I think that''s something many of us here have been trying to say - saving is not separate from game design, it SERIOUSLY affects the way a game is likely to be played. You cannot just say "you need to be able to save anywhere, anytime" without acknowledging the consequences of that to your game''s difficulty, pacing and immersion.

TIME MACHINE SAVE FEATURE

Okay, how about this:

Single player RPG (since it seems to be used as main example)

Player character is like all other beings in virtual world, except for the fact that the character carries with him a time machine. With this machine, he can go back into time at any point. Upon death, the time machine automatically activates itself and sends the character back into time. During the time travel, the character revives.

The key element is that just like in all time travel stories, actions you change in the past will affect the future. So if the character goes back into time and does even the most mundane task a little different (stepping into a puddle of mud with his left foot instead of with his right), the future might change.

These changes shouldn't be noticed at the lower levels. The very next NPC that the character talks to after traveling back in time, shouldn't say anything different than he said before. But, perhaps at the end of the day, because the character decided not to go and try to slay the dragon (something that nearly killed him last time) the building next to the inn that he was sleeping in, in the village that he had just entered that day, was burned down to the ground by that same dragon. In a previously experienced 'future', this building housed a person that had some vital information to the player character. So, he now has to choose if he wants to go back in time once more, and try to slay the dragon once more, or just wants to go on without that information.

The time machine save feature also allows for a new feature: forward loading. If you can travel back in time, maybe you should also be able to travel forward in time. Maybe that way, you can quickly see what kind of results your latest action had on the future. You just killed that dragon, thinking that now the village will be safe and that now you'll get that information. Just to be sure, you check the future a few days ahead. You're appalled to find that with the dragon gone, an evil crueler being has taken its place: Romnar the Orc. And that information you were waiting for... well, it turns out that it was worth nothing.
Now that you've seen the near future, you can choose:
a) I want to go back into time again and not kill the dragon
b) I want to go back to the moment just after I killed the dragon and play from there
c) I want to go forward in time, to the moment I've just seen and continue playing from there

For time travel into the past, you could pretty much just use current save methods (allow player to save whenever he or she pleases, perhaps with certain maximum save slots).

For time travel into the future, you would have to device a way to quickly establish that future. The game would have to calculate what happens in the future, based on the characters past and current actions.

Slay dragon = Villagers will reward you, but soon after, Romnar the Orc takes over

Don't slay dragon = village gets attacked every night and one or more buildings burn to the ground. No reward for you.

Injure dragon = dragon will have to heal for a few nights. Villagers thinks you saved them and will reward you.

Trap dragon = dragon will roar. Villagers will still fear dragon. You won't get reward. Romnar will stay away.

Talk to dragon = undetermined

For games that use these type of 'if/then' situations, a lot of times players will not experience all 3 outcomes. They will do one thing, play the game through, then place the game on their shelves. With the time travel method, players would be able to experience the full game. And if you make the saving and loading more a part of the game like this, it doesn't remove the immersion.

EDIT: Of course, the game itself will have to be designed around this time machine idea. You can't just throw that saving method into existing designs without making major adjustments.

[edited by - Silvermyst on May 21, 2002 11:35:44 AM]

WOW is this a thorny issue!

Whether the choice to include a save-reload anywhere scheme is good or bad is not a simple black and white issue and is most definately NOT a definate mark of good or bad gameplay (as the title so boldly states).
The type of save game scheme is very much a design decision and is very dependent on the type of game you wish to create. For example in an RPG you''d want to have a more conservative saveing scheme as the point is for you to think about decisions and ultamately become the protagonist of the game while you''re playing. If in an RPG you had a save-reload anywhere scheme the gameplay very rapidly devolves into trial and error gaming.

However death = end of game is also a bad gameplay decision as suddenly you force the player to start all over and repeat the same sequences over and over until successful, once again you get trial and error gameplay. Striking a balance is critical IMHO the reputation scheme would work almost perfectally as that makes the player get more into the character and could open up a much more dynamic story.

On a very different note games that are more action oriented eg. Diablo-style RPGs, FPSs etc. would require a far different save game feature. With FPS games the point isn''t becoming at one with a character it''s blowing the $#^@#$@ out of the enemy.
Either way repetition is death to a game design, as soon as the play starts becoming monotonous the you lose the player forever.

My final word is that deciding how to handle saving and death is very much specific to the particular game you''re making. There is no right or wrong way to do it.

quote: Original post by AnonPoster

For the last #!@(#$(@@#$ time there is a difference between

SAVE AND QUIT
vs.
SAVE AND RELOAD

Please don''t keep responding if you aren''t willing to read, this has been mentioned numerous times. We are discussing save & reload. AFAIK nobody has a problem with save and quit.

lol you should really learn to control your emotions, they seem to be getting the best of you. My question is valid and the idea that there is a difference between Save and Quit and Save and Reload is a stupid conclusion. The only real difference would be how long it takes to restart from the saved game. Now if you don''t see that you are the one who has a problem but if you would have read what I was responding too you would have easily seen that the poster was talking about what you called Save and Reload so maybe you should spend a bit more time reading and a little less assuming. So since you decided to try and insult me maybe you would be so kind as to answer my question. "How would the designer know when the best time for a player to save is? I would love to hear it.

