Punishing versus generous save design — try both policies against the same hazard before you take a side
A checkpoint is an argument about how much of a mistake a player should have to repeat. “Punishing” and “generous” aren’t just adjectives here — they’re two different answers to a design question: when this hazard kills you, what exactly does the game make you redo?
Try it#
Try it: two respawn policies, one hazard, at the same time
Punishing — back to the start
Generous — back to the last flag
Press Run the hazard — both policies hit the same hazard at the same instant, and only the respawn differs.
Both rows hit the same hazard on the same click. The only thing that ever differs between them is where each one wakes back up.
Notice:
- how many percentage points of the run the punishing row loses versus the generous row, on the identical hit
- whether that gap changes how carefully you play the next attempt — a design effect, not just a save-file effect
- that neither row is “wrong” — they’re answering “what do you owe back?” differently, on purpose
Outline#
- what a checkpoint is actually forgiving: time, or context, or both
- punishing saves as a design tool, not just an oversight
- generous saves and the risk of removing consequence entirely
- how this week’s live demo isolates the variable from everything else in a real game
Teaching team
- Marisol Quayeconvenor