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.

Savescumming: why it ruins CRPGs (my recent realization)

wormix

Augur
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
204
Location
Australia
Death/TPK is also a mechanics.
A mechanic where the developers would expect you to reload a saved game if you're not playing a game with permadeath.

Resource depletion (as measure of how optimal your tactics was) is also a mechanics.
If the course of action when you died is to reload, why not when you complete a battle but are left on 1 HP and unable to continue? Loading a game doesn't circumvent the mechanics in this case. You can't compare reloading over and over for a single favourable outcome (say a attack roll) with an entire battle.

Bad example. You can buy a few potions and have 100% spell learning chance. You can play BG2 without reloading once. I and many others did it.
If you fail to pickpocket someone everyone in that area turns hostile for the rest of the game with no recourse, yet you can stack master thief potions and rob everyone blind with no risk. Two bad design decisions does not make a right. I don't doubt that almost all RPGs are completeable in Ironman mode, but that's not really the point.

Isn't that just a normal slider described from another point of view? As in, "The game is easy but you can make it hard" vs. "the game is hard but you can make it easy"?
It definitely affects how the game is balanced/tested. But the main difference is in the damage to a players ego if they feel they're forced to play on kiddy mode, which is why 'normal' in most games is really 'easy' nowadays.
 

Incantatar

Cipher
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
453
If you fail to pickpocket someone everyone in that area turns hostile for the rest of the game with no recourse, yet you can stack master thief potions and rob everyone blind with no risk. Two bad design decisions does not make a right. I don't doubt that almost all RPGs are completeable in Ironman mode, but that's not really the point.
1. There is always a chance to get caught pickpocketing
2. So what if the bystanders become hostile? If you do risky shit and fail there need to be consequences. It's not like it's the end of the game. (Except in the thieves guild, if you're slow and unprepared)
 

Deadeye Dragoon

Scholar
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
105
Basically when you reload the game because you didn't like your level up HP roll, you failed to memorise a spell, etc. Thinking of BG2, if that spell was the only one in the game, and you failed to learn it because of a bad roll with nothing you could have done about it, then I'd consider that bad design and justify the save scumming (or mod installation).
Bad example. You can buy a few potions and have 100% spell learning chance. You can play BG2 without reloading once. I and many others did it.

Potions of Intellect weren't exactly fruit on trees, at least IIRC. At best they could be saved for a number of spells to be sure, but only if you foregoed attempting spells at level. But congratulations for not reloading. Not once? Not one reload? That is very impressive. The final fight with pussy blinking Irenicus and his Balors or Cacofiends or whatever alone would be challenging. Plus his "final" fight on the ledge where he (did he random death one or everyone? Can't remember)

And you didn't reload in the fight with the ghaurs?

Not with the several Ulithids (who could instant-kill) fights up to mother brain?

Not with that rogue stone door party with the uh, vampire, beholder, mage, etc.?

Not with that party you meet in Northwest sewers? At level? Or did you just give them gold to pass.

Not at dark on way to that Umar Hills witch?

Not with the Celestial Fire wielding group? Or that goddamn rakshasha etc. below that floor?

Not with the black dragon?

Not with Bodhi in the final encounter and immediately prior?

Not with any of the things you pulled from Imprisonment with the Freedom spell in the Underdark (granted might've taken foreknowledge), not to mention that always-there Drow party? Or that Githyanki party?

Not with the Balor in the Underdark?

Not with fucking Kangaxx the Lich? Seriously? Or did your party never get to him.

And you didn't reload to just prior ,to put up all necessary potions/spells to ward? You just went in unawares and did it?

I mean sure, if you're intent is to ironman, and/or just do the main quest and not be challenged by side quests, plus already know it all, you can tool your party (maybe losing several to death/replacing) or survive yourself (of particular class like my T/C/F) to win. Or you can win with sidestepping every fight. That isn't novel. What's impressive is that/if you had never before played BG2 and suddenly beat every enemy without once reloading.



P.S. I agree that reloading a spell-learn, which is normally nonessential, is normally "save-scumming". I just don't know if your claimed triumphs are a real counter to that, in this particular PC game. Even assuming you're such a badass to win BG2 without ever reloading first run through, would you have beaten BG2 if chance found your mages not learning any spells? Or your warrior/pally/ranger getting only 1s on 1-8 or 1-10 rolls? Plus, I don't think any first run-through, especially BG2 with that shitty Irenicus dungeon, should necessarily be seen as easy enough to avoid save-scumming if a spell-learn didn't hit. After that dungeon I was just wishing for Fireball or Lightning Bolt, and if I picked up that scroll, my mage was damn sure going to learn it, come hell or high reload.

All apologies if your PC was a sorcerer, of course...
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
Potions of Intellect weren't exactly fruit on trees, at least IIRC. At best they could be saved for a number of spells to be sure, but only if you foregoed attempting spells at level. But congratulations for not reloading. Not once? Not one reload? That is very impressive. The final fight with pussy blinking Irenicus and his Balors or Cacofiends or whatever alone would be challenging. Plus his "final" fight on the ledge where he (did he random death one or everyone? Can't remember)

And you didn't reload in the fight with the ghaurs?

Not with the several Ulithids (who could instant-kill) fights up to mother brain?

Not with that rogue stone door party with the uh, vampire, beholder, mage, etc.?

Not with that party you meet in Northwest sewers? At level? Or did you just give them gold to pass.

Not at dark on way to that Umar Hills witch?

Not with the Celestial Fire wielding group? Or that goddamn rakshasha etc. below that floor?

Not with the black dragon?

Not with Bodhi in the final encounter and immediately prior?

Not with any of the things you pulled from Imprisonment with the Freedom spell in the Underdark (granted might've taken foreknowledge), not to mention that always-there Drow party? Or that Githyanki party?

Not with the Balor in the Underdark?

Not with fucking Kangaxx the Lich? Seriously? Or did your party never get to him.

And you didn't reload to just prior ,to put up all necessary potions/spells to ward? You just went in unawares and did it?

I mean sure, if you're intent is to ironman, and/or just do the main quest and not be challenged by side quests, plus already know it all, you can tool your party (maybe losing several to death/replacing) or survive yourself (of particular class like my T/C/F) to win. Or you can win with sidestepping every fight. That isn't novel. What's impressive is that/if you had never before played BG2 and suddenly beat every enemy without once reloading.



P.S. I agree that reloading a spell-learn, which is normally nonessential, is normally "save-scumming". I just don't know if your claimed triumphs are a real counter to that, in this particular PC game. Even assuming you're such a badass to win BG2 without ever reloading first run through, would you have beaten BG2 if chance found your mages not learning any spells? Or your warrior/pally/ranger getting only 1s on 1-8 or 1-10 rolls? Plus, I don't think any first run-through, especially BG2 with that shitty Irenicus dungeon, should necessarily be seen as easy enough to avoid save-scumming if a spell-learn didn't hit. After that dungeon I was just wishing for Fireball or Lightning Bolt, and if I picked up that scroll, my mage was damn sure going to learn it, come hell or high reload.

All apologies if your PC was a sorcerer, of course...
So, basically, you're using re-loading to bypass game mechanics.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
So, basically, you're using re-loading to bypass game mechanics.

You are saying that as if something is wrong with it.

We are the ultimate judges. If some game mechanics is not to our liking, we axe it without second thought, not sheepishly tolerate it. We don't owe it to any single developer to play their games as they want us to. We play as we want.
 

Incantatar

Cipher
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
453
Potions of Intellect weren't exactly fruit on trees, at least IIRC. At best they could be saved for a number of spells to be sure, but only if you foregoed attempting spells at level. But congratulations for not reloading. Not once? Not one reload? That is very impressive. The final fight with pussy blinking Irenicus and his Balors or Cacofiends or whatever alone would be challenging. Plus his "final" fight on the ledge where he (did he random death one or everyone? Can't remember)

And you didn't reload in the fight with the ghaurs?

Not with the several Ulithids (who could instant-kill) fights up to mother brain?

Not with that rogue stone door party with the uh, vampire, beholder, mage, etc.?

Not with that party you meet in Northwest sewers? At level? Or did you just give them gold to pass.

Not at dark on way to that Umar Hills witch?

Not with the Celestial Fire wielding group? Or that goddamn rakshasha etc. below that floor?

Not with the black dragon?

Not with Bodhi in the final encounter and immediately prior?

Not with any of the things you pulled from Imprisonment with the Freedom spell in the Underdark (granted might've taken foreknowledge), not to mention that always-there Drow party? Or that Githyanki party?

Not with the Balor in the Underdark?

Not with fucking Kangaxx the Lich? Seriously? Or did your party never get to him.

And you didn't reload to just prior ,to put up all necessary potions/spells to ward? You just went in unawares and did it?

I mean sure, if you're intent is to ironman, and/or just do the main quest and not be challenged by side quests, plus already know it all, you can tool your party (maybe losing several to death/replacing) or survive yourself (of particular class like my T/C/F) to win. Or you can win with sidestepping every fight. That isn't novel. What's impressive is that/if you had never before played BG2 and suddenly beat every enemy without once reloading.



P.S. I agree that reloading a spell-learn, which is normally nonessential, is normally "save-scumming". I just don't know if your claimed triumphs are a real counter to that, in this particular PC game. Even assuming you're such a badass to win BG2 without ever reloading first run through, would you have beaten BG2 if chance found your mages not learning any spells? Or your warrior/pally/ranger getting only 1s on 1-8 or 1-10 rolls? Plus, I don't think any first run-through, especially BG2 with that shitty Irenicus dungeon, should necessarily be seen as easy enough to avoid save-scumming if a spell-learn didn't hit. After that dungeon I was just wishing for Fireball or Lightning Bolt, and if I picked up that scroll, my mage was damn sure going to learn it, come hell or high reload.

All apologies if your PC was a sorcerer, of course...
I went from Candlekeep to Mellissan with my conjurer, died in the last battle (which i had never fought before). Most of the journey, which included most sidequests should be in the huge threads on the Bio boards. I know BG1 and BG2 SoA inside out. I don't think everyone needs to play that way, but it's a totally different experience and very rewarding.
I play other crpgs like this too and mostly fail, but it's more fun than savescumming for me.
 

Deadeye Dragoon

Scholar
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
105
Incantar said:
I went from Candlekeep to Mellissan with my conjurer, died in the last battle (which i had never fought before). Most of the journey, which included most sidequests should be in the huge threads on the Bio boards. I know BG1 and BG2 SoA inside out. I don't think everyone needs to play that way, but it's a totally different experience and very rewarding.
I play other crpgs like this too and mostly fail, but it's more fun than savescumming for me.

Sure it's different. But some RPGs (like BG2 for a virgin) would completely screw them if they were to try this mechanic, so much that they would not play any other RPG. And thus the genre would die. Which...I'm not stupid enough to say "wait". Many reasons for genre death. But I don't think we should be now counselling new members into the fold to Ironman everything, or else they're doing it wrong. Which you may not have been saying. But still.

Additional nitpicks: You didn't finish BG2 from start to finish. You finished it with prior tomes from BG1, or at very least a more powerful initial character. Anyone starting BG2 from scratch doesn't have that importing character option. And I still can't understand whether you conquered all those trials in your first run. Yes/no?

Awor Szurkrarz said:
So, basically, you're using re-loading to bypass game mechanics.

What game mechanics? Those which get a player dead? I've cited a dozen+ instances in BG2 which will easily fuck your party. Doesn't even count say, Gaider's Ascension Mod. Did you install that and beat it, without ever playing BG2 proper?

Gamers look for challenge. Never having to reload is boring. Perfect auto-save-points (perhaps Far Cry and Half-Life is example, and other FPSes) is the only medium. And hey, maybe more RPGs should feature auto-save.

But too easy is shit. Too hard? Well sometimes, hardcore RPGs with dozens of challenging fights forces one to save-reload-repeat. It's so hard that you have to spend an hour on one fight, reloading, rememorizing, rebuffing. And this isn't necessarily a flaw. Players will learn, as their charaacters would, to buff up if something might soon look like a cutscene (which in IE would time out all buffs depending on dialogue length) or big fight. Not that that's the only measure. Going as far as every spell/daily fighter skill is exhausted is also an exciting option. In both cases, the magic Reload is there.

I'm curious again--have you ever played Jagged Alliance 2? For the first time--on Ironman? And beat it?

In other words--in what instances do you see reloading after a complete fail as a valid response to a "game mechanic"*?

*The mechanic is that the game is fucking hard to beat.
 

Deadeye Dragoon

Scholar
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
105
He never said anything about it being a first-time runthrough.

"You can play BG2 without reloading once."

