Savegame limitations?

[rusty_shackleford]

none of this has to do with how stupid your savestate argument is

How does what i have written so far fail to explain why i think save limitations are a bad design?

I'm not reading your walls of text, I just saw that part while scrolling through

 

[Bad Sector]

I'm not reading your walls of text

Yeah i had a hunch :-P

 

[Peachcurl]

there are plenty of chess video games you dip

And they have zero relevance for this topic. In other news, noone is asking for quicksave in the latest FIFA game.

come on, name games where savestates wouldn't make the game easier.

Why? That's never been my argument.

 

[Harthwain]

Being "pressed up to put up with the outcome" and providing "more tense gameplay" is just another way of saying that it makes the game more difficult

That's not correct - the difficulty remains the same, what goes up are the stakes. In addition it makes decision making on part of the player much more important.

 

[mondblut]

When people talk about permadeath, they talk about us three being mean. 'Oh, they wanted to make it extra hard, so they threw in permadeath.' … permadeath is an example of 'consequence persistence.' … Do I read this scroll, do I drink this potion? I don't know. It might be good. It might be bad. If I can save the game and then drink the potion and—oh, it's bad-then I restore the game and I don't drink the potion. That entire game mechanic just completely goes away. So that was a whole reason why once you have taken an action and a consequence has happened, there's no way to go back and undo it.
…
The good stuff is just as permanent as the bad stuff.

Naive autists never heard of backing up saves. How quaint.

 

[asfasdf]

I couldn't care less if people want to savescum in their games, mind your own business.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Being "pressed up to put up with the outcome" and providing "more tense gameplay" is just another way of saying that it makes the game more difficult

That's not correct - the difficulty remains the same, what goes up are the stakes. In addition it makes decision making on part of the player much more important.

It increases the punishment for failing. But the punishment is basically the frustration and boredom that arises from the waste of time you have by repeating the same sections. Maybe It make sense for some kind of games, but admittedly it is not the best time I imagine having with games, and neither the best way to make decision making relevant.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I couldn't care less if people want to savescum in their games, mind your own business.

tired, old argument

As for limiting saving options, why not let the player playing the game decide himself. His game, his options - that's what I think.

for the same reason I oppose putting a cheat menu right in front of the player's face and designing the game around using the cheat menu

 

[asfasdf]

tired, old argument

Only argument required.

 

[lukaszek]

kcd was fun with saves tied to potions. At least it was fund until you unlocked alchemy and were able to make them in bulk.

It could be even better if you were spending save resource on load instead of saving

 

[Nifft Batuff]

kcd was fun with saves tied to potions. At least it was fund until you unlocked alchemy and were able to make them in bulk.

It could be even better if you were spending save resource on load instead of saving

The old coin-ops were exactly like this.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

kcd was fun with saves tied to potions. At least it was fund until you unlocked alchemy and were able to make them in bulk.

It could be even better if you were spending save resource on load instead of saving

Spending a meta-resource to revert to a "convenience-save" (save anywhere or whatever) and having to revert to a "hard-save" if you run out(e.g., inn rest or whatever) actually sounds like a decent idea.
Has any RPG done this?

 

[mondblut]

kcd was fun with saves tied to potions. At least it was fund until you unlocked alchemy and were able to make them in bulk.

It could be even better if you were spending save resource on load instead of saving

Spending a meta-resource to revert to a "convenience-save" (save anywhere or whatever) and having to revert to a "hard-save" if you run out(e.g., inn rest or whatever) actually sounds like a decent idea.
Has any RPG done this?

Sell this meta-resource in "premium store", and the companies will rush head over heels to make your dream true. Reloading for microtransactions, yay for massive incline.

Me, I am rather happy that coin-op arcades have died and games are no longer designed around that.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

kcd was fun with saves tied to potions. At least it was fund until you unlocked alchemy and were able to make them in bulk.

It could be even better if you were spending save resource on load instead of saving

Spending a meta-resource to revert to a "convenience-save" (save anywhere or whatever) and having to revert to a "hard-save" if you run out(e.g., inn rest or whatever) actually sounds like a decent idea.
Has any RPG done this?

Sell this meta-resource in "premium store", and the companies will rush head over heels to make your dream true. Reloading for microtransactions, yay for massive incline.

Me, I am rather happy that coin-op arcades have died and games are no longer designed around that.

a way to monetize cheaters inability to restrain themselves actually does sound incline

 

[lukaszek]

kcd was fun with saves tied to potions. At least it was fund until you unlocked alchemy and were able to make them in bulk.

