Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Ultra Realism Possibilities?


obscurus

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 369
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Some of you guys are talking about this like we would hold a gun to your head and force you to play this way.

OPTIONAL. PLAYER-TOGGLEABLE OPTIONAL. Get over it.

 

Spar the fact that console games were forced to use save points has nothing to do with the fact that I think its a fun way to play. Oh yeah, you don't think it's fun. Wait, didn't I say IT'S OPTIONAL?

 

There are obviously some of us who want something like this. And there are some of you who don't. That's why it's an option. It's no different than enabling or disabling the lock picking interface.

 

I hate the idea of disabling the lock picking interface. For me, doing that goes against the whole idea of thief for me. It's insane. It's unthinkable. But you don't see me writing huge essays full of made-up-on-the-spot principals and theorys in an effort to make everyone agree with me, do you? No. Why? BECAUSE IT'S AN OPTION. And I can respect that there are other people who like to play that way other than myself.

Edited by Domarius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between something that's optional to the player, requires no extra work from the FM author and relatively little coding work from us, like limited number of saves, save every X minutes, save when objectives are completed, and something like save points that the FM author has to put in to support people who play with that option activated. (And no it's not already there because D3 has autosaves (most of which seemed to be when the map changed anyway), we have to write the code to disable saving when you're not in a "save zone," which is no small task since D3 was designed to let you save anywhere)

 

I think what I and others are trying to say is that we don't see how "save points" can work well in a Thief-like game, even as an option.

 

Hmm, yes "made up on the spot" arguments. Those are so much worse than huge bolded text shouting arguments huh? :) People who want save points need to convince us of why we should spend time coding it and why FM authors should spend time putting in "save brushes" everywhere, when so far many of us are not convinced that it will work well at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thief is still ultimately quite linear, less so than doom....

Obscurus, you seem like an intelligent dude, but I ask you:

 

What Thief game were you playing?

 

The only linear Thief game ever made was TDS, and for a console game, it was pretty non-linear. In T1 and T2, the game only felt linear on the lowest difficulty setting, merely because it was a little more lenient on what objectives were necessary to complete the mission.

 

With the exeption of the Maw of Chaos, A to B to C type play was non-exisitent in the Thief gameworld.

 

Having to complete certain objectives to complete a mission is only linear if they tell you what order to do them, and then sheep herd you in the "right" direction.

 

So, no, Thief is not ultimately linear.

 

 

As for this entertaining arguement as a whole, I'd like to say (and you love to listen) that it seems like the "No-Savers" are really argueing not for the sake of gameplay, but to impress us with their gaming skillz. There is no reason for a PC game or mod to limit saves under any circumstances...the very fact that you can save anywhere on virtually all PC specific titles is due to the very nature of the beast:

 

Most PC games are buggy as hell, and with the added variation in hardware and software set ups, it would be a nightmare to enforce an autosave feature or save point feature if there is a possibility that the information gets corrupted, whether through poor operation, or bad memory, or a faulty PSU, or Windows, or hardware/software conflict, or....you get the picture.

 

Console gamers don't really have that problem (with possible XBOX exceptions), though I realize memory cards can become corrupted, for the most part, as long as you don't piss on the machine, your good. Besides, Console games are so linear most of the time, you simply repeat the steps you took before.

 

PC games (specifically Thief, with it's freedom to improvise) have so many variables in the equation (from the inside and outside the game world), that it just doesn't make any sense to limit the players ability to save his or her game.

 

The other side of the arguement is simply: "I'm such a badass gamer, I don't need to save, why should you?"

 

If you think not needing to save a game your playing is a badge of honor, then whether or not I do need to save is the least of your problems.

 

Hylix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obscurus, you seem like an intelligent dude

 

Why thank you, Hylix :)

 

I didn't mean to suggest that Thief 1/2/3 were linear in the sense of individual levels (obviously, some levels are very non-linear, the Shalebridge Cradle being a particularly good example), just that the games as a whole are linear, in that you progress from level one through to two and so on... Whereas some games are non-linear to the extent that there are different endings, and you can "complete" the game without actually seeing the whole game world, to a much greater extent than in Thief.

 

So no, Thief is not particularly linear on a level by level basis, but in terms of overall story, the players actions don't affect the final outcome that much so in that sense it is pretty linear. I actually thought TDS was considerably less linear than the first two in the series, because you could do things early in the game that affected things later down the track (they were subtle and not significant to the final outcome though), and the City sections made for some very non-linear gameplay...

 

 

Console games can be linear, or not, it is nothing in particular to do with any hardware limitation: Both Thief DS and Deus Ex 2 are on XBox, and there are a few RPG titles available for consoles that are not particularly linear.

 

I am not trying to sound boastful or that I am super-skilled etc, and I recognise the need for save games as a failsafe against bugs, crashes etc, but my point is that the experience you get by relying on save games as a crutch to get through the level is different to that of just scraping through by the skin of your teeth, accepting the chips where they fall, using saves very sparingly.

 

OK, a lot of players like to save frequently (and if I find a game boring or uninteresting I will often use lots of saves or god mode to see if the game is going to get any better), but when you use save games to reload because you are just playing recklessly, I just don't think it is in the spirit of the game...

 

 

I just think save games should ideally be for one purpose only: to load the game from where you left off when you exited to windows to do something else, not a tool to make gameplay easier, and I would prefer it if the mod was set up to discourage excessive saving - the best way I feel is to simply restrict the number of save slots, and the frequency with which they can be used. Not to be a fascist bastard, but so that people can really see what it is meant to be like - the tension and suspense is amplified greatly when you have to make each move in a carefully measured, calculated way...

 

But since everyone else except Domarius seems to hate the idea of restricting saves in any way, I guess I will just bow to majority rule and say no more on the subject.. ;)

 

Jeez, this thread I started is getting long :lol:

Edited by obscurus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't heard anybody say "look at me, I'm a badass because I don't need to save". But there are people who think it's all-too-easy to get into the habit of unconsciously quicksaving every 5 seconds and reloading whenever something goes slightly wrong. That's not to say we should make it hard for players to do that. That's just saying that there's are many people (such as myself) who find the game more fun and immersive if saves are restricted, and would like the option for code to restrict it. Am I saying I'm a badass? No... quite the opposite... I rely on saves too much if the game doesn't prevent it.

 

I think levels aren't scary/tense when character death will only set you back 20 seconds. Does that mean death has to be frustrating? I argue that it doesn't. How many people thought death in FarCry was frustrating? The checkpoints were well-placed, and the fact that the game used checkpoints forced you to use your equipment and not worry about if you wasted a bit too much of it... you just wanted to survive. (whereas in T1/T2, I found flashbombs almost useless, because I could inevitably find a way to lure a guard into a dark corner if I reloaded enough) It's true that there were places where FarCry was linear, but does that make it impossible to design a good non-linear level that uses checkpoints/savespots? I think we should leave it up to the level designer to find out, and not prevent them from trying just because you don't think it's possible to do well.

 

Some people worried about what happens if you walk across a check-point when your health is low, or if a guard sneaks up on you right after you get an auto-save. To use FarCry as an example again, it doesn't have a single save-slot per level. There's a save-slot for each checkpoint. If you die right after you get to a checkpoint, you can just reload from the previous checkpoint as though you had died before getting to it.

 

Also, limiting saves doesn't prevent people from playing for short times or leaving the computer. Just use the idea I suggested of a save slot that can be saved upon exit and is deleted when it's loaded. If you die you have to go back to the previous checkpoint or saved game. If you need to leave the computer, you can exit and save, then next time start right back where you left off... of course, upon restarting, the save would be deleted, so if you then died, you'd have to start back from a checkpoint as if you had never left the computer. (sure the player could circumvent this by backing up the save file, but they could just as easily turn on god mode) And, of course, such a style of gameplay would be optional.

 

Am I suggesting that we require all map builders to put save-spots in their level? Of course not. I think that if a map builder doesn't like the idea of save-spots or checkpoints, they should just be able to build a map without them, and the checkpoint/save-spot option would be unselectable if there aren't check/save-points in the map. I'd just like an option at the start of the map to be able to use whatever method of saving the level designer thought was appropriate for their level (which might end up being unlimited saves if that's what the author prefered). Of course, this option doesn't make it so other people who disagree with the author couldn't choose unlimited saves at the start of the level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to suggest that Thief 1/2/3 were linear in the sense of individual levels (obviously, some levels are very non-linear, the Shalebridge Cradle being a particularly good example),

 

I don't know why you mention Shalebridge as an example of non-linearity because it certainly IS linear. There are other maps in TDS which are much more linear, even though the game as a whole is quite linear.

 

I actually thought TDS was considerably less linear than the first two in the series, because you could do things early in the game that affected things later down the track (they were subtle and not significant to the final outcome though), and the City sections made for some very non-linear gameplay...

 

Storywise TDS was not different from the other installments. The city is an example of extreme linearity. Don't know why you mention this as non-linear because it is even worse then Shalebridge. You can't enter Shalebdridge before Moria or the Ship, and once you entered Moria you can not reenter it. The clocktower is the same so the city may appear to be non-linear but it isn't.

 

But since everyone else except Domarius seems to hate the idea of restricting saves in any way, I guess I will just bow to majority rule and say no more on the subject.. ;)

 

I don't know why you say this. If you had read the thread it was mentioned a hundred times that we provide optional mechanisms for limiting savegames. If we would hate the idea we wouldn't even implement this. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it more true though.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obscurus: Why thank you, Hylix smile.gif

 

Your welcome. Initially when I started my post, the tone of my reply sounded as if I was insulting your intelligence. I didn't want to come off that way, so I started with a sincere compliment. I may disagree with you, but I at least get where your coming from.

 

Gildoran:  I haven't heard anybody say "look at me, I'm a badass because I don't need to save".

 

No, no one explicitly "said" this, but I think it was very much implied. I think the meaning of my "quote" was also implicit.

 

Me personally, I think I'd be happy with a mission start up save, and a quicksave only option in the mission proper. At least then, I'm not chained to my computer until the missions over, or running around trying to find the Mystic Closet-of-Remeberence to save my game.

 

Hylix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gildoran: That's just saying that there's are many people (such as myself) who find the game more fun and immersive if saves are restricted, and would like the option for code to restrict it. Am I saying I'm a badass? No... quite the opposite... I rely on saves too much if the game doesn't prevent it.

 

If you can't control yourself, why must I suffer? If you like having restrictions placed on saves (implying you'd rather not save), then why can't you keep yourself from saving when there aren't any restrictions? It's not the fault of the devs or the FM authors that you are unable to challenge yourself.

 

Ghosting in the original Thief Games came about due to the players themselves, and was not originally invisioned by the LGS clan. It was the aftertaste of a delicious game that everyone just ate up. Players chose to challenge themselves when they could have just as easily run down the hallways killing everything that moved....in fact, there's even a gameplay style in Thief that does just that.

 

Should there be an option? Yes. But to say that everyone should get a restriction because you can't keep your finger off the quicksave key is narrow.

 

Hylix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You speak as if having the ability for unlimited saves is the natural order of things, obviously the only way it should be, and any deviation from that norm is an outrageous attack on civil liberties by facsist control freaks.

I see no reason why unlimited saves should be the default in any game.There is no rule book stating this to be the case. Just becasue most games give you unlimited saves, doesn't make it right.

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.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oDDity: Just becasue most games give you unlimited saves, doesn't make it right.

 

True enough. But if your're "good enough" to play without needing to save, or pride simply will not allow it, there's no need worry about whether or not they're unlimited or non-existent.

 

Better to not need and have too much than lack and have none.

 

Hylix.

Edited by Hylix Ulyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with forcing limited saves on all players if we decide it improves their experience.

Who are we to make that assumption, you ask?

We're the people making the game.

As designers, its our job to decide what's good for the player and what kind of experience we want them to have. EVERY decison we make has some infulrence on how the player will be able to play the game, and this is just another example.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddity:  We're the people making the game.

 

I think you overstate your importance abit.

 

We've had this conversation before:

 

You are part of a "team" making a "modification" of a "published" game in the "likeness" of a game that already exiists, and has for some time.

 

Elitism is an unfortunate bi-product of talent.

 

Hylix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why you mention Shalebridge as an example of non-linearity because it certainly IS linear. There are other maps in TDS which are much more linear, even though the game as a whole is quite linear.

 

 

 

Storywise TDS was not different from the other installments. The city is an example of extreme linearity. Don't know why you mention this as non-linear because it is even worse then Shalebridge. You can't enter Shalebdridge before Moria or the Ship, and once you entered Moria you can not reenter it. The clocktower is the same so the city may appear to be non-linear but it isn't.

It is all relative Sparhawk, sorry if I sounded so absolute! :)

 

All of the levels in TDS are pretty linear, in that they all have a single beginning and an end, and fairly restrictive options for the order of completing certain objectives, and so is Shalebridge Cradle (looking back at my post, I obviously overstated it quite a bit :) ), but it has enough running around backwards and forwards and enough variables to appear relatively non linear in comparison with some of the other levels...

