I get where you're coming from.
For me, the ideal would be to default to the way it was originally, with a tick-box in the options to switch to save anywhere and/or quicksave.
Would that work for you?

I have no idea how the game actually saves in this version, as I only played a few minutes to make sure it was running right, but as far as I could tell, there was no save anywhere OR quicksave.

Interestingly enough, i've played a bit of games like Demon Souls now and then. I also like a bit of challenge now and again as well, as long as it isn't too overwhelming. That said, I more so like the kinds of challenge I can tone down/bypass if the need arises...especially as I get older and the time I have to replay levels/etc becomes more limited.
(I also have worries re: things like power loss/etc, which is another reason I more so like games with save systems)

Play and forget? Maybe for some people....but I like to play games I like many times over :)

I see it as less about making the game comply, and more about adding accessibility options to it for those that want/need such :)
------------------------------------

This reminds me of Daikatana.....you can either collect save crystals(1 crystal per save), or enable a box to save anytime.
-----------------------------------

p.s. there is no quicksave in the remastered Dark Forces.....the quicksave option is in The Force Engine sourceport.

Personally I think that people who equate losing progress with challenge have it all wrong. If you beat some part of the game, and then got to the part that actually killed you, having to repeat the part that didn't doesn't make the challenge at the end more challenging. If someone beats me at chess, having to do the dishes every time I want a rematch won't make said rematch more difficult. It's just adding a chore to the actual challenge.

Now, one can argue that the threat of losing progress makes things more immersive - I won't argue against that. For me it's just frustration, but that's subjective. But more challenging? Nope, that's just an illusion.

This reminds me of the cyberspace bits in the System Shock remake, where you have
to redo entire cyberspace sections if you log out/get booted out before finishing them.

That system had sense in the very old days because tech limitations.

I am sure it was not the case in DF, my guess is that they implemented that system after the game proper testing instead

They noticed that the game could be finished in 3 hours, and it was too easy, doesnt matter the engine, the puzzles or the size of the maps. And instead of offering the double of enemies (tech limits probably) or bullet sponges enemies (good decission) they implemented and already old school "save" system for the time.

Honestly I do not have any proof about it but it sounds to me reasonable.

The matter is: it was tolerable (?) for the time, is it now?
My opinion is that even the 2.5D engine is more tolerable (a piece of art and very ingenious to compete with Doom) than the save system.
So an hypotetical remaster needed to revise it, it does not matter if the original system is still there or not.


What people say in the Steam forums is that the game uses a series of checkpoints of some kind

Yes, I think that would the best solution. It would give everyone the option to choose their preference and shouldn't be difficult to do.

I wasn't saying losing progress would make a game more challenging. It acts as a punishment for failure. Punishing the player for failure can make a game feel more 'real' and less cheap - it means the player has to put something on the line if they want to take a risk and it affects the way you assess situations. But again, I get that that model isn't for everyone.

It wasn't related to any technical limitations. It was a deliberate design choice, which affects the feel of the game and the way the player approaches situations.

Howlongtobeat gives the 'main' play time as 8.5 hours and 'main + sides' as 10.5. So, your estimate of 3 hours is highly optimistic. Maybe someone very experienced who knows the game could speedrun it in that time, but I'd estimate someone new to it would take 8-12 hours. It has 14 levels and each will take between 30 mins to an hour.

And here we disagree. The lives system isn't broken and doesn't need revising. It should be preserved, with an option to change, for those that want that (as already discussed).

Under the Force Engine fan made port, last year, I finished the game in around five hours. Indeed the experience counts, but it wasnt the main reason, I am a slow player and losing reflexes every day :p.

The reason behind was the proper save system the fan made engine offers. It makes the game easier compared with other counterparts of its time

And indeed, with the system implemented in the original DF the game is roughly eight or nine hours of gameplay. Pretty standard and common for a 1995 FPS game. Not bad. Always an estimation, of course

And that's what I mean, again. They probably tried to make the game harder in the bad sense. Artificially.
With a traditional save system like those in Doom or Duke Nukem, the game would have been too short and/or too easy for that time standards.

Yes. You chose to not use saves. Did the fact that other people saved more hurt your JK experience?

I unfortunately, am no longer a teenager (or younger). There are a lot more demands on my time now. Having to repeat 15-40 minutes of content I've already seen, possibly multiple times is less appealing than it used to be. Especially if I need to quit mid-game.


That's an incredibly bizarre statement, and it's not how that works at all. The vast majority of FPS games allow some form of mid-mission saves, often "save anywhere." How many times have you heard people in those games complaining how boring it is for specifically because they can optionally save?


I'd be perfectly happy with an option in the menu to allow mid-mission saving.

I don't agree that the restart-entire-level save mechanic is an integral part of the Dark Forces experience, because it's a very similar kind of game to many other games which usually allow mid-level saves.

