NOT SAVING GIVING A BETTER REWARD?

Rya do you understand the concept of save scumming?

It's where you save, let an enemy attack, and then keep reloading until it misses. Or you save, attempt a near-impossible jump, and then reload to try it again one pixel different. Or you encounter a choice in dialogue, maybe a moral choice or maybe some kind of puzzle, and you try all five options to see what the outcome of each one is before deciding what to do. Or there's a switch puzzle that zaps you each time you push the wrong switch, so you save before each switch and reload if it zaps you. Or you get in a random battle, and you save your game before using Firestorm and reload and try a different element if the enemy's not weak to fire. Or you make a wrong turn in a dungeon, so you reload to right before you made that turn so you don't have to get in a random battle on the way back. You just reload to 15 seconds ago over and over, maybe a hundred in a row, until you get whatever you're doing perfect.

This is cheating and it turns all the challenges in your game into swiss cheese. This is what save systems other than "save anywhere to as many files as you want with no restrictions and reload those saves as many times as you want with no restrictions" are trying to prevent. They are trying to prevent players from cheating. Because by putting that unresricted save/load system in the game, you're effectively saying to players "you're supposed to be able to do this stuff." And you're ruining your own game.

The opening post is confusing and kinda changes its mind several times about what ideas it's talking about. I decided to ignore the confusing stuff in it and talk about what I assume it actually meant, which was "Is it bad to allow players to freely save between missions, but penalize them for saving during the middle of missions?" Because that's a question that actually makes sense.

@LockeZ
And what is the motivation in stopping players from cheating if they want to cheat? If players actually enjoy "save scumming", why stop them from doing so? I don't really see the majority playing like this.
Shouldn't games just be fun for the players and not the developer enforcing them to play how he wants them to?

author=RyaReisender
Shouldn't games just be fun for the players and not the developer enforcing them to play how he wants them to?

author=Liberty
How a person plays a game shouldn't be up to the creator as long as they're playing by the systems inherent in the game.

I think I just got an aneurism from reading this. This is some unbelievably retarded ass logic.

If you don't think you have any better of an idea of how to make a game fun than any of your players, then stop making games. Stop. Right now. You just admitted you have no idea how to make them more fun than the player sitting there imagining things on his own. That is not okay. Uninstall RPG Maker, delete your account, close your browser, and join a monastery. You need to seriously reevaluate your life. If I were the admin of this website I would ban you; you should not be here and your presence is cancerous. I cannot even convey how strongly I feel about this.

Players will compulsively do horrible shit because it improves their results, or because it's the path of least resistance, or because they have to do it to get something they want later, or because they've been conditioned to expect to have to do it, or for some other psychological reason. They will do things that they do not actually enjoy, because the game interacts with their brains in a way that leads them to do those things. Your job, as a game designer, is to make the things that they end up actually doing also be things they enjoy. This is the precise definition of Game Design, capital g, capital d. To suggest that this is pointless is to fight against the very idea that game design is worthwhile.

The mere existence of an easy way to solve a problem can kill the satisfaction of solving the problem in a hard way. This is a psychological effect which strength varies from individual to individual.

The attitude towards how much responsibility that lies on the designer also varies from individual to individual. I remember one discussion about Final Fantasy VIII where people claimed the game was too easy and got the response that they should junction weaker spells to their stats. That argument was not accepted by anyone who didn't already do that. They considered it the job of the designers to make sure the game is balanced, not that of the players. Some go a step further and think that the game designers should should cap the level that players can grind to based on how far they progressed trough the story. Other are perfectly OK with the game designers leaving the balance entirely in the hands of the player.

I think that when you design a game, you should ask yourself which kind of players you want to appeal to. Then make your choices accordingly. Don't try to find the one "right" way to do it, there is no such thing.

That said, one thing is a constant regardless of who you want to appeal to, the easier it is for a player to screw itself over, the more likely it is this will happen. Grinding to level 50 in the first dungeon usually takes forever, so players who want a challenge are unlikely to do that. However, if you can obtain an overpowered weapon with only 10 minutes work, it's more likely that someone who wants challenge nevertheless takes that option, thereby making the game less fun for itself.

Why should the game force me to play through the whole dungeon again when I died at the boss just because the game designer was scared that people will keep reseting their games until the boss's strongest attack misses and they beat him without even figuring out the correct tactic? It seems like quite a lot suffering for very little benefit.

The game wouldn't be forcing you to not save, nobody suggested that.

I think you forget what was actually suggested and instead you created an image of a poorly implemented idea that you are still hanging onto.

It's like giving someone a ball and telling him that it should only be used to play basketball, because your professional evaluation concluded that the ball is best suited for this case.

Forcing your concepts onto players will not work, even if you are a good game designer as not all humans are the same.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything. The game designer made choices and you will have to deal with them if you choose to play the game. You can quit any time and a game dev can't possibly please everyone who plays their game. Like you say, not all humans are the same, so there are people who like those ideas and want to play games like that. It sounds more like you are trying to force your opinion on all game designers.

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.

Sorry to say, but it's not all about what you like u.u You can not like it, you are entitled to your opinion, but to say it shouldn't exist is short-sighted. I would like to see how you manage to get a 1/5 review on RMN for a game you quit because of that reason, especially when it's explained at the start of the game. You don't even know how something is implemented, but you know that it sucks!

There are many must-have types of gameplay systems for a game to be good, but something as small as a bonus for not saving...I can't help but shake my head. You're only denouncing the idea out of spite I think, because there is no actual punishment or setback for saving. Only metaphysical punishment that you are inflicting on yourself. If we follow that logic, any game that has a branching choice of 'one or the other' is punishing you and shouldn't do that. There are soooo many games that have tons of bonus's and you can't possibly get them all at the same time. Maybe because they contradict "deal no damage for the entire level" "deal over 9000 damage in one level".

The best part is, you can still savescum and grind all you want!
It has no effect on playing the game any way you want!
If some person wants to play the game without saving for the challenge of it, he will get a bonus!

Oh man I was kind of frothing last night huh

Sorry I guess

If I thought you guys really believed that game design was inherently pointless and only made games worse, I really would want you to leave forever. I don't think you really believe that, I think it's just something you say and maybe even convince yourself is situationally true to avoid having to take responsibility for your game.

author=LockeZ
Oh man I was kind of frothing last night huh

Sorry I guess

If I thought you guys really believed that game design was inherently pointless and only made games worse, I really would want you to leave forever. I don't think you really believe that, I think it's just something you say and maybe even convince yourself is situationally true to avoid having to take responsibility for your game.

It's not that game design is pointless, but that how the player plays is ultimately up to them. Think of pokemon games - there's always going to be the systems in the game that make the player use them, however, how the player approaches the way they use those systems is different.

Nuzlocke, for example, is a set of rules that some players use where they challenge themselves by following a very strict set of rules - basically if a pokemon is fainted it's considered dead forever and you're only allowed to catch one pokemon (the first) per route. For some people that makes the game more fun.

Then we look at other games - let's say Final Fantasy IV where some do no esper runs, or low level runs or trying to reach max level or only allow themselves to use x members and so forth. The systems in the game encourage you to use them but you can choose not to in order to challenge yourself or have a different kind of fun to what the normal game offers.

You can't stop players from experimenting, but to force them to not use a core system and punishing them for it if they do, is, in my opinion, bad game creation. There are ways around it, as has been discussed.
Perhaps allowing a finite amount of 'free' saves (perhaps tied to items?) that they can use that won't count towards their total.
A checkpoint at the start (and perhaps middle depending on length of mission) of every mission.
And all the others in the previous posts.

author=Liberty
You can't stop players from experimenting, but to force them to not use a core system and punishing them for it if they do, is, in my opinion, bad game creation.

The point of this discussion is that it is in fact an optional game mechanic... just an official one sanctioned by the developer, with some kind of reward (whatever that may be) tied to the end.

You must really want those extras.

It's definitely an option for people who scramble after the ultimate challenges in life. I would, however, place it below the single-segment speedrun in terms of commitment and difficulty.

Kinda depends on the reward, right?

If you get more gold or a better weapon or something for not saving then that's pretty bad, because you are really forced to not save or else the next mission will be harder (and you will want to save even more).

If you just get an achievement like "Didn't save on Mission X - Achievement" that doesn't influence gameplay at all, then that's fine.