quote: The fact of the matter is that the ability to quicksave / save provides a method of godmoding.

That''s absolutely right.

I was always proud not to use any cheats. But in fact, I''ve always used the worst cheat of all... and that cheat is legally provided by the game designers.

The ability to quick-save/quick-load really makes you invulnerable. Example: In Halflife and Jedi Knight II, I was sometimes so obsessed with the quick-save-feature that I managed entire levels without losing one single health point...

I had to fight most battles several times, but after two or three turns, I was usually able to preserve all my health. In Jedi Knight II, I additionally always had all weapons and maximum ammo because the only weapons I used were the lightsaber and the forces.

Anybody here who would not call that cheating? It''s godmode and all-ammo together, and I couldn''t even resist because the game designers actually wanted me to cheat. Did it make fun? Yeah, but I finished the game pretty fast.

Does anybody know Goldeneye (for N64) or Project IGI (PC)? These games consist of missions in which you can''t save at all. Complete the mission, or try again. That was fun, too. And it was thrill... immense thrill. I miss that in today''s shooters.

Final Fantasy is also a good example... The "savepoint" approach usually provides thrill, too. But even games like Diablo I/II have a certain kind of thrill because you don''t lose anything when saving but you have to start again at a specified point in the world. That''s the same which was already explained using the Zelda I example.

I think the whole issue heavily depends on what you want your games to be like. You have to decide about the save/load issue regarding the atmosphere you want to create and the target group you want to address with your game.

Do you want a fast/hack''n slay/fun/easy/time intensive/character building/etc. game? Something that the player will play in his 20 minute breaks? Then include a save/load (probably even quick-save/quick-load) feature.

Do you want an atmospheric thrill game? Something the player will start to play in the evening (when he has free time and no jobs left to do) and perhaps play throughout the night? Something that will touch the player''s emotion? Something like Resident Evil or Final Fantasy? Then think about the save issue and try out the savepoint methods and the Zelda/Diablo methods. Otherwise, you''ll probably destroy the atmosphere desired by your game.

PS: I haven''t read all posts, so I beg your pardon for anything I''ve said that''s been stated already.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
I had to fight most battles several times, but after two or three turns, I was usually able to preserve all my health. In Jedi Knight II, I additionally always had all weapons and maximum ammo because the only weapons I used were the lightsaber and the forces.

Anybody here who would not call that cheating? It''s godmode and all-ammo together, and I couldn''t even resist because the game designers actually wanted me to cheat. Did it make fun? Yeah, but I finished the game pretty fast.

No, they didn''t want you to cheat. They gave you the option if you wanted - which you did.

Personally, I don''t care whether it''s called cheating or a normal part of the gameplay. It''s their game. They payed good money for it, set aside part of their day to play it... let them play it how they want to.

I can just imagine some of you guys trying to sell a chess set that included an End User License Agreement forbidding users from using the board for playing checkers on...

quote: Does anybody know Goldeneye (for N64) or Project IGI (PC)? These games consist of missions in which you can''t save at all. Complete the mission, or try again.

Yes, games for children who have much higher tolerance for repeating things over and over.

I''m a pretty crap games player. I''ll come out and say that now. When playing FPS or RPG style games, I save a hell of a lot. But I hardly ever reload. I certainly don''t do anything as lame as reload each time to try and get more ammo or something. I would laugh at someone who was sad enough to do that. But I wouldn''t dream of coding my game so that they couldn''t do so. For some people, the fun is in completing a game and enjoying all the levels, scenery and storyline we have created for them, not in repeating bits over and over again until they have reached a certain skill level.

quote: Do you want an atmospheric thrill game? Something the player will start to play in the evening (when he has free time and no jobs left to do) and perhaps play throughout the night? Something that will touch the player''s emotion? Something like Resident Evil or Final Fantasy? Then think about the save issue and try out the savepoint methods and the Zelda/Diablo methods. Otherwise, you''ll probably destroy the atmosphere desired by your game.

Bah. Realms of the Haunting made Resident Evil 1 look like a sad cartoon, and that was with save-anywhere facility.

To turn this argument around on its head and to provide the opposite hypothesis, I suggest that removing a player''s ability to save wherever they choose is a mark of weak game design, as it implies that you feel unable to create the desired atmosphere without resorting to limiting the player''s freedom to save and load.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ]

I believe someone already said this, but I agree. To stop people from "abusing" quicksave/load you just need to give the player a way to get out of a situation that isnt absurdly difficult.

For example, in the Theif games (along with Deus Ex) you could spook the guards if they see you are you are too loud, BUT you could always dart away into a dark corner and lay low until the guard relaxes. In Deus Ex it was the same. The alarms could I also be waited out or hacked.

I submit, that a player will not load if there is another reasonable way out.

That is part of being a designer. Finding clever ways to avoid certain things from being exploited. I dont think a designer should complain that all the reloading is ruining the game, because it would be their responsibility to have an alternative.
-----

quote: Original post by Michalson
. . .
While this allowed you to save and leave the game (come back later), it really discouraged saving, trying something, and then reloading so you could do it differently.

I know that wasn''t done purposely on Theif, but I still in general don''t believe in pentalizing players for doing anything. Like I said above. The trick is to provide a better alternative.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
. . .
The ability to quick-save/quick-load really makes you invulnerable. Example: In Halflife and Jedi Knight II, I was sometimes so obsessed with the quick-save- feature that I managed entire levels without losing one single health point...
. . .
Does anybody know Goldeneye (for N64) or Project IGI (PC)? These games consist of missions in which you can''t save at all. Complete the mission, or try again. That was fun, too. And it was thrill... immense thrill. I miss that in today''s shooters.

First of all, you using quicksave in that way is not a design flaw. Players always have the ability to play in ways that make the game less enjoyable. You can always remap the controls to some really stupid configuration, and the game would probably suck. That does not mean you should throw in rules to make the game "more fun" in your opinion. Like, I dont think the player should map the movement keys to "y, 1, z, and ]" but it would be a waste of effort to add code to make sure the keys they use are close together. Someone might enjoy playing like that.

For example, when I was quite young, I would play one of the Wing Commander games (forget wich one) with my older brother. He would fly, and I would take care of the guns. We would also set it on invulnurable. We had a blast too. So I believe there should be a SUGGESTED, default way of playing the game, that the designer thinks will be the most enjoyable (eg. without cheats), but you should give the player the opertunity to abuse things. I think Will Wright''s games are a great exapmle of this.

Secondly, I''ve played some of a 007 game on playstation (The World is Not Enough, i think) and it really frustrated me several times. For intance, there is a boss, that you need to pick up the bombs that he throws at you, and throw them back. I won''t get into the fact that that is sort of stupid alone. But it took me several tries to figure out how to do this, and every time I would have to play through the entire level just to try a new strategy. That just ended up pissing me off.

-End rant...-

PHRICTION

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
The ability to quick-save/quick-load really makes you invulnerable. Example: In Halflife and Jedi Knight II, I was sometimes so obsessed with the quick-save-feature that I managed entire levels without losing one single health point...

Patience... not everyone is as obsessed as you...

quote:
Final Fantasy is also a good example... The "savepoint" approach usually provides thrill, too.

Which is totally ruined when you have to stop playing and can't find a damn save point. There were times when I had something like 30 minutes free to play but couldn't because I didn't know if I'd complete whatever I had to do and still be able to find a save point before time ran out.

quote:
But even games like Diablo I/II have a certain kind of thrill because you don't lose anything when saving but you have to start again at a specified point in the world.

Just that in Diablo II is "save and exit". So you save, exit, load your character again, just to get the world full of critters again. Acomplishes nothing, specially when a town portal is sooo much more useful.

The only point about saving I find worth to discuss is leaving just one "slot". Diablo II did this, and it was more of a "character" save than anything else.


Concentrate on the fun aspect of the game. Do not restrict my damn savegame, I have a real life, with events that need attention from time to time. I save if I want to for whatever purpose. After all, I bought the game. I am the gamer, the user, the game was created for -me- to play, so it should be my decision. Unless your game has an unique style of its own. But it will never happen if you keep burning brain cells because of a save feature.

Last, consider Star Trek: New Worlds. RTS game. A LOT of mission objectives. Those missions could last hours, and there was -NO- saving in the missions. Fun? I don't think so.

[edited by - Outworlder on May 16, 2002 6:05:18 PM]

quote:
Personally, I don''t care whether it''s called cheating or a normal part of the gameplay. It''s their game. They payed good money for it, set aside part of their day to play it... let them play it how they want to.

AMEN!!!

Take care,
Bill

well, one thing that was always cool about old school
console games was the cheats you could unlock in the game.
perhaps you could have a ''save anywhere'' feature to unlock?
that way the people who wanted to save anywhere would have
to work for it, and when work is involved people are less
likely to do something
anyway, back on track here:
i always liked the zelda series (nes/snes) save methods
(havent played the n64 ones much so i cant vouch for them).
for example: if you died on the playing field, you could respawn
in one of 3 or 4 places.. none of which were usually too far
from where you were, but none of which were really close either.
work work work.
that''s usually enough to keep people from doing a ''quicksave''
peek around, ''quick load''.
also, in zelda- if you died in a dungeon, you wouldnt have to
track through the field to find the dungeon again, you''d
just be warped back to the beginning of it with half health
or whatever, but all items you aquired (all enemies would
be respawned as well). I found this method of saving/loading
to be very good.
Those who remember zelda 3 will also remember keeping a
fairie in a bottle.. if you died but had one in a bottle, the
fairie would resurrect you, but would leave (so you couldnt
use it anymore). This approach was very intuitive and i dont
think it has been copied enough

-eldee
;another space monkey;
[ Forced Evolution Studios ]

"The fact is that if we were to remove all saving features from a game, it becomes 100% more realistic."

I don''t know about the rest of you fine folk, but the only ''realism'' i want in my games comes in terms of sounds, graphics, physics, and environment factors.

I play games to escape reality.

Saving games at any time is important for some types of games, and a bad design choice for others.

Auto saving is the only real choice for MMORPGs. Anything else would break the game.

You can''t have everything restricted that way, however.

Why?

Because most people NEED to be able to simply jump out of a game when necessary. Real life issues (baby crying, bladder pounding, stomach grumbling, house cathing on fire) need to be taken care of, and often just putting the game on pause isn''t enough.

I really don''t like save ''anywhere'' types of games, though. Save points, or save only in town types of restrictions are generally good for the game.

It also depends on how the game itself handles death, I suppose.

Thanks,
Etnu

Sometimes I think I know what I really don''t, but then again usually I do know what I don''t, but just don''t realize it, maybe its because I am so young, but then again it could be because I am insane.

Chocolate and vanilla... the perfect game is the ice cream stand, you choose what you want! (blue bubblegum all the way =)

Saves in games (not applying to multiplayer) should not be restricted. If you want to "godmode" with saves, then do it. If you want to "iron man", then do it. You have complete freedom to play as you want. You could refuse to save at all, if you wanted NES style play. You can pick out select rooms to save in, if you want checkpoints. This is the ultimate game design, the players design.

In a game like Goldeneye, missions were short. There was very little need for a quick-save function, replaying the mission was only a few minutes lost. For me, no quick-save wasn''t a big deal, for other people, it might have been.
But then, play a game like C&C Renegade, where missions can actually take hours , I personally find it ridiculous to suggest it not have saves. Of course you can still play it that way if you want too, but you aren''t forced too.

In FF6, I once heard that if you died you kept all experience gained from after your last save. That it functioned as a sort-of, "half save", you were sent back to the save location but kept experience. Now, that''s a cool system, it makes dying less of a pain, however I never even bothered to check to see if it was true. Why? Because I didn''t want to rely on it! I wanted to get through with skill, not higher numbers.
Not that I was forced to do that, I just wanted to. I had the freedom to choose.

I bought Castlevania: Circle of the Moon (GBA), knowing it had checkpoint saves, no quick-saves. But it was okay with me, because they weren''t horribly far away, and there was always one fairly close to a boss. Getting back after dying wasn''t a huge punishment. I remember dying 7 times against the Zombie Dragons, which was actually fun, because side scrolling bosses are all about learning how to move and when. The checkpoint was about 20 seconds away, if you were good, not much hassle at all.

If you ever plan to restrict saving, it must always be appropriate for the game. Otherwise it''s *gasp* bad game design . No quick saves in Goldeneye, because missions are short. Quick saves in Renegade, because missions are looong. Checkpoints in Castlevania, because they were placed very conveniently. All of these work because they don''t make playing the game a pain, which is the opposite of why people play games.

Multiplayer games are different though, giving people the freedom to godmode hinders everyone elses enjoyment. Totally different subject though...

If "I don''t want players to have to play through a part of my game again" is your reason for implementing quick saves, then I don''t want to play your boring-ass game. Back to the drawing board with you.

If "I want players to play through the whole level/section each time they make a mistake or need to leave the game, in order to make the game more challenging" is your reason for restricting or removing quick saves, I don''t want to play your repetitive game that relies on such coarse design methods to provide a challenge. Back to the drawing board with you!

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ]