Reload a game and the game world changes

[Excommunicator]

Why do people even come in here - let alone get involved in design discussions - if they don't understand that a theoretical mechanic for a theoretical game by its very nature doesn't have an assumed context and therefore can't impinge on other assumed mechanics due to the mentioned lack of context? Non-functioning posters cannot into lateral/abstract/creative thinking

 

[Shemar]

This is how I see it: I am a mature adult who knows what he likes and as part of that knows and has the self control to use save/load feature as I see fit. Any mechanic, ANY kind of mechanic that has the intention to force me to play a game the way some unknown dude (even if that dude is the creator of the game) thinks the game should be played, instead of the way I want to play it, is a huge mark in the negative column for that game, probably a deal breaker.

Does dying on HP depletion count? Because annoyingly often the game forcibly prevents me from larping a fearless warrior who just jumps into the fray, yet always emerges victorious, by draining my HPs and killing me off, forcing me to reload and try something the devs decided would be appropriate - like tactics and stuff. It gets in the way of my playing the game as I would want to and I find it incredibly enraging.

Which is why games come with difficuly levels. And cheat codes. So yes, even though comparing "god mode" with save/load restrictions is completely out of scale, when it comes down to it, if a player wants to remove all challenge from a game and zip through it, and they feel that is how they get their money's worth out of it, I see no reason to prevent them from doing it.

 

[7hm]

Disclaimer: I only read the first few posts before posting.

This is how I see it: I am a mature adult who knows what he likes and as part of that knows and has the self control to use save/load feature as I see fit. Any mechanic, ANY kind of mechanic that has the intention to force me to play a game the way some unknown dude (even if that dude is the creator of the game) thinks the game should be played, instead of the way I want to play it, is a huge mark in the negative column for that game, probably a deal breaker.

I have seen many game designers make this huge mistake. People are not all the same. Just because you like playing a game one way does not mean that is the 'right' way to play it. You CANNOT EVER enhance immersion and atmosphere by game play gimmicks, unless your target audience is limited to the easily impressionable or the weak willed.

It does not matter if you -want- people to keep playing your game without reloading even after losing a companion or something similarly negative. Trying to force them to, or penalizing them for reloading will only make people not want to play your game altogether, it will not make them want to play it your way.

This guy is the problem with a mechanic like this, and why this could only be implemented in an indie game with an extremely small potential audience.

Which is why games come with difficuly levels. And cheat codes. So yes, even though comparing "god mode" with save/load restrictions is completely out of scale, when it comes down to it, if a player wants to remove all challenge from a game and zip through it, and they feel that is how they get their money's worth out of it, I see no reason to prevent them from doing it.

^

Give them an option that turns off the save mechanic then, but make it obvious to them that they are breaking the game. In the same way you can win a roguelike by save scumming, but your win is meaningless.

If you are going to use a mechanic like this, similar to using permadeath, you do need the balance the game for it one way or another though.

 

[Derek Larp]

lol okay I´ll try some of that theoritical thinkuing:

Theoritically, the proposed mechanic of negative changes in the gameworld when loading a saved game has so far been considered from the point of view of discouraging re-loading to gain an advantage (e.g. reloading in Fallout to critkill a more powerful enemy). In theory, we might also want to consider another facette of the problem: What about weaker players or players still on the slope of the learning curve?

Those not so fortunate to be exceptional players from birth will rely on the save-load-cycle more than the skilled players (This also includes balancing questions, which have practical ramifications depending on the modus ludi and shall not be discussed here).

If the theoritical mechanic in question now reduces the directily and indirectly available resources in the vicinity of the player (e.g. no more 'Phat Lewt'), it will ultimately make the game harder for the weaker players and/or easier for the skilled players (depending on the balancing). I believe this is an undesirable state. It might even produce a positive-feedback-cycle: The reloading player has less potential resources available; because of this he reaches a game-over state (e.g. he dies) and reloads, and thus loses more potential resources and the cycle begins anew.

One possible solution to this dilemma might be the exclusion of negative effects for a reload after a game-over, but this might still be exploited by deliberately reaching a game-over-state (e.g. if the player throws himself of a cliff).

 

[denizsi]

For many situations other than death, when an outcome that can lead to still an interesting path exclusive to the failure or whatever led to the situation, which the players would otherwise reload almost reflexively, occurs, a simple in-game or in-character narrative prose, a sentence or two to assure the player that the show is still on, might do wonders.

But if you so desperately want to discourage reloadspamming during combat, wouldn't that be self-defeating? Many people will meta-game just to see how different things may turn out, outside their "main choices".

 

[Derek Larp]

For many situations other than death, when an outcome that can lead to still an interesting path exclusive to the failure or whatever led to the situation, which the players would otherwise reload almost reflexively, occurs, a simple in-game or in-character narrative prose, a sentence or two to assure the player that the show is still on, might do wonders.

