Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411279 Posts in 69323 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 04:47:20 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperDesignGame Saving and You
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Print
Author Topic: Game Saving and You  (Read 6785 times)
gunswordfist
Level 10
*****


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2012, 10:52:08 AM »

What do you guys think about "Checkpoint" systems like Metroid Prime had, where you can only save at specific areas? I certainly enjoyed the added tension of gaining a powerup, only to have to try and make it back to a savepoint via areas that, while previously empty, are now full of new danger.
I think it would be better if the powerup you got got saved to your data while still having you restart at your last save point if you decided to reload right there
Logged

Indie games I have purchased:
Spelunky
Shoot 1UP
Fallsburg
Level 10
*****


Fear the CircleCat


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 12, 2012, 12:59:20 PM »

I'm trying to think of a situation in which save anytime is preferable to a good check-point/autosave system.  I just don't think it exists (except for the aforementioned pause/restart-save).

The problem with saving anytime is that by allowing it you have introduced a grinding mechanic into your game.  While people want to have fun while playing a game, their actions are typically focused on winning, not necessarily on having fun.  By giving them an unfun way to win, you are setting yourself up for failure (defined here as making a game that people don't find enjoyable).

Logged
Hangedman
Level 10
*****


Two milkmen go comedy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 12, 2012, 01:03:36 PM »

I'm trying to think of a situation in which save anytime is preferable to a good check-point/autosave system.

When the game should lend the user more control. No matter what, the system should suit the game. Save anytime is definitely preferable to a bad check-point/autosave system.
Logged

AUST
ITIAMOSIWE (Play it on NG!) - Vision
There but for the grace of unfathomably complex math go I
Fallsburg
Level 10
*****


Fear the CircleCat


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: January 12, 2012, 01:13:30 PM »

When the game should lend the user more control. No matter what, the system should suit the game. Save anytime is definitely preferable to a bad check-point/autosave system.

I'm trying to think of a situation in which save anytime is preferable to a good check-point/autosave system.
So, first up, reading comprehension.

Secondly, I'm arguing that giving the user extra control is bad, because it introduces a mechanic through which they will try to grind out the optimal solution, which isn't necessarily the most fun solution.

Instead of speaking in broad platitudes "When the game should lend the user more control. No matter what, the system should suit the game,", give me explicit examples of games that are improved by save anytime rather than a good checkpointing system.  Either list games that would be more improved by save anytime than they would by a better checkpoint system, or games that would be worsened by the adding of a good checkpointing system.

We will operate with the definition of good checkpointing system in that it is one that
a)minimizes replaying redundant sections
b)saves intelligently (doesn't save when the player could be instant killed, etc.)
c)anything else that you can think of that would make a good checkpointing system

EDIT: wanted different word choice
Logged
Herr Schnurrbart
Level 0
**



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: January 12, 2012, 01:33:11 PM »

This is purely from a players perspective:
Quicksaving is bad.
Yes, it's super comfortable. Yes, it's fast. Yes, it doesn't break immersion as much as going through various menus. But: It ruins the challenge, the consequences.
Now you could argue "It's your own decision to quicksave or not to". Well, the mind is willing, but the flesh...
Whenever I play a horrorgame or an egoshooter (or pretty much anything which is tense) which allows me to quicksave, I abuse the hell out of this function. It ruined Bioshock for me. It's an ORGY of quicksave, enter room, shoot, quickload, enter room, shoot... until I finally am satisfied, just to find out I'm not at all.
Oh, and quicksaving/loading with only having one quicksave is terrible, for it opens up a new possibility of dead ends and lots of frustration.

I really feel that autosaving and save points are the way to go. Not for every genre of course. When playing RTS I prefer traditional Save/Load Menus. I don't even know how autosaving would work in RTS. It probably wouldn't at all  WTF
Logged
King Hadas
Level 0
***



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2012, 02:34:56 PM »

I've always liked the quicksaving in the Zelda games. You can save anywhere but only your progress is saved and not your current position and all non-boss enemies are respawned. This makes the grinding you guys are talking about impossible.

