I dont know if you make Savegames for every level or for the world but I think this would work with both.
Because the big maps someone may need many savegames and maybe you have to go more savegames back as you thought.
every time you save you create a dot in the savegame overview.
if you load a savegame and save then the new savegame will be put behind that savegame, build a tree view
if on every branch the newer put over the other they will be chronological and logical sorted
here a picture how it could work:
(http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/708/speicherbaum.jpg)
here the game where played and six times it was saved
after that number 5 was loaded and the seventh save
now number 3 was loaded another save and 3 loaded again
and so on.
if you hover or click a savegame there could be and large overview-picture of the map or the world screen
to not use to much space on disk there are some possibilities:
1. delete every savegame before this
if you click at savegame 9 it would remove 1-8
even if 5-7 are later in the game they come from a savegame before this
same ich you klick at 5 it would remove 1-4 and 8-15
2. delete every savegame after this
3. delete every savegame not on this path
if you klick at 13 4-8 and 14-15 are deleted
this is maybe not useful vor everyone so a possibility to turn it off can be good.
I post this because in other games I often have trouble to find the savegame I want to load and have to compare the playtime and the time I saved it.
I would like to hear some feadback if its a good or horrible idea.
edit:
damn: now I see Creeper World 3 Suggestions Initiative (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=10478.0) sorry for not posting there I didn't noticed it before
I find this idea very interesting, since it would make it easier to replay a map from various points and seeing what differences various changes in your strategies make.
Hrm.
I think . . . I need to consider that and post again later.
Hrm.
I honestly think this would be too complicated to implement and would not be very likely to be a feature. But I really like the idea.
I have never heard of this feature ever being used a game. Sometimes this could be extremely valuable, I know games that have an autosave function can often confuse me about which save I really want to load.
Quote from: Wheatmidge on October 18, 2012, 11:46:29 PM
I honestly think this would be too complicated to implement
yeah sadly
Quote from: Wheatmidge on October 18, 2012, 11:46:29 PM
I have never heard of this feature ever being used a game.
Me neither and i don't know how that come to my mind
but it seems to me much more useful that a list
Not really. 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
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.
This might be useful for those hardcore players who want to follow more than one thread to try and get the best possible time. On the other hand, you can also arrange this yourself, by working some sort of ID like this into the name of your save games.
If a tree concept is applied to saving games, CW3 is bound to distinguish itself from other games more than ever. Normally, there's a list of saved games that could just have specifics as depicted in the tree here, but this kind of save sounds impressively worth looking into. Although, it looks like there might be loading saves within saves.
Quote from: 4xC on October 19, 2012, 08:44:09 AM
If a tree concept is applied to saving games, CW3 is bound to distinguish itself from other games more than ever. Normally, there's a list of saved games that could just have specifics as depicted in the tree here, but this kind of save sounds impressively worth looking into. Although, it looks like there might be loading saves within saves.
No, each save is separate and stand-alone, it just carries a short identifier regarding what saves are its 'parent' saves.
You could even delete a save in the middle, and those saves before and after would have enough information to still be aware of where on the tree they should have been located.
It would stylisticly distinguish CW3, yes . . . but I'm not sure it would be helpful enough to be worth the coding.
What is described is basically a version control system. It's very similar to how things like SVN, CVS, VSS (etc) all work. (Here's the first example I hit when googling, for those not familiar with the concepts: http://www.menet.umn.edu/~tmorris/tutorials/CVS/cvs_whatis.htm )
Things like this are used commonly for source management... since source files are things saved frequently, you want a history for them, and you occasionally need to branch from an earlier revision.
Now, as for applying the concepts to save games in CW3; It seems possible. One primary goal of CW3 is that saves are seamless. By this I mean that you don't have to initiate a save when you exit the game or when you fly away from a world mid mission. A save will be created for you. This is a major game play feature and it also will match the lore. So from that perspective, there aren't any visible 'save game' menus (not even a list). Everything stays in the state that you leave it and there is only ever one save game in the 'save game history'.
But, people like the experiment. Sometimes you want to try a risky strategy. Sometimes you want to let the game run for a while to study it, then go back and play it (but not totally restart from the beginning). And other times you have already beaten the world but would like to go back and play it again without losing you final victory state.
So, currently, I have a "snapshot" function. It is one more save game (per world) that you can manually create and load. It is independent of the auto-save. The one exception is that if you load a snapshot, then leave the world... that world will overwrite the auto-save slot.
To summarize, there are currently two save games per world: An auto-save and a snapshot.
Now to extend these concepts into a 'version control' scenario, each auto save creates a line in the tree. If all the player ever does is visit, play, and leave worlds, then each visit and leave will create a save that is a descendant of the previous. The revision tree looks like a straight line. This would be the normal default mode and if a player just played the game in the most straight forward fashion this is what they would create. They would never even see this 'tree' since saving and loading is automatic. This is the equivalent of a "get latest version" concept in source control and it's how you deal with source most of the time.
For the crazy player, though, there could be a "temporal management" button that replaces the current "load snapshot" button. When you press this you would see the "tree" (which would begin as a line remember). You could click any node on that 'tree'. When you do, you load that game and effectively create a 'branch' in source control terminology. That branch becomes your active trunk so the auto save that happens will happen on this branch. This creates an actual tree (not just a line).
Notes:
- The very first node in this tree likely represents the world in it's pristine state (a restart). This isn't actually a save game, but represents the world you get when it is first loaded.
- The complexities of this system are only apparent for those that go looking for them. Simple, casual players don't ever see it or have to see it.
- The system allows you player a world, keep a 'victory' state, then go back and play it again. You can do this as many times as you like and not lose any previous victory states.
- The number of saves could get out of control rather quickly if a person visits and leaves a world frequently. So some curtailing might be necessary. This curtailing isn't as straight forward as you might think, though. Anything that is deleted can be a problem later on.
- The idea of "Temporal Management" will work well with the game's lore.
Quote from: virgilw on October 19, 2012, 09:57:09 AM
- The number of saves could get out of control rather quickly if a person visits and leaves a world frequently. So some curtailing might be necessary.
One solution could be if you only keep the last autosave and one every maybe 15 game minutes.
so if you want to keep a state you press save and have an additional to the autosave.
I don't believe many player would leave a world if there is a funny or important situation. In that case the autosaves when you leave the
world would be not necessary and could be deleted (exept the last one obviously).
edit:
a problem could be if you hop between different savegames really fast (less than a minute) just to look or to try something it could be hard to discriminate it and could make to many savegames or an important state get lost.
Quote from: RedVenom on October 19, 2012, 11:14:29 AM
Quote from: virgilw on October 19, 2012, 09:57:09 AM
- The number of saves could get out of control rather quickly if a person visits and leaves a world frequently. So some curtailing might be necessary.
One solution could be if you only keep the last autosave and one every maybe 15 game minutes.
so if you want to keep a state you press save and have an additional to the autosave.
Yeah, I think only manual snapshots and the last autosave in each branching should be retained.
QuoteI don't believe many player would leave a world if there is a funny or important situation. In that case the autosaves when you leave the
world would be not necessary and could be deleted (exept the last one obviously).
Some maps are really, really, really big, and may take hours to complete, particularly with custom maps.
ok but if you dont want to keep autosaves then it is irrelevant when you leave the world because it delete them anyway
I want to save only the last autosave in each branching. That autosave should be kept, because dumping the player's progress isn't cool. Pouring thousands of autosaves all over a timeline wouldn't be cool, so just keep the most recent one or two on each branch.
You could also give the player a hotkey for making saves, so that if there's a point in the game that they might want to explicitly come back to, they can hit that button and a snapshot will be made at the current instant. I'd also recommend tying this to a quicksave/quickload feature, since it seems like they go together quite naturally.
Quote from: lurkily on October 19, 2012, 04:04:36 PM
I want to save only the last autosave in each branching. That autosave should be kept, because dumping the player's progress isn't cool. Pouring thousands of autosaves all over a timeline wouldn't be cool, so just keep the most recent one or two on each branch.
sounds even better
Quote from: Nemoricus on October 19, 2012, 05:02:00 PM
You could also give the player a hotkey for making saves
also good
i like the idea i hope virgilw like it also and its not to hard to realize
The Starcraft series has saving hotkeys and hotkeys for almost EVERYTHING else, so this would help here.
And about some maps taking hours to beat, how can they be THAT big? It's just creeper emitters and 2 other varying units plus the simpliest (but still complex) strategy base management high-popularity games offer. Compared to some of the oldest strategy games I am familiar with, it's still pretty simple regardless of it's advances.
Quote from: Nemoricus on October 19, 2012, 05:02:00 PM
You could also give the player a hotkey for making saves, so that if there's a point in the game that they might want to explicitly come back to, they can hit that button and a snapshot will be made at the current instant. I'd also recommend tying this to a quicksave/quickload feature, since it seems like they go together quite naturally.
If a player loads an earlier save, why not just do a new autosave at that moment so that whether they manually save or not, they can return to the end of that branch, as far as they've played? That's more like how it works now, and wouldn't require more functionality than currently exists.
I do agree, though, hotkeys for any common functions are good.
I don't think that would quite work as you think you would. If they load a save, that point becomes a branch point, and you'd want a save at the *end* of their play time to preserve their progress through the branch.
What I'm suggesting is that, if a quick save is implemented, it can also be used to make additional saves along that branch.
Quote from: 4xC on October 19, 2012, 05:40:35 PM
The Starcraft series has saving hotkeys and hotkeys for almost EVERYTHING else, so this would help here.
And about some maps taking hours to beat, how can they be THAT big? It's just creeper emitters and 2 other varying units plus the simpliest (but still complex) strategy base management high-popularity games offer. Compared to some of the oldest strategy games I am familiar with, it's still pretty simple regardless of it's advances.
Remember Virgil has been developing an unreleased weapon the creeper has as it's disposal. This unreleased weapon should provide some complexity and uniqueness to Creeper World.
And have you seen some of those custom maps in CW2 It can have incredibly different aesthetics and such (take UpperKees's Pinball map that thing is crazy)
Quote from: Nemoricus on October 19, 2012, 08:50:29 PM
I don't think that would quite work as you think you would. If they load a save, that point becomes a branch point, and you'd want a save at the *end* of their play time to preserve their progress through the branch.
That's exactly what I mean . . . when you return to a save, autosave to preserve the branch that you're on without losing progress, and start a new branch from the save that you've loaded.
If what V's describing is implemented, multiple snapshots will be implemented. No matter what the case, there should definitely be hotkeys for saving a snapshot, and loading the snapshot/most recent snapshot.
Quote from: 4xC on October 19, 2012, 05:40:35 PMAnd about some maps taking hours to beat, how can they be THAT big? It's just creeper emitters and 2 other varying units plus the simpliest (but still complex) strategy base management high-popularity games offer. Compared to some of the oldest strategy games I am familiar with, it's still pretty simple regardless of it's advances.
Simplicity does not mean expedience. Even CW1 had maps that could be time consuming. CW3 has maps many, many, many, many times that size, with much much more room for longer slogs through horribly dense creeper.
Custom mappers can put together some experiences that can be very grueling, and lifting the map size restriction opens up the potential challenge to a whole new level.
To elaborate on the size issue, look at the bigger CW2 maps. The gameplay uses the same elements as a small map, but the size means that it still takes longer to complete, all else being equal.
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 19, 2012, 09:17:21 PM
Remember Virgil has been developing an unreleased weapon the creeper has as it's disposal. This unreleased weapon should provide some complexity and uniqueness to Creeper World.
And have you seen some of those custom maps in CW2 It can have incredibly different aesthetics and such (take UpperKees's Pinball map that thing is crazy)
Wait a minute; an UNRELEASED CREEPER WEAPON?! ??? :o When did THAT announcement come to light?!
Quote from: 4xC on October 20, 2012, 12:24:07 AMWait a minute; an UNRELEASED CREEPER WEAPON?! ??? :o When did THAT announcement come to light?!
V's mentioned in previous blog posts that there will be more to threaten you than we've seen so far.
Quote from: 4xC on October 20, 2012, 12:24:07 AM
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 19, 2012, 09:17:21 PM
Remember Virgil has been developing an unreleased weapon the creeper has as it's disposal. This unreleased weapon should provide some complexity and uniqueness to Creeper World.
And have you seen some of those custom maps in CW2 It can have incredibly different aesthetics and such (take UpperKees's Pinball map that thing is crazy)
Wait a minute; an UNRELEASED CREEPER WEAPON?! ??? :o When did THAT announcement come to light?!
http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/a-message-from-the-kc-development-bunker/ (http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/a-message-from-the-kc-development-bunker/)
Virgil said in the Game 3 stats bullets:
•And of course some sneaky new enemies that will yet again redefine the strategy genre....
Virgil made this post in May 2.
I know he could have removed this creeper weapon or is working on tweaking it now. But I'm pretty sure it will be incroperated
(I also doubt any beta testers can confirm or object to whether or not this creeper weapon will be released.)
(P.S. V might now even annonce this in the blog until the release so we'll probably have to keep our fingers crossed)
(Argh Another post as i'm posting)
I would have had no doubts there would be a new enemy if I remembered when and if the announcement was posted earlier. I still thought CW3 was missing something in terms of the enemy however. Now, I stand enlightened thanks to digitalis.
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 20, 2012, 08:41:50 AM
Quote from: 4xC on October 20, 2012, 12:24:07 AM
Quote from: Chawe800 on October 19, 2012, 09:17:21 PM
Remember Virgil has been developing an unreleased weapon the creeper has as it's disposal. This unreleased weapon should provide some complexity and uniqueness to Creeper World.
And have you seen some of those custom maps in CW2 It can have incredibly different aesthetics and such (take UpperKees's Pinball map that thing is crazy)
Wait a minute; an UNRELEASED CREEPER WEAPON?! ??? :o When did THAT announcement come to light?!
http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/a-message-from-the-kc-development-bunker/ (http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/a-message-from-the-kc-development-bunker/)
Virgil said in the Game 3 stats bullets:
•And of course some sneaky new enemies that will yet again redefine the strategy genre....
Virgil made this post in May 2.
I know he could have removed this creeper weapon or is working on tweaking it now. But I'm pretty sure it will be incroperated
(I also doubt any beta testers can confirm or object to whether or not this creeper weapon will be released.)
(P.S. V might now even annonce this in the blog until the release so we'll probably have to keep our fingers crossed)
(Argh Another post as i'm posting)
Yep, I can confirm it :D Although I guess anybody else can too....
Aaargh! There is a knot in my head!
Let me see, if I can get this straight.
Normally, isn't there only one global savegame that is overwritten everytime you leave a map?
Based on this, my suggestion:
When you complete a map, it stays completed. Thus, if you choose to replay a map, the global savegame is left untouched. You then can manually create snapshots for this map only. Indeed, you have to if you want to leave this replaying of the map, since the game will only keep the "map completed" state on a global level.
This, of course, only works if there won't be the creeper-retakes-conquered-worlds feature.
It's more complicated when dealing with not completed maps. But then, it is possible to keep it simple: When you load an older (global, since there are no others for uncompleted maps) savegame, the global auto-savegame is overwritten. So you have to store it by creating a manual savegame before loading an older one. At any one time, there will be only one auto-savegame that includes the state of all maps in progress or completed. That is one for each "galaxy" (set of maps on one star map).
Whenever you start/continue a map a snapshot is created. Thus at any time playing this map, you can return to the point you last left of, or restart the map completely. Since while you are on a map everything else remains unchanged, it is only the current state of the map when you leave it that is "returned" to the global savegame.
Wouldn't suffice to have manual savegames show the number of maps completed, a small image of the map being played (if one was) and a screenshot of the star map (both if you saved during a mission or on the star map).
By these limitations required disk space will mostly be determined by the player, i.e. how many manual global savegames or snapshots of completed maps they save and keep.
I am aware that all this rests on the assumption, that there won't be much global strategy beyond "I first have to solve that level, before I can solve this one" and the star map is little more than an elaborate level-selection screen.
Quote from: Ronini on November 09, 2012, 07:34:12 AM
Let me see, if I can get this straight.
