The encounters should be dynamic and satisfying enough such that if you just use reasonable tactics, and have fun doing so (the most important part), you should be able to come out victorious.

It should be such that you die only if you make a really stupid mistake. And surviving shouldn't be by mere luck.

That way, the saves are for those severe brain farts that cause you to meet an untimely demise, making you realize you need to try a different approach.

If you know where everything is, it should only makes things that much easier, not that much more possible. (Special ammo, healing, hidden enemies, etc.)

Saves should be a convenience, not a necessity. And if they cause the player to be a little more reckless because they know they can just reload, that's their perogative. Have you ever tried a different way of doing things just to challenge yourself? Most decent games offer that as well.

I thought JK2 was well handled though. It wasn't often that I had to reload, just mostly when I was fighting those annoying Dark Jedi, dealing with the snipers, and executing a bad jump. Being able to force heal and needing mostly only the lightsaber was a good design. Instead of hoping the next room had ammo or healing, you could just pause and heal up, draw your saber and go for it.

On another note, being reckless and pulling off an aggressive maneuver does have its own satisfaction. Players might play more carefully, reducing the enjoyment of the game, if saves weren't so available.

When in doubt, make it an option choosable by the player, so they can set their own difficulty.

[edited by - Waverider on April 25, 2002 4:03:17 PM]

[edited by - Waverider on April 25, 2002 4:03:43 PM]

One thing I''ve ALWAYS wanted to see in a game is some sort of difficulty controls besides the standard "easy medium hard" cliche. For example, this would be a cool way, IMHO, to set up a difficulty system for your typical FPS:


Your weapon damage rating: 0.5 to 2x in increments of 0.1
Enemy weapon damage: .75 to 1.5x in increments of 0.1
Item rarity: Very rare to Very common
Recharge/upgrade rarity: Very rare to Very Common


And then these various settings would affect your total score, or how much gold you get, or some aspect of the game so that players are encouraged to play it harder and not just be sissies with all kinds of items, powerups, and wussy enemies.


Am I off the wall, or is this a good solution to the dilemma?

Apoch
Lead Developer
The Freon Project

A more innovative solution to the save problem is to make the game so fast pace that hitting a weird key like F7 would take too long. Instead of a long hallway with a lot of side rooms where stormtroopers ambush you, open one and when the guys fire at you, all the others open up and they all come running to the source of the sound. That way, only if you decide not to open any of the doors or if you''ve killed all of the enemies can you save.

And by the way, it takes quite a bit of patience to stay alert for a long time, so your AI should probably take into account response time. Having someone run at you with a weapon is quite a disturbing experience, so unless their trigger''s already on the trigger, waiting for a target, they aren''t going to be able to respond immediately.

And why are doors so strong? A rocket launcher should be able to at least knock a door open. That would allow a suspicious player to simply fire two explosive weapons at a door, the first to destroy the door, the second to obliterate any ambush.

It seems to me the whole save thing works best when its part of the feel or design of the game. I liked resident evils feel where you had to find typewriter tapes to save.

I agree that it would often have been more convient or easier to have the game set up so I could quicksave. But It was 100% more supensful (I think the point of that game). When I had to really think about if I could waste my limited save resources.

The solotion to the problem is to make it so however you chose to do saving its part of the reality you present with the game. Were jk2 is conserned...

I havent played the game much but as I remeber from star wars couldnt Jedi see the future and things of that sort? I think it would be cool if you could develope force powers that would let you go into another mode of the game where you try something out. (say opening a door) and then you see what happens...You could only be in "future mode" for a limited amout of time. But you could see what happens when you open the door or cross the bridge. Then when you run out of future time. (or die) you are put back to where you entered future mode. That way it accoplishes the same thing as saving and quickloading, but it doesnt break down the feel of the game.

Just my 2cents.

Vinsent

Different gamers have different playing styles. Some like to save often and others don''t mind if they get sent back to the beginning of a level. Why would you want to limit the player''s choice regarding how they like to play? Set it up so they can save whenever they like. If they find saving ruins the flow, they won''t do it. If they feel like saving every five minutes, they will. I''m not sure why you would want to turn saving into a gameplay issue.

You have to give the player the tools they need within the game to accomplish their objectives. Forcing a type of saving style on a player is only going to tick people off, as we''ve seen in many cases (AvP was one...they had to release a patch that enabled intra-mission saving because players were so pissed off). Console games have always relied on unconventional saving methodologies becase for the longest time you weren''t able to truly save a game on them, but I don''t think these systems need to find their way into PC gaming.

How about a type of progressive savegame? If the game continuosly saved its delta state, to reload, a player would simply have to "rewind" the game. It also would allow instant replays and even whole level replays.