Anyways, getting around the potential for grinding with quicksaving I don't think is too difficult. It's just a matter of limiting where the player can quicksave. In most games you already can't quicksave during combat or when you're in the air or underwater, this is to avoid game breaking saves, if say Elder Scrolls also didn't allow you to quicksave in Dungeons wouldn't that prevent grinding?

Quicksaving may not be appropriate for all games but that's true for save points as well. Hunting down save point can be a huge pain in the ass especially in larger games. I hate saving in GTA. When I'm sick of playing I don't want to have to run across town looking for the nearest safe house.
Logged
gunswordfist
Level 10
*****


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2012, 03:48:30 PM »

I'm trying to think of a situation in which save anytime is preferable to a good check-point/autosave system.  I just don't think it exists (except for the aforementioned pause/restart-save).

The problem with saving anytime is that by allowing it you have introduced a grinding mechanic into your game.  While people want to have fun while playing a game, their actions are typically focused on winning, not necessarily on having fun.  By giving them an unfun way to win, you are setting yourself up for failure (defined here as making a game that people don't find enjoyable).


My main reason for not wanting quick saving in most games is because imo it would ruin the experience. But many games with open worlds should have it because it would be frustrating to have just an autosave system in those games due to all the freedom players have in those games. So I think they should have a checkpoint system and a quick save one.
Logged

Indie games I have purchased:
Spelunky
Shoot 1UP
Painting
Level 2
**


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2012, 04:50:15 PM »

I've always been a fan of savestate-style "anytime you want" saving because it makes so many more players able to play your game regardless of their skill. Is your game really stupid hard for some people? They can make it simpler. Want to stop the game right now and not lose any progress? Go for it. You don't want the game to be too easy? Then give yourself a save at the beginning of the level. It's not like the game is forcing you to savescum.

In fact I'd say that complaining about games giving you too much ability to save because it ruins the challenge is something akin to complaining that a game is too easy because it has an optional "easy" difficulty level. It's not the game taking away the challenge, it's you, the player.

The only problem this presents is for the developer. The ability to save anytime becomes a crutch for poor and obnoxious level design, where you must be so precise that you must constantly be saving to avoid spending an absurd amount of time replaying it. It's on the developer to not fall into that trap, but thankfully, it's about as easy a trap to avoid falling into as avoiding putting in escort missions.

edit: If you are honestly having trouble preventing yourself from exploiting a savestate system even though you know it's ruining your fun, you might be possessed by a demon who hates video games and wants you not to enjoy yourself. Look into exorcism. You may also have cerebral palsy or some other neuromuscular defect forcing your body to make sudden movements of its own accord. If this is true, please move your arms away from the save button so that your quivering digits cannot accidentally press it.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 05:04:04 PM by Painting » Logged
Dragonmaw
Guest
« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2012, 04:56:13 PM »

If someone is having fun by quicksaving and reloading to get the optimal solution, why deny it to them?

Also I am not sure you understand grinding. Quicksave abuse is savescumming, which isn't really grinding so much as rigging the slots in your favor.

Here is my ideal system for a shooter of some kind:

-Autosaves every checkpoint, checkpoints are spaced well, previous autosaves are not kept.
-Save anywhere, infinite save slots, no penalty for saving (except in a few instances where it might be appropriate, like arcade-style games with scoring as the focus)

When you start saying that users shouldn't be allowed to save anywhere, you are outright dictating the pace of the user's experience as well as what session times will be. Users hate this. I fucking hate when a developer restricts where I can save unless they have a good reason (like the juxtaposition of save anywhere world maps and save point dungeons). In most scenarios where sessions are likely to be longer, such as a story-driven shooter, expansive platformer, or strategy game, you absolutely, unequivocally should have manual saving in addition to a nice checkpoint system. That way, you cover both avenues. Players who play primarily until they feel they have arbitrarily reached a certain point (checkpoints) and those that want to dictate when and where their saves are (manual).

Also, as mentioned, manual saving allows players to revisit sections of a game that they necessarily don't want to play all the way through the game for. For example, before each major branching speech interaction in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, I perform a manual save. That way I can see both sides of the coin without being forced to play through a game which has no relevance on that decision.

I am not very fond of restricting user control. I fully grasp save gating in genres like survival horror, platformers, arcade shooters, or JRPGs, but if you are savegating a story-based story, strategy game, or open-world RPG, you are pulling control away from the players in genres which are primarily about player control.
Logged
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: January 12, 2012, 05:10:40 PM »

Quote
Also I am not sure you understand grinding. Quicksave abuse is savescumming, which isn't really grinding so much as rigging the slots in your favor.
Yeah exactly. Just think of excessive quicksaving as a cheat.
Logged
Hangedman
Level 10
*****


Two milkmen go comedy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 12, 2012, 05:30:43 PM »

So, first up, reading comprehension.

I was intentionally drawing attention to that
Logged

AUST
ITIAMOSIWE (Play it on NG!) - Vision
There but for the grace of unfathomably complex math go I
DavidCaruso
YEEEAAAHHHHHH
Level 10
*



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: January 12, 2012, 06:25:14 PM »

Assuming you were responding to my post:

If someone is having fun by quicksaving and reloading to get the optimal solution, why deny it to them?

My issue with these types of systems isn't that people abuse them. Even if I think they might be robbing themselves of something by doing so and would try to inform them if they told me about it (like I said to 1984), if they want to then they can. But not including a feature in the first place isn't "denying" anything to anybody.

Also I am not sure you understand grinding. Quicksave abuse is savescumming, which isn't really grinding so much as rigging the slots in your favor.

They both stem from the same design "principle" on a larger scale. In autosave-only games (or games with bad checkpoints), the developer decides to "balance" the save structure for "everybody" by making the players determine it, instead of making the decisions about pacing themselves. This is retarded, because how is the player supposed to know how to pace himself in your game to make it balanced and engaging, especially when he has the option always lingering to fuck up that pacing at any point if he feels too overwhelmed? Similarly, in games with grinding, the developer decides to "balance" the difficulty for "everybody" by putting in an unrestricted leveling system instead of implementing a proper skill-based difficulty progression themselves. This is also retarded for similar reasons (though I think grinding is a far worse design flaw than save-anywhere.) Like I said, if I ever fail in a grinding-heavy game I feel underleveled, not outstrategized. In both cases, the player is forced to determine a fundamental element of the game's system that the developer should have already taken into account but failed to, and in both cases it creates a sense of uncertainty about the game's balance which the experience would be more enjoyable without.

Quote
When you start saying that users shouldn't be allowed to save anywhere, you are outright dictating the pace of the user's experience as well as what session times will be. Users hate this.

Well, yeah. Is there something bad about forcing users to adhere to certain restrictions? Most, if not all, good games do this. And the session times would be like 10 minutes between checkpoints at most, and a lot of the time half of that. If you can't stand the idea of replaying through that little a few times then you're probably playing a bad game. Did you think the original Far Cry was a bad game because you weren't allowed to save everywhere? What about console shooters, like Bulletstorm? And why aren't people clamoring for save-anywhere in other genres, especially traditionally console-exclusive ones like 3D action games? It's not a developer's responsibility to keep providing a convention that can hurt their game just because many people have grown used to it.

Quote
Also, as mentioned, manual saving allows players to revisit sections of a game that they necessarily don't want to play all the way through the game for. For example, before each major branching speech interaction in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, I perform a manual save. That way I can see both sides of the coin without being forced to play through a game which has no relevance on that decision.

I agree that autosaves are harder to implement in a game like Deus Ex or an open-world title with a more freeform structure. I still know that I'd prefer them if they were at all possible to implement, though. And something like your example could easily be done with autosaves/checkpoints, too. Just keep track of the player's saves as usual and let him copy some to a separate place in case he wants to revisit certain parts. You could even put checkpoints before the branches if you really wanted.

Yeah exactly. Just think of excessive quicksaving as a cheat.

