Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Magmarashi
May 20, 2009





Alain Post posted:

It is not, and should not, be the player's job to play game designer.

You can just limit yourself to saving only in places you think are appropriate, leaving anyone else who wants to be able to save everywhere to have their fun.

You can just walk everywhere in the game, leaving fast travel for people who don't want to loving do that.

You can delete your save game if you die, instead of forcing some sort of ironman bullshit onto everyone else.

These are all valid alternatives to all the most common game complaints and I hope you find them helpful in your day-to-day life.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bicyclops
Aug 27, 2004

Alain Post posted:

It is not, and should not, be the player's job to play game designer.

Choosing not to use a game feature that most people want is not "playing game designer." Quicksave as a simple mechanism which would be modded in instantaneously if they were, for some demented and foolish reason, not to include it. It is a quality of life improvement of nearly all modern games, and it is your responsibility to disable the feature on your end if you believe that improvement is impairing combat's immediacy in terms of threat.

Alain Post posted:

Also if the game designer is making a game with quicksave, and isn't designing combat around the fact that the player can restore at any time, then that's just bad game design.

This is false. You do not have to design your entire game around the fact that you can save whenever you want. Quality of life improvements and minor features do not need to lead design decisions.

Hihohe
Oct 4, 2008

Fuck you and the sun you live under


Make it so if you die in the game you die fo real.

Rutibex
Sep 9, 2001

by Fluffdaddy

Magmarashi posted:

I know what let's do, let's make saving only possible in certain special rooms. Let them be safe rooms of a sort, with item storage shared between them. To limit the players reliance on these save rooms, though, they must collect ribbons tapes that they must use with a typewriter computer console to save.

I know this is a joke, but Resident Evils save system is awesome, and does in fact create tension.

You all are babies, the best games are Rogue-Likes :colbert:

Feels Villeneuve
Oct 7, 2007

Setter is Better.

Magmarashi posted:

You can just limit yourself to saving only in places you think are appropriate, leaving anyone else who wants to be able to save everywhere to have their fun.

You can just walk everywhere in the game, leaving fast travel for people who don't want to loving do that.

You can delete your save game if you die, instead of forcing some sort of ironman bullshit onto everyone else.

These are all valid alternatives to all the most common game complaints and I hope you find them helpful in your day-to-day life.

I am not suggesting that people play Fallout3/NV without saving. I actually recommend the opposite- don't do that, because the game isn't designed that way, and it won't be enjoyable. I'm just saying that I'd personally like a game that was actually designed that way. It's not my job to Create My Own Fun and do this by myself, because I'm a player, not a game designer.

By the way, I didn't even say that unlimited save/reload was inherently bad (because it isn't). I said it was inherently bad when combined with dice-roll mechanics for things like skill checks, which I still think is true.

Bicyclops
Aug 27, 2004

Magmarashi posted:

You can just limit yourself to saving only in places you think are appropriate, leaving anyone else who wants to be able to save everywhere to have their fun.

You can just walk everywhere in the game, leaving fast travel for people who don't want to loving do that.

You can delete your save game if you die, instead of forcing some sort of ironman bullshit onto everyone else.

These are all valid alternatives to all the most common game complaints and I hope you find them helpful in your day-to-day life.

Exactly. This is the thing that kills me, is the bizarre notion that including a minor thing which requires very little effort not only leads design decisions, but that if it doesn't, the game designers aren't doing their jobs. People just want no-brainer, easy player choice options removed from the game and will argue until they're blue in the face that it's not about how other people play the game, it is somehow affecting their experience, that adding a few lines of code somehow alters the thinking behind the game story, or combat, or exploration.

Alain Post posted:


By the way, I didn't even say that unlimited save/reload was inherently bad (because it isn't). I said it was inherently bad when combined with dice-roll mechanics for things like skill checks, which I still think is true.

It's not, by necessity. The way percentage dice rolls are handled for pick pocket are a good example; they're fine.

Bholder
Feb 26, 2013

Rutibex posted:

I know this is a joke, but Resident Evils save system is awesome, and does in fact create tension.

You all are babies, the best games are Rogue-Likes :colbert:

Rogue-likes, you know, games that are different each time you restart.

Magmarashi
May 20, 2009





Rutibex posted:

I know this is a joke, but Resident Evils save system is awesome, and does in fact create tension.

