Games With Single Slot (Auto) Savegames

Recommended Videos

crimson sickle2

New member
Sep 30, 2009
568
0
0
Yeah, I've been feeling the dread too with Infinite, at least you can reload prior checkpoints. At most those checkpoints send you back 2-3 gunfights. In shooters it's not so bad because it's mostly just to streamline the process, although all of the typewriters keep joking that I should save on them in every office room in Columbia. I'm kind of surprised to hear that about Final Fantasy, but if it is one of the 13 triplets then it is sadly believable. It's not like anything about those is well planned out anyway.

RPG's should use manual saves whenever possible because of the sheer amount of experimentation that is needed for each title before any amount of understanding may occur. Other genres can mostly use whatever works best.
 

Bat Vader

Elite Member
Mar 11, 2009
4,997
2
43
I hate single save slot options. It's especially annoying when there are collectibles that help flush out the depth of the story or characters but if I explore I risk the chance of going into the wrong room that advances the plot but also cuts that room of from me for good.

I also hate messy save slots too. I love The Witcher and The Witcher 2 but the save system is really messy.
 

tsb247

New member
Mar 6, 2009
1,777
0
0
Shocksplicer said:
Oh please, consoles had nothing to do with it. Don't go blaming consoles every time something happens that you don't like.
Tell me then, where did checkpoint save systems first become the norm? It sure wasn't on the PC. Some games my limit saved games claiming, "It improves gameplay," but the simple fact is that omitting a feature does nothing to improve gameplay. If a player doesn't want to spam the save feaure, then they won't! It's as simple as that.

The fact is that checkpoint and single save slot systems are console relics that get ported over to PC by lazy developers who can't be bothered to optimize a game before they port it. They're just out to make a quick buck. That's it!
 

The Artificially Prolonged

Random Semi-Frequent Poster
Jul 15, 2008
2,753
0
0
This is my one big complaint so far with Bioshock Infinite. One save space and it only saves at set checkpoints which are not in any way visible in game until you pass them. It's annoying as if I get to a point where I want to quit out the game for whatever reason I have to play up until the next checkpoint whenever that is or take the hit and lose all the progress between now and the last checkpoint. Granted I may really only need one save playing on my pc but it should be my choice how many saves I need and when I need to save.

I don't understand why devs use this system unless it's a design choice to make you go back so far after dying. However since Bioshock Infinite has no real penalty for death having set check points seems pointless.
 

3asytarg3t

Senior Member
Jun 8, 2010
118
0
21
Reading conversations like this thread leaves me wondering how most of you find your way out of your house.
 

Raikas

New member
Sep 4, 2012
640
0
0
GundamSentinel said:
God, I hated that in Dragon's Dogma. Long games with multiple choices/different endings along the way. It's a big no-no for me in those games. If people want to save-scum, let them. No real harm in doing that in a single-player game. Me, I just want to enjoy different parts of a game at my leisure, especially after I've finished it already.
Totally agree with this. Single save slots don't bother me at all when it's a fairly linear, action-driven game, but in anything more free moving they're just an annoyance. Games like that shouldn't force to to replay the entire thing just to see the different options for individual quests - that's frustrating rather than fun.
 

CleverCover

New member
Nov 17, 2010
1,284
0
0
I despise single game save slots. It's a dumb practice, especially for RPGs. I should be able to have more than one save to be able to explore everything or try out different paths.

In Dragon's Dogma, after a point, being a mage meant I could only be a mage and still be effective. My brother though, could switch classes like clothes. I would have liked the opportunity just to play around with the classes and compare. Also, accidentally triggering a cutscene shouldn't lock me out of possible quests. That's really dumb in an open-world RPG.
 

rofltehcat

New member
Jul 24, 2009
635
0
0
The thing is... it can be both bad and good.
However, the player should have a choice.

Example 1:
FTL has this. However, it is designed in a way that it sometimes throws incredibly unfair or even random battles at you that ruin your whole progress. At least on easy difficulty, people should be able to reload. Instead, I crashed the game a few times on my relaxing playthroughs because there were some absolutely BS/unfair encounters.
I understand games having something like this in hard difficulty. But in something as random as FTL, people should have a choice, at least in lower difficulty settings.
That, or just decrease the randomness and make encounters more consistent.

Example 2:
The old Bioshock and its hacking system. The game isn't very punishing if you don't succeed. You just lose some health and hacked healing stations are cheap enough, especially when conserving ammo instead of going all-out every battle. However, there is a randomness factor of trap fields often forming rows that are impossible to get around once the water has started flowing.
Vita Chambers revive you pretty quickly and without huge punishment. So consequences are also very low there.
It is still annoying to fail and reloading often is simply faster and easier. And the randomness simply shouldn't be.

Example 3:
Pretty much every game with a thieving/pickpocket mechanic. Failing there can often completely ruin the game, especially because some of them have bugs. Doesn't really matter if it is Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Gothic or whatever... those thieving mechanics have an uncontrollable randomness-factor and consequences are often too severe, making players reload too often.
Punishing the player for failing at a minigame or something that is actually doable isn't a problem. If people forget about it after a while, it is not much of a problem either.
But when pickpocketing is simply casting a hidden die in the background and even high skill levels have a chance to fail, and even worse, making the whole town attack and never forgive you, then save-scumming is simply needed.

That said, save-scumming simply isn't fun either.

Another thing about multiple save slots is when you have to choose between paths in a game. You have a newbie/apprentice time, walking around doing errands, getting to know a little about the factions... and then you have to decide for one of them.
The game should make a save at those points so people can replay the game without having to replay the whole apprentice time.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,756
0
0
Zeren said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Zeren said:
I HATE that. I would rather enjoy every game doing it like Skyrim does. 3 autosaves and as many manual saves as you like.
And the periodic save wipe due to bugs?

>.>
I never have that happen. I have played over 200 hours on skyrim and have never had a corrupted save. If ever I did, I wouldn't care because I have a backup save for exactly that issue. I also have my saves backed up on the Steam Cloud. I do not fear corrupted or erased saves because I can easily get them back. I could also just start a new character, pop in some console commands and have the save skills and items back in less than 10 minutes.
That was a pretty far way to go to defend terrible, flawed design.
 

Zeren

New member
Aug 6, 2011
394
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Zeren said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Zeren said:
I HATE that. I would rather enjoy every game doing it like Skyrim does. 3 autosaves and as many manual saves as you like.
And the periodic save wipe due to bugs?

>.>
I never have that happen. I have played over 200 hours on skyrim and have never had a corrupted save. If ever I did, I wouldn't care because I have a backup save for exactly that issue. I also have my saves backed up on the Steam Cloud. I do not fear corrupted or erased saves because I can easily get them back. I could also just start a new character, pop in some console commands and have the save skills and items back in less than 10 minutes.
That was a pretty far way to go to defend terrible, flawed design.
Flawed? As I said before, I have had no issues with it. No flaws. Maybe you should explain in depth why it's flawed instead of simply restating what you have already said? Tell me of another game that does it better perhaps?
 

Dryk

New member
Dec 4, 2011
980
0
0
The Artificially Prolonged said:
This is my one big complaint so far with Bioshock Infinite. One save space and it only saves at set checkpoints which are not in any way visible in game until you pass them. It's annoying as if I get to a point where I want to quit out the game for whatever reason I have to play up until the next checkpoint whenever that is or take the hit and lose all the progress between now and the last checkpoint. Granted I may really only need one save playing on my pc but it should be my choice how many saves I need and when I need to save.

I don't understand why devs use this system unless it's a design choice to make you go back so far after dying. However since Bioshock Infinite has no real penalty for death having set check points seems pointless.
They also had a nasty habit of occurring when something else important was going on. So if you wanted to quit you had to concentrate on the corner, which distracts you from the conversation or what have you.

Giving the time-stamp of the last save when you try to quit was a nice touch, but doesn't save the broken system.