbolic choice rather then a literal one.

Hopefully this could result in something more interesting then just waking up at the last temple/hospital I visited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by TechnoGoth
I like the idea of having some sort of last ditch effort type of gameplay where I can avoid death. It would be nice if there was some player interaction involved in this. So if I'me shot in the gut by a mugger in an alley, I'm switched to the near death UI. Where I can make an attempt to save my life. The UI might present me with several options and 60 seconds to make a choice. The options might be fire back, press the panic button on my PDA, try and walk to the street, and dive through the nearby window. In this way I have some control on the outcome. Perhaps this could be abstacted into a symbolic choice rather then a literal one.

Hopefully this could result in something more interesting then just waking up at the last temple/hospital I visited.


Or, because so many of Wavinator's posts involve a technologically-more-advanced future, maybe the UI you mentioned could be a timed "hacking" interface, as seen in System Shock [2] (which I'm currently playing through for the first time and enjoying to death). Maybe this hacking interface could be explained by the player's mind making a last-ditch effort to preserve itself, and, of course, being available no more than a minute or so.

Also, if this was implemented in an RPG-like environment, a luck statistic could actually be useful, unlike so many others; Fallout games, specifically. Now, I understand that the Fallout games did change a few events based on luck, but not usually more than a "saving throw" or two. Luck may determine, again using the System Shock 2 example, the player's chance to successfully activate a "box", combined with their general hacking skill.

Quote:
Original post by Wavinator
Imagine these situations:

1) You die immediately due to damage (most likely case: combat; but could include poison or some other progressive effect, like radiation)
2) You will die in a few seconds (likely either due to falling, or being struck by somthing that will collide with you)
3) You will die as a result of some long term mistake (rarely happens, but could be "walking into the desert with no food" or not bringing enough health restoration, etc.)

I'm not sure I understand some of your examples -- I'd re-categorize poison under the second example (die in a few seconds), and radiation poisoning as a result of a long-term mistake (exposure).

I wouldn't suggest the neural "brainhack" for the third example, because it may discourage players with high hack skill from simply ever bringing enough food for any journey.

Oh, there's an idea: what if the player's current mental state/awareness affected their ability to revive themself? If a player is shot in the head, for instance, I doubt they'll be hacking much of anything; stabbed in the gut, however, would give them at least a little bit of a chance to dwell on the fact and do something to repair the damage.

And...let's say enemies are given this same ability. Enemies are naturally able to brainhack themselves back to life. In-game politics may suggest body shots as a more "humane" way of waging war against enemies, disabling rather than killing soldiers who trained in this brainhacking. Also, obviously, if the player intended to kill an enemy, they would attempt more headshots, and use bodyshots to incapacitate targets who may be useful (such as bounties).

Just an idea. But I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All good observations. I'll weigh in with the standard caveat about not making it worthwhile to just quickload whenever one of these things happens. If I get shot, and collapse, and my enemy takes my armor and weapons and items (which comprise the vast bulk of the rewards I've received for the last few hours of play), and then I recover somewhat, and limp to the nearest town, I'll be miffed. It would be like scraping together enough money in Escape Velocity to buy that Kestrel, sailing it into space, and immediately having it blow out from under you by pirates. Now I'm in a cargo shuttle with 2,000 credits and a roster of enemies that are armed to fight me when i'm flying a corvette. Crap.

Suffering a loss is okay. Getting boned just makes me cheat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps a system combining bonus points and a purgatory-like world. Purgatory could be very similar to the current world, and you could acquire life points there. Once at a certain life point amount, you can be resurrected. You can also save up life points found elsewhere to avoid a trip to purgatory (if you so choose).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
I'll weigh in with the standard caveat about not making it worthwhile to just quickload whenever one of these things happens.

Given how the player doesn't lose anything when they load a saved game, any system which does make a player lose even a smallest thing sounds like system that's never going to be used since it's the worse option. Unless it somehow manages to inflict the loss but at the same (or later) time reward a player in way that'll make the system 'worthwile' for them to use it. (but then you have to balance it for people who'll intentionally keep dying to milk the system for its rewards... tricky)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by tolaris
Quote:
Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
I'll weigh in with the standard caveat about not making it worthwhile to just quickload whenever one of these things happens.

