• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Karnot

Play without save/load

72 posts in this topic

[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1325594732' post='4899223']
Your arguments:
2. We can't assume players will be able to play their "classes" to their max potential, That would be ridiculous. We are not robots.
My Answers:
2. We should assume they can. I'm not a RTS player but I can imagine it's harder to play an RTS race/faction to it's max potential than it is a single character in a RPG. But still doesn't mean we should assume they won't reach that max potential. Also just because one class might be better than the other one doesn't mean it always wins. It's up to the player playing the character too. But there will always be that unfair advantage. That unfair advantage is often enough to let the worse player win if they aren't far away from each other in skills. Especially if you add RNG to the game as well.
[/quote]OK, so you are either trolling or completely retarded.

Has it occurred to you that Chess and Go are asymmetrical "class-based" games? Human beings will never solve those games. It's simply not going to happen with the computational ability we have.
Even if you lack the slightest understanding of computational complexity, you should realize human cognitive limits will never allow a human being to play even the first 0.1 seconds of a Starcraft match perfectly. "Perfect" play would take reflexes at least three orders of magnitude better than the best human has. And that's just the very first instant of the game, where there is absolutely no strategic decision to make.

My other point had nothing to do with whether professional players of Starcraft "complain". The point is they are the best Starcraft players in existence. If they are unable to find imbalances strong enough to matter, then so is everyone else. A theoretical imbalance we cannot even detect is completely meaningless and has no effect on the quality of a game. There is no reason for us to hamstring our game designs to avoid this meaningless imbalance.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Stroppy Katamari' timestamp='1325597586' post='4899233']
[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1325594732' post='4899223']
Your arguments:
2. We can't assume players will be able to play their "classes" to their max potential, That would be ridiculous. We are not robots.
My Answers:
2. We should assume they can. I'm not a RTS player but I can imagine it's harder to play an RTS race/faction to it's max potential than it is a single character in a RPG. But still doesn't mean we should assume they won't reach that max potential. Also just because one class might be better than the other one doesn't mean it always wins. It's up to the player playing the character too. But there will always be that unfair advantage. That unfair advantage is often enough to let the worse player win if they aren't far away from each other in skills. Especially if you add RNG to the game as well.
[/quote]OK, so you are either trolling or completely retarded.

Has it occurred to you that Chess and Go are asymmetrical "class-based" games? Human beings will never solve those games. It's simply not going to happen with the computational ability we have.
Even if you lack the slightest understanding of computational complexity, you should realize human cognitive limits will never allow a human being to play even the first 0.1 seconds of a Starcraft match perfectly. "Perfect" play would take reflexes at least three orders of magnitude better than the best human has. And that's just the very first instant of the game, where there is absolutely no strategic decision to make.

My other point had nothing to do with whether professional players of Starcraft "complain". The point is they are the best Starcraft players in existence. If they are unable to find imbalances strong enough to matter, then so is everyone else. A theoretical imbalance we cannot even detect is completely meaningless and has no effect on the quality of a game. There is no reason for us to hamstring our game designs to avoid this meaningless imbalance.
[/quote]

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Hope we have moderators in this forum to give you at least an infraction for calling me a retard.
Even calling me a troll should be enough for an infraction since it's baiting and provocative and insulting.

Do you read your own posts btw?
Your defense is that players won't be able to play 100% perfectly every 0.1 second during a fight/match.
Also, I'm not talking about starcraft now since I never played it but if a game is too fast paced for human reflexes etc to play then it's flawed and need to be slowed down.
Personally, my reflexes are good enough to counter abilties that have only a 0.3 second animation.
If a game only has 0.1 second animations then it sounds like it's way too fast paced (unless someone can prove it's possible to react to 0.1 second animations).

We're designing the game to be played by players, not by bots.

P.S: There's chess masters that can beat the best bots in chess.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1325616494' post='4899348']
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.[/quote]In other words, you are going to hold onto your opinion regardless of how thoroughly it is demonstrated to be false.
[quote]Your defense is that players won't be able to play 100% perfectly every 0.1 second during a fight/match.[/quote]Sigh.
You said we should assume that players can play perfectly. It's blindingly obvious that such is never going to be the case due to computational complexity and cognitive limits.
[quote]Also, I'm not talking about starcraft now since I never played it but if a game is too fast paced for human reflexes etc to play then it's flawed and need to be slowed down.[/quote]Not too fast to play. Too fast to play perfectly. And it's not Starcraft specifically, but every single videogame that isn't a pure puzzle or strategy game. Humans do not play videogames perfectly.
[quote]Personally, my reflexes are good enough to counter abilties that have only a 0.3 second animation.
If a game only has 0.1 second animations then it sounds like it's way too fast paced (unless someone can prove it's possible to react to 0.1 second animations).[/quote]It seems you don't understand what "perfect" means. A perfect Starcraft opening would require the player to make several accurate clicks and keypresses per millisecond during the first frame of the game.
[quote]We're designing the game to be played by players, not by bots.[/quote]That's sort of what I have been trying to tell you when I say any "unfairness" which human players cannot find is not relevant.
[quote]P.S: There's chess masters that can beat the best bots in chess.[/quote]Dunno what that has to do with anything. But according to you, chess is "unfair" since it has classes Black and White. We cannot solve Chess. After a few thousand years of play, we cannot even know whether Black or White is supposed to be the overpowered class. It's pretty obvious that your definition of "unfair" is completely meaningless.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim, the save/load feature never really made me feel less immersed. In fact, if I felt I had to go through with my decision to lop someone's head off and face the entire city full of guards and citizens afterwards, I would rarely do it and wouldn't end up having much fun...

