PDA

View Full Version : SAVE SYSTEM - saving / checkpoints etc



DarthEnder
19th May 2009, 21:42
Moderator Update / June 2013


@domcom360 in Thief there will be both options. A manual save game feature and automatic checkpoint savings.
Just posted by Stephane D'astous






___


Save anywhere.

This game better have it or I WILL cut someone.

I only mention it because I notice that most stealth games these days are all checkpoint based.

GmanPro
19th May 2009, 21:45
A checkpoint based save system would be the end of Thief. I wouldn't even play Thief 4 if it had that. Same way I'm not going to play Chronicles of Rid.ick: Assault on Dark Athena (among other things).

simlan
19th May 2009, 21:47
shouldn't even need to be a question, yes it is wanted

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
19th May 2009, 21:57
Ugh checkpoints. What a burning sensation I get when a pc game has save points instead of save anywhere. Yeh, I'd be pissed too if Thief 4 didn't let me save anytime I want.

Does anybody else like to play no save style? Not just in Thief. Sometimes I like to challenge myself by only allowing myself to save between missions or major segments in other games....Or if I have to leave the game for a long while. Sometimes it feels like cheating to save before making an unsure move. That is a players choice though and it should always be.

MasterTaffer
19th May 2009, 22:04
It was in the previous three games, I don't see a problem with it being in Thief 4. Nobody needs to be cut.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th May 2009, 22:05
I'm a 'checkpoint-hater'. Not much more to add to what has already been said... :hmm:

Hypevosa
20th May 2009, 01:01
One of the best parts of games is the ability to do what you want without repercussions, and a save anywhere system lets you do that. Thief especially, when something is unusually risky, like trying to blackjack 2 guards in 2 seconds (like the first 2 guards you meet in metal age... lean left *club lean right *club* :D...)

In fallout 3, if something has just frustrated me to oblivion (haha) I will pull out my alien blaster and lay waste to the entirety of megaton in seconds... and maybe do it a second time, just for the therapeutic value. Same think happened in thief, I'd save right before a guard killed me and then proceed to shoot him repeatedly (ending my game since I only play on expert) but still making me satisfied.

Checkpoints imply linear levels, IF THERE ARE ANY LINEAR LEVELS OTHER THAN CHASE SCENES IN THIEF (although point A to point B should still be more like a thousand paths than one), the developers have committed a sin against the series, and will earn every ounce of hate mail they will receive. The exploration and the non-linearity must remain at the heart of level design, and thus make checkpoints a stupid thing to include.

WVI
20th May 2009, 01:03
Yes. However, also introduce an autosave after each level.

Terr
20th May 2009, 01:49
Checkpoints make sense only with highly-linear gameplay.

We don't want that.

Therefore we shouldn't be using checkpoints.

Imagine trying to play the First City Bank & Trust level in Thief 2 with a "checkpoint" system. Doesnt' mesh. If it ever looks sensible to implement a similar system, it should be a signal that something is very very wrong.

MasterTaffer
20th May 2009, 01:58
Mid level checkpoints don't lend themselves well the Thief's style of gameplay. BEcause of the non-linear fashion the levels move in, it is impractical. Checkpoints aren't a terrible idea for some games, especially games that involve a lot of trial and error like the first two Splinter Cell games. But for non-linear games like Thief, they just don't work well.

I wouldn't mind an auto-save after you finish a level, however. I've had an entire day's progress destroyed because the power went out before, and I was too engaged in the game to remember to quick save.

LightWarriorK
20th May 2009, 02:00
There are some games where I really enjoy checkpoints and save points, like in JRPG games like Final Fantasy, or NO save feature at all, like in platformers like the old Sonic games or Contra.

In those cases, limiting or eliminating saves not only highten the tention and drama of a game, but force the player to evolve into a better player.

The Thief games, other stealth, and open-ended RPGs like Fallout3, don't play the same way. They play more like survival games, and being able to save and load anywhere is pretty crucial to being able to enjoy them.

When I first started playing Thief, I abhorred the quick-save feature. It was the first game I had played that had it. But after finding out how many tries it took to get by some of the guards, and just how LONG the levels were, I did come to love it.

I'm all FOR keeping this in Thief 4.

Nate
20th May 2009, 17:52
Yeah, while I like to play 'no loads allowed' during missions. I DON'T need to force everyone else to play like me. So, I think Thi4f should allow saves anywhere.

That said, here is an INTERESTING game concept in regards to saves. There was a game called Severance: Blade of Darkness. You could save your progress anytime during that game. However, the more saves you used during the game, the lower your 'bravery' score would be reduced.

I would like to see something like that = would encourage players to at least try to become better thieves.

* The 'bravery' score didn't effect the game in any way...it just let the player know how 'brave/skilled' they were.

Skaruts
20th May 2009, 19:18
check points are EVIL!
sad memories I have from having to repeat the whole thing and cutscenes over and over in FF7 (or any other) just because I died when the boss had 1hp left...

aaaaaarrrrgggghhh.... one can comit suicide from that :lol:

Checkpoints are good for games where you don't necessarilly fail or die or ruin everything from making a big mistake (i.e. Fahrenheit). They also aren't much painstaking in COD series. Other than that, they could even not exist.

Smooogy
20th May 2009, 19:30
Why change to the checkpoint system? Thief has always allowed saving at any moment.

Keeper_Riff
22nd May 2009, 06:31
Please don't use HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE registry entry pointing to User's "My Documents" folder. That's just stupid. HKEY_CURRENT_USER or %Username% in the path or a folder with all-user access. Saves should be easily moved from one instance of the game to another. And user options too.

KSingh77
29th May 2009, 22:18
Checkpoints is going to be a big poo if it was added in the game so no thanks.

Sierra Oscar
29th May 2009, 23:40
I despise checkpoints, so I am all for the good ol manual save and auto save at the start of the level.

Slickleg
30th May 2009, 00:19
Does anybody else like to play no save style?

I love playing Thief this way. It makes everything you do waaay more tense. I definitely recommend it for anyone who's a bit bored with the game but wants to revisit it.

ToMegaTherion
30th May 2009, 08:15
The only advantage of some form of save limiting system is in order to dissuade people from reloading if, for example, they set off an alarm and alert lots of guards. It probably isn't worth annoying us for this advantage.

Yaphy
30th May 2009, 09:34
I just save when i quit playing for the time. Its no fun saving all the time. It doesnt matter if you do something wrong when saving whenever it is gettin hard. We are playing at harder diffculty because whe want challenge. How much fun is it if you just save all the time. No checkpoints though! I need to save when i want to quit playing!

No checkpoint system. Save whenever you want to, i guess its a moral choice if you want to destroy the gameplay by saving at every hard location.

xDarknessFallsx
30th May 2009, 22:11
I love my ALT+S quicksave, ALT+L quickload. Checkpoints would not be appreciated in the Thief series.

Sierra Oscar
30th May 2009, 23:48
The only advantage of some form of save limiting system is in order to dissuade people from reloading if, for example, they set off an alarm and alert lots of guards. It probably isn't worth annoying us for this advantage.

Well, thats the players choice really though.

ToMegaTherion
31st May 2009, 07:59
That's true, but since there isn't much point in making a level with an elaborate alarm system when most people are going to reload every time it's activated, a sensible conclusion for the designers is that alarm systems are to be avoided. I quite like alarm levels, but I don't think I like them enough to have any restricted saving.

Fire_Is_Born
31st May 2009, 09:56
Why would you ever want checkpoints? No, seriously, all it means is that if you have a hard level, players have to see the first section over and over... So they get bored and leave. I stopped playing Lego Starwars 2, not because I grew up or anything ;-) but because you had to play the whole hour+ level in one go thanks to the ridiculous save system.
So yeah, don't ruin what is set to be an epic game, save anywhere.

Fatherwoodsie
30th Jun 2009, 05:40
im sorry if this thread has already been started, i apologize. how would you guys like to save your games? how should or shouldnt be set up?

i thought the saving options in deadly shadows were completly confusing and irrelevant. the time stamps were irrelevant. if their going to make you save a game that way, they SHOULD put a little picture frame next to the time stamp of the exact location you were at when you saved in so you know what it looks like instead of having to guess times. no? i did like the saving options in the T1 and T2 but there werent enough, i think. so if theyre going to keep the same saving options, PLEASE put pictures next to them!

jtr7
30th Jun 2009, 06:11
The savegames folder should be in the install folder, and the user should be able to make their own labels. I understand that the custom labels were done away with for the keyboard-less consoles.

Fatherwoodsie
30th Jun 2009, 06:24
i like the idea of custom labels. (you see i played T1 and T2 obviously on pc but when deadly shadows came out, my computer could not even handle it, so i bought it for the xbox, which i dont even have a regular xbox, i have a 360. so im kind of used to the controller now. so i hope they make it available for 360 as well.) but either way, the T1 T2 way or T3 way, there should still be a little picture of where you saved it, and maybe a little description of status as well.

tarhiel
1st Jul 2009, 19:28
Definitely save everywhere system. I hate Diablo 2 waypoint, or checkpoint system, maaan, how MUCH I hate it.

kaekaelyn
1st Jul 2009, 19:33
I wish there was some middle ground. I am always tempted to save and reload when anything goes wrong, even if I do so much as waste a rope arrow. I just don't have very much self-control, I guess :( I almost want to make it so that you can save whenever you want, but can only reload when you die. Sure, you could just quit to the main menu and reload, but it might discourage you from constant reloading...I don't know. It'd probably be unfun for most people, so bleh.

ToMegaTherion
1st Jul 2009, 20:05
Thief is generally rather too hard to limit saving, I think.

Acorn
2nd Jul 2009, 04:49
I HATE checkpoints.
One neat thing about thief is you can save anywhere.
As mentioned before, some people go back through the game after beating it once because they want to investigate every nook and cranny.

Someone mentioned a ledge he kept trying to get to. He saved at the point where he was across from it and then kept jumping dying and re-spawning right there in different ways until he made it.
If we re-spawned from check-points it would mean that if you were trying to investigate a hazardous area you'd have to run back through the whole level to reach the desired point each time you died. Its annoying and constraining to have save check points. Saving should happen anywhere.

Keeper_Riff
2nd Jul 2009, 06:12
I understand that the custom labels were done away with for the keyboard-less consoles. I don't think that on-screen keyboard for text entry is so difficult to implement (e.g. osk.exe).

jtr7
2nd Jul 2009, 06:39
...........................

FriendlyStranger
2nd Jul 2009, 08:49
Such is my opinion, and custom labeling has been done in games since Asteroids for putting initials next to High Scores, so a system for doing that on consoles should be available.

Especially since there is a keyboard available for some of the newer consoles...

I would like to retain the save system of T1,2.

But I have to say I could imagine a limit of saves per mission like Hitman had - on "Hard" difficulty --> 3 saves during the mission, no limitations on "Easy".

But on the other hand its very frustrating when you play with save limitations and the game crashes after 45min of "work". So I would suggest leave things like they were.

jtr7
2nd Jul 2009, 09:02
...........................

FriendlyStranger
2nd Jul 2009, 09:19
The more consoles are dressed up like PCs, the more I wonder why people keep feeding the scam of having separate machines when PCs should be more than adequate. The consoles should be an experience that PCs can't emulate, or the consoles make no sense, except as a cash machine preying on the consumers that can't control their addiction to purchasing games. They are getting too close to being laptops with extra peripheral input devices, PCs in disguise.



Is there a list somewhere for all the things a console does better than a PC to justify their continued existence? I admit gross ignorance in this area. My last "console" was an Atari 7800, if the Atari 130XE doesn't count (the orignal, before the keyboard and default BASIC program were stripped off before remarketing it). :lmao:

Well let me give you a little history lesson to explain things ^^

Consoles were introduced to replace (not to be an alternative) the PC as gaming platform.

Cheaper, more easy to handle. And to make em easy to handle the companies also simplified games. Simple games are easier to develop and sell... the industry never had any interest in producing "intelligent games". They used the consoles as a trojan horse to destroy innovative, intellectual game design - once they controlled the market they startet to develop PC titles only as a derevative of their console releases (TDS). Today we have mostly generic, uninteresting games, every 9 yo could play and understand. It's a lot of hot air around titles like Spore, Resistence, GTA X, Gears Of War...

You don't have to bother about story or demanding audience with such titles, there are a lot more capitalism/commerce friendly than Thief ever was ro could have been.

Today after the consoles have almost extinguished PC game design, they can reboot and start to return to the obviously better PC layout and design. Since there are no more of the good old developers left - heck not even people like Spector today remember how a good PC game is made - you thought DX 2 was crap, just you wait for DX 3 I say -"wall climbing mechanic tentacles coming out of bodies - hey that just sounds very much like DX 1 !?!".

jtr7
2nd Jul 2009, 09:23
...........................

esme
2nd Jul 2009, 10:40
save anywhere, whenever you like

Hecateus
5th Sep 2009, 22:59
I was reading yet another GamaSutra > Article < (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=25122) on game difficulty, when it mentioned save game methods.

Do we want it to save whenever we want?

Save only at key points?

Limited # of total saves?

Rewind?

[edit]
Thanks for the move!

Subjective Effect
5th Sep 2009, 23:16
Save anywhere. Limited number of saves on certain difficulty levels, with the ultimate being nil, saving only at the end of a level a la AvP (pre-patch).

Apart from end of levels there should never, ever be specific key save locations.

This game works well with the tension ramped up and limiting saves helps that. AvP was tense as hell and all the better for it. It was frustrating at times but it was also the only game that could give you those nerves or that amount of panic.

jtr7
5th Sep 2009, 23:27
...........................

Zahr Dalsk
6th Sep 2009, 00:00
Do we want it to save whenever we want?
Of course we do; every single Thief fan is a PC gamer, and save whenever we want is a core element of PC gaming.


Save only at key points?
This is bad console stuff, and you should feel bad for even mentioning it.


Limited # of total saves?
As long as there are enough save spots for a save for each level, so I can easily switch around between them, plus one extra slot for my quicksave.


Rewind?
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this.

jtr7
6th Sep 2009, 02:05
If the save folder was made without the dang index and encryption crap, the player could make new folders to store particular savegames, rather than only backing up a whole set, index and all.

I'm not sure what the reason behind the TDS savegame system was compared to the older titles, where any save was just a single file (game0000.sav or quick.sav) without a need for any indexing, it was within the main install folder, and the player could make their own menu label for the save/load. If a savegame is in the folder, it shows up in the menu...no index. It only shows whatever files there are and other savegames can just be moved or pasted into it, and there you go. Custom folders could be made and favorite saves could be dropped into it for later.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2996/t2savegames.th.gif (http://img3.imageshack.us/i/t2savegames.gif/)


TDS requires copying the whole index for each individual savegame backup, and they are in My Documents for some reason (and requires a registry change to make it work on Vista/Windows 7 for some players). I'm sure there's a way to strip it all down, but it hasn't been done. Since the index is required, that's what shows up in the menu, not the savegames in the folder, so a backup of one savegame will have the entire index unless the titles for non-existent files are deleted manually one at a time.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/5471/t3savegames.th.gif (http://img3.imageshack.us/i/t3savegames.gif/)

Hecateus
6th Sep 2009, 02:26
Subjective effect,
AvP is one of my all time favorite games, and yeah I remember the pre-patch awesomeness.


This is bad console stuff, and you should feel bad for even mentioning it.

I will not. You have not made your case. PC games have done this too. Saving at keypoints can help improve immersion in any game when properly done. Whereas save-any-time is a-immersioinal. A good example would be the Ultima series where one could save only when going to sleep, or Dragon Quest's saving at the temple, via confession of sins et al.

Rewind, wherein the game is recorded constantly, to 'reload' you 'rewind' in-game, with no-loading screens. This is usually in the context of time control. IIRC, the Ratchet & Clank series pioneered it.

jtr7
6th Sep 2009, 02:55
One of many reasons I'm not much into gaming is the automatic restart of a level or having to replay through to get back to where I was on limited time. Saving a game wherever lets me logoff and walk away to deal with real life and pick up where I left off later, like a strong game Pause. I like revisiting areas that really interest me. I like saving after accomplishing a major task, but want to continue moving forward rather than going through it again (especially if it was by dumb luck. I'll deal with it on another full playthrough.), again, so I can shut it off and walk away to deal with real life. Two steps forward, no steps back without choosing it. I am immersed when I don't even think to make a save and screw myself if I discover a fatal trap the first time. Save games, in my mind, are not too different than the result of getting killed and going back to the beginning or to a pre-set point, except for personal control of where, when, and why over automation. I want it to be my fault if I die and have to go back far, and not have the devs decide just how far. Dying seconds before mission completion pisses me the hell off, and I don't enjoy working to get back to that point again in that mood. A negative reason to logoff and walk away.


Randy Smith spoke about this at a Game Developers Conference. Here's the PowerPoint download of his talk: http://www.roningamedeveloper.com/Materials/RandySmith_MiGS_2007_SaveLoadCompulsions.ppt

Zahr Dalsk
6th Sep 2009, 03:10
I will not. You have not made your case. PC games have done this too.

Name some that aren't MMOs or console ports / multi platform.

cheater_1
6th Sep 2009, 03:28
NO GAME, on any platform, should limit how many times you can save your game OR have save points. I feel it reduces the immersion factor when there are checkpoints, forcing you to PLAY on until you get to some arbitrary point that the devolpers decided worthy of a save.

There is nothing more frustrating than dying and then having to go back and repeat the SAME stuff over and over again until you make it to some checkpoint. I can't tell you the number of times I have been in the middle of some area in a game, half way to the next checkpoint, and then I get a phone call and have to go to meet a friend. I either have to keep playing till I get to the CHECKPOINT or quit the game and replay the first half of the area again. That is NON IMMERSIVE.

