quote: Original post by JWSonikku
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.

Nope. A save game can NOT destroy the challenge of a game. You can never "ruin" a game by having save games. What it does allow though, is for lazy game designers to make games where saving is an absolute requirement to survive - THIS is what is wrong, not the actual save games.
If you can''t finish the game without saving (barring saving to only continue from the same point on), it''s too hard or badly designed.

Games need to be designed in such a way that having "Save Games" is not part of the gameplay, but simply a "convenience feature".


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.

*hugs MadKeithV*

Oookkaaaayyy... erm, sorry bout that old chap, I just got a little excited to see someone in here using some common sense Course I always knew you had plenty.

YES!! Repeated use of savegame == bad game design. People! Savegames are NOT a gameplay feature! When they are used as such it is WRONG no matter what. The savegame is merely a tool for the player to... *wait for it* ... save his progress! How he may use that to his advantage in a game is his business, not ours.

Okay on second thought I suppose there will be some RARE cases where savegames should be implemented differently. But I really can't think of any, so don't you waste anytime thinking of em either. I'm sure they'll pop up when you need em.

_________________________________________________________________

Drew Sikora
A.K.A. Gaiiden

ICQ #: 70449988
AOLIM: DarkPylat

Blade Edge Software
Staff Member, GDNet
Public Relations, Game Institute

3-time Contributing author, Game Design Methods , Charles River Media (coming GDC 2002)
Online column - Design Corner at Pixelate

NJ IGDA Chapter - NJ developers unite!! [Chapter Home | Chapter Forum]

quote: Original post by MadKeithV
Games need to be designed in such a way that having "Save Games" is not part of the gameplay, but simply a "convenience feature".

MKV, as Moderator of this forum I''m going to have to ask you to stop posting in that font. (Just kidding!!!! Welcome back, very good to see ya!)


Seriously, this is a good observation. But what feature do you think should replace the "save and explore game branches" phenomenon. Let''s say you''re halfway through a cRPG and you want to see the effects of a critical decision that could go either way.

If you''re trying to get away from making saves part of gameplay, you end up with either:
A) Outcomes the player can''t explore unless the play through the entire game again, making choices exactly the same until they get to where they would have saved

B) Some kind of abnormal "go back in time" feature, which doesn''t work for all games.

Other than that problem, I agree with you, though.




--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

I''ve decided to condense this thread and the other one into a design article on Save Games. I''ve tried to keep from writing and go back to coding but I can''t resist Must...write...articles..... No worry, I won''t butcher anyone''s viewpoints, it''ll be an open article on all the possibilities, but will stress that savegames are not gameplay and are usually the result of bad gameplay.

_________________________________________________________________

Drew Sikora
A.K.A. Gaiiden

ICQ #: 70449988
AOLIM: DarkPylat

Blade Edge Software
Staff Member, GDNet
Public Relations, Game Institute

3-time Contributing author, Game Design Methods , Charles River Media (coming GDC 2002)
Online column - Design Corner at Pixelate

NJ IGDA Chapter - NJ developers unite!! [Chapter Home | Chapter Forum]

Save games can play an important role in games where dying results in loss of progress. Playing such a game for weeks only to die and start over from the very beginning will result in angry, frustrated players. Allowing players to secure their progress after signigicant events may be a necessary element of game design in these kinds of games. Thinks like save spots, then, are a way to divide progress into manageable stages.

I suppose this saving of progress might better be done transparently. Whenever you die you are brought back to the latest checkpoint, as defined by the game designer. You can then combine this with the ability to suspend and resume the game at any point, or with MadKeithV's "game state to disk" idea.

Edited by - chronos on December 21, 2001 12:59:58 AM

Noone mentionned yet the OUTCAST saving system.
You''ve an item you can activate at any time provided no ennemy is in the neighborhood.
The ingame explenation is that the activation produce noise and light, making the ennemies know that you''re there.

So this is a circumstances restriction, maybe some more restrictions can be made for other games.

I think we (game designers) shouldn''t take decisions for the players, most players likes to save when they want, so this is the way to go, we aren''t here to make games fun for ourselves but for the players.

Another point is that I prefer when saving is integrated into the game (like the outcast saving ''essence'' item).

my 0.02 cents of euro.

