Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Incline On the topic of Consequence Persistence & save systems

What type of save system do you prefer?

  • Save and exit only, exit save deletes upon continuing

  • Save and exit(with delete) + limited saving(resting, special items, etc.,)

  • i like to savescum and therefore prefer quicksaves


Results are only viewable after voting.

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
Self imposed iron man doesn't fix the shitty aspects of games designed around the assumption the player will reload if bad things happen, which is what we're really advocating against. If you design a game with limited saving in mind you make a better game. You include ways to fail or lose progress besides death. You make dangerous situations take time to resolve and give the player a chance to react, so that if they fail to react properly it's their fault. You make the game worth replaying to try different strategies and see different content you missed the first time. You make the game worth playing even after bad shit happens to you, which gives you a whole different layer of situations you can be in instead of just being totally safe and prepared at all times.

Meanwhile, in reality:

"You have found a potion! Do you want to drink it? y/n"
"Yes"
"LOL, you die"
 

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,982
I'm with JarlFrank on this one. Save anywhere, anytime is the sensible option for non-hardcore, edgy, pro-gamers. If you're an adult, with a shred of social life outside of gaming, being able to drop your gaming session at any time is a must.
This has literally zero conflict with limited saves. You can quit even the most hardcore roguelikes in the middle of a fight. Retards need to stop bring this up.

You can create a game with both types of saves- saves from which you can reload after death or catastrophic failure but are limited to only being in safe towns or limited in number during the game or whatever, as well as temporary exit saves which you can only reload when you resume the game after taking a break. The two aren't mutually exclusive and combine to form an excellent system.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
Self imposed iron man doesn't fix the shitty aspects of games designed around the assumption the player will reload if bad things happen, which is what we're really advocating against. If you design a game with limited saving in mind you make a better game. You include ways to fail or lose progress besides death. You make dangerous situations take time to resolve and give the player a chance to react, so that if they fail to react properly it's their fault. You make the game worth replaying to try different strategies and see different content you missed the first time. You make the game worth playing even after bad shit happens to you, which gives you a whole different layer of situations you can be in instead of just being totally safe and prepared at all times.

Meanwhile, in reality:

"You have found a potion! Do you want to drink it? y/n"
"Yes"
"LOL, you die"
"You have found a potion!" Do you want to drink it? y/n"
"No, I'd better find a way to identify it through various means before randomly drinking potions I don't know the identity of."
 

Strange Fellow

Peculiar
Patron
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
4,013
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Both of these feature mechanisms that make death much less impactful.
You'll have to be more specific. You mean resurrection? I think such mechanics add to a game. It's certainly a lot more exciting than the regular binary dead = reload (it's worth pointing out that resurrection isn't risk-free in either of these games, far from it). There's also the fact that both these games have different unique mechanics designed to deal with character death - namely, Wizardry allows you to send a search party to recover the items and bodies of your main troupe, while DHoU makes it so that the chance of a successful resurrection grows smaller the longer a character stays dead. Especially the latter has led to some properly nail-biting moments, yet you won't see this stuff in save-anywhere games because the assumption is that players will reload.

And just to pre-empt any nonsense: "resurrection is silly and unrealistic" is a non sequitur here. I don't give a shit.
 

V_K

Arcane
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
7,714
Location
at a Nowhere near you
Both of these feature mechanisms that make death much less impactful.
You'll have to be more specific. You mean resurrection? I think such mechanics add to a game. It's certainly a lot more exciting than the regular binary dead = reload (it's worth pointing out that resurrection isn't risk-free in either of these games, far from it). There's also the fact that both these games have different unique mechanics designed to deal with character death - namely, Wizardry allows you to send a search party to recover the items and bodies of your main troupe, while DHoU makes it so that the chance of a successful resurrection grows smaller the longer a character stays dead. Especially the latter has led to some properly nail-biting moments, yet you won't see this stuff in save-anywhere games because the assumption is that players will reload.
Resurrection, search parties, sanctuaries. Even saving on each combat in DHoU actually works in the player's favor - yes, you have to bear the consequences of a battle gone wrong, but you don't lose the progress that lead to that battle should anything go wrong. So in principle, the stakes of dying are actually lower than in a save-anywhere game.
Anyways, I don't have anything against games with such systems in place. What I do have something against are people touting limited saving as the one true way. Chill out bros, you're not as hardcore as you'd like to think.
 

HansDampf

Arcane
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
1,471
If an obese person is trying to lose weight and therefore gets rid of all the junk food and sweets in his house, is that a lack of character?

