What a neat idea. It also makes risky fights more risky. I've been known to make foolish attacks in some games before because if it goes badly I can just reload and try again a few more times, or give up.

I like it!

I think an iron man mode can be fun, I'm for it.

I agree, this is something I was thinking about a while ago. Games like that are far more challenging. The Fire Emblem series, one of my favorite console SRPG's, has been doing this as well. I think it would add a lot of depth and flavor to the game as I've always enjoyed having death mean something rather than just loading back the previous save state I made right before I attack someone in case it doesn't go my way. And yes, I could just not use the feature at all, I know. But it would be a bit better if it was hard coded in to keep me on my toes throughout. After all, how many games have a "beat game with 100% completion" option at the start while a message saying "Just don't use it if you don't want to."?

I'm also a fan of options though and while I think it'd be best just to have it as save\continue, doing both as an option would be fairest for all.

Lastly, you got me really interested in that Dominions 3 game..surprised I've never heard of it.. *trots off to find info..*

I concour. Save-continues are more suited fro FPS/RPGs, not strategy games. In strategy, the ourcome of a single battle is relatively unimportant 99% of the time, and the number-based system for combat is such that it really doesn't matter how many times you play it. Now, for RTS, it's another story, but for Elemental I think save/load is the way to go.

I agree fully that both modes should be implemented, but if I could pick only one, DEFINITELY save/continue.  Pretty much in full agreement with b0rsuk all the way as I am a tremendous fan of Roguelikes and what led me to Dominions III recently, and awakened me in general to Fantasy TBS games, which in turn led me here to Elemental...was seeing some of those fantastic Roguelike elements at play.

At least for Beta there should be a save/load option (if it's not simply forced) possibly with autosaves to seperate files. This should smooth out testing somewhat. I'm all for the save/continue hardcore system after testing is done or at least mostly done.

I believe this is what's called "Sage Advice", well done Mr.Zubaz well done indeed. 

What doesn't make sense about the save/continue argument is you can do the exact same thing with save/load as pointed out by Zubaz and others. However if you have save/continue only there is no easy way to adapt it to save/load (unless you fool around with game files which is a pain). So by having save/load Stardock would be including an option for save/continue and everything in between. Suggesting that Stardock waste time making two separate save systems when one of the two options (save/load) can perform the function of the other flawlessly just makes no sense from any point of view.

The thing is that if you want to play in Save/Continue mode, you can do it in Save/Load, while the opposite is not easily possible. So you are impossing how to play for some players who may not like it. If you really want to use those forms of scouting you are talking about and you need a game limitation to force yourself to do them, them maybe you really didn't want them so much. Save/Load doesn't force you to you anything, while Save/Continue does, that's the problem. It's like saying you want to win with only one city or something like that: a restriction you can put into yourself that doesn't need to be enforced by the game itself.

Also, Save/Continue is an idea that was forged because of technical limitations (like the idea of random combats in some JRPGs). Somehow it seems those ideas have turned into game features when honestly, right now, they don't make any sense if you don't have those technical problems they were trying to solve.

As I said before (for reasons mentioned) I disagree save/load and save/continue is just a matter of a simple switch. Many games can't be balanced for both.

About imposing - this is perfectly fine. Some Dominions (1,2,3) newbies complain about being unable to save the game, but vast majority get over it and learn to appreciate it. Yes, sometimes you actually need to impose some rules in order for a game to be played differently. There's more to game design than meets the eye, it's not 100% technical stuff. Example: In Quake 2 multiplayer, there are weapons like shotgun, blaster, machinegun, hyperblaster. They're common on all maps. Yet they're so weak people almost never use them. In most matches they're never picked up. Technically speaking they work, but from metagame point of view they're dead code

I can force myself just fine. The point is to ...yes, exactly, force others to play my way. Even if save/continue is an optional mode like in Diablo, having it as an officially recognized game mode works wonders. I'm pushing this so hard because this kind of thing can't really be modded later. It needs help from developers, even if they have no intention to maintain that additional mode. Additional challenges and rules can be fun. Things like save/load has great impact on, for example, an atmosphere in a horror-themed FPS. If you can save at any time, a lot of suspension is completely gone. If save points are too few, it becomes frustrating because player frequently has to replay portions of the game.

"No death" mode would never be popular in Diablo if there was no support from gameplay mechanic and interface. Some like it, some don't, but as long as it appeals to certain portion of Diablo community, Hardcore mode gets implemented in every single  Diablo game, and will be a part of Diablo III.

You can go to Dominions 3 forum/irc and ask how many players consider 'no load' to be a problem. And how many people actually backup their savegame files. It's not hard - all you have to do is copy files to another dir, then copy them back. Out of many scripts and user-made addons, 'savegame backup' is among least popular. People agree that the game is better without easy save/load. And yes, like I said above it needs to be enforced in the game because of human psychology.

By the way - more and more players play games in multiplayer. For someone playing multiplayer, repeated reloading of the game is the unnatural thing.

They make a lot of sense. Some games, particularly horror-themed games, limit how often you can save the game. If you can reload easily, suspension is gone because you can load as soon as something jumps out of shadows. As to the actual usefulness of save/load, I think you're biased because the majority of modern games have static content, linear storyline, etc. 3D graphics (at least in its current implementation) are very resistant to things like random level generation. There are very few 3d games with random level generators. Since 2D graphics went out of fashion, replay value of games went downhill. Turn-based strategy, logic games are now extinct genres. In a game that's very linear and non-replayable, permanent death rarely adds anything. But permanent death (save/continue) flourishes in games with heavily randomized levels like Dominions and roguelikes. Unwillingness of player to start over is likely a sign that a game is not replayable. As I said before, items, spells etc that enhance vision range, resurrect, random events are much rarer in save/load games because they're not worth bothering with for a power-gamer.

Oh, and let's not forget random events. A random event wiped your city ? Reload. Enemy wizard received a gift ? Reload.  An earthquake struck, destroying your temple ? Reload. Fire destroyed your arcane laboratory ? Reload. A vampire count  revealed himself and tried to take control of your province ? Reload. A hurricane struck, devastating the coastline ? Reload. A demon possesed herd of swine and terrorized province for a week ? Reload. Heavy snowfall harms trade ? Reload. Reload...

Save/load games may as well contain no negative random events. It's a waste of developers' effort. The money could be better used to add something else instead.

Minor point:  Fire Emblem is very much a save/load game...otherwise the glorious art of RNG burning for some enemy actions and level up stat point distros would not exist.

Another way to look at this issue:  Ideally, in my mind, would be for Elemental to be designed to where "random" events and happenings, like an Earthquake or some such, are not utterly devastating events.  Rather, wouldn't it be ideal, for all parties, if the event opened as many, or more, doors than it closed in order to spur the player to trudge onward instead of feeling too doomed or horribly inconvenienced so as to be pressured into wanting to dial back the event to a prior save?  I suspect the engine, programmers, and so on are sophisiticated enough to do this.

Typical TBS:  Earthquake hit the Temple.  It gone.  "Ah well :enters 2 button F-key combo to roll on:"

Typical Roguelike:  Earthquake hit the Temple.  It gone. "Well that's a new one/should've known better/forgot about that being a feature.  Maybe I need to looking into Levitating stuff..."

Hopeful Elemental:  Earthquake hit the Temple.  It gone.  "What the, there's stuff under it...earthquake must've done this.  Wait a minute...there's a cave, monsters!  What the...there's a tunnel that leads somewhere!  What is going on, how much did this thing trigger?  Sweet!"

In something like the above respect, the debate could prove largely moot as the sum result would be compelling continued gameplay, element of surprise, and so on.  Because then the player could come to welcome such random events as opposed to universally fear and loathe them.

