Discussion: possible alternatives to the saved game

[realmzmaster]

I suppose you mean being able to quit at any moment right? Eventually as said above a constant auto save would guaranty that without much trouble... Now apart branching and cheating, do you see others reasons to have a save command?

I have played games with autosave. The problem is if that save becomes corrupt you have no recourse or backup. You have to start from the beginning or may have to reinstall the game to eliminate the corrupt save file if you cannot find where the saves are kept. I will give you an example the game Temple of Elemental Evil is notorious for corrupting saves that used the autosave function. (Therefore I get punish because the programmer implemented the function incorrectly.) Thankfully the designers Troika had enough sense to include more than one way to save. They allowed the player to use the save anytime and anyplace function.

Also I have yet to see a game that did not need patching because of a game stopping bug that can crash the game to the desktop. If you have constant autosave guess what the save will become corrupt. Also constant autosaving can slow down the performance of the game. With multiple saves you have a back up in case something happens to your current save. Constant autosave requires constant disk access.

[realmzmaster]

Christou,

You also mention cheating. If I am playing a single player game how am I cheating? How I play the game has no affect on anyone else. Who am I cheating?

In a multi-player game my actions can and will affect others. In a single player game it affects no one other than me. If someone wants to re-roll their character until they get 18's in every stat and create the uber character that is their choice. If someone wants to save and reload to their hearts content that is their choice. If someone wants multiple saves to explore branching story lines that is their choice. What you are saying is that the designer should limit my choice. Why?

[Christou]

The biggest problem with that idea is that it would only work well on a really short game, for 95% of players interested. You would have to seriously limit the game's depth, which sort of defeats the purpose of a good RPG. I could almost see that working with EB:1, since it's a relatively short experience. Of course, you then start pushing the game in to the "action/arcade with RPG elements" territory...

Could you develop why only on a short game? And also your last sentence here because from my side I'm thinking pure rpg...


@ RealmZmaster:
Remember for now I'm talking about a concept, that's mean looking for an ideal situation. In such case, the auto save is optimized to write down only the necessary to avoid long disk access and so avoid slow down. Also I guess a security would be need to detect corrupted save etc... But anyway, not really the point at concept level, this is something that must be solved by coders and if it's not possible, then...

About cheating:
I'm agree with your last comment, but again it's a question of design, of what the author of the game wants. Let's say it's like a book, the author write down a story, and whatever happen in it it's his decision. His talent will do a bestseller or not.
So IF the main "rule" of the concept is realism, the author need to determinate how to create this. Now, if the game is full of exploits that breaks completely this main rule, the concept is dead! See what I mean?
Look at EB1, how many people comment about the chests? I mean, that's an obvious problem that need to be solved. It's a clear flaw in the concept. In fact this problem came from the way loot is done but the result is that once a player do it, he will probably do it many, many times.
So even for a solo game, by cheating I mean destroying the concept, in that case realism...

To all, remember it's just an exercise at concept level. Here one must take into account the very personal comments (I like this, I want it to be this way etc...) but then see the big picture. As said by CrazyBernie, no way to design something taking into account every desire of every players.
Perso I'm feed up with the main game industry. I'm past 30, have played many genres during many years and today I almost don't play anymore because I see it all already, see what I mean? Even the best stories in game are hardly comparable to a good book.
The good point of old style is I think that one can concentrate on developing the concept to new highs. In our case, creating a RPG+. A RPG wih more freedom, more possible interaction with the world, perhaps mixing a bit the genres at some points, RPG + a bit of RTS for example, etc... BUT still a RPG at the pure sense of the term, playing a role, not playing always the same wizard/ranger/fighter whatever the game is...

[realmzmaster]

Christou,

What you say or design at the concept level is all well and good. But, concept must eventually hit reality. You can have the best design in the world if the programmers cannot make it work, you have to modify the design. The designer has to work with the programming and artistic teams. The other problem is budget and time. Many games have a superior design, but are let down by the implementation. The main reason for poor implementation is lack of time. The publisher is looking to recoup their investment and get a return on their money. The game gets rush to market. The necessary time was not spent in alpha and beta testing. Examples are Dungeon Lords, Temple of Elemental Evil and a host of others. Concept is great, but the proof is in the implementation.

