Suggest: timeline for savegames

[lurkily]

With that kind of saving style ofr CW3, what, if there will be one, will the quick-save hotkey do?

Save the game, in a save following the last one you saved.

This is basically the timeline suggestion as it was originally proposed - Ron is merely suggesting a way to structure directories to organize them.

I think the organization can be in the file itself.

Recording enough data to reconstruct this is a pretty simple logical exercise.  Reconstructing it into a UI is a little more complex, but the logic is still straightforward.  It can be done with hard rules that need no interpretation, so code should handle it fine.

For instance: give each savegame a numerical internal identifier of sorts.  Remember it when you save, so further savegames append their identifier to the last one saved.  When you load a savegame, load those identifiers so that further saves append to those.

So, when you save game 1-6, you will have six savegames.  The identifiers stored in them will look like this:
1
1,2
1,2,3
1,2,3,4
<EDIT>1,2,3,4,5</EDIT>
1,2,3,4,5,6

Then you go back to save five.  This looks like 1,2,3,4,5.  However, you're saving your seventh game, so the ID of your next save looks like this:

1,2,3,4,5,7

So on and so on.  This simple string provides the information necessary to order and arrange the saves.  Then it's just an issue of ordering and arranging them.

[Ronini]

With that kind of saving style ofr CW3, what, if there will be one, will the quick-save hotkey do?

Save the game, in a save following the last one you saved.

I have to object. This way you'll sooner or later have quite a jumble of savegames if you quicksave/-load a game fairly often.
I take it that there is a subtle difference between a quick-save key and a "save this game as a permant savegame"-keyboard shortcut?
The most practical thing would be an additional quicksave/quickload slot (overwritten everytime you hit the quicksave key), I guess. This one doesn't necessarily have to be there for each map, one for the whole game would probably do just fine.

I think the organization can be in the file itself.

Just to clarify, you propose a way the files are marked internally?
I haven't thought about this side very much, my focus was more on what a user actually sees.

[lurkily]

I'd prefer the user to ACTUALLY SEE the timeline as illustrated early in this thread.  They should have absolutely no reason to mess with directories of maps and savegame filenames, just give them a timeline that diverges with points on it representing savegames.

EDIT: This is the thing I'm talking about.

[Ronini]

Somehow I fail to see the use for such a timeline, other than looking at how you solved a map in retrospective and this would be achieved rather with a collection of screenshots rather than savegames. Although I can see the benefit of being able to jump right back in and try something different.

Anyhow, this node thing seems very confusing and impractical to construct, in my opinion. The same graph would look like this in an indented list (the term directory is bit confusing, I never intended the savegames to be stored in actual directories in the game folder, or something):

  1
  2
  3
    4
      5
        6
        7
    8
    9
      10
         11
            12
               13
               14
                  15

Okay. This might not look less confusing then the tree from your example, but I do believe the list structure leaves more room for additional information, such as screenshots, date, name, etc. I have no skills programming-wise, but I sense that a list might be easier to create than this node graphic, which can become really messy, really quickly. Additionally, colours, borders, arrows and such would help a lot to improve clarity.

Bear in mind, that such a complicated tree will occur very rarely, because you'd have to save, exit the game, load upon restart and save again several times in order to create such a tree. I doubt this would happen, because of the autosave slot, that exists outside of the tree (which only represents manual saves).
Giving players an option to make the game create a copy of the autosave everytime an autosave is performed is a viable solution, if that's what you're after. But this would create this kind of long tree.

[lurkily]

The reason is that the timeline clearly visualizes where all your games lie without confusion, and because it takes the player less 'out of the game'. 

Lists and menus are things that remind the player that he's not fighting for the universe, but playing a game.  Graphical UI's go a long way towards maintaining the atmosphere, even across savegames or levels.

For instance, our level selection menu isn't a menu, it's a galactic map.

Secondly, why is it impractical?  All of the logic to construct it is right there, in both the format I suggest, and the format you suggest.  Construction of the timeline would follow concrete mathematical rules that do not require human interpretation to make the elements fit coherently.

This is the kind of thing code excels at.  This is geometry, not art.

[Ronini]

I guess it (again) comes down to taste. I favor a list, because it can easily give quite a lot of information at first glance. Having the same degree of information with a graphic UI kinda spoils the effect. The alternative is mouse overs. But, these lack the "first glance" aspect.
Let's just say a graphic UI for savegames is not my cup of tea.

[lurkily]

I guess it (again) comes down to taste. I favor a list, because it can easily give quite a lot of information at first glance. Having the same degree of information with a graphic UI kinda spoils the effect. The alternative is mouse overs. But, these lack the "first glance" aspect.
Let's just say a graphic UI for savegames is not my cup of tea.

What effect are you looking for?  As you say, they both convey the same information.  Presenting it graphically would eliminate confusion without losing detail, and make the sequences much more obvious at a glance with much less processing needed.

My main desire for it is that it doesn't pull you out of the game quite so much.  Having to step out of the experience to process your save files and their names, lists and text reminds you that you're dealing with files on a computer, not the fate of the universe. 

EDIT: One example of this is the current system described for savegames.  When you leave, it happens, when you come back, it's where you left it, and saving/loading a snapshot needs no details and lists.  Having to manage the function of your game disrupts the game.  It's like having to remap key assignments in the middle of a game.

[Ronini]

What I meant is additional information, that belong to a save game. Here is an example of how a savegame in my list could look like:

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                            "Really hard map noone will ever beat"    [  miniature    ]      |
|  "first attacking attempt"          saved on 11/13/2012 04.25p.m.            [    screen     ]      |
|                                            time played 1h 04m 12s                       [      shot      ]      |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

That is a rough idea of what I'd want a savegame to show, without having to mouse over a savegame first before I see this kind of information. Your map-like representation cannot offer this kind of information that easily. It'll either get jumbled or rather spacey (i.e. you'd have to scroll a lot, and in different directions).

Graphics and textures can go a long way to keep the player "in the game" using a list structure.

Again, this list structure would only come to effect if you do manual saves. The autosave (just to be clear without any doubt: leave and continue where you left off) and quicksave/-load (if that's what you mean by snapshot.) work independently from any list since they require no more managing than returning to map you want to continue.

Any form of saving and loading multiple games will necessarily require some managing of your game's functions, because you need to choose, find and select the saved game you want to return to. For that to be possible a certain amount of organising and managing when creating a savegame is unavoidable. A smart game will help you a lot on this, but then only on the saving, and not the loading side.

I fear neither of us is talking about the same thing the other one is thinking we do.

[lurkily]

I think it's the typing you savegame name as you save, and looking through the list, reminding yourself of the name you saved the game under, etc etc, all works against immersion.  It's one reason why atmospheric games like Amnesia and Penumbra typically don't use save game listings - they either autosave transparently, or use things like in game artifacts.  In the case of Penumbra, the character reports feels like it's sucking in part of their mind/soul/being.  Penumbra even makes story implications that saving the game is harming your character, though that isn't actually manifested in mechanics.

Disruption of immersion is a cardinal sin for atmospheric media, so their techniques for avoiding that are instructive in that regard.

Any form of saving and loading multiple games will necessarily require some managing of your game's functions, because you need to choose, find and select the saved game you want to return to.

Virgil indicated that time not passing while you're away is part of the lore, and that temporal management could be used to represent this timeline save-system, which I assume would also match the lore.  That implies that time travel is a fact of your ship's capabilities.  

Arranging savegames like a timeline of divergent realities plays to that concept, and makes your savegame handling a part of the game world, not something you retrieve from your hard drive.  Yes, it's something you have to sort and manage, but it's not presented as storage from your computer, but as divergent realities that your ship has access to.  Making sure the player doesn't have to pull themselves away from their monitor, or take their hands off the mouse and game-keys to switch to touch-typing layout and think about saving games under names is just another part of avoiding the need to step further from the game.  

As for providing information about the save date and the screenshot, you can always present that in a mouse-over of the point on the timeline.  (I'd be disappointed if the screenshot, at least, was NOT provided.)

Anyway, I'm gonna stop here - we seem to be at a point where we need to just agree that we disagree.

