Home
GARETH HUGHES
XBL -NONE-
PSN -NONE-
WII
-NONE-
STEAM -NONE-
GARETH HUGHES' SPONSOR
POST BY THIS AUTHOR (0)
COMMENTS BY THIS AUTHOR (3)
"tinuing with awesome Steam deals, The Freedom Force pack is also $2 this weekend. They're basically tactical RPGs where you control a team of superheroes, and are excellent in both gameplay and presentation, as well as being a bit more recent and approachable than the X-com"
Thursday, January 28, 2010
"s obviously an extremely exaggerated example, but the principle is the same. If you can instantly undo every mistake, there's no incentive for observing the environment, playing cautiously, and making smart decisions. It undoes the tension of the game in the same way (though to a lesser extent) that playing in god mode would. In either case, you're progressing through the story, seeing the environments, seeing the enemies, etc., but facing much less of a challenge.
In general, when given options, players will take the path of least resistance, choosing whatever is most efficient or powerful even if a different way might lead to a more enjoyable gaming experience. They can't be expected to have enough perspective on how the game will play to figure out what restrictions they should place on themselves to make it more fun. And expecting them to have the willpower to stick with it when a much easier method is just a keypress away is also generally unrealistic. The designer should be responsible for determining what sort of saving mechanism will lead to the most fun overall experience in the long term.
In the roguelike community, this is a fairly commonly discussed issue. There, the games are designed never to allow loading a save to undo mistakes (though you can suspend your progress between sessions). If you die, you start the entire game over with a new character, with everything completely randomized. Those who accept this limitation learn from their mistakes and find the games difficult but endlessly rewarding, and enjoyable to play for (in some cases) decades. There are also players who subvert this intended design, and find ways to manually make copies of the saves and move files around outside of the game to preserve their progress. This is called savescumming, and those who do it blow through the game, undoing all their deaths, and wind up finding it unsatisfying, soon giving up on the genre.
For many games, the lows that come with a significant penalty for failure make the highs of eventual victory that much sweeter, as well as encouraging a more interesting and enjoyable playstyle. I'm not saying save-anywhere systems are categorically wrong for every game. But for many games, they do diminish the overall experience, and should either be omitted entirely or included only as a clearly-labeled "cheat" opt"
Friday, October 02, 2009
"problem with save systems is that they have to fulfill two very distinct functions -- letting you carry your progress from one gaming session to the next and giving you somewhere to reset to when you die during a session.
The needs of these two functions pull in opposite directions. Convenience demands the ability to save anywhere, since our lives are busy and there shouldn't be a penalty for quitting when something comes up. On the other hand, quicksaving every few steps guts the game's tension and turns it into a consequence-free exercise in trial and error.
The solution, as others have already mentioned, is to implement separate systems to fulfill these needs. Every game, without exception, should allow you to suspend your progress and resume right where you left off. The game just needs to delete the save upon loading to prevent abuse. Most, though not all, games also benefit from some sort of failure consequence other than the couple of seconds it takes to quickload. This can be in the form of checkpoint/location-based permanent saves, only allowing saves between missions, respawning with stat/exp. penalties (as in MMOs), the story continuing with another character (Heavy Rain), or just strict permanent death, start over with a new character (roguelikes).
[quote]I'm not entirely sure how anyone can argue against a save-anywhere feature. If you think it makes the game too easy, you have the option to not save every 10 seconds, so what's the problem? Why does it matter if other people want to save every 10 seconds, so long as you don't have to?[/quote]
I'm not entirely sure how anyone can argue against a starting weapon with infinite ammo that instantly kills every enemy in the level. If you think it makes the game too easy, you have the option to use a different weapon, so what's the problem?
It shouldn't be the player's job to purposefully handicap themselves to improve the game experience. The developer should arrange the game elements and systems in such a way as to provide a fun, engaging, and challenging experience, and that includes placing appropriate limitations on what the player can and can'"
Friday, October 02, 2009
