Reload a game and the game world changes

[DraQ]

Just implement an Ironman difficulty level of some sort, permadeath and the like.

The point is to avoid both ironman and save&reload cheese.

Unless the game is fully randomized roguelike (or is piss easy, so that you only die if you're terminally stupid) you don't want ironman on your first playthrough, but that doesn't automatically make save&reload cheese tactics desirable.

In ironman you can't reload even if you need to, in normal mode you can reload any time you want. Both have flaws. What we want is a situation where you can reload but don't want.

 

[KalosKagathos]

Way too meta. If you don't want the player to exploit save games, either use a checkpoints-based save system or calculate "random" variables before they're actually need, so that when the player reloads and does the exact same things, he gets the exact same results. The latter can permanently screw the game up and make further progress impossible just because Rnd hates the player, meaning checkpoints are the superior option. Why does everyone hate them, anyway?

 

[DraQ]

Way too meta. If you don't want the player to exploit save games, either use a checkpoints-based save system or calculate "random" variables before they're actually need, so that when the player reloads and does the exact same things, he gets the exact same results.

It still allows one to bruteforce the situation by trying different tactics, rather than encouraging him to think beforehand.

The latter can permanently screw the game up and make further progress impossible just because Rnd hates the player, meaning checkpoints are the superior option. Why does everyone hate them, anyway?

-they undermine the purpose of having save&load system in the first place
-they are problematic in open, highly non-linear games
-they encourage a lot of backtracking that is completely pointless from in-game POV
-they are way more meta than anything proposed in this thread
-their proponents tend to be consoletards - coincidence? I don't think so.

 

[Kz3r0]

The Maximo solution then.

 

[Davaris]

Hmm. Still might be abused though. Like re-loading until the world is how you want it or something.
.

The idea is to tell the player something has changed, to discover what has changed, they have to play the game to find out. So the only punishment is introducing a form of gambling.

And how does that even make sense? Does something change the past if you load? Or is it like Worf in that one TNG episode where he switches between different parallel realities?

That is a possibility. A quest from the past could be undone, or its result changed, or a current quest goal could be altered.

Sounds kind of annoying, when I think of it that way. I guess if changes like that occurred rarely, it might not be too bad.

I´m not saying this is a stupid idea, but I´m not convinced it´s worth the effort. Savers gonna save.

Yeah, it sounds quite difficult to do. You'd have to design your RPG engine from the ground up to handle it.

 

[KalosKagathos]

Way too meta. If you don't want the player to exploit save games, either use a checkpoints-based save system or calculate "random" variables before they're actually need, so that when the player reloads and does the exact same things, he gets the exact same results.

It still allows one to bruteforce the situation by trying different tactics, rather than encouraging him to think beforehand.

That's not bruteforcing. That's attempting to understand which tactics work and which don't.

-they undermine the purpose of having save&load system in the first place

They don't. The purpose of the save & load system is to allow for longer games that don't have to be completed in a single sitting.

-they are problematic in open, highly non-linear games

They aren't. JRPG-esque saving points can work perfectly well in open-world games.

-they encourage a lot of backtracking that is completely pointless from in-game POV

That's the good part. It ensures that you can't just get past a challenge by luck. If you die again before reaching a checkpoint, you'll have to be able to repeat your success, which requires at least some brains.

-they are way more meta than anything proposed in this thread

How so?

-their proponents tend to be consoletards - coincidence? I don't think so.

I don't think so either. After all, console games have a much better track record at getting basic gameplay right than PC games do.

 

[Davaris]

Way too meta. If you don't want the player to exploit save games, either use a checkpoints-based save system or calculate "random" variables before they're actually need, so that when the player reloads and does the exact same things, he gets the exact same results.

It still allows one to bruteforce the situation by trying different tactics, rather than encouraging him to think beforehand.

That's not bruteforcing. That's attempting to understand which tactics work and which don't.

The problem with save games, is they have become a game play mechanic in themselves. They make a level or area difficult so the player has to play it over and over, until he solves the puzzle of how to complete it.

That's fun if you like that kind of thing, but its not the way pen and paper RPGs used to work. With RPGs you played the game and accepted whatever consequences came your way.

