limiting saves.

[BasicMojo]

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.

 

[Iron Mal]

In Guilty Gear if you commit to a move and want to take it back you have to use a roman cancle which cost meter. The precedent for taking back previous movements for a cost is already set.

And saving is a game mechanic. Moderating your amount of saves can contribute to a game's complexity in the same way you monitor health, lives, points till next extend ect.

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).

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.

 

[ImprovizoR]

If you don't want to save, don't.

Your problem is solved!

Leave the rest of us alone please.

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.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

In Guilty Gear if you commit to a move and want to take it back you have to use a roman cancle which cost meter. The precedent for taking back previous movements for a cost is already set.

And saving is a game mechanic. Moderating your amount of saves can contribute to a game's complexity in the same way you monitor health, lives, points till next extend ect.

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).

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.

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.

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.

 

[Outright Villainy]

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.

Essentially this. It really does depend on the game.
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.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

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.

 

[obliviondoll]

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.

 

[Jarcin]

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.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

It works wonders in competitive games and games with plenty of challenges (fighting games and older FPS-games with scores come to mind

That makes no sense. Competetive games don't have saves at all.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

It works wonders in competitive games and games with plenty of challenges (fighting games and older FPS-games with scores come to mind

That makes no sense. Competetive games don't have saves at all.

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.

 

[Iron Mal]

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.

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.

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).

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).

 

[Uncreation]

Uhm, i like saving. A LOT! In most games i think i save once every 5 minutes, at least. I want to be able to save whenever i want, and as many times as i want. If you don't, fine, your option, but don't take this away from me. I NEEEEEEEDDDD to be able to save at any time.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

who is forcing you to save? you can choose not to save. that way, you can be happy since you have your difficulty, and players that don't want this are happy since they can make use of this.

Self-imposed challenges are not a substitute for good game design.

Making a game difficult but fun requires a lot of work. It requires a lot of tuning, balance, and refinement. For example:

where do you place these checkpoints? place them close together, and you have the quicksave you dislike; place them to far and players get frustrated if they manage to complete a part that is hard for them, only to die on the next part (with no checkpoint in between)

Figuring out where to put checkpoints is part of designing a game. The developer has to carefully consider each encounter/section/wave of enemies to decide if it's too much or too little.

Making the player create his own challenge robs him of all of that design and consideration that the developer should be doing. How many enemies should I kill before I let myself save? How far should I go? How should I even know where I should be saving if I haven't already played through the game?

Self-imposed challenges only work when there's a clear way to keep yourself to them. They only work when they mesh well with the game design. They're a cool bonus that can pop up when you're already enjoying a game- not a way to turn a bad game into a good one.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

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).

It is one of many factors in balancing the game. At least in well designed games. If you need a specific example how about the gourge in Death Smiles. That one level is worth basically 1/4 of all the points you can get in the whole game for extends and ect. This is a game with zero saves. Half life 2 usually has some ammo and health packs hidden off the beaten path. They obviously took into consideration that they couldn't reward players too much for going off the beaten path because the risk is low.

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).

So you agree that saving can be excessive? How would we fix this ridiculous romhack of FF? How about you get 10 saves when you leave an inn and have to go to a town or use some items to get more? That's what this entire topic is about. If you agree that saving can be used in a broken manner then why not limit it? I don't want saves gone completely, I just want them to have a cost maybe even if the game is balanced that way it would be a cost so small that it would only matter if used excessively. And I never said every game should be super difficult and in general restricting saves most on the harder difficulty is a good idea. It still doesn't excuse saves not being balanced to go with the other aspects of the game even for easy mode players. Saves are an entire aspect of strategy and resource management that has been needlessly underutised.

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).

Your right about the book thing but it doesn't really change Go being the most complex strategy board game that I've seen. And I still stand by my point that complexity gives games longevity and that almost any game that has maintained it's audience was at the cutting edge of compexity at the time of their release. Quake, Starcraft, Street Fighter II, even Super Mario Bros with it's hidden stages and shortcuts. The exceptions being the games that had great aesthetics or novelty for their time. But don't be mistaken that complexity is only determined by the amount of rules, many JRPGs are filled with mechanics that are useless in the vast majority of situations. Complexity is also a measure of the challenge present that determines the meaningfulness of each move. In a shoot 'em up if you make a wrong move you lose a lfe which is usually 1/3 of a game over. In Chess making a wrong move could put you at a disadvanteg but with the possibility to recover. In Starcraft a minor wrong move might only waste a few seconds. In a particularly bad JRPG a wrong move won't matter at all, in fact no move will matter at all if all you are doing is grinding againstweak enemies (grinding is another aspect of games that should have countermeasures to balance it.) I hope you see what I mean, it is the penalty for failing to properly use a mechanic and the reward that goes with properly using it that gives that mechanic complexity.

And depending on the genre there should be nuances that take time to master. It's what keeps the people who mastered the previous nuances coming back for more.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

I thought the point with technology was to move forward not backwards. Limiting or removing saves is a thing of the past that we dont really need to bring back.

This part of your post is contradicted by the positive things you said about limited saves in certain situations. I'm not suggesting that all games should one type of save sustem. I just think save should be considered as the strategic resource that they are.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Tell you what, I'll support limited saves when all games are released bug free, external conditions are no longer capable of interfering with the operation of electronics, and I no longer have a life that frequently interrupts my gaming sessions.

 

[Mafoobula]

Some games I've played were dependent on popping an ability at the precise millisecond, and if you fail, it's easier to reset and hope for a better hand.
Mega Man Battle Network immediately springs to mind. Half of the fun of fighting was in the sheer luck needed to get the combo of chips needed to annihilate your enemy.

 

[Infinatex]

Auto save is a life saver! Play Fallout for a good 5 or 6 hours without manually saving and you will love as much as I do! Though I do like the idea of limiting saves by adding a cost.