Assuming there are no 'walking dad man' scenarios in an adventure game, how important is it to have multiple save slots in a game?
Very important if more than one person wants to play the game in shared intervals.
Also nice incase a one in a million chance the file gets corrupted, then one has a back up.
Last reason I can think of, is if there are multiple endings through choices made, and the player regrets a decision he made and wishes to reload to an earlier point, or he wants to see all endings without going through the whole game each time. This of course negates the feeling of making decisions if they can just reload till they get the desired effect, but I digress.
I agree, I always hate if the game has only 1 autosave options, as it can get corrupted. And than you are scr..ed !
10 to 20 slots sounds resonable... at least for me.
Corruption isn't really something to worry about with AGS. I've never had any AGS game corrupt a save ever, and I've played more than 800 of them.
My current game has one save, and only one is needed. It would be like adding 10 headlights to the front of a car when 2 will get the job done, in my opinion. Games nowadays rarely have game-breaking decisions, and if they do it's usually addressed with a patch. Every time I play monkey island I make multiple saves that do absolutely nothing to help me because there's no plot branching or alternate endings or game-breaking bugs.
I think it's one of the conventions of old adventure games that we really don't need anymore.
With full length adventures (like MI) I like to have different savegames, so I can use them as "bookmarks". It makes easier to replay a particular chapter whithout having to go through the game for the nth time.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 20/10/2008 00:09:33
Corruption isn't really something to worry about with AGS. I've never had any AGS game corrupt a save ever, and I've played more than 800 of them.
My current game has one save, and only one is needed. It would be like adding 10 headlights to the front of a car when 2 will get the job done, in my opinion. Games nowadays rarely have game-breaking decisions, and if they do it's usually addressed with a patch. Every time I play monkey island I make multiple saves that do absolutely nothing to help me because there's no plot branching or alternate endings or game-breaking bugs.
I think it's one of the conventions of old adventure games that we really don't need anymore.
This is mostly true, but what if two people are playing the game on one computer? To my thinking there's really no reason not to have more than 1 save slot.
It's a reasonable argument, but I'd question just how many people actually would find themselves with another person wanting to play the same adventure game they are at the exact same time on the same computer. If I felt convinced that this was a major issue I'd certainly consider adding more savegames, but I'm not really convinced this goes beyond the range of a few people.
Yes, you could argue 'why not just do it to satisfy me?' but my answer to this type of question is always the same:
Because the games I personally make are free from my own efforts and I prefer to make them the way I want to. No one is under any obligation whatever to play them (or enjoy them), and if they play and enjoy them then that's great because those people are clearly my target audience.
I would not take this approach were I to sell a game, of course. Selling a game involves a lot of compromises to satisfy testers and to make a game appealing generally, though I think it often means sacrificing the spark and flair that a free game enjoys.
More than just one savegame slot gives the player a feeling of security. I myself tend to save to different savegames if possible, whenever I feel like I might miss something or screw something up soon. Even if I end up having created that four savegames (which is about my average I guess) completely in vain because the autosave did it all or there was nothing to be missed because the game was completely linear, I still feel better about it.
I like multiple saves so I can follow up branches without replaying the game (which I probably won't bother doing). In games with any fair amount of walking I like to save in several places when I'm stuck so I can jump between locations quickly to try things out.
I also obsess about corrupted files and will never save over an old save unless I run out of room or the save GUI is too cumbersome to browse through all the saves. I like to have 99 save slots and will use about 20-30.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 20/10/2008 19:15:49
It's a reasonable argument, but I'd question just how many people actually would find themselves with another person wanting to play the same adventure game they are at the exact same time on the same computer. If I felt convinced that this was a major issue I'd certainly consider adding more savegames, but I'm not really convinced this goes beyond the range of a few people.
Yes, you could argue 'why not just do it to satisfy me?' but my answer to this type of question is always the same:
Because the games I personally make are free from my own efforts and I prefer to make them the way I want to. No one is under any obligation whatever to play them (or enjoy them), and if they play and enjoy them then that's great because those people are clearly my target audience.
I would not take this approach were I to sell a game, of course. Selling a game involves a lot of compromises to satisfy testers and to make a game appealing generally, though I think it often means sacrificing the spark and flair that a free game enjoys.
I agree with that philosophy wholeheartedly; our ability to innovate without fear of financial ruin and our ability to make the game
we want and ignore the people who don't agree is what separates us from commercial developers, and I think that's a good thing. That said, I'm still always going to put multiple save slots in my games, partly because I like non-linearity and there's probably going to be a lot of it in the games I make, but also because I was that kid that grew up playing games like this on the same computer/gameboy as my brother and always wanted my own save slot and was always unhappy whenever a game came along that didn't have that option.
An interesting point about the savegame issue is something Dave Gilbert has encountered with his Playfirst game. The testers, a casual game audience, were actually confused by multiple save slots because they were used to the autosave nature of many casual games. For them, one save means they shouldn't worry about making any mistakes or having to worry about missing anything (the opposite of your view, Makeout Patrol).
I do understand some people's desire just to have more because it's there, but sometimes less is more. In my game a single-click save/load interface means freeing up more time for the fun part of a game: actually playing it. It's also my way of telling people that I've done my very best to provide a gaming experience free of game-breaking bugs. While I sympathize with the desire to play all of a game in one setting, to me it also destroys the purpose behind branching paths in a game. Living with a checklist of saves at different points is, to me, very reminiscent of having a walkthrough sitting next to you when playing a game. Let's say you run into a situation where a character dies but it doesn't prevent the game from being completed. OH NO, I CAN'T DEAL WITH THAT, I'll just reload an earlier save and replay this section until I do whatever I need to do. That's your choice, but at the same time you're working against the very point of plot branching in a game: replayability. Why not play the game again, make a different choice and see what happens? This is especially rewarding in games with multiple paths.
Prog, would putting in 2 save slots in your own game really bother you that much? It's hardly like people would be asking you to change your main character into Guybrush Threepwood or something. When I was in my last relationship, me and my partner would have our own save files on my DS games, including Tunguska. I dunno, I just took your point as like saying "My game will have the arrow keys the wrong way round in function, and that's my choice." Haha! Seems more like practicality and function over style and substance.
A work a around, if you cared that is, would be to have seperate file saves to choose from at the start, and they can only use one save file. If someone else wants to play, they choose new game, create a second save file, and they only use that. You get me?
But I took Anteater's question as to reflecting any adventure game, be it commercial or not.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 20/10/2008 23:03:11
An interesting point about the savegame issue is something Dave Gilbert has encountered with his Playfirst game. The testers, a casual game audience, were actually confused by multiple save slots because they were used to the autosave nature of many casual games. For them, one save means they shouldn't worry about making any mistakes or having to worry about missing anything (the opposite of your view, Makeout Patrol).
Enlightening insight, I must say.
I grew up playing games that I had to "share" with my three brothers. Certain console games only allowed 3 save slots, so it had to mean one of us (out of four) couldn't play the game.
Or even worse, other games would only have one save slot, meaning that only one player could play the game and the rest of us would have to watch until he beat it, and then we finally got our turn.
Initially, in
La Croix Pan, I was going to redraw over the default save GUI, but then I realized: this game is so short, and some people aren't going to save at all, so I reverted to quicksaves and autosaves. (If multiple people wanted to play it, one person could easily beat it in 10 minutes, or you could just copy the file.)
However, if a game is a full-length adventure, I want to have multiple save slots in order to track my progress, or incase something goes wrong and I have to return back to an older position. And besides, many AGS games are released with bugs, so it can save you a lot of time if you crash and can go back to an earlier save instead of being stuck with no way of getting out of the crash.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 20/10/2008 23:03:11
Let's say you run into a situation where a character dies but it doesn't prevent the game from being completed. OH NO, I CAN'T DEAL WITH THAT, I'll just reload an earlier save and replay this section until I do whatever I need to do. That's your choice, but at the same time you're working against the very point of plot branching in a game: replayability. Why not play the game again, make a different choice and see what happens? This is especially rewarding in games with multiple paths.
While this may be true, oftentimes I don't have the patience or time to replay many games just to reach one little choice that changes the entire outcome of the game. It may be more rewarding to replay the game from the start to make that choice, but sometimes it's more practical to sacrifice that reward for time's sake.
I quite often return to a game to have another look at a specific section, maybe to admire a background, or remind myself about how a certain conversation goes, or to play a particular puzzle. I therefore find it very handy to have saves throughout the game, so I can easily jump to any section.
I do this even more because of my involvement in forums like this, whether it's grabbing screenshots for reviews, fact-checking some claim I'm about to make in a discussion, or using a particular background or sprite for reference in my own work. For the playthrough (http://www.adventuregamers.com/forums/showthread.php5735) of Conquests of the Longbow I kept more than a hundred saves.
Finally, I sometimes don't have time to play a game for weeks or months at a time, and when I return to it I'll often want to back up a bit to make sure I remember where I was at. I know from playing the Phoenix Wright games that having just one save slot is really annoying in those circumstances.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 20/10/2008 23:03:11
An interesting point about the savegame issue is something Dave Gilbert has encountered with his Playfirst game. The testers, a casual game audience, were actually confused by multiple save slots because they were used to the autosave nature of many casual games. For them, one save means they shouldn't worry about making any mistakes or having to worry about missing anything (the opposite of your view, Makeout Patrol).
I do understand some people's desire just to have more because it's there, but sometimes less is more. In my game a single-click save/load interface means freeing up more time for the fun part of a game: actually playing it. It's also my way of telling people that I've done my very best to provide a gaming experience free of game-breaking bugs. While I sympathize with the desire to play all of a game in one setting, to me it also destroys the purpose behind branching paths in a game. Living with a checklist of saves at different points is, to me, very reminiscent of having a walkthrough sitting next to you when playing a game. Let's say you run into a situation where a character dies but it doesn't prevent the game from being completed. OH NO, I CAN'T DEAL WITH THAT, I'll just reload an earlier save and replay this section until I do whatever I need to do. That's your choice, but at the same time you're working against the very point of plot branching in a game: replayability. Why not play the game again, make a different choice and see what happens? This is especially rewarding in games with multiple paths.
Actually, you do make some compelling points here. For the players getting confused by the save, I see the logic there and I actually kind of like it. I'm not totally convinced, but I could see some "hardcore" games going this route, and I guess it's something I'll have to consider for the future, now.
No matter what, I'd still include a "profile" system, so that even if it did save your game over the same slot, you'd still be able to start a new game in a different slot. Come to think of it, this is exactly how Black and White worked...
Well, everyone here just about has had some really valid points from their perspective, which I respect. At the same time, I don't think it diminishes my game at all to have one save, though I will reflect upon some feedback once the game is released should a bunch of people have similar concerns to some I've read here, since I acknowledge the 'usefulness' of multiple saves from a multi-user standpoint and also from Snarky's point of having easy access to certain areas. I'm certainly not trying to come off as some kind of prick about this, hopefully I didn't give anyone that impression; I just have a certain vision for each game I make, and since they are largely made for my own pleasure, I often have to reject suggestions that would contradict things I enjoy in adventure games. Additional savegames isn't one of these, which is why I'm discussing this instead of just saying 'I think what I think and you think what you think!' and leaving it there.
The very last thing I want to do is to punish the player for playing my game (that's what I absolutely hate about Sierra games, in fact), but I also have to balance that with the realization that I cannot possibly satisfy everyone (and shouldn't need to). There are people that absolutely loathe any kind of action sequences or dire consequences in an adventure game, and I've received angry messages from both types before. It's just a matter of deciding who your target audience is and making a game regardless of what other people moan about.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 20/10/2008 23:03:11
While I sympathize with the desire to play all of a game in one setting, to me it also destroys the purpose behind branching paths in a game. Living with a checklist of saves at different points is, to me, very reminiscent of having a walkthrough sitting next to you when playing a game. Let's say you run into a situation where a character dies but it doesn't prevent the game from being completed. OH NO, I CAN'T DEAL WITH THAT, I'll just reload an earlier save and replay this section until I do whatever I need to do. That's your choice, but at the same time you're working against the very point of plot branching in a game: replayability. Why not play the game again, make a different choice and see what happens? This is especially rewarding in games with multiple paths.
Seeing as you said that as a game designer, that's a very self righteous point of view. Games are cultural phenomenons and therefore can be analyzed, disjointed and even chopped to pieces, should the audience wish to do so.
You couldn't prevent anybody from skipping chapters in a novel he has already read. Maybe he is reading it again for his favourite passages and has the rest still in mind more or less - absolutely no harm done to the novel. Why should he sit through everything again?
A very pessimistic mindset, I'd say. Also, following your argument in upper case in which you are obviously making general fun of users who enjoy using savegames at all - what's the point in even including one, then? No, seriously, why would you want to force the player to have fun your way or no way at all? I realize that this is going to provoke you into stating once again that you are doing this for free and expect no reward but the pleasure of the audience - or do you even expect any reward other than your own satisfaction?
All valid points on having multiple savegames have already been made, discussed and acknowledged.
Hey, no need for that!
Shouldn't we rather be glad that game makers around here have vision and the chance to realize their ideas? The design decisions may not always be what we would prefer, but experimentation is the only way to get progress. Not every decision needs to be focus-group tested to appeal to the maximum audience, you know.
You can call me self-righteous if you like when it comes to game design; that isn't an insult in my view. There have been many other highly-successful self-righteous designers who had a specific vision for a game and stuck to it regardless of what their detractors said and produced a great game for their audience, so I consider that by no means to be a bad thing. Using your book analogy, how many published authors do you think listen to feedback from the average reader and incorporate it into their novels? They write in the style and approach that they find appealing, and their books are distributed for an audience with similar tastes. You don't read Dean Koontz and expect Tolstoy, so why should you play one game and expect it to be like another?
However, I was not making fun of anyone here, kaputtnik, though your post is a rather childish stab at me personally for making a game the way I want to make it; regardless, you're free to think anything you like. It's almost like you skipped my last post where I directly and clearly stated that I have nothing against multiple saves in certain situations and that my goal isn't to punish the player, but at the same time I do have a clear idea of how I want to present a game that will certainly make some people unhappy. This happens with every game, though, and it's something I'm realistic about rather than trying in vain to satisfy a massive audience.
And no, I don't expect any reward for my freeware games aside from my own pleasure for making them.
Do you?
Hello,
my post really wasn't meant as the childish stab you saw in it - mayhaps I have misinterpreted the infamous upper case speech you used to describe the feelings of save game players. And, also, I might have reacted to the post previous to the one previous to your latter one without reading through the one which is now respectively the middle one carefully enough, I am sorry.
There was no offense in it, I just felt that your creative vision had left some parts of your analytical skills stuck within a creative tunnel view. Thinking outside the box (as much as I detest this phrase) and looking at your project from more than one angle can do no harm, in my opinion.
Also, I did not want to take this thread off the topic, which is a small but nonetheless very important one. I like save games.
Fair enough! :)
I have to say it should SEEM limitless. Players get frustrated when they are limited. But if you set a limit, that only a 1% will reach, no one will bother saying anything. I love save games.
I've always thought that if I create a horror genre game (which I plan in my multi game series--as if I'll ever get there!) I might design it to have a limited number of saves. As kaputtnik said before, they create a sense of security, and so by limiting it can create a sense of panic.
As for multiple players per system, I thought that with the external File capabilities of AGS you could create multiple profiles available to choose from at a main menu, similar to NES and SNES RPG or Zelda games.
Did that make sense?
~Trent
Limited number of saves? Ah like in the Resident Evil games. I always hated that, the game rewards you for being skillful enough to not rely too much on saving. But then is it also expecting you to quit your job, divorce your wife and put your kids to sleep with drugs so you can play on in longer periods of time without needing to stop playing, too? :P
I've hated this about many RPG games too, I've played some RPGs that didn't let me save the game for periods of 1 or 2 hours. This is just annoying. I once left a game paused and came back home a few hours later so I didn't have to replay 45 minutes of the game if I turned it off.
I get what you're saying, but that could be avoided by changing where you're allowed to save. In the RE games, I believe it's a typewriter (with the limited ink too!) and in classic RPGs it's usually an inn.
The game I plan on is an adventure/RPG hybrid like QFG. Therfore, you can pull up the save dialog (saving from frustration) at any time, but the actually number is limited. This is what Zelda did, and it was perfectly fine.
~Trent