Hard Reset actually has quicksaves as cheat codes lol. That might be another solution.
Logged

Steel Assault devlog - NES-style 2D action platformer: successfully Kickstarted!
Painting
Level 2
**


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: January 12, 2012, 06:41:33 PM »

Did you think the original Far Cry was a bad game because you weren't allowed to save everywhere? What about console shooters, like Bulletstorm?

Sometimes a good game has bad bits, man. Nobody is saying that a game is suddenly bad because it has a non-optimal save system, it just isn't as good as it could be. Are you arguing against games being the best that they can be?

Quote
And why aren't people clamoring for save-anywhere in other genres, especially traditionally console-exclusive ones like 3D action games?

I want a save-anywhere in everything, up to and including interactive fiction and train simulators. What could possibly be the downside?

Quote
I agree that autosaves are harder to implement in a game like Deus Ex or an open-world title with a more freeform structure. I still know that I'd prefer them if they were at all possible to implement, though. And something like your example could easily be done with autosaves/checkpoints, too. Just keep track of the player's saves as usual and let him copy some to a separate place in case he wants to revisit certain parts. You could even put checkpoints before the branches if you really wanted.

But why would you want to go out of your way to do that? There is literally not a single rational reason to not have anytime saving.
Logged
hanako
Level 2
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2012, 06:57:57 PM »

Instead of speaking in broad platitudes "When the game should lend the user more control. No matter what, the system should suit the game,", give me explicit examples of games that are improved by save anytime rather than a good checkpointing system.  

A game in which speedrunning was a desired activity? Smiley

But a sufficiently flexible definition of 'good checkpointing system' can always win out. A game that rewards frame-by-frame mastery might well save every step automatically anyway. A narrative/mystery game might have reasons why the player would want to be able to reload an old save just to play a scene again and refresh their memory for clues, but if you anticipate that and mark each scene with an autosave and don't overwrite them, the player would have no need to make eir own saves.

In a game with a branching narrative many players will want to make their own saves midway through the game that they can jump back to after reaching their first ending, so that they can explore possibilities without having to start all the way over from the beginning again. While sufficient stored checkpoints would still make this possible, players are likely to get more of a sense of control and choice from leaping back to their own bookmarks. (And if there are lots and lots of points marked out with generically-supplied name, it would be harder to work out which one to jump to tan if you had your own personalised saves.)

There are all sorts of reasons in different games why a player might want to go back and revisit a particular part; you can make this possible by keeping tons of autosaves but that's an awful lot of wasted space, isn't it?
Logged
Dragonmaw
Guest
« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2012, 07:17:51 PM »

I'll make a longer response later, David, but I'll just refute that Far Cry doesn't have manual saving. it does. On the PC, at least.
Logged
DavidCaruso
YEEEAAAHHHHHH
Level 10
*



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2012, 07:20:14 PM »

WTF? Could have sworn it didn't. Just Googled it to check and people have made mods for inserting it in and everything, and console workarounds. Maybe that was in a later release or something. Either that or I played it the best way possible without knowing it.

EDIT: oh, it was inserted in a later patch after the first release. okay, glad to see my memory isn't going defunct.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 07:26:50 PM by DavidCaruso » Logged

Steel Assault devlog - NES-style 2D action platformer: successfully Kickstarted!
Painting
Level 2
**


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2012, 07:32:45 PM »

(except for the aforementioned pause/restart-save).

Why isn't this reason enough?
Logged
mirosurabu
Level 4
****


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2012, 06:34:47 AM »

Quicksaving ruins the pace of the game. Checkpoints set the pace of the game.

If you want noobs to play your game, make a noob mode.

If you want people to skip some parts of your game, make a skip button of some sort and give it a bad consequence/price.

If your game is not replayable (e.g. adventure game) and you have content that cannot be all seen in one playthrough (e.g. different endings/paths), make a map that allows players to jump to specific points instantly. Make this map available only when the player finishes the game.

If maps aren't an option, make your game replayable.

If you want to allow players to stop their game at any time and continue later, use an autosave.

If you don't like saving in GTA, don't ask for quicksaves, ask for autosaves. This way, safe house ceases to be a save point and becomes a mere respawn point.

