Ultra Realism Possibilities?

[Darkness_Falls]

Hi there. I just wanted to say Hi That's all.

 

Carry on.

[Domarius]

Hmm, yes "made up on the spot" arguments. Those are so much worse than huge bolded text shouting arguments huh?

Only slightly. I apologise for that, but all you have to do is read back through the thread to see that no matter how many times I say the word "optional", people are STILL acting like they would be forced to play this way. Putting the words "OPTIONAL" in bold letters seemed neseccary. Though I didn't intend for it to look like shouting. This time round my post is much more organised.

 

nd something like save points that the FM author has to put in to support people who play with that option activated.

Of course not. If the support isn't there, the option won't enable. That's the definition of OPTIONAL.

 

...it seems like the "No-Savers" are really argueing not for the sake of gameplay, but to impress us with their gaming skillz.

This is the attitude that's really stifling this discussion and couldn't be further from the truth.

 

The problem is that people have become so used to their quicksave key, that the idea of not having one, or actually having to get from point A to point B without the possibility of a save seems abhorrent to them.

That's more the case.

 

Not for first milestone or anything soon

I'm just arguing against the sheer ignorance and negativity toward this suggestion. Seeing as I'm the only programmer interested in it, do you think I would mind implementing this myself after all the important stuff is done? No, all I want out of this discussion is permission.

 

Just another playstyle setting

It's not like this is some unlimited ammo feature that makes the game not what it is anymore, it's just a restriction, it makes it harder if the player wants it to be, is that so bad?

 

This isn't about "diciplining the naughty player"

This is about the FM author setting a challenge for you to over come. This is about the author having a say in the level of difficulty as part of the creative process of making a mission. Because if you tell me to just force myself not to save as often, then I have no idea how often and where to save for THIS particular mission to make it the challenge the author wanted it to be.

 

 

Argument: I don't like to play that way

Response: Don't turn the option on then.

 

Argument: Save points won't be fun because given x situation with y variables blah blah blah...

Response: I'm sick of people trying to tell me I haven't had fun playing completely NON-linear games that use save points. The fact that YOU haven't seen how they can be used creatively, is not a good argument.

 

 

And yes, listen to Gildoran, he speaketh the truth.

[Springheel]

I fail to see a reason why save points are needed if we're already implementing limited saves and save-on-exit-only options? What benefit do save points have that the other options don't?

[Domarius]

This is about the FM author setting a challenge for you to over come. This is about the author having a say in the level of difficulty as part of the creative process of making a mission. Because if you tell me to just force myself not to save as often, then I have no idea how often and where to save for THIS particular mission to make it the challenge the author wanted it to be.

That.

 

The author can say when you deserve to save, and what parts you have to slog through without the luxury of saving. Saving becomes a reward for accomplishing something really hard to do.

 

We all know there are missions that are "totally non-linear", but this has nothing to do with having or not having save points. Every mission has places that must be broken into, objectives that must be acheived, and precious items that must be obtained some how. Each time you acheive such a point, you definietly deserve to save.

 

An example of other points along the way could include either side of a particularly well-guarded hallway.

 

But it doesn't end there by any means. There are plenty of other creative ways to place save points in a rewarding manner.

Edited June 5, 2005 by Domarius

[FishFace]

This thread seems to be closing, but...

 

An example of other points along the way could include either side of a particularly well-guarded hallway.

 

For this particular example, there is one obvious problem. Once you've "completed" the corridor, maybe you've knocked out the guards, tied them up, whatever. Assuming you've somehow rendered them useless, why do you deserve to save when you come back that way? In an autosave context, you're now saving for no good reason - it's an unguarded hallway, and if you're having zones where the player may save if they like, it becomes a safe place to dart off to and save, if they need to, so you've failed in the immersion side.

This all springs from the fact that thief, as a _non_linear_ game, may call upon the player to return to an area they visited previously.

This isn't just this particular instance, either, most other instances where you would save once in thief probably cease to require a save once you've passed, unless you're ghosting.

