Saving games

[Agelastos]

What about a cool down period which prohibits you from performing certain tasks (lockpicking or pickpocketing, for instance) directly after you load a save?

New Vegas used a system like that to prevent people from using save-scumming to "cheat" in the casinos.

Whenever you had used a slot machine and lost, you couldn't just reload and try again. You had to wait 1 minute, or something like that.

 

I find this to a bit silly. In a game like New Vegas where you can just enable the console and add all the gold you want I'm not sure I see the point in trying to stop people from cheating at gambling. Heck I don't see the point in save-scumming your gambling at all when a console command will save you a lot of time if you want to get gold outside of the spirit of the game.

 

Agreed, but I know a lot of people who refuse to use console commands because they consider it to be cheating, while they have no problem save-scumming since it's more like "taking advantage of a legal loophole".

[Agelastos]

Answer the question "why do people save games" and you can start answering "How do I discourage someone from save scumming"

 

Therapy?

[quechn1tlan]

Save scumming is a term invented by people who can't live with a fact that someone is playing the game in a manner different, and perhaps, more effective than they do. Same goes for advocating implementation of rest limitations(I bring this up to stress that I, myself, save every 5-10 seconds, but try to rest as rarely as possible and don't start any threads about limiting rest for others).

And checkpoint saving is a sign of a console game with their limitations. There is no good reason to prohibit saving at will(except during dialogues, cut-scenes and combat). Fallout had quick save, BG had quick save.

So just stop attracting attention to stuff that is meaningless, let there be quick save feature, like in most of the decent games. You don't like it? Don't use it. It doesn't affect your gameplay in any way.

[quechn1tlan]

Save scumming is a term exclusive for roquelike games, it means copying the save file and reusing it in case of death (roquelike are ironman mode only, if char dies then save is deleted). It's used by idiots here who have no idea what it means.

 

Well, this is pointless. It's like south americans trying to abolish term Americans being used while refering to USA citizens. It doesn't matter what the exact meaning of the term is. Now it is generally used to describe a process of reloading a game multiple times to obtain a more desireable result. Semantics never change anything, just divert attention.

[SqueakyCat]

It's a single player game. What possible difference should it make to anyone else how much or how little I choose to save my game?

[PrimeJunta]

Save scumming is a term exclusive for roquelike games, it means copying the save file and reusing it in case of death (roquelike are ironman mode only, if char dies then save is deleted). It's used by idiots here who have no idea what it means. In normal games you save, you load nobody's business how much and when.

 

As far as I can tell, its usage has shifted since roguelikes became a niche of a niche. Do you have a better term to suggest for abuse of save/reload, now that you've established your old-skool geek creds?

[Death Machine Miyagi]

Saving a game has has its negative reinforcement removed and the best way older games reduced save-scumming was due to a technoogical limitation.

 

Imagine having to wait 2 minutes every time you loaded or saved a game. Or 5 minutes. Enough time to get a sandwich and a drink. You can bet loads and saves would decrease. And ironman mode would just become a more hardcore form of this.

 

Yes, I can't wait to see 'Longer loading times so you can truly sit back and appreciate your saved games!' being touted as a feature. You've got a winning idea right there. Cha ching!

[PrimeJunta]

It's a single player game. What possible difference should it make to anyone else how much or how little I choose to save my game?

 

It shouldn't.

 

On the other hand, what difference would an optional, settable save-timeout for the benefit of those of us totally lacking in willpower make to you?

[SqueakyCat]

I couldn't possibly care less as long as it's optional and easy for the developers to implement.

[Hormalakh]

I really want to ruin everyone else's gaming experience. Really I do. That's the only reason I made this thread in the first place. I don't care about my own gaming experience - it's everyone else's that takes prime importance. If I can ruin it in any way possible, then I will. I will get into the developers minds with my magical mind-controlling powers and tell them what to do.

