i believe black and white uses that continual save type of system...either that or it locks up temporarily on me at regular intervals ...
i have thought about implementing only one save game spot in an rpg i'm working on. it is basically like a quick save in other games. every time you save you write over your previous save. this type of system would require two things from the game: 1). the player is not 'punished' (ie killed) everytime they make a mistake. 2). the player cannot find themselves in situations where they are absolutely stuck. for example, they wander around and slip off a cliff, and get stuck in some little pit they just can't quite get out of, and then accidently save the game pounding the keyboard in frustration. that would be bad. if such a situation were possible, it would be necessary to for instance give the player the ability to scale almost any kind of surface, or a spell to levitate out, or some other way. there should also be more than one or two solutions to any problem, and at least one that would not require anything besides what the player is guaranteed to possess. i have played a couple games where you need a certain item at a certain point, but i didn't have it, and i could not go back and get it, and i had no save game to revert to. when this happens at the very end of a game, violence ensues.
lucas arts adventure games did a good job of this (i am thinking of monkey island in particular). if you screw up and waste an important item, no harm done, you can get another. you didn't arbitrarily die either, like in some sierra adventure games i've played.
<(o)>
Edited by - aDasTRa on December 26, 2001 4:55:12 PM
Personally, wether or not you want to allow saved games depends on the game you''re creating. My Deluxe Pacman game has no save games. I think if you want to limit the number of saved games you could have waypoints, or you could limit the number of saved games a person can have, maybe to one save game on disk, again, depending on the game, they could regret overwriting a previous saved game when they realize they forgot to grab the rope that is important if they wish to get down the cliff to the golden idol bla blah blahh... if the person has to leave thier computer suddenly you could add in a "SAVE AND EXIT" option that would save the current game state and exit, reloading it when they play next time, with a seperate in game "SAVE & PLAY" option that is more limiting.
I think some game become too easy when a player is allowed to save as often as they like, it is almost like a cheat, when someone''s friend beat the game with hardly any saves at all. There definately needs to be a penalty for too many saves on certain games in my opinion.
quote:
Original post by Neil Roy I think some game become too easy when a player is allowed to save as often as they like, it is almost like a cheat, when someone's friend beat the game with hardly any saves at all.
Yes, but how can you fault the player when he's obvisouly making the decision himself to play the game in this manner? I understand the want of designers to make sure people play the game the way they are supposed to (the way the designer envisions it should be played), it makes it feel worthless to know that people are "cheating" through it like that and not making use of all these wonderful gameplay elements you created. But in doing so you hold in your head the image of the general public being complete nincompoops who can't do things for themselves! My point doesn't seem to be getting across. Different people find different means of satisfaction. For one person, they may just want to see the end of the game, who cares about the rest! They just want to finish. On the other hand, some people like to challenge themselves by making things difficult, and thus saving only after they are done playing for the time being. As game designers its our job to give the player the option of playing the game the way they feel like it, and not to dictate the way a game is to be played. In doing so you're accomplishing nothing but alienating a certain part of the general public. Always remember that it's them who are shelling out the $50 to play your game, doesn't this entitle to them the right to play it however they damn want to? I'm not mad, just trying to get people to see what I'm saying here.
quote:
Original post by Gaiiden I understand the want of designers to make sure people play the game the way they are supposed to (the way the designer envisions it should be played), it makes it feel worthless to know that people are "cheating" through it like that and not making use of all these wonderful gameplay elements you created. But in doing so you hold in your head the image of the general public being complete nincompoops who can''t do things for themselves! My point doesn''t seem to be getting across.
It took me a long time to get over my inherent dislike of "branching" savegames - I finally did get "your point" though (in one of the long save-game discussions earlier in the year). I''m the kind of player that ends up with 25 save games on disk, but NEVER using another save game than the last one I made. It''s all too easy to apply this "logic" to games I''m designing, thinking everyone is the same - but everyone isn''t! So, if I ever get to finish making a game, it will have a "branching save" option for the players that want it. I will also definately have the "continual saved state" on disk, so that a player does not need to think about saving when stopping for dinner or somesuch. It would also make the game exit almost instantly when you choose to stop, no tedious waiting while it suddenly decides to do all sorts of things on your hard drive .
I MAY be annoying though, and put a nag screen up every time the player wants to do a "branching save", with something akin to the following message: "This game does not really require additional saves - you can attempt different paths within the same game. Are you sure you wish to branch?".
But, if you''re making a long game that requires a saved game state of some sort, don''t take the choice away from the player. He or she will simply be annoyed that you decided to take something widely available in other games away.
People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
It's only funny 'till someone gets hurt.And then it's just hilarious.Unless it's you.
In some cases, quick save and quick load is very cool.