[Domarius]

In an autosave context, you're now saving for no good reason

I'm not for autosaves.

 

and if you're having zones where the player may save if they like, it becomes a safe place to dart off to and save, if they need to, so you've failed in the immersion side.

And this is worse than unlimited saves how? For one thing, at least now they have to go to the effort of physically moving there, instead of relying on their best friend the quick-save key.

 

More to the point, the main problem with saving whenever you want is oversaving in a new hard bit to make it easier. Once you've been there, done that, it doesnt''matter as much.

 

When you are in a whole different part of the mission, nowhere near that save point, it won't matter that you could go back there, because it would be a dumb idea - too far away and bad to back track in the middle of some super hard mansion or heavily guarded floor.

 

Non-linear is just not an issue. You've earned that save point so you can save every time you pass by if you want. The main thing is to not be able to save in certain situations.

 

This thread seems to be closing,

Yeah, what is with that? Can "save points" be put in the "discuss later" thread now or what?

Edited June 6, 2005 by Domarius

[FishFace]

And this is worse than unlimited saves how? For one thing, at least now they have to go to the effort of physically moving there, instead of relying on their best friend the quick-save key.

 

It's worse because you probably quicksave barely thinking. With save points, a player thinks "This is the most direct route, but just in case, I'll take a detour through the magic save-o-area" not something done in real life, right? This is a problem with limited saving too, perhaps lesser perhaps greater, in that you're forced to think about conserving saves.

 

But yes, lets file this under "later" there are more arguments, for both sides I'm sure, but if I can help it, I'm staying out of this debate for now.

[Pyrian]

Domarius, you can emphasize "optional" all you like, but the fact is that oDDity and obscurus are arguing for mandatory save restrictions, and a lot of what's been flying around have been directed at them.

 

I'm all for more options. Heck, I like auto-save points (e.g. FarCry), ironically for the reason that I tend to forget to quick-save (I play to survive - without reloading - as first priority, because that's more immersive for me).

 

On linearity... There's a lot of "types" of linearity if you want to break it down, and the issue with save points is where to place them in a game that isn't strictly linear in any - i.e. at least one - sense. For example, the objectives of the City may be decidedly linear, but in several places traversing the City is anything but. If you make a location-based save point, it effectively destroys that non-linearity unless you put them all over the place so they don't get missed (otherwise the player has to go around finding the save-point or miss out) which itself misses the point. If you make it objective based, it throws a wrench into the gameplay of someone who wants to frolic in the City, pick-pocketing or whatever.

 

ODDity, the reason quick-save is the default is because it provides the greatest level of player convenience. That's not a minor thing; taking it out to make things more difficult is squarely akin to, say, switching the mouse and keyboard so that the keyboard looks and the mouse controls movement. More challenging? Yes. Fun? Maybe for a few people. But it's still firmly in the camp of designer-induced annoyance, and should be optional at best.

 

People in general (not you) want to be challenged by the game world, not by the game interface.

Edited June 6, 2005 by Pyrian

[obscurus]

Quicksaves are the order of the day for games like Doom 3, because your chances of being killed in game are dramatically higher than in Thief (if you are playing it properly). In Thief, the objective is to remain undetected by the AI, and in the event you are detected, you can usually run away and hide somewhere until the AI gives up looking for you. So unless you do something really stupid, or the game crashes, you should be able to get by without much saving. In a game like D3, you cannot really run or hide, and you are likely to die several times in the game... I don't think you need many options for saving in a stealth game.

 

In my opinion, unlimited saves are the worst thing that ever happened to computer games in general - it became about saving your way through the game instead of playing your way through the game. While I am generally in favour of freedom of choice and options, I think unlimited saves and quicksaves are just unnecessary and bad for proper gameplay, and should be removed from the pool of options...

