As games get bigger and more complex, arguments develop over how quicksaving and re-playing are too easy. Conversly, no mid-level saves may make a game frustratingly hard. How about this system? There are two save slots. The game saves automatically at the beginning of a level. You can save mid-level when and wherever you want. If you save then change your mind you can go back to only so far, or restart the whole level (especially in nonlinear stories). ******** A Problem Worthy of Attack Proves It''s Worth by Fighting Back

This reminds me of somthing I was thinking earlier. I was wondering if our games where too easy. Nowerdays, we regard completeion of a game as a normal feature. Wasn''t completing a game once a bonus little joke for REALLY good players? It just made me wonder if game completion should be so important, and if our games should be a lot harder.

quote: Original post by Shylock
This reminds me of somthing I was thinking earlier. I was wondering if our games where too easy. Nowerdays, we regard completeion of a game as a normal feature. Wasn''t completing a game once a bonus little joke for REALLY good players? It just made me wonder if game completion should be so important, and if our games should be a lot harder.

Narrative based games should definitely be completable.

I think this is how saving shood be (this might be exacly what you mean but i got cunfused at the last part): 2 save files for each save. You can save and exit at any time you like. Once you load up the save and exited save file it is deleted. Then at given locations there is permanent saving points, where you have the option to just save and make a file permanent untill you delete it.

So the save and exit thing is like being able to pause the game for long peiods of time while the machine is off. A permanent save is like saving the game, except you can oinly do it in predetermined locations.

This make is so that there is unavoidable concequences for screwing up, dieing, missing somthing. And you have to go back a ways to make these screw ups you did right, by loading a save. Therefor increasing the difficuly of the game by adding consequeses making it so the player will not zoom thru knowing if he dies heall be right where he left off. This adds intensity to the expirence therefor increasing the fun. Or occasionaly frustration. The save and exit function eliminates the annyoance of the whole "crap it was an hour of playing since i last saved and an hour untill the next save point, and i have to go, what will i do" dillema. Instead its "phewf, lucky i can save and exit and end up right where i started" and belive me, its a nice feeling. So scince we both eliminate frustration and add difficulty, It is safe to say that this is the ultimate saving system.

I''m going to keep it short n sweet. I don''t think players should be saving unless they''re not going to be playing anymore. Anything else could be improved on.

So when the person starts the game again is the save deleted? if so what happens when they die?

If save on exit (and delete that save on load) is the only save option, then it matters when you die. Depending on the game, it might matter too much. In those cases, a save at the start of each level might be a good idea (or save points in a level-less game like an RPG). If you can only save in certain spots, then saving means something, and dying doesnt mean "reload and redo the hallway battle for the 73rd time". Save options need to be taken into account when designing the game though. You can''t make the levels with "save anywhere" in mind and then suddenly change it to only "save and exit" because they imply different types of gameplay.

I think save anyhwere is generally a bad idea, but you need to be able to go to real life, so that is the reason for the save and exit. Since that save is deleted on load, you can go to real life but you can''t use it as a normal save anywhere feature.

If you delete the save file when you load, what happens when the game crashes? And don''t say it never happens.

I have been thinking a lot about this aswell. I think the best three games that have handled save games are:

1. Soldier of fortune: Just gives you 3-5 save games you can use as the game progresses. It works well, since you get cocky and think, ''ah, I will clear out this room then save'', only to go in and get blown away. When you have to restart it feels more like something stupid you did, and not a gripe with the game

2. Resident evil: Similar to the above, but there are set places you can save, and only certain amount of times. This really added to the suspense, since when you have only 3% health left, are lost, have bugger all ammo, and know that the closest save point is on the other side of the level, you can become so tense and paranoid while slowly crawling through the level, just waiting for something to jump out its crazy!!

3. Halo: Good in the way that it avoids the repition problem, and takes the concentraion of saving of the player, but does make the game a bit easy.

I believe the suggestion above about continuing where you left off is how Diablo 1 worked, and it worked very well. You had just one save game. If you save, it overwrites the old one.

quote: Original post by boolean
I have been thinking a lot about this aswell. I think the best three games that have handled save games are:

1. Soldier of fortune: Just gives you 3-5 save games you can use as the game progresses. It works well, since you get cocky and think, ''ah, I will clear out this room then save'', only to go in and get blown away. When you have to restart it feels more like something stupid you did, and not a gripe with the game

2. Resident evil: Similar to the above, but there are set places you can save, and only certain amount of times. This really added to the suspense, since when you have only 3% health left, are lost, have bugger all ammo, and know that the closest save point is on the other side of the level, you can become so tense and paranoid while slowly crawling through the level, just waiting for something to jump out its crazy!!

3. Halo: Good in the way that it avoids the repition problem, and takes the concentraion of saving of the player, but does make the game a bit easy.

I believe the suggestion above about continuing where you left off is how Diablo 1 worked, and it worked very well. You had just one save game. If you save, it overwrites the old one.

Zelda (pretty much any of the series) - When you save, your progress is kept, but you position is reset back to the last continue location (eg dungeon entrance). In Majora''s Mask, a "permanent" save sets you back to the beginning of the three day cycle (and going back to the beginning of the cycle autosaves), but "interrupt" saving can be done any time from any of several save points, which can be warped to from almost anywhere (and the save self-erases when you resume).

Goldeneye - relatively short levels and the game autosaves between them (it''s possible to spend half an hour or more on some levels if you''re playing slowly, but every level can be completed in less than 10 minutes - which is how you unlock secrets ). In fact, the silent autosave when progress is made is pretty common amongst games for N64 (and GameCube as far as I can tell).

The only real problems I can see with a self-erasing save are: in narrative driven games, where a number of players like to keep saves around important cutscenes in order to watch them/show them to friends later without having to play all the bits in-between; game crashes (which can be worked around by having a constantly updated "current state" "save" - probably actually two used alternately - so that the game can be recovered); abuse by players copying the save-games (which effectively converts the system back to free saves - with an awkward interface )