Death Penalty and Saved Games [poll]

[MightyHedgehog]

A mode that follows WL1 would be enough, and funnily enough, your description of a hardcore mode is pretty much how WL1 worked by default unless you cheated. Makes me sad that so many don't realize that it was an essential part of what made the experience of Wasteland so memorable and that was the weight of consequence due to those tighter restrictions. (Not everyone has the restraint to fully adhere to a tougher ruleset intended to provide a unique and more rewarding experience, so having no options to cheat easily becomes necessary to make the most of a designer's intentions for ideal play experience.) Sure, give people a watered-down mode, but WL2 MUST include a play mode that works as the original did.

[Phaederuss]

i really see no sense in creating features/settings/modes that force you some kind of restrictive gameplay which you can achieve yourself. Wanna 1 save slot? Use one. Wanna have only 1 death? Play it this way.
Please don't put extra burden on dev's shoulders just because you are unable to follow your chosen playstyle.

Because people will always be tempted. It's not that difficult to restrict the player to one save. It can't be that much of a "burden".

[paultakeda]

Hardcore mode... this is some sort of modern invention because games got easier, right? Yeah. WL's gonna be a hardcore classic RPG. Whatever increased difficulty you want from there would best be left to the mod kit. Congrats! We hit $3 million. I can now use that reason as my catch-all.

[ThreePi]

Rob Zacny (writes for PC Gamer, Gamespy, hosts "Three Moves Ahead" podcast) wrote a great article in support of ironman modes and the damages of save scumming, its written from a strategy game perspective, but I feel its 100% applicable to an RPG like this.

http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/122/1223192p1.html

[paultakeda]

Rob Zacny (writes for PC Gamer, Gamespy, hosts "Three Moves Ahead" podcast) wrote a great article in support of ironman modes and the damages of save scumming, its written from a strategy game perspective, but I feel its 100% applicable to an RPG like this.

http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/122/1223192p1.html

I think for strategy games there's some validity to the argument but is not as valid for a classic RPG and so not so "100% applicable."

Classic RPGs drive game play via sandbox quest lines. Strategy games advance game play via results of combat. This distinction is outlined in the article you linked:

Strategy is different from most other genres. The outcome is not supposed to be predetermined. The player isn't "supposed" to win any more than you're supposed to win every time you play chess against someone else. That's why strategy games are so infinitely replayable: there is no script. If you make an incredible comeback, that's not just a plot twist. You did that.

Defeat is the price we pay for that freedom. You come to the final stages of a Civilization game and realize an AI faction is on track to win, and there's not a damn thing you can do.

[ThreePi]

Well the difference is in the fail-states. In an RPG, maybe there shouldn't be be a straight up "game over." But the save scum issues that plague RTS games are still applicable to dialog choices, stealing/lockpicking, dodging traps, party death, etc. In an RPG you probably don't want a "You lose, start over from the begining" scenario, but that's just a design decision at that point.

[paultakeda]

Well the difference is in the fail-states. In an RPG, maybe there shouldn't be be a straight up "game over." But the save scum issues that plague RTS games are still applicable to dialog choices, stealing/lockpicking, dodging traps, party death, etc. In an RPG you probably don't want a "You lose, start over from the begining" scenario, but that's just a design decision at that point.

I would rather have people be able to abuse the save functionality by save scumming than spend the extra dev time to create a limited save mechanic.

[ThreePi]

Well the difference is in the fail-states. In an RPG, maybe there shouldn't be be a straight up "game over." But the save scum issues that plague RTS games are still applicable to dialog choices, stealing/lockpicking, dodging traps, party death, etc. In an RPG you probably don't want a "You lose, start over from the begining" scenario, but that's just a design decision at that point.

I would rather have people be able to abuse the save functionality by save scumming than spend the extra dev time to create a limited save mechanic.

And I'd rather have people install Windows than spend extra dev time on Mac/Linux ports.

I just find save scumming a significant enough issue that I'd like to see it handled at the game design level rather than the player level.

[Daza]

I haven't read all 20 pages of this thread, so if this has already been suggested..sorry.

But why not have different play modes Ultra Hardcore, Hardcore, Normal, Easy. (But give them cooler names of course )
Each one (except perhaps easy) has some bonuses (ie. choose between unique weapons/items or/and adding skill points etc) at the end of the game to carry over along with your characters if you want to replay the game from the start again or/and if it will be possible to keep playing after the main story line is finished. A distinguished achievement title for finishing the game in Ultra Hardcore or Hardcore mode, which can carry over with a forum badge.

Having multiple play mode options will please most players, they can choose what they want. Or you could have multiple options to be selected or unselected. But that would make it harder to define titles of achievements for finishing the game. Unless custom options is added as well. But no unique mode achievement.

My 2 cents for the different modes or something similar:

Ultra Hardcore could be you only can save at certain places, or if you want to save sooner it costs you a lot of cash to save (Radio HQ). No auto-saves. One save slot only. When you die, you lose everything including your save.

Hardcore, A bit like ultra, but you do not lose your last saved game. Only one save slot.

Normal, for those who wants to save more often, avoid having a late night on a school/work week. But has maybe limited voluntary four or five saves per day. Not including auto-save when going into a new area etc. Two or only one save slot.

Easy, save whenever you want. Multiple save slots. Auto-saves before a fight, when entering a new area.

[paultakeda]

I just find save scumming a significant enough issue that I'd like to see it handled at the game design level rather than the player level.

That's the disagreement we will never see eye to eye on: I don't think it's a significant issue and would rather have resources devoted to game content.

But why not have different play modes Ultra Hardcore, Hardcore, Normal, Easy. (But give them cooler names of course )

If the game could accommodate everyone it will likely satisfy no one. There is a vision to the game that the designers want to achieve. As far as I am concerned, hardcore mode is an invention to drive sales. Games were made easier to be more accessible to the mainstream and hardcore mode was added to keep the appeal of the "hardcore" gamers who think games have been made too easy to make it accessible to the mainstream. It's a sad cycle.

Wasteland 2 is not a mainstream game. It's going to be hard. That's why it's billed as a classic hardcore RPG. You will not need a hardcore mode or any other mode.

But to repeat what I wrote earlier, tying difficulty to a save mechanic makes no sense. One is about the game, the other is about suspending game play because of real life. That people want to use that suspension mechanic to, in your eyes, "cheat" is an opinion. An opinion should not drive save game mechanics.

[Utxyle]

If the devs think that dealing with a dead char should be part of the game, I wouldn't be opposed to a plot that involves a certain point where one of your chars dying is a part of the story. Force me back to Ranger HQ to reroll a newb, or hire another NPC.

I'm for the unlimited saves, but I'd be against including a character death as a plot point. That seems to go against the old school nature and into the whole "character narrative" style of newer games.

I'm good with letting characters be able to die like in the original (combat, traps, explosions, drowning, falling, etc), but don't keep the archaic save mechanics.

[jurbanek]

If you sissies want Real Hardcore then do away with those wussy graphics and make the game totally command line linux. vi anyone? That will separate the men from the babies.

[Utxyle]

I just find save scumming a significant enough issue that I'd like to see it handled at the game design level rather than the player level.

How does someone else save scumming on a single player RPG cause a "significant issue" for anyone? This isn't a competition, you're not leveling the playing field. Or are you some sort of save scumming addict and just can't help yourself? I think I'd respect that answer more than you telling me that my save scumming is a significant issue for you.

[Fuzi0n]

Defintely! If the game only comes with retard modes 1, 2 and 3 (like in Skyrim), then I'm gonna be pissed.

[Daza]

I just find save scumming a significant enough issue that I'd like to see it handled at the game design level rather than the player level.

That's the disagreement we will never see eye to eye on: I don't think it's a significant issue and would rather have resources devoted to game content.

But why not have different play modes Ultra Hardcore, Hardcore, Normal, Easy. (But give them cooler names of course )

If the game could accommodate everyone it will likely satisfy no one. There is a vision to the game that the designers want to achieve. As far as I am concerned, hardcore mode is an invention to drive sales. Games were made easier to be more accessible to the mainstream and hardcore mode was added to keep the appeal of the "hardcore" gamers who think games have been made too easy to make it accessible to the mainstream. It's a sad cycle.

Wasteland 2 is not a mainstream game. It's going to be hard. That's why it's billed as a classic hardcore RPG. You will not need a hardcore mode or any other mode.

But to repeat what I wrote earlier, tying difficulty to a save mechanic makes no sense. One is about the game, the other is about suspending game play because of real life. That people want to use that suspension mechanic to, in your eyes, "cheat" is an opinion. An opinion should not drive save game mechanics.

I get what you say about saving mechanics not really having anything to do with the difficulty level. The first WL game was hard to play, you died a lot and had to start over a lot. Not a lot of fun when there is more dying and frustration than progress, except for those who love that, through eventual through trial and error learning which areas to avoid first and where to go to get armor etc..it rewards patience and persistence. It is hardcore.

I still think though some options should be available for those who don't have a lot of time to invest in the trial and error style of play and having to keep restarting or loading a save that is several hours of game play back, thus loosing hours of game play.

Some gamers have a family, busy job, married etc. On the other spectrum you have students, unemployed or whatever with time to burn would be the ideal players who can afford the time sink. But you could argue play a different game if you want something easier or less time taxing. But that is besides the point, why should those gamers be denied enjoying the game and story? Games are suppose to be an escape from reality, a break from reality. But having constant frustrations and setbacks isn't a good way to unwind if you live a busy or stressful life. I'm just elaborating my point here. I'm not talking about making it easier to kill enemies etc. Just the choice to save more often if you want to. Lessening having to restart (that for me is what made WL1 too hard to play. I never finished it back in the day. I know i should be ashamed of myself )

The different modes of play can be set around the amount/types of saves allowed.

I understand also the fear of trying to cater a game for everyone, that it might eventually become watered down to fit into the main stream. I wouldn't want that to happen either. But i think the age range of gamers are more vast than they were twenty or so years ago.

Anyway i just hope with WL2 the saving mechanic will be a little bit more flexible in the form of options. The hardcore gamer would be angry if the middle of road approach was the only option, gamers who have limited playtime each day would be unhappy if they have to play late into the night before being able to save or have to restart the whole game because they lost a battle they couldn't avoid with wounded members. So i can't see how having different save option modes would be a bad thing. Especially if bonuses are given to players who play the default setting. Perhaps once a player who finishes the game on a custom save setting, decides to play with the default setting with by that time knows the ins and outs of the game and where things are and carrying over their characters if they want to.

[Utxyle]

Anyway i just hope with WL2 the saving mechanic will be a little bit more flexible in the form of options. The hardcore gamer would be angry if the middle of road approach was the only option, gamers who have limited playtime each day would be unhappy if they have to play late into the night before being able to save or have to restart the whole game because they lost a battle they couldn't avoid with wounded members. So i can't see how having different save option modes would be a bad thing. Especially if bonuses are given to players who play the default setting. Perhaps once a player who finishes the game on a custom save setting, decides to play with the default setting with by that time knows the ins and outs of the game and where things are and carrying over their characters if they want to.

But why spend development time making optional save schemes? You make one save scheme, unlimited, and everybody gets what they want. If you want to play "hardcore mode", then don't ever reload and only save when you're quitting. You think saving in combat isn't fair? Don't save in combat. If you're pining for a Might and Magic "save at the Inn" experience, then only save when you make it to a town.

[ThreePi]

I just find save scumming a significant enough issue that I'd like to see it handled at the game design level rather than the player level.

How does someone else save scumming on a single player RPG cause a "significant issue" for anyone? This isn't a competition, you're not leveling the playing field. Or are you some sort of save scumming addict and just can't help yourself? I think I'd respect that answer more than you telling me that my save scumming is a significant issue for you.

That's why I linked the article above, it can explain this much more elequently than I ever could.

Some select quotes:

There's a bigger problem, however: strategy games don't work if players are fixing it so that every event works out in their favor. Not only will the ending be boring, as the combined effects of all their unnatural luck and skillful play slowly overpower the game balance, but this kind of behavior actually encourages lazier design. The types of designs that make cheaters of us all.

The danger with this approach is that players can no longer trust that they have been handed a fair challenge. When every scenario is the Kobayashi Maru, you start saving after every step until you find a winning solution, no matter how difficult it would be to pull off in a single continuous playthrough. That behavior doesn't just stop when we quit -- we take it with us into the next game we play.

Saves have always been a hard problem for PC games to solve, no matter the genre. But ultimately we need to stop playing as if victory is the only acceptable outcome, and we need games to stop reinforcing those bad habits with unfair challenges. When our response to the fortunes of war is to hit reset, we are might as well be playing a Call of Duty campaign.

As I've said multiple times in this thread, the solution to save scumming is not "well, just don't do it." The problem is far deeper than that.

[escozzia]

Definitely going with #2 here.
#1 is way, way to harsh, while the others are way too soft.
#2 is perfect, because if you have a character die on you, it's a real dilemma: should you undo your last three hours of play to try and save him, or should you soldier on?

[paultakeda]

@ThreePi:
You say problem. Does it interfere with how you are enjoying the game? Are you actually trying to tell me that you want to insinuate how you think a single player game should be played because there are those who may play it in a way that you think is cheating, even if it does not affect you?

Kinda high on the horse there.

[Skirge]

I honestly can't believe this thread is still going. Since I'm apparently supposed to play this game how other people want me to, can I get my $350 pledge back? Clearly, I missed the part which said I would have a gun held to my head, forcing the way I play my game. I didn't understand that there was only one way to play the game. While we're at it...

Someone want to come over and tell me I'm taking a leak the wrong way? While you're in there, the toilet paper might be on the roll incorrectly, too. I may be mowing the lawn in the wrong direction, as well. I'm also probably raising my kids in an unacceptable way to others, so I'd appreciate someone enforcing how I do that.