quote: Original post by dwarfsoft

Maybe have an automated crash-save. You should be able to tell if the game was shut down correctly, if not then the save takes place. This would leave the game open to Ctrl-Alt-Del termination saves, but I think that it solves the problem

I think the amount of effort you put into this is interesting. I remember the old game X-Wing, which deleted your character if you ever died in the middle of a mission. It also had different game exit tests (did you exit properly, were you trying to cheat).

Within a month of release there were work arounds and hacks. Guess there''s no stopping the will of some gamers...

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Then... You put in something that checks for this, but it doesn''t do anything. If you can figure out that they are cheating (if it happens too often I guess ) then you wait until the end of the game and then the king informs you: ''I don''t like cheats! Rack off and play properly or I will never give you the holy staff!'' . This might be unfair if there is a real problem, but I am sure that it would solve the cheating problem. Make it worthwhile NOT to crash... Maybe you could state that a crash is an ''Act of god'' and so if you hadn''t saved then that is your own damn fault! . God was punishing you for doing something...

Does anyone else have any ideas?

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

When somebody buys a game, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. That includes cheating and hacking the game, if they want to. As long as this doesn''t affect other people in a multiplayer enviornment, there''s no point in even trying to put restrictions on these kinds of things. People will always get around them, and they really do nothing but annoy players.
Sure, saving and loading every second kills a game. But if the player wants to, they should be allowed to. And if the player wants to make it harder and more challenging, they will limit themselves to saving only at certain times.
Personally, I think games should always include cheats. Because if there''s none built-in, then people will hack the game to make them, and nobody likes their game being hacked.
(Above was regarding single-player only, multiplayer is a whole different story, of course.)

-RWarden (roberte@maui.net)

The system that I am planning on imlementing goes on a more level style approach:

You start off with free saving, so you can do it anywhere. This helps newbies get into the game without hassle. Then, once the player reaches intermediate stage, they can only save at certain spots. They need to get to these spots to save. When the player reaches Super-human (hard) stage, they go into hardcore. This is optional, but it will be recommended that the player choose to go hardcore, because otherwise they don''t get any special bonuses from being better than intermediate. Just my $(2*rant/100)

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

Dwarfsoft,

Why not tie your saves to difficultly level more directly? Super-hard is no save, just auto-saved at certain points. Hard is a few saves, etc., etc.

I still would encourage the carrot rather than the stick. Auto-save for crashes, and on hard level reward players the longer they go without saving.

BTW, I''m not totally against your point. One of the more enjoyable experiences I''ve had was playing System Shock were I was down to 2 bullets, 7 health, and hiding like a mother-@$#%%! Similar thing happened to me in Half-Life. The point is, I choose to put myself in those situations.

If a game puts me in a disadvantaged situation and tells me, "haha, f*ck you, die!" then I feel like the designer is being childish and capricious. The designer''s job is to entertain me, not abuse me for the fun of it.

At least, that''s the successful designer''s job...



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Yes, all my thought were on single play as well. The pay to save is a cohesive part of the entire game design i think and there fore there's no reason not to have it. I beleive in having some cheats built-in to the game because it gives you the Game Designer some control over how people cheat. This way you can have cheats that add to the games fun and people will be less likely to put your game down.

The main issue i'm tring to address with the pay-as-you-save element is to bring more risk taking fun into the game. There's many different ways to enjoy a game and this is just one. I think there should be behind the scenes autosaves. If it was made that the use of autosaves drains xp (when loaded) from the player if used would stop people abusing them. Considering that a crash happens quite rarely then i think it would be appropriate. Where as a normal saves drains cash.

You could always create temporary losses of something when a save/load occurs. This way if a player abuses the system (which is usually the case before taking on a big dude) then it makes it harder at this point in the game in exchange for a save-insurance.

Another problem with pay-per-load is that if a player gets to a point in the game that they find hard then they will really get pissed when they watch there hard-earned character go down the toilet just becuase of one point in the game. So maybe the player only pays after the first and second load and then after it's free.

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Edited by - Paul Cunningham on August 18, 2000 9:15:49 PM

quote: Original post by Wavinator

Dwarfsoft,

Why not tie your saves to difficultly level more directly? Super-hard is no save, just auto-saved at certain points. Hard is a few saves, etc., etc.

yeah, I would use this. It is definitely an incentive to get to the next ''waypoint'' alive eh?

quote:
I still would encourage the carrot rather than the stick. Auto-save for crashes, and on hard level reward players the longer they go without saving.

Have a time-based interest going. Then you don''t need to make it cost them for loading. I still like the insurance payout. Maybe you could do this with a ''no-claims bonus'' scheme

quote:
BTW, I''m not totally against your point. One of the more enjoyable experiences I''ve had was playing System Shock were I was down to 2 bullets, 7 health, and hiding like a mother-@$#%%! Similar thing happened to me in Half-Life. The point is, I choose to put myself in those situations.

I love being in those situations as well. DM Doom II with my guy on 1% health, and I needed to make a dash for the health. Pity my friend knew of this and was hiding in that room

I loved DMing with the Chainsaw. We used to do this a lot, because it was more fun. PS. Chainsaw whips the BFG. You can always avoid a BFG, but the chainsaw rips straight into you

quote:
If a game puts me in a disadvantaged situation and tells me, "haha, f*ck you, die!" then I feel like the designer is being childish and capricious. The designer''s job is to entertain me, not abuse me for the fun of it.

Good point. But there should always be a way to get out of that situation alive. Make sure there is always a reasonable path that can be run along... I would definitely do it like that. If the character dies then, it is obvious that they stuck around too long in the battle

quote:
At least, that''s the successful designer''s job...

I guess I am not a successful designer then

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

quote: Original post by dwarfsoft

... there should always be a way to get out of that situation alive. Make sure there is always a reasonable path that can be run along... I would definitely do it like that. If the character dies then, it is obvious that they stuck around too long in the battle

This is cool. If you can''t face the bad guy, then you don''t have to be stuck. That''s why people reload so much. They want as much power (in game terms) as they can get so they can beat the next guy... as well as not wanting to lose all the progress they''ve made so far.


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Well here''s the problem isn''t it, if the players character gets whooped then the player takes an ego-dent which hurts. This is a similar issue to puzzles in a way. This being, that a player should never feel that there was nothing that they could have done to change the outcome. Also a player (in combat) should be given enough options to allow for a comeback even in the most dire of circumstances. There should be some obvious and helping clues given to the player to see what they do wrong and these lessons should pass on to later encounters. Lessons in a game should lead on in a cohesive and enjoyable manner, well there''s my thought for the day

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!