Saving and reloading

[Hypevosa]

COD reinforced Die, learn, repeat in me since enemies sometimes take unseen positions and just 1 hit ya on veteran difficulty. I'd like to avoid that here if possible.

 

I've always been a fan of being able to tinker with difficulty during a game outside of fights for convenience's sake, but at the same time I feel like sometimes the player should just have to return at a later date when they're level for it, ya know?

[moridin84]

The same as tabletop. No reloading.

 

I want a bit of a challenge occasionally, but the game should be perfectly passable without knowledge of things to come,

on first playthrough, without a single reload.

How the hell are Obsidan supposed to calculate that though? Some people play better, some people play worse, some people play drunk.

 

By having plenty of difficulty options, easiest of which will let really, really bad gamers win the fights*. Allowing you to change the settings midway through the game and not making fights where you have to know beforehand something is going to happen, so the next time you try you'll be prepared. When I play drunk & tired and screw up, I'll reload. But I don't want to progress through trial and error and reloads all the way.

 

And allow saving at any time. If for no other reason, then because it's really annoying to lose two hours of gameplay because the game crashed.

 

*I know a few non-gamers who gave up on DA:O on easy, because they just couldn't win the tougher fights.

Now one can go all elitist basement nerd and say they should just get better, but I'm not about to tell people what they should enjoy.

Okay, I guess you were just exaggerating when you said "without a single reload". I probably shouldn't have taken it so literally.

[Jarmo]

I've always been a fan of being able to tinker with difficulty during a game outside of fights for convenience's sake, but at the same time I feel like sometimes the player should just have to return at a later date when they're level for it, ya know?

 

Yea. Just give some indication beforehand or a way to escape.

Ie. I'd like some hints there's a dragon living in the cave over there, if I still go in it's my own fault I get my butt kicked.

[Hypevosa]

no footprints for dragons or the sound of wings flapping as they descend would be sad.

[Nakia]

I don't understand the question. Are you talking about saving before a fight or during a fight? Unless I am playing an IronMan game or something similar I want to be able to save my game. I see a dungeon or cave I save before entering. Saving in the middle of a fight seems cheesy to me and not of any great value but saving before a fight at some point I think should be allowed in normal play. That is one save not multiple saves. When you win the battle you should be able to save again. The world of Windows and Microsoft is a treacherous one.

[Maf]

To keep it short:

I like it when a game hands my ass to me if I decide to do something stupid.

And yes with my ass I mean my death (err... ingame that is ).

Which in turn causes a reload

Now the definition of "something stupid" can be broad, but it will be fine as long as it's near BG2/PS:T's definition.

Think : Messing with Kangaxx, Firkraag, Lothar.

Or even "just" : Sarevok, Melissan, Bodhi, Irenicus.

 

If your party is not tactically advanced enough or leveled enough, you should die.

IMHO

[hideo kuze]

After reading an interview with Chris Avellone I was surprised of his view on saving/reloading in games.

 

I also was disappointed in several computer interface mechanics – the idea of saving and reloading, for example, struck me as pointless and nothing more than an excuse to stop playing the game rather than continuing to have fun.

 

How are your feelings on this when playing RPGs?

 

thread is bad and you should feel bad!

 

 

My interpretation of those words is that you should stop crying like a baby (because you had to use a potion or a NPC died) and instead should continue playing and see what the game has to offer according to your actions.

 

And regarding the combat, I want a strategic combat that relies on logic instead of quick reflexes.

Or whatever they can come up with with RTwP :/

 

Reload count means nothing.

[ogrezilla]

To keep it short:

I like it when a game hands my ass to me if I decide to do something stupid.

And yes with my ass I mean my death (err... ingame that is ).

Which in turn causes a reload

Now the definition of "something stupid" can be broad, but it will be fine as long as it's near BG2/PS:T's definition.

Think : Messing with Kangaxx, Firkraag, Lothar.

Or even "just" : Sarevok, Melissan, Bodhi, Irenicus.

 

If your party is not tactically advanced enough or leveled enough, you should die.

IMHO

the if you do something stupid is the key. ignorant and stupid are not the same thing, so that's where the game needs to be careful. you can't make a stupid decision if you have no information available to you. Now if the information is available to you and you simply didn't find it, then that is on the player and I'm ok with that too. Just things like notes or NPC chit chat. Or the classic dead body out in front of the dragon cave though that is a bit blunt.

Edited October 8, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Tale]

I like to think of myself as oriented towards the narrative. I like games to tell stories. Even combat tells a story. Lord of the Rings would be a little boring if it was only walking and talking.

 

My ideal for normal difficulty is being able to look at an encounter and think "yeah, my guy could overcome that without dying." I'd like to be able to figure out the solution without a walkthrough or trial and error. Especially tough dungeons and bosses should telegraph their difficulty, if at all possible. So that you can tell that it's going to be too difficult for you and come back later with an appropriate strategy before having to reload a save. And non-optional battles, I think games should train the players in how to overcome them. Introduce them to the relevant concepts, make sure they know how to identify weaknesses, give them trial encounters so that they learn the appropriate strategies, then you treat boss battles as the big test of all they've learned.

 

But I'm not hung up on it. I've played lots and lots of games that don't do much of any of that. And I've still really enjoyed them. And if it comes down to a choice between having trial and error and having heavy handed tutorial with on-screen prompts to get what I request, I'd probably prefer the trial and error.

 

Hard difficulty can do whatever it likes. Kill me however many times it likes. Then I'm no longer going for a cohesive story.

[Maf]

the if you do something stupid is the key. ignorant and stupid are not the same thing, so that's where the game needs to be careful. you can't make a stupid decision if you have no information available to you. Now if the information is available to you and you simply didn't find it, then that is on the player and I'm ok with that too. Just things like notes or NPC chit chat. Or the classic dead body out in front of the dragon cave though that is a bit blunt.

Sometimes "stuff" just happens.

In one of my first playthroughs of BG2 I accidently came across The Twisted Rune encounter in the bridge district.

Because I hoard everything, I also hoarded a rogue stone.

 

I was pretty young at the time so there wasn't really anything that could prepare me for what was inside, I just never expected it.

And in retrospect, even if I did suspect something (as you're always on edge) there really wasn't anything I could do.

Did it make me angry?

Not at all , it's one of my most fond memories in fact.

Result? One dead party.

 

Same goes for Kangaxx, first time I played I had no idea what would happen if I combined all the limbs together (clues weren't really something for my 14year oldish eyes).

Obviously I knew something "bad" would happen, but how could you possibly prepare for that?

Did it make me mad?

I LOVED IT, every second of it.

Result? Dead party... multiple times

 

Don't understand why people mind reloading (dying).

Though maybe they should implement an easy/whimpy mode where you can't die and simply faint and recover in a monastery after a battle...

But I wouldn't touch that mode with a ten-foot pole!

[ogrezilla]

again, I think there is a huge difference between difficult and a cheap trick. The notion that the only alternative to constantly reloading and trying again is easy mode is simply wrong. Being able to win a fight the first try doesn't mean it was easy. Getting killed in a fight 10 times before winning doesn't mean it was difficult.

 

And no offense, but I'm going to classify your decisions as stupid haha naive might be a better word for a 14 year old. I've made my share of stupid choices and you're right, they can be fun. But neither of those really describe what I'm talking about. I have no problem with either. Going somewhere you shouldn't be yet or even summoning something you shouldn't fight yet I don't really mind that much because most likely you've saved and its sort of a funny "that was dumb" moment. Its when you run into fights that you are meant to be fighting and the enemy just pulls some bs instant loss attack with no way of knowing about it that bothers me.

Edited October 8, 2012 by ogrezilla

[qstoffe]

again, I think there is a huge difference between difficult and a cheap trick. The notion that the only alternative to constantly reloading and trying again is easy mode is simply wrong. Being able to win a fight the first try doesn't mean it was easy. Getting killed in a fight 10 times before winning doesn't mean it was difficult.

 

I agree that there is a fine line between "fun" difficulty and "aggravating" difficulty. I usually get angry when I feel the game is using "unfair" or "cheap" techniches against me. Having to reload a few times because I wasn't trying hard enough is just fun for me. It makes me crack my knuckles and really bring out the "big guns" to the fight. If I don't have to reload then I usually get bored in the long run because any extra effort I put into combat just feels excessive and wasted to no use.

 

Completing a game without having to reload at least more than a handfull of times definitely means it was too easy in my book. It meant that I could play the game in a very leisurely and careless way and still be successful. That's not fun for me. Neither is hardcore modes like IronMan. I want both easy and hard combats. Maybe people who can't see the relation between #reloads and difficulty are always giving 100% of their effort in every fight. I don't. That's why I like reloading. It means I have to step up my effort and that is what I think is fun. Once you feel you've reached your ~100% effort level and still aren't successful that's when you should lower the difficulty level imo.

[ogrezilla]

the reason I can't see the relation between reloads and difficulty is because there are too many reasons for a reload other than difficulty. Its simply a bad correlation.

Edited October 8, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Jasede]

If you don't have to constantly reload the game is too easy.

[ogrezilla]

here's an exaggerated example of a horribly designed boss that will cause reloading without actually being difficult.

 

Attempt 1: You start the fight. The boss instantly lets out of fire nova that kills anyone without protect fire on. You didn't know that, so you die.

Attempt 2: You put protect fire on everyone and start the fight. The bosses fire nova doesn't kill you. You continue fighting for a bit and then he lets out a frost nova that instantly kills anyone without frost protection on. You didn't know that, so you die.

Attempt 3: You put protect fire on everyone and start the fight. The bosses fire nova doesn't kill you. You continue fighting while applying frost protection on everyone. The frost nova doesn't kill you. You continue fighting and then the boss petrifies your entire party, so you lose.

Attempt 4: You put protect fire on everyone and start the fight. The bosses fire nova doesn't kill you. You continue fighting while applying frost protection on everyone. The frost nova doesn't kill you. You continue fighting while applying petrify protection so nobody gets petrified. You go on to kill him.

 

That is not a difficult fight despite getting killing three times. Its actually very easy. Its just memorization. I'm not saying anyone here is suggesting that's how fights should be. I'm just using it as an example of why counting reloads is a bad way to measure difficulty.

Edited October 8, 2012 by ogrezilla

[AGX-17]

I agree with him in that saving and reloading constantly is just a pain. At the same time, having any sort of checkpoint system that is visible is also an issue - I've played a few games where they'll save right before big fights and it was a dead giveaway and ruined much of the surprise. If we could somehow keep a checkpoint system of that sort in the background, so saving constantly and reloading constantly wasn't necessary but automated, I'd like that.

 

The Borderlands 2 checkpoint system is interesting. It autosaves constantly (I don't know the inner workings of the system, but even if you crash or ctrl+alt+del, when you load you'll be in the same state you were in prior to the crash or loss in battle, which prevents save-scumming altogether.) The penalty is the loss of money (fees charged for commercial resurrection services,) often geographic progress, and if you were fighting a boss, the boss goes back up to full health. If the fight was too hard or you didn't have the right gear, the constantly respawning chests and shop inventories provide opportunities to improve your situation. Of course, the Borderlands games are designed with the intention that players should complete every sidequest in order to be properly levelled and outfitted for the next stage of story progression. I don't know that sort of scheme would work in an IE-style setting, but it is something to consider.

Edited October 8, 2012 by AGX-17

[IcyDeadPeople]

The poll question seems strange to me. I find it hard to believe anyone likes to reload---players like to be challenged up to the point of their mastery, which symptomatically may require reloads if the difficulty mode is set higher than their current know-how. But ultimately, the point of combat fun is to not require the reload, right?

 

Personally I tend to find combat encounters boring unless I'm dying and reloading lots of times.

[Maf]

again, I think there is a huge difference between difficult and a cheap trick. The notion that the only alternative to constantly reloading and trying again is easy mode is simply wrong. Being able to win a fight the first try doesn't mean it was easy. Getting killed in a fight 10 times before winning doesn't mean it was difficult.

 

And no offense, but I'm going to classify your decisions as stupid haha naive might be a better word for a 14 year old. I've made my share of stupid choices and you're right, they can be fun. But neither of those really describe what I'm talking about. I have no problem with either. Going somewhere you shouldn't be yet or even summoning something you shouldn't fight yet I don't really mind that much because most likely you've saved and its sort of a funny "that was dumb" moment. Its when you run into fights that you are meant to be fighting and the enemy just pulls some bs instant loss attack with no way of knowing about it that bothers me.

None taken!

I guess I like to explore how big the world is even straight from the beginning.

If that means I'll burn my fingers on some hot enemies, that's fine with me.

I like the freedom.

As I sidenote, I wouldn't have done it any other way now that I'm 29

 

If you like streamlined gameplay more, that's ok too!

 

If you wish to discuss purely save/reload related functions, I can add a remark about that as well.

My greatest annoyance with save/load systems is "losing time".

The less I lose time, the better.

Of course I should be punished for dying, so losing some time is ok.

 

I think this "annoyance" is the same for everyone.

Some people don't want to waste time on fruitless attempts on bosses where each insta death spell creates a reload situation.

Others hate losing time where you accidently meet a death situation (trap etc) and you are suddenly forced in the position of loading a savegame which was saved 30 minutes earlier.

It all comes down to time for me.

 

I'll leave this one (as with XP question) up to Obsidian.

If change is deemed necessary, I'll judge it when I see it!

[liongoldstar]

here's an exaggerated example of a horribly designed boss that will cause reloading without actually being difficult.

 

Attempt 1: You start the fight. The boss instantly lets out of fire nova that kills anyone without protect fire on. You didn't know that, so you die.

Attempt 2: You put protect fire on everyone and start the fight. The bosses fire nova doesn't kill you. You continue fighting for a bit and then he lets out a frost nova that instantly kills anyone without frost protection on. You didn't know that, so you die.

Attempt 3: You put protect fire on everyone and start the fight. The bosses fire nova doesn't kill you. You continue fighting while applying frost protection on everyone. The frost nova doesn't kill you. You continue fighting and then the boss petrifies your entire party, so you lose.

Attempt 4: You put protect fire on everyone and start the fight. The bosses fire nova doesn't kill you. You continue fighting while applying frost protection on everyone. The frost nova doesn't kill you. You continue fighting while applying petrify protection so nobody gets petrified. You go on to kill him.

 

That is not a difficult fight despite getting killing three times. Its actually very easy. Its just memorization. I'm not saying anyone here is suggesting that's how fights should be. I'm just using it as an example of why counting reloads is a bad way to measure difficulty.

 

Yes, you could argue that counting reloads in combat is instead a measurement of diffulty level combined with bad game design if you like.

Since the actual game, PE, are developed by pros, it would be safe to ignore the bad design part.

 

And it's kinda obvious the poll creator are talking about the number of reloads you need to do because you play bad.

 

If you don't like reloading, go watch a movie... Or even better, go play Dragon Age.

[jivex5k]

 

Yes, you could argue that counting reloads in combat is instead a measurement of diffulty level combined with bad game design if you like.

Since the actual game, PE, are developed by pros, it would be safe to ignore the bad design part.

 

And it's kinda obvious the poll creator are talking about the number of reloads you need to do because you play bad.

 

If you don't like reloading, go watch a movie... Or even better, go play Dragon Age.

What dragon age did you play? Surely, not the first one.

 

Back on topic though:

I think ogrezilla got it right. Reloading to memorize a set pattern an enemy will follow isn't very challenging or rewarding.

Reloading to attempt a different strategy, now that's what I'm talking about!

[ogrezilla]

double post

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Ieo]

This cuts both ways. If you LIKE reloading, then check all the options under the three difficulty modes except Iron-whatever and be done with it.

 

The few players on this forum have no real business telling Obsidian how to decide balancing the default "normal" mode for the majority of players, whoever we/they are, because there are too many extremes trying to edge in and Obsidian has a much better handle on "difficulty" at a high level we cannot see.

[ogrezilla]

And it's kinda obvious the poll creator are talking about the number of reloads you need to do because you play bad.

what? is this supposed to argue FOR reloads as a good measure of difficulty? What if I don't plan to play badly? Counting how many times you reload because you play badly is not measuring difficulty, its measuring how often you play badly.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[qstoffe]

This cuts both ways. If you LIKE reloading, then check all the options under the three difficulty modes except Iron-whatever and be done with it.

 

Why not the reverse then? If you don't like reloading just pick the easiest difficulty. Most people wants "normal" to be their level of normal because lets face it; most games do not handle other difficulties besides normal in a very "well designed" manner imo. They are usually just implemented by scaling some basic numbers like health and damage often leading to a frustrating experience because battles haven't really been overlooked and designed on all difficulties.

 

It may be a bit unorthodox but I have always wanted game designers to drop the "named" difficulties like "easy", "normal" and "hard". Instead just giving them a numerical name of maybe 1-4. Then I would also propose that all games should "default" to the highest difficulty only allowing you to turn it down one step at a time once you fail/reload. Alternatively feature a tutorial that would guide you better at picking a suitable difficulty. I've always had major problems knowing what difficulty to pick when first playing a game so I've started to use this strategy.

Edited October 9, 2012 by qstoffe

[ogrezilla]

some sort of test tutorial to help choose difficulty would be a good idea for most games