 

[MicoSelva]

Savescumming is used 90% of time to find better loot, so why not make a random loot seed at start of the game and stick to it all the way through. Or re-randomize it every couple of hours?

The other 10% of abuse happens during turn-based combat. Civ3/4 approach or pregenerating a few rolls is a pretty good cure for that. Abusing it is possible, but a pain in the ass, so hardly anyone will bother (although, I have).

As for other approaches - BG1-like respawning of mobs on reload is another quite successful way of preventing save scumming. Making a variable based on frequency of reloading that affects dropped loot (more reloading, worse loot - or - less reloading, better loot) is another.

EDIT: There is also that idea from Omikron: The Nomad Soul. You found 'save markers' (items) in game. Every saving cost You one of them, but other than that You could save/load at any place.

That said, in-gameworld reloading mechanism based on time travel (Sands of Time anyone?) could be really awesome in an RPG. If it affected the gameworld in some way, it should be explained in-game somehow. Some kind of divine intervention of time chaos gods?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Hey, Davaris, how about simply designing a game with high replayability?

 

[DraQ]

Way too meta. If you don't want the player to exploit save games, either use a checkpoints-based save system or calculate "random" variables before they're actually need, so that when the player reloads and does the exact same things, he gets the exact same results.

It still allows one to bruteforce the situation by trying different tactics, rather than encouraging him to think beforehand.

That's not bruteforcing. That's attempting to understand which tactics work and which don't.

while(!successful)
         tactics++;

is NOT the same as understanding.

Even in a fully deterministic game s&l rewards recklessness.

They don't. The purpose of the save & load system is to allow for longer games that don't have to be completed in a single sitting.

The primary purpose of save&load system is to be able to leave the game at arbitrary moment without losing progress. Longer games are merely a welcome side effect of this mechanics as even a game that can be completed in one sitting can greatly benefit from s&l, especially if player happens to have a life.

They aren't. JRPG-esque saving points can work perfectly well in open-world games.

They need to be properly placed not just in regard to some linear progress, but in regard to a space you roam freely.

That's the good part. It ensures that you can't just get past a challenge by luck. If you die again before reaching a checkpoint, you'll have to be able to repeat your success, which requires at least some brains.

I'm sufficiently confident of my brains to not need this kind of confirmation from a computer game, besides, it's designers' and testers' job to ensure that the game is not beatable by sheer dumb luck, not mine.

Plus it doesn't work like this, all it does is ensuring that player will run back and forth between last checkpoint and consecutive challenges.

If you consider this kind of design good, then sorry, but you're a moron.

How so?

They need indicators in the gameworld, which is meta, and they enforce meta behaviour.

I don't think so either. After all, console games have a much better track record at getting basic gameplay right than PC games do.

I rest my case.

The only way to make savepoints work in a remotely desirable manner is by using them to break up conventional ironman game into smaller ironman subsections, but the problems with placing the savepoints, and all kind of metagaming would persist, so a refinement would be using a series of several, cyclically overwritten autosaves performed somewhat randomly, or only when metagaming behaviour (such as freezing and waiting for an autosave to be triggered by RNG) is not detected. Outside of those autosaves the game would only save on exit.

That might be a valid alternative to discouraging reloading, while also avoiding the Scylla of savescumming and Charybdis of ironman.

Savepoints are not.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Could be a storyline/mechanics cross-over, similar to how in PS:T the number of shadows in the negative plane fortress scales according to how many times TNO has (a) died and (b) given away his name, location or existence. Is justified in lore as turning people into shadows is how TNO's immortality works, and (b) in the lore is supposed to improve their ability to 'zero in' on him, i.e. giving them time to prepare for his assault.

I'm thinking that the power to reload could be presented as some awesome, virtually unseen means of massively altering the universe, even if it only alters the universe to the extent that it affects the player. Make it part of a player class/story, so he's some sort of plane-shifter or shape-shifter. Different kinds of shifter for different classes: so a fighter is a shape-shifter, able to control his own matter by shifting into different creatures and machines for different abilities. Thieving skills could work from a similar shifting mechanic - you're shifting into birds for stealth (but are obviously weaker at combat if spotted). An earth-shifter has nothing but basic fighting skills, but shifts the world around them, creating what we'd normally call 'magic' by shifting matter through sending fireballs, crushing opponents in chasms, and the air around them ultra-heavy so it traps/crushes them. A body-shifter is like a cleric/necromancer, affecting the bodies of others either to heal, or to curse (turn their hands into hooves, making them unable to use weapons), make them brain-dead zombies under your control or making them grow ultra-large or small, turning their blood to acid, etc.

Packed in with that is the ultimate shifting ability - the one that sets your character apart from the others - the ability to alter the world be reloading. BUT you learn early that this comes at a terrible cost. The first time you reload (you can't reload until this early point - with option to skip for later playthroughs) it kills your companion/family/mcguffin. The idea is that you're changing something that shouldn't be changed, and that people, and possible the world itself, dies a little each time you do it - i.e. you can sort of play with it, but you can't quite put things back 100% correctly, and someone is going to die each time, sometimes someone insignificant, but also sometimes someone who mattered to you.

Now later you get to have the big combat where the difficulty and number of opponents (lost souls, whatever) is determined by how many times you have reloaded.

But....HERE is the awesome bit (in my opinion). You aren't the ONLY guy in the world with the power to reload. Someone else - maybe a friend who discovers the secret with you, but unlike you thinks 'screw it - I don't care who dies for my immortality', maybe someone who doesn't know you other than that you're 'the other guy with that power'. But somewhere along the lines you'll find out that this other antagonist has the same power. Hints can be given like having souls come to steal the life of a character when you've actually avoided reloading to stop that happening. Or (if you're happy to go evil and say 'fuck the consequences') the discovery that something you've reloaded in order to steal no longer appears, no matter how many times you reload knowing it 'should' be there.

Later on, you discover that one of the 'bosses' you killed really is no longer dead - same turns out to apply for a few. But is that early boss the guy with the reload power? Or has the other 'reloader' just used reload to resurrect his minion, while throwing you off the scent? Is your game journal lying to you? As you go on, you'll find ways of keeping records that are immune to reloads - I'm envisaging a discovery of meta-worlds and fantasy names for what folk from a fantasy world would call 'hacking code' if they were to somehow discover its existence. You'd get a journal that kept accurate information, even if it didn't match your own experience of gameplay - so you'd go to kill someone, turns out they weren't home, but you looted their castle. But if you check your journal it says you killed them after an epic battle, someone then reloaded the world, warned them and they escaped before your get there.

Ok, that's sounding shit, but it's drunken ramblings so it isn't going to compare to a serious attempt at a gaming concept. Nonetheless, I think there's some awesome stuff you could play with using it. You could fit it right into that niche of 'self-knowing enough to be interesting' but 'not so pretentious that its head will rupture its colon'. I.e. the game would have to be good in its own right, even without the 'reload' bit. And you'd need good enough writing that it didn't seem like a gimic added for marketing press.

For me it's a flow-on from the old and sadly underused idea of having more active adventuring parties in the world - horray for Wiz7. But if they could do that with Wiz7, I'd have loved to see Van Buren's take on it (or was it Torn that had the idea of an opposing adventuring party as badass as your own?). For me, the ability to reload, restricted in-game by suitable lore and mechanics consequences, is a logical next step.

 

[DraQ]

*snip*

The problem is that it's a highly specific idea that can't be really used as general mechanics. Yes, it might be interesting to pursue, but you can't really implement it anywhere but in settings supporting it, while saving and reloading is ubiquitous.

The two ideas I propose have no such problems as they don't rely on implanting what was previously metagame into the gameworld.

The first, enforcing failure, may seem meta, but all it does is counteracting meta. Think about it this way - if you were an NPC in a cRPG with free reloading, how would you detect the PC? Saving and loading itself don't leave any measurable traces in gameworld, they are entirely meta and thus fully transparent. You can't detect a reload, because on reload you and the entire world are just reset to an earlier state, and you can have no recollection about any events that happened between the reload and the save you're being reverted to. You can however, detect an indirect result of reloading - the PC is insanely lucky. He succeeds against all odds, tempts death all the time and survives, opens difficult locks despite being a kludge with lockpicks, finds awesome loot all the time and so on. PC does all this because player has potent probablity manipulator on his hands - he can retry until successful, and since you can have no memories of previous attempts, all you experience is that PC seems to be able to force unlikely events to occur, as if you add even minuscule probabilities together enough times you can get arbitrarily close to 1.

