quote: Original post by AnonPoster

quote: Original post by deClavier
The save/load game feature is that mechanism by which a player learns the language of the game, providing the opportunity to compare the success of various syntagmatic (sentence-like) structures within the context of the game''s paradigm (wordset-like). Iterating the load/save teaches the player to think using the game''s language, essentializing their goals on optimal game states.

quote: Under this oddly worded logic, simply starting all over from the very beginning also accomplishes the same thing. In fact, starting over from the beginning may very well accomplish it better.

Yes, this is an entirely compatible interpretation of the concept stated. Isn''t a game, by definition, something which "saves" our experience and "loads" a modification thereof? Isn''t our inherent expectation of a game that it acts like an independent experience, another life proxy some identity? And, as a coherent project, don''t we assess how well we do by equating the nature of the game state we achieve with the goals implied by the game''s design (ever heard a kid say "I completed D-title on one life/in half an hour"?)?

quote: Let me ask you this: Would you consider the following an example of learning?

1: Begin by choosing any word from the language. [...]
5: Repeat ad infinitum.

Congratulations! You are now the master of grammar! Your method of "learning" assures that yes you will produce a proper sentence.

Yes, this is an example of learning. For some reason you seem intent on suggesting that interpersonal interaction, assessment of success proxy other, _is absent_ in a game, when in fact a game is, (again) by definition, that context in which one is able to assess one''s abilities using the game''s constants and contraints?

You seem to have this wierd idea that once you program a game you are no longer part of the game or that when you play a game you play simultaneously across each stage/level, or something.

I''ll end this on topic with the suggestion that save games be reassessed as a learning tool AND the suggestion that, as a learning tool, "segmented saving", whereby certain sets of successful actions/etc. are saved (as opposed to the entire game state) as a way of encouraging that learning process (without defeating that learning process outright as consequence of hyper save/load loops, or limitlessly limiting that learning process by block saving data in the absence of acquired knowledge).

quote: Original post by AnonPoster
I still haven't heard why Tekken needs save/reload anywhere.

Because, if it had a save/reload anywhere feature, then when my roomate grabs me, and begins king's four part powerbomb sequence, I'll finally be able to keep trying to get out until I can get some freaking idea of what and when the button timings are to get out. Additionally, when my other roomate begins Harowang's 150% damage, 20 odd hit combo, I can save, and keep running through it till I can find the gaps where it can be countered.

Additionally, any time I connect with a difficult to pull off move that would chain into something else, I could save and keep trying the chain until I got it.


And finally because that damn sideview mode in Tekken 3 for the Playstation is damn annoying and good at surprize kills.


Happy?

Edit: Just wanted to add that, for similar reasons, a save/reload feature would be nice to have in a game of Chess, or Mah-Jong (I think I spelled that wrong).

[edited by - ThoughtBubble on May 21, 2002 12:16:43 AM]

Wowzers, what a big thread. These save/load threads always get huge.

I'll start by saying my thoughts arent exactly completely cohesive, prepare for some jumping around of ideas.

Ok, so we can ALL agree that there is no "one-size-fits-all" save scheme. Every game design is different, the goals of the designer for each game are different, and the save/load scheme should be diesigned to fit with that paradigm by the capable designer. Not all designers are capable, and have a clear enough vision of what they are designing to be able to design the perfect system for their game. Some games have had nearly perfect save/load schemes.

(Just for the record, I think we have drifted from the original thoughts that started the topic, but I like where the discussion is now much better than how it started. "A perfect game has no save load feature"? I think we (meaning you, considering I havent yet contributed) have sufficiently debunked that, which was the foundation for the topic.)

