[seebaruk]

I liked the save system in AvP, where you could save when you wanted to but you had a limited number of saves per level, which decreased if you upped the difficulty level. That way, you can save after bits you find difficult but you aren't saving every 30 secs during firefights. I thought it increased the suspense of walking down dark corridors, not knowing what was about to jump out at you, which a free-save system kind of ruins. And no frustration of checkpoints (all too often in Far Cry I'm screaming at it to save after killing loads of guys, before an invisible sniper pops one in my head).

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Orange Brat

The SAV files in my Disenfranchised title are coming in at under 40KB, but there isn't much getting saved, at the moment. Still, it's a long way from a single MB(knock on wood).

Off the topic, when will we be albe to see some pictures of your game? Maybe just some concept art or anything?

These ideas are just a couple ways to eliminate having to cycle through menus/panels to save...it's a potential path to keep the player in the game.

And it's a noble goal, many today's games already use autosaving. However, quicksave is also just a single keypress away. You do need to remember to save, though, but it's much more flexible, especially if quicksave cycling is used. So the perfect combination for me would be a nice autosaving system, plus a full-fledged manual save system, plus cyclic quicksaving.

Originally Posted by seebaruk

I liked the save system in AvP, where you could save when you wanted to but you had a limited number of saves per level, which decreased if you upped the difficulty level. That way, you can save after bits you find difficult but you aren't saving every 30 secs during firefights. I thought it increased the suspense of walking down dark corridors, not knowing what was about to jump out at you, which a free-save system kind of ruins.

That's fine, that could be an option you could turn on or off, according to your likings (like Director's Cut in Blade Runner, for instance), but I think no game should ever limit your ability to save. People are different and they have different preferences and abilities, you don't want to frustrate your customers, you want them to have fun.

[seebaruk]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

That's fine, that could be an option you could turn on or off, according to your likings (like Director's Cut in Blade Runner, for instance), but I think no game should ever limit your ability to save. People are different and they have different preferences and abilities, you don't want to frustrate your customers, you want them to have fun.

Very true, it's a shame when a great game is ruined by something like bugs or a poor saving system or something that could have been avoided.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by seebaruk

I liked the save system in AvP, where you could save when you wanted to but you had a limited number of saves per level, which decreased if you upped the difficulty level. That way, you can save after bits you find difficult but you aren't saving every 30 secs during firefights. I thought it increased the suspense of walking down dark corridors, not knowing what was about to jump out at you, which a free-save system kind of ruins. And no frustration of checkpoints (all too often in Far Cry I'm screaming at it to save after killing loads of guys, before an invisible sniper pops one in my head).

I hated that. If you have no idea how far you are through the level you can spend minutes debating whether or not you can afford to save. And then you find you've run out of saves and still have ten minutes of playing left...

[seebaruk]

Originally Posted by RLacey

I hated that. If you have no idea how far you are through the level you can spend minutes debating whether or not you can afford to save. And then you find you've run out of saves and still have ten minutes of playing left...

That's fair enough. I didn't find that a problem, but can see how it would be really irritating if you run out with a fair bit to go, especially if the end of the level is really tough. If I remember correctly AvP2 had it so you could set how many saves you get per level, so if you didn't like it you could give yourself loads. Having the option to do that should def be included, but I preferred the tension of having to limit your saves, but without the annoyance of checkpoints.

One save feature that really p*ssed me off was Resident Evil, having to wander across huge expanses of map on occasion to find a typewriter if you wanted to save. Garhhh!

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Karmillo

Not just multiple endings but multiple paths, always good for replayability

Nice thought but the more you multiply the endings the less you can invest in each individual one. You're essentially asking developers to write several games (one for each path) instead of one. Economics say that quality is likely to take a nosedive to achieve that.

Originally Posted by Huz

The latest Consolevania showcases two features a game should definitely not have: cutscenes that are not skippable, but are pausable!

I'd say pausable (and skippable) cutscenes are a must. There's nothing I hate more than triggering a large cutscene just when I need to break off playing for something else.

Originally Posted by seebaruk

One save feature that really p*ssed me off was Resident Evil, having to wander across huge expanses of map on occasion to find a typewriter if you wanted to save. Garhhh!

