🔒 Locked

Quickload

Started by spek Sep 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM 15 replies 3.2k views

Original Post

Sep 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Not really a question, but I like to know how you boys&girls think about "save game" mechanisms. 13 years ago I would sometimes throw my console joystick through the room when falling 6 times into the same pit, giving me a "game over, restart the entire game" screen. Later on this would be improved with passwords per level or checkpoints. These days however the quick (auto)save/load is most common. If you ask me, it kills the thrill. Why would plan all your actions into detail, choose a long stealthy path, be carefull with items if you easily load your game again? I'd say this leads to "trial & error". Whoops, got shot again, quickload. Whoops, missed that terrifying monster, quickload. Damn, out of ammo, quickload. Crikey, stepped in the crap, quickload. I know why there is such a thing as quickload. Getting killed and having to repeat the whole damn last 15 minutes is frustrating, and eventually gets boring. Kids these days have zero patience... or maybe that is because games learned them quickload's? I'm a calm and patient person. Maybe because I finished Mario Bros after dying 4 billion times :) I think it also explains why lots of games are relative short (<10 hours gameplay). I'm trying to create a horror game, so I was thinking about some gameplay elements that would the player get thrilled. Lot's of tactics and small tricks to avoid getting killed by the enemy went through my mind, until I realised that I would never make use of them. Because getting killed isn't so bad, just reload and try again. I mean, many games offer dozens of ways to accomplish a mission. Stealth routes, leaning around corners, improving camouflage, using group tactics, special ammunition, and so on. But ussually I would only use 50% of the available tricks, why bother? And in the case of my horror game, enemies won't be that scary if getting killed isn't that much of a problem. That's not really putting me on the edge of my seat... I remember Resident Evil (Remake) having typewriters to save progress. So it would mean you could only save at a couple of spots. And getting there could be dangerous on itself as well. And to make it even worse, you could only save a limited amount of times. So saving on itself became a difficult decision... Wasting another savegame right now, or play a little bit further before saving, risking to get killed and having to redo all progress so far? It's like being thirsty in the Sahara desert and deciding to drink some water or keeping it for later. The Resident Evil saving system could be frustrating sometimes, but at least it made me play the game very carefully and the knowledge of zombies that could blew up my progress made me truly fear the enemy. Something I really miss in most games. How about you? How do you like your games saved? Rick

tremault

Sep 23, 2009 at 1:37 PM

it all depends on the game type.

I have been playing ninja blade recently.
you can only save inbetween missions.
i find this terribly frustrating because sometimes i may only want to play for 10 minutes.

on the other hand, I was playing overlord 2.
this game is infuriating because it gives your minions the ability to raise levels.
let's say i have a team of level 18 minions. then one of them gets killed. i have been raising that minion througout the entire game. and he gets killed. I can resurrect him but it costs me 36 minions to resurrect that one.
what if there is a huge cannon ball that kills my entire party in one hit?
that's 36 multiplied by 50 to resurrect all of them. that's 1800 minions to resurrect the decent ones. so i would have to farm for hours and hours and hours.
do savegames and reloads help in this scenario? only if i don't accidentally pass a auto savepoint. I can't kill myself and go back to the last checkpoint because it will save thefact that i lost all my minions so I have to power off my console and go back to the last time i had a proper save. which could be the beginning of the entire level.

game saves and checkpoints can be good or bad.

some games give the player an option to save when they want. in these cases, the player chooses their own place to save. they decide if it is worth it and they effectively set their own challenge level in this way.

snake5

Sep 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Quote:
I'm a calm and patient person.

Most young people are neither calm nor patient. As you're making a game for them, you know what you have to do.

Quote:
game saves and checkpoints can be good or bad

They are always good. If the implementation / level design is not screwed up.

Quote:
If you ask me, it kills the thrill.

It was there some time ago too. It doesn't kill any of it, if correctly implemented (good examples: Syphon Filter (PS1)).

So, in my opinion, saves/checkpoints can help fighting frustration and be as a gameplay element (if it's a trial&error style game) AND as a learning tool for game designers - they can learn the player to do something faster than if the game has no saving possibilities. And, by the way, lack of saving for long levels of a hard game is realistic but realism sucks everywhere (I usually hate to repeat myself but I feel that I will need to do this while the young game developers are thinking wrong about what a good game is), anytime, in any game (even though it's the hypeword most gamers use today).

spek

Sep 23, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Well, I'm not making a game for younger people, just for myself to start with :)

I agree games must be saved somehow after achieving something. When killing a boss, it shouldn't be possible to redo that battle if you stepped on a mine 5 seconds later. Or worse, windows crashed. But I'm talking about a quicksave, hitting F2 (or whatever button) to save whenever you want. It doesn't really matter anymore if you play a game on easy/medium/hard, as you can always pass any obstacle after X times trying.

Guaranteeing progress is a good thing, but I think games are just too easy this way. And worse, the challenge is taken away. I remember myself standing and crushing the joystick in my hands, my little brother as spectator shouting on the background, would I finally finish that damn level after so many times? And then feeled proud and relieved if it finally succeeded. That is what a game is I believe, being challenged.

The real fanatics will still try to achieve the maximum with a game. Finish Resident Evil 5 within 2 hours, with your knife only, getting killed 0 times, and sitting upside down in your chair. But most lazy gamers, just like me, will make it themselves easy. Then when finishing a game I would complain. Already done, only 8 hours, AI was not too bright (while I actually got killed 60 times), sneaking and sniping is fun but not nescesary to accomplish the game, etcetera.

tremault

Sep 23, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Quote:
Original post by spek
But most lazy gamers, just like me, will make it themselves easy. Then when finishing a game I would complain. Already done, only 8 hours, AI was not too bright (while I actually got killed 60 times), sneaking and sniping is fun but not nescesary to accomplish the game, etcetera.

I think here is your answer.
just because you are a lazy gamer, I don't think it's fair to penalize other gamers.
some people actually need the quicksave features because they don't have hours to spend and have other reasons for playing.
I think this is more about self control rather than having quick save features removed?

I couldn't play doom 3 through to completion.
I wanted to see the ending and complete the storyline but it started to get too difficult for me.
I don't want to get frustrated playing the game when i do it for stress relief.
quick save helped. godmode also helped.

actually, you may find that these days, there are far less games that have cheats in them.

spek

Sep 23, 2009 at 5:29 PM

You are right about self control, but how many people would have this discipline while playing a game (for fun)? It's like getting used to taking the car for small distances. You know it's wrong, but it's so easy, and eventually you make yourself believe you can't do without. 20 years later you mention the goold old days where you didn't have that luxery, and realise that taking the bicyle or walking had its charms as well. The save/load system is a little bit psychology related I guess...

One of the most exiting moments I had with games is probably with Hidden & Dangerous, a tactical WO2 game. You couldn't save while playing a mission here, and the enemy AI was quite unfair. And to make it worse, the game had quite some bugs and used to crash. I would definitely use a quicksave here, if it was available. But it wasn't so each step I took in the game was well planned and thought about 6 times. Then when finally finishing a mission after a few failed attempts and many hours, I felt really proud. The fear to make a wrong decision got the adrenaline pumping. Lying next to a tank and thinking for 15 minutes just what to do. Retreat, use TNT to blow up the tank, offer this soldier and let the others pass the tank... If I was able to save/load I would have done it with trial and error. This game certainly made some unforgettable game-moments for me.

I agree that not every gamer has the time though. I enjoy playing Doom or Duke Nukem for just 10 minutes sometimes, save it, and continue doing something else. Just a quicky. However, in case of a horror game I think you should really get sucked into it if you want to enjoy it. Sit and take your time... You won't walk away every 5 minutes when watching a good movie or pleasing your woman either :)

As for the game difficulty... I'd say that's where the "easy" setting is for. Maybe its not a bad idea to enable quick-save only on the "easy" setting in my case... I guess most games like to serve a wide group of customers(=more money). The biggest group is probably the "casual gamer". Totally fine with me, but how about the hardcore gamer? I think most games do not really serve them these days. At least I can't remember difficult games from the last years, and I only play sometimes so I'm really not that skilled. Or maybe I just missed all the difficult games and only saw the Hollywood style AA games passing :)

tremault

Sep 23, 2009 at 6:20 PM

it's interesting you say that just now.
in hitman blood money.
if you play the game on the easiest setting, you get infinite saves plus the ai is reduced. on medium, you get 7 saves and the ai is harder.
on expert, you get no saves and the enemies are like einstein! ^_^

also there are other mechanisms that can be used.
some games score you on how many retries you use and how many saves.
if you are playing on an xbox, your acheivment score reflects this and also your friends can look at your scores, so you have incentive for using less saves and improving your game.
I never would have played resident evil 5 on hard if it weren't for that system.