Maybe it's just because these games are the type where, if you die, you load your last save and try again instead of having the storyline changed. However, I still feel like I'd like to win if I can, whether it's on the first try or the seventh. I'd prefer trying multiple times.

I don't think this would ruin immersion, because in my opinion, immersion isn't "thinking you're inside the game" - you'll almost always be aware that you're playing a game, but if you're immersed, you'll care more about what happens in the game. If your players care enough to repeatedly try to beat the specific fight, then why stop them?

I say, let them save/load, but tell them and remind them throughout the game that they don't have to win to progress.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Stroppy Katamari' timestamp='1325623891' post='4899380']
[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1325616494' post='4899348']
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.[/quote]In other words, you are going to hold onto your opinion regardless of how thoroughly it is demonstrated to be false.
[quote]Your defense is that players won't be able to play 100% perfectly every 0.1 second during a fight/match.[/quote]Sigh.
You said we should assume that players can play perfectly. It's blindingly obvious that such is never going to be the case due to computational complexity and cognitive limits.
[quote]Also, I'm not talking about starcraft now since I never played it but if a game is too fast paced for human reflexes etc to play then it's flawed and need to be slowed down.[/quote]Not too fast to play. Too fast to play perfectly. And it's not Starcraft specifically, but every single videogame that isn't a pure puzzle or strategy game. Humans do not play videogames perfectly.
[quote]Personally, my reflexes are good enough to counter abilties that have only a 0.3 second animation.
If a game only has 0.1 second animations then it sounds like it's way too fast paced (unless someone can prove it's possible to react to 0.1 second animations).[/quote]It seems you don't understand what "perfect" means. A perfect Starcraft opening would require the player to make several accurate clicks and keypresses per millisecond during the first frame of the game.
[quote]We're designing the game to be played by players, not by bots.[/quote]That's sort of what I have been trying to tell you when I say any "unfairness" which human players cannot find is not relevant.
[quote]P.S: There's chess masters that can beat the best bots in chess.[/quote]Dunno what that has to do with anything. But according to you, chess is "unfair" since it has classes Black and White. We cannot solve Chess. After a few thousand years of play, we cannot even know whether Black or White is supposed to be the overpowered class. It's pretty obvious that your definition of "unfair" is completely meaningless.
[/quote]

If you want to last say in this pointless discussion then you can have it.
You still haven't proved me wrong.

I'm telling you that when you think about the max potential the "class" has then you have to think about how close to the max potential a player can go.. Because that is the "effective" max potential. Those hairlines and micro milliseconds and micropscopical things you're talking about that only a Ultra advanced alien bot can do is nonsense that shouldn't even be taken into consideration.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1325680804' post='4899567']
You still haven't proved me wrong.[/quote]OK, once more with simple sentences.

You said that a class-based game is always imbalanced. Starcraft is class-based and is balanced. Therefore, you are wrong.
(Feel free to replace SC with Virtua Fighter, Guilty Gear or another highly balanced competitive game.)
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='GHMP' timestamp='1325627085' post='4899397']
In games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim, the save/load feature never really made me feel less immersed. In fact, if I felt I had to go through with my decision to lop someone's head off and face the entire city full of guards and citizens afterwards, I would rarely do it and wouldn't end up having much fun...

Maybe it's just because these games are the type where, if you die, you load your last save and try again instead of having the storyline changed. However, I still feel like I'd like to win if I can, whether it's on the first try or the seventh. I'd prefer trying multiple times.

I don't think this would ruin immersion, because in my opinion, immersion isn't "thinking you're inside the game" - you'll almost always be aware that you're playing a game, but if you're immersed, you'll care more about what happens in the game. If your players care enough to repeatedly try to beat the specific fight, then why stop them?