Given how the player doesn't lose anything when they load a saved game, any system which does make a player lose even a smallest thing sounds like system that's never going to be used since it's the worse option. Unless it somehow manages to inflict the loss but at the same (or later) time reward a player in way that'll make the system 'worthwile' for them to use it. (but then you have to balance it for people who'll intentionally keep dying to milk the system for its rewards... tricky)


Idea: Remove "quicksaving". I firmly believe that games should be designed with built-in autosaves at *good*, unscrewyourselfable times (yes designers, that will take actual *effort* and *testing*); however, because I also believe that players should be able to quit any time without losing progress, a "save and quit" option should be provided with a one-time reload. "Sure Timmy, you can quicksave. But I sure as hell hope you're going to get on the bus, because in about five seconds you're going to see the desktop."

It might seem invasive for some people to not allow a save-anywhere feature -- screw you guys. Many PC games, especially shooters, suffer from the presence of quicksaving. Far Cry would be a good example of this if it had not been patched to allow quicksaves; the designers weren't trying to torture players as many suspected, but create tension. Naturally, as soon as I discovered this fact I reinstalled the game without the patch to play as the game had been meant to play. Was I frustrated at the annoyingly-difficult volcano battle (endgame)? Yep. But I felt like I'd really accomplished something when I beat it the next day. Did I freak out when I saw the helicopter appear over the mountains as I merrily coasted along on my hang glider? I did. I hit the ground running, and many, many words that I shouldn't repeat ran through my mind as I scrambled all the way to safety (for the record, I got lucky and the helicopter crashed in that for-instance). And I thoroughly enjoyed the game, only once actually wishing for a quicksave.

Gosh this post felt long. Also, pointless.

Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by tolaris
Given how the player doesn't lose anything when they load a saved game, any system which does make a player lose even a smallest thing sounds like system that's never going to be used since it's the worse option. Unless it somehow manages to inflict the loss but at the same (or later) time reward a player in way that'll make the system 'worthwile' for them to use it. (but then you have to balance it for people who'll intentionally keep dying to milk the system for its rewards... tricky)


Yes, Prisoner of War doesn't kill you it just sends you to the Prisoner of War camp sick bay, but it takes your acquired items. You can get these back through another prisoner if you pay. It also gives you the choice of reloading, guess what I've ALWAYS reloaded.

--------------

There is a film where people gamble their "luck" and the winner gets the other person's luck. I could see a game where you are trying to get rid of excess luck, like the character in MGS2 who can't be shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Boku San
It might seem invasive for some people to not allow a save-anywhere feature -- screw you guys.

The more likely scenario you're going to see is the reviewers and customers alike tell you "no, screw _you_", rate the game 'accordingly' and/or go play something else.

You don't create "tension" when you make the player hop through the same obstacle course over and over and over and over, and when the prospect of having to repeat X minutes of gameplay to just get back where they already _were_ keeps looming over their head. All you create is frustration and the "been there done that" type of boredom.

A much better approach imo? Don't create artificial limitations, but instead _reward_ the player if they manage to beat the game without relying 'too often' on save/load routine. MGS had its system of custom titles it'd give the player at the end of the game. IIRC both saving the game a lot and saving rarely was 'punished' and 'rewarded' accordingly (but since it was "just" the end-game title saving often didn't actually punish the player _in game_) An online golf game i play fairly often takes similar approach, by calculating the percentage of times you'd quit in middle of tournament, and showing that number to the whole world in the 'data sheet' of your character that everyone can see... players who practically never quit get slightly customized icon to their name, so they literally stand out from the crowd. (on the other hand people who quit too often, like 20% of time or more, do get some punishment in the form of losing some percentage of money that can be won in the tournament... this penalty is removed when they manage to bring the quit ratio back to reasonable value by playing a number of games 'clean')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by tolaris
You don't create "tension" when you make the player hop through the same obstacle course over and over and over and over, and when the prospect of having to repeat X minutes of gameplay to just get back where they already _were_ keeps looming over their head. All you create is frustration and the "been there done that" type of boredom.

I still have to disagree, though I know and have experienced exactly what you're talking about. As I mentioned, actual work in *design* has to be done here, just to prevent what I like to call "CrappyAutosaveitis". If you come to a particularly difficult battle, which the level designer is aware of, there should be an autosave just before the beginning, and almost immediately following -- the same places a player might save. In addition, if the player fails, no more than one keypress should be required to send the player back to that point for a do-over. I don't support torturing the players. I do support better level design.

