Save games, IMO, are the most important part of gaming. The majority of the gaming market is people ages 8-18. Why? They all play Teen Rated Games, the most common rating. And what do people ages 8-18 have? Homework. Lots of it. How would they expect to finish a 15 hour game without any saves? Leave the computer running? What if it freezes?! "MOM! IT''S NOT FAIR! I WAS ON THE LAST BOSS BATTLE AND THE GAME FROZE AND SAVING ISN''T INCLUDED IN THE FUNCTION!" "Well, sweety, that''s what happens when you buy a game from Eidos." Seriously, people. Think about it. A billion things can go wrong if there are no saves.
1. The computer/system could freeze, forcing you to start from the beginning.
2. A blackout could occur while you''re playing it.
3. Your parents could bump you off the computer and out of your game.
4. You could start seeing things from the game in real life when you return to a life that is real.
You want realism in your games? Here''s an idea. Add saves so we can return to real realism. There''s other things to do besides gaming. Eating, shitting, working, sleeping... these are all important parts of our daily lives. These things have been around centuries longer than video games. Games nowadays are longer than 15 hours long. 15 hours. Add to that the immense AI that people are throwing in, the lack of health powerups, and the lack of weapons for you, and having no saves would make the game a complete failure on the open market. Having few health powerups, few weapons, and a lot of opponents is what makes saving great. It allows you to try different strategies to get past one part. If you die and there''s no saves, tough rocks pal. Time to play the game for another 10 hours just to reach level 4 again.
Then there''s FMV''s. Most games these days don''t include a funtion to skip FMV''s. Why? They are essential to the plot. They progress the game forward. Without FMV''s games would just be shoot ''em this and shoot ''em that. Since FMV''s are long as well, the games would never end. People would end up burning the games before even getting an hour into them!
In conclusion, gaming is fine, but sex is better.
Eternity is relentless
Save game is the mark of weak game design
-----------------------------A world destroyed, a myth rebord. Some truths should remain untold...Check out NightRise today, coming eventually from DanAvision Software Entertainment.http://www.danavisiongames.com
I really dony know now.
Is this thread supposed to be about designing an ideal system, for the ideal game in an ideal world. Its just that when someone starts talking about the games succes on the open market... seriously, how many of you are selling your games?
-Chris
Is this thread supposed to be about designing an ideal system, for the ideal game in an ideal world. Its just that when someone starts talking about the games succes on the open market... seriously, how many of you are selling your games?
-Chris
something...
May 18, 2002 12:00 AM
I didnt read the whole thread, so I dont know if anybody already made these points. There was a game released for PC with perfect save game feature. The game was Alpha Centuari. One could have the option of either being able to save whenever, or only upon exiting the game. Of course if one chose the save at exit option, when the game calculated your score, you were rewarded, by not a lot but still enough, with points in your final score. I thought this made the game great. Also, I recently finished playing one of the best games ever. Medal of Honor Allied Assualt was unbelievable. I installed the game 1/2 hour before I had class, and realizing that I still had some time left, I decided to load the first level, save the game and exit, so I would not have to go through intro again. Lets just say I didnt goto class that day at all. I didnt goto class till I finished the game. I really didnt have time to save, the game was so filled with action, I could not stop playing. The best part is that the game saved for you. Also, another point, the OS battle here. Lets face it, Windoze sucks @ss when it comes to... running programs/ using the computer. But because most people are too ignorant with computers to know better, Windoze continues to dominate the OS scene. Ans yes its so unstable its now even funny. God forbid you dont have the latest directx, or you will crash like your favorite color is blue. I say, if you know how to use compiler give linux a try.Cause running windoze on a pentium is like having a porshe but walking instead of driving it.
May 18, 2002 12:29 AM
The user should have complete control on saveign and loading. If you feel that uncontrolled saveing/loading ruins a game, Don''t use it.
Unless your making the game just for you to play remeber that many diffrent people will play it, all with diffrent play styles.
Take how i played BG, i save alot but almost never loaded. The reason i saved was to protect against any crashes, and any stupid mistake i may have made. Take for example that i''m about to enter a dungeon, what if i came unpreapared or under developed? well i''d be screwed. To make a game where that couldn''t happed means your scripting almost everything the player does, then it becomes a adventure game.
Now on the point of realism. No game can be totally (or very) realistic, it then becomes a simulation. Take a doom style game, ok lets make all the weapons, phsyics,... etc realistic. To top it off let make it so the first time the player dies it uninstalls and won''t ever install on that machine again. There''s realism, once you die thats it.
Before you make constrictions on gameplay think to yourself, would this be fun for my freinds, my siblings, that 10 yearold down the street.... etc. Remeber there all going to be paying the same money for the game. If you can''t get past that, then go get a job at mcdonalds.
