Savegame limitations?

[mondblut]

Are you implying that more xp and loot is somehow a bad thing? Bro, do you even RPG?

RPG is more fun when DM is an asshole.

Being an asshole DM is only fun when you are relatively confident in your ability to beat up the rest of the players combined. Which is rarely the case

Low level player should suspect that the invisibility ring with infinite charges was clearly intended for someone more powerful. And player won't resist the temptation of using it to get out of embarassing social situation.

At this point it does not matter that you have a save just before acquiring the ring. You'll stick to your choice and try to take advantage of poor Nazguls pathfinding - to get to the ferry before them.

If LOTR were an RPG, no nazgul would survive Weathertop. Then the hobbits would march to Barad-Dur riding nazgul steeds, clad in nazgul armor, and kill Sauron with nazgul blades.

 

[octavius]

If LOTR were an RPG, no nazgul would survive Weathertop. Then the hobbits would march to Barad-Dur riding nazgul steeds, clad in nazgul armor, and kill Sauron with nazgul blades.

But who would they romance?

 

[Pentium]

Games are about having fun

then use cheat engine
this same exact argument can be used to include any stupid shit in a game that someone happens to find "fun"

Then don't use saves.

Spoiler

 

[DeepOcean]

If failure is integrated on the game design and the game was built around it, sure I will play without saving but if failure means I will have to pass through complete boredom for hours and hours just to be some random internet tough guy. Unfortunately being an internet tough guy doesnt give me money and I dont work for free.

Failure should punish the playthrough not the player.

 

[Sinatar]

Fuck your console gimmicky save systems and just let me save the fucking game when and where I want. If some tryhard wants to go ironman and have some save limitations there is nothing stopping them from doing that.

Watch how everyone agrees with that until you namedrop Dark Souls.

Well Dark Souls saves your game like every 3 seconds automatically, so that's not particularly relevant.

 

[FuckLiefeldGiveMeChew]

I think a lot of games require save limitations: A platformer would be no fun if you could save before every jump; fights in R.P.G.s would be jokes if you could just save in the middle and restore until you got lucky with the random number generator; scrolling shooters, hack and slashes, beat em ups would have no excitement if you could save after every fight. There are good reasons for such limitations.

 

[Bad Sector]

Saving everywhere without limitations is the best obviously. Games had saving restrictions due to technical and/or storage limitations at the long gone past (e.g. ROM-only cartridges on consoles), but this isn't a thing anymore.

I wrote about this endlessly at the past in the KCD thread (and others, that i can't find), so i'll just copy/paste some of what i wrote (not all, i wrote a ton of stuff since people kept disagreeing and i lost interest):

I mean, ok, i think you see where i'm going with that: disallowing saving anywhere means that you can die and have to restart at some point earlier than you'd like to which in turn means that the game is creating an artificial barrier that comes not from the game's own simulation rules but from the interaction you have with the simulation's implementation itself (the savesystem) thus increasing the perceived difficulty of the game which is what feeds the tension you mention (you certainly do not want to repeat sections of the game you've already beat and it slows down your overall progression, giving pretty much the same feeling as proper rule-based difficulty which also slows down your progression). This as i wrote previously is bad design since the game should instead rely on its rules for that difficulty and not be affected by simulation implementation details like the savesystem.

I wrote that this isn't good design (IMO) and what you mention here is such an example: the important "bad" stuff shouldn't be something that happens *immediately* after you take an action so that you can simply reload to avoid it. As i wrote in a previous post where i went into detail, the game shouldn't rely on the saving system for that: consequences shouldn't be so cheap that they rely on a single action you just made but instead have some weight and rely on an accumulation of choices you've already made earlier. They shouldn't be like dialog choices that you can save and then try each one to see what happens and then reload until you've exhausted the dialog tree. *That* is the root of the problem and limiting the save system is a band-aid when the real solution is to not have such cheap consequences.

My last relevant post on the KCD thread is that i should write an article about it that i explain my thought in more detail, which i haven't done so far :-P. I should because the important thing (that i can't find, probably wrote it in some other thread) is that games are essentially ruleset simulations - computers allow for a ton more stuff to be simulated at very fast speeds so games can simulate entire worldstates, but these still work on rigid rulesets - and savestates by their nature exist outside the ruleset and instead on the simulation implementation of those rulesets (in theory you could simulate everything in, e.g. Skyrim on a piece of paper and you could just keep copies of the papers that contain your simulation state around). One way to think of it (though it isn't a perfect match, just something that might help understand what i write about) is like how emulators emulate not specific games but the systems those games run on.

Having said that and despite my insistence on this (and i'm not writing this because i haven't so far implemented a save system in any of my recent engines :-P), this isn't really a major issue in games for me unless the lack of a proper save system really exacerbates minor annoyances to major issues (like KCD did - i gave examples in the thread but i do not copy them here as they are off topic). I've played a ton of games with restricted save systems and had fun with them, i just do not consider relying on implementation details like the savesystem as good game design since to me it is like relying on a broken control implementation (e.g. not implementing mouse look in a first person game and claiming this is a design choice instead of technical limitation or lack of knowldge on the developer's part). IMO difficulty, C&C, etc should come out of the game's own rules and should apply equally if they had limited saves, unlimited saves or "ran" on a piece of paper. But much like i've played and enjoyed games with subpar combat, i've also played and enjoyed games that rely on their saving system to artificially increase their difficulty and length.

 

[mondblut]

A platformer would be no fun if you could save before every jump

Yeah, having to retread a level 50 times over is so much more exciting

 

[Gargaune]

Saving everywhere without limitations is the best obviously. Games had saving restrictions due to technical and/or storage limitations at the long gone past (e.g. ROM-only cartridges on consoles), but this isn't a thing anymore.

I wrote about this endlessly at the past in the KCD thread (and others, that i can't find), so i'll just copy/paste some of what i wrote (not all, i wrote a ton of stuff since people kept disagreeing and i lost interest):





My last relevant post on the KCD thread is that i should write an article about it that i explain my thought in more detail, which i haven't done so far :-P. I should because the important thing (that i can't find, probably wrote it in some other thread) is that games are essentially ruleset simulations - computers allow for a ton more stuff to be simulated at very fast speeds so games can simulate entire worldstates, but these still work on rigid rulesets - and savestates by their nature exist outside the ruleset and instead on the simulation implementation of those rulesets (in theory you could simulate everything in, e.g. Skyrim on a piece of paper and you could just keep copies of the papers that contain your simulation state around). One way to think of it (though it isn't a perfect match, just something that might help understand what i write about) is like how emulators emulate not specific games but the systems those games run on.

Having said that and despite my insistence on this (and i'm not writing this because i haven't so far implemented a save system in any of my recent engines :-P), this isn't really a major issue in games for me unless the lack of a proper save system really exacerbates minor annoyances to major issues (like KCD did - i gave examples in the thread but i do not copy them here as they are off topic). I've played a ton of games with restricted save systems and had fun with them, i just do not consider relying on implementation details like the savesystem as good game design since to me it is like relying on a broken control implementation (e.g. not implementing mouse look in a first person game and claiming this is a design choice instead of technical limitation or lack of knowldge on the developer's part). IMO difficulty, C&C, etc should come out of the game's own rules and should apply equally if they had limited saves, unlimited saves or "ran" on a piece of paper. But much like i've played and enjoyed games with subpar combat, i've also played and enjoyed games that rely on their saving system to artificially increase their difficulty and length.

Yes, this is the distinction between the game content and the game platform, the characteristics of the medium, and the save/load mechanism is properly encapsulated in the latter. While it's a forced simile, save limitations are indeed, as you mention, more akin to controls limitations like skipping mouselook or key rebinds, which may result in increasing difficulty and tension, but the artificial nature of that tension makes it frustrating, not engaging. And while it's possible to design a game around limited saves as a core component and bringing it into the content sphere, that's a very particular approach and most videogame experiences are not well served by messing with that delineation, ranging from the underlying frustrations of vanilla KCD to the insanity of Bioshock Infinite, a videogame you literally could not lose because Ken Levine keeps trying to "fix" the saves menu. It doesn't need fixing any more than the Rewind button on your cassette player did.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

You guys could try not sucking

 

[Pentium]

I wrote that this isn't good design (IMO) and what you mention here is such an example: the important "bad" stuff shouldn't be something that happens *immediately* after you take an action so that you can simply reload to avoid it. As i wrote in a previous post where i went into detail, the game shouldn't rely on the saving system for that: consequences shouldn't be so cheap that they rely on a single action you just made but instead have some weight and rely on an accumulation of choices you've already made earlier. They shouldn't be like dialog choices that you can save and then try each one to see what happens and then reload until you've exhausted the dialog tree. *That* is the root of the problem and limiting the save system is a band-aid when the real solution is to not have such cheap consequences.

Good point, but some consequences of the player's actions are still immidiate in nature, i.e. combat outcome. I doesn't only mean the death of your own character, which is obviously game over, but the death of any of your party members if it's a party based game, number of consumables used etc. With a limited save system, you are much more pressed to put up with the outcome and it also provides for a more tense gameplay which is a part of the gaming experience. It's not a difficulty or playtime stretching thing only. Also, I don't think that "cumulative consequences" should be the only C&C mechanics. It just doesn't make sense, you may want situations in which your decision has an immidiate effect.

 

[Pentium]

While it's a forced simile, save limitations are indeed, as you mention, more akin to controls limitations like skipping mouselook or key rebinds, which may result in increasing difficulty and tension, but the artificial nature of that tension makes it frustrating, not engaging.

