Saving and reloading

[Piccolo]

I see saving and reloading as a necessary evil on my first playthrough, as I want the game to be challenging, and I want there to be a constant threat of death. It's not ideal, but it's better than the alternative - making the game so easy that your character(s) never really face the possibility of failure or death.

 

I do try and limit my saves though so i'm not saving constantly before every encounter - even if it means going back quite a way. And once i'm familiar with the game, I like to play by dead is dead rules.

[teknoman2]

the point of battles is to offer you a chalenge in order to be able to overcome them. of course making a battle too easy is meaningless as is making it too hard. the battles (especially vs special enemies or bosses) should require you to use all the tricks in the book to get past them, and if you cant come up with a solid plan you lose. but no enemies that just cant die like the demi liches of BG2 that could be hurt only by the slayer form.

a good example of a hard fight that if played right you could win in one go, but if played wrong was just impossible is the last fight with irenicus in BG2. you know you go up against an all powerful wizard, so you can prepare yourself accordingly. if you make the wrong preparations or fail to use your spells and skills right durring the fight you just cant win, but if you do it right its almost as easy as beating goblins

[Radres]

Reloading is never fun. Why would anyone like it ? What fun is,is the type of combat that challenges your wit. If you can't overcome a situation even if you reloaded a few times and changed your approach then this could be a hint for a bad game design. I don't want that.

[Kevin Lynch]

I despise reloading and retrying combat situations after death. It's dull and needlessly repetitive and there have been times that I've put a game away and had to come back to it later due to the difficulty of particular battles. No developer would want people to give up on their game, even temporarily, so they should strive to ensure that either 1. the battles aren't so difficult that they require reloads or 2. the difficulty is easily adjustable at any given time so the player has immediate variable control over whether they want to rely on retries until success or not, and not penalize the player (in terms of xp) for that adjustment.

 

The problem with #1 is that difficulty is so subjective that #2 almost needs to be the default, always, for any game. Since it's a single player game, this type of difficulty adjustment should be there from the start for those that want to make the game tougher or easier on the fly.

[Sensuki]

I don't like winning hard encounters the first time, even if I nearly die. Just feels like a push over then

[Elerond]

In my opinion it's bad design if difficulty level is measured by how many times player need to reload. Old games did often go with that design as it was easiest way for the designers as you only needed to plan one way to win encounter. Of course in some games this design works, like in King Quest which made try and die an art form.

 

 

But in my opinion in roleplaying games one should balance game so that it can be played in with ironman -like option without absolute perfect knowledge about the game.

[metiman]

What is your alternative, Elerond? A game so easy that you never have to even worry about dying? If a game is challenging you're going to die. It's that simple. The real mystery to me is not players like me who almost welcome death and subsequent reloads, but the real hardcore players who not only welcome death, but welcome replaying the entire game from the beginning when you do die. I would never, ever finish a game if I played like that. Might be fun once in a while though, depending on the game. Sometimes you just want to replay a certain section of a particular game because it is so good.

[Sensuki]

I guess you either have to be an old old old school player (from the 80s etc) or one of those Speed run / Guinness World Record type people. I'm not saying that's a bad thing either.

 

If I enjoy the game enough then I might do a Trial of Iron run, but not many games are that fun IMO.

 

For instance The Witcher 2's one save mode I wouldn't do that simply because the combat system is terrible to begin with (got better after patches, but it's still yawn, game was still ok though)

Edited October 7, 2012 by Sensuki

[Jandor]

I want to have to reload sometimes, I don't think I had to reload DA:O more than a couple of times on my 1st run, and as far as I recall, I never had to reload on my 2nd run. It was fun, but it was to easy and it would have been more fun if there was a little more challenge to it.

 

On the other hand though, I want to die because I mess up, not because during a loading screen between areas the RNG decides "Lol, orcs ambushed you while you slept and now you're dead!!!!1"

Edited October 7, 2012 by Jandor

[Elerond]

What is your alternative, Elerond? A game so easy that you never have to even worry about dying? If a game is challenging you're going to die. It's that simple. The real mystery to me is not players like me who almost welcome death and subsequent reloads, but the real hardcore players who not only welcome death, but welcome replaying the entire game from the beginning when you do die. I would never, ever finish a game if I played like that. Might be fun once in a while though, depending on the game. Sometimes you just want to replay a certain section of a particular game because it is so good.

 

I don't have definite answer for that. But if you need reload 25 times to get past an encounter then there is in my opinion a design flaw, because I don't think that most of the gameplay time should consist same fight over and over again, especially in rpgs where combat should not be the main point of the game. But of course there should be risk of dying to force player to plan his or her actions in combat and even considere non-combat options. I think that balance is the key, but I don't have enough game design skill to say how to achieve that balance.

[metiman]

Have you played BG2 ToB?

