Save Games & Voices.

[Tawmis]

So I figured I'd kick this off in a new thread.

So over in New King's Quest from TellTale! - there came the discussion about save games, and having to save over them. Which actually didn't turn out to be the case for Sierra Games.

So let's tackle this - in today's game. In DRAGON AGE, I know (on XBOX, I believe it was the same case with PC) - that you had a slotted amount of save game slots - and could NOT save in a new directory. So you had like 20 save game slots or something that you could save - and that was it. Then you'd have to begin saving over old save games. Now, normally not a big deal - 20 saves, and all - but Dragon Age is a HUGE game. So I think it's interesting that SIERRA (and not just Sierra, just using them as an example) - back then, seems to be ahead of where Dragon Age is now - by allowing you to change directories and create AS MANY SAVES as you want! Curious why a huge game like Dragon Age - or why any modern game today - wouldn't allow you to change the directory and save as often/as many save games as you wanted?

Andrea mentioned that the voice of Hawke in Dragon Age II did not fit what he thought his character would sound like when games like Wizardry 8 (Youtube link with selectable voices) back in 2001 had optional voices - something like 20 voices to select from, depending on the personality you wanted that character to have.

Now one might say, "Dragon Age is huge! Can you imagine the voice acting?" The only time it would matter would be during the cut scenes, as the rest of the game, your character doesn't really have extensive dialogue (since it's all text driven), except for the occasional battle cry. In Wizardry 8, I played the game like 20 times, and still hear new things that the characters say (whether facing a monster, finding an item, feeling sick, low on hit points, low on mana, when they talk about something they killed, etc).

So it amazes me that somehow these types of things aren't included in massive RPGs to bring the players into a real sense of "these are my characters" type of feeling....

[DeadPoolX]

I remember making as many saved games as I wanted in DA1. That probably accounts for the huge amount of space my save game files take up and why I had to back them up onto an external HD.

ME2, on the other hand, did have limited save slots. That was really annoying and even worse, you couldn't name your saved games.

You could name your saved games in DA1 (which made it easier to tell which save went where) and so there was no excuse for not including it in ME2.

Then again, ME2 wasn't very friendly when it came to the game's interface. For instance... there were no hot keys, so instead of pressing "C" for your character's screen, you had to first press ESC and then click on the character screen. The scroll wheel didn't work either, so you had to click and hold menu bars to scroll through documents.

The PC version of ME2 was already different in how you selected your powers, so the developers knew they had to make some changes. So why not include hot keys or make the mouse more functional in menus?

I'm glad DA2 has hot keys. Even if the interface otherwise favors the console (and I'm not sure it does), the inclusion of hot keys makes the game far more user-friendly.

[Tawmis]

I remember making as many saved games as I wanted in DA1. That probably accounts for the huge amount of space my save game files take up and why I had to back them up onto an external HD.

Really? I know on the XBOX it's like 20 save game slots (per character you make, so each character you create has 20 slots or something). I thought it was the same on the PC? I will double check, but thought that was limited too!

ME2, on the other hand, did have limited save slots. That was really annoying and even worse, you couldn't name your saved games.

I believe that's how it is on XBOX too - you just save the location or something.

Then again, ME2 wasn't very friendly when it came to the game's interface. For instance... there were no hot keys, so instead of pressing "C" for your character's screen, you had to first press ESC and then click on the character screen. The scroll wheel didn't work either, so you had to click and hold menu bars to scroll through documents.

Holy. I have ME2 on PC (as well as XBOX)... and played it and beat it twice on XBOX... not gone far on PC (mostly because my preference for gaming is on the XBOX these days). I will give that a whirl and see if I have the same experience.

I'm glad DA2 has hot keys. Even if the interface otherwise favors the console (and I'm not sure it does), the inclusion of hot keys makes the game far more user-friendly.

