|
|
|
Daily editorial on trends in the gaming industry and hot topics. HERE Interested in the process of game development? Sound, graphics, code, and design are all covered in our game design section. HERE Back to Index HERE |
||||||||||||||||
|
I remember the controversy first came up last year when Raven Software implemented a limited save game system in the OEM demo of Soldier of Fortune. The company received negative feedback and decided to give players the option to save as often as they wanted in the full version – by all accounts a smart move. However, many other developers have determined en masse that letting the player save anywhere is akin to some form of cheating. While I admit the tension of the moment in an action game is sometimes broken by constant quick saving and quick loading, it's inane to think gamers should be required to replay major portions of a game just because they died. Granted, console games have long employed limited saves – via checkpoints in platform games – but on the PC the idea of checkpoints has never really been an issue and games have never been actually designed around them. Unfortunately, many of these new save game systems seem to be more of an annoyance than a smart design decision on the part of a developer. After all, if the designers are going to include cheat codes to let players run through each level of an action game in GOD mode, why wouldn't they let the player save at any point? While some might claim there is an underlying design that is defeated by players constantly saving and reloading, the real issue here is that players should be given game experiences they are willing to replay because the game is that good. Yet many PC games today are so linear and repetitive that the thought of having to replay a level because of limited saves is a very unappealing proposition. |
||||||||||||||||||
©
Copyright 2000, Ola Balola LLC |
||||||||||||||||||