One point of game-enforced save/continue is psychologic. If you know you cannot save/load, you play differently. I play hardcore Diablo II because I prefer save/continue. If the game didn't provide the option, I would fall to the reload game becaue the option is available. Call me weak-willed if you like, but I am not alone to behave this way: If there's an easy cop-out, I'll play differently from no cop-out.

Which means a save/load game with a save/continue option makes sense, as in Diablo, and can make the game much more interesting for some players.

As for balancing for save/load vs. save/continue, I consider you shouldn't have to reload if you play well and don't like games where you are supposed to reload. Baldur's Gate 2 was fine, but when I reach the point where a failed save makes me lose the game, I don't reload, I quit in disgust because I think it's not fun.

So technically, save/Continue may not be useful in a save/load game, but both gameplay-wise (balance) and psychologically, this option makes a lot of sense.

Here's a thread "Save/load mania", concerning the free TBS Wesnoth. It supports my argument that adding save/load option has many downsides. Last time I played an early version of Wesnoth, I think it didn't have an option to save mid-game and I had to finish scenarios in one go.

http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6321&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

People talk about reloading whenever a veteran unit dies etc, how playing without load affects their behaviour by making them more cautious and prepared players... It's pretty clear save/continue has a strong psychological and gameplay effect. People disagreeing with this are either not perceptive enough, or in denial. Especially that the thread starts with a poll, with predictable results. It's funny, because many of them reach a conclusion not using save/load made the game more enjoyable, and taught them to play better.

Bandwagon fallacy, a.k.a Appeal to popularity. By your own logic, Elemental should be a FPS game because it would sell more copies that way. Do you have any argumentation behind your 'would be equally fun', or is it just 'because I say so' ? I can certainly see a lot of players reloading when a spell effect gives underwhelming result, whenever any truly bad random event happens, when you run into a strong enemy, when you lose your prophet or pretender in battle (lots of battle effects are chance-based so reloading would help against stray arrows etc).

It's perfectly possible to make a game that follows a path less traveled with good results. Sometimes it's called innovation and many people like that. Fantasy General has no town or city building. Master of Magic has unit upkeep. HOMM doesn't have unit upkeep and it's one of reasons army sizes tend to be measured in weeks. Games use different approaches to many aspects, and often they're so different they're not comparable. It's impossible to say one is strictly better or worse.

Save/load is the right thing to do in many strictly linear and deterministic games, because otherwise it forces replay and that's boring. Save/continue is a different approach. Neither is strictly better than the other, although I prefer save/continue for the reasons I listed. What's important is that they're both viable, and they're generally mutually exclusive - if you want a well designed game. Calling save/continue a subset of save/load is, for certain types of games, incorrect.

Elemental could as well be a save/continue game and remain successful, however at this stage of development it's probably already decided and the devs prefer traditional approach.

Speaking as a CS graduate, I can't say I'm surprised or impressed that you can copy files. Fortunately, for most people writing or even downloading such scripts is not worth the effort and they learn to play with save/continue, which has many beneficial gameplay effects.

No, I won't, because it's irrelevant to the point I'm making. It's not surprising you fail to get the message if you take my words out of context. I used an example of Quake 2, because it shows that a non-technical but psychological issue strongly affects the way the game is played. Extra options only matter if they're all viable. Woefully weak weapons in q2 could as well be removed from the game and no one would notice.

Another example is no-brainers. In Diablo2, skill trees turned out to be very problematic because - by design - some skills are much better than. Because of Diablo's unimaginative design, many skills (spells etc) are strictly better than others(for an example of similar game which keeps things interesting and gives every offensive spell a purpose, pros and cons - try Nox). It soon became apparent people prefer to put their skill points into some best skills, and put at most 1 in others, just to satisfy requirements. Why would anyone ever use Ice Bolt or the bigger version, whatever it's called, if there's Glacial Spike nad Frozen Orb ? Introduction of skill synergies hasn't solved this - it merely shuffled exisiting optimal builds. Again, it turned out that people use only a couple of skills. Again, for a psychological and not technical reason, part of the game is effectively removed. Dead code, never used spells.

Actually, horror, tension and TBS is not mutually exclusive. Do you remember UFO: Terror From The Deep ? (known as X-COM in US) UFO had a pretty creepy atmosphere, especially night missions and screams of dying civilians, FOV (a mechanic practically absent in 'modern' strategy games). UFO didn't allow saving during a mission and I think it was for the better. Not only it enhanced the creepy atmosphere, but it made 'acceptable losses' a fact of life. Many times you'd agree to lose one or two soldiers just to pass a particularly hard mission, or defend a valuable base. And because of FOV (field of view) it was actually important to move in such way as to not end turn without cover etc. Move a couple of steps at a time, search methodically. With save/load, it would be possible to reload the game, "a-ha the alien is THERE!", fire a torpedo into a supposedly "unexplored" area, and hit the unseen alien exactly (You can customize the path of torpedo in TFTD). And the soldier used for scouting could do something else instead, and wouldn't be in blast radius as a bonus.

Another tactical, turn-based game by the designer of UFO serries - Laser Squad nemesis. I'm pretty sure they left out the option to save game in campaign on purpose, to promote good tactics and caution (and dealing with consequences of your action) rather than save/load mania. The game is from 2003 so I really doubt it was a technical limitation.

If you can think outside the box, you realize that save/continue is not any worse than save/load. Objecting to a  game being designed with this approach would be like objecting to not having construction options in Fantasy General, or not having upkeep costs in HOMM games. It's a premise, it's the point of entry. Fundamental part of game design. You either like it, or don't like it and pick another game. Things like this shouldn't be viewed in a technical 'feature checkbox' way - unless someone does something horribly wrong, like forcing players to pass 10 missions without saving, or having lives' limit in a logic game.

Not strange at all. TBS are a tiny fraction of the mainstream games. Take a look around. TBS are practically nonexistant in mainstream. Stardock is a team of skilled necromancers reviving extinct genre.

Finally we agree on something. Yes, Master of Magic is a very un-replayable game (in the first turns)! Seriously, first few dozen of turns are terribly boring and schematic. Most of the time it's "Set taxes to 1.5, explore with your starting units for a while, scout with magic spirit. Build +population buildings (granary, farmers' market) and then +production buildings like sawmill and foresters' guild. Bulding miners' guild next will probably be the best choice. Only then Master of Magic leaves it's terribly boring stage and things start getting colorful. Until then, it's "next turn, next turn, next turn, next turn". For me it was the most boring part of each game, and it heavily discouraged me from starting a new game.  Having the same queue for units and buildings didn't help. As opposed to Dominions3, in which a combination of save/continue with immediate action meant things are colorful from the word 'go'.

MOM was the only civ-like game I enjoyed, so I won't comment on Civ. I have no idea about MOO. I have only played Shadow Magic out of AoW games, and it suffers from the same design choices as MOM - initial construction phase is quite long and repetitive, discouraging from starting a new game. Having lenghty and schematic opening seriously harms replayability especially in a save/continue game, that's why making the beginning fun is even more important.

Random events: rare and marginal in MOM (especially with Conjuctions, which would change NOTHING if you had 1 sorc, 1 nature, 1 chaos. If you controlled varied nodes, it was meaningless). Also rare and marginal in AoW:SM (you had to build a shrine). Oh, there was another kind of random events in MOM: randomly generated rampaging monsters. These were the devastating random events and would reduce your town to ashes, giving you a huge setback. Once in a while they would eliminate you from the game. (chimeras etc). It's safe to say most people just reloaded in case of rampaging monsters.

If anything, it's an understantement. Many players reload when something less than optimal happens (such as only getting X from event Y). They may think they're having fun, but many discover they're boring themselves.

Darkodinplus:

If you see no differences (rather than not admitting them), then my opinion is you're not perceptive enough and wouldn't make a good game developer. I don't think it's worthwile responding to you, as you tend to ignore points I make.