The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
What will be the future of save-game systems? The option which most designers seem to choose at the moment is to allow the player to save their game at any point, perhaps with a simple 'quicksave' option. Only a few games choose to differ, using a limited save structure. But which is better, and which will come to dominate in the future?
Tomb Raider 3 and Aliens Vs. Predator are just two famous games to have chosen to use restricted save options: in TR3 you have to collect crystals to save your game, in AvP you just have a set number of saves per level, to use up as you see fit. In theory, both sound like perfectly reasonable options, but both took some fire from the gaming community for their choices. Despite some developers' best efforts, introducing such save game options is still a dangerous decision to take, and one with the potential to seriously affect sales figures.
These structures do, however, increase tension a great deal, and force people to take their actions in a game much more seriously. They also prevent cheating in the form of sending someone to their death to find the enemy positions, and then reloading the game with extra tactical knowledge. However, their main disadvantage is that they can force people to replay certain sections of a game over and over again which, let's face it, none of us enjoys a great deal. Arguably, this results in more satisfaction when you complete a level, but in my opinion that isn't satisfaction - it's relief, a totally different feeling. Also, I personally feel that they keep the tension high at all times in a game (because you're always so afraid of dying). Look at all the best movies, even horror movies: they alternate long calm spells with bursts of terror, to provide the best experience for the audience. Games - and certainly story based games like System Shock 2, Deus Ex and so on - are undoubtedly similar to films in some respects and so should, in my opinion, follow their example.
Perhaps debate on this subject is needless anyway, as the Americans aren't in general fond of restrictive save structures, and the market tends to adapt accordingly: Hidden and Dangerous, for example, was delayed at the last minute, so that a 'save anywhere' option could be added to please the U.S. market. However, I would like to see a future where the save structure appears on the options menu, just like with sound effects and music. It's a matter of choice, and therefore it is wrong to limit anyone to playing in one particular style. That's my opinion - let's hear yours.
Tomb Raider 3 and Aliens Vs. Predator are just two famous games to have chosen to use restricted save options: in TR3 you have to collect crystals to save your game, in AvP you just have a set number of saves per level, to use up as you see fit. In theory, both sound like perfectly reasonable options, but both took some fire from the gaming community for their choices. Despite some developers' best efforts, introducing such save game options is still a dangerous decision to take, and one with the potential to seriously affect sales figures.
These structures do, however, increase tension a great deal, and force people to take their actions in a game much more seriously. They also prevent cheating in the form of sending someone to their death to find the enemy positions, and then reloading the game with extra tactical knowledge. However, their main disadvantage is that they can force people to replay certain sections of a game over and over again which, let's face it, none of us enjoys a great deal. Arguably, this results in more satisfaction when you complete a level, but in my opinion that isn't satisfaction - it's relief, a totally different feeling. Also, I personally feel that they keep the tension high at all times in a game (because you're always so afraid of dying). Look at all the best movies, even horror movies: they alternate long calm spells with bursts of terror, to provide the best experience for the audience. Games - and certainly story based games like System Shock 2, Deus Ex and so on - are undoubtedly similar to films in some respects and so should, in my opinion, follow their example.
Perhaps debate on this subject is needless anyway, as the Americans aren't in general fond of restrictive save structures, and the market tends to adapt accordingly: Hidden and Dangerous, for example, was delayed at the last minute, so that a 'save anywhere' option could be added to please the U.S. market. However, I would like to see a future where the save structure appears on the options menu, just like with sound effects and music. It's a matter of choice, and therefore it is wrong to limit anyone to playing in one particular style. That's my opinion - let's hear yours.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
What will be the future of save-game systems? The option which most designers seem to choose at the moment is to allow the player to save their game at any point, perhaps with a simple 'quicksave' option. Only a few games choose to differ, using a limited save structure. But which is better, and which will come to dominate in the future?
Tomb Raider 3 and Aliens Vs. Predator are just two famous games to have chosen to use restricted save options: in TR3 you have to collect crystals to save your game, in AvP you just have a set number of saves per level, to use up as you see fit. In theory, both sound like perfectly reasonable options, but both took some fire from the gaming community for their choices. Despite some developers' best efforts, introducing such save game options is still a dangerous decision to take, and one with the potential to seriously affect sales figures.
These structures do, however, increase tension a great deal, and force people to take their actions in a game much more seriously. They also prevent cheating in the form of sending someone to their death to find the enemy positions, and then reloading the game with extra tactical knowledge. However, their main disadvantage is that they can force people to replay certain sections of a game over and over again which, let's face it, none of us enjoys a great deal. Arguably, this results in more satisfaction when you complete a level, but in my opinion that isn't satisfaction - it's relief, a totally different feeling. Also, I personally feel that they keep the tension high at all times in a game (because you're always so afraid of dying). Look at all the best movies, even horror movies: they alternate long calm spells with bursts of terror, to provide the best experience for the audience. Games - and certainly story based games like System Shock 2, Deus Ex and so on - are undoubtedly similar to films in some respects and so should, in my opinion, follow their example.
Perhaps debate on this subject is needless anyway, as the Americans aren't in general fond of restrictive save structures, and the market tends to adapt accordingly: Hidden and Dangerous, for example, was delayed at the last minute, so that a 'save anywhere' option could be added to please the U.S. market. However, I would like to see a future where the save structure appears on the options menu, just like with sound effects and music. It's a matter of choice, and therefore it is wrong to limit anyone to playing in one particular style. That's my opinion - let's hear yours.
Tomb Raider 3 and Aliens Vs. Predator are just two famous games to have chosen to use restricted save options: in TR3 you have to collect crystals to save your game, in AvP you just have a set number of saves per level, to use up as you see fit. In theory, both sound like perfectly reasonable options, but both took some fire from the gaming community for their choices. Despite some developers' best efforts, introducing such save game options is still a dangerous decision to take, and one with the potential to seriously affect sales figures.
These structures do, however, increase tension a great deal, and force people to take their actions in a game much more seriously. They also prevent cheating in the form of sending someone to their death to find the enemy positions, and then reloading the game with extra tactical knowledge. However, their main disadvantage is that they can force people to replay certain sections of a game over and over again which, let's face it, none of us enjoys a great deal. Arguably, this results in more satisfaction when you complete a level, but in my opinion that isn't satisfaction - it's relief, a totally different feeling. Also, I personally feel that they keep the tension high at all times in a game (because you're always so afraid of dying). Look at all the best movies, even horror movies: they alternate long calm spells with bursts of terror, to provide the best experience for the audience. Games - and certainly story based games like System Shock 2, Deus Ex and so on - are undoubtedly similar to films in some respects and so should, in my opinion, follow their example.
Perhaps debate on this subject is needless anyway, as the Americans aren't in general fond of restrictive save structures, and the market tends to adapt accordingly: Hidden and Dangerous, for example, was delayed at the last minute, so that a 'save anywhere' option could be added to please the U.S. market. However, I would like to see a future where the save structure appears on the options menu, just like with sound effects and music. It's a matter of choice, and therefore it is wrong to limit anyone to playing in one particular style. That's my opinion - let's hear yours.