Save game is the mark of weak game design

I think everything is in tradeoffs. I mean an early sierra game like say Space Quest 1. As I remember if you didnt'' have some item, and you got to some point without that item, you were lets just say up you know what''s creek without a paddle. So saved games were really necessary. If you design you game with such terrible consequences, it becomes necessary to preserve it. Now, on the other hand if there is always a way to win, then many save games are not necessary. You have some good points, but I think you must consider very very carefully when you decide to deviate from the norms as far as saved games.

-=Lohrno

what are the norms.

i mean there was a deep running standard of only allowing saves in certain locations in early computer gaming. ff1 was Final Fantasy 1 one of the best games of all times balances and game wise imo. contrast that old school you can only save outside via bought item. this made the entire dungeon experience a planned one. to the new school icewind dale / diablo 2 save anywhere.

Poll: how many times in baldurs gate did you die waiting for your spells to refresh. ok wooooe got through that battle. save. alright im going to continue to the next room. oh wait i got to rest. hit "Rest" gah encounter. no spells. death. Load. hit "Rest" gah encounter. fight through. sigh live. hit "Rest" gah encounter. death. Load. hit "Rest" woot spells refreshed rock on. save. i mean instead of playing the game and having resonable fear of resting in insane spots how many of us just went for the rest in the dungeon. taking out a whole layer of resource management.

there are norms but for some reason the norms post Doom have been slipping to save anytime. Trends versus norms is a deeper discussion.

[1]once upon time there was a game called Zelda .1.
no matter were you were you could save game...
but it had a balance ,when you loaded up you resporned at
1 particuler spot,thus having to re play section/sections to get to were you saved from as well as having all the items.
[2]i could do the ferst story in 3 hours and not die once...but if i could not save and died id have to start agen, and agen and agen depending on how good a player ,i was.by the time id played the same bit 3 or 4 times id be f en bord of the game thus the game play has killed the game ,when its there to keep the game alive.
[3]think about this you have been playing for the last 14hours your alarm goes off...dam 10 min untill work starts ooh...i beter just tern the game off...what do you know i can just save the game and come back to it when im ready to play agen.you could leve the masheen on untill you got home,but a masheen needs cool down..
[4]any game that i dont need a save option is normaly shallow
these days ....weres doom 3 ??? i like 40 level games stuff the crap 7 or 8 level budget games...

then agen you like what you like and i like what i like ...
remember "i was clocking games when you were still in your daddys ball sack"lol

oops C Strike finger lol

I would have to agree absolutely 110%.

The fact is that if we were to remove all saving features from a game, it becomes 100% more realistic.

Take some examples.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein
You turn the corner to see the backs of 6 nazis that you are just dying to cook with your new flamethrower. But one is right next to an alarm. No worries! Just quicksave and fire. If the alarm goes off, reload and do something else.

Diablo/Baulder''s Gate/IceWind Dale
You see an unopened door at the end of a long hallway. You are half in health and have barely any arrows left, nor stamina. What should you do? Who cares if you die! No biggie! Just quicksave, open the door, see what''s in there, and judging upon what is in their memorize the right type of spells...


I hate being able to do this! I would rather be on the 10th level of a game and say to myself "Well crap; I''ve got just enough stuff to get through one more guy, but if he kills me, I have to start all over again..."

The fact of the matter is that the ability to quicksave / save provides a method of godmoding.

Now I do understand that you would need _some_ sort of saving feature, especially if you have levels, such as a game like Battlezone2, AVP, etc...

The only bad part about this that I can think of is: If the player is near the end of a long level and has to go (in real life; say his parents are kicking him off or something), then what''s he to do? With no quicksave he would be professionaly screwed.


BUT this implementation would go great in a game like Everquest.

~Dwarf

This is a tough one.

On one hand quicksaving/loading works against the suspense and atmosphere. But, on the other hand, if you die and are set back too much, that ruins the atmosphere even more because of the frustration that can cause.

I did like how the Diablo games handled it, but that doesnt work for most games. There isnt always a town convienently located at the gates of hell. Some games are mission based (Clancy''s games) and dont need save. That works well, but it wont work for most games. I think auto-save works fairly well, but if its not done right it sucks hard. Daikatana had an interesting system...that I hated. Collecting "save gems" was pretty lame.

Theres got to be good system, that pentalizes the player, but not harshly. A system that doesnt make be curse myself when I die and relize I havent saved for half and hour.

Mabye if there was a variation of auto-saves, where it would just autosave a 2, 5, 10 , 15 minutes spots. So when you die you can just choose where to reapear. Im think for a non-mission based fps, rpg (on that isnt based around a central town), or rts.

Any thoughts?

dont forget how the metroid games handled it. that has more relevance to shooters. they had specific save game rooms set near by. far enough that you didnt enjoy rewalking the trip and far enough that most people didnt run back and forth. but placed close enough that you could save fast enough when you wanted to.

There are three things that I have to say:
1). Collecting saves isn''t bad, if they gave you guys who(cheat) use them often.
2). It has been mentioned that using too many saves could degrade your ending... like RE, or some other games(I have seen it in others, can''t remember what)
3). I think it would stop people from -godmoding- if people preloaded their AI a little in advance, like a lot of games do, think about it, just like that guy said, "I save when I see a guard next to the alarm, if I screw up, I load and try something else." If after he saves, the guard already saw him, he would get the alarm... the only real problem with save games is that its hard to know whats going on in an action game... I agree with some people about not wanting to do so much work, but I don''t have a problem with oversaving... I grew up on FF1. It told me that I should only worry about saving before I entered major things, and after I got back from sleeping after major things. When I first went through RE2 I saved only... 5 times.

Anyhow In a non-action type game, or a multiplayer game I say its easy to control the saving. Just have a couple of save points when you are testing the game where you would wanna save it. Then have someone who isn''t scared go through and remove some that aren''t necessary. Really though, saving should diminish -something- if you can just save as many times as you want, whenever you want, wherever you want. There was one game that wouldn''t let you save if creatures were near.

"Practice means good, Perfect Practice means Perfect"

I think you are confusing the ability to save, with the condition of ending the game.

Saving, in general, doesn''t affect a single thing about making you think about the consequences of what you are going to do - it''s the reloading from the saved position once you get wasted that defeats that purpose.

Saving is a necessary feature - there is nothing more frustrating then needing to shut down your game and not being able to locate a save point. Having the save anywhere feature gives you a lot more flexibility when you don''t have a lot of time available to play the game.

What you are looking for is something like Hardcore mode in Diablo II - when your character dies, it''s game over - you can''t reload your game (but you can still save whenever you need to enter the real world).

If this is such a big thing for you, there''s nothing stopping you from playing any game this way - just don''t reload from a saved position, only use the save feature for whenever you want to quit the game for a while...

quote:

---

Original post by Dwarf with Axe
I would have to agree absolutely 110%.

The fact is that if we were to remove all saving features from a game, it becomes 100% more realistic.

---

And?

Was Castle Wofenstein a realistic game to begin with? Realism is only important in games where realism is a selling point.

The question is "is it fun?" What about a game with a many hours of gameplay? What do you do for a game like Mario3 or Final Fantasy? Just start from the beginning every time you load it up? Turn off your tv set but leave the power on? The idea that *no* saving is somehow ideal is absurd. That''s akin to saying that when reading you shouldn''t be allowed to put a book down and pick it up where you left off. Totally nonsensical.

I think it is undeniable that quicksave is a crutch for many players and, perhaps more importantly, many developers. However I think it is silly to talk about saving schemes without any context. Short action games have different requirements than multiplayer RPGs, which have different requirements from single-player RPGs. The saving scheme depends on the game and what the overall gameplay is trying to be and encourage.

"If this is such a big thing for you, there''s nothing stopping you from playing any game this way - just don''t reload from a saved position, only use the save feature for whenever you want to quit the game for a while... "

you miss understand. im saying this is a better product. making you. yes you. save in a controlled designed manner.

i do play that way but that doesnt end the discussion. the discussion really isnt about how i play BG. its about how to make a better BG for example.

now im sensing you would take the ultimate flexibility in save/loads. thats exactly what im saying isnt the best product.

allow me to start again from the top verbatim:
"i submit a perfect game would have no save/load feature. it would be designed such that somehow the player sucked up loss as part of the game thought of it as actually fun. a toy.