The one catch would be the design and implementation of a continuous save mechanism that wouldn''t bog down the rest of the game.

Korvan

Tacit - I have alt-tabbed from JK2 a couple of times. It''s horribly slow because it appears to reload everything as if from a quicksave, but it works. I''m on WinXP if that makes a diff.

I have two examples to point out here of right and wrong ways to handle this saving thing.

The bad one is Project IGI which, although buggy on certain configurations, I thought was a great game totally destroyed by lack of a save feature. Some of those missions required great stealth and patience, and on more than one occasion I spent over half an hour on a level before dying and being forced to start over. You can only suffer through that severe frustration so many times before you give up on the game. There aren''t even any cheat codes in the game so I have yet to see half of it (I''m guessing, since I have no idea how many levels are in the game).

The good one is the original Soldier of Fortune. Correct me if I''m thinking of another game, but you get a certain number of saves per level depending on what difficulty level you select. I think that was a nearly perfect balance of preserving tension while not frustrating the player.

What you have written is highly incorrect. Let''s see why.

quote: Original post by Tacit
Different gamers have different playing styles. Some like to save often and others don''t mind if they get sent back to the beginning of a level. Why would you want to limit the player''s choice regarding how they like to play?

Because you are making a game, not Visual C++. Some players like Mario, some players like CounterStrike. Does that mean my next game should have a toggle between Mario mode and CounterStrike mode?

Or, take Fallout Tactics. Some players like turn-based, some players like real-time. So Fallout Tactics gives you the option to play either a poor turn-based mode or a poor real-time mode. Yay. If they had dumped one of those modes and focused on making the remaining one good it would have been a much better game.

Limiting options for the player is what the designer does. If you don''t believe that, I''ll sell you a game called "Compiler + Programming Guide."

Now, what you are talking about is a bit different, but not as different as you would think. People choose immediate gain over longer-term gain, even if the long-term gain is better in the end. That is human nature.

Why not create a game where pressing ''k'' will instantly kill all enemies on screen? After all, if you think that makes the game too easy, just don''t press it!

A good example of this is Doom. (Or Doom2, I forget) Out of the people I know, people who played before the cheat codes were released had much more fun than people who played after. Because the people who played after, as soon as they reached a frustrating part, just entered "god mode." Sure, that WAS their choice, but in the end it made the game less fun for them. People don''t always make good decisions. It''s like people who are trying to lose weight but keep eating dessert. Next time they come over do them a favor and don''t offer them any. They''ll thank you later.

quote:
Set it up so they can save whenever they like. If they find saving ruins the flow, they won''t do it. If they feel like saving every five minutes, they will.

If only real life was like that. There is a very large category of people you have neglected: people that know saving and reloading ruins the flow, but do it anyway. For many games this is the predominant player behavior.

quote:
Forcing a type of saving style on a player is only going to tick people off, as we''ve seen in many cases

Which is why console games are extremely unpopular...

quote:
Console games have always relied on unconventional saving methodologies becase for the longest time you weren''t able to truly save a game on them

The battery backup was invented in what, 1986? That''s 15 years or so of saving ability...

About games that piss people off because of lack of saving anywhere...very rarely is the lack of saving the ROOT of the problem. The *real* problem is in random death, bad difficulty curves, etc. If the player needs to be able to save and reload anywhere, as often as they like, the game is messed up. Allowing people to save anywhere is just a band-aid that doesn''t address the real problem.

In a good game, the designers should be aware of where the difficult parts are and plan accordingly. In console games you can usually save before a boss battle, for example.

I beg to differ. It seems to me, that what you have written is highly incorrect. Let's see why...

quote: Original post by AnonPoster

Because you are making a game, not Visual C++. Some players like Mario, some players like CounterStrike. Does that mean my next game should have a toggle between Mario mode and CounterStrike mode?

Of course not. I made a point that console games have their own save game paradigms, and that they should not filter their way onto the PC platform. Do you think if they'd had the option to allow save games at any time from the get go, console developers would have still adopted these limited save game systems? I doubt it. The gameplay evolved from the limitations of the platform. Those platform limitations no longer exist...so why impose them unnecessarily?

quote:
Or, take Fallout Tactics. Some players like turn-based, some players like real-time. So Fallout Tactics gives you the option to play either a poor turn-based mode or a poor real-time mode. Yay. If they had dumped one of those modes and focused on making the remaining one good it would have been a much better game.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. Can you draw the correlation a little more clearly?

quote:
Limiting options for the player is what the designer does. If you don't believe that, I'll sell you a game called "Compiler + Programming Guide."

Now you're just being condescending. The designer limits options for the player so that the player doesn't 'break' the game. In my opinion, forcing a particular playing style on the gamer (whether to save often or rarely) is the result of an overly limited design. A designer should strive to create a gameplay environment that accomodates as many different gamers as possible within the constraints of the genre. If this means leaving the save system open-ended, I don't see how that detracts from the gaming experience. Forcing these kinds of limitations on the player might have been ok ten years ago, but we've started moving beyond this model into systems that support more 'emergent' gameplay. Those systems fall apart when you begin limiting the player for no particular reason other than that you only want to offer a completely linear experience.

quote:
Now, what you are talking about is a bit different, but not as different as you would think. People choose immediate gain over longer-term gain, even if the long-term gain is better in the end. That is human nature.

I don't disagree with this. But, saving is a game decision made by the player, not by the game character. Every time you make the player decide something independently from the character, you remind them that they are only playing a game and not experiencing a virtual reality. Choosing immediate gain over long-term gain is an interesting conundrum which should be supported by the actual game storyline. In my opinion, this shouldn't be diluted to a decision between whether I should save now or later.

quote:
Why not create a game where pressing 'k' will instantly kill all enemies on screen? After all, if you think that makes the game too easy, just don't press it!

Well, your example is extreme and a bit silly, but there are cheats for most games which allow me to play through them without getting killed. I know developers put these in for testing purposes...but they leave them in post-development because they know gamers want to have those options. And if you don't want to cheat...nobody is forcing you to. But I don't think being able to save whenever you like is the same thing as cheating. It's just making a decision between only having to redo 5 minutes of gaming vs. having to redo 20 minutes of gaming. I don't know about you, but I buy games to have fun...not to be told how to have fun or that I have to redo stuff I've already done. That kind of stuff is a waste of my time and if you as a designer choose to waste my time then I will choose not to buy your game.

quote:
A good example of this is Doom. (Or Doom2, I forget) Out of the people I know, people who played before the cheat codes were released had much more fun than people who played after. Because the people who played after, as soon as they reached a frustrating part, just entered "god mode." Sure, that WAS their choice, but in the end it made the game less fun for them. People don't always make good decisions. It's like people who are trying to lose weight but keep eating dessert. Next time they come over do them a favor and don't offer them any. They'll thank you later.

How do they know it made the game less fun for them? Maybe you're the one who felt cheated, because they didn't have to struggle needlessly when they didn't want to. Don't forget...as a designer, you're there to create a game gamers want to play...not one that only you want to play. I believe in free choice, not in forcing something on people. And if they decide they want to cheat when things get difficult, then so be it. Whether they are losing out or having a less enjoyable experience is a subjective judgment. You say they will enjoy the game less by cheating. I say, they will enjoy the game less if they get stuck in a particular area for a week straight and decide to stop playing. I know this happens a lot -- people quitting a game out of frustration. Heck, I've often considered it myself when playing a particularly difficult game. I read a statistic that something like 60% of games aren't played through to the end. Maybe you think it's more important that 40% of gamers finish your game, but I'd rather 100% of them finish a game even if it means they used cheats (or saved often) to do so.

quote:
If only real life was like that. There is a very large category of people you have neglected: people that know saving and reloading ruins the flow, but do it anyway. For many games this is the predominant player behavior.

Ok, well I guess you are the facist game developer who feels they have to decide exactly how a gamer should experience their title. Games should be designed to encourage player choice, not limit them. And I haven't neglected those people at all. They are the people who will be accomodated by designing games who's flow is not destroyed by a gamer saving and loading whenever they like.

quote:
Which is why console games are extremely unpopular...

By what metric do you measure this? Because as far as I can tell, looking at the unit sales figures it seems to me that console games are more popular than ever...

quote:
The battery backup was invented in what, 1986? That's 15 years or so of saving ability...

Yes, and there had been about 10 years of games developed without the benefit of save-game devices. And a lot of the principles founded in those ten years are still used today...which is part of the problem.

quote:
About games that piss people off because of lack of saving anywhere...very rarely is the lack of saving the ROOT of the problem. The *real* problem is in random death, bad difficulty curves, etc. If the player needs to be able to save and reload anywhere, as often as they like, the game is messed up. Allowing people to save anywhere is just a band-aid that doesn't address the real problem.

I would argue that not allowing gamers to save and load where they like is the bandaid. I agree that random death, steep (and poorly planned) learning curves, etc. are part of the problem. But I don't think what you propose is the solution. And so far in my experience as a game player, I've never felt like my propensity to save often has detracted from my enjoyment of the game, or 'messed a game up'. I've only found that when a designer chose for me that I cannot save when I like, this greatly detracted from my enjoyment to the point where I'd rather not play their game. Maybe I'm in a minority...but I don't think so.

quote:
In a good game, the designers should be aware of where the difficult parts are and plan accordingly. In console games you can usually save before a boss battle, for example.

