Autosave/Limited Save

[Saint_Proverbius]

I wrote this up on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, I figured some of you might like to read it.

>> Well...for me autosave has always been almost equal to cheating.
>> Taking risks in a game is a great part of a fun eventually. If you
>> just wanna browse through the games without difficulties or barriers
>> to overcome why not then just "watch the movie".
>>
>> I see no point in playing games with "two steps, save, kill the bad
>> orc, save, save just for sure,
>> oh-I-suffered-slight-wounds-while-fighting-with-an-orc-so-I-go-back-ear
>> lier- savegame-and-try-again, save, two steps, save...
>>
>> Playing Max Payne for example was way more intense experience when
>> used limited savegames/episode....
>
> Oh. You're one of THEM.
>

I agree with Mr. Knight37 on this. Limited save games don't make the game more exciting, they only make it more annoying.

There's a number of reasons why this "mechanic" should stay with console, and perhaps even die there.

1.) I need to save NOW, mister!

Limited save games as a feature tend to make the assumption that you're going to spend the day playing the game without interruption and only stopping at the point where you get the save game crystal or get to the save game platform.

Well, maybe I *need* to quit before that. Maybe I just fired up the game to get in a little play time before work. It's kind of hard to get a boss to accept, "Well, sorry I'm late, but I was having trouble getting that Save Game Gem in 'Bob's Dwarven Adventure Through Zombieland'."

When I'm done playing, I'm done playing. It's that simple.

2.) Creates needless repetition.

Okay, you use a save game gem or a save game location, and you press onward. After twenty or thirty minutes of exploring, killing, questing, talking, and so on.. You die!

So, you reload from the save gem spot or the save platform, and you get to do all that over again which isn't that much fun. Each and every time you die before you get to that next gem or platform, the frustration level goes up exponentially.

Of course, you could claim that this could happen if you forget to save manually in a standard save system. That's true. However, you're talking something you know is your fault versus something you have no control over. Chances are, with a conventional save system, you're not going to end up doing that twice, or three times, or four times, etc.

You can also argue that with save platforms, you can just go back to it and save before you have to fight that big boss. Well, that's true too, but is walking to and from a save point that fun? No, it's not.

3.) Immersion...

There's nothing that shatters immersion in a CRPG faster than having a visible game mechanic sitting right there in the game. Imagine getting really in to a CRPG, then openning a chest and pulling out a save game gem. You've gone from being really involved in the setting and story to remembering, "Hey, this is a game."

The same thing goes for save points and so on. Hey, thank goodness these kobolds built this save point right here in their five level dungeon of death for me! See? It just breaks the illusion right there.

--
Saint Proverbius
http://www.rpgcodex.com - Putting the 'Role' back in RPG

 

[Mistress]

I agree with Mr. Knight37 on this. Limited save games don't make the game more exciting, they only make it more annoying.

Totally - I really don't like playing games with limited save points.

1.) I need to save NOW, mister!

Limited save games as a feature tend to make the assumption that you're going to spend the day playing the game without interruption and only stopping at the point where you get the save game crystal or get to the save game platform.

Well, maybe I *need* to quit before that. Maybe I just fired up the game to get in a little play time before work. It's kind of hard to get a boss to accept, "Well, sorry I'm late, but I was having trouble getting that Save Game Gem in 'Bob's Dwarven Adventure Through Zombieland'."

When I'm done playing, I'm done playing. It's that simple.

Exactly. It's a case of - leaving the game on pause until you can return to it. Super.... I generally end up getting tired of games where I can't pick them up and put them down at will due to restricted save options.

So, you reload from the save gem spot or the save platform, and you get to do all that over again which isn't that much fun. Each and every time you die before you get to that next gem or platform, the frustration level goes up exponentially.

It really is highly frustrating, especially given the fact that each time it's an exact repeat of what you did before....way to kill the fun!

Of course, you could claim that this could happen if you forget to save manually in a standard save system. That's true. However, you're talking something you know is your fault versus something you have no control over. Chances are, with a conventional save system, you're not going to end up doing that twice, or three times, or four times, etc.

Heh - yeah, although that does happen - you aren't going to let it happen several times in succession - for me it's usually more of a once every so often problem, certainly not enough to make things at all tedious.

The same thing goes for save points and so on. Hey, thank goodness these kobolds built this save point right here in their five level dungeon of death for me! See? It just breaks the illusion right there.

Hehhehheh. "My, how considerate of them!"

This is all really a major part of why I don't play console games a lot. They just don't feel right usually, and the restrictions just prevent me from really getting into them.

 

[SexExitium]

 

[Rosh]

Agreed about the saves, it's something I've been doing some writing on, among other things and a lot of other work. One thing that did m ake me give a nod of recognition is something that harms setting immersion. That is the reference to game mechanics or out-of-game material, all inside of the game. The biggest criminal of this one is Final Fantasy, among many other console games.

This inclused "HP", "Skill Points", and anything that isn't a visible construct to the characters in the world, rather than what the player sees.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Well, hit points and skill points are kind of a required evil, as are seeing damage points done to an enemy. After all, we know how hurt we are for the most part because we can actively feel it. We can also tell by what we're doing and seeing how much damage is being done to an enemy. It's just a measure of feedback, really.

 

[Megatron]

I think that save-games that are actually static points in the game (Save crystals or whatever is the trend in japanese console games) are shit. It would be fine if you could carry them around but instead it forces you to save RIGHT there or not at all. And games like mafia only took a little longer because of the lack of saves mid-mission.

I like to save wherever I want, but sometimes I can over-use it and it spoils the game. Hitman 2 managed saves well. It gave you a limited number of saves every mission based on what difficulty you were playing with. This is fine for most mission-based games, but for a rpg it would be crap. So in rpgs I like to save anytime, but a lot of the time I get so involved in the story I forget to save for half an hour then I die, but on the other hand I'd happily trade in 30 minutes of my time for a good involving game.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Well, hit points and skill points are kind of a required evil, as are seeing damage points done to an enemy. After all, we know how hurt we are for the most part because we can actively feel it. We can also tell by what we're doing and seeing how much damage is being done to an enemy. It's just a measure of feedback, really.

I think what he was referring to is when in-game characters refer to it. Like when a peasant tells you come and eat with him to restore your hit points. Or characters refer to their specific stats or levels, especially in numerical terms. It does kind of screw with immersion to me, too.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I think what he was referring to is when in-game characters refer to it. Like when a peasant tells you come and eat with him to restore your hit points. Or characters refer to their specific stats or levels, especially in numerical terms. It does kind of screw with immersion to me, too.

Yup, you're right. That's what I get for replying when I just wake up.

I agree with that as well. Gothic did this occationally, as well. When you'd go seek training and you didn't have the skill points from a level up, the trainer would occationally tell you, "Hey, you don't have enough skill points for me to train you." or something like that.

However, the biggest offender of this in recent times has to be NWN's tutorial act. All the trainer/advisor people would refer to the mouse and keyboard actions. They'd tell you how to use the camera to move around. There was even one that'd tell you how to "Level up". It was just really, really pathetic.

"Oh, you're the new recruit! Welcome to Neverwinter. I'm sorry this couldn't be under better circumstances given the plague here. Hey, do you know how to use your mouse to move the camera?"

That's not even an exaggeration.

 

[Mistress]

However, the biggest offender of this in recent times has to be NWN's tutorial act. All the trainer/advisor people would refer to the mouse and keyboard actions. They'd tell you how to use the camera to move around. There was even one that'd tell you how to "Level up". It was just really, really pathetic.

"Oh, you're the new recruit! Welcome to Neverwinter. I'm sorry this couldn't be under better circumstances given the plague here. Hey, do you know how to use your mouse to move the camera?"

That's not even an exaggeration.

The tutorial in NWN was really lame.

Similar points could actually be made about Morrowind's introduction when you're getting off the boat - it tells you controls etc - "Look at the hatch and press SPACEBAR, this will open the hatch" etc It doesn't go on and on like NWN's tutorial though.

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

It depends on the style of auto-save points though.
Splinter Cell is annoying because I have to leave the Box on for about 3 days so I can get past some stupid situation, though with Halo you just halve to walk to x point, and x point comes up often. To be perfectly honest, I think this system is sometimes better for immersion in non-RPGies.
And the problem with this kind of save system on an RPG is that the total immersion factor on RPGies should, ideally, be based around the player’s actions and an intriguing gameworld.
And frankly, Lifestones (in MMORPGies) and Save Crystals deter from that.
And yeah, the worst tutorial I ever hope to see was in NWN.
Uuuuggghh.
It's kinda like watching John Goodman and John Merric go at it, isnt it?

 

[Jed]

Anachronox had the option of limited saves, cute little critters called "Time-minders." They were explained in-story, and weren't as obtrusive as some of the other paradigms mentioned here.

But then again, I never used them, and simply used the "unlimited save" option.

J

 

[evilmonkey]

I like options

and putting limits on saves removes freedom

I often play games for hours without saving, and I always tries Ironman modes on games, with varied success, but I like it. I like the option to not save, and have limited savepoints, but I don't want to be forced.

alas I don't like autosave functions on games unless the game is terrible buggy and will crash every 15 minutes, or if you can turn the feature off.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Well, hit points and skill points are kind of a required evil, as are seeing damage points done to an enemy. After all, we know how hurt we are for the most part because we can actively feel it. We can also tell by what we're doing and seeing how much damage is being done to an enemy. It's just a measure of feedback, really.

In an ideal fighting game, there wouldn't be any need for hitpoint charts. Ideally, injured characters would limp, reveal scratches and eventually bleed. In a realistic game, they could receive subdural hematomas.

Of course, none of this would be really suitable in a fast-paced multi-character game like Baldur's Gate, in which I should also mention that combat management is pretty difficult regardless, due to the interface problems caused by the pause-and-play system.

Visual damage would work better in turn based games, but only if the damage is visible enough. There would still be a need for hit point bars and damage paging due to the tactical system. Though, interestingly enough, a game of the sort without a hit point bar and would be able to implement a feature like "feigning death". You could for instance equip your character with a blood bag and have him use it on himself, blooding himself, and lie prone waiting for an enemy to walk by.

It really wouldn't be much of a feature, though. It wouldn't be of much use to either your character or the comptuer's, because a player would probably know to shoot the 'corpse' to make sure that it's dead and a good AI would learn from the mistakes it makes and shoot corpses as well. Stuff like that's better suited for third person shooters.

So yeah, as you said, it's all a measure of feedback. It doesn't really detract from the game. A 3rd person shooter would be the only kind of game capable of not requiring a health bar.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Anachronox had the option of limited saves, cute little critters called "Time-minders." They were explained in-story, and weren't as obtrusive as some of the other paradigms mentioned here.

But then again, I never used them, and simply used the "unlimited save" option.

J

I liked the time minders. They added to the game's environment and didn't detract from the immersion, unlike save points in other games, or Ion Storm's John Romero's Daikatana's John Romero's Save Gems's. I am not exaggerating.

Anyway, they were pretty cool. As a plus, you also had the choice to save whenever you felt like it.

I don't think Tom Hall ripped off Terry Pratchett's idea about the "Saving Time Yeti" in Thief of TIme, either. Anachronox's storyline dealt mostly with a really cool variation of time travel, in any case. It was a pretty damn good story, I'd say. I don't want to spoil the story for you guys, you should just get the game and play it too.

 

[Mistress]

I wasn't that taken with Anachronox.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

In an ideal fighting game, there wouldn't be any need for hitpoint charts. Ideally, injured characters would limp, reveal scratches and eventually bleed. In a realistic game, they could receive subdural hematomas.

The problem with a purely visual display is that it'd be really difficult to code up something like that so it's as effective as a health bar.

