The discussion has moved over to Discord

Home Forums Overload Development Development questions

RSS Feed
Viewing 9 posts - 46 through 54 (of 54 total)
  • Author
  • #1583
    Kickstarter Backer
    Topics: 57
    Replies: 421

    But please let the players save as often as they like. (This also gets into those moments when you have to suddenly leave the computer, and it’s horribly annoying to have to replay something just because you couldn’t save before you left).

    I second this! the number of times I have had to replay boring/irritating sections of games over again just because I couldn’t save before I had to leave are too many to count. This is one of my most hated design flaws in a lot of modern games.

    Kickstarter Backer
    Topics: 0
    Replies: 5

    Instead of giving the player a limited pool of lives which are ultimately meaningless, you give the player a limited pool of quicksaves. You can still save anywhere you want, but you can only save so many times per level.

    I love this idea! Also scaling the amount of saves with the difficulty – seems like a simple and elegant solution.

    I really don’t like the idea of save limitations. I mean, if people want to do it without save scumming, they can do that. If a person wants to retry a bot-heavy room over and over again until they destroy them all without using any missiles or taking any damage (personal, individually-set achievements), then they should be allowed to do that.

    I guess it would be ideal if we could have some different options to choose from – customize the difficulty a bit, if you will.

    For me, I feel I need limitations like this to sort of save me from myself. For example, I think Ironman mode is the ideal way to play XCOM & XCOM 2 – one save file, auto-save after every move, no do-overs. I’ve tried forcing myself to play “Ironman” on a mode that still allows save scumming, telling myself that I’ll reload as little as possible… but I pretty much always cave, fall into a vicious cycle of save scumming, and then feel like I’m cheapening the experience for myself. I mean, that’s probably the reason that option exists and is so popular, isn’t it?

    Kickstarter Backer
    Topics: 8
    Replies: 106

    I see it as a puzzle to be solved in Xcom. What series of moves and choices can I make to achieve optimal results? Sub-optimal outcome? Reload and try something different.

    Likewise with Descent, what tactics can I use to sustain no damage while preserving my low missile count? I enjoy saving and reloading.

    Kickstarter Backer
    Topics: 2
    Replies: 127

    I think my preferred option would be checkpoints, just because they preserve the difficulty of areas without restricting player lives. They effectively result in a no-death run every time as well.

    Kickstarter Backer
    Topics: 17
    Replies: 88

    I also prefer checkpoints. I think they are the simplest and cleanest way to track progression. You can’t scumm them like saves so that prevents the urge to save every ten feet and reload any time you get hit, and you can’t run out of them like lives so it’s not constantly in the back of your mind nagging you.

    It just has to be implemented carefully so that you don’t have to replay large amounts of a level if you die (or need to quit and continue later), and also so that there is still a *small* penalty for dying. I emphasis *small*, as having to replay huge sections or losing everything you’ve collected up till then is incredibly frustrating and would make me prefer to use saves.

    I would say it should checkpoint anytime anything important happens (you collect a keycard, you complete a side objective [if there are any], you solve a puzzle and open the next area, etc.) and if the levels are small enough that may be enough. If the levels are quite large though and include multiple difficult combat encounters, then you may want to checkpoint before and after such a combat encounter as well. Think Uncharted and similar games, where if you die in the middle of a combat encounter you restart at the beginning of that encounter, but it continues checkpointing afterwards as well so that if you die a bit later you don’t have to do the entire encounter again.

    For those who think that doesn’t present enough “challange”, you could have a “Number of times died” stat after each level or at the end of the campaign or something so that you can still show off how hardcore you are.

    As I posted in my rant on Sublevel Zero in the Other Related Topics forum, I don’t have the time or desire to have to replay huge sections or lose everything I’ve collected any time I make a tiny mistake or have to quit.

    Kickstarter Backer
    Topics: 14
    Replies: 112

    How about how Dying Light does it?

    It seems to operate on a combination of checkpoints based on location and / or events within the game.

    It’ll save when you reach certain safe zones, and when something happens within the game that prompts it (hard coded by the developers).

    In Overload this could manifest itself in terms of safe areas of a map that are ‘unlocked’ by the player – perhaps either rooms or small sections which have been made safe – and remain safe. Each time the player visits or re-visits one, the game saves. This would allow you to keep your progress AND perform specific tasks in some safety, but not to constantly save and reload each time you get hit.

    Saves could also occur on key events i.e. when a certain area is unlocked or event happens.

    Kickstarter Backer
    Topics: 1
    Replies: 133

    I like the way Aquaria did it. There are save crystals around the map, and whenever you get to one, you can use it to top off your health as well as to save your progress. There are occasional sections that you just have to play as a single run, but they’re not too large. And some areas have a crystal that’s easy to return to, so you can crawl-and-save if you really want.

    Kickstarter Backer
    Topics: 8
    Replies: 67

    That’s like most Final Fantasy games right? And Kingdom Hearts? I’d be down for a save point, but not one that tops your health because that’ll take away the challenge a bit. Plus your shields get replenished whenever you start a new level anyways.

    Kickstarter Backer
    Topics: 2
    Replies: 13

    I’d be in favor or getting rid of lives and instead having a death tally. That would take away most of the motivation for save scumming.

    I like the way deaths were handled in Descent originally. Most of your items spew as powerups where you died, with the exception of keys which you keep, and you reappear at the start. It’s enough of a penalty that you have to find your stuff again, but not too much. (Apart from the whole losing a life thing.)

    So why not alter saving/loading so it would be more like when you normally die? For instance, rather than appearing where you were when you saved, you would appear at the start (or the last checkpoint). That way, either way, you have to find your way back to where you were.

    Another option would be auto-saving. When you start a game, there would be one save slot used for that game. Exiting the game would automatically save your progress (overwriting any previous saved game), and you could continue where you left off later. Sure, if you wanted to be clever, you could exit, copy the save file on disk, and use it later if you make a mistake, but it would be a really cumbersome process to save scum that way. And having unlimited lives, there would be little motivation.

Next Unread Topic:
Viewing 9 posts - 46 through 54 (of 54 total)

Forums are currently locked.

Previous Topic: Welcome! Next Topic: Descent AMA Monday 2/15 at 1pm ET