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

[ogrezilla]

it would be a problem if they designed the boss so you got perfect rolls more often since everyone can just reload until it happens. But they aren't going to do that. Just don't do it if you don't want to. Who cares what someone else does.

 

I do think limited saving to outside of combat makes sense though. And that would avoid the problem you are describing. I think someone said the IE games did that. I honestly never tried so I don't know.

 

I also get that you want to encourage intended behavior and not punish unintended behavior. That's definitely a better way of doing it. I just don't think its necessary.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Arkeus]

it would be a problem if they designed the boss so you got perfect rolls more often since everyone can just reload until it happens. But they aren't going to do that. Just don't do it if you don't want to. Who cares what someone else does.

 

I do expect we won't be able to save in combat btw. So they will never get all perfect rolls.

 

No, i am talking about someone who didn't plan ahead before arriving to the boss fight, and needing to reload just before the fight ten times until he dodge all the fireballs/save all the save-or-dies etc.

 

And, again, it's not about 'caring what someone else does'. It's that i know myself, and i know that if i get to a boss fight not prepared enough, odds are i won't say "i'll come back later", i'll say "i'll try again and again until i do it".

 

Which is destroying half the design of a non-linear game where one of the biggest thing is forcing the player to realize "welp, i can't do this right now, better come back later".

[ogrezilla]

it would be a problem if they designed the boss so you got perfect rolls more often since everyone can just reload until it happens. But they aren't going to do that. Just don't do it if you don't want to. Who cares what someone else does.

 

I do expect we won't be able to save in combat btw. So they will never get all perfect rolls.

 

No, i am talking about someone who didn't plan ahead before arriving to the boss fight, and needing to reload just before the fight ten times until he dodge all the fireballs/save all the save-or-dies etc.

 

And, again, it's not about 'caring what someone else does'. It's that i know myself, and i know that if i get to a boss fight not prepared enough, odds are i won't say "i'll come back later", i'll say "i'll try again and again until i do it".

 

Which is destroying half the design of a non-linear game where one of the biggest thing is forcing the player to realize "welp, i can't do this right now, better come back later".

I just don't see that as much of a problem. certainly not enough of a problem to force everyone who IS prepared for the fight to redo the content leading up to it if they get a few bad rolls or just screw something up and die through no fault of preparation. Again, you have the option of not taking advantage of the unlimited save function. That doesn't work the opposite direction with a limited save function.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[LadyCrimson]

I'll just state that I absolutely hate when games have limited save options. It has nothing to do with wanting to save before every fight, but rather everything to do with the fact that, if I have to leave or have to stop playing, I want the ability to save at that point.

 

I don't want to have to have to either play for another half hour to reach a save point or risk having to play through the same area all over again the next time I load the game.

 

As far as your first point goes, there are plenty of games with save points that allow you to "Save and Quit" regardless of where you are.

 

I've seen the mechanic mostly in GBA and DS games.

On the flip side, I've also seen plenty of games that allow you to "Save and Quit", yet when you reload the game, it places you back at the last/closest discovered save/check point, not where you actually were when you saved/quit. In those games, "save" just means saving your quest, inventory, and 'last checkpoint found' progress, not your actual location in the world.

 

As long as Save/Exit = I'm back in exactly the same spot where I left the game, I'm fine with that. That's how it should be done when you exit a game anyway, imo. However, I still want multiple save slots because there are times when the power goes out or the game may crash or the savefile may otherwise get corrupted and I might lose all my progress. I don't need/want endless save slots, but at least 6-10.

[ogrezilla]

I'll just state that I absolutely hate when games have limited save options. It has nothing to do with wanting to save before every fight, but rather everything to do with the fact that, if I have to leave or have to stop playing, I want the ability to save at that point.

 

I don't want to have to have to either play for another half hour to reach a save point or risk having to play through the same area all over again the next time I load the game.

 

As far as your first point goes, there are plenty of games with save points that allow you to "Save and Quit" regardless of where you are.

 

I've seen the mechanic mostly in GBA and DS games.

On the flip side, I've also seen plenty of games that allow you to "Save and Quit", yet when you reload the game, it places you back at the last/closest discovered save/check point, not where you actually were when you saved/quit. In those games, "save" just means saving your quest, inventory, and 'last checkpoint found' progress, not your actual location in the world.

