Jan 3 Update: More Ai Smartness

[sparhawk]

Actually this is a feature planned for 1.0 release.

[sophisticatedZombie]

"Dancing is forbidden!"

[ZylonBane]

What you don't seem to get into your head is this: I don't play a game to learn ANYTHING about the game itself. I play a game because I enjoy the action of the game. If I have to replay the same part again and again it just becomes tiresome.

Okay, stop right there. You're wandering off into Retard Land now. Are you seriously saying that every game you play, you expect you should be able to just walk through the entire game without having to learn any new skills?

[sparhawk]

If I play a shooter, and then play another, which skills exactly do I learn between them? Or what skills did I learn when playing BG2? Of course I get better at a particular game, because you learn the techniques of that particular game, but what kind of skill is this supposed to be? Wow! I'm a master of Doom 3, would be an impressive line in my resume.

 

Enjoying a game doesn't mean that it has to be easy. It means that it has to be immersive. Immersive enough to NOT worry about saving during the gameplay, because, as I said, if I start thinking about my saving habit during the game, it means that the game has failed to immerse me.

 

When I played Painkiller, I liked it because it has a great atmosphere, not because it has such a great save feature.

[Schatten]

I like well implemented save restrictions. As with everything, it's in how well you balance restrictions. Take Sand of Time for example, you had save points (admittedly sometimes annoyingly placed ones), but you had the option to rewind in time with the dagger to replace quicksave/quickload. I loved that feature.

 

Save points are not what I would suggest in a Thief-like game. If anything, maybe non-save zones. Example:

You have to balance over a crooked, small path over a chasm to get on the other side. Quicksave/load removes practically all tension from balancing over it, since you just could save after each little step. Making that pathway a non-save zone could remedy that, without blocking saving of your progress in general.

 

That would allow for adding the tension of being "without net" for critical parts of a mission. It's in the mission author's responsibility to use it in a good way, of course.

[Domarius]

Save points are not what I would suggest in a Thief-like game. If anything, maybe non-save zones. Example:

You have to balance over a crooked, small path over a chasm to get on the other side. Quicksave/load removes practically all tension from balancing over it, since you just could save after each little step. Making that pathway a non-save zone could remedy that, without blocking saving of your progress in general.

I like the idea! That's much better actually, because the way I was thinking of save points in a Thief game, would be at important portals, like say in Calendra's legacy, one at each exit/entrance of the museum. Which means once you enter it, no saving. I didn't realise I was just trying to create save zones!

[Gildoran]

If I were to implement save restrictions (don't worry everybody, TDM isn't going to have them ), I'd do it by having two map script functions:

float canSave(); // returns non-zero if the player can save
void saved();

I think using these two functions a mapper could implement most save policies, such limited but global saves, only being able to save when outside of a restricted area, etc.

[ZylonBane]

I like the idea! That's much better actually, because the way I was thinking of save points in a Thief game, would be at important portals, like say in Calendra's legacy, one at each exit/entrance of the museum. Which means once you enter it, no saving. I didn't realise I was just trying to create save zones!

Oh, right, being able to save or not depending on where the player is makes PERFECT sense. That's not meta-gaming the player AT ALL. Nope!

[Schatten]

Well, it obviously is total meta-gaming. It's a thing of preference if you like it or not.

The way I see save restrictions, it's like rope balancing. In terms of difficulty, it doesn't matter if the rope is 2 inch or 20 feet above the ground, yet it makes all the difference.

[Domarius]

Oh, right, being able to save or not depending on where the player is makes PERFECT sense. That's not meta-gaming the player AT ALL. Nope!

It's no different than save points in that respect. You could have brought that argument up back when I was talking about them then. But as you know, I like the idea of save points, for reasons already explained.

[Maximius]

That would allow for adding the tension of being "without net" for critical parts of a mission. It's in the mission author's responsibility to use it in a good way, of course.

 

 

Seems like a good idea to me, you can make certain tough spots really challenging without making the whole game a giant no save zone. One idea that comes to mind would be to make the "save zones" in places that make a bit of sense in terms of storyline or whatever. For example, when breaking into a mansion, you cannot save in the vault or in the art gallery but you can in the woodshed out back, or the corner of the big attic, or in the back rooms of the basement. Any place where the Thief could conceivably have a moment of breathing space is a save zone, but anyplace he would have to be on his toes at all times would be off limits. Or something like that. It just seems as if it could be used to accentuate the environment of the map, making safer places feel safer cause you can save there and emphasizing the dangers spots.

 

 

Ok, cue ZylonBane screaming and ranting in 3...2....1...Action!

Edited January 12, 2007 by Maximius

[Gildoran]

It just seems as if it could be used to accentuate the environment of the map, making safer places feel safer cause you can save there and emphasizing the dangers spots.

That's what I've been trying to suggest! One idea I've had is for a city that was just recently overrun by zombies... The houses are nailed shut with (friendly) people inside them and zombies are roaming the streets. It's the player's job to get from one side of the city to the other. Allowing them to save while indoors but not while outside would help the feel of such a map and would make a lot of gameplay sense. (the player worries about getting from house to house - and if they fail one route more than a couple of times, they can always try a different route)

[Springheel]

That gives me a great idea. How about DVD players that disable your remote control until specific spots in the movie? Places where the director has decided to allow you to pause. Imagine the heightened tension of a car chase if you really have to pee and you have to wait until it's over before you can go--or even better, if the doorbell rings, and you have to make a frightening decision--do I get the door and miss the ending of the chase, or do I risk having whoever is at the door leave? Oh the tension! Oh the heightened drama!

[Domarius]

I agree, the same concept wouldn't work for a movie.

 

Are we done using predictable analogies to attack each other's preffered way to enjoy a game? I thought that line of discussion had run its course.

 

Though, if you're just poking fun and not trying to make a point, that's okay.

[Maximius]

Well I think there is something to the idea, this is *exactly* what I was talking about earlier, the sort of detail that can add realism without major overhauls or creating realism imbalances as Ishtvan was discussing a few messages back. Even within a room you could have save/no save zones. For example, break in to the art gallery, heavily guarded with little or no hiding nooks, and its no saves. But if you can make it to the rafters, you can save up there.

 

Now Im not saying there may not be problems, but I definitely think its worth considering. The relief would be palpable after getting through a tough spot: you get to catch your breath and save, finally. I would not want to accentuate the saving zone/non save zone TOO much, the Thief is there to steal gold and goodies, not discover save zones or a magic chest like in fucking Resident Evil, but if done subtly I think it could add a nice flavor to the immersion. The "in game" tension of fleeing a dangerous spot and the relief you feel when you make it to a bit of safety would be nicely supported by the "meta game" concern of getting to save. WHo hasn't giggled aloud with excitement and nerves when you just make it up a rope ladder or down a bolt hole with the City Watch hot on your ass? I think this could conceivably amplify that.

[Domarius]

Needless to say - for those of us who like to play games that way. We shouldn't have to add that on the end of everything to avoid backlash of some sort. I'd like to think it's pretty obvious by now that this is definetly one of those things that is personal preference, like choosing wether or not to invert the Y axis.

 

Though if people were having fun just pulling apart each others arguments in good fun, they should go right ahead, and we should take the save zone discussion to another thread.

[OrbWeaver]

How about DVD players that disable your remote control until specific spots in the movie?

 

They can, and they do. That is why I will never, ever purchase a hardware DVD player, because I have no time for movie studios telling me what I can and cannot fast-forward past.

[Ishtvan]

They can, and they do. That is why I will never, ever purchase a hardware DVD player, because I have no time for movie studios telling me what I can and cannot fast-forward past.

 

 

Yeah, it does rather suck when they say, "No, you cannot fast forward, you MUST sit and WATCH this 10 second HBO logo!"

