Savegame limitations?

[rusty_shackleford]

I've yet to see a good argument to this that isn't just "but I want to cheat without being called a cheater!!!"

How does "you're a fag with no willpower" work for you?

you could try not sucking at video games

 

[Shitty Kitty]

I've yet to see a good argument to this that isn't just "but I want to cheat without being called a cheater!!!"

How does "you're a fag with no willpower" work for you?

you could try not sucking at video games

And you could try sucking less dicks but my magic 8-ball keeps telling me "unlikely" when I ask it if you'll ever cut your daily dick intake

 

[Harthwain]

You can't remove the possibility to save only to pander compulsive savescummers à la Rusty.

You can. The question is whether it is worth the effort and what effect does it have (how people play the game) as a result.

There is a limit: beyond a certain pathologic point, it is not a problem that should be addressed and solved by developers, in particular if the solution is the removal of a QoL feature that affects everyone.

That is an opinion, not a fact. Just because one developer decided not to go too deep on limiting saves (implementing an optional ironman option) doesn't mean this is some sort of universal truth.

2) Another point is the claim, that I have seen in this thread, that savescumming is the cause of the decline in gaming, with the corollary that if the developers are allowed to limit the possibility to save, the game design will improve, in particular in better and significative C&C. We see instead from the observations of this developer that it could be exactly the opposite. In order to implement the ironman mode he had to tone down the C&C, in particular the consequences that lead to a game over, basically reducing the difficulty of the game.

I would argue that playing Battle Brothers on Ironman is much more difficult than playing Battle Brothers with saves despite toning it down, because Ironman actively punishes your mistakes by forcing you to live with the consequences, while the other option does not (meaning you can reload and as a result never have to suffer negative outcomes).

You can realize that also games like Darksouls (the epitome of "hard" game) have a toned down C&C: you cannot lose the game or deadlock yourself, if you lose a battle, you just respawn and the world reset (and IMO this is just a boring mechanics, but this is another topic).

How is respawning different from reloading in this regard? If anything respawning is worse as usually respawning carries certain penalties with it (loss of experience, for example), while reloading does not (unless it is a resource).

On the other hand this randomness is completely at odd with the other game mechanics: the permadeath. This is exactly what the developer was saying: i.e. that the randomness should be toned down in order to have a viable implementation of the ironman mode. For this reason I see the roguelikes as short pastimes (like card game solitaries, where luck is part of the charm) but fail to see them as long winded RPGs.

I think you're mixing up combat-related RNG with things such as level generation, item placements and other variables that do not impact combat directly.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

That is an opinion, not a fact. Just because one developer decided not to go too deep on limiting saves (implementing an optional ironman option) doesn't mean this is some sort of universal truth.

Obviously. But is a very reasonable opinion.

I would argue that playing Battle Brothers on Ironman is much more difficult than playing Battle Brothers with saves despite toning it down, because Ironman actively punishes your mistakes by forcing you to live with the consequences, while the other option does not (meaning you can reload and as a result never have to suffer negative outcomes).

Exactly. The difficulty is higher, but only by the presence of ironman save mechanics. The rest of the gameplay is easier. I don't see any particular improvement in this.

How is respawning different from reloading in this regard? If anything respawning is worse as usually respawning carries certain penalties with it (loss of experience, for example), while reloading does not (unless it is a resource).

Exactly. There are no permanent consequences in the game (apart from eliminating specific bosses). You can also grind mindlessy the mob around the bonfire to acquire experience points. Dark Souls has one of the most boring game mechanics IMO, but this is topic for another discussion.

I think you're mixing up combat-related RNG with things such as level generation, item placements and other variables that do not impact combat directly.

Randomness in level layout (including number, placement and monster types and items) can give rise to spikes in difficulty and "unfair" situations.

 

[Harthwain]

Randomness in level layout (including number, placement and monster types and items) can give rise to spikes in difficulty and "unfair" situations.

While fluctuations can occurr it is far fetched to claim that "randomness is completely at odd with the other game mechanics: the permadeath". Games are typically made with the intention of the players being able to complete them, so the developers will naturally try to set the difficulty at a level they deem appropriate. Or make sure there are a few difficulty levels for players to pick from. Or even a "set it up yourself" difficulty setting. Roguelites can be even more forgiving than roguelikes by allowing you to upgrade yourself with some form of meta currency should you fail your run. There are a few instances where games adjust their difficulty on the fly, depending how the player is doing (but not so much that playing badly will make you win).

