What is the most hardcore single player game format you can enjoy?

[Nutmeg]

You are not loosing much by loosing in Pac-man you loose potentially Hours of Progress if you loose in Civilisation, If a system is more complex it's repetition will also be more complex. -> It has no implication if the game is designed well, it simply means that doing the same stuff over and over can be quite boring, even if without repetition its very enjoyable.

Firstly, you lose just as much if you fuck up after 1 hour of a single game of Pacman as you do if you fuck up 1 hour of Civ.

Secondly, both Pacman and Civ *are* fun to play repeatedly. Millions of times in fact, which was my point.

Both games are just like Roguelikes in the sense that they're built around repetition.

I really do not agree on the fact that you deem certain aspects of games to not add complexity

You think cutscenes, dialogue and waiting add complexity? N.B. I did remove "inventory" from this list both here and in the post were replying to.

this is simply not the case for the vast majority of games. There is a reason why different kinds of games exist.

And almost anything can be fun the first time due to human curiosity and goal seeking nature. But if the goals and the unknown are the only fun things about a game, and actually playing the game is not fun (just a chore to get to the goal or see the next thing) then it's not really a fun game, is it? IMO a game is only as fun as the act of playing it is. I mean how could it be otherwise?

It also doesn't require redoing things you already completed, being "punished" for failure.

Sounds like you didn't like doing them at all. I mean if playing a game is "punishment" to you then maybe the game is shit right?

EDIT: I'm going to labor this point a bit more. Using examples gamers here might understand. If you fuck up in a game of DoomRL (or regular ol' Doom), you never say "ugh, I really don't feel like going through all that again". If you fuck up in a game of Quake 3, or Brood War, likewise, you don't react like that. Same for Heroes 3, Civilization 4, Master of Orion/Magic, and a bunch of other good turn based strategy games. I know those allow for saving, just even if you don't save, that's not how you'd react. You look forward to taking up the challenge again. You look forward to playing the game, cause playing the game is *fun*. What a concept!

Hitting F5 right before a section that might require a few tries isn't some complete clown show of zero challenge and boring non-gameplay

No, but it makes it so the challenge has much less meaning. For example, any risk aspect to it or any trade offs due to approach go out the window.

 

[DalekFlay]

Sounds like you didn't like doing them at all. I mean if playing a game is "punishment" to you then maybe the game is shit right?

EDIT: I'm going to labor this point a bit more. Using examples gamers here might understand. If you fuck up in a game of DoomRL (or regular ol' Doom), you never say "ugh, I really don't feel like going through all that again". If you fuck up in a game of Quake 3, or Brood War, likewise, you don't react like that. Same for Heroes 3, Civilization 4, Master of Orion/Magic, and a bunch of other good turn based strategy games. I know those allow for saving, just even if you don't save, that's not how you'd react. You look forward to taking up the challenge again. You look forward to playing the game, cause playing the game is *fun*. What a concept!

I'm looking forward to beating the challenge I'm on, or going to the next challenge. No I'm not interested in repeating a section I can do easily over and over again to get back to where the actual challenge is. "If Doom level 12 corrupts your save every time it loads isn't that a good thing because you get to play 1-11 again?!?!?!?!" This is a stupid argument.

 

[Nutmeg]

"If Doom level 12 corrupts your save every time it loads isn't that a good thing because you get to play 1-11 again?

Again it sounds like you just don't actually like playing Doom. I mean if playing 1-11 is a bad thing to you, then IMO you don't really like the game. I also fail to see how you could argue otherwise, but am interested to hear nonetheless.

Anyway even if you find levels 1-11 not very fun, corrupting the save on load might actually make them more fun for you. This is because it would make what you do in these levels (resources you collect/conserve, damage you take) more meaningful in terms of your chances and your capabilities in level 12.

 

[laclongquan]

You are arguing about water is wet and why you dont like it.

Saving is a necessary feature thanks to many demands. This is unquestionable, and not argued here.

People will find many ways to exploit, and saving provide powerful incentives to exploit, thus people exploit saving. This is human nature. Also unquestionable. If you demand that people wont exploit whatever it is, you are just talking to yourself in your own echo chamber. (note: selfimposed ironman is talking to yourself in your own echochamber.)

The way to circumvent it, and not control because there is no control here, is to design a game so that reload wont provide as much powerful benefits.

Nearly impossible, I know, but there you have it.

