|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums
» Games
» General RPG
»
Saving in roleplaying games continued discussion from other thread
Saving in roleplaying games continued discussion from other thread
January 7th, 2015, 13:25
Originally Posted by MenigalHow many games can you name where a save-anywhere system is absolutely necessary?
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".

It's not about needing to save anywhere. It's about convenience and being user-friendly.
Originally Posted by GothicGothicnessNah, we all got your point. You just can't seem to comprehend that not everyone agrees with you. That's nothing new though.
Finally someone who got the point.

Originally Posted by FluentOr people can simply just choose to do what you're doing. Why would a game need to be ironman only?
I'm currently playing Gothic 2 in an Ironman mode and just suggesting that newer games try this sort of thing. Of course, it probably wouldn't be popular with the mainstream, but it could add some character and challenge to a niche game.
My main point was that trying to play an RPG without save-scumming can be a very rewarding experience. In the past I was like a save/load addict who had to play the "perfect" way, and that is tiring and boring to me now.
So now, I choose to accept the consequences of all actions, for good or bad. I find that it adds a unique element to the game when I do that. It's especially fun in a game with heavy choice and consequences, such as the Gothic series.
I highly doubt many games are going to start enforcing Ironman modes, so you all have nothing at all to worry about![]()
Last edited by JDR13; January 7th, 2015 at 13:39.
Reason: Added last reply
January 7th, 2015, 13:35
Originally Posted by DArtagnanVery good input DArt and glad to see you are posting again.
Personally, I feel that not having a flexible save system means I have to invest myself more to succeed and avoid frustration. That's only a problem if I feel the game isn't worth investing in.
So, it really depends on whether the game in itself is "good enough" - and if the save system makes sense given the context of the experience.
As such, I don't mind a harsh save system if the game is great and the experience motivates my full investment.
As an example, I'll mention Demon's Souls on PS3. For the first ~25 hours or so, I actually think the save system worked FOR the experience - because the design was so intricately developed around the concept of teaching you the patterns of enemies and other challenges. So, I quickly accepted that I would lose progress if I didn't pay attention.
But, at some point, I kinda "got it" in terms of what the experience had to offer and what it didn't have to offer - and I ceased being as invested in the experience because I stopped being fascinated and enthralled with it, and the save system started working AGAINST the game. But that's a fully subjective point of view.
Essentially, I don't think I have a clear-cut answer, and it's definitely much harder for a game to make me accept an inflexible system today than it was when I had all the time in the world to play. A game would have to be tremendously engaging and fresh to make me want to invest and accept a significant loss of progress.
Now, I know this is about RPGs - but a recent game "almost" made me accept such a premise, and that was Alien Isolation. It started on such a strong note - and I was ok with a loss of progress, because it was a perfect match for the tension and horror. But once it started outstaying its welcome and it had no new tricks up its sleeve, I became less invested and interested. That was when I set the game to Easy - and just wanted it over with.
So, conclusively, for me it's about the game and my affection for it - I think.
I think you are really onto something when you say that there is a lot more required of the game, and if it is good enough it can be worth it.
But I don't think a save system without multiple saves, if made good enough, has to mean you lose progress. Let's say that it keeps the tension and excitement, by somehow punish you if you die, and obviously prevent you on going back on your decisions and such a things, but not make you replay the same part of the game again.
For example maybe there is a consequence to losing a battle which is not game over. Or you lose some exp or something else, but you get a new chance at the same battle if it is in regards to combat?
Actually I can also live with multiple saves anywhere you want, if the game could also support people who want to play in the above way. It could be in the difficulty setting or such, allow multiple saves anywhere, or always auto-save everywhere and deal with losing stuff on death or not being able to change your decision ? it also means immersion won't be breaking by saving and loading all the time for those who want it.
January 7th, 2015, 13:40
Originally Posted by JDR13Well, it is not about agreeing or not, you are saying that any game can be enjoyed with save as much as you want anywhere you want, because you can simply ignore this feature if you don't want to use it. But I explained to you that this is not the case, if I want to play most of the modern RPG's it is not possibly to enjoy without saving every so often, because you can die or fail for a lot of reasons including stupid AI, and if that happens game is over without a save, and you have to restart from beginning. Not to mention if the game would crash or such a things which happens frequently in some games.
How many games can you name where a save-anywhere system is absolutely necessary?
It's not about needing to save anywhere. It's about convenience and being user-friendly.
Nah, we all got your point. You just can't seem to comprehend that not everyone agrees with you. That's nothing new though.![]()
January 7th, 2015, 13:48
Originally Posted by GothicGothicnessI think it would be great to have that option. However, I'm guessing there would be too much work involved on the development side for that to be feasible in most games.