[Christou]

Christou,

What you say or design at the concept level is all well and good. But, concept must eventually hit reality. You can have the best design in the world if the programmers cannot make it work, you have to modify the design. The designer has to work with the programming and artistic teams. The other problem is budget and time. Many games have a superior design, but are let down by the implementation. The main reason for poor implementation is lack of time. The publisher is looking to recoup their investment and get a return on their money. The game gets rush to market. The necessary time was not spent in alpha and beta testing. Examples are Dungeon Lords, Temple of Elemental Evil and a host of others. Concept is great, but the proof is in the implementation.

I'm conscious of that of course, but if you begin with a good concept you may end with a descent game; begining with a descent concept you may end with a poor game and beginning with a poor concept may end with... whatever! Don't you agree?

I guess it's always good to chat about an ideal product. It cost nothing and may end with interesting ideas that maybe one day could see the light...

Coders if talented do whatever you want. It can be hard of course but potentially you can code whatever you can imagine. Now the problem is to define things well enough to give the the coder enough info to let him do the stuff. Coders (in general) are not good at all when it comes to use imagination. Their job is so based on logic/maths they tend (in fact they MUST) to focus on the code and without a general vision and a good direction things turn badly. I don't know if BW work alone or with a team of coders an artists but I'm sure he can confirm a careful planning well detailed at concept level is necessary.

So yep, you're right. Still if I'm posting it's perhaps not for nothing!

[CrazyBernie]

The biggest problem with that idea is that it would only work well on a really short game, for 95% of players interested. You would have to seriously limit the game's depth, which sort of defeats the purpose of a good RPG. I could almost see that working with EB:1, since it's a relatively short experience. Of course, you then start pushing the game in to the "action/arcade with RPG elements" territory...

Could you develop why only on a short game? And also your last sentence here because from my side I'm thinking pure rpg...

Basically what you're talking about by having a game with many different beginnings is the replayability factor. The general trend with a game that has a high replayability is that the length of the game is shorter. I would assume the reason for this relates to the all the development that has to go into all of the different paths and ensuring that the stories all mesh together properly.

I consider a good "pure" RPG to be very story driven, with good character development... and the longer the better (provided the content is good, that is). Saving the game goes hand-in-hand with that type of game for me. If someone developed a long, in depth RPG and told me that "well, you can't save whenever you want, but you can always start over and get a different game every time," I would either not buy the game, or stop playing after the first run through, even if it was a great game. It would require a monumental amount of patience to be able to play through the same game 10-15 times just to get all of the bits and pieces (not to mention all of the time in the world). Better to have a game that starts the same, has many story branches/endings, and save anytime capability. Then I'd be more likely to check out all of the different branches/endings instead of making 10-15 30+ hour run-throughs.

That is why I mentioned it would only really work with a short lengthed, more action based game... it would be required just to keep the player's attention. There is, however such a game that fits the many starts, no saves, long length picture... it's called World of Warcraft. Indeed, many of the people who play seem to have all the time in the world and far more patience than I can come up with (even though I played it off and on for several years). But WoW is hardly what I would consider a good, pure RPG. It's just a bunch of ideas for addictive gameplay smashed together.

Look at EB1, how many people comment about the chests? I mean, that's an obvious problem that need to be solved. It's a clear flaw in the concept. In fact this problem came from the way loot is done but the result is that once a player do it, he will probably do it many, many times.
So even for a solo game, by cheating I mean destroying the concept, in that case realism...

Blaming the lack of self control on the developer is hardly fair. BW's job is to make a kickass RPG, not babysit everyone and make sure they don't stick their fingers in the wall outlet. That's up there with blaming McDonald's for making you fat, when all you do is sit on your ass all day and eat Big Macs and Large Fries (don't forget the Diet Coke... makes all the difference).

And I've said it before... and I'll keep on saying it. What does "realism" have to do with a "game" set in a "fantasy world"?? I only wish I could "reroll" my lottery ticket every time I didn't win. I'm a chest reroller myself, and I do it to set my own level of gameplay balance. That is, I generally reroll at the beginning of a game to get a decent set of starting gear, and taper off as I get deeper into the game. After all, I play more for the story than anything else... from the aspect of being some sort of hero in a fantasy universe. If BW released a patch for Book I tomorrow that removed the reroll exploit, as well as a major bug, I probably wouldn't patch my game.