A real fun-killer. Since you also needed a ribbon to save the game this also effectively had a limited number of saves you could make over the entire game.

The problem with this (and why I favour a more flexible system) is that you need to play the game in fairly large chunks to avoid running out. This can render a game effectively unplayable for someone that can't devote such blocks of time to game-playing. Especially since you can't tell how long the whole game is and therefore whether you need to conserve slots for later.

[seebaruk]

Exactly. I was just really annoyed when I'd done quite a bit of boring item-lugging through loads of places I'd already been (which was abundant in those games), trying not to save, only to be attacked by some huge boss or something and killed. I don't know how some people could go the whole game without saving to get an A grade or whatever.

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Tell you what. Let's show up at bigjko's front door with a copy of Hitman: Codename 47 and force the beeyatch to play it at gunpoint.

I have, and finishing the Hotel level without killing non-targets was, without a doubt, one the biggest satisfaction in my entire gaming life.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Fair enough, but what do you suggest as an alternative? Autosave? Checkpoints? Infinite rewind capabilities? Dare I say it, level passwords?

How 'bout not punishing me for failures, by making me replay the damn thing? How 'bout designing the game to reward me for taking risks? Why do I have to die when I fall down some shaft? Why, when I make a bad jump, am I punished by making me travel through the whole level only to make that same damn jump? Scrap all this crap you mention. I don't want to see any of it. The game should be handling this for me. I'm not a game designer, so I'm not going to really try and come up with solutions for this. I just really hate this whole deal with saves.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

How would it all work for players who like being able to save their game in any given moment?

Not at all. Only, if there was never any *need* to save, then they'd be too busy enjoying the game to ever ponder: "Why can't I save here?"

But really, if you feel this weird desire to save, then this would not work at all. Just like a game that *requires* you to save, if you don't want to blow off your head in frustration, doesn't really work with people who don't like to save.

(On the topic of "How..?", why not give the players who do make the jump something they consider rewarding (be it a cutscene, a piece of the bigger puzzle, a banana, depending on the game) while the players to don't make the jump fall down into a sewer, and when they ascend up a ladder they appear on the other side of the jump, sans reward.)

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by bigjko

(On the topic of "How..?", why not give the players who do make the jump something they consider rewarding (be it a cutscene, a piece of the bigger puzzle, a banana, depending on the game) while the players to don't make the jump fall down into a sewer, and when they ascend up a ladder they appear on the other side of the jump, sans reward.)

Please, please, no. I don't think I could cope with replaying levels ad nauseam in a vain attempt to get the reward on the last jump of the level ...

[seebaruk]

Reminds me of Fatal Frame (US)/Project Zero (EUR), having to take a picture of every frigging ghost that appeared in the game to get some hidden bonus, had to reload so many times. I've never been patient enough to do stuff like that, but I guess it's good for people who really like the game, gives it some replayability.

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by RLacey

Please, please, no. I don't think I could cope with replaying levels ad nauseam in a vain attempt to get the reward on the last jump of the level ...

No, the point is. If you don't get the reward on the first jump, you don't get it. At all. Thus making the whole jumping affair more meaningful. It would offer a second road, maybe, as an option (with a much less juicy prize at the end), but if you take the risk (jumping), you might end up getting the biggest prize, or just fall to no prize at all. None of these options include replaying anything.

It's a simple example, sure, but I still think it's vastly more interesting than your every-day standard platformer with save-everywhere features. That's not exciting. Everytime you get to a tricky part, you've got a failsafe way to replay it in case of failure. There's no risk involved. At all.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by bigjko

No, the point is. If you don't get the reward on the first jump, you don't get it. At all. Thus making the whole jumping affair more meaningful. It would offer a second road, maybe, as an option (with a much less juicy prize at the end), but if you take the risk (jumping), you might end up getting the biggest prize, or just fall to no prize at all. None of these options include replaying anything.

I understand the idea; I'm suggesting that those of us in this world who like to be perfect at these kind of games will be even more annoyed, as they'll have to replay the entire level or game to get the rewards they want, rather than just loading a save...

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by RLacey

I understand the idea; I'm suggesting that those of us in this world who like to be perfect at these kind of games will be even more annoyed, as they'll have to replay the entire level or game to get the rewards they want, rather than just loading a save...

