[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by bigjko

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.

I understood that you considered not making the jump as a failure. My point was that any game that isn't open-ended has a final goal that all your playing is striving towards (defeat the villain, save the world, etc) If you can continually fail (by not making jumps or whatever) yet still advance towards that goal then doesn't that cheapen this ultimate victory?

"Hey, I failed at absolutely everything I did but I still defeated Baron Evil so I must rule"

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by bigjko

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.

I've been giving it some thought while taking a bath and I managed to think of one hybrid genre that could actually work with your model: platform/adventure. You would need to solve a number of puzzles along the way so if you're good at platforming, you could jump your way to the item you need for solving a puzzle (or just jump your way around the puzzle), otherwise you'd have to find an alternative, mentally harder solution.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

I've been giving it some thought while taking a bath and I managed to think of one hybrid genre that could actually work with your model: platform/adventure. You would need to solve a number of puzzles along the way so if you're good at platforming, you could jump your way to the item you need for solving a puzzle (or just jump your way around the puzzle), otherwise you'd have to find an alternative, mentally harder solution.

That's actually a pretty neat idea. The adventurer would fall a lot, and go scratch his brain cells, whereas the platforming person would just have the perfect timing and jump his way around most of the time. The platforming would be fun(like that of POP) so that both platforming and puzzling folks would have a good time going through the level.

But that still does not eliminate death from other sources like monsters, unless you want to make a game without death completely.

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

I've been giving it some thought while taking a bath and I managed to think of one hybrid genre that could actually work with your model: platform/adventure. You would need to solve a number of puzzles along the way so if you're good at platforming, you could jump your way to the item you need for solving a puzzle (or just jump your way around the puzzle), otherwise you'd have to find an alternative, mentally harder solution.

That's an awesome idea. There's lots of possibilities, and this would completely eliminate any need for any kind of save system.

Originally Posted by SoccerDude

But that still does not eliminate death from other sources like monsters, unless you want to make a game without death completely.

Well, you wouldn't neccesarily need to die. Maybe you could lose something. Every time you get hit by an enemy you drop a specific amount of your precious money, for example. But, as mentioned before, this wouldn't work in every theme. I mean, everyone expects a gun to kill you, so if it doesn't it'd just feel weird.

Originally Posted by stepurhan

I understood that you considered not making the jump as a failure. My point was that any game that isn't open-ended has a final goal that all your playing is striving towards (defeat the villain, save the world, etc) If you can continually fail (by not making jumps or whatever) yet still advance towards that goal then doesn't that cheapen this ultimate victory?

"Hey, I failed at absolutely everything I did but I still defeated Baron Evil so I must rule"

You're right. I hadn't pondered that at all. It's not a solution, but having all the rewards you can get make a big difference in the end (you get a bigger castle, or the princess isn't an ugly toad, or whatever) could motivate the player to not just "fail" his way through the game.

Then again, there are some people who just want to get through a game, no matter how (i.e. by using saves to replay ad nauseum, until jump is achieved. Don't really see the sense of achievement in that.)

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it I've actually played this game that I'm describing. I'm not sure it was entirely death-free (I think it was, though) but Wario Land 2 sounds suspiciously similar to what I'm trying to get out of myself. So there, there's the perfect example of what I'd like to see more of. When touched by an enemy, you lost some of your precious money. You never died, but being awesome was rewarded with artifacts and crap, that counted towards a big-ass palace in the end. Bosses always had the goal of trying to get you kicked into a hole, which lead to having to replay a bit of the stage to get back to the boss. In fact, that's the only thing I'd like to see changed a bit. It was a bit frustrating. But overall, an awesome game. You even had the choice, if I remember correctly, at the end of the game to go back and replay a level of choice to get more rewards or find more secret paths (which lead to entirely new branches of levels.) Man, I need to replay it sometime soon.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by bigjko

Then again, there are some people who just want to get through a game, no matter how (i.e. by using saves to replay ad nauseum, until jump is achieved. Don't really see the sense of achievement in that.)

I don't see the sense of achievement in that either but I still think there should be the option. I prefer to save few and far between but I'd hate to have to give up on a game because there is a particular sequence I just can't seem to accomplish in one go.

For example, the Onieros level in Undying. It being a horror game it wouldn/t have worked to exclude death. There is a section where you have to jump (fly) up a series of platforms. Missing a platform meant you fell into an endless void (death in other words)

To my mind the controls for flying are a bit touchy and the margin of error is quite small. If I'd had to do this entire section (about 5 or 6 jumps) in one go then I'd have had to give up on the game because I found them so hard to judge. This would have been a pity because the wrap-up on the game was great and I didn't have these concerns on any other sections. (Being torn apart by monsters yes, but not dying because of a single misjudgement of a jump)

I do like your idea of having a game where saving is unnecessary (except when exiting) and the concept you've put forward is definitely intriguing. I just think it won't work for any genre where death is a necessity to maintain realism.

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

For example, the Onieros level in Undying. It being a horror game it wouldn/t have worked to exclude death. There is a section where you have to jump (fly) up a series of platforms. Missing a platform meant you fell into an endless void (death in other words)

To my mind the controls for flying are a bit touchy and the margin of error is quite small. If I'd had to do this entire section (about 5 or 6 jumps) in one go then I'd have had to give up on the game because I found them so hard to judge. This would have been a pity because the wrap-up on the game was great and I didn't have these concerns on any other sections. (Being torn apart by monsters yes, but not dying because of a single misjudgement of a jump)

Not having played this, I can't be an authority on this, but small errors that can mostly be attributed to bad controls sounds a lot like this section was just horribly designed. In my humble opinion, if the section is badly designed it shouldn't even make it into the game. But let's imagine this challenge had been well-designed, but still hard as ass. If you'd fail to make it through it, wouldn't you rather that you fell into a pit with some monster-slaying, the part you like and are good at, and then wind up at the top of the jumping challenge?

Thus having done something to deserve being able to continue, although not the thing you were initially supposed to do, and can proceed through the awesome end pay-off without feeling guilty of failing. You killed monsters instead, you paid your dues.

Originally Posted by stepurhan

I do like your idea of having a game where saving is unnecessary (except when exiting) and the concept you've put forward is definitely intriguing. I just think it won't work for any genre where death is a necessity to maintain realism.

I agree, to a degree. I still think it's possible, but I have absolutely no idea how. I guess I'm just hopelessly optimistic.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by bigjko

But let's imagine this challenge had been well-designed, but still hard as ass. If you'd fail to make it through it, wouldn't you rather that you fell into a pit with some monster-slaying, the part you like and are good at, and then wind up at the top of the jumping challenge?

No. It just doesn't work for (quasi)realistic games. If you fall from a great height, you die, no buts. Besides, what if you started at the bottom of the level (I haven't played Undying either, or to be more precise, I haven't gotten to that level yet, but hypothetically speaking)? You just killed all the monsters, but you fall down and there they are again.

By the way, there's another flaw in your non-saving model: unless you throw in some puzzles, the game can be finished by simply holding the forward button pressed, maybe pressing the jump button occasionally.

But back on the original topic (though still in the realm of saving), what I'd like to see in absolutely every game is saving your exact position in case of quitting the current gaming session or exitting the game entirely. Some games don't do or even allow that so upon reloading you have to restart at the beginning of the level, or at the last checkpoint. Bad designers, off with your heads!

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

But back on the original topic (though still in the realm of saving), what I'd like to see in absolutely every game is saving your exact position in case of quitting the current gaming session or exitting the game entirely. Some games don't do or even allow that so upon reloading you have to restart at the beginning of the level, or at the last checkpoint. Bad designers, off with your heads!

This is the problem I have with Diablo 2. Each chapter has a home base town and you can only save when you quit. If you die then you lose some of the gold you were carrying and have to get back to the place you died in order to retrieve the items you had with you at the time. Since the area you died is likely to be surrounded by monsters you'd better have a spare set of equipment (whenver I upgrade I always keep the best of the previous equipment set in my stash)

But the worst part is that when you reload you're always back in town. To travel to areas a long way away from town there are a series of waypoints that you can activate which allow you to teleport from town to that location. This means that to make progress you have to commit yourself to playing long enough to reach the next waypoint and sometimes that's a hefty challenge. Can't just start up for a quick relaxing monster bash.

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

No. It just doesn't work for (quasi)realistic games. If you fall from a great height, you die, no buts. Besides, what if you started at the bottom of the level (I haven't played Undying either, or to be more precise, I haven't gotten to that level yet, but hypothetically speaking)? You just killed all the monsters, but you fall down and there they are again.