 

Taking out quicksaves etc is not to make the game more difficult or to annoy people; it is to stop players from cheating and making the game easier than it was meant to be. You don't have god mode switched on by default, because you want people to "be" in the game, not walking through it like a spectator, and every time the player saves, they go "out" of the game for a second, instead of thinking about how they are going to stay alive in the game. And a good game should be so immersive that the player doesn't even think about saving anyway... (it also should never crash though, so you still need some kind of savegame feature)..

[Bhruic]

I really don't understand the trend in telling other people how they should be playing. I enjoy playing games a specific way, but that doesn't mean I think everyone should play it the way I do. Nor do I think it wise to remove all the game options that I don't particularily use.

 

No one is forced to use quicksaves. Anyone who uses them does so because they want to. In fact, your comparison with "god" mode is entirely apt, but it actually counters the point you are trying to make. People who wish to play with "god" mode can choose to do so. It's not automatic, and neither is using quicksaves. The people who use either option are the people who wish to. Removing an option like that is merely saying "you have to play the way I say", which should never be what a game is about.

[Springheel]

Quicksaves are the order of the day for games like Doom 3, because your chances of being killed in game are dramatically higher than in Thief (if you are playing it properly). In Thief, the objective is to remain undetected by the AI, and in the event you are detected, you can usually run away and hide somewhere until the AI gives up looking for you.

 

And in Doom, the objective is to kill the AI before they kill you, so if you play properly you shouldn't need to quicksave.

 

Taking out quicksaves etc is not to make the game more difficult or to annoy people; it is to stop players from cheating

 

How exactly is it "cheating"? Quicksaving doesn't keep you from failing. It just limits how much of your time has to be spent doing the same thing over and over again. If there's anything that "takes you out of the game" it's that.

[obscurus]

And in Doom, the objective is to kill the AI before they kill you, so if you play properly you shouldn't need to quicksave.

Very true, but nevertheless, the game is designed in a way that encourages frequent saving, and providing the facility to do so means most people will inevitably overuse it. Doom 3 has autosaves and checkpoints, personally I find that to be sufficient, and I don't touch the quicksave at all (and I unbind the keys in case the temptation becomes to much for me)...

 

How exactly is it "cheating"?  Quicksaving doesn't keep you from failing.  It just limits how much of your time has to be spent doing the same thing over and over again.  If there's anything that "takes you out of the game" it's that.

 

It has already been discussed why overuse of saves is equivalent to cheating. But if you are not saving fequently, you will be more inclined to play like a thief, because death in the game has more significant consequences, which also enhances the tension in the game, which keeps you in the game. Of course, dying will naturally 'take you out of the game', regardless of how often you save, but having to replay whole sections is a big incentive for avoiding death.

 

I really don't understand the trend in telling other people how they should be playing

 

I'm not telling other people how to play the game per se, I'm rather telling them how not to play the game. There is a slight but important difference there. A game designer has every right to include or exclude features as they see fit (so fair enough if the Darkmod team wants to include all of the save options under the sun, that is up to them), and anything a game designer makes is inherently giving the player of that game the freedoms and restrictions of their choice, not the players. AndI do agree that it is better to have a feature and not use it than to not have that feature and wish you could, but I for one expect players of my FMs to play by the rules I make, if they don't like it, they can turn the cheats on or not play it at all

 

No one is forced to use quicksaves

 

While this of course is absolutely true, if the temptation is there, people may not be able to control themselves, and therefore inadvertently deny themselves the experience that was intended for them by the game author.

 

I suppose you can counter that I am an unpopulist facist bastard, and that if players of games want to have a different experience to that which the author intended, that is their perogative and fuck the game designer.

To which I counter, just limit saves by default, so people can try it the right way first, then if they don't like it, let them say "up yours" to the game designer and enable the features that make the game easier, or to their own preference...

[Bhruic]

Of course, dying will naturally 'take you out of the game', regardless of how often you save, but having to replay whole sections is a big incentive for avoiding death.