If you need a conceptual, story based reason to explain chest rerolls, go read Lewis the Fighter, Episiode Three!!

Perso I'm feed up with the main game industry. I'm past 30, have played many genres during many years and today I almost don't play anymore because I see it all already, see what I mean? Even the best stories in game are hardly comparable to a good book.

I've found that the solution to this is to read more books.

[Christou]

Basically what you're talking about by having a game with many different beginnings is the replayability factor. The general trend with a game that has a high replayability is that the length of the game is shorter. I would assume the reason for this relates to the all the development that has to go into all of the different paths and ensuring that the stories all mesh together properly.

I consider a good "pure" RPG to be very story driven, with good character development... and the longer the better (provided the content is good, that is). Saving the game goes hand-in-hand with that type of game for me. If someone developed a long, in depth RPG and told me that "well, you can't save whenever you want, but you can always start over and get a different game every time," I would either not buy the game, or stop playing after the first run through, even if it was a great game. It would require a monumental amount of patience to be able to play through the same game 10-15 times just to get all of the bits and pieces (not to mention all of the time in the world). Better to have a game that starts the same, has many story branches/endings, and save anytime capability. Then I'd be more likely to check out all of the different branches/endings instead of making 10-15 30+ hour run-throughs.

That is why I mentioned it would only really work with a short lengthed, more action based game... it would be required just to keep the player's attention. There is, however such a game that fits the many starts, no saves, long length picture... it's called World of Warcraft. Indeed, many of the people who play seem to have all the time in the world and far more patience than I can come up with (even though I played it off and on for several years). But WoW is hardly what I would consider a good, pure RPG. It's just a bunch of ideas for addictive gameplay smashed together.

Ok, I have then to detail a bit my idea because I do agree with your points here but I guess you need more info to eventually get my point.
My idea is a game with an enormous replayability potential. Why? just to let you forget it a few years, open it again and find a "fresh game" with a touch of "already known". But that don't mean it would be a diablo like with auto generated random dungeons etc... Nope, a realistic word very well crafted. Upon this world (full of "things" to do) a main plot that first you may not heard about, but a plot you may or may not (want to) discover which will drives you to a final. So as you can imagine, if we talk about freedom, you're character could died from natural cause (age) without following the main plot at all. That should be a possibility, I'm not saying it would be the best possibility, but one between others.
The point of such concept is to give the player the feeling he do have the control; he DO the story, see what I mean? Definitively, the player cannot do the story, but the concept is to create this feeling (or something near). So for this freedom is a key point.
Example of what could happen: Let's say you lose yourself in some parallels secondary plots (some may look like games by themselves), more and more you will hear about the main plot or discover the results of this plot (for example a town you know well, destroyed while you where running after a treasure in a far cave). At this point you may want to follow this plot but half you live already past and you will not be able to do anything at this point. Frustrating isn't it? BUT that is not a problem, the concept need some keys to solve such point and this is just a question of writing down the mechanisms.
So if one should count gameplay time, I have no idea, but clearly it need a LOT.
More: what if you need 2 or 3 characters to eventually end the main plot (over 200 years of game time)? Could be also an interesting concept, no?
Patience for this game? yes, a lot indeed. Can be a huge problem for many players I'm conscious of this. Now the idea is not a game to be done in a few hours, but an entertainment you may use at any time at any pace. Have only 5 minutes? Must be fine! It's also why the saving system to me should be something invisible. You open the game, you close the game. You're character must be there, no need to think about it. The last time you open it was months ago? No problem, you won't have to wonder what save was the last (good) one, etc... just open and continue...

Look at EB1, how many people comment about the chests? I mean, that's an obvious problem that need to be solved. It's a clear flaw in the concept. In fact this problem came from the way loot is done but the result is that once a player do it, he will probably do it many, many times.
So even for a solo game, by cheating I mean destroying the concept, in that case realism...

Blaming the lack of self control on the developer is hardly fair. BW's job is to make a kickass RPG, not babysit everyone and make sure they don't stick their fingers in the wall outlet. That's up there with blaming McDonald's for making you fat, when all you do is sit on your ass all day and eat Big Macs and Large Fries (don't forget the Diet Coke... makes all the difference).

Wait, again I agree, but my problem is beyond the fact of just cheating or else; again it's a question of crafting a unique experience, and for this the author must know what "tools" the player will have to interact with the world. Else the author cannot fine tune the world and story... See what I mean?

And I've said it before... and I'll keep on saying it. What does "realism" have to do with a "game" set in a "fantasy world"?? I only wish I could "reroll" my lottery ticket every time I didn't win. I'm a chest reroller myself, and I do it to set my own level of gameplay balance. That is, I generally reroll at the beginning of a game to get a decent set of starting gear, and taper off as I get deeper into the game. After all, I play more for the story than anything else... from the aspect of being some sort of hero in a fantasy universe. If BW released a patch for Book I tomorrow that removed the reroll exploit, as well as a major bug, I probably wouldn't patch my game.

Come on! You know very well what I mean by realism in classic RPGs D&D based. Anyway, if you really need an explanation on this I could say that realism is what the author decide it to be. Not the player.
Anyway, you describe here precisely what could break down part of a fine crafted story. What if the character need to "fight hard" to find out the first descent or even poor objects to begin with? What if the author want the player at a stage of the story to remember these hard days?

If you need a conceptual, story based reason to explain chest rerolls, go read Lewis the Fighter, Episiode Three!!

Héhé... funny!

Perso I'm feed up with the main game industry. I'm past 30, have played many genres during many years and today I almost don't play anymore because I see it all already, see what I mean? Even the best stories in game are hardly comparable to a good book.

I've found that the solution to this is to read more books.

We completely agree on this one. I don't know how old you are but I guess people of my age still know what is a book. Unfortunately in my experience, people aged 20 and less have some kind of pathologic problem with books... Would be nice if a game could reach the magic of a good book. It's also why I'm looking at old school graphics, perhaps a way to give a place to imagination.

[Christou]

To come back on topic, finally seems to me the problem is not really the save function by itself (whatever it is) but the player's capacity to use a system they are not used to. In a few words, the industry has defined some good/comfortable systems used by default by almost all the games, now the question is: can an indie author take the risk to step out of the norm?

[realmzmaster]

An indie developer could step out of the norm, but he/she must give a compelling reason for potential buyers to step out with him/her. The biggest problem for the developer after designing the game, will be in the implementation of the design. As I stated before great games on paper had been let down by faulty implementation. The proof of a good or great game is in the implementation and execution of the concept and design.

[Dragonlady]

I think I will pop in my 2 coppers worth of opinion here.

I like to be able to save anywhere any time in a game. I get carpal tunnel in my wrists quite often. I also, am a mom and wife. I need to interrupte a game asap at times and having to start all over from the last save at an inn is extremely annoying. Not to mention having to get up to answer the front door, run to bathroom to throw up, etc. I don't care if it is realistic or not. If I want real life I can get off the computer and clean house!

[realmzmaster]

Most Action-Rpgs designers try to alleviate the save problem inherent in their games by putting some type of teleporters in the games. The purpose of the transporters to allow the player to jump from one location to another with out having to kill the same monsters over and over again because they re-spawn. If the game is reloaded the party appears at the last teleporter. But if you are going to play a game like this you have to have a block of time set aside where you know you will not be disturbed or leave the game on pause. With a console game you can probably do this action or if you are the only one using the computer in your household. The vast majority of us do not have that option.

I have a game right now (Demon Stone) that I picked up in the bargain bin. The game goes unplayed, because I did not know it only saved at the end of each chapter. There are ten chapters. It takes a solid block of time to get through each chapter. My mistake for not researching the game better. But even Titan Quest had a better system than this game. The designers of Titan Quest liberally sprinkled re-birth fountains throughout the game and at key points. But these are design considerations.

