Save game system...

For all Bard's Tale IV discussion that does not fit elsewhere, suggestions, feedback, etc. No spoilers allowed.

Moderator: Bard Hall Bouncers

Post Reply
_noblesse_oblige_
Master
Posts: 1193
Joined: July 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by _noblesse_oblige_ » October 7th, 2018, 10:09 am

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 8:52 pm
The design could have been to have ONLY the Ironman approach to game play. No baby Save babysteps between challenges allowed. The player has but ONE life to live. Die and start over would be the ONLY choice. How would you like that design approach? (It wouldn't surprise me to hear from several players that they actually prefer playing that way suggesting such a design would be ideal... to them.)
Yep. Not every game has to have this design, but it's nice when some do. Different games can cater to different audiences. Not every game has to have an "easy mode" for wider audience appeal. It's okay for games to be niche. People who don't like them can walk away from them. It's a bit troublesome when people, who could just choose to walk away from such a game, start demanding that all games be made to their preference of having an easy mode available and that anyone who doesn't want that option "lacks self-discipline". The real reason some people don't want that option is because it doesn't allow them to differentiate themselves from others who don't like games which lack that option or can't handle games which lack that option. It's a very natural desire for humans to want to differentiate themselves from one another. I wouldn't even call it elitism - it's just a desire for individual expression and to be a part of something that not everyone can be a part of or is a part of.
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 8:52 pm
The thing of it though is that for players that like and actually want Ironman, they at least can get what they want. All they have to do is have the self-discipline to start a New Game every time they die.
Sure, people can do that. I only ever used a single save slot when playing the BT1 remaster and that includes before entering potentially sticky situations like the fight with the Soul Sucker in the Catacombs (left that encounter with a dead party member, but it was a thrill) or the final battle with Mangar (left that encounter with half my party stoned, but it also was a thrill). So, no lack of self-discipline here. But, I do feel that the game was cheapened because there were plenty of others who completed it using multiple save slots or restoring whenever they didn't like an outcome. (There was an entire discussion thread on Steam, iirc, about people save-scumming the Review Board to get optimal level-up stats.) When someone tells me that they beat the BT1 remaster, I have no way to verify that they did it "hard core" like me and they have no way to verify that I did it like I said. This is to say I don't feel any special association with the others who beat the remaster.
cmibl<enter>

User avatar
CaptainPatch
Grandmaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: March 31st, 2012, 12:38 am
Location: San Rafael, CA
Contact:

Re: Save game system...

Post by CaptainPatch » October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am

Gizmo wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 2:16 am
Why is it that you don't want devs to not even consider tweaking some mechanics that would please players that are not-you?
What makes you think it's about me? I would say the same of any game that had this done to it—even ones that I loathe and would never play. This is an industry-wide negative trend that affects everything yet to come.
This is the part of your argument that bewilders me. Follow this line of logic:

You have a game. The game's Default settings consist of parts A, B, C, D,and E. YOU are satisfied with the Default settings and play the game that way.

HOWEVER, the devs decided that the game would appeal to more people = more sales if they included some Optional settings. So in Options, the player can choose between Aa (Default), Ab, Ac, Ba (Default), Bb, Bc, Ca (Default), Cb, Cc, etc.

So YOU don't change any setting from the Default, and you get the gameplay that you expected and wanted. Some other players who are NOT you instead choose some of the available alternative settings.

HOW DOES THAT alternative settings availability degrade the game or cheapen YOUR gaming experience in any way?

BTW, for clarification sake, "self-discipline" while playing in Ironman approach to the game means to deliberately NOT give in to the temptation of using the Save checkpoints that were available in the Default game design. That is, choosing to NOT use something that is already there. That means that Ironman players can still get what they want simply by choosing to NOT use an available feature.

How would you have felt about the game had Ironman fanatics persuaded the devs to remove all of the Save totems from the game? (And I would imagine that inXile would have made several tens of thousands of fewer sales if they widely advertised that the game would have been Ironman-only gameplay. But some people apparently think that would have been just fine because a business should be satisfied selling to just a niche market.)