Again, that's no different than any game. One could easily argue that Doom3 shouldn't have quicksaves for the same reason. Not necessarily argue convincingly, but you could argue it.

 

I'm not telling other people how to play the game per se, I'm rather telling them how not to play the game. There is a slight but important difference there.

That seems like a semantic argument to me. Whether you are saying "play like this", or "don't play like this", in both cases you are telling the player what to do. Obviously that's a necessity in terms of game rules, but when it comes to issues like saving, I don't believe that it's the designers perogative to tell the player how to play the game.

 

While this of course is absolutely true, if the temptation is there, people may not be able to control themselves, and therefore inadvertently deny themselves the experience that was intended for them by the game author.

There are two things wrong with that quote. First, assuming that people are unable to control themselves seems somewhat silly, no offense intended. It's not like people can become addicted to using the quicksave option. It's a choice they have. If someone is unable to prevent themselves from using the quicksave, it must be because they actually want to use it.

 

Which brings up point number 2, the concept of the "experience". It's not up to the game author to determine the experience of the end user. It's up to the game author to provide the options available to the end user. How the end user decides to "experience" the game is completely up to them. The concept of the game author having to control the player smacks of elitism, and the idea that the game author knows better than the player how the player should play. I'm sorry, but that's not an idea that I can agree with.

Edited June 7, 2005 by Bhruic

[obscurus]

Or do people use quicksaves simply because the designer put it there? I found Splinter Cell (XBox version) to be reasonably enjoyable, although overly linear, but I particulary liked how the save game system was implemented - there were about three save locations per mission (and they were optional, too, you could choose not to save at that point), which could be triggered only once in the mission, and you had three save slots available. It also saved at the start of each mission, so you could go back and restart if you really botched it. Now, perhaps some players found that restrictive, but I don't really think it was unreasonable at all. There was a good balance between the amount of game you had to replay if you stuffed up, and they were placed intelligently, in a way that made you worry about being killed.

 

Yes I may be coming across as elitist, but so what if I am? Would you rather have mediocre soldiers protecting your country, or elite ones? Who wins all the medals in sporting events? That's right. the elite athletes. I want to make games that are l33t, not mediocre, and unlimited saves and quicksaves are a crutch for the lame, and games that have them have dipped their toes in the pool of mediocrity IMO.

 

But I'm just an elitist, opinionated, facist bastard spouting off...

[sparhawk]

In my opinion, unlimited saves are the worst thing that ever happened to computer games in general - it became about saving your way through the game instead of playing your way through the game.  While I am generally in favour of freedom of choice and options, I think unlimited saves and quicksaves are just unnecessary and bad for proper gameplay, and should be removed from the pool of options...

 

Considering when I played Quake 2 it took me quite long to get until the end, despite having unlimited saves. If I had only limited saves it wouldn't have made the game more interesting, insgtead it would become more frustrating. I simply wouldn't have bothered to play it until the end. So much for unlimited saves are not usefull.

 

As a gamedesigner I would prefer for many people to see my game through instead of only a few elitists bunch. After all, why spending an effort to create content until then end if only 1% will ever see it? It depends on the type of games though, because there are certainly games which are more interesting without saving, but I don't think that this is the case for TDM .

 

Taking out quicksaves etc is not to make the game more difficult or to annoy people;

 

It is doing exactly that.

 

it is to stop players from cheating and making the game easier than it was meant to be.

 

There is no such thing as "play it the way it is meant to be". A game should provide fun for the player. How he comes to his fun is up to the player and not for the designer. The designer only provides the framework. This would be like saying: "Lord Of The Rings will not appear on DVD because the way it is meant to be seen is on a theater screen. The effects wont work on a TV and therefore nobody needs to see it there."

Of course it is a much weaker experience on a TV than in the theater, but if I have the choice between seing it on a TV with lesser experience than in the theater, or seeing it not at all, I would still opt for seeing it on TV. It's MY choice. Same argument for swapping memory to disk. It is blody slow so nobody needs it. But considering that you need to run this application slow or not at all, it's better to run it slow. There is no such thing as All Or Nothing in the real world, and therefore it is simply sutpid to request to play a game "as it was meant to be" from everybody.

