Preface: I have recently beaten the elite 4 in a pokemon emerald hack, and was starting the post-game content. After throwing about 100 pokeballs[footnote]the same 1, 100x, technically. see save states.[/footnote] at this certain legendary, I started thinking about saving mechanics.
-----------------------------
Save States: This is the most potent save system. you can save anywhere, anytime. In pokemon that translates into/up to "Random battles never happen unless I want them. Every pokeball is a master ball. All my hits are super effective/criticals when they need to be. The enemy misses when I need them to, and never crit. I always know what the enemy's going to do and how to prepare for it. etc."
Quick Saves: This is less potent than save states, as generally you can save anywhere as long as it's not in the middle of an event like a cutscene, battle or dialogue. In pokemon this translates into "The battle will always go in my favor, and the criteria for victory will always meet the conditions for my satisfaction."
Save Spots: An old standard for saving that's been falling out of style in modern titles, but you can save at any pre-established positions. This doesn't translate into pokemon at all, since it uses a unique quick save style with 1 slot. But for games that use it, it translates into "I will succeed in the events that follow, and when I emerge victorious on the other side, the compound result will meet the conditions for my satisfaction."
Save Codes: real archaic stuff here, but honestly, these are pretty much the same as save spots, just unnecessarily complex.
----------------------------------
Now, the dilemma I was that I've been using save states, and during the monotony of tossing 100 pokeballs at this legendary I began to think "If every pokeball is a masterball, then I may as well be cheating. And this applies to every other benefit of save states. And in this case, I may as well just cheat in an I win button, press it, and be done playing. So what's the point of playing with save states at all?"
But then I began to work my way down the line and realized that it's all the same thing. The only thing save states were doing was saving me time, since I could get the same result from using quick saves. It would just take longer. much much longer. Instead of saving before I toss the ball, then reloading if it doesn't catch the monster; I could achieve the same effect with quick saves by finding the monsters, then throwing the ball, then reloading and repeating. Now the time it takes to repeat this process is complicated by how rare the monster happens to be. Legendaries with static positions wouldn't be too much different, but Roaming mons? 1% Rares? Save states could save me hours, days, weeks. of course, this process would also motivate me to reduce the conditions of my satisfaction; ie buying stronger pokeballs, and using more of them before reloading, keeping a variety of types and levels in my party to meet the requirements of bringing monsters health down without KOing them, and inflicting status ailments as necessary.
Then I went further down the line and save spots are exactly the same thing too. They also just add more time to how long it takes to achieve the desired outcome, and further motivate me to reduce the conditions of my satisfaction.
So, even as I write this post, I'm coming to the conclusion that even without any ethical implications one way or the other, there's definitely a directly inverse proportion of convenience and satisfaction connected to each method of saving.
If it's more satisfying play an inconvenient game, it's not because it's more satisfying than a convenient game, but because it coerces you to reduce your victory standards if you want to be satisfied with success therein.
If it's less satisfying to play a convenient game, it's not because it's less satisfying than an inconvenient game, but because it's victory conditions are so casual that it systematically strips away any sense of accomplishment you'd otherwise achieve.
I deduce that satisfaction=victory as a static value and the satisfaction in the formula is actually the 'sense of satisfaction'. In all cases, Saving=victory. The problem is that there's no fail condition beyond never playing again after your first loss. If you ever play again, or reload a save, then your failure, for all intents and purposes, in each case with pre-established characters[footnote]exceptions being games with permadeath, where you need to roll a new unique, personalized character after every defeat.[/footnote], in the timeline of the in-game universe, never happened. So victory with saving can never produce an inherent sense of satisfaction on its own, requiring the use of inconvenient mechanics to fabricate this response.
...And suddenly I understand where nuzlocke came from, and why it persists as a thing... >.>
TL;DR: First off, sorry for that wall of text. It just evolved like that. Now...
In closing, my questions are "When does saving become cheating? Where's that line in the sand? How do you find the perfect balance of convenience and satisfaction? Are there any methods of saving time that don't compromise the satisfaction created from an inconvenient experience? Do you support or reject any particular type of saving? Why? Anything else you wish to add to the subject?"
Capcha: "Start saving today" Thank you for your input captcha. I'll consider you the first reply.
