limiting saves.

[JacobyPAX]

What if game developers started to expand what happens with different difficulty settings. An easy or casual setting would be a push the buttons and the mans fall down and you could save whenever and wherever. On harder difficulties you could have tougher enemies, a stronger focus on resource management and limited saves.

 

[kouriichi]

No. Just no. Quick saves are a gift from god. Weather it be because you have to leave in a hurry, or because the game almost requires it, some games need the feature.

Case in point: The game series S.T.A.L.K.E.R. If you dont save every 20 seconds, your going to end up losing massive ammounts of time because some dude flanked you, and now your face looks like ground beef.

Quick saving doesnt remove the challange from games. Its what helps you get through the challange. Fallout New Vegas on the hardest difficulty, with Hardcore mode on, isnt any easyer because of quick saves. You save the game, a group of radscorps ambushes you, your dead. That would mean eather a game over, or going back to the last save point ((possibly an hour or more ago)).

Many games need to have the ability to save whenever you want. It doesnt remove any challange. It just means the producer is less of an *sshole.

 

[Direwolf750]

the problem is that certain people just don't have the time necessary to sit down and play through a game in it's entirety in one sitting. If you only had 5 minutes a day to play a game, it would suck not having any saves. limiting saves is not only a bad idea, but a stupid one. it can easily inconvenience anyone who needs to suddenly rush to do something for a few hours and doesn't want to leave their system running. Anyone who doesn't want to have to deal with the possibility of loss can exploit this, maybe, but it is still better having save anytime as opposed to no saves.

 

[GeorgW]

It depends on the game, but I really don't think you're adressing the real problem here. It isn't unlimited saves, it's the lack of penalty for deaths!

OT: All games need quicksaves (saves, then quits you automatically, and then deletes when reloaded) for you know, life... I think RPGs that let you save anywhere are too easy, I like it when you have to go to a specific place to save. Action games need checkpoints, maybe placement of them could be better, but they should always have checkpoints. I once played a game that forced you to save before a particularly hard area and then punished you if you reloaded. It was an RPG, and it you died it reset you with less stuff. It was to prevent grinding the same place without skill just trying to get lucky instead of leaving, getting better, and come back more prepared. It was really annoying, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[zfactor]

No. Just no. Quick saves are a gift from god. Weather it be because you have to leave in a hurry, or because the game almost requires it, some games need the feature.

Case in point: The game series S.T.A.L.K.E.R. If you dont save every 20 seconds, your going to end up losing massive ammounts of time because some dude flanked you, and now your face looks like ground beef.

Quick saving doesnt remove the challange from games. Its what helps you get through the challange. Fallout New Vegas on the hardest difficulty, with Hardcore mode on, isnt any easyer because of quick saves. You save the game, a group of radscorps ambushes you, your dead. That would mean eather a game over, or going back to the last save point ((possibly an hour or more ago)).

Many games need to have the ability to save whenever you want. It doesnt remove any challange. It just means the producer is less of an *sshole.

Some games NEED a quicksave because it is so easy to die in. Save points/checkpoints are OK for linear games, but for open-world games you need to have the ability to save, otherwise the game goes from chalenging to infuriating (Case in point => Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising).

And after long stints of playing Oblivion (where you can save, go on a rampage, get killed, then load the save) I keep looking for the save button in real life so I can do something crazy and load it afterwards...

 

[Wutaiflea]

Having spent my childhood playing RPGS, I am a compulsive saver, and the worse a game is for having things leap out at you (even with plenty of warning), the more often I save.
To give an indication, its a long running joke among people I know that I break save counters.

Also, I have plenty of other things going on in my life. The moment I remember that salmon I put in the oven half an hour ago is probably a crisp chunk of charcoal, I need to be able to save right away, not hold on and hold on until I get chance to save.

Quicksave functions however, I've never used. I've probably played all of about two games with the function, and I've generally forgotten I have it. I prefer a proper save, that makes me feel safe and secure...

... Come to think of it, this may count as some kind of psychosis...

 

[Iron Mal]

If you don't want to save, don't.

Your problem is solved!

Leave the rest of us alone please.

And here rests the solution.

Being able to save at your own discretion means that people who have to go can (without having to just leave their console on idley and thus risking either overheating or someone accidentily turning it off), people who want to abuse saves can (and those who wish to do 'no save runs' can) and it helps prevent the annoying instance that save points do of being forced into having to potentially play the same segment over and over again (if you keep dying) or hitting a checkpoint just before death (I have had numerous instances in FarCry 2 where I've hit a save point and saved my progress just before being one-hit killed by a car running me over with no chance to escape, effectively making that game unwinnable).

Overall, the best solution is quick saving, it serves the needs of most people.

 

[kouriichi]

No. Just no. Quick saves are a gift from god. Weather it be because you have to leave in a hurry, or because the game almost requires it, some games need the feature.

Case in point: The game series S.T.A.L.K.E.R. If you dont save every 20 seconds, your going to end up losing massive ammounts of time because some dude flanked you, and now your face looks like ground beef.

Quick saving doesnt remove the challange from games. Its what helps you get through the challange. Fallout New Vegas on the hardest difficulty, with Hardcore mode on, isnt any easyer because of quick saves. You save the game, a group of radscorps ambushes you, your dead. That would mean eather a game over, or going back to the last save point ((possibly an hour or more ago)).

Many games need to have the ability to save whenever you want. It doesnt remove any challange. It just means the producer is less of an *sshole.

Some games NEED a quicksave because it is so easy to die in. Save points/checkpoints are OK for linear games, but for open-world games you need to have the ability to save, otherwise the game goes from chalenging to infuriating (Case in point => Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising).

And after long stints of playing Oblivion (where you can save, go on a rampage, get killed, then load the save) I keep looking for the save button in real life so I can do something crazy and load it afterwards...

Exactly. They give us the ability to try different things. To tackle problems with different abilitys. I honestly have not having the ability to save whenever i want. Because most games where you cant, the save points are eather to far apart, or checkpoints are never where you need them.

 

[Shinrae]

Im sure that a lot of games tried doing that years ago and it got a lot of negative feedback.
If you've ever played the Thief series you should know that its not uncommon to quicksave - Peak around the corner - quicksave, and repeat for a good half hour before adding a fullsave and calling it quits for the day.

Saves are what gives me the courage to go on, Hence why I havent got further than picking up the wineceller key in Amnesia.

 

[Iron Mal]

If you don't like a move that is completely overpowered, the game isn't broken cause you don't have to use it.
lol, ect.

Sorry for the double post but that's actually a terrible comparison.

A broken move ina game will usually alter the way combat goes (and thus potentially break the game), being able to save whenever you like just means you don't risk losing hours of progress because there isn't a magic glowing floppy disk symbol anywhere.

Also, the use of lol has a habit of diminishing your verbal credability rather than improving it.

 

[Twad]

I dont want to be punished when i want to stop playing.
I dont like dying in a game and having to redo everything from the start.
I want to be able to take a break whenever i want.
I want to save whenever i feel i need to save.

Its a game. I want to have fun.

If you want to play hardcore, do it by not saving your game when you play.

Limiting the saves isnt a good gameplay mechanic. Its meta-gamey and unfair. Its will hurt new players a lot.

 

[ayuri]

What is everyone talking about he means savior not save point.
Some games are just built like that and if you don't like it just leave the game alone it is your opinion(thats why I play magic the gathering).

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

No i'd rather not have limited saves. What if i'm in a rush and need to save quickly? i don't want to have a debate with myself to decide whether or not i need to hold in a poop or keep going on with a game and risk shitting my pants.

How... Very... Eloquent... I think...

I prefer games with check point saves thank anything, except if your game fucks up AS you hit a check point, and then you get raped by your obligation to start over

 

[Ascarus]

i like the ability to save whenever i want simply due to the fact that my game time is limited by outside influences (read: family, work, etc.). as such, it is a little annoying to be making progress in a game and have to quit without having any recourse to save my progress. that is especially frustrating when the game in question is a bit challenging.

i also enjoy the ability to save in games where i am pretty sure i will not play through the game a second time, but i want to see what alternate outcomes are like (e.g. NPC conversational outcomes). there are additional reasons that i enjoy the ability to save as often as i want, for example, the 'oh shit, i didn't mean to do that!' instance, the ability to do something completely outrageous just to see the outcome, the let's see if this actually works scenario (usually the answer is no or not the effect you were hoping for), etc. overall i think the ability to save on your own time adds flexibility to the game play.

that said, i understand that limiting saves (esp. in action games) is a wise decision from a development standpoint: having the ability to save whenever you want effectively removes all tension from the game. but practicing a bit of self-control and not saving over and over and over partially alleviates that problem.

 

[tgbennett30]

Im sure that a lot of games tried doing that years ago and it got a lot of negative feedback.
If you've ever played the Thief series you should know that its not uncommon to quicksave - Peak around the corner - quicksave, and repeat for a good half hour before adding a fullsave and calling it quits for the day.

Saves are what gives me the courage to go on, Hence why I havent got further than picking up the wineceller key in Amnesia.

A reasonable compromise sort of like this was tried in the original Alien vs. Predator on PC. You were given a limited number of saves per level. I can't recall for sure, but I think it was later patched to change by difficulty - e.g., on Hard you got 3 saves per level (each of which was ~60 minutes to finish), while on Easy you got 7. The thinking was that you could save any time if an emergency came up, but you could not pull the "peek around the corner, save, rinse, repeat" stunt and take all the fun out of it. It was also noted that since AvP was intended to be a scary game, this would add to the tension, esp. if you were out of saves and only halfway through a level, and God only knew the next time something would jump out of the shadows at you while you were creeping around with 1 lowly health point left.

I thought it was a neat idea. Apparently I was in the minority

The save system was brutally criticised, and many people appeared to hate it, so much so that few if any games have tried such a tactic since. It didn't help AvP that it could be a very difficult game at times, esp. the first time you played through and didn't know where the monsters were...

 

[tgbennett30]

Hmm...just checked, it appeared the first PC AvP had no saves AT ALL prior to the patch, only saving the game when you finished a level. Ouch.

 

[Bad Jim]

What about having unlimited saves, but saving quits the game? So you can always use it but the inconvenience discourages abuse.

Incidentally there is a good solution to the problem of doomed autosaves - Having more than one. Half Life 2 had 2, so if your autosave was unusable, you still had the autosave before that to fall back on.

 

[3AM]

How come we all fight for freedom in being able to buy and play the games we want but we look to limit the freedom of players to play the way they want? As long as saving is a choice, I don't care when you do it or if you do or don't do it and I don't think you should care if and/or when I save. If we're playing a game together than a save discussion is appropriate. Other than that - get off my computer please.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

I think this is a pretty complex problem, because being able to save anywhere can effectively remove the tension from any scene. However, I think it ultimately should be player choice. I dislike rules that say 'you have to experience the game this way' because I bought the thing, I'll experience it however I damn well please. Thing is though, I liked Dead Spaces approach from a tension standpoint. To me the save points were so perfectly balanced that it encouraged me to always push on through a scary segment and get the most of it, whereas in games that are more or less similar like Doom 3, I'd just save and quit - never getting through the game, because I could 'always come back to it later' whereas losing progress in Dead Space meant that if I wanted it to be worthwhile I had to push onwards. That's where I think the complexity comes from - but I think that overall being able to save wherever you want is best because there's just too many variables for any other solution to be workable - especially since that 'checkpoint' system only works well in a horror game. I know that getting through a scene in say, call of duty, and then being grenade exploded just before a checkpoint irritates the crap out of me.

Well There's the idea that restrictions exist in order to guide a player into a certain playstyle and profeciency to get maximum enjoyment. For instance continues ( which let you respawn right where you died) undermined arcade games to a great extent and even lead to the mistaken terms like "credit-munchers." With restrictions in place a player won't be tempted to sub-optimal playstyles without penalty and will be able to get more fufillment from the game.

No. Just no. Quick saves are a gift from god. Weather it be because you have to leave in a hurry, or because the game almost requires it, some games need the feature.

Case in point: The game series S.T.A.L.K.E.R. If you dont save every 20 seconds, your going to end up losing massive ammounts of time because some dude flanked you, and now your face looks like ground beef.

Quick saving doesnt remove the challange from games. Its what helps you get through the challange. Fallout New Vegas on the hardest difficulty, with Hardcore mode on, isnt any easyer because of quick saves. You save the game, a group of radscorps ambushes you, your dead. That would mean eather a game over, or going back to the last save point ((possibly an hour or more ago)).

Many games need to have the ability to save whenever you want. It doesnt remove any challange. It just means the producer is less of an *sshole.

No. The ability to erase all your mistakes with no cost removes challenge quite plainly. An ability that broken is only balanced if the game is otherwise irredeamably unbalanced like Kaizo Super Mario World.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

If you don't like a move that is completely overpowered, the game isn't broken cause you don't have to use it.
lol, ect.

Sorry for the double post but that's actually a terrible comparison.

A broken move ina game will usually alter the way combat goes (and thus potentially break the game), being able to save whenever you like just means you don't risk losing hours of progress because there isn't a magic glowing floppy disk symbol anywhere.

Also, the use of lol has a habit of diminishing your verbal credability rather than improving it.

In Guilty Gear if you commit to a move and want to take it back you have to use a roman cancle which cost meter. The precedent for taking back previous movements for a cost is already set.

And saving is a game mechanic. Moderating your amount of saves can contribute to a game's complexity in the same way you monitor health, lives, points till next extend ect.