Quote:

Original post by firewindshadow Why do I have a funny feeling that the same people who constant save/load game when they screw up are just going to make backup copies of the game's world state file. Or even more crazy, write a shell program that can save an instance of the game like most game emulator.

You see, I'm EXACTLY that kind of person (irritating perfectionist). First time through an FPS, I'll creep and save; same for RPGs.

I do so because in most games, if I don't do so, I'm seriously in trouble later on. This is because in most games the ABSOLUTE MAIN #1 PROBLEM is that I can't choose what challenges I face! I'm railroaded into facing hordes of enemies whether my character / party is strong enough or not. If I get my teeth kicked the game designer doesn't care, he's already got my money.

The goal here is to design the game so that making copies or shell programs is unnecessary.

Quote:

Original post by stevenmarky How much fun is it when you make a decision; maybe an extreme one just to see the result in the knowledge you will reload and make the 'right' choice? I'd do this in real life if I could ;) For example in Fallout you can insult someone and then have to kill the whole town as a result ^_^ Of course then you'd be totally disadvantaged if you needed some knowledge or item from someone in that town.

You describe two problems: "One false move" and puzzle pieces.

"One false move" is a choice you make that can result in a drastic outcome, but that you have no way of measuring. This is bad game design. The best solution is to give the player clear indicators as to the possible range of consequences so you can make an informed decision.

The puzzle pieces idea goes away if every puzzle piece has an alternate "overpower" solution, like blasting through a door when you can't find the key.

In your example, ideally the town would repopulate (while you're fighting off the bounty hunters and valiant vigilantes [smile])

Quote:

Personally, when I play I like being able to have a 'perfect record'. Not being able to turn back time would stop me from doing this. And I'd always be wondering about what would have happened if I chose another path :s

What if there were no such thing as "perfect record." Perfect record assumes binary win/loss states.

Rather, think of a totally different experience where your top goals are:
1) Survive
2) Grow
3) Optionally, get into the plot, start fighting off a bunch of "highlanders" like you, and deal with an ongoing storyline ended by defeating some great force.

Quote:

Original post by stevenmarky If one of my characters died I'd seriously consider restarting the game

Even if the character was replaceable? Yes, you may have spent 30 hours leveling him, but I'm assuming no unique characters outside of the storyline-- and in that case, if they die it just brings the end of the game closer.

Quote:

Original post by Sandman One thing I've always wanted to see is player failure incorporated into the progression of the game in a more continuous manner. Rather than killing you, what if your enemies just beat you unconscious and took you prisoner? You wake up in a cell with little or no equipment, perhaps with other cellmates with whom you may be able to join up and make an escape attempt.

Yes! I've been trying to think of ways to make this cut both ways, but using positive incentives.

In most games, if you can kill an enemy you should. There's little cost to doing so, and you gain more than you spend.

How to change this formula positively (not with punishments)?

Some possibilities:
1) Sparing someone pays off later - They or their allies spare you

2) Controls escalation/costs - If you keep the conflict at the level of politics, sabotage or beatdowns, it doesn't go further, which is cheaper

3) Enemies can be converted or interrogated; same for you

4) Deeds reflect not only on you but on your faction, and civil society is more apt to reward those who don't kill (just like IRL)

Quote:

Original post by kseh Hope this isn't my fault for saying I'd reload at every misfortune that happens to my character.

[lol] Let's say you were a catalyst, but there are bigger reasons for this-- namely, trying to widen the appeal and make it more fun.

Quote:

Only thing is, this whole eGhost idea could open up more possibilities than you want to deal with for just a new spin on a save feature.

Hmmm... Not sure what you mean. If there are too many possibilities don't you just follow the time honored strategy of choping off some (like letting you go across the #*$*%#! ocean in Morrowind :>)

Quote:

My thoughts are to be able to make an imprint of yourself for cheep but make the restoration expensive.

Two possibilities:

1) If saving's expensive, you'll go longer without saving or take less risks
2) If saving's cheap, you'll save often but always have to be sure that finances are high enough to restore to your same level

I think #2 is better because it'll help with "creep & save" anxiety. You won't have to redo a lot of housekeeping / admin changes this way, either (like loadout / property configs) if you lose stuff. You'd just better have a good insurance policy.

Quote:

I'm not as fond of the idea of being unable to imprint low level hirelings. I think the ability should be there, but the costs of the restoration should still be high. If the player deems that the person they hired wasn't worth the cost of restoring, they'd just move on. If ordinarily a faction would pay for a restoration, just because they have some sort of deal with the player character doesn't mean they have a deal with the hireling. If the player wants to pay the expenses, let him.

A caveat: Altering NPCs is limited by loyalty, and you level loyalty up through morale. Morale is leveled by interactions, mini-plot events, missions you take, and life quests on behalf of the hireling. The whole point of loyalty is creating super-unit minions who kick butt in the freeform gameplay (combat, stealth, trade) or the storyline.

Alternately, this could be controlled by making the implant expensive (same effect).

If you lose a group of promising young cadets because of a surprise attack, a risk you took, or stupidity, what will your reaction be if you can't bring them back (this is part of the preserving world state & loss stuff, btw).

