Minimizing Save scumming. Or is it too much of a hassle?

[Rabain]

Your opinion is as valid as any one elses but not more valid just because it is yours. This decision is up to the developers, perhaps they are reading this thread and taking score of who likes saving anytime vs specific save points.

 

Personally I'm still with the option to save anytime.

 

Also save scumming I don't think is a relevant term for what is being asked here by the people who disagree. Save scumming typically exists as a manual method of circumventing automatic deletion of saves in games where you only get one save file and it is reverted to a specific point on death. That would be a contravention of the developers goal and not acceptable in my opinion.

 

However what a lot of people here are asking for is not save scumming but just a different legitimate method of saving. You have tried to attach a negative term to that type of game save when it doesn't apply, that is a cheap tactic to make your own viewpoint appear as if it is the only proper method.

 

And also the idea that game should enable anything as an option is also a flawed one. It shouldn't. That's what mod tools are for.

 

While this is true on the face of it, it also doesn't apply to absolutely every option that is possible to put into a game. If that was the case there would be no Options menu in any game and you would have to mod everything because the developers decided to go with X on every decision and tough luck for you.

 

The reality is that when there is a decision to be made about giving Options, it is discussed and a decision to allow or disallow the Option as a choice is made.

 

People who want to save "often" can save - only not as often as they would like. Big whoopin loss.

 

Two can play that game: people who want to save less often can save less often - people who want to save often can save as often as they like. Big whoopin loss. (Or Big whoopin gain as far as I can see but then that is just my opinion).

 

I'd say the argument still stands that the "free to save anytime" method of saving is more of a compromise for everyone than the "you only save here" method. Yes both camps get a save file at some point but at least with the free method no one is restricted in where a save occurs, if is solely up to you. Because you are unwilling to accept any compromise then any compromise is unacceptable? I sincerely hope the game is not being developed for players with that type of attitude.

[TrashMan]

Your opinion is as valid as any one elses but not more valid just because it is yours. This decision is up to the developers, perhaps they are reading this thread and taking score of who likes saving anytime vs specific save points.

 

I don't recall saying it was.

 

I just object to the whole notion of everyone pro-save-everywhere declaring their prefference as factually the best thing since swiss cheese.

 

 

 

However what a lot of people here are asking for is not save scumming but just a different legitimate method of saving. You have tried to attach a negative term to that type of game save when it doesn't apply, that is a cheap tactic to make your own viewpoint appear as if it is the only proper method.

 

Funny, it appeared to me as the other way around - you declaring limited saves as negative (despite anything substantia lto back it up with)

 

 

 

I'd say the argument still stands that the "free to save anytime" method of saving is more of a compromise for everyone than the "you only save here" method.

 

It's not a compromise. Period.

You do not declare something a compromise- especially not when the other side disagrees.

 

 

 

Yes both camps get a save file at some point but at least with the free method no one is restricted in where a save occurs, if is solely up to you. Because you are unwilling to accept any compromise then any compromise is unacceptable? I sincerely hope the game is not being developed for players with that type of attitude.

 

Ah.h..again with "you should accept frustration, but I shouldn't".

Your "compromise" doesnt' affect you at all. Your compromise leaves me frustrated.

You get everything you want.

That isn't a compromise by any definition of the word.

 

Because that is what this ultimatively boils down to.

Something you and your compatriots constatnly ignore is that this is ultimatively about more than just "play style" and "save here"

[LadyCrimson]

@TrashMan - Let's pretend that Obsidian decided to implement two different save systems for Project Eternity, and it went something like this:

 

When you started a new game/playthrough, a screen would pop up. It would tell you that you had two save system options. One would be an unlimited save, multiple slot style system. The other would be some version of the single-save and/or save point system you seem to be advocating/enjoy. Whatever choice you picked, that would be the one you were stuck with for the duration of that character's current playthru (can't switch it mid-game). Now both sides have their option available to them, they just have to choose it when they start. Would you still object?

 

Edit: typos..it's late.

[plato111]

While browsing through the Summary of the Q&A in the Kickstarter Comments page thread:

 

Question: PE will have a "save anytime, save anywhere" system like the IE games?

Feargus: Yes, save anywhere you want.

 

So everybody can play the game just the way they like

[Lady Evenstar]

While browsing through the Summary of the Q&A in the Kickstarter Comments page thread:

 

Question: PE will have a "save anytime, save anywhere" system like the IE games?

Feargus: Yes, save anywhere you want.