It could be in the difficulty setting or such, allow multiple saves anywhere, or always auto-save everywhere and deal with losing stuff on death or not being able to change your decision ? it also means immersion won't be breaking by saving and loading all the time for those who want it.
Originally Posted by GothicGothicnessEr… no. I didn't say that every game should be that way. In fact, I even gave specific examples (i.e. Dead Space) of where using a checkpoint system works very well.
Well, it is not about agreeing or not, you are saying that any game can be enjoyed with save as much as you want anywhere you want, because you can simply ignore this feature if you don't want to use it. But I explained to you that this is not the case, if I want to play most of the modern RPG's it is not possibly to enjoy without saving every so often, because you can die or fail for a lot of reasons including stupid AI, and if that happens game is over without a save, and you have to restart from beginning. Not to mention if the game would crash or such a things which happens frequently in some games.
January 7th, 2015, 14:10
Originally Posted by GothicGothicnessWell, it would really depend on the finer points of the implementation.
Very good input DArt and glad to see you are posting again.
I think you are really onto something when you say that there is a lot more required of the game, and if it is good enough it can be worth it.
But I don't think a save system without multiple saves, if made good enough, has to mean you lose progress. Let's say that it keeps the tension and excitement, by somehow punish you if you die, and obviously prevent you on going back on your decisions and such a things, but not make you replay the same part of the game again.
For example maybe there is a consequence to losing a battle which is not game over. Or you lose some exp or something else, but you get a new chance at the same battle if it is in regards to combat?
Actually I can also live with multiple saves anywhere you want, if the game could also support people who want to play in the above way. It could be in the difficulty setting or such, allow multiple saves anywhere, or always auto-save everywhere and deal with losing stuff on death or not being able to change your decision ? it also means immersion won't be breaking by saving and loading all the time for those who want it.
I'm sure we all know the obsessive tendency one can develop to optimise progress, and I'm most likely not an exception in how I tend to reload a save if I feel I've lost a significant amount of resources or I feel I could have gained significantly more resources by doing better, whether in a combat situation or something else, like a dialogue that can potentially yield a nice reward if you say the right things to the right people.
So, I agree that a game could work by not allowing or even motivating it by having too flexible a system, but it should definitely play fair about any alternative.
For instance, I've often played games where you really have no idea how a dialogue will "play out" - because the mechanics are obtuse. Like in a lot of Bioware games, where you have absolutely no idea why certain party members like or dislike whatever you elect to say. Thankfully, the consequence of saying the wrong things in a Bioware game is usually not very noticable. Which kinda makes the whole system superfluous and stupid. But that's another matter.
So, for a harsher system to work in a game like that, the system would have to be much clearer and you should have a chance at establishing a clear picture of NPC personalities - and obviously, the consequences should be much more relevant and rewarding for investing yourself.
Same goes for a combat system - which should be about being rewarded for playing well - and if it's a tactical combat system, it should be about applying proper tactics during battle.
Some RPGs tend to have "puzzle" combats, where the designers expect you to fail - because you don't really have a clue what's about to happen. Such a scenario is among my personal hated ones - because I despise failing no matter how much I invest in preparation.
So, again, if you implement a harsh save system - or you allow for failure without "complete" defeat or death of characters, you absolutely have to reward smart tactical play.
Sadly, given the challenge of developing a balanced and intelligent combat system, the examples of really good ones are very rare.
Which brings me back to how it's all about how "good" a game is, and how well they've implemented the alternative save system. Ultimately, if a game isn't really good - who would want to invest themselves at all? Not me, certainly.
Guest
January 7th, 2015, 17:39
I said earlier: save all time anywhere expect in the middle of combat / dialog. I think I must dial back from my orginal postion a bit 
In the older resident evil games (re 1-4 which some say were true re-games), saving the game was restricted to typewriter rooms. Player had to have a certain item in his inventory (an ink ribbon) which allowed him to write his progres with the typewriter.
This kind of saving method kept things quite intense. Resources (ammo/healing supplies) were always ever so low and thus you felt never really safe. Basicly anything could happen! The game really kept me on my toes. And when you finally entered a room with typewriter, you knew that you were safe for a moment.
And even how restrictive the game was with saving points, it offered player plently of ink ribbons, so you rarely run into a situation where you could not save your progress. However if you wanted to unlock all the secrets, you had to finish the game quite fast (under 3 hours) and with limited saving (only few saves).
If those games would have had a typical pc quicksaving feature, i'm pretty sure that the experience would have been far less memorable for me.

In the older resident evil games (re 1-4 which some say were true re-games), saving the game was restricted to typewriter rooms. Player had to have a certain item in his inventory (an ink ribbon) which allowed him to write his progres with the typewriter.
This kind of saving method kept things quite intense. Resources (ammo/healing supplies) were always ever so low and thus you felt never really safe. Basicly anything could happen! The game really kept me on my toes. And when you finally entered a room with typewriter, you knew that you were safe for a moment.
And even how restrictive the game was with saving points, it offered player plently of ink ribbons, so you rarely run into a situation where you could not save your progress. However if you wanted to unlock all the secrets, you had to finish the game quite fast (under 3 hours) and with limited saving (only few saves).
If those games would have had a typical pc quicksaving feature, i'm pretty sure that the experience would have been far less memorable for me.
January 7th, 2015, 18:10
Nice to see you back, Dart! We were thinking about sending a search party out.
Guest
January 7th, 2015, 18:17
Originally Posted by JDR13Well, a niche game built around the idea of an Ironman-only mode might turn out to be an interesting game. Something along the lines of having the game auto-save after you make a choice, thereby forcing you to roll with the choices you make.
Or people can simply just choose to do what you're doing. Why would a game need to be ironman only?![]()
I wouldn't want to force this kind of thing on all games, I'm just saying that a game with this type of system specifically designed for it, could be cool if done right.
Guest
January 7th, 2015, 18:58
Originally Posted by wolfgrimdarkI do. No reload is one of the easiest limitations to adhere to. But it depends entirely on the game if such a thing is feasible at all, and if it's feasible, it needs to be fun too. Playing an Infinity Engine game without reloads is fun because it's both feasible and AD&D is a system meant to be played without reloads anyway. It still takes a lot of meta game knowledge to pull it off though, so it's not as much fun as it could be. Playing Wiz 8 without reloads is even more fun IMO, because the game lends itself to this playstyle nicely and it's a well balanced option (on normal difficulty anyway).
I am not sure why people who don't like reloading because it removes consequences … well simply don't reload![]()
Games that have i.e. random death dealing events or simply require luck or a flawlessly executed strategy for a lot of battles (which depend on the enemy too, after all) don't lend themselves well to this playstyle.
Guest
| +1: |
January 7th, 2015, 19:15
Originally Posted by GothicGothicnessI am using a DirectInput controller with x360ce so that the game "thinks" it is a 360 controller, which probably explains the crashing. As for them removing GFWL, I heard about it, and I intend to give the game another shot now that I don't have to juggle GFWL-versions to even get the game to start.
Strange… maybe you should try again now as GFWL is gone and I think if you install DS mouse/keyboard fix game will crash with gamepad that might have been the issue.
January 9th, 2015, 19:51
Originally Posted by Sacred_PathGames with heavy choice & consequence seem to be great to play this way. Gothic, for example. It adds an entire new dimension to the game to not re-load. Makes the choices you make that much more impactful and real.
I do. No reload is one of the easiest limitations to adhere to. But it depends entirely on the game if such a thing is feasible at all, and if it's feasible, it needs to be fun too.
Guest
January 9th, 2015, 22:03
I agree about not being able to save in the middle of combat or a conversation, but I want to be able to save anywhere and anytime I want and reload exactly where I was with my progress intact (this is the only thing I don't like in action-RPGs, the save system, good times of Diablo 1 and Dungeon Siege 1…)
January 9th, 2015, 22:11
I haven't really played many games with checkpoint systems, but when I have, at least for RPGs, I wasn't a fan. I prefer to determine when to save myself. Probably because I am horrible about reloading the second something bad happens to me!
--
---------------------------------
"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"
- Davy Crockett
---------------------------------
"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"
- Davy Crockett
January 9th, 2015, 22:14
I can definitely agree with those that say that save anywhere impacts design, but to me the user friendliness overrides that.
I want to be able to leave the game on short notice and pick up where I left. The whole talk of investment is IMHO idealistic not compatible with having an adult off screen life.
A checkpoint system where the checkpoints are frequent could work for me if I like the game a lot. I was fine with Alpha Protocol for instance, but not with Diablo 2 back in the day.
Autosaving "all the time" would work as well (which would have you deal with choices and consequences), as long as you have some ways to come back upon death (I DONT enjoy ironman games).
I want to be able to leave the game on short notice and pick up where I left. The whole talk of investment is IMHO idealistic not compatible with having an adult off screen life.
A checkpoint system where the checkpoints are frequent could work for me if I like the game a lot. I was fine with Alpha Protocol for instance, but not with Diablo 2 back in the day.
Autosaving "all the time" would work as well (which would have you deal with choices and consequences), as long as you have some ways to come back upon death (I DONT enjoy ironman games).
RPGWatch Forums
» Games
» General RPG
»
Saving in roleplaying games continued discussion from other thread
|
|
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:12.
