Hi folks!
I want to know what do you think about providing the player a single save slot.
This project has limited resources(mana) and items that the player must strategically use in order to advance. The player can always repeat the level if he has spent all his assets and can't progress.
Only allowing the player a single save slot is intended to make things harder.
Please, what do you think?
Personally, I hate it when a game reduces the saveslots to make it more difficult. The only valid reason for only one save slot is to make the interface simpler (i.e. autosave).
Terrible idea, the only games that should have one save slots are totally 100% locked down linear games where none of your choices will matter. And even then it's kind of a dumb thing to do. Give the player control.
Also Final Fantasy 13 sucked with this because if you didn't do something right 20 hours earlier, or didn't grind enough and saved right before a big battle you were screwed and had to replay large chunks of the game that ultimately makes the player bored and quit playing.
Yeah, making games harder by limiting save slots is bad design in my opinion, back in the days it was mainly done because of technical limitations. If you really want to use it, add an optional "ironman mode" that has such limitations. Besides, these one-save-systems in PC games can be cheated anyway, because you can always copy/replace that one save game manually.
My plan was that the player CAN save as often as he wants, but he'll be overwriting the savefile.
Also, the levels are short in distance and if you realize that you can't beat the level you can restart it with the same items/mana that you had.
Backtracking levels would make things even harder and force the player to really be careful when to use keys, mana potions, etc...
But I think it's a no-no from your reactions. I'll wait a few posts to see if somebody can see advantages on my approach.
Hobo's "ironman" mode sounds cool, though.
If the levels are independent of each other, it might be indeed a good idea to save only once as soon as the level starts, like many platformers and acarde games do. But then don't allow to save during the level.
I guess it all depends on game design and how the levels are built and connected.
Quote from: miguel on Sun 20/04/2014 19:07:41Only allowing the player a single save slot is intended to make things harder.
This falls under 'fake difficulty' and players won't like that much. If you want to make a game hard, do so by playing difficult but fair; don't mess up the player by hampering his interface.
In this case, limiting the save slots to increase difficulty could appear a little cheap. But if the player can retry the level (providing this isn't too drawn out a process), then I don't see a problem.
I can see the single save system working quite well, depending on the game. It's doesn't have to mean linearity; it may be used to prevent a player second-guessing the game at key junctures. If I designed a game where a players choices could directly influence the path of the story, I wouldn't want the player changing their mind and rolling back to a previous save because they didn't like the outcome. That's what multiple playthroughs are for.
Well, no, it's not a multiple choice kind of game. But the player can retry the level and start it with the same items he had.
I get what you the majority is saying, though. One slot/save would punish the player for doing mistakes when what I really want is players to be cautious with their limited resources.
You see, when I play games I constantly save: I can "kill" a guy in DeuxEx, save, kill another one, save, and so on. Sometimes it's like 20 foes. Skyrim is the same. It always felt like cheating to me although I do it all the time.
The problem I'm seeing is you keep saying the player has limited resources, do they collect these from previous levels? And if they use all of them and still can't finish the level and restart with what they had they will never be able to finish the level without restarting the game and grinding for more resources.
Yes, you gradually collect/gain resources from level to level but at no given point a level can't be completed without them.
You use spells or items until they're finished and if still you can't complete the level then it's restart time. But, if you have potions or items it gives you extra resources to complete the level.
I always found single slot saves odd, because up until recently, I always had a shared computer, and people who were interested in games.
Some games got around this by having a "Game profile" and then each game profile would only have 1 save, and you couldn't load a save from another game profile.
Still, even ignoring that point, I'm not a fan of single save slots.
Quote from: miguel on Sun 20/04/2014 21:21:34
You see, when I play games I constantly save: I can "kill" a guy in DeuxEx, save, kill another one, save, and so on. Sometimes it's like 20 foes. Skyrim is the same. It always felt like cheating to me although I do it all the time.
Yes, but you have the choice to not do it like that. ;)
When I play that type of games, I also save constantly and I also have that felling of "cheating", I bent it a bit by constantly saving over my previous save, even if after a hard battle I ended having only 5% healht left.. I do, however have 1 or 2 previous saves, that if it proves to be impossible to continue with that, I can revert slightly backwards and try again... However, I probably would quit the game if I was forced to constantly restart the game...
I think "permanent consequences" is a valid design decision, just like permadeath. And it's much better than being able to save only on checkpoints. So if your game is genuinely designed around that mechanic, I'd say go for it. If anything, you may consider an optional easy mode with unlimited saves.
Also it'd be of course good if you provided one save per playthrough rather than just 1 save forever.
Yes. I see. I'll need to have people playing the levels and throw them both options.
I wouldn't like to design a game based on that particular thing, but I think that, if well implemented, it can add strategy rather than difficulty to the game.
Quote from: qptain Nemo on Mon 21/04/2014 00:39:36
I think "permanent consequences" is a valid design decision, just like permadeath.
True, but it depends heavily on what genre the game is.
Basically you have static levels with platforms, puzzle solving using spells and items. The player doesn't run or is controlled via keyboard. There's time to think about actions, there's an option to restart the level. The more difficult levels may involve 2 to 3 rooms and a bit of going back and forward.
Think goblins with just a hint of RPG elements.