[CrazyBernie]

Ok, I have then to detail a bit my idea because I do agree with your points here but I guess you need more info to eventually get my point.
My idea is a game with an enormous replayability potential. Why? just to let you forget it a few years, open it again and find a "fresh game" with a touch of "already known". But that don't mean it would be a diablo like with auto generated random dungeons etc... Nope, a realistic word very well crafted. Upon this world (full of "things" to do) a main plot that first you may not heard about, but a plot you may or may not (want to) discover which will drives you to a final. So as you can imagine, if we talk about freedom, you're character could died from natural cause (age) without following the main plot at all. That should be a possibility, I'm not saying it would be the best possibility, but one between others.
The point of such concept is to give the player the feeling he do have the control; he DO the story, see what I mean? Definitively, the player cannot do the story, but the concept is to create this feeling (or something near). So for this freedom is a key point.
Example of what could happen: Let's say you lose yourself in some parallels secondary plots (some may look like games by themselves), more and more you will hear about the main plot or discover the results of this plot (for example a town you know well, destroyed while you where running after a treasure in a far cave). At this point you may want to follow this plot but half you live already past and you will not be able to do anything at this point. Frustrating isn't it? BUT that is not a problem, the concept need some keys to solve such point and this is just a question of writing down the mechanisms.
So if one should count gameplay time, I have no idea, but clearly it need a LOT.
More: what if you need 2 or 3 characters to eventually end the main plot (over 200 years of game time)? Could be also an interesting concept, no?
Patience for this game? yes, a lot indeed. Can be a huge problem for many players I'm conscious of this. Now the idea is not a game to be done in a few hours, but an entertainment you may use at any time at any pace. Have only 5 minutes? Must be fine! It's also why the saving system to me should be something invisible. You open the game, you close the game. You're character must be there, no need to think about it. The last time you open it was months ago? No problem, you won't have to wonder what save was the last (good) one, etc... just open and continue...

Interesting concept, but it would be development hell, and Q&A hell. You're talking about a game with the scope of an MMO or larger... one that would take years of planned development, and who knows how much time of unforseen setbacks. A large software company would be unlikely to partake in such a project because of the horrible investment-to-return, and an indie shop just wouldn't have the manpower to pull it off. Lesser concepts have been strung out for years before getting cancelled.

Wait, again I agree, but my problem is beyond the fact of just cheating or else; again it's a question of crafting a unique experience, and for this the author must know what "tools" the player will have to interact with the world. Else the author cannot fine tune the world and story... See what I mean?

Perfectly agreeable, but again, the author cannot expect to be privy to everything that the player is going to do to that story. It's not the same as reading a book, where everything is static. A car manufacturer can't expect every person who buys one of their vehicles to modify it... but they're not going to take measures to prevent that either. Instead they create performance divisions and sell mods so people will buy from them instead of elsewhere. BW has done pretty much the same thing from a development standpoint. He's not going to patch the chest rolling out of Book I, but in Book II there will be xp/increased loot quality incentives for players to avoid chest rolling. For Eschalon, the loot doesn't really affect the story anyways.

Come on! You know very well what I mean by realism in classic RPGs D&D based. Anyway, if you really need an explanation on this I could say that realism is what the author decide it to be. Not the player.
Anyway, you describe here precisely what could break down part of a fine crafted story. What if the character need to "fight hard" to find out the first descent or even poor objects to begin with? What if the author want the player at a stage of the story to remember these hard days?

But the Player is always the one who voices whether or not the game is realistic. That is the problem. And scripted sqeuences are generally the solution for telling a bit of story when the author wants to convey a certain idea.

We completely agree on this one. I don't know how old you are but I guess people of my age still know what is a book. Unfortunately in my experience, people aged 20 and less have some kind of pathologic problem with books... Would be nice if a game could reach the magic of a good book. It's also why I'm looking at old school graphics, perhaps a way to give a place to imagination.

I'll be 30 in August. The problem with "youngsters" is that there isn't enough encouragement to read on the part of the parents. Between TV, Internet, and Cell Phones... reading has become a chore relegated to schools. And we all know how much kids hate school. Hell, I hated assigned reading in school. But being grounded by my parents often afforded me time to read... and here they thought they were punishing me.

To come back on topic, finally seems to me the problem is not really the save function by itself (whatever it is) but the player's capacity to use a system they are not used to. In a few words, the industry has defined some good/comfortable systems used by default by almost all the games, now the question is: can an indie author take the risk to step out of the norm?

Generally the indie companies are in a better position to try out different systems; they're not bound by development contracts and no one is going to tell them "No!" to taking some chances. However, at the same time, if that different system isn't a success, they stand to take a "bigger hit" from a financial standpoint as they would be less likely to be able to absorb a game that tanks sales-wise.

I think I will pop in my 2 coppers worth of opinion here.

I like to be able to save anywhere any time in a game. I get carpal tunnel in my wrists quite often. I also, am a mom and wife. I need to interrupte a game asap at times and having to start all over from the last save at an inn is extremely annoying. Not to mention having to get up to answer the front door, run to bathroom to throw up, etc. I don't care if it is realistic or not. If I want real life I can get off the computer and clean house!

You mean you don't want to play a game where you decide that your character needs to go to the bathroom, eat, or clean the house??

I have a game right now (Demon Stone) that I picked up in the bargain bin. The game goes unplayed, because I did not know it only saved at the end of each chapter. There are ten chapters. It takes a solid block of time to get through each chapter. My mistake for not researching the game better. But even Titan Quest had a better system than this game. The designers of Titan Quest liberally sprinkled re-birth fountains throughout the game and at key points. But these are design considerations.

For a moment I mistook your game for "Darkstone," a Diablo clone. I believe that was the first 3D D-clone... it was a lot of fun. Whoops!

[realmzmaster]

The problem with "youngsters" is that there isn't enough encouragement to read on the part of the parents.

You are assuming the parents read? Children learn a great deal by example. It is not enough to encourage children to read. Parents must take the lead and be seen reading.

[CrazyBernie]

Good point, although my parents weren't readers. I guess that makes me the rebel. >.<

[Christou]

Interesting concept, but it would be development hell, and Q&A hell. You're talking about a game with the scope of an MMO or larger... one that would take years of planned development, and who knows how much time of unforseen setbacks. A large software company would be unlikely to partake in such a project because of the horrible investment-to-return, and an indie shop just wouldn't have the manpower to pull it off. Lesser concepts have been strung out for years before getting cancelled.

I guess it would be long to develop for sure, but what? Today games with top notch graphical front end take ~3 years of dev and at the final you play it 20 hours and adios...
With an old school style (iso view) I guess an indie studio can spend the same time to dev the story and mechanisms required; but even, if the concept is well planned and tested and if the admin of the project do well his job, the hard part is to write down the world and the story (and mini stories in such case) through a ton of dialogues. That said, once the big lines are defined, it's basically what you do with your fan fictions; so give me, let's say, 4 CrazyBernies and I'm sure it would be doable!

Perfectly agreeable, but again, the author cannot expect to be privy to everything that the player is going to do to that story. It's not the same as reading a book, where everything is static. A car manufacturer can't expect every person who buys one of their vehicles to modify it... but they're not going to take measures to prevent that either. Instead they create performance divisions and sell mods so people will buy from them instead of elsewhere. BW has done pretty much the same thing from a development standpoint. He's not going to patch the chest rolling out of Book I, but in Book II there will be xp/increased loot quality incentives for players to avoid chest rolling. For Eschalon, the loot doesn't really affect the story anyways.

I don't agree; the author do have to *try* to think in all possible actions because even like this he will miss for sure something. It's the why of beta testing. Only BW could say how they missed the chest problem in EB1, but if he do something (whatever) to "correct" this in EB2, it's not for nothing. What I mean is eventually if he knew this would be a serious flaw, he would have done something before release...
To me the author of an RPG is like a DM, he need total control, else he cannot be sure to transmit the right "idea".

But the Player is always the one who voices whether or not the game is realistic. That is the problem. And scripted sqeuences are generally the solution for telling a bit of story when the author wants to convey a certain idea.

Scripted sequences are of course the easy way. In my idea, I'd like one in the opening of the game and one at the final. Between these points, the player will have to decrypt the story in real time. I guess THAT's very hard at concept level. How to be sure the player will find the necessary informations to do the good relations between events and to build the puzzle...
Concerning realism, If the author don't do the job correctly, I wonder how a player could say the game is realistic...