[Sensuki]

Well Expert Mode + Heart of Fury mode should kick my ass to the nine hells without cheesing me.

[Shevek]

What is your alternative, Elerond? A game so easy that you never have to even worry about dying? If a game is challenging you're going to die. It's that simple. The real mystery to me is not players like me who almost welcome death and subsequent reloads, but the real hardcore players who not only welcome death, but welcome replaying the entire game from the beginning when you do die. I would never, ever finish a game if I played like that. Might be fun once in a while though, depending on the game. Sometimes you just want to replay a certain section of a particular game because it is so good.

 

I don't have definite answer for that. But if you need reload 25 times to get past an encounter then there is in my opinion a design flaw, because I don't think that most of the gameplay time should consist same fight over and over again, especially in rpgs where combat should not be the main point of the game. But of course there should be risk of dying to force player to plan his or her actions in combat and even considere non-combat options. I think that balance is the key, but I don't have enough game design skill to say how to achieve that balance.

 

25 times = hyperbole

 

I was just replaying some BG1 last night. I had to reload a few times at a miniboss encounter at the Ice Prison (part of the TotSC xpac). Each time I modified my tactics until something worked. I actually enjoyed the process.

 

I am not a save/load addict by any means. Still, trying an encounter a few times until something works makes victory seem a bit sweeter since its so hard to attain.

[qstoffe]

I'm lazy in that way that I never give more effort in a combat than I have to. Fights get boring to me if I never have to reload because I will start to play more and more "recklessly" as in my combat choices don't really matter so I will "provoke" the game by playing dangerously. In games like Dragon Age it didn't matter. You won almost any fight on normal no matter what you did.

 

If I die in a combat, that's when I start taking it seriously. Replaying such combats is what gives me the greatest joy in RPG games because then I know for sure that my combat choices will really matter in making it through this fight. If I die more times this feeling just gets elevated giving me the feeling that all my choices in the combat are ultra sensitive to the outcome/result. There is a breaking point of course. A point of hopelessness that you can get. When you're beginning to believe that you'll never get through a certain fight. If so, then I temporarily lower the difficulty of the game (if that's possible).

Edited October 7, 2012 by qstoffe

[Elerond]

Have you played BG2 ToB?

 

Yes I have. But for me there was not even one fight that needed more than 5 reloads. So in my books it is ok in this segment.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Elerond

[teknoman2]

I want to have to reload sometimes, I don't think I had to reload DA:O more than a couple of times on my 1st run, and as far as I recall, I never had to reload on my 2nd run. It was fun, but it was to easy and it would have been more fun if there was a little more challenge to it.

 

On the other hand though, I want to die because I mess up, not because during a loading screen between areas the RNG decides "Lol, orcs ambushed you while you slept and now you're dead!!!!1"

the amount of times you fail to win a battle and have to reload is not an indication of anything. the encounter may be unbalanced or you may just suck/rock or you may be trying to get past enemies you are not strong enough to face yet or you are facing enemies that are too weak and so on.

the right thing for me is to have combat that is hard but not impossible. if you play your cards right, you can pass all battles without ever having to reload, but you must really play good, not just charge in and spam some skills and see all enemies fall like flies

[Shevek]

I want to have to reload sometimes, I don't think I had to reload DA:O more than a couple of times on my 1st run, and as far as I recall, I never had to reload on my 2nd run. It was fun, but it was to easy and it would have been more fun if there was a little more challenge to it.

 

On the other hand though, I want to die because I mess up, not because during a loading screen between areas the RNG decides "Lol, orcs ambushed you while you slept and now you're dead!!!!1"

the amount of times you fail to win a battle and have to reload is not an indication of anything. the encounter may be unbalanced or you may just suck/rock or you may be trying to get past enemies you are not strong enough to face yet or you are facing enemies that are too weak and so on.

the right thing for me is to have combat that is hard but not impossible. if you play your cards right, you can pass all battles without ever having to reload, but you must really play good, not just charge in and spam some skills and see all enemies fall like flies

 

That is not the way the IE games worked. There were many variables: poisons, getting mazed, confused, spell protections, stealth failing, etc If you get a series of bad rolls or the enemy gets a series of especially good rolls or both, combat could go either way irrespective of your skill.

[metiman]

I had a lot of trouble with many of the fights in ToB and found myself resorting to using cheesy tactics like the Mordenkainen's sword + bad AI trick. Doesn't work with SCSII of course. That giant fight near the beginning was nearly impossible for me. Great fun, but nearly impossible. And I've never beat Firkraag. Must have tried 60-80 times. Most of the other dragons in BG2 SoA I've beat, including the WK dragon, but not Firkraag. He remains undefeated, and I like that. What a great game that was. I actually think the number of reloads you have to do is a decent metric of whether a particular game and difficulty level is well balanced for you. I'm not sure I've thought of it that way before either. I think it's an interesting point.

Edited October 7, 2012 by metiman

[qstoffe]

...because I don't think that most of the gameplay time should consist same fight over and over again, especially in rpgs where combat should not be the main point of the game.

 

Say what? Maybe not for you but that's one of the most important features of a RPG imo. Choices. Choices in combat as much as in dialog, story and exploring.

Edited October 7, 2012 by qstoffe

[Elerond]

Firkaag can be tricky if you give him even changes, but because BG2's bad AI design you can kill him very easily if you want

 

 

and with right build you don't even need to cheat

 

[metiman]

Were those examples using a fully patched game? I don't remember Firkraag just standing there inside a cloudkill even without SCSII installed. Anyway that silly cloudkill tactic is pure 100% cheese. You may as well just hit ctrl-y if you just want to "defeat" him. I was talking about a 100% fair fight. No fake talk or disabling spells before he has turned hostile. No obvious cheese. Not saying Firkraag is impossible to defeat, but he was for me. I'm not sure I ever went after him above level 13 or so though. I know there were a number of strategies I read about that required high level spells. Using high level spells against him kind of ruins the point for me. To me Firkraag seems like an early game challenge. BTW, I couldn't tell what was going on in the second example. The text was too small for me to read.

[curryinahurry]

You people need to read the actual question and answer before responding in this thread. The question was regarding things that Avellone loved and hated in RPGs that form the basis of PE. His answer is not about fights, its about making decisions less about "winning' and "losing" and more about the exploration process. This thread is pointless in reference to the actual interview. If the OP wants to ask this question in general and have a discussion about it, fine; just don't paint it like Avellone is trying to get rid of difficulty in encounters.

[qstoffe]

If the OP wants to ask this question in general and have a discussion about it, fine; just don't paint it like Avellone is trying to get rid of difficulty in encounters.

 

That wasn't my intention and I'm sorry if it seems that way. I used his statement more like an example.

[Sensuki]

Firkraag undefeated? wat.

 

several breach/pierce magic spells + attack damage is usually how I beat him

 

most casters (and dragons) chain stoneskin / weapon & spell immunity spells, so you just have to keep removing their iterations as fast as possible you can actually do damage.

 

There's always the finger of death attempt too hahah

 

never cast mordenkainen's sword in bg2 myself.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Sensuki

[ogrezilla]

ok I just woke up and this all became a bit of a ramble. the short version is I don't like binary fights where you either know what to do or you die and the only way to learn what to do is to have already died. either make cheap tricks that you can recover from if you avoid them the rest of the fight, or give information beforehand so you can avoid instantly losing. read on if you want

 

it is completely possible for a fight that you can win the first try to be more difficult than a fight where you die 10 times before winning. If a fight includes binary abilities where you will lose if you don't know what to do or go unharmed if you do know what to do and the only way to learn is to go through the fight and memorize what is going to happen, that isn't difficult. That's memorization. That sort of fight is frustrating, but its not difficult. You should have the ability to recover within the fight. Unless the game has given you clues as to what you should expect, you should never lose outright without having a chance to recover. If you get hit by the same avoidable skills several times, then ya that's your fault and you deserve to lose. Petrify one party member without warning; that's fine. You can recover from that.

 

And I'm not saying any fight where you have to reload is poorly designed. I like difficult. But real difficult, not cheap tricks that you simply couldn't have known to avoid. I'm not saying you are advocating cheap tricks either. But using number of reloads as a measure of difficulty does include cheap tricks.

 

scenario: note I am in no way a game designer so this is probably terrible

 

You are exploring a cave occupied by cultists. You find a group of five adventurers turned to stone in the cave. You read their journal and learn that there was actually a 6th member of their group, but he had been complaining of a voice attempting to give him commands. He then left one night having stolen the groups gold and gems, down to the sapphires that lined the writers frost enchanted broadsword. Upon further exploration, you find a burned. There are three sapphires lying next to him.

 

You reach the boss who immediately attempts to turn the party to stone. Terrible design without clues leading up to the fight, but since you knew about the petrified party, you were prepared. He appears to be encased in a shield of fire. He attempts to charm your rogue and then begins hurling fireballs at everything that moves. Occasionally he will attempt to petrify someone so you need to keep your protection up or keep up with removing petrification. This makes it difficult to keep fire protection and charm protection up, so you are forced to prioritize. Either you will be fighting shorthanded, you will have a member of your team fighting against you, or you will simply be getting burned if you aren't careful to avoid the fireballs. His shield badly burns anyone that stands near him. Using frost attacks seems to temporarily disable the shield. Still a difficult fight, but you have a chance to win it from the start because you had some idea of what to expect.

Edited October 7, 2012 by ogrezilla