I would hardly call the level of linearity in the City levels of TDS extreme, as you do have the option of running around the city (between missions) in no particular order, and you can chose to do some missions in different orders (eg Pagan Tunnels/Hammerite Factory). That is a lot less linear than most FPS or platform-type games, which would lie at the extreme end of the spectrum. And it is hardly any more linear than the Cradle... I don't know how extensively you have played TDS (I kinda get the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, that you really didn't like TDS very much), but there are a number of little side quests in the City that are entirely optional, and can be done in no particular order, and that is just enough to scrape into the slightly non-linear category in my book.

 

Fair enough, it is still very linear, as is the game as a whole, but I was talking about it in the context of being relatively less linear than say Doom 3, but more linear than say Morrowind. The idea in TDS was that on a particular day of the game, you could do things in a slightly non-linear way, but as each day passed (a fairly reasonable form of linearity), events changed the game world. A non-linear game does not necessarily mean that you can go back to every level, or do every level in random order, because time itself is linear (at least it appears that way to most people) - even a non linear game with branching storylines will still have story lines that will result in events in the game permanently altering the game world.

 

And there is nothing wrong with a bit of linearity anyway, it helps drive a story along, and bring a game to a conclusion.

 

I personally would have liked it more if the whole city was 15 times larger, and you could access most of it from the beginning, and you could do most of the missions in any order, but it would have been at the expense of the story in TDS unfolding as it was. True non-linearity means that there is no one story path, which means a game will become vastly more complex to make as linearity decreases, which is the main reason so many games are very, very linear.

 

That was the worst thing about Splinter Cell - it was so linear it was little more than a slightly interactive movie broken up by occasional stealth gameplay...

 

I don't know why you say this. If you had read the thread it was mentioned a hundred times that we provide optional mechanisms for limiting savegames. If we would hate the idea we wouldn't even implement this. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it more true though.

 

I say this because I am one of the few who does not think restricting saves should be optional, but rather compulsory - just like you shouldn't sell alcohol to alcoholics, you shouldn't allow players of stealth games to have unlimited saves. I am well aware that it has been mentioned hundreds of times that people want this to be optional, but I have resigned myself to the fact that I am in the extreme minority in wanting it to be otherwise...

 

Im not trying to misrepresent anyone here by suggesting that anyone else wants this though, sorry if it looks that way

Edited by obscurus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you overstate your importance abit.

 

We've had this conversation before:

 

You are part of a "team" making a "modification" of a "published" game in the "likeness" of a game that already exiists, and has for some time.

 

Elitism is an unfortunate bi-product of talent.

 

Hylix.

In the likeness of, but not a copy of Thief. It was by no means flawless. We're attempting to fix what we see as flaws, and unlimited saving was one of those flaws as far as some team members are concerned.

We're not making a modification of Doom either, it's a total conversion, which is a big difference.

The fact we enter into discussions like this in public means you can hardly accuse us of eliteism or having a "The team members decisons are final, no alternative will be offered and no correspondence will be entered into" attitude.

On the other hand, I have no intention of making a game where decisons are reached by popular public vote.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I argue that it doesn't. How many people thought death in FarCry was frustrating?

 

Apparently quite a few, since they added quicksave ability to the game after its release due to overwhelming player demand.

 

I remember one area of Farcry took me more than eight tries to get through. After the sixth try (about an hour or so into things), I managed to successfully survive the area, then had to jump four stories into the water where I could get into a boat. I jumped over the edge, fell, hit an underwater rock, and died. Let me tell you, there was no additional sense of challenge, no greater immersion, no extra fun, *nothing* but absolute frustration as I had to go back and try to get through the preceeding fight for the seventh time (since I had forgotten to quicksave once the fight was over).

 

Anyway, I assume the people still debating are doing it for philosophical reasons. We already have enough options to satisfy everyone besides the people who want to force other people to play a certain way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best part about Thief 1 and 2 was that you never quite knew exactly what to do. The Dark Engine as it was called was exactly that DARK. The game was never really designed for one specific way of playing. You just did as you saw fit and let everything else just fall into place. Don't narrow players options. Having a button that toggles Saves On/Saves Off is just a plain waste of time. If you don't wish to save then don't. An option is just a rube goldberge way of not pressing the Save Button. Just let the game speak for itself. It doesn't need facy toggle choices or Difficulty Enhancements. All that is needed is one game + one player + how ever that player chooses to play. I really don't understand why this is such a big deal. By the time anyone gets finished debating this issue, more important things could have been achieved. If all we did was sit and argue nothing would ever get done. I got to hand it off to this team making this mod, not only do they work hard in making an advanced mod, but they also take the time to debate issues as silly and pointless as this one. :)

 

Cheers Taffers....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no reason why unlimited saves should be the default in any game.

