Saving games

[quechn1tlan]

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.

 

A little bait and switch, some baseless assumptions and subtle implication that the way you like to play games is "normal". Nice one. Will probably fool many people into thinking that you actually have a point here.

[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.

 

A little bait and switch, some baseless assumptions and subtle implication that the way you like to play games is "normal". Nice one. Will probably fool many people into thinking that you actually have a point here.

 

Nice one. Will probably fool many people into thinking that you actually have a point here.

[Jojobobo]

I like quick saves, but not for the reasons you may think. I'm used to playing Arcanum and VTMB, which were buggy on release. Quick saving is a very easy method to circumvent bugs by giving you a save very close by to the bugs incidence. Not that I expect this to be a problem with P:E, but even if it had say one or two bugs on release (very good by modern standards) having a quick save immediately before them takes a lot of the hassle out of a bug (finding that the save before your current was two or three hours ago and having to play through a large portion of the game to get back to where you were). Plus I've had saves get corrupted before, quick saving also prevents this too by providing backups.

[Hormalakh]

I like quick saves, but not for the reasons you may think. I'm used to playing Arcanum and VTMB, which were buggy on release. Quick saving is a very easy method to circumvent bugs by giving you a save very close by to the bugs incidence. Not that I expect this to be a problem with P:E, but even if it had say one or two bugs on release (very good by modern standards) having a quick save immediately before them takes a lot of the hassle out of a bug (finding that the save before your current was two or three hours ago and having to play through a large portion of the game to get back to where you were). Plus I've had saves get corrupted before, quick saving also prevents this too by providing backups.

 

Which is why I'm scared of playing Ironman mode on my first try. I don't want to ruin the story, but I want a difficult experience with some semblance from Ironman mode.

[Jojobobo]

I don't think I will Ironman my first run, on top of the reasons I listed I do like to reload when I've done something really stupid. If it's a toss up between persevering with a character that for a stupid reason no longer feels up to scratch to me (not because they're not adequate, but because I missed out on some quest I really wanted to experience in hindsight) or reloading, I'd rather reload. I think Ironman is punishing not because once you're dead you're dead, but if you do happen to miss something you wanted to do or find through negligence or otherwise there's no going back. I love playing on hard difficulty settings, but at the same time I don't think having zero room for error - especially from the off - would be very fun.

[Dream]

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.

 

It's only cheating the system if the game wasn't designed around it. There are plenty of ways to make a game difficult while at the same time allowing one to save as many times as one wants. If anything using check points and/or penalizing saving is a lazy way of artificially bumping the difficulty of an otherwise easy game. One could even argue that to be truly challenging a game should focus on requiring players to think of proper solutions to solitary, yet difficult, situations rather than forcing them into marathon sessions of relatively simple encounters.

 

Of course that type of difficulty could be circumvented by using a strategy guide and/or the internet, and since you, apparently, have no self control I can see why games such as these would not appeal to you.

[wanderon]

Frankly I am having a hard time taking the OP seriously on this and wonder if he isn't really just putting us all on to see how silly things get.

 

If not then as I understand it you want a special difficulty level that makes the game harder by restricting saves in some manner to make it more difficult to save and reload when things get screwed up - right???

 

But wait - this doesn't actually make the game harder - it just makes it longer - becuase you may have to go back further to load after you screw up - but you still have to play it until you get it right from one save to the next (at the same difficulty level as the first time but now you know whats going on so it should be easier) and you can still go back to some save point and replay to make a different dialoge choice too.

 

So in effect it just makes saving more annoying it doesn't really make the game harder at all - especially for the folks who want to play that higher difficulty and NOT have their save mechanism messed with.

 

I'd suggest making a poll - if you can get enough support I'm sure the dev's will be happy to make a Hormalakh difficulty level - even if they don't surely there will be some modders out there that can help you (and all the others out there who want to see this) bring this to reality... (or not)

[Hormalakh]

Frankly I am having a hard time taking the OP seriously on this and wonder if he isn't really just putting us all on to see how silly things get.

 

If not then as I understand it you want a special difficulty level that makes the game harder by restricting saves in some manner to make it more difficult to save and reload when things get screwed up - right???

