Question to the Developers about the save system.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Hmm, wordy. And I disagree.

With what don't you agree? Use as many or as few words as you like.

 

If the game had been PC only, do you think you'd still have opted for the savepoints system?

It wasn't my decision to make on AP. I'm just defending the mechanical ideas/motivations behind using checkpoint systems.

[Slowtrain]

Far Cry 2 had save points. Those terminals that were located in safehouses and quest locations and the like. You just couldn't use them when you were out wandering about in a dangerous world. FOr me, I thought that worked well. The game felt risky when I was out and about, but I never felt like I was in danger of losing a huge chunk of playing time if something bad happened since there were enough safe houses I could almost always make it to one pretty easily.

 

Far Cry 2 for PC also had Save Anywhere functionality, I never used it becaose I felt it detracted from the spirit of the game.

 

 

My biggest concern about games that don't allow Save Anywhere functionality us that they are STABLE and DON'T CRASH. WHen you are dealing with save point only systems, a game that crashes, even infrequently, is one of the most frustrating things to play.

 

ALso don't put in encounters that are insanely difficult just to force extended replays from the last checkpoint over and over again until you finally get lucky and beat the encounter.

 

That kind of repetition ain't fun.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That's the problem, either the game isn't hard enough, or you're constantly repeating stuff you already did successfully before failing something else.

 

or about poor skill design because higher levels of a particular skill offer no benefit other than making the player have to reload fewer times to get a successful result.

Isn't that the point of any gameplay?

Edited June 13, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Darth Sithari]

As long as the system doesn't work like Assassin's Creed, I can deal with it.

 

A common misconception I think is that people who want a save anywhere function just want to see every possible part of the game in one playthrough. While I could argue that this is completely acceptable, I'll save that debate for another time. My only concern is that during playthroughs, especialy the first time through in a game as complex as this one appears to be, you'll often blindly bump into an encounter or start a piece of the story before you intended. It has nothing to do with "metagaming", the player is human and will sometimes just make an honest, dumb mistake. Maybe they sneeze during a conversation, or walk into a boss room before finishing a level because they've never been in the area before. The person doesn't want to restart to HAXXORZ his character or try to cheat to find the "best" option, they never intended to perform the particular action and just want the option to retry what they always intended to do in the first place. Thus, I dislike it when the developers seem to take the role of bodyguards shoving everyone to the back of the line because one person tried to cheat ahead. Yes, that makes it "fair", but so does letting the rest of play honestly and forgetting about the one loose cannon.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Isn't that the point of any gameplay?

Arguably, the point of any gameplay is challenge the player appropriately and reward him or her for meeting the challenge. If a mechanic simply encourages the player to blindly select an option or to test a random algorithm, there is no actual challenge. It's just the player banging his or her head against the wall until it happens to break.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well, OK, it depends whether the gameplay is required (not dying in combat) or optional, like looting. Reloading looting is easy to fix though by using a fixed skill check instead of random die roll, though I'm not even sure it's something that needs fixing.

[alanschu]

If I kill an enemy, it should stay dead after I save.

 

I am not going to kill the same guy over and over and over to get past a point (which is further down the road and has nothing to do with the guy I am killing over and over) just because the game is defective by design.

 

Sorry, but I have never heard anyone complain about the save anywhere in an RPG. On the other hand, I have heard a crapload of complaint about checkpoint save systems. And I wholeheartedly agree with those complaints.

 

You console gamers who are used to checkpoints have fun with this game. I, on the other hand, will play one the thousands of other games out there; something that doesn't assume the player is a little kid.

 

 

I only play PC games.

 

Concerns over the ability to save anywhere are irrelevant if the game is good.

[genci88]

If I kill an enemy, it should stay dead after I save.

 

I am not going to kill the same guy over and over and over to get past a point (which is further down the road and has nothing to do with the guy I am killing over and over) just because the game is defective by design.

 

Sorry, but I have never heard anyone complain about the save anywhere in an RPG. On the other hand, I have heard a crapload of complaint about checkpoint save systems. And I wholeheartedly agree with those complaints.