GRELLIN

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

Don''t fear the penguin!

quote: Original post by MadKeithV
Who says that losing reputation is only a small penalty in a role-playing game? You may be laughed at in the next town, for instance, or have to resort to underhand actions to get certain things done. Your character''s "role" can be influenced greatly. Example: if you have a really bad reputation, instead of being able to ask the town mayor for the Book of Awful Recipes that you need, you now have to break into the town hall through the sewers, leaving you open to much worse abuse later...

That''s a good point, but CRPGs traditionally involve combat that''s potentially lethal. You cannot bail the player out every time he''s about to lose a seemingly lethal fight without seriously undermining his character. It''s fine to use this as a plot device in a CRPG, but if all combat carries strictly non-lethal consequences then, in my opinion, you no longer have a CRPG.

quote: I mean, you agree with me first that replaying certain parts over and over is bad, yet you still want "fatal failure", while simply being able to restart from right before the fatal failure? Why have fatal failure at all? Just don''t let the player lose, instead change the experience for the rest of the game.

Who said the player would restart at the point right before fatal failure? I sure didn''t. You allow saving after those parts in a game which are not worth replaying while retaining risk during dangerous sections, such as moving through the dangerous wilderness, crawling through a dungeon, etc. A challenge is more than a single encounter, so the game is saved at the beginning of specific dangerous sections, sometimes preceded by safe sections.

MadKeithV - Just to clarify something, when a player''s reputation "diminishes somewhat", as you originally said, it''s not typically something that carries a significant penalty. That''s why I called it a small penalty. If you had said "diminishes significantly" I might have responded differently.

quote: Original post by Grellin
My question is valid and the idea that there is a difference between Save and Quit and Save and Reload is a stupid conclusion. The only real difference would be how long it takes to restart from the saved game.

Wrong!

Consider this scenario:
I am approaching a difficult jumping section. I save. I jump and die. I reload. I try again.

Now consider this scenario:

I am approaching a difficult jumping section. I save. Game turns off. I turn game back on - save state goes away. (This is the part you maybe missed, once you reload it is gone)

quote:
So since you decided to try and insult me maybe you would be so kind as to answer my question. "How would the designer know when the best time for a player to save is? I would love to hear it.

Best for what? Best as in creates tension? Best as in right difficulty level? Best as in breaks challenges up on logical boundaries? The answer to your question is that knowing that is part of the designer''s job.

Let me ask you two questions:

#1: Why does Tekken need save anywhere?

#2: How would the designer know when the best time for a player to find a mushroom in Mario is?

What you are trying to get at with your question, the answer you are expecting is:

"They can''t know when the best time to save is" - hence player should be able to save anywhere.

Use the same logic for question #2 above. "They can''t know then the best time to get a mushroom is" - hence the player should be able to find a mushroom anywhere. Sounds like a great game!

AnonPoster, I agree with your last post in the context you put it in. And that is not the context of the statement I was replying to. So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Happy Coding!

GRELLIN

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

Don''t fear the penguin!

quote: Original post by AnonPoster
This is factually incorrect.

Although you address them one at a time, if you can''t save in between the challenge is cumulative. You can''t argue math.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one (esp. as to whether or not the ironclad laws of mathematics are on the side of your argument). You seem to be counting all challenges on a level or stage as one single thing, whereas I see a finer gradation. The argument is difficult to clear up because our dividing lines (apparently, entire levels for you, "encounters with breaks" for me) are different, and we don''t agree on what exactly constitutes a single challenge.

quote:
Furthermore your example is horribly flawed. The fact is that if two people play the same mission, though both may characterize it as "tough" the person who saves more will most likely finish it much more easily.

What? This doesn''t make sense. If they both characterize it as "tough," then they both found it "tough." Unless you have some objective measure of difficulty?

quote:
Let''s create two distinctions: Endurance, and difficulty. Endurance is the ability to stick with a challenge, difficulty is how hard the challenge is.

quote:
You can''t just arbitrarily redefine English to suit your own logic.

Distinctions are not redefinitions.

quote:
Under your definition, shooting 10 3 pointers in a row is the same difficulty as shooting 1? Running a marathon is the same difficulty as running a mile? No, that is simply incorrect, sorry.

Here''s where our differences in semantics breaks down. The question revolves around breaks and interrupts in the challenge. In most games I''ve ever played (console or no) challenges are sent at the player in waves, with gaps in between (or else he moves forward to encounter them in waves). I would in general consider fast action arcade games and side scrollers, as well as fighting games, or in games with no rest period in between (Testris levels) single challenges. Maybe this is where you are arguing from.

quote:
No, you are relying on math.

Not quite. Replace Larry Bird with a mechanical arm programmed for making free throws. Control for airflow conditions by putting it, the hoop, and the ball in a vaccuum chamber. My guess would be that Larry-bot could be programmed to make 100 free throws with ease. Humans, however, would get tired and make mistakes.

