Games With Single Slot (Auto) Savegames

[Zeraki]

Bioshock Infinite only has one save slot? Is it like that on PC too? If it is that's really lame. I still intend on getting the game, but that kind of thing annoys me.

I hate it when a game only gives you one save slot because you're forced to overwrite all your data if you want to start a new game to show it to a friend, or if you just want to go back to earlier points you enjoyed. My biggest complaint about Brutal Legend was that it forces you to have one save and if you want to go back to an earlier point in the story you lose your progress(for the most part).

Also, I don't know if you're talking about the most recent Tomb Raider, but that has 3 save slots... on PC at least.

 

[Zeren]

I HATE that. I would rather enjoy every game doing it like Skyrim does. 3 autosaves and as many manual saves as you like.

 

[Mikejames]

Bioshock Infinite only has one save slot? Is it like that on PC too? If it is that's really lame. I still intend on getting the game, but that kind of thing annoys me.

I hate it when a game only gives you one save slot because you're forced to overwrite all your data if you want to start a new game to show it to a friend, or if you just want to go back to earlier points you enjoyed. My biggest complaint about Brutal Legend was that it forces you to have one save and if you want to go back to an earlier point in the story you lose your progress(for the most part).

That's my issue with it. I like being able to save and quit at my leisure, but if I can't at least give me a more than one save profile to work with.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wait... so, it's more immersible to have a save screen

That's not what was said.

Who gives a shit if it can be abused? It's a single player game, let the person playing the game to whatever the hell they want. If they want to ruin their own experience by save scumming then let them do it, it's their own choice.

Welcome to the gaming community, where what you do in the privacy of your own home with your console of choice is considered to impact everyone who does it "properly."

...Come to think of it, that might not just be gamers.

 

[MidnightSt]

I actually... it seems "unnatural" in a way to me, but it makes playing so much more fluent, so I don't really mind it. Though I like the most how Dishonored did it, one automatic checkpoint-based autosave, but you could also quick-save and normal-save. though I would like to be able to name saves on top of that.

There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

There is one actually. To stop save-scumming. To stop the player reloading a save over and over again until they get their desired outcome. It gives weight to the gameplay. Dieing in Dark Souls is a big deal because you might actually lose stuff if you're not careful.

Obviously not every game needs that though. I don't know about Bioshock Infinite but Tomb Raider can't be abused with save-scumming, so I don't see the point of only having one save in that.

What about letting the player choose? I, for one, would like to use the system described above to be able to make saves before various events in various "branches" of the story/level/whatever on my second playthrough, in case I want to fight a specific battle/do a very specific part of the story only.

(Obviously in 100% linear games, this is not needed, but it's still nice to have that option. Why should the game decide instead of me whether I will be savescumming or not?)

 

[Something Amyss]

I HATE that. I would rather enjoy every game doing it like Skyrim does. 3 autosaves and as many manual saves as you like.

And the periodic save wipe due to bugs?

>.>

 

[Snotnarok]

I figure it has to do with the reason they probably do it with Pokemon games.
Because now your little brother/friends can't play your copy, they have to go out and buy their own and there's no arguing because there's no way to save more files.

 

[Michael Collett]

I had a terrible saving issue recently. I was playing Lotr:War in the North on couch coop with my girlfriend and on our second session it said saving for her character was disabled because I was further in the quest then her (which I wasn't)... I figured it would still save her character in my save and she could drop-in and continue no problem and we played anyway - only to have her progress wiped after 5 hours of play and no drop-in coop.

Because the game only has one persistant autosave (anti-cheating in an ARPG?) we could not go back to where are characters lined up and play from there, we need to start the game again and I don't like my chances of convincing her of that...

This is the first game I've convinced her to play with me and when she was finally getting the hang of it all her loot and levels are wiped and we can't progress together. Apparently this 'feature' was to stop power-levelling. In a couch coop game with no persistent online presence?

