GothicGothicness
SasqWatch
- Joined
- October 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,292
Ok, so I didn't want to clutter the other currently playing thread, but it looks like there is a lot of interesting views on this subject so I thought I'd start a new thread about it.
Here are some views from the other thread and my reply to them:
Yes, I understand what you mean, but if they wanted you to be able to do that, they could have placed a bonfire there, or have a system that automatically saves before you enter the room for example. That would not be dark souls however, as it designed the way it is. If you could have saved during the fight or just before the fight, do you think the fight would have had as much tension and would have been as tough to complete ? On a side not it is not that long a trek I can make it in about 2-3 minute from the bonfire to the fight
This is again failing to get the point, if you take almost any game with save anywhere system, they are not designed to be exciting and tense the way for example dark souls is. I know I am far from alone, you can read for example people complaining a game like dark souls ruined other games for them.
But the main point is that you can't ignore the save system, let's take a game like dragon age or Baldurs gate or whatever, in many fights you need for example some luck to win, or there is a trap you might need to know it is there, or you need to reload and find the enemies weakness, in other words you CANNOT play the game without using the save system so I cannot ignore it even if I wanted to, and still enjoy the game, because it is NOT designed in that way.
However having just one save slot for example, in a game designed just like a traditional game which has multiple saves is not solving the problem in any way, it is just lazy designers trying to solve the issue in a bad and lazy way.
Finally someone who got the point.
Here are some views from the other thread and my reply to them:
Sakichop:
But I would call getting sent back to a bonfire every time you die and having to replay a lot of areas a checkpoint system.
I spent a whole day trying to kill O&S.( due to my stubbornness and not wanting to recruit help.) The long trek and few fights before getting to them almost made me quit. Being able to save right outside there room would have been much appreciated.
Yes, I understand what you mean, but if they wanted you to be able to do that, they could have placed a bonfire there, or have a system that automatically saves before you enter the room for example. That would not be dark souls however, as it designed the way it is. If you could have saved during the fight or just before the fight, do you think the fight would have had as much tension and would have been as tough to complete ? On a side not it is not that long a trek I can make it in about 2-3 minute from the bonfire to the fight
Originally Posted by GothicGothicness View Post
To me it has a huge impact and greatly decreases the enjoyment of the game if you can save anywhere and load anywhere, it even prevents many people from fully enjoying the game, because they think they made a "bad" decision and loads, and don't even get to experience that path of the game, which might be a lot of fun had they tried it.
Besides it takes away any kind of excitement while playing… ooo well I died I'll reload. O I took a decision which might not be optimal I'll reload. O this dungeon is super hard o well, I'll reload until I win the fights by a lucky hit.. boring and pointless.
Yes, to you maybe, because you evidently aren't able to ignore something just because it's there.
Your rationalization about it preventing people from fully enjoying a game because they think they made bad loads makes little sense though. I'm confident that most of the population isn't OCD to that degree.
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
I disagree with the basic idea that 'no level saves' doesn't have an impact … it is a fundamental design element that informs everything in the game. Like regenerating health, infinite ammo, respawning enemies and so on … when a game is designed with checkpoint saves and save-anywhere, it is engrained in everything about the gameplay.
It doesn't mean you can't play without saving … it just means that a game designed around no levels saves plays fundamentally differently than one that allows them (or one that has checkpoints).
I didn't say it that it doesn't have an impact. I said it doesn't have a negative impact for the majority of games. There are some games with checkpoint systems where it works wonderfully, like Dead Space 1&2 for example. For most RPGS though, not being able to save when and where you want is a big downer for most people.
I don't have an issue with checkpoints and auto-saving as long as there are multiple save slots for you to choose. This recent trend of only having a single save slot however is pure garbage.
This is again failing to get the point, if you take almost any game with save anywhere system, they are not designed to be exciting and tense the way for example dark souls is. I know I am far from alone, you can read for example people complaining a game like dark souls ruined other games for them.
But the main point is that you can't ignore the save system, let's take a game like dragon age or Baldurs gate or whatever, in many fights you need for example some luck to win, or there is a trap you might need to know it is there, or you need to reload and find the enemies weakness, in other words you CANNOT play the game without using the save system so I cannot ignore it even if I wanted to, and still enjoy the game, because it is NOT designed in that way.
However having just one save slot for example, in a game designed just like a traditional game which has multiple saves is not solving the problem in any way, it is just lazy designers trying to solve the issue in a bad and lazy way.
Originally Posted by Menigal View Post
So don't save.
Need to chime in to argue in favor of GG on this one. Your points are not applicable per se and are invalid in regards to the save system. The save system being used is a fundamental design principle, as Mike explained. It's not a question of "don't save if you don't want to." It's a question of what kind of game the designers intended.
Saying it ruins your enjoyment of a game to offer that is like someone who hates subtitles saying having the option to view them ruins their experience
Same as above: this example does not compute. A save anywhere system constitutes a possible save anywhere requirement (for all intents and purposes). In the same vein, you'd need to have films in which they sometimes speak a couple different languages so it may sometimes be required to turn on subtitles. But then it's not really optional anymore, is it? Then it's part of the design of the film. Of course you can have forced subtitles for those scenes, but that's something else again, more akin to auto-saves before key encounters.
or complaining about someone else putting a topping that you don't like on their pizza.
Makes sense if you compare it with games that support both casual play and ironman mode. Yay for them, yay for me. But if others call their hot dog without mustard and onions a "Chicago Dog", it'd be my God given right to complain about them! They'd have figuratively violated a fundamental design principle, dammit!
tl;dr: Optional features are only truly optional if they aren't part of a game's inherent design philosophy. Saves in save-anywhere games are not truly optional.
So you can't really say "so don't save".
Finally someone who got the point.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,292