 

You console gamers who are used to checkpoints have fun with this game. I, on the other hand, will play one the thousands of other games out there; something that doesn't assume the player is a little kid.

 

 

I only play PC games.

 

Concerns over the ability to save anywhere are irrelevant if the game is good.

And you are wrong. As Dagon put it, when "you're constantly repeating stuff you already did successfully before failing something else" the frustration will be inevitable. And if a game manages to frustrate you, it is quite clear that it has failed.

 

Look, RPGs (at least western ones) HAVE to have save anywhere.

 

You mentioned FF7, but that's a JRPG. JRPGs are fundamentally different from western RPGs in both gameplay mechanics and storyline. AP is not trying to be the next JRPG as far as I know.

 

You also have some western RPGs with checkpoint saves. Those are all games that have failed miserably. A prime example is Fable. I am sorry to say but Fable is one of the worst RPGs ever made, all thanks to it's checkpoint based save system. Developers might have the best intentions while developing the game, but lack of a save anywhere will most certainly reduce the gameplay to a childish experience.

[Enoch]

And if a game manages to frustrate you, it is quite clear that it has failed.

 

Look, RPGs (at least western ones) HAVE to have save anywhere.

 

You mentioned FF7, but that's a JRPG. JRPGs are fundamentally different from western RPGs in both gameplay mechanics and storyline. AP is not trying to be the next JRPG as far as I know.

 

You also have some western RPGs with checkpoint saves. Those are all games that have failed miserably. A prime example is Fable. I am sorry to say but Fable is one of the worst RPGs ever made, all thanks to it's checkpoint based save system. Developers might have the best intentions while developing the game, but lack of a save anywhere will most certainly reduce the gameplay to a childish experience.

3 quick points:

 

1) If a game doesn't manage to frustrate the player a little bit from time to time, then it doesn't offer enough of a challenge to bother with. Where's the satisfaction in beating a game that never frustrated you?

 

2) [sarcasm]Yes, Fable was childish because you couldn't always easily save your game just before entertaining the townsfolk by making farting noises...[/sarcasm]

 

3) I above offered examples of successful western RPGs with limited saving systems: The Bard's Tale games, Might & Magic 1 & 2, and (I think) the early Wizardry games.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Enoch

[Tigranes]

I am sorry to say but Fable is one of the worst RPGs ever made, all thanks to it's checkpoint based save system.

 

If Fable had the best save system in the world it would still be crap, because it's rubbish the first time you play it.

 

Not sure what to add to Enoch's points, because you're now simply repeating mantras like "save anywhere is just AWESOME everything needs to have it or SUCK". I would be interested in reading you addressing some points I made (and others made) when you first fired off those proclamations.

[Wrath of Dagon]

1) If a game doesn't manage to frustrate the player a little bit from time to time, then it doesn't offer enough of a challenge to bother with. Where's the satisfaction in beating a game that never frustrated you?

I don't feel frustrated when I'm forced to repeat stuff I failed, I feel challenged. It's repeating stuff you already did over and over that's frustrating.

[Oner]

1) If a game doesn't manage to frustrate the player a little bit from time to time, then it doesn't offer enough of a challenge to bother with. Where's the satisfaction in beating a game that never frustrated you?

I don't feel frustrated when I'm forced to repeat stuff I failed, I feel challenged. It's repeating stuff you already did over and over that's frustrating.

What the man said.

[Deraldin]

1) If a game doesn't manage to frustrate the player a little bit from time to time, then it doesn't offer enough of a challenge to bother with. Where's the satisfaction in beating a game that never frustrated you?

I don't feel frustrated when I'm forced to repeat stuff I failed, I feel challenged. It's repeating stuff you already did over and over that's frustrating.

 

Personally, repeating stuff that you've already done over and over is only frustrating when you fail to get past the easy part, usually because you stopped paying attention, or got sloppy. If you're likely to pass that easy section 95% of the time then it's really not worth getting worked up about. Having a string of difficult encounters without a check point between them is not a failure of check points themselves, but rather a failure of check point placement.