It's impossible to make a game more appealing to more people by allowing players to shape the game more to their tastes if the alternative choices are NOT there. And some people seem to think that freedom of choice is something other people should not have. (As long as they get what they already wanted or were willing to accept.)
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3738
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 7th, 2018, 11:49 am

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
Follow this line of logic:

You have a game. The game's Default settings consist of parts A, B, C, D,and E. YOU are satisfied with the Default settings and play the game that way.

HOWEVER, the devs decided that the game would appeal to more people = more sales if they included some Optional settings. So in Options, the player can choose between Aa (Default), Ab, Ac, Ba (Default), Bb, Bc, Ca (Default), Cb, Cc, etc.
In the abstract—because Aa, Ab —//— Cb.Cc etc are undefined... The problems could come of the developer changing the design to work with the new options (whether they are used or not); some of which might cause problems (both expected, or unexpected).

In the game Arcanum, the developers included reatlime/w pause combat mechanics, and turnbased combat mechanics; and not only that, I think you could swap between the modes during combat. This created horrible balance issues, and Arcanum is noted for having very messed up and exploitable combat as a result. (Neither one is polished/exceptional, for the other's existence, and influence on the content.)

I'll mention another game Menzoberranzan, a dungeoncrawler that had optional grid-step (like BT4 will). When the developers designed the maps, they did not always take into account that the player might be using the grid-step option... The game uses free roam by default, and it has obstacle collisions (as you might expect), but some of these actually block the path if the player is in grid-step mode, and there is no distinguishing this from a regular dead-end path. [Presumably] the developers didn't see it in testing, and it shipped like that. I had unknowingly been shut out of one of the early maps (that I know of), and I was near the end of the game when I became permanently trapped in a cave with no apparent exit. At some point I disabled grid-snap (in an absurd thought that I bet anyone can easily guess), and to my astonishment, the decorative cave stalagmites were the culprits keeping my party trapped; they were meant to be stepped around, and this is impossible in grid-step mode.
So YOU don't change any setting from the Default, and you get the gameplay that you expected and wanted. Some other players who are NOT you instead choose some of the available alternative settings.
It's funny, but I am usually the other guy in this example.
HOW DOES THAT alternative settings availability degrade the game or cheapen YOUR gaming experience in any way?
This has been asked —and answered already, and not just by me.
BTW, for clarification sake, "self-discipline" while playing in Ironman approach to the game means to deliberately NOT give in to the temptation of using the Save checkpoints that were available in the Default game design. That is, choosing to NOT use something that is already there. That means that Ironman players can still get what they want simply by choosing to NOT use an available feature.
This we (I bet ALL of us here) already know; and I have answered you on this in my previous post.
How would you have felt about the game had Ironman fanatics persuaded the devs to remove all of the Save totems from the game?
I'd probably be fine with it, but I cannot know until I play the game.

_noblesse_oblige_
Master
Posts: 1193
Joined: July 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by _noblesse_oblige_ » October 7th, 2018, 1:15 pm

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
That means that Ironman players can still get what they want simply by choosing to NOT use an available feature.
Not necessarily. If they want a game that can only be played as an ironman game and the differentiation that comes from playing and beating such a game, then they're not getting that. If there is an unlimited save/restore option, then they can have conversations with people who also "played" the game as video tourists and the ironman players probably won't feel much camaraderie with them. The various players won't be able to share the tales of how they just barely escaped a dungeon, etc... and have the same level of significance and shared experience.

Making games with unlimited save/restore is like giving everyone the option to purchase a diploma from a renowned university without earning it or to show up at the reunion of a special forces team and have all the veterans slap them on the back and treat them like best buddies.
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
(And I would imagine that inXile would have made several tens of thousands of fewer sales if they widely advertised that the game would have been Ironman-only gameplay. But some people apparently think that would have been just fine because a business should be satisfied selling to just a niche market.)
Nothing wrong with a business selling to a niche market. I think of the Dominions (http://www.illwinter.com/dom5/) series, produced by a two-person company in Sweden for almost twenty years, as a great example. Most players will walk away from those games because of the steep learning curve, poor user interface, and extremely detailed mechanics (the manual is almost 400 pages long and that's not counting the separate modding and mapmaking manuals). However, in spite of this, they've stayed in business and kept producing the game and they have 93% positive reviews for their latest game (https://store.steampowered.com/app/7220 ... the_Faith/) on Steam. I've been playing those games on and off since Dominions 3. They're definitely not for everyone but I do actually feel some camaraderie with those others who have taken the time to become proficient at the games.
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
And some people seem to think that freedom of choice is something other people should not have. (As long as they get what they already wanted or were willing to accept.)
I'd like to have more choice of games which don't have the freedom to choose easy mode options. Seems like the people who want unlimited save/restore already have a ton of choices out there. Not sure why that selection needs to be extended even further at the expense of others who don't want it.
cmibl<enter>

