One of the games I have played that I belive has a good save game system is DarkStone. While some of the other areas are less than desireable the multiplay save is good. For any of you that have not played it here is how it works. In multiplay mode (2-4 players) each player creates a character. When you host the game the other players join with their selected characters. While playing there is no save game feature. If you die you have to get someone to resurect you or lose your player. The last person to leave the game becomes the host and also saves the "world". To re-enter that world that person must be the host and others join. Now you can enter any game with your characters and they (as long as they don''t die) will retain items and levels. Hmmm now that I think about it, it is almost like battlenet...

GRELLIN

CGP | IYAOYAS

I think that this issue has a very strong link to the balance of the game. Modern games are often stacked in such a way that when the player starts losing it becomes very difficult to pull off a comeback. Whereas consider a game such as football (you know where you actually kick balls around!), or a computer game such as Super Bust_a_move (the bubble stacking game) in these games, it is often possible to pull off a win in the last few minutes of the game, even though you have been losing up 'til then, you can score several goals in a few minutes in football, or in Super Bust a move, you can set off a chain reaction bursting lots of bubbles - just as the screen is about to be filled up.

Whereas in a game with hit points and ammo counts, it is often far more difficult to achieve such a balance.. if you have lost lots of health in a 3d shooter, and are low on health, then it becomes a lot more difficult to pull off a turnaround. The point being that 3d shooters / wargames etc. are not designed in such a way that it allows you to pull off a quick turnaround (ie. so you don't need to reload every time your soldier loses a bit too much health).


And failure also becomes part of the 'fun' in Super Bust-a-Move, because everytime you have a last minute loss, you know that it could so easily have been a win if you had aimed better, or concentrated harder, or just had better luck with the bubbles that you get. Then you get to play the level again -until you succeed and go on to the next level, and the outcome is slightly different each time,

[edited by - Ketchaval on May 13, 2002 5:52:03 AM]

quote:

---

Original post by PaladinGLT
Lets say you can save anywhere you want, but if you die it erases your save game. This would allow you to save if you had to go do something (go to sleep, school, etc.) But you couldn''t just save right before a boss and "save fight save fight save fight load fight save." (Well you could but it wouldn''t do much good.) This is pretty similar to Diablo2''s Hardcore mode.

---

This (decidely "unfun") tactic was used in the first X-Wing games. What happened? Players exited games after each mission and made pilot backup copies.

Many (most?) of us who are older don''t find any joy in repetitive play. I can give an action game to my young cousin and he''ll delight in playing the same level, over and over again, until he memorizes every puzzle, every hidden power-up, and every enemy strategy. It seems the younger you are, the more of a kick you get out of playing perfectly.

Me, I have a life. So I must save.



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

'Aliens vs. Predator' shipped with a 'save anywhere' feature -- but you could only save N times per level, where N depended on the difficulty setting. (For some reason, they removed this ability in a patch. Or was it the other way around? I don't have the game, so don't sue me -- but it's an interesting concept.)

Another way of saving the game appears in a variety of games, such as Oni (fairly good game, could have been great): Autosave at frequent, but finite locations. You can load any time you like, and if you need to load you won't have to replay so much of the level that it gets frustrating (most of the time -- Oni doesn't implement this perfectly), but you can't just save anytime you like (and do the old save/load/save/load routine).

[edited by - Miserable on May 13, 2002 3:33:39 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by declspec
Also is there any criticism this system didnt address?

---

I think this is overengineered. A much simpler approach is an "Iron Man" mode which limits saves, and unlimited saves for the rest of us who don''t care.

When you talk about a game being ruined by unlimited saves, understand that it is ruined for you. I and a friend played all the way through Baldur''s Gate: Dark Alliance on the PS2, and the generous amount of save points (probably one every 5 minutes or so) didn''t ruin the game at all for us. We were still fascinated by exploring the huge levels, still felt trepidation after many a battle (especially vs. foes we didn''t know how to defeat) and still had fun.

Keep in mind that you won''t have much luck forcing players to do anything, and your game''s popularity will reflect that. (Aliens vs. Predator and the save patch Fox had to rush out is a perfect example.)

If you''ll check the FAQ, btw, you''ll see that this topic always comes down to chocolate and vanilla. No one is ever proven right. People have a preference for what they like, and I think the smart designer will try to accomodate both if he can.


