quick save reduce longetivity?

[RWgames]

If you were playing a platformer that had relatively long levels, although broken up by continue points, would you be in favor or against a quick save/load feature? It's something I've been thinking about. Now, it may seem strange to have a continue point as well as quick save, but I was thinking that when you quick save, you quick load with the amount of health and ammo you had when you saved, whereas when you continue, you recieve full health. I've also heard arguments that quick save makes games too easy, and can potentially reduce the game longetivity. But the counter could also be true in that the user might keep dying at an tricky section and they would have to start from the beginning again, which could be very tedious. What do you think about quick saving/loading?
ps: the game in question is 2D, but I guess arguments would be similar for 3D.

[Grey Alien]

if the continue points are frequent enough and fair to the player like just before bosses or hard bits then you don't need quicksaves. However, I'm a busy person and hade needlessly replaying stuff so quicksaves are always welcome to me.

[Savant]

These decisions usually fall out from the design of the game. If you can't decide on which one to use, I think that speaks to your game design not being fleshed out enough.

Don't try to please everyone. Pick one and go with it.

[NogToast]

Quicksaves are essential.

They would seem to reduce game longevity, but without them the player stands a good chance of never seeing all of a game due to frustration with "excessively" long levels that must be replayed from the beginning...like every Capcom platformer ever released.

Another way to handle quicksaves is to have the standard save points at level milestones, and then a "save anywhere" feature that when the game is saved quits to the main menu, and once loaded, will erase itself. I think Advance Wars has a feature like that...so that if you're forced to quit the game due to Real-Life issues you can start exactly where you left off...but it's too much of a hassle to use it like a crutch (due to constant booting to the menu.)

I really want to be able to save a game anywhere though, I don't always have enough time to play through a level, and I like to be able to retry the especially difficult areas over and over again quickly, without having to play through the easier (and more tedious) parts of a level.

[Jason Chong]

Quicksaves are essential.


I really want to be able to save a game anywhere though, I don't always have enough time to play through a level, and I like to be able to retry the especially difficult areas over and over again quickly, without having to play through the easier (and more tedious) parts of a level.


well if the game has 12 levels, replaying 1 level is not a big deal for me.

Saving on a 'per level' basis is fine with me, you can choose the most recent levels you managed to get to.

Saving anywhere in the game is really kinda lame. The game no longer has the challenge factor and any high scores I get from there is meaningless.

[electronicStar]

IMHO quick saves should be avoided for a platformer. Continue points should be used. I think that it's part of the gameplay, that is, to memorize the levels the jumps etc until the player manages to make a good/perfect progression between the two save points. Introducing quicksave would destroy this part of gameplay based on training and improvement, especially if your game is similar to the super mario style.
I think quicksave should be used only when the progression is not linear and the player has a lot of freedom of movement (typically a FPS).

[Robert Cummings]

When I play fps games I don't quicksave: I think the autosaves and checkpoint saves are enough, however the game always warns you when you're about to enter a tricky area by autosaving! bit of a givaway isn't it?

[zKing]

How about only allowing quick save on lower difficulty settings?
Or make it a setting all by itself?

Personally I don't find it fun to get through half the map, then fall down that same hole the 345th time and having to go back to do it all over again. I also agree that another group of people does find it fun and that this is part of the traditional platformer design.

Personally, I play games to see/feel the environment and story. Button mashing bores me quickly. I almost always put every game on the lowest difficulty setting so I can see as much of it as possible, as quickly as possible. That said there are the rare games that have truly addictive game play that hooks me ... and those I will play over and over, likely ratcheting up the difficulty.

[maular]

I would rather that auto saving was done well, than to allow quicksaving.

Just don't make me have to replay more than about 20 seconds whenever I do die. :)

Edit:
Well, I didn't really address your main point - longevity. I personally think longevity in a game comes from me wanting to replay it, not from making it difficult to progress. I'm sure you know the feeling when you get to the end of a level, and it says "Secrets found: 1/5, Monsters killed: 30/40". This is the kind of thing that will make me want to replay a level. Or something more subtle, like when you start finding ammo for a weapon you don't have yet :)

[oNyx]

>If you were playing a platformer that had relatively long levels

Well, usually platformer levels are rather short (with one middle save point if the levels are relatively long). Why steering away from that formula if there is no gain? In first person shooters big levels certainly add something, but there isnt a benefit in a platformer.

I also think that quicksaves wont help increasing the replay value at all. Did they ever had that effect on you? I only finished one game with quicksaves twice and that was 4-5 years later.

>But the counter could also be true in that the user might keep dying at an
>tricky section and they would have to start from the beginning again, which
>could be very tedious.

Well, the solution (which can be observed in many platformers) is using short levels and save points if the level is a tad longer. And additionally alternative routes for beating the game. One example are different pathes (on the world map) you can pick or unlock systems... like you need only 40 stars (but there are actually 60 in this section) to go through that gate, which connects this part of the world map with the next part etc.

There will be people who barely manage the easiest path and there will be others which aim for perfection. If you end up going for a perfect score, you'll get a lot of playing time as a side effect.

Many platformers use secondary goals for adding some replay value. Like finding secrets or all special items or whatsoever. If you add something like that you need to add some sort of feedback like silver/gold stars on the world map (as a collector trigger) and maybe some percentage which shows the overall progress. The finishing touch is a slightly different ending... like showing some extra image at the end of the credits. For a player something like that can be very rewarding.

(Well, yea I enjoy stating the obvious. Thank you very much. ;))

[svero]

I struggled with this question for a while. Partly because as a player I found saving anywhere took some of the excitement out of games. There was some real pleasure to be had in beating a level from start to finish with real risk there if you lost. But in the end I think I'd have to come down on the side of quick saves. I think you really need that convenience. I cant get into a game nowdays knowing Ill have to spend a certain amount of time before I can get out. Im just too busy.

[arcadetown]

Our target users are very impatient so do whatever you can to avoid frustrating them! Making a very long level where you die numerous times right before the end and must repeat is a sure fire exit button click generator and lost sale. Also making a user restart a game from the very beginning after losing all lives is another sure fire exit button click generator.

[Fry Crayola]

If you go with quick saves, for the love of all that is made of cheese do not let it negatively affect the game design.

What I mean is don't fall into the trap of thinking that the quick save makes a tricky section easier (because of the ease of reloading and trying again meaning you'll get through faster), and don't rely on the player using quick saves as part of a tactic, for example in an FPS I've seen people quick save before a battle, then when they've finished it they reload their save and redo it so as to keep as much health and ammo as possible.

If a player wants to do that, that's fine, but it should never be a required strategy - you should be able to complete the entire game without taking a hit and there ought to always be enough ammo. Obviously with a platformer you're less likely to encounter things like this but it's worth noting anyhow.

[Vectrex]

Our target users are very impatient so do whatever you can to avoid frustrating them!

I don't believe that is entirely true. Frustration in JUST the right amount is vital to a game I think. Depends on the game of course but in general I think it's true. Frustration being more frustration at themselves rather than the game itself for screwing up :) Think of counter-strike with no forced timeout when you die. Imagine just respawning straight away.. it would be a shit house game, but dying knowing you have to wait minutes to restart frustrates the HELL out of everyone, but they keep on playing and enjoy it more :) Pointless frustration of course is a sure escape hitter, like needing to learn a level to not die all the time.

[RWgames]

Thanks for all the replies. It's quite clear there's different parties when it comes to this. At the moment I'm working on the design and this has sprung up. I don't want to go into too much level detail if I haven't decided much about the quick-save feature. As mentioned, a lot of people are busy and do now want to keep going till the next "continue point" as they might not know how far it is, causing them to quit and having to start right from the beginning which is frustrating.

Well, usually platformer levels are rather short (with one middle save point if the levels are relatively long). Why steering away from that formula if there is no gain? In first person shooters big levels certainly add something, but there isnt a benefit in a platformer.

But, IMO, whose to say there's no gain? I understand what you mean, but I'm looking to break away from a lot of generic ideas. However, there are other aspects of my game I havent talked about which may balance it out.

If you go with quick saves, for the love of all that is made of cheese do not let it negatively affect the game design.

Exact reason why I'm planning a lot of the gameplay after deciding about the quicksave feature. If I can mould my game around it, then it seems more integral. I've played a lot of games where you can tell quicksave was just added there for the sake of being there as opposed to being a useful feature.

I agree with Vectrex about frustration. I was reading an article by Dave Perry (game designer for Shiny entertainment (http://www.dperry.com) and he said that having the user blame themselves is a great thing because it means that they will retry until they complete it. however, if the frustration arises due to poor game design then thats where the exit button is hit.

Thanks again for the replies, it's really raised some good ideas such as allowing quicksave on easier settings, or possibly limiting the number of quicksaves allowed per level.

[Anthony Flack]

possibly limiting the number of quicksaves allowed per level.

No! That kind of arbitrary rule is exactly the sort of heavy-handed game design that will piss people off! More than anything! "They actually included a quicksave, but I can't use it!!"

It's like region-locking DVD players. That makes me really, really mad. The technology is there, everything works perfectly - but I can't watch the DVD.

a lot of people are busy and do now want to keep going till the next "continue point" as they might not know how far it is, causing them to quit and having to start right from the beginning which is frustrating.

Then they are too far apart. I reckon about every 30 seconds-2 minutes of play is about right.

The other option is, as mentioned, a "save and quit", with the option of resuming where you left off next time you boot it up. Basically, just sending the game to "sleep" until you get back to it again.