We keep going back to mario. I wonder why? Mario is a genious of design, with almost perfect amounts of dificulty and the right amount of replaying. Heck, I actually remember some of the levels: if I didn't have to play those levels so many times, I probably wouldnt remember them as well. Replaying parts of a game, if it's FUN to replay those parts, is not necesarily BAD. Learning how to complete a level in mario, while playing the level several times, is PART of the chellenge, and I submit, also part of the fun.
Now the original mario didnt have a save, which WAS kind of bad, because you had to play through the WHOLE game in one go. Insanely difficult, but through level warps, and TONS of practice people were able to do it. But playing mario with a level to level save on my game boy was much funner for me, as I got to experience the whole game and actually have a chance of winning.
But if I could save anywhere in a level, the fun would reduce, as I wouldn't have that experience of dying and restarting the level, and the tension that goes along with that. Would it be easier? Yeah. Would it be funner? Not for me. But you never know, maybe someone else would enjoy mario MORE if they could play through the whole thing. The reason I doubt this is because really the foundation of mario (and many other games like it) is learning the level through trial and error and experience, as well as mastering the control and game logic. Implementing a save anywhere within a level would almost remove the GAMEPLAY from mario. I mean, it wouldnt be mario anymore.
So what we're looking at, is the designer needs to guide the saving in the game to a sweet spot, where its not too annoying when failure happens, and its not so utterly easy to just step through each second of gameplay and test all options at each iteration.
In an adventure game, an almost surefire way to complete it is to try EVERY possible action with EVERY possible object. But your not even playing the game anymore, your merely testing the system. Your removing from an adventure game its core element.

If a game's core element(s) are safe by applying save system x, then save system x is ok. An example is Nethack. In Nethack, you can save and quit, but death is permanent. You have to start over from the very begining. There are no lives. But it works for several reasons: The game is different every time you play, because the levels are generated at the start. So even though you may lose, you get a different experience and it doesnt get too repetetive. Another thing is its kind of fun to find out the different ways you can die. Part of the core of the game is learning from previous deaths and improving your skill to see how much further you can make it into the game. So, would save anywhere ruin nethack? I think it would still be a fun game WITH save anywhere, because other core elements of gameplay are exploration, and puzzle solving. But it WOULD lose something. They might as well not include so many ways to die and just make it a maze game.
If, however, you could save in between levels, I think Nethack could still be enjoyable by most. It would lose some of its leetness, but that might not be a totally bad thing. But - if there was an option, at the begining of the game, of how you would like to save, then you have the best of both worlds.


I motion, that whatever save/load system you design or choose, yes, design the game around it, but also have the option to play with easier saves. Unless your design is radical, such as the "no fatal failure" system previously mentioned (which I think would be a perfectly valid system for a game, but would need to fit with the core element(s) of the game) providing an "iron man" mode, a "save spots" mode, and a "save anywhere mode" doesn't seem to me to be that difficult to work into the design. And it lets people play how they want without giving the temptation to abuse the system. A person who would be tempted to save anywhere normally, might have it easier being able to choose the save spots mode to prevent them from cheating and ruining the fun.

About the temptation of save anywhere, think about movies. You read somewhere "Matrix 2 info SPOILERS!". You may really be excited about that movie but WANT to be surprised while watching it instead of finding out before hand. And still, you may not be able to resist reading the info. But if the web site had a "spoiler mode" and a "non-spoiler mode" which you selected from BEFORE you got into the site, then the person who is afraid of spoilers would not have as much difficulty selecting spoiler free mode when they havent seen the actual news item in question. Not exactly the best example, but its analagous to save anywhere temptation.

For a personal example, if I could choose at the begining of a game from save anywhere or save spots, I would choose save spots. But in a game that provides save anywhere without asking me beforehand, I use the feature even knowing that I am spoiling my fun and dont really want to use it. Some people have more self control than others.

Why not choose save system as well as difficulty? Many games already give players a choice in difficulty, why shouldnt they provide different save options as well?



I envision a game in which, before you play, you can completely customize the difficulty. Such as (in an fps for example) adjusting percentage of health pickups, percentage of enemies, availability of ammo, Ai difficulty, Percentage of enemies, how much time I have to beat each level, How many puzzles I want, how complex the mazes will be, etc. And of course what kind of saving we want. We already have loads of customization in graphics area, from different effects in game or not, different resolutions, bit depths, etc. On and on and on. We should have more customization of gameplay.
(I do admit however, that the above paragraph is more me dreaming than a realistic idea, its much harder to allow player to customize gameplay as its not easily defined the way the graphics are.)

