Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Baro]

One of the most fun parts for me is that feeling that everything is permanent.  it makes losses felt harder, and successes really mean something.  I like that the game is designed to be played that way.  I hate games that are designed assuming you'll be saving every few min.

That said, there are people who would really like to be able to save for a variety of reasons.  Maybe they've gotten to a point where they are sick of spending an entire day building up their community and really like replaying the end-game over and over.  maybe they have a terrible compute that crashes alot.  No harm having an ini file option to allow save 'slots' or what not.  It would also allow people to have more than one game going at a time.

[ August 17, 2006: Message edited by: Baro ]

[subject name here]

I think we should take this a step further, whenever you lose DF unistalls itself and restarts your computer. You can think of a better strategy while you redownload it and generete another world, Toady can make an option to disable it called "Carebear/I'm a pansy mode". On a more serious note I fail to see how adding autosave will decrease fun-factor and turn it into a cakewalk.

It is never a good idea to try and cater to the Hard-Core 5% as that would alienate the other 95% who play games for fun rather then as some kind of medel of honour. Adding auto-save and the ability to save where and whenever you want can only add to the gameplay, not subtract from it.

(This post may or may not have anything to do with the topic at hand as I've not read everysingle post yet. If its completely illrelavent then feel free to ignore.)

[John Gaden]

What's wrong with the current save system anyway?

[GauHelldragon]

You know, they are called "options" for a reason. Nobody is going to put a gun to your head and force you to use an auto-save option if you don't want to.
I really don't see the point of putting all these hard-coded limitations on the game to suit a certain playing style, when you could just as easily just have the game be much more flexiable. If it is a more difficult game you want, then you can simply impose the restrictions on yourself. Look at people who go and play Final Fantasy Tactics using only one class or not buying any equipment or whatever.

[John Gaden]

I agree with Gau(ff3 fan?) on that. If you want to play a challenge game, go ahead and impose the said restrictions on your self. I think we should either have all the options to play as we like avaiable, or simply leave the save system as it is. Or give my dwarves a type writer.

[Captain Mayday]

As I see it, Autosave by itself wouldn't be an issue, if it simply saved over the top of the previous save, as it'd just be an automated way of doing what the player can currently do, but rarely does, in my own experience.

[RPB]

quote:Originally posted by macbony:
<STRONG>Are you arguing that the game doesn't provide novel experiences? </STRONG>

Are you arguing that the game has an infinite capacity to provide novel experiences? If you played the game from start to finish once and experienced all the endgame goodness, you'd still be missing out on a lot of gameplay, because yes, it's a very deep and varied game. That doesn't mean that you can play through the first few years an unlimited number of times without getting bored.

I find your arguments on risk/reward to still be flawed. In your example of the 1% chance to dominate the game for a while, the "reward" is that you lose a lot of meaningful gameplay and the "risk" is that you waste a lot of time. The issue of when saves are or aren't beneficial isn't about repercussions, it's simply about what leads to a better experience for the player. If starting over leads to potential new experiences in how the early game plays out, then it generally increases enjoyment if the player is prompted to start over a few times--but starting over is going to get old sooner or later no matter how good the game is.

It seems to me that a lot of the arguments here are suggesting that moderation is the key more than anything. What I'd really like to see for Dwarf Fortress is a yearly autosave that doesn't overwrite your current game, that you could go back to at any time. That gives you a cool snapshot you can look back at to see your fortress as it was developing (at least it gives you one that doesn't require you to stop and take several minutes to get), and gives you a convenient branching point that still has some room to branch from.

[mrshirt]

This ignores the point of the game, though.  It's not about winning; eventually, there will be more varied options in the beginning of the game, as the game world would instead be a simulated living, psuedo ascii thing, not some real time survival game that it largely appears to be now.

Unless the designer is much less ambitious than he appears to be, the game you see now isn't the game that it will end up being.

[JT]

The points on this thread are the principal reason why I suggested difficulty options would be based "per world" as opposed to "per fortress".

I absolutely despise people who suggest that for games to be "fun", they have to be difficult.  Games are fun if they can capture the gamer's interest.  That's all that makes a game fun.  If it doesn't capture the interest of a given gamer, the given gamer won't find it fun.  The ideal solution is to make as many options as possible so people can custom-tune the game to their liking, in order to allow it to hold their interest more.  You don't have to use those options.  You don't even have to like those options.  But telling me what I can and can't do with my very own copy of a game just makes me want to break thumbs.

[Capntastic]

I would just like to say that losing in the game; both in Fort and Adventure modes, enriches the World that you have generated.

After hundreds of fallen warriors and abandoned forts, your world will be populated and made all the better by failures, because of the Legend system.

Save-scumming kinda cheats death, and thusly, the big picture.  Every civilization must crumble, and every hero must meet an end.  Otherwise we learn nothing.  

Edit:  Not being able to re-load after you lose a fort or an adventurer to a bad turn of luck doesn't make the game 'harder'.  It just means you're playing without any continues, and should be extra careful.

[ August 18, 2006: Message edited by: Capntastic ]

[Citizen of Erl]

RPB mentioned a yearly autosave. That's an interesting idea, and I've come up with a couple variants.

One is auto-saving after every so many hours of real time; say every ten hours, just to toss out a random number.

Another would be to allow standard save and reload style, but limit the number of saves. When you only have three saves you can make, it becomes a real decision whether or not to make one.

As for me, right now I play it as a Roguelike. I take what I get, and deal with it. However, I have had a crash or two cost he hours of progress, which is a pain.

[ghor]

I'd very much like the saving system to stay the way it is. As has already been mentioned in this thread, you CAN save, exit the game, and backup your save manually, if you really want to. That's the roguelike way of doing it!

If quicksaving makes its way into the game, I will use it. But I don't want to. But I know I will, it's too tempting to hit that quicksave every minute if it's there. I have no willpower!

It may annoy me when a fortress fails and I have to abandon it, but I soon get over it. Starting over again is a joy.

See, that's the thing. When people complain about games with savepoints, complain about how they have to play parts of the game several times, I always want to say... "So what? Isn't the game fun? What kind of games are you playing if it's not fun to replay bits of it?"

Now you might want to reply with "Yeah, but playing the same bit 500 times because you keep dying isn't fun!" and I agree, but the problem then isn't about saving. It's a problem with the design and the inherent difficulty of the game. Adding a quicksave system to that is the easy (and less fun) way out, and should be avoided. I like my games to be about being challenged, not about progressing to the next level.

Yes, this is just my opinion, but I think there are quite a few people out there (especially among you rogue-like players) that agree with me. I urge you to reread my first paragraph if you still want a savegame system in place.

[macbony]

quote:Originally posted by JT:
<STRONG>The points on this thread are the principal reason why I suggested difficulty options would be based "per world" as opposed to "per fortress".</STRONG>

And I'd agree with you. That's actually a really good idea.

quote:<STRONG>I absolutely despise people who suggest that for games to be "fun", they have to be difficult.  Games are fun if they can capture the gamer's interest.  That's all that makes a game fun.  If it doesn't capture the interest of a given gamer, the given gamer won't find it fun.  The ideal solution is to make as many options as possible so people can custom-tune the game to their liking, in order to allow it to hold their interest more.  You don't have to use those options.  You don't even have to like those options.  But telling me what I can and can't do with my very own copy of a game just makes me want to break thumbs.</STRONG>

Despise? Really? That's a strong word. I would then say that I despise people who demand to have things their way. This is a game made for hardcore people, so why shouldn't they be catered to? Why should 100% of games cater to 95% of the audience?

Anyway, the save system as now works. Yearly saves would be nice just due to the buggy nature of gaming in general. If the game every crashes and you haven't saved, it's a bad thing and frustrating. If all you lose is an hour or so of work, it helps mitigate the situation. You can save and exit, back up the save, and load 'er up and do you save shuffling as long as you like to "cheat" the game. The problem is, the moment you legitimize that type of play, you remove the challenge and remove the entire point of DF.

See, DF doesn't have an end. It is a sandbox where you can play. You set your own goals. You do your own thing. In a linear game, you can get stuck and when you do you replay the EXACT SAME CONTENT. Now, DF isn't all that rich yet (I mean, compared to what Toady eventually plans) as there aren't any mage towers or human towns and blah blah, but the game isn't the same thing every time. If you die after a year on a scorching, scarsely forested, sinister fort, try a temperate, calm one. There's already plenty of variety and it's a fraction of what's eventually planned. There's no end. There's no final goal. The point isn't to build every building once to say you've mastered the game. That's the difference between even, say, Nethack and Dwarven Fortress. And Nethack, which is linear, basically, doesn't have an autosave either.

[Sophismata]

Fact of the matter is, I think that most people who play this game could be considered "hardcore". It is a roguelike, and it has ASCII graphics. This is not an easy game to get into - and like many roguelikes, a save system would clash with the gameplay.

First off, splitting the game between "savers" and "non-savers" is bad, especially at this stage of the game. You risk creating a schism within the community, for practically no gain.

Second, most people make a lot of mistakes when starting. Dying allows them to start again, with the experience they've gained, and build a better fort. If someone has gone about their fort the wrong way, you don't really want them to keep loading a game from a flawed beginning. They should be starting afresh, lest they become disenchanted or annoyed at the impossibility of success.

Third, people seem to forget a lot of the random elements of the game - people who endeavour to maintain a single fort, and constantly load/save in order to do so, are missing out on a wealth of gameplay and are likely to be unsatisfied by the game itself. Especially true if this happens to be their first or second fort.

Fourth, like many roguelikes, much of the game is about applying meta-game knowledge and experience in order to succeed against stacked odds. This is one of the challenges that games such as ADOM, Nethack, Angband and the like throw at you, and dying is part of the learning experience.

Finally, losing is a part of the world. It adds legends and enriches the rest of the game experience. It completes the world, and  sets goals for future fortresses; let's say you made it through winter... the next step is, can you do better?

Essentially, the argument of "fun" vs "hardcore" is immaterial to the issue of saving; the game is a roguelike in style and substance, and adding save slots would conflict with the gameplay. A major part of the game is the risk, and the lessons that losing teaches. The game would not be the same if the saving system were changed.

[Capntastic]

quote:Originally posted by Sophismata:
<STRONG>A lot of good points that synch up with mine!  Seriously, go back and read them again.</STRONG>

As I said, the nature of this game is one in which dying enriches the world just as much as doing well.  Using saves to prolong the inevitable only harms that, which ultimately makes the game less fun for the player.