Ok, let's talk about a 'good' game, whatever that is. What if I, the player, on a complete whim want to see if I can survive jumping down to a platform far below. I'll do better -- I'll give you a real game example. In JK2, in the level where you're in the city with all the high catwalks and flying cars zipping around (forget the city name, sorry), at one point I found it was not clear exactly where I was supposed to go. For about half an hour I tried leaping from catwalk to catwalk, to see if I could get into any of the doorways I could see far below. If I didn't have the choice to save my game before taking a leap of faith, I wouldn't have had the freedom to explore the game world more fully. It's true that I was able to reach low platforms that didn't go anywhere...platforms I obviously wasn't meant to explore. But, if I hadn't been able to sabe/load whenever I liked, I would have died many many times trying to find out where the heck I was supposed to go next. This is just one example out of hundreds I could give you where the ability to save on command made my playing experience my fuller and more enjoyable.

Your comment about being able to save before boss battles does a good job at supporting my point. Your argument also seems biased towards console titles, while mine is biased towards PC titles. Still, if console developers choose to limit their players in the way you seem to be championing, I have no fears that consoles will supercede the PC as the preferred platform of enthusiast gamers. It's all about freedom, baby.

As an aside, I think Volition did an excellent job with Red Faction. The save/load times are extremely fast and there is almost no waiting between level loading.

R.

[edited by - Tacit on April 29, 2002 11:26:33 AM]

quote: Original post by AnonPoster
Because you are making a game, not Visual C++. Some players like Mario, some players like CounterStrike. Does that mean my next game should have a toggle between Mario mode and CounterStrike mode?

Of course, the same logic applies in reverse: Strip out options ad absurdum. No difficulty modes, no control customization, no character customization; hey, even remove the sound and video options and make everyone play 640x480 mono.

Adding as simplistic an option as various save styles hardly makes a game VC++. It's a matter of degree.

quote:
Why not create a game where pressing 'k' will instantly kill all enemies on screen? After all, if you think that makes the game too easy, just don't press it!

Actually, since as a designer you can't anticipate where a player will be frustrated beyond belief, this isn't a bad idea. Independence War 2 was like this for me, and having the option to be indestructable through some of the ridiculously difficult later missions was a boon.

quote:
A good example of this is Doom. (Or Doom2, I forget) Out of the people I know, people who played before the cheat codes were released had much more fun than people who played after. Because the people who played after, as soon as they reached a frustrating part, just entered "god mode." Sure, that WAS their choice, but in the end it made the game less fun for them.

noclip and god mode were what got me and a number of friends I know through the game. Honestly, some of us just don't like the single minded, repetitive search for the red key card.

quote:
If only real life was like that. There is a very large category of people you have neglected: people that know saving and reloading ruins the flow, but do it anyway. For many games this is the predominant player behavior.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to see some numbers before I'll ever believe that this is the "predominant" behavior.

quote:
Which is why console games are extremely unpopular...

Of course, all the friends I know constantly carp about the "limited save game" gimmicks like limited continues or save stones or whatever. However, I've noticed that "fail and restart" gameplay is still tolerated by younger males, who seem to play levels to perfect their play.

quote:
About games that piss people off because of lack of saving anywhere...very rarely is the lack of saving the ROOT of the problem. The *real* problem is in random death, bad difficulty curves, etc. If the player needs to be able to save and reload anywhere, as often as they like, the game is messed up.

Not necessarily. You're forgetting experimentation, which is a key source of fun for a lot of us gamers. You're also not factoring in the balance between stress and frustration. In the former example, many players I know want to be free to try different things just to see how the game world or their avatar changes. In the latter example, most players I know seem to need to be threatened with failure (which creates an enjoyable tension) without actually having to constantly encounter it; and unless a game can minutely adjust this balance individually for each player, saving and reloading will still be necessary. (Best example would be any game that exposes your character to dizzying heights and environmental puzzles, with the possibility of falling. Careful navigation creates and enjoyable tension, and you must have the possibility of dying in order to make it immersive. )

quote:
In a good game, the designers should be aware of where the difficult parts are and plan accordingly. In console games you can usually save before a boss battle, for example.

And yet console games are still released with cheats intact, and those cheats appear widely over the net. Unreal Tournement and Dynasty Warriors, for example, are two games that come with cheats that will unlock extra characters / levels, for those who don't enjoy the repetitive "fail and restart" gameplay that would be inevitable otherwise.



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

[edited by - Wavinator on April 29, 2002 1:16:05 PM]