But the perfect game has yet to be found and i also submit _isnt_ possible. "

the idea here. that im presenting is that a game should push at once both design away from save/load mentality (for example the early wizardries) and at the same time take control of save/load as a part of the game.

but again how i play games isnt important. im not looking for a fix. its clear there is an audience that believes save anywhere is the only way. and the reason i ring off classic after classic is to remind people that there have been other ways. very succesful ways that used the save/load feature as a design element instead of a "file feature"

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster

If you do restrict saving you''d better ensure that your game is 100% bug free (like that''s gonna happen ), otherwise your gamers will be mighty pissed at you after playing for a couple of hours without the ability to save only to have the game crash just before they reach a save-point.

---

On this surface this sounds fairly reasonable - but I think actually it is a TERRRIBLE way of looking at save games.

The point of a save game is to save progress, not to pre-empt bugs! Take Morrowind, for example. Numerous people run into problems - items not appearing correctly, getting stuck in walls. You can save and load or use the stupid "FixMe" or whatever it is to correct some problems. One person I read about used the editor to add a story item that they were supposed to get but didn''t because of a bug.

Of course, ALL of these problems existed in Daggerfall as well. But they didn''t need to fix them, I suppose, because "you can always just load a saved game" or "use the editor."

The FACT is that plenty of games are bug-free. The argument that PC games are hard to make bug-free is bullshit and we all know it. People cite hardware problems, which is valid - but how many bugs are hardware bugs? Getting stuck in a wall is not a hardware bug! Things randomly dissapearing from your inventory is not a hardware bug!

This is akin to the open-source advocates who say "we ship the source, so if you find a bug just fix it yourself." Gee thanks. The better solution is avoid bugs, and yes this is quite possible. (Maybe not all bugs, but the vast majority of them that get through now)

quote:

---

This has happened to me with many games and is a problem mainly for people using Win 9x. My old Win 98 system would crash about once a day during ''normal'' use, and perhaps once every 5-10 hours if I was playing games (probably video card issues).

---

If the OS is inherently unstable save games MIGHT be a way around that. But, most of the time these crashes *are* caused by the games. Memory leaks, writes to random memory, etc. Some day someone is going to bring a class-action lawsuit against the PC game industry and win. How could they NOT win? Daggerfall is another great example of this: Daggerfall did not require an internet connection, but the game as shipped in box was so buggy it was literally IMPOSSIBLE to beat. You simply *could not* beat it due to some logical bugs. Someday someone is going to get sued because what they put in the box simply doesn''t work or isn''t what it is advertised to be. Maybe then we will see changes.

ya i agree that no save is absurb for most games. allow me to explain my first line i use "no save/load" meaning the perfect game would only have a "present". but note a game isnt perfect cause it lacks a save/load. the perfect game doesnt NEED a save/load. see the difference. like i said it was a theoretical start to the conversation.

That first wizardry that i was talking bout was like that (a game that only had a present). you just kept going at failure. you could recover but it took time. Did they pull it off. yes and no. the down side is real. but whats clear is that when you have a game like that you have faith in the game system as a toy. as entertainment in its entirety.

on the far side from there you have the save/load its just a file system games.

somewhere in the middle is a sensible and practical game design view where saving and loading are expressed as game elements.

Everyone I''ve heard clamouring for restrictions on save games usually mentions "realism" at some point. There is such a thing as too much realism, you know.

Take our old friend Wolfenstein. Removing the save anywhere capability would make it more realistic. But think about just what realism is. Is it realistic to expect an unarmed prisoner to escape from a stronghold of crack nazi troops, on his first (and only, if you have your way) attempt? I think not.

I would propose a compromise. Allow the player to save anywhere, but only to load games saved a certain time/distance before they get killed or fail the mission. That way, they can save a game before quitting and carry on immediately where they left off on next gaming session, but if they save a game immediately before trying something tricky they can''t just try again as soon as they die.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster

My point is that you, the developer, can''t know what hardware the user is going to have, or what other software will be running at the same time as your game. Perhaps my video drivers are a bit flaky, or perhaps I have crappy heatsinks or fans and my system overheats easily. It could be anything.

---

Not to change the subject too much, but as I said hardware issues are mostly a cop-out. I don''t think it makes sense for developers to choose features based on the fact that someone might have a bad fan!

Even the "other program running at the same time" excuse is usually just that - an excuse. I can''t remember Starcraft ever crashing on me, yet Daggerfall would crash on me once an hour or so. (Not to mention getting stuck in things, sound screwing up, etc)

I think PC people who come at this problem have a different perspective than console people. PC people have been led (wrongly) to believe that making stable games is virtually impossible.

quote:

---

All I''m saying is that it''s nice to not have to replay big parts of a game, simply because the game developer didn''t think it would be ''fun'' for the players to be able to save.

---

I would say that you don''t want to have to replay big parts of the game for *any* reason, unless there is a really good reason for doing so. A good save scheme will keep this in mind though, either by making save points close enough together or positioning them with respect to difficulty.

A good example of why not to save anywhere:
A friend of mine owned an SNES game called "The 7th Saga." The last dungeon was incredibly hard, and instead of fight his way though he simply ran through. You can sort of dodge enemies but he got caught by a couple. So near the end of the dungeon basically his characters are near death and one more encounter will do him in as he rushes to get to the end to save. Drama.

Now take that same scenario with save anywhere. Friend takes a few steps, saves. Takes a few steps, saves. Runs into an enemy - oop load again.

A big problem with save/load anywhere that other people have mentioned in other threads is that saving and loading as you please makes a game MUCH easier. So do you balance the difficulty against players who play normally or players who abuse the save/load? You can''t do both.

Note that if you use something like save points you don''t have this problem. You expect that people will save at every save point and plan accordingly.

Ok two quick points. Point number one, the guy directly above me stated something about saves that made a nice point. To save and then die a short while later and not be able to load would cause the player to think twice about saving, but it could be a problem(a major one, but there is some glint of hope in that idea). The point about endings I said earlier was, just make the ending worse for people who save too much. That way they can still beat the game with saving, but must improve their play in order get the good ending. And on the last note about the person who said saving was like picking up where you left off on reading a book. Think of the book as a game, whoever reads it the fastest wins. Now imagine you being able to save your spot and pick up the book later, and it records your time reading it. Then imagine you being able to load to previous spots of the book, over and over again, just so you read a few words microseconds faster, or so you don''t stumble up on the words in mess up. That is what the saving feature is like... if you were good enough at the saving you could match the computer with a perfect game.

Ex: Player 1 vs Computer.
Dodge, save, fire, save 2, missed, load, fire, save 2, hit, save, dodge, was hit, load, dodge, save 2, dodge, was hit, load 2... eventually you could kill a computer perfectly(without getting hit, or missing) through saving and such. Luckily I have no such problem with my game... dying is no problem, as everyone will die in the game(ok... its not guaranteed, but then again... it nearly is). Hehe, Mmorpg/AAOrpg... whatever it is... I think I have the saves worked out...

"Practice means good, Perfect Practice means Perfect"

If a game has not got a save/reload I just take it back and get a refund. I pay the programmer''s wages and I want to play the game anyway I want. Also note the "great" games have got save/reload, cheats as well (helps you learn the game). Example of a game without load/reload is Spec Ops2 which could have been a good game but is too frustrating to play. Look at the reviews of games and you will find the same complain when there is no save/reload.

Well if you are a smart programmer, then you are not getting paid by the consumer, but the company... and receiving -bonus- cash from doing well. I would also like to state(just incase you didn''t know) that I agree that there should be saves in games, just that they should be improved somehow.

"Practice means good, Perfect Practice means Perfect"

Making stable games is perfectly possible... but the fact remains that hardware issues exist. As do real life issues. If someone comes to the door, or you forgot the time and have to leave right away, or your kid injures herself and needs attention, you need to save right then and there. It''s no more of a cop-out than allowing players to choose between keyboard and mouse, or any other form of convenience. It just allows players to use the game in a way that suits them best.

As for balance, I''d say you should balance for those who play the game ''normally''. If others wish to save every 4 seconds and win as a result, that''s their choice, and they can''t realistically complain that the game was too easy. Such players often are more interested in being able to complete a game than in being given some supreme challenge, so it''s no big deal.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ]