Ultra Realism Possibilities?

[Maximius]

I for one am glad obscurus has gone on about this, its really instructive as a wanna-be FM designer to hear how others play their games. These discussions are filled with diamonds in the rough, good ideas that can be worked up later.

 

But multiple saving options are the way. I feel the need for artistic integrity that you describe obscurus but I think that even as an artist, esp. with the goal of achieving an immersive environment, you are going to have to take your audiences playstyles into greater account. What is a nerve tingling tension to you its gross boredom for another, options make this problem dissolve. What creates deep immersion for you blows it for another.

 

In fact, the argument could be made that the FM you are making is NOT solely yours, not if you intend to truly share it with a community of diverse playstyles, not if you want the widest possible range of players to enjoy your work. There will have to be some compromise, as a cook I have spent years watching people take my artwork and slather it with ketchup. But those folks like ketchup, so ketchup it is.

[Domarius]

But since it would be an optional feature, the masses can have their ketchup, and we can have parsley and oregano (So much for thinking of an extravagant condiment, but you get the idea.)

[Springheel]

Another argument against save points is that they wind up tipping the player off that something important is coming.

 

You walk up to a door and the game pauses and saves. You now know that something significant is behind that door. Either that or the FM author is putting one there specifically to mislead you, which kind of defeats the point.

[Domarius]

Well not in the games I played them in. They were frequent enough and inconspicuously placed enough, that they were no indicator of what was coming up.

 

Its all about level design.

[Bhruic]

Bhruic, are you opposed to save-limiting if it were an option you could turn on and off, and was off by default?

 

No, I'm not against the idea. I can understand that some people may appreciate the option, despite the fact that I wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't consider implementing it to be a priority tho'.

[Springheel]

Well not in the games I played them in. They were frequent enough and inconspicuously placed enough, that they were no indicator of what was coming up.

 

I don't get it. On the one hand you say good level design means the FM author will put in few save points (to increase tension) and will put them before challenging locations (to avoid Ish having to replay large sections for failing a jumping puzzle).

 

Now good level design means putting 'frequent' save points in 'inconspicuous' places?

 

If they're frequent and inconspicuous, how are they better than the limited quicksave option?

[Maximius]

But since it would be an optional feature, the masses can have their ketchup, and we can have parsley and oregano (So much for thinking of an extravagant condiment, but you get the idea.)

obscurus is the diner with the extravagant tastes, while everyone else is happy with ketchup, oregano, or parsley he demands fresh hand whipped duck egg mayonnaise with fine herbes. And then insists that you have to eat it too!

 

J/K!

[Zaccheus]

My opinion is still the same as it was when we discussed it ages ago:

Let the FM author decide whether or not to impose various save/reload limits.

[obscurus]

obscurus is the diner with the extravagant tastes, while everyone else is happy with ketchup, oregano, or parsley he demands fresh hand whipped duck egg mayonnaise with fine herbes. And then insists that you have to eat it too!

 

J/K!

washed down with a nice bottle of Cabernet Merlot, followed by a cheese platter and fine belgian chocolates... :lol:

 

*affects despotic German accent*

Ya, you vill do as I say! No ketchup for you!

 

[obscurus]

My opinion is still the same as it was when we discussed it ages ago:

Let the FM author decide whether or not to impose various save/reload limits.

That is my opionon...

 

 

Another argument against save points is that they wind up tipping the player off that something important is coming.

 

Unfortunately the level designer can't do anything to disguise a sudden burst of hard drive activity that would indicate a game might be being saved, but insofar as the engine permits, you don't have to make it obvious that the game is being saved, and there are several games that manage to allow you to play without any significant pause while a save is going on. D3 might make it a bit obvious, but you can at least get rid of any "game saved" messages..

 

 

On the other hand, and this is how I see it, you can look at an autosave point as a reward for past progress, like the level designer saying to the player "ahh, you have made it this far. Well done". There may or may not be another difficult challenge up ahead, but the aim of games is to give the player feelings of tension and relief, and it is good to relieve the players stress periodically, so they can rest and prepare for the next challenge...

 

I don't really see that as an argument against save points, because it is part and parcel of building tension, and serves to remind the player not to lose their nerve.

 

If on the other hand the player decides when and where to save, they can easily remove the tension by frequently saving - if they die, they don't lose much progress, and they now know what is coming (and it is still fresh in their mind), whereas if they play like they have something to lose by stuffing up, they will be less likely to take risks that will get them killed. If they do die, they also have more to remember when they reload, which means there is still a chance they have forgotten about the zombie that bursts out from that door, or that bit of loot under the bed, so they haven't completely wiped out the challenge.

 

Repeating large sections of a map can be frustrating or not, it all depends on the player's attitude - you can see it as an annoyance, or you can see it as an opportunity to improve your playing. That IS one thing that is up to the player...

[Domarius]

If they're frequent and inconspicuous, how are they better than the limited quicksave option?

It's actually very simple. (oh, forget I said frequent - it's more like sparse).

 

You don't place them just before a hard bit, you place them near enough that the stuff in between it and the hard bit is not a big deal to get through.

 

This is not dependant on linearity - take Calendra's Legacy for example. I would place one somewhere near the cathedral in the streets, near the east side of the cathedral, since it so happens that the only two entrances for the cathedral are on the east side. Since there is only one good way to the cathedral, the player would never miss this, and therefore never have to worry about having to specifically hunt for save points.

 

Although on that note, I dont' have anythign against having to specifically hunt for save points. I don't find this any more abstract than having to specifically hunt for 90% loot, when I have 85% and am about to die - any sane thief would just get out of there. Plus I would reffer to Outcast's example of tying in saving to the game world.

The justification is the same as having to find 90% loot - its a crossover between gameplay and reality. In reality, I would leave with 85% if I didn't think I was going to make it. But in the game, you need specific goals or the whole gamplay system just falls apart. I would be hunting around for save points to increase my chances just like I painstakingly hunt for that last percent so that I can see the ending sequence.

 

Another example is if you ever get down into the dungeon of the cathedral, I would place one at the top of the stairs beyond the locked door that leads there. It (like most save points would) serve a multiple purpose as a reward for getting that deep into the cathedral, and a point to fall back on if you die in the dungeon.

 

Another example (still in Calendra's Legacy) is the grave yard. I would place one, not just outside the gate, but some ways from it in the nearby streets. It wouldn't take long to run from there to the gate if you ever died inside the graveyard.

 

 

 

Now keep in mind that save point placing is a creative process, and for every flaw any of you find in my descriptions above, I will counteract it with what I would do to resolve that flaw. It's just that I haven't thought about the above in as much detail as I would as if I was making the level myself.

Edited June 10, 2005 by Domarius

[obscurus]

It's been a while since I played Calendra's Legacy, but they seem like pretty reasonable spots to me, only extensive playtesting would allow you to really refine it... and like I said before, if people don't like the idea of a save hunt, the saves can be made to trigger once only (although that might make non-linear bits awkward)...

 

I actually hope FM authors bother to put autosave points, and/or objective saves in their maps, I know I'll enjoy playing them more if they are there... I'll be doing it for any maps I make

[Springheel]

Although on that note, I dont' have anythign against having to specifically hunt for save points. I don't find this any more abstract than having to specifically hunt for 90% loot, when I have 85% and am about to die - any sane thief would just get out of there.

 

True, loot hunts are a little artificial and percentages shouldn't be used. But at least hunting for loot is something a thief would actually do. It has a connection to the "reality" of the game world. Saving the game has no connection to that reality at all. It is something purely outside the game. As soon as I have to hunt around for save points, the reality of the game has been compromised.

[Domarius]

For me, hunting for save points is not too disimilar from trying to find a safe place to hide and catch my breath, its just that there are some "specific places" that are better than others.

 

Try and explain off the scavenging of a few pennies when it could mean your death!