 

But wait - this doesn't actually make the game harder - it just makes it longer - becuase you may have to go back further to load after you screw up - but you still have to play it until you get it right from one save to the next (at the same difficulty level as the first time but now you know whats going on so it should be easier) and you can still go back to some save point and replay to make a different dialoge choice too.

 

So in effect it just makes saving more annoying it doesn't really make the game harder at all - especially for the folks who want to play that higher difficulty and NOT have their save mechanism messed with.

 

I'd suggest making a poll - if you can get enough support I'm sure the dev's will be happy to make a Hormalakh difficulty level - even if they don't surely there will be some modders out there that can help you (and all the others out there who want to see this) bring this to reality... (or not)

 

Nah, I don't want a Hormalakh difficulty level nor do I want to make a poll about this. There's been plenty of vitriol both in this and previous thread when discussing save-scumming. Ironman mode was one mode determined to let those of us interested in playing a more "risky" form of the game to do so. But honestly, there are legitimate reasons as to why you wouldn't want such a mode. Bugs destroying a game being one of them. My OP was meant to encourage a discussion on how to implement innovative methods to dissuade save-scumming on harder difficulty levels without only having one save-slot. As in previous threads, I was told to "leave us kids alone!"

 

I have come up with another solution to this problem however. Literal save-scumming. I'll just keep a copy of my iron-man mode save game in a different folder and when I reach a bug, I'll find my old iron-man mode save game and replay it from a last save. It's not exactly optimal, but the point was for saving to not be optimal. Having to keep moving savefolders is a pain and I'd only really do it in exceptional cases. *troll* Otherwise I'd play noob-version quicksave. */troll*

 

Edit: This isn't to say that not allowing saves in certain situations/locations or allowing c&c to ripple down further in the story aren't good ideas. I hope that those are implemented in the game in either case.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Jotra]

Where is it generally used? I didn't saw it anywhere else besides this forum. It's idiotic when someone uses the words he don't know the meaning of.

The fact you haven't seen it elsewhere doesn't really mean anything. In fact I could say the exact same about your definition ie. I haven't seen that definition anywhere else than in your post. PS. Could you try to act little less like an arrogant know-it-all. Thanks in advance!

[Dream]

Do you have a better term to suggest for abuse of save/reload,

Saving and loading. Simple as that, you cannot "abuse" it. It's single player game. It has nothing to do with difficulty of the game or the experience of the game. If I want to check every dialog option before making my final decision, that's my business.

 

That pretty much sums it up right there. Why do people care so much about how someone else plays a singleplayer game.

 

This isn't WoW; nobody is racing for "World First Project Eternity Clear."

[PrimeJunta]

Saving and loading. Simple as that, you cannot "abuse" it. It's single player game. It has nothing to do with difficulty of the game or the experience of the game. If I want to check every dialog option before making my final decision, that's my business.

 

Oh, I can and do abuse it. I told you, willpower is my dump stat. If I get nervous, I start saving every five seconds. I also easily flip into "optimization mode" where I abuse savegames until I get the result I want, whether it's about fights, locks, or conversations. This jolts me out of the game and ruins my enjoyment.

 

For example, I just replayed Fallout. The manual actually tells you to save before attempting anything interesting. That makes skill checks almost meaningless. I found myself just saving every time I attempted to repair/science/lockpick something, and reloading until it worked. I never, ever just continued if I perma-failed on somehting. And yes, it did significantly detract from my enjoyment.

 

If I had more willpower, I wouldn't do this. Hell, if I had more willpower I would stop playing games past the point I stopped enjoying them, but I don't, and I do. I do a lot of stuff I know is bad for me simply because I don't have the willpower not to.

 

That's why I like crutches like permadeath without the possibility of savegame abuse, like NetHack on somebody else's server, and which is why a combination of ironman and a difficulty level low enough to make dying rare sounds good to me. And which is why I suggested an optional, adjustable savegame timeout for P:E, combined with mechanics that don't result in frequent dying {which already appears to be in anyway}.

 

Once more, I really don't care how you (ab)use your savegames - I just have preferences of my own regarding game design. Specifically, for the reasons cited above, I have a strong preference for games that do not reward constant saving and reloading. Sadly, I don't much care for most genres where this is not a problem; I find linear shooters and adventure games boring, for example.

 

That's your problem, be proud of being an idiot it's a part of American dream, otherwise the terrorist wins, right?

 

Nah, Finnish stubbornness. But since it's clearly getting in the way of the discussion, I'll yield and switch to "savegame abuse" from now on.

Edited November 28, 2012 by PrimeJunta

[Dream]

Saving and loading. Simple as that, you cannot "abuse" it. It's single player game. It has nothing to do with difficulty of the game or the experience of the game. If I want to check every dialog option before making my final decision, that's my business.

 

Oh, I can and do abuse it. I told you, willpower is my dump stat. If I get nervous, I start saving every five seconds. I also easily flip into "optimization mode" where I abuse savegames until I get the result I want, whether it's about fights, locks, or conversations. This jolts me out of the game and ruins my enjoyment.

 

For example, I just replayed Fallout. The manual actually tells you to save before attempting anything interesting. That makes skill checks almost meaningless. I found myself just saving every time I attempted to repair/science/lockpick something, and reloading until it worked. I never, ever just continued if I perma-failed on somehting. And yes, it did significantly detract from my enjoyment.

 

If I had more willpower, I wouldn't do this. Hell, if I had more willpower I would stop playing games past the point I stopped enjoying them, but I don't, and I do. I do a lot of stuff I know is bad for me simply because I don't have the willpower not to.

 

That's why I like crutches like permadeath without the possibility of savegame abuse, like NetHack on somebody else's server, and which is why a combination of ironman and a difficulty level low enough to make dying rare sounds good to me. And which is why I suggested an optional, adjustable savegame timeout for P:E, combined with mechanics that don't result in frequent dying {which already appears to be in anyway}.

 

Once more, I really don't care how you (ab)use your savegames - I just have preferences of my own regarding game design. Specifically, for the reasons cited above, I have a strong preference for games that do not reward constant saving and reloading. Sadly, I don't much care for most genres where this is not a problem; I find linear shooters and adventure games boring, for example.

 

That's not abusing it though. That's simply playing the game a certain way. Hell, as you said, the manual specifically states to play this way.

 

Besides, no one has said they'd be against an optional toggle that implements a save cooldown (or whatever), we just don't want it hardcoded into the game (which is what the OP was demanding).

[PrimeJunta]

One question. Who cares? It's like saying:

"I like my fries with ketchup, but I end up overflowing them with mayonnaise if there is any in the fridge or on the table. And I don't like mayonnaise, so we should ban the mayo!"

or

"I'm allergic to onions but I order extra onions in everything that has that option and I end up being sick, so we should ban the onions"

The fact that you use save game that way shows that you do enjoy playing it that way. It makes you comfortable unlike no save which makes you nervous. Why would you want to be nervous? To brag on the forums? To be cool?

 

Nope, I don't enjoy it. It becomes a compulsive activity, something I have no control over. Similar to someone with obsessive-compulsive disorder who runs home fifteen times to check that he locked the front door before finally being able to leave, and then spends the entire vacation worrying that he really locked it. Games that reward backtracking through frequent save/reload trigger this type of behavior in me, and I don't enjoy it.

 

I agree, it's not healthy to do this. That's why I try to avoid games that do trigger this, and since I've already paid for P:E, I am hoping it's not one of them. And since Hormalakh started a topic about it, I'm weighing in. You, of course, are just as free to state your preferences, and the devs are free to ignore both of us. Grand, isn't it?

[PrimeJunta]

Well if you put it this way...then you should stop playing any games altogether and get professional help.

 

That, Sharp_one, is none of your business.

[Dream]

One question. Who cares? It's like saying:

"I like my fries with ketchup, but I end up overflowing them with mayonnaise if there is any in the fridge or on the table. And I don't like mayonnaise, so we should ban the mayo!"

or

"I'm allergic to onions but I order extra onions in everything that has that option and I end up being sick, so we should ban the onions"

The fact that you use save game that way shows that you do enjoy playing it that way. It makes you comfortable unlike no save which makes you nervous. Why would you want to be nervous? To brag on the forums? To be cool?