But if you so desperately want to discourage reloadspamming during combat, wouldn't that be self-defeating? Many people will meta-game just to see how different things may turn out, outside their "main choices".

lol this is not contributing to the THEORETICAL discussion about the MECHANIC of CHANGING THE WORLD when RELOADING

On a more serious note I want to mention the Hitman games, I think they are a good example of 'Game after Failure' (yeah sounds shitty but you know what I mean): As long as your target does not escape or some other game-over-scenario you have a margin of error to finish the mission even if you fuck up (at least if you don´t metagame to get a certain rating) and it is fun to explore this aspect.

 

[denizsi]

Well at least I am discussing instead of pulling a "LOLOLOLL YOUR DUMB".

I've thought of a certain cuasality mechanic -a bit like the random seeds in JA/JA2- for ZRPG where NPCs will be autonomous to varying degrees (the last I read about it) :

I'd like a loose causality mechanic to predetermine whether an NPC will or may unavoidably die by, for instance, receiving exceptionally bad rolls after a certain point because it had so many shots in the past and wasted them all in bad ways, eventually becoming those characters in the movies that you can tell right away will die because they are so stupid/awkward/something.

Since characters will be partially autonomous, it will be up to player to keep them living, so the player needs to be a good people manager and prevent your NPCs from doing the stupid thing. When you fail that, they do stupid things. They do too many stupid things, they reach the point of no return after which, every roll will be exceptionally bad so whether you reload to keep him alive for that one encounter or not is futile because he'll just keep sucking and become a burden on the player itself, giving an incentive to say "fuck it, just fucking die and rid me of the torture, motherfucking stupid bitch!".

How exactly would this work in game? I'm not sure. I remember some talk about panicking NPCs going apeshit. Well, it could be that when this happens to a NPC and that NPC comes too close to dying (getting heavily wounded, thus necessitating material resources and time to become healthy again; running away, making lots of noise and attracting zombies; uhh, something) too many times, the game flags it so it receives increasing penalties to every roll after everytime it succeeds at something despite the odds. Roll to move quite, to evade close encounters with a zombie or with anybody, to To Hit rolls, to damage dealt and received, to simply use an item, like firing a weapon blowing on him or a setting himself alight while trying to throw a molotov cocktail etc.

I still think it's not a bad idea at all, though it doesn't exactly have an application here, I guess. Speaking of which, I'm not sure about random seed in vanilla JA2 but it's definitely not in v1.13, though I remember it vividly in JA. I was reload-spamming it in my first ever play and noticing the predetermined roll seed pretty much broke me into submission against reloading.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

How about selling game Iron Man by default and then selling a "reload" DLC?

 

[DraQ]

This guy is the problem with a mechanic like this

I think this guy is a nuisance in general. He reminds me of the more retarded part of bethesduh fanbase vocally opposing changes that would prevent them from larping as much as they want - time limit for burning Kvatch, stat-checks and so on.

Give them an option that turns off the save mechanic then, but make it obvious to them that they are breaking the game.

The lowest "youa re sissy" difficulty could disable this and include stuff like quest compass by default. It's not about preventing cheese, it's about cheese requiring extra effort and being clearly separated from legitimate mechanics, possibly also clearly telling the player what a cheap piece of shit they are.

If you are going to use a mechanic like this, similar to using permadeath, you do need the balance the game for it one way or another though.

Of course, but I imagine it's easier to balance the game on assumption that player generally won't reload on failure than the other way around. For example, all kinds of statistical, chance based success-fail mechanics lose their meaning if player is allowed to reload freely and require workarounds to be workable. Instead of devising unique workarounds for individual gameplay elements it's better to just slap player's hand when he reaches for quickload button in general.

Theoritically, the proposed mechanic of negative changes in the gameworld when loading a saved game has so far been considered from the point of view of discouraging re-loading to gain an advantage (e.g. reloading in Fallout to critkill a more powerful enemy).

Also discouraging approaches that will make player reload a lot. Like testing various tactics randomly, or rushing into a room, getting slaughtered, reloading, then proceeding with extra knowledge regarding the enemy placement and equipment.

In theory, we might also want to consider another facette of the problem: What about weaker players or players still on the slope of the learning curve?

I think there are two things we shouldn't forget here.

First, in an RPG there tends to be a large disparity between stuff you can do and stuff you have to do. Player shouldn't be prevented from reaching marginal win conditions, even if he reloads excessively. However they should be prevented from collecting legendary artefacts, autofail most optional questlines and generally get the vibe that they are failure incarnates.

Second, there are non-fatal failures possible, and they can have interesting consequences. The aim of limiting reloading is not to enforce perfection on part of the player, but rather to prevent it on part of the character. From designer's point of view, you should avoid learn-by-dying scenarios (never kill player without any warning), and you shouldn't expect player to never fail.

Partial reload discouragement is possible even without dedicated mechanics, for example Daggerfall generally expects you to fail and roll with that quite a lot, it also likes to inform you about inconvenient facets of reality (like "lol you've contracted a plague, enjoy several days you have left") with noticeable delay, usually after you've saved over your old save. Stuff like other delayed consequences also works very well, so as long as you don't design your game around the assumption of perfection, there is little possible argumentation against reload discouragement.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Well my system wouldn't 'discourage' reloading per se, but would show there are consequences to it. Consequences the player probably can't avoid. I might even FORCE the player to reload as the only means of getting through a puzzle (making it obvious on that occasion, so as not to piss of legions of gamers).

The point would be that someone else in the game universe has the power to reload as well, and what seems perfectly normal history to you (and everyone) may have been the result of cumulative reloading by this other chap. And how can you kill someone who can reload? He might have a save file for the point where you were born and completely screw you that way. The acquuisition of something beyond that - something cconstant, like a journal that is tied into the games' code in such a way that it is outside of 'reloading'. That way you get to combine a common (and kind of silly if you think too much about it) rpg/gaming mechanic with a complete mystery within the game.

 

[Derek Larp]

@denizsi lol i was just joking
if you didn´t mean me nvm

Well my system wouldn't 'discourage' reloading per se, but would show there are consequences to it. Consequences the player probably can't avoid. I might even FORCE the player to reload as the only means of getting through a puzzle (making it obvious on that occasion, so as not to piss of legions of gamers).

The point would be that someone else in the game universe has the power to reload as well, and what seems perfectly normal history to you (and everyone) may have been the result of cumulative reloading by this other chap. And how can you kill someone who can reload? He might have a save file for the point where you were born and completely screw you that way. The acquuisition of something beyond that - something cconstant, like a journal that is tied into the games' code in such a way that it is outside of 'reloading'. That way you get to combine a common (and kind of silly if you think too much about it) rpg/gaming mechanic with a complete mystery within the game.

:shock: reminds me of that novel about the history of philosophy where the characters in the book were in a book in the book and then plotted against the author :D

But anyways I think this is actually not so far off, if you consider that

a) the more 'randomised' and 'sandboxy' the game is, the more you can rely on other mechanics like saving the random seed or having failure be interesting too because of emergent gameplay

b) the more scripted and handplaced the game is, the more the adverse effects of reloading will have to be on a meta level, to counter the knowledge of the player as Draq pointed out. This effect can be reduced by tieing the mechanic into the overall gameworld by means of the backstory. Or writing an insanely branching storyline.

c) I have no fucking clue what I´m talking about and I´m just making this shit up. Where are the real developers that actually MAKE games in this workshop? I´m not being ironic here seriously wanna know who of you guys have learned this game designing stuff.

 

[7hm]

Well my system wouldn't 'discourage' reloading per se, but would show there are consequences to it. Consequences the player probably can't avoid. I might even FORCE the player to reload as the only means of getting through a puzzle (making it obvious on that occasion, so as not to piss of legions of gamers).

The point would be that someone else in the game universe has the power to reload as well, and what seems perfectly normal history to you (and everyone) may have been the result of cumulative reloading by this other chap. And how can you kill someone who can reload? He might have a save file for the point where you were born and completely screw you that way. The acquuisition of something beyond that - something cconstant, like a journal that is tied into the games' code in such a way that it is outside of 'reloading'. That way you get to combine a common (and kind of silly if you think too much about it) rpg/gaming mechanic with a complete mystery within the game.

Those are some pretty cool ideas.

Hundreds of games come out every year. Does anyone know of one that uses the save system in such a manner? There must be one somewhere...

 

[Shemar]

This guy is the problem with a mechanic like this, and why this could only be implemented in an indie game with an extremely small potential audience.

I would think indies are far more interested in not wasting potential sales by enforcing gameplay gimmicks that add nothing to the game. Especially since...

Give them an option that turns off the save mechanic then, but make it obvious to them that they are breaking the game. In the same way you can win a roguelike by save scumming, but your win is meaningless.

... it is so ridiculously easy to have the gimmick present for those that may appreciate it without forcing it on those that find it annoying. However my view is more in line with...

If you are going to use a mechanic like this, similar to using permadeath, you do need the balance the game for it one way or another though.

Exactly. Somebody mentioned how the save/load does not exist in tabletop RPGs. However these are usually balanced so that players do not die unless they are monumentally stupid (or consistently and severely unlucky) with a human GM always making the final call (and some times even overriding dice and rules) to ansure playing the game is fun and not a repetitive drag. Computer games do not have such a safety mechanic. They have save/load instead.

 

[Shemar]

I think this guy is a nuisance in general.

Yeah it must be annoying when someone calls you out as the ignorant prick that you are...

The lowest "youa re sissy" difficulty could disable this and include stuff like quest compass by default. It's not about preventing cheese, it's about cheese requiring extra effort and being clearly separated from legitimate mechanics, possibly also clearly telling the player what a cheap piece of shit they are.

It is attitudes like that the so plainly demonstrate somebody's overall uselessness as a person in RL, if they put so much stock in actually being good at playing games. Mature individuals secure in who they are just enjoy a good challenge without being much fussed if somebody else can blast through a game with an 'easy' button. It is only those that lack actual accomplishments that value their in-game ones.

Of course, but I imagine it's easier to balance the game on assumption that player generally won't reload on failure than the other way around.

Such a plain display of ignorance if there ever was one... of course it is far easier to balance a game assuming success than partial failure. Because there is only one possible power level assuming always success, there are 4 possible power levels after two possible instances of possible (non game ending) failure (even assuming there is only one level of failure in each instance), 8 after 3 instances and generally by the middle of the game the gap between the possible power levels is so wide that any idea of game balance is out the window.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

One change that would be easy to implement would be decreasing XP rewards on reloads.

 

[Alex]

Hey Shemar, just a suggestion, don't let this kind of comment get to you. Here in the Codex it is pretty normal for people to resort to name calling just because they disagree on minor issues, such as game design philosophy. I don't even think most really mean it, but if you let this get to you, you will get burned out of this place really quick

On your original assertion, I disagree with you that the game should attempt to appease the most customers. The problem with this kind of priority is that it works against any kind of feature that you try to add. For example, let's take Draq's take on the mechanic, where each reload further increase the odds against you.If instead we can take mechanics as granted, these gimmicks as you call them, we can build on them, so they stop being Gimmicks. Take the ADOM game for example, a lot of that game's design was done so that its ironman mode is enjoyable.

This may, in the end, drive some people away from the game, people who would prefer another type of interaction altogether. But even if the game would be enjoyable for them if it was simplified, I think it would still be very far from what you would get if you created a game with those people in mind in first place. What I am trying to say is that games are better off having a very definite vision than trying to be everything and ending up as nothing.

 

[Shemar]

Hey Shemar, just a suggestion, don't let this kind of comment get to you. Here in the Codex it is pretty normal for people to resort to name calling just because they disagree on minor issues, such as game design philosophy. I don't even think most really mean it, but if you let this get to you, you will get burned out of this place really quick

Thanks for the advise, but no worries. I am secure enough on who I am not to be bothered by comments from random internet people. I just enjoy the fact that they are probably not.

On your original assertion, I disagree with you that the game should attempt to appease the most customers. The problem with this kind of priority is that it works against any kind of feature that you try to add. For example, let's take Draq's take on the mechanic, where each reload further increase the odds against you.If instead we can take mechanics as granted, these gimmicks as you call them, we can build on them, so they stop being Gimmicks. Take the ADOM game for example, a lot of that game's design was done so that its ironman mode is enjoyable.p

I think you are making an erroneous assumption when you bundle things like save/load, easy/hard and complicated/simple as the same. It is not about appeasing everyone, it is about not letting the developer's ideas of how an otherwise good game should be played, prevent those with different ideas on it from playing it. Somebody does not like reloads? Simple. Don't fucking reload. Unless they are a weak willed moron.

For example, I use save/load to test out new powers and equipment, check out alternate "what if" paths and generally explore aspects of the game I would normally not see. I only play each game once, so in that one play through I try to get as much of the game as possible.

Additionally I am a busy person with a lot of interests and very little time to devote to games, so gameplay gimmicks that make the game repetitive or a drudgery are usually deal breakers for me (which means I won't buy the game at all).

So while I am perfectly capable of full on tactics and super preparation and buffing or whatnot for every fight, a game forcing me to go through that for every little fight because it penalized reloading would get really annoying really soon, given that in your typical game 95% of the fights can be won with just minimal effort (which, granted, in the case of an old wargamer like me probably still means more tactical thought that your average instant gratification generation player) and are meant to be 5 minute skirmishes and not 30 minute plan every second affairs.

At the end of the day this is not about adding features to the game. It is about (wannabe) game designers thinking they know better when in fact they don't know shit. Frustration, repetitiveness and boredom do not make a game harder. They just make it more frustrating, repetitive and boring. I played games in an era that you had to draw the map on paper by hand, where you had to bump into every wall to see if it was a secret door instead. An era where games tested your character as much as your 'skillz'. So you will excume me if i think i know a whole lot better what features I like in a game and what gimmicks just make it annoying.

 

[DraQ]

The lowest "youa re sissy" difficulty could disable this and include stuff like quest compass by default. It's not about preventing cheese, it's about cheese requiring extra effort and being clearly separated from legitimate mechanics, possibly also clearly telling the player what a cheap piece of shit they are.

It is attitudes like that the so plainly demonstrate somebody's overall uselessness as a person in RL, if they put so much stock in actually being good at playing games. Mature individuals secure in who they are just enjoy a good challenge without being much fussed if somebody else can blast through a game with an 'easy' button. It is only those that lack actual accomplishments that value their in-game ones.

I thought that actual 'easy' mode would be readily discernible from the 'retard' one thanks to the tell-tale features of the latter I have mentioned (like quest compass), but now that I think about it, the distinction can admittedly be somewhat muddled when viewed from the rock-bottom that is occupied by latter mode's target group.

I apologize and promise to express myself with more clarity, maybe even draw pictures for you - can you handle normal ones or do I have to draw them with crayons to make them look less menacing to your underdeveloped brain?

Of course, but I imagine it's easier to balance the game on assumption that player generally won't reload on failure than the other way around.

Such a plain display of ignorance if there ever was one... of course it is far easier to balance a game assuming success than partial failure. Because there is only one possible power level assuming always success, there are 4 possible power levels after two possible instances of possible (non game ending) failure (even assuming there is only one level of failure in each instance), 8 after 3 instances and generally by the middle of the game the gap between the possible power levels is so wide that any idea of game balance is out the window.

How quaint, you've pulled out an exponential explosion on me. I'd pet you on the head, really, but I just don't want to get my hands dirty. You also made a rather clumsy strawman, but let me explain basics to you first.

Now, how can I explain why are reloads such a problem to someone of your limited intellect? Have you noticed that most RPGs involve some chance element in determining success or failure of many activities? Well, reloading effectively destroys this chance element. It's hard to balance different skills if when portrayed with some semblance of realism those skills become effectively pointless above 20% of their max value. It's hard to make critical failures meaningful if the player will just reload on them and so on.

Now regarding your strawman - no games, maybe save for those rare ones where you die by touching anything but unlike most old platformers and shmups have no lives counter (I can only recall Another World, right now) is balanced around 100% success. Most games allow for some margin of error and have to be balanced with this margin of error in mind - if you're building an FPS, you have to take into account that some players may run out of certain kind of ammo at some point, others may be low on health and so on; if you're building an RPG, you have to account for some players using a suboptimal build, others failing to get some artifact of doom or failing sidequests.

Now, I'm not sure if what I have written won't be too verbose for you, but in case it will, I've prepared a tl;dr version:

Games are not balanced like this, dumbass! The only thing you have proven here is that you're a clueless fuck, but let's be frank here - that's hardly a revelation.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On your original assertion, I disagree with you that the game should attempt to appease the most customers. The problem with this kind of priority is that it works against any kind of feature that you try to add.

It's also responsible for the sorry state of the gaming market, dominated with popamole mechanics and quest compasses.

For example, let's take Draq's take on the mechanic, where each reload further increase the odds against you.If instead we can take mechanics as granted, these gimmicks as you call them, we can build on them, so they stop being Gimmicks. Take the ADOM game for example, a lot of that game's design was done so that its ironman mode is enjoyable.

This may, in the end, drive some people away from the game, people who would prefer another type of interaction altogether. But even if the game would be enjoyable for them if it was simplified, I think it would still be very far from what you would get if you created a game with those people in mind in first place. What I am trying to say is that games are better off having a very definite vision than trying to be everything and ending up as nothing.

Well, I would rather see it based on removing opportunities to get or do stuff player would want to, rather than piling up the odds. RPGs naturally have tons of content that is redundant from the point of view of just beating the game, but often it's this content that provides players with most enjoyment and also makes for a good leverage when showing player that they won't escape from their failures by using the magical quickload button.

Just pilling up the odds would be prone to creating feedback loops and that's one of the things I'd want to avoid at all cost. In a way, what I'm trying to do is combining the advantages of ironman when it comes to player's psychology, and advantages of free save and load when it comes to player's convenience. Yes, player should be punched hard for reloading, but that's only because the experience is far more vivid, immersive and visceral, if you excuse my french, if player has something to lose by failing. This is the sole upside of ironman, if we discount virtual dick swinging contests as juvenile. On the other hand, this punch, while painful, cannot be crippling. In ironman it's outright fatal, and I'd like to avoid that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One change that would be easy to implement would be decreasing XP rewards on reloads.

This would actually be, in all likelihood a terribad idea. Of all the ideas discussed here this one would *actually* create an inevitable and nasty runaway feedback loop as it would influence the single variable that determines player's power, with no possible workarounds on part of the player.

 

[Phelot]

I think you are making an erroneous assumption when you bundle things like save/load, easy/hard and complicated/simple as the same. It is not about appeasing everyone, it is about not letting the developer's ideas of how an otherwise good game should be played, prevent those with different ideas on it from playing it. Somebody does not like reloads? Simple. Don't fucking reload. Unless they are a weak willed moron.

I guess the problem is that if the temptation is there, then it's gonna be used whether we're of uber willpower or not. Kind of like how cheat codes can potentially ruin a game like Doom, simply because the option is there when the going gets too tough.

For example, I use save/load to test out new powers and equipment, check out alternate "what if" paths and generally explore aspects of the game I would normally not see. I only play each game once, so in that one play through I try to get as much of the game as possible.

I do the same thing unless it's a game I consider to be really fun and worth playing through again.

Regardless, I don't think this is the sort of save/reload this thread is about (if it is, then I should shut up) The sort that can be a problem with is in turn-based games, spamming reload to see if an enemy will miss you.

As I had stated earlier, I think this could and should be fixed rather easily by simply making whatever rolls or random seeds used to determine hits, lock after a few reloads so you always get the same result.

Additionally I am a busy person with a lot of interests and very little time to devote to games, so gameplay gimmicks that make the game repetitive or a drudgery are usually deal breakers for me (which means I won't buy the game at all).

I suppose this comes down to whether a game should keep people like you in mind or not. Right now, I'd say they do, but there was a time when games were more "hardcore" though I don't get how this debate can apply to this thread since we're discussing an issue that many "hardcore" cRPGs are guilty of.

At the end of the day this is not about adding features to the game. It is about (wannabe) game designers thinking they know better when in fact they don't know shit. Frustration, repetitiveness and boredom do not make a game harder. They just make it more frustrating, repetitive and boring. I played games in an era that you had to draw the map on paper by hand, where you had to bump into every wall to see if it was a secret door instead. An era where games tested your character as much as your 'skillz'. So you will excume me if i think i know a whole lot better what features I like in a game and what gimmicks just make it annoying.

Now hold on a minute, what you call "Frustration, repetitiveness and boredom" others call a challenge... something that I feel is missing from many modern games. Personally I think spam reloading is the least of our worries as far as challenge goes, but regardless, I relish the feeling of finally defeating an enemy after repeated tries.

I think there's two debates going on here. There's one that claims that anytime a player reloads it's because the game is too hard and should be made easier and the other that wants to reduce cheesy reload spamming to try and get better loot spawn or a better attack roll.

 

[Shemar]

I guess the problem is that if the temptation is there, then it's gonna be used whether we're of uber willpower or not. Kind of like how cheat codes can potentially ruin a game like Doom, simply because the option is there when the going gets too tough.

Well I never had a problem with the temptation to reload beyond the parameters I set out for myself (for example companion death) and I have never in my life used a cheat code for any game, so I guess my willpower should be considered above "uber"?

Regardless, I don't think this is the sort of save/reload this thread is about (if it is, then I should shut up) The sort that can be a problem with is in turn-based games, spamming reload to see if an enemy will miss you.

However a game has no possible way to distinguish 'why' someone reloads, just that they do. When it comes down to it, the moment a game designer decides they know better than me when I should reload and when I should not, is when I decide they are too stupid for their game to be any good.

I suppose this comes down to whether a game should keep people like you in mind or not. Right now, I'd say they do, but there was a time when games were more "hardcore" though I don't get how this debate can apply to this thread since we're discussing an issue that many "hardcore" cRPGs are guilty of.

I have done the hardocre, as hardcore as it gets. I still play flight and racing sims with all the realism settings on, games when you need a week's worth of training before you can actually say you are playing the game. But there is a difference between "hardcore" and "I will tell you how to play". One is for strong mature people, the other for weak willed, easily impressed by baubbles kiddies.

Now hold on a minute, what you call "Frustration, repetitiveness and boredom" others call a challenge... something that I feel is missing from many modern games. Personally I think spam reloading is the least of our worries as far as challenge goes, but regardless, I relish the feeling of finally defeating an enemy after repeated tries.

That is a bit confusing. How will you "relish the feeling of finally defeating an enemy after repeated tries" if you can't reload. I relish it too, finanlly finding the tactic that works to beat a fight that initially seemed impossible, but that is exactly what will dissaper from a game desiged to be played without reloads. Imagine how sucky JA2 would be if it was balanced so that even on your very first play through you never had to reload. For a guy good at tactics and combat systems like me every game would be a cake walk. Reloading is what allows games to present you with challenges, challenges that you need to solve intellectually. And if somebody abuses that so they can get better loot, so what? Why would I care? For the same reason I don't care if somebody plays a game in god mode with cheats, I also don't care if they can spam-relaod to their heart's content, if that's what floats their boat. But when you say you will limit my options in how to play the game to police their stupidity, then I care.

I have enough limitations put on my daily life because others are stupid, weak and incompetent. I will not stand for it in my games.

 

[DraQ]

I guess the problem is that if the temptation is there, then it's gonna be used whether we're of uber willpower or not. Kind of like how cheat codes can potentially ruin a game like Doom, simply because the option is there when the going gets too tough.

This isn't a problem. Problems begin when there is no longer a distinction between legitimate gameplay and abuse. It's hard to avoid abuse if you can't really tell if you're abusing anything. You may need to reload sometimes, this is the key difference between proposed solutions and ironman. You should be able to reload, you shouldn't be willing unless something terribad happens. Reloading should be something like seatbelts - it's good to have them in case you crash into something, but that doesn't mean you should.

I think there's two debates going on here. There's one that claims that anytime a player reloads it's because the game is too hard and should be made easier and the other that wants to reduce cheesy reload spamming to try and get better loot spawn or a better attack roll.

Don't forget about cheesy "run into a room and die to see where the enemies or traps are", and "throw yourself repeatedly at too hard enemy/obstacle hoping for a lucky crit".

I, for one, frown upon one person russian army strategy reload spamming makes possible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

check out alternate "what if" paths

What if "what if" paths are based on delayed consequences? "BAWWW!" all over again?

Frustration, repetitiveness and boredom do not make a game harder. They just make it more frustrating, repetitive and boring.

I stand corrected - reducing ability to spam quickload and do the same thing over and over again will surely make the game more repetitive and boring.
Oh wai-

 

[Sceptic]

I'm not too keen on getting involved in this, so I'll keep it short.

This isn't a problem. Problems begin when there is no longer a distinction between legitimate gameplay and abuse. It's hard to avoid abuse if you can't really tell if you're abusing anything.

I would say even this isn't the problem. The problem is when the overreliance on save/reload means even the developers can no longer tell if it's abuse or not. "Hey Steve, you think this particular challenge is well-balanced?" "Bah who cares, they can reload anyway." Say goodbye to carefully-designed and balanced gameplay once this happens. I remember Pagan before the patch: it was easy to look at the moving/sinking stones and, after the 50th reload, realize that there was very little care given to the jumping "puzzles" precisely because reloading was so easy. It did not exactly create an enjoyable game. Now compare to Terra Nova (I can your smug all the way to here. you know who you are), which had NO save during missions, something that I personally abhor and detest in the strongest possible terms. I actually didn't mind it. Can you believe it? the guy who will rage and drag a game in the mud just for having save points played through a game with no in-mission saving without every complaining. The reason? the game is simply very well designed. It doesn't pull horribly unfair things on you in the last seconds of a 30-minute mission. If you lose, it's because you were either inattentive, careless, or playing in very dumb fashion. Your punishment is to suck it up, go back to the beginning of the mission and try to play more intelligently. And because the developers KNOW you cannot spam save and reload they can design a mission that is both challenging AND lots of fun without having to worry about people raging and having to replay 5h because they forgot to save, or people complaining the game's too easy because they reload whenever they take 1 point of damage.

Of course if the developers can't be bothered designing their game well then it doesn't really matter if you can abuse reload or not (see Pagan and XIII for examples of both systems failing quite badly)

Anyway I haven't really addressed the main topic. On that, I'm more in favor of bonuses for going without reload rather than penalty for reloading. Eg, you walk into Dragon's Eye, manage to go through without reloading, and you get rewarded with a very nice magical item at the end, whereas if you reloaded you'd just get a lesser item. The advantage of such a "better reward" system is that going without reloading makes continuing to go without reloading a bit easier, and therefore encourages this approach without unablancing the game. Other possible uses: take AP, where you at one point have to pick between an extra dossier (more information about what's going on in the game) and saving someone (potential ally later on); in AP you can do both if you have a particular skill at a high level, but I would've made it so it's possible IF you go through the entire mission without reloading. A player who does reload doesn't suddenly find himself unable to finish the game (that would be just dickish), but one who doesn't gains both the satisfaction and actual in-game acknowledgement (it doesn't have to be earth-shattering consequences, just something more than an achievement or similar sillyness). What I didn't like was Blade of Destiny taking away XP for saving outside temples; it didn't reward savvy players, it shafted the careful ones. Not to mention that the reward/penalty system should always be at the reloading stage. Any developer that thinks himself such a wonderful programmer that his software will NEVER crash under any circumstance deserves to be institutionalized (or deified if he actually manages to pull it off...)

So much for keeping it short.

 

[DraQ]

I'm not too keen on getting involved in this, so I'll keep it short.

This isn't a problem. Problems begin when there is no longer a distinction between legitimate gameplay and abuse. It's hard to avoid abuse if you can't really tell if you're abusing anything.

