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

[TrashMan]

Shallow and egotistical? When it comes to single player games....you bet. I play how I want, I'll cheat when I want, I'll save when I want and I'll also choose not to do those things when I want. And guess what, my preference also allows you to play how you want, Your preference limits my play options merely because you want your hand held, so who exactly is shallow and egotistical?

 

But you are right. We have nothing to discuss. At all.

 

Again with the fake fascade of righteousness.

 

You prefference steers the game design away from what I consider good. So no.

The idea that you are a sweet, innocent, freedom loving guy and that I'm a monster who wants to ruin your fun is utterly flawed. Your preffernce ruins MY fun just as my ruins yours.

It's just that you will never accept that as it mewans you have to step down from your high horse.

 

 

Also, for the record:

I can easily argue for any kind of viewpoint (hypotheticly), even tough I may or may not endorse it 100%.

And for this discussion I choose the side opposite of yours.

So don't assume too much about me. With some other changes to the game, I would have been fine with Ironman mode.

[TrashMan]

I'm constantly aware of flaws in games, too. I overanalyze things; that's par for the course for me. A long time ago, however, I learned not to bother by it. You can, too. But either way, you're basically saying that because you have one little problem, the game should be catered specifically to you, and presumably anybody that has a similar problem. This reeks of childishness and entitlement.

 

Everone wants the game to be to their liking.

Everoyne has a image of the "perfect game" and are arguing for it.

I'm no different and neither are you.

 

Anyone saying otherwise is a big fat liar.

[HangedMan]

I'm constantly aware of flaws in games, too. I overanalyze things; that's par for the course for me. A long time ago, however, I learned not to bother by it. You can, too. But either way, you're basically saying that because you have one little problem, the game should be catered specifically to you, and presumably anybody that has a similar problem. This reeks of childishness and entitlement.

 

Everone wants the game to be to their liking.

Everoyne has a image of the "perfect game" and are arguing for it.

I'm no different and neither are you.

 

Anyone saying otherwise is a big fat liar.

I can agree with this, even if I think your position in the rest of this discussion is laughable at best. You really have hit on a fundamental truth here.

 

The only difference I see between you and I is that I look for compromise in most issues, whereas you seem to be stubbornly proclaiming that it's your way or no way. In the end, I know I won't have the perfect game I want. But it is enough for me to know that I have some, or even most, of what I wanted.

 

In this case, I feel like Iron Man mode is a fair compromise for those who want an experience like you want. But the great thing about this mode, is that if people don't want to play it, then they can still enjoy the game. It's opt-in or opt-out, not you-have-no-option. And I am always going to support their being more options, rather than less.

 

What about their Iron Man mode is detrimental to your enjoyment?

 

The only exception I'd have is superfluously shallow things, like having a hundred choices for the text color, and the UI buttons. But, that's neither here nor there.

Edited October 8, 2012 by HangedMan

[Althernai]

That is where you are wrong.

A distincively flawed and abusable system does have an impact on me.

Not only am I constatnly aware of the flaw, but the temptation to abuse it constatnly flaunted into my face.

If a system is so flawed that saving and reloading grants a meaningful advantage beyond the completely inevitable pre-knowledge granted by any non-Ironman game, then it is much more important to fix the underlying flaws than to break other things by mucking up the save system. However, if the game is anything like the Infinity Engine, then such hacks will not be necessary. Everything you listed was already handled properly. Yes, you could spring and/or circumvent traps using reloading... but why would you want to when detecting and disarming them gives you experience? Why reload to get better random loot when all of the random loot is roughly the same value and all of the really good items are in fixed locations?

 

Yes, saving and reloading can provide a different path through the game. However, the path is merely different -- it is not better and in fact is almost certain to be worse in a well designed game. People generally resort to this sort of metagaming because they're doing something wrong; there's almost always an easier way that grants a larger reward or at least takes much less time. The only time saving and reloading becomes a valid strategy for a skilled player is when the game stakes a major result on a single roll of the dice that's independent of the player's skill and such luck-based scenarios are avoided by most good games.

[ogrezilla]

but it's also very important that players don't reload every time they don't do something perfectly

is it? If its important to you, that's something you can easily avoid doing. But there's no good reason why anything I do should be important to anyone else.

