Kovitlac on 16/4/2013 at 17:49
Quote Posted by Renzatic
You need to play Dark Souls. You'll never say games these days are dumbed down and easy these days ever again.
Or Bioshock, particularly on 1999 Mode. I'm dreading it... Hard is bad enough!
Springheel on 16/4/2013 at 18:25
Quote Posted by Judith
Ok, so your mistake was that you didn't check it, my mistake was an assumption that you did it on purpose, I think we can agree on that :)
Fair enough. :)
Quote:
What is more important is what I've been repeating for quite some time now: the systems that enable you to play games for as short as 15 minute sessions are already in place,
Well actually, I don't quite understand the thinking there. The ability to play in short 15 minute sessions has been around ever since the ability to save and load games. If people don't have a lot of time to play, and want to play in short bursts, why would you _take away_ the ability to manually save when you want, as you suggested is common now? Wouldn't you want to allow them to save as frequently as they need to?
Quote:
And, AAA titles have enormous production costs and have to reach the broader audience to make a profit, just like the Hollywood movies. Of course, that can go to some ridiculous extent, like SE or EA saying that a game selling in 3-4 M units is not successful enough and it will be scrapped. Still until Thief has a reboot as an indie game, we can expect similar approach.
This might add to a trend towards making games less frustrating. There are at least two ways of looking at games--as challenges to "beat" or "win", or as an entertainment "experience" to enjoy. It's hard to do both well. If you pump up the challenge, people will experience more frustration, which is not enjoyable in the short term. If you pump up the "experience" then you often wind up railroading players into pre-scripted scenes and "jolts" of excitement...the fast food of the game industry, if you will.
I suspect that sophisticated "challenge games" require more investment of time. If you've only got 15 minutes here and there, you're not going to take on something difficult, that might provide only frustration in the short term, even though the ultimate result--beating the challenge--might be worth more in the long run.
Judith on 16/4/2013 at 19:44
Quote:
Well actually, I don't quite understand the thinking there. The ability to play in short 15 minute sessions has been around ever since the ability to save and load games. If people don't have a lot of time to play, and want to play in short bursts, why would you _take away_ the ability to manually save when you want, as you suggested is common now? Wouldn't you want to allow them to save as frequently as they need to?
That's actually a bit more complicated matter, the history of save/load function in an interesting subject itself. At first games were short and there was no need for it, then we got longer titles, so it served as a "bookmark", but soon it became a meta-game tool for the players e.g. to explore other possibilities, avoid negative consequences of their actions etc. Also, at some point game designers realised that this is a tool for them to control the game experience i.e. lack of saves may teach the player to face the consequences of his errors, or teach that failure is also a stage in one's efforts to master something. Carefully placed checkpoints limit your options to some extent, but also prevent compulsive saving/loading that draws players' focus from the game. In general, it gives the designers more control over how their game is played. If you need more in-depth view, google a lecture called "How to help your players stop saving all the time" by Randy Smith :)
Aja on 16/4/2013 at 23:51
Quote Posted by henke
PREGANT? DONT U MEAN PRAGNENT
Yeah, exactly!:mad:
thiefessa on 19/4/2013 at 23:51
I just want to save when I choose to. I expect the system will remain the same.
Lady Rowena on 20/4/2013 at 02:09
Quote Posted by Judith
Also, at some point game designers realised that this is a tool for them to control the game experience i.e. lack of saves may teach the player to face the consequences of his errors, or teach that failure is also a stage in one's efforts to master something. Carefully placed checkpoints limit your options to some extent, but also prevent compulsive saving/loading that draws players' focus from the game.
But, at the same time, they give us ridiculous regenerating health, regenerating chambers, and so on. As if "just dying" was too distressful for modern players. It's quite self-contradictory IMHO.
Quote Posted by thiefessa
I just want to save when I choose to. I expect the system will remain the same.
Same here. To be honest, I will not play play it at all if there are not free saves. Besides, what would be the criteria about placing checkpoints in a Thief game? It's not a linear game, at least it shouldn't be, I think that everyone agrees on this. So please give us the freedom to play it the way we like, each one at his/her own pace. Please....:erm:
Renzatic on 20/4/2013 at 06:16
Quote Posted by Lady Rowena
But, at the same time, they give us ridiculous regenerating health, regenerating chambers, and so on. As if "just dying" was too distressful for modern players. It's quite self-contradictory IMHO.
Actually, there is a big push about not taking players out of the game these days. This is a good idea to a point, because having to open up the menu, find your most recent save, then reload isn't exactly a very fun experience, and a false sense of punishment. But sometimes developers take it a little too far. A'la Bioshock's vita chambers and similar cheesy gameplay features.
Quote:
To be honest, I will not play play it at all if there are not free saves.
This is another thing I don't like. Free saves leads to save spamming, which greatly lessens the risk of a game. If you're about to do something crazy, you hit F4, then try it over and over and over again until you get it right.
If I ever made a game, I'd taking player enforced saving out entirely. Well placed checkpoints, as in not so far apart you lose an hour of progress if you die, and not so close it's just another form of save spamming, and saving on exit are far preferable to me.
Renault on 20/4/2013 at 07:24
Checkpoints are for boring, linear shooters, and they're just a sign of the times, making games oversimplified for ADD gamers. Any game with any degree of freedom, such as an open world, or just a game with large levels and multiple routes, should have a manual save system. Don't take away the player's freedom to do what they want - any game that does this is just trying to keep you on a single track. And don't tell me hitting one key like F5 (Quicksave) is such an immersion breaker, that's BS. What ever happened to being able to experiment and try different solutions to various scenarios in the game? Or what if you have to walk out the door in an instant and you don't have time to reach the next checkpoint (not that you'd likely know where it is anyway)? Checkpoint systems are just way too limiting.
Picture Thief with save points, and tell me where you would put them for levels like Sabotage at Soulforge, Return to the Cathedral, or First City Bank and Trust. Not exactly a pretty picture, and not very convenient. Same goes for any of the Stalker games, or even Fallout 3/New Vegas (entering buildings being the exception).
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Actually, there is a big push about not taking players out of the game these days. This is a good idea to a point, because having to open up the menu, find your most recent save, then reload isn't exactly a very fun experience, and a false sense of punishment.
I don't get this argument - if you die in a game, whether it has checkpoints or a manual save system, wouldn't you still need to reload from a menu either way?
SubJeff on 20/4/2013 at 09:05
Quote Posted by Brethren
Checkpoints are for boring, linear shooters, and they're just a sign of the times, making games oversimplified for ADD gamers.
Really? How so?
