next »

[DavidCaruso]

Glad there's a thread on this now. Save systems and retry structures are easily one of the most important parts of designing a game, and it's weird how little they're talked about.

Generally, I think the best type of system for a lot of games would be something like autosaves/checkpoint saves plus a suspend save (i.e. one-time save that erases itself, in case you get interrupted.) The main problem with a save-anytime system for me is the same problem I have with stuff like grinding -- what the developer is doing is basically asking the player to balance a fundamental element of the game's system and difficulty himself, because they couldn't decide how to. When I first play any particular game, I obviously have no idea at what points and how often I should be saving if I want the game to be reasonably balanced, tense, and challenging. Likewise, if I actually do hit a brick wall, due to how the option is presented the first instinct is usually to save some more rather than fight it out, just like the first reaction to hitting a brick wall in a game with an unrestricted leveling system is usually "oh shit, I must be underleveled." It's basically forcing the player to design restrictions that the developers should have already put in place and creating a dumb sense of uncertainty (in the bad way, not the good way.)

The other issue is that the presence of a save-anywhere system can give developers less incentive to provide balanced, well-spaced checkpoints. That being said, quite a few games do have great checkpoints along with quicksaves, like Crysis or Serious Sam 3: BFE (hey look I plugged that game again), so it's easier in them to just ignore quicksaving and use checkpoints only. On the other hand, many other games have pretty shitty ones, like the original Sam games or Deus Ex (though it'd be extremely hard to implement a good checkpoint system in the latter given how the game is structured, so that's a case where I can understand it even if ideally I'd prefer something else.) And then there are the games which don't even provide proper checkpoints at all...

Note that most of the above mainly applies to action games, though some of it could also be used in strategy titles to a lesser extent.

I am actually sucker for save/restore feature in emulators so that it has become part of the play mechanics.

You're neutering the experience, man.

[C.A. Sinner]

The other issue is that the presence of a save-anywhere system can give developers less incentive to provide balanced, well-spaced checkpoints.

Yeah the save anywhere system really just becomes a problem when the rest of the game is designed around reloading every 2 minutes. For me it's less about whether the option exists but whether not using it is viable (i.e. fun).

[xrabohrok]

Oh man, I got so mad at the first Half Life because there is no auto save at all.

[ntdb]

I do not mind this as long as the checkpoints are placed in non-retarded places.

I entirely agree. I have angry memories of getting a checkpoint in Halo: CE as a Hunter is charging me.

In Halo the checkpoint system bolstered both the game's progression and intended play style. It's a big deal to actually move through a fairly long stage but, let's face it, you're almost certainly going to die along the way. Checkpoints, flawed though they are at times, allow the player to run into a room guns-blazing (as intended) with confidence that they won't be heavily penalized for it and a hope that they will accomplish something with lasting significance to their play session.

[gunswordfist]

Let's see:

I think that large action RPGs, Doom style FPSs and TPSs with similar level designs to the Doom style should be pretty much the only games with quick saving. And even then they should have autosaving for just in case.

Everything else (just about) should have set auto save checkpoints and manual saving at save points imo.

Also, what's with games limited the amount saves? Not RE style, but giving you like 3 save slots or the even worse "Continue" option with no other save spots possible? Is there something I should know? I remember on Xbox they pretty much let you save asmany times as your memory would allow you to for many games. Same for the memory card era.

[gunswordfist]

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

[Fallsburg]

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).

[Hangedman]

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.

[Fallsburg]

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

[Herr Schnurrbart]

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 

[King Hadas]

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.

[gunswordfist]

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.

[Painting]

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.

[Dragonmaw]

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.

[C.A. Sinner]

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.