I say, let them save/load, but tell them and remind them throughout the game that they don't have to win to progress.
[/quote]

Not to derail this post back on-topic, but...this! All of this! It's fun to have the option to try out a few strategies before settling on just one, and sometimes it's fun to just go total rampage on a village, without having the consequences of such permanently tied to your character. Save/load gives players greater options to play the game the way they want to play it; it causes less anxiety about making sure you're always doing the "right" thing, regardless of what you actually feel like doing.

But really, for me it still all boils down to the simple fact that I need to be able to quit and turn off the game when I'm done playing. If a game's going to hold me hostage, making me play for another half-hour before I can save and quit, then I'm not going to be playing that game all that much. Period.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Paul Franzen' timestamp='1325780435' post='4899982']
[quote name='GHMP' timestamp='1325627085' post='4899397']
In games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim, the save/load feature never really made me feel less immersed. In fact, if I felt I had to go through with my decision to lop someone's head off and face the entire city full of guards and citizens afterwards, I would rarely do it and wouldn't end up having much fun...

Maybe it's just because these games are the type where, if you die, you load your last save and try again instead of having the storyline changed. However, I still feel like I'd like to win if I can, whether it's on the first try or the seventh. I'd prefer trying multiple times.

I don't think this would ruin immersion, because in my opinion, immersion isn't "thinking you're inside the game" - you'll almost always be aware that you're playing a game, but if you're immersed, you'll care more about what happens in the game. If your players care enough to repeatedly try to beat the specific fight, then why stop them?

I say, let them save/load, but tell them and remind them throughout the game that they don't have to win to progress.
[/quote]

Not to derail this post back on-topic, but...this! All of this! It's fun to have the option to try out a few strategies before settling on just one, and sometimes it's fun to just go total rampage on a village, without having the consequences of such permanently tied to your character. Save/load gives players greater options to play the game the way they want to play it; it causes less anxiety about making sure you're always doing the "right" thing, regardless of what you actually feel like doing.

But really, for me it still all boils down to the simple fact that I need to be able to quit and turn off the game when I'm done playing. If a game's going to hold me hostage, making me play for another half-hour before I can save and quit, then I'm not going to be playing that game all that much. Period.
[/quote]
I agree. It's annoying when you feel like you "have" to play longer because you'll lose progress if you stop now. Quick-save features like Fallout 3 and Skyrim had were life-savers in situations like these, and both of those games were ones I was immersed with.

[quote name='Sandman' timestamp='1325798371' post='4900112']
[quote name='Stroppy Katamari' timestamp='1325723143' post='4899778']
(blah)
[/quote]

[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1325680804' post='4899567']
(blah)
[/quote]

Please keep it civil guys. Balance is a complex issue, and extremely difficult to evaluate for all but the simplest rulesets. Strong statements such as 'Starcraft is balanced' or 'Classes are always imbalanced' are actually pretty difficult to support, and frankly, off topic for this thread. If you want to discuss balance, please do so in a new thread.
[/quote]
You made my night with those quotes...they were so fitting of the situation.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]I remember playing Half-Life back in 1998 and constantly abusing the Quick Save hotkey. That was such an immersion breaker, yet I had a lot of fun with that FPS due to its awesome scripted events, scary encounters and, of course, its original story. Ten years later, in 2008, I play Fallout 3 because, to be honest, I was a huge fan of the Fallout series. Didn't think F3 would make it and yet, I was pleasantly surprise.

What a great game! The experience was very immersive for me: I was stopping to watch the water, I care for every NPC who was killed by rebels, I remember I was very angry about those people in Andale. I didn't felt the need to save in F3. Every time you enter a building or travel on the map, the game AUTO-SAVES my progress, which worked great for me.[/font][/size]

[quote name='Karnot' timestamp='1323127992' post='4890894']
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...[/quote]
[size=3][font=verdana,geneva,sans-serif]All games should be made that way in my opinion. A rigid game is a dead game in a short time. I remember in Fallout 3 a Brotherhood commander asking for my help to rescue his apprentice from a building guarded by mutants. I accepted but failed to protect the commander and he died. I entered the building looking for that boy and I found him dead. What's interesting is that, a couple of months later when I played again the game, I managed to keep the commander safe and I rescued the apprentice from the mutants. To my surprise, the boy was now alive. To recap: accept quest to save apprentice from commander. If commander dies, you found the boy dead. If the commander survives, you can rescue the boy. You succeed or you don't, the world goes on. ;)[/font][/size]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='TheGuardian' timestamp='1326729223' post='4903263']
To recap: accept quest to save apprentice from commander. If commander dies, you found the boy dead. If the commander survives, you can rescue the boy. You succeed or you don't, the world goes on. ;)
[/quote]
This is only one side of the coin. The fact that the game makes a certain decision transparent to you, that is , you believe that your decision was without an alternative, avoids a load/save session, but on the other side, you want to give the player a challenge.

