I'm in the process of doing the design doc for a new puzzle game. What do you think about saving in puzzle games?

Should I give the player x lives and after they are spent he would then need to restart the entire game. Or ditch that and if he should die, then allow him to replay the level. They may get annoyed having to play the entire game again to get to that point. Then again, it does give a sense of urgency to the gameplay...

Would you reset the score to zero?

Yes, at least ditch the idea of making the player start the entire game over. It's pretty safe to say that the old practice of limiting the number of lives in a puzzle game is over. One benefit for the developer was that their games took longer to complete, but these days it just feels like unnecessary punishment.

Trust me, if a player really wants to attempt to finish the game from beginning to end with the least amount of deaths, (or none at all) they will certainly try it once they've mastered the game. If you're still after providing the nostalgia of the old days, use your imagination and think of a side benefit for players who want to challenge themselves this way after they've become experts.

This is one of those debates much like predestination vs. free will, or Nature vs. Nurture. There are no hard and fast rules for implementing saving in your game. Although it's not traditionally what you would consider a gameplay element saving has a substantial affect on gameplay.

There are a number of camps that form around this issue, those that believe that choices in a game should have consequences and thus you should not be able to save where ever you want. Others feel that by limiting saving you only frustrate your players defeating the purpose of your game (hopefully that purpose is to have fun?)

What you choose is entirely based on your own feelings about game design and what you feel your audience wants.

Depends on what you mean by puzzle game (since that covers a lot of ground these days). If you mean they logic/puzzle games like Miko & Molly/Dweep/Fitznik/... they I say you want to save the progress of how many/which levels they have completed but it probably wouldn't make a lot of sense to save within a level. These games offer no (or practically no) action element, which I think is the only type of games that should force replay. With action games, you can get better by playing over and over. Not so with a puzzle game. There is not sense of accomplishment by pushing the same blocks in the same order each time. The only reason to go back in a puzzle game is for a game like Miko & Molly where there are multiple solutions and you want to improve your fastest time, or like Stockboy in which there are points for doing things in correct order and hidden bonuses. However, in these cases the player should choose to replay these levels at will, not by your force.

As far as the actual saving withing a level, it generally doesn't make sense. The only logic/puzzle game I can think of that could justify this is Rocknor's Bad Day, because the levels are broken into distinct sections (and coincidentally there is an action element).

Concerning having limited lives, for these types of game I say a definite no. First of all, if I've convinced you that saving the last completed level makes sense, then there is no point to lives since they can just continue from that level anyway. In a game like Rocknor's Bad Day, even there the little bit of action isn't the primary element in the game, just kind of a supplemental element, so being able to retry from the last checkpoint as often as you want would be ideal.

Now, to consider another type of puzzle game, you have the games like Arcade Lines, Penguin Puzzle, etc. In these games, they are usually pretty opened ended (unlimited levels, no set goal, levels just get harder). Lives may or may not make sense, but usually saving doesn't (unless it's just to stop playing and later continue where you left off, like arcade lines does).

Then you have the action/puzzle games, where thinking through puzzles is part of the game, but the action elements are also a primary aspect of the game. This area isn't as clear cut as I think the other ones are. Since action is primary, part of the experience of the game is to replay parts and (hopefully) get better at them each time. Getting better gives the player a sense of accomplishment. Then you have the other camp which suggests that a player should never have to replay something they have already completed. For this genre, the debate is a big can of worms, and I don't think I'll open them quite yet.

So those are my opinions. If your game falls into a slightly different puzzle game type that I didn't directly address, then maybe you can narrow it down (give examples of comparable game) and we can discuss more particulars.

Thank you for the replies. You have answered my question, but here is a spanner to throw into the works, how would scoring work if the player then could start the game from any completed level? Would seperate profiles be needed for each player? Also there now comes a logistics problem when the player backtracks to play level 5 again when he is already on level 10, how can you give him points for an easier level that he has already completed?! I am going to dl a few puzzel games now and have a look at hoe they have treated this. (My game is similar in concept to a 'dweep type-game').

Points are a relict of the old arcade days. Why should a puzzle need that? Ok, some Tetris-like would probably need points.

I beg to differ, points are a driving force in a game surely. High Scores alone would encourage many more hours of gameplay.

I don't think scores are necessaryily a thing of the past. And the way I would track it would be to have separate profiles for each player. In the player's profile, record individual scores for each level. When they replay a level, replace the score with the higher of the old score and the new score. Or you could always use the newer score...which adds the element of risk (do you want to risk a good score that you might not be able to repeat, for the chance that you might do better).