RPGs designed with the expectation that players will have to rely on savescumming to beat it

[Tavernking]

Any RPG designed with the expectation that players will have to rely on savescumming to beat it, is by default a poorly designed RPG.

 

[Butter]

Nobody cares if you had to savescum your first playthrough of AoD. People have done iron man runs of the game, so obviously savescumming isn't strictly necessary. You probably had to save after every fight the first time you played Wizardry 7 too.

 

[Tavernking]

Nobody cares if you had to savescum your first playthrough of AoD. People have done iron man runs of the game, so obviously savescumming isn't strictly necessary. You probably had to save after every fight the first time you played Wizardry 7 too.

Ironman is only possible if you memorized all the choices and choice outcomes.

 

[octavius]

In principle I agree, but there's always an exception. Like Wizardry IV, but then that game was rather "meta".

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

Hello Tavernking.

 

[Brozef]

Disagree strongly.
First, there are plenty of opportunities for savescumming to be part of a smart design. Iirc there was a roguelike/roguelite were saving and reloading affected the Gameworld. I think it was One Way Heroics?
That was also one of the many missed opportunities in DOS in my mind. The whole fluff with the end of time seemed to set up interesting ideas but of course it didn't bear out in the mechanics.

Secondly, I think savescumming is the only reason incline exists in the first place. The only reason challenging design in crpgs exists is that the designer (and especially the publisher) knows that players have the opportunity to try again. They can still learn new mechanics and overcome challenges tens or even hundreds of hours into a game because failing an encounter the first time doesn't mean you have to redo the whole game from scratch. I mean can you imagine the butthurt a game would cause that just starts killing you on the final floors and you had to restart in the beginning. I know old wizardry did it but those were different times and the game didn't take 100 hrs with 50hrs of fucking tedious textdumps and cinematics.
And before you say checkpoints would be a better solution think hard about how much of a console peasant you want to be. Seriously though all crps that tried checkpoints end up just being tedious and I'm 100% sure if the approach would gain traction the popamolification would reach unprecedented highs. 'Cause retreading your steps isn't find and we need to be inclusive to games of all skill levels' or some shit.

The only alternatives to free saving is either going the arcade route (which most roguelikes do but which isn't really an option for longform crpgs) or integrating it into your design (which can quickly become gimmicky) imho.


*Edited for horribly spelling*

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

Most of the time savescumming is a sign that someone needs to git gud or stop being a pussy and learn to accept less-than-ideal outcomes.

 

[V_K]

needs

No.

 

[Carrion]

I understand this as more of a question about meta knowledge than difficulty. I think that, in theory, a careful player should be able to finish a well-designed game ironman-style on his first attempt, even though in practice that might not be realistic. What I mean by this is that the player should be able to make informed choices without having to rely on trial and error. If there's a deadly trap in a dungeon, there should be a way for the player to detect it beforehand. If there's an enemy with an instakill ability, the player should be able to somehow find out about it and prepare for it instead of having to die and reload the previous save. If you distribute your skill points in a seemingly logical way, you shouldn't suddenly run into a brick wall that forces you to redistribute those points in order to pass a mandatory skill check.

In short, games that introduce bullshit obstacles you can only pass by pure luck or trial and error are bad. On the other hand there's nothing wrong with games that make you reload because of a punishing difficulty level.

 

[DraQ]

Any RPG designed with the expectation that players will have to rely on savescumming to beat it, is by default a poorly designed RPG.

Corollary:
Any RPG designed without awareness that player will try their darnedest to savescum the living fuck out of it usually comes out even worse.

 

[†††]

The Codex, where people constantly screech about real RPGs while slurping whatever non-RPG is in vogue right now (Witcher 3, Disco Elysium, CP2077...)

 

[Thac0]

That is too broad.
Sometimes savescumming is kinda shit, like in Baldurs Gate 1, where you cant really afford ressurection for long swaths of the game and someone getting crit by a kobold in the Mines of Nashkell spells reload.
But when the game offers relatively plenty ressurection and more lenient death prevention rules like Pathfinder Kingmaker, and you dont have to abuse that poor F5 button, savescumming allows you to have really interesting encounters.
Also it is a bullshit ensurance. In games with a script the size of the Dune Hexalogy and decently complicated dialogue trees and decisions, there are bound to be some choices which are poorly communicated and lead to boring narrative outcomes. Quicksaving becomes a habit quickly and often saves the day.

But the comparison is just awfull. Kingdom Come Deliverance has a booze based reload system and its the worst thing in the game. Save on sleep like in Fallout New Vegas survival is usually fine, but crashes and bugs become incredibly frustrating. Checkpoints can lock you out of progress and lead to boring map design. Save scumming is one of the better save systems there is by minimalising bullshit.

I also have a softspot for classic save points a la Final Fantasy VII-XII or Dragon Quest, but I feel like I am one of the only ones who likes that crap.

 

[kangaxx]

Disco Elysium

People think this isn't a RPG?!

 

[Cosmo]

I don't remember any game designed around this precise expectation. At worst designers do as if the possibility of saving when you want is a given and exists in some sort of void...
Which could influence indirectly game design, but gameplay specificaly built around savescumming ? I don't buy it.
At least give us some examples ! Otherwise you're just fighting windmills.

 

[Salvo]

Yours is a loaded question, Tavernking. There is nothing inherently wrong with savescumming, as it's just another tool at the player's disposal.

Please name 3 RPGs that /COMPLETELY/ rely on savescumming to finish.

 

[retinoid]

Savescumming exists as a way for developers to provide a fallback to players in case someone encounters a game breaking bug or soft lock due to the insane amount of variables present in RPGs because of all the choices you make. It is impossible to account for all possibilities so I don't have an issue with it at all.

 

[AW8]

I thought savescumming meant saving before repairing a toaster

 

[rusty_shackleford]

https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.p...-consequence-persistence-save-systems.129375/

 

[DraQ]

I understand this as more of a question about meta knowledge than difficulty. I think that, in theory, a careful player should be able to finish a well-designed game ironman-style on his first attempt, even though in practice that might not be realistic. What I mean by this is that the player should be able to make informed choices without having to rely on trial and error. If there's a deadly trap in a dungeon, there should be a way for the player to detect it beforehand. If there's an enemy with an instakill ability, the player should be able to somehow find out about it and prepare for it instead of having to die and reload the previous save. If you distribute your skill points in a seemingly logical way, you shouldn't suddenly run into a brick wall that forces you to redistribute those points in order to pass a mandatory skill check.

In short, games that introduce bullshit obstacles you can only pass by pure luck or trial and error are bad. On the other hand there's nothing wrong with games that make you reload because of a punishing difficulty level.

Carrion gets it.

Nearly everyone else - not so much.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm not sure why there is a constant confusion of lack of savescumming with ironman. There are plenty of other ways around this than ironman.

 

[jac8awol]

If I get a suboptimal outcome from RNG and it's possible that I can try again,just let me do that in the fastest, easiest way possible. As soon as a game with skill checks and dice rolls has a developer talking about their groundbreaking new way to make savescumming a thing of the past, "Hey guys our fail states make the game MORE interesting yada yada" I know they are absolutely talking out of their assholes.

 

[Jackpot]

I think a lack of save scumming just encourages defensive play over offensive play, which is more a matter of preference.
Without savescumming the game becomes a lot more tactical but also a lot more tedious.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

If I get a suboptimal outcome from RNG and it's possible that I can try again,just let me do that in the fastest, easiest way possible

why even have RNG then?

 

[Grauken]

Disco Elysium

People think this isn't a RPG?!

Lots of morons on the codex

 

[Whiny-Butthurt-Liberal]

Absolutely. Forcing the player to replay the same section in hopes of attaining a "perfect" outcome is fodder for the autistic, and completely breaks the pace and immersion. This applies to both combat and dialogue c&c.

I would even be interested in bringing back the old school concept of save-checkpoints, where you can't save the game whenever you want.