Checkpoints are the developers' way of creating some ARTIFICIAL difficulty and just plain lazy programming on their part.

Unlimited saves at ANY point...in ANY game.....on ANY platform.

jtr7
6th Sep 2009, 03:32
The early titles gave the player so much control over many things, and endeared us.

Hecateus
6th Sep 2009, 05:31
Zahr Dalsk,
I did. With Ultima... though that was a loong time ago (my memory may be faded, and is likely before your time) and so speaks against this feature. And since I have an iMac and mostly just browse the internet now...

Cheater1, find the [PAUSE] button. These are included in about every game out there. And really...EVERY GAME? Including beloved classic games like Tetris? Ya might want to think about that.

I personally prefer being able to hard-save whenever I want too ...in a game like Thief. AvPs pre-patch limit on the number of times one can save within levels enjoyably added to the challenge.

Hecateus
6th Sep 2009, 05:37
p.s.
I think it might be neat for Garret's eventual abilities to include time control in some form. Using Temporal Rewind instead of quicksaves. It might be overdone at this point, but if it is well done it would be worth it.

Time manipulation and/or travel has not been explored in the Thief canon. Maybe it is time for that.

Hecateus
6th Sep 2009, 05:45
p.p.s.
man I should stay up late like this more often.
More Time-stuff:
Zombies and ghosts are that way due to fundamental time synch issues. They can be both more talkative AND more dangerous using time-manipulation. Return to the Cradle! Get the Hammers to fix their clocks?

kabatta
6th Sep 2009, 06:16
Time-travel is impossible in Thief. There is just one town that is the centre of the game universe where magic is brought by ritual or constant (like the necromantic lines).
Personally I preffer to save anywhere I want. Checkpoints spoiled for me nice games like The legacy of Kain and survival horror games like resident evil.

jtr7
6th Sep 2009, 07:14
The only space/time anything I want to see in Thief are portals, unless it becomes canon that they only exist through Con/Vikt.

Platinumoxicity
6th Sep 2009, 08:06
Difficulty-based amount of available saves per mission is a horrible system! I want to play on expert, with the extra amount of enemies, objectives and AI awareness, but all that plus not being able to save during a mission... I'm simply not that good! :mad:

Because I have unbelievably bad luck at "enemy appears out-of-nowhere moments" -I haven't been able to finish a single mission in "Hitman: Blood money" on Professional, where saving is not allowed. That means that I have yet to experience 25% of the game because I can't access it.

If T4 has saving prohibited on expert, that means that I won't be able to experience a large portion of the game I've puchased, that's what I call a rip-off. :mad:

minus0ne
6th Sep 2009, 08:09
Checkpoints, time-manipulation :eek:

Please, don't ever stay up late again, it apparently doesn't agree with you.

Subjective Effect
6th Sep 2009, 08:28
I'm simply not that good! :mad:

Because I have unbelievably bad luck at "enemy appears out-of-nowhere moments"

If T4 has saving prohibited on expert, that means that I won't be able to experience a large portion of the game I've puchased, that's what I call a rip-off. :mad:
Rip-off my ass. Your "luck" isn't our problem.

You know whey I don't play professional football? Because I'm not good enough.

You're clearly not good enough to play on Expert, so don't. But don't you dare waltz in here suggesting the game be easier because you can't hack it. You've got the option to play on Normal or Easy! Ffs I've never seen such logic.

Platinumoxicity
6th Sep 2009, 08:37
Rip-off my ass. Your "luck" isn't our problem.

You know whey I don't play professional football? Because I'm not good enough.

You're clearly not good enough to play on Expert, so don't. But don't you dare waltz in here suggesting the game be easier because you can't hack it. You've got the option to play on Normal or Easy! Ffs I've never seen such logic.

Imagine if you weren't allowed to save in TDP in the Bonehoard and you weren't good enough to not. You'd be forced to play on Hard, with less enemies, and you couldn't even access the whole mission! It's not fair. And do you really think that saving during a mission means that the player is not good enough for expert? It has nothing to do with the player skill. You can have your masochistic difficulty level by popping out the F11 key from your keyboard. You don't have to force it on players who want to experience the game in it's entirety. Thief is one of those games where harder difficulties have more features, not just harder features. in shooter games I hardly ever play on other difficulties than Normal because all the Hard-level does is give you less health and make the enemies' guns more powerful. In Thief, entire new areas and enemies appear on expert.

And you know, I could easily play through T1, T2 and TDS on expert without saving once right now If I could do ANYTHING that the expert level permits. Including blackjacking and getting detected and destroying robots. But that's not the way i play. Sabotage at Soulforge is a walk in a park when you can use weapons, get seen and disable bots. It takes a lot of patience, time and saves to get through without using weapons, getting seen and all the other stuff.

minus0ne
6th Sep 2009, 13:08
I love saving too, and limiting saving (significantly) has never been a cornerstone of Thief gameplay, so I don't see why EM should start with that now.

13LACK13ISHOP
6th Sep 2009, 13:24
Save whenever I want because I can come back to it.They should not implement checkpoints because they are annoying and another reason being they are not well placed.Where checkpoints should be placed should differ from person to person and this cannot be implemented. It should be for us to decide where to save.Also what if we want to come back to a certain part?

darkmagicasorseer
6th Sep 2009, 15:25
I'm a 'checkpoint-hater'. Not much more to add to what has already been said... :hmm:

Quick Save and Quick Load is the ultimate weapon in TDP and TMA...:D

darkmagicasorseer
6th Sep 2009, 15:28
Imagine if you weren't allowed to save in TDP in the Bonehoard and you weren't good enough to not. You'd be forced to play on Hard, with less enemies, and you couldn't even access the whole mission! It's not fair. And do you really think that saving during a mission means that the player is not good enough for expert? It has nothing to do with the player skill. You can have your masochistic difficulty level by popping out the F11 key from your keyboard. You don't have to force it on players who want to experience the game in it's entirety. Thief is one of those games where harder difficulties have more features, not just harder features. in shooter games I hardly ever play on other difficulties than Normal because all the Hard-level does is give you less health and make the enemies' guns more powerful. In Thief, entire new areas and enemies appear on expert.

And you know, I could easily play through T1, T2 and TDS on expert without saving once right now If I could do ANYTHING that the expert level permits. Including blackjacking and getting detected and destroying robots. But that's not the way i play. Sabotage at Soulforge is a walk in a park when you can use weapons, get seen and disable bots. It takes a lot of patience, time and saves to get through without using weapons, getting seen and all the other stuff.

Let's throw away the difficulty then, and add the player's rating itself, for example if the player is able to explore the whole level and take all the loot he is considered as an expert. This also happens in vice versa...

Secondary
6th Sep 2009, 19:55
save anywhere!

i save all the time, [ractically anytime i go blackjack someone, or do anything of the srt i save. i probably couldnt hack it if it was checkpoint based (shame:()

Hecateus
7th Sep 2009, 01:49
You guys need to think outside your comfort zone. There are awesome new game potential out there if you try.

my further formed thoughts,

0th, difficulty settings are fully customizable, with more brownie/achievement points given for highest difficulty. Highest difficulties also have more areas to explore, and other goodies, but also have smarter coordinated guards who can climb ladders, respond to dangling ropes, missing loot and such; more randomly placed loot, traps, puzzle requirements et al.

1stly, at least one general save per level, less difficult settings allow more general saves, there are in-game options for acquiring more saves to use when you want later in the game. These stay with each level completed so specific points can be revisited or shown off. One can use such a save whenever they want.

2nd, a General Pause Button. No restrictions, but cannot do anything else except Pause-as-Save, in case you need to shut down or do something else with the computer. Resume later. Loading an old save eliminates the last used General Pause.

3rd. Inventory pause. Pauses game when examining contents on lowest difficulty, game slows on medium difficulty, game not paused at all when examining inventory.

4th. Generally replace QuickSave with Rewind, using a gimmick like time manipulation glyphs or shadow travel, or mix.

5th. Have QuickSave available as an option for remakes and non-Garret FMs (T1&2 did not have time manipulation glyphs); and of course to keep the unimaginative happy.

jtr7
7th Sep 2009, 04:36
Sorry, I don't believe losing my freedom--which includes many Thiefy hobbies outside playing the game--is a discomfort worth experiencing, and your view is just as narrow and requires a hell of a lot of work.

xDarknessFallsx
7th Sep 2009, 06:44
p.s.
I think it might be neat for Garret's eventual abilities to include time control in some form. Using Temporal Rewind instead of quicksaves. It might be overdone at this point, but if it is well done it would be worth it.

Time manipulation and/or travel has not been explored in the Thief canon. Maybe it is time for that.
Please no. This is so overdone in games these days. It was neat the first time I saw it, but now it's done in DIRT 2 racing, Madden football, Prince of Persia(s), etc. We need to stop with the rewinds. Either play the game carefully, or suffer the consequences -- or re-load.

Gimmicks like this may be neat the first time you see it, but then it becomes a fad where every game does it, and then the fad/gimmick gets old when it's overdone. This gimmick has run its full lifecycle. It has reached its saturation point with me and just needs to die. It's kind've like regenerative health. Must every game jump on the bandwagon whenever a new gimmick comes out? If "thinking outside my comfort zone" for Thief means incorporating gimmicks like this, then I'm out. The creepy girl in the Cradle was gimmicky for me since movies and everything else were doing the creepy kid thing at that time.

How about we give Garrett a female sidekick who automatically grabs your hand and pulls you to safety every time you slip off a ledge or are about to die? That's what they did in the latest Prince of Persia, so maybe that's thinking outside my comfort zone? Or maybe we could do slo-mo flying blackjack cams; or the Assassin's Creed uber wall climbing skills; or an Oblivion open world? All would be 'outside my comfort zone' for Thief; but none should be implemented for Thief.

Contrary to what you seem to be thinking, it's not that I/we don't or can't think outside the comfort zone. It's that most new ideas mentioned would be things I/we don't want to see in Thief. I appreciate your open-mindnesses, trying to inspire innovation... but there are ways to make Thief innovative (or enhanced over T1/T2) without doing gimmicks like this.

esme
7th Sep 2009, 14:15
saving at checkpoints means the following things to me


you can't put the game down when you want and go have a life, you can only put it down when the game designer lets you, I don't buy a game to be told what to do, I buy because I want to play
the game has to be designed in bite sized chunks that fit between the checkpoints, if the chunks are too large then an awful lot of hard work can be thrown away by a single screw up and the game becomes frustrating rather than fun
failing to complete a particular chunk means repeating the entire chunk, no matter how close you were to completing
it encourages the use of things like collapsing bridges which you have to cross usually at a dead run and then complete a complex task at the other side before the collapse catches up with you or traps that require hair trigger reactions to avoid their effects rather than stealth and planning to avoid tripping them in the first place, all in order to get your heart rate going
it turns the game away from strategy and stealth and points it towards how good are you at remembering complex sequences of keypresses executed at high speed because this is what the game developer thinks constitutes excitement, and then they'll deign to let you save the game so you can have a breather


let me save when I want, let me plan my moves, let me think about what I'm doing, let me answer the phone or doorbell or make a sandwich rather than ignore them because I can't save the damn game at the point that I'm at

Davehall380
7th Sep 2009, 16:20
The designers originally wanted the player to experience two things in Thief - sneaking and escaping. Half of the game play is not just about avoiding the AI, but reacting quickly when things go wrong (making noise, body discovered, falling of ledge etc). Quick saves allow the player to remove this element of the game quite easily.

I dont want to see checkpoints in the game, as I feel this is obliterates both parts of the game. However, I would like to see a system that discourages players from quick-saving and quick-loading out of situations that make up the core gameplay.

Maybe a system of limited saves or a reward system for limited saves could be implemented, possibly based on difficulty levels.

esme
7th Sep 2009, 16:46
I disagree, I say it should be up to the player to decide if they want to quicksave/quickload to get out of situations where they screw up not have some artificial immersion breaking limitation imposed on them, one of the big things I like about thief is the player chooses what to do go rambo or sneak, take every piece of loot or just enough for the objectives, ghost or ko everything in sight, save frequently or save infrequently

you want to discourage save/load cycles then count them and put them on a stats screen at the end of a level

Platinumoxicity
7th Sep 2009, 16:48
The designers originally wanted the player to experience two things in Thief - sneaking and escaping. Half of the game play is not just about avoiding the AI, but reacting quickly when things go wrong (making noise, body discovered, falling of ledge etc). Quick saves allow the player to remove this element of the game quite easily.

I dont want to see checkpoints in the game, as I feel this is obliterates both parts of the game. However, I would like to see a system that discourages players from quick-saving and quick-loading out of situations that make up the core gameplay.

Maybe a system of limited saves or a reward system for limited saves could be implemented, possibly based on difficulty levels.

...Or maybe just put a timer on the quicksave that prevents you from saving every 30 seconds, and doesn't let you save when you are being searched/pursued. But if some sort of save-limiting system is implemented, every mission should be designed in a way that makes it possible to successfully ghost it. Like the tower in the Rutherford castle, where you need to reload the game 20 times after unsuccessful distraction attempts, as the guard blocks the only exit completely.

ZylonBane
7th Sep 2009, 16:53
Maybe a system of limited saves or a reward system for limited saves could be implemented, possibly based on difficulty levels.
How about NO. Thief players are grown-ups, and taking away unlimited save-anywhere offers far more disadvantages to the player than benefits.

Ditto for time rewinding. Being able to rewind would directly undermine any need to pay attention to guard patrols.

What is WRONG with you people? :hmm:

esme
7th Sep 2009, 16:56
please, no timers, not on completing missions, not on parts of them and definitely not to try to slow you down if you want to quickload as all that will achieve is the player stopping and waiting, probably getting killed, and then reloading once the timer expires it will not coerce people to play without or discourage the use of saving/loading all it will do is frustrate people

and as for designing the level to be ghosted if the developer does this you will get a level the developer can ghost, they may not be a very good ghoster in which case you will get a very easy level

we want people who play this to have fun, if that means they save every 3 seconds just in case a guard hears them, then let 'em

Davehall380
7th Sep 2009, 18:01
please, no timers, not on completing missions, not on parts of them and definitely not to try to slow you down if you want to quickload as all that will achieve is the player stopping and waiting, probably getting killed, and then reloading once the timer expires it will not coerce people to play without or discourage the use of saving/loading all it will do is frustrate people

and as for designing the level to be ghosted if the developer does this you will get a level the developer can ghost, they may not be a very good ghoster in which case you will get a very easy level

we want people who play this to have fun, if that means they save every 3 seconds just in case a guard hears them, then let 'em

OK I can see that imposing on the save count is not a very popular idea, and tbh it wasnt one that I gave much thought to.

However, it is true that quick-save and quick-load is just as damaging to immersion as the words 'loading' appearing mid-mission. Its an arguement that has been floating around for years, and the solution always has been to maintain it. I can see why, afterall the game should be enjoyable to play (and limiting its use can be infuriating, the antithesis to enjoyment).

Checkpoints are a bad idea. But consideration should be given to promoting what the developers of TDP held as a key tennet in their design philosophy (namely encouraging the player to take responsiblity for their actions).

ZylonBane
7th Sep 2009, 19:08
On a different note, I would wholeheartedly support the inclusion of background autosaves at regular intervals (like, every 15 minutes or so). It's incredibly frustrating to screw up and get killed in a mission, only to realize that your last quicksave was an hour or more ago.

cheater_1
7th Sep 2009, 19:26
After reading through ALL three pages, we have a verdict. The OVERWHELMING majority want unlimited saves at any point. NO checkpoint system for Thief 4.

CHECKPOINTS = lazy developers (trying to create an artificial difficulty rather than actually working at it) Arrogant developers (you'll save when WE want you to save), frustration (there is nothing more NON-IMMERSIVE than having to play through the first 70% of a level time and time again because you're having problems with the last 30%), choppiness (playing a checkpoint based save game is like running a marathon in 1 mile increments and resting at each mile marker. These games NEVER feel smooth and tend to feel a bit forced / contrived.)

The NO'S have it. Keep it exactly as TDP and TMA.

Davehall380
7th Sep 2009, 19:55
The NO'S have it. Keep it exactly as TDP and TMA.

There is still room for the exploration of ideas concerning saving. No-one wants to see quicksaves (simply because Thief missions are trypically non-progressive and do not revolve around specific set-pieces). At the same time, ideas must be welcomed conerning ways that the concept of Thief can be enhanced.

Give the player the ultimate say on when they want to save the game. However, an appreication needs to be made for the effect that seemless quick-save/quick-load has on the gaming experience.

The tension in RTHC in TDP for me was made even greater because I knew that on my old system if I died, I had a fairly long wait for the loading of the save file. On modern systems this has become quite seemless. Just ideas.

P.S This isnt a poll

ZylonBane
7th Sep 2009, 20:27
No-one wants to see quicksaves
No, EVERYONE wants to see quicksaves.

Hecateus
8th Sep 2009, 01:47
...please stop with the UPPERCASE rhetoric. It is rather useless. Thanks.

That said, the utility of this thread is to explore ideas; it is not a poll.

Most of the target market for T4 will not ever read these threads, and won't have played the fan missions, and many will never have played the earlier games.

Thanks for the reminder of the Autosave option, and it's cousin, 'autosave at checkpoint'.

Somewhat connected thoughts:

Many have complained that the mistyblue load portals in TDS were unavoidably horrid, as they hurt immersion.

Anything involving a 'loading please wait' screen is something to be avoided, including loading old saves, as it hurts immersion. It is necessary for long breaks between play, no issue there.