Quote:
Original post by that one guy
An online golf game i play fairly often takes similar approach, by calculating the percentage of times you'd quit in middle of tournament, and showing that number to the whole world in the 'data sheet' of your character that everyone can see... players who practically never quit get slightly customized icon to their name, so they literally stand out from the crowd. (on the other hand people who quit too often, like 20% of time or more, do get some punishment in the form of losing some percentage of money that can be won in the tournament... this penalty is removed when they manage to bring the quit ratio back to reasonable value by playing a number of games 'clean')


Hmm...me likey bouncey. Though this doesn't lend itself well to, say, a deathmatch FPS. Still, very, very nice idea. What game, if I may ask?

SIDENOTE: Post 1000. Darn, I was hoping to have an even 1200 rating when I hit 1k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Boku San
I still have to disagree, though I know and have experienced exactly what you're talking about. As I mentioned, actual work in *design* has to be done here, just to prevent what I like to call "CrappyAutosaveitis". If you come to a particularly difficult battle, which the level designer is aware of, there should be an autosave just before the beginning, and almost immediately following -- the same places a player might save. In addition, if the player fails, no more than one keypress should be required to send the player back to that point for a do-over. I don't support torturing the players. I do support better level design.

I suppose you can tweak the system to the point where it's useful for most people, aye. On the other hand something like this save-on-risky-encounters thing... dunno, note it doesn't prevent situation where i'd die because a cat jumped on my keyboard while i was about to perform a trivial jump. This means am pretty much screwed, having to repeat the whole part since last successful 'hard' encounter which could be quite a while ago... and on top of it i now have to plow through 'trivial' stuff i already saw. it just doesn't add anything to the game value that'd justify time spent on developing the whole 'intelligent save' system in the first place. But obviously that's just opinion and ymmv ^^

Quote:

Hmm...me likey bouncey. Though this doesn't lend itself well to, say, a deathmatch FPS. Still, very, very nice idea. What game, if I may ask?

SIDENOTE: Post 1000. Darn, I was hoping to have an even 1200 rating when I hit 1k.

PangYa. I don't speak japanese so am missing out on part of the fun, but on the other hand the game is a free download and doesn't have a fee which is considerable plus (they make money from selling _some_ equipment for real money, while other is available to get for in-game currency) And the cuteness level is downright addicting. >.<;

(as for that rating thing lemme see if i can do something about it :s

edit: gah, overdid it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by tolaris
I suppose you can tweak the system to the point where it's useful for most people, aye. On the other hand something like this save-on-risky-encounters thing... dunno, note it doesn't prevent situation where i'd die because a cat jumped on my keyboard while i was about to perform a trivial jump. This means am pretty much screwed, having to repeat the whole part since last successful 'hard' encounter which could be quite a while ago... and on top of it i now have to plow through 'trivial' stuff i already saw. it just doesn't add anything to the game value that'd justify time spent on developing the whole 'intelligent save' system in the first place. But obviously that's just opinion and ymmv ^^

It's not clear how a quicksave key helps when your cat jumps on your keyboard unexpectedly. I'd expect to be equally screwed under either save system - either I wouldn't have passed any save points for a while, or I wouldn't have bothered to quicksave for a while...

An alternative to save-points is to allow saving any time, but at a cost of some progress (Halo saves your last checkpoint; Zelda games keep your current status, but when you reload you find yourself at the entrance to the dungeon you were in (or some other set location outside dungeons))


On the main topic, karma points sound suspiciously like a disguised form of extra lives.

Losing a resource and continuing instead of geting game-over when your character "dies" is also reminiscent of extra lives, but with added side effects for the "lives" (Sonic's rings? Mario's mushroom etc?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a linear game, "intelligent save" is as easy as "checkpoint reached". If you've played Halo 2, you've seen how effective this can be. You get killed, you find yourself within two minutes of where you died. Usually much closer. On Legendary, it might take fifteen minutes to get to the next checkpoint, but that's because you're on Legendary, and you like that sort of thing.

All the benefit of quicksaving before a tough challenge, none of the jump-save-jump-save-jump-die-load-jump-save crap that wrecks gameplay, and none of the jump-save-die-load-die-load-die-swear-quit that is even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by rmsgrey
It's not clear how a quicksave key helps when your cat jumps on your keyboard unexpectedly.

