• 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

It still really boils down to this for me--if a game doesn't let me stop playing when I want to stop playing (via quick-save or save-anywhere, it doesn't matter which), then the game is less fun to me, because I'm stressed about the decision to turn the game off and lose my progress, or to keep playing when I should be sleeping/working, instead. It doesn't have anything to do with re-rolling a die or making a different decision; I just don't want the game to hold me hostage!

Having a quick-save makes the game more fun for some people, and its inclusion doesn't make it less fun for others, because they can just ignore it. (And as I said before, if the game's less-fun because they're abusing it--that's totally on them. They can't be mad at [b]you[/b], the game developer, because they made the decision to "cheat.")
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aha! Well then, that's what I get for only joining the forums a year or so ago. Thanks for the clarification.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]rather than how a save system should be implemented, instead what should happen in the case of a "failure".[/quote]
True. Some people mistakenly thought that the issue with saving is that it breaks the so-called "immersion", which i have nothing against, but this topic isnt about that. Its about breaking the connection between failure and gameover, making failure a viable path to take and keep playing.

[quote]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.[/quote]
As i have begun to actually work on the project, i guess i will go on and be more specific about an actual game i am making.
If anyone remembers the Battletech books, there was once a Gray Legion trilogy. What i want to make is basically "Gray Legion : The Game". (though obviously not using Battletech license or books storyline). A tactical game involving giant robots and other military forces. The game would work on two levels : there is the player - a leader of interplanetary mercenary unit, free agent who can pick his own battles; and then there is a global war - something not even remotely under player's direct control, and having a timer for conclusion. After a set amount of time has passed - the war (and the game) ends, one way or another, that is not in question. The question is in what position will the player turn out to be when the war ends. So there are "endings", but no "winning" for the game. And i want to stylize it all as a kind of future historical chronicles, so every game will tell the story of both the war and the player. Losing a battle will not mean losing a war.

[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.[/quote]
I was just throwing a draft of an idea, it hasnt formed fully just yet, so i probably wont be able to be as clear as i want it to be, but i'll try.
Let's say that in the game, your primary resource is "money" (note the quotes). And you have two "accounts". If you win - you get "money" put into one account, the one which you can use in any way you wish, including the way to achieve your meta-goal. If you lose - you also get "money", maybe only a fraction of winning prize, but they are put into another account, which you can ONLY use to build back your team's strength, buy equipment and recruit men. The more glorious your victory - the more "money" you get, but also you get more "money" for more spectacular failures.

How i came to this idea was, i thought of player losing a battle. What do i do with him ? Make him start basically from scratch, and give him some access to low-tier equipment and let him grind the money to build up all over again ? Not good. What then ? I want to pull them back into regualr gameplay as soon as possible, but not simply "respawn" the player as if nothing happened. So i started inventing ways for player to do that, for example i thought of having to rent out your spaceship as space cargo truck, and make it all automated, so it will make money for each turnaround. I wanted it to be no more than a couple minutes of real time, but in game time it will take months as a trade-off. And you really have to treasure your time. But i wanted an even faster way. So i thought "why not use the same mechanics for losing, as i do for winning ?". No need for grinding, no need for additional mechanics, losing is exactly the same as winning, only with a minus put in front of it. The consequences are different, but the gameplay is the same.

[quote]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[/quote]
Well...
In Super Robot Taisen games, the story is often quite branched, and often the choice of a story branch is determined by amount of "skill points" awarded for special merits in previous levels. Amount of "skill points" is also proportionate to difficulty level, so the more of them you get - the harder versions of the level you get.
Panzer Corps has kind of the same deal, if you perform good - you advance your Nazi army on Moscow, if you are underachiever - you spend the second half of the game in Western Europe.

[quote]if a game doesn't let me stop playing when I want to stop playing. I just don't want the game to hold me hostage![/quote]
I have never advocated that. You are fighting a strawman, my friend.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Karnot' timestamp='1335387805' post='4934882']
I have never advocated that. You are fighting a strawman, my friend.
[/quote]

So I see! My apologies. I thought there was an argument of save anywhere vs. no save anywhere; I was misreading the thread.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='jsj795' timestamp='1335318766' post='4934595'][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.[/quote]
Suggestion: remove quickload (as in the shortcut) and require the player to quit the game back to the main menu to load (well, maybe except if e.g. the player dies, it makes sense to show an option to load immediately when that happens). This means that loading mid-game takes longer, and discourages players from abusing it (limiting its use only to when it's really needed rather than every few seconds).