Sure. I'd personally have more fun going through the game, and then returning later and finding out I missed out on a whole lot of things the first time 'round.

But then again, even if you're a perfectionist, why should you get a quicktime save right before the jump, just so you can perform it over and over until you've programmed into your brain how to perfectly execute the jump, and receive the prize. That feels a bit like cheating, to me, only the game allows it. IMO, if you're not good enough to make the jump, you just shouldn't get the reward. Tough luck.

You wouldn't even get that frustrated because you wouldn't know what you missed. You just continue the game like normal, only you didn't make the jump to something unknown. You'll be curious, for sure, but if the game's designed well enough, you'll be just as curious about what's coming up next.

Originally Posted by RLacey

..they'll have to replay the entire level or game to get the rewards they want, rather than just loading a save...

Exactly. It's too easy. Either you just accept that you sucked, when you jumped, or move along and finish the game without your reward. Where's the satisfaction in taking the easy way out?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Evidently, bigjko, you're assuming that what you want is want everyone else wants. Wrong. And you're being selfish.

That's why I propose the option of a quicksave, and the option in the main menu to tell the game to autosave for you or not. If you're playing the game and don't want it to save for you, then you tell the game that. If I'm playing it and want to be able to save just before a boss fight I should also be able to tell the game to do it. Simple as that. We both win.

[artwking4]

I'm sure I'm missing the point of this, but no quicksave or checkpoint system would be terrifying. Imagine playing Psychonauts and having to restart the Meat Circus level after every missed jump. It would be nigh impossible. It was already insane to begin with. I still have nightmares.

[SoccerDude28]

Well you can potentially have a game without saves (not really without saves but it saves when you quit the game). For example, in WOW I believe, you only save when you log off. When you die, you turn into a ghost and need to find your body. It works well for that type of game. With Prey, they have come up with a cool way of avoiding death, by turning you into a ghost in an astral plane when you die. You have to fight your way back to your body against ghosts or something. But that fits the story, because the protagonist is a native American who has spiritual powers.

But unless there is a weird way to play the dead stage, I can't see how you can eliminate saves completely. Death is a major part of a gaming experience and an important part of it. So there has to be a way to continue playing after you die, whether it be save or the Prey and Warcraft ways.

And from a frustration perspective, I'm with Trep, I'm all for quicksaves, and save anywheres. I think frustration removes me more from the experience than hitting a button to quicksave.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Well you can potentially have a game without saves (not really without saves but it saves when you quit the game). For example, in WOW I believe, you only save when you log off. When you die, you turn into a ghost and need to find your body. It works well for that type of game. With Prey, they have come up with a cool way of avoiding death, by turning you into a ghost in an astral plane when you die. You have to fight your way back to your body against ghosts or something. But that fits the story, because the protagonist is a native American who has spiritual powers.

It might work for WoW, after all, it's a MMOG, but if there won't be quicksaves in Prey, I'll probably get very annoyed.

The system they came up with is rather imaginative, but I suppose its novelty might wear out quickly. And besides, it's not usable in every situation (what if you fall into a lava pit?).

While fighting your way back to the body might even be fun, I still want to be able to just press a button and instantly be given another try, that's why I proposed the rewinding system in the first place.

And bigjko, not every game can be designed that way. If I got what you're saying right, you're proposing for dying to be eliminated from games. Instead of dying, your character would be just given a lesser prize. That might work for platformers (although it would dull the challenge/risk significantly and encourage thinking along the lines of "what's the point in even trying, I'll get some reward anyway?"; it would also make a lot of existing platforming puzzle designs useless), but never for action games.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

And bigjko, not every game can be designed that way. If I got what you're saying right, you're proposing for dying to be eliminated from games. Instead of dying, your character would be just given a lesser prize. That might work for platformers (although it would dull the challenge/risk significantly and encourage thinking along the lines of "what's the point in even trying, I'll get some reward anyway?"; it would also make a lot of existing platforming puzzle designs useless), but never for action games.

I was thinking along the same lines. Part of the joy of beating a game comes from the possibility that you'll fail. You get a sense of achievement from overcoming obstacles. Like insane_cobra said, with the "lesser prize" system you're giving the player to option to circumvent obstacles entirely which, to my mind, will lead to less satisfaction at the end.