This is utter nonsense. Artificial control shortcomings to frustrate the player have nothing to do with encouraging C&C while unlimited saving is able to wreck it completely unless the game is specifically designed to prevent it as Bad Sector proposes (and which is not really desirable in all cases).

 

[fork]

A platformer would be no fun if you could save before every jump

Yeah, having to retread a level 50 times over is so much more exciting

It is in certain types of games. And while many people use save states and shit in order to train for arcade games for example, that's kinda degenerate and takes away from the fun, and using save states outside of training is rightfully considered cheating. I can play difficult shmups for hours without using any kind of saving system.

 

[fantadomat]

unlimited saving is able to wreck it completely

How come nigga ? Nobody is beating you over the hand,forcing you to use it. So you just want to restrict the options for other people because you lack self control.

 

[Gargaune]

encouraging C&C

Yes, removing beef from the menu does "encourage" people to get chicken.

while unlimited saving is able to wreck it completely unless the game is specifically designed to prevent it as Bad Sector proposes (and which is not really desirable in all cases).

Or unless the player is conscious of what they expect from the game and able to exercise self-restraint when it helps them pursue that experience.

 

[fantadomat]

Ahh the best option is to have an ironman option or what eva it is called,so try hard losers won't get butthurt by the save system. Anyone arguing in force removing/restricting saves is a self-righteous retard.

 

[Gregz]

Games are meant to be fun, play them however you like.

 

[Pocgels]

I read too much of this thread and now I'm not sure I know what savescumming actually means

 

[Child of Malkav]

I prefer the resource based save system. Like the one in KCD and Ori and the blind forest. I think it's the best of both worlds. It prevents saving like a madman because it costs a type of resource and the player needs to explore and find, buy or make that resource that allows them to save maintaining tension while doing so.
Reminder that said system was removed from Ori and the will of the wisps because players forgot to save after a difficult section and after dying they had to redo that section again. In both systems, resource based or unlimited, it's a problem of the player not the system.

Edit: fixed the bad spelling.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Imagine if people with gangrene want to cut not only their leg but also the leg of all healthy people.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Games are meant to be fun, play them however you like.

If someone finds instantly winning the game "fun", we must design the game around being instantly won?

 

[WhiteShark]

I disagree completely with this notion that save systems lie outside the ruleset of the game. Arcade games and roguelikes are two very obvious counterexamples. Their save systems are integral to their respective genres and the experience changes completely if you introduce quickloading. No longer would they be tense genres requiring true mastery of their systems to succeed. No more careful resource management, no more long-term consequences of any kind - after all, if you mess up you can just rewind a little bit and do something different!

There appear to be three factions in the pro-quicksave camp:

1) Those like mondblut who unapologetically savescum, negation of consequences and challenge be damned
2) Those like JarlFrank who don't savescum but wish to be able to screw around consequence-free
3) Those who have never heard of "save & quit" nor continuous autosaving

The third hardly needs to be addressed again. To the first and second, quicksave appears indispensable. The problem is that, as has already been demonstrated, the choice of quicksave influences design decisions, disincentivizing the creation of interesting consequences for failure and properly balanced systems. Likewise, outside of those belonging to faction 1, we all seem to agree that savescumming dulls the game experience. To those who argue that merely avoiding savescumming (aka using the quicksave system as it was designed) is sufficient, have another look at Sreggin Etah I's post from earlier in the thread:

Not to mention you can't soft-lock yourself in Dark Souls, but you can easily soft-lock yourself in a CRPG and having restart the game. Like i said before, i tried a non-savescum run of Icewind Dale and i runned out of money to revive my characters and had to restart the game. Not to mention all the tedious inventory management, just unplayable, so i gave up of Iron man run in Icewind Dale. And that's pretty much the experience with almost every CRPG: costs too much to revive your characters, you cannot farm gold easily as in a JRPG and sometimes the game do not even let you revive your characters until later on.

The ideal solution, then, seems obvious:

1) Save-continuously ("ironman") system as baseline
2) Game design and balance around said save system
3) Console-cheat to create save states, clearly marked as being outside the intended play experience

I think we all win with the above solution, except perhaps a hardliner who says that there should be absolutely no way to create save states within the game. The savescummers can still savescum. The jokers can still screw around. Most importantly, the developer is incentivized to design the game as a challenge, complete with functional systems and suboptimal outcomes.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The problem is that they don't want to be labeled cheaters even though they know they're engaging in cheating behavior.
Sort of like how journalists want games to be easier without playing on easy difficulty because it makes them feel like babies.

 

[Peachcurl]

If someone finds instantly winning the game "fun", we must design the game around being instantly won?

How do you design a game around instantly winning the game?

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

If someone finds instantly winning the game "fun", we must design the game around being instantly won?

How do you design a game around instantly winning the game?

Enemies commit suicide the moment they spot the player.