Print

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

[penguinofhonor]

If you want to play without reloading, play ironman and restart the game. You have the option. There is no explanation for reloading, since by reloading you are going back in time to play the segment again, erasing the events after the save. They never happened. The penalty for death, if there is one, should be death - restart the game, like the old roguelikes, or DF adventure mode. That is what death means.

Are you arguing that all games should have permadeath?

[Urist Tilaturist]

No, only that there are not usually any decent explanations for reloading other than just the player winding back time and having another go, since the events leading up to the death have been deleted, and that if players want to be punished for dying in a game they should play ironman and restart.

[Rolan7]

So save-loading doesn't counter as a immersion-breaking superpower because it's outside the universe?  I don't know if I agree with that...  The character cannot be surprised, and has as much luck as the player has patience.  It takes me out of the game both figuratively and literally.

Like, I recently played a game where the protagonist gets betrayed near the end.  The first time, I was off guard, ambushed, and lost.  I seriously considered closing the game just because it was a pretty fitting ending to that particular story.

But instead I reloaded the game and easily fought off all the ambushers because I knew exactly where they would come from.  The character had no way of knowing that.  As I walked away the victory felt cheap and hollow, like someone had scrawled a happy ending onto a poignant story.  (the ambush was *so* easy to defeat with foreknowledge, that none of them even died).

Not saying games shouldn't offer saving, but they should be balanced such that a typical player doesn't need to reload much if they don't want.  Just like they shouldn't have to check Gamefaqs to reach an ending.  In-universe death-avoidance mechanics can be contrived, but less contrived than the protagonist avoiding failure with no explanation at all.

[Neonivek]

No, only that there are not usually any decent explanations for reloading other than just the player winding back time and having another go, since the events leading up to the death have been deleted, and that if players want to be punished for dying in a game they should play ironman and restart.

The usual explanation is simple... Your death is non-canonical.

Bonus points to Way of the Samurai series where the implications is that you are kind of a time lord able to replay the same moment in history over and over again.

But there are certainly games where the save/load is explained. Such as Blood Omen Legacy of Kain... Then again they explain everything.

Not saying games shouldn't offer saving, but they should be balanced such that a typical player doesn't need to reload much if they don't want.  Just like they shouldn't have to check Gamefaqs to reach an ending.

Yeah games should be easy and telegraphed! wait...

No sorry but Save/Load seems like a small price to play for a game actually being difficult... But then again we live in a world that bows to the casual market of "can't play videogames" typical player.

Some gaming conventions exist because the alternatives are worse.

[AlleeCat]

Or you can always have Metal Gear Solid land where the characters explain every mechanic to each other and nobody bats an eye when normal people are talking about saving and loading and third-person cameras.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As much as I love Kojima's meta-mundane-magic blender style, it wouldn't work well for everything. It's charming for Metal Gear because its done so well and is iconic for the series, but the same kind of thing becomes cliche and sickeningly self-referential when done badly.

[Rolan7]

I said typical gamer, not typical person
I wouldn't expect my dad to be able to play Left 4 Dead competently, but as person who has played FPSes for years I should have a reasonable chance of success on the normal difficulty after an hour or two.  Which I did...  the difficulty settings and in-game tutorial tips are great for that game.  I even still find the hardest difficulty challenging.  And on the flipside, he'd probably have good chance of success on the easiest difficulty, since he played Unreal a decade ago and easy mode is really fricken easy.

If a typical cutscene-and-story based game is making me reload multiple times in a chapter, I find that disrupting and unnecessary.  If I want to die a lot and test my skills I'll just play multiplayer.  I had a hard time getting into Far Cry 4 because of dumb stuff like omnicidal bullet-sponge rhinos and nerfed melee mechanics.  I got used to it, but it sure didn't help me care about the story because I was too busy trying to learn the game.

(Turns out the main character in Far Cry 4 is super bland anyway, possibly because they added a moral choice system, but other characters are pretty neat.  And in the game's defense, the morality isn't angelic-vs-demon like most games)

Speaking of Kojima, Metal Gear Solid 1's easy mode lets you start with an assault rifle.  There's nothing wrong with offering players an easy time for the sake of storytelling.

[Neonivek]

But that isn't the fault of the game unless the difficulty itself is somehow flawed in some manner.

There's nothing wrong with offering players an easy time for the sake of storytelling

Ohh of course not. Heck there is nothing wrong with disliking hard games either.

I was mostly trying to clarify that it isn't a problem that a game is easy or hard.

That a lot of these things people are bringing up aren't game flaws, but rather just different things a game is attempting.

[alexandertnt]

I also prefer a death penalty of some sort.

The problem with save reloading is that it can often make a hard part of the game turn into a tedious cycle of reload->die->reload->die->reload->win, which is just unsatisfying as it makes me feel like the only reason I managed to succeed was because I scummed the technical tools the game gave me. A way to solve this is to ensure the game is reasonably balanced and that you can't work your way into this situation unless you either have a way out of it (e.g. you can leave the Bosses Liar and go back to The Planes of Grinding)

permadeath doesn't really work on longer games. It's far too discouraging and I usually just end up never playing the game again. Sorry, I just don't have 100 hours/the patience to deal with that.

Randomness, or unpredictability, has to be handled carefully in video games. In IRL, there is always the possibility that a paino could fall on your head and kill you (for example). In a game, stuff like this is not fun because it ends up feeling like the player had no control over their loss, and there is little to nothing they can do to prevent a scenario like that. There is no maxima for you to find. The fun in games comes from being able to understand and solve problems, and to use gained knowledge/skill in overcomming an obstacle. Randomness should enable the game to effectively generate scenario's/situations that require the player to exercise their problem solving abilities (what actions can I perform to get to a desired state space), or to practive their skills (which is effectively the same thing, in what way do I twitch my muscles to get to the desired state space?) in a new and interesting way.

