Saving and reloading

[qstoffe]

After reading an interview with Chris Avellone I was surprised of his view on saving/reloading in games.

 

I also was disappointed in several computer interface mechanics – the idea of saving and reloading, for example, struck me as pointless and nothing more than an excuse to stop playing the game rather than continuing to have fun.

 

How are your feelings on this when playing RPGs?

Edited October 6, 2012 by qstoffe

[Ieo]

The poll question seems strange to me. I find it hard to believe anyone likes to reload---players like to be challenged up to the point of their mastery, which symptomatically may require reloads if the difficulty mode is set higher than their current know-how. But ultimately, the point of combat fun is to not require the reload, right?

[ogrezilla]

I would like to be able to win fights without learning through death. Find ways to give hints about what to expect. There is nothing worse than losing to a mechanic that you simply had no way of knowing how to deal with. That isn't difficult, its cheap.

 

That said, I don't have a problem with the ability to save and load whenever we want.

Edited October 6, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Hypevosa]

I agree with him in that saving and reloading constantly is just a pain. At the same time, having any sort of checkpoint system that is visible is also an issue - I've played a few games where they'll save right before big fights and it was a dead giveaway and ruined much of the surprise. If we could somehow keep a checkpoint system of that sort in the background, so saving constantly and reloading constantly wasn't necessary but automated, I'd like that.

[qstoffe]

The poll question seems strange to me. I find it hard to believe anyone likes to reload---players like to be challenged up to the point of their mastery, which symptomatically may require reloads if the difficulty mode is set higher than their current know-how. But ultimately, the point of combat fun is to not require the reload, right?

 

I see your point. I liked to be challenged quite hard on my first playthrough only to dominate on the later ones. In modern RPGs, however, it seems the game mechanics have been changed a bit. I feel older games were designed a little bit more towards trial and error compared to todays games where the player should never be "surprised" by a steep learning curve. It's possible it's just me but that's how I feel. I like to a get that sense of improvement rather than just "kicking ass" right from the start.

Edited October 6, 2012 by qstoffe

[ogrezilla]

The poll question seems strange to me. I find it hard to believe anyone likes to reload---players like to be challenged up to the point of their mastery, which symptomatically may require reloads if the difficulty mode is set higher than their current know-how. But ultimately, the point of combat fun is to not require the reload, right?

 

I see your point. I liked to be challenged quite hard on my first playthrough only to dominate on the later ones. In modern RPGs, however, it seems the game mechanics have been changed a bit. I feel older games were designed a little bit more towards trial and error compared to todays games where player should never be "surprised" by a steep learning curve. It's possible it's just me but that's how I feel. I like to a greater sense of improvement, rather than just "kicking ass" right from the start.

there's a difference between a learning curve and simply not having a chance to win because you haven't memorized how to beat the enemy yet. Difficult is good. Memorization isn't difficult.

Edited October 6, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Archmage Silver]

I don't think this applies to me... I don't like reloading, but I rarely have to anyway. I've played too many RPGs to not have good tactics from the get-go.

[Ieo]

I agree with him in that saving and reloading constantly is just a pain. At the same time, having any sort of checkpoint system that is visible is also an issue - I've played a few games where they'll save right before big fights and it was a dead giveaway and ruined much of the surprise. If we could somehow keep a checkpoint system of that sort in the background, so saving constantly and reloading constantly wasn't necessary but automated, I'd like that.

 

I agree with the checkpoint saves spoiling the challenge---I much prefer just a general autosave whenever entering an area, which could be large like a world map region or really any new area. I think DA:O had the much more obvious checkpoint saves.

[qstoffe]

there's a difference between a learning curve and simply not having a chance to win because you haven't memorized how to beat the enemy yet. Difficult is good. Memorization isn't difficult.

 

Yeah but wouldn't you say current games are more "forgiving" than the old ones? Like how many players make it through BG2 the first time without reloading vs i.e. Dragon Age? Are you saying BG2 was unfair to the player that way?

Edited October 6, 2012 by qstoffe

[ogrezilla]

there's a difference between a learning curve and simply not having a chance to win because you haven't memorized how to beat the enemy yet. Difficult is good. Memorization isn't difficult.

 

Yeah but wouldn't you say current games are more "forgiving" than the old ones? Like how many players make it through BG2 the first time without reloading vs i.e. Dragon Age? Are you saying BG2 was unfair to the player that way?

I'm not really talking about any games specifically. I agree that a lot of newer games are too easy. I'm just disagreeing with the notion that number of reloads is a good indicator of difficulty.

Edited October 6, 2012 by ogrezilla

[rjshae]

One day I'd like to see an adaptive save-restore system that allows you to replay an encounter any number of times, but have the game keep track of your attempts and throw a little curve at you with each do-over. That is, if you discover that you used the wrong tactic the first time through and do a restore, then on the second attempt the tactical situation changes. Not a complete change mind you, but just enough of a revision to throw a wrench into your well-considered plans (just like in a real battle).

 

This is something the game developer could configure during play testing when they find that certain fights frequently cause save-restores. It would add a lot of variety and interest to the game.

[Hypevosa]

I agree with him in that saving and reloading constantly is just a pain. At the same time, having any sort of checkpoint system that is visible is also an issue - I've played a few games where they'll save right before big fights and it was a dead giveaway and ruined much of the surprise. If we could somehow keep a checkpoint system of that sort in the background, so saving constantly and reloading constantly wasn't necessary but automated, I'd like that.

 

I agree with the checkpoint saves spoiling the challenge---I much prefer just a general autosave whenever entering an area, which could be large like a world map region or really any new area. I think DA:O had the much more obvious checkpoint saves.

 

See, at the same time forcing you to fight those easily dispatched groups of kobolds again is also just an annoyance when the player now knows they can just save and reload right before the big fight. Why make them die first so they just know to save and reload later if you can have a system that just saves them the menu jaunt instead?

[ogrezilla]

I agree with him in that saving and reloading constantly is just a pain. At the same time, having any sort of checkpoint system that is visible is also an issue - I've played a few games where they'll save right before big fights and it was a dead giveaway and ruined much of the surprise. If we could somehow keep a checkpoint system of that sort in the background, so saving constantly and reloading constantly wasn't necessary but automated, I'd like that.

 

I agree with the checkpoint saves spoiling the challenge---I much prefer just a general autosave whenever entering an area, which could be large like a world map region or really any new area. I think DA:O had the much more obvious checkpoint saves.

 

See, at the same time forcing you to fight those easily dispatched groups of kobolds again is also just an annoyance when the player now knows they can just save and reload right before the big fight. Why make them die first so they just know to save and reload later if you can have a system that just saves them the menu jaunt instead?

most games have quick save and quick load buttons to avoid the menu jaunt at least. Auto saving after each fight with a button to load that would work, but it seems very unnecessary

[Hypevosa]

The only game that ever trained me to constantly hit quick saves was Thief, I'd rather not consider that a necessary player skill if we can avoid it xD

[ogrezilla]

The only game that ever trained me to constantly hit quick saves was Thief, I'd rather not consider that a necessary player skill if we can avoid it xD

Id be happy to have it autosave fairly often. Even after every fight. Because that's pretty much what I do anyway. Maybe keep 3 to 5 saved and overwrite the 1st after you finish the 6th fight so that you can go back more than 1 fight if you want to. Obviously allowing full saves whenever you want to that wouldn't get overwritten without you doing it yourself. Even automatically keep a "last rest" save too

Edited October 7, 2012 by ogrezilla

[moridin84]

Umm, I don't quite get it.

 

I mean, if you die you are obviously going to have to reload otherwise you won't be able to keep playing. It's hardly a matter of 'like' or 'dislike'.

[ogrezilla]

Umm, I don't quite get it.

 

I mean, if you die you are obviously going to have to reload otherwise you won't be able to keep playing. It's hardly a matter of 'like' or 'dislike'.

I think he is trying to ask how hard you want the game to be by using the number of reloads as a metric for difficulty.

Edited October 7, 2012 by ogrezilla

[SqueakyCat]

I don't understand the point either really since they've already confirmed swing.

 

I would like the game to be challenging, but I just don't see the correlation to the poll.

[moridin84]

Umm, I don't quite get it.

 

I mean, if you die you are obviously going to have to reload otherwise you won't be able to keep playing. It's hardly a matter of 'like' or 'dislike'.

I think he is trying to ask how hard you want the game to be by using the number of reloads as a metric for difficulty.

Oh really?

 

That's not a very good metric to use.

[ogrezilla]

Umm, I don't quite get it.

 

I mean, if you die you are obviously going to have to reload otherwise you won't be able to keep playing. It's hardly a matter of 'like' or 'dislike'.

I think he is trying to ask how hard you want the game to be by using the number of reloads as a metric for difficulty.

Oh really?

 

That's not a very good metric to use.

indeed

[qstoffe]

Oh really?

 

That's not a very good metric to use.

 

So when you go wakeboard surfing; the number of times you fail by falling into the water and having to start over is not a good indicator of how difficult it is? Succeeding with things the first time you try something usually gives you less of a rewarding experience in total imo (even though I hate it when I fail).

Edited October 7, 2012 by qstoffe

[moridin84]

Oh really?

 

That's not a very good metric to use.

 

So when you go wakeboard surfing; the number of times you fail by falling into the water and having to start over is not a good indicator of how difficult it is? Succeeding with things the first time you try something usually gives you less of a rewarding experience in total imo (even though I hate it when I fail).

Yeah but it's not very quantifiable. What difficulty are you talking about? How good a player are you? What happen if you are tired or not playing seriously?

[metiman]

The poll question seems strange to me. I find it hard to believe anyone likes to reload---players like to be challenged up to the point of their mastery, which symptomatically may require reloads if the difficulty mode is set higher than their current know-how. But ultimately, the point of combat fun is to not require the reload, right?

 

If I don't have to reload because some or all of my party was killed then the fight was too easy. I consider a reasonably challenging fight to require at least 3 reloads. Or alternatively at least the death of half of my party if one is playing ironman or something. A boss fight should require at least 10 reloads IMO. The most epic challenges I've faced in games like BG2ToB with SCSII required 20-30 reloads or more before I managed to figure out a winning strategy and maybe get a bit lucky.

[metiman]

Umm, I don't quite get it.

 

I mean, if you die you are obviously going to have to reload otherwise you won't be able to keep playing. It's hardly a matter of 'like' or 'dislike'.

 

But how many times would you like to die in various sorts of encounters? I quite like the poll.

[Jojobobo]

Ironman mode is confirmed, right? I don't see why there needs to be a discussion when all the bases are already covered (Ironman for people who don't like save/reload and want a challenge, regular save and reload mechanics for everyone else). If the whole metric for difficulty thing is what the OP was striving for then it's not very valid, as I can die through carelessness in an easy fight and manage to live through a fight I thought was really difficult. Obviously combat should be as adpative and intuitive (in terms of how the enemies approach fighting you and countering your tactics) as possible to keep a game refreshing and rewarding; it shouldn't be a case of "I've mastered how that subset of monsters fights (or how to be awesome at combat in general) and now they are no longer a challenge" - but that more or less goes without saying. At least that's what I think would be meant by a game having a "steep learning curve" but on subsequent playthroughs "'kicking ass' right from the start".