To stop us from cheating they totalled their game!

 

[Mystify]

My question is:
Why is save scumming bad?
I see 3 reasons to save scum:
1. To get a random outcome to work in your favor
I see this as bypassing a flaw in the game. If your payout is random,or you need to get a specific drop, being screwed out of it due ot chance or having to mindlessly repeat the activity until it happens to work out right is a bad design in the game, and the problem is not the save scumming, its your game design
2. To do a section better
You are unsatisfied by how well you did a part, and you want to retry and get better. Thats great! Let the players improve their skills and practice.
3. There is a cost to attempting the task, and you will have to recoup that cost before trying again
I also see this as a flawed design. Just let the players practice as section, don't add in grinding for failure. This would again be bypassing design flaws in the game.

Sure, its not appropriate in every game to have second to second saves and be able to repeat every small detail until you get it right, but even with a checkpoint based save system you should be able to save multiple copies. You shouldn't need to. But you should have the option.
Besides, you shouldn't lose all your progress because the save got corrupted in some manner.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I like it the way Dark Souls had it.
It makes you not do stupid shit, like kill all NPCs.

I like to reload when things don't go perfectly, but at the same time, it ruins the game for me.
How are you supposed to have a meaningful narrative, when you can immediately undo any choice to see the possible outcomes?

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you have to. No one is going to force you to save scum just because the option is there. If you want to create a meaningful narrative for yourself the ability to save anywhere isn't going to stop you from doing that. All that being able to manually save does is give you more options, and options are always ALWAYS good.

 

[Zeren]

I HATE that. I would rather enjoy every game doing it like Skyrim does. 3 autosaves and as many manual saves as you like.

And the periodic save wipe due to bugs?

>.>

I never have that happen. I have played over 200 hours on skyrim and have never had a corrupted save. If ever I did, I wouldn't care because I have a backup save for exactly that issue. I also have my saves backed up on the Steam Cloud. I do not fear corrupted or erased saves because I can easily get them back. I could also just start a new character, pop in some console commands and have the save skills and items back in less than 10 minutes.

 

[Nazulu]

Yeah, it sucks ass. It goes with the future theme I've been seeing lately; greater technology but less options (because of their retarded vision or something). I only care for more save slots cause I'd like to replay an awesome part of the game.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

There is one actually. To stop save-scumming. To stop the player reloading a save over and over again until they get their desired outcome. It gives weight to the gameplay. Dieing in Dark Souls is a big deal because you might actually lose stuff if you're not careful.

Obviously not every game needs that though. I don't know about Bioshock Infinite but Tomb Raider can't be abused with save-scumming, so I don't see the point of only having one save in that.

Who gives a shit if it can be abused? It's a single player game, let the person playing the game to whatever the hell they want. If they want to ruin their own experience by save scumming then let them do it, it's their own choice.

That's like saying developers should put an unlock all achievements button in their games for people who don't want to bother getting them normally. The developers put these choices and hard parts in for a reason, what is the point in having a very hard choice if you are going to allow people to say 'Let me see both and then decide.'
Why on earth would a dev put in effort to let people play their games in a way they didn't want it to be played?

 

[Imre Csete]

Playing through BioShock Infinite atm and I hate it. I spend 3/4 time exploring a map and the rest shooting (losing coin isn't that bad since Elizabeth just keeps me pimpin' with silver when I'm walking around), so when I have to go I get rolled back a lot if I don't have time to reach the next checkpoint.

Some of us aren't glued to the PC 24/7, I'm not a highschooler anymore.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

There is no reason not to have multiple save slots.

There is one actually. To stop save-scumming. To stop the player reloading a save over and over again until they get their desired outcome. It gives weight to the gameplay. Dieing in Dark Souls is a big deal because you might actually lose stuff if you're not careful.

Obviously not every game needs that though. I don't know about Bioshock Infinite but Tomb Raider can't be abused with save-scumming, so I don't see the point of only having one save in that.