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

i agree with both madkeith and gaiiden, save games should be not be a design feature, "but simply a ''convenience feature''". sure, like saving keyboard configurations, or setting gamma correction. those are convenience features; their impact on the actual gameplay is minimal (or at least should be). the game should play the same regardless of graphics setting, for example. The problem with save games is that they can affect gameplay much more significantly than other ''features''. generally being able to save at every point in time undermines the whole system of problem solving and trivializes challenges.

I just spent an hour watching my brother (not the greatest game player ever) playing red faction. he would enter and room and save, proceed to get himself killed in clearing a room, reload and then clean out the room without losing hardly any health. He did this dance time and time again, losing as little health as possible. I tried telling him he needed to strafe and shoot, to keep moving and aim for the head, etc, but he never learned. he would empty a clip over a guys shoulder into a wall, reload standing still, and wonder why he died. Being able to reload discouraged him from learning to play the game ''better''. This is my problem with ''free saving'' (save anytime, anywhere). You don''t need to learn, to get better.

In sports, you can''t stop mid-game, ask everyone to remember where they are so you can try a move, and then if it doesn''t work out ask them to go back so you can try it again. If you miss the tackle, they score. If you drop the pass, you have to fix it; you can''t just go back and try again. Next time though you''ll keep your eye on the ball.

<(o)>

First off, Not matter how a player plays the game with mutiliple saves or not should not be you concern. As long as they play the game, and make you money RIGHT!

Ok not that off my chest, here is a diffrenet veiw on saves. Make a different ending for a person who does multiple saves and the regular ending for those saves a few times ei more than 10 or so, and a way cool ending for they player with the least saves.

But again it should not be part of a game design, most gamers out there cheat with game shark or other hacks anyway...

quote: Original podt by adastra
Being able to reload discouraged him from learning to play the game ''better''. This is my problem with ''free saving'' (save anytime, anywhere). You don''t need to learn, to get better.

Hmm, adastra, you made a very good point there. The player could unknowingly be limiting himself through constant saving instead of developing his skills. The best thing to do is bring this to the player''s attention somehow, but not by limiting the amount of saves. You see there is a balance that must be struck. In your scenario, the player is limiting his ability to improve. If we only let the player save at certain times, then we would be forcing the player to improve. And I bet people like your brother would just get frustrated and stop playing if they can''t make it to the next save point. So we have to find some middle ground where we make sure the player gains skill and enjoys the game, but don''t force him to do so, because that''s simply bad game design and makes the assumption that everyone is a hardcore gamer.

_________________________________________________________________

Drew Sikora
A.K.A. Gaiiden

ICQ #: 70449988
AOLIM: DarkPylat

Blade Edge Software
Staff Member, GDNet
Public Relations, Game Institute

3-time Contributing author, Game Design Methods , Charles River Media (coming GDC 2002)
Online column - Design Corner at Pixelate

NJ IGDA Chapter - NJ developers unite!! [Chapter Home | Chapter Forum]

First, I believe that player should not be penalized or be limited with regard to saving a game.

Second, the problem is a loading issue, not saving.

Remember, the act of steping on a save point, open up a menu, and click a button to save the game, have absolutely zero effect on the gameplay. But the process of loading a game would refresh an older character file, locations, npcs, etc... have an absolute change effect on the gameplay.

Sooo... my answer is pretty simple, penalized the players on loading. And what people hate the most about loading is ofcourse the load time, so there should be a dynamic penalize system that would increase or decrease the load time by comparing the differences in time between the current load and the pervious load attempt, then use that value to consult a table of how many load per minute different skill levels the player would perform.

rank / time between the loads / penality
1. average - 1 hour - no penality
2 - 40 min - 3 sec penality
3 - 20 min - 5 sec penality
4 - 10 min - 10 sec
5 - 5 min - 15 sec
6 - 2 min - 30 sec

Say a player starts a brand new game (automatic assigned rank 1)and he first reloads 15 minutes into the game, the rank would go up one and he becomes rank 2 with a 3 sec penality while loading. Now he reloads a second time with the same 15 minutes difference, he moves up one more to become rank 3 and 5 sec penality. After that... he got better in the game and only needed to reload 1 hour later, he drops back to rank 2 with a 3 sec penality. This way, if someone keeps repeatly abuse the loading every 2 minutes... they would be forced to wait a good 30 seconds and wise up. (Well... even better if you fed the player with some helpful strategy tip that would help his gameplay during the loading time.)

Not sure if this post help the discussion. Hmm.