Though granted, there's also the fact some designers consider that there is no concept of "abuse" for starters...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='swiftcoder' timestamp='1335364159' post='4934762']
If you quit the game and reopen it, finding yourself in exactly the same place, that is persistence (and pretty much every game should support persistence, though some still don't). Save/load on demand is an entirely orthogonal concept - save/load is one way of providing persistence, but a persistent game need not provide arbitrary save/load (only saving automatically when the player quits).
[/quote]Moreover, persistence is (almost) entirely orthogonal to game design and game difficulty whereas saving tends to have a drastic effect on how the game is played.
It's not necessarily 100% wrong to make a single player game run in real time without a possibility to pause (and quit in a persistent game is effectively a pause), but I think it would be a good design decision only very rarely. Maybe in some kind of horror game where decisionmaking under time pressure is key.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the separation between save/load and persistence. I also like the idea of failure consequences which are neither grinding nor reloading. I think the failure=death mindset is what keeps people hovering over that save button. Perhaps you have two main paths; the hero story and the underdog story.

I'm of two minds over people wanting to replay to see all endings/best ending. Maybe you implicitly save at the major decision points they've encountered, but they can't go back up the tree of save points until they've clocked the current branch? Maybe glorious failure points earn you the choice to go back a certain distance in the tree?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]I'm of two minds over people wanting to replay to see all endings/best ending.[/quote]
Well, how is this different from people wanting to replay the game to see the same ending ? For example, grand strategy games, like Civilization, are specifically created to be replayable, but the ending is always the same "your nation is the greatest blah blah blah". Oh, and there might be a short video if you won through space race. So i dont quite see the problem there. People play games not to see the ending, it is simply a way to give closure to the whole playthrough.

You are (i suppose) coming from the mindset where the game is 98% the same no matter how many times you play it, like Bioshock, and one decision in the end is all it takes to get a different ending. Am i right ?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Karnot']
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.[/quote]
My turn to disagree.

Me allowing a player to save any time, any where does not affect the player's experience. I'm with Paul on this one, whatever OPTIONS (make sure you understand the meaning of that word before proceeding) I include in my game, it's the PLAYER who chooses to use them. Or not. And it bears repeating: I'm talking options. As in things that are OPTIONAL.

The players are tailoring their experience through use of the options I've given them. All the way from macro options like Save Anywhere Anytime and allowable screen resolutions down to micro options dealing with Inventory, Combat, Crafting, etc.

And me adding the ability to save anytime/anywhere isn't catering to a whim. It's simply providing an option. It doesn't in any way force a player to use it. If I fail elsewhere in my design such that the option is generally recognized as the only way to accomplish some in-game goal, then yeah. That's wrong. But the simple act of coding in more options...I don't see that as a bad thing. I want every potential player of my game to be able to play the game how THEY want to play it.

Again, if I want them to play it a certain way isn't it better to offer them rewards for doing so instead of flat out disallowing it? Or worse (IMHO) punishing them for it?

But now let me apologize. I kind've went off on a tangent to your original idea. Like another poster I was led astray by the Title of the thread. :) Let me remedy that at once by attempting to respond to your idea, if I'm getting this right, that non-game-ending failure should be an option.

I love it. It strikes a chord with my own desire to implement as many gameplay options as possible. Why should the game end because a player lost a battle? After playing through many levels in RTS games (e.g., Warcraft III) I've been left wanting for a level design that didn't force me to restart when I "lost the mission". Why can't I recoup my losses and attempt to accomplish my goal through another method or strategy? That would entail a lot more work on the part of the game designer no doubt, but it would absolutely be worth it. The idea of a beaten player being enslaved by their captor, or imprisoned...the possibilities are exciting.