How does it seem to favor consoles? To me, DA2 plays a lot like World of Warcraft (or EverQuest, or any MMO for that matter) in the way it has the hotkeys down below and such. (That's where I first saw hotkeys like that... or that's where I first remember seeing them anyway... usually you had to go into a spell book to do spells or feats, or whatever).

[DeadPoolX]

I remember making as many saved games as I wanted in DA1. That probably accounts for the huge amount of space my save game files take up and why I had to back them up onto an external HD.

Really? I know on the XBOX it's like 20 save game slots (per character you make, so each character you create has 20 slots or something). I thought it was the same on the PC? I will double check, but thought that was limited too!

TWENTY!?

Seriously? That's insane! I can't imagine playing the ENTIRE game with only 20 save slots.

I have 201 saved games in DA:O, 232 saved games in DA:A and 35 saved games in WH.

As you can see, 20 save slots just wouldn't be enough.

I hope DA2 doesn't have a limited number of saves. That would really, really suck.

ME2, on the other hand, did have limited save slots. That was really annoying and even worse, you couldn't name your saved games.

I believe that's how it is on XBOX too - you just save the location or something.

Maybe so, but DA1 lets you NAME your saved games. I would've liked it if ME2 had done the same. Without naming the saved games, it's difficult to tell each save apart. You've got to look the "time played" quote and that's really annoying.

Just because console gamers don't have a keyboard is no reason to keep PC gamers from naming their saved games. As I said already, the PC and console versions were already changed in some ways (like how you select and activate powers), so allowing PC gamers to name their saves wouldn't have been too difficult.

Then again, ME2 wasn't very friendly when it came to the game's interface. For instance... there were no hot keys, so instead of pressing "C" for your character's screen, you had to first press ESC and then click on the character screen. The scroll wheel didn't work either, so you had to click and hold menu bars to scroll through documents.

Holy. I have ME2 on PC (as well as XBOX)... and played it and beat it twice on XBOX... not gone far on PC (mostly because my preference for gaming is on the XBOX these days). I will give that a whirl and see if I have the same experience.

Yeah, as far as menus go, the interface was VERY clunky and unfriendly. Despite how picky I am about interfaces, the fact I played the entire game and consider it one of my favorite games of all time says something about ME2 itself. Most games I would've stopped playing early on.

So I think it's interesting that SIERRA (and not just Sierra, just using them as an example) - back then, seems to be ahead of where Dragon Age is now - by allowing you to change directories and create AS MANY SAVES as you want! Curious why a huge game like Dragon Age - or why any modern game today - wouldn't allow you to change the directory and save as often/as many save games as you wanted?

What's funny about what you wrote is I feel the same way about "save anywhere" versus "save points." There's absolutely NO NEED and NO EXCUSE besides lazy programming to force "save points" on the player. When KQ1 could allow a "save anywhere" system in 1984, it's not unreasonable to expect the same in 2011.

No, the type of game doesn't matter. The point is that "save anywhere" keeps the player from facing frustration. Who wants to replay something because they had to stop the game to do something else?

Look at the original Call of Duty from 2001. You can save anywhere in it. Fast forward to modern-day CoD games (like Modern Warfare) and guess what it uses? Save points. That makes no sense to me.

I've started downloading game trainers (external third-party programs you run while the game is playing that allow you to alter the game in some fashion) in order to save anywhere I want. Some people might say that's cheating, but to me it's simply correcting an oversight on the developer's part.

A challenge in a game comes from the game itself, not the developer disabling a feature of the hardware. So suggesting that "save points" increase the challenge and prevents the game from being "too easy" is a failed argument from the start.

[MusicallyInspired]

They probably don't allow you to change save game directories so that you don't accidentally misplace your files or break your computer somehow. With the way operating systems organise user files now it's much more structured in a way that you don't have to do anything. You just do stuff and everything is already organised for you to work properly. Of course, we who know how to use computers would understand what to do, but the average user with a computer doesn't.

In the DOS days all you had was a DOS folder for your operating system, Windows 3.x if you had it, and then just the config.sys and autoexec.bat files. And whatever system drivers that autoexec.bat executed. Other than that the hard drive was unprotected and fair game. People had control over their computers to use and organise it however they wished. Completely different story now. Windows creates so many directories and now doesn't even let you view or change the files in your root C: directory without asking permission from the administrator account first. Windows doesn't want you messing with its setup anymore.

With the amount of hard drive space available nowadays, however, there's no reason why we can't have infinite save slots for games. And yet we don't for some games. I don't understand that part.

I also dislike that you can't really name save games anymore in a lot of titles....that sucks.

Regarding save points, people don't want to take the time to save their own game anymore. Or even quick save. Then there's also the console integration argument. But really, games like Call of Duty today are kind of pointless to have free saves. The levels are super short. The only thing keeping you from one point to the next is a bunch of enemies you have to shoot at or some small objective to accomplish. Then more shooting. It's really not worth having the ability to save for such a shallow game. Game's like Half-Life, on the other hand, depend on free saving.

[DeadPoolX]

Regarding save points, people don't want to take the time to save their own game anymore. Or even quick save.

That's an even worse excuse than "it adds challenge." I disagree with that, but at least it has SOME merit.

If someone is too lazy or too stupid to save their game (or at least use quick saves) then they DESERVE to lose their progress. Honestly, how much effort does it take to save your game? Certainly less than replaying a portion of the game because you died before you could reach the nearest save point.

Then there's also the console integration argument. But really, games like Call of Duty today are kind of pointless to have free saves. The levels are super short. The only thing keeping you from one point to the next is a bunch of enemies you have to shoot at or some small objective to accomplish. Then more shooting. It's really not worth having the ability to save for such a shallow game. Game's like Half-Life, on the other hand, depend on free saving.

Whether or not you feel the CoD games justify free saves isn't the point here. It's the fact the original CoD, developed in 2001, offers a more advanced save system than its sequels. That's really sad.

As I said before, if KQ1 has the technology to allow gamers to save anywhere in 1984, then it's not too much to ask for the same feature 27 years later.

I'm not against save points so long as they supplement the ability to save anywhere you want. I simply disagree with the concept of "save points only." That allows little-to-no flexibility for those gamers who have limited time to play or may not want to frantically search for the next save point so they can exit the game.

[MusicallyInspired]

That's an even worse excuse than "it adds challenge." I disagree with that, but at least it has SOME merit.

If someone is too lazy or too stupid to save their game (or at least use quick saves) then they DESERVE to lose their progress. Honestly, how much effort does it take to save your game? Certainly less than replaying a portion of the game because you died before you could reach the nearest save point.

I totally agree.

Whether or not you feel the CoD games justify free saves isn't the point here. It's the fact the original CoD, developed in 2001, offers a more advanced save system than its sequels. That's really sad.

Yes, it is sad. But CoD1 probably had a wider gameplay experience than Modern Warfare had. But even if it didn't, it all boils down to what is necessary in the game industry today. Obviously developers and gamers alike don't see it as a an issue or else it would be rectified. They just don't see it as a devolution but rather an evolution....that's the problem with the game industry. Gamers tend to take everything publishers and developers to as an enhancement or progression without even thinking about it themselves. The game industry has DEFINITELY devolved from what it was.

I'm not against save points so long as they supplement the ability to save anywhere you want. I simply disagree with the concept of "save points only." That allows little-to-no flexibility for those gamers who have limited time to play or may not want to frantically search for the next save point so they can exit the game.

Absolutely. I'm with you.

[AndreaDraco]

It's true, Tawmis. On PC, in Dragon Age, you could save as much as you wanted. I think I have about the same number of saves that DPX has

And yes, ME2 was a terrible annoyance.

[Maxor127]

I can also verify you can save as much as you wanted in Dragon Age. My largest save folder has 87 slots. I pretty much only play games on the PC. I think it's superior in almost every way to a console. I only play consoles for co-op, sports games, or exclusives.

[DeadPoolX]

I can also verify you can save as much as you wanted in Dragon Age. My largest save folder has 87 slots. I pretty much only play games on the PC. I think it's superior in almost every way to a console. I only play consoles for co-op, sports games, or exclusives.

Absolutely. Local co-op and sports games ARE superior on consoles; however, every other type of game is much better on a PC.

I've tried playing an FPS on a console before and it was a terrible experience. You CAN'T fine-tune adjustments with an analogue stick on a gamepad, whereas you CAN do that with a mouse.

The only way you could play an FPS with a gamepad would be if the game had something like "aim assistance" or locked onto an enemy, so accurately aiming wouldn't be required. Otherwise, you swing all over the place using an analogue stick.

An example of the differences in aiming on a PC and console is the GTA series. On the PS2, you had to press a button to lock onto an enemy so you'd actually be able to hit him when shooting. The PC version, however, didn't have that and you aimed manually.

The reason the console locked onto an enemy was because of the overall inaccuracy of aiming with a gamepad. The mouse, on the other hand, allowed the player to aim extremely accurately and therefore, had absolutely no need for the game to assist the player by locking onto an enemy.

Yes, I know the above is third-person and not first-person, but the example still holds.

Consoles are also holding back PCs in terms of graphics quality. The consoles are old by today's standards (2005 for the 360 and 2006 for the PS3) and although they still look decent, the PC is capable of a LOT more nowadays. Developers can't take advantage of that since the consoles wouldn't be able to handle it.

(I have a feeling this is going to turn into a HUGE debate )

[MusicallyInspired]

Totally. Consoles are holding back PCs in every way. Generally the graphics are slightly better on the PC versions but not as good as they could be. But especially with games that were made on consoles and ported to the PC, the games suffer horribly. And with game mechanics that make it easier for console gamers being forced into PC games...it's just....wrong. But PC gaming isn't as profitable as consoles right now. Not because there aren't as many gamers but because of piracy. Althogh, piracy is pretty rampant in the console world as well.

[DeadPoolX]

But PC gaming isn't as profitable as consoles right now. Not because there aren't as many gamers but because of piracy. Althogh, piracy is pretty rampant in the console world as well.

Yeah, piracy has become a real problem. DRM in particular has made PC games less user-friendly.

Regardless, I think PC vs console sales figures are skewed. Usually PC sales are put up against console sales, but... which console? Do you include every console? If you combine sales from the 360, PS3 and in some cases, the Wii as well, of course you'll have higher sales numbers.

It's true that PC games don't sell much in game stores anymore. However, digital distribution seems to be where PC gaming has gone. PC games have always been more affordable than their console counterparts as well. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo charge some sort of fee for making games on their consoles?

[Collector]

I have been seeing articles lately about sharp rises in console game piracy. One claimed a loss of £1.45 billion for GB alone. If it becomes as wide spread as on PC, who knows. I guess that one thing that would still be a plus for publishers is that tech support for a console would still be easier.

[Tawmis]

I have been seeing articles lately about sharp rises in console game piracy. One claimed a loss of £1.45 billion for GB alone. If it becomes as wide spread as on PC, who knows. I guess that one thing that would still be a plus for publishers is that tech support for a console would still be easier.

Piracy on X360 is very easy, once you mod your XBOX. However, modding the XBOX has a 98% chance of getting you banned from XBOX Live. XBOX modding is a lucrative business.

Once you mode an X360, you can actually put in a PC hard drive, which is larger than an XBOX HD. Burn games DIRECTLY to the hard drive. You can also burn games to a specific type of DVD Disk (can't recall, since I don't do it myself) and basically it will play on other modded XBOX 360s. (In the event you want to burn the game to that DVD and bring it to a friend's place who also has a modded X360, etc).

[Collector]

Give it some time and someone will come up with a workaround to the XBOX Live ban. I imagine that some of the draconian DRM schemes on PC have also driven some to console gaming. But of course, if piracy becomes a huge problem on consoles, too, what heavy handed DRM crap will they impose on consoles?