My turn to disagree.

Me allowing a player to save any time, any where does not affect the player's experience. I'm with Paul on this one, whatever OPTIONS (make sure you understand the meaning of that word before proceeding) I include in my game, it's the PLAYER who chooses to use them. Or not. And it bears repeating: I'm talking options. As in things that are OPTIONAL.

The players are tailoring their experience through use of the options I've given them. All the way from macro options like Save Anywhere Anytime and allowable screen resolutions down to micro options dealing with Inventory, Combat, Crafting, etc.

And me adding the ability to save anytime/anywhere isn't catering to a whim. It's simply providing an option. It doesn't in any way force a player to use it. If I fail elsewhere in my design such that the option is generally recognized as the only way to accomplish some in-game goal, then yeah. That's wrong. But the simple act of coding in more options...I don't see that as a bad thing. I want every potential player of my game to be able to play the game how THEY want to play it.

Again, if I want them to play it a certain way isn't it better to offer them rewards for doing so instead of flat out disallowing it? Or worse (IMHO) punishing them for it?

But now let me apologize. I kind've went off on a tangent to your original idea. Like another poster I was led astray by the Title of the thread. Let me remedy that at once by attempting to respond to your idea, if I'm getting this right, that non-game-ending failure should be an option.

I love it. It strikes a chord with my own desire to implement as many gameplay options as possible. Why should the game end because a player lost a battle? After playing through many levels in RTS games (e.g., Warcraft III) I've been left wanting for a level design that didn't force me to restart when I "lost the mission". Why can't I recoup my losses and attempt to accomplish my goal through another method or strategy? That would entail a lot more work on the part of the game designer no doubt, but it would absolutely be worth it. The idea of a beaten player being enslaved by their captor, or imprisoned...the possibilities are exciting.

[quote name='PyroDragn']
If we allowed quicksaving and quickloading in D3, then you could have the hardcore players, playing through, only saving seldomly, restarting entire levels if/when they die, and eventually getting a reward out of it.

I apologize. If you understood me thusly I came across the wrong way. Put simply I meant EXACTLY how Diablo did it. If I chose Hardcore more I would NOT be allowed to save and if I died my character would be wiped but game rewards would be boosted/enhanced. If I chose Easy mode I would be allowed to save any time/any where but game rewards would be scaled way down from Hardcore.

Awesome discussion!

Take care.

I'm of two minds over people wanting to replay to see all endings/best ending.

Well, how is this different from people wanting to replay the game to see the same ending ? For example, grand strategy games, like Civilization, are specifically created to be replayable, but the ending is always the same "your nation is the greatest blah blah blah". Oh, and there might be a short video if you won through space race. So i dont quite see the problem there. People play games not to see the ending, it is simply a way to give closure to the whole playthrough.

You are (i suppose) coming from the mindset where the game is 98% the same no matter how many times you play it, like Bioshock, and one decision in the end is all it takes to get a different ending. Am i right ?
[/quote]

I'm not against replaying in the sense of replaying from scratch. I'm not against replaying as in reloading your favourite battle and having a blast-fest. What does concern me is when people want to see every possible ending and reload and replay from a specific point to get that specific outcome. I guess players should be allowed to; it's their game. However it would lead to a very disjointed gameplay session where immersion is sacrificed in the name of enumeration. You don't think it happens? It's not unknown in the Fallout 3/New Vegas community. I've even participated to a certain degree, trying to attain a certain outcome in a quest. The thing I noticed is that although the first outcome is not what I wanted, I could have shrugged and moved on. But bashing my head on it trying to get the outcome that I wanted actually made me hate the game and I stopped playing for a few days. It also exposed the mechanistic nature of the quests and AI as tough examination often will. That's not an experience I would like players to have.

In any case, I'm a big fan of the idea of non-failure failure. Really interesting idea. Good thread!

But bashing my head on it trying to get the outcome that I wanted actually made me hate the game and I stopped playing for a few days.

This makes me think...what if we, the players, have been TRAINED to play games a certain way?

Another poster asked if anybody knew of any games like Karnot is imagining. I haven't played a ton of games, but I can't think of any. Least of all the RTS games I used to play. Case in point, WHY did you figuratively bash your head on it trying to get a certain outcome instead of shrugging and moving on? And that's in a game that ALLOWS you to have variable outcomes! Did the game's other outcomes not provide enough satisfaction gameplay wise that you felt the need to keep trying until you got the one that WAS satisfying?

I proffer that years of playing games where there is NO such allowance (i.e., you fail, you either restart or quit the game) has actually led to that kind of behavior.

Of course Jeffery could just be anal.

Put another way: Play Mission X, expect Successful Outcome Y, fail. Options? Restart or quit. Play Mission X, expect Successful Outcome Y, succeed! Next mission. Now a game comes along with Successful Outcomes Y and Z but we for whatever reason have been conditioned that Success means one thing (victory!) and the game offers another thing (victory OR defeat but stripped of all resources) and we decide that's not very Successful after all.

Just a thought. Re-reading it kinda' sounds meandering. Maybe I need to go to bed. Heh.

Take care.

[quote name='jefferytitan' timestamp='1335494320' post='4935269']
But bashing my head on it trying to get the outcome that I wanted actually made me hate the game and I stopped playing for a few days.

This makes me think...what if we, the players, have been TRAINED to play games a certain way?

Another poster asked if anybody knew of any games like Karnot is imagining. I haven't played a ton of games, but I can't think of any. Least of all the RTS games I used to play. Case in point, WHY did you figuratively bash your head on it trying to get a certain outcome instead of shrugging and moving on? And that's in a game that ALLOWS you to have variable outcomes! Did the game's other outcomes not provide enough satisfaction gameplay wise that you felt the need to keep trying until you got the one that WAS satisfying?

I proffer that years of playing games where there is NO such allowance (i.e., you fail, you either restart or quit the game) has actually led to that kind of behavior.

Of course Jeffery could just be anal.

Put another way: Play Mission X, expect Successful Outcome Y, fail. Options? Restart or quit. Play Mission X, expect Successful Outcome Y, succeed! Next mission. Now a game comes along with Successful Outcomes Y and Z but we for whatever reason have been conditioned that Success means one thing (victory!) and the game offers another thing (victory OR defeat but stripped of all resources) and we decide that's not very Successful after all.

Just a thought. Re-reading it kinda' sounds meandering. Maybe I need to go to bed. Heh.

Take care.
[/quote]

I think people lose the satisfaction when they know the possible outcomes and you don't get the outcome you want because you did X this way instead of doing it that way, and so on. And it's even harder to not let the player know that you've just eliminated the outcome you wish to achieve, because of all the guides/spoilers out there in the internet. Sure, those people can choose not to look up those guides, but it's like putting a cookie in a clear jar in front of a kid and telling them don't touch it. Some kids will not touch it and wait for the cookie to be handed to them, or they will just take it and go through punishment (in which case, it's the loss of satisfaction)

This makes me think...what if we, the players, have been TRAINED to play games a certain way?

Another poster asked if anybody knew of any games like Karnot is imagining. I haven't played a ton of games, but I can't think of any. Least of all the RTS games I used to play. Case in point, WHY did you figuratively bash your head on it trying to get a certain outcome instead of shrugging and moving on? And that's in a game that ALLOWS you to have variable outcomes! Did the game's other outcomes not provide enough satisfaction gameplay wise that you felt the need to keep trying until you got the one that WAS satisfying?

I proffer that years of playing games where there is NO such allowance (i.e., you fail, you either restart or quit the game) has actually led to that kind of behavior.

Quite possibly. In the circumstance I was positive there should be a better outcome, plus the outcome I got somewhat offended my moral sensibilities. FYI, the quest was "Beyond the Beef" where a member of a fancy society is trying to trick them back to their tribal cannibalistic roots. For me, any outcome where I didn't expose him and kill him was a job not done, even though I had technically completed the quest by saving their intended meal.

I only got the outcome I wanted using a walkthrough, which I can't help but do at times even though I know it reduces my enjoyment. Walkthroughs turn the saying "it's not the goal, it's the journey" on its head. The player believes the outcome will fulfil them, although following a walkthrough step by step often gives little fulfilment.

I think we have in a sense trained ourselves that anything less than the optimal outcome is failure.

I think people lose the satisfaction when they know the possible outcomes and you don't get the outcome you want because you did X this way instead of doing it that way, and so on. And it's even harder to not let the player know that you've just eliminated the outcome you wish to achieve, because of all the guides/spoilers out there in the internet. Sure, those people can choose not to look up those guides, but it's like putting a cookie in a clear jar in front of a kid and telling them don't touch it. Some kids will not touch it and wait for the cookie to be handed to them, or they will just take it and go through punishment (in which case, it's the loss of satisfaction)

Indeed. I actually think a little randomisation of designed levels/quests would be good to combat the walkthrough craze. I have heard that some people would be lost without the walkthroughs. Hmmm. Possibly, or maybe they just need to try the alternative.

What does concern me is when people want to see every possible ending and reload and replay from a specific point to get that specific outcome.

In the game i am designing they wont be able to.
I am building it up to be replayable. Perhaps not AS replayable as Civilization, but a substancial percentage of different content each playthrough. It will not be a "story" game. And in my mind there will be no bad/neutral/good endings. They will be simply different. As you brought up Fallout, think of what i want to do in the similar kind of thought as the endings for towns in Fallout, where narrator lists all the towns you've visited and how you have affected them. Some towns have different endings with different outcomes, sometimes none of those outcomes are good.

I'll give examples of endings i have in mind for my game : if you havent allied yourself with any of the warring nations you will get the "mercenary" ending, where it will detail how you've never found a worthy master, but waged war for the highest bidder. If you have allied yourself with your home nation and specifically the army - you will get "patriot" ending. Or you could become "pirate king". Or you could get "new home" ending, where you get a personal planet for your unit and live there peacefully.
These kinds of things. Basically its all gameplay-dependent, not story-dependent.

I'll tell you another thing, i am thinking of making some endings "non-guaranteed". By that i mean, that even if player does his very best - the particular ending will not be achievable in that particular playthrough (the player will not know if its achieveable or not, he can only strive, if he thinks he can do it). Things like "be personally responsible for stopping the global war".

This is a really interesting subject. Pressing the quicksave key every time you enter a new room is a huge immersion breaker.

You are right, but you are also so very wrong. In Gothic 3, I had just cleared out an entire area of Shadowbeasts, Bisons, and two Dragons. I probably spent 30 minutes up to an hour to get this stuff done, and there's absolutely no autosave or quicksave in the game. Then suddenly, a bugged Wild Boar went through the mountain itself, because the pathfinding in Gothic 3 is absolutely horrendous. And Wild Boars had, early on, a bugged attack that was impossible to get away from, so they could sometimes spam-attack you to death, no matter how strong you were. Suffice to say that I was not very happy that day.

Personally, I agree that Quicksave breaks immersion because it's a conscious action. But I'm all for Autosaving and I actually feel that any game that should have it and doesn't, are broken games. Personally, I prefer the consta-save of the Diablo series and of MMOs.

But I'm all for Autosaving and I actually feel that any game that should have it and doesn't, are broken games.

This is sort of a redundant statement. If a game -should- have something, and doesn't, then it is obviously broken. The question is whether a game should have autosaving.

Systems now I think are at the point where autosaving is pretty standard. It used to be a pain when you would get to a point, and the game would autosave but you'd have to wait for a minute or so for it to do so. I think this is where developers erred towards manual saving, so that the players themselves could choose when they wanted to be interrupted from their gamplay.

Taking current games - ME3, Diablo 3 - you don't need to give any conscious thought as to when to save, and you still won't lose much (if any) progression. That's something that most games should strive for.

Having autosaves ties in with the topic of progression after failure I think. After each mission (or decision/outcome) the game would autosave for the player to continue from that point - regardless of whether the player 'won' or 'lost'. If you limit the ability to manually save, and manually reload in order to backtrack, then you could guide the player to the thought of progressing as best as they can - rather than the automatic thought of reloading a previous point in order to strive for a better outcome.

[quote name='DrMadolite' timestamp='1335532703' post='4935373']
But I'm all for Autosaving and I actually feel that any game that should have it and doesn't, are broken games.

This is sort of a redundant statement. If a game -should- have something, and doesn't, then it is obviously broken. The question is whether a game should have autosaving.[/quote]

Well you got core features, but you also have additional features that should've been in a game, if everything was optimal and the developers had unlimited time and resources. But that doesn't mean that the game is broken otherwise. Cause then Diablo 3, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Half-Life 2, Farmville, Minecraft and more would all be broken games. And that's a pretty bold statement, if you ask me.

Taking current games - ME3, Diablo 3 - you don't need to give any conscious thought as to when to save, and you still won't lose much (if any) progression. That's something that most games should strive for.

I guess we can agree on something.