Ten things games should have.

[liveinabin]

1) Always have blue skies.

 

2) Always have a song at the start and a song at the end.

 

That's all I want

[supergamer]

1) Always have blue skies.

 

2) Always have a song at the start and a song at the end.

 

That's all I want

 

Reference to http://www.ukresistance.co.uk/2005/11/blue...n-launched.html ?

 

Totally agree! Probably also belongs in the thread about Nolan thinking modern games are trash...

[Hornpipe2]

Managing saving in games was an article in the most recent Game Developer magazine. The author essentially made the case for a combination of points 1 and 10 - essentially, saving should be as transparent as possible to the player and should not hinder their usability in the game.

 

How many times have you played through a significant portion of a game, forgotten to save, died, and had to restore from an hour-old save point? Think about this for a second: I enjoyed the game so much that I was completely absorbed by what was going on, so of course I didn't remember to interrupt my gaming experience to bring up the menu and hit 'save' every five minutes. Essentially I got punished for having a good time playing the game by being forced to restore from an hour ago. ARGH. I get enough of that crap from my graphics editor crashing and losing all my unsaved work.

 

Keep in mind that this in no way precludes making a 'hard game', or even a save system that can't be abused to gain player advantage. Nethack, arguably one of the most difficult games ever made, allows you to save your progress at any point. But you can only 'save and quit', and when you restore your savegame is erased. In short, this makes a save system that is easy to understand and in no way interferes with the player, but isn't immediately exploitable.

 

The article gave a really good example of a bad save system, too: one of the recent Mario offerings for Nintendo DS only lets the player save when beating the boss at the halfway point or at the end of each 'world'. That could be up to five levels away, and the player feels like they're not free to put the game down because they haven't been given the opportunity to save. The worst part is that beating the game unlocks the ability to save anywhere on the world map.

 

Surely there must be a reason that developers make gamers go out of their way to be able to save their game, but I can't think of one at the moment. If I can't save I either turn it off and am disinclined to come back, or I leave the system on until I can come back to it. All that effort of forcing me to work for my ability to save has gone to waste.

 

 

Also, point number 8 in that article doesn't fit in any way. I thought we were talking about usability here - this is just a personal gripe about a tough game or two. Nobody makes an unbeatable boss. The design decision here is to get the player to be more aggressive in play style, and to make the 'life meter' take on a much more important role.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Hornpipe2

[AtticGamer]

Know that the player is weak and in need of an item like health and provide it somehow (in those games that give you items when you destroy enemies or when there are items around.

 

Have a gameplay according to the type of enemies the game gives you, and not make "uber" enemies or bosses just to look good.

[supercat]

Know that the player is weak and in need of an item like health and provide it somehow (in those games that give you items when you destroy enemies or when there are items around.

 

I don't generally like games that offer 'pity gimmes', but games should allow a player who is low on resources prior to a boss fight to replenish himself enough to have a chance, even if the player has to go back some in the game. It can be very frustrating to save a game and then later discover that the game was lost even before one had a chance to save.

[cimerians]

All I want is one thing. Let me save anywhere and anytime. I'm getting old and I dont have time.

 

Example: Ghosts n Goblins would be much more welcome in my household these days if Im not forced to play the game all day long to try and beat it.

[Gabriel]

How many times have you played through a significant portion of a game, forgotten to save, died, and had to restore from an hour-old save point?

 

Actually less often than I've saved only to find out I've done something wrong in the game and screwed myself over by saving the game with some kind of bad mark against me.

[supergamer]

How many times have you played through a significant portion of a game, forgotten to save, died, and had to restore from an hour-old save point?

 

Actually less often than I've saved only to find out I've done something wrong in the game and screwed myself over by saving the game with some kind of bad mark against me.

 

Word. On that note, I also can't stand one-shot quests/objectives that you can't go back and do if you miss/fail. Especially diabolical are games that have those and *require* them. Gauntlet for NES, for example, has secret rooms that you can bypass.....but if you do so, you can't get to the end. Oh, and the secret rooms are timed! Geez.