[edited by - Saluk on May 21, 2002 12:59:49 AM]

quote: Original post by chronos
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.

The thread, in it''s entirity, is about how we can challenge whatever is "traditional" about games, so coming back at me saying that lethal combat is "traditional" in CRPGs to me is a non-issue.
I thought the whole point was that it is annoying to the player to die and have to replay sections of the game. I also made the observation that MANY players of the genre abhor the way you just tend to die uselessly in many of these games, fast and often. Just read through the thread again picking up the many gripes about Baldur''s Gate.

Or to put it another way: why on earth does the consequence of losing have to be lethal? I''m not even saying all of the time, why does it need to be lethal ANY of the time? If you try to answer by saying "because it is the greatest penalty you can throw at the player" I will say no. I can imagine far worse. Deleting the game and disallowing reinstallation is one. Actual physical death (yes I''m getting absurd here) as well. That doesn''t add to the fun either. And wasn''t that what we were talking about in the first place? Does dying add to the fun? No, you just reload and try again. Now, as long as the part you replay is enjoyable gameplay, actually I don''t think that''s a bad thing. I do agree with you that allowing death and a limited but fun replay of the sequence can be a perfectly viable vehicle. But that''s not a given, is it? You can also avoid the problem by simply not having any replay in your game. I''m not trying to put one above the other, though, just saying that there are other options besides save/reload.

(Note: I''m still just talking about CRPGs, and possibly also adventure games though they seem to have taken a trip into history without returning).

Perhaps RPGs are a very bad example, because they are barely "games" in the first place, there''s no real winning or losing, you simply finish. This applies to most modern "games" though, specially FPS in single-player mode. You also have a "story" of sorts, dictated by a progression of levels where you do not really want to restart over and over.

Perhaps Wavinator has a good lead when he talks about separate challenges.
Would you all agree on this definition of a "challenge":
The minimal unit of gameplay between two (re-)entry points.

i.e. it could be between two save points in a Final-Fantasy type game, or at the start of each level for a Mario-type game where you respawn if you have lives left though actually it is more complicated than that, due to the limited nature of lives, it could be said that the entire game is a challenge, because once you have run out of lives which are a limited resource in the game, you have to restart completely.
Games that allow saving anywhere theoretically have a very short average "challenge". While player choice may lengthen that challenge, the lower limit is very small, which is an indication that save games can lower the difficulty level (I am not saying this is a bad thing, but I believe that is a valid observation!).

The tension arises between the game designer and the player when the game designer wants to insert a challenge of a certain difficulty (or perceived difficulty, but that''s way off topic) that can be easily brought down in difficulty by using (the game designer will say abusing) the save/reload facility.

To the actual player of the game, it will seem as if the save/reload facility is helping him. After all, it is lowering the difficulty of the challenge to the point where he can beat it. I personally find it akin to setting up an obstacle course, and putting a path around each obstacle as well. It can have every possible good intention: if you can''t take the obstacle, feel free to walk around. And yet, there is also the very real danger that the people for which you lovingly built the obstacle course are going to take one look at that wall, raise their shoulders, and say "forget THAT, I''m walking around".

I can hear Wavinator cry foul already: "the real MAN will try to take that obstacle, if it''s the last thing he does!", but the sad fact of the matter remains that people are lazy at heart. Or perhaps not lazy, but erring on the side of caution - "that wall looks pretty tall, I probably won''t get over it, fall and break my leg and stuff, I''ll walk around".

So, now you have two camps:
The Wavinator Buddhist monk camp, that says "if you want to walk around, your loss. The Budda says to smile and enjoy the way the players are enjoying themselves, even if they are missing all the parts you spent so much time on."
And the AnonPoster Drillsergeant camp, that says "Look, you sheep, this wall is perfectly doable with a little practice! Left, right, left, right, pull yourself up that rope Seger, or there''ll be no lunch for anyone tonight!"

