Ultra Realism Possibilities?

[obscurus]

I guess you could have unlimited saves on easy mode, and then you get progressively less as the difficulty level goes up...

 

I liked the way Splinter Cell did it on the XBox (don't know if PC version is different) - 3 savegame slots, and the game autosaves after you have completed a difficult section of the game, i thought that was a good balance. If you rely on save points, they should be placed at points where you are just about to face a difficult challenge, and just after, nowhere else. So you could have a savepont before a room riddled with guards and creaky floorboards, and one after you have made it through....

 

Yes it can be frustrating to have to replay the same section over and over, but there is a difference between playing the game carefully and making it through, even if only just barely making it, and saving every four seconds so you can rampage through and find out what is coming next so you don't have to think on the run (I used to do this heaps until I realised how lame it was, and how much more satisfying it is to make it through one huge chunk of a level in one piece without saving). The most frustrating thing for me is computer crashes - where I do something perfectly, and the game crashes and you know the rest...

 

And the player should have to live with small mistakes - if they don't get killed, they should keep playing and live with the consequences of their actions - run into a guard, run away, hide, wait till the guard goes back to normal, try again. At least in T2, you still had a limited number of saves (even if there were more than necessary), unlike TDS where the only limit is hard drive space...

[Ishtvan]

We've discussed this a lot actually. If I recall correctly, we decided to maybe have limited number of saves/reloads as an option, but never force it on anyone. I don't think we liked the idea of save points. It's too easy to screw yourself over by getting really low on health or something, or about to be shot by 10 arrows, and then accidentally walking into a "checkpoint" that overwrites your last, healthy checkpoint.

 

Also it's NOT going to be a requirement to have limited saves when you play on "expert." We're planning to have separate difficulty settings and "playstyle" settings, because someone (like me), could conceivably want to play with the AI on the hardest setting, but also want unlimited saves. So we divorce such "playstyle" options from the "difficulty" options, everyone can set up some custom difficutly the way they want, everyone's happy.

Disclaimer: This is of course not official and subject to change.

Edited May 25, 2005 by Ishtvan

[obscurus]

Actually, that sounds really good Ishtvan, I think it would also add greatly to replay value to have a playstyle system. That was something that Deus Ex sort of had, in that you could customise your character, choose your skills and weapons/tools, and play them game in some very different ways. If you did something similar to the Dark Mod, you could have it so players who want to run around as a big thug who wants to commit numerous felony murders can do so, those who would rather sneak around unsean can also do so, and mappers could give different rewards for different playstyles. It would add a lot of freedom to the game, but would be a fair bit more work for coders and mappers I guess...

[Domarius]

Reloading is, IMO, a form of cheating if you use it in this way. If you hit a floorboard and it creaks, you should have to deal with it, which is why I am in favour of a limited number of save points, rather than unlimited savegames - saving games is so you can switch off your computer and go to work or whatever, and come back to your game (or if your computer is a bit crash-happy), NOT to scout ahead through the map and then reload and play it knowing where all of the loot and hazards are in advance. That is just lame.

You are one of the few people here who understand that, and I'm glad to see someone else who does.

 

 

But I notice you're still saying you can just add more realisim to a game and it makes it more fun.

 

This proves you've never designed a game yourself. Adding more realism carelessly CAN make a game worse. You will never understand that its not that simple untill you have tried it. There is a lot more to making a fun game than adding realisim.

[sparhawk]

The customization is not related to game content. You can not change the size or properties of the player. A playstyle settign would be, for example, to set the "You may not even be seen by AI" flag even though the map doesn't have this as an objective. Playstyle options will go only in one direction, namely making the game harder. So if the map has "You are nto allowed to KO any guards" as an objective, you can not unset it, but if it has not this restriction you can switch it on. Only exception will be the loot requirement because a lot of people are bored by the loot hunt as a requirement. So this is the only option that is allowed to make the game easier and override the FM authors decision.

[obscurus]

But I notice you're still saying you can just add more realisim to a game and it makes it more fun.

 

This proves you've never designed a game yourself. Adding more realism carelessly CAN make a game worse. You will never understand that its not that simple untill you have tried it. There is a lot more to making a fun game than adding realisim.

It proves sweet FA.