 

Ok, let me qualify this, then: It's very important for everyone as long as the develloppers actually put multiple choices and mechanics for death.

 

If it's a linear game without a death mechanic, then yes it's not important.

 

But if it's a game with branching choices with consequences? then yes, it's ridiculously important that the players are encouraged to actually, you know, experience those consequences and multiple branch, or else most of the game is created for nothing.

Like having a character die would have consequences beyond them not being around? I can agree with that. I don't know that I've ever really seen that done well though. Usually when characters can permanently die in combat its because they simply aren't that important to the story. Hasn't it been confirmed that you can play through the game solo without recruiting companions? If that's the case, then their death likely just plays out as if you never recruited them in the first place.

 

As for conversation choices and consequences, I just don't think its a huge deal. Sure, some people will go back to get the result they want. Just don't do it if you don't want to. And to avoid encouraging it, avoid giving us right or wrong choices in dialogue. Different results, but not good and bad results. Include consequences that aren't always immediate. And make sure that the lines of dialogue we are choosing from aren't ambiguous so we know what we are saying.

Edited October 8, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Wintersong]

Feel free to flame me for this idea as much as you like, but I'm not selling this as gospel. I do question wether save scumming should be minimized or not, and would like to know what you think about it.

Single player game. If someone wants to "abuse" the save/load features, let him/her/it. You can play Iroman mode without it existing in game, just don't load on character death. You cannot control yourself? The problem lies in you, not the game. You cannot control yourself about loading the game whenever something you dislike happen? Your problem again.

 

If someone pretends to ask me if I load on character death the answer is: yes, I do.

• I want to finish the story and prefer my possible replays to be based on trying different stuff (story/combat) rather than trying to finish the game because I died to some random roll by that fraking archer over there.
  
• in BG it was unfair that I could revive the NPCs but if my character died my party would ignore me and the game would end (WTF dudes?). NPCs deads in BG were to be avoided to avoid wasting time traveling here and there (lazy, guilty me), and the dead of the main character because it was unfair (if you have a revive system, it must be for all or bust!).
  
• I remember playing Xenogears and how after two hours of long battles and endless cinematics, I was still waiting to be able to SAVE and praying that light wouldn't go off or something, otherwise I'd have gone berserk with the thought of having to repeat everything again and spend another couple of hours to be able to save
  
• my experiences with the company of charge of the light makes me quite paranoid so I save really often if the game allows it (that doesn't mean that I'm constantly quitting FTL so I can save because FTL is designed to be replayed so losing a game doesn't really hurt, but in RPGs I save constantly).
  
• What I do saving/loading affects no one else but me. If I decided to exit FTL after each successful jump so the game autosaves, make a back up copy of the file and then start the game and continue playing, repeating the operation after each successful jump... none of your business. It doesn't mean that FTL is bad designed (it's quite awesomely well done). Is a game bad designed if someone hacks the values in the memory to alter stuff like HPs or gold? Should developers develop their games to prevent that stuff too?
  

I'll only say... *reads up* er... If Obsidian wants to add a save point system, at least design it well and have the whole game take that into account. If you give me Xenogears flashbacks, I'm flying to Obsidian's office and be mean. Very mean.

[ogrezilla]

• I remember playing Xenogears and how after two hours of long battles and endless cinematics, I was still waiting to be able to SAVE and praying that light wouldn't go off or something, otherwise I'd have gone berserk with the thought of having to repeat everything again and spend another couple of hours to be able to save
  

 

there is nothing worse than the power going out before you can save. The first time me and my friend played through secret of mana the power went out during the fight with the final boss. so much rage

[Umberlin]

• I remember playing Xenogears and how after two hours of long battles and endless cinematics, I was still waiting to be able to SAVE and praying that light wouldn't go off or something, otherwise I'd have gone berserk with the thought of having to repeat everything again and spend another couple of hours to be able to save
  

 

there is nothing worse than the power going out before you can save. The first time me and my friend played through secret of mana the power went out during the fight with the final boss. so much rage

 

Oh, situations like those . . . that's never fun. Sorry. :\

[ogrezilla]

• I remember playing Xenogears and how after two hours of long battles and endless cinematics, I was still waiting to be able to SAVE and praying that light wouldn't go off or something, otherwise I'd have gone berserk with the thought of having to repeat everything again and spend another couple of hours to be able to save
  

 

there is nothing worse than the power going out before you can save. The first time me and my friend played through secret of mana the power went out during the fight with the final boss. so much rage

 

Oh, situations like those . . . that's never fun. Sorry. :\

thanks, I managed to get over it. we didn't beat it until a few days later though because we were frustrated.