Now, the fact that the system can, after-all be detected from the gameworld demonstrates its imperfection. Enforcing failures focuses on removing this detectability by making the statistics work out and injecting the discarded failures back into the system.

The second system, works in a different manner, it's basically a lighter, softer ironman - you can save and load freely when leaving and entering the game, but this works exactly like ironman - the save created this way is updated continuously and gets deleted on game over. You do however have reloadable saves, the problem is that you can't make them - it's the computer that calls the shots here and ideally he should do it unpredictably, far enough apart to be inconvenient, but close enough together to not make you replay last several h. It should probably be malicious enough to save frequently if little is happening (preventing you from repeating stretches of monotony) and rarely if there is a lot of stuff happening. Notice that this will only work properly if the game is fairly unpredictable on its own and capable of playing out very differently even when starting with the same savestate.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

What's the point of discouraging reloading? It's not like save scummers hurt anyone.
Discouraging developers from making games that require SFLing to enjoy is much more important.

 

[Excommunicator]

The point of this is a discussion on theoretical game designs. That is interesting and entertaining in itself.

In practical terms, if we put the discouraging of reloading into the context of the current nature of games and to the current mindset of the gamer, doing so is a negative thing, this is generally true. To succeed at it, the game needs to change the thinking approach of the gamers to have them see save&load as something meta and nonsense in terms of the continuity of the game, rather than a considered, expected part of the game that they will most likely have to use to get anywhere.

I use save&load a lot in many games. I have many reasons and I have never felt like I am "taking advantage" by doing so. Most games are utterly tedious and unpleasant for me if I try to appreciate the continuity of the game and refrain from using it to succeed. My personal belief in its established importance is through the way designers define "challenge" through repetition, grunt work and attention to minuscule boring detail (DA is the ultimate example of this IMO), but that is a whole other discussion

As I mentioned, the real problem lies in the fact that reloading for most games is an essential and required part of the game. It has become expected for a gamer to need to try something and reload and to eventually succeed through reloaded attempts, because the difficulty is typically balanced with this behaviour in mind. That is the foundation problem, and it comes from designers thinking "I will just add this little instant death moment to this section to make it that extra bit more difficult so that players will not be able to cruise through here". This is absolute ignorance and amateurism, of course.

If game designs had not taken the path of embracing reloading as an expected part of the experience then, while also alienating short attention-span gamers (most), we would also have a number of different game styles already based around save-reload mechanisms. That in itself would change the expectation, which in turn would change the way people receive the mechanic, and eventually alter the nature of their enjoyment.

In essence: there is nothing at all wrong with a save&load discouragement element so long as the game is built from the ground up with this in mind. Not half-arsed schadenfreude on the part of the designers, as that is as stupid as taking into consideration (and making compulsory) numerous save&loads when balancing the game.



For those coming in and questioning the motivations of such a discussion, the reason why it seems like such a bad idea from first glance is because people continually look at it in isolation (as seen in this thread). They see people trying to discourage loading and simply assume "but loading is something good that I want, therefore a system to discourage it must be bad".

The discussions are not based around discouraging the proper use of save&load. They are trying to weed out the save&load convention as an accepted game strategy, and rightly so.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I believe that correct solution to the problem is: stop making/buying shit games and start playing good games instead.
Try good short cRPGs with non-linearity, roguelikes, arcade games, simulations, wargames, etc.
There are tons of good games that don't require SFLing to enjoy them.

SFLing comes mostly from games attempting to emulate movies/books (storyfag games) instead of offering diverse gameplay (wargames, simulations, roguelikes, Fallout) or completely skill-based like arcades.

As for other people SFLing, if someone has a compulsion of keeping soldiers in let's say X-Com alive despite that he can do without them, it's his problem, not mine and any coding done to stop him other than implementing a pure ironman game is a waste of programmers time that could be devoted to something useful.

 

[Excommunicator]

You lack an understanding of the purpose of the Codex Workshop and your contribution to this discussion is exactly zero.