[quote name='PyroDragn']
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.[/quote]
I apologize. If you understood me thusly I came across the wrong way. Put simply I meant EXACTLY how Diablo did it. If I chose Hardcore more I would NOT be allowed to save and if I died my character would be wiped but game rewards would be boosted/enhanced. If I chose Easy mode I would be allowed to save any time/any where but game rewards would be scaled way down from Hardcore.

Awesome discussion!

Take care.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Karnot' timestamp='1335485694' post='4935259']
[quote]I'm of two minds over people wanting to replay to see all endings/best ending.[/quote]
Well, how is this different from people wanting to replay the game to see the same ending ? For example, grand strategy games, like Civilization, are specifically created to be replayable, but the ending is always the same "your nation is the greatest blah blah blah". Oh, and there might be a short video if you won through space race. So i dont quite see the problem there. People play games not to see the ending, it is simply a way to give closure to the whole playthrough.

You are (i suppose) coming from the mindset where the game is 98% the same no matter how many times you play it, like Bioshock, and one decision in the end is all it takes to get a different ending. Am i right ?
[/quote]

I'm not against replaying in the sense of replaying from scratch. I'm not against replaying as in reloading your favourite battle and having a blast-fest. What does concern me is when people want to see every possible ending and reload and replay from a specific point to get that specific outcome. I guess players should be allowed to; it's their game. However it would lead to a very disjointed gameplay session where immersion is sacrificed in the name of enumeration. You don't think it happens? It's not unknown in the Fallout 3/New Vegas community. I've even participated to a certain degree, trying to attain a certain outcome in a quest. The thing I noticed is that although the first outcome is not what I wanted, I could have shrugged and moved on. But bashing my head on it trying to get the outcome that I wanted actually made me hate the game and I stopped playing for a few days. It also exposed the mechanistic nature of the quests and AI as tough examination often will. That's not an experience I would like players to have.

In any case, I'm a big fan of the idea of non-failure failure. Really interesting idea. Good thread!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='jefferytitan' timestamp='1335494320' post='4935269']
But bashing my head on it trying to get the outcome that I wanted actually made me hate the game and I stopped playing for a few days.[/quote]
This makes me think...what if we, the players, have been TRAINED to play games a certain way?

Another poster asked if anybody knew of any games like Karnot is imagining. I haven't played a ton of games, but I can't think of any. Least of all the RTS games I used to play. Case in point, WHY did you figuratively bash your head on it trying to get a certain outcome instead of shrugging and moving on? And that's in a game that ALLOWS you to have variable outcomes! Did the game's other outcomes not provide enough satisfaction gameplay wise that you felt the need to keep trying until you got the one that WAS satisfying?

I proffer that years of playing games where there is NO such allowance (i.e., you fail, you either restart or quit the game) has actually led to that kind of behavior.

Of course Jeffery could just be anal. :P

Put another way: Play Mission X, expect Successful Outcome Y, fail. Options? Restart or quit. Play Mission X, expect Successful Outcome Y, succeed! Next mission. Now a game comes along with Successful Outcomes Y and Z but we for whatever reason have been conditioned that Success means one thing (victory!) and the game offers another thing (victory OR defeat but stripped of all resources) and we decide that's not very Successful after all.

Just a thought. Re-reading it kinda' sounds meandering. Maybe I need to go to bed. Heh.

Take care.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Heaven' timestamp='1335495066' post='4935273']
[quote name='jefferytitan' timestamp='1335494320' post='4935269']
But bashing my head on it trying to get the outcome that I wanted actually made me hate the game and I stopped playing for a few days.[/quote]
This makes me think...what if we, the players, have been TRAINED to play games a certain way?

Another poster asked if anybody knew of any games like Karnot is imagining. I haven't played a ton of games, but I can't think of any. Least of all the RTS games I used to play. Case in point, WHY did you figuratively bash your head on it trying to get a certain outcome instead of shrugging and moving on? And that's in a game that ALLOWS you to have variable outcomes! Did the game's other outcomes not provide enough satisfaction gameplay wise that you felt the need to keep trying until you got the one that WAS satisfying?

I proffer that years of playing games where there is NO such allowance (i.e., you fail, you either restart or quit the game) has actually led to that kind of behavior.

Of course Jeffery could just be anal. [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.png[/img]

Put another way: Play Mission X, expect Successful Outcome Y, fail. Options? Restart or quit. Play Mission X, expect Successful Outcome Y, succeed! Next mission. Now a game comes along with Successful Outcomes Y and Z but we for whatever reason have been conditioned that Success means one thing (victory!) and the game offers another thing (victory OR defeat but stripped of all resources) and we decide that's not very Successful after all.

Just a thought. Re-reading it kinda' sounds meandering. Maybe I need to go to bed. Heh.

Take care.
[/quote]

I think people lose the satisfaction when they know the possible outcomes and you don't get the outcome you want because you did X this way instead of doing it that way, and so on. And it's even harder to not let the player know that you've just eliminated the outcome you wish to achieve, because of all the guides/spoilers out there in the internet. Sure, those people can choose not to look up those guides, but it's like putting a cookie in a clear jar in front of a kid and telling them don't touch it. Some kids will not touch it and wait for the cookie to be handed to them, or they will just take it and go through punishment (in which case, it's the loss of satisfaction)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Heaven' timestamp='1335495066' post='4935273']
This makes me think...what if we, the players, have been TRAINED to play games a certain way?

Another poster asked if anybody knew of any games like Karnot is imagining. I haven't played a ton of games, but I can't think of any. Least of all the RTS games I used to play. Case in point, WHY did you figuratively bash your head on it trying to get a certain outcome instead of shrugging and moving on? And that's in a game that ALLOWS you to have variable outcomes! Did the game's other outcomes not provide enough satisfaction gameplay wise that you felt the need to keep trying until you got the one that WAS satisfying?

I proffer that years of playing games where there is NO such allowance (i.e., you fail, you either restart or quit the game) has actually led to that kind of behavior.
[/quote]

Quite possibly. In the circumstance I was positive there should be a better outcome, plus the outcome I got somewhat offended my moral sensibilities. FYI, the quest was "Beyond the Beef" where a member of a fancy society is trying to trick them back to their tribal cannibalistic roots. For me, any outcome where I didn't expose him and kill him was a job not done, even though I had technically completed the quest by saving their intended meal.

I only got the outcome I wanted using a walkthrough, which I can't help but do at times even though I know it reduces my enjoyment. Walkthroughs turn the saying "it's not the goal, it's the journey" on its head. The player believes the outcome will fulfil them, although following a walkthrough step by step often gives little fulfilment.

I think we have in a sense trained ourselves that anything less than the optimal outcome is failure.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='jsj795' timestamp='1335495677' post='4935274']
I think people lose the satisfaction when they know the possible outcomes and you don't get the outcome you want because you did X this way instead of doing it that way, and so on. And it's even harder to not let the player know that you've just eliminated the outcome you wish to achieve, because of all the guides/spoilers out there in the internet. Sure, those people can choose not to look up those guides, but it's like putting a cookie in a clear jar in front of a kid and telling them don't touch it. Some kids will not touch it and wait for the cookie to be handed to them, or they will just take it and go through punishment (in which case, it's the loss of satisfaction)
[/quote]

Indeed. I actually think a little randomisation of designed levels/quests would be good to combat the walkthrough craze. I have heard that some people would be lost without the walkthroughs. Hmmm. Possibly, or maybe they just need to try the alternative.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='jefferytitan' timestamp='1335494320' post='4935269']
What does concern me is when people want to see every possible ending and reload and replay from a specific point to get that specific outcome.
[/quote]

In the game i am designing they wont be able to.
I am building it up to be replayable. Perhaps not AS replayable as Civilization, but a substancial percentage of different content each playthrough. It will not be a "story" game. And in my mind there will be no bad/neutral/good endings. They will be simply different. As you brought up Fallout, think of what i want to do in the similar kind of thought as the endings for towns in Fallout, where narrator lists all the towns you've visited and how you have affected them. Some towns have different endings with different outcomes, sometimes none of those outcomes are good.

I'll give examples of endings i have in mind for my game : if you havent allied yourself with any of the warring nations you will get the "mercenary" ending, where it will detail how you've never found a worthy master, but waged war for the highest bidder. If you have allied yourself with your home nation and specifically the army - you will get "patriot" ending. Or you could become "pirate king". Or you could get "new home" ending, where you get a personal planet for your unit and live there peacefully.
These kinds of things. Basically its all gameplay-dependent, not story-dependent.

I'll tell you another thing, i am thinking of making some endings "non-guaranteed". By that i mean, that even if player does his very best - the particular ending will not be achievable in that particular playthrough (the player will not know if its achieveable or not, he can only strive, if he thinks he can do it). Things like "be personally responsible for stopping the global war".
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='colinhect' timestamp='1323133374' post='4890933']This is a really interesting subject. Pressing the quicksave key every time you enter a new room is a [b]huge [/b]immersion breaker.[/quote]

You are right, but you are also so very wrong. In Gothic 3, I had just cleared out an entire area of Shadowbeasts, Bisons, and two Dragons. I probably spent 30 minutes up to an hour to get this stuff done, and there's absolutely no autosave or quicksave in the game. Then suddenly, a bugged Wild Boar went through the mountain itself, because the pathfinding in Gothic 3 is absolutely horrendous. And Wild Boars had, early on, a bugged attack that was impossible to get away from, so they could sometimes spam-attack you to death, no matter how strong you were. Suffice to say that I was not very happy that day.

Personally, I agree that Quicksave breaks immersion because it's a conscious action. But I'm all for [i]Autosaving[/i] and I actually feel that any game that should have it and doesn't, are broken games. Personally, I prefer the consta-save of the Diablo series and of MMOs.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='DrMadolite' timestamp='1335532703' post='4935373']
But I'm all for Autosaving and I actually feel that any game that should have it and doesn't, are broken games.
[/quote]

This is sort of a redundant statement. If a game -should- have something, and doesn't, then it is obviously broken. The question is whether a game should have autosaving.

Systems now I think are at the point where autosaving is pretty standard. It used to be a pain when you would get to a point, and the game would autosave but you'd have to wait for a minute or so for it to do so. I think this is where developers erred towards manual saving, so that the players themselves could choose when they wanted to be interrupted from their gamplay.

Taking current games - ME3, Diablo 3 - you don't need to give any conscious thought as to when to save, and you still won't lose much (if any) progression. That's something that most games should strive for.

Having autosaves ties in with the topic of progression after failure I think. After each mission (or decision/outcome) the game would autosave for the player to continue from that point - regardless of whether the player 'won' or 'lost'. If you limit the ability to manually save, and manually reload in order to backtrack, then you could guide the player to the thought of progressing as best as they can - rather than the automatic thought of reloading a previous point in order to strive for a better outcome.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='PyroDragn' timestamp='1335533637' post='4935379']
[quote name='DrMadolite' timestamp='1335532703' post='4935373']
But I'm all for Autosaving and I actually feel that any game that should have it and doesn't, are broken games.
[/quote]

This is sort of a redundant statement. If a game -should- have something, and doesn't, then it is obviously broken. The question is whether a game should have autosaving.[/quote]

Well you got core features, but you also have additional features that should've been in a game, if everything was optimal and the developers had unlimited time and resources. But that doesn't mean that the game is broken otherwise. Cause then Diablo 3, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Half-Life 2, Farmville, Minecraft and more would all be broken games. And that's a pretty bold statement, if you ask me.

[quote name='PyroDragn' timestamp='1335533637' post='4935379']Taking current games - ME3, Diablo 3 - you don't need to give any conscious thought as to when to save, and you still won't lose much (if any) progression. That's something that most games should strive for.[/quote]

I guess we can agree on something. [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/wink.png[/img]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='DrMadolite' timestamp='1335558230' post='4935468']
Well you got core features, but you also have additional features that should've been in a game, if everything was optimal and the developers had unlimited time and resources. But that doesn't mean that the game is broken otherwise. Cause then Diablo 3, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Half-Life 2, Farmville, Minecraft and more would all be broken games. And that's a pretty bold statement, if you ask me.
[/quote]

For me, "should" implies a definite requirement. There are features in all games that might have been nice, that could have been in a game, that would have been included if they had time. But saying that a feature -should- have been in a game, means that there was a serious flaw in leaving it out, rather than "it would have been nice if it had it."
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been thinking of implementing a list of different levels of save restriction that a player can choose from along with the difficulty at the start of a new game. This way if somebody absolutely insists on playing it a certain way they can.

