Question to the Developers about the save system.

[alanschu]

Honestly, and I mentioned this on another forum, an RPG that doesn't allow you to save anywhere at your own will is not an RPG.

 

LOL!

[alanschu]

I played FF7 on my PC, and it had save points.

[genci88]

I played FF7 on my PC, and it had save points.

LOL @ Final Fantasy mention. So what if that game had save points? Maybe if I was 11 years old I would have enjoyed that garbage.

 

FF7 is crap when compared to true RPGs like Arcanum, BG, Vampire: Bloodlines, Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, KOTOR 2 (from the fellas working on AP) and hundreds of other PC RPGs that allow you to save anywhere.

[J.E. Sawyer]

All of the RPGs you just mentioned (except maybe Deus Ex) had game mechanics that could be endlessly meta-gamed/circumvented through save anywhere, quick save/quick reload: picking locks, dialogue checks (random vs. threshold), creep-saving mid-combat, etc.

[genci88]

"Could be" being the keyword.

 

Just because those could be circumvented doesn't mean everybody circumvented them. Hell, I can turn on God mode in most games if I want to, but I choose not to.

 

And those games are some of the best ever created on ANY platform, and the save anywhere helped them achieve that status.

 

Just imagine not being able to save anywhere in Deus Ex, Bloodlines, or even NWN2 for example...

Edited June 9, 2009 by genci88

[Wrath of Dagon]

I think it's a lot more important for the developer to allow people maximum flexibility to play in their own playstyle than try to prevent some people from exploiting the save/load system. If I want to crank up the difficulty to max but save every 5 sec because I hate repetition, why should a developer take it upon himself to deny me my preferred playstyle? I've had a number of games ruined for me because of sadistic check point systems, but I've never had a game ruined by save anytime, because I'd have to chose to ruin the game myself.

[Tigranes]

"Could be" being the keyword.

 

Just because those could be circumvented doesn't mean everybody circumvented them. Hell, I can turn on God mode in most games if I want to, but I choose not to.

 

And those games are some of the best ever created on ANY platform, and the save anywhere helped them achieve that status.

 

Just imagine not being able to save anywhere in Deus Ex, Bloodlines, or even NWN2 for example...

 

Wouldn't really change my opinion about those games, actually. Fallout and the NWN series actually suffered from allowing you to save during combat because this exacerbated the metagaming to the point where you could save after a good critical hit or successful maneuvre, or screw up your quicksave because you hit it immediately before dying. The key thing, though? All those issues are really quite minor. I know the frustration of checkpoint saves because some JRPGs really punish you with them (i.e. some sections in the older Final Fantasies, god bless emulators' save states), but I think they have their place.

 

Realistically/frankly speaking, save systems do implicitly nudge you towards playing in a certain way, there's no ifs about it...

 

edit: I forgot to read Dagon's post above, but his sentiment is exactly what I was addressing here. A game experience is built out of a combination of things. Your desire and what you want to do in a game, and how that game is built and presented to you, aren't often separate things that can be cleaved like that. They work in tandem and influence each other. If we really committed ourselves to a blind 'freeeeeedom for the player' style of game design we'd end up ruining the experience for ourselves because of the sheer level of indulgence. To a degree, playing a game, like watching a film, is about understanding and submitting yourself to how the general architecture the creator has designed.

 

...If Alpha Protocol's focus is on a dialogue system where you have to make decisions quickly, situations can spiral out of control and there are lots of multiple paths to be taken, I really have no issue with a checkpoint system - I envisage that I would very rarely reload this kind of game, anyway, because the game is built towards, and rewards you, for playing in that way. The combat is probably not the kind that kills you with a single bad move or has extremely long, gruelling sequences, either (I mean, what if you had to fight Kangaxx with a checkpoint system?).

 

There's still merit for arguing save-anywhere in any game, yes, but to call it a deal-breaker for any game or a 'defining feature of RPGS' is a major exaggeration IMHO. Unless the checkpoints were absolutely draconian.

[genci88]

And I didn't mean to come out as a ****. I really respect you guys at Obsidian, especially after the continued NWN2 support and the masterpiece that was MotB. I even highly enjoyed KOTOR 2 (except the ending).

 

Those were truly great RPGs, and that is why I had high hopes for this game. I know you CAN make a good RPG, but it seems like in this case you are sacrificing a major feature for the sake of accessibility (blame the consoles maybe?).

Edited June 9, 2009 by genci88

[genci88]

I think it's a lot more important for the developer to allow people maximum flexibility to play in their own playstyle than try to prevent some people from exploiting the save/load system. If I want to crank up the difficulty to max but save every 5 sec because I hate repetition, why should a developer take it upon himself to deny me my preferred playstyle? I've had a number of games ruined for me because of sadistic check point systems, but I've never had a game ruined by save anytime, because I'd have to chose to ruin the game myself.

My sentiments exactly.

 

"Could be" being the keyword.

 

Just because those could be circumvented doesn't mean everybody circumvented them. Hell, I can turn on God mode in most games if I want to, but I choose not to.

 

And those games are some of the best ever created on ANY platform, and the save anywhere helped them achieve that status.

 

Just imagine not being able to save anywhere in Deus Ex, Bloodlines, or even NWN2 for example...

 

Wouldn't really change my opinion about those games, actually. Fallout and the NWN series actually suffered from allowing you to save during combat because this exacerbated the metagaming to the point where you could save after a good critical hit or successful maneuvre, or screw up your quicksave because you hit it immediately before dying. The key thing, though? All those issues are really quite minor. I know the frustration of checkpoint saves because some JRPGs really punish you with them (i.e. some sections in the older Final Fantasies, god bless emulators' save states), but I think they have their place.

 

Realistically/frankly speaking, save systems do implicitly nudge you towards playing in a certain way, there's no ifs about it...

 

edit: I forgot to read Dagon's post above, but his sentiment is exactly what I was addressing here. A game experience is built out of a combination of things. Your desire and what you want to do in a game, and how that game is built and presented to you, aren't often separate things that can be cleaved like that. They work in tandem and influence each other. If we really committed ourselves to a blind 'freeeeeedom for the player' style of game design we'd end up ruining the experience for ourselves because of the sheer level of indulgence. To a degree, playing a game, like watching a film, is about understanding and submitting yourself to how the general architecture the creator has designed.

 

...If Alpha Protocol's focus is on a dialogue system where you have to make decisions quickly, situations can spiral out of control and there are lots of multiple paths to be taken, I really have no issue with a checkpoint system - I envisage that I would very rarely reload this kind of game, anyway, because the game is built towards, and rewards you, for playing in that way. The combat is probably not the kind that kills you with a single bad move or has extremely long, gruelling sequences, either (I mean, what if you had to fight Kangaxx with a checkpoint system?).

 

There's still merit for arguing save-anywhere in any game, yes, but to call it a deal-breaker for any game or a 'defining feature of RPGS' is a major exaggeration IMHO. Unless the checkpoints were absolutely draconian.

 

I agree that saving after every critical hit is excessive. But can can be easily circumvented by preventing saves during combat (or even when there are enemies nearby, Mass Effect-style). They could also prevent you from saving during a conversation as well.

 

But honestly I almost never reload for saying something wrong. I know that I am playing an RPG and that my choices matter, so I usually take my time to think what the next answer will be during a dialogue.

[Tigranes]

To clarify: the saving during combat was an extreme example. There are many people and many instances where you save before key conversations and play them differently to 'see' all the options, or save before each battle, or save before the completion of each quest, or, in fact, save before any decision you have to make. Why? So that if you aren't satisfied with the consequences of your choice you only need to go back 1-2 minutes at the most. In other words, there is a scale of cost-effectivity when it comes to indulgent metagaming: when the game has given you an economy where the cost of reloading is clearly very low (thus my extreme example of saving during combat), then you are implicitly encouraged to consider chronic reloading as a playing style. Which, of course, cheapens C&C, and in fact is even more disruptive to immersion and game flow than replaying from a checkpoint would be.

 

If you are someone that is never tempted by this anyway then, yes, the checkpoint system would feel like an unnecessary inconvenience. I fully agree with that. I just think that, balancing it all out across all players, for Alpha Protocol, sensible checkpoints won't be that different or better/worse than typical RPG save-anywhere.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I think it's a lot more important for the developer to allow people maximum flexibility to play in their own playstyle than try to prevent some people from exploiting the save/load system. If I want to crank up the difficulty to max but save every 5 sec because I hate repetition, why should a developer take it upon himself to deny me my preferred playstyle? I've had a number of games ruined for me because of sadistic check point systems, but I've never had a game ruined by save anytime, because I'd have to chose to ruin the game myself.

It's always our job to make the game challenging without being frustrating. By providing any mechanic, we are implicitly validating the player's use of it and it is our responsibility. A good example of this is statistic rolling in Icewind Dale. You're not "supposed" to re-roll your stats hundreds of times, but why should a player not make use of that option if we're providing it? Furthermore, how should we balance the game: for people who roll once or twice, or for people who roll until they get 16 average stats for their entire party? If we balance for the former group, the latter group finds the game significantly easier. One might say that they "shouldn't" have done that, that they ruined their own experience -- but we were the ones who gave them the tools to do it. The same responsibility applies to any mechanic, whether it's part of an advancement system, minigame, or even a save/load scheme.

 

Badly placed checkpoints are obviously irritating as hell, but well-placed ones create excellent pacing and can encourage more tactical use of consumables (most important in RPGs, but also in a lot of action games) than when players are allowed to save anywhere. And, as others have written, a lot of games that allow you to "save anywhere" still don't allow you to save anytime, and it's usually for the same reason: to prevent meta-gaming/creep-saving.

[genci88]

By providing any mechanic, we are implicitly validating the player's use of it and it is our responsibility.

I understand that some people would exploit a manual save system simply because it's there. But how about making it a completely unsupported option and hard to access? Maybe requiring a .ini file edit to enable it? That way the people who really need it, can figure out how to enable it, while the rest can play the game as you intended it to be played.

 

A lot of us are frequently interrupted while gaming for whatever reason, and it would be nice to create a manual save in order to continue where we left off, instead of starting at the last checkpoint which could be too far back.

[Oner]

*sigh* It's a single player game people, single player!

What the hell do you care if the guy next door saves after every headshot? It encourages metagaming, holy crap. There's no multiplayer, you won't have any disadvantages. You don't even see them playing, so it won't annoy you. You're not forced to look at GameFAQ or whatever walkthroughs. You don't like metagaming, but you don't have a problem with telling other people how they're supposed to play their game?

[Tigranes]

*sigh* It's a single player game people, single player!

What the hell do you care if the guy next door saves after every headshot? It encourages metagaming, holy crap. There's no multiplayer, you won't have any disadvantages. You don't even see them playing, so it won't annoy you. You're not forced to look at GameFAQ or whatever walkthroughs. You don't like metagaming, but you don't have a problem with telling other people how they're supposed to play their game?

 

....See the last few posts for the answer?

 

It's not really a question of personal annoyance. Things make a lot more sense when you consider them from the perspective of making a good game, rather than this invective on personal rights and freedom.

[Gorth]

...but why does he hate our freedom?

 

Sorry, couldn't resist

 

Some mechanics are bound to please some and displease others. Having a choice of mechanisms would be nice, but the ROI might not be worth the effort.

[J.E. Sawyer]

*sigh* It's a single player game people, single player!

What the hell do you care if the guy next door saves after every headshot? It encourages metagaming, holy crap. There's no multiplayer, you won't have any disadvantages. You don't even see them playing, so it won't annoy you. You're not forced to look at GameFAQ or whatever walkthroughs. You don't like metagaming, but you don't have a problem with telling other people how they're supposed to play their game?

This isn't about me "disliking" people who take advantage of metagaming. Metagaming of the sort we have been discussing (using save/reload or uncontested re-tries before any given single-check obstacle) actually ruins whatever enjoyment or risk/reward was intended to be created by the systems it circumvents. This is why threshold checks for things like dialogue options and lockpicking are usually more enjoyable/less frustrating than random chance: they remove the save/reload metagame from the equation entirely. The key factor for success is how much the player invested in Skill A or Skill B and what temporary buffs the player has to expend, not what a single virtual die roll (which can be re-tried, uncontested, from a reload) haphazardly determined.

 

I don't have a problem with telling other people how they're supposed to play their game because it's the entire point of my vocation. The goal is to create a spectrum of choice and constraint that people find enjoyable. The constraints create the challenge, and using the choices available gives the player the enjoyment of overcoming the challenge. But giving options for absolutely everything, on the absurd end of the spectrum, creates a game environment with uneven challenges that can never be balanced. A lot of these mechanics hinge and move with each other. Altering one can have a cascading effect through many others -- especially something as significant as save/load.

[Oner]

Actually, my post wasn't directed at you.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why not give the player some credit for being smart enough not to ruin the game for himself? Yes, in a perfect world you could have all the checkpoints in just the right location, but no game is perfect, and the designer can't possibly comprehend the full range of abilities and play styles and taylor their game to everyone. I think most RPG players understand that reloading convos until you get the optimal result is pointless, and constantly saving in combat makes the game too easy and not fun, but if someone wants to play that way, how does it hurt anyone else? If I really mess up in a convo and do something I didn't intend to, or if my wife starts talking to me right when I have to make a crucial decision, why shouldn't I be able to reload? I don't think the argument that if you don't have save restrictions then you shouldn't have any restrictions is valid, save anywhere is similar to having selectable difficulty levels, you can decide for yourself which policy best suits your needs.

 

Edit: It's a psychological effect also. Once I save, I feel confident about continuing the game, because I can't lose my progress so far. If I keep getting reset to a checkpoint, I feel like I've lost control, which starts to erode my enjoyment of the game.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Oner]

Now that I think about it, Unreal 1's save system worked pretty well: you either lost 0 HP in a fight, or were barely alive after it, so frequent saves after every enemy was justified.

[alanschu]

I played FF7 on my PC, and it had save points.

LOL @ Final Fantasy mention. So what if that game had save points? Maybe if I was 11 years old I would have enjoyed that garbage.

 

FF7 is crap when compared to true RPGs like Arcanum, BG, Vampire: Bloodlines, Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, KOTOR 2 (from the fellas working on AP) and hundreds of other PC RPGs that allow you to save anywhere.

 

 

 

You know, when you say "RPGs all have <x feature> excluding those that don't because I don't consider them RPGs" then you pretty much make yourself unfalsifiable, and hence, irrelevant.

 

 

Cheers.

Edited June 9, 2009 by alanschu

[genci88]

I played FF7 on my PC, and it had save points.

LOL @ Final Fantasy mention. So what if that game had save points? Maybe if I was 11 years old I would have enjoyed that garbage.

 

FF7 is crap when compared to true RPGs like Arcanum, BG, Vampire: Bloodlines, Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, KOTOR 2 (from the fellas working on AP) and hundreds of other PC RPGs that allow you to save anywhere.

 

 

 

You know, when you say "RPGs all have <x feature> excluding those that don't because I don't consider them RPGs" then you pretty much make yourself unfalsifiable, and hence, irrelevant.

 

 

Cheers.

 

FF is a JRPG (childish story, brainless gameplay, endlessly respawning monsters, and random battles). It's belongs to a different genre basically.

 

I was referring to more traditional RPGs.

[alanschu]

Ah, first it was "Only RPGs that are on PCs" and when I found a little loophole it becomes "only traditional RPGs."

 

 

Why don't you just say "RPGs that I like?"

[Oner]

I played FF7 on my PC, and it had save points.

LOL @ Final Fantasy mention. So what if that game had save points? Maybe if I was 11 years old I would have enjoyed that garbage.

Maybe he mentioned FF 7's save points because this thread is about save points, not what RPGs you like?

[HoonDing]

I can't help but smile every time someone mentions "true RPGs".

[lasthearth]

While I generally prefer a save anywhere system. I completely understand why the developers in this case opted for the checkpoint approach. The goal here is to put momentum in the narrative to always put the players on the edge of his seat knowing that all his decisions are permanent and cannot be altered, and the player is forced to always push forward rather than go back and try to get the perfect resolution.

 

This is a deliberate design decision developers intended to create a certain type of gaming experience. Of course it robs the player of his "freedom", all design decisions do. If I introduce a hit point system, I rob the player of the freedom to get shot infinite times and keep going. If I set boundaries in the virtual world, I rob the player the freedom to go beyond those boundaries. Thus, the issue is not whether a design decision robs the player of freedom, but whether the design decision enhances the gaming experience or detracts from it.

 

Arbitrary statements such as "save anywhere is always superior to check point because it offers more freedom" is as absurd as saying "open word is always superior to predefined path because it offers more freedom". It's simply not true, it really depends on the game. Some games would be awful if they were made completely open world.

 

Whether the checkpoint system is better suited for this game or not is something we can only decide after we play the game.