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

[ogrezilla]

the old games allowed saving whenever you wanted and it worked perfectly well. Never saw it as a problem.

 

I can see the reason for wanting to limit it, but it really causes more of a problem than its worth. Repeating content in this style of game is boring.

Edited October 7, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Rabain]

If there was some valid reason or mechanic behind the death of your party members or whatever it might be worth considering limiting the ability to save. However I doubt party deaths in average combat will have any major significance to the other party members other than perhaps a line of dialogue popping up like in BG where most party members said something entertaining when their "partner" died in combat. But it was never followed on, Minsc didn't harp on about Dynaheirs death in BG1 even if she died and I never bothered resurrecting her. He did it in BG2 because he death was a part of the storyline.

 

If you were forced to only save at specific points many players would just become frustrated with the system and the game would suffer for it (negative review).

 

On the other hand I very much disliked the DAO system of autosaving before any major event, it was too much handholding.

 

Saving should be up to the player, if I forget to save for a long time and get killed by some dragon then its my own fault and I should play from my last save.

[codexer]

the old games allowed saving whenever you wanted and it worked perfectly well.

 

What old games, could you be more specific?

[ogrezilla]

the old games allowed saving whenever you wanted and it worked perfectly well.

 

What old games, could you be more specific?

all of the IE games if I remember correctly. IWD, PS:T etc. Most cRPG's actually. they just don't lead to an enjoyable experience when forced to repeat content.

Edited October 7, 2012 by ogrezilla

[codexer]

the old games allowed saving whenever you wanted and it worked perfectly well.

 

What old games, could you be more specific?

all of the IE games if I remember correctly. IWD, PS:T etc. Most cRPG's actually. they just don't lead to an enjoyable experience when forced to repeat content.

 

You couldn't save in combat so as far as I'm concerned there were limitations on saving.

[ogrezilla]

the old games allowed saving whenever you wanted and it worked perfectly well.

 

What old games, could you be more specific?

all of the IE games if I remember correctly. IWD, PS:T etc. Most cRPG's actually. they just don't lead to an enjoyable experience when forced to repeat content.

 

You couldn't save in combat so as far as I'm concerned there were limitations on saving.

not saving during combat is fine for me. I never even tried that so I don't know. Guess I didn't quite get what you meant. my bad

Edited October 7, 2012 by ogrezilla

[metiman]

Saving during combat and dialogue is fine by me. That's what playing PC games is all about. The freedom to save the game state whenever you wish. Or not save it. The choice is yours. If you don't like that kind of choice you can always buy an Xbox or PS3 or Nintendo.

[Delterius]

Quite frankly, the discussion was predictable. In the end, it was bound to be about wether this is frustrating or challenging. In this level, whatever you can contribute is far too personal and its the call of the developer anyway. However, there are some arguments that I don't think hold ground.

 

All of this is moot. You guys don't seriously believe that Obsidian is going to implement some console-like checkpoint save system do you? Not gonna happen. You already have ironman mode with no saves at all. Surely you should be happy with that.

I'm not familiar with it, but I'm pretty sure the 80s PC games used save checkpoints (sometimes merely discouraging spam saving in the outside) and Save&Quit systems.

 

Again, second paraphraph of the original post.

 

And then the people you have issue with just save/quit and reload.

 

Save&Quit is a common feature that deletes the save file when it is reloaded.

 

all of the IE games if I remember correctly. IWD, PS:T etc. Most cRPG's actually. they just don't lead to an enjoyable experience when forced to repeat content.

 

This isn't really true, is it? I remember dying in those games.

[moridin84]

Save points were primarily in console games where disk space was an issue. I don't think there were any cRPG's (excluding ports) which had the save point system.

 

Save&quit was in Diablo 1/2/3 but that was because there weren't different 'rules' for single player and multiplayer, they were interchangeable. A save/load system simply wouldn't work. You also re-spawned when you died so loading wasn't required.

 

I can't think of any other RPG which used the same save&quit system.

[metiman]

Most 80s IBM PC games sucked. Although I didn't actually have an IBM PC. I had an Atari PC. Most of those games also sucked, at least by today's standards. I have no idea what kind of save systems IBM PC games had. Some of my favorite games from the 80s were Castle Wolfenstein, Archon, Choplifter, and Crush, Crumble, and Chomp. I think they all had save-anywhere systems. I'm pretty sure that Atari 2600 games OTOH had no saves. I guess that was the start of the personal computer vs video game console saves vs no-saves split.

[HangedMan]

If somebody wants to waste a half hour of time re-rolling to get a success on a difficult check, then let 'em, is what I say. One thing I love the most about gaming on the pc is the fact that I can save anywhere I want, so if I need to step away from the computer, I can; I don't want to be forced to either give up on progress in my game, or have to run late because I needed another five or ten minutes to push forward or backtrack to a save point.

 

It's highly annoying. If people don't want to save scum, then they should have the willpower to tell themselves "No, I will not save scum". That's what I do, all the time. If you're afraid of being "tempted" into save scumming, then really, you should work on your self-control, instead of asking people to make it so you can't do something.

[ogrezilla]

 

This isn't really true, is it? I remember dying in those games.

yes you died. and you reloaded from wherever you last chose to save. which was wherever you wanted it to be.

Edited October 7, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Althernai]

So let me get this straight. Y'all who're against limiting saving want the ability to save in combat and dialogue? Or do you want a limited saving at just certain times, like for example outside of combat and dialogue?

Ideally, I would want saving anytime. However, the limitation on saving in combat and dialog is technical rather than philosophical (the game has to store a bunch of extra variables) so I would be understanding if they couldn't pull it off.

 

For you in the first camp. I hope you realize that the combat can be portioned up into a series of random rolls of which you can come out on top in each case? In fact, playing optimally will be doing just that. This is obviously very bad design because the game becomes deterministic; the enemy will fail and you will succeed. Playing optimally will be tedious but valid inside the constraints of the game, i.e. without cheating.

So? If somebody finds it amusing to reload a dozen times until the dice roll his way, so be it. I really don't care about how other people choose to play since it has no impact on me. Limiting saving does have an impact on me so I say it's not worth the hassle.

[codexer]

If somebody wants to waste a half hour of time re-rolling to get a success on a difficult check, then let 'em, is what I say. One thing I love the most about gaming on the pc is the fact that I can save anywhere I want, so if I need to step away from the computer, I can; I don't want to be forced to either give up on progress in my game, or have to run late because I needed another five or ten minutes to push forward or backtrack to a save point.

 

I don't think anyone suggesting the removal of the "save&exit"-function. Such a function should always exist and it should allow you to quit at any time, but if you continue again the save-file is deleted.

 

It's highly annoying. If people don't want to save scum, then they should have the willpower to tell themselves "No, I will not save scum". That's what I do, all the time. If you're afraid of being "tempted" into save scumming, then really, you should work on your self-control, instead of asking people to make it so you can't do something.

Savescumming is not exploiting the save-function to get a desirable result; that's just called saving and reloading. Savescumming is when you circumvent the deletion of a save-files from a continue: http://www.urbandict...rm=savescumming

Edited October 7, 2012 by codexer

[metiman]

What if someone releases a mod or hack to enable save anywhere? How will the people who cannot stop themselves from constantly saving possibly resist installing the hack and enabling save-anywhere? I guess it will be important to try to make modding as difficult as possible.

[mute688]

Save points FTW! I also want TV manufacturers to put a 30 second cooldown on the channel change button. How dare people flick through stations when the advertisers have gone to such trouble to put ads in your programs. And what about all those directors, producers, actors and everyone else that make crappy programs that you don't like. Why should you be able to bypass their programs. You should watch it as they intended. Which reminds me...what the **** is up with fast forward buttons on dvd players. How dare anyone want to watch a movie not as the director intended. Sheesh!!!

[aran665]

people should be able to save and play however they want, its single player so its not hurting anyone elses experience. i don't know why anyone would save in the middle of combat, cause if you mistime that save and you're losing, reloading probably won't help... as a personal rule i don't save very often but there are times when auto save has made life less annoying.

