Savegame limitations?

[Tyranicon]

My design philosophy is to give the player as many options as possible

:D

 

[lukaszek]

My design philosophy is to give the player as many options as possible

:D

thats true, he even made deterministic chick

 

[VHS9000]

Blade of Darkness were great about save scumming. Without any technical limitations the game marked every your save file with the more and more humilating label the more you was saving.

 

[Pentium]

RPG games

And so the Codex fell into darkness

"LED diode"
People just use it, it's not natural to talk in abbreviations. Deal with it, assholes.

 

[Wulfric Pinewood]

Saving anytime is important when you dont have whole day for gaming.

 

[Pentium]

There's nothing wrong with being able to save anywhere, anytime. It's up to the player to make a conscious decision on whether he will "savescum" or not. I find it pretty disturbing that players with no restraint or willpower to go through with their choices now express their desire to take away the ability to choose (whether to save or not) from everyone else. No, the problem aren't the games nor the possibility to save at any time. The problem is you. For yourself. And possibly others if for some retarded reason developers start listening to you.

What kind of diagnosis is this, demanding "self-restraint and willpower" to not use features included? Please, don't bother me with the "feature is optional, you don't have to use it" bs. What about games unbalanced due to overpowered items/mechanics? Would you also pass the buck on the player for using it insted of acknowledging the game design is just flawed? Also, no devs need to start listening to me as this concept has been around for a while now (examples in my op). Wake up.

 

[Zibniyat]

There's nothing wrong with being able to save anywhere, anytime. It's up to the player to make a conscious decision on whether he will "savescum" or not. I find it pretty disturbing that players with no restraint or willpower to go through with their choices now express their desire to take away the ability to choose (whether to save or not) from everyone else. No, the problem aren't the games nor the possibility to save at any time. The problem is you. For yourself. And possibly others if for some retarded reason developers start listening to you.

What kind of diagnosis is this, demanding "self-restraint and willpower" to not use features included? Please, don't bother me with the "feature is optional, you don't have to use it" bs. What about games unbalanced due to overpowered items/mechanics? Would you also pass the buck on the player for using it insted of acknowledging the game design is just flawed? Also, no devs need to start listening to me as this concept has been around for a while now (examples in my op). Wake up.

First let's make something clear. The purposes of saving a game, from the game developer's perspective and from the point of view of "how the game is meant to be played", are convenience and being user friendly. The "save system" is thus very clearly distinguished from the game proper. It, from the perspectives mentioned above, should have no bearing on how the game is played. I like convenience. I also like something to be as user-friendly as is possible, provided it isn't a case of dumbing down. I despise artificial limits imposed out of contempt for me, my time and my convenience. And on PC, every game should offer complete freedom to save the game at any time and at any place... or offer customisable save system.

So, those are the real purposes of save systems in place. If you can't help yourself but abuse that to get better stuff in a game... nobody has the right to criticise you for if, but everyone has the right to point out your weakness. It's your game, play it however you like. And it's a choice whether you will abuse it or not.

This is why the second question you asked, about balance, is pointless as it's a completely different issue that has to do with the game proper. You can have one and the same game with wholly different save systems in place and it would have no bearing on the inherent balance, or lack thereof, of the game. Not that balance is some ideal a game should strive towards anyway now that we've mentioned it.

All games should ideally have fully customisable save systems, that way everyone can be satisfied. Want an autosave only? Just one save file? Only save at certain places or points in time? Customisable system is the ideal. Absent that, save anywhere anytime is the next best thing.

 

[Saduj]

Do not waste my time. If I have something to do and can’t get up and leave immediately without losing progress, I consider that shit design. If a game isn’t going to allow me a few save slots it better be 100% bug free.

Edit: also “I have to do things I hate if I’m allowed to do them” is an asinine argument.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

I want to save exactly when and where I want, and I want to restore the game exactly from the point where I saved. With no exceptions. I DON'T WONT TO REPEAT SECTIONS OF THE GAME ONLY BECAUSE THE GAME DOES NOT ALLOW ME TO SAVE WHEN AND WHERE I WANT.

