Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
NOT SAVING GIVING A BETTER REWARD?
Posts
RPGCreator
10
RPGCreator
View playlists
CloseSo, I'm working on something for the moment where the game is divided into missions (instead of chapters and so on). For every mission you will get a mission briefing telling you why you are there and what's need to be done. However, before every mission you have the chance to save your progress. The save option will return once again as you complete a mission. That's when it hit me. A really annoying feature for some maybe. How about, if you decided not to save, you would get a better reward at the end of the mission than if you would save? The player will know that not saving his/her progress will give off a better reward at the end, but the player can still choose. I'm just gonna ask what you think about this "optional reward system".
I understand that it's a feature which will be greatly hated by some, but still. I thought it to be somewhat interesting and would like to hear your thoughts.
EDIT: I'm talking about the moment when you save at the start of the mission and not the end of it.
I understand that it's a feature which will be greatly hated by some, but still. I thought it to be somewhat interesting and would like to hear your thoughts.
EDIT: I'm talking about the moment when you save at the start of the mission and not the end of it.
That could be really bad when people are playing on limited time. They lose out just because they have to go do something or are tired? That's punishing the player for something that they need to do outside of the game.
How about something with-in the game, like dying or running from skirmishes or reaching a certain damage thresh hold?
How about something with-in the game, like dying or running from skirmishes or reaching a certain damage thresh hold?
RPGCreator
10
Hmm... Seems like I forgot that obvious point. But to go along with what you said, how about a checkpoint in the middle of the missions? The missions aren't really that long. Think those in FFVII: Crisis Core. Sure, some of them are a bit long, but I'm not gonna punish the player really by making them far too long.
UPRC
5516
I don't think any game should ever offer better rewards for players who decline to record their progress. It's not good game design for the reasons Liberty stated. Nevermind other external problems that could occur, like a power outage or a power cord coming loose for whatever reason. If I played a game that said to me, "If you don't save your game for the next portion, you'll get a better reward!" I'd probably just roll my eyes, save, and press on.
I can't imagine that many people would be fond of such a feature, and I'd suggest going with what Liberty suggests instead, giving better rewards based on player performance rather than giving them nicer shinies for keeping their butts planted in their chairs for longer than they may like to be sitting there.
What I like to do is set up things in dungeons that award bonuses, like having to rescue NPCs or finding certain objects in the dungeon. The more NPCs you rescue/objects you find, the better your reward will be at the end. It allows players to spend more time in the dungeon to get a slightly better reward, but those who aren't interested in doing so can just shrug their shoulders and press on.
I can't imagine that many people would be fond of such a feature, and I'd suggest going with what Liberty suggests instead, giving better rewards based on player performance rather than giving them nicer shinies for keeping their butts planted in their chairs for longer than they may like to be sitting there.
What I like to do is set up things in dungeons that award bonuses, like having to rescue NPCs or finding certain objects in the dungeon. The more NPCs you rescue/objects you find, the better your reward will be at the end. It allows players to spend more time in the dungeon to get a slightly better reward, but those who aren't interested in doing so can just shrug their shoulders and press on.
RPGCreator
10
You know what? This may make sound stupid and all, but the more I think about this, the more I actually hate this. However, Your suggestions about giving the player some side things to do may be a good thing here. I can think of some things to add without having it destroy the mission itself.
For example, giving the player a puzzle (a puzzle in a dungeon!? Who would have thought?) and a chance for them to solve it on their own or look up the answer. Rewards given based on how you acted. Pretty much like Lords of Shadow did it.
For example, giving the player a puzzle (a puzzle in a dungeon!? Who would have thought?) and a chance for them to solve it on their own or look up the answer. Rewards given based on how you acted. Pretty much like Lords of Shadow did it.
UPRC
5516
Adding a puzzle sounds like a pretty sound idea to me, I say roll with it. People appreciate puzzles in dungeon since they give us temporary breaks from fights and such, as long as the puzzle itself isn't more tedious than the battles within the dungeon.
RPGCreator
10
The game itself is pretty linear and most of the fights are actually planned into the story of the game, so in a sense I think it (the puzzles) would be seen as a "balanced" break from the linearity of the game even though it is included somehow in the linearity.
TheNecromancer
3160
Whaaa-, I like the idea. Especially if it's OPTIONAL bonus as was stated in the OP. What isn't stated is what kind of game we're talking about. RPG, yes it can be a bad idea for the reasons above. Action game, no big deal.
But no matter the genre, if you don't gain anything unique from this kind of bonus, then the player is not being punished in any way by saving. They are simply missing out on an optional extra.
But no matter the genre, if you don't gain anything unique from this kind of bonus, then the player is not being punished in any way by saving. They are simply missing out on an optional extra.
But they are being punished by not being able to gain access to extra stuff because of external reasons.