 

[Van-d-all]

Simply minimize the opportunities to savescumm. Make out of combat encounters deterministic, and combat encounters short enough to disallow saving. Saving during combat sucks all fun from those encounters IMO, because risk/reward management is an essential part of them. Allow retrying the entire fights to avoid borderline failures, but let probability keep settling the entire encounter around the expected value of combatant skills etc. Players shouldn't expect to ace every fight with trickshot crits savescumming or not.

 

[Demo.Graph]

The Thread

 

[Can't handle the bacon]

The Thread

For some people, running through the game with a invulnerability cheat is "fun". Let's add "make character invulnerable" as a gameplay option to all video games. Let me play how I want to play (cheat).

 

[mondblut]

The Thread

For some people, running through the game with a invulnerability cheat is "fun". Let's add "make character invulnerable" as a gameplay option to all video games. Let me play how I want to play (cheat).

If only you were there to consult id software back in 1992... or wait.

 

[fantadomat]

Thank god that devs don't care about the opinions of such weirdos,because they are niche and nobody cares about them.

 

[mondblut]

Simply minimize the opportunities to savescumm. Make out of combat encounters deterministic, and combat encounters short enough to disallow saving. Saving during combat sucks all fun from those encounters IMO, because risk/reward management is an essential part of them. Allow retrying the entire fights to avoid borderline failures, but let probability keep settling the entire encounter around the expected value of combatant skills etc. Players shouldn't expect to ace every fight with trickshot crits savescumming or not.

Gambling is fun. And gambling where you can rig the outcome is funnest.

 

[Can't handle the bacon]

Yeah, RPG devs have been on top of their game the last couple of decades, makes perfect sense to appeal to their wisdom and authority.

 

[Alphons]

The Thread

For some people, running through the game with a invulnerability cheat is "fun". Let's add "make character invulnerable" as a gameplay option to all video games. Let me play how I want to play (cheat).

It's always great to meet a fellow fan of Gothic series.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

I would never have won this fight (and there are five more enemies to kill) without a bit of reloading. Good luck to those who get in this kind of situation in an "iron man" game. What really helped me win though was retreating and re-entering the sector twice durig the fight. And as legit a move as it may be, it still felt more like cheating than a couple of well placed reloads.

 

[Ol' Willy]

There is a thing called "zero risk repetition" which saving helps you to avoid.

Let's say, Hitman game. At the start of the level I got to run several streets, go up the ladder, sneak, lockpick a door, take a disguise and then go down. It takes several minutes to do and involves no risk whatsoever. But then you hit an actual risk moment, fuck up and you got to start anew, repeating all zero risk routine.

This is not fun.

 

[anvi]

Grim Dawn has no savegames. Maybe the Diablo games?

 

[Nifft Batuff]

The diablo games are gatcha by design, so I will no surprised if the have no savegame.

 

[Peachcurl]

Diablo 1 has manual saves, including the ability to savescum, e.g., when using shrines. But that's with a single save slot.
After that (D2, 3), it's only autosaves (which I guess you mean by "no savegame").

 

[laclongquan]

I've yet to see a good argument to this that isn't just "but I want to cheat without being called a cheater!!!"

Favor saves, unlimited saves: Tactical combat game, with lotsa combatants, lots variables.

Think Hammer Sickle, or Silent Storm games. Each save/continue doesnt follow the ealier exactly. Too many variables. This bullet may hit, may not hit. It miss but it can ricochet into other things. it can ricochet into a flameable/explosion object. That explosion may, or may not, strong enough to destroy a freaking floor and send some combatants on above down to their death (or just injured).

People dont need many saves if the progression is simplied, or easy. Once things get complicated to certain degree, many saves is a safety requirement.
------------
Favor saves, unlimited saves: Modded game.

Generally once you mod game, your game become more complex. To a certain degree you need lots saves to preserve your progress, of when it's a safe one.

Example: Fallout New Vegas. Once you install mods beyond certain threshold, your game become unstable and you need saves. 20 and upward, active saves, uncounted the rar/zip saves of even earlier.