In defense of save scumming...
Marsh
provokes some constructive discussion.
r.sh...@gmail.com
This is a non-issue. If you want to save scum in the privacy of your
own hard drive, of course that's your own business. Just don't claim
you're playing the game by the same rules.
google...@penman.org
I agree (as can be seen), but elsewhere there's an irrational feeling
that scumming is somehow inherently 'wrong'. Probably among certain
players who read that blog, rther than somewhere like here, admittedly.
Cuboidz
> I wrote a blog post in defense of scumming in RLs. I'm hoping it
> provokes some constructive discussion.
THOU SHALT NOT SCUM!
Save scumming, and scumming or grinding in general, is bad because it
leads to premature optimization. Roguelikes are fiendishly hard games
and consequently very vulnerable to abuse. Players will often try to
find a weakness that can be exploited, much like hackers trying to
penetrate a computer system.
Now, many of these weaknesses can be prevented by design - e.g. if the
shopkeeper knows what the items in his shop are, and prices them
accordingly, players will be able to price-scum - i.e. identify items
by their price. Since this exploit is a better way to identify items
than use-ID'ing (e.g. you don't waste any scrolls trying to identify
them), players will eventually default to price-ID'ing over use-
ID'ing.
Of course, this doesn't mean use-ID'ing is any less viable. But, as
I've suggested, players are prone to premature optimization - which is
only natural, IMHO. Yet, the designers can prevent this kind of
behaviour - e.g. by making items in shops already identified, or by
pricing items randomly.
However, in the case of save scumming, nothing can be done. This is
why save scumming is frowned upon - moral pressure is the only way to
battle save scumming. And it NEEDS to be battled: before you know it
everyone will be using this "neat" exploit - i.e. due to premature
optimization. And in the end, using exploits means playing the system,
not the game. And who would want that?
Granted, once a roguelike takes more than around 5 hours to complete,
permadeath becomes too much of a burden to carry - especially if other
forms of scumming were applied as well, and hours were spent
performing boring, repetitive exploits. This just goes to show that
scumming creates scumming: since scumming is unpleasant, players will
want to avoid scumming by even more scumming.
JUST SAY NO TO SCUMMING!
makkE
"The argument against goes something like this. Perma-death is
integral to the flavour of the game. It’s what makes the random nature
of the game so hard to overcome, since you can’t learn anything from
one play to the next."
Your first argument is already flawed. How do you not learn anything
from one play to the next? It's not like RLs are completely random.
And how would you learn more if you scummed?
If it weren't for the permanent death, I would have already gotten
bored with the genre. If everyone scummed, you'd just play through the
game and forget it. Like modern games...
Jeff Lait
It might be more helpful if you inlined your post as future readers of
the archives might not be able to get to your original screed and only
see our counter-rants...
First, and foremost, roguelikes are a form of solitaire. It is rather
meaningless to talk about "cheating" in solitaire - at worst, you are
just changing the rules part way through the game.
Second, I object strongly to the idea that whose with less time
somehow deserve shortcuts. I'm sorry, but no one needs to win a
roguelike. The goal of playing roguelikes is not to win them. It is
to have fun. The person with less time should thus definitely *not*
save-scum, as doing so will result in them wasting more time grinding
and less time having fun. If all they want to do is see the content,
I'd recommend they just read the spoilers and save lots of time
compared to any form of playing.
Next, I'm not sure anti-savescumming views are aimed at protecting
those who play "honestly". Those who play honestly can't really
imagine save scumming anyways, since it would be so much less fun. My
own opposition to save-scumming is based on the belief that save
scummers have completely missed the point of roguelikes. They are
treating it as a disposable RPG adventure which you "win" and then
throw away. A roguelike played this way is a frustrating, painful,
and unfulfilling game.
Interestingly, I'd be less inclined to frown on someone scumming a
dead character than someone scumming to ID their items. The former is
a moment of weakness, no doubt with their first character to get so
far, no doubt with some ultra painful YASD. The latter is exactly the
sort of horrible save/reload grind that kills enjoyment of a
roguelike. Save scumming, I will clarify, has nothing to do with
perma-death. Diablo II has no save scumming. You can't "undo" your
failed battle, or your choice of skill points, or the loss of gold
when you die.
The fun in roguelikes is the interesting choices you have to make,
often with imperfect information. These choices are no longer
interesting if you can "Try each and keep the one that is best". When
you add that possibility, the "right choice" is always to save scum.
Finally, as a designer, I'll state the game is designed very
explicitly not to be save scummed. This means that you can get
yourself into situations that it is impossible to get out of. There
is no real urgency to guard against those situations because the
player's death is supposed to result in an entirely new game,
hopefully one which the player won't get themselves into the same fix.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
David Ploog
> On Mar 3, 6:05 am, Marsh <googlegrou...@penman.org> wrote:
>> I wrote a blog post in defense of scumming in RLs. I'm hoping it
>> provokes some constructive discussion.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/bsxn3y
>
> It might be more helpful if you inlined your post as future readers of
> the archives might not be able to get to your original screed and only
> see our counter-rants...
Seconded.
> ... If all they want to do is see the content, I'd recommend they just
> read the spoilers and save lots of time compared to any form of playing.
This is so true! I will never bother to install or even play Dwarf
Fortress but I do derive fun from reading the dev blog and occasionally
stuff on their wiki.
> Next, I'm not sure anti-savescumming views are aimed at protecting
> those who play "honestly".
Well, they are once there is a competitive or social element (like public
high score tables or victory posts).
> Finally, as a designer, I'll state the game is designed very
> explicitly not to be save scummed.
This is also true. But I have seen with other genres how games can be
completely distorted and players had fun in some unexpected ways
(definitely not designed for). Think Railroad Tycoon with forming nice
track patterns :)
So this might apply to roguelikes, too. I would just add the disclaimer:
"With savescumming, you leave the designed fun area of this game. Proceed
at your own risk!"
The risk is real; I can imagine a game might be never fun (in the
designed meaning) again once you've accosted from the savescum chalice.
David
Lim-Dul
save-scummed, sometimes I haven't - for me both ways are fun. The former
to simply experience most of the things a given RL has to offer at least
once and the latter for the fun of the challenge and replayability - so
the actual way the game is meant to be played.
Truth be told I think that I almost always STARTED any game with a
character I save scummed till the bitter end, simply because I wanted to
learn quickly.
After I learned the game I never save scummed again and failed a lot,
which doesn't upset me in the least - failing is built into my
incredibly reckless playing style. ;-)
Also, I don't get attached to save-scummed characters. They are simply
"tools" of learning - the most "emotional" stories are always connected
with a completely legit character, even if he died. That's obvious,
because if you have to fear the dangers that lurk around every corner,
you feel a strong emotion - if you know that you can always reload a
game then the immersion is completely lost and immersion is what RLs are
all about (and the reason why I very often prefer ASCII over tilesets in
classic games - they fuel my imagination).
However, the choice e.g. in POWDER is pretty fair - you can officially
save scum but you won't have an entry on the high-score table. Very nice.
---------- TO JEFF ----------
Speaking about POWDER, Jeff, I want to mention an only slightly related
"problem":
I agree with your introduction of the anti-save scumming feature in
POWDER where you can't save scum by turning off your device (or the game
window).
However, I'd really love to see an option (only an option! Not something
that happens by default) for the PC/Mac ports that auto saves the game
when you close the window. I mean - I know that turning off your console
is not an event the game can "respond to" but I believe that closing a
window is.
The reason for this is the following:
As you know I'm recording the Let's Play POWDER video series (currently
at episode 24!) and I have to mind A LOT of things while playing: the
commentary, my timer, Hypercam 2, Winamp (for background music),
sometimes a webpage and then the POWDER window as well. After a
recording session it's proven quite hard for me to always remember to
dig through the options menu and choose the Svae & Quit option.
So far this has resulted in my having to save scum twice and worst of
all lose MANY recorded episodes. I usually record the episodes in
batches and the one time I simply closed the window (like all the other
windows - it's an automatic reflex of mine that I close all windows
after some "work" and am used to prompts if anything dangerous might
result from this). I had like 4 prerecorded episodes only to find out
that I'm suddenly back BEFORE the recordings and only left with the
option of save scumming...
Now, this is by no means tragic to my video series, since it's supposed
to be mostly "educational" but still pretty annoying. I wasn't going for
the high-score anyway, since I do that on my DS but it would have been
nice to have a completely legit character for a potential ascension (so
far I'm going strong), especially since it's the first time I'm actually
pretty successful with a Battlemage.
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
Lim-Dul
> The risk is real; I can imagine a game might be never fun (in the
> designed meaning) again once you've accosted from the savescum chalice.
>
> David
Might, could, would etc... You don't know that because you are you - not
somebody else who might have a completely different point of view.
I really don't know why people feel so strongly about save scumming. I
mean - they could feel strongly about it *personally* but shouldn't
extend their personal views to other people. It's almost as if save
scumming was heresy and some righteous RL players were on a religious
crusade against it.
Jeff Lait mentioned that games are about fun. So, if somebody feels that
save scumming is still fun to them, then why should you care? If they
ruin anybody's fun, then it's theirs. Like Jeff observed RLs are
solitaire games with the only form of player interaction coming from
questions about certain situations or YAVPs and YASDs - and I don't
think anybody would ever post a YAVP if he save scummed because these
are usually people that are not even part of the RL community.
One can't also argue that somebody is "playing the game against the
author's intent". Once the "product" is released it's out of the
author's hands and while he can explain in great detail what his
intentions were, anybody can use the program as he pleases (and deal
with the consequences) - the only place an argument like this might be
useful is in court, if somebody tried to sue the manufacturer of
microwaves after he/she put a dog in it (that indeed goes against the
intended usage).
The same is true for works of art - the author had something in mind
when he e.g painted something - some emotions, the desire to express
them or whatever - but neither he/she nor anybody else can really force
every single person to interpret his masterpiece in the same way.
This also in concordance with what David said - some people like to play
Railroad Tycoon "the proper" way, others see it as an opportunity to do
completely different stuff that they find enjoyable. Who hasn't built
absurd cities in SimCity just for the fun of it?
So - in my opinion it is completely irrelevant if you like save scumming
or not - I mean, it isn't irrelevant to you but shouldn't make anybody
else feel bad about themselves if they don't share this point of view,
especially since they're not doing any harm to anybody (but themselves).
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
Lim-Dul
> On 2009-03-03 16:00, David Ploog wrote:
>> The risk is real; I can imagine a game might be never fun (in the
>> designed meaning) again once you've accosted from the savescum chalice.
>>
>> David
>
> Might, could, would etc... You don't know that because you are you - not
> somebody else who might have a completely different point of view.
>
> I really don't know why people feel so strongly about save scumming. I
> mean - they could feel strongly about it *personally* but shouldn't
> extend their personal views to other people. It's almost as if save
> scumming was heresy and some righteous RL players were on a religious
> crusade against it.
Another post to clarify this passage:
What I mean is - whether you're for save scumming or against it doesn't
change the fact that you're only defending a personal opinion and a
thing that affects only the person in question, not an objective truth.
This immediately reminded me of the ongoing discussion about religion
where people hate somebody because he is an atheist or has a different
belief system... In (indisputable) reality this is completely irrelevant
as long as the person in question doesn't break the law, doesn't harm
anybody and/or behaves in a socially acceptable manner - it's a personal
thing, and so is save scumming. People will still kill in the name of
religion and you can't stop them like you can't stop certain zealots
dissing save scummers as if they were the devil. (Whoa - a heavy
comparison I drew here between religion and save scumming but to me the
parallels are hard to overlook. ;-)
To provide a counter-example: online cheats. When you e.g. use an aimbot
in an FPS you spoil the fun for all other players, so you're actually
harming others. Then the discussion whether you believe cheating is good
or bad is pointless, since your beliefs won't change the fact that
you're harming other people.
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
Jeff Lait
> Speaking about POWDER, Jeff, I want to mention an only slightly related
> "problem":
>
> I agree with your introduction of the anti-save scumming feature in
> POWDER where you can't save scum by turning off your device (or the game
> window).
>
> However, I'd really love to see an option (only an option! Not something
> that happens by default) for the PC/Mac ports that auto saves the game
> when you close the window. I mean - I know that turning off your console
> is not an event the game can "respond to" but I believe that closing a
> window is.
Auto saving when you quit the window is a very good point that is
already on my todo list. I'm not sure it should be an option, I think
it should just be what it does whenever possible. If the game is not
in a saveable state, it should at least popup a "Discard/Cancel?"
style popup.
Jeff Lait
> On 2009-03-03 16:00, David Ploog wrote:
>
> > The risk is real; I can imagine a game might be never fun (in the
> > designed meaning) again once you've accosted from the savescum chalice.
>
> somebody else who might have a completely different point of view.
You don't know that, but you should telegraph to the player that you
don't know that. This is why the author is justified in calling it
"save scumming" and making it clear that it is contrary to the
intended playstyle of the game.
> I really don't know why people feel so strongly about save scumming. I
> mean - they could feel strongly about it *personally* but shouldn't
> extend their personal views to other people. It's almost as if save
> scumming was heresy and some righteous RL players were on a religious
> crusade against it.
>
> Jeff Lait mentioned that games are about fun. So, if somebody feels that
> save scumming is still fun to them, then why should you care?
I care because someone might think that they *should* save scum and
then find the game isn't fun. If it isn't called "save scumming"
people would just save/reload in POWDER without thought. That is what
they have been trained to do by most modern games, after all! They
have been taught you need to learn where the monsters are on the level
by first dying, then rolling back time to better avoid them.
My choices as an author are somewhat limited. I can try and make it
physically impossible to save scum - put in checks and balances - but
these can always A) be defeated by a virtual machine and B) are unfair
to those who want to save scum (ie, power failure, or, as has been
pointed out, have found a fun way to play involving save scumming)
We see the same thing in most commercial games. Most games have
"cheat codes" - note that these are *called* cheat codes. This is to
make it clear that the player is cheating the intent of the game! It
is to make people feel a little guilty at using it, yes, but if *they*
have a pure intention, they will be able to side step that guilt just
fine.
> One can't also argue that somebody is "playing the game against the
> author's intent". Once the "product" is released it's out of the
> author's hands and while he can explain in great detail what his
> intentions were, anybody can use the program as he pleases (and deal
> with the consequences) - the only place an argument like this might be
> useful is in court, if somebody tried to sue the manufacturer of
> microwaves after he/she put a dog in it (that indeed goes against the
> intended usage).
>
> The same is true for works of art - the author had something in mind
> when he e.g painted something - some emotions, the desire to express
> them or whatever - but neither he/she nor anybody else can really force
> every single person to interpret his masterpiece in the same way.
On the other hand, the whole reason why you made that art was for it
to be interpreted in a certain way. Thus if people fail to interpret
it, your message is lost. It is all fine and good if people use my
novel as toilet paper - they've found a nice use for it, after all.
But the work I spent in creating it was then largely misdirected,
right?
This is why the author of the game has a right to tell people what the
"right" way to play it is. To be a game designer is to make this
decision. If you don't provide a "right" way you aren't making a
game, you are making a toy.
> So - in my opinion it is completely irrelevant if you like save scumming
> or not - I mean, it isn't irrelevant to you but shouldn't make anybody
> else feel bad about themselves if they don't share this point of view,
> especially since they're not doing any harm to anybody (but themselves).
I believe it is an important part of the roguelike community to have
an anti-save scumming "meme" to help teach and guide new users about
what the intended playstyle is.
It is not like people are coming to these games with a blank slate.
They already have a *very* strong "save and reload" meme infecting
their brains that will lead them to playing the game the wrong way.
While the wrong way may be very fun and all, as authors we owe it to
our own efforts to try and guide players to play it the right way.
This is also why I have built in save-scumming. If I didn't, people
would see it as just a deficiency/laziness of my save/load code and
work around it. By including it but also including obvious derogatory
language, they can be educated that, as David said, "This is no longer
the official game: do not blame me if it isn't fun anymore!"
Andreas Böhm
> after some "work" and am used to prompts if anything dangerous might
> result from this).
Just as long you have to wait for the next version, here's a small
autohotkey-script that would prevent accidental window closing:
--- permanent_powder.ahk ---
#SingleInstance Ignore
POWDER = POWDER ahk_class SDL_app
; Runs Powder but hides the console window
Run, Powder.exe,, Hide, PID
WinWait, %POWDER%
; Uncomment and enter x,y,w,h to move/resize, might be handy for video
capturing
; WinMove, %POWDER%,, 996, 763, 264, 221
; Uncomment for always on top, might be handy, too
; WinSet, AlwaysOnTop, On, %POWDER%
; Removes system menu
WinSet, Style, -0x80000, %POWDER%
WinWaitClose, %PID%
ExitApp
--- end of script ---
Precompiled binary: http://www.fileuploadx.de/355946
I use a variant of this script to start POWDER myself, having lost
some chars by closing the console. My original version does not hide
the system menu, but includes a boss-key ;-)
Greetings
Lim-Dul
wrote:
Dude! You're my hero! I wish I had something like that a dozen videos
ago. ;-)
I'll be using this modified app version for the next episodes of Let's
Play POWDER.
I'll give you a big shoutout in the next video I'll be recording
(which is NOT video 25 - it's actually video 30 ;-). The Always on Top
options and resize options are not really needed in my case (I can
control always on top behavior with VirtuaWin and Hypercam captures
the default size pretty well) but they might come in handy for other
people.
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
Lim-Dul
> You don't know that, but you should telegraph to the player that you
> don't know that. This is why the author is justified in calling it
> "save scumming" and making it clear that it is contrary to the
> intended playstyle of the game.
Agreed.
> I care because someone might think that they *should* save scum and
> then find the game isn't fun. If it isn't called "save scumming"
> people would just save/reload in POWDER without thought. That is what
> they have been trained to do by most modern games, after all! They
> have been taught you need to learn where the monsters are on the level
> by first dying, then rolling back time to better avoid them.
Well - I didn't see many players come crying that the given RL is crap
because they could save scum... I think the message is clear enough
that save scumming is not the way to go BUT I see no reason to
criticize people if they are still doing it - and that's what many RL
purists do. Things like that scare away newcomers rather than
encourage them to embrace the permanent death concept.
> On the other hand, the whole reason why you made that art was for it
> to be interpreted in a certain way. Thus if people fail to interpret
> it, your message is lost. It is all fine and good if people use my
> novel as toilet paper - they've found a nice use for it, after all.
> But the work I spent in creating it was then largely misdirected,
> right?
Oh, let's not start a discussion about the purpose of art - I only
illustrated the problem by analogy. In fact I had to write a major
essay about that in my literature class during my studies and the end
result was that the issue is far from settled and many philosophers
around the world have different approaches.
I for my part wouldn't agree with the claim that art is made for a
purpose at all, not even for a piece of art to be interpreted in a
certain way - that's why most artists never ever agree to answer very
typical questions like "What was your idea behind the given
painting?".
People who argue that a piece of art is e.g. immoral or harmful
because it has been interpreted by someone in a certain way don't
understand the very essence of art...
> This is why the author of the game has a right to tell people what the
> "right" way to play it is. To be a game designer is to make this
> decision. If you don't provide a "right" way you aren't making a
> game, you are making a toy.
Yeah, games have certain rules, however, I don't think you can really
criticize people if they modify the rules to their liking to increase
the fun factor for them personally. I'm a big board game fan and have
modified the rules of many games - some modifications were better,
some were worse. I don't think anybody would say that the author
should step in, crucifix in hand, and yell that I shouldn't modify the
rules of his precious creation - I bought it, it's mine, as long as I
don't make money out of my modifications I can use the game just as
well as a nice mantelpiece or a dartboard if that's what floats my
boat. ;-)
> I believe it is an important part of the roguelike community to have
> an anti-save scumming "meme" to help teach and guide new users about
> what the intended playstyle is.
>
> It is not like people are coming to these games with a blank slate.
> They already have a *very* strong "save and reload" meme infecting
> their brains that will lead them to playing the game the wrong way.
> While the wrong way may be very fun and all, as authors we owe it to
> our own efforts to try and guide players to play it the right way.
I don't think that there's ever a right or wrong way to play any given
game as long as you're having fun. You learn that by observing
children play many games in a way most adults don't understand. When
you stop having fun THEN you can think about the reason for it and
this might very well turn out to be the fact that you played the game
in an unintended (not "wrong") way.
Besides - I don't think the RL community has a "meme" going, it has a
certain ideology which was spawned by the "meme"/trend/design concept
and dissing people because of one's (or their) ideology is simply
wrong (now we can use the term "wrong"). Yes, there's e.g. a "trend"
of savestate loading in modern game design but it's not an ideology -
for that you need followers who fanatically criticize people who don't
agree with them.
BTW Using the terms "right" and "wrong" all the time in connection
with a game affirms even more that there's some ideological stuff
going on here since "right" and "wrong" connected with one's actions
are ethical judgments - playing a game doesn't, or better said,
shouldn't have anything to do with ethics - when it does, then we are
probably not playing a game anymore.
> This is also why I have built in save-scumming. If I didn't, people
> would see it as just a deficiency/laziness of my save/load code and
> work around it. By including it but also including obvious derogatory
> language, they can be educated that, as David said, "This is no longer
> the official game: do not blame me if it isn't fun anymore!"
Well - like I said - if there WERE people blaming you, the author, for
the fact that your game isn't fun while at the same time playing it
against your intent, THEN you could roll out this argument, but not
before - it's like with my "dog in a microwave" analogy. Yes, you
should make your intentions clear in-game and you did that with giving
the "reload" feature a negative connotation etc. but going beyond
that, e.g. criticizing people for choosing to save scum anyway, is
simply not helping anybody. I'm not saying that you do such things but
I have encountered many a flamewar over trivial things like that...
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
b0rsuk
> I really don't know why people feel so strongly about save scumming. I
> mean - they could feel strongly about it *personally* but shouldn't
> extend their personal views to other people. It's almost as if save
> scumming was heresy and some righteous RL players were on a religious
> crusade against it.
Save scumming has profound impact on gameplay. A game designed around
save scumming is played very diffently from a roguelike. I hate save
scumming in part because roguelikes and a funny little game named
Dominions 3 are one of last games which teach player to deal with
mistakes and learn from them. In many games, a single mistake usually
results in you having to start over. In roguelikes and Dominions,
there are many ways in which you can recover. Many players like to
share tales of their characters, or lucky/unlucky commanders in
Dominions 3. The fact that sometimes things simply go wrong increases
attachment.