 

So everybody can play the game just the way they like

 

:D Thanks for digging that up, plato111.

[TrashMan]

@TrashMan - Let's pretend that Obsidian decided to implement two different save systems for Project Eternity, and it went something like this:

 

When you started a new game/playthrough, a screen would pop up. It would tell you that you had two save system options. One would be an unlimited save, multiple slot style system. The other would be some version of the single-save and/or save point system you seem to be advocating/enjoy. Whatever choice you picked, that would be the one you were stuck with for the duration of that character's current playthru (can't switch it mid-game). Now both sides have their option available to them, they just have to choose it when they start. Would you still object?

 

 

That would depend on the class/encounter/area desing.

 

If it's designed with a clear bias towards save-everywhere, then those who are agaisnt save-everywhere probably would still mind.

 

Would I still object? No. I'm not objecting to it now (even tough I'm arguing against it).

Class/encouters/areas concern me more than the save system TBH.

[ogrezilla]

@TrashMan - Let's pretend that Obsidian decided to implement two different save systems for Project Eternity, and it went something like this:

 

When you started a new game/playthrough, a screen would pop up. It would tell you that you had two save system options. One would be an unlimited save, multiple slot style system. The other would be some version of the single-save and/or save point system you seem to be advocating/enjoy. Whatever choice you picked, that would be the one you were stuck with for the duration of that character's current playthru (can't switch it mid-game). Now both sides have their option available to them, they just have to choose it when they start. Would you still object?

 

 

That would depend on the class/encounter/area desing.

 

If it's designed with a clear bias towards save-everywhere, then those who are agaisnt save-everywhere probably would still mind.

 

Would I still object? No. I'm not objecting to it now (even tough I'm arguing against it).

Class/encouters/areas concern me more than the save system TBH.

I'm still waiting for ONE valid example of a clear bias towards save-everywhere in any game of this type. Just one. The rogue thing is not a valid example because you simply can't feasibly show is at all related to a save system.

Edited October 11, 2012 by ogrezilla

[ogrezilla]

I've said somewhere in this thread that I can see where people are coming from who want to limit saving. I will admit that there are positives as far as game balance. But the negatives of the alternative systems simply outweigh any potential positives that I have seen mentioned.

 

in YOUR oppinion. And plenty of people apparently disagree.

 

 

Especially since pretty much any negative of the save anywhere system can simply be ignored whereas the negatives of the limited save system are strictly enforced.

 

No. It cannot simply "be ignored".

You keep talking about it like it's some kind of comprmise, when it isn't.

My frustration remains in full, your goes away completely. How the hell is that a compromise?

 

again, just one valid example problem that doesn't go away simply by not using the save system in a way that bothers you and I'll shut up.

Edited October 11, 2012 by ogrezilla

[general_azure]

Seriously, I never expected this thread to make it to 250 replies. If you guys really think enforced limited saving for everyone would be enjoyed by the general audience, start a poll and watch the slaughter.

[Hassat Hunter]

It seems to be mostly one guy advocating it and everyone else telling it's a bad idea to me.

[Ieo]

Seriously, I never expected this thread to make it to 250 replies. If you guys really think enforced limited saving for everyone would be enjoyed by the general audience, start a poll and watch the slaughter.

It seems to be mostly one guy advocating it and everyone else telling it's a bad idea to me.

 

And it's pretty much irrelevant anyway. From the very beginning. Because Obsidian is designing the default saving to IE normal mode most likely, and there's always Trial of Iron and everything else. Some people just can't give up the stupid idea that their preferred way of playing is the correct way and everyone else's preferences exist only to break the game. (Wat.)

[general_azure]

True, I think the choice of save mechanic was fixed from the start. But I've never before heard of anyone who actually prefered fixed savepoints, so now I'm curious to see how many there are. Wouldn't expect much more than 5% from the crowd in here...

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's a rather long list of game mechanics, ideas and even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed.

Only for those players who couldn't control themselves.

The choice to not exploit bad design doesn't make it any better.

I don't concede that it's bad design. Giving the players options is good design, full stop. It's up to the players to use those options they like and ignore those options they don't.

 

It is never the designers' job to protect the player from himself.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Any system can be abused. Check point saving can be abused. The game mechanics can be abused. If gamers want to abuse a system, they'll find a way. It's up to the gamer whether they wan't to abuse it or not.

I refuse even to go so far as to call it abuse. It's just use. Calling it abuse requires a foundationless value judgment I'm not willing to make.

[codexer]

Sylvius: would you also enjoy the freedom to decide your character statistics freely? Would it bother you if the game got too hard or too easy as a consequence?

[Gorgon]

Permadeath please

Raise dead.

 

I hate "raise dead". It's cheesy and implausible and removes nearly all the penalty from dying. In terms of making the game easy it's much worse than save scumming. Actually I'd like to propose that all versions of "raise dead" even at a temple are removed in expert mode. The whole mechanic is just silly. If that's what people mean by permadeath then I am all for permadeath.

 

Permadeath like in the BG series for certain spells and sufficiently powerful critical hits. A lot of immersion was lost compared to NWN with the PC being the only killable party member. There is no challenge when there is nothing at stake.

[Ieo]

Any system can be abused. Check point saving can be abused. The game mechanics can be abused. If gamers want to abuse a system, they'll find a way. It's up to the gamer whether they wan't to abuse it or not.

I refuse even to go so far as to call it abuse. It's just use. Calling it abuse requires a foundationless value judgment I'm not willing to make.

 

"Abuse" in gaming terms to me really means exploit, which in turn indicates unintential use, not "working as intended," leading to game imbalance. So what cases of save-game exploits exist? Those are abuses. At-will saving doesn't fall under that. All other game balances, where the onus is on the developers, should try to take into account in-game tactical difficulty rather than metagame reload "strategy," and that is a difficult thing to implement well, judging by the framework put forth by Sawyer (earlier Formspring quote somewhere in this thread). Since they're the devs who both play games and design and develop at the highest conceptual levels, I'll trust they can find the good balance for default play.

 

Everyone else can then ramp up or down to their liking (with cherry-pick options, which I suspect will be available). There is really nothing else to say about it. I'll play my way in this single-player game, and you mind your own business, thankyouverymuch.

 

ಠ_ಠ

[Hassat Hunter]

True, I think the choice of save mechanic was fixed from the start. But I've never before heard of anyone who actually prefered fixed savepoints, so now I'm curious to see how many there are. Wouldn't expect much more than 5% from the crowd in here...

Could make a good thread in the Computer and Console section...

[GhostofAnakin]

The difference is in your head, because you consider it acceptable as a "compromise".

It isn't.

No amount of willpower changes the reality.

 

Also, all games are forced to be played in one game or another.

After all, I can't play Amnesia as a FPS, now can I?

Hence, I am forced to play a certain (sneaky-hidey) way.

 

And also the idea that game should enable anything as an option is also a flawed one. It shouldn't. That's what mod tools are for.

 

People who want to save "often" can save - only not as often as they would like. Big whoopin loss.

 

True or false, even with unlimited saves, a player can choose not to save all the time? In other words, having unlimited saves doesn't force a player to actually save every two seconds, right? True or false, with limited saves, a player can NOT choose to save when they want? One option still allows people to play the game however they want (limit their saving, or save every second step their character takes), while the other option makes it IMPOSSIBLE for people who want to save often, to save often?

 

How is this not clear to you?

 

Your example about Amnesia being played as a FPS doesn't even apply because you're comparing apples and oranges. I've never played Amnesia, so I'm assuming it's a stealth game? So if that's the case, obviously it isn't designed to be able to be played as a FPS. But considering Obsidian is going with a save system where you can save at any time, it's not even a comparable situation as your example since it does fit the design of PE. Basically, your example is one where what you (hypothetically) want doesn't fit the design of the game, while the topic at hand (limited saves versus unlimited saves) does fit the design of the game.

 

Also, I'm not sure where you're going with a lot of what you said. At best, you're misunderstanding what I've said. At worst, you're misrepresenting things I've said. I didn't say a game should allow anything as an option. We're talking specifically about the save feature, and whether or not it makes more sense for limited saves or, for lack of a better word, unlimited saves.

 

As for your "that's what mods are for", so there you go. Maybe a mod can be made that will allow you to play the game with the limited saves system that you want.

[Ieo]

As for your "that's what mods are for", so there you go. Maybe a mod can be made that will allow you to play the game with the limited saves system that you want.

 

That much effort isn't even needed. Trial of Iron mode is already in.

 

Go forth, with one save point!

[HeedlessHorseman]

I've never played Amnesia, so I'm assuming it's a stealth game? So if that's the case, obviously it isn't designed to be able to be played as a FPS.

 

It's a horror game. I have not played much, so I could be wrong about this, but I think that the character might not even get a weapon in the game.

 

My question for people who are against saving anywhere is do you reload if you do not pass a skill check in a conversation? Or does that type of thing not bother you?

[TrashMan]

True or false, even with unlimited saves, a player can choose not to save all the time? In other words, having unlimited saves doesn't force a player to actually save every two seconds, right? True or false, with limited saves, a player can NOT choose to save when they want? One option still allows people to play the game however they want (limit their saving, or save every second step their character takes), while the other option makes it IMPOSSIBLE for people who want to save often, to save often?

 

How is this not clear to you?

 

It is irrelevant because the "playstyle" is irrlevant.

Frustration is relevant.

Why should I play the game that rustrates me?

 

 

 

 

Your example about Amnesia being played as a FPS doesn't even apply because you're comparing apples and oranges. I've never played Amnesia, so I'm assuming it's a stealth game? So if that's the case, obviously it isn't designed to be able to be played as a FPS. But considering Obsidian is going with a save system where you can save at any time, it's not even a comparable situation as your example since it does fit the design of PE. Basically, your example is one where what you (hypothetically) want doesn't fit the design of the game, while the topic at hand (limited saves versus unlimited saves) does fit the design of the game.

 

Well, I can argue that save everywhere doesn't fit a design of what a true CRPG should be.

 

 

 

****

 

How about a hypothetical scenario.

 

Not beign able to sell loot whwnever I wnat frustrates me.

Therefore the game should allow you to sell everything directly from the inventory.

Naturally, because o this hte loot drops would probably have ot be balanced differently, but who cares, right?

 

If you want to onyl sell at shops and limit your inventory and $$$ gained, you can. No one is forcing you to use the sell system.

 

And therefore, you have no right to complain that it's a bad system and shouldn't be in the game.

If you do, you are taking away my holy options.

 

 

As for your "that's what mods are for", so there you go. Maybe a mod can be made that will allow you to play the game with the limited saves system that you want.

 

Indeed. But every sane man campaigns for the game to be to his liking, and the other guy should mod the game to get what he wants.

If the sitation was reversed and hte devs said they will go with checkpoitn based save -system, I could point you to mods too.

so it's kinda a moot point.

[mute688]

How about a hypothetical scenario.

 

Not beign able to sell loot whwnever I wnat frustrates me.

Therefore the game should allow you to sell everything directly from the inventory.

Naturally, because o this hte loot drops would probably have ot be balanced differently, but who cares, right?

 

If you want to onyl sell at shops and limit your inventory and $$$ gained, you can. No one is forcing you to use the sell system.

 

And therefore, you have no right to complain that it's a bad system and shouldn't be in the game.

If you do, you are taking away my holy options.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you have an example from an actual game where the option to save anywhere has been the basis for changes to the design that you find unacceptable? I'm talking single player game, not multiplayer as I can see multiplayer issues of balance affecting the single player game, but I am having a hard time thinking of any single player game that has been affected in the way you describe, ie classes being changed drastically due to save scumming.

 

Edited to add: And if a class has been changed due to save scumming then you are campaigning against a symptom, not a cause. It would seem to me that you should be campaigning for the save scumming to not affect game design rather than to eliminate save scumming.

Edited October 11, 2012 by mute688

[ogrezilla]

How about a hypothetical scenario.

 

Not beign able to sell loot whwnever I wnat frustrates me.

Therefore the game should allow you to sell everything directly from the inventory.

Naturally, because o this hte loot drops would probably have ot be balanced differently, but who cares, right?

 

If you want to onyl sell at shops and limit your inventory and $$$ gained, you can. No one is forcing you to use the sell system.

 

And therefore, you have no right to complain that it's a bad system and shouldn't be in the game.

If you do, you are taking away my holy options.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you have an example from an actual game where the option to save anywhere has been the basis for changes to the design that you find unacceptable? I'm talking single player game, not multiplayer as I can see multiplayer issues of balance affecting the single player game, but I am having a hard time thinking of any single player game that has been affected in the way you describe, ie classes being changed drastically due to save scumming.

 

Edited to add: And if a class has been changed due to save scumming then you are campaigning against a symptom, not a cause. It would seem to me that you should be campaigning for the save scumming to not affect game design rather than to eliminate save scumming.

people have been asking for an example for days now. he doesn't seem to have one.

Edited October 12, 2012 by ogrezilla

[AlphaShard]

Only that he is too weak willed to resist save scum mind.