When somebody buys a game, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. That includes cheating and hacking the game, if they want to. As long as this doesn''t affect other people in a multiplayer enviornment, there''s no point in even trying to put restrictions on these kinds of things. People will always get around them, and they really do nothing but annoy players.
Sure, saving and loading every second kills a game. But if the player wants to, they should be allowed to. And if the player wants to make it harder and more challenging, they will limit themselves to saving only at certain times.
Personally, I think games should always include cheats. Because if there''s none built-in, then people will hack the game to make them, and nobody likes their game being hacked.
(Above was regarding single-player only, multiplayer is a whole different story, of course.)

-RWarden (roberte@maui.net)

Yes, all my thought were on single play as well. The pay to save is a cohesive part of the entire game design i think and there fore there's no reason not to have it. I beleive in having some cheats built-in to the game because it gives you the Game Designer some control over how people cheat. This way you can have cheats that add to the games fun and people will be less likely to put your game down.

The main issue i'm tring to address with the pay-as-you-save element is to bring more risk taking fun into the game. There's many different ways to enjoy a game and this is just one. I think there should be behind the scenes autosaves. If it was made that the use of autosaves drains xp (when loaded) from the player if used would stop people abusing them. Considering that a crash happens quite rarely then i think it would be appropriate. Where as a normal saves drains cash.

You could always create temporary losses of something when a save/load occurs. This way if a player abuses the system (which is usually the case before taking on a big dude) then it makes it harder at this point in the game in exchange for a save-insurance.

Another problem with pay-per-load is that if a player gets to a point in the game that they find hard then they will really get pissed when they watch there hard-earned character go down the toilet just becuase of one point in the game. So maybe the player only pays after the first and second load and then after it's free.

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Edited by - Paul Cunningham on August 18, 2000 9:15:49 PM

Well here''s the problem isn''t it, if the players character gets whooped then the player takes an ego-dent which hurts. This is a similar issue to puzzles in a way. This being, that a player should never feel that there was nothing that they could have done to change the outcome. Also a player (in combat) should be given enough options to allow for a comeback even in the most dire of circumstances. There should be some obvious and helping clues given to the player to see what they do wrong and these lessons should pass on to later encounters. Lessons in a game should lead on in a cohesive and enjoyable manner, well there''s my thought for the day

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!