Worried that Downpour will be too "casual."

[SPRINGS02]

PC gaming: Where playing a game is as simple as clicking an icon.

After you spend a shit load of money buying a accessories for your pc just to be able to run the game of course.

Ok back on topic. I prefer manual saves to autosaves, one main reason is because sometimes i like to save different files for certain parts of the game.

[clips]

I will say tho that having any "saves" in the game is better than having no saves at all....*remembers the 8-bit and 16 bit era*...i think some games in that era did have some type of save feature tho....i remember playing games like "flashback" and "out of this world"...and i think those games had some type of autosave feature.

Even then it was kinda rare tho.....back in the day you had to complete the games in one sitting...no saving or coming back to the game later....i used to hate cutting the game off when i was in the middle of something and i either had to go somewhere, or my menz wanted me to come out to play some football somethin'...

[Kenji]

Most of the old-school games that didn't have saving (or a functional equivalent, like passwords or warp zones) were games that didn't have a quest structure, like a sports game.

Put in the context of warp zones and passwords, saving was originally about putting the game down and coming back to it later. Of course, just like the other methods, it's exploited. Just like kids playing Mario All-Stars, which features warp zones and saves, will just jump ahead because they can (hell, the kids back in the 80s did it, too), we use saves to game our chances, try out dangerous things, or redo our decisions until we get it right.

I do think there's something to be said about spacing out save points to be more in-line with their intended function, rather than letting them be a source of cheap immortality. What's a game you can't lose? A time-sink.

[Tillerman]

I definitely seem to prefer console games to PC games, not so much because of hassles, but mainly just because I'm not really into first person ASDW games so I just prefer the type of games on consoles more.

So far it seems like people have mainly discussed the idea of saving points vs checkpoints, but something I don't believe anyone has brought up yet is the save anywhere system. It's definitely a type of system that has it's roots in PC games. Personally, though, I hate that type of system, especially for a horror game. It pretty much turns the player into a god by giving them complete control over how events play out, so obviously it removes any tension from the game. This is a possible route that they could take with Downpour and I really hope they don't.

[CreEPy pAYPhonE]

While I don't think this pertains too much SH I do understand what your saying. Games are getting easier these days. Too easy, in fact. Allow me to explain. I was playing Dragon age 2 the other day. Well I was about 15-30 min. in when I got like two-three trophies. Now I'd like to think that I got them because I'm just that damn good but in reality I know the truth. You see, I practically got these trophies simply because I was able start up my PS3. I mean it went like this.
BING: Congratulations, you got passed the 1st level.
BING: Congratulations, you pressed R2 and toggled it from day to night.
BING: Congratulations, you banged Merrill (every playthrough,baby).
BING: Congratulations, you bought this damn game.
So I can certainly understand why you would be worried about such a thing. I mean I'm not too worried SHD because Silent Hill was never really that tough anyway. At the same time, however, that is certainly a good reason to exclude a "casual" difficulty. And yes, I know SH ain't about the challenge but that dosen't mean it should ultra-easy either. I mean come on people wouldn't you rather have to work for your trophies/achievments rather be given these "participate prizes". Personally, I find such things patronizing.

[Kenji]

something I don't believe anyone has brought up yet is the save anywhere system. It's definitely a type of system that has it's roots in PC games.

Like anything else, how a save anywhere system works in the game depends on the way the game, itself, is structured. In some games, the save anywhere system (or quicksave) can be easily exploited. In others, it would merely limit frustration to the boiling point.

For example, in another thread, I noted how the original Final Fantasy (possibly all three NES titles) only allowed saving in towns. This made each quest across the map or into a dungeon a very big deal that had to be prepared for in advance, and progress through the area (thanks to the magic stocking system) had to be made carefully and conservatively. On the flip-side, a save system like that requires a more carefully balanced game: High difficulty is generally tolerable so long as it doesn't spike randomly, but if it does, players will quit and refuse to buy any sequels.

