Make me fear of dying

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:09 am

Oh that's simple. When entering a city, when using an inn, when entering a dungeon/cave, etc.


That still doesn't solve the problem of people (like myself) that have an unpredictable schedule. I am in no way a casual gamer but I have a 6 week old son to take care of now. I need to be able to save the game where I am on the spot if my son needs something and come back and pick up. Trying to find my way into a dungeon or to a bed when I'm out adventuring is way too much hassle for those of us that have more responsibilities.
User avatar
Bloomer
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 9:23 pm

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 6:38 am

No checkpoints or fake deaths on my TES.


If I want "checkpoint" my game I press F5 (Quicksave) and F9 (Quickload), but that's it. It would feel silly to respawn in game like this.
User avatar
Melung Chan
 
Posts: 3340
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:15 am

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 5:06 am

I honestly hope Skyrim will be a pure singleplayer, but there is one thing from multiplayer games I have never experienced in Oblivion - to be fear of death.

Once on one (RP focused) persistent server of Neverwinter Nights, I undertook a hazardous voyage to one of dungeons far from a city. I have got seriously wounded and was sneaking back. I had no healing potions left and all my applicable spells were used up. It was night, the city was far away and I didn't know the region well. I heard howling of werewolves from near forest, I found a clawed tree... Damn that was horrifying. And mostly because I knew that I can not save the game, I can not even pause it. I just had to continue playing or log out (but it would tell me that I died after logging in).

When you die, it is not over of course, you will respawn. But you will loose some valuable amount of experience and all money. I know it can not be implemented in that way in a singleplayer game. It would be also pretty lame if you were not able to stop the game whenever you want to. But if there were some way how to evoke that fear, it would be great.

There were sometimes public events on that server - lots of PCs and NPCs on one place and everyone played quite responsible - more realistic. In Oblivion it would be like: "Hey, save it and try what happen if you shoot that king to the head!" (Almost) no one would ever try it if it was irreversible.

The ability to save-and-load makes everything possible - you can break any lock or beat any creature - just by trying it again and again and again... Sure you do not have to do that - it is your singleplayer game and it is just up to you how you play it. But, at least for me, it is sometimes hard to resist. And what can you do if you die? You have to load and try it again.

I just want, you know; "Do or do not. There is no try."


I have been saying this about games but mostly about MMO's. Take World of Warcraft for instance, and I use it because a lot of gamers here have probably tried it, in WoW when you get killed it is nothing but a bit of inconvience because you respawn at the graveyard with all your gear and money.

The very first MMO I played was Ultima Online, way back in the late 90's when it first began. In UO when you were killed by another player they could loot your corpse of everything except a few essentials like your spell book and your rune book (for teleports). Also if you happened to have your house key on you they could use your key as a recall stone, gate to your house and loot it of anything that was not locked down as well.

You quickly learned that it was far better to use crafted gear because it was easy to replace and more importantly you could keep a few extra sets of gear in your bank just in case...

In a game like UO was back then it really mattered when you died and the PvP fights were amazing, edge of the seat affairs, and it felt like your heart was about to beat its way out of your chest and no game since then has been able to even come close to giving me that feeling, except for some of my NWN multiplayer experiences like you had....
User avatar
Music Show
 
Posts: 3512
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:53 am

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:19 am

If you want to fear dying so much then just only have one save of when you first save and another save for right after you have to stop. After you start playing again delete that second save so you will have to start all over. Sounds like i would be fearful of dying then.
User avatar
Ian White
 
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:08 pm

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:09 am

Oh I hated Vampire: The Masquade when it had saved check points or you could only save when you were at "home base". I am so glad they put in "save anywhere" in the patch.

I don't want to play a game, then have to redo everything just because in real life, I had to quit my game, and I was say 30 seconds away from a check point that I didn't know about.
It's one thing if I forget to save and I have to redo 2 hours of playing, it's another thing when you are forced to do this when because of game design. This is one reason why I quit
playing single player Halo I. I just hated redoing everthing when starting all over again.