You all are babies, the best games are Rogue-Likes :colbert:

I would argue that the save system had nothing at all to do with the tension, which was built by atmosphere and the constant management of your resources vs more enemies than methods of killing them/healing from their attacks. Limited saves are a tedious and frustrating form of artificial difficulty that typically exacerbated other bad game design choices.

\/ Save Points are great for that where it is appropriate, yeah. Limited Saves are trash, and Save points in an action-heavy FPSRPG are burning garbage.

Magmarashi fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jul 9, 2015

Feels Villeneuve
Oct 7, 2007

Setter is Better.

Rutibex posted:

I know this is a joke, but Resident Evils save system is awesome, and does in fact create tension.

Alien: Isolation's save system didn't just create tension, it added gameplay depth. It was really cool to have to make risk/reward decisions like trekking a bit out of the way (in a game where you really didn't want to spend extra time in a level) to get to a save station, versus just trying to head for the goal.

steinrokkan
Apr 2, 2011



Soiled Meat

Alain Post posted:

By the way, I didn't even say that unlimited save/reload was inherently bad (because it isn't). I said it was inherently bad when combined with dice-roll mechanics for things like skill checks, which I still think is true.

Or, you know, do what for instance X-Com does and make sure that reloading doesn't reset the random number seed, which makes save scumming much more difficult. Though personally I don't see problem with expecting the players to show some self-control.

Bicyclops
Aug 27, 2004

Magmarashi posted:

Limited saves are a tedious and frustrating form of artificial difficulty that typically exacerbated other bad game design choices.

For those who have limited time to devote to games, they also mean you end up playing way less frequently. One of my big complaints about Skyward Sword is that they utilized save points instead of just allowing you to do it from the menu like every Zelda game since A Link to the Past.

Feels Villeneuve
Oct 7, 2007

Setter is Better.

steinrokkan posted:

Or, you know, do what for instance X-Com does and make sure that reloading doesn't reset the random number seed, which makes save scumming much more difficult. Though personally I don't see problem with expecting the players to show some self-control.

I like that system in theory, but in practice it's generally easy to gently caress around with this by just doing random actions that trigger an RNG call. Though that's something where I actually can accept the "self-control" argument, versus "just don't quicksave before trying to pickpocket someone".

Suave Fedora
Jun 10, 2004

New Leaf posted:

There needs to be at least one of those in the game somewhere that a scavenger has meticulously rebuilt to use as loot transport.

I hope so. Those Brahmin and their huge teats are a chore to maintain.

Feels Villeneuve
Oct 7, 2007

Setter is Better.
By the way, this is a good article about a specific game where the developers treated the save system like a game mechanic.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/235104/Game_Design_Deep_Dive_The_save_system_of_Alien_Isolation.php

(and I'm not trying to say that every game should have limited saves, or save points, or be Alien: Isolation. I'm just saying to keep the freaking save system in mind when designing your game, because it has a legitimate effect. I'm not trying to "force" things on anyone!!)

Moridin920
Nov 15, 2007

by FactsAreUseless
Again if you think tension is created by not letting people save then just lol at you.

Bicyclops
Aug 27, 2004

Even in games I can think of where save mechanics contribute to the atmosphere, like Majora's Mask, I think would be improved by simply including quicksaves or save states. Limited saves, spaced saves, etc. are artificial and bad ways to create tension.

Feels Villeneuve
Oct 7, 2007

Setter is Better.
All game mechanics are artificial.

Moridin920
Nov 15, 2007

by FactsAreUseless

Alain Post posted:

All game mechanics are artificial.

Oh nice sick burn with the semantics bro

Not like he was talking about creating actual tension through good writing and set design instead of faking it by making people worry about when their next save will be or whether they'll have to sit through this cutscene again

Bicyclops
Aug 27, 2004

Alain Post posted:

All game mechanics are artificial.

This reduces conversation to a place where words have no meaning. Saying that tension is created "artificially" in a narrative is something everyone understands, regardless of the fact that all fiction is artifice. You knew what I meant.

Feels Villeneuve
Oct 7, 2007

Setter is Better.

Bicyclops posted:

This reduces conversation to a place where words have no meaning. Saying that tension is created "artificially" in a narrative is something everyone understands, regardless of the fact that all fiction is artifice. You knew what I meant.

No, I really don't. People have been using "artificial difficulty" for years and I still don't really know if it has an accepted meaning except as an euphemism for "difficulty that I don't like".

Frankly, I think referring to tension that is entirely constructed with the game's writing and atmosphere as "artificial" as opposed to the tension constructed with the game's mechanics would make much more sense, but there you go.

Sharkopath
May 27, 2009

The biggest reason why making saving part of your game mechanics is lame is sometimes people have to stop playing to do other things, and its lame when they can't or have to leave it paused.

Feels Villeneuve
Oct 7, 2007

Setter is Better.

Sharkopath posted:

The biggest reason why making saving part of your game mechanics is lame is sometimes people have to stop playing to do other things, and its lame when they can't or have to leave it paused.

There is no reason for a game not to have save-on-exit, yeah. That's something which is a legit quality-of-life thing, because I can't think of any real examples where this would have bad effects on gameplay.

Bicyclops
Aug 27, 2004

Moridin920 posted:


Not like he was talking about creating actual tension through good writing and set design instead of faking it by making people worry about when their next save will be or whether they'll have to sit through this cutscene again

This may make it clearer for you, then. Tension in combat should be created by the game mechanics within the combat, not through whether you are going to lose progress and be forced to experience the tedium of replaying sections of the game you've already played (something which has the added disadvantage of forcing you to not be able to play a game until you are able to devote time to it to get to the next save point, an arbitrary amount of time that you do not even know unless you are using guides).

Cream-of-Plenty
Apr 21, 2010

"The world is a hellish place, and bad writing is destroying the quality of our suffering."

Hihohe posted:

Make it so if you die in the game you die fo real.

I already play by these rules, which is why I've been dead and a ghost since I was eight years old.

Bicyclops
Aug 27, 2004

Alain Post posted:

There is no reason for a game not to have save-on-exit, yeah. That's something which is a legit quality-of-life thing, because I can't think of any real examples where this would have bad effects on gameplay.

That is a quicksave feature with the requirement that you have to close the game, meaning that the tension is created artificially by forcing you to restart the game each time you want to create your save point, and sit through loading screens.

New Leaf
Jul 24, 2013

Dragon Balls? Are they tasty?
I kinda want the skill system to be a mix of pure points to reach a goal on top of a percentage based system.. like you need a certain number of points to pick a lock 100% of the time, but if you want to try a harder lock it becomes a percent chance. I hate the "jammed" system for Forcing a lock.. Some of these boxes aren't exactly Fort Knox. I can bash the lock off a footlocker with a hammer.

Feels Villeneuve
Oct 7, 2007

Setter is Better.

Bicyclops posted:

That is a quicksave feature with the requirement that you have to close the game, meaning that the tension is created artificially by forcing you to restart the game each time you want to create your save point, and sit through loading screens.

It's not really comparable to a save system because you don't have the ability to play onward after saving. It's suspending the game, it's not creating a point where the player gets to restart from if he fails. It's basically a pause button.

bing_commander
Aug 14, 2009

In other news..
The rng state could be stored in the save file. You would have to do n number of random actions each time you reloaded to have a chance at a different outcome.

Bicyclops
Aug 27, 2004

Alain Post posted:

It's not really comparable to a save system because you don't have the ability to play onward after saving. It's suspending the game, it's not creating a point where the player gets to restart from if he fails. It's basically a pause button.

You can use it as a quicksave function by exiting and re-entering the game (it is simply more tedious to do so).

Feels Villeneuve
Oct 7, 2007

Setter is Better.
I think this has gotten really off-track, and I kind of want to make it clear that I don't think ironmanning FNV is the "right way to play", or that all games should have save points, or that no games should have quicksave. I just think that having unlimited saves is stupid when combined with dice-roll skill checks- and seeing that FNV completely got rid of dice-roll speech checks for basically that reason, I'm kind of surprised that's a really controversial idea.

Feels Villeneuve
Oct 7, 2007

Setter is Better.

Bicyclops posted:

You can use it as a quicksave function by exiting and re-entering the game (it is simply more tedious to do so).

No you can't, because when you die, you restart at the normal save point/checkpoint, not at the point where you quit the game. It's just a way to get rid of the "I have to reach a checkpoint before I quit" problem.

LastGoodBoy
Sep 7, 2014

Keep your mind be open window everyday

Alain Post posted:

Also if the game designer is making a game with quicksave, and isn't designing combat around the fact that the player can restore at any time, then that's just bad game design. The save system is a game mechanic, and the fact that multiple lovely games exist that don't think about what effect the save system will have on gameplay isn't some kind of rebuttal.

Any kind of saving will cause these kinds of issues to some degree, though. The only total solution is to either not allow saving at all, or like, make the game always online and ban people for reloading too much.

Hihohe
Oct 4, 2008

Fuck you and the sun you live under


I think saving should be in a game so that if you played for like 3 hours you wouldnt lose your progess.

You guys sure do like talking about everything but Fallout 4.

I do like what weve seen so far in gameplay with supermutants. The Behemoth looks disheveled and intimidating. Instead of just being super huge muscle beasts, it looks like the wasteland actually takes its toll on the mutants.

Bicyclops
Aug 27, 2004

Hihohe posted:


You guys sure do like talking about everything but Fallout 4.


There's nothing new to talk about since the weapons post. :(

Suave Fedora
Jun 10, 2004

Alain Post posted:

By the way, this is a good article about a specific game where the developers treated the save system like a game mechanic.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/235104/Game_Design_Deep_Dive_The_save_system_of_Alien_Isolation.php

(and I'm not trying to say that every game should have limited saves, or save points, or be Alien: Isolation. I'm just saying to keep the freaking save system in mind when designing your game, because it has a legitimate effect. I'm not trying to "force" things on anyone!!)

I'm not interested in limited saving in a Fallout world but after reading that article I definitely see how it would work in a world inspired by the Alien movies, which were built on dread and trepidation.

I'm tempted to play this game now but I kinda swore off scary games since Silent Hill. I am a huge baby.

LastGoodBoy
Sep 7, 2014

Keep your mind be open window everyday

Hihohe posted:

I think saving should be in a game so that if you played for like 3 hours you wouldnt lose your progess.

You guys sure do like talking about everything but Fallout 4.

I do like what weve seen so far in gameplay with supermutants. The Behemoth looks disheveled and intimidating. Instead of just being super huge muscle beasts, it looks like the wasteland actually takes its toll on the mutants.

There's a Fallout 4 now? Christ...

Crabtree
Oct 17, 2012

ARRRGH! Get that wallet out!
Everybody: Lowtax in a Pickle!
Pickle! Pickle! Pickle! Pickle!

Dinosaur Gum
All we can do right now is make fun of each other or think about stupid mods until Todd Howard decides to actually reveal the the realities of Fallout 4 around October.

LastGoodBoy
Sep 7, 2014

Keep your mind be open window everyday

Crabtree posted:

All we can do right now is make fun of each other

Nice post. Did you get it from the Gap?

sout
Apr 24, 2014

If I can't shitpost SA from my pip-boy then what's the goddamn point?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Moridin920
Nov 15, 2007

by FactsAreUseless

Bicyclops posted:

This may make it clearer for you, then. Tension in combat should be created by the game mechanics within the combat, not through whether you are going to lose progress and be forced to experience the tedium of replaying sections of the game you've already played (something which has the added disadvantage of forcing you to not be able to play a game until you are able to devote time to it to get to the next save point, an arbitrary amount of time that you do not even know unless you are using guides).

I was agreeing with you and that was sarcastic.

Alain Post posted:

No, I really don't. People have been using "artificial difficulty" for years and I still don't really know if it has an accepted meaning except as an euphemism for "difficulty that I don't like".

Frankly, I think referring to tension that is entirely constructed with the game's writing and atmosphere as "artificial" as opposed to the tension constructed with the game's mechanics would make much more sense, but there you go.

"Artificial difficulty" is a fairly easy concept. It's when in a fighter or FPS the devs don't know how to make AI that actually challenges you or uses tactics and so they just turn up the HP and damage numbers. It's when a twitch or platform game is difficult just because the controls are poo poo.

Alain Post posted:

I think this has gotten really off-track, and I kind of want to make it clear that I don't think ironmanning FNV is the "right way to play", or that all games should have save points, or that no games should have quicksave. I just think that having unlimited saves is stupid when combined with dice-roll skill checks- and seeing that FNV completely got rid of dice-roll speech checks for basically that reason, I'm kind of surprised that's a really controversial idea.

Because it was dumb to not have unlimited saves and then they realized by extension that dice roll checks are also dumb and outdated. That doesn't mean unlimited saves are bad.

  • Locked thread