Sure, you could slap gorey little decals on the enemy you're fighting, but how much of a measure is that? It's really not much of a good one considering most of the visual feedback in a realistic fight wouldn't be that great for gameplay.

For example, as you get injured, you move slower, you limp, your vision gets blurry, etc. I'm not so sure a player would like this to apply to him as well. After all, it would make it nearly impossible to get away from a fight where you can't win in both TB and RT if this was taken in to account every time.

 

[DBL27]

save points

As much as I do like the occasional console "RPG" (Suikoden III, Persona 2), the absolute worst idea ever was to introduce save points like in the FF series of games. It ruins the suspense because I would find myself saying: "well, the big boss isn't behind this door, because there is always a save point right before you meet it." Since those were often the only fights you had a chance of losing, it ruined the feeling of risking life/limb to explore the area.

By the way, while it has it's flaws, if you are looking for an unusual PSX RPG, give Persona 2: Eternal Punishment a try. Not your average RPG plot by any means. Even better if you read Japanese and have played Persona: Innocent Sin (complicated to explain).

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Re: save points

As much as I do like the occasional console "RPG" (Suikoden III, Persona 2), the absolute worst idea ever was to introduce save points like in the FF series of games. It ruins the suspense because I would find myself saying: "well, the big boss isn't behind this door, because there is always a save point right before you meet it." Since those were often the only fights you had a chance of losing, it ruined the feeling of risking life/limb to explore the area.

Right. I totally agree with you about that. My wife likes the FF games, though she quit playing them after FF8 because they'd just gotten way too silly. That's the one thing I noticed though, you could always tell when you were nearing something like a boss monster or some other goofiness simply because they'd put save platforms near them.

There's little or no suspence involved with things like that.

Of course, it's even worse when they DON'T put those near a boss, so you have to constantly repeat an area, over and over again, until you manage to kill the thing at the end of it.

Either way, limited save systems like this really don't work well.

 

[evilmonkey]

Re: save points

Right. I totally agree with you about that. My wife likes the FF games, though she quit playing them after FF8 because they'd just gotten way too silly.

You Know Silly is good - just look at Monty Python.

I'd say that the last installation of FF is better them 8 and 9, but yes, still very silly.

Anyway besides silly - I like save points.
I'm not sure why, one reason could be that it lets me save before some big boss, and I often need that as in games without savepoints I often don't, unless they show you that there is in fact a boss coming up. If games show you that there is boss coming up, then having a savepoint just before the chours doesn't really say anything, sometimes it might just build some extra tension.

and savepoints makes smaller saves, and are less trouble some to code, and all in all I consider them a valid and functional system in many games.

one problem with savepoints is that they seems to make the game easier just so that everyone can make it to each savepoint at all points. This is of course often solved with various degrees of set difficulties, but some games lack it and it often makes the main path very easy to pass.

...and as for Final Fantasy
the only quarrel with savepoints and FF is the times when they place a save point before a large video sequence that is followed up with a big boss fight - the fact that you can't exit the videos makes it even worse.

besides outside the main story arch there are areas with savepoints at the start followed by lots of dungeon and then in the end a big bad baddie, and no saving just before - for example in FFX you got the Omega Dungeon.

/dan

 

[Azael]

Limited saves should only exist as an extra difficulty option, never be forced on the player. One of the biggest reasons why I liked Diablo 2 less than Diablo (yes, I actually like the odd game of mindless hack & slash once in a while) was the damned save system, or lack of it. Oh goody, I have to play for 45 more minutes just to find some teleporter stone in the big fucking jungle, thanks a lot Blizzard. There are far better ways to make a game challenging than to limit the players ability to play when he wants to and for as long as he wishes.

The immersion isn't a big issue to me, I never really lose track of the fact that I'm playing a game, although I don't think it should be advertised to me. If a NPC in a game tells me to use the Right-mouse button to access my l33t special powers, I'll turn the game off.

As for HPs and such stuff, I view them as a completely necessary "evil", since there really is no better way to handle things. A visual display of damage wouldn't work, since all critical wounds don't look bad and vice versa. If I punch you hard in the nose, or split your eyebrow, you'll look terrible with blood running in your entire face. You won't be all that bad off though, even though you probably will be soon. If I manage to get a solid punch from behind that ruptures your spleen, you'll look just fine. Until you bleed to death that is.

 

[Section8]

I think that while location based saves and resource based saves lick balls, conventional save games can still affect a game in many adverse ways. The act of saving and reloading a game is pretty damaging to immersion, and many games have actions and consequences that actually encourage the user to do so. The classic example is the skill attempt with critical fail circumstances in CRPGs.

I think an interesting parallel is the concept of rolling dice in P&P RPGing, and a computer simulating that same die roll. The social nature of P&P RPing means that if you fail a roll it's just a part of the game. You can all laugh it up, and chances are, you've got other people who can help to cover your fuck up. When what is essentially an identical concept is applied to computer games there are a number of differing factors.

Firstly, the computer is rolling the dice for you. It feels impersonal and it's very easy to point the blame. It's like watching somebody else make a roll for you in P&P. "You failed. If I had of rolled it it would have been a success." Now, while logic might dictate that anyone has just as much chance as anyone else, you can't pass the buck if you rolled it yourself. You accept it and move on. Luck might have been against you but you've got nobody to blame but yourself.

Secondly, while you may be striving toward a certain goal in P&P, the game in an overall sense is an adventure. You don't really know if or when it's going to end. A computer game however, is a challenge with a finite end. Completion is more than just an end to the story/adventure, it's what you are striving toward. It's the ultimate goal. The game is a challenge to be surmounted. Which gives a stigma that the player must succeed every step of the way and every failure is a missed opportunity, from a quest gone awry to a chest with a jammed lock.

To a P&P RPer, a jammed lock might not be the end of the world. Most P&P systems provide multiple ways to approach a problem, and with player/DM interaction, there may be further compromises reached. If the character can either carry the chest to a locksmith, or a locksmith to the chest, it's no longer an insurmountable challenge. It's likely to be more costly, and taking the chest from it's location might even trigger a pressure plate trap, or reveal a niche filled with some nasty little critters. The DM can alter the circumstances on the fly.

However, bringing this somewhat long winded rant back to the point a little, between the DM, the player's party and the social aspect, failures are diluted to a point where they might sting a bit, but only the most colossal fuck up will mean game over. It's next to impossible to apply any of the forementioned three things to a CRPG, so there needs to be other ways to dilute failures somewhat.

"But why should we dilute failures?" someone asks from the back of the room. One of the most effective devices in attaining and maintaining immersion is seen in Doom and both System Shocks. Loading and saving are rarely needed, and when they are used they're pretty painless. Doom managed to keep the player alive by providing a well balanced amount of health packs, but also by saturating the player with easily avoidable projectiles. The player is challenged with over-stimulus. Too many things to account for consciously, and so the mind feels as though it's being stretched to it's limit. The player constantly feels overwhelmed, but the reality is that once they become reactive to the game, it isn't that hard, and so success is fairly inevitable. It works. Exceedingly well.

System Shock 2 in particular tackles critical failures in the most glorious manner. Firstly, the big one, player death, is mitigated by "respawning" which is done in a manner justified within the setting. To avoid causing the player to become apathetic about death, player still needs to reach a respawn point, offering a challenge akin to location based save systems, without the pointless restriction. Plus, the player is not respawned at full hitpoints, and so healing items are not redundant.

However, the more impressive system is how most skill checks are handled. Rather than making a single skill check, the player makes a series of them, and has to play the percentages. The biggest restricting factor of how many skill checks the player can make per attempt is governed by the player's ability to avoid critical skill checks, the frequency of which is governed by the player's skill level. The final thing incorporated into this system is a resource cost. This means a cautious player can rely on skills to reduce resource costs, and a player who takes risks can rely on skills to reduce the degree of risk.

Getting back to the point once again, in order to minimise saving and loading, the player should be given a choice of making critical attempts. If typical RPG actions such as stealing, lockpicking, disarming, speech, medical skills, or even magic and attacks had varied degrees of risk, reward and resource cost (and be imaginitive here, reputation with relation to theft/speech skills can be considered a resource) then save/load syndrome is effectively mitigated.

With failure circumstances lessened, autosaving becomes more feasible, and in my opinion autosaving is the most conducive toward providing a solid RPing experience. Player death still poses a problem in settings that cannot provide plausible resurrection, and so a conventional save system is probably a better option.

 

[protobob]

I think that while location based saves and resource based saves lick balls, conventional save games can still affect a game in many adverse ways. The act of saving and reloading a game is pretty damaging to immersion, and many games have actions and consequences that actually encourage the user to do so.

That was a good post. Too often I end up 'gaming' instead of 'roleplaying' in CRPGs. I've always thought that pickpocketing was just a huge excuse to 'reload till you get it right' in CRPGs. Part of the problem is the way crime is handled in most games, either 1) your not a criminal or 2) every guard in the entire country wants to kill you.

Morrowind took a few steps in the right direction with how it handles that.

As far as reloading on death, I once had a (possibly silly) idea for a game where, when you die, you take control of the character that killed you. Iin some mystical way your soul/mind took over your killers body due to a strange curse or something. Maybe you would keep the same 'mental stats,' but your 'physical stats' would change. Just a crazy idea I guess.

 

[Section8]

Part of the problem is the way crime is handled in most games, either 1) your not a criminal or 2) every guard in the entire country wants to kill you.

Too true. I'd like to see something similar to the way Hitman 2 works with some of it's dynamics. So something like if you get caught stealing, the shopkeeper might give an AI "shout" that can trigger actions from any nearby NPCs, but if you kill him, and anybody who has heard his cry for help (if anyone) then it's a matter of concealing the body. Obviously, it's going to be found eventually, and there are some cool mechanics that could work around that.

Provided each shopkeeper has some item fairly distinct to them, worth a good deal of cash and difficult to dispose of, then they can be caught red handed. If they try to sell it locally, they get pinned. If they try and sell it to a fence, they might get less cash, or there might be a plot element that the corrupt constabulary/undercover cops check the black market regularly at the start of every month so you have to time the theft/fencing to ensure the goods have enough time to be passed on.

So the smart thief leaves the "dye bundle" (or whatever those paint spraying stacks of notes are called) and takes the "unmarked bills of small denominations," while the smarter thief takes it all, and fences it in other territory. There's plenty of things that could be done with a decent crime and punishment system, and it would take a fair bit of effort, but since in most RPGs RPing a thief is just as valid a choice as RPing a Paladin it's hard to argue the time spent isn't worthwhile. I thought Morrowind took steps in the right direction, but the "we know exactly which inventory items are stolen goods" thing really irritated me.

As far as reloading on death, I once had a (possibly silly) idea for a game where, when you die, you take control of the character that killed you. Iin some mystical way your soul/mind took over your killers body due to a strange curse or something. Maybe you would keep the same 'mental stats,' but your 'physical stats' would change. Just a crazy idea I guess.

Crazy ideas are worth a lot more than derivative ideas. I think it sounds pretty damned interesting. Kind of like what Messiah could have been. It would definitely make for some interesting RPing if you were constantly changing bodies, and the potential for activities involving subterfuge is massive. :D

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

That post got me excited about T3 in a way I thought impossible by a game. Great post. Great.

 

[Vikjunk]

As far as reloading on death, I once had a (possibly silly) idea for a game where, when you die, you take control of the character that killed you. Iin some mystical way your soul/mind took over your killers body due to a strange curse or something. Maybe you would keep the same 'mental stats,' but your 'physical stats' would change. Just a crazy idea I guess.

Cool idea, but it could be easily exploited by a smart player. Just make sure you have really high 'mental stats' at the start of the game and just piss off the biggest bully in the local bar to become a uber char, but like Section 8 said, “Crazy ideas are worth a lot more than derivative ideas.”