User avatar
CaptainPatch
Grandmaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: March 31st, 2012, 12:38 am
Location: San Rafael, CA
Contact:

Re: Save game system...

Post by CaptainPatch » October 7th, 2018, 1:54 pm

Gizmo wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 11:49 am
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
Follow this line of logic:

You have a game. The game's Default settings consist of parts A, B, C, D,and E. YOU are satisfied with the Default settings and play the game that way.

HOWEVER, the devs decided that the game would appeal to more people = more sales if they included some Optional settings. So in Options, the player can choose between Aa (Default), Ab, Ac, Ba (Default), Bb, Bc, Ca (Default), Cb, Cc, etc.
In the abstract—because Aa, Ab —//— Cb.Cc etc are undefined... The problems could come of the developer changing the design to work with the new options (whether they are used or not); some of which might cause problems (both expected, or unexpected).
What you are suggesting here is that ALL devs are incapable of making a balanced Default game design if they also insert alternative game mechanic elements. And the you cite as an example Arcanum -- which I am familiar with and in fact I have a copy of it in the bookcase in front of me -- a game release 17 years ago. And Menzoberranzan, a game with which I am unfamiliar, but was released in 1994, seven years earlier than Arcanum. Are you implying that the devs are incapable of learning from their and others' past mistakes? In 17 years, there have been numerous game engine and programming language changes making designing considerably more flexible. But apparently past mistakes guarantees that there WILL be similar mistakes made in future game designs. Essentially, your argument here is that because devs might make mistakes, that they WILL make mistakes -- and those are intolerable.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 1:15 pm
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
That means that Ironman players can still get what they want simply by choosing to NOT use an available feature.
Not necessarily. If they want a game that can only be played as an ironman game and the differentiation that comes from playing and beating such a game, then they're not getting that. If there is an unlimited save/restore option, then they can have conversations with people who also "played" the game as video tourists and the ironman players probably won't feel much camaraderie with them. The various players won't be able to share the tales of how they just barely escaped a dungeon, etc... and have the same level of significance and shared experience.
This response is at the heart of the elitist argument. Others are not permitted to have access to an easier gameplay because it would diminish your bragging rights for having won at a higher level of Difficulty. On a non-multiplayer competitive game platform.
Making games with unlimited save/restore is like giving everyone the option to purchase a diploma from a renowned university without earning it or to show up at the reunion of a special forces team and have all the veterans slap them on the back and treat them like best buddies.
I hadn't realized we were earning gameplay degrees. InXile failed to mention that in their advertising.
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
(And I would imagine that inXile would have made several tens of thousands of fewer sales if they widely advertised that the game would have been Ironman-only gameplay. But some people apparently think that would have been just fine because a business should be satisfied selling to just a niche market.)
Nothing wrong with a business selling to a niche market. I think of the Dominions (http://www.illwinter.com/dom5/) series, produced by a two-person company in Sweden for almost twenty years, as a great example. Most players will walk away from those games because of the steep learning curve, poor user interface, and extremely detailed mechanics (the manual is almost 400 pages long and that's not counting the separate modding and mapmaking manuals). However, in spite of this, they've stayed in business and kept producing the game and they have 93% positive reviews for their latest game (https://store.steampowered.com/app/7220 ... the_Faith/) on Steam. I've been playing those games on and off since Dominions 3. They're definitely not for everyone but I do actually feel some camaraderie with those others who have taken the time to become proficient at the games.
Most businesses are in business in order to maximize their Profits. Some VERY FEW others are in it as the producers of "labors of love". Art versus crass Commercialism. If the devs in question are NOT in it for the money and to make the most profitable living they can, then, sure, servicing a niche market is just fine and dandy.... for them. But don't assume that because those few "labor of love" artists define the Marketing standard that should apply to ALL game devs. Catering to rather small niche markets is a quick way for a for-Profit business to go out of business.
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
And some people seem to think that freedom of choice is something other people should not have. (As long as they get what they already wanted or were willing to accept.)
I'd like to have more choice of games which don't have the freedom to choose easy mode options. Seems like the people who want unlimited save/restore already have a ton of choices out there. Not sure why that selection needs to be extended even further at the expense of others who don't want it.
The same could be said for people that want limited Options to have their preferences catered to when there are already some games that are giving them the design style they want.

