limiting saves.
- Thread starter Halo Fanboy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The incentive to push on in a game or come back to it should be to continue one's enjoyment, not to avoid the frustration of having to play through the same areas again. As I said before if the only thing keeping you going is to avoid having to do the same thing over again, the the game has much deeper problems than the save system. There's a difference between enjoying something and just putting up with it. If you never got back to Doom 3, that's suggest you found the game unfun and saw no reason to coninue, not because you could save anywhere and forgot about it. If it really is the latter you must have some of the worst ADD I've ever seen.Serenegoose said:
Gonna interject: If they took saves out of every game, they would lose many, many players. Not everybody has all the free time in the world, I've been forced to replay many a Final Fantasy area due to saves being too few and far between for my limited schedule.
If you want a challenge, play a harder game...
If you want a challenge, play a harder game...
Quick saves do make the game a little unbalanced, but checkpoint saving is generally annoying if you need to quit the game and do real life person stuff but you haven't reached the next checkpoint.
Although I suppose that could be fixed with a "save on quitting" function that brings you back to exactly where you left off (like in fire emblem).
Although I suppose that could be fixed with a "save on quitting" function that brings you back to exactly where you left off (like in fire emblem).
There's 4 games I consider truly scary that I've played. I'm aware most people consider all but one of them games based on cheap scares, but that's not relevant.archvile93 said:
System Shock 2
FEAR
Doom 3
Dead space.
The first 3 I could save anywhere on. Despite enjoying them on the rare occasions I was able to make progress, their atmosphere creeped me out sufficiently that I'd end up just loading the game, walking down a corridor, saving it, and quitting it before anything happened because the tension was too high for me to get past. I have never finished these games. In the case of system shock, I've never got off the first level.
In dead space, a game with limited saves, I'd load up, and get down to the end of the corridor, by which time I'd probably be already pretty creeped out because I am a colossal wimp - but I was able to steel myself into at least progressing to the next save point, because it was marked out for me - it was like a little landmark of safety I could convince myself to work towards. Now you can argue that theoretically 'I wasn't having fun' or other such nonsense which would fly in the face of my experience, which is that dead space is one of my favourite games. It had limited saves. The others did not. I had fun and finished the game. I did not finish the others. Theory all you want, that's the facts.
So yeah, ADD. I can't think of any other reason someone wouldn't finish a game they enjoyed.Serenegoose said:
It's an interesting concept, but it seems like it'd probably just come across as the developers being assholes.
I dislike being restricted to save points.
I forget who it was describing FFXIII, but he said something along the lines of "Old games had to have save points because of the restrictions to the systems. Current gen games have no excuse as to why you can't save at any given point. If you have to restrict a standard game mechanic to make your game challenging, then you suck at making games."
I forget who it was describing FFXIII, but he said something along the lines of "Old games had to have save points because of the restrictions to the systems. Current gen games have no excuse as to why you can't save at any given point. If you have to restrict a standard game mechanic to make your game challenging, then you suck at making games."
Caveat:
You've been playing a singularly intense, incredibly immersive game for several hours. It's been forever since your last save or checkpoint, but you're not thinking about it because of the experience of playing the game. Suddenly, the game crashes/your console freezes. You now have to do everything over again, hurling you out of the atmosphere of the game and making it hard for you to become so involved again.
Situations like that are what I enjoy quicksave functions for.
You've been playing a singularly intense, incredibly immersive game for several hours. It's been forever since your last save or checkpoint, but you're not thinking about it because of the experience of playing the game. Suddenly, the game crashes/your console freezes. You now have to do everything over again, hurling you out of the atmosphere of the game and making it hard for you to become so involved again.
Situations like that are what I enjoy quicksave functions for.
Saving is technically a game mechanic but only in the most loose and strict terms (it's a part of the game but not nessercarily a part of the gameplay, there is a huge difference).Halo Fanboy said:
The original AVP limited the number of saves you had depending on difficulty (Director's cut only gave you two saves for the entire level) and, with issues such as infinately respawning enemies who move around faster than you can aim and have almost insta-kill acid blood, this made the higher difficulties unfair and irritating rather than 'more challanging' (you would have to keep playing the level over and over again from scratch and hope that trial and error helps you get through this time, as you can guess, this gets very boring and tedious very fast).
The 2010 AVP had Nightmare difficulty (where checkpoints are disabled, you die, you start all over again) and I personality found that getting killed by being bled on by an alien right at the end of the level (given the difficulty this can mean you've been playing for a long time) can be absolutely irritating.
Allowing people to save anywhere allows players a 'saftey net' so to speak, players who want the extra risk and challange can simply choose not to save (if you wish to moderate your saves then it is your own decision) but players who need the help or wish to be adventurous can do so without being punished for innocent mistakes/exploring/experimenting.
Not everyone is in gaming for the challange, some people just want to relax and have fun (and having to replay the same nightmare segment for the 50th time because there are no checkpoints in between encounters isn't really fun for some).
About 'contributing to a game's complexity', the most memorable and fun games in the past have usually been the kind that are the simplest to pick up and learn to play (simple but effective). The more things you demand a player to keep track of in the metagame at the same time (so things such as health, ammo, saves, unit/ability cost/cooldown time etc.) the harder it usually is for the player to become immersed in a game.
Condemned was an absolutely fantastic game, the atmosphere was oppressive and menacing, the combat was viceral and fluent and it had some pretty interesting puzzles to boot. The horror of the game was present because of the atmosphere and tension, not because of the saves. The challange was there due to the way combat worked, not because of the saves.
You could not have improved the game or the experience of playing it by restricting my ability to save.
Exactly. I only save games when I'm done playing because it would be stupid to replay everything just because I didn't want to play anymore.Sober Thal said:
Save systems effect the way the game is played. A game with limited saves will have players taking less risk and taking straighter routes to an objective which will be balanced by side paths having more valuable treasure. Games with unlimited saves will have less valuable items in side paths because getting them is less risky. These same balancing decisions would be implemented if the character you play has increased strenth as opposed to unlimited saves.Iron Mal said:
A more dramatic example would be Final Fantasy with save states:
Always able to travel safely.
Always able to get critical hits.
Always able to get any random drop you want.
Always able to get any random battle you want.
And what you said about complexity is pattentedly false. The oldest board game still played is Go and numerous books have been written about that. Complexity is the way games get longevity not simplicity.
Essentially this. It really does depend on the game.Serenegoose said:
However, with the Call of duty example, that seems to me more like frustrating game design with random grenade spam everywhere. I never felt the need to abuse the quicksave in half life 2, and the only time I ever did a save for the sake of making it easier was at the very end of episode 2, with the strider battle. And I was glad I had that option, it would have pissed me the hell off otherwise. I like the Mario galaxy way, where checkpoints are reasonably placed, but level design is logical and intuitive, so deaths are more from messing up yourself instead of frustrating level design. Quicksaves in a platformer like that would completely break it. On the other hand, having no consequence for death in the Bioshock games didn't put me off that much either, because it alleviated frustration so the most important thing was the atmosphere.
So, eh, it depends I guess?
I haven't really come to any conclusion on which system I like best. Probably the mario one overall.
An autosave checkpoint system of some sort is essential though. The old resident evil way of having limited saves, which could mean up to 30 minutes or more lost is completely unacceptable.
Edit: Incidentally, a neat system that would be near impossible to implement nowadays would be the Majora's mask one. You can quicksave all your progress whenever, but it quits the game, and when you start again it will revert to the last "Full" save if you don't save again after it. It was a great balance.
You know something I really liked about Heavy Rain? Its' lack of an obvious save function, it would save your progress via checkpoints a few times per scene and would alert you to it by way of that small flashing origami figure in the corner, but it was never intrusive. The real kicker is that the game never told me to "reload", if I failed a challenge or botched up a scene that was it, the game just moved on and I had to deal with it (I could have turned off the console fast and restarted, granted).
What saves are symptomatic off is really the old concept of games as pure challenges of your skill. It works wonders in competitive games and games with plenty of challenges (fighting games and older FPS-games with scores come to mind), but today singleplayer games are going more and more for storytelling and less and less for the "Holy cow, I just complete IWBTG!" feeling.
You could levy critique against Heavy Rain because it was too linear and many choices and actions in the game didn't really matter much. But its' take on the game over and the same was quite ingenious I think. And to be honest I hope the future lies in that direction, when the game adapts to my failures just as much as my successes instead of forcing me to always succeed.
What saves are symptomatic off is really the old concept of games as pure challenges of your skill. It works wonders in competitive games and games with plenty of challenges (fighting games and older FPS-games with scores come to mind), but today singleplayer games are going more and more for storytelling and less and less for the "Holy cow, I just complete IWBTG!" feeling.
You could levy critique against Heavy Rain because it was too linear and many choices and actions in the game didn't really matter much. But its' take on the game over and the same was quite ingenious I think. And to be honest I hope the future lies in that direction, when the game adapts to my failures just as much as my successes instead of forcing me to always succeed.
It depends on the game.
In a mission-based structure, where players go to a menu or a safe-zone between levels, allowing saves only in these areas may be fair. Unless the levels are relatively long.
I quite like the way Alpha Protocol (the game I've been playing most recently) does this. It doesn't let you save your current position. It lets you save your last checkpoint - and it autosaves at certain checkpoints throughout the level - it doesn't save at all of them though. If the game crashes, you're only set back by up to 10 minutes, less if you save often. When you die, you get the option of loading a save, restarting the mission or restarting from the last checkpoint. manually loading a save has a "last safehouse" autosave so you can restart from before the mission and change your loadout.
This only works for a game if the designers place checkpoints well. Alpha Protocol does, so it's a good system. It has other issues, but going into them would be irrelevant.
Your options for doing this are limited in open-world games.
One of the better options is inserting save points, and requiring players to get to those locations if they want to save.
Best example of this from my perspective is Way of the Samurai 3. Your save points are minstrels, who you have to talk to before you can save. Being attacked breaks you from the conversation, and you can't talk to someone while you have your weapon out. If the minstrel gets wounded by you or an enemy, he could die, and will run away if he doesn't. Either way, he won't come back. There's also a special title which earns extra points for playing a whole story without saving the game. Adding to this, each minstrel has a different conversation arc, so you may have to do something for them before they'll let you save, depending on where you are. One of them actually asks for money. I never save there.
In general though, I think most open-world games (Oblivion, GTA, Red Faction: Guerrilla, etc.) should let players save any time they're in free-roam and not in combat.
In a mission-based structure, where players go to a menu or a safe-zone between levels, allowing saves only in these areas may be fair. Unless the levels are relatively long.
I quite like the way Alpha Protocol (the game I've been playing most recently) does this. It doesn't let you save your current position. It lets you save your last checkpoint - and it autosaves at certain checkpoints throughout the level - it doesn't save at all of them though. If the game crashes, you're only set back by up to 10 minutes, less if you save often. When you die, you get the option of loading a save, restarting the mission or restarting from the last checkpoint. manually loading a save has a "last safehouse" autosave so you can restart from before the mission and change your loadout.
This only works for a game if the designers place checkpoints well. Alpha Protocol does, so it's a good system. It has other issues, but going into them would be irrelevant.
Your options for doing this are limited in open-world games.
One of the better options is inserting save points, and requiring players to get to those locations if they want to save.
Best example of this from my perspective is Way of the Samurai 3. Your save points are minstrels, who you have to talk to before you can save. Being attacked breaks you from the conversation, and you can't talk to someone while you have your weapon out. If the minstrel gets wounded by you or an enemy, he could die, and will run away if he doesn't. Either way, he won't come back. There's also a special title which earns extra points for playing a whole story without saving the game. Adding to this, each minstrel has a different conversation arc, so you may have to do something for them before they'll let you save, depending on where you are. One of them actually asks for money. I never save there.
In general though, I think most open-world games (Oblivion, GTA, Red Faction: Guerrilla, etc.) should let players save any time they're in free-roam and not in combat.
KOTOR II.
I wanted the specialty cut scenes that came from appealing to certain people certain ways. I didn't much care how it came off to others.
Case in point: Finding out from that lovely killbot what happened to the guy before me involved doing anything and everything to be Anti-Meatbag and Pro-Bot but little actions had little effects that added up. I had to save before every conversation just to make sure that I got it right for me.
I wanted the specialty cut scenes that came from appealing to certain people certain ways. I didn't much care how it came off to others.
Case in point: Finding out from that lovely killbot what happened to the guy before me involved doing anything and everything to be Anti-Meatbag and Pro-Bot but little actions had little effects that added up. I had to save before every conversation just to make sure that I got it right for me.
I'll have to take blame here for being to fever-ridden when I wrote that to find the right word (and not realizing I've used the wrong). I don't mean competitive, I mean challenging.Halo Fanboy said:
I doubt that a save limit would be the deciding factor on the game's layout or implimentation of balance (the shotgun in Doom 3 wasn't weakened because you had a quicksave feature, it was because they wanted to make close combat a more preferable option).Halo Fanboy said:
Save states can be abused (just as game breaking abilities can) but this isn't to say that the one guarenteed way to increase the challange in a game is to remve the ability to save (or by definition, you should remove things such as health regen and back-up weapons since they also take away from a player's need to manage their resources in combat).
The example you gave in Final Fantasy is an example of how save states can be abused but in order to do so would require excessive save abuse (as in, to be abe to get drop items you want you would be there for hours possibly reloading old saves), this is like saying that hacking a game reduces the challange (when you look at it this way of course it makes the game easier, you're using a feature in a way that wasn't intended by the devs).
And just because books were written about something doesn't automatically mean it'scomplex (hell, there are lots and lots of books out there on subjects of varying complexity and simplicity, the subjects may be still be incredably simple even if the books about them aren't). Many (if not all) games are trying to aim for the old addage of 'easy to learn, hard to master'.
Simple games are easier to enjoy because all yo have to do is focus on playing and having fun (look at the old Sega and SNES games for lots of examples of this, all the old classics are very simple games), complex games tend to just get confusing and go into way too much detail with varying play styles, tactics, rules, laws, regulations etc. (FFXIII was infamous for having a tutorial length that could classify as 'unholy', I am not going to spend over a day consective playing just to learn how to play a damn game).
Overall, I think you just have to suck it up and accept that maybe you're being a bit tight fisted over this whole save thing, it's not a big deal that you can save when you like (and again, if you don't want to save then don't, we won't make you).