Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

POLL: Possibility for mappers to create missions where you cannot save manually, but use checkpoints or other systems instead.


Obsttorte

  

72 members have voted

  1. 1. Should mappers be allowed to turn off manual savings?

    • No, I want to save when I want. And no mapper should tell me how to play his or her mission.
      32
    • I personally prefer beeing able to save whenever I want, but it can't harm to give mappers this opportunity.
      23
    • I think it is an interesting possibility and I would like to see missions using this.
      14
    • I don't care at all.
      0
    • Port TDM to the CryEngine. Now!
      3


Recommended Posts

I'm not arguing against the feature. I think it would fit nicely along side the existing save mechanics, for those who wish to have the extra challenge.

 

To be frank, I'm a bit PO'd that people are pulling out the 'well why don't we put an option in the menu for spiders, etc, etc' card....and it does nobody any favors throwing it into the discussion. I feel like I'm driving behind a car where the people ahead of me are throwing buckets of nails on the road to try and put me in the ditch.

 

Lets be clear.

 

This is not a type of character in the game. It's an addition to an existing save game system.

 

I think it's a worthy addition, but I do not believe it needs to be implemented with an all or nothing mindset.

 

What makes it so crucial that it would not be permissible to disable it in supported missions? It's still there for players who have been desiring that type of save game system, and if it can be disabled they still get to enjoy it along with all of the other TDM players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear, we are NOT twins separated at birht!

It would be an honor :P

FM's: Builder Roads, Old Habits, Old Habits Rebuild

Mapping and Scripting: Apples and Peaches

Sculptris Models and Tutorials: Obsttortes Models

My wiki articles: Obstipedia

Texture Blending in DR: DR ASE Blend Exporter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The amount of time I get to play doesn't allow me to depend on games with check points. I play for a bit, save and go back to my life outside of games.

 

 

 

This has been stated before and I don't get the quintessence.

 

As someone who also doesn't have a lot of time to play, I can try and explain. Let's say I play TDM very slowly, watching guards patrol until I learn their routes, scouting things out from afar with the spyglass, and generally proceeding very slowly and carefully. If I have ten more minutes left to play, I can do this for 10 minutes and then save the game. If I cannot choose to save when I want, I have to starting thinking, "Where is the next checkpoint going to be? Can I get there in 10 minutes? Do I have time to search this closet? Should I just skip that small room and look for a choke point? Is it better to just quit now and redo the stuff from the last checkpoint?" Two minutes later, if I still haven't found another checkpoint, I have to ask all those questions again...repeat until the time runs out.

 

As far as the "why would we want to intentionally put someone off a mission they might otherwise play" issue, it's important to distinguish between "you should never" statements and "I don't enjoy" statements. I wouldn't argue that mappers "should never" implement mandatory no-kill restrictions, but "I don't enjoy" those restrictions generally, and would argue for allowing the player to kill things if they wish. A question like "why would you want to" force save restrictions, rather than making them a difficulty-based option, is a valid question that can be answered, not satirized.

 

(One possible answer is that some players express an attitude like "I might like the challenge, but if quicksave is available I can't help using it". For those players, the option actually doesn't work.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you mean, but if some people don't find the time to play such missions, does this neccessarely imply that other people who can spend the time should not be able to play those either.

 

I see that you are aiming for a compromise when you are stating that it would be good if players can opt that out. It's quite diplomatic, to be honest.

 

But I think that there is maybe a misunderstanding here. A misunderstanding, which has nothing to do with the fact we are speaking different languages natively (well, maybe a bit), but with the fact that we are looking at games from two different perspectives maybe. I will not claim that mine is better then yours, than, this would be brainless bullshit. But everyone who spends his time creating something, especially if he does this within his freetime, has a certain goal he is aiming for. And those goals does not neccessarely be the same for all people contributing here.

 

It has been stated in the threads for my FM's, that I lay a big focus on gameplay, and I'm pretty good at it. This does not mean I do this better then other mappers, but it implies that this is something which is extremely important for me. I'm a mathematician, I love structures, I love functions and systems to analyze and play with.

 

The main purpose of mathematicians is actually to investigate systems and find rules describing them. I did this when I set up my fan missions, and the responses were pretty good. I have a very analytic way withwhich I am looking at games or life in general. So I search for rules, but I also like to establish them, just to see how the player interacts than. I want to see if my predictions are correct, or where I have to improve my ideas, so I can create something that behaves more like I want the next time, to get the player into the position I want, whether this is a state of fun or whatever else. This way I can learn something, whether it prove useful or not. (I may sound like a robot when I'm writing this, but this is how I think).

 

If the player now has the possibility to opt things out, I have no feedback at all, and my time is wasted.

 

Other mappers will have a different approach to that. The may see it like you, thinking that giving the player the choice or making it difficulty dependent is the best way. Other mappers will think that the classic way is the best, and that putting time in setting up and testing checkpoints or whatever else is not worth the effort.

 

But why do we have to find a consensus if a compromise may be the better choice?

FM's: Builder Roads, Old Habits, Old Habits Rebuild

Mapping and Scripting: Apples and Peaches

Sculptris Models and Tutorials: Obsttortes Models

My wiki articles: Obstipedia

Texture Blending in DR: DR ASE Blend Exporter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the player now has the possibility to opt things out, I have no feedback at all, and my time is wasted.

 

I don't understand this part. If you had three difficulty levels, and two of them included the "no-save" option, how does that change the feedback? The people who play those first 2 could give you feedback on the system itself, and you would also learn something if you found most people chose the 3rd difficulty instead.

 

In terms of feedback, how would that be different than forcing "no-saves" on all difficulties, and then just having some people not play the level at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand this part. If you had three difficulty levels, and two of them included the "no-save" option, how does that change the feedback? The people who play those first 2 could give you feedback on the system itself, and you would also learn something if you found most people chose the 3rd difficulty instead.

I understood you in the way that you want it to be optional independent from difficulty settings or mapper intentions. If this is not the case, and the mapper can decide, I am fine.

In terms of feedback, how would that be different than forcing "no-saves" on all difficulties, and then just having some people not play the level at all?

The other people would give me feedback. And even if nobody would play the mission, it is better to have no feedback then having some with unrelyable base data. (I know this sounds odd, but it's hard to explain in english).

 

I want to have an exact frame under which I can estimate the feedback I get. This is one of the reasons why I am not a big fan of the lockpick/visual/hearing sliders. It makes it difficult to comprehend under which circumstances the player made which decisions, which have an impact on his experience.

 

EDIT: To use a less abstract term instead of feedback, data or whatever. I want to understand why players are enjoying certain things and why not. This way I can make it better next time, and can get an understanding on how people have to be manipulated (you may not like this word, but this is exactly what we are doing in rl all the time) so they get a certain feeling, may it be fun, fear or anything else.

 

It allows me to take the control without letting theplayer notice that. Every game has it restrictions. But one aim is to let the player forget those, so he forgets he is wandering around in a virtual world, something that stops existing once you turn off your computer. This is immersion.

FM's: Builder Roads, Old Habits, Old Habits Rebuild

Mapping and Scripting: Apples and Peaches

Sculptris Models and Tutorials: Obsttortes Models

My wiki articles: Obstipedia

Texture Blending in DR: DR ASE Blend Exporter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you are saying in terms of getting data, but any player who wants that type of thing is going to use it and those who don't won't....'if it's tied to a difficulty level'. For your feedback statistics you simply use the feedback from anyone who used the checkpoints and ignore the rest. More people get to enjoy the mission that way, but you're still getting your data from those who would desire to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the only bugbear I would have against it is problems with flaky power supply and not enough time to actually play through a map in one session, eg if the power goes off during an in game autosave then you would have lost that save and have the possibility of having to start the game again from the start when the power came back on. where if you save it yourself then you would have incremental saves to fall back on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stumpy:

But checkpoints or not, this can also happen with the current system. I guess most players are mainly relying on quicksaves, so they have only one savegame and if that gets corrupted, it is indeed an annoyance. As I have stated before (iirc), the mapper decides upon the names of the savegames. Different names = different savegame files. Mappers could also set it up in a way, that the autosaving for example would alter between a certain amount of files to avoid that you end up with lots of savegames.

I see what you are saying in terms of getting data, but any player who wants that type of thing is going to use it and those who don't won't....'if it's tied to a difficulty level'. For your feedback statistics you simply use the feedback from anyone who used the checkpoints and ignore the rest. More people get to enjoy the mission that way, but you're still getting your data from those who would desire to use it.

This is actually only one aspect. Rules are part of any game. I define where to place ai, which doors need keays or can be lockpicked, what equipment the player has, the lightgem offset, light placement, objectives, etc... All of these things can make the mission more or less difficult. Do you want players to be able to opt all these things out?

 

EDIT: @Elwing: Yes, as said before. :)

A game always tells the player what to do. Sometimes subtle, sometimes not. The idea is that you have a problem (objectives, guards in your way, puzzles), and you use what you get (equipment, hints) to solve that within certain restrictions (restricting objectives, limited moveability, not all doors or windows can be opened). That's what a game is about, and it is the work of a mapper to set up these things so they can give the player a certain experience. The players work is to play it and to either like it or not.

 

If a mission is designed to create an experience which you (or anyone else) personally not like, than this is a simple fact: the mission is not your cup of tea. Why should the player be able to bend everything into a direction so that it pleases him? It's like buying oneself a bus simulator, and than having the option to double the acceleration and maximum speed to make it more funny. This is pretty senseless.

 

Regarding frustration there is something I've experienced quite a while ago. I've bought myself Deus Ex: Human Revolution, as it is pretty cheap by now and I like the series (mainly because you can stealth in it ;) ). There was a side quest dealing with a corrupt policeman.

 

 

You gathered information against him and in the end you should arrest him. Well he tells you that he will give you money by deponating it in your flat if you let him go. Now I thought, that I can take the money and than knock him out, so I get the cash and complete the objective as the good guy :)

 

So I accepted, but than the policeman said he had to go now and was gone. I could not knock him out. Well, it seems the devs have taken that into consideration. I got back to the woman which gave me the mission and told her that he was already gone, which made her really sad. Than I got back to my flat, to take the money, but there wasn't any. Just a worthless bottle of wine and a sarcastic letter.

 

 

I can't tell you how fucking frustrated I was. Those bloody devs just hosed me. :angry: But in the end, it was a nice experience anyway. The devs did something only a few games do, the evoked a feeling in me which was negative. But did that make the game bad for me, no. It was an interesting experience and added to the game imho.

 

So frustration can also be motivating. It's the dose that makes the poison ;)

FM's: Builder Roads, Old Habits, Old Habits Rebuild

Mapping and Scripting: Apples and Peaches

Sculptris Models and Tutorials: Obsttortes Models

My wiki articles: Obstipedia

Texture Blending in DR: DR ASE Blend Exporter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just mention an old compromise idea where players aren't forced into a scheme, but rewarded if they ironman an FM or possibly do it with limited saves, and that would be to place some notification about it on the Stats Screen somewhere. My thinking here would be that a checkpoint system could be combined with that kind of notice. I was thinking it was already a good idea to add generally.

 

I'd also be on board with an opt-in or opt-out system. So the FM could force the player into a checkpoint system and they have the option right at the start to opt-out; which if they don't take it locks them in from then on.

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand what the entire point of this thread is.

 

Currently if a player wants more challenge they can save at the beginning and never again. If they don't they don't.

 

If they want to create a hard save upon objective completion only, they can do that.

 

If they want to save every 3 seconds they can do that.

 

Taking the time to add something that the player can already do themself seems like a waste of time.

 

Forcing the player to "play how you want them to" is, in my mind, fruitless. Take nuThief as the perfect example of being forced to do many things.

 

If the player wants that type of game experience under the current system, they can have it. Unless they're part of the younger gamer crowd that lets the game do everything for them. (opinion)

 

Its not my effort going in to any of the proposed changes but its redundant effort regardless because it can already be achieved if the player chooses it, and we'll have autosave along-side quicksave so....it can be negated entirely? What's the point.

Edited by Lux
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is to give mapper more options. If the mapper wants to make a mission with save restrictions, let them.

 

Unlimited saves is an unlimited resource, somewhat similar to unlimited fire arrows or unlimited KOs. The mapper can control arrows and KOs but not saves.

 

Let the mapper have one more parameter to play with, if they want. Let the mappers to explore new gameplay elements. That is the point.

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's my limited cranial matter getting in the way, but from my perspective as a player (and occasional map tinkerer), I don't associate saves with player tools. Maybe from a mapper perspective there is no difference between a save slot and a fire arrow or a blackjack, but as a player I don't wander around the ingame world collecting saves from chests, finding them in cupboards, or pickpocketing them off of AI. They are a system that exists 'outside' the game world, not a player tool. So I find it a bit troublesome to have them treated in this discussion as if they were a tangible ingame resource when really they're not.

 

I have absolutely no issue with the system being updated to give mappers another option, so long as it is also optional for the player to choose whether or not they want that challenge or not. The mapper can still design their map with save points in mind, their creative freedom is not hindered in any way by allowing players to opt out.

 

TDM is a joint effort...and at this point a well established one. There has to be give and take in creative matters like this. I see no reason why it has to be an all or nothing situation.

 

I think the poll paints a pretty fair picture and overall it seems that mostly everyone would be quite happy to welcome save points as an 'opt-in / opt-out' feature on supported maps.

