Savegame limitations?

[Pentium]

I've been wondering. What's your opininon on savegame limitations in games to prevent save scumming. Within the RPG genre this is even more debatable with C&C and other things to consider. I often find myself succumbing to save fagging even if I don't screw up things completely and the result of my actions (combat...) is simply not "good enough" for me(=my party lost some health and I don't want to waste a single one of my hundred potions). I also like to check various branches of C&C meaning I like to load my last position right before a significant action (e.g. talking to NPC) and test all options and then pick the optimal one for my gameplay. Are you afflicted by a similar problem? Do you think it is a problem? Should there be any limitations when it comes to saving at all? What kind? What about the drawbacks? You've got KCD where you have to drink rare savepiss or find a suitable location to be able to save. In some games saving would cost you money. In DS or Diablo 2 there is the checkpoint system with respawn. In JA you can play in Iron Man mode. What about autosave only? Any other system you would consider?

 

[WhiteShark]

I firmly believe that the save-continuously model is the way forward for RPGs, as used in Dark Souls and all roguelikes. It naturally prevents save-scumming and feeds into a system of consequences wherein you are stuck with your decisions and suffer the effects of your failures. Save-anywhere and quickload will naturally lead to save-scumming behavior, and fighting this degenerate tendency puts unnecessary mental strain on the player. And yes, I have the same problem you do; I save before any sort of conversation or development and I often find myself testing all possible outcomes, which actually tends to decrease my enjoyment because of all the quickloading and repetition required.

I suppose the main drawback would be that those who genuinely want to save-scum would be prevented from doing so, at least until they start backing up save files outside the game itself. The other potential problem is if the game was buggy and you got softlocked without the ability to revert to an earlier save. This could be partially mitigated in a non-roguelike by offering a suicide option in order to escape the situation.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

I personnally don't want save limitations. Whether I want to play Ironman, Tinman or Savescum man, I just do. As for others, let them do as they want and enjoy their flawless play or deal with their guilt. Your will is your limitation... provided you have one of course.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

I don't have a problem with save game limitations, so long as its not something unreasonable. Like a couple of hours between saves or game that rely too much on memorization. Really, as long as they're not pulling some ungodly hard crap on me its okay.

 

[Netch]

Save scumming definitely makes games less fun. Games are not intended to be save scummed; if something bad happens as a result of gameplay, then it's up to the player to then adapt to that new problem. This process is a big part of what makes games enjoyable. Some of the most fun you can have with a game can come from things not going optimally or according to plan, because it can create a more tense and interesting situation. If it's something you find yourself doing often I'd strongly suggest working on breaking the habbit.

 

[Netch]

Forgot to discuss savegame limitation; I think in general it depends. For RPGs I generally prefer that players be allowed to save whenever they want within reason, but I've played games with limited saves that work really well. So I don't think it's a one size fits all solution.

 

[mondblut]

I savescum whenever I like. Especially in the games that try to prevent savescumming. Seethe.

 

[anvi]

I think it is much better to do what these modern survival games do which is to not let you save. You live with whatever happens to you. Savegames are ok but I think it is a primitive old game design thing which could be done better today.

 

[Beans00]

I try to roll with the punches for the most part but like being able to save whenever I want due to crashes.
Eg. When playing dungeon rats fairly recently, if my party members died I generally didn't reload for them(with the exception of once for Marcus)


I don't have a problem with others savescumming, and if the game is difficult I do it a bit more(like in JA2/SS2). I just find it tedious to reload constantly for perfect outcomes.

 

[Grunker]

why would you need limitations. just don't savescum you degenerate

 

[WhiteShark]

why would you need limitations. just don't savescum you degenerate

Yeah that sounds like the most rational decision in theory but in practice there are many people like myself and OP who find it difficult to not savescum when presented with the option to do so, even if we know that it will lessen our enjoyment. Having to consciously force yourself not to savescum is also a mental burden. I think there are a lot of people who feel this way.

Perhaps the more pressing problem, however, is that when quicksave is available the developer will design around it. Designing encounters heavily dependent on RNG where there's a strong chance you just die because lol quickload, or failing a quest without any interesting consequence because lol quickload, etc.

 

[50726f73706572]

why would you need limitations. just don't savescum you degenerate

Yeah that sounds like the most rational decision in theory but in practice there are many people like myself and OP who find it difficult to not savescum when presented with the option to do so, even if we know that it will lessen our enjoyment. Having to consciously force yourself not to savescum is also a mental burden. I think there are a lot of people who feel this way.

