Death Penalty and Saved Games [poll]

[LaRoque]

Who cares if some guy somewhere feels the irresistible need to do what my friend used to do in ToEE.

I do. And I'll tell you exactly why... Look at Mass Effect 3 (not a game I've played). Bioware has considered altering the game due to the preference of players that didn't like how it played out. Look at Fallout 3... Bethesda broke their own ending via DLC and said 'we learned our lesson'.

If a developer looks at a percentage of players and sees that they reload every time the hit is not critical, they may well decide that in the next game, all hits have a visceral 'critical like' appearance, and the damage spread intentionally not be enough that player's think it worth reloading.

This sort of thing can affect later design; and it's a double edged sword.

But IF the majority of players really does that or wants to do it exactly like that - who are you to deny them that?

Quick side note: Their wish would expand your options of saving, yours would limit theirs.

[Woolfe]

LaRoque wrote:Who cares if some guy somewhere feels the irresistible need to do what my friend used to do in ToEE.

I do. And I'll tell you exactly why... Look at Mass Effect 3 (not a game I've played). Bioware has considered altering the game due to the preference of players that didn't like how it played out. Look at Fallout 3... Bethesda broke their own ending via DLC and said 'we learned our lesson'.

If a developer looks at a percentage of players and sees that they reload every time the hit is not critical, they may well decide that in the next game, all hits have a visceral 'critical like' appearance, and the damage spread intentionally not be enough that player's think it worth reloading.

This sort of thing can affect later design; and it's a double edged sword.

That is the developer's option. But they will lose credibility, and learn their lesson. We cannot stop stupid management types that make decisions based on dollars and not on reality. Cause I can guarantee a decision like the one you are postulating above, would not be driven by the devs.

This is part of the reason we are giving money directly to the Dev in this case. To remove some of the stupid management.

[Gizmo]

But IF the majority of players really does that or wants to do it exactly like that - who are you to deny them that?

Quick side note: Their wish would expand your options of saving, yours would limit theirs.

Let me ask you a similar, but non-game related question...

If Kraft (of cheesy Macaroni fame), made Vegemite with the same 'majority rules' mentality, wouldn't they change the recipe for it to be more accessible to the majority? Perhaps even cut down the salt and start adding peanuts and corn syrup? Strawberries?

This is what series and genre are really about. IMO if the majority of potential buyers don't like the product ~they should buy a different product; not demand strawberry vegemite. They say you can't please everybody... but if the majority is the only target to please, then the rest get left out completely. Niche games are for the niche market, and they should not be warped and bent in futile attempt to please all at the expense of the core fanbase.

If you are making a second of something, shouldn't it be primarily to please the fans of the first one? Or why make it at all, instead of something else; something original?

** Its a tangent I know; but I just wandered what if they made Predator 2 in the style of Kindergarten Cop.

[LaRoque]

But IF the majority of players really does that or wants to do it exactly like that - who are you to deny them that?

Quick side note: Their wish would expand your options of saving, yours would limit theirs.

Let me ask you a similar, but non-game related question...

If Kraft (of cheesy Macaroni fame), made their products with the same 'majority rules' mentality, wouldn't they change the recipe for Vegemite to be more accessible to the majority? Perhaps even cut down the salt and start adding peanuts and corn syrup? Strawberries?

This is what series and genre are really about. IMO if the majority of potential buyers don't like the product ~they should buy a different product; not demand strawberry vegemite. They say you can't please everybody... but if the majority is the only target to please, then the rest get left out completely Niche game are for the rest, and should not be warped and bent to please all, at the expense of the core fanbase.

We're talking about an option inside a product, not a product itself. (I'm sorry, I didn't really get the analogy. No idea what Vegemite is made of or even what it is.)
It's more along the line of having majority get what it wants, while it being a something of separate content you don't have to use yourself if you disagree with it.

[Gizmo]

We're talking about an option inside a product, not a product itself. (I'm sorry, I didn't really get the analogy. No idea what Vegeminte is made of or even what it is.)

It's more along the line of having majority what it wants, while it being a something of separate content you don't have to use yourself if you disagree with it.

It affects the way the product works, and if they change a thing, they may have to make changes to other aspects in order to accommodate. A case in point... Fallout used weighted percentile for skill success; Fallout 3 used thresholds instead, because some players would reload if they failed... This could even be linked to the first person perspective; for when the player is behind the lock pick... Failing feels like their mistake instead of the PC's; but the earlier games had you watch the PC make an attempt and possibly fail.

As to not knowing what Vegemite is... that's a classic parallel of a sort to the majority of Fallout players now compared to five years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegemite * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igJRBytOmnw

[LaRoque]

A case in point... Fallout used weighted percentile for skill success; Fallout 3 used thresholds instead, because some players would reload if they failed... This could even be linked to the first person perspective; for when the player is behind the lock pick... Failing feels like their mistake instead of the PC's; but the earlier games had you watch the PC make an attempt and possibly fail.

Comparing Fallout with Fallout 3 isn't exactly fair. Both game were made by different people, for different people and in different times. Also note that Fallout 3 was also made for consoles. That makes a significant impact on the game design.

[Gizmo]

Comparing Fallout with Fallout 3 isn't exactly fair. Both game were made by different people, for different people and in different times. Also note that Fallout 3 was also made for consoles. That makes a significant impact on the game design.

The comparison was of the skill system.

I would say that both games were made by professionals, and pros can build to suit. I would also say that there is a real distinction between making a sequel, and a spin off; I class FO3 as a spin off (and a good one), but as a very poor sequel ~but they pushed it as a sequel instead of a spin off.

The bit about, "for different people and in different times" doesn't carry as much weight anymore considering where we are and what's promised for Wasteland 2; but I could point to several recent sequels that did not seem like spin-offs.
(I know... Wasteland 2 is not a 35 million dollar AAA title that has to please the mass market. Problem is... that FO3 could have been re-branded with any name they wished and I bet most (none?) of the recent fans would have noticed or cared.)

** This has shifted topic; lets pick this up in another thread.

[tyroie]

We're talking about an option inside a product, not a product itself.

Don't mistake this for some small thing - this is actually a very tricky question to answer because how you're allowed to save answers: What happens when you lose? And that has a HUGE impact on the game as a whole, and affects how people feel about everything as they play through the game. It's big stuff.

Many games are defined by their difficulty, and often, that difficulty is defined by how far back you go when you lose. Games like The Bard's Tale, Demon's Souls, all Roguelikes, and Super Meat Boy have huge followings in large part because they got away with being incredibly difficult, but still incredibly fun. These games would literally not be the same games if you could save more frequently in them. In the same way, this choice will define Wasteland 2.

I'm not saying Wasteland 2 has to be that hard for everybody - but I am saying that it could be a very important piece to making this game a gem. Modern RPGs let you save whenever you want... And in my opinion, that is functionally equivalent to playing with god mode, and playing with god mode makes games boring, fast.

Yes, at least RPGs keep their story and dialog choices, so they don't completely lose their substance - but how many players out there are actually choosing to play with "god mode", and miss out on that other, big part of the game? A part that they may have loved? I personally believe it happens a lot. I know it's probably a bit insulting, I'm sorry - but I really believe that.

I'm not against an easier mode at all - I just think that save-any-time goes a little too far. I believe that if other RPGs gave you a checkpoint every 5-10 minutes instead (smartly placed ones, along with the save-for-continue option), almost everybody who chose to save more frequently than that would have enjoyed those games more. I feel so strongly about that. You lose so little extra time, but the difference in the experience is just so drastically different.

[LaRoque]

I'm not against an easier mode at all - I just think that save-any-time goes a little too far. I believe that if other RPGs gave you a checkpoint every 5-10 minutes instead (along with save-for-continue option), almost everybody who chose to save more frequently than that would have enjoyed those games more. I feel so strongly about that. The difference between them is just so big.

Maybe. But you can't stand over people like "Ima gonna make you have more fun by not letting you save whenever you want."

And honestly, I think you guys REALLY overestimate that how-often-you-can-save effects the game difficulty and fun one's having. Example -> THIEF.

[tyroie]

Maybe. But you can't stand over people like "Ima gonna make you have more fun by not letting you save whenever you want."

And honestly, I think you guys REALLY overestimate that how-often-you-can-save effects the game difficulty and fun one's having. Example -> THIEF.

Actually, game designers do it all the time. But it's not a bad thing. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. But that is their choice to make, because that brings variety, new experiences - because the way the rest of the game is designed on top of that, depends on it

I wish I had played that game, I never did though, heh.

[LaRoque]

Actually, game designers do it all the time.

And that's why we're tired of them and we support projects like Wasteland 2.

[Gizmo]

And honestly, I think you guys REALLY overestimate that how-often-you-can-save effects the game difficulty and fun one's having. Example -> THIEF.

It has a name: It's called "Baby Stepping". It's just like you said with your friend, and him saving & reloading. In Baldur's Gate it was common for players to inch forward into an area and save, then inch forward and save again; look around the corner ~save. Save; Scribe a scroll ~reload if it failed, attempt again.

If a fantasy RPG included one (and only one) scroll with a certain powerful spell, and the player had a chance of scribing it (based on their mage's ability and competence ~and luck); but allowed you to infinitely reload... the whole point of the 'chance' is negated, as every single player will have that spell with every party, every time they play the game.

** It won't happen (I think), but I would not mind at all if the game supported saved films (of combats)... But what we would see in such films, if saving was not restricted, is many flawless fights where everything possible went "right", and all their hits were critical, and every one of the rangers escaped death ~again.

[Johnny Wasabi]

Maybe if restart it without "Any of the above" but allow people to vote for up to 4 options then it will be clear that options are, well, an option.

Yes. Do it. "Pick your most preferred" as part of the poll question.

Second. Like you said, JW, there's too many angles. It's unlikely that one person wants everything offered, but that's speculation, a gamble.

EDIT: I just hope people won't think that they have to pick everything just because they can.

Personally, I'd take out the "options" option and just give one vote, and explain in post that options may happen. If somebody dislikes options, write a post about it!

I'm partial to what you said (probably because I also need only one voice), but that would just complicate things.

How about if the pole title was "If these were options when starting a new campaign, which would you actually ever use?", and you can choose all that apply (i.e. can vote for up to 4)?

[LaRoque]

And honestly, I think you guys REALLY overestimate that how-often-you-can-save effects the game difficulty and fun one's having. Example -> THIEF.

It has a name: It's called "Baby Stepping". It's just like you said with your friend, and him saving & reloading. In Baldur's Gate it was common for players to inch forward into an area and save, then inch forward and save again; look around the corner ~save. Save; Scribe a scroll ~reload if it failed, attempt again.

If a fantasy RPG included one (and only one) scroll with a certain powerful spell, and the player had a chance of scribing it (based on their mage's ability and competence); but allowed you to infinitely reload... the whole point of the 'chance' is negated, as every single player will have that spell with every party, every time they play the game.

I've never done that and most likely never will. I simply lack the patience for all this reloading. But if there are people who want to play it like that - by all means.

[tyroie]

How about if the pole title was "If these were options when starting a new campaign, which would you actually ever use?", and you can choose all that apply (i.e. can vote for up to 4)?

Aah - actually that would be a good way to see if a certain mode wouldn't be worth the time to put in... That makes sense.

And that's why we're tired of them and we support projects like Wasteland 2.

While it is really awesome that we get to throw our input in, and we get to influence things, at the end of the day, it really is their decision - it can't be any other way, it never is. But it's okay, because Fargo and his team are totally awesome. Whichever decisions they go with, they'll design the game as best they can around them, and that will be a good game.

[Gizmo]

I've never done that and most likely never will. I simply lack the patience for all this reloading. But if there are people who want to play it like that - by all means.

Except... If every party has that spell, then every encounter after it (possibly? ) becomes available, has to assume they may use it. What if its a "kill all 6th level PC's and below" spell?

What if it's an item, and it has a maximum of five uses, but each use might fail, and also has the potential [random chance] to destroy it. Yet for some reason most of the players that had it all got the full five uses and they all worked at full effect?

[LaRoque]

I've never done that and most likely never will. I simply lack the patience for all this reloading. But if there are people who want to play it like that - by all means.

Except... If every party has that spell, then every encounter after it (possibly? ) becomes available, has to assume they may use it. What if its a "kill all 6th level PC's and below" spell?

What if it's an item, and it has a maximum of five uses, but each use might fail, and also has the potential [random chance] to destroy it. Yet for some reason most of the players that had it all got the full five uses and they all worked at full effect?

If someone is patient enough to reload an unspeakable amount of times to get it and then some more to learn/scribe it, all the power to them.

[Gizmo]

If someone is patient enough to reload an unspeakable amount of times to get it and then some more to learn/scribe it, all the power to them.

Indeed... And we all get to play a game that's balanced for that kind of expected behavior.

** We'll see how it turns out; that's all we can do, is wait and see.

But I liked my radio idea, from a few posts back.

[tyroie]

But I liked my radio idea, from a few posts back.

I have to admit, I also really liked it. Seems like it'd be a cool way to ease people into the game, and link it with the story, in a way - or just create stretches of increased difficulty during certain events, and such.

[Johnny Wasabi]

But I liked my radio idea, from a few posts back.

I have to admit, I also really liked it. Seems like it'd be a cool way to ease people into the game, and link it with the story, in a way - or just create stretches of increased difficulty during certain events, and such.

The radio idea is pretty neat in that it ties saving into the game world. I understand in the original Wasteland you had to check in with your radio in order to receive promotions (i.e. level up).

I could change the "Time Setback" option description to "save opportunities are separated in time, either by a timer, or being tied to locations, game events, or resources (e.g. radio and batteries)". That would include your radio and similar creative options.