Disco Elysium Pre-Release Thread [GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Kasparov]

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Why not just make visible checks an option?

For the same reason i dont play while closing my eyes, its the games job to challenge me, and to make it inconvenient for me to cheat or abuse systems. And it has to do it in such a way that i wont resent it for those restrictions (which is why simulationist approachs are usually go great, they allow you restrict the player in organic ways, much like real lyfe does).

There is only so much that mere text can do to mask success from failure.
For example: Lhynn tries to to pick his nose.
Result 1:Lhynn feels a sharp pain in his eye (suffer 3 hp damage)
Result 2: Lhyn inserts a finger to nostril; you feel relieved (Gain item green sticky nutritious glob)

One way to mask successes would be to have pyrrhic successes once or a while.
But really any data that can be dug will be dug. Spergs are going to sperg.

 

[Lhynn]

There is only so much that mere text can do to mask success from failure.
For example: Lhynn tries to to pick his nose.
Result 1:Lhynn feels a sharp pain in his eye (suffer 3 hp damage)
Result 2: Lhyn inserts a finger to nostril; you feel relieved (Gain item green sticky nutritious glob)

One way to mask successes would be to have pyrrhic successes once or a while.
But really any data that can be dug will be dug. Spergs are going to sperg.

Sure, but not having a big text wall saying You failed makes people more willing to roll with the punches, its just how it is.

 

[agris]

One thing you guys are ignoring is that a dialogue failure in No Truce can translate to viable character development outcomes, while failure in combat is usually a dead-end. The rewards system as presented by Kasparov is different.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

One thing you guys are ignoring is that a dialogue failure in No Truce can translate to viable character development outcomes, while failure in combat is usually a dead-end. The rewards system as presented by Kasparov is different.

Yeah. My exaggerated example doesn't correspond to anything that we know about this game.

Besides we don't even know if the game even has a "game over" state.

 

[V_K]

What would make people more willing to roll with the punches is a) making sure no single check is a life-or-death kind of check (i.e. really bad consequences only result from failing a series of checks) and b) telling the player that explicitly (through some system of reputations/social standings or something).

 

[Saduj]

Why not just make visible checks an option?

For the same reason i dont play while closing my eyes, its the games job to challenge me, and to make it inconvenient for me to cheat or abuse systems. And it has to do it in such a way that i wont resent it for those restrictions (which is why simulationist approachs are usually go great, they allow you restrict the player in organic ways, much like real lyfe does).

You're contradicting yourself. You're asking for a certain feature (hidden checks). Someone says "Well how about they add it as an optional feature?". And you say that you will resent the addition of this feature because of course you don't want to use it. If you would resent it as an optional feature then why are you advocating for foisting it on everyone as a non-optional feature?

This is the problem I have with a lot of aniti-save scumming arguments. They often boil down to "The game has to be changed because I don't have the self control not to do something that I claiming to hate".

If you don't like it don't do it. This isn't something developers should have to waste their time on.

 

[Prime Junta]

I'm kinda intrigued about how this meshes with the premise -- "a game about being a complete failure."

If the fail states/results are interesting enough, that ought to be an incentive to keep soldiering on.

(If not though, relying on players' self-discipline not to save-scum is ... well, it's a risky decision. People respond to incentives, and if there's a strong incentive to do it, people will do it, even if they don't really enjoy it.)

 

[Lhynn]

You're contradicting yourself.

Not contradicting myself in the slightest.

You're asking for a certain feature (hidden checks).

Im not asking for shit, im saying its better.

Someone says "Well how about they add it as an optional feature?". And you say will resent the addition of this feature because of course you don't want to use it.

Because of course ill end up using it anyway, me and everyone else that has a clue about how to play an rpg.

If you would resent it as an optional feature then why are you advocating for foisting it on everyone as a non-optional feature?

Because if its not an optional feature the game is designed around it in some fashion. A more organic approach where you can tell if you succeeded or failed by the text you are reading, that at the same time enhances the experience if the text is well written, is always better to the player paying attention and basing all his decisions on a system announcement with the results of your roll.

This is the problem I have with a lot of aniti-save scumming arguments. They often boil down to "The game has to be changed because I don't have the self control not to do something that I claiming to hate".

This is the problem i have with cunts, you think its all about self control, when games are all about overcoming challenges using whatever means at your disposal to do so. As long as its not outright using cheat codes, its fair game.
Final fantasy 7 has been one of the most played JRPGs ever, and it came with a feature that forced you to use a mount for tens of hours, to improve it to be able to breed better mounts, this was to unlock the most powerful magic in the game. so people what did people do? just rigged their controllers to leave the mount running around in circles. Hundreds of thousands of autistic children leaving their console running all night.

That doesnt mean you should design your games around the idea that your players will exploit the shit out of it unless you prevent it, therefore creating all sorts of inane artificial restrictions. But it does mean you shouldnt encourage it.

If you don't like it don't do it.

Ill do it and i wont like it. Or better yet, ill get tired of doing it and drop the game and look for something less retardedly designed.

This isn't something developers should have to waste their time on.

Of course they should, what are you, fucking stupid? Not saying to get obsessed with this, just saying that a few small steps go a long way.

 

[Saduj]

This is the problem i have with cunts, you think its all about self control, when games are all about overcoming challenges using whatever means at your disposal to do so. As long as its not outright using cheat codes, its fair game.

Really? This is your response to making the option part of the difficulty settings? So you play every game that has an Easy setting on Easy? Giving you the benefit of the doubt: You're full of shit.

If someone believes that games are all about overcoming challenges then it would stand to reason that he picks settings that provide an adequate level of challenge. I could somewhat buy your argument when it comes to in game actions. But arguing that you must pick settings that you don't like is ridiculous. Ruining the game for yourself is not "having a clue".

Of course they should, what are you, fucking stupid? Not saying to get obsessed with this, just saying that a few small steps go a long way.

Adding it as an optional feature would be a small step. You talked about changing game design in your post.

And reading the developer's comments, they've already mitigated your concern. You can succeed on a roll and have it turn out worse than if you had failed. So the message telling you that your roll was high enough to pass the check doesn't necessarily represent a success condition. And you won't know whether you should save scum or not and you could also choose not to save scum at all. Crisis averted.

 

[Prime Junta]

Adding it as an optional feature would be a small step. You talked about changing game design in your post.

Lhynn has a point though. "Just make it optional" is rarely a solution, because the game will have been designed with some set of features in mind, and switching some of them off will have unintended knock-on effects. If the devs assume that players will save-scum, it'll be punishingly hard for players who don't; if they assume they won't, it'll be trivially easy for those who do. Always assuming there aren't mechanisms in place to deal with that.

 

[V_K]

If the devs assume that players will save-scum, it'll be punishingly hard for players who don't; if they assume they won't, it'll be trivially easy for those who do.

Just substitute "save-scum" with "cheat" or "use exploints" and you'll see that there's no dilemma here. The whole point of such activities is to make the game trivially easy, and if that's what your customer wants - just give it to them. And if someone wants to cheat and still be challenged - well, their money would be better spent seeing a psychiatrist then playing games anyway.

 

[Prime Junta]

Just substitute "save-scum" with "cheat" or "use exploints" and you'll see that there's no dilemma here. The whole point of such activities is to make the game trivially easy, and if that's what your customer wants - just give it to them. And if someone wants to cheat and still be challenged - well, their money would be better spent seeing a psychiatrist then playing games anyway.

Save-scumming isn't cheating though. Don't you think there's a meaningful distinction between cheating and not-cheating?

(Also: if the game was designed around not-save-scumming, people like you would raise a huge stink about how piss-easy the game is.)

 

[Archibald]

I don't see how save-scumming isn't cheating. Writing in console "give me best prize" would be same exact thing and take less time than reloading game 15 times till you manage to open some lock with 8% chance.

 

[V_K]

Save-scumming isn't cheating though. Don't you think there's a meaningful distinction between cheating and not-cheating?

It's quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. Both activities boil down to using extraneous means to make the game easier.

if the game was designed around not-save-scumming, people like you would raise a huge stink about how piss-easy the game is

Proof? Don't remember myself ever doing that. I don't really have anything against easy games, I dislike mindless ones, but it's not the same thing.