Also, grinding is different to quicksaving because grinding has a major disadvantage which is tedium, whereas quicksaving easily becomes dominant strategy.
Logged
Ichigo Jam
Level 1
*



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2012, 06:41:39 AM »

I want a save-anywhere in everything, up to and including interactive fiction and train simulators. What could possibly be the downside?

Even in Tetris, or Pac-Man?

Also, I think most fans of Demon's Souls would disagree. The whole tension and atmosphere of the game would be spoilt by being able to reload when things went poorly.

I agree that nearly all games should have suspend/resume type saving - if you have a pause function it's basically the same as that anyway. It's just unfortunate that it's significantly more dev work if the rest of the game is based on save points or levels.

If you want noobs to play your game, make a noob mode.

Yes, maybe you could only allow players on 'Easy' to save at any point.

There are already some games with perma-death if you play on 'ironman' mode, which is a similar concept.
Logged
Fallsburg
Level 10
*****


Fear the CircleCat


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2012, 06:44:39 AM »

If someone is having fun by quicksaving and reloading to get the optimal solution, why deny it to them?

Well, my argument is that it isn't fun.  Do you think it's fun? Do you know anyone who thinks its fun?
My argument is that people are going to play to win, which doesn't necessarily mean playing for fun.  As a game developer, I feel it is my duty to make winning fun.

Quote
Also I am not sure you understand grinding. Quicksave abuse is savescumming, which isn't really grinding so much as rigging the slots in your favor.

Well, before we start some definitional arguments, I'll lay out my definition for grinding and see if you disagree.
Grinding -- A repetitive act that allows the player to reduce risk in other parts of the game.
It's a broad definition, but I feel it fits.  

And as to why I think that quicksave abuse, savescumming, is grinding is that it fits my definition.  
e.g. In X-COM, I can take the time to save after every single step.  This will reduce the risk that my party gets wiped due to some fluke, but at the cost of wasting a lot of time and fun for me the player.  It isn't fun for me to do this, but it also isn't fun for my team to get blown up on the first turn.

I know that savescumming isn't grinding in the traditional "I'll kill 1 million boars to level up,"  but I feel that it is just a different in the mechanic being abused.  One abuses a bad leveling system and the other abuses a bad save system, but both have the same causes (poorly balanced game) and the same symptoms (player taking a repetitive action to make the game easier).  

Quote
When you start saying that users shouldn't be allowed to save anywhere, you are outright dictating the pace of the user's experience as well as what session times will be.  Users hate this.

I strongly disagree.  By creating the game, you are dictating the everything about the user's experience.  If I want to dictate their pace, that's my prerogative.  Now, whether I do that well or not falls on me, but throwing up my hands in the air and saying "Wow, it's hard to pace this properly.  Well, I'll just let the user do it." smacks of defeatism/laziness.  If the developer does their job correctly, the dictation of pace/session time shouldn't be a problem.

Quote
Also, as mentioned, manual saving allows players to revisit sections of a game that they necessarily don't want to play all the way through the game for. For example, before each major branching speech interaction in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, I perform a manual save. That way I can see both sides of the coin without being forced to play through a game which has no relevance on that decision.

This is probably the closest I would come to agreeing with a manual save solution, but the game knows when a big decision is about to made.  Wouldn't it be better for the game to seamlessly create a save (or have some sort of chaptering system) such that when you hit a point like this you wouldn't have to do it yourself?  What advantage is to be gained from forcing the user to do it?  I only see downside.



Quote from: Painting

Why isn't this reason enough?

Maybe I wasn't clear.  I strongly agree that there should be the pause/restart save (or whatever the save should be called that allows a player to say, "Welp, I'm done for the night" and then can restart at that exact spot, but it is wiped when the player restarts).  I understand that no checkpointing system will be perfect and that it is supremely annoying to force a player to reach the next checkpoint to save (particularly for mobile games when play session length is not directly in your control).  
The reason I think that sort of system is good is that it isn't abusable (except for extreme cases of players subverting the intentions of the game by messing with the file system), it allows them useful capabilities, and it doesn't mess with the intended pacing of the game.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic