Well, if you have a cyclic buffer of 5 or so saves it doesn''t really matter(then you will have to replay 2*X minutes at most). It also probably wouldn''t be very hard to detect certain death (being that it is ''certain'').

quote: Original post by Extrarius
Well, if you have a cyclic buffer of 5 or so saves it doesn''t really matter(then you will have to replay 2*X minutes at most). It also probably wouldn''t be very hard to detect certain death (being that it is ''certain'').

"certain" death might be easy to pick up on, but there are more subtle ways to go pear-shaped - on an island in the middle of a lava lake on your last hitpoint - or any situation where being caught flat-footed (reload shock) transforms it from an avoidable death to an unavoidable one - basically, reloading into the middle of any stressful situation is a handicap.

The cyclic saves should minimise the problem - you''d have to be unlucky to get caught in a stress situation on all five - but equally, it will happen eventually (how long it takes depends on how unlikely a single unfortunate save is, and on how stressful situations are distributed)

#include <std_savepoint_mention>

Not sure why it''s so important to prevent the player from deciding on their own if they want the game to be challenging or easy, and how much of it they want to see over and over and over again...

Given this ''problem'' is most common in the fps games, i wonder if a simple verbal feedback to player''s saving tactics, one which would step on their ambition wouldn''t work here... I.e. if the game detects the player is _saving_ frequently enough to consider it ''too often'', put some little, mean, testosterone-level questioning remarks on the screen during the save. If the saving frequency changes to ''normal'' level, drop the remarks. If the player is saving ''rarely'', take note of it; offer them some small consolation when they''re eventually forced to _reload_ the game, and a praise at the end of the level.. etc.

The save/load system is on a per game basis. Saying that one particular style will suit all RTS's or all FPS's is probably a bad way to look at it. Some save/load systems have been found to work better than others in a certain genre and I think people making a game of this genre just figure "well this is how so-and-so's game handled it so it will work for us". Just because it worked in Doom doesn't mean it that it will necessarily work in Halflife. Try expanding your ideas about what type of system would work best with your game. It may turn out that a currently used system works well. Maybe so-and-so's system works well but with a few minor tweaks custom to your title.

So basically my advicefrom this little rambling: "Create a system that works with your particular game".

Then again, I could be wrong.

[edited by - xtrmntr on March 31, 2003 5:12:14 AM]

quote:
At least until you get a save where the enemy rocket is half a second away from your 1% health character...

Huh no, saves would not be automatic (and the previous saves, not erased), it''s still the player''s own responsability to save. If he saves at 1% health it''s his problem. He just can''t save until X minutes at least have elapsed.

Y.

Instead of worrying about auto-saves before certain death, unlock a save every X minutes which the player can save to if they want. Maybe by going 5*X amount of time without saving, they can save 5 times quickly. It's a bit like allowing a certain number of saves per level.

Suppose they were dished out as rewards (eg for collecting X number of Y, Z consecutive headshots, going the level without being spotted) but this might have too much positive feedback for skillful players who don't need them.

********


A Problem Worthy of Attack
Proves It's Worth by Fighting Back

[edited by - walkingcarcass on April 1, 2003 10:58:57 AM]

One nifty trick that would work in some game types would be to mix up the level every time you reload. XCom did this if you saved BEFORE starting a mission. There would always be the same number & type of aliens, but the map and placement of enemies would be different every time you started the map. This technique still gives the player the ability to learn from their mistakes (i.e. deaths) without losing the sense of suspense. It would probably work best where you could enforce some linearity, and avoid spawning enemies places the player might expect to already be clear. (Or, you could keep the same set of enemies, and just reposition them within a fixed radius each time the level is reloaded). You need to use this in moderation - I played some RPG where the treasures were randomized each time you loaded, so there was a constant temptation to keep reloading at each treasure chest until you got something good (I really don''t think that added to the game).

What if the AI was good enough to be radically different each time you play?