In Baldur's Gate, a game designed around save scumming (I even
remember an interview with one of developers), many categories of
spells and abilities are nearly useless. Tell me how many times you
used stuff like divination spells (I can't remember the name),
invisibility for scouting, resurrection spell, curse removal. Even
using stealth for scouting is quite pointless because it only benefits
you the first time, and battles are intentionally made quite hard so
you have to reload a couple of times or so. The tactics listed above
are unpopular in BG and no wonder.
In contrast, in Crawl and other roguelikes, being able to detect
creatures, sneak around, cure bad mutations and other negative effects
is very valuable and just part of the game. In BG, you can just reload
any time anything truly bad happens to you. The evil of save scumming
only becomes apparent once you try games both with and without it.
Ability to save the game very easily effectively removes many tactics
from the game. Saveless games are just more rich gameplay-wise !
In Dominions3, there are many spells, magic items and tools which let
you deal with bad accidents such as crippled commanders. Most of
afflictions and never healing wounds can be cured. If a commander was
listed in hall of fame, you can revive him as an undead (Mummy, if I
remember correctly). Crystal Heart permanently weakens your commander
(it says replacing the heart is a 'crude surgery'), but lets him
survive otherwise mortal wounds. In a game with easily accessible
'load', player would just load the game and never use an item like
that. Your mages can polymorph themselves and - hopefully - end up as
a powerful form such as a dragon. Or just a wolf. Or some twisted,
crippled feeble-minded monster. Dominions3 has lots of luck-based
effects, and allowing for easy 'load game' would introduce insane
amount of grinding. Any action could be optimised by save-load until
you get the desired result. But you end up spending big chunk of your
time just doing the same actions over and over. Progress is slower
because you frequently reload.
I won't say save/load is bad in all games. Rather, it should be
considered on a case-by-case basis. In many games, particularly those
where death is common and content is static, having to replay large
identical sections of the game is just frustrating. This is why I
started to dislike ADOM. While it's a nice game in many ways, it's
terribly linear in certain aspects. You always visit places in very
similar order, do these quests in the same order (the fact that many
of them have time limit doesn't help). The end result is that each
death means you have to replay through largely static sections.
Games like Crawl and Dominions are _heavily_ randomised. I enjoy
replaying early portions of Crawl, because - unlike in ADOM - they
differ so much from game to game. And early Crawl - before Lair - is
also before the grind mode starts. You have to consider your actions
carefully.
b0rsuk
> Jeff Lait mentioned that games are about fun. So, if somebody feels that
> save scumming is still fun to them, then why should you care?
"Leave feature X, players don't have to use it so everything is ok" is
a fallacy. In the world of open-source games, players are not only
players, not only game's community, but they _are_ the game.
Eventually they're going to give feedback, submit patches, write
forks, request features. They start to participate in the creation
process of the game. The game absorbs features from its players. If
you make a game which encourages grinding, it will not only attract
grinding players. It will form a grinding community around it, attract
grinding contributors and developers. The game becomes spoiled for
other players. I believe open-source games shouldn't be exempt from
quality control and critique. You shouldn't just keep adding features
because someone somewhere thought it was a funny idea.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Less_is_more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_theory
> One can't also argue that somebody is "playing the game against the
> author's intent". Once the "product" is released it's out of the
> author's hands
If you perceive games as disposable products - I suppose you may be
right. Open source games, and open source software in general is
better classified as a form of science. They evolve and are extended.
In many games, some features/abilities/units/powers are badly
balanced, to the point using X over Y is a no-brainer, especially in
more competitive communities. In some cases adding more features
effectively _removes_ others. Adding such a feature is not extending
gameplay - it's limiting it.
There are examples of games which were fun despite some great balance
issues, where it enabled some unforeseen new gameplay. But this
generally comes at a cost. Think about weapons in multiplayer Quake 2.
People are thrilled by rocket launcher, rocket launcher, railgun,
chaingun. Sometimes grenade launcher. Other weapons, like
handgrenades, blaster, shotgun, machinegun, hyperblaster are pretty
much DEAD CODE. Well not dead code in strict programming sense - code
that never gets executed - but in metagame, gameplay sense -
deffinitely yes. There's pretty much a consensus that quad damage and
BFG are detrimental to the gameplay because they limit other choices.
That's why many servers disable them, and they're outright banned in
99% of tournaments and duels.
Tell you what, I had a lot of fun playing with arbitrary rules like
"We use no RL, RG, CG". You discover a completely different game
beneath the surface. You learn to use regular shotgun, machinegun,
grenade launcher, hyperblaster. A handgrenade is a very potent weapon
in skilled hands because it can be bounced of obstacles and made
explode in the air the very moment you want it. It can still be used
with the big weapons around, but it's much rarer to do something funny
with it.
If players can police their community and come up with sets of
completely arbitrary rules like "no quad, no bfg" resulting in richer
gameplay... why do you deny that to the game's designer(s) ?
> The same is true for works of art - the author had something in mind
> when he e.g painted something - some emotions, the desire to express
> them or whatever - but neither he/she nor anybody else can really force
> every single person to interpret his masterpiece in the same way.
Most of art is immutable once released. This comes as no surprise. Art
has large roots in tradition (it's very subjective and conventional).
Most forms of art come from times from before the internet and
computers, which means it costs money to reproduce it. With advent of
digital tools, however, this is changing. Art gets easier to copy and
modify. New forms of art spring up and raise to prominence. People are
making mashups, more and more derivative works (internet makes it
easier than ever), remixes (music), or just plain get inspiration from
others. Hell, even memes can be considered art and they frequently
evolve beyond the original author's specification. CAN I HAS A
CHEESEBURGER ?
> especially since they're not doing any harm to anybody (but themselves).
This is false - see above. They spoil games. This is even more true
for community-centric games (e.g. most of multiplayer games). A
multiplayer game is like the community it attracts. I stopped playing
Wolfenstein:Enemy Territory. While initially it was a great game,
eventually most of players left care only about K/D (kills/deaths),
kick you out for completing objectives... even run modified versions
of maps which have objectives removed (but often look identical at the
first glance. You join a server, play for a while only to find out
some time later that you've been wasting your time because winning the
match was never possible)
b0rsuk
Jeff Lait
> On Mar 3, 5:35 pm, Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I care because someone might think that they *should* save scum and
> > then find the game isn't fun. If it isn't called "save scumming"
> > people would just save/reload in POWDER without thought. That is what
> > they have been trained to do by most modern games, after all! They
> > have been taught you need to learn where the monsters are on the level
> > by first dying, then rolling back time to better avoid them.
>
> Well - I didn't see many players come crying that the given RL is crap
> because they could save scum... I think the message is clear enough
> that save scumming is not the way to go BUT I see no reason to
> criticize people if they are still doing it - and that's what many RL
> purists do. Things like that scare away newcomers rather than
> encourage them to embrace the permanent death concept.
But what if the message is clear because people are criticized for
doing it? If we didn't criticize save scumming, I don't think it
would occur to new users to ever not savescum.
> > On the other hand, the whole reason why you made that art was for it
> > to be interpreted in a certain way. Thus if people fail to interpret
> > it, your message is lost. It is all fine and good if people use my
> > novel as toilet paper - they've found a nice use for it, after all.
> > But the work I spent in creating it was then largely misdirected,
> > right?
>
> Oh, let's not start a discussion about the purpose of art - I only
> illustrated the problem by analogy. In fact I had to write a major
> essay about that in my literature class during my studies and the end
> result was that the issue is far from settled and many philosophers
> around the world have different approaches.
Well, game design is art, so when we talk of the purpose of game
design, we talk of the purpose of art :>
> I for my part wouldn't agree with the claim that art is made for a
> purpose at all, not even for a piece of art to be interpreted in a
> certain way - that's why most artists never ever agree to answer very
> typical questions like "What was your idea behind the given
> painting?".
I think that speaks of the sad state of the current art movement. I
had an interesting discussion at IndieCade about this. I was
frustrated that my video game Fatherhood was not interpreted beyond "a
puzzle game" by players. The Catch-22 of serious games is that if the
game part is too obvious players won't look for a message, counter
intuitively, if the game is obviously simplistic, players will assume
there has to be another layer and look in. IIRC, it was Jason Rohrer
pointed out to me that art (and by this I mean real art) requires aid
from an academic elite to be properly interpreted by normal people
like myself. I can look at the painting and enjoy its play of
colours, but if I read up on the symbolism, imagery, etc, I can see a
lot more in it.
> People who argue that a piece of art is e.g. immoral or harmful
> because it has been interpreted by someone in a certain way don't
> understand the very essence of art...
Agreed. However, I contend that if the *intended* interpretation
makes it immoral/harmful, the artist has some 'splaining to do. Not
all art should be made. The world is full of ugliness. Why should I
paint more of it? I'm not in favour of censorship, but I do think
artists must take responsibility for their work.
This is especially true in video games. We should not be *trying* to
waste people's time. We should ensure that when players stop having
fun, they can quit the game and get on with their lives.
> > This is why the author of the game has a right to tell people what the
> > "right" way to play it is. To be a game designer is to make this
> > decision. If you don't provide a "right" way you aren't making a
> > game, you are making a toy.
>
> Yeah, games have certain rules, however, I don't think you can really
> criticize people if they modify the rules to their liking to increase
> the fun factor for them personally.
Agreed. However, I can, and will, say that they are then playing the
original game the wrong way.
> I'm a big board game fan and have
> modified the rules of many games - some modifications were better,
> some were worse. I don't think anybody would say that the author
> should step in, crucifix in hand, and yell that I shouldn't modify the
> rules of his precious creation - I bought it, it's mine, as long as I
> don't make money out of my modifications I can use the game just as
> well as a nice mantelpiece or a dartboard if that's what floats my
> boat. ;-)
One of the deficiencies of modern game design tools is that you can't
do this easily inside modern games. You should be able to change the
rules as you play. The idea that a video game designer should start
with a pen & paper mockup of the proposed game mechanics just tells us
how horribly straight-jacketed our game code is...
> I don't think that there's ever a right or wrong way to play any given
> game as long as you're having fun. You learn that by observing
> children play many games in a way most adults don't understand. When
> you stop having fun THEN you can think about the reason for it and
> this might very well turn out to be the fact that you played the game
> in an unintended (not "wrong") way.
There are right and wrong ways to play games. The ability to play a
game "wrong" is almost what defines a game!
Given the same tools, we might play different games. A soccer ball is
not restricted to the soccer game, nor is a roguelike .exe restricted
to the author's roguelike game. When I play monopoly, there's $500
sitting in the center for Free Parking. I am, however, still playing
my modified Monopoly the "right" way as per its modified rules. If a
player starts stealing from the bank, I'd be quite correct of stating
that they are playing the wrong way.
Playing a game the "wrong" way isn't an ethical lapse. As you rightly
point out, that would require some harm, and in this case it is the
harm that makes it unethical, not the violation of the game's rules.
(If we want to get pedantic, we state that when all the players agree
to break the given rules, the players are now playing the new game the
"right" way. However, the players themselves might happily state that
they are playing Monopoly "the wrong way" to clarify their intentional
step away from the official ruleset)
> Besides - I don't think the RL community has a "meme" going, it has a
> certain ideology which was spawned by the "meme"/trend/design concept
> and dissing people because of one's (or their) ideology is simply
> wrong (now we can use the term "wrong"). Yes, there's e.g. a "trend"
> of savestate loading in modern game design but it's not an ideology -
> for that you need followers who fanatically criticize people who don't
> agree with them.
I'm misusing a very weak form of ideology, ie, a default belief
structure that lies unquestioned by the practitioners. It is not a
"trend" of savestate loading. It is *what* players are conditioned to
do. They don't think about it, they just do it. I could likely even
build evidence of this being a stronger form of ideology - there are
no few that fanatically criticize any game that doesn't let you save/
reload. Heck, Diablo II received a heck of a lot of flack over this,
IIRC.
> BTW Using the terms "right" and "wrong" all the time in connection
> with a game affirms even more that there's some ideological stuff
> going on here since "right" and "wrong" connected with one's actions
> are ethical judgments - playing a game doesn't, or better said,
> shouldn't have anything to do with ethics - when it does, then we are
> probably not playing a game anymore.
"right" and "wrong" do not necessarily, IMHO, have any ethical
implication. If I want to unscrew a light bulb, there is a right
direction to turn the light bulb and a wrong direction. I would never
claim that there was any moral reason why one must do it the "right"
way. There is merely practical, pragmatic, reasons why the "right" is
preferred over the "wrong".
Just because right and wrong *can* imply an ethical, moral, statement
doesn't mean that it must. I don't want to have to get all pedantic
and say "correct" vs "incorrect" or "intended by author" vs "not
intended by author" because those are both longer and also miss the
point. (For example, many ways of playing POWDER are not directly
intended by me, but if I learn of them I usually find that they fit
within the "right" gameplay, ie, they are what I would have intended
had I thought of that circumstance...)
> > This is also why I have built in save-scumming. If I didn't, people
> > would see it as just a deficiency/laziness of my save/load code and
> > work around it. By including it but also including obvious derogatory
> > language, they can be educated that, as David said, "This is no longer
> > the official game: do not blame me if it isn't fun anymore!"
>
> Well - like I said - if there WERE people blaming you, the author, for
> the fact that your game isn't fun while at the same time playing it
> against your intent, THEN you could roll out this argument, but not
> before - it's like with my "dog in a microwave" analogy. Yes, you
> should make your intentions clear in-game and you did that with giving
> the "reload" feature a negative connotation etc. but going beyond
> that, e.g. criticizing people for choosing to save scum anyway, is
> simply not helping anybody.
But aren't I already criticizing people by giving the feature a
negative connotation?
If I do not make my intent clear, I cannot expect anyone to play the
way it is "intended". If I make my intent clear, I am dictating a
right way and a wrong way of playing, thereby implicitly criticizing
those who chose to go against my intent...
> I'm not saying that you do such things but
> I have encountered many a flamewar over trivial things like that...
People have flamewars over many a trivial thing.
Lim-Dul
> Save scumming has profound impact on gameplay.
Yes - my question is: so what? It's YOU that's playing the game - no one
else. You shouldn't care or tell other people what to do in their
private space.
> You shouldn't just keep adding features
> because someone somewhere thought it was a funny idea.
This discussion isn't about adding features, developing games or even
the open source development process - it's about what certain people
CHOOSE to do all by themselves and without imposing their will onto
others (which is pretty much the opposite of what you're trying to do)
and whether they should be criticized for doing so.
> This is false - see above. They spoil games. This is even more true
> for community-centric games (e.g. most of multiplayer games). A
> multiplayer game is like the community it attracts. I stopped playing
> Wolfenstein:Enemy Territory. While initially it was a great game,
> eventually most of players left care only about K/D (kills/deaths),
> kick you out for completing objectives... even run modified versions
> of maps which have objectives removed (but often look identical at the
> first glance. You join a server, play for a while only to find out
> some time later that you've been wasting your time because winning the
> match was never possible)
>
> b0rsuk
I'm not going to refute all your arguments because I don't think
discussions are really about convincing people if they have a different
point of view in the first place. Rather, I regard discussions as a
place to present your opinion so that the yet undecided might weigh all
the pros and cons.
Anyway - the last part struck me since you are saying that playing games
for YOUR personal fun, the way YOU like it is ethically wrong (it spoils
them). I can't even argue with that since it almost sounds like a
religious belief.
Also - providing the example of a multiplayer game, which I also
provided (see my saying how cheating can't be advocated in multiplayer
games) is absolutely beside the point.
I'm not claiming the save scumming is the way to go, nor that it should
be encouraged. I'm just saying that in the case of roguelikes it's a
personal choice that you absolutely shouldn't care about - whether it's
by built-in feature or by circumventing the game's code. I'm not saying
anything about developing games, adding/requesting features or whatever
- I'm only saying that it's completely IRRELEVANT how each and every one
of us plays the given game within its boundaries.
It's just like dancing around your house naked, covered in peanut butter
- I don't care if it floats someone's boat as long as he doesn't do it
publicly, force anybody else to do it etc.
What I am actually "preaching" against is treating save scummers
publicly (e.g. on forums, newsgroups) as if they were inferior beings
and forcing your own view point down their throats.
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
P.S. You don't need to specifically "educate" me about various design
decisions in many games - I'm a former video game industry professional
(video game journalist). ;-)
David Ploog
> On 2009-03-03 20:18, b0rsuk wrote:
>> Save scumming has profound impact on gameplay.
>
> Yes - my question is: so what? It's YOU that's playing the game - no one
> else. You shouldn't care or tell other people what to do in their private
> space.
I am not sure if you are deliberately stubborn. Let me give an analogy. I
am a chemistry teacher and we're treating toluenes in class. One
application is explosive. Interesting science. Should I mention that there
are right and wrong ways to use that? Sure I should.
I am also designer for a roguelike. There are quite a few players out
there having fun with it. Some play obsessively. Should I go and tell them
that the proper way to play is with sudden death? Sure I should.
If they don't listen, it is their deliberate choice. And if they still
derive fun out of that, fine by me. But I have fulfilled my responsibility
as a designer and told them about the proper way to play the game.
I do not care at all if someone follows the rules or not. But I do care if
everyone has easy access to the directions of use. The most important rule
is Do Not Savescum! As Jeff pointed out, this rule is important as it is
because the opposite rule is accepted in the majority of today's gaming
landscape.
By the way, my original post on the topic was quite humble or so I felt. I
wondered when you added up the pressure.
> I'm not claiming the save scumming is the way to go, nor that it should be
> encouraged. I'm just saying that in the case of roguelikes it's a personal
> choice that you absolutely shouldn't care about - whether it's by built-in
> feature or by circumventing the game's code. I'm not saying anything about
> developing games, adding/requesting features or whatever - I'm only saying
> that it's completely IRRELEVANT how each and every one of us plays the given
> game within its boundaries.
Yes, private actions do not matter. Public 'discussions' like the one you
incited _do_ matter, however. If worst comes to worst, they could change
the way roguelikes are perceived. Since most of us believe that
no-reloading is an integral part of rogueliking, we are denying you that.
David
Lim-Dul
> But what if the message is clear because people are criticized for
> doing it? If we didn't criticize save scumming, I don't think it
> would occur to new users to ever not savescum.
You can establish rules in your game - you can't criticize people for
going beyond your design principle if that's the way they like. If you
do that, then you basically communicate that having fun with (not
"in") your game is wrong or that there's only one proper way of having
"fun". Since fun is such a personal concept all you will achieve by
that is alienate players.
> Agreed. However, I can, and will, say that they are then playing the
> original game the wrong way.
Maybe they didn't like the original game? Then the author should still
be happy that somebody made the best out of his creation instead of
criticizing players for playing his game "wrongly".
> There are right and wrong ways to play games. The ability to play a
> game "wrong" is almost what defines a game!
>
> Given the same tools, we might play different games. A soccer ball is
> not restricted to the soccer game, nor is a roguelike .exe restricted
> to the author's roguelike game. When I play monopoly, there's $500
> sitting in the center for Free Parking. I am, however, still playing
> my modified Monopoly the "right" way as per its modified rules. If a
> player starts stealing from the bank, I'd be quite correct of stating
> that they are playing the wrong way.
No - they are playing it in a way that's fun for them. Sure, it might
not be Monopoly anymore but why would you criticize them for that? The
players created a fun little world for themselves using a game as a
basis for that.
> Playing a game the "wrong" way isn't an ethical lapse. As you rightly
> point out, that would require some harm, and in this case it is the
> harm that makes it unethical, not the violation of the game's rules.
> (If we want to get pedantic, we state that when all the players agree
> to break the given rules, the players are now playing the new game the
> "right" way. However, the players themselves might happily state that
> they are playing Monopoly "the wrong way" to clarify their intentional
> step away from the official ruleset)
This is going deeply into semantics. =)
The point is not in playing something the right or wrong way, the
point is whether you should be criticized for finding a way to enjoy
yourself. When I was little I used screwdrivers and pretended them to
be spaceships. Imagine one of my parents came into the room, took the
screwdrivers out of my hands and told me that I'm "using them the
wrong way" and gave me a "proper" toy spaceship because "that's the
way you're meant to have fun". Wouldn't that have been absurd? And it
would have ruined my childhood too.
> But aren't I already criticizing people by giving the feature a
> negative connotation?
>
> If I do not make my intent clear, I cannot expect anyone to play the
> way it is "intended". If I make my intent clear, I am dictating a
> right way and a wrong way of playing, thereby implicitly criticizing
> those who chose to go against my intent...
No - you're basically establishing the game rules BUT if people still
decide to break them, then so be it. You may alter your game design to
forcefully prevent them from doing so (and most likely lose players
that way) or find another solution - never ever should you criticize
people for doing something that is possible within the framework you
provided them with because it's basically your design fault, not
theirs.
As long as a player is hooked onto your game - whether by following
the rules or breaking them - you have, in some way, succeeded as a
developer. Any time a player picks up a game and drops it, you have
failed.
After providing players with a game you don't criticize them, you
don't try to force them to play the game "the right way" - you observe
them. Read some interviews with Valve employees, especially on the
design of Portal. When you see that people are playing your game in an
unintended way then you have to question YOURSELF why they're doing it
- not criticize them. Perhaps by altering your design you can gently
lead them onto the right path. Alternatively you might simply modify
your game to make certain things impossible (you mentioned that you
could do that - the question is whether it wouldn't only make you or
RL purists feel better while alienating lots of regular players).
If you start publicly arguing with players about your game then you
end up like Derek Smart or more recently Luc Bernard of Eternity's
Child (dubious) fame.
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
Lim-Dul
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Lim-Dul wrote:
> > On 2009-03-03 20:18, b0rsuk wrote:
> >> Save scumming has profound impact on gameplay.
>
> > Yes - my question is: so what? It's YOU that's playing the game - no one
> > else. You shouldn't care or tell other people what to do in their private
> > space.
>
> I am not sure if you are deliberately stubborn. Let me give an analogy. I
> am a chemistry teacher and we're treating toluenes in class. One
> application is explosive. Interesting science. Should I mention that there
> are right and wrong ways to use that? Sure I should.
Oh, c'mon - save scumming is not DANGEROUS to anything or anybody,
that's the main point.
> I am also designer for a roguelike. There are quite a few players out
> there having fun with it. Some play obsessively. Should I go and tell them
> that the proper way to play is with sudden death? Sure I should.
> If they don't listen, it is their deliberate choice. And if they still
> derive fun out of that, fine by me. But I have fulfilled my responsibility
> as a designer and told them about the proper way to play the game.
>
> I do not care at all if someone follows the rules or not. But I do care if
> everyone has easy access to the directions of use. The most important rule
> is Do Not Savescum! As Jeff pointed out, this rule is important as it is
> because the opposite rule is accepted in the majority of today's gaming
> landscape.
Hey, but you're basically saying the same thing I do. ;-)
I'm not against the single death rule and don't want to revolutionize
the RL genre - I'm not against explaining a game's rules either. I'm
just saying that if a player finds a way to save scum you either fix
that by making it impossible, or embrace it, if it makes your game
more popular. Keeping a window open for save scummers and THEN
criticizing them is actually admitting the weakness of your own
design. It's hypocrisy!
> Yes, private actions do not matter.
Not if they don't affect the outside world and save scumming is
precisely that - it happens on one player's PC/DS/whatever and has no
consequences whatsoever.
IF it changes the way RLs are perceived, then it must mean that the
given concept is appealing to the majority of people and then you have
to ask yourself whether you are designing games for yourself and a
handful of aficionados or for the general public.
> Since most of us believe that
> no-reloading is an integral part of rogueliking, we are denying you that.
"Most of you" is ironically a very small percentage of the general
player/developer base. Now - one can't help but wonder if this
approach is the reason why it's so hard to draw new people into the
genre. I'm all for sticking to one's principles but one shouldn't be
too fanatical about them. Genres evolve. Usually through survival of
the fittest.
If you want to design a RL that will be played by a very limited
number of people, then so be it. I refuse to believe that everything
is "set in stone" in the RL genre - I'm even pretty sure that it would
be possible to design a very good RL centered around the concept of
save/loading but you no one would ever be able to figure out the
proper way of doing it if they're stuck with very rigid design
principles. Thinking outside the box is my motto and the reason why,
while being a video game journalist, I enjoyed indie games more than
most mainstream titles.
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
David Ploog
> On Mar 3, 9:45 pm, David Ploog <pl...@mi.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> I do not care at all if someone follows the rules or not. But I do care if
>> everyone has easy access to the directions of use. The most important rule
>> is Do Not Savescum!
>
> Hey, but you're basically saying the same thing I do. ;-)
> I'm not against the single death rule and don't want to revolutionize
> the RL genre - I'm not against explaining a game's rules either. I'm
> just saying that if a player finds a way to save scum you either fix
> that by making it impossible, or embrace it, if it makes your game
> more popular.
No, the last dichotomy is not valid. We don't bother to take anti-saving
steps because I believe the game works much better without it anyway.
However, this fact does not mean that I embrace savescumming players. If I
meet them, I explain how they would play better without scumming.
Actually, I believe that Crawl is popular because it is hard. And I am
certain it would be less popular with a save-game feature built in.
If you think otherwise, you can release a modified version. It is open
source.
> Keeping a window open for save scummers and THEN criticizing them is
> actually admitting the weakness of your own design. It's hypocrisy!
This is so farfetched. Staying with Jeff's scatological novel user: would
you print "Do Not Use As Toilet Paper" on the back of your book? No. So
publishers are leaving open a window for customers buying books only for
wash room use. ("Today I got the new Crichton -- such a smooth wipe!")
Would you still criticise someone going into rec.literature.discussion
(just made up) and telling about the toilet bowel advantages and drawbacks
of novels vs cooking books? Yes.
And that is not hypocrisy. While the private use remains unknown and hence
causes no harm (higher sales, actually), going out and telling about it
upsets the writer and probably quite a few other customers who choose to
read their books. You would thus violate a rule the majority of readers
adhere to.
>> Since most of us believe that
>> no-reloading is an integral part of rogueliking, we are denying you that.
>
> "Most of you" is ironically a very small percentage of the general
> player/developer base.
How do you know this? I have talked to fellow developers and to players.
All of the RL developers and the vast majority of players see the point of
save-less games. It is true that among all computer games, this rule is
the exception (by now). So be it -- we are using this rule for a purpose.
Note that no-one (player or developer) will object to a roguelike designed
around save/reload. The point is that the default in the genre is
no-saves.
> Now - one can't help but wonder if this approach is the reason why it's
> so hard to draw new people into the genre.
I don't wonder. Roguelikes are archaic in their presentation, even more so
in their fixation on single player mode. Despite this, they have a growing
following which, by my experience, comes for content and challenge -- the
latter being intimately related to, d'oh, no-savescumming. You can see it
the other way around: in a world full of games, the unique selling point
of roguelikes is that death is real.
> I'm all for sticking to one's principles but one shouldn't be
> too fanatical about them. Genres evolve. Usually through survival of
> the fittest.
Exactly. Go ahead and present modified versions of Nethack and Angband,
with new Reload features.
However, I think that all arguments have been exchanged, so I call it a
day. Time to try the new Grisham.
David
Lim-Dul
> However, I think that all arguments have been exchanged, so I call it a
> day. Time to try the new Grisham.
>
> David
Yeah - I too have nothing more to say then to painstakingly construct
counter-counter-arguments to your counter-arguments which is pretty
much besides the point since it's bordering on nitpicking and like I
said I regard discussions as directed at the undecided, who won't care
about such details anyway. ;-)
Just to clear up a misunderstanding:
> How do you know this? I have talked to fellow developers and to players.
I meant the video game industry in general - and over there my data is
pretty solid, having access to press releases, conferences, exclusive
interviews and such...
Ah, and to correct a factual error, because I actually do have access
to some data on that:
> Despite this, they [RLs] have a growing
> following
They have a growing following because the video game industry is
growing BUT in terms of market share they actually don't do very well.
However, the genre does slowly evolve and the trend seems to be to
design slightly simpler and shorter RLs - if you target the mobile
device market then you're even better off. Take POWDER as an example.
^^
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
P.S. Don't challenge me to modify games - I'm not a video game
developer - this isn't a fair argument and you know it.
mareike.v...@gmail.com
save scumming is not a semi-artistic means of expressing your
individuality through roguelikes. Likewise, the average save scummer
is not a creative spirit playfully crossing boundaries. On the
contrary, resorting to save scumming is often an act of utter
frustration - a desperate cry for help. That's why we must teach
roguelike newbies the right way to play, so they can be born again. Do
you not see, Lim-Dul? :-)
On 3 mrt, 22:04, Lim-Dul <lim_d...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
> "Most of you" is ironically a very small percentage of the general
> player/developer base. Now - one can't help but wonder if this
> approach is the reason why it's so hard to draw new people into the
> genre. I'm all for sticking to one's principles but one shouldn't be
> too fanatical about them. Genres evolve. Usually through survival of
> the fittest.
Ironically, "survival of the fittest" is not a popular video game
design principle these days. Skill and Winning seem to have been
decoupled, in an effort to make video games appeal to the masses. So
now everybody wants a piece of the Winning, since Skill is no longer
required. Do they not see that Fun is in the Skill, and not in the
Winning? Do they not see that Winning is merely a byproduct of Skill?
Cuboidz
in. :-)
google...@penman.org
> why save scumming is frowned upon - moral pressure is the only way to
> battle save scumming. And it NEEDS to be battled: before you know it
> everyone will be using this "neat" exploit - i.e. due to premature
I can see the argument about premature optimisation, which could spoil
the game or create undo pressures on developers. Which is why I say
'no spoilers, no VPs'. So llong as the player keeps themself to
themself the only side effect I can see is they may bore more quickly
(though as I also argued, some players may keep interested for longer).
google...@penman.org
By getting further and experiencing more creatures, weapons, items.
> If it weren't for the permanent death, I would have already gotten
>bored with the genre.
But that's not true of everyone. I'm just arguing we shouldn't assume
everyone gets interested in games for the same reasons we do.
>If everyone scummed, you'd just play through the
>game and forget it. Like modern games...
Again, you might, most people might, but I feel some would have their
interest kept longer. So long as they don't spoil anything for anyone
else, I think that's okay.
google...@penman.org
lots of definitive statements about what's fun, or more fun, or less
fun, or what's satisfying and I have no doubt at all you're right -
for you. My point is that individual players know what fun for them
and, if it harms nobody, should be left to it.
To argue that something else would be more fun, 'if only they'd do it
this way' kind of says that they don't know best what they enjoy most.
Your points as a designer are also interesting. If someone keeps their
spoilers and VPs to themself, are they harming your design? And if
they get themself into an unwinnable - isn't that also part of the
scumming experience they can choose to risk, or not?
google...@penman.org
> "With savescumming, you leave the designed fun area of this game. Proceed
> at your own risk!"
Exactly!
> The risk is real; I can imagine a game might be never fun (in the
> designed meaning) again once you've accosted from the savescum chalice.
>
I'm not so sure, my experience and that of Lim-Dul (down thread) seem
to suggest otherwise. For some players.
google...@penman.org
> required. Do they not see that Fun is in the Skill, and not in the
> Winning? Do they not see that Winning is merely a byproduct of Skill?
Interesting. I'm not keen on games of skill (in video games); I want
an interactive story. Similarly, I like puzzleless, story-fed IF. Is
this a trend among save scummers?
google...@penman.org
In Defense of Roguelike Save Scumming
Save scumming is frowned upon by players in the main RL community.
It’s seen as cheating and we’ve even applied that homonym ’scumming’
to describe both skimming off the files and ‘being scum’. Having just
given myself permission to do it, and enjoying it, I want to defend
the practice and point out that there are different levels of
scumming. Readers who are not RL players won’t find any clever
analogies to my other pet fields [1], so might want to skip this.
First let me define my terms. Save scumming is the copying of backup
files allowing the player of a roguelike game to ignore the no-second-
chances nature of the genre. Effectively you get a save and restore
option.
The argument against goes something like this. Perma-death is integral
to the flavour of the game. It’s what makes the random nature of the
game so hard to overcome, since you can’t learn anything from one play
to the next. It’s also what makes the ultimate victory post on
rec.games.roguelike.[game] so sweet. Save scumming detracts from the
genuine hundreds of hours of play by those who complete the game
‘honestly’.
Some of those points aren’t arguable. But in some circumstances I
defend scumming anyway.
Some people with busy lives and pressures on their time from family,
study and work just don’t have the tens or hundreds of hours it takes
to identify the game’s items, master its systems and finally get a
character to victory. Carers and those with disabilities, for
example, might never have that time. And faced with a death near
victory, anyone might be tempted to reach for a backup, if they have
one.
Scumming has different levels, too. Scumming a dead character seems
universally frowned upon, but what about scumming a single Identify
Scroll in order to inscribe all currently ‘unknown’ items? And what if
even that’s only done to allow the player an accelerated learning
curve, preparing for that all important ‘clean’ run one day in the
future, with a victory post at the end? In those circumstances, to
argue that the slow learning curve is integral to the game is to argue
that once a player has scummed, they can never achieve an honest
victory, because their knowledge is somehow tainted.
Playing RLs is supposed to be fun and if someone’s enjoying the game
without harming others then we don’t have any right to frown on what
they’re doing at their own computer. The only caveats here are, ’so
long as they don’t make a victory post claiming an unaided win’ and
’so long as they don’t publish spoilers’, because that would unfairly
diminish the efforts of other players, and of the volunteers who make
all the RLs.
If someone want to save scum and they’re honest about it, then leave
them be - it’s none of our business.
[1] Except the obvious ones about empathy and personal liberty and the
wiccan rede and so forth.
Lim-Dul
> Lim-Dul, I think you're idealizing save scumming a bit. In most cases,
> save scumming is not a semi-artistic means of expressing your
> individuality through roguelikes. Likewise, the average save scummer
> is not a creative spirit playfully crossing boundaries. On the
> contrary, resorting to save scumming is often an act of utter
> frustration - a desperate cry for help. That's why we must teach
> roguelike newbies the right way to play, so they can be born again. Do
> you not see, Lim-Dul? :-)
If it's an act of frustration, then what makes you think that they will
enjoy the game more if they are forcefully robbed of it? Most likely
they won't ever pick up a RL again because the community took away the
fun from them. ;-)
Anyways - in your post we have yet again a case of assuming that
everybody considers the same things to be fun - which is simply not
true. I never idealized save scumming - I just said that if someone
wants to do it, then let them - better than losing another player...
And yes, I realize that you make your points sound semi-religious to
tease me. :-P
> Ironically, "survival of the fittest" is not a popular video game
> design principle these days. Skill and Winning seem to have been
> decoupled, in an effort to make video games appeal to the masses. So
> now everybody wants a piece of the Winning, since Skill is no longer
> required. Do they not see that Fun is in the Skill, and not in the
> Winning? Do they not see that Winning is merely a byproduct of Skill?
I mean survival of the fittest games, not gamers. Hence the most
mainstream games are the ones that have adapted to appeal to a wide
range of people. Sure, there are niches but hey, Nintendo showed us
recently that even Hardcore Console Gamers are actually a minority and
you can get an impressive market share by reaching out to people who
wouldn't touch stuff like Halo 3 with a stick. ;-)
I also couldn't disagree more that skill is the main measure of fun in a
game but hey, this is only my opinion. For me it's not even about
winning - it's about the journey that gets you there. As it turned out
most gamers don't expect games to be about skill but we have such a huge
and varied market nowadays that you will find challenging titles as well
- try some Japanese shmups. Still, these are only niches - the problem
here being that people often don't realize that they are part of only a
small niche themselves and try to impose their niche-like views onto the
larger public as if they had the majority vote.
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
David Ploog
> As it turned out most gamers don't expect games to be about skill but we
> have such a huge and varied market nowadays that you will find
> challenging titles as well - try some Japanese shmups.
Can't go wrong with shmups, especially with Japanese ones. But at least a
few years ago the Asian shmup scene was between shareware and
semi-professional. (Not that I mind: the games are good.)
> Still, these are only niches - the problem here being that people often
> don't realize that they are part of only a small niche themselves and
> try to impose their niche-like views onto the larger public as if they had
> the majority vote.
I cannot speak for the others, but I am very aware of the fact that Crawl
is a niche game. Actually, I like that! Being an open source roguelike
game has some nice advantages:
* Longevity: roguelikes will exist in ten years from now; some games in
continuation from ten years ago. The archaic interface helps here.
* Freedom: being non-commercial means that we can make radical changes any
time we like. I would like to know how strongly commercial games are
compromised by their player base.
* Cooperation not competition among developers.
Of course, it does not bring any wealth or glory. I consider games like
the ones we discuss here to be a DIY alternative to the mainstream.
Cheers,
David
Jeff Lait
> On Mar 3, 9:45 pm, David Ploog <pl...@mi.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Lim-Dul wrote:
> > > On 2009-03-03 20:18, b0rsuk wrote:
> > >> Save scumming has profound impact on gameplay.
>
> > > Yes - my question is: so what? It's YOU that's playing the game - no one
> > > else. You shouldn't care or tell other people what to do in their private
> > > space.
>
> > I am not sure if you are deliberately stubborn. Let me give an analogy. I
> > am a chemistry teacher and we're treating toluenes in class. One
> > application is explosive. Interesting science. Should I mention that there
> > are right and wrong ways to use that? Sure I should.
>
> Oh, c'mon - save scumming is not DANGEROUS to anything or anybody,
> that's the main point.
Save scumming can be dangerous to one's enjoyment of a roguelike.
Sure, this isn't a very dangerous danger. No one will be physically
hurt by failing to enjoy roguelikes - at most they waste a few hours
of their life. But it is the reason I insist on saying that save
scumming is the wrong way to play most roguelikes. I'm not trying to
say anyone is a "bad" person for doing so. I'm not going to set up
roadblocks to make it harder to save scum - indeed, I actually made it
easier to save scum with POWDER because I don't believe the ability
should be restricted to those technical enough to bypass the save-scum
protection code. This does not mean I embrace save scumming, however.
The code is not law. The "game" can only imperfectly translate to
bytes and rule sheets. There is always a meta-ruleset. This is even
true in sports where one talks about "sportsmanship", a concept of
"fairplay" that lacks rigid demarcation. So I do not believe that
"what is not forbidden is permitted" applies to video games.
> > I am also designer for a roguelike. There are quite a few players out
> > there having fun with it. Some play obsessively. Should I go and tell them
> > that the proper way to play is with sudden death? Sure I should.
> > If they don't listen, it is their deliberate choice. And if they still
> > derive fun out of that, fine by me. But I have fulfilled my responsibility
> > as a designer and told them about the proper way to play the game.
>
> > I do not care at all if someone follows the rules or not. But I do care if
> > everyone has easy access to the directions of use. The most important rule
> > is Do Not Savescum! As Jeff pointed out, this rule is important as it is
> > because the opposite rule is accepted in the majority of today's gaming
> > landscape.
>
> Hey, but you're basically saying the same thing I do. ;-)
We all are very close to the same page here. No one objects to people
save scumming in their own time. The difference seems to be that some
of us believe that "Savescumming Considered Harmful", in the spirit of
"Goto Considered Harmful". This is why we see no reason not to apply
social pressure against it.
> I'm not against the single death rule
I don't care about the single death rule. My first 7DRL pretty much
requires you to die at least once. What I'm for is the no save/reload
rule. It is save/reload that butchers gameplay choices since
everything is undoable. Roguelikes really don't even have "single
death", I mean, the game doesn't delete itself and refuse to reinstall
after your character dies. We could claim the character never dies
but merely resets to level 1 naked when its hit points reach 0. (Some
of the console roguelikes sound suspiciously like that: "You don't
die, you just lose your exp and equipment and return to the start of a
new dungeon...")
> and don't want to revolutionize
> the RL genre - I'm not against explaining a game's rules either. I'm
> just saying that if a player finds a way to save scum you either fix
> that by making it impossible, or embrace it, if it makes your game
> more popular.
You can't fix it to make it impossible. I can always run your
roguelike in a virtual machine and just save & restore the machine
state. This is quite common with console emulators now a days.
You can make it harder. This is foolish, IMHO. First, it is work
that is unrelated to writing a roguelike so detracts from you making a
better game. Second, it merely means that those technically skilled
get to save scum, (at least until you are popular enough for them to
distribute tools to automate the process). Third, your game likely is
buggy and will crash, or power will go out, or maybe someone will hit
the close button and the game will decided to quit rather than quit
and save. You really want to be able to recover in these cases.
You also can't embrace it. That would mean completely changing your
game into a completely different type of game. A lot of design and
decisions that make sense in the no-save-scum world become foolish
invitations for grinding in the save-scum world. Friends playing
Ultima 6 would always save/reload before opening chests because they
could then avoid all the traps, for example.
> Keeping a window open for save scummers and THEN
> criticizing them is actually admitting the weakness of your own
> design. It's hypocrisy!
Which would be why we preemptively criticize them. We put up the
sign: "No Save Scumming".
> > Yes, private actions do not matter.
>
> Not if they don't affect the outside world and save scumming is
> precisely that - it happens on one player's PC/DS/whatever and has no
> consequences whatsoever.
Agreed.
> IF it changes the way RLs are perceived, then it must mean that the
> given concept is appealing to the majority of people and then you have
> to ask yourself whether you are designing games for yourself and a
> handful of aficionados or for the general public.
We are not designing games for the majority of people. The majority
of people don't like roguelikes. This isn't a bad thing. I suspect
the majority of people don't like FPS games either.
You design your games for your target audience. If your target
audience is non-save-scummers, you don't add save-scumming just
because that is what the majority of people want. You stick to your
market segment. If it were a commercial venture you'd consider
jumping segments if a different group of people latched on than
expected. But roguelikes are hobbies, and as such, have the luxury of
servicing whatever obscure niche that they fulfill.
> > Since most of us believe that
> > no-reloading is an integral part of rogueliking, we are denying you that.
>
> "Most of you" is ironically a very small percentage of the general
> player/developer base. Now - one can't help but wonder if this
> approach is the reason why it's so hard to draw new people into the
> genre. I'm all for sticking to one's principles but one shouldn't be
> too fanatical about them. Genres evolve. Usually through survival of
> the fittest.
I suspect Diablo III will continue with the no-savescumming format of
Diablo II, however.
> If you want to design a RL that will be played by a very limited
> number of people, then so be it. I refuse to believe that everything
> is "set in stone" in the RL genre - I'm even pretty sure that it would
> be possible to design a very good RL centered around the concept of
> save/loading but you no one would ever be able to figure out the
> proper way of doing it if they're stuck with very rigid design
> principles.
Did that already.
http://www.zincland.com/7drl/savescummer
Of course, it is debatable if it was a very good RL, but my intention
was to make a game centered around save/reload actually be fun.
> Thinking outside the box is my motto and the reason why,
> while being a video game journalist, I enjoyed indie games more than
> most mainstream titles.
I certainly like trying to push the genre as well. Since the 7DRLs
started, however, I'm not sure you can accuse the roguelike community
of being a bunch of dungeon crawl stick in the muds. People have been
thinking out of the box. But we should remember that the goal of a
roguelike is not to invent an entire new genre, so the core of rogue
will quite properly always haunt us. And, I feel, one essential part
of that core is the "no take backs" rule that prohibits save/reload.
Rogue was a multiperson competitive game (shared high score on a
server), not something played like solitaire.
David Ploog
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Lim-Dul wrote:
> Ah, and to correct a factual error, because I actually do have access
> to some data on that:
>
>> Despite this, they [RLs] have a growing following
>
> They have a growing following because the video game industry is
> growing BUT in terms of market share they actually don't do very well.
> However, the genre does slowly evolve and the trend seems to be to
> design slightly simpler and shorter RLs - if you target the mobile
> device market then you're even better off. Take POWDER as an example.
I am interested in any numbers you can come up with. While it is not clear
to me how shareware and commercial products are compared in general, I'd
love to see longterm figures for both the gaming branch and roguelikes in
particular. If you can present some, please do!
(By the way, years of being a silent witness to nowadays marketing made me
believe that you can sell the proverbial shit to the masses. It is fun to
imagine the same masses purchasing the DCSS 2009 Gold edition after being
bombarded with ads for a long enough time.)
> P.S. Don't challenge me to modify games - I'm not a video game
> developer - this isn't a fair argument and you know it.
This is not strictly directed at you. Anyone could make modified versions
of the games. Sorry for the offense.
David
Jeff Lait
> On Mar 3, 10:45 pm, David Ploog <pl...@mi.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> However, the genre does slowly evolve and the trend seems to be to
> design slightly simpler and shorter RLs
I don't think this is true.
New roguelikes are simpler and shorter because they are newer. If you
compare to something with 15 years of development, you can't match it
out of the gate. The exception is the 7DRLs, which dominate
numerically largely because they can actually be completed. A healthy
market will skew to the short & sweet because you can produce more of
them in the time it takes you to build one epic.
> - if you target the mobile
> device market then you're even better off. Take POWDER as an example.
POWDER isn't meant to be simple and shorter, so much as streamlined
and correctly paced :> It's my answer to Nethack - I think it is more
complex than Nethack when one compares the things that I care
about :> Now I should be quiet before I become a Derek Smart.
Cuboidz
> And yes, I realize that you make your points sound semi-religious to
> tease me. :-P
Ah, but I intend to found a roguelike religion. We already have a
temple (http://www.roguetemple.com), so we only need a Deity to
worship. Hmm ... any ideas? :-P
Rubinstein
Most obsolete question ever. The RNG of course, who else? :-P
David Damerell
>I wrote a blog post in defense of scumming in RLs. I'm hoping it
>provokes some constructive discussion.
>http://tinyurl.com/bsxn3y
Why not post the text here?
Your take on the argument against is weak at best.
>Some people with busy lives and pressures on their time from family,
>study and work just don?t have the tens or hundreds of hours it takes
So play a different game, one that is fun even if you have only a few
hours to play. Don't take a roguelike and play it in a way that isn't fun
- because anyone who's tried save scumming knows pretty soon the lack of
challenge means tedium.
>Scumming a dead character seems universally frowned upon, but what about
>scumming a single Identify Scroll in order to inscribe all currently
>"unknown" items?
Cheating's cheating.
>And what if even that's only done to allow the player an accelerated
>learning curve
Does it? I think, as far as anyone knows, it's the harshness of playing
for real that imparts its lessons well.
>If someone want to save scum and they're honest about it, then leave them
>be - it's none of our business.
If someone save scums and doesn't tell me about it, how would I ever know?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies
Today is Aponoia, March.
Cuboidz
> > Ah, but I intend to found a roguelike religion. We already have a
> > temple (http://www.roguetemple.com), so we only need a Deity to
> > worship. Hmm ... any ideas? :-P
>
> Most obsolete question ever. The RNG of course, who else? :-P
All hail the RNG!
And do not savescum, for it goes against the will of the RNG. ;-)
Rubinstein
and if you don't listen, the RNG might knock on your door the other day!
Radomir Dopieralski
> On Mar 3, 8:36 pm, Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Given the same tools, we might play different games. A soccer ball is
>> not restricted to the soccer game, nor is a roguelike .exe restricted
>> to the author's roguelike game. When I play monopoly, there's $500
>> sitting in the center for Free Parking. I am, however, still playing
>> my modified Monopoly the "right" way as per its modified rules. If a
>> player starts stealing from the bank, I'd be quite correct of stating
>> that they are playing the wrong way.
> No - they are playing it in a way that's fun for them. Sure, it might
> not be Monopoly anymore but why would you criticize them for that? The
> players created a fun little world for themselves using a game as a
> basis for that.
You seem to assume deep down that the players are somehow always
self-aware and somehow can foresee what will be fun for them and
what not. The long tradition of game design shows that this is not
immediately true, that players will go for short-term rewards when
it's not fun at all, that there are highly addictive game elements
like grinding or gambling that ultimately destroy fun, but still
keep the players hooked compulsively to the game.
Of course, if you yourself can't tell if something will be fun, how
can the game author tell? There are some rules of thumb and general
features that suggest that something might be fun to a certain group
of people, but you can never be sure without testing it, by having
those people play and watching them play. Then you can often tell
which parts they enjoyed, and which parts made a boring grind.
Roguelike games have nearly three decades of this experimentation,
and by experiences of countless players have established that save
scumming often leads to mechanics that is boring but addictive --
one that brings frustration and misery instead of fun. That's why
it is being discouraged.
Obviously that doesn't mean that there are no ways to make a game
with save scumming that is genuinely fun and engaging. You can even
come up with such a game without actually modifying the code of the
toy that was used to play the original game -- the program. Because
that program is just a toy, and the game is something more: that toy
(or some replacement) plus a set of rules and attitudes. You can come
up with a set of rules and attitudes that are fun when you are save
scumming. Three generations of roguelike players didn't manage to do
that, but that doesn't mean it can't be done -- you might have just
the right mixture of genius, intuition and luck to achieve that.
One question still remains: will that new game still be a roguelike?
--
Radomir Dopieralski, http://sheep.art.pl
Radomir Dopieralski
This is a trend in mass entertainment. Not only it enables people with no
time, skill or commitment to play the game and still get some fun from it
(from the game, not from the play), which results in boosting the sales
and providing better milk to moo ratio (people don't care so much, so they
don't complain); it also tips the scales in favor of large entertainment
conglomerates that have at their disposal lots of artists, copyright
licenses and trademarks, writers, graphics assistants, etc. -- resources
that don't necessarily let you make better games in terms of game-play, but
definitely let you pack more entertaining content not related to the play,
that is enjoyed none the less.
I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, but it's different from the
roguelike scene, where this trend somehow doesn't catch up. It means that
roguelike games are usually different from the "mainstream", and that
judging them by the -- now customary -- features is not going to give a
good score. Moreover, this also probably means that those games won't
appeal to most of the mainstream players conditioned to enjoy the more
entertaining games. That's a sacrifice we, as roguelike developers, are
ready to make :)
Cuboidz
> Interesting. I'm not keen on games of skill (in video games); I want
> an interactive story. Similarly, I like puzzleless, story-fed IF. Is
> this a trend among save scummers?
Maybe some Dungeons and Dragons terminology can help you understand
roguelikes better. You see, as a Dungeon Master, you can either write
an epic story in advance, and railroad players into it, or you can
create a sandbox in which players must shape their own destiny. In the
latter approach, the story almost coincides with the player's actions,
whereas in the former, the player's actions do not affect the story
much.
This distinction applies to computer (or console) role playing games,
as well. On the one end of the spectrum you have Final Fantasy, a game
of interactive fiction. The story lies at the heart of the gaming
experience, and because it is unpleasant to sit through known parts of
the story again, save scumming is allowed. It is rarely used, however,
because it doesn't make much sense to make story-centered games very
difficult - dying destroys immersion.
On the other side, you have roguelikes, in which the prescripted story
only gives players a sense of direction - the stories roguelike
players tell each other generally do not mention the backstory. The
real story consists of the hardships the players had to endure, the
unexpected circumstances they faced, and the mistakes they have made.
Save scumming would be detrimental to the authenticity of these
stories, because you artificially rewrite history. Once you start save
scumming in roguelikes, immersion depends wholly on the backstory -
which is thin at best.
yakum...@gmail.com
> I wrote a blog post in defense of scumming in RLs. I'm hoping it
> provokes some constructive discussion.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bsxn3y
Cool. Thanks for bringing up a topic we have never discussed
before ad infinitum! I cant wait to see all the new viewpoints.
yawn.
-Stu
perdu...@googlemail.com
Indeed ;-)
I used to save-scum, yoinks ago (a decade or so ago, back in the days
of TkAngband). Nowadays, I don't. Reasons? All the reasons everyone
has mentioned above.
If folks want to save-scum, let them. If they get more satisfaction
out of it that way, let them. Just as long as they don't try and
equate their achievements to those of us who don't.
Rubinstein
> On Mar 5, 3:19 pm, yakumo9...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 6:05 am, Marsh <googlegrou...@penman.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I wrote a blog post in defense of scumming in RLs. I'm hoping it
>>> provokes some constructive discussion. http://tinyurl.com/bsxn3y
>>>
>> Cool. Thanks for bringing up a topic we have never discussed before
>> ad infinitum! I cant wait to see all the new viewpoints.
>
> of TkAngband). Nowadays, I don't. Reasons? All the reasons everyone
> has mentioned above.
>
> If folks want to save-scum, let them. If they get more satisfaction
> out of it that way, let them. Just as long as they don't try and
> equate their achievements to those of us who don't.
There's not much more to say except this: with my very first roguelike
(Nethack) I did save-scumming in the first 1 or 2 weeks. This led to
massive boredom very soon and almost kept me from playing any more
roguelikes at all (including Nethack). Roguelikes w/o the thrill
of perma-death are just boring and plain nonsense if you ask me.
Everyone who does deceives himself in the first place, so I don't really
care.
And yes, this discussion seems unavoidable like the yearly monsoon...
David Damerell
>At Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:50:22 -0800 (PST), Lim-Dul wrote:
>>No - they are playing it in a way that's fun for them. Sure, it might
>>not be Monopoly anymore but why would you criticize them for that?
>self-aware and somehow can foresee what will be fun for them and
>what not.
Monopoly is a classic example here, in that the game (while no marvel) is
very much better than its reputation. Why is that? People:
1) play with house rules that cause the game to fail to terminate.
2) complain that the game fails to terminate.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Epithumia, March - a weekend.
Lim-Dul
> Monopoly is a classic example here, in that the game (while no marvel) is
> very much better than its reputation. Why is that? People:
>
> 1) play with house rules that cause the game to fail to terminate.
> 2) complain that the game fails to terminate.
Nah - Monopoly is still pretty crappy and proper (not bad ones) home
rules can only make it better.
In my collection it gets a 3 out of 10 and isn't rated very well in
general either - there are simply so many better games nowadays, even
ones based around a similar concept.
http://boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/Lim-Dul?own=1
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
google...@penman.org
> before ad infinitum! I cant wait to see all the new viewpoints.
Why thank you! That's what I hoped.
(I ignore sarcasm on principle. And nobody's going to force you to
read a thread, unless you live somewhere especially odd.)
yakum...@gmail.com
yeah. Its a shame sometimes that people don't use their brains
and think that since we have the same knock down drag out fight
over the exact same topic every 3 days since the inception
of rgrm/rgrd that there would be so many new points of view
that it be really worthwhile to start it all up again.
Its a magnificent thing, Googles ability to search usenet.
But hey, lets not get in the way of a boring rehashed argument.
-stu
Cuboidz
> yeah. Its a shame sometimes that people don't use their brains
> and think that since we have the same knock down drag out fight
> over the exact same topic every 3 days since the inception
> of rgrm/rgrd that there would be so many new points of view
> that it be really worthwhile to start it all up again.
I understand your concern, but it would have been more helpful to
supply a few links to the discussions you're talking about.
Magnate
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Jeff Lait wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 6:05 am, Marsh <googlegrou...@penman.org> wrote:
>>> I wrote a blog post in defense of scumming in RLs. I'm hoping it
>>> provokes some constructive discussion.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/bsxn3y
>>
>> the archives might not be able to get to your original screed and only
>> see our counter-rants...
>
> Seconded.
Indeed. Especially if the site is blocked by zealous censorware.
> "With savescumming, you leave the designed fun area of this game. Proceed
> at your own risk!"
> The risk is real; I can imagine a game might be never fun (in the
> designed meaning) again once you've accosted from the savescum chalice.
I think the risk is that you won't be able to give up savescumming. I used
to savescum roguelikes (both Moria and Angband), and I grew bored. I decided
to play Angband without savescumming, and suddenly it was much more fun! (I
then grew bored clearing every level, and radically changed my play style to
fast diving, and it was fun all over again.)
Thanks to Jeff for a comprehensive response to the OP. The "too little time"
argument in favour of scumming is terribly weak.
CC
yakum...@gmail.com
what, as opposed to the real meaty post of the OP
thats loaded with details and conjecture. sorry I mean
the link and run. Let the OP do their own searching
instead of being lazy.
-stu
Jeff Lait
a) The failure of the OP to properly inline their post has already
been rectified by the OP.
b) The OP has continued in the discussion, so isn't guilty of link &
run.
c) The OP, as I understand, wrote the linked blog, so the details &
conjecture of the OP are precisely why the OP is deserving a response.
If the OP had said: "Savescumming is good, stop hating on us!!!!", you
would be right it would not be a good time to open this can of worms.
But the OP had produced a reasoned set of arguments. I'm not a big
fan of building dogma that should not be questioned because some
ancients had "already argued the issue". If they had argued the
issue, they should have left a nice concise FAQ summarizing why the
issue is resolved. The OP could then be responded to with such.
Save scumming I do not think is that well resolved, however. There
are a lot of subtle points, like how it interelates with permadeath,
that get confused and are worth exploring. I always enjoy this
opportunities to try and reexamine my own views and try and make sure
I'm basing them on reasonable principles and not just kneejerk
dogmatism.
Cuboidz
> Save scumming I do not think is that well resolved, however. There
> are a lot of subtle points, like how it interelates with permadeath,
> that get confused and are worth exploring. I always enjoy this
> opportunities to try and reexamine my own views and try and make sure
> I'm basing them on reasonable principles and not just kneejerk
> dogmatism.
Good point. But it suddenly dawned on me: you're a Canadian, and your
last name is "Lait". How do you introduce yourself to French speakers?
Sorry for the totally off-topic remark. Euh ... save scumming is bad!
Yes.
David Damerell
>On 2009-03-05 17:48, David Damerell wrote:
>>Monopoly is a classic example here, in that the game (while no marvel) is
>>very much better than its reputation. Why is that? People:
>>1) play with house rules that cause the game to fail to terminate.
>>2) complain that the game fails to terminate.
>Nah - Monopoly is still pretty crappy and proper (not bad ones) home
>rules can only make it better.
I have not said anything that disagrees with either of these statements.
It is just that the overwhelming majority of people play with bad house
rules, which put more money into the game.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Olethros, March - a weekend.
google...@penman.org
> thats loaded with details and conjecture. sorry I mean
> the link and run. Let the OP do their own searching
> instead of being lazy.
The OP (me) made an error linking and has since posted the article.
The OP feels this is far from a solved argument, and will continue to
change as gaming culture, RLs, platforms and our expectations shift.
The OP therefore feels there's a good discussion to be had, and that
anyone who disagreed would be sensible enough to self-censor.
(The OP can't imagine why anyone who didn't want to 're-hash' the
argument would even read the thread, let alone post to it. It would
seem, to the OP, a mad waste of the complainant's time.)
Jeff Lait
> On 6 mrt, 15:07, Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Save scumming I do not think is that well resolved, however. There
> > are a lot of subtle points, like how it interelates with permadeath,
> > that get confused and are worth exploring. I always enjoy this
> > opportunities to try and reexamine my own views and try and make sure
> > I'm basing them on reasonable principles and not just kneejerk
> > dogmatism.
>
> Good point. But it suddenly dawned on me: you're a Canadian, and your
> last name is "Lait". How do you introduce yourself to French speakers?
Je m'appelle Jeff Lait.
The 't' in Lait is a hard t, so actually there is no confusion in
spoken language with French. Instead, I am merely forced to show up
on time to any event...
My favorite opportunity was when someone thought they saw my name
somewhere before. "Perhaps you saw it on the back of a milk
carton?" (Further context: back of milk cartons was/is the
traditional place to put missing children...)
Cuboidz
> The 't' in Lait is a hard t, so actually there is no confusion in
> spoken language with French. Instead, I am merely forced to show up
> on time to any event...
>
> My favorite opportunity was when someone thought they saw my name
> somewhere before. "Perhaps you saw it on the back of a milk
> carton?" (Further context: back of milk cartons was/is the
> traditional place to put missing children...)
Well, it must be nice to have such a multifaceted name. :-)
addcomb...@gmail.com
out of proportion. Especially Lim-Dul.
There is no wrong or right in the game itself, but the roguelike
genre, like any other genre, is based on a set of clearly defined
rules that define it. Author's intent aside, the governing principles
of the genre give it its character and purpose. By bending or changing
the rules, e.g. save scumming, you leave the roguelike zone and you're
playing a different game entirely. It's not about right or wrong, it's
about adhering to the rules set by the community. For example, if you
beat POWDER by save scumming, you will not go onto the high score
list. A victory is a victory, but that victory requires less skill
than a legitimate playthru. For a real world example, you couldn't
very well consider a high school track medal and an Olympic medal the
same caliber of award. One clearly takes a higher degree of skill on
the part of the athlete, and a higher degree of dedication. The
argument against save scumming goes much further into social
dynamics.
Bottom line: If you as the player want to win, save scum at your
leisure. If you as the player want to win and be respected within the
roguelike community for it, don't save scum. You can play the game
however you want, but you will be judged by us for it, and it's your
decision to put yourself in that position.
Gerry Quinn
lim_...@poczta.onet.pl says...
> One can't also argue that somebody is "playing the game against the
> author's intent". Once the "product" is released it's out of the
> author's hands and while he can explain in great detail what his
> intentions were, anybody can use the program as he pleases (and deal
> with the consequences) - the only place an argument like this might be
> useful is in court, if somebody tried to sue the manufacturer of
> microwaves after he/she put a dog in it (that indeed goes against the
> intended usage).
I bet you'd cry if the author simply detected save scumming and without
alerting you slowly punished you for it after any fashion he deemed
appropriate...
Would you reiterate the bit above about dealing with the consequences?
At the end of the day, it's the author's game, not yours.
- Gerry Quinn
Jürgen Lerch
(Why do I have to manually copy the text I want to quote?)
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:45:38 +0100, David Ploog wrote:
>Would you still criticise someone going into rec.literature.discussion
>(just made up) and telling about the toilet bowel advantages and drawbacks
>of novels vs cooking books? Yes.
No.
I might, however, consider it trolling.
>Exactly. Go ahead and present modified versions of Nethack and Angband,
>with new Reload features.
(What they need is a ,,play again?'' feature.)
Ad Astra!
JuL
--
jyn...@gmx.de / L'état, c'est toi. (Moi)
Jürgen ,,JuL'' Lerch /
Jürgen Lerch
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:18:50 -0800 (PST), b0rsuk wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:56 pm, Lim-Dul <lim_d...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
> Save scumming has profound impact on gameplay. A game designed around
> save scumming is played very diffently from a roguelike. I hate save
> scumming in part because roguelikes and a funny little game named
> Dominions 3 are one of last games which teach player to deal with
> mistakes and learn from them. In many games, a single mistake usually
> results in you having to start over. In roguelikes and Dominions,
> there are many ways in which you can recover. Many players like to
a) Many games you can consider being puzzles, or, better,
labyrinths. You seek the solution/the exit, and it's *quite*
natural to backtrack in a labyrinth when you get to a dead
end. Nothing to hate about.
b) I'm not up-to-date with current IF or other such games, but my
understanding was that the trend was to not being able to get
yourself irrevocably stuck, so using save files actually
shouldn't be that necessary.
> In Baldur's Gate, a game designed around save scumming (I even
> remember an interview with one of developers), many categories of
> spells and abilities are nearly useless. Tell me how many times you
> used stuff like divination spells (I can't remember the name),
> invisibility for scouting, resurrection spell, curse removal. Even
> using stealth for scouting is quite pointless because it only benefits
> you the first time, and battles are intentionally made quite hard so
> you have to reload a couple of times or so. The tactics listed above
> are unpopular in BG and no wonder.
I never played BG, but I'd say that I *very* probably _would_
use those spells. I did so in older CRPGs.
> > Jeff Lait mentioned that games are about fun. So, if somebody feels that
> > save scumming is still fun to them, then why should you care?
> "Leave feature X, players don't have to use it so everything is ok" is
> a fallacy. In the world of open-source games, players are not only
Actually, I think not.
It's a question of self-disciplin. See yourself below:
> generally comes at a cost. Think about weapons in multiplayer Quake 2.
> People are thrilled by rocket launcher, rocket launcher, railgun,
> chaingun. Sometimes grenade launcher. Other weapons, like
> handgrenades, blaster, shotgun, machinegun, hyperblaster are pretty
> much DEAD CODE. Well not dead code in strict programming sense - code
[...]
> Tell you what, I had a lot of fun playing with arbitrary rules like
> "We use no RL, RG, CG". You discover a completely different game
Well, seems you're not playing the game as intended. ;-)
Obviously you _did_ manage to not use a feature of the game.
Jürgen Lerch
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 17:43:51 -0800 (PST), Jeff Lait wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:04 pm, Lim-Dul <lim_d...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 9:45 pm, David Ploog <pl...@mi.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Lim-Dul wrote:
> > > > On 2009-03-03 20:18, b0rsuk wrote:
> > > >> Save scumming has profound impact on gameplay.
> > > > Yes - my question is: so what? It's YOU that's playing the game - no one
> > > > else. You shouldn't care or tell other people what to do in their private
> > > > space.
> > > I am not sure if you are deliberately stubborn. Let me give an analogy. I
> > > am a chemistry teacher and we're treating toluenes in class. One
> > > application is explosive. Interesting science. Should I mention that there
> > > are right and wrong ways to use that? Sure I should.
> > Oh, c'mon - save scumming is not DANGEROUS to anything or anybody,
> > that's the main point.
> Save scumming can be dangerous to one's enjoyment of a roguelike.
Actually, I (re-) started using save files at a time _because_
I got bored with always starting anew!(*)
(_Actually_, when I first played rogue-likes, I just thought,
them being hobbyist programs, the authors forgot to include
better save/reload features.)
(*) All those save-file-haters might be relieved to hear that I
since given up using save files in the unintended way for new
characters. I still keep those characters however. And, if I
ever manage to win with one of them, I'll probably even post,
if I didn't win with a ,,clean'' character before - it'll be
such a relief to /finally/ _have_ won after all these years of
playing! (Of _course_ I'll admit to using save files if that
ever happens!)
> You also can't embrace it. That would mean completely changing your
> game into a completely different type of game. A lot of design and
> decisions that make sense in the no-save-scum world become foolish
> invitations for grinding in the save-scum world. Friends playing
> Ultima 6 would always save/reload before opening chests because they
> could then avoid all the traps, for example.
One could, but as I mentioned in my other posting, I never did
use save files in CRPGs _that_ much, and I find it rather excessive.