 

You don't have god mode switched on by default, because you want people to "be" in the game,

 

I played D3 ONLY with god mode because it was so boring, but I still wanted to see what it offers in terms of capabillities. So you see, there is already a reason why I needed the godmode.

 

not walking through it like a spectator, and every time the player saves, they go "out" of the game for a second, instead of thinking about how they are going to stay alive in the game.  And a good game should be so immersive that the player doesn't even think about saving anyway... (it also should never crash though, so you still need some kind of savegame feature)..

 

Currently I play Guild Wars. You can not save on a mission because it is an online game and your state is only saved in between when you are in a city. Since I usually play alone (which is NOT the way it is meant to be) I have a hard time in some maps. Fortunately they provided bots which I can take with me, which are better than nothing. Now considering that GW is an online game and is meant to be played with a party, why did they bother to include bots at all? The way it is meant to be played is with other human players at your side, and AI is only for monsters. Apparently the devs were a bit more considerate then some here.

Back to saving. I was trying to beat a map "Ruins of Samera" (or something like that) and I went in this map 20 times for sure. Believe me. It didn't make the game more interesting having to enter the same map again and again just because I can't save. After going in for the third time it simply becomes boring. You know the way around the map, you know what the AI will say at each point because the messages are script triggered and you even know where the monsters are at each point. So what does not being able to save achieve? Well I have to learn every detail of the map more than I want to. I have to learn all the locations of the monsters, because every time I get a bit farther, I will see a few new monsters. If I die I have to see the same map again and again. After entering the map several times it doesn't get more exciting to get through, quite on the contrary it becomes just boring because contrary to real live, everything is the same every time. That is what no saving achieves.

[FishFace]

If I recall, one of the massive advantages of the thief genre was that it was playable in more than one style. You were encouraged to play stealthily, but if you wanted to ghost, you could, if you wanted to dispatch everyone stealthily, you could, if you wanted to take sword and health potion and go on a rampage, you often could do (if you were good enough) If TDM is going to reproduce this wealth of options to the player, that goes hand-in-hand with thief's non-linearity, I believe it should really give the player the option of saving when they want. If they want to play like a tank, then quicksaving could be a boon.

As has been said, ironmanning became popular in Thief, and it had quicksaves, so where is the problem? If you give the option to limit saves in these wonderful fantastic methods, those that want unlimited saves will have them. Those that feel they would be tempted won't be.

[Springheel]

if you are not saving fequently, you will be more inclined to play like a thief, because death in the game has more significant consequences, which also enhances the tension in the game, which keeps you in the game.

 

For you, maybe. For me, no quicksaves would mean I would try the easiest route to success. I'm not going to risk trying to climb a stack of crates to the next level if falling off means I have to go back and replay half an hour. I'm not going to try a creative way of ghosting through a barracks if I could more easily bypass it. That might be more like a real thief, but it robs me of a lot of fun.

 

We're already implementing an Oddity expansion where every time you die in the game a jolt of electricity is sent through the electrodes attached to your balls. Apparently you'll want that expansion as well.

[Domarius]

After entering the map several times it doesn't get more exciting to get through, quite on the contrary it becomes just boring because contrary to real live, everything is the same every time. That is what no saving achieves.

No, that's what an excess of no saving acheives. Nobody is talking about only being able to save at the start of the map.

 

Yeah you might have to attempt some part again, but why is that so evil?

 

Only saving at the start of the map can be too ridiculously hard and repetative.

And saving whenever you want makes it ridiculously easy.

 

I want the FM author to tell me what he or she thinks the best points are to save at, and then try to do it. They set a challenge for me, that's what designing the level is about. And I don't buy the argument that it's making the game challenging with the game settings instead of the game play, I'm sure I've argued against that enough. For me this IS about game play.

