Quote:Original post by Tangireon
I don't understand how you think single-player campaigns or story-driven games are the result of supersized egos

No no, I'm not saying that all single player campaigns or story-driven games are the result of supersized egos. What I'm saying is that I have personally encountered (more than once) an elitist ethos which divides players along cultural lines. On the one side, you have those considered capable of appreciating art, who are said to use their brains (pejoratively assuming the rest of us don't), and who, because of their sophistocation, are the only ones capable of understanding or appreciating a certain design mechanic (like no saves).

As TZ said, you get too clever puzzles, or I would add challenges where the designer condescendingly reasons, "well, those who think will do fun. Screw the rest."

What this ultimately amounts to is bad game mechanics masquerading as art. Of course, games aren't the only medium plagued by this problem-- indie films and new wave art are great examples.

Quote:
and that quote from Roberta Williams you provided was talking about mass consumer differences of back then when computers were rare vs the mass consumer nowadays.

Take what she's talking about in terms of design elements. She's telling us that her designs, which were in theory deep and contemplative, were targeted toward a certain culture, and that the mechanics we have nowadays are more vapid and instant gratification oriented (the result of the unwashed masses getting their hands on computers).

Its an example of a dichotomy that assumes a great deal about people. What, there are no rich nerds with expensive rigs who would have had no patience for solving puzzles? No poor kids in computer labs queued up to play the next thinking game? (I was one of the latter).

As we talk about to save or not to save, I'd just like to remind people to be careful about making value judgements on why people are playing a certain way. Not everyone who is quicksaving is doing it because they can't think deeply, don't appreciate sophistocated designs, or whatever.

Quote:Original post by Trapper Zoid
Not all linear game developers are like this, and the portrait of a designer as an egotistical prick out to torture his players with his "masterpiece" thankfully is the far extreme. It's more that if you have a designer with this kind of mindset, they're more attracted to building linear games because this kind of designer is all about retaining control. I think the control issue is what Wavinator was getting at, as it's the crux of the save strategy argument; how much control do you grant to the player to moderate their own games to provide the maximum game experience?

Thank you TZ, the control issue is precisely what I mean, and exactly what I've heard when I've talked to this type of designer. To be fair, it's more a continuum rather than extremes, and I acknowledge that there are certain genres, like horror or games where it's difficult to get the player to accept an emotionally negative experience, that benefit more from more authorial control. But this point brings up the very reason for making the game: Is it for the designer, or is it for the player?

(btw, I take your point about default restoring of the last state on failure and agree... but what do you do when you want to experiment or try something risky? Or what if you made an interface mistake, say for instance used a rare item?)

Quote:Original post by Edtharan
This is why I prefer a save anywhere approach. Sure you will get some people who abuse the system, that is their loss. They have just cheated themselves out of an interesting experience.

Very true. I had to learn this the hard way, and it's ironic that it has been the save anywhere games that have taught me this.

Quote:
As I said earlier, if a player want to "cheat" they will.

As an ex-cheater who hacked game files for more money, circumvented the "overwrite on death" trick (by rebooting or copying files automatically)-- even going as far as slowing down my processor once for an old game, I can testify to this.

Quote:
As a designer, you are not there to dictate who the player is going to have fun. A game is just a tool that the player uses to have fun. Therefore, you should aim to make the tool as easy as possible for the player to have fun. If they like the game, but find it too difficult, or just would rather not have to be overly challenged, then putting a restricted save feature in it would destroy it for that player.

Exactly! If the argument is about the player's experience, the designer must acknowledge that they have only limited control. Engineering methods of preventing the player from cheating the game (or is it the game designer?) are doomed to fail because a dedicated gamer will almost always get around them given an open platform (even the closed console platforms have problems here).

Quote:Original post by Trapper Zoid
Hang on, now I have to double-take on this quote. This is Roberta Williams' game design philosophy?

This is what I have to assume unless I'm completely reading it out of context (I read the original article years ago and that was the impression I was left with.)

Quote:Original post by Kest
With a good game design, those mistakes will stem from a lack of concentration, awareness, and planning. Save and restore diminishes the need for any of them. Why be careful all of the time when you'll only need to reload once in a while because of carelessness?

I have a hard time pinning this down. What in your mind is the point of the game? Is it to make a player plan, concentrate and be aware? Is this what makes the design good?

Quote:
In the meantime, I would rather face unfair gameplay hardships than be given the capacity to exert an unfair advantage over the game when I see fit.

Okay, and we part company here. Given that situation, I'd rather the game suffer.

Quote:
The label I attached was to those who would choose an option titled "god mode" in order to use reload. Since power-hungry teenage boys are the type most likely to download cheats before they even install a game, they wouldn't mind the title of that option. Anyone who minds choosing that option is the type to benefit from a lack of save and restore.

I take your point that there's an audience out there that rushes for the cheats (and in the process often shortens the experience for themselves).

I think I'd be mildly insulted, though, if the menus stated:

New Game
Continue
Enable God Mode --> Restore Last Game Ya Cheatin' Bastard

(or some other such imprication)

Seriously, if a game had an award for longest running time with no restore or something, I'd challenge myself to that, but probably only AFTER I beat the game. I just don't think I would trust most designers not to be arbitrary.

Even in games like Project Eden, in which death means absolutely nothing (die >> tunnel of light >> respawn at last body scan point) I save, simply because I don't know if the game might crash, or I don't want to have to remember if I've collected things or thrown switches, or I want to try and do something a specific way.

Quote:
I've made it extremely clear that I myself am very susceptible to abusing the save and restore ability when it hangs over my console through every grief stricken moment in the game. That's my entire issue with the feature.

And it would or would not matter if it was buried in a menu? Or if you started an "Iron Man" game that you couldn't change afterwards?

Quote:
What exactly are you losing when you reload? If you're as careful as I am about using save to ensure safety, then the answer is nothing. With save and restore, there are no absolute consequences for anything. So why even bother dishing out punishments? Just apply a mild negative effect to failure and let the player keep trying.

Maybe it helps to be concrete. How would you do this for, say, a jumping puzzle? Would you never design a jumping puzzle that lead to death? I'm assuming that this means you can't take damage from falling period, because if you do you can never be sure that the player has 1 HP before falling.

Quote:

Quote:I guess my message as a player to designers is, "Don't tell me how to play."

I would have never expected those words to come from you.

Yeah, excepting one time when I completely flip flopped while trying to figure out how to design tragedy into a game that has saves (I couldn't do it), I'm a pretty vociferous propenent of free save. I do understand what you mean by being able to abuse it ("creep & save" in FPS games) and how that can ruin the experience. But I've played far too many arbitrary games that have needed it and I've never met a limited or no save game where the feature was optional that I liked.

Quote:
Unlimited save and restore isn't available in every game on the market. It's not a required feature, or something that should just always be there. It's part of the game's design, like every other aspect of it.

Granted, and I was going to point this out. Air combat and space sims, for instance, often don't let you save anywhere, and for some odd reason I've never missed them. In RTS / RPG / FPS games, however, missing the feature would be a dealbreaker. I think it may have to do with the density of activity in the environment (not sure) or how fast it takes to get to and from your objective. Air combat sims can have as much going on an RTS / RPG / FPS, but traditionally you're only ever allowed to save at a friendly base.

Quote:

Quote:When Repeat and die gameplay is the order of the day, I end up with a lot of unfinished games.

Then isn't the solution as simple as not forcing players to repeat gameplay?

Okay, but without a concrete example this feels very much like handwaving. You have n points of interaction in your game, be they mission encounters or monsters to be slain or whatever. While I'm completely for the idea of not repeating gameplay (at least not excessively), how much content will the game have if you can opt to not repeat these interactions?

Quote:

Quote:Combat itself is extraordinarily binary. You're alive or dead. Sure, you can build in resurrection, transferrence to another avatar, skill / valuables loss or some other scheme, but that fundamentally weakens the visceral appeal of combat-- namely that fight or flight instinct that demands that you keep alive.

Again, I totally disagree. I think the ability to save right before a fight weakens the visceral appeal of combat just as much as a mild punishment that the player has no way of escaping. When the punishment is absolute, it doesn't need to be very severe to motivate them. Losing a few seconds of time because of a reload has to be one of the least intimidating forms of punishment for death that's possible.

But then what do you propose? You encounter some enemies, kill a bunch but misjudge and get nailed by one guy hiding behind a crate. Now what happens?

Quote:Original post by Kest
To be completely honest, I seriously doubt any game designers, beyound a few odd-balls, want to apply limits to saving in order to assert dominance over players because of an egotistical vision.

The problem is that they don't see the vision as egotistical. They're preserving the purity of the experience. They don't want you saving and restoring after a loss either because it's their game or (more mildly) good players shouldn't need to.

Quote:
Why is it necessary to search for ridiculous theories of excuses for designers to desire limited saving when all those included in the discussion have already presented their actual reasons? It's petty, and unproductive.

I think I understand your reasons. It wasn't an attempt to be petty, but rather to highlight a cultural difference. This cultural difference (who is the game for, the designer or player? who should play, the contemplative elite or the masses?) seems to crop up regularly. When you wrote that you thought my ego example "totally laughable" it made me remember that quote.