 

I am definately NOT saying that "just adding more realism" will make for a great game, there is much more to it than that: story, plot, level design, balancing of risks and rewards by rewarding the player proportionate to the risks they take, good AI placement and so on. It is not a simple procedure by a long shot.

 

Absolutely, you can make a game worse by carelessly adding realism, but from my perspective, making a game by carelessly avoiding realism is just as bad. Ultimately it all comes down to level design.

 

I am the sort of person who notices little details when playing games, and after a while inconsistencies and a lack of realism really start to bug me. Like for example, the way guards make no noise when you blackjack them and they fall down armour and all, or the way guards can't see you in a doorway even though there is a lit room behind you. Don't get me started on rope arrows... And the way level designers fail to think about the purpose of every little object in their map - as a level designer, I always make a point of making sure there is a reason why everything is where it is that isn't contrived, and I notice when other games have been given the same attention to detail, it rocks!

 

What you also fail to understand is that what you find fun might be utterly different to what other people find fun - I have played a few fairly realistic games, usually simulators of one sort or another (never quite realistic enough for my tastes :lol: ), and built a few quite realistic (from a design point of view) levels for Unreal and Thievery and found them to be fun (although I am still tweaking them, and the engines themselves have limitations on realism that shit me). And there is a big difference between a game that makes no pretence of realism, say Sonic the Hedgehog, compared to one that does, like Rainbow Six. In the former, realism wouldn't make sense, in the latter, the more the better.

 

Actually, I have been working on a game for the last 5 years, but I have had problems switching engines, full time work and family responsibilities, and being a perfectionist, I'm never happy with anything, so it will probably be another five years before I release anything, and everytime a next gen engine comes out, well I just have to port all of my game assets over, and find someone to do the coding for me.... If the Dark Mod has most of the features I want, I think I settle with it, or I'll never get to release it...

[Ishtvan]

Slightly OT here, but you might want to take a look at UT Infiltration. That's the most realistic game I've ever played, and the mod teams' motto was "not pleasing the majority."

 

I'm not sure if anyone plays it anymore. It was originally for UT, but they are working on converting to one of the higher UT engines (2004 perhaps) Here's a link: http://infiltration.sentrystudios.net/

[obscurus]

Ah, yes Infiltration is a good example of the sort of games I like, I find it quite enjoyable, and I am looking forward to it being updated for UT2K4 (actually, I think they should skip UT2K4 and jump straight onto Unreal Engine 3 when it comes out)... I basically want to make a stealth based game set in a magic-free mediaeval setting, sort of like a singleplayer mediaeval version of Infiltration. I am not planning on recreating Thief with Dark Mod, I'll leave that to someone else (although I might make a mission or two), and I couldn't care less if only a small number of people like the sort of game I want - I am making games primarily for my own enjoyment, if others like it, great, if not, too bad...

 

As I have stated before, when you make a game more visually realistic - and judging by the Dark Mod screenshots so far (especially oDDity's fantastic models), that seems to be the plan - you have to make everything else equally as realistic, or it becomes like watching a badly overdubbed foreign movie. The aim is to create a consistent game universe, not an awkward caricature of reality.

 

This doesn't mean you can't incorporate things that aren't real, like magic, or scouting orbs or lightsabers, it means that there must be a consistent version of reality throughout, so, for example, guards that can hear you walking on cobblestones 10 feet away but cant hear the guard two feet away being blackjacked is an example of failed game design, because it is not consistent with the game's reality, let alone RL. If you are making a game that sets out to create a 'sneaking around stealing stuff' experience, magic and anachronistic fantasy setting aside, it should be as realistic as possible with regard to stealth, which means giving the player the freedom to do what a real thief in the same circumstances would do (within the confines of computer power limitiaions etc), and to realisticly punish the player for doing things a real thief wouldn't do. So a player should be able move around prone, but should not be able to hide where their sillhouette is visible, or noislessly attack people, stuff like that.

