Save the Game!

[VegasGeorge]

Ever get interrupted in the middle of a good Single Player game, and wish you could come back to it later and pick up right where you left off? Oh, I know that "Pause" will hold it, but what if you won't be able to get back to the game for a day or two? No one wants to tie up their puter with a game on hold for that long.

I think a "Save" function would be great to have. Today I invested about 45 minutes in a game that I had to Quit right when it was geting really interesting. I would love to have it saved on my disk so I could see how it would end up.

So anyway, that's my idea. What do you guys think?

[Sean]

Good idea! It would also be cool if games could be saved for MP too. The file could stay on the hosts computer and that way you could pick up players that dropped without restarting the whole thing.

[9erRed]

Greetings,

Only problem i can see with having a "save game" function is that it would have to be "ONLY" reusable from the single player option. And for those "just gotta know" players the editor would have to be non functional from a saved game format. Also the AAR would have to be disabled at the "save game" option, or it would lead to "peaking".

Now with the changes in SB2 and a slight mention of some type of campaign continuation design, ( or extended battles with reinforced battlegroups ) there may be a "save game" option. I'm sure it was on the "to do list" with the other option of saving the AAR action replay (as a maybe).

9erRed ..... out

[Ssnake]

Not gonna happen.

Any way you look at it: It all boils down to an invitation for cheating, and trial and error behavior. Oh, sure, YOU would never abuse it that way. NEVER. Yet it is a constant temptation - can I rush the objective now, or should I just wait some more? Aw, what the heck, I'll save and see what happens.

We've discussed it often, it just is a bad idea. Unlimited time for planning, the ability to paise the game - this is as much of a usability compromise we're willing to implement. Unrealistic, but still important to keep things fun.

[rump]

Aw, what the heck, I'll save and see what happens.


How's that different from trying another time in a new game (single player)?
I would LOVE a save option in single player, not (just) for trial and error but how about convenience?

Rump

[Ssnake]

The inconvenience is required to keep the player from applying trial and error too often. Actions must have consequences, and too much convenience supports carelessness. You don't want to get killed, if only for that it forces you to replay again. Therefore you apply more care before leaving the concealed position, just as you should in real life.

I think that our current solution is the best compromise. We cannot implement a motivation check for a save feature, nor does it make sense to implement "saving points" or to limit saving to one or two occasions.

You have unlimited time to plan, getting killed in one tank still leaves you the others, and having just a single platoon is usually a guarantee that the mission time will not exceed the 40 minute limit. If it does and if you get killed often, it's probably not a good scenario.

[I2R06]

I hear you Ssnake. And I understand your reasons. I still would like a save game feature. For me, the disadvantages of allowing "cheating" in all its forms is small compared to the advantage of being able to leave a game and come back to finish it later. Granted, most games are 60 minutes or less, and quite a few good ones are 30 minutes or less. I will tell you that there are many games I have never bought, and many games I never play anymore because they don't have that feature. I almost didn't buy this game for that very reason. Fortunately, you and the forum members convinced me otherwise.

I whole heartedly agree with you about "saving points" and number of saves. Its better to leave the save feature out entirely if I can only save it at certain times.

[Skip]

What about a "save" feature that automatically kicks you out of the game (back to the main menu) when the save completes. This would be in line with using the save feature if you need to leave and come back later and, while not eliminating the possibility of "trial-and-error-saving", it would make using the save feature for that purpose much less convenient.

[tahoman]

While I find your points very valid, Ssnake, I find that i have to agree with both Vegas george and I2R06. While your thinking is very sound, the realities of modern life almost surely dictate some sort of save feature for just about every game. Maybe it could not only be limited to single player, but also to the lower difficulty levels as well. I think it would be useful in decreasing the frustation levels of those who would otherwise quit playing and not return because of the somewhat steep learning curves involved.

