• Add Review
  • Subscribe
  • Nominate
  • Submit Media
  • RSS

Dumb or Daring?

  • calunio
  • 10/24/2013 08:56 PM
  • 4614 views
I'm thinking about taking a huge design risk in this game: no saving.

Before actually discussing whether it's a good idea or not, something's that are already certain:
- The game is short (1 hour TOPS, probably less).
- There's no gameover (if you fail at any of the challenges, you try again automatically).

Now, the reason I want to do it (no saving) is to... well, strengthen the game's effect. The game tells the story of a crime, and around 80% of the game describes the events that led to that crime. It's about building tension, and solving a mystery (why did it happen?). I really believe that playing the game in fragments could ruin the effect. It wouldn't ruin the game, but the overall impact of the experience.

If I do it, I'll put a warning in the opening screen, telling in advance how long the game approximately lasts, and that there's no save, so the player can make sure he has time to play it, or come back to it later.

But I understand some people might be very annoyed at that. But just because they're used to saving. Back when I played Sonic and Mario (my Mario had no save), I never save games. If we wanted to finish it, we'd have to do it in one playthrough. And it was fine. So I'm thinking not being able to save is not a problem in itself, just a matter of habit.

Opinions?

Posts

Pages: 1
BrokenH
103
10/25/2013 12:21 AM
If the game's only an hour long I don't see why there would be a reason to save. (Especially if you want this to play out like "real life" and "in the moment".) But you should wait for additional opinions too. I don't speak for others.
Nemica
111
10/25/2013 12:28 AM
Dumb. Definitely.

1. This game is an hour long, estimated by you. That does not mean that an average player gets through it in an hour.

2. There's always other factors that can cause the player to have to stop playing. That's okay for a ten minute game or something that doesn't really have lasting progress. But not for something longer.

3. Your reasons are no reasons at all. The only effect you'll strengthen is the "screw it" effect. You can build tension in fragments, if you can capture the player well enough. Also, having to replay everything when you have to start over only makes the parts played before more tedious and/or boring. So, theoretically, there'd be less investment. If the player picks it up again at all.
edchuy
You the practice of self-promotion
1624
10/25/2013 04:04 AM
Maybe it's asking a lot, but have you considered giving the player the choice of whether to have save available



Have considered giving the player of choice of whether to save or not at the beginning of the game, noting the advantages and disadvantages of each choice? It's just an idea ...









Delayed_Chimera
0
10/25/2013 04:57 AM
I think the ability to save would really be a good idea to put in. Like Nemica said, I think no saving would be better for a small game, even if there's no game over. It sounds like it would be a huge pain to get 45 minutes into the game, then have to redo everything due to something coming up or if you're computer freezes or something. I would definitely suggest adding the ability to save.
Hasvers
1298
10/25/2013 07:21 AM
Maybe a kind of middle ground would be an autosave where the game restarts exactly where you left it. No jumping around from save to save, not even the anti-immersive act of saving, but if my battery dies midcourse I won't have to choose between replaying 40 minutes and quit.
calunio
Shamed
10447
10/25/2013 07:24 PM
How about a limited number of saves? A small number... like 2. That should discourage the player to save, but if he really needs to, he has an option.
kentona
Bunnyhug
21027
10/25/2013 07:26 PM
If Super Mario Bros 3 can be awesome with no saving, so can your game. Do it if you think it will be awesome.
edchuy
You the practice of self-promotion
1624
10/26/2013 01:00 AM
author=calunio
How about a limited number of saves? A small number... like 2. That should discourage the player to save, but if he really needs to, he has an option.


You could consider the two as optional savepoints that the player can take advantage of and happen at strategic points in the game, say 1/4 and 3/4 into the game.
calunio
Shamed
10447
10/26/2013 02:38 PM
I think I have the perfect solution.

I agree that no saving may be a little to extreme, because for a number of reasons other than laziness and lack of interest, players might have to abandon the game and come back later... and not everyone will be willing to play all over.

At the same time, I was to discourage players from saving. I'll add a warning in the beginning: "Play in one sit" or something, but those words may not be enough to make people actually follow that rule.

My solution is: I'll have no save, but I'll have load.

Let me explain: the game is very linear, and there's little to no effect of what you do in one stage to another. Knowing that, I'll have savefiles from different parts of the game, so the player can start from anywhere he wants. I'm guessing he won't start from the middle not having played what's before, and even though there's really not much difference, it's not the same as continuing your own play (at least... psychologically?). That should discourage players from using the load option, even if it's available. It will be like watching a movie DVD. You can start from the middle, you can stop and come back to it later, but most people will just watch the whole of it at once.
Delayed_Chimera
0
10/26/2013 03:02 PM
I think that sounds like a pretty good idea. So it's basically a 'Scene selct' thing, right?
Addit
6394
10/26/2013 09:19 PM
Since this is going to be a pretty short game, I really don’t mind having a no saving function IF you have the ability to skip earlier cutscenes that you’ve already seen before and it’s not a “one hit death and you die” sort of scenario to keep things from being truly unfair and frustrating.

author=calunio
My solution is: I'll have no save, but I'll have load.


This is also good.
edchuy
You the practice of self-promotion
1624
10/26/2013 11:39 PM
Yeah, that solution you're suggesting, seems to make a lot of sense. Hopefully, players can overcome the fact that you're basically loading from predefined save states that were not made and chosen to be made by them. So, how many do you have in mind?
facesforce
442
11/07/2013 08:07 AM
No saves, equals terrible plan. I would go with a rougelike scheme myself, where loading the save would delete it as well, just to serve as a quicksave, for people like me with little to no time.
Pages: 1