 

What was the last check point game you played that frustrated you because you had to replay a section of the game over and over?

[Tigranes]

What was the last check point game you played that frustrated you because you had to replay a section of the game over and over?

 

Platform / Adventure games are pretty bad with this IMO. The former because there would usually be a series of jumps or timed actions (e.g. from one hanging rope to another), and if you fail the last one you're back from the start - hell, even without checkpoint saves, you usually fall to the bottom or something. The latter, similarly, tends to give you challenges (esp. boss enemies) that need to be tackled in one particular way and order (e.g. hit the back of their googlie mooglie, jump to avoid their boo boo gun, throw the magic rose at their head then do Chopin's rondo with your ocarina).... and hell, sometimes you need to do it 20 times until they die.

 

As you can see, though, most problems with checkpoint saves, for me, are pure design problems on their own exacerbated by badly placed checkpoints. I don't really see a lot of this kind of stuff happening in Alpha Protocol, and that's exactly why I don't have a problem. The only thing I can think of is lengthy dialogue + fight combination (but checkpoints are apparently after dialogue, so fine) and stealth missions (ah, but stealth loses half its suspense if you can creep-save).

[Wrath of Dagon]

@Deraldin:

Call of Duty 2 and Rainbow Six: Vegas. COD2 is kind of confusing with enemies running from all directions so I put it on easy to quit repeating a certain section. Then it was so easy it was no challenge at all, so I quit. RB6 has quite widely spaced checkpoints and hard to see enemies which again can come from any direction, so after dying a lot at random points in a certain section I again quit. Of course the other problem was neither game was much fun for me, else I would've persisted.

 

Edit: The problem is play styles vary, abilities vary, tolerance for repetition varies. What might be a perfect check point placement for one person may be completely wrong for someone else. With a save anywhere system I am free to taylor the save points to my own preferences, which IMO is a lot more important than preventing someone else from exploiting the save system. Heck, sometimes I might do things someone else might consider exploiting, because I know what's fun for me and what isn't, and the developer doesn't necessarily.

 

(ah, but stealth loses half its suspense if you can creep-save).

So don't creep-save, does it really take that much willpower? I normally don't save in combat, unless after several attempts I can't get through without lowering the difficulty.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[mkreku]

Hmm, wordy. And I disagree.

With what don't you agree? Use as many or as few words as you like.

You're basing your entire argument on opinion (you think it ruins risk/reward). My opinion differs. Not much to discuss.

 

I do take offence to the claim that your "vocation" is to tell people how to play your/their game. Especially since your way of doing this is by removing a feature that a lot of people appreciate. To me, that's the same as (for example) removing all 4:3 resolutions because you think your game plays better in widescreen. None of the examples strike me as particularly good design decisions.

 

If the game had been PC only, do you think you'd still have opted for the savepoints system?

It wasn't my decision to make on AP. I'm just defending the mechanical ideas/motivations behind using checkpoint systems.

I don't think you are. I think you're after constructing a defence for savepoints, a console institution by now.

[Wombat]

Why not give the player some credit for being smart enough not to ruin the game for himself?

lol

Seriously, though, quite many stealth action games allow the players to save anywhere. For example, Thief:Deadly Shadows allowed users to save anywhere and some users who'd like to finish missions even without being spotted used save more often than those who simply clear missions as soon as possible would do. Does this remove the tense of the former type of the players? - I don't think so: Iit simply allowed the players to enjoy the game in their own styles. Of course, Alpha Protocol is not stealth-only game but, IIRC, Deus Ex, which seems to have many common things with AP, allowed players to save anywhere.

 

Of course, we need to see how final products to be played out, though.

[alanschu]

If I kill an enemy, it should stay dead after I save.

 

I am not going to kill the same guy over and over and over to get past a point (which is further down the road and has nothing to do with the guy I am killing over and over) just because the game is defective by design.

 

Sorry, but I have never heard anyone complain about the save anywhere in an RPG. On the other hand, I have heard a crapload of complaint about checkpoint save systems. And I wholeheartedly agree with those complaints.

 

You console gamers who are used to checkpoints have fun with this game. I, on the other hand, will play one the thousands of other games out there; something that doesn't assume the player is a little kid.

 

 

I only play PC games.

 

Concerns over the ability to save anywhere are irrelevant if the game is good.

 

 

And you are wrong. As Dagon put it, when "you're constantly repeating stuff you already did successfully before failing something else" the frustration will be inevitable. And if a game manages to frustrate you, it is quite clear that it has failed.

 

Look, RPGs (at least western ones) HAVE to have save anywhere.

 

You mentioned FF7, but that's a JRPG. JRPGs are fundamentally different from western RPGs in both gameplay mechanics and storyline. AP is not trying to be the next JRPG as far as I know.

 

You also have some western RPGs with checkpoint saves. Those are all games that have failed miserably. A prime example is Fable. I am sorry to say but Fable is one of the worst RPGs ever made, all thanks to it's checkpoint based save system. Developers might have the best intentions while developing the game, but lack of a save anywhere will most certainly reduce the gameplay to a childish experience.

 

 

Nothing of what you said in any way discounts what I said. If a game is good and the gameplay also of high quality, replaying parts of a game will not be a chore. If the game is poor and gameplay if medicore quality, then yes replaying content will become frustrating. Even in games where I can save anywhere I often find myself replaying content because it's not like I save the game every available tick of the CPU clock. Given the gameplay videos of Alpha Protocol and how frequently checkpoints occur and games are saved, I'd say the AP actually saves more frequently than I do when given the opportunity to save anywhere.

 

 

However, your insistence on referring to the gameplay experience as "childish" in an attempt to validate your position as being more mature (and hence appealing) is hilarious. Fable is one of the worst RPGs ever made because it's quite frankly a poor game that was hyped to have features that ended up not making the cut and a host of other problems. Stating that it is bad entirely because of the checkpoint save system is quite frankly, absurd. How frequently I can save the game in Planescape: Torment has very little bearing on me considering it to be probably the best roleplaying game of all time.

 

Continuing to redefine what it means to be an RPG, so that the games you like fit nicely into the category, doesn't work with me. Nor does italicizing your ridiculous assertions of what made Fable a poor game.

 

 

If anyone is being childish here, it's you. Perhaps you play too many RPGs with checkpoint only save mechanisms?

[Tigranes]

Obligatory note for all concerned: please leave your handbags at the door with our strong, stereotypical German bouncer to avoid unpleasant dinner table scenes about who sang My Heart Will Go On on stage when they were twelve and who's got a giant wart on the tip of their nose everybody knows too well to mention. *cough*

 

Coming back to this, I think the games where the save system worked the best and where I was least conscious of / abusing / frustrated about saves were games where even failures, bad / unintended / impulsive decisions or simply surprising developments were exciting enough that I want to see where it goes. I think it comes back to the point that a game should first be made to engage the player no matter what decision he/she makes (which, conversely, makes it even more important for the developer to place sensible limits on the decisions you can make - the belief that completely open free-form play is teh awesum is silly), then the save system or such mechanisms tacked on after. I guess that sort of means that the save system shouldn't play such a big role in proceedings.

 

Hard to think of examples, though. I think a good one is the dialogue you have with Kreia on... Nar Shaddar, I think it was? The dark planet with the railings, the one where you're attacked as soon as you land, and where you can do the races. The one where you come across some cripple or something and you make a decision on what to do, then Kreia lectures you. It was pretty hard to get what most gamers would consider an 'optimal' outcome (the one where the game (Kreia) approves of what you have done and you gain tangible rewards), but no matter what decision you made, you had the chance to justify it to a harsh but fair mistress (Kreia) and you felt like the game had treated you fairly and given you something worth your time.

 

The E3 gameplay footage, which is the one where we can see the checkpoint save system in action the best, demonstrates that (as far as we can see) Alpha Protocol is very intent on, and does a good job of, making you proceed through the missions quickly and always on your feet, making snap decisions and running with it. When you are in a hostile zone with a sensitive mission to carry out (and handlers who are not always your friends) you don't have time to screw around - you have to pick a route and go with it, or be ready to change everything and see how that turns out. As long as AP delivers on what we've seen and provides limitations, choices and consequences that reflect that, a checkpoint system is not so different from a save-anywhere... and perhaps slightly better for discouraging metagaming tendencies. I don't see a need to bring overbearing rhetoric about "defining RPGs", "defining player rights/freedom" or "literally open-ended gameplay" into it. It's just a very realistic question to do with the type of experience AP players will have.

[alanschu]

Well said.

 

 

But you know me I don't pull punches

[kreese12]

I realize the the checkpoint save system is probably only in the PC version because that's the way the consoles do it, so it just it saves the extra programming, but that's alright with me. I'd prefer the PC way 'save anywhere' system but it's not a huge deal.

 

I like the save anywhere system though because it probably would make me more adventurous in playing -- like for example, instead of going into a room to shoot 5 guys, I might try to set up some elaborate bomb traps instead, to see if that works. But ya, its not a huge deal.

[Bovell]

I think most games these days are transitioning to the checkpoint save system. When you're in the heat of battle, it's easy to forget to save manually. Checkpoints usually come between a lull in the action. So while you may have to repeat the same section over and over again, at least you aren't banging your head on the table because your last save was at the start of the mission.

[Oner]

That's why auto saves exist.

[Bovell]

That's why auto saves exist.

Yet you achieve the same effect with checkpoints.

[genci88]

Nothing of what you said in any way discounts what I said. If a game is good and the gameplay also of high quality, replaying parts of a game will not be a chore. If the game is poor and gameplay if medicore quality, then yes replaying content will become frustrating. Even in games where I can save anywhere I often find myself replaying content because it's not like I save the game every available tick of the CPU clock. Given the gameplay videos of Alpha Protocol and how frequently checkpoints occur and games are saved, I'd say the AP actually saves more frequently than I do when given the opportunity to save anywhere.

 

 

However, your insistence on referring to the gameplay experience as "childish" in an attempt to validate your position as being more mature (and hence appealing) is hilarious. Fable is one of the worst RPGs ever made because it's quite frankly a poor game that was hyped to have features that ended up not making the cut and a host of other problems. Stating that it is bad entirely because of the checkpoint save system is quite frankly, absurd. How frequently I can save the game in Planescape: Torment has very little bearing on me considering it to be probably the best roleplaying game of all time.

 

Continuing to redefine what it means to be an RPG, so that the games you like fit nicely into the category, doesn't work with me. Nor does italicizing your ridiculous assertions of what made Fable a poor game.

 

 

If anyone is being childish here, it's you. Perhaps you play too many RPGs with checkpoint only save mechanisms?

I consider PST to be a classic as well, and if that game used a checkpoint based system instead of save anywhere it would have been brushed off as a piece of crap by the critics of that time (not the critics of today though, who are nothing but a bunch of console kiddies). And I would have agreed with that. Face it, ALL the greatest RPGs utilize save anywhere. There is not a single good RPG out there with a checkpoint based save system.

 

No, the FF7 that you mentioned is not one of the greatest RPGs simply because it is not an RPG. FF7 is a jRPG. That is an entirely different genre. AP is hopefully not trying to be a JRPG.

 

Similarly Diablo 2 is considered a great game by many, but it's not an RPG. It's an action-RPG. An entirely different genre as well (there is pretty much no roleplaying in Diablo 2).

 

The only reason checkpoint based system was invented was due to technical limitations (applicable to both consoles and old PCs of the 80s). Now those limitations are gone (at least in the case of PCs, since apparently MS still ships a version of X360 without a hard drive ), so there is absolutely no point in stopping the player from saving whenever he or she wishes.