limiting saves.

[Halo Fanboy]

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.

Limiting the player is what creates the challenge and lets the player interact with the rules in a meaningful way. And those things are the primary things that gives a game any merit.

 

[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.

Limiting the player is what creates the challenge and lets the player interact with the rules in a meaningful way. And those things are the primary things that gives a game any merit.

That's your opinion and is valid and just fine with me, it's just that I don't think others should have to play by your rules unless they're playing with you. I'm advocating allowing people to play however they want to. As many have pointed out in this thread, some play for the challenge and some play strictly for amusement. Most games can accommodate both kinds of play. There are enough people out there trying to define and limit our fun - let's not do it to ourselves. We gotsta be free!

 

[emeraldrafael]

Free actions are stupid. Like Pot of Greed in Yu-Gi-oh. Banned for being a freebie in nearly an circumstance. You wouldn't want a move in a fighting game or a unit in an RTS to give free advantage. Obviously being able to do something for free is atrocious balance. Yet saves are nearly always free.

Its time saves were incorporated into the general balance of resource manipulation. Resident Evil had a cost to its saves and it broadened the general concept of inventory management and item collection in the game.

A couple of ways to limit saves...
- require a cost to use a save
- have a specific requirement needed to be completed to use a save
- reward players for not saving
- remove saves entirely

Discuss the effect of games that utilize save limitions or think of new ways to incorporate new save limitations into games in this topic.

Hunh... not often you see people who know about yugioh. though theres something to be debated in your statement about it, here isnt the time or place.

Personally, I think saves at the end of the level are good. Quick saves... well, they do feel cheap, but if you have to leave suddenly, its nice to have. But its hard to make a game without saves. Imagine if... I dont know. Lets say DMC3 didnt have saves or checkpoints. People would be pissed. In RTS games, they're necessary because you could spend a good amount of time in a single area after amassing resources, coordinating strategies, and countering anything after you make your move.

As for special requirements to save... That just has bad idea written all over it. There are peopple who spend maddening hours at a game trying to beat things like get a 100+ hit combo (my room mate in particular), that it actually affects their lives (he's got more tension then a wind up toy). I couldnt imagine how people would react to doing that for saves.

Just put it at the end of each level, and if its a free roaming game like Dragon Age: Origins, Pokemon, GTA, RDR, stuff like that, Just have it whenever you want to save, since it can be difficult to finish a quest quickly or leave an area to go save.

 

[kouriichi]

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.

So your saying, insted of being able to try several different tactics in one situation is cheating? You arnt erasing all your mistakes by using quick saves.
Would you like to start 30 minutes back at your last save because one random jackoff got a lucky grenade thrown? You arnt remove the challange.
THE CHALLANGE IS STILL THERE! You arnt changing the amount of enemys, theyer weapons, or theyer skill by having a quicksave system. The challange isnt changing. Your just letting someone try to beat it a few times.
And you forget there are just as many casual gamers as there are hardcore. Not everyone wants a challange. Just because your a good player, doesnt mean every other person who owns the game is.

Fine. Lets test this theory of yours. Go play STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl. Your only allowed to save 10 times throughout the enire game, your not allowed to use the quick save feature, and to top it off, you have to play it on normal or hard difficuly.

^Do that, and upload it, and tell em the game doesnt NEED a quicksave feature.^

 

[Wolf Devastator]

I wondered at one point what a player would do if they were given a certain number of saves per game, and they cannot earn more saves, but they could use them at any point in the game that they like.

I imagined it would be frustrating to the player, what do you guys think?

Also, any games you know of that do this? (other than like really old games where they may do this because of limitations)

 

[gphjr14]

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

Your problem is solved!

Leave the rest of us alone please.

This it pisses me off when someone trys to dictate how I play a game. As long as I'm not interfering with someone else's fun leave me be.