In a way, MMORPG is a format circumvent saving. You know loots and bosses are there, reload wont help you. Roll for loot is also automatical. Difficult boss can kill you, but you lose only a little xp, gold, and time spent from the last autosave.

 

[DalekFlay]

Again it sounds like you just don't actually like playing Doom. I mean if playing 1-11 is a bad thing to you, then IMO you don't really like the game. I also fail to see how you could argue otherwise, but am interested to hear nonetheless.

My favorite food is prime rib, but I don't want to eat it every night. Pretty simple. I find your argument pretty fucking out there, even for the Codex, but hey... whatever floats your boat.

 

[Nutmeg]

Saving is a necessary feature thanks to many demands. This is unquestionable, and not argued here.

Dude no.

There's whole genres of games where there's no saving (e.g. rogue-likes or shmups) and other genres where no saving is common or ironman options are considered a standard feature (turn based strategy), and in yet other genres common modes of play where people just don't save or can't save (e.g. skirmishes either against humans or AI in an RTS, deathmatch FPS).

It's hardly unquestionable.

The argument is whether there's anything to gain at all from saving without penalty.

My favorite food is prime rib, but I don't want to eat it every night

More like you claim your favorite food is prime rib, but after one bite, you just can't stand the idea of the grueling repetition of taking more bites. Just think of all that chewing.

 

[Lord of Riva]

Firstly, you lose just as much if you fuck up after 1 hour of a single game of Pacman as you do if you fuck up 1 hour of Civ.

Secondly, both Pacman and Civ *are* fun to play repeatedly. Millions of times in fact, which was my point.

Both games are just like Roguelikes in the sense that they're built around repetition.

This is just objectively untrue in an hour of Pac-Man you are still playing the same level. In an hour of civ you have a vastly higher amount of choices, both based on what you did before but also what is available to you at the later stages.

You think cutscenes, dialogue and waiting add complexity? N.B. I did remove "inventory" from this list both here and in the post were replying to.

That depends on what the cutscenes convey, in a game about riddles you could use cutscenes to hide clues. Dialogues definitely are complex in all but the simplest cases, a Text adventure is basically JUST that, how can you say it does not add complexity?

"not doing something" does not add any complexity, i agree, but i never claimed it did. You are generalizing, i can understand why you understood it like this but as i implied before that certain aspects add complexity, that does not mean waiting is one of them.

And almost anything can be fun the first time due to human curiosity and goal seeking nature. But if the goals and the unknown are the only fun things about a game, and actually playing the game is not fun (just a chore to get to the goal or see the next thing) then it's not really a fun game, is it? IMO a game is only as fun as the act of playing it is. I mean how could it be otherwise?

This argument makes no sense. Are you claiming that finding something new is not part of the fun then? Would you be able to solely play minesweeper then, never another game because Minesweeper is already fun, so is endless repetition according to your argument? No, as I said there can be circumstances where repetition can be fun, mainly when the game revolves around it (Rogue-likes) or if you play it to challenge yourself in repetition, achieving mastery for example or speedrunning.

Thats all fine and all, but neither does the average game need have these rules but a lot of them already exist outside the games framework. In a lot of cases they simply are more annoying than fun.

Sounds like you didn't like doing them at all. I mean if playing a game is "punishment" to you then maybe the game is shit right?

No, this is a dishonest argument. Playing a game can be fun while it's repetition is not. Try reading a good book and rereading it once you reach 1/3 and then again after reaching 2/3 of the content. (no skipping!) and tell me how fun this is.
Playing is fun, repeating the same steps all the time is a chore. I would argue that Roguelikes for example only work well with this because they are Randomized. Eg you are not really repeating the same game.

EDIT: I'm going to labor this point a bit more. Using examples gamers here might understand. If you fuck up in a game of DoomRL (or regular ol' Doom), you never say "ugh, I really don't feel like going through all that again". If you fuck up in a game of Quake 3, or Brood War, likewise, you don't react like that. Same for Heroes 3, Civilization 4, Master of Orion/Magic, and a bunch of other good turn based strategy games. I know those allow for saving, just even if you don't save, that's not how you'd react. You look forward to taking up the challenge again. You look forward to playing the game, cause playing the game is *fun*. What a concept!

Why wouldn't I react to that like this? At some point when i had my fill that is exactly what i would do "Well, now that was fun, now i am going to do something else". A game of Civ etc. can i pick up after a week though because I can save.
The moment you tell me i can not stop playing a game because I HAVE to do it again it stops being fun. Have you ever worked on a game? Playing the game for thousands of ours, not because you want to have fun but because you have to make sure that others will have at some point can become a chore, even if you actually really like what you created.

 

[Nutmeg]

This is just objectively untrue in an hour of Pac-Man you are still playing the same level. In an hour of civ you have a vastly higher amount of choices, both based on what you did before but also what is available to you at the later stages.

We're using different metrics. The metrics I'm using are the game's metrics of the player. In Civilization and Pacman both this is whether the player is in a failed, still playing or victory state and their score. Ok the victory state doesn't exist in Pacman. Anyway, in different games it might be something else e.g. in Quake 3 it's kills.

I use this metric because the assumption I make is that when players play games they are playing to do well under the game's rules and definition of well.

I also believe that if a player breaks this assumption, they are not playing the actual game, but their own game i.e. they are playing with their toy, the game.

Do you think this assumption is unreasonable?

No, this is a dishonest argument. Playing a game can be fun while it's repetition is not. Try reading a good book and rereading it once you reach 1/3 and then again after reaching 2/3 of the content. (no skipping!) and tell me how fun this is.

But it's not the *game* that's fun if it's repetition isn't.

It's good you used an example of a book, because I'd say the more "book-like" a "game" is, the worse it is as a *game*.

repeating the same steps all the time is a chore

I agree strongly with this. Games that are about going through the motions mindlessly are bad games.

Why wouldn't I react to that like this? At some point when i had my fill that is exactly what i would do "Well, now that was fun, now i am going to do something else"

We seem to be talking about different things. You're talking about choosing to terminate a session of play for any reason related to being satiated. I'm talking about choosing to terminate a session of play for the *precise* reason you entered a fail state and repeat play *specifically* is what stops you from continuing your session i.e. were it not for the fact that you would be repeating play from an initial state due to entering a failure state, you would continue.

Anyway that aside, I thought my examples were good examples of games where entering a failure state actually makes you excited to start again and keep playing. For example, when I lose a game of Civ 4, I'm usually very keen to start another one amending my strategy and reflecting on my failure. Similarly when I don't come first in a Quake 3 deathmatch rotation. I'm really keen to do better on the next one.

Perhaps you never had these feelings? Or maybe you've never had the opportunity to play good games?

 

[Grauken]

I use this metric because the assumption I make is that when players play games they are playing to do well under the game's rules and definition of well.

I also believe that if a player breaks this assumption, they are not playing the actual game, but their own game i.e. they are playing with their toy, the game.

Do you think this assumption is unreasonable?

Utterly unreasonable, mostly because people play for different reasons. To relax, to experience something new, some to experience something they played a thousand time, some like you to score well, some to play all games in chronological order (historical research basically), etc. Lots of different reasons

 

[laclongquan]

Saving is a necessary feature thanks to many demands. This is unquestionable, and not argued here.

Dude no.

There's whole genres of games where there's no saving (e.g. rogue-likes or shmups) and other genres where no saving is common or ironman options are considered a standard feature (turn based strategy), and in yet other genres common modes of play where people just don't save or can't save (e.g. skirmishes either against humans or AI in an RTS, deathmatch FPS).

It's hardly unquestionable.

The argument is whether there's anything to gain at all from saving without penalty.

Bitch please~ As long as you have continuing sessions, with later session using character progression from previous session, you have saving.

The only genre of games where saving doesnt exist is arcade games, where each run last at most 30 minutes. Which we, in this thread, consider not worth mentioning.

Roguelikes, with its length of each run last tens of hours, of course has saving. You just dont know that.

 

[Nutmeg]

with later session using character progression from previous session

Not every game is an RPG.

The only genre of games where saving doesnt exist is arcade games

Ok tell me how you save in a Quake 3 match?

Also I named *5* genres where saving is not an option in commonly played modes. Only one of those was an arcade genre.

Finally it's not just about whether you can save or not, but whether saves should be permitted beyond suspend and resume and whether they should incur a penalty.

Roguelikes, with its length of each run last tens of hours, of course has saving. You just dont know that.

The only RL I played like that was some Angband variant. And it was not very good. Brogue, DoomRL and DCSS don't have 10 hour sessions.

 

[samuraigaiden]

I'm very hardcore because I play Galaga.

 

[HansDampf]

Sounds like you didn't like doing them at all. I mean if playing a game is "punishment" to you then maybe the game is shit right?

No, this is a dishonest argument. Playing a game can be fun while it's repetition is not. Try reading a good book and rereading it once you reach 1/3 and then again after reaching 2/3 of the content. (no skipping!) and tell me how fun this is.

Because books have shit gameplay.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

TWO LIVES

NO CONTINUES

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS LOLOLLLOL PLAY WHAT YOU WANT

I SAVESCUM LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER IN GAMES THAT ALOW IT

I PLAY ROGUELIKES

MOST MAME SHIT I TRY ONE CREDET RUNS

LOLLOLOL HAVE FUN AND FUCK ANYONE ELSE LOLLOLLOL

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS ALSO YOUR RIGHT REPITITITSHION ISNT FUN BUT WHEN YOU FINALLY MASTER A GAME LOLLLOLLOL THAT CAN BE COOL

 

[laclongquan]

with later session using character progression from previous session

Not every game is an RPG.

The only genre of games where saving doesnt exist is arcade games

Ok tell me how you save in a Quake 3 match?

The importance is not the label, but the length of each game session/run. RPG, RTS, etc, doesnt matter. If a session last beyond around 30 minutes, they have saving.

Is a RTS game has saving? Yes. Why? Because it can run into hour-long run.

Does a Lara Croft game have saving? Yes. Each run can last hours. Does Curse of Monkey Island have saving? Yes. Same reason.

Is a Quake/Doom game has saving? No. Why? Because they are short and nearly never last as much as half an hour.

Roguelikes, with its length of each run last tens of hours, of course has saving. You just dont know that.

The only RL I played like that was some Angband variant. And it was not very good. Brogue, DoomRL and DCSS don't have 10 hour sessions.

Does Dwarf Fortress have saving?
Ancient Domains of Mystery, or ADOM?
Unreal World?
The answer for the top 3 roguelike of all time is, of course, yes.

 

[DalekFlay]

Something lost in this ranting against quicksaves is that they're not insta-win buttons by any means. Deep in a dungeon in Pathfinder and running low on resources? Quicksave doesn't help you win. Halfway through a level in Quake with 20 health and low ammo? Quicksave doesn't help you win. Bad enemy patrol patten and stuck in a dark corner in Splinter Cell? Quicksave doesn't help you win. In fact it might make it more likely you have to reload an older save and repeat a lot of content.

All quicksave does is let you keep trying from a point you choose, rather than have to restart from a checkpoint the developer chooses, because that's tedious. Honestly one reason checkpoints got popular with console FPS games is that it prevented noobs from quicksaving with 5 health and a zombie bearing down on them, ruining their save. Quicksave can be abused by lame people to open a skill check chest, sure, but you could also say checkpoints can be abused if you lose too much health and want a redo. Lame people could also just put the game on easy, or use a cheat code. Who cares what they do honestly. Quicksave also has its own special downsides, like "oops I haven't saved in ages and I died and now I have to do 10 minutes over again." It really just depends on the person and situation.

Anyway... it's amusing that when Xbox came around and Western RPG/FPS games started losing quicksaves PC gamers were up in arms,mad as hell, but now on a supposedly PC focused website I've got people preaching against saving anywhere. "Can't please all people all of the time..."

 

[Carrion]

Deep in a dungeon in Pathfinder and running low on resources? Quicksave doesn't help you win. Halfway through a level in Quake with 20 health and low ammo? Quicksave doesn't help you win.

In all fairness, a proper savescummer wouldn't end up in such situations to begin with. Just reload until you get the perfect result.

Quicksave also has its own special downsides, like "oops I haven't saved in ages and I died and now I have to do 10 minutes over again."

That'd be like forgetting to breathe for 10 minutes.

 

[DalekFlay]

In all fairness, a proper savescummer wouldn't end up in such situations to begin with. Just reload until you get the perfect result.

I mean if people have that level of bullshit in their veins there's not much anyone can do about it. Even with checkpoints or whatever they'll find other ways to express their autism. I don't really give a fuck what they do.

 

[Nutmeg]

LOLLOLOL HAVE FUN AND FUCK ANYONE ELSE LOLLOLLOL

Even with checkpoints or whatever they'll find other ways to express their autism. I don't really give a fuck what they do.

Guys you're missing the point.

Yeah of course people can play games however they want. You can backup your save in a Rogue-like, you can play Doom with debug options like noclip. You can do whatever you want. I don't care. You don't care. No one cares. Goes without saying.

So that's not what we should be discussing. What we should be discussing is what kind of rules make for a good game for those who choose to abide by them.

Does a game that lets you save and load with no bearing to game outcome have sensible rules? IMO, the answer is no.

