quote: Original post by chronos

Allow me to suggest that no game exists where the player isn''t in some way limited by the designer''s choices. Design is what defines modes of play, flexible or otherwise.

Let''s say a character isn''t able to fly without first obtaining a pair of wings. Is deliberately choosing when to present the player with wings forcing the player to assume a flightless mode of play in the meantime? Should we make wings part of a player''s standard inventory so he can decide for himself when to make use of them?

Let''s not misrepresent the issue by pretending it''s a matter of taking away something which a player should not be denied. The issue is whether limiting a player''s ability to save and reload can in certain cases make for a better game.

I agree, lets not misrepresent the issue by comparing the ability or lack of for the the player to save progress within a game to learning to fly. One has to do with game play design (wings) and the other has to do with giving the player the freedom to play a game as they see fit (save games). If they choose to abuse it, who cares. They are not ruining the game for anyone but themselves. One thing that many of the posts in this discussion are failing to realize is choice. Just because a feature is in the game does not "make" the player use it. It is personal choice. If you have to rely on the ability to save or not save to make the game "better" you should rethink your plot/storyline because it is missing something. As far as all games forcing the players being limited to the designers wishes go, I agree. All games have rules and these are the impositions the designers puts on the player. I would argue that while the player will be forced to follow these rules they should not be held hostage to the game when saving progress comes in to play. Again I would state that if the game takes longer than 10 to 15 minutes to complete there should be some form of save game feature. The players should not be punished for having lives outside of playing games.


GRELLIN

CGP | IYAOYAS | Linux.com | Linux Game Development Center

Don''t fear the penguin!

quote: Original post by Grellin
I agree, lets not misrepresent the issue by comparing the ability or lack of for the the player to save progress within a game to learning to fly. One has to do with game play design (wings) and the other has to do with giving the player the freedom to play a game as they see fit (save games).

This is called a false dichotomy. It's been suggested here that a player's ability to save progress does have to do with gameplay. As for freedom to play as players see fit, no element of gameplay allows absolute freedom in this regard; It's always possible to imagine something a particular game won't allow. Just because a player sees fit to set the terms of failure by saving progress whenever he wants to doesn't mean that designers must allow him to do this.

quote: One thing that many of the posts in this discussion are failing to realize is choice. Just because a feature is in the game does not "make" the player use it.

In most cases the fact that a choice exists is enough to change the way many people play the game. You don't have to force players to do something to get them to do it.

quote: If you have to rely on the ability to save or not save to make the game "better" you should rethink your plot/storyline because it is missing something.

Assuming the game has a storyline to begin with, this is not a valid conclusion.

[edited by - chronos on May 20, 2002 5:26:41 AM]

How should the game be played : as the player wants or as the designer wants?

quote: Original post by GameCreator
How should the game be played : as the player wants or as the designer wants?

Players play games which are already finished. Game designers work on games which are not yet finished. That's an important difference. The player can only play as he wants if the game's design makes it possible in the first place. Players should be free to play however they wish, within the limits imposed by the game's design. You ask loaded questions, but the apparent answer is only valid when properly qualified.

Designers should always consider how players might respond to the different design decisions he's able to make, but it's not the designers job to cater to a player's every wish. Players' wishes don't always fit in with the rest of the game.

[edited by - chronos on May 20, 2002 6:01:07 PM]

Just out of curiosity, does this arguement extend outside of the PC centric genres like the FPS? I seem to remember never having to go more than 30 minutes in most of the final fantasy games without saving. For that matter, would any of this arguement apply to the console games? Half-life on the PS2 had an quicksave feature, and I admit to using it frequently. But the only other games I''ve encountered with a quicksave was the Final Fantasy Anthology on the PSX, and that like half-life''s system was writing the save to memory rather than datacard, in which case the whole protect from a crash arguement is blown out of the water. Come to think of it, I don''t see many console games crash.

Perhaps maybe this entire arguement is just cRPGers versus PC-FPSers. Because I like controversy, I''ll throw some salt on these wounds, the gameboy Final Fantasy Legend games featured a save anywhere-anytime function. Obviously it was thrown in for running low on battery situations, however if one was unsatisfied with the results of a HP200 item, it came quite in handy in much the same way FPS quick saves do.

Lets face it, what we''re discussing here is how do we want to limit our players behavior. RPG, we''re used to hard work with good payoffs in the long run. FPS, we''re used to quick hardcore action with no penalty for screwup. About the only compromise conceivable is the game that makes a static-sized file on the Hdd, and manages it completely transparent of the player''s knowledge, and features smart design so that any mission can be replayed with no loss. And it seems as though many of you didn''t like Goldeneye, and I haven''t heard Perfect Dark mentioned at all. Its become completely apparant that this discussion went nowhere.

-> Will Bubel
-> Machine wash cold, tumble dry.

Without a "save game" feature, most games quickly become tedious exercises in boring repetition. The main point of the "save game" feature is to avoid forcing the player to replay previously played sections of the game. Nothing is wrong with this.

A "save game" feature also makes the player experiment in ways he wouldn''t otherwise. You increase the number of practical choices available to a game player, and thereby make the game more interesting. High-risk decisions will always be ruled out with an all-or-nothing system. The player will focus only on getting from the beginning of the game to the end, and will ignore dangerous and nonessential tangents - which are often the most rewarding portions of games.

To be honest, I did a lot of saving in RTCW. That''s because I played it a different way than many people did. I tried taking out different opponents in different styles. Sometimes I crept slowly, hiding and picking them off with the Mauser. Other times I ran in and toasted them all with the flamethrower. These are things I wouldn''t have done in a one-shot system. Save game increases the replay value of a game by allowing players to retry specific portions of the game without repeating entire sections.

This is my dissenting opinion: I like hitting the "quicksave" button! Without a "save game" feature, you force repetition upon players, who will invariably therefore take the path of least resistance. The quicksave button keeps games more interesting.

quote: Original post by TerranFury
This is my dissenting opinion: I like hitting the "quicksave" button! Without a "save game" feature, you force repetition upon players, who will invariably therefore take the path of least resistance. The quicksave button keeps games more interesting.

Which offers the least potential resistance, playing from designer-defined locations or playing from user-defined locations which are arbitrarily close to the point of failure? Quicksave makes it possible for players to redefine the path of least resistance enough to render all challenges insignificant.

[edited by - chronos on May 20, 2002 7:11:27 PM]

quote: Original post by AnonPoster
Yes let's talk about this.

Excellent. I'm glad to have someone to discuss this with. Let me start by agreeing with your points.

The first thing I would have started with was watching for "cruelty". This is just those situations, where, as a player, I can hear the designer of the stage laughing at me. Some examples: Gauntlet legends, where poision barrels are next to barrels of food, so if you swing wrong, you've got lots of poisoned food.
Conker's Bad Fur Day: Leaving one of the final rooms in the military base, the door stays open until it's too late to avoid the lazers that appear in the frame.

I guess cruelty really is just a subset of arbitrary difficulty and breaking trust.

Oh well. I'll drum up some better comments later.



[edited by - ThoughtBubble on May 20, 2002 7:12:56 PM]

[edited by - ThoughtBubble on May 20, 2002 7:13:59 PM]

A somewhat different thought: The ability to save anywhere and at any time can be detrimental to the player. For instance, many games have quick-save and quick-load buttons positioned next to each other. A clumsy or frantic player (I myself can be either, or both) could accidentally perform the wrong action and save the game in a situation beyond hope. Even on a somewhat larger scale, an FPS with universal save features allows you to save in situations where you may have insufficient ammunition and/or life to finish the level (I won''t claim that it''s not my own fault, but still -- it made me quit playing Unreal). If the designer decides where you can save (and makes a good decision), you''ll be guaranteed not to be stuck quite so completely.

quote: Original post by Miserable
If the designer decides where you can save (and makes a good decision), you''ll be guaranteed not to be stuck quite so completely.

Just out of curiosity, how would the designer have any idea when a situation will arise (need to leave, going to bed, phone rings, aliens invade) to be able to "decide" when a player can save? One question we need to ask is "So what?" meaning does this effect the outcome of the game, how does it effect the players experience (since they are, regardless of some opinions, the ones that will make or break your game) and is it needed? Granted not every game type requires the ability to save but many do.

GRELLIN

CGP | IYAOYAS | Linux.com | Linux Game Development Center

Don''t fear the penguin!