[HangedMan]

• I remember playing Xenogears and how after two hours of long battles and endless cinematics, I was still waiting to be able to SAVE and praying that light wouldn't go off or something, otherwise I'd have gone berserk with the thought of having to repeat everything again and spend another couple of hours to be able to save
  

 

there is nothing worse than the power going out before you can save. The first time me and my friend played through secret of mana the power went out during the fight with the final boss. so much rage

 

Oh, situations like those . . . that's never fun. Sorry. :\

thanks, I managed to get over it. we didn't beat it until a few days later though because we were frustrated.

I know that feeling.

[TrashMan]

I'm constantly aware of flaws in games, too. I overanalyze things; that's par for the course for me. A long time ago, however, I learned not to bother by it. You can, too. But either way, you're basically saying that because you have one little problem, the game should be catered specifically to you, and presumably anybody that has a similar problem. This reeks of childishness and entitlement.

 

Everone wants the game to be to their liking.

Everoyne has a image of the "perfect game" and are arguing for it.

I'm no different and neither are you.

 

Anyone saying otherwise is a big fat liar.

I can agree with this, even if I think your position in the rest of this discussion is laughable at best. You really have hit on a fundamental truth here.

 

The only difference I see between you and I is that I look for compromise in most issues, whereas you seem to be stubbornly proclaiming that it's your way or no way. In the end, I know I won't have the perfect game I want. But it is enough for me to know that I have some, or even most, of what I wanted.

 

You look for what you think it's a compromise. And that is praiseworthy, but the thing is - just because you thinktti's an acceptable compromise, doesn't necessarily make it so.

 

See, weather a game has "save whenever" or "save points" affects game design. No design element exist in a vaccum - it influences all other things. Level desing, enncoutner design, classes, other mechanics - they can all change and are influenced by all other factors.

 

So a game that uses "save whenever" will be quite different than a game that doesn't.

Therefore, claiming that "my" experience will not change and depends only on me is wrong.

 

That's of course assuming that I personally want a very specific experience that can only be properly achieved that way...which is a reasonable assumption to make given that I debate for the other side (I find it more interesting), but it's a dangerous assumption to make.

 

 

 

What about their Iron Man mode is detrimental to your enjoyment?

 

Not much.

Hypotheticly?

That is just a mode, so the entire game is designed around saving everywhere, and therefore even Iron Man doesn't provide the full experience I'm looking for.

 

For example: Rogues will still be a comabt oriented-class.

Edited October 8, 2012 by TrashMan

[ogrezilla]

For example: Rogues will still be a comabt oriented-class.

you are taking quite a logical leap to say that is a result of being able to save anywhere.

Edited October 8, 2012 by ogrezilla

[JediMB]

It would be nice to have an option when you start your game to have "limited" saving capabilities.

 

I'm very well aware of that my obsessive quicksaving and quickloading takes away from my experience, so it would be nice to have an optional aid to prevent that behavior.

 

EDIT: Man, I'd almost forgotten about the save points of olden times and JRPGs. I'd totally be up for an optional mode where save points and the map screen are your only options for saving.

Edited October 8, 2012 by JediMB

[moridin84]

It's a very delicate balance, but it's also very important that players don't reload every time they don't do something perfectly (messed a dialog response, messed up a quest, have a companion die and need to sell gear to rez, etc).

I disagree.

 

I think people should be free to reload if they want. Even if it something stupid like messing up a dialogue or a quest.

 

For example: Rogues will still be a combat oriented-class.

I'm pretty sure that a rogue will be a combat oriented class anyway. This isn't PnP, this is a computer game. Even PnP-based computer games* have about 50 times the combat a standard PnP 'campaign' would have. Combat is important so every class needs to be able to pull their own weight.

 

*This isn't a PnP-based computer game, it's a computer game based on a genre of computer games which is mostly populated by PnP-based computer games. An important distinction.

 

It would be nice to have an option when you start your game to have "limited" saving capabilities.

 

I'm very well aware of that my obsessive quicksaving and quickloading takes away from my experience, so it would be nice to have an optional aid to prevent that behavior.

This is actually an option in Mount&Blade.

 

I'm not sure if it's worth having it AND ironman mode though.

Edited October 8, 2012 by moridin84

[metiman]

Regardless of how much contempt I may feel for people with such poor self control that they cannot prevent themselves from saving when they don't want to, one possible pseudo-solution is simply to check an .ini file every time a save is done to look for something like:

 

IdiotMode = yes; //turns on IdiotMode

IdiotMinSaveTime = 25; //time in minutes to be checked by all Save() function calls while in IdiotMode. Save() exits with message if SaveTimer < IdiotMinSaveTime.

 

The compulsive saver can just turn on IdiotMode and specify how many minutes they want to force themselves to wait between saves. This would take very little time to code and debug and offer the compulsive saver the opportunity to force themselves not to save.

[HangedMan]

You look for what you think it's a compromise. And that is praiseworthy, but the thing is - just because you thinktti's an acceptable compromise, doesn't necessarily make it so.

 

Yeah. I'm sure I have a different idea of what a compromise is, compared to you, or anybody else. it's that fun part about being human. Their is no perfect.

 

See, weather a game has "save whenever" or "save points" affects game design. No design element exist in a vaccum - it influences all other things. Level desing, enncoutner design, classes, other mechanics - they can all change and are influenced by all other factors.

 

So a game that uses "save whenever" will be quite different than a game that doesn't.

Therefore, claiming that "my" experience will not change and depends only on me is wrong.

 

Alright, that's a fair point. I will say, however, that a console style save point system will have me seriously reconsidering my investment, and whether I recommend it to friends or not; this is a big point for me, which is why I'm less willing to compromise.

 

That's of course assuming that I personally want a very specific experience that can only be properly achieved that way...which is a reasonable assumption to make given that I debate for the other side (I find it more interesting), but it's a dangerous assumption to make.

 

Ultimately, we all make assumptions when we interpret another persons word, because we're not using a completely hard-concept language. Some of these will be dangerous. Some will not. I question the danger level of my assumption, in this case.

 

For example: Rogues will still be a comabt oriented-class.

 

Rogues being a combat class has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Whether the game has save points or save anywhere, this has no effect on how a class is designed to operate. Or, if their is an effect, it is so slight as to be essentially not worth counting.

Edited October 8, 2012 by HangedMan

[alanschu]

False dillema.

 

 

For one, you can pause the game and lave the computer running, and come back later.

 

For another, if you have a save+quit (with the save deleting itself once you continue) then that problem si effectively gone, no?

 

 

If someone ends up gone for a significant period of time, then their computer is still on that entire time which may not be something that they want to do.

 

Deleting saved games upon continue requires an exceptionally stable game. Better hope you don't crash (or have a power failure or a host of other things that could interrupt the session).

[ogrezilla]

False dillema.

 

 

For one, you can pause the game and lave the computer running, and come back later.

 

For another, if you have a save+quit (with the save deleting itself once you continue) then that problem si effectively gone, no?

 

 

If someone ends up gone for a significant period of time, then their computer is still on that entire time which may not be something that they want to do.

 

Deleting saved games upon continue requires an exceptionally stable game. Better hope you don't crash (or have a power failure or a host of other things that could interrupt the session).

to be fair, I'm assuming he means in addition to a permanent save function that would only be available at specific places or times. Not that I'm supporting that.

Edited October 8, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Elerond]

 

 

For example: Rogues will still be a comabt oriented-class.

 

Most combat oriented roques you can find from mmos, where player don't have any kind of save option. So plainly adding unlimited saving/loading to game will give us most non-combat roques.

[moridin84]

False dillema.

 

 

For one, you can pause the game and lave the computer running, and come back later.

 

For another, if you have a save+quit (with the save deleting itself once you continue) then that problem si effectively gone, no?

 

 

If someone ends up gone for a significant period of time, then their computer is still on that entire time which may not be something that they want to do.