 

[octavius]

I want to save exactly when and where I want, and I want to restore the game exactly from the point where I saved. With no exceptions. I DON'T WONT TO REPEAT SECTIONS OF THE GAME ONLY BECAUSE THE GAME DOES NOT ALLOW ME TO SAVE WHEN AND WHERE I WANT.

Could you repeat that? I didn't hear.

 

[Can't handle the bacon]

Yes. It's called "Ironman mode", and it should be mandatory for all RPGs to prevent save-scumming. Made a retarded choice - live with the atrocious consequences. Just like in real life.

Example: while replaying Dark Souls recently, I made the retarded choice of activating the Dusk of Oolacile summon sign while surrounded by enemies. The lady got summoned and instantly had her head smashed in by a crystal golem and died, thus killing off her entire questline and an extra mechant in the DLC level. Now I have to live with the shame and regret of my actions for the rest of the playthrough, because the game doesn't allow you to save-scum and pretend that the dumb thing you just did never really happened.

 

[WhiteShark]

Edit: also “I have to do things I hate if I’m allowed to do them” is an asinine argument.

It is a well known point in game development that players will optimize the fun out of any game if given the opportunity. Sure, you can impose self-restrictions and not engage with broken mechanics, but then you're not really playing the game as it was designed. Developers are at fault for knowing implementing and designing around quicksave even though it eliminates interesting consequences and incentivizes the player to abuse it.

 

[WhiteShark]

First let's make something clear. The purposes of saving a game, from the game developer's perspective and from the point of view of "how the game is meant to be played", are convenience and being user friendly. The "save system" is thus very clearly distinguished from the game proper. It, from the perspectives mentioned above, should have no bearing on how the game is played. I like convenience. I also like something to be as user-friendly as is possible, provided it isn't a case of dumbing down. I despise artificial limits imposed out of contempt for me, my time and my convenience. And on PC, every game should offer complete freedom to save the game at any time and at any place... or offer customisable save system.

So, those are the real purposes of save systems in place. If you can't help yourself but abuse that to get better stuff in a game... nobody has the right to criticise you for if, but everyone has the right to point out your weakness. It's your game, play it however you like. And it's a choice whether you will abuse it or not.

This is why the second question you asked, about balance, is pointless as it's a completely different issue that has to do with the game proper. You can have one and the same game with wholly different save systems in place and it would have no bearing on the inherent balance, or lack thereof, of the game. Not that balance is some ideal a game should strive towards anyway now that we've mentioned it.

Absolutely, completely wrong. Save systems influence balance in a big way. In a save-anywhere system, the developer is free to make fights as difficult and/or swingy as possible because, should the player be defeated, he may simply reload his save from just before the fight started. In other words, the developer does not have to care if any given encounter is particularly well designed. In a persistent save system with consequences, the developer is encouraged to more carefully consider each encounter because the outcome will affect the player permanently. The same can be said for any dialogue or event because consequences only matter outside a save-anywhere system. In short, contrary to your assertion that save systems are unrelated to gameplay, save systems are actually an integral part of a game's design.

To reiterate, just because you can refuse to use a broken mechanic doesn't mean the mechanic is well designed. It's all too commonly argued in the tabletop community that a game system is perfectly well designed as long as you ignore X, Y, and Z. I shouldn't have to spell out why that's stupid, but I will: any design becomes good if you ignore its flaws.

All games should ideally have fully customisable save systems, that way everyone can be satisfied. Want an autosave only? Just one save file? Only save at certain places or points in time? Customisable system is the ideal. Absent that, save anywhere anytime is the next best thing.

And, since your previous point was incorrect, this one is too. Even should developers implement all types of save systems in each game, they are still going to be primarily designing around one of them since save systems do in fact influence design and play. Worse, if they design around none of them in particular, the game's cohesion will suffer as a whole.

 

[Norfleet]

Nowadays I try to play without save-scumming and go with the flow of the decisions I've made, unless the game is "brutal as fuck" (Underrail...) or there is a full-party wipe.

I like to go with the decisions I made. But I also like to see what would happen if I make the other decision, WITHOUT having to restart the entire game.

 

[Trojan_generic]

Nowadays I try to play without save-scumming and go with the flow of the decisions I've made, unless the game is "brutal as fuck" (Underrail...) or there is a full-party wipe.

I like to go with the decisions I made. But I also like to see what would happen if I make the other decision, WITHOUT having to restart the entire game.

Yes, and to avoid this, the designer nowadays puts only one meaningful choice in the whole game just after the last autosave. Is this now much better?
Also, generally, you might include choices with more than two options to choose from. Nobody replays the same game 5 times, or at least I will put so much time in between that I don't remember anymore what I chose the last time.

 

[mediocrepoet]

I think save anywhere is important because I can't list the number of times I've had to leave a game in a hurry whether due to kids or some form of emergency. Just the other day I had to alt-F4 out of combat in order to rush to the hospital. On top of whatever crisis I'm dealing with, I don't also want to have to replay from some hours ago checkpoint. That tends to just make me put a game down and never get back to it.

 

[Trojan_generic]

This is why the second question you asked, about balance, is pointless as it's a completely different issue that has to do with the game proper. You can have one and the same game with wholly different save systems in place and it would have no bearing on the inherent balance, or lack thereof, of the game. Not that balance is some ideal a game should strive towards anyway now that we've mentioned it.

Absolutely, completely wrong. Save systems influence balance in a big way. In a save-anywhere system, the developer is free to make fights as difficult and/or swingy as possible because, should the player be defeated, he may simply reload his save from just before the fight started. In other words, the developer does not have to care if any given encounter is particularly well designed. In a persistent save system with consequences, the developer is encouraged to more carefully consider each encounter because the outcome will affect the player permanently. The same can be said for any dialogue or event because consequences only matter outside a save-anywhere system. In short, contrary to your assertion that save systems are unrelated to gameplay, save systems are actually an integral part of a game's design.

Sorry, but this is a bit retarded. The developer would use an autosave system to make the game more challenging for himself to develop. Now we are going quite far. I would just mention a couple of other things that bug me in your ramblings:
- reloading the fight does not have to mean that the player wins. Not even if he reloads 100 times.
- what is the difference if the player loads the save after death manually or if the game loads the save automatically?
- If someone replays your fights with different approaches 30 times to win, he must at least be enjoying the fighting system a bit, right?

With that said, this whole savescumming debate is more about the ability to review and remake your choices, than about replaying fights. (And, in reality, the autosave is just there to make your short shitty game take longer to beat.)
Instead of limiting saves, I would
- add random outcomes. The fights already have them, so why not 'With this ring I thee' ... 'wtf I dropped it into the well' 1 times out of 5.
- add hidden checks
... to keep some element of surprise also for savescummers.

 

[Pentium]

I want to save exactly when and where I want, and I want to restore the game exactly from the point where I saved. With no exceptions. I DON'T WONT TO REPEAT SECTIONS OF THE GAME ONLY BECAUSE THE GAME DOES NOT ALLOW ME TO SAVE WHEN AND WHERE I WANT.

Could you repeat that? I didn't hear.

He says he likes to go through the porn making in New Reno over and over.

 

[WhiteShark]

I think save anywhere is important because I can't list the number of times I've had to leave a game in a hurry whether due to kids or some form of emergency. Just the other day I had to alt-F4 out of combat in order to rush to the hospital. On top of whatever crisis I'm dealing with, I don't also want to have to replay from some hours ago checkpoint. That tends to just make me put a game down and never get back to it.

I don't understand why so many people equate limited save systems with pointlessly losing progress when you have to leave suddenly. Many different games have addressed that with persistent saves, save-on-exit, suspend-saves etc.

Sorry, but this is a bit retarded. The developer would use an autosave system to make the game more challenging for himself to develop. Now we are going quite far.

Save systems influence how designers make games. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about that. If you know that the vast majority of players will quickload their way out of any scenario that does not go perfectly in their favor, you are not going to bother to make imperfect solutions and consequences very interesting.

I would just mention a couple of other things that bug me in your ramblings:
- reloading the fight does not have to mean that the player wins. Not even if he reloads 100 times.

Okay, and? The point was, the dev can create swingy and poorly designed encounters in a quicksave system and get away with it because players will simply reload until things go in their favor.

- what is the difference if the player loads the save after death manually or if the game loads the save automatically?

In a system of persistent consequences, maybe death would not be the sole outcome of a lost fight! Or maybe you would die, but experience a penalty or loss of some sort when you respawn, maybe even a quest failure. This probably didn't occur to you since you're used to the quickload model where everytime you lose a fight it's game over (because the devs didn't have to think of any other outcome since they can safely assume the player will quickload).

- If someone replays your fights with different approaches 30 times to win, he must at least be enjoying the fighting system a bit, right?

Or maybe he played the fight 30 different times and got lucky with RNG on the 30th, which he knew would happen eventually.

With that said, this whole savescumming debate is more about the ability to review and remake your choices, than about replaying fights. (And, in reality, the autosave is just there to make your short shitty game take longer to beat.)

What? Why does autosave make a game take longer to beat? In the context of what you just said, it's the ability to quickload that will make the game take longer - because the player will reload and test every outcome before moving forward instead of bearing the consequences of his choices.

Instead of limiting saves, I would
- add random outcomes. The fights already have them, so why not 'With this ring I thee' ... 'wtf I dropped it into the well' 1 times out of 5.
- add hidden checks
... to keep some element of surprise also for savescummers.

Ridiculous. This would just further incentivize savescumming as soon as these factors were known, because players would wish to pass those hidden checks and get those hidden rewards just like they want everything else to have the best outcome.

 

[Saduj]

It is a well known point in game development that players will optimize the fun out of any game if given the opportunity. Sure, you can impose self-restrictions and not engage with broken mechanics, but then you're not really playing the game as it was designed. Developers are at fault for knowing implementing and designing around quicksave even though it eliminates interesting consequences and incentivizes the player to abuse it.

I don't think any of that is right. I don't look to optimize everything unless I believe a game is very hard, which excludes most CRPGs. My natural tendency is towards more balanced builds and very few games make that a problem. And I would bet that most players don't pay close enough attention to mechanics to optimize everything.

I don't agree that any game has ever been "designed around" quicksave either. It is a convenience feature.

And I don't agree that failing to abuse broken mechanics somehow equates to not playing the game. Following that "logic" to the obvious conclusion, one is "not playing a game" unless they pick the easiest difficulty, the most OP character class, utilize every exploit no matter how much time that wastes, etc, etc, etc. And that is absurd. Yeah, OP mechanics may be designed into a game. But the underpowered options are every bit as much designed into the game as the overpowered ones.

 

[KörangarTheMighty]

Thank you, No. I'll make my own limitations when it suits me.

 

[WhiteShark]

I don't think any of that is right. I don't look to optimize everything unless I believe a game is very hard, which excludes most CRPGs. My natural tendency is towards more balanced builds and very few games make that a problem. And I would bet that most players don't pay close enough attention to mechanics to optimize everything.

Many times you don't have to even be trying particularly hard to accidentally optimize away all the challenge and fun in poorly designed games. Have you never played a game where you've accidentally stumbled into a broken build just by picking obviously synergistic abilities? It's annoying and poor design to present a player with a game feature (including a quicksave system) that, when actually used to its fullest extent, makes the game less enjoyable. Let me repeat again: just because you can avoid using a particular mechanic doesn't mean it's good design.

I don't agree that any game has ever been "designed around" quicksave either. It is a convenience feature.