Once reason I played Uncharted 2 less. If I wanna quit GTFOver it don't penalize me. Why? because all it led to was rampant AFK players that DID ruin other peoples experience because then they had to quit co-op modes where there was no time limit and completion required teammates to all reach the checkpoint together.

I say just keep out the quicksaves. They pretty much take out any challenge what so ever.

Savepoints? Ok!
Checkpoint saves? Ok!
Save anywhere anytime? Not Ok, especially in an Action type game.
It pretty much takes away any or all challenge or risk.

Which is probably why I love Devil May Cry so much. Saving mid-level doesn't really save your progress in the level, just your collectables. And with levels being a short 10-20 minutes each, it was a perfect trade-off in my eye.

I don't see how choosing when you can save ads to a challenge. Pausing the game probably like in Onimusha during do or die puzzles, you couldn't pause the game. But unless you're strapped for electrical sockets there's nothing to stop me from pausing the game and just walking away.
Games like MGS 4 have very limited saves but it just makes it annoying not challenging. Some people have real life shit to do and can't spend 2-3 hours strait playing a game.

 

[Tasachan]

There could be a bookmark-type save that saves your place and then, later, after you load, it disappears so you can't "cheat" by using it to go back like regular saves.

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance had something like this. There were normal saves, and then quick saves. When you loaded a quick save, it would be deleted. If you made a quick save, the game would turn off. That way you couldn't quick save during a fight, then reload if you missed with an attack.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

So your saying, insted of being able to try several different tactics in one situation is cheating? You arnt erasing all your mistakes by using quick saves.
Would you like to start 30 minutes back at your last save because one random jackoff got a lucky grenade thrown? You arnt remove the challange.
THE CHALLANGE IS STILL THERE! You arnt changing the amount of enemys, theyer weapons, or theyer skill by having a quicksave system. The challange isnt changing. Your just letting someone try to beat it a few times.
And you forget there are just as many casual gamers as there are hardcore. Not everyone wants a challange. Just because your a good player, doesnt mean every other person who owns the game is.

Fine. Lets test this theory of yours. Go play STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl. Your only allowed to save 10 times throughout the enire game, your not allowed to use the quick save feature, and to top it off, you have to play it on normal or hard difficuly.

^Do that, and upload it, and tell em the game doesnt NEED a quicksave feature.^

Your first sentence doesn't make any sense. But here's conterpoint to saves not removing challenge: Who is more skilled between a guy who gets the highest score in Mars Matrix and the guy who gets the same score but constantly uses save states? Being able to perform consistently is part of being skilled. Otherwise you might just get lucky and kill a boss without mastering his pattern.

You must have missed where I suggested that Kaizo SMW is a prototypical example of a game where unlimited saves is balanced by general difficulty. So save limits should more forgiving in a difficulty game and vice versa. So if STALKER is that difficult than it could be balanced by having a low cost for saves but an even better idea would be not making a luck based, impossible to predict piece of shit game in the first place.

Saves aren't vital. See any Arcade or NES action classic. But then again, I would gladly play Mario or Contra or Ikaruga or any Cave game over from from the start a thousand times when you can hardly stand being a few minutes back in STALKER. The Enormous gap in quality between arcade games and modern single player retail couldn't be more apparent.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

This it pisses me off when someone trys to dictate how I play a game. As long as I'm not interfering with someone else's fun leave me be.

Once reason I played Uncharted 2 less. If I wanna quit GTFOver it don't penalize me. Why? because all it led to was rampant AFK players that DID ruin other peoples experience because then they had to quit co-op modes where there was no time limit and completion required teammates to all reach the checkpoint together.

I don't see how choosing when you can save ads to a challenge. Pausing the game probably like in Onimusha during do or die puzzles, you couldn't pause the game. But unless you're strapped for electrical sockets there's nothing to stop me from pausing the game and just walking away.
Games like MGS 4 have very limited saves but it just makes it annoying not challenging. Some people have real life shit to do and can't spend 2-3 hours strait playing a game.