Way Walker

Sep 24, 2009 at 2:35 AM

I think the "need" for a quick save is tied to the "need" to tell a story in the game. If being told a story is an important part of why I'm playing your game, I'm going to feel cheated if you stop telling me the story even if I get hung up on a bit of gameplay. I don't keep up on modern gaming (I mostly play old games or flash games these days), but when I played Serious Sam, I never felt the need for quicksave and only used it as a more convenient way to save even when I had trouble finishing a section. When I played Deus Ex, I used quicksave often even when I felt secure in my ability to get through the current situation. I played Serious Sam for the gameplay while I played Deus Ex for the gameplay and to be told a story.

In Deus Ex, much of the fun was in the story. Sure, I could enjoy the gameplay of the current level, but the storyteller would be silent until I reached the next level. So, to the extent that the story is why I played the game, I could not enjoy the game unless there was some mechanism that could guarantee the story would go on. In Serious Sam, the fun was almost entirely in the gameplay, and there was never a point in the game where I couldn't enjoy the gameplay until, say, I'd read War and Peace. Even if I couldn't reach the next level, I could still replay the current level and have a good time.

Going off a bit of a tangent, I played Mario 2 in grade school but never managed to beat it until I was in college. I'd often (and perhaps still would if I could) warp to the ice or sand levels, play a bit, and then turn it off, never intending to try to beat it. After all those years of playing it off and on, the only time I felt at all disappointed in it was when I beat it. When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer.

spek

Sep 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM

I never played Deus Ex unfortunately, but I get your point. If the story/cinematics/cutscenes/revealings are the main reason to play a particular game, you don't want to waste too much time with the filling in between. It's like rewinding a movie 5 minutes at random points. I never really felt having to rush though. I would try again and again, being curious of what would come next.

Guess it's important to offer varying or dynamic gameplay, in case the chance is big you'll have to replay parts after getting killed. A game like Farcry for example allows you to try different tactics or another route if you failed, so it won't be that frustrating if you have to restart. Games with a fixed route on the other hand... (platform games, Halflife).

Another game just came up, Bioshock. In this game you couldn't even die. When a big daddy drilled you into a wall, you would just respawn 10 meters back with a full health bar, and not even loosing your weapons and munition. I had very mixed feelings about that though. Basically there was no challenge at all. I ussually got killed 6 times at some points but kept sooner or later all the enemies would get killed anyhow, with a weak pistol if nescesary. Still I played through the entire game (twice)... Probably just to explore the fantastic underwater world. Like you said, a story driven game.

Hope that finishing Mario Bros didn't gave you a trauma! I felt the same with some games. Being a ghetto blasting gangster rapper, hanging around with his homies, listening ice-cube in a stolen car, for 60+ hours in GTA San Andreas. And then you beat the game, no more missions to do. You can beat up grandma's or try to collect all hidden items, but it feels like it's time to return home after a fantastic vacation.

Way Walker

Sep 24, 2009 at 7:48 PM

Quote:
Original post by spek
I never played Deus Ex unfortunately, but I get your point. If the story/cinematics/cutscenes/revealings are the main reason to play a particular game, you don't want to waste too much time with the filling in between. It's like rewinding a movie 5 minutes at random points. I never really felt having to rush though. I would try again and again, being curious of what would come next.

I think it may be a subtle difference, but for me it wasn't so much about not wanting to waste time with the filling in between (since I still enjoyed the gameplay), but the possibility of being unable to enjoy an important aspect of the game (the story) if I wasn't good enough at an unrelated aspect (the gameplay). Imagine a movie theater that would stop the movie after 30 minutes and wouldn't let you watch the rest unless you could finish a Rubik's cube or beat the owner at a game of chess. Sure, having your viewing experience interrupted like that would be annoying, but much less annoying than having it truncated because you're not very good at chess.

Quote:

Hope that finishing Mario Bros didn't gave you a trauma! I felt the same with some games. Being a ghetto blasting gangster rapper, hanging around with his homies, listening ice-cube in a stolen car, for 60+ hours in GTA San Andreas. And then you beat the game, no more missions to do. You can beat up grandma's or try to collect all hidden items, but it feels like it's time to return home after a fantastic vacation.

For some reason, this image made me laugh. The anti-climax of it all. I just picture the end of the game consisting of him sitting on the couch watching TV with periodic "missions" to grab a beer from the fridge.

"...and they all lived happily ever after."

Sandman

Sep 25, 2009 at 3:45 AM

Don't forget another reason for saving: protection against loss of progress from crashes and other failures. Nothing is more annoying than losing hours of progress through no fault of your own, because the game crashed unexpectedly.

Anyway: another approach might be to make the Save feature a consumable, just like health potions and other buffs.

Availability of this 'Save Potion' could be dependent on difficulty level easily enough, although I suspect that most player's inherent hoarding instincts will take over and they will naturally conserve them even if there's three of them in every other drop. There could be other incentives to preserve them: perhaps an NPC who will trade certain items that cannot be obtained anywhere else, in return for a number of these save potions.

This also brings the concept of saving progress into the game world. With a little bit of effort, the mechanism can be explained within the game universe, and may help the game feel more immersive.

spek

Sep 25, 2009 at 5:02 AM

That's certainly not a bad idea. I liked the Resident Evil savegame approach. You was free to save whenever you want, but only a very limited amount of times. So I was constantly affraid of using my savegames too quickly. When playing the game for the first time you don't know what will come of course. Maybe there is a boss behind that door so I should save... or maybe not.

One of the ideas I had for my game is to use sleep. You have 7 (long) days to accomplish the game. Sleeping will save your progress, but it also takes your precious time of course, so don't be too lazy!

I agree there shouldn't be too much time between 2 savepoints, if a PC crashes and you loose hours, it could be a reason to discontinue the game.

Thanks for the input!

snake5

Sep 29, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Quote:
as you can always pass any obstacle after X times trying

Nope. The quicksaving itself might be a hard challenge if the main objectives of the mission need to be done quickly, one after another. Use your imagination. ;)

Quote:
nd may help the game feel more immersive

Saving potion won't help there. I get enough immersion in any of the Splinter Cell games when I use manual saving too... (here I don't use quicksaves because it is easy to ruin the whole mission progress with one single quicksave, but I want to complete the mission perfectly ^_^).

Quote:
And worse, the challenge is taken away.

Sorry, but it looks like you don't understand the concept of quicksave - it is used to save the game faster (that means no button clicking and name writing). A game that has good challenges and immersion will make the player forget about the quicksave option when he is in a fight. When the game just gets annoying, the player will remember that he can do quicksaves and use them together with his tactics.

bakanoodle

Sep 29, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Checkpoints and Save systems are great and should be utilized often in every game unless you have a specific reason not to. There is a difficult balance between too many saves, and too little, as each person has a different opinion on what feels right.

Your example of a player losing the thrill of the game if they don't have to worry about getting killed is a good one. However, if you are trying to create a horror game that appeals to younger or more casual gamers then you must make death more forgiving.

There are other consequences you could give if the player fails a certain scenario other then death as well. An effective horror game to me doesn't get me scared to die, it gets me scared to see what is going to happen next.

Stroppy Katamari

Sep 30, 2009 at 4:36 AM

Regardless of game, I want a suspend feature so the game can be dropped any time and continued at will a la Nethack. (Obviously, a save anywhere feature is a superset of that.)

But I generally don't want a save anywhere feature. With no save anywhere, and proper playtesting, design failures (and bad designers!) will be weeded out; with save anywhere, you end up with players save creeping through stuff that should have never been there in the first place. And like the OP says, a lot of the excitement just disappears.

One of my all-time favorite games remains Aliens vs Predator for the PC. It didn't have a save feature at ship time, and IMO, was all the better for it. No other FPS has made me that afraid, and a lot of it has to do with how I stood to lose the last five minutes' hard-won progress if I died before reaching the end of the level.

snake5

Sep 30, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Quote:
with save anywhere, you end up with players save creeping through stuff that should have never been there in the first place.

That is not true when quicksave/save-anwhere option is part of the gameplay. And it is actually much harder to implement so don't think that save-anywhere is a cheap hack. ;)

Stroppy Katamari

Oct 2, 2009 at 7:39 AM

Quote:
Original post by snake5
Quote:
with save anywhere, you end up with players save creeping through stuff that should have never been there in the first place.

That is not true when quicksave/save-anwhere option is part of the gameplay. And it is actually much harder to implement so don't think that save-anywhere is a cheap hack. ;)

I don't personally know even a single game which has refined save-anywhere functionality by somehow tying it into the play. If some exist, well, my comment was not about them but the other 99%.

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.