Unless your making the game just for you to play remeber that many diffrent people will play it, all with diffrent play styles.
Take how i played BG, i save alot but almost never loaded. The reason i saved was to protect against any crashes, and any stupid mistake i may have made. Take for example that i''m about to enter a dungeon, what if i came unpreapared or under developed? well i''d be screwed. To make a game where that couldn''t happed means your scripting almost everything the player does, then it becomes a adventure game.
Now on the point of realism. No game can be totally (or very) realistic, it then becomes a simulation. Take a doom style game, ok lets make all the weapons, phsyics,... etc realistic. To top it off let make it so the first time the player dies it uninstalls and won''t ever install on that machine again. There''s realism, once you die thats it.
Before you make constrictions on gameplay think to yourself, would this be fun for my freinds, my siblings, that 10 yearold down the street.... etc. Remeber there all going to be paying the same money for the game. If you can''t get past that, then go get a job at mcdonalds.
quote: Original post by MadKeithV
Lets prolong this thread a little by adding fuel to the fire.
Awrighty, bring it on!
quote:
It''s number 2 that''s really annoying me. You can clamour all you like about "player choice", but perception is the killer - if you WANT the player to perceive he''s losing (when he''s really not) in order to create tension, you''re out of luck. It just won''t happen, it''s a reload situation. A game that allows for reloads at any point will not provide that tension-building experience for any but the most disciplined players.
My problem with this is that, given my experience with tension, I''m happier managing my own tension. If I really like a gaming experience that has tension, and the game is fair, I won''t save. But if the tension becomes unbearable then I will. A good example for me was Aliens vs. Predator: When I was the Predator, I hardly saved. But being a lowly Marine, I just couldn''t hack those dark corridoors because the tension was too high.
quote:
Shifting focus somewhat, another issue that has been raised is if there should be limits on when the player is allowed the choice to save (if at all).
Imagine playing competition chess with the option to return to any state on the board. It would SUCK (never mind it would never finish). You lose, but tell your opponent "I want to go back to position X and try again". The competition game works by not allowing you to go back.
But this analogy is off unless you''re talking about human vs. human multiplayer games, which (to my knowledge) RARELY including saving (and if they do, the competitors almost never allow its use).
When you''re talking about a single or multi-coop game, the analogy breaks down because the game designer''s goal is not to beat the player. The goal is to stress them just enough with challenges so that it''s fun. So any competition in the game is fake, even if it''s a strategy game that can beat you.
Also, the more I play Project Eden, the more I come to think that the save / recover mechanism really doesn''t affect tension at all. Eden allows save anywhere, but incorporates a restore mechanism so forgiving that you will barely bother. I and a friend who are co-op''ing our way through the game have been scared *ahem*-less many times, even though failure is impossible and death means absolutely nothing.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...
To elaborate on tension:
Potential loss really does create tension. Just take 2,000 dollars cash with you out on the street and you'll see how true this is. If you have something to lose, and you don't want to lose it, you'll make an effort to protect it. If you honestly believe there's a threat involved you'll feel some anxiety for as long as the threat remains.
For a game-specific example of loss and its relationship to tension, consider Zelda: a Link to the Past on the SNES. I remember climbing several floors to fight a yellow worm who would move around a ring surrounded almost entirely by a hole in the floor. The worm could bump you over the edge, and you'd fall down one or more floors, depending on where you fell. It was a wonderful effect, and it really made you dread the thought of being pushed over the edge. The encounter would not be the same if this loss of progress weren't part of the experience, or were easily avoided. Had I been able to save and reload without losing additional progress the experience would have likely been different, and the game less exciting.
[edited by - chronos on May 18, 2002 3:49:11 AM]
Potential loss really does create tension. Just take 2,000 dollars cash with you out on the street and you'll see how true this is. If you have something to lose, and you don't want to lose it, you'll make an effort to protect it. If you honestly believe there's a threat involved you'll feel some anxiety for as long as the threat remains.
For a game-specific example of loss and its relationship to tension, consider Zelda: a Link to the Past on the SNES. I remember climbing several floors to fight a yellow worm who would move around a ring surrounded almost entirely by a hole in the floor. The worm could bump you over the edge, and you'd fall down one or more floors, depending on where you fell. It was a wonderful effect, and it really made you dread the thought of being pushed over the edge. The encounter would not be the same if this loss of progress weren't part of the experience, or were easily avoided. Had I been able to save and reload without losing additional progress the experience would have likely been different, and the game less exciting.
[edited by - chronos on May 18, 2002 3:49:11 AM]
quote: Original post by chronos
For a game-specific example of loss and its relationship to tension, consider Zelda: a Link to the Past on the SNES. I remember climbing several floors to fight a yellow worm who would move around a ring surrounded almost entirely by a hole in the floor. The worm could bump you over the edge, and you''d fall down one or more floors, depending on where you fell. It was a wonderful effect, and it really made you dread the thought of being pushed over the edge. The encounter would not be the same if this loss of progress weren''t part of the experience, or were easily avoided. Had I been able to save and reload without losing additional progress the experience would have likely been different, and the game less exciting.
[edited by - chronos on May 18, 2002 3:49:11 AM]
Ok.. So, couldn''t you look at that as losing to the worm, and then rolling back to a previous state? This is further reinforced as the floors before had plenty of jars to break for re-stocking supplies. It could be seen as a handy auto load upon a minor failue.
quote: Original post by ThoughtBubble
Ok.. So, couldn''t you look at that as losing to the worm, and then rolling back to a previous state? This is further reinforced as the floors before had plenty of jars to break for re-stocking supplies. It could be seen as a handy auto load upon a minor failue.
No, you can''t look at it like that.
The thing is, the designers knew that the worm was tough, and that the first time you fought it you might lose. So they made loss not that painful. That is good design. Allowing to save anywhere, on the other hand, would be lazy design in that case.
I vividly remember fighting that worm. Remember how when you got the the edge of the platform it would provide a bit of grip? So you were very often stuck at the edge. During your fight there will be numerous close calls where at any moment you could fall. Now if you could save anytime, the second you fall just reload the the point where you had it at half energy and were in a good position...real consequences are required for real tension.
quote: Original post by AnonPoster
No, you can''t look at it like that.
Actually, I can, and I AM looking at it like that.
quote: Original post by AnonPoster
The thing is, the designers knew that the worm was tough, and that the first time you fought it you might lose. So they made loss not that painful. That is good design. Allowing to save anywhere, on the other hand, would be lazy design in that case.
I guess you might consider it that. I just fighred that in a puzzle containing adventure game, they''d have to save a lot of additional information if you saved in a dungeon. You know, because if there was one switch that forgot to be saved, then the player might be screwed. And given that the dungeons have different data in them, and the fact that smaller size = less moeny spent on cartrages, saving anywhere, but returning to town, and resetting most fo the level flags seems like a good choice.
Oh wait! You can save anywhere, there are just some consiquences to it. That means if I want to save constatnly to avoid having any deaths in my record, all I have to do is constantly re-load. Why does that sound familiar? Tell me, what''s the difference between that and the save anywhere feature you''re referring to?
quote: Original post by AnonPoster
I vividly remember fighting that worm. Remember how when you got the the edge of the platform it would provide a bit of grip? So you were very often stuck at the edge. During your fight there will be numerous close calls where at any moment you could fall. Now if you could save anytime, the second you fall just reload the the point where you had it at half energy and were in a good position...real consequences are required for real tension.
Yup, I remember that. I also remember getting kicked around by the worm and JUMPING off so I could grab some more powerups. The only consiquence was having to walk through an easy floor, break 4-6 jars to restock, and the boss regaining a little bit of health. There''s no problem in getting knocked off the edge, because then I can just start the fight over. Exactly like a save. I see little of consiquence in that.
Besides, there''s a very thin line between tension and frusteration. Are you telling me that you don''t want to give people a mechanism for dealing with it?
And (here''s my real point) at least for me, even in a situation where it''s relatively unimportant, any sort of failure, defeat, or setback hurts simply because of the fact I want to do well. Save or not, I''ll be reminded that I lost.
quote: Original post by chronos
To elaborate on tension:
Potential loss really does create tension. Just take 2,000 dollars cash with you out on the street and you''ll see how true this is. If you have something to lose, and you don''t want to lose it, you''ll make an effort to protect it. If you honestly believe there''s a threat involved you''ll feel some anxiety for as long as the threat remains.
Ah, but I think the real point is the feeling of anxiety, not the loss. I think you''d be surprised at how little people want to lose in a game. Even a death that''s easily recoverable is still a death. This is more psychological, but I suspect when you present failure of any kind to the player it is generally unpleasant, save or no save.
quote:
The worm could bump you over the edge, and you''d fall down one or more floors, depending on where you fell. It was a wonderful effect, and it really made you dread the thought of being pushed over the edge. The encounter would not be the same if this loss of progress weren''t part of the experience, or were easily avoided. Had I been able to save and reload without losing additional progress the experience would have likely been different, and the game less exciting.
Good example. But I can counter with numerous others, the best (IMHO) being Jedi Knight''s levels filled with stunning vertical drops. For me, the sheer magnitude of the level geometry was enough to create tension, especially when I had to make insane jumps! ("There''s gotta be a better way to make a living..." )
Even though I could easily reload, and many times had to, I still experienced a (pleasurable) anxiety over falling. Again, I think it''s psychological, and the more we''re immersed in a game, the more we''ll take tension seriously. After all, in your Zelda game or my Jedi Knight, we both knew it wasn''t real.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement