Every time developers make a game, they are always aiming (most of the time, anyway), for an effort that will far surpass their previous work. New features and options, revamped graphics, more entertaining story, etc; and that’s nice. Really it is. That’s what we all want, right? The best for our buck. Problem is, while concentrating on adding new things or trying too hard to “break the mold”, game makers can often forget to include some of the things that, at least to me, should be standard in all games.
That’s the reason that this article’s title ends with a “Part 1”; because there are plenty of things that developers often overlook. And sometimes, it’s not because of brand new features or adding online play. Sometimes, it’s just because developers don’t think we want it that bad or maybe they don’t even think about it or its importance to gamers.
We’ll take the time out to concentrate on two of these fundamental aspects of games: save points and button configuration. Neither of these a big deal? They may be a bigger concern than you think.
Save Points There’s nothing more frustrating than losing a life just before a save point. Even worse, the game may make you start from the very beginning of a level because its save system requires you to finish a level completely before allowing you to save your progress. Then there are save systems that allow you to save at anytime and anywhere, thereby eliminating the problem of bad saving systems. Or not. The “save anywhere” option has its own set of unique problems.
The PS2 version of Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne contains a retarded save system that is three (!) menu screens deep! There isn’t even an auto-save feature, the method that the PS2 version of the first game had.
Most notably, saving one’s progress at anytime helps those individuals who live fragmented lives. That is, though they have time for games, they don’t have time to simply take a few hours at once to sit down and play. Instead, these types of gamers play in five-to-fifteen minute fragments before they have to stop to go on with their daily responsibilities. Often, once they put the controller down, they’re done playing for the day, so putting the game on pause isn’t an option. A save anywhere system certainly helps to alleviate the frustration a gamer who lives this lifestyle of not being able to progress due to the time and playing it takes to reach the next save point.
Saving anywhere isn’t the best option for everyone though. While it may sound effective to save at any point, it tends to become a safeguard for gamers, as they save their progress every few steps in fear of having something happen within the game. Offering the save anywhere option will only serve to break the gameplay up for many players, which will certainly dull the experience.
What developers can do to improve on this is to offer multiple saving options in their systems. For example, having a plethora of checkpoints in a game would be helpful, but the player could easily save the game anywhere at anytime as well, for that “just in case” moment where a gaming session has to abruptly come to an end. That way, the player never has to halt the action to save, unless he/she wants or needs to. At the same time, the game is automatically saving progress at various checkpoints, so an unexpected “game over” can be picked up without too much frustration.
Warhammer 40,000: Fire Warrior might have been a better game if the player was allowed to customize the controller configuration the way he/she likes. Instead, the player gets minimal options in a genre that practically demands fully customizable controls as the rule.
Unfortunately, while this sounds like a simple solution, many devs just don’t think about small things like this, and they’ll add a save system that they feel is adequate, even if it’s a nightmare to use. Consider the atrocious save system found in the PS2 version of Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne. Instead of having checkpoints, save anywhere, or even between-level saves, the game only allows the player to save if he/she does so in the Options menu; and you’re essentially leaving the game to go save your progress. What kind of save system were the developers thinking? The Xbox and PC versions of the game had no such misstep. Just because people don’t tend to judge a game by its save system doesn’t mean that a bad save setup doesn’t detract from the experience.
Button Configuration We’ve all played games that had some really wacky control schemes, and we wished that we would be able to change the button configuration around so that we could have a layout that suited us. Unfortunately, developers aren’t getting the message, as they usually do one of two things. They either give a choice of a few pre-set options to choose from (configurations the game makers insist are the best and most comfortable layouts for their game), or even worse, no options at all, thereby making gamers put up with whatever button layout the developers choose.
The answer to this is easy: Have customized button configurations in ALL games, and make it standard. The first-person shooter genre all but demands it, and in most cases, developers deliver in those games. Those in the know has stated already that including fully customizable controls only take about a full day’s coding, so the fact that there are games that exclude customizable controls is pretty much inexcusable.
Games like SOCOM offered very little in the way of button configuring, and then Zipper releases SOCOM II with very little improvement, despite the fact that competitive games like SOCOM are packed with players wishing they could do something about their control schemes. Situations like this are a simple case of the developers shooting themselves in the foot. If the gamer is thinking about changing his/her control scheme – and can’t – the controls, and the game overall, isn’t doing its job.
Though SOCOM was wildly popular, the controls were a bit unwieldy. Even with the release of the insanely admiredSOCOM II, the developers evidently didn’t want to allow a fully customizable control scheme. Past problems were rectified for the most part, but not this one. Why?
Luckily, there are a few developers taking note, and even though it’s happening at a much slower pace than what is desired, game makers are finally starting to listen to gamer criticisms, and including more options for the gamer on the controls front. And first-person shooters in particular, have been supporting the method for ages, whether you’re talking about Halo, Medal of Honor, or Red Faction.
The Essentials Every developer wants to make fantastic games, but oftentimes, the worries are how perfect the graphics will be, or nabbing celebrity talent to do voice work. Game makers are pressured to add online play and to make sure the game lasts more than ten hours. And yet, some of the most aggravating things about the games we play is the lack of true control of how we play. When gamers spend $50 on a game – which is quite expensive – the gamer expects to be fulfilled in the experience completely. By taking relatively simple ideas, that really are no-brainers, and not implementing them due to time, lack of resources, etc., the developers are simply encouraging dissatisfaction. Gamers want to play games, but on their terms, not the game maker’s.
