Insta-saving bad feature

[auricgoldfinger]

I've found that on replaying the old Thief games they're incredibly easy. IT might be just that i've mastered the system, but I've found that I abuse the save system because I can. I literally reload after every single mistake. Guard sees me? Reload. You can solve everything by trial and error. I've ruined other games for myself by playing this way, like Baldur's Gate and Half-life.

You could tell me that I don't have to play like that and I don't, but I'd rather the game imposed rules on me, i.e. saving is treated as a gameplay attribute rather than a convenience feature. My instinct is to use every tool available to me to cvonquer the game, not to artificially constrain myself to make the game harder for me.

Punishing reload times used to be a factor but are a thing of the past, at least on the PC. I'd like some sort of save system where you're forced to live with your mistakes. One theory is rationed saves, like the tapes in Resident Evil. You can't save frivolously but keep the right to save wherever you want so long as there's a quota still available.

Anyway, I'd like to start a dialog on this. Clearly some people have no such issue with the things I'm having an issue with, but I'd like to know what's different between me and them. I don't even remember having the problem myself back when I played Thief in the late 90's (probably due to reload times and a reluctance to save because of that), but the exploitability was always there.

[Yaphy]

Sadly, I have to agree. I do the same thing. I mean, what's the point of playing on the hardest difficulty when I can just save before any encounter with a guard or a sticky situation?

I actually hope that they ditch the instant saving feature and either have menu-based save system or well made checkpoints. I know that alot of people hate checkpoints and I agree at some degrees. But it is possible to make good checkpoints if they put alot of work on it and test it many times with different people. If they cannot make it flawless I think that they should go for the menu saves and loads.

Although this is what i'd prefer; it's not a gamebreaker to have instant saving so I can live with it if they make that too. It's just a wish from me that they don't have it.

[ToMegaTherion]

Nowadays the restriction on my gaming is not money or number of good games to play, it is time, and so I really dislike any game that requires me to play it for a certain length of time in order to make progress. This is one of my most disliked features of any game. If you can promise that I can always play a fifteen minute session and make progress then it would be all right, but I can't really see that happening with Thief and limited saves.

Also, I don't like playing the same section more than once if I have already successfully passed it unless I want to.

[jtr7]

While some players can't keep their fingers off the save keys, others, including myself, often forget to save, immersed in the game. It works and doesn't work for players in a totally subjective way, across a spectrum, and this is why it shouldn't be changed so much. The stats screen should show how often a person saved, and should show how many times the player was seen, killed, injured, etc., especially if there will be online stats. If a person cannot exert self-control or impose playstyles on themselves to create a tailored challenge, then another option is to make the save feature tweakable in the CFG/INI.

[DJ Riff]

"How To Help Your Players Stop Saving All The Time" (http://www.roningamedeveloper.com/Materials/RandySmith_MiGS_2007_SaveLoadCompulsions.ppt) by Randy Smith.
In the nutshell: The game should provide less unwinnable situations or situations which the player can estimate as unwinnable. The game should not sustain the feeling that you can unpredictably lose everything right behind every corner. The game should use enough clues for the player that (s)he ould know that if (s)he'll be careful enough, (s)he'll be able to handle the situation.

[auricgoldfinger]

Now I think about it a good term for what I was doing would be "save-grinding". I'd chip away at any challenge, oftentimes with inadequate resources. :) I'm a little more obsessive-compulsive about it than most I guess. In other games I'd make myself save-grind through levels and reload if I lost any health, for example... even if it got ridiculous. Do you know how much longer Tomb Raider: Legend, is, if you go through the game on your first playthrough without allowing a single healthpack to be used? I do. (Not bragging, it's just become something I decided to do on the spot and once it was a rule, I couldn't undo it... I seriously questioned my decision a few times though. Oh and this was the console version...).

So it's not like I can't make a challenge for myself, but when it comes to 'save anywhere' I generally find it difficult to proportion when I save and reload by any suitable criterion. And if I just go by something arbitrary like "when I need to stop playing" or "when I feel threatened", that makes the difficulty level feel arbitrary as well, since it goes up and down with how often I save and reload.

It's probably also an impulse born of years of saving my progress in non-games, back in the day when crashes were common.

I hope it doesn't sound like I want developers to save me from my own impulsiveness. I seriously think saving and reloading should be treated as gameplay/balance factors.

[jtr7]

Getting a clean stats board is a goal that appeals to players who may be braggarts and/or perfectionists and/or who just have fun replaying sections and/or experimenting who make a game out of having that final result regardless of the many paths to it. The game should offer something for almost everybody, offering lots of freedom within the parameters that define the game. Having a level editor and/or moddable game files really opens up personalization without obligating the devs to build without focus.

[Platinumoxicity]

When I was young and stupid I used all the weapons and exploited all the weaknesses of the AI, and played the games on Normal. Then I got smarter and realized that you're supposed to use the blackjack, be stealthy and quiet, and play on Expert. Then that got boring, so I started ghosting. But that got boring too. So, what do you do after that? You stop saving. Playing without saving creates a whole new level of excitement and challenge, and forces you to rethink all the strategies that you have used when playing with quicksaves. When your fail, at first it's frustrating, but after a while you start congratulating the game for beating you in a situation where you simply weren't smart, or patient enough.

Removing the ability to save where you want is an incredibly bad idea, by simple logic. It serves no purpose for the players who are able to excercise a bit of self control and refrain from saving, and players who would like to use saves would lose that ability. So by definition, removing saves is 100% bad. There are absolutely no benefits. It only makes the game less enjoyable to some, and more enjoyable to no one.

It's like taking candy from a kid, except not to eat it yourself, but to flush it down the toilet.

[BigBoss]

I've found that on replaying the old Thief games they're incredibly easy. IT might be just that i've mastered the system, but I've found that I abuse the save system because I can. I literally reload after every single mistake. Guard sees me? Reload. You can solve everything by trial and error. I've ruined other games for myself by playing this way, like Baldur's Gate and Half-life.

You could tell me that I don't have to play like that and I don't, but I'd rather the game imposed rules on me, i.e. saving is treated as a gameplay attribute rather than a convenience feature. My instinct is to use every tool available to me to cvonquer the game, not to artificially constrain myself to make the game harder for me.

Punishing reload times used to be a factor but are a thing of the past, at least on the PC. I'd like some sort of save system where you're forced to live with your mistakes. One theory is rationed saves, like the tapes in Resident Evil. You can't save frivolously but keep the right to save wherever you want so long as there's a quota still available.

Anyway, I'd like to start a dialog on this. Clearly some people have no such issue with the things I'm having an issue with, but I'd like to know what's different between me and them. I don't even remember having the problem myself back when I played Thief in the late 90's (probably due to reload times and a reluctance to save because of that), but the exploitability was always there.

So take away an optional feature because you can't help yourself but to abuse it.......:mad2:

[jtr7]

The easy thing to do is to unbind the save keys, and leave 'em blank, though you can still go through the menu and make a hard save.

[auricgoldfinger]

So by definition, removing saves is 100% bad.

Nobody has proposed that.

To reiterate: Saving is not the problem. The point is that saving anywhere is unbalanced and makes the game unchallenging, and that there's no criterion by which to sometimes save and sometimes refrain from saving, which makes the difficulty level arbitrary if you attempt it.

What do people think of rationed saves as I mentioned in the OP?

[jtr7]

The answers are still the same. Give everyone their freedom of choice, and leave people who will not exercise it out of the development process, as it's less for the devs to do, and because there will always be those who have resort to modding, less for most of the current fanbase to mess with. There are other threads here discussing this if you want to actually glean others' opinions and experiences on the matter, and the posters broke it down for debate much more then than they will these days, having discussed it all already.

[Rindill the Red]

I think they should give players the choice. A quick-save enabled mode, and a checkpoint only mode, and a save-on-exit only mode.

[jtr7]

There should be more options than game.

[Troest87]

I think they should give players the choice. A quick-save enabled mode, and a checkpoint only mode, and a save-on-exit only mode.

i guess this will alway be a debatable subject... but i really miss games where you get a real challenge.. or at least a punishment for not accepting the challenge. so checkpoint after a hard part of the game would suit me.. but then the part should be really hard..:hmm:

[jtr7]

Hardly anyone plays the game according to the instructions, and there are too many fun things to do that fall outside the rules, so I can't see that working without increasing linearity and cutting down existing freedoms.

[tinetone]

You can remove qucksave (F9 key) from your keyboard. You can use a knife. And problem solved for you.

[Platinumoxicity]

You can remove qucksave (F9 key) from your keyboard. You can use a knife. And problem solved for you.

That reminds me of the time recently when I tried to play Quake 1 on DosBox. Quake has a key that allows you to use mouse aiming, but only if you press and hold the key, which is ridiculous. I had to construct a little wedge out of electrical tape, and shove it next to the key on the keyboard so that it would be constantly pressed down. And then finally I was able to enjoy the game.

[auricgoldfinger]

The answers are still the same. Give everyone their freedom of choice, and leave people who will not exercise it out of the development process, as it's less for the devs to do, and because there will always be those who have resort to modding, less for most of the current fanbase to mess with.

Not sure what you're talking about.

There are other threads here discussing this if you want to actually glean others' opinions and experiences on the matter, and the posters broke it down for debate much more then than they will these days, having discussed it all already.

Where are those threads? I couldn't glean them from a search.

[auricgoldfinger]

You can remove qucksave (F9 key) from your keyboard. You can use a knife. And problem solved for you.

Not really.

[Yaphy]

What most of you guys are saying doesn't make any sense. Give the player the choice and option? Then what about the huge amount of cash that you got from Thief 3. Why not just not buy gear for all the money you got? Instead of removing the excessive amount of loot you could just choose not to use it. It's about the same thing. You think that the money hoarding in Thief 3 is a problem and some think that the instant save is a problem. Don't blame the player. What if they gave us the ability to fly whenever we want. Should they keep that just to give us a "choice" and blame the people who don't like the flying because they think that it makes it too easy?

Anyways. Deus Ex Human Revolution seems to have instant saving; So there's that.

[Odyseeos]

If I think in terms of the first two games, then for someone who wanted to try Ironman the first time, it would defeat the purpose to ever use F12. So, F11 doesn't have any relevance. In the strong sense, using F12 in Ironman is cheating, cheating in order to give oneself a self-defeated stat padding.

I don't think one could do Ironman the first play in T1. I may be wrong, but I believe there were set-ups that couldn't be predicted. Veillur mentions the falling stone in Bonehoard, and that might be one of them. What I recall, but not exactly, were distance functions-- the sorts of situations where G crosses a line and a guard would walk out a door. In other words, timing that was set to surprise, from which one could not obtain prior information. And certainly, I don't think I've ever gotten past the ramps behind the secret door at Bonehoard on any first attempt. The angles are not angles I'm familiar with.

With T2, I think Ironman might be possible. At the Bank, there's a drop into a corridor that G normally has to wait some time before ascertaining the route of one guard. But, as Crayman said years ago with regard to Ghosting, the principal conflict is about patience.

That aside, I follow Esme on the question, G* wants F12 available, or else he's going to kill me.

[xAcerbusx]

It's a necessary evil.
The risk of 'over-saving' is always there if you allow the player to save whenever they wish, yes. But the alternative is a Checkpoint system, and fellow taffers... I have yet to play a game with a checkpoint system that wasn't utterly frustrating. See also: Alpha Protocol, Splinter Cell (1 and 2), Velvet Assassin, etc.

[jtr7]

Not sure what you're talking about.



Where are those threads? I couldn't glean them from a search.

Sorry about that. :hmm:

[auricgoldfinger]

What most of you guys are saying doesn't make any sense. Give the player the choice and option? Then what about the huge amount of cash that you got from Thief 3. Why not just not buy gear for all the money you got? Instead of removing the excessive amount of loot you could just choose not to use it. It's about the same thing. You think that the money hoarding in Thief 3 is a problem and some think that the instant save is a problem. Don't blame the player. What if they gave us the ability to fly whenever we want. Should they keep that just to give us a "choice" and blame the people who don't like the flying because they think that it makes it too easy?

Someone who gets it.

Anyway, insta-saving needn't be bad, it just depends on how it affects the gameplay. I think it would be very bad for a Thief game. All I'd ask is that devs consider it a game balance factor rather than something meta-game.

If you want to know how cheap inst-saving can be then look at what you can do with old console games in emulators. I believe people have made "no death walkthroughs" by simply hitting two keys whenever they make a mistake and then stitching the footage where they survive together to make it look like they're playing a perfect game.

[jtr7]

What? I'm not advocating adding anything to gameplay or the gameworld. What the--? If Yaphy "gets it" then I can confirm it's a bad idea.

[auricgoldfinger]

It's a necessary evil.
The risk of 'over-saving' is always there if you allow the player to save whenever they wish, yes. But the alternative is a Checkpoint system, and fellow taffers... I have yet to play a game with a checkpoint system that wasn't utterly frustrating. See also: Alpha Protocol, Splinter Cell (1 and 2), Velvet Assassin, etc.

Or there's the rationed saves system I keep mentioning but noone's talked about (combined with checkpoints/autosaves as well, but only at very key moments like when you tick a box in your mission list--which, if i'm not mistaken, the original thief games did anyway???). Rationed saves could even be a between-mission purchase if that's how the games turn out to work.

[auricgoldfinger]

What? I'm not advocating adding anything. What the--? If Yaphy "gets it" then I can confirm it's a bad idea.

I don't care if he's speaking for you accurately or not, his point about 'flying' was well-made and how I was viewing it. The cheapness of insta-saving is, I believe, only overlooked because it's viewed as "out of game", rather than what it is: another feature in the game.

[jtr7]

I keep addressing your idea, and just because I don't use the term "rationed" in my posts, you think I'm talking about something else. You don't get what you are being told, and Yaphy made it worse. It's a bad idea. Now it's all spiraling away. What did I say in my first responses?

[auricgoldfinger]

It works and doesn't work for players in a totally subjective way, across a spectrum, and this is why it shouldn't be changed so much

I view anyone who uses the word "subjective" as forfeiting the argument, not making one.

[Yaphy]

If Yaphy "gets it" then I can confirm it's a bad idea.

That really hurt. :(

[tarhiel]

I strongly disagree. It´s your fault you abuse system, which makes you (player) completely free and able to manage your own gamestyle. I hate games (cough, Borderlands, cough) which forces me to play up to certain point to save my progress. I don´t have so much time as when I was younger and ability to save whenever I NEED, is crucial to me nowadays.

Ability to save anytime has always been a part of Thief universe and any game, which gives player full control of itself. Howgh!

[esme]

...That aside, I follow Esme on the question, G* wants F12 available, or else he's going to kill me.I really hope I said something good then
...
ah it wasn't that bad I reckon http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=1247370#post1247370

I save when


the doorbell rings
when my partner "requests my attention" :rolleyes: :D - yes that is a euphemism
the phone rings
I solve the problem I put on the back burner and can, regretfully, return to working
when I fancy a coffee or a sandwich or both
when I want break
when I need to use the loo
when I reach what I consider to be a safe place
when I think I might be about to do something stupid
when I think I might be about to do something cool
when I want to consider my options
when I want to observe and plan
when I damn well feel like it


I hate with a passion any system that won't allow me to save when I like
oh I forgot


when I remember to - I do occasionally forget and get really ticked off at losing 40 - 60 minutes worth of play because of one stupid mistake or a slip of the finger pressing the jump instead of crouch button ... no that is not a euphemism ;)

[Silentbutdeadly]

That reminds me of the time recently when I tried to play Quake 1 on DosBox. Quake has a key that allows you to use mouse aiming, but only if you press and hold the key, which is ridiculous. I had to construct a little wedge out of electrical tape, and shove it next to the key on the keyboard so that it would be constantly pressed down. And then finally I was able to enjoy the game.

Pretty sure you can set it up in the .cfg file so that the game thinks that mouselook is always on - it might be as simple as putting "+mouselook" as a line in there but I can't remember the original quake commands.

I've found that I abuse the save system [in] Half-life.
Wow I never used the save system in HL series, I just reloaded from a checkpoint when I died.

However, I dont think checkpoints like that would suit the less linear style of Thief; possibly a checkpoint save after achieving a certain objective might work but I think the most suited system would be a la Hitman, where there are a set number of saves based according to the difficulty level (IIRC the hardest difficulty had 0 saves) - instead of a checkpoint save at key moments, the game would sometimes award an extra one upon completing an objective.


EDIT: I do recall cheating the save system in Hitman though - when I first started playing and didn't know about the 'proper' way to play. I'd play on the easiest difficulty killing every guard and civilian en-route to the target, saving after each succesfully undiscovered attempt and reloading at the first case of being found - when I progressed to playing it through properly, I'd learnt the most effective routes already and yet had the added difficulty of being detected more easily and had to have a perfect run at each level - It made it even more excellent :)

[Platinumoxicity]

However, I dont think checkpoints like that would suit the less linear style of Thief; possibly a checkpoint save after achieving a certain objective might work but I think the most suited system would be a la Hitman, where there are a set number of saves based according to the difficulty level (IIRC the hardest difficulty had 0 saves)

There are no pitfalls in Hitman. There are no situations where you need to make some difficult maneuver to proceed, and failure results in instant death. Without the ability to save before something with a high chance of failure and the threat of having to restart afterwards, Thief would be way too frustrating.

But I also have to argue that the save system you're talking about doesn't really fit Hitman either. On higher difficulties, because of the game's considerably bad sound design compared to Thief, it's impossible to know if a guard steps through the door in front of you and detects you. Because on higher difficulties the map shows only you and your target. The only way to beat the game perfectly on professional is to make a mental map of to-the-second accurate guard patrols, and exploit all AI behavior bugs. Even though I don't believe in luck, I can't step out of hiding without a guard stepping into the room immediately after I do. With a quicksave I can increase my percieved luck to a reasonable level, and my enjoyment of the game to a tolerable level. When I don't want to use saves, I don't save. I don't need the game to enforce me. The only reason why anyone would want the game to enforce no saves, is to have the ability to record gameplay, and brag and show off on Youtube.

When I play no-saves-ghosting in Thief, I have noticed that I absolutely need to use quicksave every time I climb a rope, because of my suspiciously high chance of rope-bugs-of-death. And I don't count the times I die on ropes and reload a quicksave as "saves used", because I use the save to sidestep a bug. But if 2 minutes later I run into a guard and he sees me, I have to restart the level because that was just the fault of my own stupidity, and not a bug.

[Silentbutdeadly]

There are no pitfalls in Hitman. There are no situations where you need to make some difficult maneuver to proceed, and failure results in instant death. Without the ability to save before something with a high chance of failure and the threat of having to restart afterwards, Thief would be way too frustrating.

But I also have to argue that the save system you're talking about doesn't really fit Hitman either. On higher difficulties, because of the game's considerably bad sound design compared to Thief, it's impossible to know if a guard steps through the door in front of you and detects you. Because on higher difficulties the map shows only you and your target. The only way to beat the game perfectly on professional is to make a mental map of to-the-second accurate guard patrols, and exploit all AI behavior bugs. Even though I don't believe in luck, I can't step out of hiding without a guard stepping into the room immediately after I do. With a quicksave I can increase my percieved luck to a reasonable level, and my enjoyment of the game to a tolerable level. When I don't want to use saves, I don't save. I don't need the game to enforce me. The only reason why anyone would want the game to enforce no saves, is to have the ability to record gameplay, and brag and show off on Youtube.

When I play no-saves-ghosting in Thief, I have noticed that I absolutely need to use quicksave every time I climb a rope, because of my suspiciously high chance of rope-bugs-of-death. And I don't count the times I die on ropes and reload a quicksave as "saves used", because I use the save to sidestep a bug. But if 2 minutes later I run into a guard and he sees me, I have to restart the level because that was just the fault of my own stupidity, and not a bug.

Although I disagree about learning the patrol route timings on Hitman - in the second one at least the start points of the patrols are randomised, so you have to find a point to observe the routes from and then move when it's clear - you raise a fair point about the literal pitfalls in Thief. Ladders and ropes were too unpredictable sound-wise to be able to accurately traverse undetected each time. Also a major difference is that most Hitman levels can be run in 15 mins at most, whereas a Thief level usually takes considerably longer. Maybe extra saves could be awarded at more regular intervals - one every ?% of loot stolen or some-such mechanic might work well?

EDIT: The point I'm trying to make is that a high/infinite number of saves suits people still learning the maps/game but, whether restricted by yourself or as a fixed game mechanic, a lower number of saves increases the difficulty (and increases the reward).

[GepardenK]

My opinion is: take saving out completely.
If the player dies the level should restart and give him the option to change loadout and difficulty. Each try at the level should feel like an "attempt" at stealing something, this would work well at parties: "Damn Victor, give me the keyboard. I said going in through the balcony would be a bad idea. And get rid of those rope arrows, I only need holy water for the sewers."

A system like this would only be acceptable if:

1) Levels are a lot more open ended (not smaller) than even TDP and TMA, and thus allows for different approaches and plans.

2) Objectives are clear and simple (get in, steal item, get out). Stuff like loot percentage and special loot should be secondary and not required to complete the level. We don’t want players running around looking for those last 2% of loot when being in danger of having to replay the level.

3) No scripted sequences or linear corridors can be present. Nothing is more frustrating than replaying the same sequence over and over again.

4) Guards should not go back to idle mode after being alert. Their alert level should be a permanent part of that "attempt" at stealing the objective.

5) Main objective for each level should be completeable in less than 20-30min if played without fault. Loot perfectionists should still be able to take their time and explore if they want to.

[Flashart]

The save is not part of the game. I do not want to be punished by the game for having to answer a phone or doorbell because I can't save at that particular moment. If you want to make the game more "challenging" for you I recommend you break both your index fingers and try using the mouse like that.

[Odyseeos]

I really hope I said something good then

...when I think I might be about to do something stupid

ah it wasn't that bad I reckon http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=1247370#post1247370

--is the one that G* never lets me forget.
--Always good to know that somebody cares.

[GepardenK]

The save is not part of the game. I do not want to be punished by the game for having to answer a phone or doorbell because I can't save at that particular moment. If you want to make the game more "challenging" for you I recommend you break both your index fingers and try using the mouse like that.

If you are refering to my previous post. The goal was never to make the game more punishing or challenging (thats a job for the diffeculty modifier). The goal was to steer Thief in a gameplay direction were the whole saving debacle would not be necessary. By having levels more open ended and welcome a well thought out infiltration plan, instead of long mazes filled with enemies where saving becomes a necessary war of atrittion against the computer.

Of course, if you need to take a break from the game it will let you continiue from that point later on. It's only if you die the level restarts.

Games like Freespace and SWAT 3-4 diddn't let you save in level. I think this was true for some of the Rainbow Six games aswell. Did this make those games better or worse? The important part is that the levels and the game is designed with this system in mind from the get go.

[Platinumoxicity]

Games like Freespace and SWAT 3-4 diddn't let you save in level. I think this was true for some of the Rainbow Six games aswell. Did this make those games better or worse? The important part is that the levels and the game is designed with this system in mind from the get go.

Exactly. Games like Thief and Hitman are in fact very clearly not designed with that idea in mind. And they shouldn't. See, for those who use quicksaves, there is reasonable amount of challenge, when the game hasn't been designed with 0 saves in mind. Just because the developers are making the game doesn't mean that they are perfect players. So a game that is designed with 0 saves in mind is automatically a bit easier than what it could be, if it was designed to be played with saves.

A player who wants extra challenge can still refuse to use saves and in doing so, play the game in a difficulty setting that is harder than what the game normally supports, because the hardest difficulty has still been designed for players who do use saves.

[GepardenK]

Exactly. Games like Thief and Hitman are in fact very clearly not designed with that idea in mind.
True, but maybe they should be. Long quicksave intense levels like The Thieves Guild was never my favorite, and I think that holds true for a lot of other people aswell.

Thrilling mission based levels, where the goal is to get inn, steal an item, and get out would fit Thief well. Imagine the openness of Baffords manor but with more points of entry, no need for saves then only a good plan of attack. Stuff like dynamic and presistent guard alertness would in that case be possible because the level dosent have to "quiet down" for a longer level like Thieves Guild to work.

All Im asking for is a focused, more intense, thieving experience. If your attempt at stealing an item fails you go back to the loadout screen, change gear, and try again. New plan, new possibilities.

[Platinumoxicity]

I just said that they shouldn't be. If you design levels specifically to allow 0 save gameplay, you are making the levels easier, even to people who do use saves. If the levels are designed to allow saves, they are sufficiently challenging to those who use saves, and those who don't want to use saves (those who want extra challenge) do get their extra challenge. I would gladly play without saves. But I still don't want to diminish the challenge that people who want to use saves want.

Ghosting is challenging even when you use quicksaves. It's extremely so when you don't, precisely because the game hasn't been designed for either ghosting, or for 0 saves.

The player should have the option to choose. They can choose to save, or not to save. The game shouldn't "give them the illusion of choice and choose for them" that they are not allowed to save. I've used this analogy before... It's like taking candy from a baby. Not to eat it yourself, but to throw it away. Restricting saves improves nothing for some players, and makes the game less enjoyable to others. There is zero benefit. You can't deny that.

[Odyseeos]

Exactly.

A player who wants extra challenge can still refuse to use saves and in doing so, play the game in a difficulty setting that is harder than what the game normally supports, because the hardest difficulty has still been designed for players who do use saves.

At present, there are multiple modes. Because of the means, marvels occur.

Why would someone even want there to be Major and Minor modes solely? The ground to make Greensleeves' or Blackheart's air evaporates, while the ability to hear them doesn't. :cheek:

[jtr7]

Iron-manning is one of many fan-made playstyles. Leave it to the fans.

[maluus]

I remember I'd said something similar to the developers once. When I was playing Thief 1 and 2 for the first time my computer was so bad that loading a game was taking nearly 2-3 min. So I was playing much more careful and stressed just to avoid to be have to load the game. this was causing tension causing me to think twice for every move I made etc. not being able to save/load every time surely adds flavor to the mood you play in.

[Master Taffer]

Leave it in. Some of us are busy people and don't have time to replay through 30 minutes of careful surreptitious infiltration. If you think it makes the game too easy then show a little self restraint and don't use it.

[Platinumoxicity]

I remember I'd said something similar to the developers once. When I was playing Thief 1 and 2 for the first time my computer was so bad that loading a game was taking nearly 2-3 min. So I was playing much more careful and stressed just to avoid to be have to load the game. this was causing tension causing me to think twice for every move I made etc. not being able to save/load every time surely adds flavor to the mood you play in.

Thief isn't Half-Life. In Thief you don't try and retry killing dozens of monsters with little ammo and 5% health multiple times in a timespan of 20 seconds. In Thief you have a challenge that you need to overcome using strategy and subtlety. You don't try to run past a guard hoping that he doesn't notice, reloading a save every time he does, hoping that by some miracle you might get through.

It has never been the loading time that causes you to think twice for every move you make. It's the voice in your head that shouts "What was that? You are an idiot and you suck!" that you hear when you do something stupid and get caught.

That voice doesn't need to manifest itself in the game in the form of a save restriction that goes "Hahaa you suck you dirty game-saver" whenever you have a dentist appointment or when your boss comes back and you need to resume work.

[GepardenK]

Leave it in. Some of us are busy people and don't have time to replay through 30 minutes of careful surreptitious infiltration. If you think it makes the game too easy then show a little self restraint and don't use it.
The whole point of the "no-saves" idea is to have smaller (smaller as in "time to complete main objective", not in size) more focused thief levels that requires you to have a plan, get in, steal and get out without dying. This way you can just sit down on your computer and try to steal something, perfectly catered to us busy people.

This also forces you to move on, not reload, when spotted; thus making for some perfectly thrilling escapes.
Again; if you want to take a break the game should of course save and let you continiue from that point on later.

Platinumoxicity: A gameplay style like this will not make the game easier on harder levels of difficulty. I don't know where you get this from. A long level like The Thieves Guild is not harder than a short level, it's just more monotonous and boring. I dare you to play through a no-save mission based game like Freespace 2 on even medium and not call it an interesting challenge.

[Platinumoxicity]

Platinumoxicity: A gameplay style like this will not make the game easier on harder levels of difficulty. I don't know where you get this from. A long level like The Thieves Guild is not harder than a short level, it's just more monotonous and boring. I dare you to play through a no-save mission based game like Freespace 2 on even medium and not call it an interesting challenge.

You just don't get it do you? I did play through a game called Fallout Tactics on "Tough Guy" mode, that only allows you to save in the BOS base. That is extremely frustrating, very exciting, but ultimately very rewarding. There are enemies that can kill anything randomly with one shot and there's nothing you can do about it. You can be on a roll, breezing through a mission, and suddenly you just die, because your enemy rolled snake eyes on the dice and cut you in half with a Browning M2.

The thing you refuse to understand is that there is no reason why the game itself should restrict your saves. You can do it as easily as you can choose whether to turn right or left in a hallway. The only thing that save restriction does is take something away from players who would like to use saves. It gives nothing to those who want to play without saves. There are no benefits whatsoever. When I played Fallout Tactics, I never missed saving when I was in the middle of a mission, because I had decided in the beginning that I'm going to "go be a tough guy". The game did enforce it, yes. But I never even tried to save, which means there wasn't really any reason for there to be a save restriction in the first place.

[GepardenK]

You just don't get it do you? I did play through a game called Fallout Tactics on "Tough Guy" mode, that only allows you to save in the BOS base. That is extremely frustrating, very exciting, but ultimately very rewarding. There are enemies that can kill anything randomly with one shot and there's nothing you can do about it. You can be on a roll, breezing through a mission, and suddenly you just die, because your enemy rolled snake eyes on the dice and cut you in half with a Browning M2.

The thing you refuse to understand is that there is no reason why the game itself should restrict your saves. You can do it as easily as you can choose whether to turn right or left in a hallway. The only thing that save restriction does is take something away from players who would like to use saves. It gives nothing to those who want to play without saves. There are no benefits whatsoever. When I played Fallout Tactics, I never missed saving when I was in the middle of a mission, because I had decided in the beginning that I'm going to "go be a tough guy". The game did enforce it, yes. But I never even tried to save, which means there wasn't really any reason for there to be a save restriction in the first place.
This is a flawed argument because you cant just give people a game with a save feature and then tell them not to save if they don't want to. This will lead to frustrating moments because the game was designed with saving in mind in the first place. A game like FO:tactics with a tacked on no-saving mode is just frustrating to play in the long run, better then to just save. I don't have time nor the patience to run through a giant level like The Thieves and not save, only to die at the end.

The no-save argument was never about taking something away from the player. It has always been about designing a Thief game, from the ground up, that has a laser focus on thieving gameplay and that doesn't need quicksaves. It's all about avoiding those long monotonous quicksave heavy levels with repeating gameplay, its not about taking away saving and force the player through those same levels anyway. That would be cruel.

And again, you can't just tell people not to use quicksave if it ruins gameplay for them. Don't blame the player for not having fun with your game. Logic dictates that any reasonable player will do anything in his power to win a game, that includes quicksaving. So if save/loading leads to a long grinding fest of monotonous moments then so be it, he will do it anyway to get to the end. Better then to design a game with a gameplay philosophy in mind that doesn't need quicksaving in the first place. Then there are the other no-save benefits like thrilling escapes and cunning "get in, get out" plans.

If you want long levels with quicksaves in Thief then fine, different opinion and ****. But don't go blame it on difficulty or "taking something away from the player" because that was never the issue with no-saving. Its simply a whole other way to approach a Thief game.

[jtr7]

How can they laser-focus such level design for such a group of players? Size alone isn't nearly enough, especially with presenting real challenges for the players other than survival.

[Platinumoxicity]

I'm sorry but I totally lost track of which side you stand on this... Are you for or against saves? What do you stand for anyway? I'll clarify my point and you can clarify yours.

-A game that is designed normally and tested well gives the player a good amount of challenge even if they use saves.
-Players who choose not to save get extra challenge. Players who want to save are not forced to face that extra challenge.

If the game would give you a 10000g bonus for not saving, would you be happy then? Would you just want to be patted on the back for a fine accomplishment? Are you just not satisfied with outdoing yourself? Or do you just want the developers to design and test the levels with no saves, so that every situation is easy enough to get through with reasonable margin of success, and there are no risks?

[GepardenK]

I want saves out, as in I think Thief would suit that kind of gameplay and benefit form it by expanding and inventing on the stealth genre (who in my opinion haven't matured yet).
From a post of mine a page or two back:

"The goal was(is) to steer Thief in a gameplay direction were the whole saving debacle would not be necessary. By having levels more open ended and welcome a well thought out infiltration plan, instead of long mazes filled with enemies where saving becomes a necessary war of attrition against the computer."

I want a Thief game where the guard work like a well oiled (but sill humanly flawed) machinery and try to guard something, instead of the static waypointed AI we have seen in stealth games to date. You as the player will try to steal something and that's the focus: Get in, steal, get out.
If you fail you change equipment and try again. Each time you try should feel like an "attempt" at stealing - not as a setback in a linear experience. Think of it like trying to beat a hard level on Trackmania or something; going off the track is not a setback in the linear FPS sense, its just a failed attempt and you try again.


Or do you just want the developers to design and test the levels with no saves, so that every situation is easy enough to get through with reasonable margin of success, and there are no risks? No. Difficulty determines the challenge. On Expert you better damn well have a good plan and the right equipment for the job.

How can they laser-focus such level design for such a group of players? Size alone isn't nearly enough, especially with presenting real challenges for the players other than survival. I'm sorry but I don't get what you're asking for here jtr7...

[jtr7]

.............

[Platinumoxicity]

I want saves out, as in I think Thief would suit that kind of gameplay and benefit form it by expanding and inventing on the stealth genre (who in my opinion haven't matured yet).

Okay then. Would you be satisfied if the whole game was desined with the thought in mind that saving is not possible, but saving would be a "cheat" and officially called that in the game? You would get to sit there and be condescending towards all the players you're imagining in your head... playing, saving, enjoying breaks and not having to replay whole levels. You would get to artificially elevate your own level of success by labeling others as cheaters. Wouldn't that be great? You'd be patting yourself in the back like there's no tomorrow.

[GepardenK]

Hey, dont be such an sacrastic ass. If the game was developed with no saves in mind from the ground up I would be happy. Whenever actual quicksaves are in or not is irrelevant to me, its the design of the game that counts.

EDIT: And again its not about making the game more challening or Tough Guy'ish. Or less for that matter. Its about creating a better and more thrilling stealth experience for the average player.

[MarrowMonkey]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't most console games use save points anyway?
I can think of two common types: save when completing objective (fairly seldom in thief), or save when reaching checkpoints (in linear games). Not sure why though, can't think of a technical reason why. :confused:

[jtr7]

..................

[Davehall380]

When I first played Thief, I had a pretty slow computed. In fact, it would take up to 2 minutes to load a save file. It added an element of caution and anxiety when confronted with death or a end mission situation.

[Vae]

Which ended up being a good thing, because you had to act more like you were really there in that world...because there was a price. You didn't have the security and ease of insta-time-travel if something went wrong. This security and ease reduces tension and ones sense of vulnerability, which diminishes immersion.

Yet, the answer is not to take away the insta-save, as this takes away freedom from the player to choose when to save, which is a bad thing. So, the player must impose a disciplined use of the insta-save in order to simulate a price for failure...as a price for failure helps to deepen immersion.

I encourage people to save only at the beginning of a level, or at least only when an objective is achieved. Doing this pulls you into the world, and enhances the experience. I remember one time I got caught by a guard in the middle of mission. I was in an awkward position when he caught me and he was able to take a chunk out of me before I had a chance to get away. This moment was very tense and felt more like I was fleeing for my life, because I was emotionally connected to the consequence of harm and failure. I wasn't able to go back in time a minute-a-go to insta-heal. There was no safety net, just like in real life. So I got away, but now my health was low and I didn't have any healing potions. I felt more vulnerable, and the tension increased because of my weakened state and the underlying price for failure. I had to be more careful now and rethink things. Because now, certain approaches that could cause minor harm could now kill me, if I slipped up. My priorities changed, as I was now anxiously seeking food or potion to heal me, rather than just continuing on with an objective. When I finally got through the mission, I really appreciated it. I really felt the experience.

[Davehall380]

In principle, putting a price on the load time of a save might not be a be overly negative approach

[TheScarleSpider]

I wonder if a save room would be better (not a room built for saving, but an item in that room that allows you to save; something easily identifiable). The number of save rooms would be based on how big the mission is.

Imagine that there is a save room, but you don't know where it is. You could go back to that room and save anytime, but you are not allowed to save if someone is currently in the room with you (i.e., chasing you).

Also, having the save room be somewhere different everytime the level restarts would be interesting; I've never known a game to do that (and random locations could work in a non-linear game like Thief since you never know exactly where the player will go).

Also, as another option, maybe you know where the save room is every time, and you know it changes, which would then force people to experment with different routes because they will likely go toward the closet route to the save room.

[jtr7]

..................