Spoiler

(And now I'm accepting bets on how many posts till some dumbfuck blames me that I argue against hiding checks because I want an easy game. My guess is no more than 3)

 

[Prime Junta]

Save-scumming isn't cheating though. Don't you think there's a meaningful distinction between cheating and not-cheating?

It's quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. Both activities boil down to using extraneous means to make the game easier.

No, it is a qualitative difference. Save-scumming involves using the tools the game gives you. Cheating doesn't.

Case in point: the Baldur's Gate series. They're designed around the assumption that you "save often, and in different slots" -- even says so in the manual. Ironman is a special challenge for the specially hardcore. If you don't save a lot and reload every time you lose a fight. Save/reload is an organic part of the gameplay.

if the game was designed around not-save-scumming, people like you would raise a huge stink about how piss-easy the game is

Proof? Don't remember myself ever doing that. I don't really have anything against easy games, I dislike mindless ones, but it's not the same thing.

"People like you." As in, people who think any game design question can be settled with just don't use it" or "just make it optional:"

 

[V_K]

Case in point: the Baldur's Gate series. They're designed around the assumption that you "save often, and in different slots" -- even says so in the manual. Ironman is a special challenge for the specially hardcore. If you don't save a lot and reload every time you lose a fight. Save/reload is an organic part of the gameplay.

If I'm not mistaken, in BG you could use stealth to scout the encounters ahead and prepare accordingly, and use resurrection services in case a fight went less than stellar. I.e. the game gives you enough tools to avoid save-scumming in almost any situation short of a TPK. That's precisely the treatment I would like to see dialog checks receive - having ways to prepare to them and to mitigate undesirable consequences. And jusging by what I've read, I'm cautiously optimistic that in No Truce that will be the case.

 

[Prime Junta]

Case in point: the Baldur's Gate series. They're designed around the assumption that you "save often, and in different slots" -- even says so in the manual. Ironman is a special challenge for the specially hardcore. If you don't save a lot and reload every time you lose a fight. Save/reload is an organic part of the gameplay.

If I'm not mistaken, in BG you could use stealth to scout the encounters ahead and prepare accordingly, and use resurrection services in case a fight went less than stellar. I.e. the game gives you enough tools to avoid save-scumming in almost any situation short of a TPK. That's precisely the treatment I would like to see dialog checks receive - having ways to prepare to them and to mitigate undesirable consequences. And jusging by what I've read, I'm cautiously optimistic that in No Truce that will be the case.

Sure you can. It is possible to play the BGs without save-scumming. Lots of people have beat them in Ironman mode.

But (1) that's not how the game was designed to be played, and (2) that's not how most players -- even most hardcore fans of the series -- play it. In fact I haven't heard of anyone playing it like that on their first playthrough. Ironman is an extra challenge for the extremely hardcore: the "normal" way to play is to "save frequently, and in different slots" -- to quote the fucking manual.

Which brings me back to the original point I was trying to make: if a game allows you to savescum, the game designer has to decide what his assumption about player behaviour is. Will they savescum or not? If he assumes "yes," the game will be really fucking hard if you don't (exhibit A: the Baldur's Gates). If he assumes "no," it will be trivially easy for people who do. The upshot is that either way, one group of people will be unhappy: in the former case, people who are turned off by savescumming, and in the latter, people who do it as a matter of course.

Therefore, in my view, it is better to design a game so that it doesn't incentivise savescumming. It's not like that would even be particularly hard -- in the case of dialog checks like in NTwtF, all it would take is seeding the RNG, in a sense, rolling all the dice in the game beforehand.

 

[Zombra]

The whole point of [save-scumming] is to make the game trivially easy

Wrong. It's simply using the tools provided by the game ←important in order to succeed at tasks instead of failing. If those tools make the game trivially easy, then the game already is trivially easy.

and if that's what your customer wants - just give it to them.

I don't want games to be trivially easy, and I don't want a button that can instantly erase any mistake, hardship, or momentary annoyance - but if you put it there, I will press it, because in the moment succeeding is more fun than failing. Long term of course this makes gameplay meaningless.

 

[V_K]

Sure you can. It is possible to play the BGs without save-scumming. Lots of people have beat them in Ironman mode.

But (1) that's not how the game was designed to be played, and (2) that's not how most players -- even most hardcore fans of the series -- play it. In fact I haven't heard of anyone playing it like that on their first playthrough. Ironman is an extra challenge for the extremely hardcore: the "normal" way to play is to "save frequently, and in different slots" -- to quote the fucking manual.

But there's quite a bit of ground between save-scumming and going Ironman, isn't it? For some loosing just one character would necessitate a reload, while others would just resurrect him and carry on and reload only on half a party being destroyed, and yet others would save frequently but reload only on TPK.
Now, if there were no resurrections in the game, then obviously any fight that resulted in some charcters dying, or even going too low on HP would mean a reload. And if you had no way of knowing where the encounters are and what enemies you'll be fighting against, you'll be forced into a loop of saving, checking out the territory and then reloading to prepare optimally. In my book, this is what a design that relies on save-scumming looks like, and there are few things in games that I hate more.

Therefore, in my view, it is better to design a game so that it doesn't incentivise savescumming.

I absolutely agree with that, but I don't agree that pre-seeding all rolls would fix anything. After all, every check in AoD is absolutely deterministic, and there are few games that incentivise save-scumming more.
In my opinion, the only way to deinsentivise save-scumming, while not dropping the challenge level is to play fair - to let the player learn what to expect and prepare, and to give him reasonable tools to mitigate the consequences of a failure.

 

[V_K]

I don't want games to be trivially easy, and I don't want a button that can instantly erase any mistake, hardship, or momentary annoyance - but if you put it there, I will press it, because in the moment succeeding is more fun than failing. Long term of course this makes gameplay meaningless.

If you have a problem with prioritising delayed gratification over instant gratification, it's your character flaw, not the game's.

 

[Zombra]

If you have a problem with prioritising delayed gratification over instant gratification, it's your character flaw, not the game's.

You're half right. As a player, I'm certainly responsible for my own actions, but incentivizing certain behaviors falls squarely on the shoulders of the designer. I refuse to take 100% of the blame for pressing the big flashing REWARD button.

Design does influence player behavior; you illustrated this very well in your previous post.

 

[V_K]

Design does influence player behavior

I won't argue with that. However, 'influence' doesn't equal 'force'. What I'm arguing against here is that the game can and should force the player not to save-scum. It can't be done, because if a player wants to break a game, he will, and in the rare case he won't, he'll just get frustrated and ask for a refund or take his rage to the forums. What can be done, is making the desired behavior more rewarding than undesired one. Basically, you can't have sticks in a game, only carrots and bigger carrots.

 

[Zombra]

Design does influence player behavior

I won't argue with that. However, 'influence' doesn't equal 'force'. What I'm arguing against here is that the game can and should force the player not to save-scum. It can't be done, because if a player wants to break a game, he will.

This is black and white thinking, and a common fallacy amongst those who argue against save limitations. According to this line of reasoning, if it's possible for a player to reverse engineer the source code of a game and tinker with the hex files to change a save state, it is no different than putting PRESS F9 TO RETRY right in the game. I'm living proof that this is not the case. I use quick load a lot, but use console commands very rarely. Limitations will never stop everyone of course, or even stop anyone, necessarily; but the point isn't really to stop anyone cold - it's to discourage.

What can be done, is making the desired behavior more rewarding than undesired one. Basically, you can't have sticks in a game, only carrots and bigger carrots.

Agreed, but there's also the question of effort to reward. If save scumming is a pain in the ass, then a small carrot may not be worth it. Scumming as a widespread practice only emerged recently when it was made extremely convenient. Games don't have to make it that convenient just because computers are faster now.

 

[V_K]

You know, this discussion kinda reminds me of the discussion around DRM. Sure, we can all agree that piracy is bad, but DRMs are still universally hated. Why? Because they they make life harder not just for pirates, but for legitimate customers as well. Same thing with anti-save-scumming measures - it would be very hard to implement them in a way that would do more good than harm.