Normally, isn't there only one global savegame that is overwritten everytime you leave a map?
CW3 currently has a savegame per map. Created automatically when you leave the map (planet). You can also create a snapshot per map.
Quote
Based on this, my suggestion:
When you complete a map, it stays completed. Thus, if you choose to replay a map, the global savegame is left untouched. You then can manually create snapshots for this map only. Indeed, you have to if you want to leave this replaying of the map, since the game will only keep the "map completed" state on a global level.
This, of course, only works if there won't be the creeper-retakes-conquered-worlds feature.
Given my first statement, regardless of when you visit the world, it is in the same (even post-victory) state. You can choose to restart it and revert the world to it's original state. You can also play the world for as long as you wish after achieving victory conditions.
Given the above, rethink the rest of your suggestions? :)
Quote from: Grauniad on November 09, 2012, 09:46:08 AM
CW3 currently has a savegame per map. Created automatically when you leave the map (planet). You can also create a snapshot per map.
I see. This simplifies matters quite a lot.
Quote from: Grauniad on November 09, 2012, 09:46:08 AM
Given the above, rethink the rest of your suggestions? :)
Then there should be only one auto-save slot per map that is overwritten everytime you leave map.
So if you want to go back to an older savegame you either lose your further developed game or store it by making a manual save/snapshot (I'm not entirely sure if these two are one and the same)
Regarding the organisational representation of these savegames I propose (or repeat, if this was proposed by someone before) something like this:
[savegame menu]
\savegames:
\map1
- autosave
- save 1 (saved after entering map1 via the star map)
- save 2 (same as save 1)
- save 3 (saved after loading save 2)
- save 4 (same as save 3)
- save 6 (saved after loading save 4)
- save 5 (same as save 3)
\map2
- autosave
- save 1
- save 2
- save 3
\map3
- autosave
- save 1
\...
As for managing savegames: I'd go the easy way and say that if you delete (e.g.) map1\save2 \save3-5 simply move up to the level of save1.
If there won't be a savegame menu as such (and I really like the following idea) everything could work via the star map. This might take just a bit longer if you want to load a particular game, but not excessively. If you want to play a particular map, you load up the relevant star map/sector/galaxy (if there's going to be more than one, i.e. for the main campaign, custom campaign, bonus maps, etc.). then you fly your ship to the particular map. Upon entering you get to choose between "continue" (loading the autsave) and "load savegame" (displaying the list under \map1 above). Simples.
Since all maps are independent from each other savegame-wise, I think it's reasonable, even paramount, to begin any savegame structuring by sorting them by the map they apply to. Utmost clarity, maximal freedom, reasonable storage consumption.
Plus a neat way to use the star map as game menu:
- Selecting game type by jumping to a different sector
- load games by accessing the planet on the map
- accessing game options, quitting the game, game stats and custom map management through clicking
your ship:
- engine room (options)
- escape pod (quit)
- something for stats (library?)
- cartography/navigation for map management).
- crew quarters (credits).
Phew. Now my head's buzzing. I'll post the menu thing in the interface request thread right away. Probably a better place to discuss this over there.
With that kind of saving style ofr CW3, what, if there will be one, will the quick-save hotkey do?
Quote from: 4xC on November 12, 2012, 08:36:14 AM
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.
Quote from: lurkily on October 19, 2012, 08:07:38 AMRecording 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.
Quote from: lurkily on November 12, 2012, 09:07:52 AM
Quote from: 4xC on November 12, 2012, 08:36:14 AM
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.
Quote from: lurkily on November 12, 2012, 09:07:52 AM
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.
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.
(http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/708/speicherbaum.jpg)
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Ronini on November 12, 2012, 07:06:06 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Ronini on November 13, 2012, 10:45:39 AMAny 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.
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?
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.
Quote from: Ronini on November 13, 2012, 11:26:09 AM
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.
QuoteTrying 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.
QuoteWhat 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.
Quote from: lurkily on November 13, 2012, 11:49:48 AM
QuoteTrying 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: 4xC on November 15, 2012, 08:22:54 AM
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.
Pretty sure giving the player a visual and uncomplicated UI is the whole point of this post.