[OrbWeaver]

Never mind a 10 second logo, I have heard of DVDs (in the US, never in the UK) which force you to watch 10 minutes of trailers for other DVDs before you can watch the content you paid to see.

[ZylonBane]

Are we done using predictable analogies to attack each other's preffered way to enjoy a game? I thought that line of discussion had run its course.

Your preferred way of playing is to not rely on quick saves. You are free to do so even in games that support them. The problem is you. If you and Gildoran had any measure of self-control, we wouldn't have to listen to you bleating for games to protect you from yourselves.

 

Unlimited save-anywhere should never be intentionally curtailed, because the real-world utility far outweighs any theoretical in-game detriment.

[sparhawk]

Not only in the US. This feature is as needed and adds as much tension as save points. It really does, because I get quite immersed when I have to forcewatch a "Copying is bad" trailer, or watch advertisment that I never wanted to see. I guess people know that they make bad advertistments, otherwise they wouldn't have to force you to wath 'em.

[Ombrenuit]

I don't know how pick pocketing should be handled; but I always loved pick-pocketing guards and having it go unnoticed. I'd say the rate of failure should something rare, like 10% and only set the guard on alert mode. That way it would make you feel cool and keep the tension up.

 

As for the save zones idea, I've never liked the idea of repeating section B of the game to get to section C only to die and have to go through Section B again. I'd just like to save right before section C, thank you. It curbs a lot of frustration and the number one reason why I've never been able to play through games that don't get me a save point every few feet.

 

For those that want a more immersive experience, I agree with Zylon for once: that's why there are play styles.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Ombrenuit

[Schatten]

Your preferred way of playing is to not rely on quick saves. You are free to do so even in games that support them. The problem is you. If you and Gildoran had any measure of self-control, we wouldn't have to listen to you bleating for games to protect you from yourselves.

 

Hence my analogy with balancing on a rope. Maybe I'm so awesome, I can drive over the rope with an unicycle whilst blindfolded and juggling chainsaws. The difference lies in knowing that if I fall I'll break my neck instead of straining an ankle. It's not so much "protecting me from myself", it's more in the thrill of knowing.

 

Saving is a meta function, and save restrictions can help to counter the immersion breaking of that function, in my opinion. I'm aware that countering a meta function with another isn't the best option. Sand of Time did a wonderful job in making quicksave/load part of the gameworld, which is probably the best solution there is (sadly, it's not very portable. It wouldn't really fit for most games to have some time-rewinding device included).

 

As for the save zones idea, I've never liked the idea of repeating section B of the game to get to section C only to die and have to go through Section B again. I'd just like to save right before section C, thank you. It curbs a lot of frustration and the number one reason why I've never been able to play through games that don't get me a save point every few feet.

I agree with that, that's why excluding areas from saving is IMO a better option than reserve certain spots for saving. It should be an exception, not the general rule - but here opinions will differ again.

[Elusive_Thief]

Hi. Saving anywhere you want is an excellent idea. In Thief 2, which I absolutly love by the way, I really did NOT feel like having to do the same thing over and over and over. Plus saving can add to the fun of a Thief Like game. How so right? Just imagine all the funny little things you might like to do to take out that guard or how many ways you think you can sneak past. If you don't have any ability to save you would have to do the 80% (about two hours worth) of the mission before you even got to the spot you wanted to try new things out at. Our memory saves every blessed second of life, now whether or not we can remember is a different story. But, imagine in we only saved our thoughs every 2 hours. What did you do two seconds ago, Oh I'll thell you in 2 hours. PS:I think your doing a great job with this mod don't ever change.

Edited January 13, 2007 by Elusive_Thief

[Domarius]

Your preferred way of playing is to not rely on quick saves. You are free to do so even in games that support them. The problem is you. If you and Gildoran had any measure of self-control, we wouldn't have to listen to you bleating for games to protect you from yourselves.

You're the only one who doesn't get it.

 

Given the save zone examples, how can you still be harping on about "self control" when we're talking about integrating it in the gameplay? A player can't do that, that's a mappers job.