What a shocker! It seems EVERYBODY believes that what they want is what would be best for EVERYONE!
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3738
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 7th, 2018, 3:57 pm

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 1:54 pm
What you are suggesting here is that ALL devs are incapable of making a balanced Default game design if they also insert alternative game mechanic elements.
No, that is entirely your own assumption. ;)

But I'll ask you this: Do you doubt the existence of mutually exclusive options, and/or the inherent compromises that that come of shoehorning two or more of them into one project?
And the you cite as an example Arcanum -- which I am familiar with and in fact I have a copy of it in the bookcase in front of me -- a game release 17 years ago. And Menzoberranzan, a game with which I am unfamiliar, but was released in 1994, seven years earlier than Arcanum. Are you implying...
Of course not, I cited two notable examples (and their consequences) to illustrate the point; and you advocated self discipline to "correct" things—meaning to offload the burden onto the player as if they are weak willed, and the ones truly at fault. Offering that 'At least they can get what they want'... when it was already mentioned why they cannot.

Your point has continually been for an unfiltered 'Yes'. If this is not the case, then please elaborate on that.
Your tactic has been to procedurally 'simplify and mistake' nearly all responses; seemingly in the hope to deride and make them untenable. But you ignore their explained points as insignificant, and go about regurgitating your own. :cry:
( IE. You are not listening to us; you just keep telling us that we are wrong, and then repeating your own arguments again. )
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
That means that Ironman players can still get what they want simply by choosing to NOT use an available feature.
...And I answered before why this is rarely (if ever) the case [in my experience].
—Which you seem to intentionally ignore (because you keep asking the same question).

Lets put it another way: There exists an episode of the Twilight Zone [wonderfully titled, "A Nice Place To Visit"]. It tells the tale of a bank robber who dies while running from the police, and wakes up in what he believes to be the afterlife—in Heaven. The angelic seeming host gives him a house, clothes, gives him money; gives him —anything— he wants... except for the chance to ever lose against his will; (but he was offered the staged option to lose, if he liked). Needless to say the man soon realized the absolute Hell he was trapped in, and the episode ends with his host, Mr. Pip, maniacally laughing at his impending perpetual, and eternal misery.
(It's a great episode; and features an impeccably cast Sebastian Cabot.)

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
What a shocker! It seems EVERYBODY believes that what they want is what would be best for EVERYONE!
I do hope that you are cognizantly including yourself in that broad assert; though I don't agree with you here. I would guess that it is far more likely that others (and myself) here are more concerned about the integrity of the product, than the placation of disparate myriadic fandoms, along with the casually interested. Image
Last edited by Gizmo on October 7th, 2018, 4:43 pm, edited 6 times in total.

_noblesse_oblige_
Master
Posts: 1193
Joined: July 13th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by _noblesse_oblige_ » October 7th, 2018, 4:30 pm

