Hehe, my theory is that kids (and adults) had longer attention spans back in the old days. =b So, we'd play Super Mario 3 for 18 straight hours, with an accumulation of 89 replays, pulverizing poor Mario into ground beef.

I don't think this would really fly these days. Besides, this has been discussed endlessly and, if I recall correctly, the consensus is that players don't have the time or the patience to be all "hardcore". Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a world where I would have to completely restart my game every time my boss walks in. =b

Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel (a very poorly executed game) had an option at the beginning of the game: by checking the "tough guy" box, you would be unable to save during a mission (missions were the meat of the game, taking 30-90 minutes) but would net +30% experience.

I thought it was a good approach.

Ever played The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy? Here's a spoiler: About 3 moves in, there's a toothbrush. Even though you have no need for a toothbrush, you gotta pick it up. Because if you don't, then ten hours of gameplay later, you lose. You run into a puzzle which you cannot complete. There is nothing early in the game to make you think this would be the case....you just gotta do it because, well, first you have to play through ten hours of fruitlessness to find out that you need it. There's a bunch of these: you gotta feed the sandwich to the dog, you gotta unlock the atomic vector plotter, etc. This design was fine for the time--such games were still in their infancy--but by now we all know that it's a really bad idea.

The player should always--ALWAYS--know whether or not he is screwed. To do otherwise is to neglect the player, to turn "game design" into egocentrism.

Alone with other reasons, this is one of them...

HARDWARE!!!
Yes, back in the age of Nintendos, we only get memories and no permenent storage device with consoles. Nowadays, every console machine have hard drives attached to it, and therefore you can save lot of stuff on it.

I guess that generally answers that question then :)

I appreciate the opinions here but I do think that if applied in the right manner there is still room for restrictive saves and multiple endings that are not neccesarily winning endings but it is obviously a tricky balance.

If the player has to start over, it has to be his fault
by that I mean, I don't want to start a game over because I took the wrong path or forgot to go in a small room to grab something 3 hours ago
how could I have known...that's just frustrating and won't make me feel like I accomplished something when I complete the game

but if I reach a superboss and die, I'll say "hey I don't have enough skills...I'll just acquire more skills and beat the hell out of him"
then I work on it so when I beat the boss I'll feel like my goal is reached, and love that feeling
that's a classical Super Mario example, but the philosophy can be applied to other concepts than training to defeat a boss...just remember that if the player is screwed, it's entirely his fault

edit : okay everything I said was said in other posts in other words so I didn't bring anything..hehe
wish me luck next time

Quote:

if the player is screwed, it's entirely his fault

This was exactly the way I was thinking. Failure in a way that promotes another try to not fail, not because the game is badly designed. Like the hitchhikers example, that is the wrong way and stopped being the right way after text based adventure games...I kinda miss those.
Thanks

Quote:

Original post by TemporalFlux Quote: if the player is screwed, it's entirely his fault This was exactly the way I was thinking. Failure in a way that promotes another try to not fail, not because the game is badly designed.

Right but that is exactly what you proposed in your original post - dead ends.

Unless you have a big sign saying "don't follow this path its a dead end" then it won't be the users fault when they reach a dead end, it will be your fault. An end of level boss I don't have the skill to beat isn't a dead end, they are just an obstacle I have not overcome yet. Meeting a boss that requires 12 rockets to kill but my route through the game only made it possible to get 8 rockets max - that is a dead end. The game designer put me there by offering that route. History shows people don't like games designed that way, follow that path at your peril.

Quote:

Original post by TemporalFlux Basically, in old games (mostly platform) there were no save points (or a limited number) whereas today save points tend to be almost too frequent and in some cases (with PC games) whenever you choose.

Most of the old "arcade" games that had no save points had lives or health points to allow the player to make a few mistakes without needing to restart. Most also included items that could boost one or the other.

Quote:

Was the old way better or was it just more condusive to the type of game at the time? I find that nowadays the huge amounts of frustration that lead to throwing the controller at the TV are gone and as such, so are the huge feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction upon completing a game.

I don't play arcade/platform games much these days, so I cannot comment on how modern variations compare with the early versions. However, I have noticed that CRPGs have become less challenging and/or fulfilling.

Quote:

Replayablility of many adventure games today as such is zero.

Replayablility of most of the early adventure games was also zero. This is related to the use of linear storylines.

Quote:

So the question is, if you made a game today that had dead end paths through the game that caused you to not just reload a past save but actually start from the beginning again to find the right path...would this be a good idea or a bad one? This premise is built on the idea that there would be save points throughout but anywhere along a save path you might already have lost and just don't know it yet and so going back several save games actually does you no good.

There isn't a definitive answer to your question as stated.

Some people enjoy a game where the odds are stacked against them, and some prefer a "guaranteed" win. Others have preferences somewhere between the two extremes.

Personally, I prefer a difficult, but fair challenge. If there is a choice of two paths, I want some way of distinguishing one from the other and a reasonable chance of knowing the consequences of deciding between them.

For example, being forced to choose between two identical and unmarked doors where only one allows me to complete the game would not be acceptable, unless I could by perseverance or careful observation gain enough information about them to make the decision before passing through.

Quote:

Original post by lightblade HARDWARE!!! Yes, back in the age of Nintendos, we only get memories and no permenent storage device with consoles. Nowadays, every console machine have hard drives attached to it, and therefore you can save lot of stuff on it.

Games with limited save points were not only on consoles. The early Might and Magic games on the PC and Apple II only allowed you to save whilst staying at an inn.

I'd be really pissed if I played a game to the near end and found that I've not taken the right path and cannot complete it. I'd probably never play the second time round because of it.

In short, I think you should always give the player a chance to rectify their mistakes. See the original wing commander for a prime example; you could always get back on the winning path; it was more of a challenge later on, but if you really wanted to win, you had to work for it.