Think about a simple game: [b]the rule is[/b], you need to throw a [b]basketball in the basket 10 times in a row[/b]. When you fail, you need to start again.

This is hard for an unexperiented player, but with time and practise he will master this challenge. Now think about a save/load mechanism, this would allow the player to count every hit and even an unexperiented player will archieve the goal after 40,60 or maybe 100 tries. An experienced player will need only 15-20 tries first time. After this, just ask the player and most likely the experienced player will say, that it was too easy, not really a challenge at all, boring...

The funny thing about this is, that we often tell our children that every hit counts, when we see that they are not able to master the challenge yet and don't have the ambition to archive it. In the game designer world we react in a similar way. We see that the casual player is not able to master the challenge, nor has he the ambition to do so, that is the reason we reduce the challenge or take it away completly [s]to get their cash[/s]... to get them on board.

The 'truth' is [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img] , when you want to deliver a challenge, you need to get rid of the save/load mechanism. When the game gets too hard, you need to change the challenge instead (easy = 5 hits, normal=10 hits, hard=20 hits in a row). Thought a 'stop now and continue later' option is always useful to give the player the choice to when and how much to play your game.

I believe that this is one of the reasons that multiplayer games like MW3,BF3,L4D,TF2 gets so popular, because they deliver a much higher challenge than current single player games.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Ashaman73' timestamp='1326784238' post='4903535']
This is hard for an unexperiented player, but with time and practise he will master this challenge. Now think about a save/load mechanism, this would allow the player to count every hit and even an unexperiented player will archieve the goal after 40,60 or maybe 100 tries. An experienced player will need only 15-20 tries first time. After this, just ask the player and most likely the experienced player will say, that it was too easy, not really a challenge at all, boring...
[/quote]

Here's a question, though: if the player thinks that playing that way--saving after every throw--is boring, then why would they play that way? Save/load doesn't require you to save all the time, it just gives you the option. It's like how in some fighting games, you can get through them by just mashing buttons, but if you're doing that, and you're not having fun, it's totally your fault, not the game designer's. Or like in Scribblenauts--people complained about how you could keep using the same few items to solve every puzzle, but it's not like the game's making you do that; you're choosing to play the game in a way that makes it uninteresting to you.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I, for one, love it when games let me put in a password. I may not have seen this since Rainbow Six on N64, but if you can save/load, [i]and[/i] alternatively put in a password (as in most NES games that are 25 years old now) that, too, is pretty cool, at least. I have a very fond memory of playing Aladdin (SNES) all the way to the end and losing to Jafar. Years later, I found the game again, and somehow managed to remember the password (I probably still could if I saw the menu), and I was able to beat it. It was bliss. :)

Yes, I understand all the reasons why it could be impractical, impossible, or undesirable. I also don't care. :P
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Paul Franzen' timestamp='1326931579' post='4904133']
Here's a question, though: if the player thinks that playing that way--saving after every throw--is boring, then why would they play that way?
[/quote]
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...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Ashaman73' timestamp='1326955236' post='4904196']
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...
[/quote]

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 [b]need [/b]to do it. Though I will concede that just allowing a quick save would suit me just as well as save/load.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]How about an omega hard elite mode after you beat the main game[/quote]
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 ?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]How about a system where each save takes some kind of penalty[/quote]
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.

[quote]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[/quote]
No disagreement from me here.

[quote]If you want to save every 5 seconds after every move you should be able to[/quote]
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Karnot' timestamp='1335297491' post='4934531']
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.
[/quote]
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.
[quote name='Karnot' timestamp='1335297491' post='4934531']
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.
[/quote]
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.
[quote name='jsj795' timestamp='1335167107' post='4933987']
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?
[/quote]
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Heaven' timestamp='1335181512' post='4934056']
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.
[/quote]
[quote name='Heaven' timestamp='1335181512' post='4934056']
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.
[/quote]

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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Heaven' timestamp='1335181512' post='4934056']
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.
[/quote]
Well, you're right and wrong. Games have rules, else we would have not a game, right ?

[quote name='Heaven' timestamp='1335181512' post='4934056']
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?
[/quote]
This is valid, when the game let you save/load, it could be seen as rule and therefore is part of the game design.

[quote name='Heaven' timestamp='1335181512' post='4934056']
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.
[/quote]
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Addressing the OP:

[quote name='Karnot' timestamp='1323127992' post='4890894']
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"
[/quote]

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".

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1323200111' post='4891184']
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.[b] 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.[/b]
[/quote]

Quoted for sound logic and bolded what I feel is the most insightful part of that post [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img]

[quote name='Karnot' timestamp='1333761314' post='4928941']
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 ?
[/quote]

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 [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img]
0

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  
Followers 0