It could be even better if you were spending save resource on load instead of saving

Spending a meta-resource to revert to a "convenience-save" (save anywhere or whatever) and having to revert to a "hard-save" if you run out(e.g., inn rest or whatever) actually sounds like a decent idea.
Has any RPG done this?

Sell this meta-resource in "premium store", and the companies will rush head over heels to make your dream true. Reloading for microtransactions, yay for massive incline.

Me, I am rather happy that coin-op arcades have died and games are no longer designed around that.

a way to monetize cheaters inability to restrain themselves actually does sound incline

no idea but it might be moddable in kcd itself.

Thinking about it more, if you remove alchemy then schnaps resources provided in game strike really good balance, when it comes to their availability.
Spending resource to make a save is a bit meh as it requires metaknowledge, otherwise you pay with your time/backtracking. I like having to worry about keeping myself alive but at the same time hate wasting time

 

[Nifft Batuff]

kcd was fun with saves tied to potions. At least it was fund until you unlocked alchemy and were able to make them in bulk.

It could be even better if you were spending save resource on load instead of saving

Spending a meta-resource to revert to a "convenience-save" (save anywhere or whatever) and having to revert to a "hard-save" if you run out(e.g., inn rest or whatever) actually sounds like a decent idea.
Has any RPG done this?

Sell this meta-resource in "premium store", and the companies will rush head over heels to make your dream true. Reloading for microtransactions, yay for massive incline.

Me, I am rather happy that coin-op arcades have died and games are no longer designed around that.

a way to monetize cheaters inability to restrain themselves actually does sound incline

They will monetize even the start button.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

kcd was fun with saves tied to potions. At least it was fund until you unlocked alchemy and were able to make them in bulk.

It could be even better if you were spending save resource on load instead of saving

Spending a meta-resource to revert to a "convenience-save" (save anywhere or whatever) and having to revert to a "hard-save" if you run out(e.g., inn rest or whatever) actually sounds like a decent idea.
Has any RPG done this?

Sell this meta-resource in "premium store", and the companies will rush head over heels to make your dream true. Reloading for microtransactions, yay for massive incline.

Me, I am rather happy that coin-op arcades have died and games are no longer designed around that.

a way to monetize cheaters inability to restrain themselves actually does sound incline

They will monetize even the start button.

I have no issue monetizing the cheat button

 

[Nifft Batuff]

kcd was fun with saves tied to potions. At least it was fund until you unlocked alchemy and were able to make them in bulk.

It could be even better if you were spending save resource on load instead of saving

Spending a meta-resource to revert to a "convenience-save" (save anywhere or whatever) and having to revert to a "hard-save" if you run out(e.g., inn rest or whatever) actually sounds like a decent idea.
Has any RPG done this?

Sell this meta-resource in "premium store", and the companies will rush head over heels to make your dream true. Reloading for microtransactions, yay for massive incline.

Me, I am rather happy that coin-op arcades have died and games are no longer designed around that.

a way to monetize cheaters inability to restrain themselves actually does sound incline

They will monetize even the start button.

I have no issue monetizing the cheat button

Yes, also the jump button.

 

[Pots Talos]

I dislike save scumming, but I also like being able to save at any time.

When I was developing The Great Gaias I had placed save points for dungeons and towns but on the world map you can save anytime. During testing though people found the game to be too difficult and got aggravated having to replay parts over again, so I implemented the save anywhere feature.

The crazy thing is that once I had some friends test the game with the ability to save anywhere, I found they were saving before trivial things like traps just to make sure that they disabled the trap each time even though taking the hit doesn’t kill you it just causes some damage and maybe a status effect. I still looked past this though thinking maybe it was just my friends doing it and released the game with save anywhere. Now I’ve seen multiple people play it on Twitch and YouTube and each person did the same thing, saving before traps and reloading when they failed a disable check.

Now, I do think people should be able to play however they like but as a developer it makes me wonder why should I even make a system like traps and disable device when everyone is just going to bypass it with save scumming?

After reading through this thread, I think the best saving option I’ll implement for my next title will just be tying the save system to a difficulty option. Hard mode you can only save at inn, normal you can save in town and campsites found in the wilderness and easy mode you can save anywhere.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The crazy thing is that once I had some friends test the game with the ability to save anywhere, I found they were saving before trivial things like traps just to make sure that they disabled the trap each time even though taking the hit doesn’t kill you it just causes some damage and maybe a status effect. I still looked past this though thinking maybe it was just my friends doing it and released the game with save anywhere. Now I’ve seen multiple people play it on Twitch and YouTube and each person did the same thing, saving before traps and reloading when they failed a disable check.

Now, I do think people should be able to play however they like but as a developer it makes me wonder why should I even make a system like traps and disable device when everyone is just going to bypass it with save scumming?

This directly relates to this topic:

being able to save and load anywhere gets rid of any consequences to your choices, it's antithetical to the RPG genre. Roguelikes are the closest thing that exists to tabletop RPGs.

When people talk about permadeath, they talk about us three being mean. 'Oh, they wanted to make it extra hard, so they threw in permadeath.' … permadeath is an example of 'consequence persistence.' … Do I read this scroll, do I drink this potion? I don't know. It might be good. It might be bad. If I can save the game and then drink the potion and—oh, it's bad-then I restore the game and I don't drink the potion. That entire game mechanic just completely goes away. So that was a whole reason why once you have taken an action and a consequence has happened, there's no way to go back and undo it.
…
The good stuff is just as permanent as the bad stuff.

The video is the original creators of Rogue, btw.

The system presented by lukaszek actually seems to be rather interesting

It could be even better if you were spending save resource on load instead of saving

People would be less inclined to reload over minor things if it costs them something to reload.

 

[lukaszek]

The system presented by lukaszek actually seems to be rather interesting
People would be less inclined to reload over minor things if it costs them something to reload.

also, you can no longer perform endless reloads to turn rng deterministic

 

[Red Hexapus]

Spending a meta-resource to revert to a "convenience-save" (save anywhere or whatever) and having to revert to a "hard-save" if you run out(e.g., inn rest or whatever) actually sounds like a decent idea.
Has any RPG done this?

I recall that in Ishar 1, you could save the game at any place, but you would have to pay with the in-game currency to do so, with the cost increasing with each save. They've removed it in the second game.

 

[Butter]

Donkey Kong Country 2 made you pay an in-game currency to save, but it was so inexpensive as to not even count as a nuisance. You also couldn't save mid-level, so it's not like the cost acted as a savescumming deterrent.

 

[WhiteShark]

Being "pressed up to put up with the outcome" and providing "more tense gameplay" is just another way of saying that it makes the game more difficult

That's not correct - the difficulty remains the same, what goes up are the stakes. In addition it makes decision making on part of the player much more important.

The difficulty does go up in a particular way, at least in practical terms: the ability to remain consistent is tested. You correctly note that limited saving raises the importance of player decision making. When the player is required to consistently make good decisions and mistakes aren't allowed, the overall difficulty increases. In many cases it's easy to make a good decision once, in one particular situation. It's hard to continuously make good decisions across a broad variety of situations. This is very noticeable in roguelikes.

In action games this is even more noticeable. Let's examine Bad Sector's take:

Even in games that rely on player skill, like a platformer, you can either perform the control combinations in the expected time sequences to pass the obstructions (e.g. jump over a large gap by run+jump at the right position) or you cannot. After you have demonstrated (to the game) your ability to do that there isn't a reason to put the player in a position where they have to repeat something they've already demonstrated their ability to overcome just so that there game's length and difficulty can be artificially increased. This is why i call relying on implementation details like the savesystem a sign of bad design: even in the case of player skill based games, the game should introduce something different and more challenging for the player to overcome instead of using the repetition introduced by a limited (intentionally broken) save system.

It is very possible that a player might succeed at a difficult encounter or platforming segment once, by the skin of his teeth, but be hard pressed to do it again. Anybody who has attempted to master a skill should know that true mastery consists not in being able to do something well once, but in being able to do it well every time. The game is calling on you not to succeed once and be done with it, but to be able to succeed consistently. That's the point of no quickload, permadeath systems. It is neither padding nor "artificial" difficulty, but an intentional design paradigm intended to push the player toward mastery.

Roguelikes restricting saving is IMO an arbitrary decision that isn't necessary exactly because the world is randomly generated you do not gain much from being able to load. Many roguelikes do allow saving and loading - either by default or by an explicit game mode - and people play them just fine.

See the above. Inability to quickload is core to the roguelike genre. It forces to master all parts of the game. As stated above, "master" does not mean succeed once, it means succeed consistently. Just because some roguelike developers add a cheat mode for unabashed savescummers doesn't mean that they aren't designed around principles of consequence persistence and mastery.

Additionally, precisely because of the RNG world and the varied situations it spawns, quickload would completely neuter one of the core skills of roguelikes: tactical analysis. A good roguelike player must be able to examine any situation and decide where to position, which enemies to prioritize, which abilities or spells to use, whether a consumable is necessary, whether an equipment swap is necessary, or if he should simply flee. With quickload, if the player makes a costly mistake in one of these areas, he may simply try again. He need not learn how to properly analyze anything at all because he can just try each method in turn, immediately, consequence-free. He could even try the same risky tactic repeatedly until it succeeds through RNG.

In general, IMO, if a game's difficulty can be defeated by the game running under an emulator with savestates (assuming one exists) then the game wasn't that challenging in the first place and relied on gimmicks for artificially increasing its perceived difficulty.

Absolutely ridiculous. When I was young I played Mega Man X for the first time on an emulator. I discovered save states and used them extensively in a boss fight. Here's what I would do: everytime I managed to get in a hit without taking damage, I would quicksave. If I got hit, I would quickload. Needless to say, it trivialized the whole affair. I was not required to be skillful, to truly understand the mechanics of the fight. If I could get in one clean hit, then that's what "counted" thanks to save states, even if that clean hit only came after a dozen failed attempts.

So does that mean the game wasn't difficult? No, of course it was difficult. I resorted to save states precisely because I was too unskilled to beat it the intended way. Was it relying on gimmicks or "artificial" difficulty? No, it was just a tough fight because it called on me to be precise, consistent, and a good decision maker. In many action games there are encounters that are difficult even if you know them like the back of your hand simply because of the consistency required.

after all, if you mess up you can just rewind a little bit and do something different!

And there is nothing wrong with that, the game's rules should not be so easily defeated by an implementation detail like the savesystem, especially in genres like RPGs where your character's statistics (which are part of the game's rules and state) are supposed to be more important than the player's abilities (e.g. a character can either pass a skill check or they cannot, being able to saving shouldn't affect this - even if there is a randomness element by making the random number generator's state part of the game state).

RPGs have always called on the player's actual abilities for tactical and strategic decision-making. Just because physical prowess and social aptitude are abstracted away to character statistics doesn't mean that RPGs don't or shouldn't test actual player skill. By your logic even combat decision making should be handled by AI and character stats and the player can just have a tepid, challenge-free CYOA experience.

You also completely fail to acknowledge the game design limitations that arise from the presence of quickload. See the rusty's post from earlier:

being able to save and load anywhere gets rid of any consequences to your choices, it's antithetical to the RPG genre. Roguelikes are the closest thing that exists to tabletop RPGs.

When people talk about permadeath, they talk about us three being mean. 'Oh, they wanted to make it extra hard, so they threw in permadeath.' … permadeath is an example of 'consequence persistence.' … Do I read this scroll, do I drink this potion? I don't know. It might be good. It might be bad. If I can save the game and then drink the potion and—oh, it's bad-then I restore the game and I don't drink the potion. That entire game mechanic just completely goes away. So that was a whole reason why once you have taken an action and a consequence has happened, there's no way to go back and undo it.
…
The good stuff is just as permanent as the bad stuff.

Traps and unidentified items are prominent features of tabletop and roguelikes. They can have immediate negative consequences and require the party to work around them. In a game with quickload, however, they serve no purpose whatsoever. As the developer says above, permadeath (or limited saving) enables game mechanics with actual consequences which quickload invalidates.

But this applies to other genres too: in an adventure game you can either solve the puzzle or not.

Deterministic puzzles are completely different than all the other genres we've been discussing. In this one case, you are right. Once you've solved the puzzle once, there's nothing left to test for. It should be obvious that the same does not necessarily go for games with real-time and/or RNG elements since those require consistency across ever changing game states.

Once again I am forced to reject the idea that save systems are simply an "implementation detail" and not a core part of a game's rules. It is the rule of roguelikes that you must bear the consequences of your mistakes. It is the rule of arcade games that you have a limited number of lives, forcing the player to develop consistent skill in order to succeed. It is the rule of Dark Souls that when you die you lose resources and must retread your steps, again testing the player for consistency.

In like manner it is the rule of most CRPGs that you may return to any point you wish at any time, negating all consequences and avoiding the need for consistent player skill. For all the CYOAers out there, that's fine. For those of us who want an actual game, that rule is detrimental.

Now, I do think people should be able to play however they like but as a developer it makes me wonder why should I even make a system like traps and disable device when everyone is just going to bypass it with save scumming?

After reading through this thread, I think the best saving option I’ll implement for my next title will just be tying the save system to a difficulty option. Hard mode you can only save at inn, normal you can save in town and campsites found in the wilderness and easy mode you can save anywhere.

Perfect example of what I've been saying, thank you. I don't know if the engine you're using can support it, but I still advocate a persistent autosave with no quickload like in Dark Souls. It enables permanent consequences without permadeath.

 

[mondblut]

a way to monetize cheaters inability to restrain themselves actually does sound incline

Yeah, bro, people making money from hindering the players' ability to proceed are absolutely dedicated to keeping the quality of the game top notch. Sure thing, mate.

Wanna buy a bridge, by the way? It's pretty cool.