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that when a game doesn't take game mechanics, including saving, into account, that the experience can get ruined for me. I don't care at all about the fact that when a game is trying to make a certain point in the gameplay by putting in permadeath and then allowing me to load/save at will that this game mechanic and experience goes out of the window. I should just "control" myself and put in arbitrary rules that the game or its developers haven't considered.

 

-----------------------

For the story perspective I can always play easy. But if I want to play hard, then make it hard. Don't go soft on me now.

 

Instead of saying "don't ruin my game," I'd like to hear from those of you who have experienced games where the saving/loading mechanic worked really well with the game mechanics. These forums are a place for ideas and vetting them. I have concerns about Ironman mode because I have heard the horror stories of bug-ridden games ruining a whole game and some of the concerns about saving are legitimate (families, priorities, dumb AI, to name a few). While I have high hopes, I want there to be different ideas being experimented on how to reduce loading/saving misuse (happy now geek squad? I didn't say save-scumming. Rejoice). This was one idea. If I wanted pure negativity, I would have gone to the codex.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Hormalakh

[kenup]

Save scumming is a term exclusive for roquelike games, it means copying the save file and reusing it in case of death (roquelike are ironman mode only, if char dies then save is deleted). It's used by idiots here who have no idea what it means. In normal games you save, you load nobody's business how much and when.

But unfortunately, as you said, it's used outside roguelikes as well. I was even called a save scummer while playing the old Tomb Raiders(and not about a challenge run). I'm fine with accepting the consequences of my actions, but screw loading a save from an hour ago. I want to move on, not to try the same stuff again and again.

[Pipyui]

[...] I think the best way you can make constant saving not be the solution to getting a perfect game is to have your characters choices ripple out into later parts of the game. Even if you're a constant saver if killing a bandit chief early in the game means you'll be targeted by cartel assassins later which kill off a random companion wouldn't be salvageable if it happened 10+ hours of gameplay later. You'd have to live with that choice. Now this is a bit harder to implement and obviously it can't be done for everything but I think it's the best way to prevent constant saving and reloading for perfect results while not impeding your ability to save and stop playing at anytime.

 

Yes. There seems to be a lot of hate going around about "savescumming" (why is the exact meaning of this term even being debated? Semantics doesn't address the real issue here). I like this solution though, and thought it deserved reiterating. People can still play as they like, choices made just won't always have immediate consequences. I think of this as more of a narrative decision than an imposed limitation or "desired behavior pushing" on players.

 

Also, I'm on the no-combat-save train. It usually causes more trouble than good anyways.

[PrimeJunta]

Instead of saying "don't ruin my game," I'd like to hear from those of you who have experienced games where the saving/loading mechanic worked really well with the game mechanics.

 

NetHack. On a server you don't own. Where you can't save-scum.

 

Procedurally generated roguelikes aside, I can't think of a cRPG where this was done really well. There are some that managed it better than average in places, or well in some ways. For example, both Witchers: they had delayed consequences, which effectively discouraged save-scumming {yes, I'm continuing to use the term, so there Sharp_One} in dialogs and such. Or, naturally, Planescape: Torment's creative (and not at all universally applicable) solution to work around permadeath. Both had their own problems in other areas which effectively canceled out their strengths, at least for me, and I save-scummed just as badly with them as with, say, the original Fallouts with their massively lethal criticals that pretty much forced you to save often or just lose your entire session on one bad die roll.

 

I think that these cheap "lives" are so deeply built into our assumptions of what makes a cRPG "hard" or "easy" that a game that really, genuinely doesn't encourage you to save-scum would have to be designed that way from the ground up, including the world, the story, and the mechanics.

 

For example, imagine a cRPG set in a world where only nobles carry lethal weapons, and their behavior is governed by a strict code of honor, and where murderers are apprehended and hanged. Violence and combat might be common. There would be ritualized combat such as duels and jousts between nobles, carefully set up so that there would be winners and losers but the risk of death would be low. There would be brawls and muggings leaving the loser bruised and bloodied but (usually) not dead or maimed. Losing a fight would have consequences; sometimes what you'd expect, sometimes unexpected, always interesting.

 

And then there would be truly climactic fights. The ones where it's for real. Not light dueling swords with the first to draw blood declared the winner, or jousting in heavy armor with lances designed to shatter, but to the death with the best weapons and armor you could find. That would have to be for some pretty damn good reason, too, to risk it all.

 

This would be a very different game than the usual kind that leaves you (figuratively and sometimes literally) standing astride a mountain of corpses. Would it be fun? It could be. Or not. It all depends on how well it's done, just like with any game. Will P:E be that game? Unlikely. Would I even want P:E to be that game...?

[Sedrefilos]

I really don't get it... people care about how other people play theiir game. This is really sad.

 

There is no need of existance of a thread that proposes something that won't change the experience of the game itself.

If you want to save every hour save every hour. If you want to save every minute, save every minute. It's really up to you. Heck! there will be an ironman mode too for fack's sake! What's your problem with how others want to play?? I REALLY DON'T GET IT!!

 

This is a geeky/nerdy thread about how an rpg "should" be played and proposes nothing that will make the game better. And threads like that start to become annoying (since you can't tell what's in this thread unltill you read it first).

 

How will I play the game is up to ME and noone else. We should focus on how the mechanics and the role-play can work better and not how other people are having their experience with games.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Sedrefilos

[Sedrefilos]

I really want to ruin everyone else's gaming experience. Really I do. That's the only reason I made this thread in the first place. I don't care about my own gaming experience - it's everyone else's that takes prime importance. If I can ruin it in any way possible, then I will. I will get into the developers minds with my magical mind-controlling powers and tell them what to do.

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that when a game doesn't take game mechanics, including saving, into account, that the experience can get ruined for me. I don't care at all about the fact that when a game is trying to make a certain point in the gameplay by putting in permadeath and then allowing me to load/save at will that this game mechanic and experience goes out of the window. I should just "control" myself and put in arbitrary rules that the game or its developers haven't considered.

 

-----------------------

For the story perspective I can always play easy. But if I want to play hard, then make it hard. Don't go soft on me now.

 

Instead of saying "don't ruin my game," I'd like to hear from those of you who have experienced games where the saving/loading mechanic worked really well with the game mechanics. These forums are a place for ideas and vetting them. I have concerns about Ironman mode because I have heard the horror stories of bug-ridden games ruining a whole game and some of the concerns about saving are legitimate (families, priorities, dumb AI, to name a few). While I have high hopes, I want there to be different ideas being experimented on how to reduce loading/saving misuse (happy now geek squad? I didn't say save-scumming. Rejoice). This was one idea. If I wanted pure negativity, I would have gone to the codex.

 

Save and load as you wish. Why you want to limit the game in saving? Idon't get it. You don't want to save-"scumm"? Then don't. That simple!!

WHAT DO YOU CARE ABOUT HOW OFTEN I (and other people ofcourse) WANT TO SAVE???

 

And, yes, if i have limits in saving the game it WILL ruin my experience.

[Hormalakh]

Save and load as you wish. Why you want to limit the game in saving? Idon't get it. You don't want to save-"scumm"? Then don't. That simple!!

WHAT DO YOU CARE ABOUT HOW OFTEN I (and other people ofcourse) WANT TO SAVE???

 

And, yes, if i have limits in saving the game it WILL ruin my experience.

 

I don't care about your experience. I care about mine and I don't want to put an arbitrary limitation on myself that the developers either didn't consider or that it wasn't implemented because they were scared that "casual players" would hate it. If they allow me to save at any point, then I'll do so. Then I'll say the game sucked because it was easy.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Dream]

It's a single player game. What possible difference should it make to anyone else how much or how little I choose to save my game?

 

It shouldn't.

 

On the other hand, what difference would an optional, settable save-timeout for the benefit of those of us totally lacking in willpower make to you?

 

There'd absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, the OP wasn't suggesting a toggle but a hard coded rule that would always be present.

 

Case in point:

 

Save and load as you wish. Why you want to limit the game in saving? Idon't get it. You don't want to save-"scumm"? Then don't. That simple!!

WHAT DO YOU CARE ABOUT HOW OFTEN I (and other people ofcourse) WANT TO SAVE???

 

And, yes, if i have limits in saving the game it WILL ruin my experience.

 

I don't care about your experience. I care about mine and I don't want to put an arbitrary limitation on myself that the developers either didn't consider or that it wasn't implemented because they were scared that "casual players" would hate it. If they allow me to save at any point, then I'll do so. Then I'll say the game sucked because it was easy.

 

So because you don't have the willpower to play the way you want you instead want the devs to force everyone to play that way?

Edited November 27, 2012 by Dream

[Brannart]

So because you don't have the willpower to play the way you want you instead want the devs to force everyone to play that way?

 

Well...yeah. The Devs design the game the way it is supposed to be played. If it is designed to be incredibly easy then I will judge it to be so. I suppose I could play the game not wearing armor or not casting spells or whatever as an attempt to artificially make it more challenging but then I am not playing the game as designed.

 

Nobody flipped out during the IE games that we couldn't save during battle that I noticed. Or was that a really huge outrage? I don't remember.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Brannart

[Sedrefilos]

So because you don't have the willpower to play the way you want you instead want the devs to force everyone to play that way?

 

Well...yeah. The Devs design the game the way it is supposed to be played. If it is designed to be incredibly easy then I will judge it to be so. I suppose I could play the game not wearing armor or not casting spells or whatever as an attempt to artificially make it more challenging but then I am not playing the game as designed.

 

Nobody flipped out during the IE games that we couldn't save during battle that I noticed. Or was that a really huge outrage? I don't remember.

 

The game can be hard and free-to-save at the same time. If the difficulty of the game is to be determined on how often should one save then it sucks in design.

IE games were not easy for me and they didn't have save limitations except during combat. And saving during combat isn't of any help anyway.

 

The game should have tough encounters when it has to and be hard only because the encounters are designed that way. If i have to reload and re-play, say, 10 battles i won before the one i lost, 1st i don't see how this makes the game more difficult, 2nd it makes it frustrating and bornig and many will stop playing just because of that "jenius" no-free-save geeky idea.

 

Considering the decisions, if you REALLY like rpgs i doubt you'll reload the game after a decision you made that you didn't like at the end. Cause making descisions and carry on with them is the alpha and the omega of rpgs and what makes them differ from other game genres. That's what rpgs are most about. Everything else can be found in any other game genre.

 

And finally... YOU CAN ALWAYS PLAY THE GAME IN IRONMAN MOOOOOODE!!!

[Dream]

So because you don't have the willpower to play the way you want you instead want the devs to force everyone to play that way?

 

Well...yeah. The Devs design the game the way it is supposed to be played. If it is designed to be incredibly easy then I will judge it to be so. I suppose I could play the game not wearing armor or not casting spells or whatever as an attempt to artificially make it more challenging but then I am not playing the game as designed.

 

Nobody flipped out during the IE games that we couldn't save during battle that I noticed. Or was that a really huge outrage? I don't remember.

 

He wants it to be significantly worse than just not saving during combat though.

[Water Rabbit]

The OP should go back to playing on Consoles with save points -- he would be happier. IMHO, there is nothing more frustrating than not being able to save at will. Even with my computer on an UPS, I generally have just enough time to save a game and shut my computer down before it loses power.

 

The other fact that seems to be missing here is the idea of a tactical puzzle. Oftentimes I will save before a combat and win/lose/draw will reload it to try different tactics and combinations. Sometimes I will go back to my original save even with that because I liked the feel of it better.

 

Sometimes, you may be playing a character of a certain type but want to explore different dialogue options just to see what they would look like.

 

If you are an adult, hopefully you possess some modicum of self-control and can play the game the way you enjoy it. If that means you don't like "save scumming" (which by the way is a totally stupid concept and smacks of nerd elitism) then just don't do it.

[JFSOCC]

It's not about free choice. People don't self regulate. If self regulation worked we'd not have an economic crisis. The psychology of man is to try and pick the most efficient way through. The trick is making sure that it makes more sense to play the game normally than to save whenever it gets tough.

[Dream]

It's not about free choice. People don't self regulate. If self regulation worked we'd not have an economic crisis. The psychology of man is to try and pick the most efficient way through. The trick is making sure that it makes more sense to play the game normally than to save whenever it gets tough.

 

So **** everyone else and make the game the way you want because you can't self regulate?

[Hormalakh]

So because you don't have the willpower to play the way you want you instead want the devs to force everyone to play that way?

 

Well...yeah. The Devs design the game the way it is supposed to be played. If it is designed to be incredibly easy then I will judge it to be so. I suppose I could play the game not wearing armor or not casting spells or whatever as an attempt to artificially make it more challenging but then I am not playing the game as designed.

 

Nobody flipped out during the IE games that we couldn't save during battle that I noticed. Or was that a really huge outrage? I don't remember.

 

He wants it to be significantly worse than just not saving during combat though.

 

It's funny. I've never owned a console and most of my gaming has been on PCs. My original post wasn't a "this is the way you should do it" post. It was an observation. I don't need others speaking for me, thank you. I can speak for myself.

 

Now I will admit that I was being a little snarky with my earlier post, because namely I really hate the "don't dictate how I play my game" line. It's worthless and smacks of antagonism and negativity. My point was something else completely and it's irksome to have to wade through the bile spilling from the texts of some of you to find something worthwhile.

 

Now that that's over, having a modicum of self-control and putting down arbitrary game rules on myself is fine and all if I want to play a challenge run. But if I want to play on a harder difficulty, I would expect the developers to take into account easy ways of "cheating the system" and working out mechanics that take these into account. Not saving/reloading your game is all fine and dandy when you theorize about it, but when it comes to actually playing a game where you've actually spent a good deal of time developing your party members and all of a sudden you lose one to a dumb move, it's really easy to convince yourself that the AI screwed up, etc. Cognitive dissonance is a *****. Sometimes everyone needs a rule forced on them to seriously gauge their actions. Everything about a game should convey an atmosphere. Even the metagaming aspect.

 

This isn't to say that everyone has to play this way. Easier modes can have innummerable save states, etc. But I would like a game mode where my loading and saving is a more difficult choice to make, but not as dangerous as an Ironman mode where serious screw-ups (bugs, or some other horrific thing) which are not my fault are actually hindering my experience and will to continue playing the game.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Hormalakh]

It's not about free choice. People don't self regulate. If self regulation worked we'd not have an economic crisis. The psychology of man is to try and pick the most efficient way through. The trick is making sure that it makes more sense to play the game normally than to save whenever it gets tough.

 

Bingo.

 

 

The other fact that seems to be missing here is the idea of a tactical puzzle. Oftentimes I will save before a combat and win/lose/draw will reload it to try different tactics and combinations. Sometimes I will go back to my original save even with that because I liked the feel of it better.

 

Sometimes, you may be playing a character of a certain type but want to explore different dialogue options just to see what they would look like.

 

That's the point. Your choices don't matter. You find the most optimal and go with it. I'd do the same thing. But if I knew that if I picked a certain dialogue option, that would be the only time I could choose unless I started the game over, I would actually sit and think about my choices before making them. If you want to do that, fine. But I want the game to make me consider my choices as a one-time thing.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Hormalakh