Quote:

Original post by stevenmarky Quote: Where's the punishment if I can just reload to before the fight and play it differently? Yeah but where is the fun if you can't? It all becomes much more serious when we know our actions and choices have consequences. How much fun is it when you make a decision; maybe an extreme one just to see the result in the knowledge you will reload and make the 'right' choice? I'd do this in real life if I could ;) For example in Fallout you can insult someone and then have to kill the whole town as a result ^_^ Of course then you'd be totally disadvantaged if you needed some knowledge or item from someone in that town.

As Wavinator says, this sort of 'irreversible damage' situation is a design flaw, and something that should be avoided. It kind of annoyed me in Fallout 2 that if you kill one person in a town - regardless of whether you started it or not - everybody else in that town seems to telepathically know about it and come after you. It could be something as simple as accidentally clicking the wrong conversation choice, and BAM - you're screwed unless you reload. Fallout 2 is a fantastic game, but this felt like a flaw to me.

Quote:

Personally, when I play I like being able to have a 'perfect record'. Not being able to turn back time would stop me from doing this. And I'd always be wondering about what would have happened if I chose another path :s

I kind of know what you mean, and I'm sort of the same in some ways. However, I think this is largely due to our expectations of a linear storyline. Without a linear story, there is no 'perfect' route through the game, the concept becomes meaningless. As for choosing different paths - that's where the replay value comes in.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by Sandman One thing I've always wanted to see is player failure incorporated into the progression of the game in a more continuous manner. Rather than killing you, what if your enemies just beat you unconscious and took you prisoner? You wake up in a cell with little or no equipment, perhaps with other cellmates with whom you may be able to join up and make an escape attempt. Yes! I've been trying to think of ways to make this cut both ways, but using positive incentives. In most games, if you can kill an enemy you should. There's little cost to doing so, and you gain more than you spend. How to change this formula positively (not with punishments)? Some possibilities: 1) Sparing someone pays off later - They or their allies spare you 2) Controls escalation/costs - If you keep the conflict at the level of politics, sabotage or beatdowns, it doesn't go further, which is cheaper 3) Enemies can be converted or interrogated; same for you 4) Deeds reflect not only on you but on your faction, and civil society is more apt to reward those who don't kill (just like IRL)

Your storyline could also tie in here somehow. Perhaps you can grow your core by draining/copying the core of other corekeepers - but if you kill them, then the core becomes useless. The rival corekeepers thus have an incentive to keep you alive too, rather than having their minions kill you on the spot...

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by HemoGloben The only thing I'd be concerned about is how your mistakes can be made. I mean, if I have to pay money and time because I got screwed by a Random Number Generator I'd be pissed. That's less of a concern when you can revive the world state. Could you explain this a bit more? How would you feel if you traveled to a dangerous part of town where firefights could happen randomly and you got killed, or lost an ally? Is that what you mean? This is especially important if you consider a game world that's organically changing.

Sorry for the late reply...

Example of what I mean:
If I was in some sort of battle, and I died because my attack didn't do as much as it could've have because of so random number generator I'd be pissed at the game, and I'd love to learn something, but there isn't anything to learn from.

Whereas, if I died because I missed a critical shot(in an FPS), I'd be pissed at myself for missing, and I'd learn to be more accurate.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Oops, forgot to mention "save on exit" (you & world) as a default as well.

Well, I was gonna do a two words post ("roguelike games"), but I got beaten to it, it seems.
Those games only allow you to save when you want to stop playing the game, period. And you can die, very often, very stupidly, and it's the whole point of the game.
If your game does everything to prevent unecessary frustration and dead ends, where death isnt a big deal, then I dont really see what savegames could be used for...

So no, there is no need for save games IMO. And it has been done in more harsh environments (ie. roguelike games) and nobody ever complains, cos that's just the nature of the game.

Hope this helps?

Quote:

Original post by HemoGloben Sorry for the late reply...

[smile] Same here, real life intervenes.

Quote:

If I was in some sort of battle, and I died because my attack didn't do as much as it could've have because of so random number generator I'd be pissed at the game, and I'd love to learn something, but there isn't anything to learn from.

Ugh. THIS may be impossible to solve for a game that uses character skill rather than player skill. Almost every cRPG I know of uses randomizers in combat. I have characters take criticals and instantly die, for example. And what of NPC sidekicks?

Quote:

Whereas, if I died because I missed a critical shot(in an FPS), I'd be pissed at myself for missing, and I'd learn to be more accurate.

But what's funny is that you accept the FPS aiming / hit detection system, which while likely lacking a random element, has just as much unfairness as a random skill test in an RPG. You don't hit or miss in a game because you aimed well. You hit or miss because hit detection / bounding box intersection code says you do. Throw in difficulty and scatter equations (as in Halo) to really see what I mean.

Meanwhile, the AI has your EXACT x,y,z and only misses because a random algorithm says they miss.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster This is how it'd have to work. You'd have to save every change in the game to disk as you go. Depending on how your game works this could hit speed, but if things change relatively slowly it probably would be workable. It would be like your own privant persistant world.

Yes, one where you could invite a few friends to adventure with you in, without the annoying spammers, whiners, cheat-PKers and gimmies.

The world state should be savable in the form of from random generator seeds and progress values, but I admit at this stage I have no idea how big that will be.