Go sit in the fucking corner and think about how in the future you can become a better poster.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

The purpose of the Codex Workshop is to discuss ideas for mechanics and stuff like that. It includes opposition to ideas.

But since you insist on me giving some ideas how to make that stuff work, here's an obvious one - register how many times the player reloads. And then give the NPCs an ability to reload game as many times as the player does. So, for example, a boss would start reloading game when he loses.

 

[lisac2k]

I just remembered how save/reload was done in Severance: Blade of Darkness. Namely, if player reloads frequently, his reputation (clearly stated in the load/save menu) becomes worse. A few saves/loads per level bring you the heroic reputation, while frequent reloading in a single level may lead your reputation towards the infamous "chicken" label.

Although this had no any concrete effect on game mechanics/gameplay in that particular game, I would dare to think of it as a mean of setting player's reputation towards NPCs in a cRPG. The more player reloads, the less of a hero/ine he/she is, which could affect anything related to NPC reactions. Of course, this shouldn't lead to situations where player would get stuck during his journeys, but rather make the whole role-playing experience "poorer" to an extent. Additional dialogue options, endings, side-quests, trader's supply - all of it could be affected.

Metagamers wouldn't know to appreciate it anyway - such approach should aim at versed (c)RPG players only. Additionally, the gameplay in general (basic design, game mechanics, setting etc.) would need to be adjusted finely and possess a certain dose of subtlety, in order to fall into place with the aforementioned concept.

The only drawback here is development of such a feature. As always, corporations are not interested in it, while indies don't have enough resources to cover it up. The thread author pointed out that this is just a discussion on theorethical game designs, ergo the concept should fit the discussion's purpose.

I have been drinking red wine tonight.

 

[DraQ]

What's the point of discouraging reloading? It's not like save scummers hurt anyone.

Fast travel argument again?

They hurt themselves which wouldn't be a problem was it not for the fact that it's nigh impossible to avoid save scumming in modern ('90s onwards) games, and that save save scumming can be so insidiously stealthy when forcing itself into gamer's life.

any coding done to stop him other than implementing a pure ironman game is a waste of programmers time that could be devoted to something useful.

What's the point of coding pure ironman? You can always just delete your saves instead of reloading if you die.


/\
||
Look guise, imma herpaderping Awor Szurkrarz style!!!!1

The purpose of the Codex Workshop is to discuss ideas for mechanics and stuff like that. It includes opposition to ideas.

But since you insist on me giving some ideas how to make that stuff work, here's an obvious one - register how many times the player reloads. And then give the NPCs an ability to reload game as many times as the player does. So, for example, a boss would start reloading game when he loses.

That's wonderfully tongue-in-cheek and perverse, but also a bit conspicuous. I don't think the right way to fight meta is to slam player in the face with equivalent amount of meta of your own, in spite of it being amusingly ironic.

As I mentioned, the real problem lies in the fact that reloading for most games is an essential and required part of the game. It has become expected for a gamer to need to try something and reload and to eventually succeed through reloaded attempts, because the difficulty is typically balanced with this behaviour in mind. That is the foundation problem, and it comes from designers thinking "I will just add this little instant death moment to this section to make it that extra bit more difficult so that players will not be able to cruise through here". This is absolute ignorance and amateurism, of course.

Of course. Learn-by-dying is among the shitiest design ideas possible, up there with oblivious take on level scaling. The game should employ multitude of cues alerting careful player of possible dangers as well as multitude of nonlethal punishments. Unless, the game is PST or Soul Reaver - then it's free to kill the player as underhandedly as it wants.

For those coming in and questioning the motivations of such a discussion, the reason why it seems like such a bad idea from first glance is because people continually look at it in isolation (as seen in this thread). They see people trying to discourage loading and simply assume "but loading is something good that I want, therefore a system to discourage it must be bad".

The discussions are not based around discouraging the proper use of save&load. They are trying to weed out the save&load convention as an accepted game strategy, and rightly so.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

What's the point of discouraging reloading? It's not like save scummers hurt anyone.

Fast travel argument again?

