A New Difficulty Idea: Continues

[Jojobobo]

So we all know that an Ironman mode (or "The Path of Iron"), is going to be in the game - but what about continues? Continues would be a middleman where you could die maybe 1 or 2 times (or more preferably, a number of your choosing) and then your current save would get deleted. This would allow the difficulty to be more tunable, which is in my mind a good thing, and I wouldn't think that it would be much more difficult (if at all) then implementing Ironman mode which they already are doing (with Ironman, you'd simply have zero continues). Plus, whilst not reminiscent of IE games, it would be reminiscent of games on old consoles such as the NES or the Sega Master System, etc.

 

A good idea, or does it stink?

[Hormalakh]

Eh.... honestly, you could put the restrictions down yourself and not reload more than X number of times. Even Ironman I think is a waste of time, but "continues" could be done by self-restriction. It doesn't really add anything to the game.

[Jojobobo]

I can see what you mean, but if they're putting in an Ironman mode to implement this would probably be trivial. Granted in most games without an Ironman mode people play dead is dead anyway, but it is just nicer when the process is automated.

[BBMorti]

So we all know that an Ironman mode (or "The Path of Iron"), is going to be in the game - but what about continues? Continues would be a middleman where you could die maybe 1 or 2 times (or more preferably, a number of your choosing) and then your current save would get deleted. This would allow the difficulty to be more tunable, which is in my mind a good thing, and I wouldn't think that it would be much more difficult (if at all) then implementing Ironman mode which they already are doing (with Ironman, you'd simply have zero continues). Plus, whilst not reminiscent of IE games, it would be reminiscent of games on old consoles such as the NES or the Sega Master System, etc.

 

A good idea, or does it stink?

 

Continues is a remnant of arcade machines to make people put in more quarters, I don't see the point of such a mechanic in this age.

[Nerei]

In an ideal world where there is no restrictions in time or money I would say why not. However with limited time and budget I would definitely prefer resources being dedicated towards making a better core game.

Those features personally give me nothing, I tend to agree with Hormalakh that features like ironman are generally a waste, especially if it turns out as "great" as the ToEE Ironman feature....

[Osvir]

I can see it and I like it. Though like other people have said it's not super important but if resources allow.

 

Thoughts:

* You are knocked unconscious 3 times loosing all your Stamina (throughout the game, not in just one fight but throughout the entire experience). This "unlocks" Mortality mode, and now you could loose all Health as well and die.

 

* Likewise like the one above but harsher, you are knocked unconscious 3 times loosing all your Stamina, you die. This could be seen as "Continues", as you have limited resources as to how many times you can get knocked unconscious.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Osvir

[AGX-17]

Continues aren't a new idea, they're an old one. Originally, they're what you had to pay for (after the initial entry price, of course,) in arcade games, the source of the term "quarter-muncher." Nowadays they're just what you have to never use to get good endings in Touhou games.

Edited November 18, 2012 by AGX-17

[BetrayTheWorld]

I'm normally all for more options, but this one, I think I could do without. I may be incorrect here, but even in "Ironman" mode, if you die, I think you can restore to the beginning of your play session. I think all ironman mode does is disable you being able to save your game except when you quit. Which, really, if that's what it is, it should be renamed inconvenience mode, because all you have to do to override the system is quit the game, restart, and load from your previous save.

 

If, on the other hand, their ironman mode is truly a "die and start over" situation, then that's cool, and it certainly adds a sense of mortality to your decision-making in the game. Even if the latter is the case, I don't think your idea is a bad one, it's just not appealing to me.

[Gurkog]

I'm normally all for more options, but this one, I think I could do without. I may be incorrect here, but even in "Ironman" mode, if you die, I think you can restore to the beginning of your play session. I think all ironman mode does is disable you being able to save your game except when you quit. Which, really, if that's what it is, it should be renamed inconvenience mode, because all you have to do to override the system is quit the game, restart, and load from your previous save.

 

If, on the other hand, their ironman mode is truly a "die and start over" situation, then that's cool, and it certainly adds a sense of mortality to your decision-making in the game. Even if the latter is the case, I don't think your idea is a bad one, it's just not appealing to me.

 

It is one save that is deleted if you die. So, death is game over.

[Dream]

Eh.... honestly, you could put the restrictions down yourself and not reload more than X number of times. Even Ironman I think is a waste of time, but "continues" could be done by self-restriction. It doesn't really add anything to the game.

I don't care about your experience. I care about mine and I don't want to put an arbitrary limitation on myself that the developers either didn't consider or that it wasn't implemented because they were scared that "casual players" would hate it. If they allow me to save at any point, then I'll do so. Then I'll say the game sucked because it was easy.

 

Bro, what?

[Hormalakh]

Eh.... honestly, you could put the restrictions down yourself and not reload more than X number of times. Even Ironman I think is a waste of time, but "continues" could be done by self-restriction. It doesn't really add anything to the game.

I don't care about your experience. I care about mine and I don't want to put an arbitrary limitation on myself that the developers either didn't consider or that it wasn't implemented because they were scared that "casual players" would hate it. If they allow me to save at any point, then I'll do so. Then I'll say the game sucked because it was easy.

 

Bro, what?

 

What did I type? Why was I typing at 5AM. I think what I was trying to say was that Ironman is likely to not work the way it's intended to and thus it's a waste of time.

 

I've also been trying to be a little more honest with myself since that first post. I've always said that I can continue to "self-restrict" but that's never really happened.

 

But haha wow. good catch.

 

Edit: Now that I have re-read the first post I don't think continues woulfd be a bad idea as long as it's easy to implement. I just worry about too much time being spent on these extra-features and not on the game.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Lephys]

^ Everyone rolls a 1 now and again. We're only human.

 

Also, I think Dream rolled a 20. Haha.

[Dream]

^ Everyone rolls a 1 now and again. We're only human.

 

Also, I think Dream rolled a 20. Haha.

 

To be fair someone else gave me the heads up, I only capitalized on the information.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Dream

[Lephys]

To be fair someone else gave me the heads up, I only capitalized on the information.

 

He's in cahoots with the DM! I KNEW IT! o_o

[Osvir]

^In Sweden we have a saying that goes something like:

"The one who said it he is it"

 

Don't want to open this -> ( [Can of Worms]((. ) ... so I won't bother.

[IcyDeadPeople]

It doesn't really add anything to the game.

 

 

I agree. Personally I enjoy games where the combat is very challenging and I save often, die and reload lots of times to get past nearly every encounter with enemies, gradually working out a strategy to get win the battle after dying dozens of times. If I were playing dead is dead, either the combat would necessarily be too easy for my tastes, or I would never make it past the starting area.

 

Games that use checkpoints are usually very linear games that use this feature as a sort of cheat to make the game seem longer, so you have to replay a level if you die, etc. Hard Reset is a great game, for example, but if there were no checkpoints you could probably complete the entire game in 90 minutes. If I'm playing a huge non-linear open world sort of game where I can go anywhere, I want to be able to save anywhere.

Edited November 30, 2012 by IcyDeadPeople

[Jojobobo]

I agree. Personally I enjoy games where the combat is very challenging and I save often, die and reload lots of times to get past nearly every encounter with enemies, gradually working out a strategy to get win the battle after dying dozens of times. If I were playing dead is dead, either the combat would necessarily be too easy for my tastes, or I would never make it past the starting area.

But they are already implementing Ironman mode - or do you realise that and you think the idea of continues is pointless? I wasn't clear on what you meant.

 

On the whole "as long as it doesn't waste resources" argument - I really can't imagine how it would. I mean if they weren't going to have Trial by Iron then it might be a difficulty, but essentially continues would be a very minor tweak - instead of having the single save deleted when the PC dies one time (a value = 1) you can set it so that value equals a higher number (a simple matter of changing the value to = 2 or 3, anything). Trail by Iron would still be a game mode, this would just be a slight variation - unless someone with more experience with these things knows it would be a great deal more involved than this?

 

I guess for me I like very hard difficulty, and I would like to play something like Trail by Iron on my first playthrough - but because Trial by Iron is a one strike and you're out kind of deal I think that would too much even for me. Having 3 strikes and your out (2 continues) would encourage caution and would have a lot of the edge of your seat excitement/nerves of a Trial by Iron mode ("Please don't die, please kill that enemy before he kills you, you're both on similar health - just hold on" followed by the triumphant "YEAH, TAKE THAT!" or the crushing "Oh great, I'm dead, I HATE THIS GAME SO MUCH!") - but it would not be as brutally punishing. I do realise that is the point of a Trial by Iron run, but I would like a slightly easier time of it first time round. Then with later characters once I know what the score is I would play Trial by Iron every time anyway.

 

Plus to me continues are a fun bit of nostalgia - not for IE games but classic arcade style ones.

[Game_Exile]

So we all know that an Ironman mode (or "The Path of Iron"), is going to be in the game - but what about continues? Continues would be a middleman where you could die maybe 1 or 2 times (or more preferably, a number of your choosing) and then your current save would get deleted.

The problem with continues is how you are going to integrate them with the story. Otherwise, limited continues can work just as well as regular ironman mode. They are practically the same thing.

 

Games that use checkpoints are usually very linear games that use this feature as a sort of cheat to make the game seem longer, so you have to replay a level if you die, etc.

Checkpoints can work any way you design them to. I personally like the idea of balancing the game for a checkpoint system over an ironman mode, because 1) the game is going to last 20+ hours, and 2) it makes it easier (for the devs) to section off and organize the challenges in the strategic part of the game.

 

If I'm playing a huge non-linear open world sort of game where I can go anywhere, I want to be able to save anywhere.

You can make it so that you save anywhere and only reload from checkpoints. LOL.

[Jojobobo]

The problem with continues is how you are going to integrate them with the story. Otherwise, limited continues can work just as well as regular ironman mode. They are practically the same thing.

I wouldn't think they'd need to be integrated with the story - in the same way that in game justification isn't given for playing on regular difficulty and being able to save and reload normally compared to Ironman mode. If you mean integrated in general - just only save on quit, then if you die you reload from the last time you saved and quitted. And yes it is practically the same thing, just makes difficulty a little more tunable.

[Game_Exile]

If you mean integrated in general - just only save on quit, then if you die you reload from the last time you saved and quitted. And yes it is practically the same thing, just makes difficulty a little more tunable.

No, when I meant integrated with the story, I meant there should be sensible story reasons for why you can die and come back to life only a certain number of times. Meaning also that I am referring to "continues" without reloading, the way you described it in your starting post:

Continues would be a middleman where you could die maybe 1 or 2 times (or more preferably, a number of your choosing) and then your current save would get deleted.

 

And if you have "continues" that reload from a last save, then it is NOT practically the same thing as ironman mode, it is completely different.

 

I wouldn't think they'd need to be integrated with the story - in the same way that in game justification isn't given for playing on regular difficulty and being able to save and reload normally compared to Ironman mode.

Free saving and reloading isn't represented in the story of any game because the free save and reload mechanic is just plain retarded. Think about how you would represent that in your story, lol. And to clear up any confusion, I do not object to having "continues" in the game so long as they are integrated with the story and setting, and I don't really see the need to integrate it into the story as an objection in itself. Dying and coming back to life, imo, can actually work out to be a really cool and beneficial addition to the game's strategic components and story/setting.

 

What I want to suggest with all this is that it would be much cooler if having "continues" wasn't an optional mode, but rather a well integrated strategic component, where you can do things like increase the number of "lives" you get with certain risky actions/decisions/quests/whatever (like 1ups in Super Mario Bros.). You just have ironman mode and the "continues" become practically invisible (meaning invisible as a game mechanic, and obviosly much more visible in the story).

Edited December 2, 2012 by Game_Exile