I agree with MKV and Gaiiden, save games should be a side feature of the game, an option, the same thing as starting a new game. Of course there are games where you don''t really "save" as such, Mechwarrior 3 comes to mind right now (and I''m playing it about now) since you don''t really save the game, you just have a pilot name, and it records all the missions tha you''ve done so far, it even lets you replay missions that you''ve completed.

Also I would like to bring your attention to a talk on Gamasutra that Peter Moleneaux (can''t spell his last name for peanuts, but you know who I''m talking about) did about a game that one of the lionhead "branch game companies is doing" where the player plays the role of a hero and affects the whole world in different ways. I''m mentioning this because it''ll be a cool implementation of that branching save game idea since you could see how you have affected things in the world. But probably a game like that would probably use a constant save option too, especially to the things that the player interacts with.

Just my ramblings....

Dæmin
(Dominik Grabiec)
dominik.grabiec@student.adelaide.edu.au

MOOGLEZ! I like where you started, but never penalise the player outside of game terms! That''s inhuman and awful...

I''ll chuck my two cents in:

As Gaiiden and MadKeith have been saying, Save-Games are an out-of-context feature. However, there are places where infinite cool can be incorporated in sneaky ways.

In Res. Evil 2, finishing the game in four hours using two saves (someone correct me on these figures, I don''t really remember) would get you the ultimate weapon if you replayed. On a similar note, I think that just recording the number of saves, and remembering how sloppy the player was is a good indication of the player''s worth. In so much as we are able to do so, we (the designers) may want players to play our games "properly" so instead of making them do so, we may reward them profusely when they do so competently.

As far as following up on player skill is concerned, if we must pay attention to saved games, I guess we could simply record the number of times saved and/or loaded, and compare them in some way to our bench-marks, and incorporate that into the final evaluation of the player''s abilities.

George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

I like the idea of granting the player special weapons, levels, etc. depending on how many saves were done and such. This still lets the player play the game however he wants, but rewards those who play it correctly or gives incentive for those who beat it by saving a lot to go back and try and beat it without saving too much. Good idea

No need to limit it to just saves... in Metal Gear Solid, the bonuses depended on how many times you were discovered, how many medi-kits you used, number of bullets fired, accuracy. It really gives the player something to work for, if they have to play it by your rules in order to have a chance to see the super bonus.

George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

Again, I like it. You''re not forcing the player to do anything, just sort of "nudging" him in the right direction while still letting him do as he wants. Very nice.

but rewarding players for ''playing right'' is just the other side of punishing them for not playing right. you are still manipulating the player in to doing what you want them to do. sure rewarding might be more effective, but fundamentally it is the same as punishing them. both could be described as ''giving the player something for playing the game a certain way''. if you want to accept that rewarding the player is a viable solution i think you need to also accept that punishment is a viable solution to. if this is not something you can accept, then rewarding is not your answer.

<(o)>

darnnit your''re right. Rewarding the good players is like punishing the bad players, and punishing the good players is like rewarding the bad players. Poo. Oh well. I''ve come to accept that not all games should be save everywhere. But if you can only save at a certain point, it shouldn''t be an obvious "save point", but some game object or something that can be explained in the game world to give it more credence and not break the suspension of disbelief.

What about tieing savegame allowing to difficulty level?

- easy : unlimited
- normal : 5 saves / level
- hard : 2 saves
- god : not allowed

Doing this also means there is less need to add a zillion monsters to make the game ''harder''.