Yay, save game argument in the design forum! [grin]

Quote:

Original post by Kest Well, I'll be the first to fully support #2. It doesn't mean you have to start over or lose progress when you die. There are plenty of extremely mild penalties to employ for failure or death. If you can't come up with one, then at least implement an automated safety-net for tricky moments, and don't leave it up to players to guess where they may be.

That's my view too, although I think it's more partial support for #2. I agree with no saving cheating and think your explanation is a good way to go about designing for that. But the original statement had "like in angband, adom, nethack" as an explanation which also implies the rogue-likes penchant for sudden death, which I think only works in extremely hardcore games.

My view is the best design technique for saving is one where the game itself handles all the saving for the player in a seamless way so the player doesn't have to worry about it at all.

Despite of all criticsm, I still think that games without saving cheating have greater value. Of course this must be implemented in smart way. Mild progress of game difficulty must be created (with free choice of go back to easier levels for example for healing or for achieving better armor) and there must be clearly know for player how to face hard moments before that moments (from the game guide or from informations available in game).

For example player must fight with some big boss in level 100. Then it is good when informations about that boss (his disadvantages, advantages, armor, skills, stats, etc.) is available for example in level 90. In that way player can prepare his situation and playing style. I think this is more valuable because player learn how to read informations carefully and how to apply them in practice. If game have freedom of path planning and random characteristics of hard moments then this is even more value.

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid That's my view too, although I think it's more partial support for #2. I agree with no saving cheating and think your explanation is a good way to go about designing for that. But the original statement had "like in angband, adom, nethack" as an explanation which also implies the rogue-likes penchant for sudden death, which I think only works in extremely hardcore games.

Also, the only reason they get away with it in rogue-likes is because the levels are randomly generated and there is a fairly wide variety of character options. If it weren't for that, I'd detest that "feature" since I'd be replaying the same thing over, and over, and over. Even with this, I grew bored of Nethack after twenty times through level 1.

Quote:

Original post by dfTruF 2. No saving cheating (like in angband, adom, nethack, etc.). 4. Element of randomness. 5. Freedom of path planning in a game (non-linearity). 6. Hard to find special artifacts, secret levels, etc (always in different places and with different characteristics in new game).

Clearly some people criticizing #2 have not played roguelikes op mentioned. Combined with #4, #5 and #6 you really don't need to play the same level or same game over again when you die. It's a (somewhat) different game each time you start it.

Also, I don't think #2 makes a game "hardcore" (whatever that means). Maybe it's just that some players want to win at all costs, and winning is the only fun to be had in a game. I've had countles of hours fun playing Adom despite the fact that you usually end up losing (in a large scale). The outcome shoudn't matter if you have fun playing the game?

Quote:

Original post by dfTruF Saving cheating - this is action when player make saves before hard moments in game and after unsuccessful event reload the game as often as situation is favourable for the player. This cause boredom because the game then is a piece of cake, simply too easy.

So you think you know better than the player, what he wants to do?
You know what causes boredom? Having to play the same damn segment over and over 50 times because you *can't* save when you want to.

Why do you think people save before hard moments when they have the option? It *could* be because that's the most satisfactory for the player. And if I may remind you, the player is kinda the person you're making the game for.

There is a small number of games where you can pull this trick off without ruining the game. A couple of reasons for this has been discussed already.
But claiming it's some kind of universal golden is a joke.

You want golden rules? How about this one?
Understand the player's motivations. And make a game the player likes.

Given full ability, a player would most definitely ruin a game. What you need to have as a golden rule: Include it if it makes the game more fun.
It's more like love making (I'd suppose), you want to give the player fun not ask him what he/she needs and try to follow that. Surprises are fun, difficult situations which are solvable are fun, experience and reflex based segments are fun...

Golden rules which only work for some players are not golden rules. They are guidelines for certain target markets.

Quote:

Original post by Captain Griffen Golden rules which only work for some players are not golden rules. They are guidelines for certain target markets.

I have to agree with this. These are also "golden rules" for certain genres (seems like mainly RPGs.)

I'm a "save-cheater" through and through. However, I like how Diablo 2 and Fate handle things. Diablo 2, when you die your body stays there and you have to retrieve it. I simply lay a portal before a boss and if I die I can take my portal and then go pick it up (making sure to lay another portal before going back into the boss.) Fate gives you choices (like lose experience and stay where you are, lose money and go back a few levels, or return to town.) Fate also has town portals (that's because it's pretty much an exact copy of Diablo 2's system, but that's a discussion for another time lol.) Also, you can't save and load in either game without quitting (and you can't copy your save directory when playing Diablo 2 on battle.net. Not sure about Fate.)

Quote:

Original post by Spoonbender So you think you know better than the player, what he wants to do?

Sometimes wanting is better than having (words of wisdom from Spock). At some level of thought with all games that I play, I want immortality, teleportation, flight, countless money, and my character stats at full capacity, but common sense tells me that such power will ruin the game. Unfortunately, these types of decisions are what seperate designers from players. Players only need to worry about what they want. Designers need to worry about what players want, and the implications of giving it to them.

As the designer, it's your responsibility to balance every rule and feature that goes into the game and it's interface. The player doesn't exist until the system as a whole is put into place. It's only at that time that a player can pass judgement on the lack of a quicksave feature.

Quote:

You know what causes boredom? Having to play the same damn segment over and over 50 times because you *can't* save when you want to.

Here's my golden rule: Absolutely no time travel. If there's no time travel, it is impossible for you to play the same (damn) segment in the same (damn) time frame more than once. Or rather, the second time will be different than the first, and so on. Randomized situations will change, your character will keep learning (if applicable), and enemies will get over-confident because they've beaten you up before.

Quote:

Why do you think people save before hard moments when they have the option? It *could* be because that's the most satisfactory for the player.

Are you basing this perspective off of games with quicksave features, or without? Because you obviously can't simply remove it from a game that has it and expect everything to work out. Once it is gone, everything must be balanced for its removal.

Quote:

There is a small number of games where you can pull this trick off without ruining the game.

I guess that answers my previous question.