If you cannot see how games would be designed differently in the absence of quicksave after everything I said, then I have little else to say on that point. I'll give you one more hint though: compare roguelikes with crpgs and see how they differ and how that relates to their save systems.

And I don't agree that failing to abuse broken mechanics somehow equates to not playing the game. Following that "logic" to the obvious conclusion, one is "not playing a game" unless they pick the easiest difficulty, the most OP character class, utilize every exploit no matter how much time that wastes, etc, etc, etc. And that is absurd. Yeah, OP mechanics may be designed into a game. But the underpowered options are every bit as much designed into the game as the overpowered ones.

Picking a difficulty is somewhat akin to choosing which game to play in the first place. When you start a game, assuming you aren't planning on using cheats, you are entering a particular challenge with a particular set of rules. Picking a difficulty within the game is a lot like that: you are settling on a set of rules by which the game will abide.

Once the rules are locked in, however, everything should be fair game. Maybe you are the exception, but in general the player naturally wants to use the rules of the game to his advantage. Underpowered/trap options are bad, but there is at least a modicum of enjoyment in being able to see those ahead of time and avoid them. What's not enjoyable and is in fact poor design is when using the tools as presented results in a pathetically easy or tediously repetitive experience. In a quicksave game, the rule of the game is that you can easily test every outcome. The natural incentive is to do so and find the best result. The practical effect is that the player does a lot of tedious quickloading and dialogue repetition and never need suffer the consequences of his actions.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

I want to save exactly when and where I want, and I want to restore the game exactly from the point where I saved. With no exceptions. I DON'T WONT TO REPEAT SECTIONS OF THE GAME ONLY BECAUSE THE GAME DOES NOT ALLOW ME TO SAVE WHEN AND WHERE I WANT.

Could you repeat that? I didn't hear.

I was talking to the indie developers.

 

[Pentium]

The purposes of saving a game, from the game developer's perspective and from the point of view of "how the game is meant to be played", are convenience and being user friendly.

It's funny that you're talking about the developer's perspective bacause many devs have most clearly included limitations into their games with the intent to affect gameplay. My original examples aside, another could be AvP (1999) where the number of save slots is limited (and even with no save slots in the original release) to make the game more athmospheric and emphasize survival elements. What you say has little sense. As a developer, would you deliberately design any of the game systems to be inconvenient and user-hostile for no other reason than to get rosted in the reviews and discourage your potential customers from buying your game? Intentional savegame limitations that do exist in some games are obviously tools of proper gameplay ffs.

The "save system" is thus very clearly distinguished from the game proper.

Well, those two might be distinguished in your head but they're clearly not seperated. If any feature allows you to break the game than it's very much related to "how the game is meant to be played" whether you, as a developer or player, realize it or not.

I despise artificial limits imposed out of contempt for me, my time and my convenience.

Now remind me, who was talking about self-restraints and willpower?

If you can't help yourself but abuse that to get better stuff in a game

That's not really what I said at all but ok.

And it's a choice whether you will abuse it or not.

Yes but the choice is enabled by the possibility. Get it?

This is why the second question you asked, about balance, is pointless as it's a completely different issue that has to do with the game proper.

Wrong. It's a different issue in nature but it can have the same consequences - diverting you from "how the game is meant to be played". With your logic in mind, a developer could decide to make their game more casual-friendly, for example by making the most powerful weapon in the game with low lvl requirements only, put it in a chest in the very first room and then it's your choice whether you make use of it or not. But that possibility makes the game inherently shit. Obviously, devs do not create such possibilities becasue they've got a notion of the proper gameplay and progress and save systems have a part in it as proven above.

 

[anvi]

Savegames are just not necessary, it was just a cheap and easy solution in 1981 or whatever, and it hung around ever since. But it doesn't need to. There are games which have no savegames or reloads, you can just exit the game whenever you want, and you come back to the same place. You don't need reloading and saving, why bother the player when the game can handle it for you? The player's failure can still be made meaningful in lots of other ways.