Save Scumming and You

[StriderShinryu]

Basically, if a game is designed in such a way that it encourages or even requires save scumming, then it's a poorly designed game.

*Blink blink* Super Meat Boy is a poorly designed game suddenly?

Well, given that SMB doesn't have manual save states and instead utilizes relatively short levels with a checkpoint style system.. I'm really not sure what you're getting at. Maybe things have changed since I last played SMB, but I don't recall the ability to just hit F5 and save my progress halfway through a level right before a tough jump and then again right after it (not that it would help anyway given that so many of SMBs levels rely on maintaining momentum and save state use would likely clash with that).

 

[laggyteabag]

I reload/ restart missions on XCOM. I know that it is pretty much against the point of the game, BUT I WILL COMPLETE THAT GAME DAMMIT!

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Basically, if a game is designed in such a way that it encourages or even requires save scumming, then it's a poorly designed game.

*Blink blink* Super Meat Boy is a poorly designed game suddenly?

Well, given that SMB doesn't have manual save states and instead utilizes relatively short levels with a checkpoint style system.. I'm really not sure what you're getting at. Maybe things have changed since I last played SMB, but I don't recall the ability to just hit F5 and save my progress halfway through a level right before a tough jump and then again right after it (not that it would help anyway given that so many of SMBs levels rely on maintaining momentum and save state use would likely clash with that).

I already explained this twice, my posts didn't go anywhere.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Basically, if a game is designed in such a way that it encourages or even requires save scumming, then it's a poorly designed game.

*Blink blink* Super Meat Boy is a poorly designed game suddenly?

Well, given that SMB doesn't have manual save states and instead utilizes relatively short levels with a checkpoint style system.. I'm really not sure what you're getting at. Maybe things have changed since I last played SMB, but I don't recall the ability to just hit F5 and save my progress halfway through a level right before a tough jump and then again right after it (not that it would help anyway given that so many of SMBs levels rely on maintaining momentum and save state use would likely clash with that).

I already explained this twice, my posts didn't go anywhere.

No, but they also don't explain your point. SMB clearly doesn't allow save stating or save scumming. Designing levels in a short "one bite" style of challenge isn't equivalent to designing a game where you have to instant save and reload to progress before and after every step. Now, I'm not saying that SMB wouldn't be more of a challenge if it had longer levels or didn't have infinite lives but that's clearly not what's being discussed in this thread.

 

[Harpalyce]

God bless savescumming. I urge you to embrace your scumminess to the full, OP.

I will explain with a confession: I really like video games. I find the new form of interactive media absolutely fascinating, I find being in the middle of seeing it develop utterly thrilling, and quite frankly I find games more engaging than any other form of entertainment. However, I have the health of a fruitfly with half its genes replaced with banana peels. This means I have two modes: medicated, wherein I am pretty much the equivalent of Psyduck with question-marks circulating my head constantly, and not medicated, wherein I am too busy screaming in agony to pay attention to anything I am doing other than screaming. This means I play games in Psyduck mode. This inevitably means that when, say, a boss telegraphs a big attack, I will stare blankly at the screen, then about a half hour later when I'm getting another glass of water, I will stand at the fridge and go "OHHH, I bet that boss was doing that because I should've gotten out of the way! NOW I get it!" Then I'll get a piece of string cheese and promptly forget by the time I get back to my chair and load up my latest save.

This does not make me very good at games.

In fact, it makes me outright terrible at games. I enjoy them immensely. I am just terrible at them. I show up to the Major Leagues with a wiffle ball and a big nerf bat and then wonder why everyone's looking at me strangely.

So God bless savescumming. And bless the games who take me gently by the hand and, however patronizingly, allow me to have a rousing game of wiffle-ball-and-nerf-bat baseball just like the pros. There are a lot of games that I never would have gotten to experience if they hadn't let me save near-constantly and load up again just as near-constantly.

Don't feel bad about it, OP. You're using the tools the game makers gave you to enjoy the game. Even if other people sneer, let them. You're getting to play the game, after all; you're enjoying what you paid for as entertainment. So what if you savescum? So what if you eat your fries by dipping them in your chocolate milkshake? It's not their problem. Go ahead and embrace it. Those who have a problem with you wanting to play the game the way you like to play it are probably over-nosy jerks anyhow.

 

[Daverson]

Erm... That's not what Save-Scumming is.

Save-scumming is taking advantage of how most random number generators are set up (based on the computer's internal clock - RNGs are fun and interesting, and you should learn about them!). For example, if you were playing a dice rolling game, and you need a six to win, save-scumming would be reloading the game everytime the dice didn't roll a six. Eventually the RNG's going to give you the outcome you want.

Or, to use a more accurate example, if you've moved your troops into a bad position, and a muton has a 99% chance of killing all your dudes, reloading to a point before you moved them into a bad position and doing things differently wouldn't be savescumming, whereas rerolling that 1% chance until you get the outcome you want is.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Basically, if a game is designed in such a way that it encourages or even requires save scumming, then it's a poorly designed game.

*Blink blink* Super Meat Boy is a poorly designed game suddenly?

Well, given that SMB doesn't have manual save states and instead utilizes relatively short levels with a checkpoint style system.. I'm really not sure what you're getting at. Maybe things have changed since I last played SMB, but I don't recall the ability to just hit F5 and save my progress halfway through a level right before a tough jump and then again right after it (not that it would help anyway given that so many of SMBs levels rely on maintaining momentum and save state use would likely clash with that).

I already explained this twice, my posts didn't go anywhere.

No, but they also don't explain your point. SMB clearly doesn't allow save stating or save scumming. Designing levels in a short "one bite" style of challenge isn't equivalent to designing a game where you have to instant save and reload to progress before and after every step. Now, I'm not saying that SMB wouldn't be more of a challenge if it had longer levels or didn't have infinite lives but that's clearly not what's being discussed in this thread.

Ah, but there-in lies my point. The game is designed in a way that in any-other game would be save scumming, but "it's okay", because it was "designed that way", something that you asserted makes it a poorly designed game. Hence my entire point about save scumming being a flawed concept from the get-go. You, nor anyone else, has yet to adequately explain how "save scumming" removes the challenge from a game.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

You, nor anyone else, has yet to adequately explain how "save scumming" removes the challenge from a game.

It depends on the game. Take 90s FPS games for example. Your goal is to reach the end of the level without dying. There's no regenerating health and health pick ups are limited. Your main danger isn't the individual enemy encounters, it's getting your health whittled down over time. Each level is essentially an endurance challenge. If you save before each encounter and reload until you get through it without taking damage then you are making the game easier and therefore removing some of the challenge. I would never argue that save scumming can remove all of the challenge from a game but it can reduce the difficulty.

There are also plenty of examples I can think of regarding save states in emulators but I assume we're just talking about games that allow you to manually save.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

You, nor anyone else, has yet to adequately explain how "save scumming" removes the challenge from a game.

It depends on the game. Take 90s FPS games for example. Your goal is to reach the end of the level without dying. There's no regenerating health and health pick ups are limited. Your main danger isn't the individual enemy encounters, it's getting your health whittled down over time. Each level is essentially an endurance challenge. If you save before each encounter and reload until you get through it without taking damage then you are making the game easier and therefore removing some of the challenge. I would never argue that save scumming can remove all of the challenge from a game but it can reduce the difficulty.

There are also plenty of examples I can think of regarding save states in emulators but I assume we're just talking about games that allow you to manually save.

The given example is no more heinous than allowing players to play the game through several times. Are you suggesting that games self-destruct once you beat the game or hit a "game over" condition, such that everyone can only talk about their initial playthrough? Well no, of course you aren't. Still, the point remains that time is the only thing that can said to have been saved by "save scumming" through the levels in that manner. Rather than having to start from square one time and time and time again, the player is able to go back to the most recent point where they felt they were in a good position. What challenge is gained by forcing the player to have to replay the entire game to get back to that point?

 

[Zendariel]

You, nor anyone else, has yet to adequately explain how "save scumming" removes the challenge from a game.

It depends on the game. Take 90s FPS games for example. Your goal is to reach the end of the level without dying. There's no regenerating health and health pick ups are limited. Your main danger isn't the individual enemy encounters, it's getting your health whittled down over time. Each level is essentially an endurance challenge. If you save before each encounter and reload until you get through it without taking damage then you are making the game easier and therefore removing some of the challenge. I would never argue that save scumming can remove all of the challenge from a game but it can reduce the difficulty.

There are also plenty of examples I can think of regarding save states in emulators but I assume we're just talking about games that allow you to manually save.

The given example is no more heinous than allowing players to play the game through several times. Are you suggesting that games self-destruct once you beat the game or hit a "game over" condition, such that everyone can only talk about their initial playthrough? Well no, of course you aren't. Still, the point remains that time is the only thing that can said to have been saved by "save scumming" through the levels in that manner. Rather than having to start from square one time and time and time again, the player is able to go back to the most recent point where they felt they were in a good position. What challenge is gained by forcing the player to have to replay the entire game to get back to that point?

There is a huge difference in "long term" challenge and "short term" challenge that can be achieved with save scumming. instead of for example fighting through a room with five opponents if you don't save in the middle of it, you have to survive all five. if you do, you just have to survive one, save, die maybe three times before taking out one more and then you've already reduced the challenge of dealing with five opponents simultaneously to dealing with three guys. If that is not reduced challenge I don't know what is.

This way you can also save resources like grenades or rockets that you might normally need to survive the encounter on one go for some even more difficult encounter, effectively reducing even those often obsolete because saving, loading and the most basic weapon can be effective enough when you mostly need to concern yourself only with getting one enemy down without receiving damage and saving.

Also an example that has been said multiple times is cheating the random number generator until you receive favourable results. for example that shot in x-com killing your soldier, reload until the shot misses resulting in your soldier being close to opponent and having a good chance of killing it instead of just dying because that's what would have happened without reloading. or saving before capturing an alien and reloading until succesful. That is not just about time, it's conserving resources, needing less planning as you might not need to weaken or disarm before attempting capture. And it could still fail so you'd have to have another plan for that, and then maybe even a plan c if capture fails and you miss the shot you arranged as a safeguard.

Or to go to super meat boy, there are levels that are closer to minute long for the grade A+ time, so if you would "save scum" in that game, you would for example do small 5 second runs of portions of the level until you achieve enough progress and proceed to next 5 seconds. now again doing twelve 5 second challenges is easier than doing a one minute long challenge for many reasons, for example concentration, increased psychological pressure and such. while if you have practised the portitions separately that way the whole mission becomes easier because you learn it, but it is still more challenging to do it on one go than 5 seconds at a time.

As for what op is saying, he/she is habitual save scummer(it's not very nice expression but it is the accepted term so that's why it is used) and it takes something out of the enjoyment, not because what others think but because it takes away from experience for him/her. Habits aren't that easy to control and i can relate to this particular habit. I try to conciously avoid it myself for same reasons.

For the issue of other people doing it I'm neutral. If that is the way you enjoy playing, game on. If you find yourself using it as a habit and disliking it, well remapping quicksave out of the keyboard or using a controller makes the saving slightly longer process and you less likely to spam it as much. It's not very optimal, but i've used it to some success.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

The given example is no more heinous than allowing players to play the game through several times. Are you suggesting that games self-destruct once you beat the game or hit a "game over" condition, such that everyone can only talk about their initial playthrough? Well no, of course you aren't.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Still, the point remains that time is the only thing that can said to have been saved by "save scumming" through the levels in that manner. Rather than having to start from square one time and time and time again, the player is able to go back to the most recent point where they felt they were in a good position. What challenge is gained by forcing the player to have to replay the entire game to get back to that point?

In my example the challenge is survival and/or endurance. If you're saving every 30 seconds and reloading if things don't go your way then you're mitigating that challenge. Each individual encounter may be a challenge but it's not as challenging as surviving all of the encounters in one go. I feel like I'm repeating myself but I don't know how to make it any clearer.

You keep saying that it's not challenging but just time consuming as if the two are mutually exclusive. They aren't. In my example not saving means you're more likely to die and if you die you have to start the level from the beginning. Yes it's more time consuming. Why? Because it's more challenging. It's not the challenge being replaced by time. It's the challenge causing a longer play time because you're more likely to fail.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

Erm... That's not what Save-Scumming is.

Save-scumming is taking advantage of how most random number generators are set up (based on the computer's internal clock - RNGs are fun and interesting, and you should learn about them!). For example, if you were playing a dice rolling game, and you need a six to win, save-scumming would be reloading the game everytime the dice didn't roll a six. Eventually the RNG's going to give you the outcome you want.

I started doing this a while back with Paradox games and now I'm finding it very hard to stop. You can save right before a child is born or reaches adulthood, or an assassination plot is being completed, or you attempt to imprison someone... and reload, reload, reload until you get the result you want based on the probability spread. Between that and compulsive family-tree-spreading, I've almost totally stopped having fun in Crusader Kings 2 - although I can't stop playing it either. The problem is less severe in EU4 because random events have a less likely chance to screw up your playthrough, but yeah, that game has other balance problems right now.

But Football Manager...I do save scum on that. When I lose to Chelsea as Arsenal I'm like "okay don't reload, fair enough", but when my record signing breaks his leg in the 1st minute of the first game of the season and is out for 10 months, yeah I'll reload then.

For the same reasons, this is why I stopped playing Football Manager around 2007. Ridiculous chance-based events, while wholly realistic, were enough to make me throw a fit sometimes. Especially given that there were so many hidden variables in that game.

On Bethesda-type RPGs, I don't think save-scumming really takes away from my enjoyment of them. I use it a lot less frequently, and because most of the levels are designed that you can revisit them, I don't have that urge in last-gen level-based shooters/'adventure' games to replay a level simply because I missed one hidden area or one collectible. That was the worst.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Saving? Saving?! If you didn't uninstall Skyrim after your first death and never play it again, then you have no business calling yourself a gamer! Get on my level.

[small]Or, y'know, you could enjoy your game however you want, but then how am I supposed to feel superior to you?[/small]

 

[Pink Gregory]

Saving? Saving?! If you didn't uninstall Skyrim after your first death and never play it again, then you have no business calling yourself a gamer! Get on my level.

[small]Or, y'know, you could enjoy your game however you want, but then how am I supposed to feel superior to you?[/small]

Not directed at you; but for God's sake, chaps, I'm not judging you for playing the game how you want.

The OP is a comment on what *I* find myself doing, and I was hoping people might share similar experiences.

 

[Vigormortis]

This culture of shaming "save-scumming" is as pretentious as it is idiotic.

You know, some people don't have endless hours in the day to play through a game. Some people want to play though to the end of the game (and story, specifically) without having to worry about replaying long stretches of the game because of a small slip-up or some coding error.

The fact that we, as a community, shame this kind of saving technique because of some self-deluded sense of "moral superiority" in how we play our games disappoints me.

They're video games. They're the very essence of escapism. Why do we feel the need to dictate how people play them?

 

[DementedSheep]

Occasionally I'll be in a super perfectionist mood and start obsessively saving and reloading. "NO! I missed one head shot. I will reload and play this section 10 times until I can kill them all perfectly without taking or missing a hit" *reload* (this is unfortunately not an exaggeration. I really do that). I tend to save every time I do anything as well. I end up with chronic restartitisc in games without a respec option for similar reason. Misspending two points is the end of the damn world. Games with stealth I usually go the no kill route and reload on being spotted on but I set myself a rule to not reload unless I died and instead run away or fight if caught in Dishonoured and mostly stuck to it. I usually take a break when I realise I'm getting ridicules.
I try not to do it and XCOM: EU ironman, Dark Souls (not being able to reload was absolute torture the first time I played it) and getting more into multiplayer helped break me of that habit so I don't get stupid about it as often.

If you actually like save scumming and it's not a compulsion that actually harms enjoyment there is nothing wrong with it. I've said this before but any game our not playing competitively against others you can do what you like in. It's for your own enjoyment.

I always do it in the Mass Effect games.

I save before every conversation. Because it's often difficult to tell exactly how Shepard will reply, as the dialogue wheel doesn't show you the exact line of dialogue Shepard will respond with.
And sometimes the tone comes across completely differently to how one might expect by looking at the dialogue wheel.

If I don't like the way a conversation plays out, I reload and try again.

I don't really consider that save scumming. Its more making up for biowares shitty design. BAM! sex scene from picking the line "that's it?".

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

The given example is no more heinous than allowing players to play the game through several times. Are you suggesting that games self-destruct once you beat the game or hit a "game over" condition, such that everyone can only talk about their initial playthrough? Well no, of course you aren't.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

I was using hyperbole to suggest that playing a game multiple times cheapens a game's difficulty in the same way as save scumming, and then lamp-shading it to emphasize that I wasn't being serious.

In my example the challenge is survival and/or endurance. If you're saving every 30 seconds and reloading if things don't go your way then you're mitigating that challenge. Each individual encounter may be a challenge but it's not as challenging as surviving all of the encounters in one go. I feel like I'm repeating myself but I don't know how to make it any clearer.

You keep saying that it's not challenging but just time consuming as if the two are mutually exclusive. They aren't. In my example not saving means you're more likely to die and if you die you have to start the level from the beginning. Yes it's more time consuming. Why? Because it's more challenging. It's not the challenge being replaced by time. It's the challenge causing a longer play time because you're more likely to fail.