Same reason why I stopped playing Diablo II just know. I am tired or restarting scene IV just because I only have a half our of playing time instead of 2 hours to complete the level.
User avatar
Rich O'Brien
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:53 am

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:24 am

That still doesn't solve the problem of people (like myself) that have an unpredictable schedule. I am in no way a casual gamer but I have a 6 week old son to take care of now. I need to be able to save the game where I am on the spot if my son needs something and come back and pick up. Trying to find my way into a dungeon or to a bed when I'm out adventuring is way too much hassle for those of us that have more responsibilities.



let him control the mouse. i was playing doom 3 once when i was babysitting a friends toddler and i let her handle the mouse while i did the keyboard. she had a blast. :)
User avatar
Taylrea Teodor
 
Posts: 3378
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:20 am

Post » Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:32 pm

let him control the mouse. i was playing doom 3 once when i was babysitting a friends toddler and i let her handle the mouse while i did the keyboard. she had a blast. :)


My son isn't yet a toddler. He's 6 weeks old and can barely hold his own head up. That isn't an option for me. Yet. And even when it is, I'm not letting him play, or watch me play any M rated games.

At least not until I'm confident that he completely understands the difference between fantasy, and reality.
User avatar
IM NOT EASY
 
Posts: 3419
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:48 pm

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:01 pm

That still doesn't solve the problem of people (like myself) that have an unpredictable schedule. I am in no way a casual gamer but I have a 6 week old son to take care of now. I need to be able to save the game where I am on the spot if my son needs something and come back and pick up. Trying to find my way into a dungeon or to a bed when I'm out adventuring is way too much hassle for those of us that have more responsibilities.


This will be a repost, but...

"Well, there could of course be a save fle for exiting the game. Evertime you quit, you save, so you can't cheat death but still can leave when you wish to. "
User avatar
Ashley Campos
 
Posts: 3415
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:03 pm

Post » Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:19 pm

Checkpoints? This isn't an FPS. No way. I'd like the game to be challenging at points but I don't want to be afraid of losing stuff or whatever when I die, that wouldn't even feel like an ES game imo.
User avatar
Doniesha World
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:12 pm

Post » Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:40 pm

Well, there could of course be a save fle for exiting the game. Evertime you quit, you save, so you can't cheat death but still can leave when you wish to.


All this would do is force people to go to the main menu or quit the game entirely to save. They could still save by quitting, open the game again and then if they die or screw up a lock just force quit and try again. The whole problem with this idea is it is entirely unnecessary and it doesn't fix any problems, while managing to create several new ones.

Edit:
If you want to fear dying so much then just only have one save of when you first save and another save for right after you have to stop. After you start playing again delete that second save so you will have to start all over. Sounds like i would be fearful of dying then.


See? You can give yourself the "Fear of Death" without changing the save system and pissing off everyone else.
User avatar
Oyuki Manson Lavey
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:47 am

Post » Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:46 pm

Not a fan, I already fear death, death is failure, and hindering of progress, creating checkpoints wouldn't make me fear death, it will make me fear having to waste time doing repeating mundane tasks. Save/load allows me to apply my solution to the problem without having to walk from a checkpoint to the problem, and then apply the same solution.
User avatar
Chase McAbee
 
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:59 am

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:08 pm

This will be a repost, but...

"Well, there could of course be a save fle for exiting the game. Evertime you quit, you save, so you can't cheat death but still can leave when you wish to. "


This is acceptable.
User avatar
Kelli Wolfe
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:09 am

Post » Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:17 pm

My son isn't yet a toddler. He's 6 weeks old and can barely hold his own head up. That isn't an option for me. Yet. And even when it is, I'm not letting him play, or watch me play any M rated games.

At least not until I'm confident that he completely understands the difference between fantasy, and reality.


my bad.........was thinking 6 months.

i actually like the save only when exiting thing cause you could save when you had been on a marathon 30 minute game run but its inconvenient enough having to restart the game that you wont be saving every 5 minutes like i do in my games. the reason i got used to doing that is because almost every game i play is heavily modded and with that comes crash issues sometimes.
User avatar
Latino HeaT
 
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:21 pm

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm

Great point. A lot of games have basically become trial and error affairs nowadays. I guess that is what happens when you are allowed to save anywhere. I myself have always been more a fan of realistic games with less save opportunities. Not that saving a game is realistic, but even playing FO3:NV, I found that I was saving constantly, because I didn't want to lose my items, and it was just easier. Like you said, that way I can try to mess with that Frost Atronach and see if I can take him. If not, no big loss, just reboot and keep all my stuff.

I remember playing an old PC game called Operation Flashpoint (before Codies ruined the series with the latest crapfest). I remember one mission in particular where I had to assault a large town filled with troops. It was a very long and drawn out battle(with no save points), and I lost all but one of my men, but I managed to survive. Just as we were heading to the extraction point, an enemy tank came along and blew my legs off and killed my ally. I hid behind a building until it left and ended up having to crawl like 2 miles (literally) to the extraction point, but I did it because I didn't want to have restart the entire mission. That is the kind of tension I want to see in games again. Where you are actually nervous about being killed because it can have some consequence. Not just "oh well, let me reload and try it again in 5 seconds".


I see your point, I played OpFlash (and ArmA) too, BUT CHECKPOINTS IN OPEN ENDED GAME just dont make sense, it could be implented in a 'No quiting whitout saving' optional style...
User avatar
Jessica Colville
 
Posts: 3349
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:53 pm

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:50 am

All right, I guess the best compromise would be:
Leave the game without respawns, without checkpoints and with ability to pause it. But make quick and regular save and load work only when you are in a safe place (not in combat, when enemies nearby etc). Similarly to the wait button.
If you need to leave PC quickly - just pause the game. If you need to turn it off, get to the safe place or loose game until last save from safe place, no big deal.

This could be certainly done by a mod. But I would prefer then the "dangerous" zones were little larger than in Oblivion - I was sometimes able to sleep e.g. in a tunnel between two caves full of enemies... That is not safe spot, do not want to make saves there.
User avatar
NIloufar Emporio
 
Posts: 3366
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:18 pm

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:50 am

I think it should display from whatever view you're using at the time.

I enjoyed in Oblivion that it switched to third person so I could see my character limply flop over, but the novelty of that has passed and now I would just like it to keep me in whatever view I'm in.

In a game such as this you'll have to create the fear yourself. I did this in Oblivion by 1)Only saving in towns and 2)deleting the battle folder. Of course i stopped doing this once I stopped dying at about lvl 10. Those first ten levels though were quite thrilling. FO3 was exactly the same, level 1-10 exciting combat and all the rest is just exploring.
User avatar
Scott
 
Posts: 3385
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:59 am

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 5:07 am

There was a time when I would've agreed to some extent with this. However recent changes in my life ha made gaming a luxury I get here and there, not the day long sessions I used to be able to do. I don't have the time to play games without regular checkpoints or save anywhere systems. I just don't. I think for the average gamer (a group I'm now part of, despite my interest in deeper single player games over online garbage), the cons of a system such as you suggest would cause too many conflicts and a lack of interest or patience with the game, despite introducing an interesting dynamic.
User avatar
Nikki Lawrence
 
Posts: 3317
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:27 am

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:14 am

I dont expect them to pull Demons Souls on us where dieing is a loss of alot as well as your body and making the game harder and making you start the area over since this is an open world game but making death something to fear is a good thing and adds suspense and makes things better when you succeed. Idk how they would implament something though
User avatar
Eibe Novy
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:32 am

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:58 am

Did anyone else play Marathon way back in the days of yore? You had to fight your way to "pattern buffers" in order to save your game, it actually really worked and created a fun dynamic which made you value your balls more. When loading up other fsp games of the era right after, I found them a cinch to beat because I could save the nanosecond before doom and try every conceivable strategy without penalty,

A badly implemented checkpoint system would svck of course (a badly implemented anything svcks), but there could be a way to use an alternative mechanic in Skyrim...

Like setting up camp in an enemy-cleared area. Your campsite could be a place you customise, craft and cook, and it would give more reason to sleep than just for those level up-moments. Want to practice some advanced alchemy? Better get a fire started. Want to live through that blizzard coming down the valley? Better unpack the tent and get ready.

At the very least it could be your default re-spawn point, that would incentivise you to stay alive when deep in a dungeon.
User avatar
luke trodden
 
Posts: 3445
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:48 am

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:47 am

All right, I guess the best compromise would be:
Leave the game without respawns, without checkpoints and with ability to pause it. But make quick and regular save and load work only when you are in a safe place (not in combat, when enemies nearby etc). Similarly to the wait button.
If you need to leave PC quickly - just pause the game. If you need to turn it off, get to the safe place or loose game until last save from safe place, no big deal.

This could be certainly done by a mod. But I would prefer then the "dangerous" zones were little larger than in Oblivion - I was sometimes able to sleep e.g. in a tunnel between two caves full of enemies... That is not safe spot, do not want to make saves there.


No, no dangerzones please either. As I sad I need to be able to save and exit on the spot, no matter what I am doing, and not loose anything. If they want a "hardcoe" fear of dying - implement it in a hardcoe mode for thous who want it. Games that put demands on my time are not something I can afford to play - I don't always have an option of finding a save place when I need to NOW. And I'm sure there are plenty of people lake me around. I'm by no means a casual gamer, but I'm an advlt person, with advlt responsibilities and a good understanding that a game is just a game, and anything that goes on in RL is more important. On line gaming and checkpoints are good if you play when you done with your homework, and let the "older folk"s take care of the "live stuff" but it's not a no option whey you are one of the "older folks". Sad, but a fact of live.
User avatar
aisha jamil
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:54 am

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:52 am

Lot of you guys is complaining that you do not have enough time to play such hard core mode. Well, I don't have much time either, there is work and college...
A friend of mine claims that he finished every quest in Oblivion. I think that is crazy. I finished like 1/10 of them and still had great gaming experience. I think you do not need the game engine to help you to progress quickly to have fun.

I prefer: "This cave looks bad, I may die in there. But if I prepare properly and proceed clever and carefully, I should make it." to: "Nah, I estimate to die 70 times in these 5 caves, but I know for sure I will finally kill everyone and pick everything in next 45 minutes. There is just no other option."
User avatar
Tamika Jett
 
Posts: 3301
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:44 am

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:42 am

I did that on habit once...its up to the player to decide how they play though...but I stopped doing it and said if I am going to play the game right, I at least accept that I can't open the chest or beat the person until I come back stronger and more able. Those that abusing the save feature are just cheating it and the gameplay.
User avatar
lydia nekongo
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:04 pm

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 6:44 am

Well for me it's not about the time right now, it's just that I don't like the idea. It's not fun to me, and adds nothing to the experience. I don't mind there being an option for others, but it's strange to judge how others play a single player game.

For example, if people reload to pick a lock... so? Does that affect you at all? No, it does not, and you really shouldn't care about it. Just don't do it yourself if you don't want to.
User avatar
Alan Cutler
 
Posts: 3163
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:59 am

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:09 am

All this would do is force people to go to the main menu or quit the game entirely to save. They could still save by quitting, open the game again and then if they die or screw up a lock just force quit and try again. The whole problem with this idea is it is entirely unnecessary and it doesn't fix any problems, while managing to create several new ones.


Nono, this idea is coupled with the respawning thingie.
If you die, you save. Everytime you quit, you save. Whatever happens you can't byass it by quiting, because you would overwrite the old savegame by doing that.
The only other way to save would be by checkpoints, which location would be entrances, quest statrs, inns etc.
User avatar
Bryanna Vacchiano
 
Posts: 3425
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:54 pm

Post » Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:24 am

in the hardcoe mode it would fit good.
User avatar
Anthony Rand
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:02 am

PreviousNext

Return to V - Skyrim