Results:
Camp 1: Some players will sigh in relief for not having to chafe their soft hands on the rope, and being able to walk around. Some players will grin and take on the wall. Some players will get halfway through the obstacle course walking around every single obstacle but the very easiest and say "this obstacle course is BUNK! It''s way too easy" and head home to become a computer scientist instead.

Camp 2: Some players with soft hands are going to end up bleeding and not making the wall, and heading home saying "this obstacle course sucks, it''s impossible", becoming a computer scientist instead. Some soft-handed players will actually grow some callouses and make the obstacle course, saying "hey, I didn''t know I had it in me."
The hardasses will not really see the difference between this and camp 1, since they could do it in the first place.

So, in the end, both camps lose some players, camp 2 gets more players over the obstacles (at least, if the obstacles aren''t RIDICULOUSLY difficult, and sadly that does happen in certain games), but the jury is definately out on which camp will actually have more players feeling satisfied with the course at the end.

I personally tend towards camp 2 right now, because there will be a definate sense of achievement when you finish. However, in some (most?) games, or for some (most?) players, the reward is reaching the end of the obstacle course (even if you did walk around every single obstacle), and not the actual crossing of the obstacles.

LOL I have to give you credit at least from your description it''s clear you actually play Tekken and have some idea of what you are talking about.

quote: Original post by ThoughtBubble

Because, if it had a save/reload anywhere feature, then when my roomate grabs me, and begins king''s four part powerbomb sequence, I''ll finally be able to keep trying to get out until I can get some freaking idea of what and when the button timings are to get out.

Practice mode dude, practice mode...

IIRC the home version Tekken games have pretty good practice modes. In Capcom games now you can actually record input for player 2 and play it back, which is handy cause you don''t need a second person. (Being a practice dummy gets old fast) For example in CVS2 you can record 10 seconds of moves then have them repeat.

quote:
Additionally, any time I connect with a difficult to pull off move that would chain into something else, I could save and keep trying the chain until I got it.

Hmm sounds fair!

Although the tone is rather jokey, save/reload does make sense for practicing, but a good practice mode is far better for that. In that Capcom games you can practice pretty much anything without needing a friend to bore.

If you really wanted to include saving in Tekken, it would probably only make sense to include it in a special practice mode rather than the actual game proper...

quote: Original post by Saluk
About the temptation of save anywhere, think about movies. You read somewhere "Matrix 2 info SPOILERS!". You may really be excited about that movie but WANT to be surprised while watching it instead of finding out before hand. And still, you may not be able to resist reading the info. But if the web site had a "spoiler mode" and a "non-spoiler mode" which you selected from BEFORE you got into the site, then the person who is afraid of spoilers would not have as much difficulty selecting spoiler free mode when they havent seen the actual news item in question.

Yes that is a key point. It''s like if I don''t want to drink on the weekend, I don''t go to a bar or hang out with people who *are* drinking. Because I *will* drink if others are. Same with smoking, it''s hard to quit if you go to parties the cute girl you were talking to goes outside for smoke. Once it is in front of your nose and you can almost taste it your chance of holding out is nearly zero.

Hopefully with all my examples previously it is becoming clear to people that "they can just choose not to use it" is a very simplistic, unpragmatic view.

quote: Original post by MadKeithV

I thought the whole point was that it is annoying to the player to die and have to replay sections of the game. I also made the observation that MANY players of the genre abhor the way you just tend to die uselessly in many of these games, fast and often. Just read through the thread again picking up the many gripes about Baldur''s Gate.

But doesn''t Baldur''s Gate allow for save anywhere? (Never played it myself, but I assume so since I have never heard it described as a "console-style" RPG)

Either way, there is a danger to the designer in the save anywhere becoming a crutch. Got some bugs? Players can save and reload. Way too hard? Players can just keep saving and reloading.

I might have already mentioned this, but Morrowind is a good example of this sort of thing. Player got stuck in a wall? Reload. An item that is key to the game fell into an unreachable spot? Reload, or just use the handy editor to give yourself a new one!