Capcha 2: "Compare rates and save" (took too much time, gave me another capcha) i see, so you think i should consider my options. thanks again for you input, you scary sentient monster. -.-;;
-----------------------------
Save States: This is the most potent save system. you can save anywhere, anytime. In pokemon that translates into/up to "Random battles never happen unless I want them. Every pokeball is a master ball. All my hits are super effective/criticals when they need to be. The enemy misses when I need them to, and never crit. I always know what the enemy's going to do and how to prepare for it. etc."
Quick Saves: This is less potent than save states, as generally you can save anywhere as long as it's not in the middle of an event like a cutscene, battle or dialogue. In pokemon this translates into "The battle will always go in my favor, and the criteria for victory will always meet the conditions for my satisfaction."
Save Spots: An old standard for saving that's been falling out of style in modern titles, but you can save at any pre-established positions. This doesn't translate into pokemon at all, since it uses a unique quick save style with 1 slot. But for games that use it, it translates into "I will succeed in the events that follow, and when I emerge victorious on the other side, the compound result will meet the conditions for my satisfaction."
Save Codes: real archaic stuff here, but honestly, these are pretty much the same as save spots, just unnecessarily complex.
----------------------------------
Now, the dilemma I was that I've been using save states, and during the monotony of tossing 100 pokeballs at this legendary I began to think "If every pokeball is a masterball, then I may as well be cheating. And this applies to every other benefit of save states. And in this case, I may as well just cheat in an I win button, press it, and be done playing. So what's the point of playing with save states at all?"
But then I began to work my way down the line and realized that it's all the same thing. The only thing save states were doing was saving me time, since I could get the same result from using quick saves. It would just take longer. much much longer. Instead of saving before I toss the ball, then reloading if it doesn't catch the monster; I could achieve the same effect with quick saves by finding the monsters, then throwing the ball, then reloading and repeating. Now the time it takes to repeat this process is complicated by how rare the monster happens to be. Legendaries with static positions wouldn't be too much different, but Roaming mons? 1% Rares? Save states could save me hours, days, weeks. of course, this process would also motivate me to reduce the conditions of my satisfaction; ie buying stronger pokeballs, and using more of them before reloading, keeping a variety of types and levels in my party to meet the requirements of bringing monsters health down without KOing them, and inflicting status ailments as necessary.
Then I went further down the line and save spots are exactly the same thing too. They also just add more time to how long it takes to achieve the desired outcome, and further motivate me to reduce the conditions of my satisfaction.
So, even as I write this post, I'm coming to the conclusion that even without any ethical implications one way or the other, there's definitely a directly inverse proportion of convenience and satisfaction connected to each method of saving.
If it's more satisfying play an inconvenient game, it's not because it's more satisfying than a convenient game, but because it coerces you to reduce your victory standards if you want to be satisfied with success therein.
If it's less satisfying to play a convenient game, it's not because it's less satisfying than an inconvenient game, but because it's victory conditions are so casual that it systematically strips away any sense of accomplishment you'd otherwise achieve.
I deduce that satisfaction=victory as a static value and the satisfaction in the formula is actually the 'sense of satisfaction'. In all cases, Saving=victory. The problem is that there's no fail condition beyond never playing again after your first loss. If you ever play again, or reload a save, then your failure, for all intents and purposes, in each case with pre-established characters[footnote]exceptions being games with permadeath, where you need to roll a new unique, personalized character after every defeat.[/footnote], in the timeline of the in-game universe, never happened. So victory with saving can never produce an inherent sense of satisfaction on its own, requiring the use of inconvenient mechanics to fabricate this response.
...And suddenly I understand where nuzlocke came from, and why it persists as a thing... >.>
TL;DR: First off, sorry for that wall of text. It just evolved like that. Now...
In closing, my questions are "When does saving become cheating? Where's that line in the sand? How do you find the perfect balance of convenience and satisfaction? Are there any methods of saving time that don't compromise the satisfaction created from an inconvenient experience? Do you support or reject any particular type of saving? Why? Anything else you wish to add to the subject?"
Capcha: "Start saving today" Thank you for your input captcha. I'll consider you the first reply.
Capcha 2: "Compare rates and save" (took too much time, gave me another capcha) i see, so you think i should consider my options. thanks again for you input, you scary sentient monster. -.-;;
