Games With Single Slot (Auto) Savegames
- Thread starter 4RM3D
- Start date
Shocksplicer said:
The most dangerous words we can use as gaming enthusiasts is "it's not needed."
I'm not trying to pick on your specifically and multiple people have said something similar in this topic but I want to comment on the sentiment as a whole...
"It's not needed" or "it's not necessary" or words of that way are usually at the crux of all the stupid stuff we have to deal with in gaming, especially today. Our "friends" or "peers" who were developing the games of yesteryear and making honest mistakes and decisions with consequences they didn't think through are gone. Today there are sterile-minded businessmen and businesswomen who don't actually care about or like us. In fact, they harbor a sort of contempt for us. For we are at odds with them and their ultimate goal which is to determine just how much they can extract from us and price tag. How many hoops they can get us to jump through to pad their metrics. What is the absolute furthest we will go through to be able to (try to) enjoy video games. Note that all of those realities have no concern with whether or not we are pleased, happy, satisfied or content. Someone getting a game home today and being really disappointed that the element they saw in a trailer that excited them is actually special DLC that you had to pre-order to get and even then won't be available for a month doesn't violate their sensibilities in the slightest.
I paint that picture because "it's not needed" is their best friend. It's the easiest way to justify nonsense. Address everything in a vacuum and demonstrate that "it's not needed." It works because EVERYTHING is not needed and EVERYTHING, when considered by itself, can be reduced to some small deal that "spoiled, entitled gamers" are just whining over.
Can we have the full game at release?
"It's not needed."
Can the DLC you made "after development" for the PS3 port be available right away for the Wii-U port that you are releasing over a year later?
"It's not needed."
May I copy my save file and take it elsewhere?
"It's not needed."
Where's the game manual?
"It's not needed."
Can I have multiple save slots?
"It's not needed."
Why are these characters rendered unavailable at release?
"It's not needed."
Why are these cosmetics rendered unavailable at release?
"It's not needed."
Why do I need to pre-order digital content again?
"It's not needed."
May I play offline?
"It's not needed."
Can I disable trophies so that if there's another issue with the server my games won't keep me from playing?
"It's not needed."
Can I get a game without quick-time events?
"It's not needed."
Why are difficulty levels being locked away as DLC?
"It's not needed."
I love manual save systems because I love going back and revisiting favourite parts of the game. I can't count how many times I've been back and played through Tali's trial in Mass Effect 2.
There are many great moments in Tomb Raider that I'd love to go back and see again but because you are locked to the one slot while playing, the only way to see those scenes again is by playing through the game again.
In a single player game I really don't see why there isn't always a manual save system. If the developers want to make the choices have consequence to the players then have that as an option in the settings "No Manual Saves: Play as the Developers Intended". Then let the rest of us play as we want.
There are many great moments in Tomb Raider that I'd love to go back and see again but because you are locked to the one slot while playing, the only way to see those scenes again is by playing through the game again.
In a single player game I really don't see why there isn't always a manual save system. If the developers want to make the choices have consequence to the players then have that as an option in the settings "No Manual Saves: Play as the Developers Intended". Then let the rest of us play as we want.
/Agreeamara2021 said:
Bioshock 1 and 2 had the ability to manually save, and it was fantastic.
Bioshock infinite's autosave is very haphazard for me so far. It's set me back quite a ways at times, like 3 or 4 rooms full-of-bad-guys far back. Which is frustrating. If I have to turn off the xbox for an hour and do something, I want to be able to pick up ~right~ where I left off, not spend 5-8 minutes treading previously covered ground. It's an annoying imperfection in an otherwise excellent game.
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.
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.
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.
I also hate messy save slots too. I love The Witcher and The Witcher 2 but the save system is really messy.
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.Shocksplicer said:
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!
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.
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.
Reading conversations like this thread leaves me wondering how most of you find your way out of your house.
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.GundamSentinel said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.The Artificially Prolonged said:
Giving the time-stamp of the last save when you try to quit was a nice touch, but doesn't save the broken system.