Removing the junk food from your own house is not the same as removing the junk food from your neighbors house.
I'd say it's even closer to demanding that the local stores don't sell any junk food.
Nobody is demanding this, though. It's usually people - mostly game journalists - demanding easy modes in otherwise challenging games (i.e. putting junk food into my fridge).

I don't get it, if you value challenge in videogames so much and find it to be more rewarding and entertaining, why would you be tempted to play on an easy mode in the first place? why would you be tempted to play the game in an easier difficulty setting that you yourself claim is "objectivley" less rewarding and fun?

I can endure a lot of frustration in games (for better or worse) and am usually not tempted to lower the difficulty when I'm looking for a challenge. My problem is with the notion that wanting to remove the temptation is seen as a lack of character, or that it's making someone less of a "hardcore gamer". It's a really childish debate.
 

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,689
Meanwhile, in reality:

"You have found a potion! Do you want to drink it? y/n"
"Yes"
"LOL, you die"
That reminded me of the Stoneshard demo.

You don't want to drink an unknown potion. You can most likely survive a bad outcome (unless you're badly damaged), but any positive effect will probably be gone when you'll need it the most, which would be a waste. Instead you wait until you get a scroll to find out what the effect a potion will have on you. Otherwise you drink only when you have no choice and know you will die without any extra help. This approach makes unknown potions a risky but potentially useful feature.

With the ability to reload you might as well throw out the unknown status (since you can drink it, learn its effects and reload). The same goes for the unidentified items, as some can be cursed and require a dispell scroll to be taken off.

Resurrection, search parties, sanctuaries. Even saving on each combat in DHoU actually works in the player's favor - yes, you have to bear the consequences of a battle gone wrong, but you don't lose the progress that lead to that battle should anything go wrong. So in principle, the stakes of dying are actually lower than in a save-anywhere game.
That doesn't make sense to me... Am I missing something? If you can save anywhere and at any time, then the stakes of dying are literally 0, since you can simply revert any changes (good or bad). So the stakes of dying in a game without save-anywhere feature are higher (or - at best - equal), because you might lose something (your progress, an item, get a permanent debuff, lose a party member, etc.) when you aren't 100% successful.
 
Last edited:

barghwata

Savant
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
504
I can endure a lot of frustration in games (for better or worse) and am usually not tempted to lower the difficulty when I'm looking for a challenge. My problem is with the notion that wanting to remove the temptation is seen as a lack of character, or that it's making someone less of a "hardcore gamer". It's a really childish debate.

I would argue that the notion that people who ask for optional easier mods and more customisable difficulty settings are all just weak willed dirty casuals who want to ruin the game industry is alot more childish to be honest. As someone who likes playing games with perma death and enjoys a good challenge, i understand that the temptation to save scum or switch to easier mods can be annoying sometimes but for some people it's the only enjoyable way to play games or the only way to play games at all for that matter (due to time constraints). I mean even someone like me who enjoys challenge appreciates having the option to lower difficulty in case a game is too hard and i need time to familiarise myself with the mechanics before jumping to harder difficulties, or at times when i'm busy and can't dedicate alot of time to videogames.

So my question is, why is it that your fear of temptation is somehow more important then other people's ability to play and enjoy games?
 

Strange Fellow

Peculiar
Patron
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
4,013
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Even saving on each combat in DHoU actually works in the player's favor - yes, you have to bear the consequences of a battle gone wrong, but you don't lose the progress that lead to that battle should anything go wrong.
I consider quitting the game in the middle of combat an exploit more than anything else, and besides, if the encounter is too much to handle you'll need to find some way to extricate yourself from it eventually, no two ways about it. Fortunately, running away isn't hard in DhoU, which is another thing I like about it.
Anyways, I don't have anything against games with such systems in place. What I do have something against are people touting limited saving as the one true way. Chill out bros, you're not as hardcore as you'd like to think.
Fair enough. I'm not coming at this from that position, I just think limited saving carries certain benefits that you don't get in games with unrestricted save systems.
 

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,982
Again, the issue is that when you give everyone access to quickloading every 5 seconds, it warps the way the game is developed. People develop games around the way the average person will play them. There's a reason you don't get a cursed sword welded to your hand in games any more. That sort of thing was an awesome mechanic and no amount of self imposed ironman is going to bring that back.
 

Wyatt_Derp

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2019
Messages
3,062
Location
Okie Land
Screen_Shot_2019-08-12_at_2.33.38_PM.jpg



Moment of silence for a bygone age.
 

HansDampf

Arcane
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
1,471
So my question is, why is it that your fear of temptation is somehow more important then other people's ability to play and enjoy games?
I didn't say that.

Ok..... because some people here are arguing that games should force limited saving and harder difficulties on players.
I've only made the mistake and let myself get triggered by a few words.
I would say, if a developer wants to create a challenging game with limited save system to satisfy a niche audience, then people outside of that niche shouldn't make demands to "casualize" the game, even if it would all be optional. It's up to the developer. Until they need more money, of course.
 

V_K

Arcane
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
7,714
Location
at a Nowhere near you
I just think limited saving carries certain benefits that you don't get in games with unrestricted save systems.
But it's actually an interesting and non-trivial question - how to create high stakes in a restricted saving system without forcing the player into rote repetition upon death or failure. One option I see is to make individual deaths have relatively minor immediate consequences, but have them add up to something more significant down the line: die enough times and you get a suboptimal one; die too often, and you get a bad (and possibly premature) one (of course, the exact thresholds should be hidden from the player so that he'd never know if he can afford one more death or it'd tip the scales). Then you can have a default ironman saving and not have people like me object to that.
 

Bah

Arcane
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
2,946
Location
Northwest American Republic
I get the feeling that you'd be against having a cheat mode enabled by default though.

I relent, games should offer two modes:
"The way games are meant to be played" mode without cheating/savescumming enabled
and
"People who play RPGs just to read text" mode with cheats and savescumming enabled

Yes, I would not like cheat modes to be enabled by default. This is where I like the way that Paradox implements achievements for their Grand Strategy games. The achievements, which can be publicly viewable, are only available when playing in Ironman mode. If you don't care about achievements, then you can play with saves-galore, but if you want bragging rights, then you have to play Ironman where the game auto-saves every month/year (can't recall which) or when you exit the game. That still allows for some level of 'cheating' since you can kill the game process and revert back to the prior save point.

I only play paradox games in ironman mode, largely because I'm an achievement whore. :)
 

coldcrow

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
1,650
Saving anywhere is the reason why the fantastic anti-walkthroughs on www.it-he.org exist.

PS: Just read the updated one for Serpent Isle. It's like: Imagine the game is a woman you desire, alluring, somewhat distant, commanding respect and gentleness. Instead you just throw her onto the ground and have your way in every orifice. But in the end she will still be there, battered and exhausted, but triumphant in mutual satisfaction.
 
Last edited:

Nifft Batuff

Prophet
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
3,169
If the game doesn't let me to be in charge to choose when and where to save a game, and to restore it exactly in the same condition that I left, I say to that game: "fuck you!"
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
ahem
Lol

They are adding checkpoints in the campaigns. Every major fight. So if you fail you can reload. IN AN RTS GAME. WHILE REDUCING THE DIFFICULTY. Christ I am slow as fuck and didn't manage to beat the original WC3 campaign on Hard. But Blizzard makes the campaign requires 2 digit IQ to play right now.

For Christ sake Blizzard. You can just replace the models + having the promised dynamic cutscene and most people would probably be happy.

Right now the custom maps developers are also in fumes because imports are fucked. Those who have official WC3 on Battlenet basically has their maps fucked because the editor somehow is not capable of correctly loading the assets.


I used this scenario as a reductio ad absurdum argument in an article I wrote years ago:
Saving and killing form a vicious cycle. The more the player saves, the more reasonable it seems to kill him. Small wonder that RPGs introduced a "quicksave" button to minimize the player's hassle. Smaller wonder still that the games have added the suggestion "Quicksave often - you could die at any time!" Can you imagine a sports game warning, "Quicksave often - the opponent might score!" or a strategy game suggesting, "Save before and after every battle to make sure your army never suffers defeat!"


And now we are reduced to such absurdity.

But keep telling yourselves that game devs aren't designing games around this decline enabler.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
I used this scenario as a reductio ad absurdum argument in an article I wrote years ago:
Saving and killing form a vicious cycle. The more the player saves, the more reasonable it seems to kill him. Small wonder that RPGs introduced a "quicksave" button to minimize the player's hassle. Smaller wonder still that the games have added the suggestion "Quicksave often - you could die at any time!" Can you imagine a sports game warning, "Quicksave often - the opponent might score!" or a strategy game suggesting, "Save before and after every battle to make sure your army never suffers defeat!"

And now we are reduced to such absurdity.

But keep telling yourselves that game devs aren't designing games around this decline enabler.

Except that "save early, save often" mentality has been around back since mid-80s :roll:
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom