Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
StarFyre

Oh god...I hope ID is smart enough not to do that Limited save game crap

Recommended Posts

That is the dumbest thing for PC games since the PC does have a HD, etc so it's easy for them to have saves anywhere.

For those of us who can't spend hours at a time playing a game all the time, we can't be bothered with re-doing parts of the game if we die or have to turn off the PC for whatever reason.

At least with unlimited saves, if you want the challenge, you can choose not to save, but for the rest of us, we can do what we like.

What does everyone else think? I think choice is better.

Thanks.

Sanjay

Share this post


Link to post

I've got to agree with this. I only play games in spurts. I'll play for half an hour so, turn it off, then come back later. I can't handle playing for hours on end, unless the atmosphere is really good (Silent Hill).

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe they could do a half-way measure, so that you can only save once or twice in a certain section (but like, you choose where/when)? That would stop people jerking around, saving every five seconds and ruining the challenge.. plus it would mean that if you have to stop playing to go do something, you're okay.

Being able to save as many times as you want is like having a soul-sphere around every corner- you wouldn't have to pick them up, but the temptation to make the game way too easy would always be there. I only used the autosaves in Half-Life, and I thought it made the game a lot more satisfying. And completing Doom 2 without saves just rocks for a challenge.

Alternately, you could just make it so that if you choose like, the hardest skill setting, then you can only save at certain points, and maybe you would end up seeing a better ending sequence or something. Whereas on easier settings you could save anywhere/anytime.

Share this post


Link to post

I have mixed feelings about this one. My first reaction to Carmack's hinting at limted saves was something like:
"Omigod, he CAN'T be SERIOUS!?!?"
Then I sat down and thought about it.
Limited saves can be nice sometimes, however, I still think that in long, hard maps it can be a pain in the ass. Also, limited saves prevents you from being able to save at a given moment: what if you come across something which is particularly memorable and cool so that you want to be able to return to that spot in a jiffy? If there's limited saves, you'll have to load the autosaved game closest to that spot and you'll be forced to play through a bit of the level before you can reach the desired spot.

Really a nuisance if there's something special you want to show you friends (who haven't beaten the whole game or haven't found this particular easter egg thingy).

On the other hand, it does pose a cool challenge that you won't be able to save every third second.
Hm, maybe we should just wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm hoping it doesn't do that maximum no. of savegames throughout your progress like AVP1.

But perhaps if they do do this and people don't like it, they can always change it with a patch.

Share this post


Link to post
BlueSonnet said:

I'm hoping it doesn't do that maximum no. of savegames throughout your progress like AVP1.

But perhaps if they do do this and people don't like it, they can always change it with a patch.

Maximum number of saves is really dumb: there are just too many people who tend to save their games as a reflex (like me) -> they'll run out of saves really quick and only get extremely frustrated.

If id has to have limited saves, they had better be doing it either by having "savegame stations" scattered about throughout the game (at least one at the start of every level), or by having outosaves everytime a new map loads or whenever there's a special event that's about to occur.

I'd go for the latter.

And no, I hope id are smart enough to make it right the first time - patches are not supposed to alter the game too much, only fix bugs and other serious problems.
It kinda bothered me how RtCW patches also had to fix stuff like the flamethrower - of course, it was nice that they did fix the flamethrower because that thing was really a nuisance (much better now), but it's a darn shame that they didn't make it right the first time.

Share this post


Link to post

Not being able to save all the time will leave the player feeling a lot less comfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Shaviro said:

Not being able to save all the time will leave the player feeling a lot less comfortable.

See my comment above.

Share this post


Link to post

Bunch of sissies. Saving was meant to keep record of your progress even after quiting the game. I hope they go the Diablo2 way and only let you save when you're abandoning the game.

Share this post


Link to post

I see your points RE: the challenge, but don't you feel that it should be your choice. Like, anyone who has any will power won't save if they are REALLY THAT hardcore a player that they need that challenge. Most people are not like that, as they play for fun.

Games like AVP thankfully I got from EB, where I could return it after, since I don't have the time or patience to care to replay parts over and over. WIth the multi not being anything that hot, I found it useless.

Oh well...I am sure Doom will be much better than that, but you get the idea.

Sanjay

Share this post


Link to post

I think this sucks, and sounds way too reminiscent of the crap way AvP played...

Carmack also said that the game is going to fit into the current trend of shorter games. Not allowing unlimited saves is just a (very lame) way of stretching the time it takes the player to get through the game. It's a very cheap and frustrating way of doing it. I don't get much fun out of having to redo the same thing time and time and time again just to get it right (only to fuck up the next bit and have to do everything all over again). It will result in longer playtime, but not quality playtime.

Allowing infinite saves can sometimes screw up gameplay a bit. But at least it gives you the option. I tend to be able to do the hardest levels if I save a lot, but doing them without saving is a different challenge altogether...

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the AvP way of saving was fine. It meant that I had to be absolutely sure about using each precious save, which stopped me from saving like a maniac. At the same time, I didnt have to worry much about having to leave in the middle of a game.
However, AvP used a traditional level system. I dont know if D3 is going that route.

Share this post


Link to post
Assmaster said:

I thought the AvP way of saving was fine. It meant that I had to be absolutely sure about using each precious save, which stopped me from saving like a maniac. At the same time, I didnt have to worry much about having to leave in the middle of a game.
However, AvP used a traditional level system. I dont know if D3 is going that route.



I how AvP saved too. But Doom3 looks like its going ot be veary hard. Even on the lowist skill. IF its realy hard on any skill then you should be aboule to save any ware. I think doom3 is going to be one huge level like half-life was.

Share this post


Link to post

I, like a few people here, not only play games in spurts, but also play many at the same time. That being said, limited save options would all but ruin the experience for me. If anything, it should be an option left for the actual individual gamer to decide. If it's an option, so be it. I'd be rather pissed if Id software deemed themselves so important as to dictate how I was to enjoy my Doom 3 experience.

Share this post


Link to post
NailGunner said:

I, like a few people here, not only play games in spurts, but also play many at the same time. That being said, limited save options would all but ruin the experience for me. If anything, it should be an option left for the actual individual gamer to decide. If it's an option, so be it. I'd be rather pissed if Id software deemed themselves so important as to dictate how I was to enjoy my Doom 3 experience.


I totaly agree with you. I play about 3 at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post

PUSSIES! j/k.. but I think that only being able to save in certain parts or only at the end of level would kick-ass. There are too many weak ppl (like me) that would abuse the save-anywhere feature.

I hate games that let me save anywhere i want. When I get a game like that, I end up with one finger constantly on the 'quicksave' and 'quickload' key. I've probably beat a hundred or so emulated snes titles that I would have never finished if I had played them on the console w/ limited saves.

Take a game like gta3 for pc. They kept the save feature the same from the console version so you could only save once you got back to your hideout and never in a mission. I mean sure i saved after every mission and loaded up the save if I died on the next mission. But it made me develop the skills neccesary to beat the game.. even if i did have to do a mission 10 times (damn you donkey porn!). That's probably the only game I've beat legit since my NES days.

But anyways, the more I see of Doom3 the more I think it might not suck after all.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah what about Daikatana style "Save Gems" :p I thought Romero left id long ago...

I think it´s a very bad idea to limit the save games. It´s not that I save games like a maniac, but I want to save whenever I want to. Only being able to save in special situations would be highly annoying.
The way players save their games is quite individual, I for example use to save in places where I feel safe, behind a crate or in a nook.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, consider this:
Every time a map loads, it autosaves. Then you have...say, five save slots you can use while in that map. And then it'll still be up to the player when to save, but it'll still be limited how much he can save the damn thing.

Share this post


Link to post

Having 5 save slots per map would be OK for me, as long as can decide where and when I save.

But... isn´t Doom3 supposed to be one continous environment (like Halflife), instead of split up in a number of maps?

Share this post


Link to post
Tetzlaff said:

Having 5 save slots per map would be OK for me, as long as can decide where and when I save.

But... isn´t Doom3 supposed to be one continous environment (like Halflife), instead of split up in a number of maps?

Halflife was split up in maps, they were just designed and arranged so that it seems like they were part of one big map.
What do you think the computer was doing whenever that 'loading' text came up on the screen?
Taking a break?

Share this post


Link to post

I know that it wasn´t one gigantic map technically, but the flow was made that it feels like one big map for the biggest part of the game. My point is, when it´s made like one constant environment with no exits and entrances, how could you effectivily split it up into units with 5 save points each? Not technically, but when playing the game.

Share this post


Link to post

After mulling this over in my subconcious mind, my conclusion is that you should be able to save it anywhere, anytime, but if you complete it without saving (except for Half-Life style autosaves, positioned such a distance apart so that they make the game challenging, but not impossible), then you get a much more substantial ending sequence, and some extras and stuff, such as being able to play through the game as a different character, or some crap.

Share this post


Link to post

Rather than having something as artificial as a "savegame", they should work an equivalent natural mechanism into the story, like they did in Outcast, where you got a "gammsaav" crystal, which you clasped together between your hands and it saved your life essence, so that you could be restored in case you were killed. Or something. You were vulnerable to attack while this was being done.

This could take the form of some biotechnological solution - you can save your brain pattern and physiological state whenever you reach a computer terminal, with instructions to resynthesize an identical copy of you in the case of your demise.

Yeah, that would be much better than a quicksave button. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Grazza, that is a really great point, I would have to totally agree with you. However, it would be possible to do it in the form of something as simple as "taking a nap." Which would only be done in an extremely safe place, after you cleared out all the nasties. But biotech options would be very cool too, if they are believable.

Share this post


Link to post

I think limited saves are a bad idea for everyone except good players. People like me suck so much they have to redo parts as much as a dozen times in games like Half-Life. There was a reason I never got past the 3rd stage in any of the AvP missions. :(

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm. After some more thought, I realize that it depends on the flow of the game itself. Look at Resident Evil. You could only save in particular places in that game AND your number of total saves was limited (ink ribbons). Yet the game was still quite enjoyable imo. The reason it worked so wel is because RE required you to do a lot of backtracking. If D3 is the same, then limited saves might work out fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×