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 1:54 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 1:15 pm
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
That means that Ironman players can still get what they want simply by choosing to NOT use an available feature.
Not necessarily. If they want a game that can only be played as an ironman game and the differentiation that comes from playing and beating such a game, then they're not getting that. If there is an unlimited save/restore option, then they can have conversations with people who also "played" the game as video tourists and the ironman players probably won't feel much camaraderie with them. The various players won't be able to share the tales of how they just barely escaped a dungeon, etc... and have the same level of significance and shared experience.
This response is at the heart of the elitist argument.
I guess "elitist" is a name that people are called when others want to make them seem like bad people. How dare you be "elitist", "exclusionary", "discriminatory", etc...? Again, it is a perfectly natural human desire to look for ways to differentiate and distinguish oneself from others. Not every game has cater to unlimited save/restore video tourists. It's okay to make some games for those who want to go where not everyone can follow, who want to overcome challenges while in danger of losing it all.
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 1:54 pm
Making games with unlimited save/restore is like giving everyone the option to purchase a diploma from a renowned university without earning it or to show up at the reunion of a special forces team and have all the veterans slap them on the back and treat them like best buddies.
I hadn't realized we were earning gameplay degrees. InXile failed to mention that in their advertising.
I hadn't realized that either and I'm not sure where you got that information from. If you were responding to my statement, then it is pretty clearly recognizable as an analogy.
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
Most businesses are in business in order to maximize their Profits. Some VERY FEW others are in it as the producers of "labors of love".
I have no idea what percentages most and VERY FEW correspond to or where you would get such numbers.
Also, maximizing profits is not the same as making sufficient profits. Again, I really don't know how many are truly seeking to maximize profits. If inXile was trying to do so with this game, then they seemed to have failed pretty badly. That's often what happens when one tries to make compromise decisions between disparate sets of audiences. (And, it's something we warned them about during development.)
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
But don't assume that because those few "labor of love" artists define the Marketing standard that should apply to ALL game devs.
I made no such assumption. My point was that those who do cater to niche markets can, in fact, be viable. This is to say that mass market appeal need not be a driver for all game design decisions.
CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
Catering to rather small niche markets is a quick way for a for-Profit business to go out of business.
No idea about the merit of this statement. If you have numbers (and the methodology used to gather such numbers) to back it up, then they would be interesting to look at.

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 10:51 am
What a shocker! It seems EVERYBODY believes that what they want is what would be best for EVERYONE!
Haha. The joys of Internet debate. But, honestly, I'm fine if they put unlimited save/restore in Barrows Deep, because I've written it off for so many other reasons at this point. (I'll only care if the purported Legacy Mode turns out to be something worthwhile.) As it stands now, Barrows Deep is basically a piece of refuse to me - if other people can find entertainment from it, good for them. My arguments have been more against others trying to foist unlimited save/restore on every new game that comes along, just so it caters to their style of play.
cmibl<enter>

User avatar
CaptainPatch
Grandmaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: March 31st, 2012, 12:38 am
Location: San Rafael, CA
Contact:

Re: Save game system...

Post by CaptainPatch » October 7th, 2018, 7:32 pm

I am reminded of why I dropped out of the Wasteland 2 beta after having in there for a couple thousand posts. The endurance of some people to DEMAND that everyone else let them have their narrow version of what would be a "correct" game design. They can (and do) bury those with differing points of view with avalanches of screeds Even when their own words are posted right in front of them, they seem incapable of making a connection between what they said and the conclusions some reader derived from their statements. It's incongruous. On the one hand, you get
Making games with unlimited save/restore is like giving everyone the option to purchase a diploma from a renowned university without earning it or to show up at the reunion of a special forces team and have all the veterans slap them on the back and treat them like best buddies.
I hadn't realized we were earning gameplay degrees. InXile failed to mention that in their advertising.
followed in a subsequent post later by
....If you were responding to my statement, then it is pretty clearly recognizable as an analogy.
Let's not overlook such conversational mechanisms like metaphor, simile, and hyperbole. Maybe with a touch of satire just for some flavor. (But maybe those things are reserved for those people with the "right" opinion on the subject.)

You guys can have this. You ARE incontrovertibly correct in ALL of your assertions and preferences. Pat yourselves on the back; you've once again worn down someone with a differing opinion.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5864
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm

_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 7:20 pm
Except for the people who don't want it to be optional for others to play a game in "easy mode" because it detracts from the reputation of the game and those who are successful at it.
Easily solved. You have achievements to that effect. Though honestly thats not a good reason in my books.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 7:20 pm
If you could choose whether to be graded on any your work in school or whether to be scored on any sporting competition in which you played, I think you would find that a lot of people had less incentive to do well or to compete. There are bragging rights to be had for succeeding at a challenge which applies equally to all competitors without exception.
It's not a multi player game. It's a single player game. Other than an individual's "Reputation" who gives a fig how they play the game.
In the past this was mostly honesty anyway. So many games have hacks/cracks etc that you could never truly "trust" it unless they were in a lab environment anyway.
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 7:20 pm
Not saying that no game should have an "easy mode", but I definitely don't think that all games should have one. As for this Barrows Deep game, I would've certainly preferred if they had simply made save-and-quit and had not also implemented this luck stone stuff as well. Save-and-quit would've help preserved the tension of the original BT game while giving the convenience of quitting at any time. But, since it is not really a BT game, I actually don't care too much at this point. It's on the rubbish heap of history, as far as I'm concerned.
I actually didn't say anything about difficulty, just the save options, which are a separate thing.
Build the difficulty to the level you want. Then add in the save options after.

If a user wants to save scum their way to victory then in a single player game, who cares. Drop an achievement in that recognises when someone saves reloads multiple times and mark them. Most won't care.
If a user wants to Iron Man it to the nth degree, then drop an achievement for that.

It's a single player game, User A's experience is irrelevant to User B.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3738
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 7th, 2018, 11:04 pm

CaptainPatch wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 7:32 pm
I am reminded of why I dropped out of the Wasteland 2 beta after having in there for a couple thousand posts. The endurance of some people to DEMAND that everyone else let them have their narrow version of what would be a "correct" game design. They can (and do) bury those with differing points of view with avalanches of screeds Even when their own words are posted right in front of them, they seem incapable of making a connection between what they said and the conclusions some reader derived from their statements.
Patch, you are doing this very thing to us—for the last few pages—don't you recognize this?
You guys can have this. You ARE incontrovertibly correct in ALL of your assertions and preferences. Pat yourselves on the back; you've once again worn down someone with a differing opinion.
Not good enough. If you believe this then I would like you to prove it (or disprove us)—and not storm off with a [defeated] "Whatever, I'm done with you" defense. If what you say is valid, then you should be able to prove it without ignoring our replies to the contrary.
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
It's a single player game, User A's experience is irrelevant to User B.
User A & User B must play the same scenarios, and they are doubtless made with expectation of save-scumming—because it's possible to do it.

Haven't you ever seen games that limit the loot that can drop from an enemy? Well, when there is no risk, or real chance of the player losing for the attempt... there is nothing to stop them from looting everything on the map—and selling it; except removing the feature. When there is deadly risk for their party, they are more reserved and cautious with their battles; and their wins can cost them more. If they risk a very tough fight, then it should not be treated the same way as for a player who risks nothing on a battle, expecting to just reload if they lose. When they design those encounters, they might not design with attrition in mind, and expect a party to have fully rested (and reloaded each time they were attacked in the night)... where as the other player has a real choice to make in choosing to risk a rest, when they can wake up in the middle of combat against a fresh enemy... and them having not nearly recovered. User A's experience is not irrelevant to User B's.

Oblivion really ticked me off when I discovered that the game scales the rewards to the player's level. I had taken on a very tough location that was intended for higher level PC... and mainly used stealth to avoid fights where the PC was outmatched... and the loot in the chest was a short sword... but had I done that area with a higher level PC, the loot would have been better—and for less risk.
Last edited by Gizmo on October 7th, 2018, 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5864
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 7th, 2018, 11:26 pm

Gizmo wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 11:04 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
It's a single player game, User A's experience is irrelevant to User B.
User A & User B must play the same scenarios, and they are doubtless made with expectation of save-scumming—because it's possible to do it.
And User A's experience is still irrelevant to User B.

If user A save scums, it does not affect User B. If user B Iron mans it, it is irrelevant to User A.

Unless they compare.
At which point User A says, "oh that was Easy",
and User B goes, "nah bro that was hard, did you play with Iron man or free save?",
"Free save", says A
"Ah see, you cheated man" Says B
"Whaaaaaat, no way, save functionality is there so I can save and reload" Says A
"Yeah but that's cheating bro" Says B" You is totally soft and all that shit"
"Are you telling me you played through on Iron man" Says A
"Hells yeah, I'm a wella hard mofo" Says B
"Well shit man, you is the hardest of hard" Says A " I bet you got the achievement and all to prove it"
"You and your mama know it" Says B
"Well I'm gunna go try it on Iron man" Says A
"You won't be able to handle it cause you a pussy" says B
"Man why you gotta be so sexist dude?" Says A
"Whatever you a dick then" Says B

:P
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3738
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Gizmo » October 7th, 2018, 11:36 pm

Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 11:26 pm
Gizmo wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 11:04 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:14 pm
It's a single player game, User A's experience is irrelevant to User B.
User A & User B must play the same scenarios, and they are doubtless made with expectation of save-scumming—because it's possible to do it.
And User A's experience is still irrelevant to User B.

