See, save states aren't the problem, it's the way you use them. I use save states to, you know, save the game if I want to go do something else.Akytalusia said:
Quick saves, same thing.
On saving; Where's the line?
- Thread starter Akytalusia
- Start date
Quick saves, same thing.
well, averaging the replies up it seems there's a great variety of opinions on the subject ranging from "save states=save scumming=cheating" to "it's all good in single player games. no amount of saving is cheating." the only general consensus i can discern is that save scumming multiplayer games, or trying to pass off a save stated achievement as legit next to vanilla achievements are both off limits. which makes sense. i guess it really does just boil down to personal preference in a single player environment.
as for my pokemon problem, i've already deleted my game and started over. i just would never be satisfied if i proceeded with the post game content with my ill-gotten success. i'm going to use the vanilla save system as much as i please, but i've turned off save states. i'm not even that far yet but i can definitely feel a difference in the stress levels for each encounter since i can't peer into the future and make adjustments to my strategies anymore.
as for my pokemon problem, i've already deleted my game and started over. i just would never be satisfied if i proceeded with the post game content with my ill-gotten success. i'm going to use the vanilla save system as much as i please, but i've turned off save states. i'm not even that far yet but i can definitely feel a difference in the stress levels for each encounter since i can't peer into the future and make adjustments to my strategies anymore.
Games should only be Save on Exit, and should be made as difficult as possible to cheat. This means players know going in that there's always going to be repercussions to one's actions.
Games should not really be about winning. This is a long-time prejudice which we should reexamine. In games with strong plots where the developer needs the player to progress through the game simply have there be no end-state, no way to "final lose" and be prevented from progressing further - one way to achieve this even in games with player death is to have the player possess a different protagonist upon death, perhaps a less desirable protagonist so as to penalize death without preventing the player from exploring the content of the game. The game world might become sadder because that person had died, to provide additional incentive for player success. Some old school games used to have stat losses for the protagonist upon death as a penalty.
It's the overriding thought among some game developers that players must WIN at the game no matter how they play that requires that they make the game super-easy, with save-anywhere, no repercussions for any actions, infinite reloads, with gameplay being reduced to mere vanity in the service of plot progression.
A game which is super-easy can't result in victory for the player, since there's no obstacle - if one has no possibility of losing one can't win. It's ridiculous to make the only lose-state in a game lack of time spent.
World of Warcraft is considered a "noob" game by many gamers, but compared to most games it gets it just right. There are obstacles throughout the game, with many difficult obstacles at max level where player skill and coordination between players is the difference between success and failure. There's no "reload and try again" - the best one can do is respawn and try again. Beating the game - which is logically defined (on the PvE side of things) as defeating the most difficult boss in the game, is very difficult to achieve, far beyond the difficulty of most "final bosses" in video games. This is one of the many things which makes WoW so popular.
Games should not really be about winning. This is a long-time prejudice which we should reexamine. In games with strong plots where the developer needs the player to progress through the game simply have there be no end-state, no way to "final lose" and be prevented from progressing further - one way to achieve this even in games with player death is to have the player possess a different protagonist upon death, perhaps a less desirable protagonist so as to penalize death without preventing the player from exploring the content of the game. The game world might become sadder because that person had died, to provide additional incentive for player success. Some old school games used to have stat losses for the protagonist upon death as a penalty.
It's the overriding thought among some game developers that players must WIN at the game no matter how they play that requires that they make the game super-easy, with save-anywhere, no repercussions for any actions, infinite reloads, with gameplay being reduced to mere vanity in the service of plot progression.
A game which is super-easy can't result in victory for the player, since there's no obstacle - if one has no possibility of losing one can't win. It's ridiculous to make the only lose-state in a game lack of time spent.
World of Warcraft is considered a "noob" game by many gamers, but compared to most games it gets it just right. There are obstacles throughout the game, with many difficult obstacles at max level where player skill and coordination between players is the difference between success and failure. There's no "reload and try again" - the best one can do is respawn and try again. Beating the game - which is logically defined (on the PvE side of things) as defeating the most difficult boss in the game, is very difficult to achieve, far beyond the difficulty of most "final bosses" in video games. This is one of the many things which makes WoW so popular.
To me, that's not cheating. Because to me, cheating is something that gives you an unfair advantage over someone else. That doesn't happen in a singleplayer game. You're not getting an advantage over anyone. If THAT'S the way you enjoy playing a game (though I find it highly unlikely), don't let anybody tell you otherwise. Play it exactly as you feel you get the best experience out of it, whether that is playing on the highest difficulty or using a trainer to give yourself unlimited ammo and health.tippy2k2 said:
I really don't understand why people make it their business to judge how others like their singleplayer games. It has NOTHING to do with them. Cheating should not exist as a concept in a singleplayer game. We can talk about it in multiplayer, because there you're actually affecting other people.
Sure, don't brag about your high score if you used trainers or your best ending in Mass Effect if you "save scummed", but that's about as far as it goes. I used a savefile editor to save Miranda and turned the difficulty down to narrative when I couldn't get past a section in ME3. And you know what? I enjoyed myself more as a result.
Who put you in charge of that decision? Maybe it's not about winning for you, but maybe it's about winning for someone else. You're trying to dictate how one should enjoy their game. Why?briankoontz said:
To me it depends on the game, and how failure is treated within the game. For example, in Dishonored, I felt the game worked very well in the sense that any "failures" on my part just turned into interesting and unexpected gameplay. It was actually more fun not to reload a save until I actually died. On the other hand, in Mount and Blade Warband, losing a battle (without changes from a mod) is basically a game over, or at least a hard reset. If I spent 100 hours building an army, I don't want to have to start over again just to impose challenge on myself, so I reload a save. Basically, I think it's partly the responsibility of the developer to take into account how they want a player to react when something goes wrong. Of course, there is a measure of self control to avoid outright cheating on my part, so we both share some responsibility.
I'm not sure that directly answers your question, but that's my view on saves.
I'm not sure that directly answers your question, but that's my view on saves.
Topics like this are always bullshit because players will always play like they want to play. Ultimately, it never matters how someone plays in single player. Maybe in multiplayer, but never single player.
I'm encouraging game developers and players to think outside the box. The overwhelmingly standard game design is A, B, C, D, E, etc. easily-overcome obstacle, with plot progression based on each obstacle passed. The end of the plot is the win state.Magix said:
There's nothing wrong with this game design, it's highly functional and it makes for good game experiences. But just as too many games feature killing, too many games have this design type.
Games which break out of this mode find amazing freedom in gameplay, like Minecraft for example, or The Sims. Consider a game about human relationships. Friends, enemies, changing allegiances, favors, betrayals, etc. Why reduce that to a series of obstacles in worship of whatever plot the developer decides is worthwhile?
Too many current gamers honor narrative - a strong narrative is what will show the world that games are art, these gamers and analysts tell us. But the problem is that narrative as it currently exists in games is scripted entirely by the developers (and ultimately approved or rejected by the capitalist publisher), unlike the more player-driven narrative in the games I mentioned. Emergent gameplay, what I and some others consider one of the holy grails of game design, is found to some extent in Minecraft and The Sims, and is absolutely not found in Call of Duty or Uncharted.
The AAA industry wants control over the medium. They don't want players to have control. They love Call of Duty not just because it makes a lot of money, but because players have very little freedom within the game.
And disabling convenient saving would help any of that how?briankoontz said:
Also, if you really want games about relationships, try some dating sims. Relationships are practically their gameplay.
And if you're looking for freedom, try some sandbox games. They're simply delightful.
I prefer save points to be honest . It prevents cheating and save scumming . I'm not a fan of chesting in any way, form or manner . I will not stop anyone for cheating ( offline). But it does make me sad that people ( especially on their first playthrough) don't play a game the way developpers intended. I feel that a little of the magic is lost when people do that.
I also feel that people don't take the time to appreciate a challenge . They want immediate gratification and bragging rights .
Were people not busy 20 years ago , when you could only save at the end of a level?
Were people not busy 15 years ago, when you had designated spots to save ( and sometimes people would miss a few by accident)?
Were people not busy 10 years ago, when auto saves would save for you when you past a certain threashhold?
Were people not busy 5 years ago, when quick saves deleted themselves when you reload?
Now people are surprised that a game likr NSMBWIIU , will beat a level for you when you fail to much. We are busy people after all.
I also feel that people don't take the time to appreciate a challenge . They want immediate gratification and bragging rights .
Were people not busy 25 years ago when games needed to be completed in 1 sitting?tippy2k2 said:
Were people not busy 20 years ago , when you could only save at the end of a level?
Were people not busy 15 years ago, when you had designated spots to save ( and sometimes people would miss a few by accident)?
Were people not busy 10 years ago, when auto saves would save for you when you past a certain threashhold?
Were people not busy 5 years ago, when quick saves deleted themselves when you reload?
Now people are surprised that a game likr NSMBWIIU , will beat a level for you when you fail to much. We are busy people after all.
I'd say it's all in how the game plays, to be honest. In some games I've hated the fact that you could only save in some random spots, because they were usually before a particularly hard or annoying section and you had to sit through a cutscene or a lot of annoying things every time you failed that section. Other games with save spots are fine, because you can bypass said annoying bits and go straight to the part that gives you trouble.
Quick and manual saves are fine, too, as that usually lets yo play the way you want, with save states giving you the most freedom (although it can easily be abused). Coming from a PC player I much prefer to have manual saves.
Quick and manual saves are fine, too, as that usually lets yo play the way you want, with save states giving you the most freedom (although it can easily be abused). Coming from a PC player I much prefer to have manual saves.
There's a reason gaming went from being a young kid crowd back in the day to what it is today (with the average gamers age being 30 years old (according to the ESA). Kids have that kind of time; most adults do not. Hell, I've abandoned video games (namely Final Fantasy XIII and World of Warcraft) because I've been told "Hey wait! It's a great game, you just need to play 20 hours to get to the good part!". Dafuq? I'm not sinking 20 hours into a game to get to the good part when I can put in hundreds of other titles and get to the good part right now...krazykidd said:
Along with that, technology has now caught up where this is possible. 20 years ago, I was using passwords to continue in Godzilla because you couldn't save (and it became real nice when I could just save to the cartridge in Final Fantasy). To not take advantage of the new technology would be wasteful; it would be like saying that the graphics of the NES were fine and therefore we shouldn't bother doing anything else.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is giving the players options. If it's not 133t hardcore enough for some people, they may choose to not use the options. Most games I've played with Save States will still have it's own natural checkpoints so if Save States are too scrub for someone, they usually will have the option to not use them.
there should never be any limit too when you can save.
if i couldn't put a book mark on any page in a book i would probably get pretty shitty.
same thing more or less.
if i couldn't put a book mark on any page in a book i would probably get pretty shitty.
same thing more or less.
This is why i transitioned to rogue likes. You cant save period. You win or you lose. Fight.
I also liked dark souls "CONSTANT saving" method. Every few seconds the game saves. If you fuck yourself thats your fault.
I also liked dark souls "CONSTANT saving" method. Every few seconds the game saves. If you fuck yourself thats your fault.
Why do you assume that gamers 20 years ago were all children? I would argue that the target demographic (13-35)never changed over time . The people who actually bought the consoles had to be adults. Not all of them bought them for their kids . Just like now , gaming was enjoyed by adults and children a like . Hell i would even say that it was more geared towards adults because there were the ones with all the money . So being busy isn't an "excuse". Adults weren't less busy before . I feel like that's just a cop out answer.Now that isn't to say that you aren't busy , you're priority just isn't on completing games ( which is normal, a persons hobby should never be a priority).tippy2k2 said:
Eh...fair enough. It's assumption on my part since games have always been seen as a "kid" thing and I figured that assumption had to have come from somewhere. Growing up, I never saw an adult play. However, I have nothing "official" to back that up (and Google was no help) so that's a good point.krazykidd said:
I suppose it comes down to what you said in the end; priorities. I can't stand grind anymore because it feels like a waste of time. I can't stand games where "the good part" is later because it feels like a waste of time. And I can't stand games that don't let me save when I have to go because I might get stuck playing the same half hour again because something has come up.
I've never NOT played a game because of it's save system (Checkpoints and "Save Spots" are usually spaced out well enough to work); it's just more convenient if I can save whenever I want to.
i disagree, I think its a good analogy.Magix said:
when a series is split into volumes and chapter that's essentially an auto saves, when I read something complex i go back a re-read to make sure i got everything, sometimes i only read the chapters i love from books like going back and playing different levels or maps, and reading criticism and summaries are just like lets plays.
books likes games are interactltable cultural artifacts they are only non-interactable if you refuse to perceive them as such, all mediums exist on a scale of less to more interactive and books move closer to interactivity than lots most other mediums, especially certain types of books.
nothing is every supremely linear and static especially not novels.
Actually, save codes were used to overcome problems where it was not possible to write any save data. This was useful in the early NES era when there was no way for the console to write to the cartridge. I'm sure it existed before that as well on other platforms but as they predate my experience I can't speak with authority without research.Akytalusia said: