Incline On the topic of Consequence Persistence & save systems

[fantadomat]

I am old now and have more than enough shit in my life,don't have the time to replay generic gameplay because of retarded tryhard devs. Also i don't think that beating a game on any difficulty is some kind of achievement in life.

 

[deuxhero]

Games in which consequences of your choices become aparent much later, like a dozen or two hours after the choice was made.

The Witchers have several moments such as this. Most players will just accept the results and move on.*

*Although I replayed like 15 hours of Witcher 3 after I learned that casually fucking Triss will not allow me to fully romance Yennefer

Kingmaker also has plenty of these. It even uses tooltips to highlight what choice led to something.

 

[anvi]

The top option is best, but it depends on the game, you couldn't just shoe horn your favorite method into any game or it could destroy it. The game has to be designed with that method in mind. But generally I prefer not having saves so you have to live with whatever your choices are. But if the game busts your balls too much for a choice you make then it can gtfo.

 

[howlingFantods]

Persistent consequences make for a weighty game where choices matter more because you’re stuck with them. The savescummy player could be taught through a save on exit game that by reloading at the first sight of disadvantage he had been missing out. If things can’t go wrong (courtesy of savescumming), then things going right is made meaningless.

Theoretically, you can have a save system which lets you save often in the name of “bug insurance” and death recourse, and by not abusing it, you can still have persistent consequences. However, in practice it allows game designers to be lazy and design their game around saving and reloading, meaning that even the most well intentioned player might be forced to save and reload more often than is fun or interesting.

In other words, a save anywhere system does not force developers to come up with interesting and flexible failure states. If shit goes awry, the game should allow for a comeback because using your in game resources and knowledge and cunning to get out of a tight spot is way more interesting than having to save and reload due to a non-negotiable failure state.

Therefore, I’d like a game where the whole game was designed around a save on exit system; but then later they also patched in a save anywhere system as a recourse for bugs.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Save on exit is why I haven't finished Dragon's Dogma or Shadow of Mordor. Because of bugs and corruption a single save slot is just asking to fuck people over.

So Quicksave, because I'm not going to replay the game from the start when it shits the bed.

Dragon's Dogma allows you to save at almost any time when not in combat, and has a secondary 'checkpoint' save in addition to the main save (although each has just one save slot). Moreover, it's possible to create a backup of your save file even on PS3, and quite easy to store as many back-up saves as you want on PC. I played through Dragon's Dogma 3 times on PS3 and 3 times on PC without any save issues.

 

[Dodo1610]

I know it sounds dumb but I hate consequences in games. I don't think I have ever continued when I lost a soldier in the XCOM series because I always press F9 the moment something goes wrong or my shot misses. That's probably why I never finish any Roguelike because at some point I become too lazy to do everything from the start again.
I am aware that my "gameplay style" is not the way these games were meant to be played and I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone to play games the way I like. So the best option is to have standard autosaves and only one save slot if the devs think their game needs it but to leave lazy people like me the option to save scum as much as they want. It's just important that the devs communicate clearly which playstyle is intended and which isn't.

 

[The Fish]

I know it sounds dumb but I hate consequences in games. I don't think I have ever continued when I lost a soldier in the XCOM series because I always press F9 the moment something goes wrong or my shot misses. That's probably why I never finish any Roguelike because at some point I become too lazy to do everything from the start again.

That sounds astonishingly boring. The x-com games are perfect for zero savescumming playthroughs with them having plenty of soft failure and the opportunities to bounce back from horrible defeats. You should seriously try ironmanning them.

 

[Dorateen]

The key word is persistence. I think the best case design is one that eliminates player initiated saves altogether. Instead, each step, every action is automatically saved to a master data file that also gets saved upon exiting the game. If the party wipes out, then the player is warped to a hub, whether it is an inn or a temple or anything context appropriate. From there, they can retrieve/raise their characters with a heavy penalty, run rescue missions, or have the option to create new characters and pick up where the old ones left off.

 

[Artyoan]

The same system that Dark Souls uses could be appropriated for a party based game. It needs to provide the same function which is to retain some amount of progress between the point of death and the last 'checkpoint'. No one likes a straight up game over screen because its not just lost time, its also having to regain what was lost as a mundane task. Losing souls currency might suck but there is infinite of it, it can be regained if you don't regress, and you keep all the items you've found along the way. Its extremely forgiving.

Taking saving and loading out of the player hands can do a lot for tension as well as a lot of seemingly small things that can be strategic like triggering traps, resting interruption, etc. Those are robbed of meaning if you can quick load them away with negligible time lost. But the game absolutely needs to be built well with all that in mind.

The biggest cons of this particular system would be in story critical moments, I think. If I dialogue with my enemy, engage them in battle, and die, do they wait around for me to return? Does the game take it into account and change the story? Is there a story reason that the player character and his party return from death?