[Ronini]

I cannot comment on the two games you mentioned, since I don't know them, but it seems that they are actually discouraging saving. Which is something completely different.
With the seamless auto-save that virgil talked about in place, there very few reasons to create lots of saves in cw. Trying to max your score or trying a different strategy starting from different "checkpoints" is about the only things I can think of.

I'm sorry I can't let this go. It's bugging me.

Let me ask you this:
What do you think of CW2's savegame implementation? Did you feel your immersion was disrupted by it?

[Nemoricus]

I think CW2's save game system was extremely limited, inconvenient to use, and of limited utility, with the exception of the quick-save/quick-load feature.

However, the main saves had these flaws:

1. Limited number of saves. You could only save up to ten unique games before you had to overwrite them. This meant that you couldn't build up an extensive library of saves to compare different strategies on a map without considerable difficulty. This is probably a limitation of the UI, which did not have a scroll.

2. It could only be accessed through the main options menu. It wasn't convenient to save anyway, so I rarely bothered. This could have been solved with a save shortcut key.

3. I tend to only play a map once. Since CW2's are often so short, I usually completed them in one play session, which obviates the need for saving. Also, testing different strategies isn't terribly time consuming even if you go all the way back to the start of the map most times.

The lack of convenience and the lack of incentive to replay a map are big reasons why I rarely bothered with anything other than the quicksave. Quicksaving, on the other hand, was a regular part of play since I could try a risky strategy without having to worry about restarting the map entirely.

[lurkily]

I cannot comment on the two games you mentioned, since I don't know them, but it seems that they are actually discouraging saving. Which is something completely different.

Not at all - Amnesia autosaves constantly - and asks if you want to save when you quit, when disruption of immersion isn't an issue.  Penumbra also autosaves constantly, but these artifacts provided additional save points you could use without leaving an area and returning.

Both of these are seamless, invisible to the player, and in Penumbra's case, an integral part of the atmosphere.

Trying to max your score or trying a different strategy starting from different "checkpoints" is about the only things I can think of.

The hardcore community is a big part of CW's fan base.

What do you think of CW2's savegame implementation? Did you feel your immersion was disrupted by it?

I would say yes; opening a menu, and getting into a listing was not a part of the game.  The saving grace is that you could not save a name to your game - which meant that you normally spent less than seconds on the menu.  If you had to spend more than a few moments there, though, it took me a couple of seconds to re-acquaint myself with the game, the world I'm back in, and why it's so important for me to do well.

This of course, is of much greater importance on story maps than procedural maps.

Oddly, I have some discrepancies with what nem reported - I only got 9 saves, 8 of them manual.  (0-7 plus autosave).  Also, I could load or save a game from the mid-level game menu.  (Though if I tried to load, and decided not to, it returned me to the main menu.)  These are perhaps due to later updates.

[Ronini]

Trying to max your score or trying a different strategy starting from different "checkpoints" is about the only things I can think of.

The hardcore community is a big part of CW's fan base.

Indeed it is. Yet, hardcore gaming (i.e. maxing stats, as I understand the term) and immersion don't go well together in my book. Because you actively take yourself out of the story by replaying parts of the game again and again in order to set a record. But then it is only then that you do use manual saves. It seems only logical that a player looking for maximal efficiency in the game itself would look for maximal efficiency in managing the game and their way to achieve the best possible score.
I am not in any way denying the seamless auto-save feature. I welcome it. It is only when you go beyond its capabilities that you'll ever need something outside the game as such.

[lurkily]

As a casual player, I've had enough situations where I'm in a bind, so I take a big risk . . . all the while, thinking, "I'm making a mistake, I'm making a mistake."  Due to the nature of CW, most mistakes aren't fatal ones, even big mistakes.  With a strong start, you can recover from even catastrophic setbacks.  Still, I can see where I might use this, even if I might never, ever create a tree as detailed as the one above, and branches might be short.

You have a point that implementing the feature may not be crucial.  We may not see this in the final release.  I operate under the assumption that it  will be implemented, as I offer ideas to refine it.  Else what's the point?  You do however have a good point that multiple saves and timelines may not be a crucial feature.

[4xC]

Agreed. The whole thing sounds like what may be a good add-on for CW3, but not only does it seem unvital, I would hate to see saving and loading games become too complicated either.