 

If you remake T1/2 exactly, but with better visuals, it will probably be less immersive (for me at least) than the originals, because of the mismatch between visual realism and everything else. You need to modify AI, sound propagation rules, physics etc as well to bring them up to par with the graphics. Conversely, if gameplay does not pay much attention to realism, neither should the graphics. Whether or not it would be more or less fun is entirely a matter of personal preferences, and it is very arrogant and presumptuous to tell people what they will or will not find to be fun. Domarius, If I say I find realistic games more fun than less realistic games, I mean it, don't presume to tell me what I like, and don't presume to know what I have tried, or what I have done.... (sorry if that sounds rude or overly cranky)

 

BTW I actually really like Thief, despite the things about it that bother me

Edited May 26, 2005 by obscurus

[Domarius]

It was your over use of the simplistic phrase "I find more realism fun" that promted my post there, obscurus. You and I are no different in terms of what we find fun, if your long post there is anything to go by. But I am ready to jump down anyone's throat who uses realism as the primary reason for a feature. Realism is all well and good, but once its in the game, the real question is "does it add anything to the gameplay?".

 

BTW it's my opinion that rope arrows are the natural answer to a grappling hook which was far too complex to implement for LGS, so I would forgive them for that, just as I accept that the guards voice their every thought because you can't see every nuance of body language that you wuld be using in real life to determine if they heard you or not.

[obscurus]

Sorry about the length of my posts, I must learn to be more succinct

 

I do realise that some things have to be done in an unrealistic way to make the game playable, or to work around problems of implementing things like grappling hooks... (I did like the climbing gloves in TDS, even though they were awkwardly implemented). I guess I am trying to get across that if realism in general doesn't detract from gameplay, and isn't too much work to implement, it should be at least available to level designers to play with... Things that add depth and detail (realistic or not) to a game are often very good things (depending on what sort of game it is). Because Thief is a game where players move around slowly and take things in, more detail (preferably realistic detail) is going to be good for gameplay, even if not directly...

 

Damn, I'm still carrying on, aren't I?

[Drakon]

Saving; It is strangely... addicting. I once tried to play every level in thief without saving. (Allowing myself to restart the level, of course.) I managed it for one or two levels... every other time I found myself hitting the quicksave key almost subconciously. Though, it isn't too difficult to try and go without reloading. Try it - it is fun to go through a level without reloading. A little more excitement when you get caught. A little more clever gameplay.

 

Ohhh my, anyone ever play MUD's? This is what my average command line looks like...

 

n

n

e

s

save

look

save

save (Yes, thats two saves in a row.)

sleep

save

 

I find myself typing save in AOL if I was MUD'ing and chatting at the same time.

 

Aaanyhow... I'd love to play with my saves and quickloads disabled...

And, now for two amusing funnies:

 

http://archive.gamespy.com/dailyvictim/index.asp?id=157

http://archive.gamespy.com/dailyvictim/index.asp?id=166

Edited May 27, 2005 by Drakon

[Domarius]

YES! Another beleiver! Thankyou!

 

Anyone new here probably should find oDDity's or my rants on how saving kills immersion and suspense.

Saving should be possible, but not abusable. That is why I'm a huge fan of save points. The FM author strategically places as many save points as they think is nessecary to complete the mission and still provide a tense and engaging experience. Just like they place guards in a certain way to create a certain level of difficulty.

 

We've discussed this in other threads though. The counter arguments are that people don't have much time and don't want to lose a lot by having to quit without saving, but I think that with well placed save points, that won't be so much of a problem. Heck, this system has been working on console games for years.

 

 

Anyone not for save points should read those links Drakon just posted To quote the author of those pages;

GAMES THAT HAVE ONLY LIMITED SUPPLIES OF AMMO, BUT LET ME QUICKSAVE, MIGHT AS WELL JUST GIVE ME UNLIMITED AMMO.

Edited May 28, 2005 by Domarius

[Ishtvan]

Eh, I'd rather leave saving discipline up to the player. No reason to force a player to play the game one way or the other, just because that's the way you prefer. Personally I forget to save if I'm having fun. I'll be playing and then realise I haven't saved in 30 minutes, and think "cool." Then, I'll suddenly have to leave the computer for some reason, and I will enjoy the ability to save at that particular moment so that I can come right back to where I left off.

 

We want to discourage killing people right, so we make killing have consequences, we don't just fail the mission if you kill. Similarly with saving, I think we should just keep a record of number of saves/reloads and display it with the end mission stats, basically to tell people "You saved 214 times on one mission, you loser!" But I don't think we should keep people from saving when they want to.

[Hylix Ulyx]

I'm with Ish on this. I find that I'm less likely to save if I know I'm going to see it plastered on my stats page at the end of the mission or game. But for me, it's just pride. I get alittle aggravated, however, when I'm forced to limited my saves to, say, 2, and the game is five hours long just so I can get the "best" ending or some such bullshit.

 

I think it's also important to note that games are far longer than they used to be. I mean, you couldn't save your progress on the nintendo version of Ninja Gaiden, but it also only took an hour to beat (if you managed to beat it, that is).

 

Games aren't as hard as they used to be, but that's more a byproduct of having to draw in American audiences (I'm a yank, so I feel comfortable degrading myself), or perhaps, non-japanese audiences, than because you can save whenever you want.

 

Early game systems had games that catered specifically to japanese players, then later exported to the foreign markets. Now, however, not only are japanese developers figuring in thier American demographic when they develop and release a game, but there are also a lot more american and european devs now who make games in thier "idiom", and are less likely to willfully put out an impossibly hard game. (To be honest, I don't even think devs play thier own games. If they did, have the crap that dares to be labeled a game would get pulled.)

 

We no longer get games where hordes of constantly respawning enemies come at you from every angle, because the hardware has changed, and so has the desired experience. Most people want to play games where they can wipe out every creature in a given level, and then go exploring.

 

I finally got a chance to play Riddick this week, and I was doing well until I came to the "Pit" section. I died twice, and kept getting turned around....it wasn't until I realised that you can't stop the dwellers from spawing and that I just had to keep going that I passed what was an altogether short sequence. But after I realised how much I miss games, or gaming, like that. Castevania is a perfect example of game that REALLY tested your hand eye coordination, as well as your nerves, because it never stopped.

 

Besides, it's one thing to put in an extra two or three hours for a game that's only an hour long, than to frustrate yourself for days on end for a ten hour game you'll never play again. I think most people nowadays just don't see the point.

 

Just my opinion. And just like farts, opinions don't mean shit.

 

Hylix.

Edited May 28, 2005 by Hylix Ulyx

[Domarius]

"You saved 214 times on one mission, you loser!"

Ah crap, I keep forgetting about that - yeah that is a cool comprimise. Don't mind me

It's an incentative not to save, and maybe the FM author can set a "par", in the mission description, or even have it show up on the stats page, and it will tell you if you're over par.

What would be even better is for a number to come up when you save, of how many times you've saved, so you can see the number of saves racking up, and you can try and dicipline yourself to stay under the par for that mission.

[Vadrosaul]

Each save style has some pro's and con's, and it's up to the FM author to tailor it to the level design.

 

Unlimited Saves mean very little frustration; but also is totally unrealistic and the least challenging.

 

Save points provide more challenge and accomplishment, but players may start to think in terms of Point A - Point B instead of the whole picture.

 

Limited number of saves based on difficulty level gives a larger sense of accomplishment, but then players will be considering their saves instead of enjoying the game.

 

No saves is the most realistic, but can lead to major frustration (dying near the end for example)

 

Anyone new here probably should find oDDity's or my rants on how saving kills immersion and suspense.

 

I disagree. I think it only kills immersion and suspense if you're anal about saving. I only worry about How I play the game if I'm not suceeding, otherwise I enjoy the experience and play as my mood dictates. The only stats I care about are the realistic ones, such as how long I took, how much money I pilphered, and how many people I killed. I doubt Garrett gives a hoot how many people he blackjacked while airborne, or exactly how many pockets he picked. Still nice to have those, but I play on Expert anyways so most of those were max anyways.

Edited May 28, 2005 by Vadrosaul

[Domarius]

I over simplified - but I thought it would be obvious by now that I mean "CAN kill immersion..." etc. and most often does, because excersicing disipline when you save... is kind of like giving you unlimited ammo and aksing you to be diciplined by pretending its limited.

 

But yeah, some kind of a save count statistic would be a good comprimise.

 

I don't like your definitions there - save points don't mean you only have one save game. You can have as many as you want, but the PLACES you can save are limited to certain points.

[Vadrosaul]

I don't like your definitions there - save points don't mean you only have one save game. You can have as many as you want, but the PLACES you can save are limited to certain points.

 

You're right so I took out my thing about ruining the save. I still don't like them though, cause then those certain points become save zones and players may think of only getting between them, and not pay attention in between.

 

I'm probbaly gonna go with unlimited Saves on Easy, a fair number on Medium, a smaller number on Hard, a couple on Expert, and none on Advanced Reality. The player still gets to decide when and where to save.

[Gildoran]

Those two descriptions about savaholics describe me perfectly. I personally prefer the game designer to limit saves for me, as otherwise I tend to feel like I should be playing perfectly, and I'll just reload as soon as I get any damage or anybody sees me or I waste a single peice of equipment. I find it more tedius and less immersive/fun to play games where I can save anywhere, at any time.

 

Having said this, I don't like the idea of limiting saves by saying "here's 10 saves, use them anywhere you want", because I don't know how long the level is in advance, so I don't know how much I should be rationing saves. This is particularly troublesome when old objectives can be canceled and a bunch of new ones can be added part-way through the game. My personal preference is to have savepoints or checkpoints (a la Far Cry). As long as they're properly placed, you never have to lose much progress. And if you need to quickly go away from the computer, you can always just pause the game.

 

However, I think which saving limitations are used (or not used) should be up to the level designer decide for their level, and DarkMod should be able to support most styles. If you don't like save limitations, then don't play levels that have them. Of course, the standard campaign should probably support any save-style and allow the player to choose which one to use at the beginning of the level.

 

[Edit:] I just thought of another thing that could be done to allow players to leave the computer at any time without allowing wussy-saving. You could make a special save slot that is saved when the player quits the game, and is deleted upon being reloaded. That way, a player can quit the game and pick up where they last left off, but would be unable to reload the save after then (unless they backed up the file or something).

Edited May 28, 2005 by Gildoran

[obscurus]

[Edit:] I just thought of another thing that could be done to allow players to leave the computer at any time without allowing wussy-saving. You could make a special save slot that is saved when the player quits the game, and is deleted upon being reloaded. That way, a player can quit the game and pick up where they last left off, but would be unable to reload the save after then (unless they backed up the file or something).

That is a brilliant idea Gildoran, that would work for me (and maybe a few checkpoint saves if necessary). No idea if the D3 engine can do that, but if it can, excellent... Doom 3 has checkpont saves, quicksaves and unlimited saves, which doesn't make for much of a callenge if you abuse them... I think it adds hugely to gameplay if like in RL, you know that a fatal slipup will mean losing everything you have done (wouldn't it be nice to have quicksaves in RL, and every time you made an embarrasing faux pas you could just hit reload..), you play the game in a completely different way - more cautiously and conservatively, the way a thief should be. Well that's my opinon, anyway...

Edited May 28, 2005 by obscurus

[FishFace]

There is one problem with save points - Thief is not so linear as some games, so you may find yourself returning to sections that you'd visited previously, and there is no way for the designer to know which way the player will be approaching certain difficulty spots. This could mean that, for certain situations, save points would be quite inappropriate.

[Maximius]

Great idea Gildoran, you would have to be even more careful than usual where and when you saved but that would only heighten the challenge. Sometimes I admit I cheat, I play an area through using up resources with abandon, then go back to a previous save and redo the area knowing all its pitfalls.

 

This single save option would make that obsolete, plus make every resource you burned up that much more precious. In other words, go ahead and use up those water arrows early on, cause when you find yourself at the missions end and you need four of them, you dont have a past save to fall back onto. Designers would have to be careful, but more importantly the player has to be more careful with their decisions.

[Drakon]

I don't really think a mission should really REQUIRE any resources... I think just about every T:TDP mission you could get through without using any store bought items. Only exceptions I can think of being Return to Haunted Cathedral and Maw of Chaos on impossible.

 

So, players should be able to waste all sorts of things at the start, but they should hope they don't mind going the rest of the way empty handed...

[Ishtvan]

Spending a lot of time dreaming up mandatory ways to force people not to save is IMO counterproductive.

 

I think whatever you do, savaholics are still going to find a way to save (like copy and replace the the save file in Gidoran's system, which is otherwise a good system I must say), and people who like limited saves will be able to have enough discipline to limit themselves, or they can enable that option (assuming we make limited saves a playstyle option settable at the beginning of the mission).

[New Horizon]

I say self management is the way to go. I myself am guided by my own desires. If I want to save then I should...if I want to sit for 8 hours and play a mission without saving, that too should be allowed. I don't think limiting saves should even be on our radar really.