Who gives a shit if it can be abused? It's a single player game, let the person playing the game to whatever the hell they want. If they want to ruin their own experience by save scumming then let them do it, it's their own choice.

That's like saying developers should put an unlock all achievements button in their games for people who don't want to bother getting them normally. The developers put these choices and hard parts in for a reason, what is the point in having a very hard choice if you are going to allow people to say 'Let me see both and then decide.'
Why on earth would a dev put in effort to let people play their games in a way they didn't want it to be played?

1. Who honestly gives a fuck about achievements? I mean really, would anyone not buy a game solely because it didn't have achievements in it?

2. What if you just want to have individual saves because sometimes you just want to replay your favorite part without having to slog through the game to get to it? Who the hell are you to limit what people can do with their game when it doesn't affect you? Who the hell are the developers to limit what you can do with your game as long as you paid them for it?

 

[Scrustle]

If they have a good, competent, predictable autosave, then I don't care. It's not that it makes or breaks immersion, it just adds some oft-needed weight to the game.

Dragon's Dogma

...I seem to remember there being two save slots: manual and checkpoint. Checkpoint is the autosave while Manual is the one from going in through the menu (and can only be used by exiting to the title and going to Load.) Continue just goes to whichever save has the most recent timestamp.

Exactly, you can only go from the most recent save. You can save yourself, or you have an autosave. But they both overwrite each other, so you can't go back if something fucks up.

 

[Kirov Reporting]

Any game that forces only one save slot takes a VERY big risk. If Fallout 3 had only one save slot, the amount of game-killing bugs which force tracking back to earlier saves would have stopped me dead on the game.

That said, I absolutely don't mind backtracking to manipulate an outcome either. Example : Dragon Age 2. I wanted to be with Isabella, but she naffed off. I got involved with Merryl. Isabella came back. Then Merryl wouldn't leave.

I'd have gladly savescummed out of that, because how the hell could I know what was going to happen? But by then, 5 or 6 hours had passed, and I have limits!

 

[endtherapture]

It's a bad idea if the game glitches out which is a big possibility in open-world games.

 

[IronMit]

For the few pc elitists that are blaming consoles; Hitman 1 had no saves and that was a pc exclusive (a mistake, even 1 save would of been a drastic improvement). The other hitman's had limited saves. 6 for normal and 3 for hard.

When a game is made well the save system is balanced with the gameplay for a desired result.
Dark souls and hitman 2-4 are good examples of this. MGS also doesn't let you quick save everything inch by inch. Completely different save systems that fit each game.

Games like skyrim and fallout need quick saves. The games are massive and the dev's can't programme in 10000000 checkpoints in a perfectly balanced way. That and the glitches are 100 times harder to identify.

So it's not a trend it's about what is suitable for the game and for the challenge. I also think games like skyrim, fallout, deus ex, are made in such a way you are supposed to manually save every so often. So when making a different type of game, developers are aware that gamers may be in the habit of saving and reloading repeatedly without realising they are ruining their own experience.

It even extends to choice games like mass effect. people will repeatedly reload to see outcomes...so Witcher 2 comes along and decides to make most outcomes happen several hours later so gamers don't reload out of habit.

Some games get it right, some get it wrong. Just like every other mechanic in each game.

 

[CloudAtlas]

I have the habit to quicksave a lot when I'm allowed to, and I'm happy if a games takes this option away from me. I want to live with the decisions I made, and don't want to repeat a sequence just to find the perfect solution. Alas, my self control is too weak.

So, yes, sometimes it benefits people if you take away a choice from them.

But of course it only works, as Kirov above said, if the game itself saves frequently enough (unless death itself is a mechanic of the game, of course), if it's free of bugs with big impact, and if it's well written: If you are presented with choices in a game, and the writing suggests that your character does or says X if you choose option A, but actually does Y, then that sucks.