Perhaps the more pressing problem, however, is that when quicksave is available the developer will design around it. Designing encounters heavily dependent on RNG where there's a strong chance you just die because lol quickload, or failing a quest without any interesting consequence because lol quickload, etc.

Maybe a budget of loads , 10 per game, or a delay on reloading. 1 real hour between reload. or 1 real hour between save and the use of load. Exception if you die really quickly from the point of a save or load.
This would sort out the lol i'm just going to save incase i make wrong decision in next 5 seconds and lol nope to a whole dungeon.

It may also be wise to limit down to just a few saves overall that can be maintained for the same character.

 

[ShaggyMoose]

I don't mind playing a game that is heavily skill based and absolutely stable with save limitations. However, many RPGs do not fall into that category. Being wiped because of an RNG fail or because the game crashed or corrupted your data is not something I am prepared to deal with.

 

[santino27]

RPG games.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

savescummers are the lowest of the low, barely above video game journalists

 

[octavius]

I don't think there's really a right answer. Except saving everywhere makes most sense for the publisher from an economic point of view.
But saving everywhere encourages lazy gaming habits, where instead of tense gaming where you have to concentrate, you can just blunder along knowing that reloading is just an awesome button away.

I like games with squads, like the Bard's Tales, early Wizardries, OpenXcom, where even a full party wipeout is not game over.

Personally I never reload to get better loot and stats, but making stupid mistakes in combat is reload inducing.

 

[SlightlyRadioactive]

The entire genre would benefit if the games were designed around a continuous autosave with checkpoints system such as in Dark Souls, this would encourage people to play through their mistakes and even to replay the game to see different outcomes they couldn't just reload to see, but I still think there should be an option to permanently toggle on manual saves and loads before the beginning of every new run as some kind of easy mode for filthy casuals so they don't complain too much.

Basically, ironman mode should be the standard way to design and play an RPG, manual saves should be optional as some kind of an easy mode.

 

[deuxhero]

The way to minimize savescumming is as simple as disabling saving in combat and make it so RNG is saved with the same game, meaning you need to do something to advance the RNG to change results. You don't need to limit saving games.

 

[WhiteShark]

The way to minimize savescumming is as simple as disabling saving in combat and make it so RNG is saved with the same game, meaning you need to do something to advance the RNG to change results. You don't need to limit saving games.

That doesn't at all address the incentive to save scum dialogues and events.

 

[Harthwain]

I've been wondering. What's your opininon on savegame limitations in games to prevent save scumming.

Depends on how it is done. I don't mind games with unconventional saving systems, provided they are well thought through. Otherwise don't bother me with it and use conventional saves, because in singleplayer games save-scumming is not really that much of an issue.

I also like to check various branches of C&C meaning I like to load my last position right before a significant action (e.g. talking to NPC) and test all options and then pick the optimal one for my gameplay. Are you afflicted by a similar problem? Do you think it is a problem? Should there be any limitations when it comes to saving at all? What kind? What about the drawbacks?

It is your problem, not mine. I can't imagine playing like this. Might as well play with a walkthrough, which beats the point of playing the game (for identical reasons I do not cheat).

Personally, I would welcome a roguelike kind of RPG, where you can't save through your run (other than saving on exit, obviously). It would make your actions weight at lot more that way during the course of a playthrough, because you would lose all progress. That said, there needs to be something to make people want to try again.

 

[Krivol]

I hate save game limitations. Not that I am a savescummer, it's just the usual problem with leaving the game whenever I want without losing time and progress.

 

[WhiteShark]

I hate save game limitations. Not that I am a savescummer, it's just the usual problem with leaving the game whenever I want without losing time and progress.

Only in the poorest of implementations do limitations cause needless losses of progress. Ideally it saves continuously so you cannot lose progress, but failing that a suspend-save/save-on-exit system accomplishes the same thing for when you have to step away.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

people claim they hate savegame limitations until they actually play a game with one and realize it makes the overall game better
nobody on the codex complained about KCD having savegame limitations

 

[purupuru]

I love save limitations in more linear, combat focused rpgs. Exploration on the other hand is only fun the first time you do it, which is why the Souls games let you retain all your items after death.

 

[bionicman]

I think the mode where you can savescum is fine as long as the game doesn't allow you to savescum during combat.

Also, savescumming could be avoided with a good autosave system. If I recall correctly, the (newer) Bethesda games like Skyrim would store multiple autosaves, so you can't get softlocked and the risk of save file corruption is also mitigated.