 

As long as Save/Exit = I'm back in exactly the same spot where I left the game, I'm fine with that. That's how it should be done when you exit a game anyway, imo. However, I still want multiple save slots because there are times when the power goes out or the game may crash or the savefile may otherwise get corrupted and I might lose all my progress. I don't need/want endless save slots, but at least 6-10.

ya I don't think anyone has suggested ONLY save/exit. That would be on top of permanent saves at limited save points or times or whatever. Save/exit only is pretty much what Ironman mode is for right?

 

I still don't like it though. I get the reasoning behind it. I just think it takes more away than it adds.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[DocDoomII]

Are you all aware that with the base logic of the savegame being a 'cheat', a second playthrough would be the same thing, because you already know what is waiting for you behind the corner?

So, would you like to be served with a game that only allow you to play it once?

[AlphaShard]

it would be a problem if they designed the boss so you got perfect rolls more often since everyone can just reload until it happens. But they aren't going to do that. Just don't do it if you don't want to. Who cares what someone else does.

 

I do expect we won't be able to save in combat btw. So they will never get all perfect rolls.

 

No, i am talking about someone who didn't plan ahead before arriving to the boss fight, and needing to reload just before the fight ten times until he dodge all the fireballs/save all the save-or-dies etc.

 

And, again, it's not about 'caring what someone else does'. It's that i know myself, and i know that if i get to a boss fight not prepared enough, odds are i won't say "i'll come back later", i'll say "i'll try again and again until i do it".

 

Which is destroying half the design of a non-linear game where one of the biggest thing is forcing the player to realize "welp, i can't do this right now, better come back later".

 

See and that is NOT me, if I die a few times to that boss i WILL leave and come back later. I would just rather it NOT be like WOW and re-fight a five hour dungeon just to fight the boss.

[LadyCrimson]

ya I don't think anyone has suggested ONLY save/exit. That would be on top of permanent saves at limited save points or times or whatever. Save/exit only is pretty much what Ironman mode is for right?

 

I still don't like it though. I get the reasoning behind it. I just think it takes more away than it adds.

 

Yes, I agree ... I don't support the OP's desire. As I said earlier, such should be left to the player, not game design. But the Save/Exit seemed to be getting used to support the anti-savescumming position (which to my understanding means no multiple saves or at least no or very limited ability to save/reload at will), and I don't think it works as an argument for that - at least not on its own.

 

The other aspect is that if PE allows modding, which it sounds like it might to at least some degree, then being able to have multiple save files can become important as you try out different mods, want to test mods, and so on.

[DocDoomII]

 

The other aspect is that if PE allows modding, which it sounds like it might to at least some degree, then being able to have multiple save files can become important as you try out different mods, want to test mods, and so on.

In my experience with mods and games (in general), it's always a good thing to do a clean start after adding/removing a mod.

Continue a game in progress after modifying something can be unpredictable.

[HangedMan]

it would be a problem if they designed the boss so you got perfect rolls more often since everyone can just reload until it happens. But they aren't going to do that. Just don't do it if you don't want to. Who cares what someone else does.

 

I do expect we won't be able to save in combat btw. So they will never get all perfect rolls.

 

No, i am talking about someone who didn't plan ahead before arriving to the boss fight, and needing to reload just before the fight ten times until he dodge all the fireballs/save all the save-or-dies etc.

 

And, again, it's not about 'caring what someone else does'. It's that i know myself, and i know that if i get to a boss fight not prepared enough, odds are i won't say "i'll come back later", i'll say "i'll try again and again until i do it".

 

Which is destroying half the design of a non-linear game where one of the biggest thing is forcing the player to realize "welp, i can't do this right now, better come back later".

That is your problem, and I, and anyone else, should not be penalized or otherwise made to experience something less-than-enjoyable because of your problem.

 

And that's all I'm reading here. When I read your post, I can't see anything besides "I have this problem, but I don't want to have this problem, so the game should keep me from having this problem". It's childish, and shows a lack of self-accountability on your part. Take my advice, don't use your willpower as a dump stat, if you know what I mean.

 

If I'm mistaken, then please, I encourage you to correct me, just make sure you're concise with it.

[GhostofAnakin]

I'll just state that I absolutely hate when games have limited save options. It has nothing to do with wanting to save before every fight, but rather everything to do with the fact that, if I have to leave or have to stop playing, I want the ability to save at that point.

 

I don't want to have to have to either play for another half hour to reach a save point or risk having to play through the same area all over again the next time I load the game.

 

As far as your first point goes, there are plenty of games with save points that allow you to "Save and Quit" regardless of where you are.

 

I've seen the mechanic mostly in GBA and DS games.

 

A game I'm currently playing has a save system that's slightly annoying, and one I'm referring to. Borderlands 2 has a "save and quit" option, but in a lot of cases it saves back to the last autosave point, which often times is at the very beginning of a level.

 

So for one example of why it's annoying, there's this one quest called "Save Roland" where you have to make your way through a huge bandit "dungeon". Depending on difficulty/how well your character is made, it could take over an hour to complete the quest from start to finish. What if I only have half an hour to play games? It would have been better if I'd been able to save at any point, instead of having to basically go through an entire hour again, even if I'd made it all the way to the three-quarters mark previously.

 

Again, I think folks who want limited saves only see the "challenging" aspect of it. There's also the time limit (real life spare time) people have for games that makes being able to save a game when you need to save it important, IMO.

[ogrezilla]

I think borderlands was designed first and foremost to be played in online multiplayer mode. they didn't take the time to change the system for single player.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Arkeus]

 

That is your problem, and I, and anyone else, should not be penalized or otherwise made to experience something less-than-enjoyable because of your problem.

 

And that's all I'm reading here. When I read your post, I can't see anything besides "I have this problem, but I don't want to have this problem, so the game should keep me from having this problem". It's childish, and shows a lack of self-accountability on your part. Take my advice, don't use your willpower as a dump stat, if you know what I mean.

 

If I'm mistaken, then please, I encourage you to correct me, just make sure you're concise with it.

 

It's a game design problem, the same way that having carsomyr in the first room of Baldur's gate 1 would bea game design problem.

 

Sure, i can 'not use it', but it's dumb as hell to put it there when the game is actually geared toward a lower-level playthrough.

 

As i said, it all depends on what the game is supposed to be. If it's supposed to be some kind of linear game that is also encounter-based, then sure there is no real reason to encourage the players to not load games when they make a mistake (by that, i mean having a minore character dying, or being forced to lose a quest, or being forced to use a very rare potion).

 

However, if the game is designed for strategic gameplay as well as non-linearity, not giving an incentive to not reload is bad game design.

 

Now, i will repeat once again- i am not in favor of making saving impossible in most places, or "forbidding" people to reload. I am, however, in favor for there to be reasons for why the player should not want to do so.

[LadyCrimson]

I think borderlands was designed first and foremost to be played in online multiplayer mode. they didn't take the time to change the system for single player.

The save system in BL can actually be even more annoying in co-op, because the enemies become stronger/harder/more numerous and it can thus take you even longer to finish a questline/get through an area. Or like in Diablo2 where those WayPoints were few and far between. Games that have both single-player and multiplayer game modes would only have to put in a lot more "loading" points than they tend to, in order to alleviate the issue. If you're going to use that kind of system, give players more than one save/load spot per area/long quest. It's just silly, imo, when they don't.

[ogrezilla]

I think borderlands was designed first and foremost to be played in online multiplayer mode. they didn't take the time to change the system for single player.

The save system in BL can actually be even more annoying in co-op, because the enemies become stronger/harder/more numerous and it can thus take you even longer to finish a questline/get through an area. Or like in Diablo2 where those WayPoints were few and far between. Games that have both single-player and multiplayer game modes would only have to put in a lot more "loading" points than they tend to, in order to alleviate the issue. If you're going to use that kind of system, give players more than one save/load spot per area/long quest. It's just silly, imo, when they don't.

those games are designed a lot more around the action though, so in general repeating content is less of an issue. at least in my experience. I play Diablo or Borderlands to kill stuff. Everything else is tertiary. Killing stuff is something you do in a cRPG, but generally its not the sole purpose for playing the game.

 

not saying you're wrong though. just why its not as big of a deal in those games.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[ogrezilla]

Now, i will repeat once again- i am not in favor of making saving impossible in most places, or "forbidding" people to reload. I am, however, in favor for there to be reasons for why the player should not want to do so.

is there a good solution to do that? You mentioned extra experience but that seems bad to me. The people who are avoiding reloading are likely doing so at least partly because they enjoy the challenge, so making us stronger for doing so is kind of against the point. I get what you're saying, I just don't know how to do it.

[LadyCrimson]

I think borderlands was designed first and foremost to be played in online multiplayer mode. they didn't take the time to change the system for single player.

The save system in BL can actually be even more annoying in co-op, because the enemies become stronger/harder/more numerous and it can thus take you even longer to finish a questline/get through an area. Or like in Diablo2 where those WayPoints were few and far between. Games that have both single-player and multiplayer game modes would only have to put in a lot more "loading" points than they tend to, in order to alleviate the issue. If you're going to use that kind of system, give players more than one save/load spot per area/long quest. It's just silly, imo, when they don't.

those games are designed a lot more around the action though, so in general repeating content is less of an issue. at least in my experience. I play Diablo or Borderlands to kill stuff. Everything else is tertiary. Killing stuff is something you do in a cRPG, but generally its not the sole purpose for playing the game.

 

not saying you're wrong though. just why its not as big of a deal in those games.

I agree it's not as much of an issue in those games....outside of the time issue. The time concept of having to replay areas if you can't finish a quest in the time you have available can be a big deal to some people, however. At least the first time through the game when you have no idea how long anything is going to take and can't reliably judge whether you have enough time to 'just do one quest' or not.

[ogrezilla]

I think borderlands was designed first and foremost to be played in online multiplayer mode. they didn't take the time to change the system for single player.

The save system in BL can actually be even more annoying in co-op, because the enemies become stronger/harder/more numerous and it can thus take you even longer to finish a questline/get through an area. Or like in Diablo2 where those WayPoints were few and far between. Games that have both single-player and multiplayer game modes would only have to put in a lot more "loading" points than they tend to, in order to alleviate the issue. If you're going to use that kind of system, give players more than one save/load spot per area/long quest. It's just silly, imo, when they don't.

those games are designed a lot more around the action though, so in general repeating content is less of an issue. at least in my experience. I play Diablo or Borderlands to kill stuff. Everything else is tertiary. Killing stuff is something you do in a cRPG, but generally its not the sole purpose for playing the game.

 

not saying you're wrong though. just why its not as big of a deal in those games.

I agree it's not as much of an issue in those games....outside of the time issue. The time concept of having to replay areas if you can't finish a quest in the time you have available can be a big deal to some people, however. At least the first time through the game when you have no idea how long anything is going to take and can't reliably judge whether you have enough time to 'just do one quest' or not.

ya I'd say they should design their "checkpoints" to be in 10 or 15 minute chunks.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[TrashMan]

ya, the rogue thing is a ridiculous leap in logic. there have been too many games where saving wasn't limited with rogues designed just fine for that argument to hold.

 

Name one then.

 

 

 

and you're wrong about the last part too. Because the system I like still allows you to play the way you like. But the system you like does not allow me to play the way I like. They are not just different; one of them is inherently more flexible than the other. And not to be a jerk about it, but I really don't think I have to worry about it. I am all but positive we will have free saving just like we did in the IE games.

 

I'm not wrong about the last part.

You do not get to tell me or anyone else what I should like and what I should not like.

I can dislike whatever I want about whatever system I want.

Even if it's just the element of temptation. I can hate it and you do not get to tell me I don't have a right to OR that I'm wrong for hating it.

Neither do I have to care about what you like.

 

The systme you liek isnt' inherently "better" in any way. You just believe it is because it meshes with your desires.

[ogrezilla]

Baldur's Gate I and II, Planescape: Torment. And even if you're considering that too combat oriented, there is still no way you can pinpoint the save system as the reason. What is an example of a rogue/thief done how you like? I'm actually curious.

 

"At hte end of the day this amounts of "I think the game is better with X and without Y" and you saying "the game is better wihout X and with Y"."

The problem with this isn't your opinion, its your analogy. You're saying "the game would be better without X and with Y." But I'm not saying "the game would simply be better with X and without Y." I'm saying "the game would be better with both X and Y." You still get your Y. I get my X. Sure, you have to live with a little temptation with my version. But at least you have the option to play how you want. In your version, I don't get that same option. We're not talking about some new age streamlining game mechanic here. This is something that was present in every game this is claiming to be inspired by.

 

Like I said, this is a useless argument. The game will not limit saving beyond no saving in combat or in conversations. I am positive of that. So maybe I'm not "right" but I seem to agree with the designers of the game on this topic.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Arkeus]

Now, i will repeat once again- i am not in favor of making saving impossible in most places, or "forbidding" people to reload. I am, however, in favor for there to be reasons for why the player should not want to do so.

is there a good solution to do that? You mentioned extra experience but that seems bad to me. The people who are avoiding reloading are likely doing so at least partly because they enjoy the challenge, so making us stronger for doing so is kind of against the point. I get what you're saying, I just don't know how to do it.

 

Mmmh, you are right there... Maybe a lore book that only drop if you do it that way...

[ogrezilla]

Now, i will repeat once again- i am not in favor of making saving impossible in most places, or "forbidding" people to reload. I am, however, in favor for there to be reasons for why the player should not want to do so.

is there a good solution to do that? You mentioned extra experience but that seems bad to me. The people who are avoiding reloading are likely doing so at least partly because they enjoy the challenge, so making us stronger for doing so is kind of against the point. I get what you're saying, I just don't know how to do it.

 

Mmmh, you are right there... Maybe a lore book that only drop if you do it that way...

so the game will need to know if you reloaded right before the fight or if you loaded in front of the cave? You can't just base it on number of reloads. Otherwise you're punishing players who aren't quite as good at combat just as much as people who "abuse" the save system. I mean, something like that is better than limited saves but I still just don't think its needed. The idea of a reward that doesn't change game balance makes sense in theory. It just seems hard to implement properly.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[moridin84]

it would be a problem if they designed the boss so you got perfect rolls more often since everyone can just reload until it happens. But they aren't going to do that. Just don't do it if you don't want to. Who cares what someone else does.

 

I do expect we won't be able to save in combat btw. So they will never get all perfect rolls.

 

No, i am talking about someone who didn't plan ahead before arriving to the boss fight, and needing to reload just before the fight ten times until he dodge all the fireballs/save all the save-or-dies etc.

 

And, again, it's not about 'caring what someone else does'. It's that i know myself, and i know that if i get to a boss fight not prepared enough, odds are i won't say "i'll come back later", i'll say "i'll try again and again until i do it".

 

Which is destroying half the design of a non-linear game where one of the biggest thing is forcing the player to realize "welp, i can't do this right now, better come back later".

What? Being able to do this is a bad thing? What's wrong with trying to beat an boss, even though you shouldn't be able to? Why do you have to wait until it's easier?

 

For some games, that's half the fun.

 

I would just rather it NOT be like WOW and re-fight a five hour dungeon just to fight the boss.

Even WOW doesn't do that anymore.

Edited October 9, 2012 by moridin84

[jivex5k]

Why should they limit saveng? I'm old now... I don't want to be forced to save at checkpoints or having to find ink for my typewriter.

 

If your against reloading saves again and again, well then don't do it! Don't force your level of difficulty on someone else who may not want it.

 

They could do like x-com and call it Ironman mode, but don't make it required.

Edited October 9, 2012 by jivex5k

[TrashMan]

Baldur's Gate I and II, Planescape: Torment. And even if you're considering that too combat oriented, there is still no way you can pinpoint the save system as the reason. What is an example of a rogue/thief done how you like? I'm actually curious.

 

I disagree. And rouges/thievs/sneaky types done right are generally done right in a different type of game.

 

 

"At hte end of the day this amounts of "I think the game is better with X and without Y" and you saying "the game is better wihout X and with Y"."

The problem with this isn't your opinion, its your analogy. You're saying "the game would be better without X and with Y." But I'm not saying "the game would simply be better with X and without Y." I'm saying "the game would be better with both X and Y." You still get your Y. I get my X. Sure, you have to live with a little temptation with my version. But at least you have the option to play how you want. In your version, I don't get that same option. We're not talking about some new age streamlining game mechanic here. This is something that was present in every game this is claiming to be inspired by.

 

You're still repeating this?

I'm not (hypotheticly) getting what I want. No matter how many times you repeat it it won't be true.

Get that into your thick skull.

 

"I have to live with a little temptation?"

Tell you what - how about you get to live with a little bit of (loading-related) frustration?

The idea of having to re-do a battle because of a save point bothers you? Well, this bothers me just as much.