Regarding the Save Game System

[Question_505]

We are listening to the feedback you are providing on the current save game system and are looking at ways to improve it. We will have more info for you as quickly as we are able. We are definately paying attention to all of the discussions.

In the meantime, we have seen some confusion regarding the save system and want to make sure we are able to discren between feedback and bug reporting.

Here is how saves are currently designed to work:

You can save the game in Marcaul or in any of the dungeon levels. It saves your current inventory, hot bar and non-quest related things you’ve collected in the level. It does not save your current location, the state or location of enemies, the state of chests that have been looted, changes that you’ve triggered to the level (like raising the water), or any progress on quests. So loading effectively takes you to the start of the level and the beginning of the quest you were on, losing all quest progress.

The Silver Sapling allows you to save at various checkpoints through the game. When you die, you’ll respawn back at the last place you planted the Silver Sapling and all of your quest progress and the state of the level will remain. Be mindful, though, that it does not persist if you exit the play session. If you do that, then you will start at your last save point as outlined above.

If you encounter situations with save games or the Silver Sapling that are not consistent with what we’ve described above, please let us know so we can track the appropriate bugs. Thank you!

[Mormacil]

Originally posted by periurban:

To add my tuppence worth, WTF were you thinking? No-one wants to repeat, repeat, repeat.

Easiest option right now is to save whole state at last seed planting. That will allow progress but prevent save spamming, retaining the challenge.

And if you cannot patch in a good save system you can say goodby to your ambitions for this game. Why did you choose Unity to develop on? Is that the problem here? The game looks nice, but I can't help but think it would have looked better and performed better on Unreal [but I'm no expert].

Clearly because Unity can do a lot of pretty things. I really like what Obsidian did with the PoE games in Unity.

Originally posted by Snake:

Realistically, they can't afford to have 1 gb per save file, because someone who is unaware of the file bloat can do a couple dozen saves in a single sitting, if they like to play that way, and flood their HDD.

It's just technologically unsound.

A single savefile might be workable but it does sound they're simply not technical adept enough to get saving working. Which really should've meant they either limit levels to 30 minutes or hire better programmers.

[Videoapan]

Originally posted by Snake:

Realistically, they can't afford to have 1 gb per save file, because someone who is unaware of the file bloat can do a couple dozen saves in a single sitting, if they like to play that way, and flood their HDD.

It's just technologically unsound.

I agree with you on that it is unsound to have this as a save mechanic for regular saves but it could give us the "save and quit"-option.
Creating a save file like that takes a lot of time and a lot of space so people wouldn't want to do that a lot, hence just for "save and quit". I would be ok with such a system even if it only would allow one "actual" save in total. As long as I still get the start of level- and marcaul-saves the big save could be deleted upon loading. So maybe a bad workaround but at least something.

[werner]

Hey guys, I really loved your older stuff and I really like this game as well, but frankly spoken the save system sucks and has the potential to bomb your game financially. There are a lot of those who simply do not have the time to play a full level at a time (which might take hours), we sometimes have families and other duties. I think from all the problems listed the save system is the biggest one. and no I was not very happy when I saved last night only to discover today that I basically started at the beginning of the level again.
Despite that my best wishes that this game becomes enough successful, there is a great game hidden underneath all problems.

[werner]

Originally posted by Snake:

Realistically, they can't afford to have 1 gb per save file, because someone who is unaware of the file bloat can do a couple dozen saves in a single sitting, if they like to play that way, and flood their HDD.

It's just technologically unsound.

Well i could think of one save which allows to break the flow (sort of a memory dump) and then the respawn system would even eliminate parts of the problems the current system has.
I probably wont be able to play through when I know that whenever I have to stop mid level I have to start from the beginning of that level again.
Also respawning after death is not really that funny.-
Those are not bugs but questionable design decisions and probably already raised in the beta phase.

[nuwond3r]

1-4 save slots (4 in the original UU, more than enough) plus Sapling checkpoint would make me happy.

[Schlobb]

The trouble is the whole mission struture will break if they implement a proper save system.

If you can save anywhere (or on exit) and you have cleared a level on the first mission, any subsequent missions to the same level will have no challenge as they will be empty. If they reset the level then you'll have the problem of being able to collect the same items again which is a major expolit.

