Jan 3 Update: More Ai Smartness

[kohan69]

Another idea of a limited save system is save-items - they could be found on the map,carried in the inventory and used to save the game whenever by the player.

 

Like the health potion - heals on use in-game, when click to inventory/menu, can be used it to save

[Springheel]

Mixing in-game elements with meta-game elements is pretty high on the list of immersion-breaking silliness. That would be like finding an in-game book in a noble's bedroom that explains how our new frob system works from a programming perspective.

[SneaksieDave]

You an also choose not to play the game at all if you don't like limited saves. The games industry would be a lot better off if the current set of gamers it panders to would fuck off.

But how does a person playing TDM not have the option because of what the vast majority want? Simply don't save. Ironman the missions to your heart's content. Hell, uninstall on failure if it's what you really want. I think it's a personal thing outside the game. If you want to save 1,000,000 because you're a coward, so be it. If you want to save zero times because you're a toughguy, so be it. Some games record it so you can keep track.

 

But yes, if in TDM there were missions which were save-limited (with no hack to get around it), those missions would (likely) go on my "fuck off" pile.

[Domarius]

But how does a person playing TDM not have the option because of what the vast majority want? Simply don't save.

 

Already said;

 

@Spring: The reason to have some sort of restriction placed by the map authour (which the player can opt to use or not) is that as I said before, save point placing is an art. You can't acheive the same thing by choosing yourself when to save, not to the same degree of quality that is.

 

But yes, if in TDM there were missions which were save-limited (with no hack to get around it), those missions would (likely) go on my "fuck off" pile.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this - it's player optional. The mapper makes save points or whatever available, and the player can enable/disable this feature if they want.

 

No hacks nessecary. You'd think we were insulting your religion the way you guys are responding to this.

 

And I said that it's a dying art, because the technological restrictions are going away. And good riddance to it.

No its not, it keeps appearing in new games, like I already described, and you can even see by this thread that there are people out there who support it.

[sophisticatedZombie]

Simulated risk is a potential new genre, but it probably won't be a popular one. The skinner box effect of predictable risk/reward systems is too powerful a dopamine generator.

 

We could always include an "iron man" mode for the fun of it, and those who want it can use it.

[Crispy]

Jeez. I go away for a day and you guys have already posted two whole pages.

 

I would just like to request that if limited save is implemented in TDM, that it be purely opt-in on the part of the player. Partly because I agree with the argument that restricting my save controls is like locking the playback controls on my DVD player, but also because I would rather not make 95% of Thief fans want to kill me.

[SneaksieDave]

Already said

I'm not sure why you're pointing out things I've already read. Repeating things doesn't make me agree with them.

 

If someone lacks the discipline to prevent themselves from saving (if that's what they really, truly desire, and/or need to enjoy their game), that's their problem, not mine. Work on the self control. And if I choose not to play a mission which restricts my playstyle choices too much (much like I choose not to play missions that suck), that's my choice.

 

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this - it's player optional.

Okay... but I'm not really sure why you're repeating that to me, though. I never said anything to the contrary, or frankly anything about that topic, specifically. I'm just talking about why limited saves suck, and that people who want them can self enforce already; those who don't, could not play without them, if they were policy.

 

We could always include an "iron man" mode for the fun of it, and those who want it can use it.

Gameplay modes would be great, definitely. I'd enjoy a run of ironman from time to time.

[kohan69]

What's 'ironman' ?

as in, no sneaking, but fighting all the guards?

[sparhawk]

@Orbweaver; yes the Cradle was scarey, but it was MORE scarey with less saves, one of my main points.

 

It's always scary to go through an area where you know you can not save. Because the thing it achieves is that I fear that I have to do it again. Extending playtime by forcing the player to go through the same area again and again is not considered good design, no matter how much fear it inspires.

[sparhawk]

Another idea of a limited save system is save-items - they could be found on the map,carried in the inventory and used to save the game whenever by the player.

 

Like the health potion - heals on use in-game, when click to inventory/menu, can be used it to save

 

We could also use KeyAssignment Items. We define a certain set of keys that the player can use to control the game. Since my keysetup is the best one it should be my setup as default. If the player wants to reassign a key he must first find a keyassignment item which allows him to alter one keybinding. This is in the best interest of the player as well, because it adds a lot of tension to a game. If you have to use a certain set of keys, the player has to learn it and if he presses the wrong key, then it's his fault anyway.

[sparhawk]

Jeez. I go away for a day and you guys have already posted two whole pages.

 

I would just like to request that if limited save is implemented in TDM, that it be purely opt-in on the part of the player.

 

We already said that limited save is a playstyle option- So it doesn't really make sense to warm up this silly old argument yet again, but hey that's the internet. Forums memories are short term, so there are bound to have some threads coming back ever again and the argument is always as hot as if it everybody is surprised to see this topic for the very first time.

[Domarius]

I'm not sure why you're pointing out things I've already read. Repeating things doesn't make me agree with them.

Because you're not reading it, as this passage shows;

 

If someone lacks the discipline to prevent themselves from saving (if that's what they really, truly desire, and/or need to enjoy their game), that's their problem, not mine. Work on the self control. And if I choose not to play a mission which restricts my playstyle choices too much (much like I choose not to play missions that suck), that's my choice.

Arbitrarily choosing points to save just isn't the same as the mapper placing save points at optimal locations. TThe mapper is saying "The challenge is to get from here to here without dying, it should be possible, if you are smart enough. I made it that way."

 

It's always scary to go through an area where you know you can not save. Because the thing it achieves is that I fear that I have to do it again. Extending playtime by forcing the player to go through the same area again and again is not considered good design, no matter how much fear it inspires.

Well for me it intensifies the fear, makes it more real. If I'm immersed in the game that is. If I don't enjoy the game in the first place, then I'd see it the way you described.

 

We already said that limited save is a playstyle option- So it doesn't really make sense to warm up this silly old argument yet again, but hey that's the internet. Forums memories are short term, so there are bound to have some threads coming back ever again and the argument is always as hot as if it everybody is surprised to see this topic for the very first time.

Well some people obviously forget why we came to the conclusion we did, and I have to remind them.

 

 

oDDity probably fires everyone up by saying "you all SHOULD play this way" but the reality is, if there was something like this, it would be optional, and it would be off by default, because most people wouldn't agree with it, and then we'd all have our own way anyway, so there's no point anyone telling anyone which one is better. Obviously enough of us feel strongly about it either way that it should be optional. Game over.

[Crispy]

We already said that limited save is a playstyle option- So it doesn't really make sense to warm up this silly old argument yet again, but hey that's the internet.

I'm not trying to drag it up again, I'm just adding my "vote", so to speak.

[Ishtvan]

Not for me. Like I said, the emotions are intensified. It's not the fear of having to do it again, its the fear of my character dying.

But your character doesn't die, it just goes back in time however long, and you just do it again. I would only be afraid of my character dying if there were an un-skippable 3 minute tragic death montage played every time they died. I know Odd would appreciate that system, along with electric shocks to the genitals.

[oDDity]

It's always scary to go through an area where you know you can not save. Because the thing it achieves is that I fear that I have to do it again. Extending playtime by forcing the player to go through the same area again and again is not considered good design, no matter how much fear it inspires.

 

You only have to do it again, if, through your own incompetence, you fail.

It's your fault if you have to do it again, because you're not good enough, it's not the game design at fault.

As in life, you have to learn to take responsibility for your own failures. I guess this is another manifestation of the insurance claim and lawsuit culture that has developed, mainly in the USA, in which everyone is positively encouraged to blame someone or something else for everything that happens to them.

I've often said that a Thief type game is particularly suited to no saves, or at worst limited saves, because it is not a combat heavy type of game, your life is not constantly at risk, and you always have opportunities to flee and hide, and furthermore, you have ample time to consider your actions before you do anything.

There really aren't many excuses for getting killed in a thief mission, other than your own ineptitude.

[oDDity]

But how does a person playing TDM not have the option because of what the vast majority want? Simply don't save. Ironman the missions to your heart's content. Hell, uninstall on failure if it's what you really want. I think it's a personal thing outside the game. If you want to save 1,000,000 because you're a coward, so be it. If you want to save zero times because you're a toughguy, so be it. Some games record it so you can keep track.

 

That's not the point, and you know it. It's the principal. I want the whole ethos of game-making fundamentally changed. Of course, it's ok to carry on making a selection of weak games for children to play, and you can stick to those of you want, but we also need a new set of serious, intelligent and unforgiving adult games, radically different from the current crop of children's games.

[Domarius]

But your character doesn't die, it just goes back in time however long, and you just do it again. I would only be afraid of my character dying if there were an un-skippable 3 minute tragic death montage played every time they died. I know Odd would appreciate that system, along with electric shocks to the genitals.

Maybe you just haven't experienced it properly, or maybe some people just can't experience it this way. All I can tell you is, the sensation of "NO I CAN'T DIE HERE!!" is intensified, in an exciting way. Sudden scares make you jump higher. A monster tearing down the corridor after you is more terrifying. A chase down the city alley ways makes your heart beat faster.

 

The going back in time however long gives you enough to have that something to fear about losing if you fail. And so you play differently. This is generally more than 3 minutes of game time, so its worse than the 3 minute tragic death montage in that way, but better because you're re-playing it and hopfully learning more about the game as you go.

[sparhawk]

The going back in time however long gives you enough to have that something to fear about losing if you fail.

 

That's where you are totally wrong of course. Either the experience is intense because the mapper made it so, or it is not. If the mapper made a good job THEN the experience will be intense on it's own and the player wouldn't even have time to think about saving. In Painkiller you can save anytime you want on the lower skil levels, but nevertheless, wether I'm allowed to save or not doesn't even cross my mind when I'm in a tight situation, because the experience doesn't allow me to worry about such things.

 

If you justify the quality of the experience with the capabillity of saving, it means that the game was so badly designed, that it didn't manage to draw you in enough and leave your mind room to worry about metagame mechanics. In any game that have savepoints, the frustration always comes AFTER I died, as long as the experience was tense (as it was in Painkiller).

[Mr Retarded]

Was it MGS that gave you a rating at the end of the game? The more you saved the lower your rating. It also had automatic checkpoints. The more you died, the lower the rating...

 

Couldn't a rating system be implemented so that if you save you get a lower rating? That would give you something more to play for, in effect giving you more to lose if you fail.

 

Just a thought. Perhaps it's already been mentioned.

[New Horizon]

Once again, oDDity succeeds in making all his little puppets dance. I thought people would have caught on by now.

[Domarius]

That's where you are totally wrong of course.

I'm not as excited or tense when I know if I stuff up, restoration is only one click away. I'm telling you this is what I feel. Whatever coolness the author put into the game, whatever emotions are inspired by the authours work, they are enhanced by the sensation of some sort of save limiting. That's how it feels for ME. You can't tell me what I'm feeling

 

Once again, oDDity succeeds in making all his little puppets dance. I thought people would have caught on by now.

I'm game. I like to see if it can be kept mature without any crude attacks. But I think it's run it's course though.

[ZylonBane]

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this - it's player optional.

Then, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of players hate this absence of functionality, it should default to OFF, don't you think?

[SneaksieDave]

Because you're not reading it, as this passage shows;

No, that's what you're assuming. I am reading it - I just don't care for what it says.

 

To repeat once again: I'm not commenting specifically on mapper placed save gems or whatever other dorky convention is devised to do it. I was only commenting on why I think limited saves suck.

 

Now if I was to comment on the former specifically, hell, that's even worse than limited saves. With limited saves, at least the player can use his preferences or needs to decide when to use them. With save points placed by a friggin mapper (and let's face it, some of the maps out there are... quite bad, which means that just as many (or more) save point layouts would be just as bad), the player is at his mercy. He has no idea what situation the AI and I are in right now, so how can he decide if I need a save point right now? We might as well just play some shit console game.

 

Anyway, the whole concept of hightened "fear" (so to speak) due to savegame availability is absolutely ridiculous to me. Thief 1 had me tense and often terrified and always spellbound, from start to finish, and I saved an "average" amount. Whether or not I could save had zero to do with anything, except maybe allowing the experience to remain "enjoyable" instead of "annoying". Me standing outside that one particular door in Constantine's mansion, for probably 10 minutes, paralyzed and afraid to open it (and ultimately for no reason, hah!), I assure you had all to do with the artful design and tension buildup to that point, and Brosius' sadistically masterful sound effects, and squat to do with when I'd last saved. A lot of other times in Thief it didn't matter if you were saved or not - you still needed to face down horrible foes and tricky timing anyway. I don't know of anyone who saves with every footstep, and in the heat of the moment that doesn't won't work anyway (unless you're willing to risk saving yourself into a corner - I don't ever save until I'm "safe"), so when I had to leap out of the rafters, run out the back door of the haunted cathedral, and prop the door up with my body both to prevent a zombie from coming out (oh noes! exploit!) but also to stay back from the light so that the undead I just stumbled in on didn't notice me, all while I held my breath trying to see if I was okay or not, nearly shitting my pants, it had all to do with the design, the AI, the sounds, and nothing to do with my savegame. Having to repeat that would simply be annoying, and actually degrade the experience from a "never-forget-moment-in-time" to "something I had to fucking do seven times to get it right because I didn't reach the save point before the sword fell..." Enjoyable, versus annoying.

 

And that doesn't even cover the aspect of, what if I don't want to save at that point? What if I have an AI chasing me as I run across a savepoint? I wouldn't choose to save, because I'm not yet safe. But some mapper can decide for me that it's the right time?

 

Maybe I'm lucky. Lack of saves doesn't scare me; it just annoys me. The game experience scares me. I thank my imagination for it - it has endeared Thief (as well as some other games) to me for life.

[OrbWeaver]

One thing that flies in the face of the "saving and reloading is too easy" argument, is that reloading is typically not instantaneous. When I played the original Thief on a P166 with no 3D card, it took about 2 minutes to reload the game, meaning that having to reload was really bad news.

 

Although hardware is faster these days, with modern games you are still loading a lot of high resolution content which means that the reload process will still be an inconvenience worthy of avoiding.

[Gildoran]

That doesn't fly in the face of the "saving and reloading is too easy" argument, because D3 is VERY efficient when it comes to reloading... Although loading a level for the first time can take a while, reloading it is usually quite fast. In vanilla D3, the hell level (which I believe was one of the largest levels in D3) takes my computer 25 seconds to load the first time, but only 3 seconds to reload.