 

I think Hylix made a pretty good case for why that should be a few posts above. PC games are by nature much more likely to be buggy and or crash than console games.

 

I don't mind losing some time if I manage to get the character killed, but losing a lot of time because the game crashed, or a bug made it unplayable, is just silly. You can't see a crash coming and auto-save the game before it "exits," because a crash is usually not a controlled exit, the program just stops at whatever section of code it was supposed to be executing.

 

Aside from crashing, there are a bunch of annoying bug possibilities, such as getting stuck. How many times did you get stuck in TDS or T2X even? It happened to me a helluvalot, because I like to explore and find good hiding spots, which often results in getting irreversibly wedged into geometry, and having to reload from a save. Should I be thinking "Well I'd better not try to hide in that corner between those boxes, because I'll probably get stuck and I haven't reached a save point yet!" How does that help gameplay?

Edited by Ishtvan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never got stuck anywhere in TDS, and it never crashed once, there was a bug in T2 where you got stuck on walls, but that doesn't exist in the D3 engine, unless you're going to program it in to prove your point.

Arguing against a feature on the basis that it wouldn't work becasue of potential bugs, which may or may on happen, is ludicrous.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no reason why unlimited saves should be the default in any game.

 

I think Hylix made a pretty good case for why that should be a few posts above. PC games are by nature much more likely to be buggy and or crash than console games.

 

I don't mind losing some time if I manage to get the character killed, but losing a lot of time because the game crashed, or a bug made it unplayable, is just silly. You can't see a crash coming and auto-save the game before it "exits," because a crash is usually not a controlled exit, the program just stops at whatever section of code it was supposed to be executing.

 

Aside from crashing, there are a bunch of annoying bug possibilities, such as getting stuck. How many times did you get stuck in TDS or T2X even? It happened to me a helluvalot, because I like to explore and find good hiding spots, which often results in getting irreversibly wedged into geometry, and having to reload from a save. Should I be thinking "Well I'd better not try to hide in that corner between those boxes, because I'll probably get stuck and I haven't reached a save point yet!" How does that help gameplay?

That doesn't make the case for unlimited saves, merely that more than one is desirable. If you can make the case that you need more than two per level (three at the absolute most), even for a very buggy and difficult game, then I'd like to see it... If you have two saves, and one turns out to be a dud because of some glitch or a really stupid error, you have another one to fall back on, in the unlikely event that also fails you can restart the level... I really don't see the problem. If you have a campaign with 14 missions, 14 save slots - 1 per mission - plus one extra in mission save should be sufficient. If you are not using autosaves or checkpoints, then the case for more than even one save slot is weak, because the player can choose to save at a safe point in the game, and is not subject to running through asave point with 15 guards running behind them, and not being able to use that save...

 

I did find TDS could be a bit buggy when saving, sometimes I would save by overwriting the previous save, and the game would crash, losing the save in the process, so I used two saves throughout, deleting the oldest save every time I saved... 2 save slots would have been more than enough.

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

    • Ansome

      Finally got my PC back from the shop after my SSD got corrupted a week ago and damaged my motherboard. Scary stuff, but thank goodness it happened right after two months of FM development instead of wiping all my work before I could release it. New SSD, repaired Motherboard and BIOS, and we're ready to start working on my second FM with some added version control in the cloud just to be safe!
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer  »  DeTeEff

      I've updated the articles for your FMs and your author category at the wiki. Your newer nickname (DeTeEff) now comes first, and the one in parentheses is your older nickname (Fieldmedic). Just to avoid confusing people who played your FMs years ago and remember your older nickname. I've added a wiki article for your latest FM, Who Watches the Watcher?, as part of my current updating efforts. Unless I overlooked something, you have five different FMs so far.
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer

      I've finally managed to log in to The Dark Mod Wiki. I'm back in the saddle and before the holidays start in full, I'll be adding a few new FM articles and doing other updates. Written in Stone is already done.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      TDM 15th Anniversary Contest is now active! Please declare your participation: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22413-the-dark-mod-15th-anniversary-contest-entry-thread/
       
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      @TheUnbeholden
      You cannot receive PMs. Could you please be so kind and check your mailbox if it is full (or maybe you switched off the function)?
      · 1 reply
×
×
  • Create New...