One way you could do this, though, and make it work is with a bookmark feature like in the Fire Emblem games. If you are in the middle of a mission you can suspend it until you next turn on the game. In FE you can choose to reload your old save file from before the mission or continue with the suspended data. If your missions are designed not to matter if you stuff up a few times, then the suspended save could probably work best.
That way the player can suspend play if they have to do something without missing out on the extra rewards because they have to do something external/power outage/etc.
It's not allowing a hard save - the data is deleted as soon as the player resumes play from that point - but it does offer the convenience of being allowed to put the game down without worrying about losing whatever progress you've made and missing out on the neat extra loot.
One way you could do this, though, and make it work is with a bookmark feature like in the Fire Emblem games. If you are in the middle of a mission you can suspend it until you next turn on the game. In FE you can choose to reload your old save file from before the mission or continue with the suspended data. If your missions are designed not to matter if you stuff up a few times, then the suspended save could probably work best.
That way the player can suspend play if they have to do something without missing out on the extra rewards because they have to do something external/power outage/etc.
It's not allowing a hard save - the data is deleted as soon as the player resumes play from that point - but it does offer the convenience of being allowed to put the game down without worrying about losing whatever progress you've made and missing out on the neat extra loot.
I think there's a few games that give a better end-game score (or whatever) the less often you save. Vagrant Story definitely, but I think Breath of Fire Dragon Quarter does this too? They can be completed in 20-ish hours (which is relatively short), and, to be honest, I'm not sure how much effect "number of saves" determines the end-game score.
However, just because these games did something with save count doesn't mean you should as well. I merely wanted to point out that games where save count matters exist.
However, just because these games did something with save count doesn't mean you should as well. I merely wanted to point out that games where save count matters exist.
RPGCreator
10
author=Marrend
I think there's a few games that give a better end-game score (or whatever) the less often you save. Vagrant Story definitely, but I think Breath of Fire Dragon Quarter does this too? They can be completed in 20-ish hours (which is relatively short), and, to be honest, I'm not sure how much effect "number of saves" determines the end-game score.
However, just because these games did something with save count doesn't mean you should as well. I merely wanted to point out that games where save count matters exist.
I guess you're right. Just because some does it, it doesn't mean you should follow. Anyway, I removed that "feature" now. I think I'll be going with puzzles (especially in dungeons) and since this actually is an RPG, this idea could be pretty hard to accomplish if I want it to be liked by the players.
TheNecromancer
3160
They are missing out on something, but it's not a punishment because they are not worse off than if say, the whole bonus system didn't exist in the first place. It's there for certain people to take advantage of and the experience of the game isn't negatively impacted for those who can't.
It's fine if you don't like it, but you can't conclude that it can never work in any game, ever.
It adds a small layer of challenge to see how long you can go without saving, too.
And if the span between possible save bonuses is small, like 20 minutes, even someone who can't sit down for hours can still make use of some of the bonuses.
Why should people who can sit down for a long period of time be "punished" because of those who can't? I think that it's safe to say that a majority of the people who play video games, can devote a large enough chunk of time in one sitting to make this kind of idea viable.
It's fine if you don't like it, but you can't conclude that it can never work in any game, ever.
It adds a small layer of challenge to see how long you can go without saving, too.
And if the span between possible save bonuses is small, like 20 minutes, even someone who can't sit down for hours can still make use of some of the bonuses.
Why should people who can sit down for a long period of time be "punished" because of those who can't? I think that it's safe to say that a majority of the people who play video games, can devote a large enough chunk of time in one sitting to make this kind of idea viable.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
If your goal is to discourage save scumming, just only allow quicksaving during the middle of a mission. So that loading their save deletes it, and dying makes them restart the mission. Between missions they can create a permanent save that can be reloaded multiple times.
Fire Emblem has normal mode work this way and easy mode allow save scumming. I guess that's a fair option. Anyone who wants to cheese the challenges to avoid having to play properly is gonna be on easy mode. Anyone who enjoys the gameplay and wants a proper challenge is gonna be on normal mode. The key is that there's no difference in the rewards though. It's just a harder difficulty mode for people who want a harder difficulty, combined with the removal of save scumming so that the harder difficulty is actually enforced.
Fire Emblem has normal mode work this way and easy mode allow save scumming. I guess that's a fair option. Anyone who wants to cheese the challenges to avoid having to play properly is gonna be on easy mode. Anyone who enjoys the gameplay and wants a proper challenge is gonna be on normal mode. The key is that there's no difference in the rewards though. It's just a harder difficulty mode for people who want a harder difficulty, combined with the removal of save scumming so that the harder difficulty is actually enforced.
Someoneman
1318
author=Link_2112
They are missing out on something, but it's not a punishment because they are not worse off than if say, the whole bonus system didn't exist in the first place. It's there for certain people to take advantage of and the experience of the game isn't negatively impacted for those who can't.
I disagree with this point. Yes, the players are not worse of than if the system didn't exist, but the thing is that the system does exist, and it is wrong to compare the game with rewards for skipping save points and the game without those rewards.
The quicksaving seems like an attractive option in this case, if you still want a limited-save reward system.
In my own games, I generally either allow saving anywhere or saving anywhere except in dungeons, just for convenience, and try to create challenges in other ways, but that's just me.
I may be one of the only people on the planet that feels this way, but I really enjoyed a lot of Dragon Quarter's weird challenge. Though I wouldn't ever subject that to a player unless they knew up front that that's the kind of game they're getting in to.
In my own games, I generally either allow saving anywhere or saving anywhere except in dungeons, just for convenience, and try to create challenges in other ways, but that's just me.
author=Marrend
I think there's a few games that give a better end-game score (or whatever) the less often you save. Vagrant Story definitely, but I think Breath of Fire Dragon Quarter does this too?
I may be one of the only people on the planet that feels this way, but I really enjoyed a lot of Dragon Quarter's weird challenge. Though I wouldn't ever subject that to a player unless they knew up front that that's the kind of game they're getting in to.
I don’t really mind incorporating this mechanic in if it’s completely optional and the rewards are just too big not to pass up, but if I was being forced? I don’t think so. Unless each segment is very short and underneath a small time frame to finish, than I don’t mind being forced to complete it in one sitting without saving just to get a better score or rewards for the next mission.
I agree with Link.
Resident Evil rewards the players with a plethora of extras the less you save and the faster you beat it.
Should it not exist because everyone can't do it? No, that wouldn't make any sense.
I say have the option there for those that want it, otherwise you are catering to people who don't have the time for the game, atleast not a healthy amount of it.
Resident Evil rewards the players with a plethora of extras the less you save and the faster you beat it.
Should it not exist because everyone can't do it? No, that wouldn't make any sense.
I say have the option there for those that want it, otherwise you are catering to people who don't have the time for the game, atleast not a healthy amount of it.
RyaReisender
200
I think, it's HORRIBLE design to reward players for not saving. Would automatically make me hate the game and give it a 1/5 score with no chance of salvation.
Please don't add such crap to your games. Thank you.
It's already bad enough if games don't allow you to save anywhere and you have to play 30+ minutes without a save point.
The only games I can forgive for not offering a save feature are those that can be completed in 30 minutes and where the actual challenge is a high score rather than completing them. Like shmups.
Please don't add such crap to your games. Thank you.
It's already bad enough if games don't allow you to save anywhere and you have to play 30+ minutes without a save point.
The only games I can forgive for not offering a save feature are those that can be completed in 30 minutes and where the actual challenge is a high score rather than completing them. Like shmups.
I think it really depends on the mission length, and what you might lose by dying in the middle of the third consecutive save-less mission. Pulling up Fire Emblem again, many people always suggested (in the older games) not saving before a certain mission, because certain conditions had to be met prior to it in order to get the better of two possible characters, who would lead to yet another character. If you failed to achieve the conditions, you just reloaded back to before you started the mission, and grinded the hell out of your heroes to meet the necessary conditions. Of course, you could avoid that by keeping track of the requirements and your levels, but prior to everybody having internet, you didn't always know the secret requirements. This sucked because it was incredibly difficult to grind if you were too far away from the requirement, and sometimes the previous chapter could take a while to complete.
On the other hand, allowing non-stop saving puts you into Pokemon territory. Saving before every gym and elite four battle always seemed like cheating. Sure you could always NOT do it, but then what did you really get from depriving yourself of it? It made it possible to just restart until you got the critical hit or landed the hydro pump that would win you the battle. You need to be careful how often you allow the player to save, and what, if anything, they get out of not doing so.
On the other hand, allowing non-stop saving puts you into Pokemon territory. Saving before every gym and elite four battle always seemed like cheating. Sure you could always NOT do it, but then what did you really get from depriving yourself of it? It made it possible to just restart until you got the critical hit or landed the hydro pump that would win you the battle. You need to be careful how often you allow the player to save, and what, if anything, they get out of not doing so.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
My vote is still for ironman mode. Instead of disallowing saving, you enforce it. Autosave after every button press.
Then you just have to figure out what to do when the player gets a game over. They can't reload their save, obviously. So you probably move them back to the last checkpoint instead.
The traditional method in most NES/SNES/PSX era games was to make "place where you get sent back to if you turn the game off" and "place where you get sent back to if you die" always be the same place, but there's no reason for this to necessarily be the case. It doesn't make a lot of sense in many games, honestly.
Then you just have to figure out what to do when the player gets a game over. They can't reload their save, obviously. So you probably move them back to the last checkpoint instead.
The traditional method in most NES/SNES/PSX era games was to make "place where you get sent back to if you turn the game off" and "place where you get sent back to if you die" always be the same place, but there's no reason for this to necessarily be the case. It doesn't make a lot of sense in many games, honestly.
