Question to the Developers about the save system.

[genci88]

That's why auto saves exist.

Yet you achieve the same effect with checkpoints.

No you don't.

 

With save anywhere and auto saves, you can save wherever you want and wherever the developer thinks is appropriate to save.

 

With checkpoints you only get the latter, thus removing the option from people who are not 8 year old kids and want to save where they think it's appropriate.

[Bovell]

That's why auto saves exist.

Yet you achieve the same effect with checkpoints.

No you don't.

 

With save anywhere and auto saves, you can save wherever you want and wherever the developer thinks is appropriate to save.

 

With checkpoints you only get the latter, thus removing the option from people who are not 8 year old kids and want to save where they think it's appropriate.

I was referring to auto save, not saving anywhere you want.

 

Auto save = checkpoint.

[Tigranes]

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).

 

Exhibit A: Repetition of a viewpoint without substantiation with the aid of (mildly) inflammatory language.

 

It's a pity that you feel compelled to overload your core complaint about saves, which is a valid one, with pointless and unsustainable invective. I feel I've responded to that core complaint already, but to make it blatant - for the particular game experience AP looks to provide, what exactly is it about the checkpoint system in comparison to free-save that is so bad, and how exactly will it detract from the player's experience? By 'exact' I mean 'exact', not general, diluted and overused strawmen like "Freedom for the player!!!!" and "Real RPGs have free-save", which all sound like they could go straight into Braveheart.

[Hell Kitty]

I don't need no developers telling me how to play their games by forcing their fancy shmancy "rules" on me. I demand the freedom to reload until my hacking attempt is successful.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Because it's so much fun to fail all your hacking attempts in a row because your reactions are a little slower than the developer counted on (see 360 Mass Effect).

[genci88]

Exhibit A: Repetition of a viewpoint without substantiation with the aid of (mildly) inflammatory language.

 

It's a pity that you feel compelled to overload your core complaint about saves, which is a valid one, with pointless and unsustainable invective. I feel I've responded to that core complaint already, but to make it blatant - for the particular game experience AP looks to provide, what exactly is it about the checkpoint system in comparison to free-save that is so bad, and how exactly will it detract from the player's experience? By 'exact' I mean 'exact', not general, diluted and overused strawmen like "Freedom for the player!!!!" and "Real RPGs have free-save", which all sound like they could go straight into Braveheart.

Most of the RPGs I've played have had save anywhere. The only RPG where I have personally experienced checkpoint saves was Fable (though I have tried several demos like FFVIII, and in all cases that was the reason I didn't purchase the full game). I stopped playing that game after the first town was burnt (during the training part) simply because of the horrible save system. Specifically I would try to complete the training which was pretty damn long. Then I had to go somewhere in real life, but I couldn't manually save the game. So I just exited it. When I came back, I had to start the training from the beginning. So I simply said, "Screw this", uninstalled, and went on to play another game.

 

 

However I have encountered checkpoint saves many more times outside the RPG genre, and have universally hated it. In some case it was less painful (but still a major inconvenience) such as in Call of Duty 4 or Resident Evil 4, and in some cases much more painful such as in Psychonauts. You might think that I am using harsh language when referring to people as "console kiddies", but the matter of fact is that console games do like their games more simplistic, casual, and streamlined (AKA dumbed down). It is simply the nature of the console that allows for the gamer to be less attentive to details, and often play while socializing with others. That removes a lot of the complexity and "deepness" that PC games have traditionally had. Of course there are exceptions to that rule such as the KOTOR series, Mass Effect, and Dreamfall.

 

Regardless, before I buy a game, I always make sure it has save anywhere. The lack of it makes for a frustrating gaming experience (at least in my case). And I sure am not going to pay for packaged frustration.

Edited June 25, 2009 by genci88

[Hell Kitty]

It's strange that you would argue that "console games do like their games more simplistic, casual, and streamlined. It is simply the nature of the console that allows for the gamer to be less attentive to details" being that a limited save system is pretty much the opposite of that. A limited save system requires more work from the player, because it means they need to be more attentive, so they don't lose all the work they've done before getting to the next checkpoint/safe zone. By allowing the player to save anywhere you remove this, making it easier from them, and as such it's the save anywhere system that's "dumbed down".

 

Take Far Cry 2, for example. The console version only allows you to say in specific safe zones, while the PC version features save anywhere. The developers didn't exclude that feature from the console version because "console kiddies" just luurve a limited save system, they included it in the PC version because PC gamers bitch when they don't have it.

[lasthearth]

Actually for the most part the reason some console games don't have a save anywhere system is legacy from the days when consoles didn't have hard drives, and even when they had memory cards the sizes were severely limited.

 

Save anywhere requires the save game file to retain all the information about the state of the game. Whereas save point system only requires the save game file to retain certain information about the player character. It has nothing to do with consoles being "kiddie", it has nothing to do with consoles gamers being more "casual.". It was strictly because the consoles games had hardware limitations as to how large the save game files can be which made a save anywhere system impractical.

 

In the current gen consoles, large HD are present and so most games on console nowadays do have save anywhere systems. FO3, Oblivion, ME, etc.

[Tigranes]

I don't get this bit about the hard drives, by the way. FFVII on the original Playstation used Save Points, for instance, but if you wanted to you could fill up your entire memory card with a couple dozen FF7 saves (more than most PC gamers would ever use). Hell you could have even added a self-overwriting quicksave function - saving that game on the PS took no longer than saves take in NWN2. I always thought it was rather the controller that stopped console games from having quicksaves. What am I missing? :/

 

genci88: OK, so you're firing something back, awesome. It's not as if I haven't experienced the personality-twisting influence of bad checkpoints (checkpoint + maze + monsters that disable party members = mental genocide), either. Your post basically boils down to "I find the inevitable failing of the checkpoint system so terrible in any game and I would hate to see it in AP, or anywhere". Fair enough. Really has nothing to do with CRPGs or RPG v. JRPG or consolitis or dumbing down or anything. Just that you find the system terrible. Which... well, I can't really persuade you otherwise, because I'd be an idiot to argue against the fact that checkpoint systems are liable to cause frustrating repetition that free-save never would. All I can say is that for me, there are also failings of the free-save system (that sawyer has already described), so I see it more as a 'depends on the game' thing.

[Hell Kitty]

I always thought it was rather the controller that stopped console games from having quicksaves. What am I missing? :/

 

You are correct. Quicksaves are just a shortcut to going to the save/load screens, and with limited buttons on a controller it makes no sense to dedicate some to quick save or load functions.

 

The file size of saves depends entirely on individual games. The saves in Deus Ex on PC would get increasingly bigger, to the point that the save folder would be several hundred MBs. This was a problem that they needed to, and succeeded in, fixing in the PS2 version, which also allows save anywhere.

 

Checkpoint saves nowadays are purely a design decision. The reason we see them more on console games (or console versions) is because console gamers are used to them, and ultimately more tolerant of them.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Hell Kitty