You should be pissed at developers then because they are defining all the possible ways you can play as soon as they make the game. Are you going to be mad at soccer because you can't use your hands.

As for the challenge of limited saves; see the post above this one.
For having to quit for some reason; see my second post in the topic.

 

[tsb247]

I HATE limited saves!

I like being able to save my game at a crucial junction (such as at a point in a game where a decision is made), or at a really cool place and play it from there at a later date.

Quicksave ---> LOVE

Unlimited User-Defined Saves ---> LOVE

Checkpoints ---> HATE (unless they are combined with concrete saves and/or quicksaves)

I don't think there is an excuse for checkpoint only save systems on PC games either.

 

[XzarTheMad]

Er.. while I didn't get half of your semi-coherent post, OP, I would say: "Don't like it, don't use it". I like to save whenever I want, and I will count it as a huge, huge minus if a game I'm playing limits my saves. Only games this doesn't apply to is the GTA series because it's so free form. Other than that, I simply abhor the need to "practice" a game I'm playing - part of why I never bothered with Prince of Persia again after I lost my saves. I barely made it through Mirror's Edge, and that's only because I enjoyed the gameplay (and stubbornly wanted to see that shit through).

Limiting saves is a pointless thing to do in my opinion. I blame it solely on consoles with insufficient memory to support free saves. It doesn't belong on the PC, and it doesn't belong in a game where you're supposed to have fun. Gaming, at least to me, is a hobby, not a competition or a sport.

 

[Omega Pirate]

No, just no. I HATE having to go though a place I already went thought again just because I died. This is especially true in Bethesda games, I am a very thorough looter. So if I loot a few rooms and die it will take me some time to loot them again. Also if I need to attend to something I want the option to save, even if I'm facing the Lazer Octopus from Hell.

My point, let me save when I want to.

Compromise: You could make the higher/highest difficulty only allow a certain amount of saves.

 

[archvile93]

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.

If a game has to limits its saves to encourage you to keep playing, I think it has much more severe problems than how the save system should work.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

No because I like:
[*] Not having to repeat the past 20 minutes
[*] Not having the game respond in a way I wouldn't expect hence dicking unless I load and redo the past 20 minutes
[*] Dicking around and then reloading
[*] Seriously, losing progress sucks.

 

[tsb247]

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).

It also doesn't help that Dragon Rising (I am going to leave off the first part of that title - it doesn't deserve it) was not a very good game.

Although I have to agree. There was no excuse for that save system. It was poorly conceived and implimented badly.

 

[XzarTheMad]

Seems the entire argument in this thread is Skill vs. Fun. As in, OP thinks games are about being skillful at them, while most others here think it's about having fun with them. Can't really argue those points. You have a preference, you can't be swayed, and you can't sway anyone. Pretty simple.

 

[Serenegoose]

If a game has to limits its saves to encourage you to keep playing, I think it has much more severe problems than how the save system should work.

You misunderstand. I found the game too tense to continue without limited saves. It was too effective at conveying horror for me to proceed without something to push me onwards. The only way to resolve that problem for me would be to make it less scary, which is hardly what a good horror game should do.

 

[archvile93]

If a game has to limits its saves to encourage you to keep playing, I think it has much more severe problems than how the save system should work.

You misunderstand. I found the game too tense to continue without limited saves. It was too effective at conveying horror for me to proceed without something to push me onwards. The only way to resolve that problem for me would be to make it less scary, which is hardly what a good horror game should do.

Maybe I'm just not very philosophical, but that makes not sense to me whatsoever. It was so tense it needed to be less tense and limiting saves did that? Seems like that would make it more tense to me.

 

[Serenegoose]

If a game has to limits its saves to encourage you to keep playing, I think it has much more severe problems than how the save system should work.

You misunderstand. I found the game too tense to continue without limited saves. It was too effective at conveying horror for me to proceed without something to push me onwards. The only way to resolve that problem for me would be to make it less scary, which is hardly what a good horror game should do.

Maybe I'm just not very philosophical, but that makes not sense to me whatsoever. It was so tense it needed to be less tense and limiting saves did that? Seems like that would make it more tense to me.

To me the tension was already at maximum, however with limited saves I had 2 choices. 1: quit, and lose progress, or 2: push on the 10 mins or so it'd take for me to find the next save point, having made some progress. In games with infinite saves there's a third option. Save and quit then and there, losing no progress, and having no incentive to push on - consequently, I'd save, quit, and almost never return to the game, as I'd lose interest, saving and quitting 10 or so times down the length of a single scene, making painstakingly slow progress.

 

[kouriichi]

So your saying, insted of being able to try several different tactics in one situation is cheating? You arnt erasing all your mistakes by using quick saves.
Would you like to start 30 minutes back at your last save because one random jackoff got a lucky grenade thrown? You arnt remove the challange.
THE CHALLANGE IS STILL THERE! You arnt changing the amount of enemys, theyer weapons, or theyer skill by having a quicksave system. The challange isnt changing. Your just letting someone try to beat it a few times.
And you forget there are just as many casual gamers as there are hardcore. Not everyone wants a challange. Just because your a good player, doesnt mean every other person who owns the game is.

Fine. Lets test this theory of yours. Go play STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl. Your only allowed to save 10 times throughout the enire game, your not allowed to use the quick save feature, and to top it off, you have to play it on normal or hard difficuly.

^Do that, and upload it, and tell em the game doesnt NEED a quicksave feature.^

Your first sentence doesn't make any sense. But here's conterpoint to saves not removing challenge: Who is more skilled between a guy who gets the highest score in Mars Matrix and the guy who gets the same score but constantly uses save states? Being able to perform consistently is part of being skilled. Otherwise you might just get lucky and kill a boss without mastering his pattern.

You must have missed where I suggested that Kaizo SMW is a prototypical example of a game where unlimited saves is balanced by general difficulty. So save limits should more forgiving in a difficulty game and vice versa. So if STALKER is that difficult than it could be balanced by having a low cost for saves but an even better idea would be not making a luck based, impossible to predict piece of shit game in the first place.

Saves aren't vital. See any Arcade or NES action classic. But then again, I would gladly play Mario or Contra or Ikaruga or any Cave game over from from the start a thousand times when you can hardly stand being a few minutes back in STALKER. The Enormous gap in quality between arcade games and modern single player retail couldn't be more apparent.

Whoops. Sorry. i was talking to my friend at the time. i Ment "So your saying that getting to try several different tactics for one problem is cheating?"

But the thing about it is, these games arnt as simple as, "I miss jumped". Because theyer AI now, you have to rely on luck sometimes. In STALKER, the enemy AI will flank you, throw explosives, or wait in cover for you to pop your head out.

You also forget that games these days are 100s of times longer then before. There are hundreds of more encounters you have to go through. You cant compair a game like TES Obivion on Mario or Contra, because theyer to different. For games like Oblivion its almost needed because of all the things you can encounter.

And limiting saves is just a horrible idea. What happens when you exhaust your saves because your having a busy week? What if your playing a game that takes a minimum of 20 hours to beat, but you only get to play it for an hour at a time? Just give up all the progress you made in that hour because you dont want to waste a space?

You have to think about 3 things. How its going to look to the masses, how its going to be in practice, and how it will effect the gamers.

It may sound like its going to make the game harder, but its not. All your doing is causing people to lose hours of gameplay because they dont want to waste a save. And for the casual players, the game would be impossible, becasue they dont game for long tracks of time.

Your game wouldent sell to half the community if its just "FOR THE MOST HARDCORE HOUR GRINDING PLAYERZ EVER!!!" ((not anger caps, just did it for humor.))

Its an idea the appeals to you, and really only you. Limit your own saves then. Dont put it in a game that would ruin it for the masses.