This is the consequence of the devs choosing the mutiple missions path rather than a continuous dungeon crawl like UU.

[Leonard J. Crabs]

Originally posted by Schlobb:

The trouble is the whole mission struture will break if they implement a proper save system.

If you can save anywhere (or on exit) and you have cleared a level on the first mission, any subsequent missions to the same level will have no challenge as they will be empty. If they reset the level then you'll have the problem of being able to collect the same items again which is a major expolit.

This is the consequence of the devs choosing the mutiple missions path rather than a continuous dungeon crawl like UU.

Since my inventory is saved, but I get moved to the start of the level with the current broken save system, I CAN already collect the same items over and over again, when I load. Currently it is Underworld Dupefest.

I have like 3 or 4 wands of each kind from the first tutorial mission alone, because I loaded multiple times and crashed one time.

[Schlobb]

Originally posted by Leonard J. Crabs:

Originally posted by Schlobb:

The trouble is the whole mission struture will break if they implement a proper save system.

If you can save anywhere (or on exit) and you have cleared a level on the first mission, any subsequent missions to the same level will have no challenge as they will be empty. If they reset the level then you'll have the problem of being able to collect the same items again which is a major expolit.

This is the consequence of the devs choosing the mutiple missions path rather than a continuous dungeon crawl like UU.

Since my inventory is saved, but I get moved to the start of the level with the current broken save system, I CAN already collect the same items over and over again, when I load. Currently it is Underworld Dupefest.

I have like 3 or 4 wands of each kind from the first tutorial mission alone, because I loaded multiple times and crashed one time.

Yep, I'm aware that the item exploit already exists. That's why I said implementing a proper save system is not a straightforward solution. The devs are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[UdderJuice]

Thanks for the explanation because I was seriously confused.

For the record, I will say that I am not a fan of this system and would much rather have a system that records the game state at that moment and restores it upon loading.

[Mormacil]

Originally posted by Schlobb:

The trouble is the whole mission struture will break if they implement a proper save system.

If you can save anywhere (or on exit) and you have cleared a level on the first mission, any subsequent missions to the same level will have no challenge as they will be empty. If they reset the level then you'll have the problem of being able to collect the same items again which is a major expolit.

This is the consequence of the devs choosing the mutiple missions path rather than a continuous dungeon crawl like UU.

If a full save on exit is made this isn't an issue at all as you literally start off where you were when you exited. Items, enemies, position etc all saved.

[Pilda]

Originally posted by Schlobb:

The trouble is the whole mission struture will break if they implement a proper save system.

Well, I think the mission structure is there only because of the lack of save system. It's not like they wanted a dungeon crawler game was mission based. It was just their solution how to have a possibility of saving the game at least sometime.

It would be amazing if they removed the mission structure after they make a proper save system. No one wants to play a mission based dungeon crawler. It doesn't do sense at all.

[Stundorn]

Originally posted by Question_505:

Originally posted by distantlight:

It seems like there's an infinite number of silver sapling seeds? This kinda sucks all the challenge out of the game, because you can just plant the seeds constantly as you progress and then respawn a few feet from where you died.

The original Underworld did have the silver sapling, but there was only seed. So if you wanted to replant it, you had to return to the tree and uproot it first.

Since you can only plant the seeds at pre-determined 'dirt' areas (aka, checkpoints), they can't really be planted anywhere. The idea is to complete an obstacle then save without having to go back to get the seed.

This is where our decisions need to be thought out. Will more checkpoints help those who don't have time to play entire levels? Will 'save anywhere' remove all challenge from the game? Will addressing the resets after quitting help? What mix of these ideas is the best way to go?

We want to make sure we have a system that is still challenging, but not frustrating.

I recently was able to plant the Seed on the earth anywhere, need not to be in that circle of stones. Is this intended?

As fr the save system. I first thought its good to have the challenge to have to complete a whole level, but if the levels become bigger they will take a huge amount of time, i just was about 2.5hrs in the upper eberon.

Seeds should be limited and found ingame and be placeable everywhere where is not stone or woodfloor, but earth.
Additionally this should save the game, so if you need to stop playing you can comeback later and start where you planted your last sappling.

[Kindred Spirit]

Originally posted by Snake:

Guys, stop telling them they promised you an Underworld experience. Devs have been borderline-berating people for expecting UU for a while now.

Dev quote:

"Its closer to DM MOM than the original, and that is what we said we were building. Sadly it seems that was not communicated as clearly to some, and people expecting a redo of UU are not happy. That was never the plan, its not what we would have built back at LGS after Shock and Thief, and frankly we already built that game 20+ years ago. Maybe we should have just done a remastered for those people, but as designers that was not exactly something that made us happy."

Source - https://forum.quartertothree.com/t/underworld-ascendant-brought-to-you-by-zombie-looking-glass/76311/540

So, yeah, how dare you whine and expect an UU spiritual successor, this was "never the plan"! :D The KS pitch was obviously just a bit of gas!

This, precisely.

The KS also conveyed to a lot more people than backers what the design intent was.

The KS said:

"Far more than a dungeon crawl, Underworld Ascendant is a next-generation sequel to the legendary fantasy RPG’s Ultima Underworld & Ultima Underworld 2. It not only modernizes the series’ visuals and user interface to take full advantage of the today’s powerful PC’s, it innovates in bold new ways."

This fellow seemed to think it was meant to be a spiritual successor of Ultima Underworld.

So yes, damn "those people" for expecting what was pitched to acquire backer money and the studio said they were making. Any "corrections" to that pitch were apparently kept low-key as to be missed by "those people" who weren't following hard enough to find the "itsnotreallyasequeltoultimaunderworld" tucked away in some corner.

If this was the plan all along, I don't think anyone gets to call "those people" anything close to ungrateful - they are the people who put up the money for what clearly wasn't planned to be as advertised in "the plan". Were "those people" wrong for doing so?

[Snake]

I know I was.

[MikeBob2013]

Originally posted by Question_505:

Originally posted by ACiDiC_SPUNk:

edit: for what it's worth, I've personally no issue with checkpoint-based saving via the tree as long as that also creates a save game I can load from.

This comment highlights the thought we need to put into making this less frustrating. Right now we have an issue with creating a loadable save. Will addressing that be a big step in the right direction? Is it a big enough step that checkpoints and the seeds are then viable? Some have made valid arguments for a 'save anywhere/any time' system, which negates checkpoints?

I'm collecting as much feedback as I can so we are well informed as to the community's thoughts.

I am unable to offer feedback on something that I cannot play, and I'm currently unable to play the game because of the key remapping issue (among others - which apparently haven't been assigned a very high priority. I'm guessing this is because there are so many other issues that need to be addressed first - for whatever reason.)

Shouldn't such a fundimental aspect of the game (its save system) have been fully and completely ironed-out sometime during the 4 (or so) years that this project was in development?

As a gamer, there's simply no worse experience than purchasing (what you thought was) a finished product and then having to spend weeks or (more likely) months as an uncompensated (if not unwilling) beta tester.

I think we've all been in this situation at some point, and I've never once met or communicated with anyone who's claimed that they enjoyed the experience.

And I'm not referring to those (not at all uncommon) situations where the occasional issue, bug, or glitch surfaces and users are asked to help to dentify, isolate, and correct it - I'm talking about a full-blown, from-the ground-up, five-alarm disaster such as what we're seeing unfold right here, right before our very eyes.

(Considering the current state of things, I'd say an "Early Access" release would've been preferrable to what's going on now.)

So now the cat is out of the bag (so to speak) and you're all doing everything within your collective capability to address the (many) issues that are being reported: I get this.

But the game's user review rating is taking a beating more savage & severe than just about any that I've ever seen - and it's only been a single day since its official release.

I haven't been a part of the 'review massacre' that's currantly ongoing, and I do not intend to join in, because I really want to see Underworld Ascendant succeed - and publicly trashing it on its ratings page (so very early on) is counterproductive to that end, imo.

Nor will I whine and stamp my feet about demanding a refund: the game will remain in my library whether it gets fixed or not. (I guess I've been hoping and waiting for this for so long that it feels better to have a woefully flawed result than none at all, I dunno.)

My point?

It really didn't have to be this way. I don't like reading the posts of so many angry/frustrated users (or their game reviews), but I can't argue with them: I 100% understand where they're coming from.

I'll keep a close eye on things (and offer feedback/input when and where I feel qualified - and able - to do so), but you folks surely look as though you're fighting an uphill battle at this point. Best of luck.