They hurt themselves which wouldn't be a problem was it not for the fact that it's nigh impossible to avoid save scumming in modern ('90s onwards) games, and that save save scumming can be so insidiously stealthy when forcing itself into gamer's life.

So, one game with stuff changing after reload would suddenly fix everything?

any coding done to stop him other than implementing a pure ironman game is a waste of programmers time that could be devoted to something useful.

What's the point of coding pure ironman? You can always just delete your saves instead of reloading if you die.

Deleting a save requires much less work than changing stuff within the game world so that reloaders would be inconvenienced.
Also, what's the point of coding pure iron man mode outside games that have a high score/leave character file/reward player with higher exp for playing iron man ?

 

[7hm]

Just implement an Ironman difficulty level of some sort, permadeath and the like.

Permadeath as an extra mode in a game that isn't balanced for it is stupid.

You either go that way 100% or you don't go that way at all (people who want to play ironman in a game not designed for it can do that all on their own).

Permadeath in two situations:

1) mostly random levels / encounters (roguelike elements)

2) party based games where characters can die while the party lives on

I really like the idea of punishing people for save scumming. The downside is of course that you limit your potential audience by implementing mechanics like this.

 

[DraQ]

So, one game with stuff changing after reload would suddenly fix everything?

My, why so dense all of the sudden? I know it's weekend and all, but even then you're surely capable of a bit more intellectual activity, aren't you?

First, it's Workshop, a place for theoretical design discussions, and at least I try to come up with a solution that could be applied with as little assumption regarding the plot setting and overall mechanics as possible.

Second, regarding stuff changing while reloading, it'd really help if you tried reading what I have already posted. I know it's teh hard, but surely not a completely daunting task?

any coding done to stop him other than implementing a pure ironman game is a waste of programmers time that could be devoted to something useful.

What's the point of coding pure ironman? You can always just delete your saves instead of reloading if you die.

Deleting a save requires much less work than changing stuff within the game world so that reloaders would be inconvenienced.

Most stuff you do when making a game requires work. Most stuff, except for things like bare-bones engine work is arguably something the game could do without. The problem is that most of the game is composed of such little things and together they make or break game. Removing them is what is known as streamlining - apply it consequently and you end up with oblivious. In the end, what matter is the distinction between stuff that is cosmetic or as I call them "orphaned features", and stuff that is integral to the experience. Something that drastically changes the metagame dynamics and forces player to alter their approach is definitely not a cosmetic thing.

And don't get me started on "it's optional" train of thought. If you pursue it long enough, you will come to a conclusion that implementing death condition for the PC is optional, as given some sort of HP indicator, player can ragequit/reload on his own if it hits zero.

Just implement an Ironman difficulty level of some sort, permadeath and the like.

Permadeath as an extra mode in a game that isn't balanced for it is stupid.

Well, not really, but it doesn't really work as anything else than extra for enhancing the replay value.

Edit:

I started writing this post during the weekend, but had to stop, then noticed it and finished it today, in case anyone wondered.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

any coding done to stop him other than implementing a pure ironman game is a waste of programmers time that could be devoted to something useful.

What's the point of coding pure ironman? You can always just delete your saves instead of reloading if you die.

Deleting a save requires much less work than changing stuff within the game world so that reloaders would be inconvenienced.

Most stuff you do when making a game requires work. Most stuff, except for things like bare-bones engine work is arguably something the game could do without. The problem is that most of the game is composed of such little things and together they make or break game. Removing them is what is known as streamlining - apply it consequently and you end up with oblivious. In the end, what matter is the distinction between stuff that is cosmetic or as I call them "orphaned features", and stuff that is integral to the experience. Something that drastically changes the metagame dynamics and forces player to alter their approach is definitely not a cosmetic thing.

Nice strawman. Except that you're talking about implementing and testing a new feature while there are other, more important features that need to be implemented and usually there isn't enough time to implement them correctly.

You really should stop playing shit games, because you're starting to waste your time on developing solutions to non-problems instead of thinking how to make good games.

And don't get me started on "it's optional" train of thought. If you pursue it long enough, you will come to a conclusion that implementing death condition for the PC is optional, as given some sort of HP indicator, player can ragequit/reload on his own if it hits zero.

 

[Shemar]

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.

 

[DraQ]

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.