[Ssnake]

Points taken, we'll consider once more. It'll be your fault if we slip the deadline once more. ;)

[OddBall]

Hmmm, how about a limited amount of saves combined with time played on scenario? For example 1 save per every 30/45 minutes played. Perhaps even automatic delete of the save file after it has been loaded. What you say? :)

[dejawolf]

or how about automated saving per played hour?
now the real cheatos would do some advances, then wait for 35 minutes for the game to save, and then move on. :P :P

[colin]

Ssnake advised me about using the ALT-TAB feature, which allows you to put the game aside for awhile, this has really helped the relationship with my wife. :)

[Keiler]

I'd go with Skip, save, and exit the running game to main menu, or even connected to exiting the game.
Its about saving on emergency IMO, the "DAMN gotta go" scenario. So why not exiting and leaving the game at this point, because you have to leave the game anyway.
One save per game.

Just my POV.

[edit] this implies of course, that you can load only from main menu, and not from a running game.

[tahoman]

The idea of one save per scenario works pretty well for Operation Flashpoint. It really makes you think about when and where to use that one save. Do it too early and you may as well start over, wait for much later and you're usually toast before you get to use it.

[Brun]

Definately have to keep SB clean of cheating, and as real as possible. Like what Ssnake said, no saving to calm your nerves, and think it over in real life.

[Panzer8]

Yes, keep SB as real as it gets!!!!!!!!!!








Killing tanks is my business and business is good!!!!!!!

[Ssnake]

The most likely implementation that I can think of is a save option when exiting the mission. It is however not trivial to implement this, and therefore may or may not make it into the release version.

[rump]

The most likely implementation that I can think of is a save option when exiting the mission.

Works for me!

Rump

[Skip]

The most likely implementation that I can think of is a save option when exiting the mission. It is however not trivial to implement this, and therefore may or may not make it into the release version.
Not that anyone has asked, but my vote would be to NOT delay the SB2 release for the save feature. However, maybe it could be included in a patch/update to be released later?

[I2R06]

I endorse colin's comment about Alt-Tab. This has been a real life saver for me too. The SB team did a great job of coding and implementing this feature. I know a lot of other games where this doesn't work nearly so well (If it works at all). For those who don't know, pressing Alt-Tab together will pause the game, minimize it, and return you to your Desktop. Clicking on Steel Beasts in your toolbar will take you back to your game right where you left off.

[Ssnake]

The most likely implementation that I can think of is a save option when exiting the mission. It is however not trivial to implement this, and therefore may or may not make it into the release version.
Not that anyone has asked, but my vote would be to NOT delay the SB2 release for the save feature. However, maybe it could be included in a patch/update to be released later? Well, if it is supposed to work as a selling point, it's got to be in the initial release.

[Skip]

The most likely implementation that I can think of is a save option when exiting the mission. It is however not trivial to implement this, and therefore may or may not make it into the release version.
Not that anyone has asked, but my vote would be to NOT delay the SB2 release for the save feature. However, maybe it could be included in a patch/update to be released later? Well, if it is supposed to work as a selling point, it's got to be in the initial release.
Oops! I must have been having a brain fart just then! Pardon me while I go back and stand in my corner. :red:

[Ludwigmeister]

Not gonna happen.

Any way you look at it: It all boils down to an invitation for cheating, and trial and error behavior. Oh, sure, YOU would never abuse it that way. NEVER. Yet it is a constant temptation - can I rush the objective now, or should I just wait some more? Aw, what the heck, I'll save and see what happens.

We've discussed it often, it just is a bad idea. Unlimited time for planning, the ability to paise the game - this is as much of a usability compromise we're willing to implement. Unrealistic, but still important to keep things fun.

I AGREE 100 AND 10 PERCENT. I play in the SuddenStrike2 ranking league (@ SS HQ), and the league has come up with SO MANY rules on when you can save, when you can't, when you have to call forfeit, or when you can continue from the save. Its such a pain in the ass that after years of running (since the orginial SuddenStrike came out) it has implemented a new rule that NO saving is aloud unless all players agree DURING the game at that given moment. The outcome of that; a) one team thinks the request is bogus cheating attempt, so they say no or, b) IT IS a bogus attempt to cheat, and thats bullshit. Magically people drop after having eight tanks get whacked during a poorly lanned rush... hmmm I wonder whether or not they're cheating...

I know you guys here all think you're a special breed of gamers, and don't get me wrong your average SB isn't a "typical gamer", however you guys aren't the only ones who take your game so seriously, and Ssnake is right, with the saving option its just gonna cause a wolrd of pain and cheating. NO MATTER the "calibre" of the gamers.

THE ONLY THING I THINK COULD BE DONE is Singleplayer saves. If you want to cheat on single player.. hey thats your own problem! But then the thing is you'll have people who aren't even good going on about how they did so damn well on the hardest scenerio with so many kills and no losses and offering to send you their save to see for yourself (all because they just saved every two seconds)... but then again who really sits and brags about their accomplishments on single player?

In conclusion I would say single player saves isa possibility (or am I not seeing a reason why thats not the case?), but for multiplayer... NEVER.

Alex.

[CommC]

I think one possible answer to the save question is to have 2 types of scenarios in SB2.

One would be a real time action scenario similar to SB1 where there are no saves allowed and pausing would take you to the map screen where you could not look around the battlefiedl, fire your weapons, or give orders. This would preserve the real-time feel of the game as so many have advocated.

The second type of scenario would be more like a strategy game, where the maps are larger, there are more units on the map. In this type the player could jump into any unit in real time, to view the battlefield from the point of any of his units, the game could be paused and orders could be given to all friendly units during the pause, and the game could be saved as often as desired. This would be more of a "modeling" mode to test "what if" scenarios and model larger battles.

I think SB2 could easily do both of these, with very minor coding effort. Players could have the choice to play either mode in multiplayer. This way we could have the best of both worlds.

What will be the size of the map in SB2? Will there be a choice of map sizes for the scenarios?

Just a thought.

[toothpick]

Ssnake...

First of all its your game and you can do whatever you like with it.

However, I think you are maybe missing the point in why a save game feature is so attractive to your customers.

unfortuantely many of us do not have teh time to devote to an hour long scenario, and it becomes a choice of "Do I start this scenario knowing that I will NEVER be able to finish it" or "DO I not even bother to start it in the first place."

Unfortuantely for me it has become the latter.

I love the Game and everything about it, but I must admit I have not even attempted the more in-depth misisons for the very reason that I know I dont tiem to finish them. Between work, School and wife, I dont have the time.

And this is the real shame.

video games should be a escape for me. I dont want to cheat. . . .frankly the though never entered my head. I just want to finish a mission every now and again.

Someone mentioned Operation Flashpoint earlier.

I had the same problem with this game. It was an outstanding game, but the lack of a save feature killed it for me.

In the end you have great game s ending up being a source of frustration.

You never see arguments about quick save features in great games like Jedi Knight, or Deus Ex or stuff like that. Both games I enjoyed greatly becasue I could paly wehnever I wanted, for as long as I wanted. I left secure knowing that it would be there waiting for me when I came back.

Its not about cheating. . . .its about allowing your customers to decide their own schedules and enjoy your product at their leisure.

Thanks for the ear. Again. . . .great game.

TP :)

[Captain_Thunder]

I'm afraid I have to agree with the folks that want a save function.

It should be a option that the customer can choose to use or not. The lack of one should not be imposed on us by the developers because they don't want to water down the reality of their creation. Not everyone has endless hours of uninterrupted time to complete a scenario and we can't keep the game running in pause on our machines indefinitely.

Saves should be made so that they cannot be edited or viewed in the editor.

I recently played a game that would only let the player save at set points in the game. The problem is that they were so far apart they were almost worthless. This made playing the game very frustrating and more than once I nearly chucked the whole thing and almost uninstalled it.

Luckily, someone came up with a registration hack that enabled the save function at any point in the game, although. by that time, I was already in the final section of the game. It sure relieved a lot of stress though.

Again, it should be our option to use a Save function or not.