Sign in to follow this  
Roderick

Crappy design pervading quality titles

Recommended Posts

not all games are beholden to providing tension through a narrative, i.e. a fixed progression of plot.

Well, I wasn't using the term "narrative" in nearly that restrictive a manner. It's interactive fiction, so it's less about story telling than story making (for the player). Each individual Hitman scenario is creating your own story, not simply trying to survive on rails until the next chance to save or level end. But no matter. I did specifically say that it was OK for games that clearly have design goals of getting from save point to save point. But to take THAT model, and try to generalize about increasingly complex games is equally wrong.

Secondly, in your second sentence you seem to be assuming that save game systems are not part of design, which is completely wrong.

I don't see where I've assumed that at all. All I'm saying is that limiting the save system is not a necessary part of design. That's vastly different.

I addressed your other point in the other thread. I have no problem with offering players those freedoms, either. And from the presence of cheat codes, I'd have to say that a lot of developers don't, either.

Basically, though, you're arguing from a design standpoint, and I'm arguing from a player experience standpoint. Of course a designer can and should follow their own vision for their game, including save implementation. But a player can and should be able to play it the way they want, too, and any developer that forgets who the game is FOR isn't doing anyone any favours.

Also, I had another point, but now I've forgotten. Must be all the travel from one thread to another. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:grin: Walter and Rodi, you two need to play a couple levels from Hitman: Codename 47 before continuing this discussion.

I haven't yet. The Hitman franchise has held my interest in all its incarnations. But I haven't come round it. Would it refocus my thoughts about savegames in a way that no other game could do? Or are you just proposing a good game to us because you want us to have quality gaming experiences because you care about us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is interesting to put this in a historical perspective. In the early days of computer gaming (such as the C64) there were very little saving possibilities at all. In most games there was no save option and you had to complete the game in one sitting. Completing a game in those days were a major accomplishment, something that's very difficult. Nowadays it's almost impossible to find such hard games, except if you impose restrictions on yourself when playing. Try finish some modern shooter in one sitting, i.e. without dying even once and I think you have a rather hard game in front of you.

For a game that has the sole purpose of testing your skill, saving is bad, but when there is a story and rpg elements, you just get frustrated by not being able to save when you want since you don't want the story to be repeated over and over again.

What I'm driving at is that when a save system is implemented you need to look at the purpose of the game. If it just is for skill, then you need only a really limited save system. If the purpose is that the player should be able to explore and try different paths, then an extensive save system would be needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand the argument that certain games may be better with a limited save system. But in most circumstances it's poor game design to force people to go back and replay something over and over again because you won't let them save. It's not a design strategy, it's simply poor design. Furthermore, I read one of you arguing that having unlimited saves is like saying the player should be allowed to start with the best gun, or whatever -- and since the designers DO allow players to that in most games, then obviously they should let you save as often as you like. It should always be the choice of a player...........the point of designing a game is for the player to have fun. If saving repeatedly is fun for that player, then why should you stop them from doing it? It's not like it's something specific to your game, like a person shouldn't be allowed to run around and kill people in a football game or something.

To me, arguing that game designers should not allow people to save when they want is just silly. It's not hurting anyone if you can save -- if you don't want to save, then don't. It's like saying there should be a law which prohibits you from wearing a hat.........it makes no real sense and if you don't like wearing a hat you shouldn't impose that on someone else. Games are designed for the players, and if they like to save repeatedly then there is no reason to stop them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can understand the argument that certain games may be better with a limited save system. But in most circumstances it's poor game design to force people to go back and replay something over and over again because you won't let them save.

No, it's not necessarily poor design. Again, think of old games, where there were no saves. Think of games like Giana Sisters, Spindizzy, Monty on the Run and Bubble Bobble (you probably have some examples of your own). They would be utterly boring, and ridiculously easy if you were allowed to save in them. Nowadays game designers don't aim for really testing the skills of the player and rather want to tell stories so a good save game system is needed. It's all about what you want a player to experience with a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not necessarily poor design. Again, think of old games, where there were no saves. Think of games like Giana Sisters, Spindizzy, Monty on the Run and Bubble Bobble (you probably have some examples of your own). They would be utterly boring, and ridiculously easy if you were allowed to save in them. Nowadays game designers don't aim for really testing the skills of the player and rather want to tell stories so a good save game system is needed. It's all about what you want a player to experience with a game.

I didn't say it was always poor design -- there are certainly games in which it fits. But in a good deal of current games, it IS poor design. It can be used to create an artificial difficulty that doesn't otherwise exist instead of actually designing a challenging game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much to add, but I think the game Outcast makes a good deal with the save method.

The process of the saving affects also the game environment.

1. It is integrated in the story. At the beginning of the game you get an artefact called "Gamsav". It's really rare of course. I think you get told that it brings you back at the moment in time when you used it. Some kind of that.

2. It needs a time until the progress in the game is saved (the reason is not because the game needs so long to save, it's a part of the design). So in that time you can get attacked. The result of this is that it is impossible to save in battles. The gamsav makes also some noise when you use it so it says enemies that you are around.

Sadly it isn't used very good in Outcast. I never really "called" enemies through the use of the gamsav also I were a few time near them. And secondly the game was just too easy so it could build excitment with that. I never felt my heart pumping.

It's strange that no other game exists to my knowledge that has a save method like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had forgotten all about it, thanks! Outcast did have a pretty unique savemethod, a lot more integral to the game. In this case there weren't any quicksaves and the saving method was integrated. Pretty cool stuff. Why hasn't Outcast received more critical appeal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outcast was great! It had everything (that I remember now): Great graphics (although a lot of people hated the voxel engine -- I hearted it), great voice-acting (I think), a female character with slightly big boobs (I'm sorry, but most games need that), great music (really impressive orchestral score), vast, interesting environments (it had worlds with people and trained animals everywhere, working and walking around, and worlds empty of people, but with lots of wildlife and stuff. Really great.), a not-lame story (can't remember exactly how it went, though), and more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why hasn't Outcast received more critical appeal?

I think the reason for this is that at the time of the release it was measured with Tomb Raider. Outcast was a long time in development and it was hyped as the game who beats Lara in the ground just like every other action title with a 3rd person view. It's ridiculous to think the view says everything about the gameplay.

Infogrames had the bad idea and promoted it even like this. You see even effects on the game: Bruce Willis was the, ehm, *cough* inspiration for Cutter Slade. I thought everytime I played it that this game would be a piece of art if it hadn't this kind of hero. It would be more memorable, though it's still much fun.

I never quite understood why Tomb Raider got the better ratings. Outcast was totally different and new. It was the first game which had such a lively 3D gaming world. The people remember what you did. When you killed a person they won't help you anymore (also there is a way to kill people with dynamite & nobody cares) It had very easy controls. You just walked over things and you had them. It had a story which grabbed you and even made you think a bit after the game ended.

Maybe the press was disappointed that the action part was kinda small. Cutter Slade was no alien ass-kicker. No Bruce Champ...eh, I mean Duke Nukem. He was social. Maybe they were irritated of that.

And what was with Tomb Raider 4? There it's strange. The fourth installment was promoted that it had a great story. It should also have much better graphics and more character development. It certainly got better ratings. Tomb Raider 4 had really all more of this but nothing of that was really good. The story was tiresome, it didn't really interest. It didn't influenced the gameplay. There were just some cutscenes which developed the story. Character development was small. We had a villain this time and we learned that Lara was his student. But besides she's still the cold-hearted woman who hates man. There were also more puzzles, but they just made the game boring.

Maybe it was easier for the gaming press to see that it had more of that all and think that it was good. But Outcast had great features, but it was promoted for the wrong one which also weren't nearly not there.

I would love to see a Outcast 2. There are some Screenshots on the net and they still great although they are some years old. I also think that Outcast has still great graphics. No other game has such a smooth landscape. There is a way to change also the resolution to 640x480 (just look in the Ini-files, in one you can change the height and width.)

Hope my grammar is OK.

:mock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of the problem also what there was this stupid and ultimately unnecessary comparison. Why the hell should these to games - TR and Outcast - automatically be pitted against each other? Each had its own strengths and weaknesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly what I mean.

Tomb Raider even wasn't that big of an innovation.

It wasn't the first game where you see your gaming character over the shoulders. Fade to black already had the 3rd person view. Also I don't think that lever pulling and buttons hitting were really something new. Maybe in this amount.

The only innovation was that you played as an woman. There was no action title who had this before (not that I know of). And I think this a really overrated innovation.

And Outcast even had a female lead.

Outcast was overlooked. None of its ideas was the inspiration for other games. Well, I could write endless about it, but you better play it to find out or you already know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've really been meaning to look into Outcast for about, well, 8 years or so....I mean it, cough. I'll have to get it, because I was excited about it before other games made me forget it. Thanks for reminding me.

Anyway, an example of a game with a great save system is Metal Gear Solid 2 (on Hard difficulty--its just better that way). You can save at any time, but when you load, or die, you'll be at the beginning of the room you saved in. This effectively splits each area into a small level, never eliminating the level's challenge while still allowing for freedom in saving. Also, it uses this room system as a check point, so most of the time you'd only be saving before quiting. In my opinion this makes the game much more fun and just makes sense. But this concept would be hard to implement in games that aren't like MGS. Which is basically all games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 Years?!? Well, let me think it was released in 1999, now we have, umm *looksincalendar*, 2004, yeah 2004, that makes, pff, let's think, hard maths I have to admit........*grabscalcutar*.............5 YEARS!!

Are you a time traveller or what? :erm:

Abe's Odyssey has the same system. But it's also very unique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its felt like 8 years.

Do you think it'll run on XP? I can't find it anywhere...not even ebay has one in the US. I'll just have to pirate it I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure you can't find it?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00002NDEF/qid=1098500978/sr=52-1/ref=sr_52_1_etk-software/104-1931497-1379114?v=glance&s=video games&n=229534

It's the Collector's Edition I suppose.

Yeah, it runs under Xp, but you will need the super important patch except you use DirectX6 (maybe the patch is integrated in this version, it should be).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a used book store in the neighborhood that has old boxed versions of the game. I bought one a while ago, tried it, was disgusted and gave up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming in late, but I thought Metroid Prime's save system was pretty stellar. It provided save points almost everytime you needed one, granted you just took your time and explored as much as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this