How would you feel about a "No Save RPG"?

[Montez]

You forgot to add that in Nethack you will die very, very, very often. I've gotten to the point where I can reliably get any character to the first few levels of the Gnomish mines or the regular dungeons at the same depth, but I've never been able to keep anyone alive much longer than that.

A great example of a no-save game, but not a very useful one I think. The reason it isn't frustrating is it's near complete randomization of the dungeon for every single playthrough and it's all-around depth, and most of the latter is due to it still being developed and tweaked 20 years after it's release (35+ if you count it as an extension of Rogue).

 

[Pajari]

What I would like to see is the savegame system used in 'The Last Express' implemented in a modern RPG- in that game your save was a continuous stream and you could re-load it at any point you had already passed.

That would be exceedingly difficult, as you not only have to track the event variables for what happens in the saves, but you also have to put in extra information to designate exactly how the character progressed for each and every point, every action taken that has a lasting effect upon the world, etc.

Not a bad idea, but it would be a total headache to program and the design of the entire game has the likelihood of revolving around that feature because of that.

Oh, I'm fully aware that it would be a bitch to program. The only reason it worked in Express was the fact that the game was linear and it basically created a new savegame rather than computing the effects your actions would have on your character in the oiriginal save.

Still, it would be an extremely cool idea, and you're right it would probably dominate the design. I'm not sure if that's really a bad thing, though.

 

[Davaris]

i wouldnt like it much. i like to experiment with situations, which often means failing on purpose as well. "what would happen if i were to try this" (even though i'd never do that in my 'real' game, i want to try it out & find out without having to entirely start my game over).

Yes this game would have a different feel to the test and explore RPGs. The idea behind this is to make you feel vulnerable, almost like you would feel if you were in a real life situation.

Imagine coming across the entrance to a dark cave and hearing a low growl coming from it. You’d have conflicting emotions: You’d feel curious and want to find out what's in the cave. But on the other hand, you'd be scared of getting hurt/killed. Would you be brave and go in? Or would you chicken out?

Davaris, have you thought about having a party rather than a single player?

If you mean my game, you do get a party but you have to find them. When you start the game, the experienced field agents have either been killed or have already been sent to the location you are going to. When you arrive at the location, you have one Blue Beret with you. So you can afford to lose party members, but just not the protagonist.

I could make it so only one member of your team needs to survive to keep the game going, but that would greatly reduce the feeling of vulnerability I want to create. I guess you can use your team members to protect your protagonist. But their numbers would soon dwindle and eventually you’d be all alone.

Go play them, they're great games (well, NetHack especially).

I’ll try them out and see if I can’t pinch a few ideas.

 

[Signeon]

I could make it so only one member of your team needs to survive to keep the game going, but that would greatly reduce the feeling of vulnerability I want to create. I guess you can use your team members to protect your protagonist. But their numbers would soon dwindle and eventually you’d be all alone.

If you're going to have a system like this, there should be some way to recruit new party members. Otherwise the game is just going to be so difficult that only the most hardcore would touch it. Depends which trade-off you're going for, a game that will sell a few more copies or a game that is exactly tailored to your specifications.

I would probably play a game with this system for a while, but might get fed up with constantly losing party members. The difficulty, I think, is the main issue. Still, it's a nice idea, but maybe it should just be an option, not a forced setting.

 

[Duckman]

The difficulty, I think, is the main issue. Still, it's a nice idea, but maybe it should just be an option, not a forced setting.

Definitely. A forced setting on such a topic of no-save would turn away those who just want a short play of the game before they go out somewhere, or just to fill in time. Otherwise the player has to play for a few hours to reach a checkpoint, then save their progress.

A good idea, but not a forced setting.

 

[Davaris]

Otherwise the player has to play for a few hours to reach a checkpoint, then save their progress.

You wouldn't have to play to reach a check point. The idea is that it would auto-save at regular intervals and when you shut the game down. So the only thing you'd have to worry about, is staying alive.

Depends which trade-off you're going for, a game that will sell a few more copies or a game that is exactly tailored to your specifications.

No this isn't to sell more copies. I wish . This is to make a game that makes the player feel something. If I did provide an easy option, then there would be nothing to differentiate my game from all of the others out there. So if I did do it, it would have to be all or nothing.

Anyway I haven't fully decided whether I'll do this or not. I just wanted to see what people think of the idea. On some forums, people have felt quite threatened by it and this intrigues me. It makes me think there is something to it.

 

[SuAside]

Yes this game would have a different feel to the test and explore RPGs. The idea behind this is to make you feel vulnerable, almost like you would feel if you were in a real life situation.

Imagine coming across the entrance to a dark cave and hearing a low growl coming from it. You’d have conflicting emotions: You’d feel curious and want to find out what's in the cave. But on the other hand, you'd be scared of getting hurt/killed. Would you be brave and go in? Or would you chicken out?

that could easily be accomplished without "perma-death". think of fallout 1, restrict the number of stimpacks you can use without adverse effects, tune the party NPC's for balance, turn up the difficulty to hardest & restrict the amounts of saves you can make per map.

a hardcore mode for a game is fine. an entire game based on that solely, will most likely never find an audiance...

(ps: i hate games with fixed savepoints or restricted number of saves, seems mostly like a cheap way to program & an even cheaper way to enlarge the played gametime)

 

[Sorrow]

I like this idea. I don't know why it is assumed that one must "win" the game.
In C-64 times finishing a game was an exception rather than a norm.

From my experience I think that SFLing makes game more frustrating and less RPG.

On the other hand, game would have to be nonlinear and partialy random so that player wouldn't get bored.

 

[Starseeker]

Actually, something kinda like this already exist. Out of top of my head right now - BOf: Dragon Quarter.

The saving system is similar to RE, but in a RPG where you can spend 30-50 hours (first time), and most enemies are very difficult to beat lvl wise, hard save tokens(rippons as it were, 3-5 in the entire game) are probably worth more than anything you have.

You can't lvl up in the game per se, and it's very hard to make money. Soft saves are deleted once you loaded, and it's copy protected so you can't even move it to another memory card.

It's def not a game for power gamers, since you can't just lvl up and beat the guy senseless. All your money and party exp is Halfed if you decide to continue on the spot of your death. In a game where both are hard to come by, that's amount to suicide. Unless you use their PETS system well, you are pretty much screwed.

But I have fun beating things senseless when I learned the system and find out the opponents' weakness.

I would not be comfortable with an RPG if it goes any more extreme than this.

It took me a while to adopt to RE:OB1 when it came out. I probably would have snapped that dvd in half if I had let the countless amount of freak deaths or partner deaths get to me. I still don't like it much, but it's only 15mins - 1 1/2 hours. It's not that much work, so I can live with it. Any longer than that, then I'll shoot the devs on sight.

 

[Montez]

I hate checkpoint save systems - not because they make it harder to "cheat" the system, but because more often than not I don't have the ability to keep playing for another 30-60 minutes to reach the next checkpoint. Whether it's just tiredness or some real-world obligation, sometimes I just can't play anymore; I should to be able to stop my progress when I need to and then restart from that point when I'm able.

Since we're on the subject of save games, I think one of the main reasons saves started getting exploited was because so many games were just badly or uneven designed and programmed. When I first started playing PC games, especially RPG's, I would basically only save the game when I was through playing for the day - I was immersed in the games and it never occured to me to "back up" my progress, and even if it had occured to me I probably would have dismissed it as cheating. Very, very quickly though I found out why most RPG's give you a huge amount of save slots - bugs, incredible amounts of bugs. It's bad enough when some random roll or retarded design decision that you never could have planned for kills you, but it's just excrutiating when you lose hours of progress because of some glitch or crash due to inept programming. So I quickly developed the habit of saving every 10-20 minutes for new games, and from there it became pretty easy to get into the habit of reloading whenever something went wrong, either due to my ineptness or the game's. I never thought twice about it until now, but I'm starting to realize that it takes a lot of immersion and fun out of the game - but at the same time, it's still as necessary as ever since most PC games are really unstable.

So, to get to the point, if you're going to make a hardcore difficulty game with no or very limited saving, make very, very sure that it's as stable as it's possible for you to get it.

 

[Davaris]

So I quickly developed the habit of saving every 10-20 minutes for new games, and from there it became pretty easy to get into the habit of reloading whenever something went wrong, either due to my ineptness or the game's. I never thought twice about it until now, but I'm starting to realize that it takes a lot of immersion and fun out of the game - but at the same time,

Yes I must admit I'm guilty of doing the same thing. If one of the members of my party gets killed or a fight goes badly and I have to use a lot of stim packs, I tend to cheat and re-load. With this type of game, I wouldn't be able to do it and I would role-play more.

it's still as necessary as ever since most PC games are really unstable.

This wouldn't be a problem, because the computer can save your game every minute or so and at the end of combat (this is one area I'd need optimise in my game so it wouldn't be noticeable). Crashes during saves are possible, so the computer would need to alternate between two files in case one is corrupted.

 

[Signeon]

it's still as necessary as ever since most PC games are really unstable.

This wouldn't be a problem, because the computer can save your game every minute or so and at the end of combat (this is one area I'd need optimise in my game so it wouldn't be noticeable). Crashes during saves are possible, so the computer would need to alternate between two files in case one is corrupted.

That's going to be a bitch to program, not to mention the player could notice this system if he usually quits after a combat session.

My advice is if you do want the player to have some limited save ability is (this is assuming you've already hidden the save file) to make it when the player wants to save, he has to quit too. I know it sounds very Diablo-esque, but that is usually the way it is with most handheld games. It allows the player to save and quit if the situation is needed, but doesn't force the player to backtrack to a save point or search for some obscure area that checkpoints his game, as with a few titles I've played.

 

[Davaris]

My advice is if you do want the player to have some limited save ability is (this is assuming you've already hidden the save file) to make it when the player wants to save, he has to quit too.

This is a good idea. I'd probably take the save button out of the game altogether so it would auto save on exit. As for the continual saving during gameplay (in case of a crash) I might be able to create a separate thread to do it in the background.

doesn't force the player to backtrack to a save point or search for some obscure area that checkpoints his game, as with a few titles I've played.

Yeah I wouldn't want to use this method, because it kills immersion.

 

[Starseeker]

I hate checkpoint save systems - not because they make it harder to "cheat" the system, but because more often than not I don't have the ability to keep playing for another 30-60 minutes to reach the next checkpoint. Whether it's just tiredness or some real-world obligation, sometimes I just can't play anymore; I should to be able to stop my progress when I need to and then restart from that point when I'm able.

Since we're on the subject of save games, I think one of the main reasons saves started getting exploited was because so many games were just badly or uneven designed and programmed. When I first started playing PC games, especially RPG's, I would basically only save the game when I was through playing for the day - I was immersed in the games and it never occured to me to "back up" my progress, and even if it had occured to me I probably would have dismissed it as cheating. Very, very quickly though I found out why most RPG's give you a huge amount of save slots - bugs, incredible amounts of bugs. It's bad enough when some random roll or retarded design decision that you never could have planned for kills you, but it's just excrutiating when you lose hours of progress because of some glitch or crash due to inept programming. So I quickly developed the habit of saving every 10-20 minutes for new games, and from there it became pretty easy to get into the habit of reloading whenever something went wrong, either due to my ineptness or the game's. I never thought twice about it until now, but I'm starting to realize that it takes a lot of immersion and fun out of the game - but at the same time, it's still as necessary as ever since most PC games are really unstable.

So, to get to the point, if you're going to make a hardcore difficulty game with no or very limited saving, make very, very sure that it's as stable as it's possible for you to get it.

Just in case that you are referring to me -

BOFQ's soft saves are similar to diablo2. You can quit any time, even in the middle of a fight, but once you load it, that softsave is automatically deleted. The check point saves are only for the tokens you pick up when you feel you have zero confidentence in the up coming boss fights or enemies( or you just don't want to repeat something).

 

[Sorrow]

I think that such game needs some backup system in case of bugs or blackout.

I think that the main problem with saves is that game designers assume that the game will be loaded after failure and advise gamers to save as often as possible.

 

[Montez]

Just in case that you are referring to me -

Your mention of the Resident Evil Typewriter/Ribbon save system got me thinking about checkpoint games in general and how many times they've made me lose a lot of progress, but my comment wasn't directed at you or your description of the BoF system. I was just kind of thinking out loud.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

The idea is to get away from the boring hack and slash and levelling RPG with endless maps and lazy design. You would have to think about every decision because if you make the wrong one your game is over.

Let me guess. This RPG will involve combat. "Thinking about every decision" will amount to shooting at a critter and hoping you hit it.

How is this different to a hack and slash or any other "normal" RPG?

Would you love or hate this type of game? Or would you not care?

As an option, fine. As the only way through, I'd never touch it. Ever. Hell, I'm playing Flatspace II at the moment and they have a similar option. You can choose death = death. Problem is, you warp into a sector and get killed in 1 hit because gee whillickers, there just happened to be 3 bad guys right next to where you appeared. You have no option to scan for enemies before you warp in. No way to detect or prevent the situation and your pissy little starting ship doesn't have the speed to allow you to outrun them or their missiles. You just warp in and die. That is not fun. Coupled with the fact that the game is a boring grind until you get enough money so that you can actually afford a ship that will survive and it's really not fun at all.

Imagine coming across the entrance to a dark cave and hearing a low growl coming from it. You’d have conflicting emotions: You’d feel curious and want to find out what's in the cave. But on the other hand, you'd be scared of getting hurt/killed. Would you be brave and go in? Or would you chicken out?

You'd go in because that's what games are all about. You don't wander around going "Oh gee, that might be tough and I might get killed. I know, I'll just go off somewhere and live life as a merchant instead". Games are supposed to be fun because you get to do things you can't do in real life, like going into the scary cave. Real life is not fun because of the boring safe things you do, like getting up and going to work every day.

The real issue depends on how much information I, as the player, am able to receive in order to make that judgement call. Can I smell something that might tell me "this is dangerous"? Are there markings on the cave or outside the cave that indicate a large, fiersome animal? Can I stake out the cave by hiding in the bushes on the mountain above it and see what comes out at night to hunt, before then deciding whether I want to attack it or not?

... or am I just told "Ooh! Dark and scary cave! Do you want to go in? Yes / No" and on going in find out it's a panther that outruns me and that I have no hope of defeating it so I die. Oh boy that was fun!

So you can afford to lose party members, but just not the protagonist.

I'd prefer a party based game where, if I have control over all the party members, the protagonist should be able to die and I simple continue with someone else as leader. THAT I would be interested in. I don't get why my team suddenly gives up just because "the leader" dies. Don't they have any faith in the quest or "the greater good"? Leadership should be replaceable and I should be able to continue. What's the point of having a team otherwise?

It would require a lot more work and be harder to balance than other RPGs. You couldn't be a lazy designer and fill areas up with really hard critters and death traps.

... and it's for this exact reason that your game would suck. I seriously doubt anyone's ability to pull of a picture perfect, bug free game. Hell, in most games that have an "Iron Mode" there are often bugs which result in you dying and not being happy about it. If there aren't bugs then there are "panther in the cave situations" where you have absolutely no clue as to what you're about to face. Unless you've played the game before and "cheat" by relying on your memory from that past experience.

As an RPG, you'd need to include a whole raft of skills that would allow me to receive the information I need to decide whather I really want to face what's in that cave or not. Animal tracking to identify what animals have been in an area and whether I really want to be here. Books in the game I can study to learn about the habits of various animals that allow me to make a judgement call on what might live in a cold, dark and scary cave. Information I can gather through my speech skill from locals who'll tell me about "the black panther" that they've seen around the place and the type of tracks it leaves. The ability to hide in bushes with my stealth skill and wait (a "wait until I see movement" option which automatically passes time so I don't get bored) until I see the animal come out to hunt so that I can be sure what it is, hoping of course that my stealth skill is high enough to prevent the creature from finding and attacking me. Sounds I can hear and identify with my audio skill that will help me decide whether that growl came from a big scary monster or a small not-so-scary monster. Binoculars or other tools that will allow me to watch potential enemies from a safe distance and study their habits before attacking them while they sleep to get a massive combat advantage. Even being able to slip poison onto a nice juicy steak and leave it at the cave entrance to lure it out and kill it or even just the opportunity to lure it out at all into an ambush area that would give me the upper hand.

I'd play that.

 

[Davaris]

Let me guess. This RPG will involve combat. "Thinking about every decision" will amount to shooting at a critter and hoping you hit it.

How is this different to a hack and slash or any other "normal" RPG?

EDIT:
In the "No Save RPG", combat would be considered more serious and the player would look for other solutions before resorting to fighting and this would influence the design. The end result of this is the designer wouldn't be able to pad out the game with huge mazes filled with monsters and of course the good old boss monster.


As for the game ending when the protagonist dies, the intention behind this is to get you to identify with your character. Otherwise you would feel like you're moving pieces on a board. The effect of this is if one of my guys dies, I'll think "Thats okay I'll just recruit another." What I want is the player to feel like he is taking a genuine risk whenever he plays the game.

Also one of the things I really liked about Fallout was I didn't have total control of the other party members and this made me feel like they were really alive.

Problem is, you warp into a sector and get killed in 1 hit because gee whillickers, there just happened to be 3 bad guys right next to where you appeared.

Yes the problem with that game is they tried to do both. They balanced the game with reloaders in mind (who are the majority) and put in an optional Hard mode for hard core players. So the hard mode didn't play fair, because it wasn't designed to.

The real issue depends on how much information I, as the player, am able to receive in order to make that judgement call. Can I smell something that might tell me "this is dangerous"? Are there markings on the cave or outside the cave that indicate a large, fiersome animal? Can I stake out the cave by hiding in the bushes on the mountain above it and see what comes out at night to hunt, before then deciding whether I want to attack it or not?

Yes this is something that can be done. You can include triggers in the area to test your player's tracking skills and a paragraph can pop up telling them what has passed through the area. How the player interprets this information is up to them. Of course I cannot go too far in this direction, because it would become a simulation.

... and it's for this exact reason that your game would suck. I seriously doubt anyone's ability to pull of a picture perfect, bug free game.

Yes, you'd need a mature engine. Someone like Spiderweb Software could pull it off but not the AAA's, because they have to push the technology envelope and that means tons of bugs.

As an RPG, you'd need to include a whole raft of skills that would allow me to receive the information I need to decide ...

Some of what you're suggesting is a full blown simulation (programmers love making them) and this can't be done by anyone other than a AAA. However asking NPCs for advice and using tracking skills the way I described them above are doable.

 

[Davaris]

So to stop the no save RPG from becoming boring, it would need

1) Some kind of randomness

2) All areas would need to be accessible (as they were in Fallout) so the player can bi-pass them if they want.

 

[Tannhauser]

Davaris, don't double post. Edit your first post if you need to.