Utterly unreasonable, mostly because people play for different reasons. To relax, to experience something new, some to experience something they played a thousand time, some like you to score well, some to play all games in chronological order (historical research basically), etc. Lots of different reasons

No doubt. But don't you think that should be a separate discussion? I mean whether a game is good as a historical curio or relaxation toy and whether a game is good as a game are entirely different things no?

If a session last beyond around 30 minutes, they have saving.

All quicksave does is let you keep trying from a point you choose, rather than have to restart from a checkpoint the developer chooses, because that's tedious.

This is also a slightly different discussion to how the topic evolved but also relevant.

To put it in context, checkpoint, auto save, save points, limited save, quick save, continue at point of failure etc. are orthogonal to whether or not the game penalizes you for doing so. You can have any one of these systems but also have the game wipe your score or taint your clear in some way upon load.

However there's also differences between them penalty or not.

Continues let the player break the game patterns entirely.

Limited saves and quick saves let the player decide what the patterns are.

Checkpoints and auto saves let the developer decide.

With penalty, anything is sensible. My preference is probably continues or checkpoints, but yeah any system is sensible if you have a penalty for loading IMO.

Without penalty, iron-man (suspend and resume Rogue-like style) or save points with limited saves (Resident Evil style), or scoring intervals (checkpoints) are the options that make games most meaningful. The latter only if the interval is long enough.

What do you think?

It's worth noting you can also have checkpoints in non failure states. e.g. games with the concept of "lives". Losing a life might bounce you back to the last checkpoint, but not end your game.

 

[Nutmeg]

Thought about it some more. I think game format is the product of 6 things.

Scoring / clearing interval:

Open
Closed
Geometrically segmented
Time segmented

Loading within intervals:

Open
On game over (i.e. success or failure)
None

Saving within intervals:

Open unlimited
Open limited
Geometric unlimited
Geometric limited
Timed
On game over

Outcome bearing load penalty:

Yes
No

Outcome bearing save penalty:

Yes
No

Suspend and resume:

With penalty
Without penalty
None

Examples.

Resident Evil: Closed scoring interval, open loading without penalty, limited geometric saving with penalty. No suspend and resume.

Batsugun: Closed scoring interval, load on game over with penalty, save on game over with no penalty. No suspend and resume.

Super Metroid: Closed scoring interval, open loading with no penalty, unlimited geometric saving with no penalty. No suspend and resume.

Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup: Closed scoring interval, no loading, save on game over without penalty, suspend and resume without penalty.

Bayonetta 2: Segmented scoring interval, load on game over with penalty, save on game over without penalty, suspend and resume without penalty.

Pacman: Open scoring interval, no loading, save on game over without penalty, no suspend and resume.

Civlization 4: Closed scoring interval, open loading without penalty, open saving without penalty, no suspend and resume.

Sin and Punishment: Closed scoring interval, load on game over with penalty, save on game over without penalty, suspend and resume with penalty (IIRC).

Dark Souls: Closed clearing interval, load on game over without penalty, unlimited geometric saving, no suspend and resume (IIRC)

Thank you for reading my autism.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

BROS LOLOLLLOL PLAY WHAT YOU WANT

I SAVESCUM LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER IN GAMES THAT ALOW IT

I PLAY ROGUELIKES

MOST MAME SHIT I TRY ONE CREDET RUNS

LOLLOLOL HAVE FUN AND FUCK ANYONE ELSE LOLLOLLOL

One credit runs. Yeah, I know the feeling. I keep trying to put quarters in my USB ports, but it doesn't work. My computer will not accept my coins for some reason.

 

[DalekFlay]

So that's not what we should be discussing. What we should be discussing is what kind of rules make for a good game for those who choose to abide by them.

Does a game that lets you save and load with no bearing to game outcome have sensible rules? IMO, the answer is no.

And I'll say again: the vast majority of CRPGs and such have had save anywhere since I started playing them. I don't think we need to get rid of that to avoid save scumming and challenge. Most games don't let you save during battle, which is good. Starting the encounter over again is still "punishment" without having to redo fights you already beat. Limited resources prevents save scumming from saving you in the middle of a dungeon or whatever. Keeping skill checks hidden and only showing results prevents save scumming for dialog checks and the like.

Opening chests and shit though... I dunno. Maybe roll the skill check when you start a dungeon, so quickloads don't change anything?

 

[Ninjerk]

Sensuki wasn't your IE gameplay style max savescum (to the point that Anthony Davis blew a gasket over it )?