But in some cases, a stupid programmers, put the key very closely. For example. F5 for load, F6 for save. If you made a mistake, you lost everything. Think about Tombraider, where you must go to a complex route, you are in the middle, then save the game. And for a mistake you fall down, then you fastly press load-key.. if you press save-key, you are "doomed" :-(
My point is that "branching save" is CHEAT.
----------------------------------------------- "Cuando se es peon, la unica salida es la revolución"
-----------------------------------------------"Cuando se es peon, la unica salida es la revolución"
quote:
Original post by eng3d My point is that "branching save" is CHEAT.
It can''t be a cheat if it''s a well-advertised built in mechanism. Some of us CONSIDER it a cheat, because it detracts from the "realism" of the experience - you can''t roll back time in real life. However, many a game player considers the "branching save" indispensible to his or her gaming experience. I would expect that particularly RPG players like to try out different choices at a specific juncture. If you make an RPG without branching saves, it better be REALLY good, or you will instantly alienate all the "branching save"-players.
People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
It's only funny 'till someone gets hurt.And then it's just hilarious.Unless it's you.
quote:
Original post by eng3d My point is that "branching save" is CHEAT.
See?? See?? Dictatorship in action right there!! You may consider it a cheat, but casual gamers may see it as a means to finishing the game in a timely manner (not wasting time repeating stuff, like I''m doing right now! ). Not all people play games the same way.
Like I said, I like MadKeithV''s constant save deal, and if the overhead were small enough I''d implement it in a game with the option for the user to set the number of copies it makes, so for instance if someone wants to save back a while, he may choose to allow 5 checkpoints to remain from the autosave. When the game saves next, the checkpoints are shifted down one each. This lets people who want to go back go back.
As for the rest of the ideas, you''re all wasting your time. I think people are thinking about this waaaay too much. The magazines and everyone complain about games that don''t let you save when you want to, so the obvious solution is to let people save whenever they want! You made the game sure, but John Q. Public is the one playing it give him the choice to play how he wants.
It''s not really possible to keep all the people happy at one time - there is no real ''optimal'' save game system. They all have their flaws, as such, but I''ll try and go through as many as I know and list their pros and cons, as such:
SAVE-WHEN-YOU-WANT. PROS: * The player can engage in a quick 5 minute game before nipping off to work. * In some games, this is more or less necessary (such as Max Payne, where you more or less NEED to save before going into each room at first, as you''ll be killed very, very quickly). CONS: * Arguably destroys the challenge of games (or makes them hugely frustrating) - no skill is required to just kill one enemy, run out of the room, save, and kill the next enemy.
SAVE POINTS. PROS: * Eliminates the above point about destroying the challenge of games. * Much, much easier save-files to deal with. ;-) CONS: * Unpredictable locations in some cases - the player has no idea whether the next save point is ten minutes away, or two hours away.
''SAVE ITEMS'' / SAVE-X-TIMES-PER_DAY. PROS: * Encourages strategic saving and careful planning. * Gives the player a greater freedom of being able to save their game. CONS: * The player usually doesn''t know how long the level is - if they use a save point once every 30 minutes or so, only to find that the level they''re on is exponentially gigantic and they just have a Feeble Pop-Gun +3 Lightning Enhanced, then they may well just be screwed.
SAVE-ON-THE-FLY PROS: * Again, easy to just play a game for 5 minutes before going off to work or something. * Does create a more ''spontaneous'' game (see below). CONS: * This is a potentially dangerous system. Phantasy Star Online used this, and it''s comically easy to end with corrupted save-files - what if the user has a power cut and - lo and behold, their precious RAmar Level 87 with HYPER OMEGA DEATH RAYGUN +24 is nothing more than an error message saying ''YOU HAVE THE IRREGULAR DATA'' - you can end up with some extremely unhappy players. * Can be highly irritating in RPGs if you end up making a horrendous fatal mistake (e.g.: Accidently choosing ''50 GP for THAT?! You suck!'' in a dialogue option instead of ''I would like to buy a pretty flower off you, yes.'') and can''t go back and change it - on the other hand, this makes Role Playing Games a lot more realistic; you wouldn''t be able to reload a saved game in real life!
Personally, I prefer different types of save game for different genres, for RPGS, I much prefer the idea of save points or save-when-you-want (but at the start of a dungeon with only your character details saved, e.g. ''Crusader of Centy'' or ''Diablo II'').
For short action games, I prefer the idea of saving at the start of each level - preferably through choice rather than automatic (therefore, ''Megaman X4-6'' as opposed to ''Sonic Adventure'').
For longer action games, I prefer to save when I like (this applies to most FPS games) - although, ''Alien versus Predator'' did a nice job with the ''Save-X-Times-Per-Level'' system, giving you a different amount depending on the skill level you were playing the game at).
...
.
). Not all people play games the same way.