If I've already mastered the first five encounters of a level, then why should I feel obligated to replay them time and time again just to get to the last few encounters that are giving me a hard time? If the answer is "because you might screw-up once in a while during the first five encounters", okay, fair enough, but it starts edging the conversation towards my point about anti-save-scumming being an elitist notion. At the end of the day, I still have to complete all encounters of the stage in order to complete it. I still have to kill the same number of enemies who have the same potential to deal the same amount of damage.

If I have a level all-but mastered, being able to save before the final encounter that I'm having a hard time with doesn't make that encounter any easier, it just means I don't have to slog through the entire level to practice at the part where I need to practice. If I make a random mistake (or something else random happens that NPCs don't normally do) before getting to the encounter and have to restart from the start of the level, that doesn't make the final encounter any harder, it just wastes the time spent on that particular attempt because now I have to start yet again from the beginning of the entire level rather than the beginning of the encounter I'm working on.

So while I might grant that disabling the ability to save scum might make a level harder in the sense of being an endurance challenge, I would then follow-up by asking if it makes the game more fun. I don't know about you, but having to replay the same 5-10 minutes of gameplay time and time again because the point after said 5-10 minutes is the part that's giving me a hard time, the game isn't looking at a good write-up. In fact, it's usually the kind of thing that will cause a reviewer to knock points off of a game if its built-in check points aren't set-up properly. I couldn't count the number of reviews where one of the things counted against the game is when the most recent checkpoint before a really difficult section was several minutes-worth of easy gameplay ago; requiring the player to have to slog through those same easy bits every single time before they can get another shot at the part that's actually difficult. Situations where, if the player was allowed to "save scum", the game would have gotten better marks.

So I guess in short, removing save scumming either doesn't make the game any harder, or (if I'm willing to concede on that point in the name of "endurance") it does make the game harder, but in ways that are arguably detrimental to the enjoyment of the game as a whole.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

I didn't post any of that, Escapist is borked

No, it was me. I messed up the quote tags. Sorry.

-Snip-

I'm not arguing whether or not it makes the game more enjoyable, I'm also not arguing whether save scumming is "wrong" or cheap or whatever. I was just showing that save scumming can make certain games easier. There's nothing wrong with that. Playing on an easier difficulty or having prior knowledge of the game will also make it easier.

And anyway, if you want to argue enjoyment, well it's subjective isn't it? Dark Souls frequently makes you play through a level to reach a boss each time and I wouldn't have it any other way. Castlevania does the same thing and I've rage quit on more than one occasion because of the hallway (you know, that hallway) leading up to the Death boss fight, which itself is tough as balls. Sometimes I like the challenge, sometimes it can be hair-pullingly frustrating (not bashing Castlevania by the way, I think it's a very well designed game. I just suck at it).

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Save-scumming is the result of a failure of design.

A properly designed challenge should be balanced and tested by the designer. The designer should be setting the conditions surrounding that challenged.

"This is a room with enemies. Kill the enemies in the room without dying"

"This is a wide open world. You have to survive any individual fight that you get into (ie, you can't save during combat)."

"This is a strategic game, where decisions have long-term consequences. You can save at any time, but it doesn't matter because backing up five seconds will very rarely be useful."

The problem is that players will naturally drift toward optimized strategies. Saving immediately after any progress and reloading after any loss is an extremely effective strategy. Without set checkpoints, how is the player to know when he is going to far without saving and when he is simply not playing effectively enough, and should explore more tactical options? The placement of checkpoints is an important piece of feedback. Figuring that out is part of the developer's job, and letting players save-scum around having to explore the game's wider possibility space is a disservice to the player.


EDIT: I notice that this thread is full of the really dumb strawman that being against save-scumming means that the entire game needs to be completed in one sitting. That this is being resorted to is just embarrassing. Where savepoints should be located is an important design decision. That it can be done badly no more supports save-anywhere than bad acting in games proves that we shouldn't attempt narrative.

 

[DeimosMasque]

Well, when I play Xcom: Enemy Unknown, I limit myself to 2 saves per mission. Gives me incentive not to fuck up, but also is a little more forgiving when my top soldier is plasma'd into a pile of ash.

I have a similar thing for XCom Enemy Within. I have autosave turned on and I'm only every allowed to either reload the last turn or go back to the Geoscape save before the mission. As the game has progressed I've found I do it less and less as my strategy and tactics actually improve as I learn from my mistakes and allows me to fix little problems like when I click a soldier into dashing when I meant for him to go to the cover that wasn't.