Saving in roleplaying games continued discussion from other thread

GothicGothicness · January 5, 2015

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:

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.

Couchpotato · January 5, 2015

Well I know my opinion will be the minority but I never care about how difficult my games are, and have rarely been bothered by what type of save system they use either.

So don't kill the messenger as the saying goes. :lonely:

GothicGothicness · January 5, 2015

Couchpotato said:
Well I know my opinion will be the minority but I never care about how difficult my games are, and have rarely been bothered by what type of save system they use either.

So don't kill the messenger as the saying goes.

Well, if the game is really good I guess nobody cares about those things? As you are too busy enjoying the game.

I think if a game has a great story for example, you might not care at all about the save system or gameplay. But maybe you've been annoyed once or twice that you forgot to save, or with long load times, or that you have to keep pressing a button or go to a menu to save?

If the gameplay and character development is really great, you might not care about the story or save system.

So I think it is not that strange. But for me I have a hard time enjoying gameplay if it is too easy and/or there is no excitement and save system can often be a culprit in this department IMHO.

If you enjoy the gameplay no matter if it is challenging or not, this problem probably don't apply to you.

joxer · January 5, 2015

Dunno what was in that other thread and having a hard time decyphering it here.

I just want quicksave and not checkpoints on my PC.
Said before, saying again. I have frequent power surges and I don't want to replay annoying parts just because my power went off.
No, UPS I have doesn't help with demanding games because GPU tries to suck out too many watts and UPS instantly switches off! And I'm not prepared to buy professional UPS that costs equally as high end PC just because of consolecrap.

Another thing I want is no limit on number of saves. It's not 1995. it's 2015. Our HDDs are with terabytes. Keep limits for inferior consoles, I don't want that crap cap on PC.

Finally I want saving/loading made proper in games.
Sims 3 saving system is horrible and your savegame can contain so much of trash data it grows on 20-40 GIGAbytes. Yes it does.
Sims 4 save system is even worse, the game frequently crashes on save.
Another problem is loading. I don't care for superslow loading on consoles, I just don't want to see that crap on PC. If Gothic/Risen could get it right, then there is no excuse for retardedly long loading in Dragon Age 3.

azarhal · January 5, 2015

I prefer a save system where I can define the length of my play session instead of depending on a unknown time allocation between two save/check points.

This doesn't need to be a save everywhere system.

Drithius · January 5, 2015

Joxer, if you have frequent power surges, a good UPS is one of the best investments you can make for any piece of electronics. I moved to "lightning alley" in Florida some three years back and I don't regret shelling out $150 for one. And that's a crazy overkill model that could probably run my system for a half hour or longer. Not a week goes by that it doesn't momentarily chime on at least a couple times.

I'm in favor of saving whenever you wish in games outside of combat. Checkpoints are too restrictive and allowing saves while in combat promotes save scumming.

Zloth · January 6, 2015

I want saves. I want LOTS of saves. I want to be able to quick save. I want the game to auto-save. I want those auto-saves to cycle through at least three slots instead of saving over each other. And, when I manually save, I want to be able to give my save game a name.

Having a series of battles with no save is exciting, yes, but when you fail it ceases to be exciting and becomes frustrating. If you fail a few times then it even stops being frustrating and becomes outright boring until you get to the part where you're failing. Basically, you're under a threat: if you fail, you're going to be stuck not having fun for some amount of time after. That's NOT a good way to make a game exciting, IMHO.

Having lots of save options makes experimentation a real possibility, too. In Valkyria Chronicles I could try crazy tactics because the game let me save at will. If I only got saves once every half hour, I would have skipped most of that experimentation because most of them wouldn't work and then I would have to play a half hour all over again.

As for "save scumming" - so what? That's the player's choice. Why is using the save system to help you through a game considered a bad thing but changing difficulty levels mid-game just fine?

Maylander · January 6, 2015

I prefer a full save game system, including quick saves. Not being able to save in the middle of an event (fight, conversation etc) makes sense, but beyond that it should be no problem.

txa1265 · January 6, 2015

GothicGothicness said:
This is again failing to get the point,

Um, great. You rip something I said when agreeing with you in one thread and change the context and suddenly accuse me of 'not getting the point'?

WTF?

The answer is no ... no I do not give you permission to take my words out of context and screw around to make some other point.

I would actually say that in this regard YOU do not get the point. Of pretty much ANY of this.

Pessimeister · January 6, 2015

I'm extremely flexible and tolerant here and don't have a problem with most save systems. Logically if a game I really wish to play has an unusual system, I'll simply play and plan to meet it accordingly. It's close to a non-issue for me to be honest.

Sacred_Path · January 6, 2015

I'm hoping for a generation of games to come that will support Ironman games on the first playthrough; in fact, games that are built around a lack of saving. This could only be done well by giving the player several options to react intelligently to any situation, and therefore it will be quite some time before we see something like that.

purpleblob · January 6, 2015

Maylander said:
I prefer a full save game system, including quick saves. Not being able to save in the middle of an event (fight, conversation etc) makes sense, but beyond that it should be no problem.

This, and I would like to rename my saves. I hate number saving systems (like recent Bioware games), when I want to go back to save a few days later, I have to load several times.... so inconvenient.

wiretripped · January 6, 2015

azarhal said:
I prefer a save system where I can define the length of my play session instead of depending on a unknown time allocation between two save/check points.

This doesn't need to be a save everywhere system.

purpleblob said:
This, and I would like to rename my saves. I hate number saving systems (like recent Bioware games), when I want to go back to save a few days later, I have to load several times…. so inconvenient.

I'm going to second both those points. I have limited playing time and want to be able to quit at any point I like. I don't want to fly for minutes to the nearest space port to be able to save (I'm looking at you, Starpoint Gemini 2).

Fnord · January 6, 2015

I'm personally not in favour of games not allowing you to save anywhere (there might be some requirements like character not being in combat and with both feet on solid ground, to avoid issues, but apart from that, you should be able to save anywhere). Even in the case of Dark Souls, I think a "save anywhere" system would actually be good for the game, though as Dark Souls is built around a very specific experience, it would be what some games would refer to as an "ironman mode", where you are only allowed to keep one save slot, and when you save it overwrites it. Also, it should overwrite the save slot whenever you do something drastic, like die (and here it should spawn you back at the campfire). Not being allowed to quit the game whenever I want/need to is actually a big reason for why I've yet to beat Dark Souls, as it is very hard to plan around a game where savepoints are few & far between.

Pladio · January 6, 2015

I agree with most people here.

Saves should lie in one of the following 3 options for me:

1. Save anywhere, anytime (with few exceptions: e.g. middle of combat or conversations)
2. Save automatically after each main event (like Mount & Blade "realistic" setting)
3. Save when quitting (e.g. FTL, Dungeon of the Endless)

Most games should have a save anywhere system, except for roguelikes in my opinion.

And then I should not have to find a campfire, space station, lover, noodle dog, poodle god or anything else to save as it wastes my time for no reason or means I lose a bunch of progress if I need to go or do something else.

Maylander · January 6, 2015

purpleblob said:
This, and I would like to rename my saves. I hate number saving systems (like recent Bioware games), when I want to go back to save a few days later, I have to load several times…. so inconvenient.

Yes! I really prefer having that option as well. It really makes it easier to archive saves, in case I need to check something out later (for example when answering a question here on the forums).

Turjan · January 6, 2015

Pladio said:
I agree with most people here.

Saves should lie in one of the following 3 options for me:

1. Save anywhere, anytime (with few exceptions: e.g. middle of combat or conversations)
2. Save automatically after each main event (like Mount & Blade "realistic" setting)
3. Save when quitting (e.g. FTL, Dungeon of the Endless)

I prefer a combination of 1 and 2: allow you to save anywhere + the game autosaves before you do something that has a high probability of you failing.

I'm not sure which game did this to me last, but there was one that didn't let you skip cutscenes and had an about 10 minute long one prior to some major combat that I failed several times in a row. Really, I couldn't see that stupid cutscene anymore...

wolfing · January 6, 2015

If I have to replay more than 15 minuted, chances are high that it will end my session for the day. More than 30 minutes is uninstall time. So yes, I want frequent saves and saves before boss fights, and I hate multi-fight series without in-between saves.

Dez · January 6, 2015

Save anywhere expect in the middle of combat or during the conversation.

Deleted User · January 6, 2015

I'm not picky about save systems. I do hope that future games experiment more with the save system. I think a lot of the fun and challenge can be lost with saving at any time.

For example, in Gothic 2, I have to force myself not to save-scum. It's a resolution I've made. The developers intended there to be consequences for your actions, so it's only right to deal with the consequences in stride. That means no re-loading to get a "better" outcome or whatever. It works great for me and makes the great that much more fun and interesting. I'd suggest giving it a shot if you guys don't already.

I'd also like to see Ironman modes in the future, with more thought given to the save system.

Saving in roleplaying games continued discussion from other thread

SasqWatch

Part-Time News-bot

SasqWatch

The Smoker

SasqWatch

Magic & Loss

I smell a... wumpus!?

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

Living Backwards

Sacred_Path

Guest

purpleblob

Guest

Machiavellian

SasqWatch

Guardian of Nonsense

SasqWatch

Keeper of the Watch

Dalek SasqWatch

Man with the hat

Deleted User

Guest