 

Nope, I don't enjoy it. It becomes a compulsive activity, something I have no control over. Similar to someone with obsessive-compulsive disorder who runs home fifteen times to check that he locked the front door before finally being able to leave, and then spends the entire vacation worrying that he really locked it. Games that reward backtracking through frequent save/reload trigger this type of behavior in me, and I don't enjoy it.

 

I agree, it's not healthy to do this. That's why I try to avoid games that do trigger this, and since I've already paid for P:E, I am hoping it's not one of them. And since Hormalakh started a topic about it, I'm weighing in. You, of course, are just as free to state your preferences, and the devs are free to ignore both of us. Grand, isn't it?

 

Not to be that guy, but you are about as far from the average gamer as one can get. Expecting developers with a rather limited budget to cater to every super niche (should they make an option to toggle away spiders for all the arachnophobes that play the game?) is more than a bit unrealistic.

 

Your best bet is to hope someone makes a mod that addresses your specific hangups.

[PrimeJunta]

Not to be that guy, but you are about as far from the average gamer as one can get. Expecting developers with a rather limited budget to cater to every super niche (should they make an option to toggle away spiders for all the arachnophobes that play the game?) is more than a bit unrealistic.

 

Your best bet is to hope someone makes a mod that addresses your specific hangups.

 

I think Hormalakh's idea of genuine save-scumming in ironman mode will get the job done for me just fine, actually. So I'm actually pretty happy with the way the game's shaping up!

[Umberlin]

 

 

Text:

After years of trying various methods, I broke this habit by pitting my

impatience against my laziness. I decoupled the action and the neurological

reward by setting up a simple 30-second delay I had to wait through, in which

I couldn't do anything else, before any new page or chat client would load (and

only allowed one to run at once). The urge to check all those sites magically

vanished--and my 'productive' computer use was unaffected.

 

http://xkcd.com/862/

 

That's pretty sad.

 

-

 

On the note about saves taking longer to save, or load, or both, I don't really think it matters. Maybe I'm just easy going in that particular respect, saving or loading a game, in my older games, like Quest for Glory, King's Quest and other older PC games, with a free save/load system, I didn't, and still don't, find it to be an issue. If a developer felt they needed to implement such a thing, to prevent people from reloading too often, okay, but, again, it seems pretty pointless.

 

It wouldn't bother me in the least though. What's a few extra seconds?

 

Still, I'd prefer people just learn to control themselves, or, just accept the fact that saving, and reloading, where a single player game is concerned . . . doesn't really matter at all. We have a mode for the people with no self control anyways, so, adjusting the mode that's meant for the more casual crowd, who probably don't even think of things, like this thread's subject, when it comes to games, seems pretty pointless.

[JFSOCC]

Do you have a better term to suggest for abuse of save/reload,

Saving and loading. Simple as that, you cannot "abuse" it. It's single player game. It has nothing to do with difficulty of the game or the experience of the game. If I want to check every dialog option before making my final decision, that's my business.

 

That pretty much sums it up right there. Why do people care so much about how someone else plays a singleplayer game.

Because we want this game to be fun, not just for us, but for everyone. And while we can't prevent people from ruining their own game (as they are allowed to do), If it's within the power of the game designers to encourage players to play the game in a way that will be more enjoyable for them, why shouldn't they?

[Hormalakh]

@Umberlin I would never dream of controlling the casual difficulty level. My concern was for the harder difficulty levels. The ironman mode has inherently been one filled with trepidation not because of its difficulty but because of instability in the game design (bugs, bad AI). If we knew that ironman would never fail I wouldn't even be bringing this up. But there it is, and here I ... was.

 

But yeah, it is pretty sad. I do have self-control when it comes to saves/loads for the most part. But there are those few moments when I've lost a party member to chunking and I've been playing the game for a long time now and having to take such a big hit really bothers me. So I just come up with excuses as to why I should reload that save game and spam cloudkill on the umberhulks this time. it's those few occasions that are bothersome.

 

and i know many a player who truly loves those moments. they are the moments that players love talking about and are most memorable. a lot of the more "hardcore" players don't play games at a higher difficulty level because of some sort of weird nerd disfunction that is inherent in their genetic make-up. it's because of the emotional experiences that they have when their choices are made to matter in real-time and they suffer the consequences of their actions without recourse. you can learn a lot about yourself from a game.

 

of course, now that i've had further time to think about the situation, i do agree that putting down such a harsh striction on games as unbelievably long wait times would be not a good idea. As I said before, I've come up with a better solution for myself, hyperbole be damned. as for the other players, i believe everyone can come to their own level of acceptability with this. those who are blind to the enjoyments of a game with meaningful choice will either come around, or they won't. those who are like me - and there are quite a few - will find their ways.

 

mods feel free to lock down the thread if you wish. i don't care much for the hate on this thread.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Agelastos]

Bah! When will you hu-mans understand that your "free will", as you call it, will inevitably lead to your own demise?

[JFSOCC]

 

Deliberately messing with save game system or forcing people to replay some events are not fun. Fun is when the game looks good, have good music and sound, entertaining gameplay and excellent story. If someone is claiming that I will ruin my game because I can save anytime and load anytime I feel I want to change some outcome or replay some part differently, then that person is a on a "people to avoid" list because being stupid could be contagious.

I agree, it's a hamfisted attempt. that's not to say there might not be a better solution lurking around though.

[Brother Pain]

(should they make an option to toggle away spiders for all the arachnophobes that play the game?)

 

I think more people are interested in a "no spiders" option than limiting saving outside ironman mode, considering how often various CRPGs (like Skyrim, DA:O and others) get mods that remove the spiders. Depending on how realistic the spiders are animated, I'd might want an option like that myself

 

As for limiting saving, outside of an option that's off by default, please no. Not being able to save in combat if it's not feasable because the game is real-time, I can understand, but making saving slower, putting a cooldown on saves, or using checkpoint saves only will really sap my enjoyment from the game.

[Hormalakh]

Bah! When will you hu-mans understand that your "free will", as you call it, will inevitably lead to your own demise?

 

When I stop hearing about all those great gaming experiences people have when they limit themselves to certain rules like "no reload."

 

Free will is what makes life exactly worth living. Except in save-games. At that point it's most important to dictate the terms.

[Dream]

That pretty much sums it up right there. Why do people care so much about how someone else plays a singleplayer game.

Because we want this game to be fun, not just for us, but for everyone. And while we can't prevent people from ruining their own game (as they are allowed to do), If it's within the power of the game designers to encourage players to play the game in a way that will be more enjoyable for them, why shouldn't they?

 

Wait, so you're telling us that you know better than we do about what is best for us when it comes to having fun?

 

"NO! You're having fun the WRONG WAY! Do this instead you quick saving philistine!"

 

Are you out of your ****ing mind?

 

When I stop hearing about all those great gaming experiences people have when they limit themselves to certain rules like "no reload."

 

I've heard far more people say things like "I'd really enjoy this game if it wasn't for the checkpoints/stupid save system/whatever." Hell, I've said that about a ****load of games myself (Crysis was more fun than Crysis 2 for instance).

 

(should they make an option to toggle away spiders for all the arachnophobes that play the game?)

I think more people are interested in a "no spiders" option than limiting saving outside ironman mode, considering how often various CRPGs (like Skyrim, DA:O and others) get mods that remove the spiders. Depending on how realistic the spiders are animated, I'd might want an option like that myself

 

Heh, touche.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Dream

[Kimuji]

Isn't what difficulty settings and game modes are for? You know the easy setting with the "save whenever you want" feature, and the hard one with "save only when allowed". Why forcing everyone to accept one or the other solution when you can let them choose? I can't understand why people want to force others to enjoy the game the way they do, that's a personnal matter, a matter of personnal tastes. Both can exist within the same game, and if you fear your won't be able to resist the the call of the quicksave button it only requires one special option: the possibility to lock your choice when you are starting a new game, meaning, if you choose to limit the quicksave/load function you cannot reallow it unless you restart the game from the beginning.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Kimuji