I would say even this isn't the problem. The problem is when the overreliance on save/reload means even the developers can no longer tell if it's abuse or not. "Hey Steve, you think this particular challenge is well-balanced?" "Bah who cares, they can reload anyway." Say goodbye to carefully-designed and balanced gameplay once this happens.

That's pretty good observation, actually.

Now compare to Terra Nova (I can your smug all the way to here. you know who you are), which had NO save during missions, something that I personally abhor and detest in the strongest possible terms. I actually didn't mind it. Can you believe it? the guy who will rage and drag a game in the mud just for having save points played through a game with no in-mission saving without every complaining. The reason? the game is simply very well designed. It doesn't pull horribly unfair things on you in the last seconds of a 30-minute mission. If you lose, it's because you were either inattentive, careless, or playing in very dumb fashion. Your punishment is to suck it up, go back to the beginning of the mission and try to play more intelligently. And because the developers KNOW you cannot spam save and reload they can design a mission that is both challenging AND lots of fun without having to worry about people raging and having to replay 5h because they forgot to save, or people complaining the game's too easy because they reload whenever they take 1 point of damage.

Of course, the problem with TN is that the missions are pretty short, otherwise they'd infringe on player's ability to ration their gaming time. The point of this thread is trying to achieve similar effect without having to forcibly keep player in front of their box, especially if they also happen to be

a busy person with a lot of interests and very little time to devote to games

.

Oh, and I almost forgot:

Anyway I haven't really addressed the main topic. On that, I'm more in favor of bonuses for going without reload rather than penalty for reloading. Eg, you walk into Dragon's Eye, manage to go through without reloading, and you get rewarded with a very nice magical item at the end, whereas if you reloaded you'd just get a lesser item. The advantage of such a "better reward" system is that going without reloading makes continuing to go without reloading a bit easier, and therefore encourages this approach without unablancing the game. Other possible uses: take AP, where you at one point have to pick between an extra dossier (more information about what's going on in the game) and saving someone (potential ally later on); in AP you can do both if you have a particular skill at a high level, but I would've made it so it's possible IF you go through the entire mission without reloading. A player who does reload doesn't suddenly find himself unable to finish the game (that would be just dickish), but one who doesn't gains both the satisfaction and actual in-game acknowledgement (it doesn't have to be earth-shattering consequences, just something more than an achievement or similar sillyness).

Well, I don't think there would be much difference between both approaches in terms of balancing difficulty level, while at the same time I have certain reservation towards reward approach from the point of view of balancing the mechanics since instead of fail-or-fail it would be reward-or-no-failure, and I'm reflexively against mechanics that cheats, be it in favor of the player or the AI.

OTOH, the reward approach would have certain edge psychologically, as it would have much less butthurt potential (though case could be made that this butthurt potential ties directly to the effectiveness of the method as drive to avoid loss is much stronger than drive to gain benefit, and the fromer is the force behind both the mechanics and potential butthurt side effect).

What I didn't like was Blade of Destiny taking away XP for saving outside temples; it didn't reward savvy players, it shafted the careful ones. Not to mention that the reward/penalty system should always be at the reloading stage. Any developer that thinks himself such a wonderful programmer that his software will NEVER crash under any circumstance deserves to be institutionalized (or deified if he actually manages to pull it off...)

If they can make their app keep running even if there is power outage or storm surge, they definitely deserve the latter.


Though it's funny, how, even if such an unrelated discussion religion and lack of mental health seem to go hand in hand.


(With apologies to Alex, who IIRC is a religious fella )

So much for keeping it short.

It's impossible to avoid discussion in Workshop.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

One change that would be easy to implement would be decreasing XP rewards on reloads.

This would actually be, in all likelihood a terribad idea. Of all the ideas discussed here this one would *actually* create an inevitable and nasty runaway feedback loop as it would influence the single variable that determines player's power, with no possible workarounds on part of the player.

Only if you make a game extremely dependent on grinding XP and you decrease XP rewards globally.
Also, IIRC the whole point of the idea was stopping people from using reloading as a strategy? It makes people who abuse reloading lose.

 

[DraQ]

Also, IIRC the whole point of the idea was stopping people from using reloading as a strategy? It makes people who abuse reloading lose.

The point is to make people who abuse reloading stop abusing reloading, not lose.
XP are more or less a linear, global measure of character's power, reducing them by some percentage again and again will result in a downward spiral, where player will be forced to reload more and more because they will lag further and further behind their opposition. In a way this would be worse than even straight ironman, as it would effectively be a delayed game over, with player continuing to play the game he has no chance of winning.

Autofailing random sidequest or 'blanking' randomized piece of loot of certain quality is very local and doesn't carry such risk.

Additionally, I dislike XPs.