 

 

And to anyone arguing for limited saves to be mandatory, stop it. Nothing like this will ever, or SHOULD ever, be mandatory. It's only every going to be an option, if it ever sees the light of day.

Edited June 7, 2005 by Domarius

[sparhawk]

Yeah you might have to attempt some part again, but why is that so evil?

 

You got the phrasing wrong. You MIGHT not attempt it again, you are FORCED to replay it again and again until you got it right. Like with your teacher who forces you to learn a poem and you have to repeat all over again and again until you put it correct from start to end.

 

And saving whenever you want makes it ridiculously easy.

 

That's for the individual player up to decide.

 

I want the FM author to tell me what he or she thinks the best points are to save at, and then try to do it.

 

I don't. I want the FM designer to tell a story, but how I consume the story is up to me. In one big chunk, in many small chunks, that's totally up to me.

 

They set a challenge for me, that's what designing the level is about.

 

but the challenge is not to memorize each location of the map.

 

And to anyone arguing for limited saves to be mandatory, stop it.  Nothing like this will ever, or SHOULD ever, be mandatory.  It's only every going to be an option, if it ever sees the light of day.

 

Yes.

[Domarius]

You got the phrasing wrong. You MIGHT not attempt it again, you are FORCED to replay it again and again until you got it right.

No, I didn't get the phrasing wrong at all. If you're good enough, you will get it right the first time. If you're not, it'll take you a couple more tries till you are. That's the way I like to play, don't try to tell me its not fun. It is for me, that's why I want the option.

Besides, with save points and a Theif mission, it's not linear, you're not forced to do anything. You can go try something else in the mission, or tackle the problem a totally different way.

 

I don't. I want the FM designer to tell a story, but how I consume the story is up to me. In one big chunk, in many small chunks, that's totally up to me.

With adequate save point placement, you will still get this, just not to the same infinite degree.

 

but the challenge is not to memorize each location of the map.

...no... it's not. When did I say it was? The challenge is to get past a certain bit without saving. That is all.

 

 

 

Okay getting back to the "You MIGHT not attempt it again, you are FORCED to replay it again and again until you got it right." thing. Let me attempt to explain why I love this so much.

 

The incentative is to be good enough to do it the first time, just like on the movies. Every new encounter between saves (or between my self-imposed save points that I would much rather the FM author place after careful play-testing so that I know what is possible and what is not) is a new chance to "do it right the first time", just like on the movies.

 

So with the desire to do it right the first time, I mentally prepare myself. "Okay what are my best chances... hm probably going up that way, hm, maybe that would be noisier,... oh wait, since the guards are moving in this particular pattern, that way might be my best bet anyway." and so on, because if I stuff up, I have to start all over again, so I REALLY REALLY THINK about it, because I don't want to die. Just like the characters on the movies. I plan out the best way to use my consumables. I plan out the path I'm going to run in my head. Over and over (in the more tense situations) etc. etc. And I cover myself - just incase X happens, I have plan B. And maybe just incase Y happens, I even have plan C...

 

And then when it works, it's so exhillerating, to see a plan that you envisaged in your head, something you haven't physically done yet, play out almost exaclty the way you planned it.

 

And then when it stuffs up, it's soo exciting - when the shit hits the fan, and your back up plan works.

 

Or when its stuffs up, and things happen in a totaly different way than you could have ever expected, and you make some daring escape... that is exhillerating too.

 

It's all worth it to try and get it right the first time. When I've saved too often, I just don't feel any of that.

 

And I want author placed save points because some times my idea of what's possible without saving isn't actually possible because I didn't know what's involved. That's why I think the author should place them because he or she has an idea of what's possible or not.

I mean sure, we all have varying degrees of skill but only the author knows that there is going to be a scripted zombie burst out of the door and surprise you.

Edited June 7, 2005 by Domarius

[Maximius]

We're already implementing an Oddity expansion where every time you die in the game a jolt of electricity is sent through the electrodes attached to your balls. Apparently you'll want that expansion as well.