I will agree, however, that the more competing and random factors they have to contend with, the more probability comes into play. But for human game players, fatigue at some point (varying with age?) still becomes a significant factor in dealing with a long series of challenges (or even a long single challenge).

quote:
Which is why games based on focus groups are usually phenomenal successes.

I''ll assume you''re arguing that games based on focus group testing, QA input, beta testing, and newsgroup feedback are not likely to be sucessful. I don''t see this argument standing. I''ve read many design interviews and post mortems for successful games (Ultima Online, for one) that contradict this reasoning.

quote:
Once again, all the people who are saying that save anywhere is some sort of "requirement" are provably wrong. Protest all you want reality is reality. Sonic Adventure for Gamecube, which was already out for the Dreamcast, sold a million copies. Was that some sort of mistake? Did those people get tricked somehow?

The idea that you must include save anywhere to please people is not even up for debate. That''s absurd - sales numbers prove that.

Sales numbers prove nothing. Myst, which had a save game feature, sold (I think) 5 million. As I noted earlier, it depends on your target audience. I''d imagine that the Myst and Sonic demographic probably don''t overlap that much.

In this argument, you and I possess no objective, verifiable indicator, so we''re limited to arguing theory. That you might state a particular belief as fact does not, unfortunately, automatically make it so.

quote:
How challenging would Super Mario be with save anywhere?

For you, not at all. For others, it would be fine.

quote:
I can''t remember the last time I went to an arcade and saw two people playing Tekken, and one said "gee I really wish I could have saved before you hit me with that unblockable."

But apparently you HAVE seen that, right? Right?

While I sense that this topic evokes great emotion in your replies, please keep in mind that I noted earlier (in the Starcraft vs. example) that saves in competitive multiplayer games rarely apply.

quote:
Once again, the idea that some certain types of games benefit from save anywhere is reasonable. The idea that ALL games SHOULD have save anywhere is foolish and flies in the face of reality.

Ah, excellent. It seems we agree on something.

quote:
All you are saying (or rather, should be saying) is that you like certain types of games, and for those games save anywhere works well. But that doesn''t generalize to all games.

Hmmm... I missed where I said that all games must have save anywhere. Perhaps you''re confusing me with another poster?

quote:
Go ahead, convince me that Tekken needs save anywhere...I''m waiting...that''s the test. If games are always better with save anywhere, tell me how Tekken would be better.

Aren''t we going to have difficulty quantifying better? And isn''t your decidely subjective standard a bit too elusive a measure upon which to base a proof?


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

quote: Original post by Grellin
As lively as this topic has been I think the "real" point has been completely missed. To assume any player is going to "want" to play a game exactly like we (as developers) imagine it "should" be played is a bit silly.

quote: Original post by AnonPoster
Why do people keep repeating what is clearly false?

Perhaps because this is a subject about which reasonable people can reasonably disagree? Surely, you and I would recognize that some games are more linear than others (and that some designers expect you to guess what they''re thinking when it comes to solving finicky challenges). The point, then, can hardly be false.

quote:
The point is you limit people with your choices ALL THE TIME.

Of course. But I think what we''re talking about here is a matter of degree.

quote:
What if for some player the only fun part of the game is flying? Shouldn''t they be able to fly anytime then?

Interesting. I would argue that if the majority of the gamers who played the game (likely through player feedback) got more fun out of just flying, then the game would probably be more sucessful if more flying were included.

quote:
Why can''t I do the levels of a game in any order? Why can''t I start with max level and equipment?

In some games, you can.

quote:
As a designer you make a game that is to be played in a certain way. That is what you do - that''s your job. Maybe some people will say "they big problem with Tekken is that I can''t drive a tank." Screw those people.

Exactly, as long as the majority of the gamers aren''t saying, "Dude! I want a punching tank" you''re fine. (And if they are, and you don''t want a tank, then economics / sales takes over and you may find yourself producing for a cult following instead of a more mainstream gamer audience).

quote:
Designers should not ignore real life, real patterns of behavior and real psychology. If you include cheats people will use them. If you package the game with a hint book people will read it. If you allow people to save anywhere, most of them will. To ignore that is stupid. We don''t design games for the mythical iron-willed person, we design games for people. We design games for typical people, not how we imagine people *should* behave but really don''t.

Yes, it''s a choice. But people will KNOWINGLY make the wrong choice.

I don''t buy this "save game as irresistable narcotic" argument. My belief is that most gamers are a lot stronger of will than you might give them credit for. I don''t think that, given knowledge of cheats or saves or whatever, players will automatically maximize and use them. I think that, instead, players will fall back on these mechanisms when they are uninterested in facing the challenges the designer scripted for them at the exact difficulty level the designer chose.

quote:
Once again this is not up for debate. That''s human nature.

Sometimes, but not always. We''re not exactly deterministic beings.

Anecdote: A friend and I duped items after reaching the higher stages of Dark Alliance. We had been having fun fighting, exploring, and leveling, until we seemed to hit a wall. We were low on cash and resources and were getting plastered. So we managed our own difficulty level and cheated, and enjoyed the rest of the game. But we didn''t automatically do this, even though we knew how. And my friend tried using more powerful weapons on lower levels, became unsatisfied, and decided to switch back to weaker ones in order to enjoy the game more.




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