Also some games really need death in them to maintain the suspension of disbelief. If you're playing a combat-based game then not being able to die is seriously going to blow that for you (being able to take hundreds of bullets and heal instantly from first aid kits is bad enough)

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

..not every game can be designed that way. If I got what you're saying right, you're proposing for dying to be eliminated from games. Instead of dying, your character would be just given a lesser prize.

Yeah, that's basically what I mean. Well, depends on the situation whether the player gets a lesser prize, or no prize at all.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

That might work for platformers (although it would dull the challenge/risk significantly and encourage thinking along the lines of "what's the point in even trying, I'll get some reward anyway?"; it would also make a lot of existing platforming puzzle designs useless), but never for action games.

I don't get the challenge/risk in making a jump if you know that if you don't make it, you can just try it again, and again, and again, and again ad nauseum, until you're either a) too frustrated from all the failures that you throw the game out the window or b) finally make the jump, because of the number of times you've replayed that exact jump.

What I'm suggesting is that if you are going to make the jump, you better be sure as hell that you're going to make it, or else you don't get any prize.

Asking "what's the point in trying to make the jump, if you can just skip it?" is like asking "what's the point in playing a game, if I could just not play it?" It's rewarding. You get a real sense of accomplishment. And the fact that if you hadn't made the jump, you'd be sitting there with nothing in your hands, makes it that more worthwhile.

And you're right, this would definately not work with every type of game. In fact, this would make for a whole new type of game.

Originally Posted by Trepido

Evidently, bigjko, you're assuming that what you want is want everyone else wants. Wrong. And you're being selfish.

No, I stated multiple times that it was me that hated saving, and that it was me that would like more games designed around having to save. I must've understood the meaning of this thread differently from you, as I didn't think insane_cobra was actually insisting that every single game on the planet included a rewind system.

It becomes clear to me now that this thread was not for stating opinions, but rather for making very obvious observations about existing games, that no-one really gives a rats ass about.

Originally Posted by Trepido

That's why I propose the option of a quicksave, and the option in the main menu to tell the game to autosave for you or not. If you're playing the game and don't want it to save for you, then you tell the game that. If I'm playing it and want to be able to save just before a boss fight I should also be able to tell the game to do it. Simple as that. We both win.

No, you win. I lose. If I choose not to save, any mistake will lead me to restart the entire level. How in the world that corresponds to my idea, is beyond me. In my perfect game, mistakes wouldn't force you to restart the level, but when you're performing well you'll get more. So, your solution solves nothing, and basically just gives me, who craves not for saves, the same crap we've been fed since the dawn of time.

You win. I lose. And for even suggesting the mere idea you're being, according to your own logic, selfish.

Originally Posted by stepurhan

I was thinking along the same lines. Part of the joy of beating a game comes from the possibility that you'll fail. You get a sense of achievement from overcoming obstacles. Like insane_cobra said, with the "lesser prize" system you're giving the player to option to circumvent obstacles entirely which, to my mind, will lead to less satisfaction at the end.

I must've explained my idea pretty badly, because it should be clear that not making the jump is considered a failure. You don't die, but you indeed failed at your mission. You didn't get the hefty reward at the end of the jump, and instead got nothing, or very little. So, basically, you failed.

Originally Posted by artwking4

I'm sure I'm missing the point of this, but no quicksave or checkpoint system would be terrifying. Imagine playing Psychonauts and having to restart the Meat Circus level after every missed jump.

Yeah, it'd be a total nightmare. You know why? Because it's not designed around the concept of non-saves.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by bigjko

I don't get the challenge/risk in making a jump if you know that if you don't make it, you can just try it again, and again, and again, and again ad nauseum, until you're either a) too frustrated from all the failures that you throw the game out the window or b) finally make the jump, because of the number of times you've replayed that exact jump.

Or you could just carefully balance the difficulty of the said jump, ie. don't make it too hard to pull - voila!

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of having different prizes for different levels of skill (actually, most platformers have that), but making every jump in a game like that would probably be impossible. Scratch that, maybe it wouldn't be impossible, but I think designing such a game would severly limit designer's options.