In that sense all games are puzzle games, and in that regards what makes games fun is very much unrelated to the realism of the game. Versing 10 inexplicably weaker enemies can be a tonn of fun, and if having 10 of them makes for some interesting scenario over 1 realisticaly strong enemy, then IMO it is the better choice for a game designer to take.

Of course, personal preference will always triumph. If you prefer scenario's to be realistic, or adhere to some predetermined lore, than that's fine. I just don't think it is something that game designers should adhere to, as it may result in them ignoring other potentially fun and interesting scenario's.

[Zangi]

Demons Souls is where its at if you want a reason for the die->reload->win...

But eh, different styles for everyone.

[smeeprocket]

so I'm back, maybe, but it seems this thread has been derailed (again) or am I missing something?

[Arx]

so I'm back, maybe, but it seems this thread has been derailed (again) or am I missing something?

It has been.

Incidentally, I agree with you on women being under-represented in games, what with only half of games having an option on female protagonists.

I think it has been improving, though I have no data on it.

[smeeprocket]

so I'm back, maybe, but it seems this thread has been derailed (again) or am I missing something?

It has been.

Incidentally, I agree with you on women being under-represented in games, what with only half of games having an option on female protagonists.

I think it has been improving, though I have no data on it.

only half in games where there are multiple character selection. the number was 90% male for the rest.

Here is my problem, I am fighting to prove discrimination exists, when I would rather discuss how we can confront it and make it go away.

As a gamer female, both table top and video games, I am honestly a bit frightened of male gamers. I instinctively want to avoid them due to the backlash towards women gamers speaking out. Is this guy a #gamergater? does he think using the term f-ggot is acceptable? Does he think it is okay to slut-shame women?

I'm scared because the guys that don't think this way will argue for the guys that do, and make apologies about it. They don't call it out and it makes me feel utterly isolated and alone.

I want to feel solidarity with my fellow gamers. I've been gaming since around 1985 (1988 for ttrpgs.) I should feel like I belong here. But I don't.

[Arx]

only half in games where there are multiple character selection. the number was 90% male for the rest.

Here is my problem, I am fighting to prove discrimination exists, when I would rather discuss how we can confront it and make it go away.

My understanding of the statistics was that if you picked a current-generation game off a shelf at random, you would have a 90% chance of being able to play a male and a 51% chance of being able to play a female, with a ~10% chance of only being able to play a female. It's discrimination and under-representation, but it isn't nearly as bad as it could be.

As to fixing it, I'm listening. Shoot.

As a gamer female, both table top and video games, I am honestly a bit frightened of male gamers. I instinctively want to avoid them due to the backlash towards women gamers speaking out. Is this guy a #gamergater? does he think using the term f-ggot is acceptable? Does he think it is okay to slut-shame women?

I'm scared because the guys that don't think this way will argue for the guys that do, and make apologies about it. They don't call it out and it makes me feel utterly isolated and alone.

I want to feel solidarity with my fellow gamers. I've been gaming since around 1985 (1988 for ttrpgs.) I should feel like I belong here. But I don't.

Since bigoted speech is banned on these forums and nearly everyone is some degree of liberal, please feel at home. Here, if nowhere else.

[smeeprocket]

only half in games where there are multiple character selection. the number was 90% male for the rest.

Here is my problem, I am fighting to prove discrimination exists, when I would rather discuss how we can confront it and make it go away.

My understanding of the statistics was that if you picked a current-generation game off a shelf at random, you would have a 90% chance of being able to play a male and a 51% chance of being able to play a female, with a ~10% chance of only being able to play a female. It's discrimination and under-representation, but it isn't nearly as bad as it could be.

As to fixing it, I'm listening. Shoot.

As a gamer female, both table top and video games, I am honestly a bit frightened of male gamers. I instinctively want to avoid them due to the backlash towards women gamers speaking out. Is this guy a #gamergater? does he think using the term f-ggot is acceptable? Does he think it is okay to slut-shame women?

I'm scared because the guys that don't think this way will argue for the guys that do, and make apologies about it. They don't call it out and it makes me feel utterly isolated and alone.

I want to feel solidarity with my fellow gamers. I've been gaming since around 1985 (1988 for ttrpgs.) I should feel like I belong here. But I don't.

Since bigoted speech is banned on these forums and nearly everyone is some degree of liberal, please feel at home. Here, if nowhere else.

yea the numbers confused me so I won't argue that.

I've suggested a few things here and there in the thread.

Intersectional female protagonists.

I think Mass Effect supposedly did providing two character options really well, but I also feel that women being represented more all together would not drive away male gamers.

More women of color, and... I know this is a long shot, but trans men and women shown in a positive light, if not protagonists.

LGBT men and women in general. I don't just want more representation for women, but for everyone. I think it would be great to be able to pick from a variety of games and know the protagonist isn't almost always going to be a straight white male. I admit I still game despite this being common, but seeing a strong female protagonist really draws me in.

I think we, as gamers, can provide the pressure to encourage this. And why should all our protagonists be of one body type, while we are at it. I want a playable Ellie from Borderlands 2. She rocked.

More variety as a whole would go a long way. I think making the gaming field more diverse would help with this, if you have different pools of experience to draw from, you will get different things.