Well, I was assuming that since the player can fly from platform to platform, he could at least subdue the amount of damage to himself in the fall, by using whatever powers enable him to fly. As for the second thing, I also assumed that when you fell down you fell down to an entirely new section of the game, and this section ends at the top of the previous challenge.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

By the way, there's another flaw in your non-saving model: unless you throw in some puzzles, the game can be finished by simply holding the forward button pressed, maybe pressing the jump button occasionally.

My game idea was a very simplified one, for making it easier to understand what I meant. I'm not suggesting a whole game be made from jumping over holes. There needs to be variation, of course. The idea is meant to be built upon, with good level design and whatnot. What I'm suggesting is just that failing at a challenge doesn't have to mean you fail at the game. And those challenges can be made even more exciting with the fact that you can't save, and can't replay them (without replaying the whole game.) That is all. What these challenges end up being, and what ends up happening when you fail at them (i.e, do you get another, completely different side-challenge) depends on the game designer.

[Gknight]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

This is the problem I have with Diablo 2. Each chapter has a home base town and you can only save when you quit. If you die then you lose some of the gold you were carrying and have to get back to the place you died in order to retrieve the items you had with you at the time. Since the area you died is likely to be surrounded by monsters you'd better have a spare set of equipment (whenver I upgrade I always keep the best of the previous equipment set in my stash)

But the worst part is that when you reload you're always back in town. To travel to areas a long way away from town there are a series of waypoints that you can activate which allow you to teleport from town to that location. This means that to make progress you have to commit yourself to playing long enough to reach the next waypoint and sometimes that's a hefty challenge. Can't just start up for a quick relaxing monster bash.

It depends where you are landed. I find that it sometimes is better to save\quit then retrieve your body. That way you avoid opening a series of doors that brings you to a dead-end room and lets you find the most direct path. This is most true when going into the seven tombs.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Gknight

It depends where you are landed. I find that it sometimes is better to save\quit then retrieve your body. That way you avoid opening a series of doors that brings you to a dead-end room and lets you find the most direct path. This is most true when going into the seven tombs.

Really? That could be a handy tip (if I hadn't just passed the seven tombs )

Originally Posted by bigjko

Not having played this, I can't be an authority on this, but small errors that can mostly be attributed to bad controls sounds a lot like this section was just horribly designed. In my humble opinion, if the section is badly designed it shouldn't even make it into the game. But let's imagine this challenge had been well-designed, but still hard as ass. If you'd fail to make it through it, wouldn't you rather that you fell into a pit with some monster-slaying, the part you like and are good at, and then wind up at the top of the jumping challenge?

I've thought about this and is it horrible design or do I just suck at platform games?

Because when I started the game it was a horror-based FPS. Therefore I was execting to run around various locations being attacked by baddies (being a horror game I also expected limited ammo) So maybe the platforming element just went against the whole and a platform player would find this section a piece of cake. It's the old argument about adventure games including arcade sequences. Should games include sections more appropriate to different genres?

Thought of another query since you don't like saves (because they break up the game) If a game had to involve death would you find having to restart acceptable? The venerable antique random fantasy dungeon game Dungeon Hack (Forgotten Realms archive is your best bet of getting a copy) included a real character death option. You could save whenver you like and reload at that location (so quititing meant you reload without having to backtrack). However, if the character died ALL SAVES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT CHARACTER WERE DELETED. I couldn't envisage using such an option myself (what if you just made a stupid mistake?) but I've seen a similar option since so it must have some followers.

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

Because when I started the game it was a horror-based FPS. Therefore I was execting to run around various locations being attacked by baddies (being a horror game I also expected limited ammo) So maybe the platforming element just went against the whole and a platform player would find this section a piece of cake. It's the old argument about adventure games including arcade sequences. Should games include sections more appropriate to different genres?

That does make a whole lot of sense. But is it really fair on the players expecting a shooter? What if the game offered you a second path, where you shot monsters and whatnot, instead of jumping platforms. But that might be perceived as taking the easy way out, or something.

Originally Posted by stepurhan

Thought of another query since you don't like saves (because they break up the game) If a game had to involve death would you find having to restart acceptable? The venerable antique random fantasy dungeon game Dungeon Hack (Forgotten Realms archive is your best bet of getting a copy) included a real character death option. You could save whenver you like and reload at that location (so quititing meant you reload without having to backtrack). However, if the character died ALL SAVES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT CHARACTER WERE DELETED. I couldn't envisage using such an option myself (what if you just made a stupid mistake?) but I've seen a similar option since so it must have some followers.

Escape Velocity had one of these, also. You could select, when you began, "Hardcore Mode". I'd be pretty frustrated. However, the game would be a bit more meaningful. I'd feel a lot more satisfied when I made that jump, or whatever it is I'm doing in the game.

But like you say, what if I make one, teeny, tiny, dumb mistake?

Personally, if a game has to have death, I'd accept just restarting the level. Depending on level size, maybe a checkpoint. The satisfaction of clearing the Hotel level in Hitman (after the 15th time) was tremendous. No game has ever made me feel so awesome at gaming. This would never have happened if I could've quicksaved after I successfully retreived the flower box gun.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by bigjko

Personally, if a game has to have death, I'd accept just restarting the level. Depending on level size, maybe a checkpoint. The satisfaction of clearing the Hotel level in Hitman (after the 15th time) was tremendous. No game has ever made me feel so awesome at gaming. This would never have happened if I could've quicksaved after I successfully retreived the flower box gun.

To each its own, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a quicksave option cause not all people think like you.

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

To each its own, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a quicksave option cause not all people think like you.

And that's not being selfish? If the game includes a quicksave option, that means it's designed with that in mind. That everytime someone says to the level designer: "Isn't that a bit too hard?" or "Won't this bit be a little frustrating?" the designer just replies: "Hell no. The player just quicksaves before it, then he'll have no problem with it."

I'm not suggesting we remove quicksaves from every game on the planet. I'm just saying that quicksaves isn't a feature that has to be neccessary in every single game on the planet. And that a game designed with quicksaving "as an option" is in no way the same as a game designed with no quicksaving.

And I'm sure I'm not the only being on this planet that wants more games without quicksaves.

[RLacey]

More games should have this feature:



Along with The Ultimate Traffic Stopper: A Police Roadblock!

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by bigjko

And that's not being selfish? ...........

Look, I don't feel like repeating the same stuff over and over again, you win. Take that cup.

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Look, I don't feel like repeating the same stuff over and over again, you win. Take that cup.

Jeez, I thought this was a thread about discussing what features we want in games, not just you. Feel free to ignore everything I tried to explain, and reply telling me to get over myself and just play what everyone else wants to play.

Oh, wait. You already did.

[Jackal]

I'd actually like to see more games along the lines of what bigjko's suggesting, too. But he's right - it involves a whole different mindset. "Gameplay" is traditionally considered the obstacles put in your way to impede your progress. The challenge is in getting past them, whether it's puzzles, enemies, or something organic.

This is the exact sort of mindset Fahrenheit tried to challenge. I know Jon wasn't suggesting more games like Fahrenheit, but the principle is basically the same: to design games built on an incremental reward system instead of punishment system. Such games would probably be panned massively for being "too easy", but that would be missing the point. Easy to survive, yes, as survival isn't the goal.

This is definitely Nintendo kind of thinking.

So besides overcoming the typical gamer mindset, I think the biggest problem here is simply budget. Remove survival challenge, and you've got to have a whole lot more game designed to make up for it. Again, that's a common complaint about Fahrenheit for the same reason. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done; just that it's a huge consideration.

Originally Posted by bigjko

And that a game designed with quicksaving "as an option" is in no way the same as a game designed with no quicksaving.

This I disagree with. Options are just that - options. Games aren't "designed" to be run on the lowest resolutions, either. They're designed to be run on the highest. Scalability is just an accommodation for varying system capabilities. A game can still be designed without quicksaving intended but include the option.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by bigjko

Jeez, I thought this was a thread about discussing what features we want in games, not just you. Feel free to ignore everything I tried to explain, and reply telling me to get over myself and just play what everyone else wants to play.

Oh, wait. You already did.

This thread IS about what people want in games. The fact is many people want quicksave in games. All your arguments are about removing the option of quicksave.

You don't want to use quicksave then that's fine. We can appreciate and possibly even applaud your choice. But the point is if there is a quicksave option then you have the choice to not use it. If you don't have a quicksave option then everyone has to play the way you want to. I've tried to be reasonable about this but if you keep insisting on removing an option that a lot of people who've posted here want available then you are the one being selfish.

And I think you're doing games designers a grave disservice by insisting that the inclusion of a quicksave option means they'll add in overly difficult sections deliberately. If a jump is next to impossible then its just as likely that the quicksaver trying and failing lots of times will get frustrated as someone having to start a level from scratch. Possibly even more so since they won't even have the variety of the rest of the level up to that point to break the monotony of failure.

You successfully design a game where no-one would thnk of saving except to end their session then I'll fully support it (In fact, judging by Jackal's post, some work has been done on that already) Until then, as long as a stupid mistake can kill me in a game, I'd like to retain the choice to quicksave if I want to.

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by Jackal

This I disagree with. Options are just that - options. Games aren't "designed" to be run on the lowest resolutions, either. They're designed to be run on the highest. Scalability is just an accommodation for varying system capabilities. A game can still be designed without quicksaving intended but include the option.

I agree with you. That game is indeed well possible to be designed. But, and I hate to repeat myself, like I already mentioned there's a lot of sloppy developers out there. Sure, if their mind is set on creating this certain type of game, but still include the option, then I'd certainly have my dreams come true. But the truth is, a lot of developers would just fall back to the "the player can just quicksave his way over this.." mindset. Mostly, like you say, due to budget reasons, I guess.

That's why I think it's unfair to just look the other way when I talk about this, and say "just don't save.." With the current crop of games, and most likely the future crop of games, that's not close to what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Jackal

This is the exact sort of mindset Fahrenheit tried to challenge. I know Jon wasn't suggesting more games like Fahrenheit, but the principle is basically the same: to design games built on an incremental reward system instead of punishment system. Such games would probably be panned massively for being "too easy", but that would be missing the point. Easy to survive, yes, as survival isn't the goal.

Man, you make my thoughts organized. I wish you'd have just said all this when I started opening my dumb mouth.

Originally Posted by stepurhan

And I think you're doing games designers a grave disservice by insisting that the inclusion of a quicksave option means they'll add in overly difficult sections deliberately. If a jump is next to impossible then its just as likely that the quicksaver trying and failing lots of times will get frustrated as someone having to start a level from scratch. Possibly even more so since they won't even have the variety of the rest of the level up to that point to break the monotony of failure.

Look, I'm saying they could've made the jump so that the tiniest of misjudgement wouldn't result in failure. But they don't have to. Because there's your precious quicksave. I'm sure it's not even deliberate. It's just something they've gotten used to doing because we've had quicksave for god knows how long..

This is, of course, not the truth with every developer. I'm over-generalizing. I just think, with current developer mindset, that it would be all too tempting to just fall back to the same thing again (punish player for small mistakes) if they included quicksaves, even if they set out to do something else (incremental reward system.)

But I'm being a bit pessimistic.

Originally Posted by stepurhan

This thread IS about what people want in games. The fact is many people want quicksave in games. All your arguments are about removing the option of quicksave.

Exactly. I represent the other side, if you will.

Originally Posted by stepurhan

If you don't have a quicksave option then everyone has to play the way you want to. I've tried to be reasonable about this but if you keep insisting on removing an option that a lot of people who've posted here want available then you are the one being selfish.

Look, all I want is to discuss, even argue, the option of a quicksave. I'm not insisting that this be removed from games, entirely. I even suggested a whole new genre, so that games sans quicksaves be considered entirely seperate from games with quicksaves. I think that if a game was designed correctly, then there'd be no need to quicksave. If the game was designed in a way that players just don't feel the need to quicksave, at all, then why even bother with including the option? If even suggesting that is being selfish, then yes, I'm selfish.

Am I behaving like some asshole here? Because that's not the intention. It's just that a lot of you snap back at me, like I'm trying to steal the last piece of your pie. I'm sorry if I want to argue (which seems to have become some kind of taboo around here,) and I'm also sorry if I snapped back. But the fact is, there were some who snapped at me for absolutely nothing, calling me selfish for discussing my opinions on a public forum.

Anyways, the intention was not to be an asshole. I just want to discuss this, and am pondering just starting a whole new thread, instead of driving even more people from this thread.

EDIT: And furthermore, I wish I hadn't even started discussin the absence of quicksaves, but rather what games might gain from the absence of quicksaves, and incorporate that mindset with or without quicksaves. I now realize that would've made a whole lot more quieter discussion. But back when I opened my mouth in the first place, I hadn't even realized that was what I wanted.