 

recently i reinstalled BG1, so i had minsc in my party, i ignored going to save dynaheir for too long cause i was actually on my way to the gnoll fortress when i zone into one of the random encounters with some winter wolves, in the middle of the damn fight minsc decides its a good time to attack everyone cause we didn't get to the fortress fast enough... in the mean time the 2 winter wolves + crazy minsc manage to gib not one not 2, but 3 of my party. gone, permadead. so it went from just having to kill minsc to losing garrick, jaheira, and imoen... that means it would have been down to me and khalid from nashkel to baldurs gate cause we killed edwin and i don't remember where xan (further north i think) is off the top of my head, an i think i killed the crazy dwarf dude too... all because of some crazy winter wolf luck mixed with minsc randomly going full retard.

 

so what'd i do? i reloaded the autosave because a loss that devastating wasn't fun or challenging... it was frustrating. maybe if this were my first play through i'd deal with it and move on, but i've played through these games a couple times since they were first released.

 

sure i could have just dealt with it, but i didn't feel like it, i know there were moments in my multiple play throughs where i've just let party members die and said "sucks to be you", but not that time, i reloaded the autosave, still had the wolf encounter, only minsc didn't go all crazy n stuff, and the wolves did not gib anyone. the encounter still took the same amount of time, roughly 30seconds and did not diminish or increase the challenge. we then made it to the gnoll fortress where halfway up the stairs minsc wigged out about dynaheir and we killed him... he is still dead, and dynaheir has taken his place until she goes all crazy too.

 

maybe i'm a case against save scumming since according to that logic i ruined the experience... well i don't need a random roll ruining *my* experience. sometimes i'll play a game and keep reloading to do everything 100% a certain way, sometimes i'll play it fast and loose and let whatever happens happen, somtimes i play very cautiously, other times its once more unto the breech dear friends.

 

whether i can save or not usually doesn't factor into that, but if i run into something that kills me and i forgot to save, i'll try again... if the game would not let me save to preserve the experience, then i'll just play a different game.

[Shades]

This sounds suspiciously like Diablo.

 

I love being able to save as often as I like, wherever I like (aside from in combat/too close to enemies, though NWN even let you do that). I dislike not being able to save at all. For save points... I've experienced them in Final Fantasy, it means you have to run back and forth to specific points. So what if I need to leave right this instant? Say I've just spent ages trying to defeat this non-boss creature and am a fair walk from the nearest save point. With save points I'd need to either abandon my progress and go through whatever I had been doing again the next time I play, or trek all the way back to the nearest save point (using time I don't have and ending up late for whatever required my attention). With save on exit if I made a wrong choice or decided I wanted to do something differently then too bad, I can't.

 

So yes, I want to be able to get new equipment and have all my party members nicely sorted out, then save. I want to save before conversations in case I want to try out a couple of different responses because I'm stuck on two choices, I want to save before any battles, I want to save before entering a new area in case I run into random encounters on the way. I want to save after I just finished unlocking a particularly difficult or annoying puzzle, I want to save after I've won a battle. In other words, I want to save a lot. And I want to have an unlimited or very high number of slots available so I can keep a decent number of saves around too (I'm looking at you Mass Effect). Because reloading isn't just about failing or ending up dead (and if save points were used for these it would involve a lot of repeating things you'd done before). Sometimes I'll load old save games because I want to see this or that thing happen again. Perhaps I want to see a certain speech from Irenicus, or I want to watch an end of chapter scene again.

 

If you want to save infrequently or only use the autosave, fine. If you want to have some sort of option in to limit saves, sure. If you want to play in ironman mode, wonderful! If you want to try and limit saves to change the way I and other people play the game then I'm going to have to turn into a rabid fish and slap you.

[Elerond]

I there is save point, then I want play game with my Xbox.

 

My opinion is that in normal mode game should not have any limitations for saiving and loading.

 

Ironman and hardcore modes are different thing all together, because in those player gives for him/herself knowingly limitations to challenge him/herself. And in PE you can toggle such modes on so that you can't toggle them off without starting new game, so I don't really see any point why there should be such limitations in normal mode also.

[HangedMan]

If somebody wants to waste a half hour of time re-rolling to get a success on a difficult check, then let 'em, is what I say. One thing I love the most about gaming on the pc is the fact that I can save anywhere I want, so if I need to step away from the computer, I can; I don't want to be forced to either give up on progress in my game, or have to run late because I needed another five or ten minutes to push forward or backtrack to a save point.

 

I don't think anyone suggesting the removal of the "save&exit"-function. Such a function should always exist and it should allow you to quit at any time, but if you continue again the save-file is deleted.

 

It's highly annoying. If people don't want to save scum, then they should have the willpower to tell themselves "No, I will not save scum". That's what I do, all the time. If you're afraid of being "tempted" into save scumming, then really, you should work on your self-control, instead of asking people to make it so you can't do something.

Savescumming is not exploiting the save-function to get a desirable result; that's just called saving and reloading. Savescumming is when you circumvent the deletion of a save-files from a continue: http://www.urbandict...rm=savescumming

 

 

Wow, seriously? I never knew that. Not have a lot of people, apparently, with how often I see people referring to the reload-until-things-work-out as savescumming. Guess it's one of those common misnomers?

Save points FTW! I also want TV manufacturers to put a 30 second cooldown on the channel change button. How dare people flick through stations when the advertisers have gone to such trouble to put ads in your programs. And what about all those directors, producers, actors and everyone else that make crappy programs that you don't like. Why should you be able to bypass their programs. You should watch it as they intended. Which reminds me...what the **** is up with fast forward buttons on dvd players. How dare anyone want to watch a movie not as the director intended. Sheesh!!!

I know! All of these people that aren't as hardcore as we are want to do stuff so lamely! Obviously, we, being awesome people, should make it impossible for them to be wimpy wimps, and furthermore, they really should thank us for it, too, right bro?

Edited October 8, 2012 by HangedMan

[Brother Pain]

Limited saves have killed my interest in more games than bad gameplay, bad story and bad graphics combined. I don't want to replay the same content again and again because there's some cheap encounter or mechanic, or because the RNG hates me (which it always does).

Not being able to save where you want is unnecessary and pointless unless you have to deal wth severe hardware limitations (eg. on consoles) and that goes double in a CRPG.

 

Let us save wherever we want to. An option to turn off saving where we want to for the people with no self control is fine, but leave the ability in the game for the rest of us.

[nikolokolus]

Mandatory checkpoints just scream "funneling." The developer telling you something important is about to happen (or just happened) and can really break any sense of exploration of experimentation.

 

They're fine for treadmill shooters like Gears of War or Halo, but leave them the hell out of my RPG.

[ogrezilla]

if they were to limit it, I think tying it to the resting mechanics is how it would work best. If you can find a safe place to rest, you can save as well. I'd rather they just not limit it though. I have no reason to believe they will limit it.

Edited October 8, 2012 by ogrezilla

[TrashMan]

"It's not about babysitting hte player, it's about enforcing a specific atmospehre and mentality."

 

It doesn't enforce anything except make me waste time replaying soemthing I already passed/beat.

 

 

Bollocks.

It does enforce a specific atmospehre and mentality. There is no denying that.

 

Death that comes with a price causes fear. Death wihout any penalty does not. Fear is what one should feel when fighting monsters.

 

To get back to the Amnesia example - you could eaisly rail against the monster killing you and you having to get back to the last save, and having to re-do the entire segment of the monster chase.

 

Saving everyhwhere is NOT a requirement for a good game. In fact, some of the best games of all time didn't have "save everywhere". For example - Super Mario?

[TrashMan]

If you were forced to only save at specific points many players would just become frustrated with the system and the game would suffer for it (negative review).

 

No offense to anyone - but to hell with those short-sighted players.

 

CRPG will never reach the the level of PnP games, as long as there are players like that.