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

people keep tilting my idea into something its not. i think its a great thread to say i saw a little of that in game x. i didnt like game x''s save system let me tell you why. but its hard for me or anyone to tell if your responding to my idea as i presented it but incompletely understood. or if your doing the above and saying hey i didnt like game x (which is fine). but that is why i havent responded to all critism. were pushing design here. new ideas people read them.

consider this critsism:

"This (decidely "unfun") tactic was used in the first X-Wing games. What happened? Players exited games after each mission and made pilot backup copies."

i thought best was a system where you could have N saved games where N was as many as you wanted. in fact it sounds like my save system is much much more freedom giving then the x-wing system.

Comparing and contrasting the first x-wing system to my idea.
1) it would be like being able to hold as many back saves between missions as you want. finishing a mission wouldnt overwrite the old mission between mission saves.
2) you could save during a mission in the continous save.
3) you could load any of the between mission saves you wanted.
4) finishing a mission wouldnt overwrite the between mission saves just the continous save.
5) dieing on a mission would load a between mission save.

whats the only thing missing? no loading of in the middle of mission saves unless its the continous save. so you could save mid mission, not have forward advancement, come back and load it when ever. which sounds like its more then most space combat games offer you at a design level. (tech reasons i suspect)

the only thrust of this system is to let the mission exist as a module. not make people replay the entire game on failure. why? fun.

i mean the current state of rpg/fps save systems applied to space combat would have you saving and loading middle space battle. what happens in general is it becomes a zerg on an abstract level that distracts from the games potential.


In the end, this idea of making a game for every audience fails. it always has. in any medium. the "let the user decide where to save" is a common denominator game design. it trades highs for lows: ending up with blah.

Lots of games nowadays get by only on newness not on game mechanics. take the baldurs gate 2 expansion. "reviews its great bg2 fodder. dont get it its more of the same" the game mechanics arnt driving the game: the "newness" is.

certain players just want something unfolded to them. thats not a game thats a vehicle for story telling. Not all players are like that. designing for both at once is crazy. i stayed away from most final fantasys because of the obsession with story telling over game play. (as an example) the last MMs didnt have story but they also failed to deliver a discernable challenge. baldurs gate had a little tactical simulation thing going but i think most people have a recipe for success by the end. save apply recipe repeat.

someone said "there are different abilities in gaming. save/load allows for that." i believe gamers will in general respond to a challenge if its fun. i think if you poke them out of that save/loadness they will respond to your game.

quote:

---

Original post by Ketchaval
Whereas in a game with hit points and ammo counts, it is often far more difficult to achieve such a balance.. if you have lost lots of health in a 3d shooter, and are low on health, then it becomes a lot more difficult to pull off a turnaround. The point being that 3d shooters / wargames etc. are not designed in such a way that it allows you to pull off a quick turnaround (ie. so you don''t need to reload every time your soldier loses a bit too much health).

---

I think this is a perfect point. In any game where the resources you need to succeed are severely constrained, you need to be able to save and reload. NOBODY is going to be able to design the perfect experience for EVERYBODY. You''ll always have varying skill levels and play styles. Players will never have perfect information as to exactly the amount of resources they''ll need (like exactly how many guards and exactly how many bullets he''ll need). Save/reload, then, allows the player to balance the game at a level finer than the game designer can predict.

There is an alternative, though. Players who are free to disengage from any challenge may not need unlimited saves (I''d still prefer it, though, for play choice and style). If a player can run back and get healing potions, or hide and rest, or siphon energy from his enemies, then the resource problem seems pretty much solved.

But that kind of design would require less linear, more open ended game worlds!



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

quote:

---

Original post by declspec
consider this critsism:

"This (decidely "unfun") tactic was used in the first X-Wing games. What happened? Players exited games after each mission and made pilot backup copies."

i thought best was a system where you could have N saved games where N was as many as you wanted. in fact it sounds like my save system is much much more freedom giving then the x-wing system.

---

Keep in mind I was responding to another poster, not your system, here.

quote:

---

the only thrust of this system is to let the mission exist as a module. not make people replay the entire game on failure. why? fun.

i mean the current state of rpg/fps save systems applied to space combat would have you saving and loading middle space battle. what happens in general is it becomes a zerg on an abstract level that distracts from the games potential.