I'm thinking that would be more of a contraction.

[Domarius]

I'm not going to try a creative way of ghosting through a barracks if I could more easily bypass it. That might be more like a real thief, but it robs me of a lot of fun.

I don't think that's true of well designed missions. If you need to get somewhere, and it's hard, you will need to do it, and if you find the easiest way, good on you for being smart. You can load another save game later if you want to experiment.

And if something is really hard and you're just curious, a good mission will reward you for exploring.

[Springheel]

Except that exploring sometimes means dying.

 

If I were a real thief breaking into a home, I wouldn't bother trying to explore the entire house. I'd take the best loot I could get to easily and run.

 

Playing without quicksaves creates the same type of thinking. Since failure is such a huge hassle, I'll try to avoid it at all costs. That means I won't take risks if I don't have to. If it's easier to knock out the gaurd than try to sneak by him, I'll do that. If it's easier to bypass the libarary, I'll do that.

 

That's not the way I want to play the game, however. I want to feel reasonably secure in exploring new areas and trying things that are risky. I don't want to cheat myself out of experiencing parts of the map simply because I'm too worried about having to replay the last half hour.

 

As for reloading the map and playing it again, that totally cancels out any immersion benefits gained from not quicksaving the first time.

 

I don't think people are going to agree on this issue. As long as we're not trying to force playstyles on people I think we'll be fine.

 

edit: Oh, about the movie analogy...you realize that what you see in movies IS created using 'quicksaving' right?

[Domarius]

Yes but the effect is to create something special and rare, that could have happened. That's what stories are all about - special occourances, not mundane stuff.

 

As it is, my plans in the game don't often work, but when they do...

 

 

I could give counter-arguments to everything else you just said about why you wouldn't find it fun to say why I would find it fun - but that's what I think we can avoid in this thread - people telling each other what's fun.

 

As long as enough people state a case that they would appreciate a feature, it should be an option in the game some time.

Edited June 7, 2005 by Domarius

[obscurus]

Except that exploring sometimes means dying.

 

If I were a real thief breaking into a home, I wouldn't bother trying to explore the entire house. I'd take the best loot I could get to easily and run.

 

Playing without quicksaves creates the same type of thinking. Since failure is such a huge hassle, I'll try to avoid it at all costs. That means I won't take risks if I don't have to. If it's easier to knock out the gaurd than try to sneak by him, I'll do that. If it's easier to bypass the libarary, I'll do that.

 

That's not the way I want to play the game, however. I want to feel reasonably secure in exploring new areas and trying things that are risky. I don't want to cheat myself out of experiencing parts of the map simply because I'm too worried about having to replay the last half hour.

 

As for reloading the map and playing it again, that totally cancels out any immersion benefits gained from not quicksaving the first time.

 

I don't think people are going to agree on this issue. As long as we're not trying to force playstyles on people I think we'll be fine.

 

edit: Oh, about the movie analogy...you realize that what you see in movies IS created using 'quicksaving' right?

Yes, sometimes exploring could get you killed, but usually not if you are careful and smart about it.

 

I want the player to get the most loot they can easily and run! That is part of the challenge, to see just how much loot you can get without getting into trouble - for me that is the whole point of the game. It is not meant to be an architechtural tour or an exploration game, but a thieving game. doesn't mean you can't explore, admire the views etc, but that is not your objective. The game should be made in such a way that it is easier to sneak past guards than to knock them out, in fact I prefer if it is bloody hard to take guards out.

 

 

And bypassing parts of the game is what gives it REPLAY VALUE - the next time you decide to play the game, you can try different approaches, explore different areas. If you can explore the whole level in one hit, what do you have left for the next time you play it?

 

Maybe you would also find that your skill level - your ability to complete games without relying on excessive quicksaves - improves markedly if you avoid saving, and instead rely on your wits and reflexes to see how far they get you. Go on, try it!