I make a fairly frequent use of quicksave key. (since if there's one thing i hate when playing game it's going over the dead-on same thing twice. I have Groundhog Day movie for this kind of experience if i feel like it, and unlike the games the movie makes me laugh) In that sense it helps me, because am likely to save quite a bit more often than arbitrary system managed by the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this degraded into a Quicksave Versus Autosave thread, then I fall on the side of Autosave, or like, Quicksave that saves the last checkpoint you went through, return to the start of the dungeon type of thing.

As for teh whole resolution thing, the problem is of course saving-and-loading. Any resource I lose, I'd much rather reload and try again, since that resource may become crucial in the late game, or the game becomes impossibly difficult without it.

That said, this problem has already been solved with "Lives." And just because you don't want the actual number kept on screen, as though being reduced to Zero lives will cause a gameover, you can always just do it in the other direction, count how many lives were used, doing an Auto-Load on death (i.e. returning to the checkpoint where the quicksave would register), and display this statistic at the end of the game so that players can compete for the Zero Lives Zero Loads win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
In a linear game, "intelligent save" is as easy as "checkpoint reached". If you've played Halo 2, you've seen how effective this can be. You get killed, you find yourself within two minutes of where you died. Usually much closer. On Legendary, it might take fifteen minutes to get to the next checkpoint, but that's because you're on Legendary, and you like that sort of thing.

All the benefit of quicksaving before a tough challenge, none of the jump-save-jump-save-jump-die-load-jump-save crap that wrecks gameplay, and none of the jump-save-die-load-die-load-die-swear-quit that is even worse.

See, but that's the very thing. I don't want _quicksaving before tough challenge_ when i play a game. I want a save/load routine that allows me _quickly_ to get back right where i was a minute ago. It really boils down to the fact that between me and the game it's *me* who knows better how i want to utilize the saving routine. If i like the 'legendary' kind of challenge with infrequent saves then i can very well manage this myself by keeping finger off the save button unless i absolutely feel i must to. And on the contrary, if i like to save before each step then goddamit, let me. By all means keep silent track of the checkpoints and allow a helpful "here, this is last important spot you were in, click the button if you want me to take you there in case the quick save you made isn't good enough" ... but don't get between me and the 'regular' save game. Because it can be as annoying as a "smart" remote that decides for me i can't pause the movie at will, and when i choose to rewind i absolutely _have_ to rewind at least x minutes back and not say, just 30 seconds which happened to be really cool and i'd like to experience them again without the stuff that took place before them...

(note, the "cool stuff" in question is again something that *i* happen to find cool. It might have nothing to do with 'tough challenge' or anything that'd make the designer set a checkpoint there, or not)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if nothing else, the bulk of replies shows the power of convention.

Consider that Flight sims, shoot 'em ups, and space dogfighting games have no save, and no expectation of doing so. People accept the convention, and there's no fuss.

I'm personally a save-aholic, mostly because I feel that most designers are pugilists-- they want me to whoop ass on some challenge and puff up my chest to show how good I am at clicking. As I get older, that stuff wears thin. Now if feels like the game just doesn't respect my time and wants me to beat a system more than have an experience.

Now as much as a save-aholic as I am, I believe that there is no way to create certain experiences if you can restore the worldstate (as I've said before, I don't mind at all you restoring yourself and leveling, but certain fateful deaths or losses in the game world have to be unrecoverable both for the sake of risk and reward).

So, with no out-of-game save, does the idea of evading death via resolution screen, with loss, work better or worse? The alternative would be "when you die, you restore to the last clone / brainscan / insurance update," which could get expensive and might entail lots of traveling to get back to where you were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have two problems with quicksave - firstly it becomes much easier to save yourself into an unwinnable position, and secondly it encourages bad design - it's all very well saying "just don't save as often if you don't like it" but if the game is balanced for quicksaving, you can get forced into the quicksave trial-and-error just in order to get through...

Another alternate save system that can augment restricted save systems is the "timeline auto-save" or whatever you want to call it - basically the game saves at certain key points (ends of chapters or major plot branches) and you can go back and find out "what would have happened".


The simplest way to stop someone from quickloading after they die is to make them have to work to do it - instead of "you died - continue/reload/quit" have "you died - continue" and only let people load from the main menu, rather than letting them have a single keystroke... If you can get them playing on without realising that they could have reloaded, most people will just keep going - there will always be some who will reload if their character chips a nail (I have a friend who was recently re-re-re-re-playing DOOM and reloading every time he dropped below max health/armour - except for the few examples of unavoidable damage) - I guess the pointI'm meandering around is that there are many people who will continue playing despite taking a mauling so the question you have to ask is why would they reload after "dying" if it didn't automatically qualify as "losing"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, we've all heard all the arguments for and against quicksaves, so I'll deviate from the deviation.

Wavinator, you have referred more than once, in this thread and others, to the concept of a dynamic, constant world that the player inhabits in-game. Here, you seem to be trying to form a system whereby a player can load out with big guns, make a huge juggernaut assault on an enemy outpost, and lose. Then, he'll reload his character, and still have his ship, and his experience points, and his reputation, and all that, but next time he goes to that enemy stronghold, they'll have a few more guards out front, who will be casually chatting about that psycho who almost blasted his way through the third security ring last week.

Is that your plan, basically? If so, then you'll have to remove the opportunity to quickload entirely from the player's "Game Over" menu. Heck, you might even have to autosave the world-state whenever they die. You have all kinds of sophisticated ideas about your reincarnation system, so I'll trust you to work out that dilemma on your own, but the old game world has to die permanently when the player's character dies momentarily. Any leeway here will lead to horrific abuse. I think a quick reincarnation with minimal loss of character integrity would reduce (but never eliminate) the frothing outrage at getting stuck with a blemish on your character's combat record. I know people that clear the game records when they lose at FreeCell.

Maybe it would work better in a carefully moderated environment, like an online game with a server-side world. I don't cry when my Diablo II character gets whacked. For a single-player experience, the biggest challenge you'll face will be the one described in the "Player failure == Design flaw?" thread contemporary with this one. Players will try the same thing six times, and when the world figures out that they really, really want that PUSD, it'll stack six boss monsters on it, and they'll think they "broke" the game. You'll have to be careful with this dynamic, and make sure not to freak out players too much with it.

Of course, there's no way to do this half-assed. It's such a fundamental metaphysic of the game that it will have to be cemented in place as part of the foundation, and the rest of the game, from level design to AI to mission structure, will need to be built around it.

Wavinator, I think you're just the insane genius to figure this one out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like some sort of Machiavellian twist, where the player makes a deal with the devil (the game life arbitrator system) in order to cheat death of a lesser 'nasticity'.

Skills to me generally, are the work of gameplay, when play is not work per se. You have the accomplishment satisfaction of the high score or fast round working for you when skill is used and developed, but I think that is a bit core and a bit old school gameplay fun derivation stuff. That is not to say that skill is an old reliable when it comes to guaranteeing a fun experience, it surely is, but I think that player expectations are changing, just as the demands for different types of genres and approaches are being called for from within the industry.

I think in a subset view, category a, most players would revert to the old system response of, "Oh, I died, back to last save point [if applicable]) and try again. In category b, you would get some players who would bargain with the devil thinking that one, like the multi sided di of DND, you'd get a lucky roll, and not just cheat death, but make out like a bandit with death, which might provide some interesting fun, or, would like to see what kind of bargaining for your life reasoning you programmed into the arbitor system. I think I would place myself in the latter class, and, the behavior interaction seeking player is going to become more and more the player/consumer of the future, and not the best shot in Laredo player.

IMO,
Adventuredesign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by rmsgrey
I have two problems with quicksave - firstly it becomes much easier to save yourself into an unwinnable position, and secondly it encourages bad design - it's all very well saying "just don't save as often if you don't like it" but if the game is balanced for quicksaving, you can get forced into the quicksave trial-and-error just in order to get through...


Do you think it would have any impact to have the game tell you about the save philosophy before you play. I agree with what you mention here. So if you can click on a button that says, "Don't worry about saving..." under tutorial, which is right on the front page, would it help change the expectation and philosophy.

Quote:

The simplest way to stop someone from quickloading after they die is to make them have to work to do it - instead of "you died - continue/reload/quit" have "you died - continue" and only let people load from the main menu, rather than letting them have a single keystroke...


I think this would just lead to annoyance, because the system is there, but inconvenient. I seriously think we need to look at WHY you have to reload so much anyway. It's to fix a mistake, a loss, or to retry something a different way.

Quote:

I guess the pointI'm meandering around is that there are many people who will continue playing despite taking a mauling so the question you have to ask is why would they reload after "dying" if it didn't automatically qualify as "losing"?


There's the pride aspect, and then there's the distrust of the design. The latter is why I creep & save and horde so much in FPS games (if I don't, I'm inevitably screwed by an end level boss I couldn't plan for or see coming.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this