---

Zerg????? What?

Erm, anyways, I can't help but wonder if saving/reloading during a space battle would be an improvement. I and most people I know who played the later X-Wing/Tie Fighter games never made it past the mid-mission curve because someone at Totally Games or Lucas Arts is a sadist!

In general, the missions became longer, more intricate, and to me and many I knew who played it, ridiculously hard. Replaying the mission (especially those long, detailed ones) over and over again became irritating. In the end, I either cheated or de-installed the game.

quote:

---

In the end, this idea of making a game for every audience fails. it always has. in any medium. the "let the user decide where to save" is a common denominator game design. it trades highs for lows: ending up with blah.

---

For you. Not for me, and many I know. Sorry, but you can't prove that.

quote:

---

Lots of games nowadays get by only on newness not on game mechanics. take the baldurs gate 2 expansion. "reviews its great bg2 fodder. dont get it its more of the same" the game mechanics arnt driving the game: the "newness" is.

---

When I finished Fallout I definitely wanted more of the same. So that's not necessarily a bad thing.

quote:

---

certain players just want something unfolded to them. thats not a game thats a vehicle for story telling. Not all players are like that. designing for both at once is crazy.

---

Apples and oranges. You're talking about gameplay vs. story, I'm talking about a simple option.

quote:

---

someone said "there are different abilities in gaming. save/load allows for that." i believe gamers will in general respond to a challenge if its fun. i think if you poke them out of that save/loadness they will respond to your game.

---

Maybe some will, but we PC gamers are quite a bit particular. We get more b*tchy the older we get, too, and those of us who are actually the lifeblood of the market (we hardcore who buy 1-2 games a month) will vote with our dollars.

If you want to coax us out of what you feel is a save/load dependency, stop thinking about saves ENTIRELY. Get saves out of your mind. Completely!

... and start thinking about failure recovery, and many fine distinctions in failure and success. Start looking at why it is, exactly that we have to fight bosses, fight them a certain way, and in some cases, fight at all. Start looking at why the player has to play a game only one or two particular ways, why there is only one or two particular overall strategies.

Realize that unless you're going after a very narrow demographic (console players who are 12, for example) that you're going to have to accomodate a lot of play styles. If you're also interested in thrilling the player and putting them under stress, that's cool. But rather than obsessing about saves, it might be much more productive to brainstorm ways of enticing the player rather than compelling them.



PS: Just FYI, if you want to quote someone, just hit the quote button next to their post. That way, you don't have to retype what they said and the thread is easier to follow.



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

[edited by - Wavinator on May 13, 2002 4:24:35 PM]

just went to the store. on the walk back i realized that even i had got away from the original idea that i was hoping was "insight".

at its heart illustrative to consider is things like tetris pipe dream. games that get reincarnated but have no discernable story. usually no save at all. why do they survive?

they are entertaining. just the act of playing the game is entertaining. sure it gets old. but the first time tetris style games hit a person it _usually_ takes a bit of time to get old.

think that was at the heart of my original idea. what insued was an argument over i didnt like that i did like that i thought it was blah i didnt.


the kernal of the original idea was that if the actual game play is fun then then you can get by with a sparse save density. the thing that i didnt accurately pull out of there is the question:
Can you then take advantage of less saves to make a better game.

why or why not when does it break down.


i respect your opinions. im started to question the idea of controlling save myself. cept for that glint of can i add "drama" can i make some moments "more intense" if save is controlled. and thats the rub. it seems self evident that some moments will be made "more intense" so the idea lives on.


as for zerging. a race from starcraft that could produce small cheap units. doesnt sound like it has context but its migrated to everquest lingo of which i play a little.
zerging everquest
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=zerging+everquest

one of the search snippets on google used the sland perfectly:
"...fail repeatedly we don''t keep zerging, we change plans"

the term is spreading. it actually took a spot in the english language where im not srue there was a good word.

quote:

---

Original post by declspec
the term is spreading. it actually took a spot in the english language where im not srue there was a good word.

---

*sigh* I must be getting old. Back in my day, they called this a raid. Oh, well.

(And in the Iran-Iraq war, they called them human-wave attacks. But thx for the info, btw, as I don't play EQ.)


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

[edited by - Wavinator on May 13, 2002 5:12:21 PM]