 

For me, when I'm forced to go back in to a horde of zombies for a few pennies with 2 points of health left, the reality has been well and truly fucking comprimised

Edited June 10, 2005 by Domarius

[Maximius]

Veering wildly off subject, I got Doom 3 the other day, the graphics are staggering. And although I'm not much of a FPSh player anymore, I think its the best Doom ever and the best I.D. game Ive played. And I started playing their stuff on a 486 in a little schloss by the name of Wolfenstein many moons ago...

[Gildoran]

Yeah, although a lot of people seem to think Doom 3 sucked, I really enjoyed it. Admittedly, the middle part is a little bit boring, but the beginning and end are great fun, and hell was wonderfully done. The only thing I didn't like was how predictable/repetitive it was. (Hint for ANY part of the game: Don't take that item that's out in the open. It's a trap. Instead, grab the items that are under the nearby stairs.)

 

Never the less, before Doom 3 I thought the only way to have a beautiful world was tons of polys. I was surprised how effective the textures were at making the world look complicated and 3 dimensional.

[DopeFishhh]

well if you ask me saving/loading breaks immersion, unavoidable but true. the player gets shook up by having to reload because he died or did something silly or the game did something silly.

 

look at movies for an example of immersion, the main character may not win all the time, however his defeats are not major, he rolls with the blows and moves on. saving and reloading pretty much means that the main character has control of time and can rewind back to a suitable point and redo that failure.

 

now of course a movie is much more controlable than a game ever could be, and with games becoming more detailed and flexible controlling things becomes harder. A good thief mission would not lock a player into something, ie loot requirements. Making the player hunt around for loot is silly it should be optional, but taking the option up means the player can buy more equipment.

 

a good thief mission will give the player an end objective and let him figure out how he wants to do it, the player cannot save or reload to any other point than the start of the mission though he can pause it indefinately where he currently is (basically if he chooses to pause it does a save, but he has no option to reload only to resume or restart the whole thing). finally if the player encouters something critically bad there should still be options left open to him, if he's dead there arent many options other than restart though

 

it may seem a bit extreme but it would be the closest representation to what things are like in real life. it is also the most entertaining being the smoothest style of gameplay coming close to a movie in it's flow.

 

because this is an extremely long thread already i might repost this in another thread for discussion.

[Ishtvan]

@Domarius: Hunting for savepoints does a pretty good job of reminding me that I'm in a game and killing any sense of immersion.

 

@DopeFishhh: If you ask me, this whole obsession with making games more "cinematic" has brought us a ton of short, extremely linear and easy games.

[Springheel]

it may seem a bit extreme but it would be the closest representation to what things are like in real life.

 

Actually, if you want to keep things close to real life, you should only get one try at the game. If you die, the game uninstalls itself and formats your HD. Think of how tense you would be!

[FishFace]

For me, certainly, savepoint hunting would suck. It makes the player think "I must find somewhere to save," not "I must find somewhere to catch my breath." While the player is thinking "out-of-game" he is not immersed.

 

Unlimited saves you may use without thinking - perhaps what should be imposed is a number of reloads, after which you have to restart the mission? An idea worth tossing around; it completely wipes out the possibility of reloading for the wrong reasons, allows saves in appropriate places and therefore minimal tedium when dying, and yet does not interfere with immersion.

Coupled with only being able to save with low light-gem values whilst still, this could be quite effective.

 

I expect I'll never budge from believing save points to be a bad idea, encouraging linearity or being used too frequently, but if you want to offer a choice, I expect people will use it. I don't agree with forcing anything, though.

[Domarius]

@Domarius: Hunting for savepoints does a pretty good job of reminding me that I'm in a game and killing any sense of immersion.

That's fine. I was just saying how for me, it doesn't. I like FishFace's post better though because he said why he didn't like it.

 

But anyway, I daresay there should be no need to "hunt" for save points in a properly designed mission. I was just saying how it wouldn't bother me.

 

Actually, if you want to keep things close to real life, you should only get one try at the game. If you die, the game uninstalls itself and formats your HD. Think of how tense you would be!

*sigh* another extreme...

I'm just looking for something more challenging than unlimited saves, something set by the author for me to overcome.

 

I suppose limited saves could work... if the author set the limit.

Edited June 12, 2005 by Domarius

[FishFace]

I suppose limited saves could work... if the author set the limit.

 

Different playstyles, different number of saves required. That's why it was suggested, IIRC by Isht, that there should be a 'par.' If you want to set the save limit to the par, then sure, but it shouldn't be forced

[Gimpy]

I must say, ive NEVER seen anyone go into that much detail about thief.

Bravo to all, some really good points where made, im impressed.

 

i never really thought about it untill now but boy is it possible to make thief believable.

anyone ever thought about the shadows? i have lived in a very old mansion in england, where the floorboards creak, its bloody cold, everything is made of sandstone on the outside and everything is wood inside. never have i ever not seen something because of a shadow, everything leaves a Silhouette.

 

Can we have an abundance of candles!. They have good shadows, the ones that hde things...

 

oh, and can SOMEONE make a cradle again, i wanna be scared some more...!

did the cradle remind anyone of House on Haunted Hill?

[Maximius]

Actually, if you want to keep things close to real life, you should only get one try at the game. If you die, the game uninstalls itself and formats your HD. Think of how tense you would be!

Better yet, we can design a simple trigger mechanism that will fire a single .38 round through your forehead when you get whacked in the game. Think of the realism! Go ahead and try to disarm that mine!

 

I want to push for realism in any way I can, but not to the detriment of gameplay. Part of the immersion of a game like Thief or the Mod is the thrill of discovering whats in the next room, especially when you have fooled an entire staff of guards and servants to find out. Doom3 is getting old already for that very same reason, I know the room ahead is filled with monsters, and thats it.

 

You cant ever get that thrill back, once you know what is in the room. Ever get a thrill when you find a really tough secret switch? Sure you have, but how thrilling was it the next four times you found it. Zilcho. Replaying it over and over because you cannot save, even having to replay over and over with poorly placed savepoints, is as big a killer of immersion as anything else. So rather than making gameplay better for me, more "realistic", it would make it a pain in the ass, forcing me to do stuff over and over when I want to quik-save, complete the current task, and get on to the next room full of surprises.

 

And the Thief universe, being far more sneaker and far less shooter, is even more dependant of this sort of element of surprise. Doom 3 is fun cause it scares the crap outta ya with its monsters, but the environment itself is dull and un-interactive. The storyline is not really compelling because the environment doesnt make me work within it, all I have to do is get the codes, cards, PDAs, resources, and keep pushing forward. Doom 3 is what I would call an "AI dependent" game, the monsters are all it really has to offer in terms of interaction. The Thief game-verse is far different, dependent on a variety of factors including AI who do a lot more than hiss and attack, the Thief's ability to tackle goals in a non-linear manner, detailed and dynamic objectives well embedded in the storyline, careful attention to small details like object/loot placement, whatever.

 

The point? Saving, while truly a immersion breaking experience, is a necessary and valid one. It is not a black and white issue and its hardly the only one with an impact on immerison , which is a matter of a number of qualities "blending" together in the players mind. I like Gildoran's idea best of all: One quicksave slot, thats it. Some may prefer to have two slots so as to provide a bit of backup, thats fine too but I like the razor's edge quality of the one save. But having no saves? Thats painful.

[Gimpy]

I played Thief 1, gold and 2 without saving (no saving, nothing. NOTHING), it was fun. really fun. especialy on expert.

replaying after i died was so boring, i dont know about you guys but once ive played it once, i know the bloody thing back to front and inside out....

 

problem is, now that ive done that, playing Thief at all is SO simple, as long as your patient. Even thief 3 is too easy, well easy enough, even though the AI are so much smarter.

 

Anyone love the cradle mission as much as i do?