[Tillerman]

For example, in another thread, I noted how the original Final Fantasy (possibly all three NES titles) only allowed saving in towns. This made each quest across the map or into a dungeon a very big deal that had to be prepared for in advance, and progress through the area (thanks to the magic stocking system) had to be made carefully and conservatively. On the flip-side, a save system like that requires a more carefully balanced game: High difficulty is generally tolerable so long as it doesn't spike randomly, but if it does, players will quit and refuse to buy any sequels.

That's a good example. You're right that difficulty has to be considered more carefully in a game with saving limitations... but I think if the challenge is balanced correctly, it's a lot more rewarding. It allows the game to have tension, which I think is good for most types of games, and awesome for horror games.

Certain types of games lend themselves to a save-anywhere type system, like simulation games and sandbox games... but for action and horror games, I absolutely hate that type of system. I'll give you an example... Tomb Raider 2. I love Tomb Raider 1 and I despise Tomb Raider 2, and the main reason is the save system. Tomb Raider 1 had limited saving by using one time save crystals, which worked very well. It was also a very smartly designed game, usually not too frustrating, but yet hard enough that there was a lot of tension in any level. Then Tomb Raider 2 ruined that balance by being MUCH harder, and having a save anywhere system. So you die a lot more in Tomb Raider 2, but it doesnt matter because there's never any risk... so there's no tension or challenge. Of course, Tomb Raider 3 went back to a limited save system yet didn't tone down the challenge of Tomb Raider 2, so it was nigh unplayable.

So long story short, I prefer easier games with limited save systems to harder games with save anywhere systems. I prefer the tension of the former.

[KiramidHead]

As much as I love the first Fatal Frame, it has some balancing issues, particularly on the third night. The only unavoidable ghost fights are of boss level difficulty, except for one in the fish tank room, but for some reason the game likes to spawn a wandering monk during the same fight. Speaking of the Wandering Monk, he's a random ghost that's really easy to run into, and also almost as powerful as the boss level ghosts you're required to fight. I'm sure you know how much of a douche that guy is, Tillerman. Also, the game will spawn ghosts in save rooms. Uggghhhhh. That part of the game was so imbalanced it's not even funny.

[Falconv1.0]

It's funny because SH2 seems to be everyone's fave but that game can't get much easier than it is.

[Patman]

^ Have you ever tried the 10 stars ranking challenge ?
I think SHSM is way easier than SH2, SM was a "nice" attempt at getting rid of any sort of challenge. CreEPy pAYPhonE (I had to cut and paste that weirdly capsed name ) nailed it :

BING: Congratulations, you bought this damn game.

[Silent_Storm]

I can agree quite alot
I too dislike autosaves and prefer the feeling you get when you spot a save point, especially when the autosaves are every time you walk through a door. Although it works in some games it rarely does.
I also think the idea of despawning sounds ridiculous

I think the best way to tackle dying punishments is it effecting which ending you get or getting very technical and having the enemy that killed you appearing more frequently in place of the ones that don't.

[Kenji]

You're right that difficulty has to be considered more carefully in a game with saving limitations... but I think if the challenge is balanced correctly, it's a lot more rewarding. It allows the game to have tension, which I think is good for most types of games, and awesome for horror games.

Right. In the archetypical survival-horror games, the challenge isn't in the individual enemy, but in sustainability. Sure, you can blast that Licker to kingdom come with the grenade launcher, but you won't have enough grenades to last until your next resupply (if one even exists).

One of Shattered Memories's faults is that sustainability is never a problem: Either you make it to the end of a nightmare sequence, or you don't, and there's no supply (even in health, as Harry regenerates) to worry about.

Homecoming, meanwhile, goes the other way. It's too focused on bringing the difficulty in each enemy encounter, which bogs the game down and tends to lead to frustration. Also, supply is never really a problem unless you're getting your ass handed to you in each and every fight... and if that's happening, you'll probably quit the game out of frustration before supply really becomes an issue.

Here, the issue isn't really a happy medium (though that helps), but one of focus.

[Falconv1.0]

Homecoming is also fucktardedly easy combat once you know what to do.

[Kenji]

Yeah, it wasn't well designed. Dodge-and-knife, dodge-and-knife, it's like the poorly-designed puzzles I mentioned in the Catherine topic.

I should've said that was what they were trying to do.

[mimee]

All the Silent Hill titles have been similar. Having a paranoia casual/hardcore complex about a Silent Hill game probably means you need to go and work on something else for awhile.

Yea it sounds like a Casual/Hardcore complex. They have made games a tiny bit linear *not talking about Silent Hill* for a reason. Gamers dont want to stress and spend 5 hours just to get out of one level.. A game Horror/puzzle/ any kind. Is meant to be fun and at the same time challenging and not stupidly hard for the PRO player like first post and annoying that would just make you put the game down. I almost put SH4 down over the Ghosts all over the damn game. Silent Hill is a game of exploring and finding clues and having to do that with a ghost giving me headaches in almost all levels... I forced myself to beat SH4. makes it no FUN.

[Tillerman]

As much as I love the first Fatal Frame, it has some balancing issues, particularly on the third night.

Very true. Those monks are a huge pain if you don't realize that they are some of the toughest enemies in the game and you should be using your strongest film for them. I also think that the bosses in Fatal Frame games tend to be overly cheap as well, especially the ones that kill you instantly and don't even allow your Stone Mirror to revive you like it usually does.

One of Shattered Memories's faults is that sustainability is never a problem: Either you make it to the end of a nightmare sequence, or you don't, and there's no supply (even in health, as Harry regenerates) to worry about.

That's true. I can see why modern games might want to avoid that, because in that type of game there's a danger of the player becoming screwed because they don't have enough ammo left. But then again, I suspect that almost never happens... personally I tend to be overly frugal with ammo in survival horror games to the point where I'm making the game harder than it needs to be, and the end up having way more than I need by the end. I suspect it's the same for a lot of players.

Homecoming, meanwhile, goes the other way. It's too focused on bringing the difficulty in each enemy encounter, which bogs the game down and tends to lead to frustration.

Yeah, I think that type of design tends to turn horror games into action games, which is not a good thing. I think it's okay for enemies to be really tough, as long as you have a way to avoid them, or if they're few in number. But too much tough fighting like that really bogs the game down as you say.

[KiramidHead]

Here's an idea: fighting a single enemy shouldn't be too difficult, but four or five of them should be a daunting prospect. That's something Resident Evil has problems balancing. A single zombie will take almost an entire clip to kill, and some of the games (Cough Code Veronica) like to be cheap and throw seven zombies at you at once.

^I'd like to add that the final night in Fatal Frame 1 is almost too easy. There are hardly any fights at all, and the final boss is kind of a pushover. The only thing that makes that part difficult is the fact that the fucking ground kept shaking. Fatal Frame 2, on the other hand, was pretty well balanced until the final hallway, which I've already ranted about. Haven't played 3 or 4 yet. 3 seems a bit too long/hard, and I don't feel like blowing $80 on an import for 4.

[xerx]

I am worried that SHD will end like CLive Barker's Jericho, because Brian Gomez works on it.

[stopped_clock]

Gomez did say that Jericho wasn't supposed to end like that, but the games publishers made them cut the final two chapters for some reason or another. He also fully admits that they got it wrong with Jericho, and that he's learned from the mistakes they made.

But that doesn't really have anything to do with this topic.

[Tillerman]

Frame 2, on the other hand, was pretty well balanced until the final hallway, which I've already ranted about.

I went back and checked recently, and it seems that you can kill all of the ghosts in that hallway, go back and save, and they will stay dead on all your future boss attempts.