It''s the same reason PC games are so buggy - because they can be. Patches represent a "solution" of sorts. Game didn''t work the first time? Patch it.

This is getting into a bit of a different discussion, which is how do some design choices in turn affect the design on the rest of the game? And when is their a danger of designers either purposefully or not leaning on their crutches rather than really fixing problems? I would bet anything that if Morrowind didn''t have an editor and save/reload anywhere you wouldn''t get stuck on things as often.

Of course, in theory you can always excersize willpower to fix these problems. Allowing save anywhere doesn''t FORCE you to have bugs. But it makes it a lot more tempting to annoy them.

And then you lose people like me, who basically don''t play PC games anymore because they think games are for playing, not for watching a download screen that gets a patch that doesn''t even fix all your problems.

quote: Original post by AnonPoster
But doesn''t Baldur''s Gate allow for save anywhere? (Never played it myself, but I assume so since I have never heard it described as a "console-style" RPG)

I haven''t played it either, actually, but it most likely does have save-anywhere gameplay. That just goes to show that even save/reload doesn''t necessarily stop a game from being really annoying - it doesn''t rescue the game from repetitive gameplay at all, just leaves it in on a smaller scale.

I just finished reading this entire thread from start to finish, and it has raised a lot of interesting points.

AnonPoster I agree in principle with a lot of your statements but not all. Tekken doesn''t need a save/quickload feature. However Half-life did IMO.

When I first saw the topics title I thought to myself wow, what an ignorant statement! But after reading through the topic I see that it wasn''t what was intended but rather just an opening gambit to a lively conversation.

My opinion on Save Games:

I think that when the Designer is creating the plan/idea/design for the game he should have a clear idea of what type of save system he plans on using and make it an integral part of the game rather than an add-on as the product is finished. Obviously there is no one perfect plan because no 2 games are completely alike. Each type of save system works for some types of games but is inpracticle for others. As a gamer I ask that you developers implement a system that works within the game you make and helps the game out, not hinders it or my enjoyment. If you decide on the Half-life save anywhere style or the save point system, fine, but make it work within the game. I''ve never heard of or read about a game that was really hurt by the addition of save points or save anywhere features, but I''m constantly reading about games being blasted by the lack of. I don''t mind replaying a certain part(s) of a game as a penalty for reloading or dying, but don''t make me redo an entire 90 minute mission/level from the start because the end boss kicked my butt the first time I ever saw him.

No one save feature is perfect for all games. I think that all games need some type of save system, but one that works for that particular game. Used correctly they can add immense replayability and fun to a game, used wrong and they can cause frustration and me to turn your CD into a coaster or skeet target. As a dedicated gamer (I bought 4 games in the last 2 weeks) I think I have a right to certain expectations in a game. My main expectation is that I should be able to finish the game, but not have to sit down and do all 15+ hours at once. How you as a designer decide on how I can accomplish this is up to you, but don''t frustrate me or piss me off by making me replay the game from the beginning because I needed to go to the store.

Anaton
Flying Tigers CFSG

My take on this:

Paradigm: A Good game is fun to play.

To most of the players it is _not_ fun to die to some freak accident (telephone, cat on keyboard, parents, power failure, ...) and waste countless hours of play time. Those things happen.

Also you might need to leave your computer, but its one hour from the last save point and you have no idea when the next will be. Unless you dont have a life this will happen too.

Therefor i recommend a save anywhere with as few restrictions as possible.


Now, what happens when you load a game is an entirely different matter. Repeatet loading indicates that this part is too difficult for the player .. so should one make things even worse and make it harder with each reload? Certainly not the players idea of fun. Maybe one should decide on the number of reloads .. at first getting more difficult then easier again ...


And lastly concerning BG ... I liked it very much, though the fights were getting extremly hard (even more so with bg2). But it had a good story line and over all very fun gameplay. Well, and if you dont like the type of game you shouldnt be playing it in the first place.