 

[jewboy]

I cannot think of many PC games with traditional save systems that force you to ever save your game. If you want to earn bragging rights with the rest of your 4th grade class how about just not saving? This is such a non-problem. There are much more important topics in game design like how to make the game fun and actually worth playing in the first place. Disabling save games won't make a game worth playing.

 

[Carrion]

Dark Souls wouldn't be anywhere near as tense and frenetic if you could save anywhere.

A vital aspect about Dark Souls' system is that it actually saves all the time, rather than being your typical checkpoint system. When you die, you go to the last bonfire, but it doesn't just reset everything to the way it was. The real kicker is that you can't just load a previous checkpoint and try again — if you happened to use a unique item in a failed attempt to get past a tough boss fight, that item is gone for good.

I think there's a difference between constant saving and savescumming. Saving frequently is the smart thing to do, because you never know when some bug or crash or power outage might fuck up your progress. The problem is when you can freely load a previous save so that every die roll ends up going your way, every fight ends with optimal results, and every consumable can be saved for a rainy day that never comes. That is what should be prevented, not saving in itself, although no-save systems can still be a good fit for certain types of games (usually not RPGs, though).

 

[rohand]

Is going back and re-rolling the bonus to get at least 18 during character creation in Wizardry considered save scumming?

 

[Beastro]

Therefore, I’d like a game where the whole game was designed around a save on exit system; but then later they also patched in a save anywhere system as a recourse for bugs.

The issue is that the save on exit is itself a save anywhere given the players ability to go into the game saves files and make copies before reloading and losing it.

The issue with games is the same old battle for survival and getting an advantage people are used to, which when applied into playing a game results in them maximizing their advantages to their leisure even when knowing it will make the game less fun. The trouble is limitation forces one to suffer and overcome, which produces the best enjoyment from games, like sucking it down and playing a game how it's intended like kids had to do back before the internet, but with modern games, especially on PC, the player can transcend those boundaries far easier even if the player tries to restrict them systematically.

 

[biggestboss]

I don't really have a preference in that I'll play whatever system the developer has set up, but I am curious about the preferences of anyone who prefers quicksaves/save scumming and also professes the importance of choice & consequence in CRPGs.

 

[unfairlight]

Either unlimited saves or do what KCD did.

If the epic gamer honour and bragging rights are so important to some people that they simply must play ELITE IRON MAN EXTREME IRON MAN MAX DIFFICULTY NO HEALING playthroughs, don't force that shit on others.

 

[Darth Canoli]

The key word is persistence. I think the best case design is one that eliminates player initiated saves altogether. Instead, each step, every action is automatically saved to a master data file that also gets saved upon exiting the game. If the party wipes out, then the player is warped to a hub, whether it is an inn or a temple or anything context appropriate. From there, they can retrieve/raise their characters with a heavy penalty, run rescue missions, or have the option to create new characters and pick up where the old ones left off.

It was fun back in the days but it only works once, or only for masochists and "defensive" players.

Makes me think about table tennis, i've always hated to play defensive players, not that i can't win but mostly, i'd have to warm a lot more (mostly you don't have enough time) in order to develop an offensive game against them (which is the most satisfying answer against a defensive player, search and destroy) or i'd have to adapt and play almost exclusively defensively while what i want to do is having a polyvalent offensive oriented game.

That's the same thing here, heavy penalties on party wipes and "iron-man" modes or semi-iron man ones works for you if you play very carefully while i like to play defensively sometimes and recklessly some other times and even to play without thinking too much sometimes, with that kind of restrictive system, i can't.

Actually, i won't because i'm just not playing the game.

By the way, thanks for the option : i want as many saves i can make just for the sake of it.
Last retarded poll was probably in july, we almost didn't have one in august, thanks for that too ...

 

[Dorateen]

The key word is persistence. I think the best case design is one that eliminates player initiated saves altogether. Instead, each step, every action is automatically saved to a master data file that also gets saved upon exiting the game. If the party wipes out, then the player is warped to a hub, whether it is an inn or a temple or anything context appropriate. From there, they can retrieve/raise their characters with a heavy penalty, run rescue missions, or have the option to create new characters and pick up where the old ones left off.

It was fun back in the days but it only works once, or only for masochists and "defensive" players.

Just to clarify, the method I was advocating in the post above is not permadeath or an ironman mode. It simply sends a defeated party back to a destination with a consequence such as losing gold or experience, while allowing them to keep playing.

I raise this as a counter to the restricted-saves arguments, which I often find are a bit of grandstanding. There's nothing wrong with save anywhere systems and they have been present in computer role-playing games from the golden era, as far back as the late eighties. So it's not like it is some new-fangled concept that popped up in modern RPG design. Even some of the most hardcore games such as Knights of the Chalice or Elminage Gothic allow unlimited saving.

 

[Darth Canoli]

Just to clarify, the method I was advocating in the post above is not permadeath or an ironman mode. It simply sends a defeated party back to a destination with a consequence such as losing gold or experience, while allowing them to keep playing.

I was misled by "heavy penalty"

I'm fairly against any loss of experience (grinding experience back isn't fun) but losing part of the non-stashed gold is alright although i'd prefer some new kind of consequences as long as they fit with the story and settings.

For example, having a double of your party hunting you after each wipe or a demon hunting your soul to finish you off or losing some renown and having some rivals taking over your current quest/side quest and you having multiple options to help them fail or just move on to the next quest and suck it up ...

 

[jewboy]

This is only an issue for console gamers. PC gamers don't care about what console gamers call 'save scumming'. For us it is just not a thing and if you force us to replay the same content again and again as a kind of punishment we will just uninstall the annoying, frustrating, tedious, and repetitive thing. I have never owned a console. I grew up playing games that allowed you to save your state, sometimes on a giant floppy disk. The only exception were arcade games which I didn't play. For console gamers who don't understand why PC gamers like to save so much the answer is repetition is boring. It's that simple. If anything my usual problem is that I don't save often enough. I have never ever had the experience of wishing I did not save so often. It's easy to forget to save.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

I have no problem with either system in theory. I tend to use quick saves in isometric rpgs and FPS(a genre I am admittedly not very good at anymore) and try to Ironman any game that has more complex fail states than an immediate “game over”.
One thing I will say about Games designed with Ironman in mind is that they need to have completely tight controls. I’ve been playing XCom2 and initially started it on Ironman, but restarted after a couple hours because I got frustrated with the fucking terrible targeting reticule on grenades and (to a lesser extent). At least once a mission I was completely wasting a grenade or ending a turn with a soldier left flanked and completely out of cover.

 

[Cryomancer]

Depends the game. I mean, i would never play PF:KM, Arcanum, VtMB, etc without constant saving but Mount & Blade is funny exactly when you have to deal with the consequences of losing an battle...

 

[deama]

One idea I just had is to create a seed(set of random characters) for a new game. Whenever a random check is required just generate it using the seed + a set of random characters for that particular task (this will always be the same for that task). This way if you reload and try it again, you'll get the exact same outcome, only way to change this would be to change the seed (hacking the game) or starting a new game.

This actually sounds like a really interesting idea, because it gives an interesting perspective in that for the character, random events are random, but for the player they are predetermined; so the player gets the feeling that they are some sort of guide for the PC. This can be very interesting in a destiny/fate narrative/story. Not to mention, you can play with the seed, like have the player spend exp or gold to change his "fate" by randomising the world seed.

 

[Excommunicator]

I'm satisfied that common sense won this poll.

 

[Saduj]

I don’t want a game’s challenge to come from the absence of quality of life features.

 

[JarlFrank]

Any system that doesn't let me save when I want is bad.

I don't savescum, but I don't want to get into situations where I quit the game instead of continuing on because I don't want to commit to a full half-hour session of gameplay or something.
When you can only save in certain locations (an inn, a temple, a bed, whatever), I tend to not go on extended expeditions unless I set aside at least a full hour of dedicated gameplay time for it, because I don't want to come to a point where I want to/have to quit the game but am far away from a save spot. The sheer inconvenience of not being able to exit the game whenever I want is demotivating. It makes me think "If I go and explore this area now, I will HAVE to play for at least X amount of time if I want my progress to be saved, maybe even longer if I add the time required to return to town".

Not being able to save anywhere also makes you less experimental because you don't want to lose all of your progress over doing something stupid. Are you gonna attack the king and see if you can kill him and his guards, just because you wanna know whether it's possible? No, you're not, because you know it will fuck up your game and in the worst case cause you to re-start with a new character if there is permadeath. If there is only checkpoint saving or limited saving, your last save may be 20 minutes ago and you don't want to lose 20 minutes of progress just for a silly little experiment. In a Dark Souls style game, are you going to attempt a risky jump you're pretty sure you're not going to make? No, you will play conservatively because failure will penalize you and set you back.

If you can save anywhere, you are going to be more experimental. You'll attempt jumps that look impossible, just to see if you can make it. And maybe, if you do make it, you will find a secret there. Cool! You will attempt fights against enemies far above your level, just to see if you can manage. Heck, maybe you will reload four times and try again and again just because you wanna know whether you can overcome the level difference with good tactics. You are also more likely to try out stupid stuff just to see if it's possible, or if the devs have built in conseqauences for doing it. Like killing main quest NPCs.

Limited saving systems limit creative gameplay experimentation, because failure has the potential of wiping out hours of progress, forcing you to restart and repeat all the content you already finished yet again.
In Thief, I tend to fire rope arrows into any wooden surface and climb up to see if there's anything there. In Dishonored, I like to blink up to the highest point of the map and see if anything is there. Often, such acrobatic endeavours are dangerous as there's always a risk of falling to your death. Would I explore the levels this meticulously if I couldn't save everywhere? I don't think so. I'd play more conservatively and avoid risks, because taking a risk and failing would mean the loss of an hour of progress. Not very appealing.