 

Deleting saved games upon continue requires an exceptionally stable game. Better hope you don't crash (or have a power failure or a host of other things that could interrupt the session).

Indeed, a turned on computer could easily be turned off by someone's wife/girlfriend/mother/electrician. Especially if it's noisy or has glowy lights.

 

I don't think the save&continue system is difficult from a mechanical perspective though. Diablo games do it... and Diablo 3 had that whole online thing.

 

For example: Rogues will still be a comabt oriented-class.

 

Most combat oriented roques you can find from mmos, where player don't have any kind of save option. So plainly adding unlimited saving/loading to game will give us most non-combat roques.

That argument... kinda doesn't work.

Edited October 8, 2012 by moridin84

[HangedMan]

Most combat oriented roques you can find from mmos, where player don't have any kind of save option. So plainly adding unlimited saving/loading to game will give us most non-combat roques.

That argument... kinda doesn't work.

Yeah. Really, MMO's are more like "Auto-save every single second".

[Elerond]

For example: Rogues will still be a comabt oriented-class.

 

Most combat oriented roques you can find from mmos, where player don't have any kind of save option. So plainly adding unlimited saving/loading to game will give us most non-combat roques.

That argument... kinda doesn't work.

 

Yes I know. But also argument that roques are combat oriented class because save scumming doesn't work, which was point what I tried to bring up in my post.

[codexer]

See, weather a game has "save whenever" or "save points" affects game design. No design element exist in a vaccum - it influences all other things. Level desing, enncoutner design, classes, other mechanics - they can all change and are influenced by all other factors.

 

So a game that uses "save whenever" will be quite different than a game that doesn't.

Therefore, claiming that "my" experience will not change and depends only on me is wrong.

 

This is the important point. The save mechanic is not something that's "outside" of the gameplay; it's something that's integral to how the game is played and thus its design impacts everything else.

 

With a lax saving mechanic all games, regardless of other difficulty settings, end up trivial.

[IcyDeadPeople]

I pose that, limiting the locations where the player may save, would greatly limit save scumming in general. Perhaps not anywhere in a dungeon, perhaps simply not in a dungeon - regardless, I believe that being able to save whenever and wherever causes gameplay to suffer. The value of randomness and risk is negated and the player is encouraged to deny his own choices (and, therefore, become strangely selective of what constitutes a 'fair' game or not).

 

But of course, that causes another issue. What if someone happens and you've got to stop playing the game? Well, for that I suggest a second form of saving - a save&quit - that boots you from the game and can be used at any moment. Maybe even during combat.

 

Feel free to flame me for this idea as much as you like, but I'm not selling this as gospel. I do question wether save scumming should be minimized or not, and would like to know what you think about it.

 

I think certain gameplay systems might benefit from a system that preserves randomness, for example, if you save and reload perhaps the pins of a lock are reset to a random position (if there is some sort of lockpick minigame).

 

However, in my view, if the dev team were to design all the levels and combat encounters in a way where you can actually complete an entire area without dying and reloading numerous times, the resulting combat would become far too easy and quite boring.

 

Personally I don't enjoy combat encounters in an RPG unless I'm dying and reloading dozens of times and I find games with a checkpoint system that forces you to play through half of a level again each time you die to be rather tedious. Checkpoints seem to be a way to camouflage a lack of content or a lack of challenging A.I. in a very short game.

 

I much prefer to be able to save anywhere in the game and actually be challenged to figure out how to survive tough battles instead of being punished with the boredom of repeating checkpoints.

Edited October 8, 2012 by IcyDeadPeople

[moridin84]

See, weather a game has "save whenever" or "save points" affects game design. No design element exist in a vaccum - it influences all other things. Level desing, enncoutner design, classes, other mechanics - they can all change and are influenced by all other factors.

 

So a game that uses "save whenever" will be quite different than a game that doesn't.

Therefore, claiming that "my" experience will not change and depends only on me is wrong.

 

This is the important point. The save mechanic is not something that's "outside" of the gameplay; it's something that's integral to how the game is played and thus its design impacts everything else.

 

With a lax saving mechanic all games, regardless of other difficulty settings, end up trivial.

Well okay.

 

So I guess (almost) every single computer RPG made in the last 20 years is apparently 'trivial' in your book? Whatever that means.