There will always be a save and quit, and load and delete suspend save file for all types. The least restrictive is 'Free Save' mode where you can save/load whenever you want with no restrictions, and the most restrictive is the Hardcore mode where all you have is the suspend save. Somewhere in between will be a Semi-limited Save mode where you can load whenever you want, but the only saves are the quicksaves from when your character gets to sleep and one additional save that you can use once per period between autosaves. The limited mode is the same except you don't get the extra manual save in between rests.

Seems to be a good system to me. I can't think of any major downside other than the added complexity of working with the system.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Platinum314' timestamp='1335656739' post='4935713']
Seems to be a good system to me. I can't think of any major downside other than the added complexity of working with the system.
[/quote]

One issue to consider is something that has already been mentioned in this thread. If you introduce this limited-save mode, you will inherently be introducing a new mechanic. The player will have to consider "Is this a good time to use my save?" Now, if you can balance this then it is all well and good, but you will have to try and consider how this will affect gameplay between the different modes as this is not going to be the default option.

The limited save mode could end up as a more relaxed gameplay option, simply because the player doesn't need to put the extra consideration in to using their save or not. With the semi-limited state, if you die and you end up losing a lot of progression, the player would get frustrated that they didn't use their save. If they use the save then go through a lot of simple progression before dying, they end up frustrated for having to replay a lot of easy areas and not saving later.

You need to make sure that the extra limited save turns out to be a relief, rather than a burden. If this isn't the only option for the save mechanic in the game, then it's even more important that you get the balance right.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my personal opinions/experiences on these matters.

[quote name='DrMadolite' timestamp='1335532703' post='4935373']
You are right, but you are also so very wrong. In Gothic 3, I had just cleared out an entire area of Shadowbeasts, Bisons, and two Dragons. I probably spent 30 minutes up to an hour to get this stuff done, and there's absolutely no autosave or quicksave in the game. Then suddenly, a bugged Wild Boar went through the mountain itself, because the pathfinding in Gothic 3 is absolutely horrendous. And Wild Boars had, early on, a bugged attack that was impossible to get away from, so they could sometimes spam-attack you to death, no matter how strong you were. Suffice to say that I was not very happy that day.

Personally, I agree that Quicksave breaks immersion because it's a conscious action.
[/quote]
There's definitely a quicksave in that game. If I remember correctly they often encourage you to save often (load screen tips). I really liked the Gothic 3 quicksave as it has 3 or 5 quick save slots, where you'll overwrite the oldest one. Much better than the regular just one (like in Skyrim). I quickly learned from Gothic 2 that it's a good idea to save often, and it's a good idea to use several save slots.
Going into the menu and saving does break immersion (particulary in Gothic 3 where it changed music track), but quicksave quickly develops into something reflexish. One advantage is that I decide when the game makes a sudden hiccup/lag due to saving. I disable autosaving because I really dislike unexpected lags in the middle of a battle.

[quote name='DrMadolite' timestamp='1335532703' post='4935373']
But I'm all for [i]Autosaving[/i] and I actually feel that any game that should have it and doesn't, are broken games. Personally, I prefer the consta-save of the Diablo series and of MMOs.[/quote]
These systems depend on a respawn system which really makes a big change in the game universe. I would not find it immersive to respawn after death in the gothic games. There's no lore about it, and nor should it. Gothic games tried to be somewhat "realistic". It's not a game where 90% of the items are "magical". I don't think a respawn system would fit at all.

Crysis had normal save anywhere you want. In crysis 2 they changed that to automatic saves, which works smoothly because they made the open world, into a linear one, with it's "action bubbles". The game was very dissapointing.

[quote name='PyroDragn' timestamp='1335661341' post='4935727']
One issue to consider is something that has already been mentioned in this thread. If you introduce this limited-save mode, you will inherently be introducing a new mechanic[/quote]
Indeed. It was in farcry where I really really thought about saving. A big part of the game time went into replaying from an earlier save, just so that I could improve the situation in my later saves. I can't say I that particular part was very immersive. Edited by ImmoralAtheist
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