limiting saves.

[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.

 

[Dark2003]

I play FalloutNV alot and quicksaving does take some of the edge off the game, but due to the many bugs I;ve come across, its a necessary thing

 

[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.

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.

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.

 

[Imat]

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...

 

[Necrofudge]

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).

 

[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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[subject_87]

It's an interesting concept, but it seems like it'd probably just come across as the developers being assholes.

 

[Guy32]

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."

 

[gphjr14]

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.

The whole point of Futbol is to use your feet so... you really don't have a point.