Let''s assume that there would be enough players wanting to pay for a game where they are only allowed to play each level once (this could be done with an online strategy, but I''m not really interested about the technical details - keep in mind that this is a single player game, or a multiplayer with few players at most - not an MMO anyway). Of course, levels would be separate scenarios, because if getting killed in the first level loses the entire game this would mean all the money paid for the game are lost - unacceptable. What would the design benefits of such a game be, and how significant would they be? Excellent immersion comes to mind - no savegame cheating, everything is almost as in reality : one wrong step and it''s over for good. No need for the ridiculously hard points the savegame based games can''t live without either. Making more levels available as time goes by means that many players don''t have access to walkthroughs. This could be also helped if some parts of the scenario are randomized (like starting player position, some NPCs configurations, etc.) Complete walkthroughs would be harder to create, as the players cannot explore everything about the level. A competition among players (best 10 scores in first 10 days after a new level gets out win a free level to play) could also mean that those that finish the levels good are not interested in sharing knowledge.

quote: Original post by Diodor
Let''s assume that there would be enough players wanting to pay for a game where they are only allowed to play each level once

I think a lot of people would be willing to pay for it. There''s something special about being one of the Privileged Few if that chance may be forever lost in the future. Look up psychological reactance theory for more details. This would require that you ran ''one-off'' events, rather than ''any given player can play any given scenario once'' events, however, which isn''t quite what you suggested. Still, food for thought.

quote: Excellent immersion comes to mind - no savegame cheating, everything is almost as in reality : one wrong step and it''s over for good.

Agreed: except for some people it would put them off, as any such game that was considered to be too hard for them would no longer be playable.

quote: No need for the ridiculously hard points the savegame based games can''t live without either.

The flip-side of this: you have to be especially careful not to design parts of the game that turn out to be too hard.

I think it could work well for wargames or the tactical team-based FPS games. Or indeed any kind of strategy, I guess. You could pre-release a map 10 minutes before the battle started, so people could discuss tactics, and then fight it out. You''d move emphasis from trial-and-error to planning.

quote: Original post by Diodor

What would the design benefits of such a game be, and how significant would they be?

Excellent immersion comes to mind - no savegame cheating, everything is almost as in reality : one wrong step and it''s over for good.

No need for the ridiculously hard points the savegame based games can''t live without either.

Yup. And no extra time wasted saving the game.

I would not play a 60 hour RPG if I couldn''t save, but a 25-50 minute one I might play.


Imagine playing a D&D Adventure that you couldn''t save? If I couldn''t save in Baldurs Gate I probably would never have gotten past Nashkels Iron Mines.

If your going to make a game that you can''t save, and that game is going to be long, it has to be interesting at all times. If your game is not interesting, people will need to save and take breaks.

Artificial intelligence is the devil... resist intelligent NPC''s

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster... when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you..."~Friedrich Nietzsche

You might actually want to break away from a linear storyline. I envision that every time a level comes out, players get to preview it for ten minutes, and then it''s game on. if a player completes the level successfully, they get one point, if they don''t they get zero, and if they complete it and find all the secrets (impressive because remember that they only get one try) then they get two points. Then, on a ranking page, there is a counter showing points / levels attempted

My other thought is that you might want to make this a gang warfare game, much like the X-com series, but I would go more for a feeling like Necromunda, if you''ve ever played it. I''ll assume that you use my point system, every point, translates to 100 credits the player can spend buying equipment for his/her gang to carry out the next levels. Any gang members who die are resurrected with full stats for 50 points.

George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

I would get pi$$ed off if I took one wrong step and it was all over for good and wheres the fun in just getting punished for not doing the best?

Well overload isn''t that a bit like life- screw up once and it can affect the rest of your life. Maybe messing up shouldn''t result in death rather it could mean that everything else got harder for you or your successes were smaller.

Make the game start with a really easy level, then get gradually more difficult at a slow rate, so even awful players can get a fair way into the game, but only the best can finish. The further the player gets, the more respect he may deserve. Let the game be capable of saving in only one slot when you quit, and return back to that slot every time you go back. The path through the game may be started once only, it may be left for lengthy spells, but returned to at any time. It may not be restarted. Once death occurs, no returns are allowed.

There''s one really interesting advantage of this type of layout: you can really generate interest for any one level because players won''t get to see it again. Think several different episodes of an online "Survivor" or game show. You could even entice folks with real prizes. Could be sweet. ;-)

RJ

I fancy that the structure may be a little bit more liberal than Cpt. Insanity suggested.

The reason I suggested gang warfare, was that the idea I have is somewhat along the lines of going through a set of missions (possibly on a sequence tree) wherein there is only one save-slot per gang you create, and if you mess up the mission you have just go on with the next one.

Anyone here who has Syndicate Wars should try playing "Mortal Campaign" mode. No replaying missions, auto-save at the end of every successful mission, and if you loose a mission then it''s game over for you.

George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

Diodor et al.,

To me, this sounds like it would work a lot better as an option than as a mandatory core to a game. Something like the Cow Level in Diablo II; you only get three chances to play it, and can''t go back if you leave.

Perhaps you get to play one Hardcore campaign as part of a contest; each copy of the game has a Hardcore Locked campaign, with different levels than the rest of the game. Play the normal game for a while first to get your skills up, then when you''re ready you can break the seal on the Hardcore campaign. You then get exactly one chance to play the Hardcore mode. You can save your game, but can only resume from that point and can''t reload if you lose. You mus play through the entire Hardcore campaign to win the contest. If you die, the Hardcore levels are deleted and may not be retrieved. Since the players can play through the other sections of the game to get plenty of practice beforehand, you can make the Hardcore levels as nasty as you like. If players can make their character more powerful by replaying the game multiple times (like Extra Mode in Parasite Eve) the Hardcore levels could be designed around total monster characters. If you finish the Hardcore campaign, you get a passcode unique to your copy of the game; be one of the first X to send in the passcode and the CD key and claim your prize. Now it becomes a gamble: do I try the Hardcore levels now, knowing that I might not be powerful enough to beat them and thus miss out forever, or do I wait, knowing that others might be speeding ahead to win the contest?

As for having it as an integral part of the game, I''d rather not play such a frustrating-sounding game, especially as I really like replaying levels to find all the cool stuff in them. However, that''s just me, and if you can find others who like the idea, more power to you.

Reloading my savegame for the 47th time (damned, damned game!),
SpittingTrashcan