Rewind, when used in an in-game context e.g. time control, is an innovation to avoid the issue of immersion loss in the face of the Loading screen. It also gives more control to the player. Let's face it, sometimes the last quicksave was in an extra bad spot, and one is forced to go to the beginning of a mission anyway, Rewind avoids that problem. autsaves and autosaves at checkpoints avoid it too

The Tension of avoiding failure has value; rewarding skilled play also has value, as is rewarding the daring of choosing higher difficulty levels. Avoiding the "Loading..." screen provided some tension, but was not immersive.

Both Rewind and QuickSaves are means of dealing with 'Oh Poop' situations.

If a player is allowed unlimited usage of either quicksaves or Rewind saves, then the player's valued tension is limited.

In certain aforementioned contexts, Rewind would be the better choice than QuickSaves. Either one can be limited to to balance tension needs. That limiting would be better in the form of future consequences. For instance there could be a doomsday clock somewhere down the line in the game (not the same mission unless it is the last) whose count gets shorter for whatever time is used with the Rewind; abuse it too much and Game Over. The same can be done with QuickSave, it just involves the dreaded Loading Please Wait screen.

The better thing overall would be to avoid gamedesign choices (ones out of players' control) which promotes the desire/need to rewind or quicksave. Survivable failures can and should open up opportunities, not annoyances. (Crisis=opportunity)==best design.

xDarknessFallsx
8th Sep 2009, 03:32
On a different note, I would wholeheartedly support the inclusion of background autosaves at regular intervals (like, every 15 minutes or so). It's incredibly frustrating to screw up and get killed in a mission, only to realize that your last quicksave was an hour or more ago.
I would like this (in addition to QuickSaves), but a brief minimalistic semi-tranparent note would need to flash up on the screen when it auto-saves so you know where it leaves off. Thief is so precise that if you don't know when it's saving, you may not know if you've already turned off a certain switch or collected a certain piece of loot..

Instead of saving at 15 mins, though, I'd actually like the player be able to specify in the Options screen how frequent they want the auto-save interval to be. Give five options: once every 5 mins, 10 mins, 15 mins, 30 mins or 60 mins. I'd probably do the 5 or 10 minute one; I can see how others might want 30 or 60 minute intervals.

I really like this idea for Thief. My reasoning is the opposite of you: I QuickSave way too much. If I know the game is auto-saving every 5 or 10 mins, I would be freed from the QuickSave vices that burden me. I would let go of some of the control and feel more of the tension and consequences of the gameplay. (The game loses tension and you can be more sloppy if you just QuickSave right before a dicey situation and QuickLoad after failing, like I've been doing and am trying to break the habit of.) I'd be much more inclined to kick the habit if background auto-saves occurred at pre-defined intervals.

This is much better for Thief than checkpoints and time rewinds.

jtr7
8th Sep 2009, 03:41
Quicksave whenever I want or bust!

I understand the arguments against it, but fear of death does not overpower fear of starting over, and I'll reiterate that if I am immersed, I forget to quicksave, and anything that happens is my fault.

ZylonBane
8th Sep 2009, 12:41
...please stop with the UPPERCASE rhetoric. It is rather useless.
No, it is quite useful for pounding concepts through the thick skulls of many of the posters around here. For example, the ones who keep suggesting time-rewinding with a straight face even though such a feature would FUNDAMENTALLY BREAK THE GAME.

Davehall380
8th Sep 2009, 12:48
No, EVERYONE wants to see quicksaves.

Ha! I meant checkpoints. I want quicksaves (I really should re-read what I type) :D

Davehall380
8th Sep 2009, 12:49
Quicksave whenever I want or bust!

I understand the arguments against it, but fear of death does not overpower fear of starting over, and I'll reiterate that if I am immersed, I forget to quicksave, and anything that happens is my fault.

At least someone has taken the time to appreciate the arguements for and against . . . ;)

esme
8th Sep 2009, 12:54
regarding the point that quicksaves/quickloads damage immersion somehow

whose immersion ? your immersion ? you make a conscious choice to quicksave/quickload that's up to you, if you don't use it then your immersion is maintained, if you do use it it isn't, so don't use it if you don't want, but immersion breaking is not an argument for removing the feature for other people

the alternatives are escape out, save the game, re enter the game, play a bit, screw up then escape out and reload the game later which breaks immersion far more effectively than a quick keypress or we have save at checkpoints with all the disadvantages that system brings including the constant awareness of how close or far you are from a checkpoint, which would pretty much destroy any immersion I ever had as I'd always be thinking of the artificial constraint being imposed by the developer and consciously trying to get to it to be 'safe'

you aren't going to use quicksave/quickload so it won't hurt your immersion and if someone else uses it that still won't hurt your immersion, ok it might hurt theirs but that's their choice, taking away that choice won't improve their gaming experience

Davehall380
8th Sep 2009, 13:07
regarding the point that quicksaves/quickloads damage immersion somehow

whose immersion ? your immersion ? you make a conscious choice to quicksave/quickload that's up to you, if you don't use it then your immersion is maintained, if you do use it it isn't, so don't use it if you don't want, but immersion breaking is not an argument for removing the feature for other people

the alternatives are escape out, save the game, re enter the game, play a bit, screw up then escape out and reload the game later which breaks immersion far more effectively than a quick keypress or we have save at checkpoints with all the disadvantages that system brings including the constant awareness of how close or far you are from a checkpoint, which would pretty much destroy any immersion I ever had as I'd always be thinking of the artificial constraint being imposed by the developer and consciously trying to get to it to be 'safe'

you aren't going to use quicksave/quickload so it won't hurt your immersion and if someone else uses it that still won't hurt your immersion, ok it might hurt theirs but that's their choice, taking away that choice won't improve their gaming experience

Thoose are some very good points. My arguement was based on my experience, and it may not be the same for everyone else. The player should have the ability to save when they want, and I can appreicate the fact that a quicksave key helps to make saving a quick experience, keeping the 'ball rolling' in a way. However, it just seems strange to me that as a player (and this is definitley not going to apply to everyone), I am inclined to quick save alot whilst playing.

For instance, ill quicksave before using a rope arrow incase I miss the target (no jokes about my aiming please :) ), the quicksave again just before I jump of the arrow (incase I fall or make a noise landing), quicksave before entering the room (incase im seen), and the quicksave again once this has been completed succesfully. In all ive quicksaved four times for climbing into a room without being seen.

My arguement essentailly boils down to the fact that quicksave can quickly turn into a compulsive habit for some players. Since im probably alone in this, ill understand if this isnt a popular idea. Id be interested to see if anyone else out there has experienced this.

esme
8th Sep 2009, 13:55
I admit I probably quicksave more I need to at times, at other times I totally forget to and only find out if I do something stupid, but I don't want an artificial restriction that tries to discourage me from quicksaving

if you, personally, think quicksaving is becoming an intrusive and compulsive habit that's interfering or damaging your game experience then you are really the only person who can do something about it, a first step might be to unbind the quicksave key so you have to use the escape/save sequence so you are more aware of when you make a save plus it's more awkward so you might be discouraged from doing it so often, but it's your choice and no one should force it on you

Hypevosa
8th Sep 2009, 15:30
I think people seem to be using game flow and game immersion synonymously here which I find a little confusing.

I used save and reload alot for all the games, and I admit it too much... but as soon as I started the game was I any less immersed than before I went to the reload screen? no, I wasn't. I was immediately sucked back into Garrett's body. But was the loading screen flow breaking and a little annoying? yes. I had to get my Garrett Groove back whenever I had to reload and it took a long time - I used to play on 95 - so reloading took a good 30 seconds sometimes, now that I've played on a new and faster computer reloading is 5 seconds, and I lose almost no momentum.

Anyways, while I agree that the game loses some tension due to being able to reverse any mistake with the press of a button or 2, I don't think that the feature should be removed permanently. Maybe we can check a box stating whether or not we want to be able to save an infinite number of times or not during that campaign. We can probably all agree there should be at least one save or something like that where when we have to leave the computer we don't have to start the whole game over again in this case (whether it happens just because you press quit or because it's a check point system, doesn't matter). But I really don't think that infinisaves should be entirely removed from the game.

Direlord
8th Sep 2009, 15:44
The idea i was thinking is one that is used quite a bit now and is somewhat like darkness mentioned. Have a quick save option for anyone that wants it but also have a autosave feature in a checkpoint like format. Just have the game autosave when you complete an objective be it gather specific loot or loot amount, or reach a certain point in the game like entering a certain office.

Platinumoxicity
8th Sep 2009, 15:51
For every 50 quicksaves I make, I have to reload once. I don't save before every dangerous act, more like every once in a while, so that I don't have to restart the mission completely. I played an old 80's-90's game yesterday and nothing infuriates me more than having to restart every mission from the beginning each time I made a random stupid mistake. Only when I'm about to do something that I know is almost impossible do I quicksave. Like when you want to get Bafford's scepter without knocking out the guard or turning off any lights in the room. You have about 10 seconds to get next to the guard when he's facing the other way, super-slow-creep past him while hoping that he doesn't turn to your direction, and get in. Then you still have to wait for the guard to face the other direction and jump past him to the carpet just as he turns back at you. You don't save at the start of the mission and just hope that you don't mess something like that up that comes after 30min of playing the mission. You'll be spending months to get through it that way.

Hypevosa
8th Sep 2009, 15:52
I can so see someone running and grabbing the painting they were supposed to steal as their objective, and instantly dying from all the archers guarding it shooting them at once... and then it reloads the autosave and it happens again, and again, and again, lol. Autosaves are a good idea, but definitely suck sometimes. I'd say at least have autosaves only happen when the character is safe... (hidden, not moving, not in a guard's patrol path, not within 5 feet of a guard)

esme
8th Sep 2009, 17:06
personally I don't see the save when you want system as being either broken or in need of improvement

Hypevosa
8th Sep 2009, 17:24
It can be seen as broken in that it's too powerful in both its ability to aid and hurt the player. Overwriting your good save by accident with the one you made for fun where you just lured every guard into the same room and attempt to fight them all off is bad... but having the ability to save and reload so you can make the same bow shot 50 X because you only have 10 arrows and don't want to waste any - though you kinda deserve to - is also bad.

Platinumoxicity
8th Sep 2009, 17:32
It can be seen as broken in that it's too powerful in both its ability to aid and hurt the player. Overwriting your good save by accident with the one you made for fun where you just lured every guard into the same room and attempt to fight them all off is bad... but having the ability to save and reload so you can make the same bow shot 50 X because you only have 10 arrows and don't want to waste any - though you kinda deserve to - is also bad.

What good does firing an arrow and reloading a save afterwards do? You still have the arrow, yes, but you haven't hit anything with it either.

And honestly, would you really exploit the game as much as you indicate in your theory if you could? (And yes you could) I don't think so. Nobody gets any satisfaction out of hacking a game using legitimate cheats. Most Thief-players are trying to play a game that's as hard as possible for them, thus not allowing themselves to exploit such features.

Davehall380
8th Sep 2009, 19:38
Try playing RTHC without saving for a truley terrifying experience

Platinumoxicity
8th Sep 2009, 20:18
Try playing RTHC without saving for a truley terrifying experience

...And get killed by a sudden heart attack at the broken staircase while making my way towards the armory to get the sunburst device 3 minutes before the supposed end of the mission? No thanks. ;)

Hypevosa
8th Sep 2009, 20:58
What good does firing an arrow and reloading a save afterwards do? You still have the arrow, yes, but you haven't hit anything with it either.

And honestly, would you really exploit the game as much as you indicate in your theory if you could? (And yes you could) I don't think so. Nobody gets any satisfaction out of hacking a game using legitimate cheats. Most Thief-players are trying to play a game that's as hard as possible for them, thus not allowing themselves to exploit such features.

You conserve ammunition, retaking the shot till you make it. Yes, I have done it, I used to be OCD about not wasting a god damn piece of equipment, so I'd save before using anything. Thief was like the only game I'd played that allowed me to not waste a thing - it's something deep within me - hell, I'll finish my gf's leftover food half the time at the cafeteria if it's something that's not disgusting. I've matured much more as a thief player on these forums because of the discussions, and wouldn't do such a thing now if I played again. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd be willing to not save but to leave and come back, instead restarting levels for the challenge.

However, if I save and reload to make sure that I never waste ammo, how's that a more grievous cheat than someone who GETS CAUGHT, and reloads a save instead of starting the level over or dealing with it? I think they've committed a worse crime - the problem is that it's more common and thus more accepted. Really, saving and reloading to avoid being seen and getting caught, is in essence the worst of the exploit you're making sound so bad.

ZylonBane
8th Sep 2009, 23:32
However, if I save and reload to make sure that I never waste ammo, how's that a more grievous cheat than someone who GETS CAUGHT, and reloads a save instead of starting the level over or dealing with it?
Because going through a whole save/reload cycle to conserve a single arrow is pathetic and diseased. Whereas, if you get killed, doing it is the only available option short of starting over, which would suck.

Hecateus
9th Sep 2009, 00:35
ZylonBane wrote:

No, it is quite useful for pounding concepts through the thick skulls of many of the posters around here. For example, the ones who keep suggesting time-rewinding with a straight face even though such a feature would FUNDAMENTALLY BREAK THE GAME.

Welcome to my Ignore List. ...you who would not try to win arguments with tact and wisdom.

jtr7
9th Sep 2009, 02:10
A part of the replayability and a positive aspect of Thief, as the player grows in skill, not the PC, after a while, there's less fumbling and need to use equipment, and less compulsion to save. It is a maturing process and for many of us, fumbling is inescapable, so improving by whatever means until the means is no longer needed is a good thing in the end.

Keeper Gurgul
9th Sep 2009, 02:14
Well, methinks that Ol' Mr Quicksave is the taffers' second best friend (just after the shadows). Especially when it comes to playing on higher difficulties. Checkpoints do not seem to be a sufficient solution if we want to see non-linear missions in T4.

Hypevosa
9th Sep 2009, 05:13
Because going through a whole save/reload cycle to conserve a single arrow is pathetic and diseased. Whereas, if you get killed, doing it is the only available option short of starting over, which would suck.

Well call me a leper I guess, I missed but 1/10 shots but I still reloaded for that missed shot...

There's a difference between dying and at least attempting to live with your mistake - death is a forced end, the game imposes it on you and you can't do anything about it. Being sighted, and ruining your ghost attempt is different. You've failed at being a ghost, and now you know for your next reload that a guard is about to walk up behind you and spot you, so you take action to prevent that event. People who force ghosting by doing things like this, are just as much abusing the save system as someone who's forcing perfection, like I used to. I wasn't a perfect Garrett, I'd miss the torch on occasion, but I forced perfection through a system of trial and error that is saving and reloading. It just doesn't feel right to me anymore. (then again, as JTR said, I've matured as a gamer)

I must conceed, non-linear levels would make a checkpoint system either useless or annoying - so I guess it's not the perfect answer. I just feel that the exploiting of the infinisave system is bad.

jtr7
9th Sep 2009, 05:20
It is bad, but as I said, I feel it's a necessary evil for this kind of game.

Davehall380
9th Sep 2009, 08:46
Someone who frequently saves like me (especially quicksaves) is not exploiting the game, rather preventing furstration at losing progress. However, a player that then loads when faced with an unpredictable situation (sighted for instance) is not necessarily cheating, but missing what the developers are trying to get across (if the philosophy is maintained on sneak and evade).

However, this really is up to the player. Ghosters cant be seen after all, and TDP sprawling levels mean that dying sets you back a long time. Thief4 has the oppurtunity to implement something new in light of the unique gaming context (stealth with evade just as important as sneaking).

Platinumoxicity
9th Sep 2009, 09:43
Last time I died in combat in Thief was a very long time ago. Ghosters want to save before making dangerous jumps or uncertain mantling operations, because those parts are the only parts where a ghoster can die. Stupid mistakes or game bugs. And I think that reloading a save because of dying of a stupid bug is completely legitimate.

I usually don't save before entering an area where it's highly likely that I'll be detected. 'Cause I won't enter those areas. I need to find a better way through.

Davehall380
9th Sep 2009, 10:22
Last time I died in combat in Thief was a very long time ago. Ghosters want to save before making dangerous jumps or uncertain mantling operations, because those parts are the only parts where a ghoster can die. Stupid mistakes or game bugs. And I think that reloading a save because of dying of a stupid bug is completely legitimate.

I usually don't save before entering an area where it's highly likely that I'll be detected. 'Cause I won't enter those areas. I need to find a better way through.

Understandable. However, for non-ghosting gameplay experiences, this confrontation makes up a large part of gaming.

It is not that player is looking for confrontation, in fact everything leading upto that point is focused around avoiding it. What is important to some gaming experiences is how the player reacts to unforseen circumstances, the unintended.

I remember reading once how one of the original developers of Thief was fascinated with the concept of getting the player to react to their own actions. For example, he talked about how a player had knocked out a servant, and then dropped him after hearing a guard coming down the corridor. The player quickly realised however that the servant was now sliding down a ramp to a swimming pool, and that the servants watery death would have failed the mission objectives. The player was forced to react to a situation that he/she had caused. In this example, confrontation was the outcome (and subsequently the evasion aspect of the game begins).

The point I was trying to make was that saving frequently can give a player the excuse to avoid this entire situation (afterall, its messy and they have to use flashbombs). It is up to each player to play the game as they see fit, and they shouldnt be punished for this (or restricted). As you say, you have ghosted missions and avoid confrontation. Id like to say that most of the time I too avoid confrontation (when im concentrating!). But when I do mess up, I enjoy responding to it. Both are valid game styles, and we both are unrestricted in this style of play. TDP and TMA were a success because the gameplay was suprisingly unrestricted in this regard.

The point I was trying to raise was that their needs to be a recognition of the problems that quicksaves bring to a game - and this was written in response to the arguements against checkpoints, so as to provide some balance.

Aceyalone7777
6th Nov 2009, 11:55
Before anyone starts swearing it's just a thought I made.

Well it's a fact that if someone sees you the most probable thing you are about to do is quickload. And I think none of us can deny it. What if there were checkpoints?

What if the guard would see you would mean that you would have to trick him and hide in the shadows, rather that give another shot. What if an airborne blackjack would get REALLY risky?

Wouldn't this raise up the tension bar?

Still there are a few drawbacks.
1st where the checkpoints would be? Because there is no linear gameplay, I would say that checkpoints are not based on position, but on achieving objectives or reaching mission milepoints.

2nd Getting TOO tedious. Well, that's a good thing for an expert thief. Still like Far Cry the lower level had quicksave and checkpoints but in the hardest difficulty setting there were only the checkpoints. And anyone that has played Far Cry and finished it in Realistic setting wouldn't deny how much more satisfying it was for a second playthrough or the victory after each checkpoint completed.

3rd Still one could memorise all the guards paths by heart. And it would get MUCH MORE borind with checkpoints, because to understand the path in a guard just before the checkpoint, it would mean you would have to do all the way to the checkpoint again. Problem solved with RANDOM patrols.

Whadda ya think????

jtr7
6th Nov 2009, 12:35
Hey yeah, we talked about this some time ago, but it's been awhile. :)

As evil as quicksaves and quickloads are, they are the player's decision, allow experimentation beyond straight gameplay, and when immersed in the game, the player often forgets to save, anyway. Also, players would still do a hard save, and that should definitely not be taken away.

As it is, the system does already allow a range of player preference, and that alos should not be taken away.

Knowing where the checkpoints are might force a player to stop going one direction to go get that save before taking the risk they were about to (that includes objective-based saves).

glyph07
6th Nov 2009, 12:55
To tell u the truth the first thing that comes to my mind thinking about checkpoints is that they would make the player perception of the City as "small" because of the several point of referent u had to direct Garrett.

What I felt was lacking, in fact, in TDS was the openness of the spaces and the idea that I could really get lost. Already looking for symbols scattered around the City to be shot at with an arrow was, under this point of view, taking away the "limitlessness" of the City.

The discourse was very different instead in both TDP and TMA. You couldn't get everywhere of course, but u didn't possess many recognisable fixed places to help u out.

I'd rather take the chance of calling myself with names for getting again to the same place as I couldn't remember the way than finding easy to get straight towards the right direction.

Checkpoints (and I take we talk about physycally recognisable places) I fear would make the running around far too easy.

esme
6th Nov 2009, 12:56
I suggest a merge with this thread http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=88868 rather than rehash all the arguments again

you never know after reading through someone may come up with a better idea

Namdrol
6th Nov 2009, 13:43
I take it that's a no then?
Good.
Next...

Lady_Of_The_Vine
6th Nov 2009, 14:31
I suggest a merge with this thread http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=88868 rather than rehash all the arguments again

you never know after reading through someone may come up with a better idea

No sooner said... than done. ;)

bambini
6th Nov 2009, 15:01
Oh Viktoria, where would we be without you?

Platinumoxicity
6th Nov 2009, 15:31
Basic old-school saving works better because the players who want to play without saving really do have that feeling of weakness, when they know that you won't restart from a certain spot.

Also, listen. A very important point, I think. Thief is based on slow progression, information gathering and thorough exploration. If the game announces that an automatic save has been made in a checkpoint, or the game just hangs for half-a-second when saving, the player is given a free clue that he's going in the right direction. It devalues the meaning of non-linear missions that are based on exploring, instead of simple proceeding to the direction where the enemies are still alive, like in most games. I don't want to be pointed to the right direction. I want to find out by myself where to go, by listening to conversations and reading cryptic notes.

Tell me that it's not an important point and i'll remove the annoying yellow color. :D

kabatta
6th Nov 2009, 15:51
It is important, may you make it orange? :P

ToMegaTherion
6th Nov 2009, 16:25
A checkpoint system sounds pretty unworkable. Only 1 save per x minutes is something that is not so obviously wrong, as long as x is not too long.

esme
6th Nov 2009, 16:32
so the player who wants to save when they like finds a convenient hidey hole, goes for coffee, comes back and saves before continuing

personally I want to save when I want not when the machine allows me to, I would find any restriction extremely frustrating

Lady_Of_The_Vine
6th Nov 2009, 18:54
Oh Viktoria, where would we be without you?

Little lost souls inside the Maw of Chaos? ;) :D

For all my taffers: :flowers:

DF-HellFier
6th Nov 2009, 20:01
Save anywhere! Like the first 3 Thief games... No checkpoints (It will piss of a lot of peoples - Thief = save when ever you want...)

Aceyalone7777
6th Nov 2009, 22:19
Well, didnt know such a thread even existed. Happy to be the necromancer of it. Actualy being a lurker, I thought it didnt even come up... :Embarassed:

Still now I think of it is fully unfunctional.

But...what about a difficulty level (eg Master Thief) that would allow no saves whatsoever????????????
How does this seem??

jtr7
6th Nov 2009, 23:42
No need to be embarrassed, just letting you know nearly all topics have been discussed already, but anything new and intriguing is welcome--even if disagreed with.

Sorry, too many proposals for various special difficulty levels and built-in personalising sliders in the options menus. Freedom to choose and self-discipline is more important than using a menu to force constraints beyond the usual difficulty settings. You could disable your keybindings so quicksaving and/or quickloading is impossible. The same might go for pressing Esc to go to the menu, as long as the player could alt-tab out of the program to quit (by the way, alt+tab doesn't work fr my TDS, it snaps back into the game).

erethizon
7th Nov 2009, 04:52
Yeah, while I like to play 'no loads allowed' during missions. I DON'T need to force everyone else to play like me. So, I think Thi4f should allow saves anywhere.

That said, here is an INTERESTING game concept in regards to saves. There was a game called Severance: Blade of Darkness. You could save your progress anytime during that game. However, the more saves you used during the game, the lower your 'bravery' score would be reduced.

I would like to see something like that = would encourage players to at least try to become better thieves.

* The 'bravery' score didn't effect the game in any way...it just let the player know how 'brave/skilled' they were.

I played a game like that (it was the command and conquer game that was a first person shooter), but really disliked that feature of it. I save all the time even when I am playing in "no load" mode because I never know if my game is going to crash or one of my babies is going to turn of the power strip. I save hundreds of times over the course of any computer game and never appreciated it lowering my score especially if I never once reloaded. How many times you load is the only relevant number. How often you save is just a matter of how prepared you are for things to go wrong. I admit I lose power and have game crashes more frequently than most players, but it never hurts for anyone to be prepared. There is a big difference between dying fair and square and then reloading versus having something happen that was beyond your control (and often not even game related) and then having to start the entire game over.

Talking about game crashes reminds me of all the troubles running the older two Thief games on new systems can cause (that is where most of my crashes come from). And not only are their crashes, but man do the games become ugly. My son and I play Thief 2 together side by side, he is on one of my older computers and I am on my new one. Thief looks SOOO much better on his computer even though my graphics card is unbelievably superior. I am amazed how dark and ugly Thief 2 is on my newest computer. There are so many black corners that I cannot see at all and then I look over at my son looking in the same corner and can see clearly in beautiful color.

As for the original post, checkpoints need to die an ugly death and never return in any game ever. I do not mind having an autosave for people that never bother with saving, but we are at a point technologically speaking where there is no longer an excuse for not having a save-anywhere feature. Even crummy consoles have the computing power and file space to save anywhere so that is the only way it needs to be. Someone mentioned liking checkpoints in Final Fantasy games, but I remember the first Final Fantasy game for gameboy and you could save anywhere by simply pausing and saving (you could not do it in battle though). That was so much nicer than having to go back to the checkpoint every time something good happened. I spend a lot of time in my RPGs just walking back and forth getting in fights to build my characters. In checkpoint games this means hugging the area around the checkpoint instead of wandering freely. The only advantage I see to checkpoints is that they remind people to save, but an autosave feature will take care of those people nicely.

jtr7
7th Nov 2009, 05:11
Yes! Crashing systems and real life interruptions are a consideration.

Having a bravery/stealth score is too much like achievements to me and I feel instant distaste to revulsion about it. A player should be able to know what's going on in-game and in their own head about how brave and stealthy they are. No automation of human memory, experience, motive, or observation. Let human brains be fully turned on, and simply conscious of what's happening.

Now, auto-save might be a worthy addition to the options page with the checkboxes for auto bow zoom, ladder attachment, and auto-search. This one shouldn't take much at all to implement or test, and it can be turned off for systems that would stutter too badly from it, or systems with limited drive space.

erethizon: Have you asked for tech help in the Thief forums? There are fixes for some graphics cards. It's usually a drivers issue or a need to run in Hardware Mode. You might get your beautiful original colors back! :)

erethizon
7th Nov 2009, 07:52
erethizon: Have you asked for tech help in the Thief forums? There are fixes for some graphics cards. It's usually a drivers issue or a need to run in Hardware Mode. You might get your beautiful original colors back! :)

Well, when I played Thief Gold recently on my new computer I got the crashes, but they were only every so often so it did not really bother me (I can load that game up nearly instantly after a crash so all a crash did was delay my game play for 5 seconds and force me to go back to my most recent save). When I tried Thief 2 the game crashed 100% of the time before I could even start playing the first level. So I updated my drivers. This fixed the crashing entirely for Thief 2 (I have not crashed once that I have noticed), but I have not gone back to Thief Gold to see if it fixed the crashing there. Frankly I was so happy to have Thief 2 finally working that I did not even mind that it was so ugly, but I was playing it again tonight with my son and had a lot of trouble seeing into some dark places. Even turning the gamma up did not help as they remained mostly black with just a little bit of green (like the way those early TDP FM's looked before FM makers really learned how to properly light a level). Then I look over at my son looking in the same corner and I can see it so clearly with all the color I remember from Thief 2. I admit it made me a little jealous, but I never considered it could be fixed. I know I do not want to change my drivers since my current ones at least work without crashing (which is all I really need), but I suppose if there is something else I could do then it might be a good idea. What is Hardware mode anyway?

erethizon
7th Nov 2009, 08:28
Save anywhere. Limited number of saves on certain difficulty levels, with the ultimate being nil, saving only at the end of a level a la AvP (pre-patch).

I would rather have the higher difficulty levels actually focus on being more difficult. The number of times you save has no effect on how difficult the game is. This is especially true with Thief which is arguably one of the most lenient games there is when you make a mistake. So let's say you mess up and a guard sees you. Heck, let’s say 15 guards all spot you at once and you are playing on expert so you cannot break out your sword and kill them. What do you do? You simply run away (you are faster than they are so this is easy) and go to the first place you can that they cannot follow (water, a sewer, a ladder, a drop off that they cannot walk over, etc.). Then, they look around for you for a little while and forget about you.

While I do sometimes play without saving (and more specifically without loading) it all comes down to the same thing. Do I want a 5 minute break? That is all a mistake is. If I mess up I can either reload and be right back where I was or I can run and hide and wait 5 minutes for everyone to calm down and then I will once again be right back where I was. There is no lasting punishment or challenge for making a mistake, only a 5 minute break. I suppose if I were playing on an easier setting and could fight back it might be different, or if I did not know where a safe place to hide was (but I always take note of them whenever I find one), but since that is not the case avoiding the reload button really just means I take a break. Sometimes I am in the mood for that and other times I am in the mood to play instead.

I rather liked how TDS increased how observant guards were in the higher difficulty settings. In the other games the harder difficulty settings did not seem any harder. There were a few more guards (but those are only harder if you are not blackjacking them) and you could not kill anyone (but that only mattered on the relatively rare occasion that you came across a guard with the special helmet that made him immune to being blackjacked) and you need more loot (but I always get 100% of the loot in a mission anyway) so there was not really any extra challenge. Making the guards more observant can actually make a difference in terms of challenge (though I never played TDS on any setting other than expert so I do not really know how much more observant the guards were on higher difficulty settings).

erethizon
7th Nov 2009, 08:38
Saving at keypoints can help improve immersion in any game when properly done. Whereas save-any-time is a-immersioinal. A good example would be the Ultima series where one could save only when going to sleep, or Dragon Quest's saving at the temple, via confession of sins et al.

Casually hitting F11 (or alt+s, or F10 depending on which game you are playing) does nothing to remove my immersion at all. It is such a quick and natural part of playing that I do not even notice myself doing it. Just like I do not notice my pushing down on W to make myself move forward I do not even notice how I feel around for F11 whenever I am in a dark spot. It is completely natural. Now if there were some stupid glowing object spinning around in the corner (i.e. the save checkpoint object) that would really mess with my immersion. I realize the games you mention do not have these, but that is what I think of when I think of save points. Saving when you sleep is fine, but we don't sleep mid-mission and even invisible save check points that just pop up a save screen when you walk by them interrupt the game play. A quick save button causes so little interruption that you eventually do not even notice yourself using it once you get into the habit of doing so.

erethizon
7th Nov 2009, 08:55
Rip-off my ass. Your "luck" isn't our problem.

You know whey I don't play professional football? Because I'm not good enough.

You're clearly not good enough to play on Expert, so don't. But don't you dare waltz in here suggesting the game be easier because you can't hack it. You've got the option to play on Normal or Easy! Ffs I've never seen such logic.

The problem is that not saving does not make a game any more difficult. The challenges are exactly the same. The only difference is how much of the easy part of the level you have to repeat to get to the hard part. If you play on two difficulty settings where everything is the same except for the amount you can save and on easy you save 50 times but never reload (because you did not mess up) and on expert you never save or reload (because it is not allowed) there was no difference in how challenged you were because saving does not affect challenge. Saving only affects how much of the easy content you have to repeat when you mess up.

I remember thinking how incredibly hard Super Mario Brothers was when I was 7 years old. Then when I was an adult I went back and played it for the first time in years and was able to beat the entire thing on my first try in about 2 hours without skipping any levels. It turns out Super Mario Brothers was an incredibly short and easy game. So why did it seem so difficult and long? Because every time I made a mistake I had to start the level over and every time I made 3 mistakes I had to start the entire game over. I spent most of my play time replaying the very easy parts of the game just so I could get up to the parts that challenged me (and when I failed that challenge I had to start all over). The challenges were not made harder by the fact that I had to start all over, but it did make it so that I could only face the challenges after going through an hour of prep work to get up to them. It is nice that the gaming industry has reached a point where we can actually focus on overcoming the challenge that we are struggling with rather than being forced to replay the easy part every time we mess up on the hard part.

Now luckily with Thief this is not much of a problem because the game is not that hard. Most deaths come from ladders and rope arrows rather than real challenges. Who here does not remember jumping to grab a rope arrow in TDP only to find yourself flying up the entire length of the rope arrow and dropping back down to the ground with a splat?

jtr7
7th Nov 2009, 09:13
Hardware Mode:

If you look in the Options menus, you'll see "Hardware" or "Hardware Acceleration".

To make sure they are set on or off, and to switch back and forth to see if there's a difference, open your cam.cfg files in Notepad and turn off Word Wrap under Format. Look for the line:

game_hardware ...

It'll be followed by a 1 or 0, for off or on, of course. Switch it and save the cam.cfg file, but don't close the file. Start the game, go in and see how it looks. If it's better, you can close the file and be happier, and if not, you can switch it back, save, and close the file. If it doesn't work for you, it's very likely a driver issue, which have plagued taffers for many years now.

What are your graphics card specs?





Yeah, saving the game doesn't hurt my immersion any more than pressing keys, especially combos, in the regular course of playing--especially now that my newer system barely blinks when I do.

Platinumoxicity
7th Nov 2009, 09:59
I remember thinking how incredibly hard Super Mario Brothers was when I was 7 years old. Then when I was an adult I went back and played it for the first time in years and was able to beat the entire thing on my first try in about 2 hours without skipping any levels. It turns out Super Mario Brothers was an incredibly short and easy game. So why did it seem so difficult and long? Because every time I made a mistake I had to start the level over and every time I made 3 mistakes I had to start the entire game over. I spent most of my play time replaying the very easy parts of the game just so I could get up to the parts that challenged me (and when I failed that challenge I had to start all over). The challenges were not made harder by the fact that I had to start all over, but it did make it so that I could only face the challenges after going through an hour of prep work to get up to them. It is nice that the gaming industry has reached a point where we can actually focus on overcoming the challenge that we are struggling with rather than being forced to replay the easy part every time we mess up on the hard part.


I had it all the other way around. Those old Disney platformers like Lion King and Aladdin are darn hard. I managed to finish LK twice when I was a kid. When I tried it again a few years ago, I couldn't finish the 7th stage. I tried it again a while ago, I couldn't finish the 2nd stage.

esme
7th Nov 2009, 11:02
"esme, esme, come out the house it's on fire and going to collapse!!!"

"just a sec, I'm nearly at the save poinaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!"

ok the examples a little extreme, but no, I don't like the idea of save points, what if real life intrudes in a less extreme manner ? should I lose all the progress I've made because an armed AI finds me and kills me when the postman comes with a parcel in real life or something crops up that takes you away from the game for days would you leave it paused in that case ? what if the power fails ?

a quick save at any point allows you to deal with these things

erethizon
8th Nov 2009, 05:40
Hardware Mode:

If you look in the Options menus, you'll see "Hardware" or "Hardware Acceleration".

To make sure they are set on or off, and to switch back and forth to see if there's a difference, open your cam.cfg files in Notepad and turn off Word Wrap under Format. Look for the line:

game_hardware ...

It'll be followed by a 1 or 0, for off or on, of course. Switch it and save the cam.cfg file, but don't close the file. Start the game, go in and see how it looks. If it's better, you can close the file and be happier, and if not, you can switch it back, save, and close the file. If it doesn't work for you, it's very likely a driver issue, which have plagued taffers for many years now.

What are your graphics card specs?

Thank you for the information, I will definitely have to try that.

The graphics card is a Geforce 8500 GT, 512MB, 128 Bit DDR2 PCIE

I considered putting Thief on my laptop instead but since it is an even better computer (Geforce 9600M GT and uses Vista instead of XP Pro) thief would probably look even worse. :p

Platinumoxicity
8th Nov 2009, 08:26
The funny thing about TDP and turning off the hardware acceleration is that the shadows look really, really dark. When I played the Bonehoard without hardware acceleration back then, it was a lot scarier because when a zombie came out of the shadows, it really did appear out of nowhere.

erethizon
9th Nov 2009, 05:06
The funny thing about TDP and turning off the hardware acceleration is that the shadows look really, really dark. When I played the Bonehoard without hardware acceleration back then, it was a lot scarier because when a zombie came out of the shadows, it really did appear out of nowhere.

That is the problem I am having in Thief 2. For example, in the Blackmail level there is a haunt in the underground area. Over half that area is completely black. So black that I cannot see the haunt until it is upon me. If Thief 2 did not add flares I would not even be able to find my way around that area. Even turning the gamma all the way up did not change how black it was. I am cool with dark, but that was so dark as to be frustrating. Luckily most places are not that dark.

hikikomori-san
8th Jan 2010, 22:52
Hello. Since there have been a few discussions here about various game features, I thought I'd start one about the way you think Thief 4 should handle game saving and player death/failure.

* Allow player to save whenever he wants (Thief).
* Save points (Soul Reaver, Prince of Persia)
* Autosaves (Modern Warfare).
* Autosaves at mission ends only (like Devil May Cry).

There are a few things to consider when designing saving and failure recovery mechanics in a game. Here is a list of what I think are points of interest:

* An issue to consider is that the player can be provided with a context where his actions will have no consequences at all, especially if he can load/save the game at will. How the player uses that is usually beyond the control of the designers.

* In light of the previous point, saving can be implemented in one of two ways: simple saving where loading a game erases all changes after the save, or they can be used as a method to restore Garrett into the game world after death (or quitting) without erasing all evidence of his actions (like in Bioshock). This means wasted arrows are not restored, alerted guards will remain alerted... etc.

* It can be said that a plain implementation can reduce the feeling of immersion as the player is simply waiting for the death animation to play, waiting on a loading screen, and then teleported back to the place where the last save occurred.

* Another point is the difficulty of implementation. For example, save points are most likely easier to implement that allowing the player to save whenever he wants. This can be somewhat alleviated by disallowing saving while certain conditions are met, like when the player is on a moving elevator, or when a cutscene is playing.

* Saving in bioshock is a mixture between save points and regular autosaves. They have a position in the level like save points but need no player interaction, and they happen automatically like autosaves but based on player position and not gameplay events.

* Save points require the introduction of new concepts, entities, and logic which explain their purpose and how it relates to the game world, which is a very tricky and sensitive issue in the world of Thief.

* Save points and autosaves, compared to "player saves" let's call them, may spare a player some frustration if he finds himself having to play a (hopefully quite long) mission from the beginning because he forgot to save, but most players are already used to quick saving so they are likely to cause more frustration in that regard. There is also the remote chance of hitting QuickSave when you actually mean QuickLoad when things go banana (remember? You face-palmed).

* (I think) some players played through TDS without knowing there was an "escape from prison" mission.

Personally I think the best is a combination of autosaves and player saves. Just because you can abuse the quick-save feature doesn't mean it should be completely dismissed. If the player wants to be a jerk and ruin the game for himself, let him. The most attractive and rewarding element in playing Thief for me is the enjoyment of careful exploration of new interesting areas, and immersion, so I play accordingly. As for changes that carry over after game restoration, I'm not sure. There is something attractive about knowing that the consequences of what I do in the game will not be erased by simply pressing F9. This can work well if the game would not be too difficult to play after guards are alerted or after I wasted all my precious gas arrows. But I would be happy with plain old saving.

What do you think?

Nate
8th Jan 2010, 23:14
Personally, I try to get through the mission without saving.....if the mission fails, I restart. I just don't bother to use the quicksave function = I guess it really doesn't matter to me what save system they implement.

jtr7
8th Jan 2010, 23:33
There are too many reasons to keep quicksaves/loads in a game like Thief. Experimentation and out-of-the-box exploration are huge. And if this next game has fatal or injurious bugs/glitches like the previous games, quicksaving before an attempt at something known to be an issue will keep it fun--though of course we hope those kinds of things won't be there.

Autosaves come with a price that is unacceptable to too many low-end users. Disk space consumption and sudden lags are unacceptable for more than you know. And in a game like Thief, hours can be spent between save-points, so having personal control is more important. Becoming so immersed one forgets to save is a compliment to the game, haha.


We've had previous battles over it:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=88868

But new points of view on it are welcome!

xDarknessFallsx
9th Jan 2010, 00:01
As long as I can Save whenever I want, and QuickSave/QuickLoad whenever I want, and as long as QuickSaves/QuickLoads process quickly and minimalistically, I'm golden. EDIT: Oh, and as long as there are no mid-mission AutoSaves or Checkpoints/Save Points.

Sometimes I like making saved games at parts that "I" (not the dev) considers cool, fun or otherwise unique. An area that I might want to show a friend at a later date/time, or that I might want to experience later. I'd like this flexibility to remain with Thief.

Pretty much I'd want the T2 system with a couple improvements:
* Have more than 10 or 15 saved game slots. I ideally like to have a saved game for the start of each level, and 2 or 3 on top of that for each mission (middle and end'ish). With T2, I'm constantly shuffling slots, and in the end I only have one saved game for each mission, if that.
* Have a designation of which mission # you're on as the first character(s) of the filename. T2 already shows what the mission title is, but sometimes I can't remember if LoTP is before Precious Cargo, is before Masks, is before Shalebridge, or whatever, so my games can get out of order. It's particulary an issue because there aren't enough slots to have at least one saved game for every mission.

I don't particularly need AutoSaves -- only one at the start of each level would be fine, if necessary, though. I have a good saving system that works for me. Mid-mission Save Points in a game like Thief would probably be a bit frustrating.

I like using ALT+S and ALT+L for my QuickSave and QuickLoad and hope I can still do this or configure this in T4! I like how many different key configurations we can do in T2, which is another topic.

jtr7
9th Jan 2010, 00:08
:cool: :thumb:

hikikomori-san
9th Jan 2010, 01:11
We've had previous battles over it:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=88868

But new points of view on it are welcome!
Oops... somehow I missed that. Sorry.

There are too many reasons to keep quicksaves/loads in a game like Thief. Experimentation and out-of-the-box exploration are huge.
Agreed, but the feel of the game when you know your actions will have no consequences at all is different. However, I never really had an issue with this when I played Thief back in the day because loading the game took about 1.5 minutes... that's why I never even thought about testing if the blackjack worked on haunts for example. But this "do whatever you want for free" side-effect of quick-saving is only really bad as a gameplay strategy, not as a way something to alleviate needless frustration every once in a while when the player decides so himself. But I do still vote for autosaves combined with quick saves.

xDarknessFallsx
9th Jan 2010, 03:24
Thief is a long, slow game. Note to EM: That doesnt equate to it being bad or boring.

So as a resultt, I use QuickSaves fairly frequently. I don't want to have to always replay the last 20 minutes, or run through a bunch of rooms to get away from chasing guards, if one footstep accidentally makes a CLAAAANG! :)... Then it can become torture to re-do it all at a snail pace. Not always, but it can. I have no problem playing Thief, the game, over and over again... But I do have a problem re-tracing my steps in a mission right after tracing them.

I like leaving the option for players to decide how much frustration, or fun replaying the last 20 mins, they want.

When I first played thief I didn't know about quicksave/load, so I didn't save very often. Now I like playing that way when I want a fun challengee for myself, but not as a requirement.

jtr7
9th Jan 2010, 04:39
Agreed, but the feel of the game when you know your actions will have no consequences at all is different. However, I never really had an issue with this when I played Thief back in the day because loading the game took about 1.5 minutes... that's why I never even thought about testing if the blackjack worked on haunts for example. But this "do whatever you want for free" side-effect of quick-saving is only really bad as a gameplay strategy, not as a way something to alleviate needless frustration every once in a while when the player decides so himself. But I do still vote for autosaves combined with quick saves.

I understand. I do. But until something new is invented, the rewards of having in-game saves make it the lesser of the two evils. Game developers STILL have seminars about how to solve this problem!

The best thing may very well be to disable the ability for one's self, by setting the keybinds for it to [empty].

hulde gran
9th Jan 2010, 06:33
i save the game A LOT, so i really would like if i could save whenever i want in thief 4. I mean, what if a blackout happened!

Yaphy
9th Jan 2010, 09:42
I save when I dont want to play anymore. I dont save because it is an upcoming obtacle or enemy. I dont think it is quite fair to quicksave before you shoot on of the expensive arrows to make sure that you dont waste it. Whats the differese in that or having cheaper arrows that doesnt matter just as much as the arrows do in this moment. Thats my way of playing but I dont have anything against quicksave for those who want or need it. Autosave places is a good thing if they can make them in the right spots.
So as long as it makes for more and different types of gameplay I have nothing against it. After al, my way of playing can be quite anoying at some times because it might break the flow.

Platinumoxicity
9th Jan 2010, 10:16
Which one of these is more entertaining:

1.You wonder whether you should save before a hard area and you decide not to, only to fail by some stupid random event.
2.You wonder whether you should save before a hard area and you decide not to and get through the area just fine.

?

The answer is: Neither one is more entertaining. The 2nd scenario is ignored. The 1st scenario only is incredibly frustrating, maybe an hour's work for nothing. But when you do something right, you don't even notice it. Saves are necessary to keep the game as fun for the player as possible. It's not an arcade machine that eats up your quarters because you can't save and it's incredibly hard. It's a PC game. The absence of normal- and quicksaves and the presence of autosaves or save points is a relic from the times of low-memory PSX 8kb memory cards, and served only the purpose of minimizing the amount of data saved. It had nothing to do with improving the gameplay in any way.



Autosave places is a good thing if they can make them in the right spots.

Autosaves aren't as good as you think in Thief. You know how Thief focuses on vague clues and careful player-based exploration? Autosaves tend to take a bit of CPU when they work, and they jerk the game a bit. Now when that happens, it tells the player that he has come to an important place and he acts accordingly. Imagine if that happened in a maze-like place where you're supposed to be confused and get lost. It would diminish the point of the level. Also, Thief is not a tunnel-run-fps so how would autosave locations work when you're exploring a non-linear mission where you visit the same areas several times?

esme
9th Jan 2010, 12:17
I save when


the doorbell rings
when my partner "requests my attention" :rolleyes: :D - yes that is a euphemism
the phone rings
I solve the problem I put on the back burner and can, regretfully, return to working
when I fancy a coffee or a sandwich or both
when I want break
when I need to use the loo
when I reach what I consider to be a safe place
when I think I might be about to do something stupid
when I think I might be about to do something cool
when I want to consider my options
when I want to observe and plan
when I damn well feel like it


I hate with a passion any system that won't allow me to save when I like

Namdrol
9th Jan 2010, 12:35
As usual, esme gets it bang on the money.

esme
9th Jan 2010, 12:40
oh I forgot


when I remember to - I do occasionally forget and get really ticked off at losing 40 - 60 minutes worth of play because of one stupid mistake or a slip of the finger pressing the jump instead of crouch button ... no that is not a euphemism ;)

hikikomori-san
9th Jan 2010, 17:21
Autosaves aren't as good as you think in Thief. You know how Thief focuses on vague clues and careful player-based exploration? Autosaves tend to take a bit of CPU when they work, and they jerk the game a bit. Now when that happens, it tells the player that he has come to an important place and he acts accordingly.
Usually true, but not necessarily always. Games nowadays do a lot of level streaming (remember the big doors in Dead Space?) which is usually more taxing on the CPU and HD than a save, especially if saving is optimized. Game save files in some games are larger than 10mb and in others its as small as 64kb, with ~1mb save files being common. So an autosave can be implemented to happen without the player noticing. As a way to ensure the player doesn't have to replay a large portion of a mission due to a "random" misstep, I believe autosaves have merit.
Offtopic: is there a thread here discussing Garrett's movement and agility?

Namdrol
9th Jan 2010, 17:37
hikik, there is a sticky thread (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=88498) which acts as a meta thread.
Having a quick look I found a thread on movement (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=88805)

hikikomori-san
9th Jan 2010, 17:47
Ah, for some reason I tend to ignore reading sticky threads :nut: Thanks.

Oon Kuka Oon
9th Jan 2010, 17:57
Even if player doesn't notice autosaving, when he fails in a labyrinth and he is taken back to his last autosave, he thinks "oh I was on the right way here". Autosaving can work in linear games, but never in Thief. We don't want linear FPShooter, we want proper FPSneaker Thief.
Just make it as it was with Dark Engine. Put there even more slots, make sure there is at least 1/mission and 50% more. And maybe the number of the mission before the name.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Jan 2010, 18:12
As usual, esme gets it bang on the money.

Seconded. :D

xDarknessFallsx
10th Jan 2010, 00:28
Autosaves aren't as good as you think in Thief. You know how Thief focuses on vague clues and careful player-based exploration? Autosaves tend to take a bit of CPU when they work, and they jerk the game a bit. Now when that happens, it tells the player that he has come to an important place and he acts accordingly. Imagine if that happened in a maze-like place where you're supposed to be confused and get lost.
I agree! And players could also get to the same location on a map from 5 or 10 different ways sometimes, so how would you determine the "best" locations for autosaves?

But yeah, what Platinumoxicity said. I don't like it when games pretty much tell me that something is about to happen (an area with a lot of enemies, or a boss, or a new big area, etc.) by doing a quick autosave right before that area, or when the screen jerks for a moment to load all the stuff into cache, or the music changes to something more dramatic, or you see "Saving. . . " in the corner.

hikikomori-san
10th Jan 2010, 01:11
Well, upon objective completion is a good autosave time, an option for periodic saving is also not an evil idea, and in some locations in a level where you already know you've just entered a big area or have otherwise finished a "separate" portion of the level. For example, an autosave when you finally get to the explosive device in the return to the haunted cathedral, upon retrieval of each talisman in the lost city, upon entry to the lost city... etc. That said, it's easy to mess this up and it's likely to end up being an unwanted indication that affects immersion. But I just can't remember to save very often and I've been bitten too many times to not want autosaves.

theBlackman
10th Jan 2010, 03:30
I agree with esme. Autosaves are, and have been a pain in any game I've played where they exist.

I prefer a manual save of my choice. The list of "when I save" by esme is the best example of why the device should be continued and not Autosave, objective save etc.

I don't necessarily think that unlimited save slots should be available, but I heartily favor the old save machinery where I could NAME THE SPECIFIC save to my specifications.

A save that says "Mission xxx 20:05:09" is useless. KO guard at mansion door, or similiar is much more informative and useful to me.

Oon Kuka Oon
10th Jan 2010, 09:06
Autosaves will inevitably give player extra hints of that something has happened, is happening, or is going to happen.
In Thief you always had to figure everything out yourself. Autosaving would inevitably ruin that.

hulde gran
10th Jan 2010, 09:52
you're right, the autosave feature would ruin the experience

Fizbop
7th Mar 2011, 18:22
They had a save anywhere feature for T3, it was the F10 button by default allowed you to quick save the game. It would bring you back exactly where you left off. That button saved me so many times. I hope it's reincorporated.

jtr7
7th Mar 2011, 20:08
All the Thief games had quicksave/quickload, and the keys could be assigned by the player to any other key.

Have you only played Thief: Deadly Shadows? I see you stated elsewhere you've only played TDS, so yeah, I've noticed. :)

Tryst
7th Mar 2011, 22:20
Autosaves will inevitably give player extra hints of that something has happened, is happening, or is going to happen.
In Thief you always had to figure everything out yourself. Autosaving would inevitably ruin that.
Autosave every X minutes (determined by user and can be disabled completely for the hardcore players). This totally ignores the plot and just ensures that you don't have to restart the entire mission because of one foul up and you got so engrossed that you forgot to save.

jtr7
7th Mar 2011, 23:17
Not until they can make it not pause the game unexpectedly or poorly timed in the middle of an action or reaction. Having the best system and settings is not the norm.

Fizbop
7th Mar 2011, 23:54
All the Thief games had quicksave/quickload, and the keys could be assigned by the player to any other key.

Have you only played Thief: Deadly Shadows? I see you stated elsewhere you've only played TDS, so yeah, I've noticed. :)

Trying to find the other games anywhere is difficult.

Vae
8th Mar 2011, 01:06
Trying to find the other games anywhere is difficult.

Get all three games for $13.44 (including s&h)...THIEF - The Complete Collection (http://www.amazon.com/THIEF-COMPLETE-COLLECTION-Pc/dp/B002LVUKIS)...:)

JacktheBox
8th Mar 2011, 01:15
On the autosave feature, it doesn't really seem necessary to put up, I know it is a bit frustrating if you died just before the end of a mission, but think of a game like Hitman where at the hardest difficulty you don't get any saves at all, playing through the entire thing wasn't any worse than before.

MasterTaffer
12th Mar 2013, 10:15
Bumping this as save system discussion has been cropping up since the veil has been lifted.

fbdbh
12th Mar 2013, 17:01
Linear games benefit from a checkpoint-system, but I can't imagine it for Thief.

Just let me quicksave, and done. Autosave if entering a mission. Or maybe after completing an objective.

janiashvili
12th Mar 2013, 17:43
Checkpoints won't work because of a very simple reason - this is open level based game...

YsaNoire
12th Mar 2013, 17:53
I think there is agreement that the game should allow you to save at any time.

What I would like are two little things:
- autosaves at the beginning of a mission which get archived and then let you replay every mission you played (nice feature they had in Dishonored)
- a reasonable system to name or tag saves. I can't remember how it worked in previous Thief games, I think it just named a save with the level name and time, and I'd like to be able to tag them with, say "just before final boss fight" etc.

Platinumoxicity
12th Mar 2013, 18:14
- a reasonable system to name or tag saves. I can't remember how it worked in previous Thief games, I think it just named a save with the level name and time, and I'd like to be able to tag them with, say "just before final boss fight" etc.

...And for the PC players, a PC-friendly savegame menu, where several dozen slots fit the screen, and all include basic information of all the saved games, as well as the custom names of the saves.

As opposed to... A screen with truck-sized fonts and an area where you can see 3 non-nameable slots with only the level title visible at any given time, and you need to scroll down for 5 seconds straight to see savegame in slot #10. Mouse control is disabled completely.

Like this. And in 1:1 scale also.

[1] Mission 1 - Generic Mansion - 00:00 Mission Start - Expert - 12.03.2013 20:14

elfnik
18th Mar 2013, 03:54
I really liked the old good save game system..with very few occasional auto-saves.

Why, well..from my point of view:

Imagine a room in which you need to do tactical planning.:
- Save system gives you time to think and plan your moves and actions - like chess
- Checkpoint system actually makes you repeat again and again same actions until it bores you to death. While it makes the game boring, it does not require from you to think at all, because after 10-20 times of repeating the same action you actually going to pass that room... until the next checkpoint...!?!?!?

Basically, checkpoint system limits your moment, why? because after you pass a room full of guards and You spent last 30 min repeating that action, you wont even think to explore because you don't even know where the hell is the next check point. So simply, exploring ain't worth the risks.

Also, Thief is a free roam game, and it is stupid to have checkpoint system..that way you are obligated to follow the checkpoints, otherwise you will have a bad time after dying or being noticed by the guards while you want to achieve eg. "ghost" status for that mission.

So, sorry but we are not talking about "Meatboy" here, "Thief" is a game which actually requires from the player to think, not to strengthen player reflexes. Leave the checkpoint system for the platform games!!!

elfnik
18th Mar 2013, 03:58
Trying to find the other games anywhere is difficult.

1. http://www.gog.com/gamecard/thief_gold
2. http://www.gog.com/gamecard/thief_2_the_metal_age
3. http://www.gog.com/gamecard/thief_3

This are 100% working on Win 7 x64, I bought em from here.

NoxNoctum
18th Mar 2013, 07:54
I hope there's an "ironman" mode included in the game (no saving). This was always my preferred way to play Thief 2. I know a lot of people liked ot restrict themselves on using certain gadgets etc. (i.e. no noisemakers) but I preferred to use all the available tools BUT no saving allowed. Made for a much more intense experience!

Obviously you can just "not save" and achieve the same effect but it just feels better if it's built into the game.

CyberP
18th Mar 2013, 09:46
I remember thinking how incredibly hard Super Mario Brothers was when I was 7 years old. Then when I was an adult I went back and played it for the first time in years and was able to beat the entire thing on my first try in about 2 hours without skipping any levels. It turns out Super Mario Brothers was an incredibly short and easy game. So why did it seem so difficult and long? Because every time I made a mistake I had to start the level over and every time I made 3 mistakes I had to start the entire game over. I spent most of my play time replaying the very easy parts of the game just so I could get up to the parts that challenged me (and when I failed that challenge I had to start all over). The challenges were not made harder by the fact that I had to start all over, but it did make it so that I could only face the challenges after going through an hour of prep work to get up to them. It is nice that the gaming industry has reached a point where we can actually focus on overcoming the challenge that we are struggling with rather than being forced to replay the easy part every time we mess up on the hard part.


I wasn't aware SMB1 was representative of all of old school gaming? It's a simple platformer from 1985.


Hello. Since there have been a few discussions here about various game features, I thought I'd start one about the way you think Thief 4 should handle game saving and player death/failure.

* Allow player to save whenever he wants (Thief).
* Save points (Soul Reaver, Prince of Persia)
* Autosaves (Modern Warfare).
* Autosaves at mission ends only (like Devil May Cry).

There are a few things to consider when designing saving and failure recovery mechanics in a game. Here is a list of what I think are points of interest:

* An issue to consider is that the player can be provided with a context where his actions will have no consequences at all, especially if he can load/save the game at will. How the player uses that is usually beyond the control of the designers.

* In light of the previous point, saving can be implemented in one of two ways: simple saving where loading a game erases all changes after the save, or they can be used as a method to restore Garrett into the game world after death (or quitting) without erasing all evidence of his actions (like in Bioshock). This means wasted arrows are not restored, alerted guards will remain alerted... etc.

* It can be said that a plain implementation can reduce the feeling of immersion as the player is simply waiting for the death animation to play, waiting on a loading screen, and then teleported back to the place where the last save occurred.

* Another point is the difficulty of implementation. For example, save points are most likely easier to implement that allowing the player to save whenever he wants. This can be somewhat alleviated by disallowing saving while certain conditions are met, like when the player is on a moving elevator, or when a cutscene is playing.

* Saving in bioshock is a mixture between save points and regular autosaves. They have a position in the level like save points but need no player interaction, and they happen automatically like autosaves but based on player position and not gameplay events.

* Save points require the introduction of new concepts, entities, and logic which explain their purpose and how it relates to the game world, which is a very tricky and sensitive issue in the world of Thief.

* Save points and autosaves, compared to "player saves" let's call them, may spare a player some frustration if he finds himself having to play a (hopefully quite long) mission from the beginning because he forgot to save, but most players are already used to quick saving so they are likely to cause more frustration in that regard. There is also the remote chance of hitting QuickSave when you actually mean QuickLoad when things go banana (remember? You face-palmed).

* (I think) some players played through TDS without knowing there was an "escape from prison" mission.

Personally I think the best is a combination of autosaves and player saves. Just because you can abuse the quick-save feature doesn't mean it should be completely dismissed. If the player wants to be a jerk and ruin the game for himself, let him. The most attractive and rewarding element in playing Thief for me is the enjoyment of careful exploration of new interesting areas, and immersion, so I play accordingly. As for changes that carry over after game restoration, I'm not sure. There is something attractive about knowing that the consequences of what I do in the game will not be erased by simply pressing F9. This can work well if the game would not be too difficult to play after guards are alerted or after I wasted all my precious gas arrows. But I would be happy with plain old saving.

What do you think?

Great post. Fan of autosave/save points myself. I prefer a forced challenge, Dark Souls as a modern example. You cannot just "player save" every successful attack/kill. Or reload after a defining decision. You make your choice and you deal with the ******* consequences.

Somebody was saying how savepoints should be for platformers and reflex action games only and not thinking-man type games. Lol ok, shows how much thinking you do in the game then. If you made the right decisions then you wouldn't die. If you do die then you should learn from it. In a game like Thief that's great as there is many different actions or paths for the player to take if one way doesn't do it for you.

elfnik
18th Mar 2013, 12:47
Great post. Fan of autosave/save points myself. I prefer a forced challenge, Dark Souls as a modern example. You cannot just "player save" every successful attack/kill. Or reload after a defining decision. You make your choice and you deal with the *** consequences.

Then please tell me how will be technically achieved? If there are only checkpoint system, then how will you be able to free roam and return back, or even worse, after 30 minutes of exploring you have to quit the game..and then what? You will have to spend another 30 min until you reach the next checkpoint before the game is save so you can quit?

As I said, leave that for platform games, thief is not suitable for using checkpoint system, simply because its core elements are different than other games. For example, dark souls is linear game with straight - forward path of movement, thief is far different.

Another thing to say: If you supporting the checkpoint system, then I bet you have never played previous thief games. All 3 thief games had save system. If you did played thief games and you really like em, then again..you was comfortable when you used the save system and you have no problems of using it again :)

PhilR1
18th Mar 2013, 12:58
Save anywhere.

This game better have it or I WILL cut someone.

I only mention it because I notice that most stealth games these days are all checkpoint based.

Agreed. Checkpoints were terrible in Hitman Absolution. Having the save glitch when you have spent nearly 30 hours playing the game and having to delete your save and start again was God awful.

I am not the best at stealth games and do like to save whenever I want. Having checkpoints makes it a bigger chance of them getting corrupted as well.

At the very least have both options.

I'd also like a hardcore mode where you cannot save at all in a mission. The only saves you could have is at the start of a mission and that is it. An ironman mode perhaps?

Platinumoxicity
18th Mar 2013, 14:15
I'd also like a hardcore mode where you cannot save at all in a mission. The only saves you could have is at the start of a mission and that is it. An ironman mode perhaps?

There are better alternatives that have been seen in games previously. Splinter Cell Double Agent kept score of how amny times you saved during a mission, but it didn't actually impact your score. The game just mocked you a little bit. You should exhibit some self control and just refuse to save. There's no need for a hard-coded gameplay feature to disable saving.

In a Thief 2 fan mission CoSaS, if you managed to ghost through the mission, you unlocked a special objective completion. Ghosting was not enforced but you still got congratulated for achieving it. You didn't get any reward however, because ghosters don't want any prize. There's no point in wanting an extra challenge, if the game gets easier when you play it a harder way. That's why I don't really have a problem with DXHR actually giving you less total XP for ghosting because you don't knock out any enemies. Though that makes a bit more sense in a game that includes an invisibility power. Incapacitating enemies without being detected is a lot more challenging than just pressing F1 and walking past them.

Bottom line, if people want to play the hard way, that's fine. They don't need the game to enforce it for them. However there can always be special rules in a mission that are related to the story. Like how you can't cause any disturbances in Casing the Joint, and you can't let anyone sound the alarm in Framed.

PhilR1
18th Mar 2013, 14:20
There are better alternatives that have been seen in games previously. Splinter Cell Double Agent kept score of how amny times you saved during a mission, but it didn't actually impact your score. The game just mocked you a little bit. You should exhibit some self control and just refuse to save. There's no need for a hard-coded gameplay feature to disable saving.

In a Thief 2 fan mission CoSaS, if you managed to ghost through the mission, you unlocked a special objective completion. Ghosting was not enforced but you still got congratulated for achieving it. You didn't get any reward however, because ghosters don't want any prize. There's no point in wanting an extra challenge, if the game gets easier when you play it a harder way. That's why I don't really have a problem with DXHR actually giving you less total XP for ghosting because you don't knock out any enemies. Though that makes a bit more sense in a game that includes an invisibility power. Incapacitating enemies without being detected is a lot more challenging than just pressing F1 and walking past them.

Bottom line, if people want to play the hard way, that's fine. They don't need the game to enforce it for them. However there can always be special rules in a mission that are related to the story. Like how you can't cause any disturbances in Casing the Joint, and you can't let anyone sound the alarm in Framed.

Not being able to save does benefit some games though. Do I take it you have never played the X-Com series? I have recently been playing the wonderful X-Com Enemy Unknown which has an Ironman mode where you are not allowed to save at all. You make your own decisions and have to live with them good or bad. If you lose an entire squad, tough!

Obviously this is a completely different game to X-Com but to be able to go through entire missions without saving, picking up all the loot and not being caught etc would be great fun. Anyone can do that if you save every 30 seconds.

Platinumoxicity
18th Mar 2013, 14:31
Obviously this is a completely different game to X-Com but to be able to go through entire missions without saving, picking up all the loot and not being caught etc would be great fun. Anyone can do that if you save every 30 seconds.

I'm going to brag here and say that I did that with Thief 2. And without knocking out anyone. And I recorded it. And the best thing about it is that I didn't have to. There was an option to save, but the game was more exciting when I didn't. Every move had to be carefully calculated, to minimize risk of getting caught. If you use quicksaves, you can take bigger risks. What would be the point of including as a deliberately programmed system something that players are perfectly capable of doing themselves? This reminds me of people opposing gay marriage, because they are afraid that they'll have to get gay married if it's legalized. Just because something is possible for some, doesn't mean it's mandatory for you.

scumm
18th Mar 2013, 14:45
There was an option to save, but the game was more exciting when I didn't. Every move had to be carefully calculated, to minimize risk of getting caught. If you use quicksaves, you can take bigger risks. [/B]

This is my favorite way to play Thief now. I can't claim to have beaten every level with this play style but it makes for a MUCH more intense and rewarding game. Definitely recommended but definitely not for the faint of heart.

Putkikameli
18th Mar 2013, 15:25
I personally want to be able to save when ever I want to. Due to my studies, I really don't always have enough time to finish level on one sitting. Starting from the beginning or some stupid checkpoint isn't really ideal. Quick save and quick load of course can easily lead to save scumming, but I personally, have phobia for crashing games and losing all your progress with it. In the end, if someone does save scumming it doesn't have any effect on my gameplay. I'd just like to be able to save when ever I have to.

CyberP
19th Mar 2013, 10:15
Then please tell me how will be technically achieved? If there are only checkpoint system, then how will you be able to free roam and return back, or even worse, after 30 minutes of exploring you have to quit the game..and then what? You will have to spend another 30 min until you reach the next checkpoint before the game is save so you can quit?
i) Saves every time you pass the trigger. DX:HR as one example, ignoring it has save anywhere.
ii) OR A temporary additional save slot where you can save anywhere but it forces out to the main menu and when reloaded deletes itself (I love this method, shame it's so rare. May be exclusive to consoles only as have never seen it on PC).
iii) alternatively, Hitman: Blood Money style limited saves depending on difficulty.


Another thing to say: If you supporting the checkpoint system, then I bet you have never played previous thief games. All 3 thief games had save system. If you did played thief games and you really like em, then again..you was comfortable when you used the save system and you have no problems of using it again :)
I have played nearly every game by Looking Glass and inspired by LG.
The save anywhere times infinity is one of the very few flaws of their games, imo.

Platinumoxicity
19th Mar 2013, 12:27
The save anywhere times infinity is one of the very few flaws of their games, imo.

Please explain how a feature that can only be helpful can be considered a flaw? I mean, it can only be a problem if the game is entirely built around saving before taking every single action, because then the game still needs to be designed to be challenging according to playtester feedback. Therefore without saves the game would become unplayable because it literally wasn't designed for that. If you think being able to save is a flaw, then you assume that Eidos Montréal assumes everyone to save behind every corner and walzing out at random hoping that they won't be seen, and reloading and trying again constantly. The only people who design games in that way are those flash programmers who make "I wanna be the guy", "Unfair Mario" and other games with that deliberately masochistic difficulty. Games where getting past one section is 99% impossible and the game has 99 sections like that. Without checkpoints in between, the chances of making it through would be 1: 1x10^198

Rest assured, Thief 4 will be playtested without the players having the ability to save the game. Because it has to be plausible for Garrett to make it through the missions unseen. Therefore, being against the inclusion of a save mechanic is exactly like being against Volkswagen simply because you drive an Audi. I was not against DXHRs "augmented reality". I can find small things in a game environment just fine without handholding, but that doesn't mean that I want to deny handholding from those who would want to use it. As long as a game is not designed completely around it, its existence does not matter. Skyrim is an example of how it should not be done. You have the option of not using objective indicators, but too bad that the whole game has been designed around the use of those indicators and it's impossible to play without them enabled.

CyberP
19th Mar 2013, 17:59
Let me rephrase- It's the one thing that i'd change. It's not a flaw, no.


Please explain how a feature that can only be helpful can be considered a flaw? I mean, it can only be a problem if the game is entirely built around saving before taking every single action, because then the game still needs to be designed to be challenging according to playtester feedback. Therefore without saves the game would become unplayable because it literally wasn't designed for that. If you think being able to save is a flaw, then you assume that Eidos Montréal assumes everyone to save behind every corner and walzing out at random hoping that they won't be seen, and reloading and trying again constantly. The only people who design games in that way are those flash programmers who make "I wanna be the guy", "Unfair Mario" and other games with that deliberately masochistic difficulty. Games where getting past one section is 99% impossible and the game has 99 sections like that. Without checkpoints in between, the chances of making it through would be 1: 1x10^198

Hey, I said being able to save anywhere times infinity was the "flaw". I never said you shouldn't be able to save at all.


I was not against DXHRs "augmented reality". I can find small things in a game environment just fine without handholding, but that doesn't mean that I want to deny handholding from those who would want to use it. As long as a game is not designed completely around it, its existence does not matter. Skyrim is an example of how it should not be done. You have the option of not using objective indicators, but too bad that the whole game has been designed around the use of those indicators and it's impossible to play without them enabled.
Same for DX:HR. They added the option to turn it off late in development which resulted in inconsistency on what was interactive and what wasn't, and there was not a whole lot that was interactive anyway.
EASY mode, tutorials, the internet, guide books, cheats, friends & family....that is more than enough handholding. If these extra hand-holders did not take priority it would not bother me. The hand-holders should be the crap added late in development and exclusive to easy mode, normal as a stretch.

Morgan Wight
20th Mar 2013, 10:21
I hope that no-save mode is a toggle you can choose at the start of a campaign, which brings with it some sort of small perk. Access to an additional black market or shop, for instance.

Platinumoxicity
20th Mar 2013, 11:31
I hope that no-save mode is a toggle you can choose at the start of a campaign, which brings with it some sort of small perk. Access to an additional black market or shop, for instance.

Am I the only one who isn't able to follow this logic?

Iron-man'ers want an extra challenge, so they want to enforce no saving. They are unable to refuse to save by themselves. Yet those players should be rewarded with something in that game? Wasn't the idea to make the game harder, not easier by giving them stuff? I like ghosting but that doesn't mean I want the game to reward me with anything other than maybe an addendum to the debriefing that says "good job". I don't want the game to enforce ghosting unless it makes sense in the context of the mission and story. Maybe iron-man'ers should be satisfied with just a pat on the back too, don't you think?

Deus Ex Human Revolution is next to impossible to play shooter style on the hardest setting. Yet the game does not reward the player in any way for playing that way on that difficulty. Why? Because the player wants the challenge. -Now I'm going try to refute my own argument, behold:
But anyone who wants a consistent challenge can always decide not to exploit the reward they get, can't they?
Well, anyone can refuse to save during a mission too, genius.

CyberP
20th Mar 2013, 15:17
Am I the only one who isn't able to follow this logic?

No. Unless the player starts off gimped in this particular mode and RPG elements are added.


Deus Ex Human Revolution is next to impossible to play shooter style on the hardest setting. .

News to me. My first playthrough of Human Revolution was shooter style on the hardest difficulty.
Sure, I died enough times, but i've played much harder games on their default difficulty. Besides, you can save anywhere. It's impossible to have a next to impossible game when you can save anywhere ;)

Hamadriyad
20th Mar 2013, 15:41
Old save system works perfectly fine. I like to save, and I save a lot. Well, If you don't want to save, then don't. Why on the earth I shouldn't be able to save whenever, wherever I want because some masochist players don't want to save?

scumm
20th Mar 2013, 17:42
I hope that no-save mode is a toggle you can choose at the start of a campaign, which brings with it some sort of small perk. Access to an additional black market or shop, for instance.

I'm not in favor of a specific "no-save mode" or any additional perks, but it would be cool if there was an achievement for beating each level without saving... If you're into those kinda things. Nothing fancy, just bragging rights.

YsaNoire
20th Mar 2013, 18:04
Old save system works perfectly fine. I like to save, and I save a lot. Well, If you don't want to save, then don't. Why on the earth I shouldn't be able to save whenever, wherever I want because some masochist players don't want to save?

This, basically.

I'm not against rewarding the player for not using saves, though, regardless if it's a post-factum pat on the back (achievement) or a special mode just for them so they can have their challenge "officially recognised".

Platinumoxicity
20th Mar 2013, 18:29
Speaking of the idea of playing a game without saving, let alone an extremely difficult one... After I was finished with Hitman Absolution, I had forgotten almost everything anyone had said in the game. Because having to restart every level countless times meant that I had to wait behind corners and listen to the same goddamn scripted conversations over and over, until whatever the NPCs were talking about had cemented itself firmly in my brain as standard background noise to be ignored. Maybe having to wait for those tafftards to finish their pointless yammering all the time associated their topic of conversation with extreme frustration and negativity so I just subconsciously didn't want to recall any of it.

Saving the game is not always about being able to take ridiculous risks so that in theory one might have a perfectly executed 1% probable playthrough. Some people might want to do it to save some time. Some people might want to save after the 3-minute conversation that is blocking the only route through a needlessly linear level. Especially if that conversation is in the final area of the level, just prior to the most difficult part of it.

Morgan Wight
20th Mar 2013, 23:55
Am I the only one who isn't able to follow this logic?

Iron-man'ers want an extra challenge, so they want to enforce no saving. They are unable to refuse to save by themselves. Yet those players should be rewarded with something in that game? Wasn't the idea to make the game harder, not easier by giving them stuff? I like ghosting but that doesn't mean I want the game to reward me with anything other than maybe an addendum to the debriefing that says "good job". I don't want the game to enforce ghosting unless it makes sense in the context of the mission and story. Maybe iron-man'ers should be satisfied with just a pat on the back too, don't you think?

"They are unable to refuse to save by themselves?" How on earth do you get that from what I suggested?

Having access to an additional shop with cosmetic items or alternate equipment (that's not strictly more powerful than stuff available elsewhere) is simply a fun perk that might tempt people who otherwise might not be interested in playing w/o saves to give it a try, and any difficulty ameliorated by items offered would most certainly in turn be more than offset by the enforced no-saves. Doom 3 Nightmare started you out with the Soulcube, yet it was still considerably more difficult than Hard mode (which did not). Likewise, Fallout Tactics had a tough-guy mode that gave you DOUBLE xp, yet was still immeasurably more difficult than playing with saves at 1x rates.

I'll play it no-save regardless, but why not entice other players with a minor perk? The immersion and challenge are well worth it, and adding a toggle mode is simply a fun detail that can only have a positive effect on the game. Your peculiar resistance to something entirely optional runs counter to the rhetoric you've delivered elsewhere in the thread.

Platinumoxicity
21st Mar 2013, 08:25
I'll play it no-save regardless, but why not entice other players with a minor perk? The immersion and challenge are well worth it, and adding a toggle mode is simply a fun detail that can only have a positive effect on the game. Your peculiar resistance to something entirely optional runs counter to the rhetoric you've delivered elsewhere in the thread.

What exactly whould those rewards for doing that be? "Entirely optional" is a little misleading when the option changes more than simply that one aspect it's supposed to change. What kind of rewards would entice anyone to play with the option on? And what would happen to players who play with the option off, but without saving regardless? Maybe they should get a t-shirt that says "I exhibited a tiny bit of self-control and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

If the rewards are tangible, for example extra equipment or special tools, then there is a balance issue. In all modes of playing, a Thief game should not give you "full ammo". If the game is balanced for standard gameplay, ironman players have an unbalanced overflowing inventory, but if the game is balanced for ironman gameplay, the regular players have access to less than what the game was designed for. This can be a problem, because to save or not to save is not something that necessitates change in the way you play, the way you use the different tools in the game. It's this discrepancy that can cause the balance issue. With things like kill or knockout restrictions, self-imposed or not, -that fundamentally alter your pool of available tactics, tangible rewards make more sense because the different ways to play actually impact which things you should use during the gameplay. Saving the game does not fall into that category.

It's funny how you say "immersion" while defending the idea of the world in Thief spawning or not spawning physical things based on what happens in the save system of the game. Kinda like how in Resident Evil they must use typewriter ink ribbons to "save themselves". Why not have the NPCs make comments on which difficulty level you have selected while they're at it?

Oh, and did you need a reward to start playing without saving?

Morgan Wight
21st Mar 2013, 08:58
If the rewards are tangible, for example extra equipment or special tools, then there is a balance issue. In all modes of playing, a Thief game should not give you "full ammo". If the game is balanced for standard gameplay, ironman players have an unbalanced overflowing inventory, but if the game is balanced for ironman gameplay, the regular players have access to less than what the game was designed for. This can be a problem, because to save or not to save is not something that necessitates change in the way you play, the way you use the different tools in the game. It's this discrepancy that can cause the balance issue. With things like kill or knockout restrictions, self-imposed or not, -that fundamentally alter your pool of available tactics, tangible rewards make more sense because the different ways to play actually impact which things you should use during the gameplay. Saving the game does not fall into that category.

It's funny how you say "immersion" while defending the idea of the world in Thief spawning or not spawning physical things based on what happens in the save system of the game. Kinda like how in Resident Evil they must use typewriter ink ribbons to "save themselves". Why not have the NPCs make comments on which difficulty level you have selected while they're at it?

You're claiming that it would imbalance the game while ignoring explicit examples I've offered to the contrary. Also, I'm not sure how the notion of a no-save mode is categorically incompatible with immersion, as you seem to suggest. Whatever trivial artificiality that results from instancing the world in a slightly different way is totally offset by the positive immersive effects of going no save. You might as well rail against difficulty specific objectives.


Oh, and did you need a reward to start playing without saving?

Fallout Tactics' tough guy mode was the incentive that got me to try out not saving. From there on out, I've played everything this way. I can't say whether or not I would have gone in this direction regardless, but yes . . the incentives work.

Platinumoxicity
21st Mar 2013, 10:49
Fallout Tactics' tough guy mode was the incentive that got me to try out not saving. From there on out, I've played everything this way. I can't say whether or not I would have gone in this direction regardless, but yes . . the incentives work.

The game is kinda annoying when it comes to the "tough guy" ironman mode. Because it is still at its core a classic RPG in the combat mechanics, so there are dice rolls and critical hits. There's nothing more frustrating than being instakilled by someone wielding a depleted uranium M2, because the dice rolls of your armor's damage resistance and your enemy's critical hit and headshot chance managed to line up.

The double XP is an incentive enough to try it. With anything less, I think it would be torture. The game is like roullette, where you gradually gain the ability to place your bets on more than a single number, but in the end you still don't win any money. It still is my favorite Fallout game however. And I have finished it on tough guy mode.

Whatever. I don't want to argue about this anymore. Let people have their prizes for their specific playstyles if they wish. I'm not going to ask for any special recognition for my ghost playstyle. Afterall, who would be there to reward me since nobody knows I was ever there in the first place?

FYI, I just played Deus Ex 1, and the game keeps track of how many times you save. I think that silent mocking tone works as an incentive too. It did with Double Agent. No score deduction, but the game still always rubbed it in your face that you couldn't play it without resorting to saves. Though Double Agent has no business telling me not to save, since the PC version has a horrible bug that removes players' ability to unlock gadgets such as *cough* some ammo for the sniping scene, please? You always start with zero ammo, and in one level you must snipe an enemy scientist. If you can't unlock ammo, you can only find one pistol magazine in the level. Being able to save is mandatory because it's too improbable to hit the guy with a pistol from 100m away. Still the game has the audacity to mock you by listing the save in the debriefing stats.

Morgan Wight
21st Mar 2013, 13:29
It still is my favorite Fallout game however. And I have finished it on tough guy mode.

Seconded! :)

The tone, dialogue, and music were simply spot on, and the real-time combat was so silky smooth (relatively speaking) that it really made it difficult to go back and plod through the combat of the first two titles.


The double XP is an incentive enough to try it. With anything less, I think it would be torture.

Iirc, it was 50% at release, and they saw fit to patch it up later (which really tells you something!). I was motivated enough to try it @ 50, but I think ended up restarting after the patch.

Also have to mention that the three mission mini-campaign at the end was amazing, and really illustrated the value of playing on tough guy. By that point you were so well versed in methodically breaching rooms, that it wasn't nearly as difficult as you might have anticipated.

Platinumoxicity
21st Mar 2013, 13:49
The thing that I dislike about the original Fallout games is the fact that the low-resolution graphics restrict so much of the screen that it's easy to miss important things. Like playing a game zoomed in at all times. It doesn't help that there's almost no information at all about where you need to go, and the way you need to move from screen to another via the edges, and sometimes you can't really tell which edges let you pass. Tactics had a better resolution and interface, although they went a bit overboard with the linearity. There could have been a good middleground somewhere.

And I found myself not using the real time combat when playing on the tough guy mode. It was just too upredictable when facing the more dangerous enemies. Namely the ones firing .50 cal.

YsaNoire
21st Mar 2013, 15:27
What exactly whould those rewards for doing that be?"Entirely optional" is a little misleading when the option changes more than simply that one aspect it's supposed to change. What kind of rewards would entice anyone to play with the option on?

Pretty much anything that's different from other game modes, even if it's just the style of Garret's hood (speaking for myself here, of course).


And what would happen to players who play with the option off, but without saving regardless? Maybe they should get a t-shirt that says "I exhibited a tiny bit of self-control and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

You might as well ask "what about players who played Dark Project on easy but got 90% of the loot and didn't kill anyone?". Nothing. They don't get to brag about completing the game on Expert, that is all.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Occasionally, Thief would reward the player with extra/different content depending on difficulty level. And I personally loved that. When I learned that the areas with special loot aren't available on easy in the Bonehoard I never played on a difficulty lower than Expert again.

I have no problem with rewards for people who take up challenges, whether it's a higher difficulty or a special no-save mode. In fact, I think it's a good way to increase replayability and I welcome it.

Shralla
21st Mar 2013, 18:17
But that doesn't mean it should have a restrictive save system from the beginning. That crap is so archaic I could puke. We're not playing Atari here.

Platinumoxicity
21st Mar 2013, 19:22
But that doesn't mean it should have a restrictive save system from the beginning. That crap is so archaic I could puke. We're not playing Atari here.

I remember when restrictive save systems were not about extra challenge, but due to the fact that all save data had to fit in at maximum a 16 symbol password. Consoles that don't have data storage capabilities gave the password to the player, and the only way to make it fit was to minimize the amount of variables. That meant checkpoints. After that came the memory cards, which still could barely fit one full sentence worth of information so checkpoints remained. Then someone totally forgot why checkpoints existed, and they still didn't go away. At least from multiplatform releases. PC players were wondering why nobody else had a "Save" option in the main menu.

Then came Resident Evil which went out of its way to demonstrate how limited saves were a feature of the game.

By the way, Hitman Absolution, which has a pretty damn impressive game engine, actually uses a Playstation 1 era saving system. At least from some parts. Because there are only checkpoints, and all NPCs reset if you reload a game you saved in a checkpoint. Because the saving only records basic stuff like score, weapon information and checkpoint id. It would be way too complex for it to record the orientation of every ragdoll of NPCs you've taken out, or every weapon lying on the floor or object you've been throwing around. Basically, the only game loading feature is a total level reset, it just takes some of the information it can from the previous game and changes some parameters for the reset. There is no real saving. Unlike Source engine games which can save the location, momentum and rotation of every single object in the level, all levels actually, at the same time.

MarrowMonkey
22nd Mar 2013, 06:23
Thief has to be save everywhere. Checkpoints only make sense in a linear game where you move from A to B to C to D to E etc. In theory you could have savepoints in Thief, but I can't think of a reason why one would prefer that over "save everywhere".

CyberP
22nd Mar 2013, 10:01
Thief has to be save everywhere. Checkpoints only make sense in a linear game where you move from A to B to C to D to E etc. In theory you could have savepoints in Thief, but I can't think of a reason why one would prefer that over "save everywhere".

You have already been given reasons- choice and consequence.


. After that came the memory cards, which still could barely fit one full sentence worth of information so checkpoints remained. Then someone totally forgot why checkpoints existed, and they still didn't go away. At least from multiplatform releases. PC players were wondering why nobody else had a "Save" option in the main menu.


More uninformed nonsense. There are plently PS1 games that allowed you to save anywhere. With the invention of the memory cards it became a design decision. Thankfully not every developer allowed to save everywhere, and still doesn't.

Platinumoxicity
22nd Mar 2013, 11:51
More uninformed nonsense. There are plently PS1 games that allowed you to save anywhere. With the invention of the memory cards it became a design decision. Thankfully not every developer allowed to save everywhere, and still doesn't.

Then there has been a huge coincidence with the games I've been playing. I've literally never played a Playstation 1, Playstation 2 or Gamecube game where you could save anywhere. Every single game on those platforms that I have played has had checkpoints or save points. And the PC versions of some of those games do include the ability to save anywhere, so it can't be a design decision.

So consider me uninformed via astronomically small odds.

CyberP
22nd Mar 2013, 17:12
Just as an example: Tomb Raider 2 on the PS1 you can save anywhere, Tomb Raider 3 you can save anywhere but it requires save crystals. I prefer the latter; restrictive save system by design.

pwyll
17th Apr 2013, 20:54
Saving is good. I wish I had saves in real life.

MasterTaffer
17th Apr 2013, 20:58
Saving is good. I wish I had saves in real life.

I think a lot of people do. I certainly would glue a quicksave button onto my pants if I thought it would function properly.

zhunt
18th Apr 2013, 06:21
in tds i often fell victim to changing areas of the city and finding when the game started again on the other side of the gate there was a guard there. if this game has loading zones, can it at least be smart enough not to spawn characters like sword bearing guards or other hostiles 2 feet from me, at least give me a chance to slip into the shadows before i have some angry dude trying to slice me into sushi

Nightwynd
18th Apr 2013, 07:21
I think a lot of people do. I certainly would glue a quicksave button onto my pants if I thought it would function properly.

Having done my share of stupid mistakes in life (and almost certainly more are to come), I would never want a quicksave button. Where'd be the chance for any personal growth? :)

CaptainObvious
18th Apr 2013, 07:36
I think a lot of people do. I certainly would glue a quicksave button onto my pants if I thought it would function properly.

I heard a joke about that one, it was like this:



A girl approached me on the street and asked me to let Jesus save me. I told her I saved at the last checkpoint and can reload from there if I die. She was confused.

MasterTaffer
18th Apr 2013, 07:57
Having done my share of stupid mistakes in life (and almost certainly more are to come), I would never want a quicksave button. Where'd be the chance for any personal growth? :)

I assumed I'd remember the mistake I made after the quicksave and not make it again upon quickload. Personal growth without the negative repercussions being permanent!

pwyll
18th Apr 2013, 08:02
I assumed I'd remember the mistake I made after the quicksave and not make it again upon quickload. Personal growth without the negative repercussions being permanent!

Exactly! :thumb:

Arrakim1
18th Apr 2013, 08:16
I vote for the option to save anytime, due to the unforseen horror of crashes both ingame and in real life:D

Nightwynd
18th Apr 2013, 09:28
I assumed I'd remember the mistake I made after the quicksave and not make it again upon quickload. Personal growth without the negative repercussions being permanent!

Heh. I'd say dealing with the consequences potentially adds up exponentially to the growth! ;) So negative repercussions might in many cases later turn out to be positive. I'd be totally different person if I didn't need to face myself from time to time. Wheter it'd be for the better or worse, who knows. :p I'm pretty content being me, at the moment, though.


I vote for the option to save anytime, due to the unforseen horror of crashes both ingame and in real life:D

Ironmanning my way through life FTW! :D

WoodiseLady
18th Apr 2013, 15:54
Save everywhere, any time. If the game doesn't have that, it may as well be broken. How else can I guarantee my silence and stealth since I'm so bad at these games?

CaptainObvious
18th Apr 2013, 15:56
Don't worry, going by the trends these days it's going to be a pretty easy game:rasp:

Tryst
19th Apr 2013, 16:46
I want to see a save anytime feature. Nothing worse than trying to ghost a level and getting kicked back several hours by a checkpoint system and having to go through it all again. I also agree that checkpoints implies a linear game play which would not bode well for this game.

I also would prefer auto save at the start of missions so we can reload any mission we've already done before. Failing that, a mission selector so we can select any one of our previous missions to replay.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
15th Jun 2013, 22:29
UPDATE, FYI


@domcom360 in Thief there will be both options. A manual save game feature and automatic checkpoint savings.
Just posted by Stephane D'astous

Minkitink
17th Jun 2013, 10:16
Thanks for the hint. I like to have both options :)

Platinumoxicity
17th Jun 2013, 17:34
I hope there isn't a "Saving..." text on the screen to subtly hint that you are making progress.

Actually, how exactly do you produce autosaves for a game that is supposed to consist of sprawling nonlinear levels? If you can enter spaces from 3 directions, does it save the game at the door, the vent or the window?

Keeper_Riff
18th Jun 2013, 07:31
Actually, how exactly do you produce autosaves for a game that is supposed to consist of sprawling nonlinear levels? If you can enter spaces from 3 directions, does it save the game at the door, the vent or the window?Same as triggering conversations and other events in Thief1-3 — by entering and exiting a room or a zone regardless of where the entry point is.

Platinumoxicity
18th Jun 2013, 07:38
Same as triggering conversations and other events in Thief1-3 — by entering and exiting a room or a zone regardless of where the entry point is.

You're right. I hope then that the game actually makes a save at all of the points of entry so that reloading doesn't secretly steer you towards the goal by the game only saving at places that are approaching the objective. And as I said, there shouldn't be an icon on the screen telling you that the game is saving.

xDarknessFallsx
18th Jun 2013, 11:34
Maybe checkpoint saves occur whenever an objective, sub-objectve or optional objective is completed; and maybe it saves the snapshot in time of wherever you're st, as if you did a manual save (i.e., keeping track of your unpredictable non-linear location, etc.). Perhaps even when Garrett picks up a piece of loot that is worthy of becoming hideout decoration.

Keeper_Riff
19th Jun 2013, 08:44
As manual saves are confirmed it's safe to assume that autosaves will be exactly the same as manual ones but triggered automatically at certain conditions.

kemalpelit
16th Sep 2013, 03:15
Hello everyone,

Does anyone know if there's an official word on the save system? Is it "save anytime you want" or "checkpoint"? Thank you.

lourat
16th Sep 2013, 04:59
Both.

xDarknessFallsx
16th Sep 2013, 07:43
At 3:35 in this video, you can see a load menu that displays after dying:
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/7h5jx0/thief-e3-2013--stealth-gameplay-demo

The only options listed are:

Reload last checkpoint
Restart
Main Menu
Quit

I personally don't see "QuickLoad" or "Load Saved Game" options (yikes?)... but devs may have said somewhere that those will be possible; I can't remember.

It's a little disconcerting, imo, to think that checkpoints are even somehow possible in a game like Thief -- in what should be a sandbox mission-based game where the player can go anywhere, tackle objectives in various orders, and take out guards in various orders/ways, etc. -- but we'll see what happens. I realize it's theoretically possible and there's at least one way it could potentially work okay, but I also see a high probability that the mission structure, level design and objective structure could easily suffer as a result if the devs aren't mindful of or don't care about the implications.

MasterTaffer
16th Sep 2013, 08:04
At 3:35 in this video, you can see a load menu that displays after dying:
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/7h5jx0/thief-e3-2013--stealth-gameplay-demo

The only options listed are:

Reload last checkpoint
Restart
Main Menu
Quit

I personally don't see "QuickLoad" or "Load Saved Game" options (yikes?)... but devs may have said somewhere that those will be possible; I can't remember.

You're talking about an E3 show floor build. Said build had options in the main menu to jump to specific portions of the level; I used them to go straight to the bridge sequence on the second day during the trip since our play time stopped just short of me playing there. Do you really think they'll have a quicksave or save option for a show floor build? What, are people who (normally) get one shot to play going to come back to their saves later?

Why don't you ask the question in the following "Take 5's" about the save system. We've got a venue to the developers to ask questions, I say use it.

xDarknessFallsx
16th Sep 2013, 08:16
You're talking about an E3 show floor build. Said build had options in the main menu to jump to specific portions of the level; I used them to go straight to the bridge sequence on the second day during the trip since our play time stopped just short of me playing there.

Why don't you ask the question in the following "Take 5's" about the save system. We've got a venue to the developers to ask questions, I say use it.
I know it was a pre-alpha build, but it's all we (as non-E3 goers and simple taffers) have to go from. I didn't want to clutter my post by stating every side bit of knowledge to consider when reading my post.


Do you really think they'll have a quicksave or save option for a show floor build?
Not necessarily; but it's not out of the realm of possibility either. I never said its absence meant a foregone conclusion of doom. Nor did I say it should be expected there; just that its absence might be disconcerting. I'm just working with what we have so far. They could've made them appear in the E3 build and grayed them out as unselectable and that would've been one way to prevent E3 players from using them. And yes, I know there are pros and cons to that, too. I'm not here to discuss all that; I was here to show some evidence of what we have seen... what we have to work with.

I'm not participating in Take 5 for a while, so I won't personally be asking there. Besides, I think this *might* have been answered by b1skit already, quite possibly over on TTLG, for the positive (meaning: I think auricgoldfinger is right).

EDIT: And given my recent experiences with how saves work on consoles (Last of Us, Just Cause 2, etc.), where loading your 'manual' saves puts you at some pre-determined checkpoint that the game wants you to be at instead of the place and situation you were in, it'll take some direct statements from EM saying that T1/T2 style saves are possible before I believe that is how it's implemented. Loading one of your manual saves should put you in exactly the situation you were in when you saved (status of doors, enemies, bodies, loot, miscellaneous objects, your position, your armament, your stance, etc.). So until I hear manual saves will be possible in T4 and that loading them will put you in your exact situation, part of me will be thinking Thief might just jump on the pseudo-manual save bandwagon if they simply say, "Manual saves are possible."

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Sep 2013, 08:27
FYI, it was confirmed back in June. We have an existing thread on this topic:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=88868&highlight=saving
This thread will be merged.




posted by drunken taffer
@domcom360 in Thief there will be both options. A manual save game feature and automatic checkpoint savings.
Just posted by Stephane D'astous

MasterTaffer
16th Sep 2013, 08:31
I know it was a pre-alpha build, but it's all we (as non-E3 goers and simple taffers) have to go from. I didn't want to clutter my post by stating every side bit of knowledge to consider when reading my post.


Not necessarily; but it's not out of the realm of possibility either. I never said its absence meant a foregone conclusion of doom. Nor did I say it should be expected there; just that its absence might be disconcerting. I'm just working with what we have so far. They could've made them appear in the E3 build and grayed them out as unselectable and that would've been one way to prevent E3 players from using them. And yes, I know there are pros and cons to that, too. I'm not here to discuss all that; I was here to show some evidence of what we have seen... what we have to work with.

I'm not participating in Take 5 for a while, so I won't personally be asking there. Besides, I think this *might* have been answered by b1skit already, quite possibly over on TTLG, for the positive (meaning: I think auricgoldfinger is right).

It's not that it's a pre-alpha build, it's that it's a showroom build. While the gameplay itself was pre-alpha, the fact it's a showroom floor meant it had custom menus and elements built particularly for the event. For example, the previously mentioned "Jump to X in the level" menu. In said menu was the ability to skip the tutorial and go straight to the level, jump to one of the entry points for the mansion, and jump to the bridge. It's extremely doubtful said option will be present in the final build.

Likewise, said tutorial was blatantly built only for the showroom build. It was bare bones box rooms with no furniture and basic materials for the floor, walls, and ceilings. No game in today's day in age would be caught dead with a tutorial like that, and I confirmed it with the devs that it was for the show.

You say that's what you have to go on, but at the same time you're ignoring and/or disregarding the context of your evidence in your initial explanation as well as choosing to not ask for clarification despite having the means to now.

xDarknessFallsx
16th Sep 2013, 08:58
It's not that it's a pre-alpha build, it's that it's a showroom build. While the gameplay itself was pre-alpha, the fact it's a showroom floor meant it had custom menus and elements built particularly for the event. For example, the previously mentioned "Jump to X in the level" menu. In said menu was the ability to skip the tutorial and go straight to the level, jump to one of the entry points for the mansion, and jump to the bridge. It's extremely doubtful said option will be present in the final build.

Likewise, said tutorial was blatantly built only for the showroom build. It was bare bones box rooms with no furniture and basic materials for the floor, walls, and ceilings. No game in today's day in age would be caught dead with a tutorial like that, and I confirmed it with the devs that it was for the show.

You say that's what you have to go on, but at the same time you're ignoring and/or disregarding the context of your evidence in your initial explanation as well as choosing to not ask for clarification despite having the means to now.
Semantics regarding pre-alpha. Colloquially, you and probably 99% know what I meant.

And no, I'm just choosing to not state everything that goes through my mind. I didn't disregard or ignore the context at all in my mind while I was typing. I thought about it; that's why I didn't give definitives. Many of us have heard a million times that it was a pre-alpha work-in-progress. No need to state it every time we make a remark about the video. For many of us, it's a given. The obvious is not always stated.

And yes, I'm choosing to not ask for clarification in the next Take 5 thread. Doesn't bother me; so it shouldn't bother you. Please don't let it. If you want more details about it, feel free to ask there.

MasterTaffer
16th Sep 2013, 09:29
Semantics regarding pre-alpha. Colloquially, you and probably 99% know what I meant.

And no, I'm just choosing to not state everything that goes through my mind. I didn't disregard or ignore the context at all in my mind while I was typing. I thought about it; that's why I didn't give definitives. Many of us have heard a million times that it was a pre-alpha work-in-progress. No need to state it every time we make a remark about the video. For many of us, it's a given. The obvious is not always stated.

And yes, I'm choosing to not ask for clarification in the next Take 5 thread. Doesn't bother me; so it shouldn't bother you. Please don't let it. If you want more details about it, feel free to ask there.

"pre-alpha build" and "show build" are two separate things. A build can be both (as they were at E3) but they are separate qualifications. It's not semantics. In my point, it being a show build was what I was pointing out. Things are added and omitted from the build because of the context in which it will be displayed. This has nothing to do with its stage in development (pre-alpha).

As we've been reminded by Viktoria above, the final game will have both a free save and checkpoint system in place. The checkpoint system was all that was present in the show build because that's all that was needed in the show context. Likewise, the tutorial I mentioned was blatantly made for the show build; not because the game was pre-alpha. Likely the actual tutorial in the game will have story and narrative in it, which would constitute spoilers so it's omitted from the show build. Likewise, an entire section of the Baron's manor was cut from the demo because of these same narrative reasons.

And if you're not going to try and clarify then don't throw speculation out there. Especially considering you (erroneously) chose to highlight the negative potential in the situation in your initial post. There's enough problems with misinformation getting spread on the game, don't contribute to the problem if you don't care about actually seeking out facts.

xDarknessFallsx
16th Sep 2013, 14:18
"pre-alpha build" and "show build" are two separate things. A build can be both (as they were at E3) but they are separate qualifications. It's not semantics. In my point, it being a show build was what I was pointing out. Things are added and omitted from the build because of the context in which it will be displayed. This has nothing to do with its stage in development (pre-alpha).

As we've been reminded by Viktoria above, the final game will have both a free save and checkpoint system in place. The checkpoint system was all that was present in the show build because that's all that was needed in the show context. Likewise, the tutorial I mentioned was blatantly made for the show build; not because the game was pre-alpha. Likely the actual tutorial in the game will have story and narrative in it, which would constitute spoilers so it's omitted from the show build. Likewise, an entire section of the Baron's manor was cut from the demo because of these same narrative reasons.

And if you're not going to try and clarify then don't throw speculation out there. Especially considering you (erroneously) chose to highlight the negative potential in the situation in your initial post. There's enough problems with misinformation getting spread on the game, don't contribute to the problem if you don't care about actually seeking out facts.
Thanks for your analysis of the situation. Now I wonder if it's a pseudo-manual save system like Last of Us', as I noted above. But I can wait until the game is released to find out.

deadlygun
22nd Oct 2013, 15:04
Does the game allow us to save anywhere exactly like previous thief games & Deus ex series or will it have those stupid checkpoints like Hitman Absolution and Splinter cell blacklist ?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
22nd Oct 2013, 15:11
See first post/first page of this thread for updates... but basically Thief will provide players with both options.

CyberP
22nd Oct 2013, 19:30
Does the game allow us to save anywhere exactly like previous thief games & Deus ex series or will it have those stupid checkpoints like Hitman Absolution and Splinter cell blacklist ?

No wonder you think checkpoints are stupid....those games are just plain bad.

NIB
22nd Oct 2013, 20:04
No wonder you think checkpoints are stupid....those games are just plain bad.

I hate Hitman Absolution so bad, but i was surprised how ok ( not good) Blacklist was.

If "Thiaf/TMA = Blacklist/Chaos Theory" i would probably buy it.^^

Lady_Of_The_Vine
24th Oct 2013, 09:24
...those games are just plain bad.

Yet, there are some who enjoyed these games, irrespective of checkpoints. We live in a diverse world, don't we? :D

CyberP
24th Oct 2013, 12:43
Yet, there are some who enjoyed these games, irrespective of checkpoints. We live in a diverse world, don't we? :D

Then I'd say those who truly enjoyed those have a lack of experience with games (to recognize there is far better), have low standards and/or poor judgement.

Yes, I am aware this makes me look like a ****, but I am adamant.

:lol:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
24th Oct 2013, 13:26
LOL, okay.

pedrovay2003
20th Dec 2013, 01:29
I'm really looking forward to the new Thief. The original trilogy is one of my overall favorite gaming experiences ever, and this one looks to continue that excellence.

I don't know if others share my frustration when it comes to locked save data, but I'd like to humbly request that the save data for the PS3 version of Thief not be hardware-locked, i.e. "Copy Prohibited." After losing a Demon's Souls save with over a hundred hours of gameplay attached to it, I don't buy games with locked saves anymore. I don't know if I'll have/want a PS4 by the time Thief comes out, so I'd love to grab the PS3 version. I don't feel that paying a subscription fee for PlayStation Plus is really a valid way to get around this problem, either, since most PS3 games don't lock their save data to begin with.

I know the PS3 version of Deus Ex: Human Revolution had locked saves, so I just wanted to post this here before Thief is released. I'm looking forward to the game, and I'd love to be able to make sure I won't lose anything if something happens to my console.

Thanks again for everything you guys do!

xDarknessFallsx
20th Dec 2013, 03:10
Wow! I thought I was the only one who thinks it's a joke you have to pay for PlaystationPlus to be able to save games in the cloud on PS3. With all the Yellow Lights of Death (YLOD), that should be a free service. I've lost my saved games three times thanks to Sony and their YLODs and faulty hardware. Happened to friends, too. So, yeah, no locking of saved game files, please. If i was in the middle of an Ironman playthrough and got a YLOD or hard drive crash, I wouldn't be too happy. Being able to backup on USB flash or whatever is going to be critical, for Thief, for all systems, imo. Unless Sony pays EM to lock them as added incentive for players to save on the cloud :P

I hate how saved games can be transported between systems. What reasons are there to purposely lock them? That's rediculous.

HERESY
20th Dec 2013, 05:28
I didn't know they were releasing a ps3 version. I thought it was for nextgen and pc.

xDarknessFallsx
20th Dec 2013, 05:48
Yep. PS3, X360, X1, PS4 and PC. They announced X1, PS4 and PC first. Then added PS3 and X360 to the list at a little later date. That info is a bit hard to find, though. It's in trailers, but I don't see it readily available on thiefgame.com or eidosmontreal.com. You can click The Bank Heist DLC link on thiefgame.com and it takes you to a page showing all the boxes... http://www.thiefgame.com/us/preorder

Here's one I find online:
http://www.n3rdabl3.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/thief-box-art.jpg

pedrovay2003
27th Dec 2013, 03:26
Wow! I thought I was the only one who thinks it's a joke you have to pay for PlaystationPlus to be able to save games in the cloud on PS3. With all the Yellow Lights of Death (YLOD), that should be a free service. I've lost my saved games three times thanks to Sony and their YLODs and faulty hardware. Happened to friends, too. So, yeah, no locking of saved game files, please. If i was in the middle of an Ironman playthrough and got a YLOD or hard drive crash, I wouldn't be too happy. Being able to backup on USB flash or whatever is going to be critical, for Thief, for all systems, imo. Unless Sony pays EM to lock them as added incentive for players to save on the cloud :P

I hate how saved games can be transported between systems. What reasons are there to purposely lock them? That's rediculous.

Trust me, I ABSOLUTELY think it's ridiculous to lock save data. Especially in a single player game like Thief, there's NO REASON to do it, yet Deus Ex: Human Revolution was single player, too, and it was locked there.