Why was I to understand that this only applies to veterans who know exactly what class to PC as, what scrolls/potions to take/buy/keep for fights, to have some acid/fire damage at Nalia's basement, etc? Particularly when he also said:

"You can buy a few potions and have 100% spell learning chance."

That's advice to a newbie, not a vet.

I'm not calling him out though. He's well-explained himself.
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
What game mechanics? Those which get a player dead? I've cited a dozen+ instances in BG2 which will easily fuck your party. Doesn't even count say, Gaider's Ascension Mod. Did you install that and beat it, without ever playing BG2 proper?
No, I have played BG2 some 10 years ago.

I'm curious again--have you ever played Jagged Alliance 2? For the first time--on Ironman? And beat it?
Not for the first time. I wasn't playing Ironman back then (that is I was using the "Ironman" option but it only prevents from saving during combat). I haven't finished it back then, though.
Later I always played it "Ironman", though. I have never beat it.

In other words--in what instances do you see reloading after a complete fail as a valid response to a "game mechanic"*?

*The mechanic is that the game is fucking hard to beat.
I'm more interested in playing games than "beating" them. I can't think of any. I can think of ones that warrant uninstalling the game, though.
 

EG

Nullified
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
4,264
I'm more interested in playing games than "beating" them. I can't think of any. I can think of ones that warrant uninstalling the game, though.

A synonym for some, but not for others.

A shocking revelation, neh?
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
Lose a fight, reload, fight again and win = bypassing mechanics :retarded:
I forgot to mention that I was talking mainly about stuff like re-loading for chance-based stuff like disarming traps, stealing, learning spells, etc.
On the other hand, reloading and winning because of a chance-based stuff like a saving throw, or to hit rolls would be bypassing game mechanics.

A synonym for some, but not for others.

A shocking revelation, neh?
Generally, since about, I don't know, maybe 2006 I don't spent as much time playing games as when I was a teen. So, even if I get bored after 5 iron man attempts, I have so much games to play and so little time that it doesn't really matter.
 

Deadeye Dragoon

Scholar
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
105
No, I have played BG2 some 10 years ago.

Fair enough.

I wasn't playing Ironman back then (that is I was using the "Ironman" option but it only prevents from saving during combat). I haven't finished it back then, though.
Later I always played it "Ironman", though. I have never beat it.

One problem with Ironman or "no saves" modes is software/hardware failure. Happened a ton in JA2, and I never came close to finishing it (in Ironman mode) as original. Some mod helped though and I VERY luckily beat it once. That final Madura phase is a bitch.

But crashes happen too much in say, Troika games to even try it. I trust though that at least saving against crashes while struggling against them, even in an Ironman, by copying a file every once in a while, isn't save-scumming (?), since the only reason would be to come back to a few days back instead of a total restart in case of a crash?

I'm more interested in playing games than "beating" them. I can't think of any. I can think of ones that warrant uninstalling the game, though.

Agreed on preferring to play games! :D Some folks though, either 1) are beset upon so hard that they initially just die. So wouldn't reload to another say, shitty BG Candlekeep tutorial to again get fucked; or 2) just plow through everything, so much that they miss some carefully crafted and level-scaled encounters by developers. I've been both; the former from first run of games, struggling to keep my party hale (and in subsequent "faux first runthroughs, as if my character didnt' know shit), which were thrilling. And hard and interesting. And I've been the 2) from powergaming, which just allowed me to ignore my character and instead go straight for the most powerful/effective stuff and paths, since shit, this is fun.

As in most of Codex we're probably arguing way too much on a small point. Somehow SaveScum as a derivative of weeny pussies may have led to folks like me being pedants on the value of a simple save option. I don't begrudge Ironman. I don't think it can ever--or extremely rarely--be done on a first run though. Bottom line: if we slam one person for getting scared on goblins in Firewine Bridge and savescumming every five seconds, we'd also have to slam ourselves for saving prior to much more difficult battles. We'd have to slam ourselves for ever restarting any game. Permadeath sucks for most people. It should be a greater challenge to avoid permadeath/Ironman in a particular game option setting, but should not be default.

In any event, great discussion! Glad we both want to have RPG fun :)
 

Incantatar

Cipher
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
453
Sure it's different. But some RPGs (like BG2 for a virgin) would completely screw them if they were to try this mechanic, so much that they would not play any other RPG. And thus the genre would die. Which...I'm not stupid enough to say "wait". Many reasons for genre death. But I don't think we should be now counselling new members into the fold to Ironman everything, or else they're doing it wrong. Which you may not have been saying. But still.

Additional nitpicks: You didn't finish BG2 from start to finish. You finished it with prior tomes from BG1, or at very least a more powerful initial character. Anyone starting BG2 from scratch doesn't have that importing character option. And I still can't understand whether you conquered all those trials in your first run. Yes/no?

Awor Szurkrarz said:
So, basically, you're using re-loading to bypass game mechanics.

What game mechanics? Those which get a player dead? I've cited a dozen+ instances in BG2 which will easily fuck your party. Doesn't even count say, Gaider's Ascension Mod. Did you install that and beat it, without ever playing BG2 proper?

Gamers look for challenge. Never having to reload is boring. Perfect auto-save-points (perhaps Far Cry and Half-Life is example, and other FPSes) is the only medium. And hey, maybe more RPGs should feature auto-save.

But too easy is shit. Too hard? Well sometimes, hardcore RPGs with dozens of challenging fights forces one to save-reload-repeat. It's so hard that you have to spend an hour on one fight, reloading, rememorizing, rebuffing. And this isn't necessarily a flaw. Players will learn, as their charaacters would, to buff up if something might soon look like a cutscene (which in IE would time out all buffs depending on dialogue length) or big fight. Not that that's the only measure. Going as far as every spell/daily fighter skill is exhausted is also an exciting option. In both cases, the magic Reload is there.

I'm curious again--have you ever played Jagged Alliance 2? For the first time--on Ironman? And beat it?

In other words--in what instances do you see reloading after a complete fail as a valid response to a "game mechanic"*?

*The mechanic is that the game is fucking hard to beat.
I finished BG2. BG2 SoA, which is the real BG2 if you ask me. I like ToB, still it's ridiculous. Of course nobody will play hard and complex games like that ironman from start. That's why i usually play games the normal way first until i get the hang of them and read all the information i can find about the mechanics.
The third time i finished BG1 it was noreload and two more times after that. The third time i finished BG2 SoA was noreload. Not to mention many many failed attempts. It doesn't bother me to start again. The game doesn't run away, if i'm fed up i play it again in 6 months or so. Like Awor Szurkrarz said it's about playing the game not about beating it. Play it how you want, i'm just saying it's another more intricate but rewarding level of playing crpgs.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
One problem with Ironman or "no saves" modes is software/hardware failure.
Not really. The game can actually be saving its state all the time, with precautions and backups allowing for seamless recovery if it craps out in the middle of a save. The only actual risk are killer bugs - like getting instakilled by faulty geometry or falling out of the level or getting launched in the air by faulty collision.

Still, the problem with ironman is that we *do* want to bypass the death/fatal failure mechanics in most cases (because most of the games fail to be infinitely replayable), but only to a limited degree and possibly without allowing us to bypass, everything, including all probabilistic mechanics.
 

madrigal

Augur
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
249
As for the question of whether I savescum I generally try to limit loading as much as possible now. This backfired when I was replaying Betrayal at Krondor recently where I opened a trapped chest near the start of the game that put two of my characters at near death 99% with the nearest temple past multiple enemy encounters...

You don't need a temple you can just rest.
 

Deadeye Dragoon

Scholar
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
105
Not really. The game can actually be saving its state all the time, with precautions and backups allowing for seamless recovery if it craps out in the middle of a save. The only actual risk are killer bugs - like getting instakilled by faulty geometry or falling out of the level or getting launched in the air by faulty collision.

These aren't minor problems for some happy person not being aware of the need to save game states and initiate non-game scripts to proctet themselves against the own game they just bought. Why would someone, for example, seeing an "Ironman" option on a ToEE or JA expect they'd have to back that up? With outside entities? Perhaps instead they may be naive/trusting that developers know WTF they're doing and expect the game itself to save in case of crash.

Still, the problem with ironman is that we *do* want to bypass the death/fatal failure mechanics in most cases (because most of the games fail to be infinitely replayable), but only to a limited degree and possibly without allowing us to bypass, everything, including all probabilistic mechanics.

I hardly think a bad source coding is comparable to an unfortunate RGN in the game itself, if that's what you were comparing. The former, no one has knowledge of. The latter, it should be known as long as we can see the mechanics. 1:20 chance of vorpal kill? That's the chance we take. 1:10,000 fail game code? We have no idea. And if the game launches with an "Ironman" mode, we should sure expect that either it a) Is extremely well-play-tested, so will not fail, and/or b) if it still does fail, the game will view that failure much differently than a game character/party failure. As in, it will allow us to restart from where we left off, since the fail wasn't ours but rather the programmers.

If your point instead was philosophical; sure, in normal mode we want to revive the shit out of ourselves. But your problem with Ironman seems to me the benefit--that's a mode where we don't have that option. And maybe can get a new burst of adrenaline. (At least, as long as the game kills us for our failures, rather than kills us for having shitty code).
 
Self-Ejected

AngryEddy

Self-Ejected
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
3,596
Location
Fuzzy Pleasure Palace
Only game that I use saves to deliberately avoid negative consequences, is Total War games, and that's only for leveling up agents and assassins, since they can fail their missions, even at 80% success rates.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
Not really. The game can actually be saving its state all the time, with precautions and backups allowing for seamless recovery if it craps out in the middle of a save. The only actual risk are killer bugs - like getting instakilled by faulty geometry or falling out of the level or getting launched in the air by faulty collision.

These aren't minor problems for some happy person not being aware of the need to save game states and initiate non-game scripts to proctet themselves against the own game they just bought.
Can you read? My point is that it is easy to make game do just that, therefore it's a non-issue when considering ironman.

Wizardry 8 is saving its state very frequently in ironman mode.
Hell, even bethesduh's Morrowind (non-ironman, but it doesn't matter) had enough decency to save game state when it was about to dump you to the desktop *.

It's not hard to code game so that it spams save function in ironman and it's only marginally harder to code it so that it uses at least two redundant slots per game and marks which slot has finished saving last time so that it can recover from save corruption due to unexpected termination.

*) Pre-patch.
:troll:

Still, the problem with ironman is that we *do* want to bypass the death/fatal failure mechanics in most cases (because most of the games fail to be infinitely replayable), but only to a limited degree and possibly without allowing us to bypass, everything, including all probabilistic mechanics.

I hardly think a bad source coding is comparable to an unfortunate RGN in the game itself, if that's what you were comparing.
I was referring to fatal failure as in "non-TPK, but game no longer finishable".
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
476
Project: Eternity
I remember that the first time I played Wizardry VI, I savescummed CONSTANTLY and made minimal effort whenever I ran into any particularly difficult encounter, got hit by a single trap, or one of my characters died.
As a result, I never fought anything particularly challenging for the first 3/4 of the game.
This meant that later on, when I got to the Isle of the Damned and beyond, literally everything TPKed me because my party was drastically underleveled and poorly thought through. But at least I had like fifty revive scrolls and I never had to cast the spell!
That's an awesome consequence to savescumming that I had not foreseen.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
I think it is best, if a game lets you save anywhere, anytime. You can decide, when to do it for yourself. No need for artificial imposed limits.
Saving is not the problem.
Reloading is.

I remember that the first time I played Wizardry VI, I savescummed CONSTANTLY and made minimal effort whenever I ran into any particularly difficult encounter, got hit by a single trap, or one of my characters died.
And yeah, this.
Savescumming makes pretty much all soft failure mechanics irrelevant.

It's not that bad design such as learn by dying or random inevitable deaths encourages savescumming.
It's that with savescumming possible those are some of the very few remaining ways to make the game at least seem difficult.
 

shendricks221

Educated
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
41
I love savescumming and wish I could apply the concept to my actual life, reloading from my last save point every time I tried something risky and failed.
 

Johannes

Arcane
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
10,487
Location
casting coach
I think it is best, if a game lets you save anywhere, anytime. You can decide, when to do it for yourself. No need for artificial imposed limits.
Wrong, that's exactly when you need to come up with artificially imposed limits. Restrictions imposed by the dev, on the other hand, are not artificial.
 

waywardOne

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
2,318
I love savescumming and wish I could apply the concept to my actual life, reloading from my last save point every time I tried something risky and failed.
When I was a kid (~6), I used to dream I would fall off the top of a slide on the playground. Instead of hitting the ground, though, it would "reset" to me back on top and this time I wouldn't fall off. Reloading is a subconscious instinct.
 

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