If user A save scums, it does not affect User B. If user B Iron mans it, it is irrelevant to User A.
So you are going to ignore it all then. :(

I was going to mention that this plays out the same in skill checks and NPC conversations, where nothing matters to the player who save-scums their way to the best result regardless of character development—in games that employ percentile skill chances or random events; and the flipside of it is that some devs now design with zero chance, using skill thresholds to eliminate this behavioral exploit. All PCs on a threshold system eventually become perfect at their tasks; infallible. This doesn't happen with a percentile system; and so ALL players (of the game) can lose the option of percentile impartiality for the fix needed to adapt the game to one segment of the playerbase. :(

User A's experience is not irrelevant to User B's, not when they influence new design; or cause retrofits to old design. Krome HAS retrofit their remastered design, as you know.

For the player that accepts their PC's limits, they sometimes succeed, and sometimes fail; averaging more success as their characters improve. But with thresholds (used to reduce or eliminate save-scumming), nothing is uncertain, they either always succeed, or it is impossible for them; the actions are usually not even available to attempt, and that affects the other users too.

User A's experience is not irrelevant to User B's.
________________


Here is one for both of you: Tim Cain has decided to scrap numbers on character sheets—because a [majority?] segment of the players don't understand what they mean... how is that going to not affect the other players?

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5864
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 8th, 2018, 2:49 am

Gizmo wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 11:36 pm
Woolfe wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 11:26 pm
Gizmo wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 11:04 pm
User A & User B must play the same scenarios, and they are doubtless made with expectation of save-scumming—because it's possible to do it.
And User A's experience is still irrelevant to User B.

If user A save scums, it does not affect User B. If user B Iron mans it, it is irrelevant to User A.
So you are going to ignore it all then. :(
I've been ignoring you up until you specifically mentioned me. :D

I am not going down this rabbit hole again. I have made myself abundantly clear on this EVERY TIME it comes up, which it does EVERY SINGLE GAME. Usually several times.

My stance is thus, and will not change based on any of your various weird and wonderful analogies that are quite often totally unrelated to the actual situation.

"Build the game to the difficulty that you want it to be. Add a Save system that is appropriate for the gameplay, then add an Ironman option for the radicals out there."
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Themadcow
Explorer
Posts: 332
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 1:46 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Themadcow » October 8th, 2018, 3:48 am

Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 2:49 am
"Build the game to the difficulty that you want it to be. Add a Save system that is appropriate for the gameplay, then add an Ironman option for the radicals out there."
How is that not similar to what we have with BT4? The issue is whether we feel their choice of save system (totem every 5-10 mins + suspend on exit) is the most appropriate?

No-one has really pushed for ironman, except for as a Legacy option in the Remasters (where Ironman = save at AG). People simply wanted a system that would attach a level of risk to pushing yourself too far into a dungeon. A system that lends itself well to dungeon crawlers. However, BT4's devs decided to create a game without the gameplay systems to compliment this save style, so we're left with a bit of an oddity.

If anyone actually considers BT4's save system to be 'Ironman' then I'd suggest they see the doctor.
~~~ CPC's - Getting in the way of fun gameplay since 1998 ~~~

Wintermute_of_Cof
Novice
Posts: 28
Joined: November 30th, 2015, 5:53 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Wintermute_of_Cof » October 8th, 2018, 4:13 am

Gizmo wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 10:13 pm
the game resets those consequences every three game days
The number of days seems like the sort of thing that would be very easy to put into a setting.

Wintermute_of_Cof
Novice
Posts: 28
Joined: November 30th, 2015, 5:53 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Wintermute_of_Cof » October 8th, 2018, 4:18 am

Gizmo wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 11:04 pm
User A & User B must play the same scenarios, and they are doubtless made with expectation of save-scumming—because it's possible to do it.
Given that, at this point, BT4 is not going to be re-designed, can you explain to me what your objection is to adding save anywhere to BT4? The game will not be re-designed, the scenarios will not be changed, instead save anywhere will be "tacked on" - what is your objection to that?

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5864
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Save game system...

Post by Woolfe » October 8th, 2018, 5:03 am

Themadcow wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 3:48 am
Woolfe wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 2:49 am
"Build the game to the difficulty that you want it to be. Add a Save system that is appropriate for the gameplay, then add an Ironman option for the radicals out there."
How is that not similar to what we have with BT4? The issue is whether we feel their choice of save system (totem every 5-10 mins + suspend on exit) is the most appropriate?
No idea, haven't played yet, just pointing out that the argument for and against the whole free save or ironman or whatever else has been had over and over ad nauseum.
Themadcow wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 3:48 am
No-one has really pushed for ironman, except for as a Legacy option in the Remasters (where Ironman = save at AG). People simply wanted a system that would attach a level of risk to pushing yourself too far into a dungeon. A system that lends itself well to dungeon crawlers. However, BT4's devs decided to create a game without the gameplay systems to compliment this save style, so we're left with a bit of an oddity.
Now that's a problem, but as I said, I haven't played yet.. The game is too large for me to install without uninstalling a bunch of things I can't yet (couple of multi games and a couple of single games)
Themadcow wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 3:48 am
If anyone actually considers BT4's save system to be 'Ironman' then I'd suggest they see the doctor.
:lol: :lol:
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Hawkeye
Novice
Posts: 46
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 4:29 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Hawkeye » October 8th, 2018, 8:41 am

I have read most of the posts in this thread (might have missed or skipped a few overly long ones), and what I feel it comes down to is that one side argues that, if a "save anywhere, anytime" _or_ an "ironman" system is introduced, the game's balance would have to be adjusted for that fact.

Thinking about this, how about this:

The devs have a vision of their game and implement it, including the fitting save system (i.e. the one we have now)
They then implement an option to only be able to save in the Adventurer's Guild and another option to save anywhere, anytime.

They also state in the manual/options screen/wherever:

We have balanced the game for the default save-system. Be aware that changing the save system will significantly change the difficulty of the game.
If you click the "save anywhere, anytime" checkbox, the game will become significantly easier.
If you click the "save in the Adventurer's Guild checkbox, the game will be significantly harder.
Have fun any way you want.

Now granted, implementing different save-systems would require additional dev-time, but other than that, I can't really see a downside to such a system.
Of course I belive in peace - peace through superior firepower

User avatar
Spectralshade
Scholar
Posts: 219
Joined: May 22nd, 2012, 8:58 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by Spectralshade » October 8th, 2018, 10:04 am

I think that you guys are actually agreeing at this point as to how things would be best for barows deep, but keep on arguing for the sake of 'generic assumptions'.

The design of barrows deep as a whole does not fit a 'restricted saves system'. While this does not invalidate the merits such a system can have when the game is designed with it in mind, barrows deep does not seem to have been designed with it in mind and thus suffers from it due to the design of the rest of the game not being something that keeps 'tension' between savepoints, but rather monotonous repetition of nonskill based choices with non-variable outcomes.

At least that's my interpretation of the stuff you guys are saying.

User avatar
rumpelstilskin
Acolyte
Posts: 76
Joined: September 25th, 2014, 9:02 am

Re: Save game system...

Post by rumpelstilskin » October 8th, 2018, 10:30 am

save restrictions is a cheap way to add fake challenge for people who want to feel like they've achieved something, but their only skill is patience and obedience. they agree to repeat unnecessary tasks for no good reason other than to be flogged for making a mistake. if a fight is actually challenging, you are supposed to die in it at least once (otherwise how can you tell it was challenging), and in this case re-doing stuff just to get there serves no purpose. of course, the game gives you checkpoints before the fights that it thinks can be difficult, so it only makes the system even more pointless. the only challenge that could be achieved with limited saving would be something like a carefully designed attrition-based gauntlet with many fights and limited healing options in-between, but the game doesn't have that.
that said, it's currently possible to save by exiting to menu, and that save persists unless you actually die in combat, which is easy to avoid by closing the game before it happens, so it's just awkwardly inconvenient.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest