next »

[J-Snake]

Oooh, Gothic comes to mind

You have to know with what game you are dealing with. If you know everything is up to you, the player, then you have to take it into account. As simple as that.

The only flaw with that I can imagine is if the game is only offering one single save-state, that sort of restrictions.

[J-Snake]

This phenomenon can be easily eliminated through careful state management. Making it possible to save anywhere is convenient in some cases, but it always opens the door for the kind of scenario you are describing.

Quite a few games managed to handle this issue by tying the ability to save to specific locations, and insuring that those locations were always in "safe" areas. Other titles (such as the LucasArts adventure games) simply removed the possibility of death. There's no need to worry about where you save your game if death is impossible.

It somehow insults players intellect and adds a restricted/setted-up touch to the game, it feels less natural. That's the problem I have with that in general.

For some games it natively works, though, but for many it will not. Far Cry made it exceptionally well but some aspects of my concerns remain still true.

I don't want that road to be followed just because everyone thinks it has to be fool-prooved. And it is not easy at all, you need to take care and alter some designs just to ensure that in general. It is additional work for sure.

[C.A. Sinner]

Just don't let the player save during combat. A ton of gams do that already.

[J-Snake]

In Gothic I sometimes want to save during combat, alternatively. Just let me, my choice:P

[Richard Kain]

I don't want that road to be followed just because everyone thinks it has to be fool-prooved. And it is not easy at all, you need to take care and alter some designs just to ensure that in general. It is additional work for sure.

It is easy if you take it into account from the beginning. Building your game initially with considerations like this in mind is the best way to go about eliminating the possibility.

I do agree with you though that it is not always necessary to attempt to avoid such a scenario. I enjoyed playing games where this could happen. Sometimes it was annoying having to play the game over, but it added a sense of consequence which didn't detract from the overall experience. I think there is a place for games where you can trip up in this fashion. I do think that this scenario is better for shorter games. Re-playing 10-15 hours is too much. Re-playing one or two hours though, not nearly as much trouble.

[Panurge]

I guess encouraging lots of saves and autosaves would deal with it but my personal preference would be to locate save points only in zones where there is no danger of death and ideally there is some sort of gentle muzak playing in the background.

I also dislike the 'save anywhere' approach because for me it can ruin immersion. In Oblivion I would frequently take on enemies far more powerful than me by using the 'shoot, hide, save, repeat' tactic, reloading my last save every time I got injured like a big manbaby. I hated myself for doing it but I just couldn't help it. I got trapped in a vicious circle, not of death, but of self-loathing and disgust. These are emotions which good video games should not encourage.

[J-Snake]

I also dislike the 'save anywhere' approach because for me it can ruin immersion. In Oblivion I would frequently take on enemies far more powerful than me by using the 'shoot, hide, save, repeat' tactic, reloading my last save every time I got injured like a big manbaby.

I perfectly understand that and hate it either in general (except Gothic is the only game making it acceptable, that damn game). And I certainly won't offer it in a puzzle game but in open sandbox games the player should feel free to save.

My suggestion for a compromise would be to offer a new save-model, for example allowing to save only once per 5 minutes. The same goes for pausing screens for cheating reasons, one could allow pausing only once every 10 seconds or so.

[John Hutchinson]

I also dislike the 'save anywhere' approach because for me it can ruin immersion.

I never much cared for save anywhere either.  It doesn't really bother me per se, but as a player there have definitely been a lot of times where the fun came from NOT knowing if I was going to be able to make it to the next save point and having to play my best. Then, when I manage to get there I'm happy.  If I don't make it, it's encouragement to try again (because now I can do it better).

[Dacke]

My suggestion would be to offer a new save-model, for example allowing to save only once per 5 minutes. The same goes for pausing screens for cheating reasons, one could allow pausing only once every 10 seconds or so.

That would still allow for save-abuse. Just that you have to wait for 3 minutes outside the boss before you can save and go in. It's better to design a solution into the game instead of having annoying meta-solutions.

For example:

save-checkpoints, clear-cut episodes, Diablo2-style-saving (save->exit->respawn at camp), time-rewind or perma death

[DavidCaruso]

Checkpoint/auto-saves + suspend-save anywhere seems to be the best way to go.

[iffi]

Easiest and best solution is perma-death. 

Just what I was going to say. =P

[Dacke]

Checkpoint/auto-saves + suspend-save anywhere seems to be the best way to go.

That does indeed sound very good.

[rivon]

What's so bad about the ability of saving anytime? It doesn't ruin anything for me. If you don't want it, just don't use it. You don't have to save every minute. If you want that challenge then Just Don't Do It... Simple as that.

[Evan Balster]

Checkpoint/auto-saves + suspend-save anywhere seems to be the best way to go.

Agree.  I like to call suspend-save "super pause". 

[Richard Kain]

Listening to all you whipper-snappers makes me feel old sometimes. Almost everyone seems to be coming at this issue thinking of open-world games like Skyrim, or Fallout 3. The first game I thought of was Kings Quest V.