quote: Original post by AnonPoster

This is like those choose-your-own-adventure books

Sorry to stray off topic but I LOVE those books! You may now return to the regularly scheduled argument

SDB - If you are the only one that can fix it, why are you complaining to me?

MadKeithV,

quote: I can argue that you no longer have a CRPG if you remove save games, and it would nullify every post in this thread, and that would be terribly boring.

The fact that plenty of CRPGs feature restricted saving renders this point invalid. More significantly, fighting and death are more strongly associated with the CRPG genre than saving is associated with it. Frankly, I've never seen a CRPG where fatal failure wasn't a possibility. If a party member died you'd have to revive him, and if the whole party died you'd have to replay certain sections. This is perhaps why I strongly associate the possibility of death with the CRPG genre.

Now, please keep in mind that I'm not arguing against penalties other than backtracking. I even presented an alternative to backtracking when I spoke about "task-at-risk" in an earlier post. All I'm saying here is that potential death is a part of every CRPG I've ever played, and that bailing players out of every fight (as you suggested in the post that started all this) goes against what I think of when I think about CRPGs. Even so, what to call the game is not as important as the fact that fatal faliure is a valid element of CRPG gameplay.

Finally, regarding your comparison between CRPGs and pen & paper RPGs, allow me to bring up a specific point. It's true that you don't have to backtrack like you do in CRPGs, but death is still a possibility (the DM won't bail you out of every fight). The penalty for the player is having to create a new, less powerful character, and not being able to play the game until the new character is introduced. For the first penalty, the key difference is that pen & paper RPGs are moderated by humans, who are a lot smarter than computers and are therefore better able to adapt the game to situations such as player character death. For the second penalty, it's something that only applies to multiplayer games.

[edited by - chronos on May 24, 2002 1:39:18 AM]

quote: Original post by AnonPoster
...
But even in single player, a game you can pick up and instantly be good at sounds lame. It is nice to pick it up and understand how to play, to recognize *why* you died and what you need to improve, but being good from the start seems to imply the game is brain-dead easy. Any new activity takes ramp-up time.

Original post by ThoughtBubble
Which brings up an interesting thought. If the challenge is at an appropriate level, will the player have any need of saves (excluding for continuation)?


IMO the appropriate challenge level is that it is quite possible to lose, but quite possible to win as well. The real threat of loss should be there but no overwhelming. That is why playing fighting games is always the most fun when your opponent is about the same level as you. You could win or lose so you better try your best.
...

What if the AI for a single player game kept the difficulty even with yours, so that when you first picked up the game and could barely control your character, the enemy was doing just as badly? IMO it wouldnt be TOO difficult in many types of game to make the chance of winning and losing about equal, with what the player has learned since the last victory/defeat being the only real factor that could influence the chance of winning. Sounds like it would be fun to me =-) A game where your skill doesn''t matter directly, but rather how much your skill has improved since last time you played. The only problem is that eventually you will reach your limit, but if the AI stayed about your skill level it would still be interesting even then =-)

So far I agree with the line of thinking that a near perfect game wouldn''t need saves except when for real life interrupts play. If the game was developed properly, many(though of course, probably not all) players would be willing to take the consequences of failure. It could bring back the idea of a high score table, and making doing well actually mean something.

"The Requested Information Is Unknown Or Classified" -Anonymous

Does the argument really boil down to:
we don't like losing, but it's not going to be much of a challenge if you can't lose.

Now, I define "losing" very generally. I consider not getting to the outcome that you expected losing as well. For instance if you can either save the kingdom or save a race, and you've saved a kingdom when you wanted to save the race instead, then you as a player would consider that somewhat of a "loss".

On the one hand you have the players with little time on their hands who simply want to breeze through the game, have a good time, but not really be "challenged" in any real gameplay sense (a movie doesn't challenge you either, generally, and yet can be immensely enjoyed). Challenge/losing to them is simply wasting their time as they advance towards the end of the game.

On the other hand you have players (but even more so designers) who believe that challenge is necessary for a game to come into its own.

Maybe games should start with "Do you want to be able to lose? Yes/No"...

[edited by - MadKeithV on May 24, 2002 4:58:28 AM]

I haven't read all of the posts, but I KNOW I'm not the only one who thinks that you should be able to do what you want to do, and not be restricted because some developer decided to make a game "harder" by restricting the number of saves. This doesn't make the game more difficult or more exciting -- just more frustrating and tedious. The only thing this type of limitation does is hide holes in the program, making it seem artificially "longer" due to the fact that you end up doing the same things over and over.

Realistically, you have a choice. In a "save anywhere" game, just don't save if you don't want to. Force yourself to only save in towns or before signing off. To force other players to play like you want to play is just asking for a lot of people not to play your game.

Frankly, I love the Morrowind approach... They have the game, and then give you an editor so that you can change literally anything you want in the game. You can play literally any way you want to. If you want to create an earth-shattering sword that allows you to beat the game in 3 hours, do it -- it's your 50 bucks. I've personally only changed one thing in the game -- added a merchant with a lot of money to buy those high-priced items -- and that's just because I thought it was an annoying limitation for an amazing game.

Everybody has different ideas of what "fun" is. Saying that people who don't like retracing their steps are cheating is like saying that all games that don't have save-anywhere are simply trying to hide their lack of depth by making people retrace their steps. It isn't necessarily true in either case.

Computer/Video games seem to be the only toy where the designers try to force people to play them the way they want them to play them rather than realizing a simple rule: if it isn't fun, it ain't a game -- it's work. Imagine if in Monopoly, Uncle Moneybags froze all of the pieces on the board because your group wanted to change a few of the rules, or if GI Joe ran and hid in his box because an eight-year-old wanted to play with him with the Power Rangers rather than other GI Joe characters. It's stupid to force people to play how you feel a game should be played.

One last thing... I personally think that most games that don't allow save anywhere tend to be pretty one-dimensional. Why? Because there are almost never any branches in these games. Have you ever played a game and said "I want to try this, but I should save first"... you walk up to a guard and decide "you know... what would happen if I tried to hit him?" -- just for fun. You couldn't do this in a limited-save game because you'd have to replay 50% of a level or something if what you did went wrong -- so you must follow the only path that will lead to success because you're so damn afraid of failure. In a "save anywhere" game -- screw it! You can try whatever you want because there is no consequence, which is really a lot of fun.

Mind you, finality DOES exist in save-anywhere types of games. In Deus Ex, you had augs which you could only choose once for each body part -- if you chose one, you were stuck with it for the rest of the game, and it definitely changed your play experience. Decisions you made early in the game also impact events later in the game, so you have to make the decisions that you are willing to live with -- no artificiality about it.

Perhaps this is the best approach -- don't worry about whether or not people are saving or loading for the "little things". Let them if they want to. However, if they make a decision, have it affect something two hours, ten hours out -- make it stick by design instead of some artificial barrier.

BTW, I'm not adverse to limiting people's choices before they start. Let people decide how they want to play, and enforce that. However, you can't make people afraid to make decisions because they may have to play through a large part of a level or sit through a cut scene because they made a wrong decision in a battle (which is one of the main reasons I refuse to play console RPGs any more -- that and the random battles).

-Chris


[edited by - crouilla on May 24, 2002 4:58:05 AM]

quote: Original post by AnonPoster
Oop well now I totally disagree. I don''t think the "correct" challenge level for a game like Tekken is that you can pick it up and immediately be good at it.

Neither do I. However, for me, the starting level of difficulty for Tekken was throwing my controller on the floor yelling obscenities between going "how did he do that!" or "I hit him!"

quote:
I would point out that in a mutliplayer competitive game that''s really impossible. Skill is relative. As long as the game takes any amount of skill at all a beginner will be worse than an expert.

Agreed.

quote:
But even in single player, a game you can pick up and instantly be good at sounds lame. It is nice to pick it up and understand how to play, to recognize *why* you died and what you need to improve, but being good from the start seems to imply the game is brain-dead easy. Any new activity takes ramp-up time.

Agreed. But should the ramp-up time be a slope, or a vertical climb? Like I said, most times I really want a save feature are those times I either don''t get what happened, or one of the previous sorts of things we''ve talked about avoiding, like instant death, sudden difficulty spikes, lack of trust, percieved failure and arbitrary choices. If the game starts out too difficlut, it''s hard to recognise how to improve. And if it''s hard to figure out what to do better, it''ll degenerate into button mashing, or just flat out quitting.

The only reason I can or will play counter-strike at all is because a good friend literally heald my hand and guided me through it. Otherwise, the game was just too difficult to be fun.

quote:
IMO the appropriate challenge level is that it is quite possible to lose, but quite possible to win as well. The real threat of loss should be there but no overwhelming. That is why playing fighting games is always the most fun when your opponent is about the same level as you. You could win or lose so you better try your best.

Exactly my thoughts. My favorite place to be in action games is on the knife''s edge between victory and failure. Now, how do we keep the level of challenge there?

quote:
When you first start learning to play tennis you don''t expect to win every game, or ANY game. For games based around challenge I think this same logic applies. Tennis isn''t too hard - it just takes skill that you have to develop.

Yup. And if the person I was playing tennis with chose to begin by winning off of serves the first few games, would I choose to play with them again? Not really. So, if I start up a game of "The hot new thing" and it kicks my butt all over the floor, I''m not going to be a happy consumer.


And you''re right about the choices. That''s pretty well my thoughts. Another thing that bugs me are fake choices. "Left or right" left. "As you walk to the left, the celing caves in, forcing you to go right." Makes me think about the situation that caused me to quit playing Mega Man Legends.

Anyway, been fun discussing this with you.

quote: Original post by MadKeithV
Does the argument really boil down to:
we don''t like losing, but it''s not going to be much of a challenge if you can''t lose.

Yup. Sure seems that way. Brings up all sorts of interesting questions. When is losing tolerable? What sort of win/loss ratio is needed to keep from losing the player?

quote:
Now, I define "losing" very generally. I consider not getting to the outcome that you expected losing as well. For instance if you can either save the kingdom or save a race, and you''ve saved a kingdom when you wanted to save the race instead, then you as a player would consider that somewhat of a "loss".

Very good point.

quote:
On the one hand you have the players with little time on their hands who simply want to breeze through the game, have a good time, but not really be "challenged" in any real gameplay sense (a movie doesn''t challenge you either, generally, and yet can be immensely enjoyed). Challenge/losing to them is simply wasting their time as they advance towards the end of the game.

On the other hand you have players (but even more so designers) who believe that challenge is necessary for a game to come into its own.

Maybe games should start with "Do you want to be able to lose? Yes/No"...

Heheheh.
Resident Evil for the game cube actually did something similar.
"How do you feel about expierences:
1. Going off the path and beyond the goal can be rewarding
2. Staying on the path to reach the goal is fine"

Or something somewhat similar.

quote: Original post by ThoughtBubble
Yup. Sure seems that way. Brings up all sorts of interesting questions. When is losing tolerable? What sort of win/loss ratio is needed to keep from losing the player?

That depends on the player...

Maybe there could be a "carrot" approach - some sort of ranking system in which you can get MUCH higher when choosing the game-style without save-reload-anywhere. I don't think that would be penalizing the saving player, because he/she is generally in it for the experience of the game, and not the competition aspect.

Hence, competitive players are encouraged to play without saves.


[edited by - MadKeithV on May 24, 2002 5:05:11 AM]

Hi all. I''m new to the site but I just read through the entire thread (only took a couple of hours and thought I''d toss in my two bits.

First up, let me state my opinions on a few of the issues raised in this thread:

1. Quit and Save is essential. I haven''t seen any posts suggesting anything to the contrary, but it''s amazing how many games haven''t supported this. There is nothing more frustrating than being five minutes away from completing a level and having to quit due to real life...Anyway, ''nuff said.

2. If a game can get to the point where a player can''t win, the player should be able to return to a point where victory is still possible and that won''t frustrate the player by making them ''do over'' when it''s not fun to do so.

3. The actual implementation of the above two will be different across genres in particular, but probably also across games within a genre - depending on what it is about a game that makes it fun.

To illustrate different aspects of how savegames can be implemented, I''m going to give some brief rundowns on some games I''ve played in the past in a single genre (first person shooters) with pros and cons for each. I''ll try and be brief

1. Wolfenstein/Doom/Quake
All three of these games use the same basic savegame policy: save whenever you like and do it often. But you have to do it yourself.
Pros:
- The player has complete freedom to save whenever they like
- The player can save when he/she knows they are about to enter a difficult area and can reload if unsuccessful when negotiating the area
Cons:
- There is less challenge incentive to get it right the first time, or to struggle on even if you survive with 5% health and a single pistol clip
- The game doesn''t save by itself, so if you forget and then die, you may have to replay a fair chunk of the game. Of course, you will probably only forget once

2. Dark Forces
In this game, there were no save games at all. You created a profile, and as you progressed through the game, levels were unlocked in the main menu. It''s been a while, so I''m not sure if there were checkpoints or anything like that, but I don''t believe so.
Pros:
- The player was very keen to stay alive. This made for great tension and care taken when entering a new area.
Cons:
- If you died, you had to do large portions of the game over again.
- If real life interviened, there was no way to bail without losing all your progress on a level

3. Halo
This game has a similar system to Dark Forces, with two additions: checkpoints and "Quit and Save". No quicksave or other saving mechanism is available. As you progress, levels are unlocked in the main menu.
Pros:
- Well placed checkpoints meant that I never had to worry about whether I needed to save before entering an area
- Spacing between checkpoints meant that there was increased challenge to get between ''safe'' areas but not too much of the game needed to be repeated if I failed.
- ''Quit & Save'' allowed me to return to real life.
- Not having to save games myself meant I was more immersed in the gameplay. This is especially so on a console, where you most likely would have to escape to a menu to do so (which is the case for Munch''s Oddysee - it''s quite derailing)
Cons:
- If you find yourself in a position with lots of bad guys and little ammo, it can be quite discouraging, if not bordering on impossible to proceed.

As you may have been able to guess, Halo''s system is the one I preferred, at least for the type of game it was. For me, it provided the right amount of challenge with the least frustration. Halo is also the only one of the three that I played to completion without cheating.
I would have finished Dark Forces except that I lost my savegames before completing the final level, but I also got quite frustrated because I often just didn''t have time to finish a level, or I would die and have to do the whole thing over again. I had a lot more spare time on my hands though, in those days - I''m not sure if I would be so forgiving now.
Wolfenstein, Doom and Quake I have never finished without cheating - not because I couldn''t beat it, but because I became bored with the game. I only cheated so that I could see all the levels.

I was going to also give a similar treatment to three adventure games that took different approaches, but the post is getting pretty long. I''ll just make a couple of quick suggestions that would have removed frustration from some adventures I have played:

1. If death is possible, allow an automatic reload to the point just before death is inevitable.
2. If the storyline does branch, automatically save it and flag the fact so that I don''t have to go back and play the whole game again just in case it was a branch.

The first point has largely been addressed in recent games. The second point has never been done anywhere in any game, so far as I''m aware. Of course, not that many games provide branching storylines, so it may be a moot point...

Anyway, in conclusion, I personally found Halo and Dark Forces to be much more challenging, and also much more satisfying experiences than Wolf/Doom/Quake. The latter did have their good points, but I have much fonder memories of DF than Quake, even though DF was quite frustrating at times. I know that not everyone''s experience will be the same, and that''s a good thing, but it makes our job a lot harder

------------------
Never play leapfrog with unicorns.

The busy modern intrusive technologically advanced world of today makes "save anywhere" features absolutely necessary. While the author''s examples of "save in town" or "waypoint auto-save" are valid, and I too can recall them in many games of yesteryear, let''s look at the simple facts of 21st century living. We''re all older now, most with families, phonecalls, beepers, instant messages and obligations which frequently interject themselves into moments once reserved for quality gametime. I''m not interested in playing for 20+ minutes, being summoned suddenly from my PC and unable to immediately return, without the ability to resume playing from where I left off. (Hmm, do I pause and leave the game and PC running? The Mrs. won''t take kindly to that!) If I was a bit younger with hours of daily life devoted to gaming I might be more tolerant. Please, "save anywhere" is not a flaw of game design, it''s in Chapter 1 of Good Game Design.

""Anal nathrakh, urth vas bethud, dokhjel djenve!"