I hope this won't turn into a situation where people dig their heels into the sand for an ideal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for 2 but if I was playing a game with only checkpoint saves I would change the difficulty level from my usual hardcore/hardcore as the AI is just too observant at that level

With respect to checkpoint saves in particular I hate them specially if you can't go back to an earlier one. There are a number of times I have had a checkpoint save just after I got almost killed so health/armour is really low and you can't do anything about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe from a mapper perspective there is no difference between a save slot and a fire arrow or a blackjack ... So I find it a bit troublesome to have them treated in this discussion as if they were a tangible ingame resource when really they're not.

One one side you except that mappers may see it from another perspective, but on the other you claim that this is wrong.

With respect to checkpoint saves in particular I hate them specially if you can't go back to an earlier one.

Which would impy they were badly used or the mission design is not good. It's nothing that affects particularely this.

@Lux: It's true that you could basically just play like that, but you always know that you can fallback to the default way (save whenever you want). This is something different as when you have no choice.

Forcing the player to "play how you want them to" is, in my mind, fruitless. Take nuThief as the perfect example of being forced to do many things.

nuThief does not force you onto something just for the sake of forcing you. The idea was imho to implement several kinds of gameplay into the game, to address as much people as possible. This is quite the same which many peoples here are expecting from us. ;) And that's what makes this discussion especially annoying to me. It should be acceptable that some mappers may want to create something that is not intented to be enjoyable for everyone. If I would like to do this, I would create maps for CoD.

Many people here think that it is bad if mapers forces things on the player, but on the other hand you think you can force us to not force anything on you, which is strength. Why do you think that you who just get the missons for free should have more decisional power then the mappers who spend their free time creating them?

 

I don't say it shouldn't be possible to opt it out by default, we can certainly add this feature. But mappers should ahve the choice whether they want to opt the opt out ;) Actually it is pretty easy to do so. But I think it would not be good if mappers have to fallback to certain tricks to create missions the way they want to.

 

And again, we are not talking about a fundamental change here. We are talking about adding an option that mappers can use if they want to. How many will actually do that and in which degree (difficulty-dependent, opt-out-able) is a different matter. But if the distribution among the mappers opinions is similar to those who have voted and posted here, I don't see a big deal. The mass of mappers will make missions the mass like, and a couple of mappers will make missions that only a couple like.

 

And if you think you should be able to opt this out, why can't the mappers opt you out :D

  • Like 1

FM's: Builder Roads, Old Habits, Old Habits Rebuild

Mapping and Scripting: Apples and Peaches

Sculptris Models and Tutorials: Obsttortes Models

My wiki articles: Obstipedia

Texture Blending in DR: DR ASE Blend Exporter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe from a mapper perspective there is no difference between a save slot and a fire arrow or a blackjack, but as a player I don't wander around the ingame world collecting saves from chests, finding them in cupboards, or pickpocketing them off of AI...

 

You do not collect KO allowance from chests. You do not collect kill allowances from cupboards. You do not collect "bypass-main-objective" -cards from drawers...

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea was imho to implement several kinds of gameplay into the game, to address as much people as possible. This is quite the same which many peoples here are expecting from us

 

NuThief also sacrificed player freedom all over the place in order to force the player to experience the game the way the developers wanted...a decision that was almost universally disliked both before and after the game was released. So I don't think that comparison helps either side.

 

Why do you think that you who just get the missons for free should have more decisional power then the mappers who spend their free time creating them?

 

Let's not go down that slippery road. Obviously, mappers can do whatever the hell they want, and cannot be "forced" to do anything. If mappers can find a way to uninstall TDM from the player's computer and deliver a critical virus if they're spotted by an AI, then no one can stop them from making a mission that does that (imagine the tension in THAT mission).

 

The question here (and the purpose of the discussion) is to decide whether the ability to easily limit saves should be added to the core mod, and under what circumstances it might be appreciated.

 

That's why I said above that we need to keep two questions separate:

 

1. Should the ability to limit saves be included in the core mod?

 

2. Would I enjoy a mission that used limited saves?

 

They are easily conflated, but it's quite possible to answer 'yes' to one and 'no' to the other. Without making it clear, it's easy for someone to express their opinion on issue 2 and others to think they're talking about issue 1. For example, with no-kill objectives, I would answer "yes" to issue 1 and "no" to issue 2. On this issue, I lean towards "yes" for issue 1 and "not sure" for issue 2.

 

For mappers, however, the main question is #1. Mappers may be informed by the answers to issue 2, but all mappers know that their missions won't be enjoyed by everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha ha. Mappers are welcome to opt me out of a game, many game companies have done that already :D

 

I have no issue letting mappers implement this and using it as a tool provided its an option.

 

And along those same lines; If it is an option, and players can already up the difficulty the way they see fit doing this same thing using the current system (using hard saves as infrequently as they like), then I just don't see the point of it.

 

i.e. this is a community/donated time game and it would just seem like the time, however much, could be spent doing something more productive than recreating something that is currently already achievable.

 

By that same token I guess, this is a community/donated time game and if devs want to take their own time to implement such a feature, who is to stop them. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Should the ability to limit saves be included in the core mod?

 

2. Would I enjoy a mission that used limited saves?

 

1. Yes. This is a direction that deserves to be explored. More options to mappers is good. I personally think save limits were good thing in hitman games.

 

2. Unknown as I have not played such a mission with TDM. I would definitely want to see one and I would be very eager to try it out and see what my opinion would be. I am shocked how people are all in "no-no" without giving it a chance at all without even testing. It is like refusing to eat food without even tasting. They could be missing an excellent meal. I thought we had an open minded community here.

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

//And along those same lines; If it is an option, and players can already up the difficulty the way they see fit doing this same thing using the current system (using hard saves as infrequently as they like), then I just don't see the point of it.//

 

The same thing could be said of no-kill restrictions. Players could just choose not to do it, so what's the point of allowing those objectives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is like refusing to eat food without even tasting. They could be missing an excellent meal. I thought we had an open minded community here.

 

That is how you see it and lets remember we don't all see things the same way.

 

To some players I'm sure its more like someone telling them they're Catholic when they're Lutheran. Some people will die at the stake defending something.

 

Many modern games (most) use autosaves and it is a very touchy subject particularly with old school players. I'm surprised, Sotha, that you aren't aware of this.

 

Autosaves along with many other things ushered in to modern day games, many players are vehemently against.

Edited by Lux
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same thing could be said of no-kill restrictions. Players could just choose not to do it, so what's the point of allowing those objectives?

 

This is useful if the story line requires that someone in particular stay alive until the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not collect KO allowance from chests. You do not collect kill allowances from cupboards. You do not collect "bypass-main-objective" -cards from drawers...

 

That was pretty much my point. The things you mention are also external and are often controlled by the difficulty level chosen by the player. Saves are currently further removed from even those.

 

To answer the two questions Springheel posed:

 

1. Should the ability to limit saves be included in the core mod?

Yes! Absolutely. If the player can opt out on the difficulty selection screen or by some other measure.

 

2. Would I enjoy a mission that used limited saves?

Having played games with different styles of checkpoints, I have to say I would not enjoy this myself.

 

I don't see any real situation of 'no no no' going on here. Most are saying yes, but just not to the full degree being proposed. Like I said, it's a community project and there are always compromises. If people are suggesting meeting half way on something, there is usually a fair reason for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lux: It's already implemented. The question is whether it gets added.

 

I don't see any real situation of 'no no no' going on here. Most are saying yes, but just not to the full degree being proposed. Like I said, it's a community project and there are always compromises. If people are suggesting meeting half way on something, there is usually a fair reason for it.

But if most people think it does no harm to add it independent from whether they will like it themselves, what are we arguing about?

FM's: Builder Roads, Old Habits, Old Habits Rebuild

Mapping and Scripting: Apples and Peaches

Sculptris Models and Tutorials: Obsttortes Models

My wiki articles: Obstipedia

Texture Blending in DR: DR ASE Blend Exporter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • The Black Arrow

      Happy birthday to me!
      Yes, today's my birthday and as much as I want to play The Dark Mod, I won't until it's late Autumn, where it should be a bit chilly in my place and there's some wind too.
      For now, it's time to enjoy my birthday, if any of you want to play a great fan mission in my honour...Well that's asking too much, just play the mission because it's fun, not because of me, enjoy it yourself! 💪
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      New texture wiki article created: https://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php?title=Creating_textures_from_Ornate_Photos
      · 2 replies
    • Xolvix

      Took a break from TDM until I got my backlog under control. It's been months and it's still not "under control". Damnit.
      · 3 replies
    • Ansome

      I sleep well at night knowing the player will never see the absolute nightmare that is my sealing brushwork outside the playable area. Only the pointfile can judge me now.
      · 4 replies
    • JackFarmer

      Somehow I admire the fact that the material from Dune has now been filmed for the third time. Personally, I could never do much with the material, but as a child of the 80s, I of course know the David Lynch movie...and that movie was at least funny!
      · 2 replies
×
×
  • Create New...