Hello Time4Tea!

I have to agree with you on both points--committment due to possible punishment and deliberate design choice of lives.

For me, the system of limited lives in video games is neither broken nor outdated. Because of its heritage from the old arcades and the quarters you had to pay for additional attempts ('lives' or actually 'continues') it gets a lot of hatred today.
Sure, in our current state of the world, the convenience to pause and save everywhere and anytime to later continue where we left off is very welcome and to a lot of people paramount in their buying decision.

Nonetheless, the choice of implementing a limited amount of trys or 'lives' per level or even per game can be a deliberate choice and intrinsically change how we perceive and interact with challenges and risks the game throws at us or offers!

Take for instance, the game "Lumo"--a (pseudo)isometric platform adventure game harkening back to the ZxSpectrum times (Knight Lore, Alien 8, and others). It offers both an unlimited lives (instant respawn) option in form of the 'Adventure Mode" and a limited lives challenge option (the 'Old School Mode') in which it tracks additionally the amount of time playing (surviving), rooms visited, distance travelled, jumps performed, collectable pieces and secrets found, etc.
Both game modes have a totally different feel to it! Where the "Adventure Mode" (aptly named) encourage exploration and experimentation, the limited lives 'Old School Mode' (not so aptly named, since the game's inspirational source games often did not limited respawns but penalised with a reduction in available time left!) on the other hand put emphasis on committment and on the fly risk-reward management.


Furthermore, like in old home console games, limited lives lead to players practicing and acquiring a certain level of skill in the corresponding game. (Whether or not, someone values this skill increase is not the question. Funnily, today, most games and genres insert a kind of 'skill tree' or RPG-like progression system--so players seem to like at least the illusion of 'getting better' in a game often even with amounts of 'grinding'.)

Oh, it feels entirely different, attempting a certain challenging moment with the knowledge of risking to loose actual progress (not just numbers on a character's spreadsheet) and succeeding in it or needing to practice more, than to overcome it after several brief even a few second-long attempts due to saving and loading immediately before the very moment! Try, fail, reload, instant try again, until it did work only results in pushing the dices of luck until every detail aligns well.

Modern (triple-A) games and more and more remasters/remakes, unfortunately, have to smooth out the experience for everyone, no show stoppers, no peaks in the difficulty curve, many active assist features, boiling down to less player skills and thinking required.


I am not against providing options, on the contrary. But, I do believe, that our modern world raises (has raised) a generation of people who poorly know how to deal with a failure or a backlash or a 'No'. Hence, many assume everything have to be for everyone, including games or more specifically a certain types of games.

In my opinion, that is a wrong! You might prefer this or that feature and even have real life reason for justifying your preference. That is ok. But then, maybe a certain game is simply not for you.

Certainly, a developer can change an aspect of deliberate design to cater to a wider audience and maybe more sales. But the originally intended experience gets lost in the translation.

Best of both worlds, would be--as mentioned by someone else--to offer the originally intended way and alternatives as options, either with a default to the original or at least with a clear description or reminder in the menu where the payer can choose.

Kind regards,
foxgog

[PS: Regarding the analogy with doing the dishes before re-attempting a chess match. This is an inapropriate analogy, because in a game you still confronting regular gameplay that you might have to repeat in order to reach the difficult part again. While doing so, you get more skillful with the actual gameplay, propably even manage better your ingame ressources or strategies/tactics not only of the singular task that causes you trouble.
If a game would make you do completely different chores repeatedly for each attempt at a major difficulty spike moment, than I would consider it really bad game design!]

Implementing saving/loading is not trivial if you forget to design everything in a proper way. Who knows if they wanted no real saves or they didn't have enough time to implement them. It's easy to claim that everything ended up the way you intended.

The whole quarters for chances/lives thing in arcades was one of the earliest attempts to nickel and dime players, way before things like cosmetic DLC/microtransactions/subscriptions/etc. It was done not so much to make the game more challenging/fun, and more so to make as much money as possible from each sucke....err gamer.

In the past developers programmed games for their potential public, its difficulty. Believe me. DF with or without the lives system is different in the challenging.

I said my experience before and above. But one of the reasons i am convinced as well is the possibility of the checkpoint new system offered by the new creators. You know, balance between Call of Duty and Pong.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, foxgog. You make a lot of very good points here and I agree with most of what you said.

Another point I'll make: the main effect I felt from the lives system of the OG Dark Forces was in how I approached the game - it made me more cautious and have to carefully weigh up in-game decisions I was making. The number of times that I actually ran out of lives and had to restart a level was relatively small. Generally only on 2 or 3 of the harder levels, or the occasional situation where I got ambushed by something nasty (e.g. jumped by a dark trooper) and caught unawares.