Saving Systems and the Comsequences of Death

[howlingFantods]

Most save/death systems are garbage. One system I particularly loathe is a save anywhere load anywhere (sometimes only outside of combat) system to apologize for scattershot difficulty and for a b(ethesda)uggy game. These games usually handle death by making you reload your last save; so it punishes failure with the tedium of redoing what you’ve already done.
This is a good way to take out most of the tension from a game. I mean, in games like Baldur’s gate you’re actually expected to save all the time so that you have recourse when the inflexible GM that is the game rolls you out of business. But when I know I can load a save to restart any encounter the prospect of failure is merely potentially annoying whereas it should inspire dread.
The first Wizardry games actually do inspire dread with their “we will save all your blunders and dice roll disasters so that you can’t save scum” save system. It’s certainly not without flaws though. A few unlucky dice rolls against an otherwise manageable enemy could annihilate your party, and that could mean hours of grinding a new/backup party to save your old party. So this system ends up punishing you for failure with the tedium of grinding.
Dark souls can be seen as a good implementation of the “autosaving your mistakes” system. It definitely conjurs some amount of dread (although not nearly as much) without being overly punishing. This is because it handles death as a minor but not insignificant setback. You lose some ground and potentially some souls, but you have also usually gained some understanding that will make this next run a bit easier, so it’s not a total loss. It still punishes failure with tedium redoing stuff you’ve done but it gives you some goals (regaining souls & trying new strategy) which make the next run a little more hopeful.

Anyhow, what games handle death and saving well and which handle them poorly in your opinion?

 

[Yosharian]

It's funny you make this thread now because I literally just finished playing through Burial At Sea, which is Bioshock Infinite's story DLC (yeah I know, it's a little old), and it reminded me just how FUCKING GARBAGE Infinite's save system is.

You're not wrong that save anywhere load anywhere systems reduce tension, but jesus christ if the alternative is something like Infinite's system, then fuck that. Fuck. That. Shit.

For those of you that haven't played Infinite, the main issue is the inconsistency of save points: the game only saves at certain points, such as when you first transition into a new area, or when you defeat all the enemies in a set-piece. So you can actually go about exploring for an hour or more (I saw some videos on YouTube where a guy said he lost 5 hours...) and not encounter a save point, then die incidentally, or get stuck, or crash, or whatever, and lose a shit-ton of progress for no real reason.

So ultimately I agree that we need better save systems to improve tension, but so far the industry has proved it does not have the intelligence or competence to construct better save systems than 'save anywhere'.

 

[Lemming42]

Theoretically I agree that infinite quicksave/quickload is bullshit but I don't really have the patience for games that don't offer it, or at least generous checkpoints.

I like limited quicksaves as a system, for games where that's appropriate - you can see it in some older FPS games. Saves become a resource to be managed and if you end up getting killed right at the end of a a long/difficult level after using all your saves in the first 5 seconds, then it's your own fault when you have to do it all again and you've learned to deploy your saves better next time.

Scrub mode engaged: I played some difficult NES games on emulator a while back and found I really enjoyed the games more by allowing myself one save-state per level. What was bullshit 80s difficulty suddenly transformed into a challenge to carefully marshal my resources and drop saves where I learned I'd need them most.

 

[Tweed]

Nothing really comes to mind at least RPG-wise that handles saving well, checkpoints are even worse than endless savescumming. JRPGs being notorious for that kind of shit. You either end up being forced to sit through every battle and cutscene again or you're chained to the game until you can finally save because you want to take a break.

For non-RPG games Dead Space handles it pretty well, most "scenes" are saved at each door so if you fuck up you just have to restart that particular room and saving really is just for when you want to take a break.

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

One of the ways to keep the convenience of the save/load anytime while keeping the consequences to death severe is to use a limited overall number of saves. Say, you start with 100 points, each manual save costs 3 points, each load costs 1 point, depleting all points and dying wipes out your save and sends you back to the beginning. The upside is that you only save when necessary, the downside is danger of losing your save right before the final battle.

The only way to balance this is to force the player to play smart by (preferably) making the first 30-60 minutes unbeatable unless they get a good grip on game mechanics.

 

[Butter]

One of the ways to keep the convenience of the save/load anytime while keeping the consequences to death severe is to use a limited overall number of saves. Say, you start with 100 points, each manual save costs 3 points, each load costs 1 point, depleting all points and dying wipes out your save and sends you back to the beginning. The upside is that you only save when necessary, the downside is danger of losing your save right before the final battle.

The only way to balance this is to force the player to play smart by (preferably) making the first 30-60 minutes unbeatable unless they get a good grip on game mechanics.

I've thought this would be an interesting system. Are there any games that do something like this?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

if someone wants to ruin their experience by savescumming then that's their choice

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

One of the ways to keep the convenience of the save/load anytime while keeping the consequences to death severe is to use a limited overall number of saves. Say, you start with 100 points, each manual save costs 3 points, each load costs 1 point, depleting all points and dying wipes out your save and sends you back to the beginning. The upside is that you only save when necessary, the downside is danger of losing your save right before the final battle.

The only way to balance this is to force the player to play smart by (preferably) making the first 30-60 minutes unbeatable unless they get a good grip on game mechanics.

I've thought this would be an interesting system. Are there any games that do something like this?

Enemy Zero and Das Geisterschiff.

 

[mondblut]

If I'll want tension and dread, I'll take a stroll through a bad 'hood after dusk. When I play, I'll save whenever I wish and reload however often I wish, bitch.

 

[Okagron]

I've thought this would be an interesting system. Are there any games that do something like this?

Not exactly the same, but early Resident Evil games had ink ribbons which were used for saving but came in finite quantities, meaning you had a limited amount of saves (i think only Easy mode of RE 3 had infinite ink ribbons). Some games have hardcore modes that you have to unlock that have limited saves.

 

[Ironmonk]

What if was added a item (dropped / crafted / bought) that allowed to save anywhere? You could start with a few of these items and if you like to save a lot, you would need to acquire more of these save-items.

Could even act as a supplementary form of gold sink.

Of course, a difficult setting for how rare/difficult to acquire these save items could be added as well.

Maybe even the number of save slots could be tailored to this kind of system.

 

[Syme]

if someone wants to ruin their experience by savescumming then that's their choice

This pretty much.

Also, there's nothing preventing you from making up your own rules and sticking to them. I like playing X-Com with one reload per rank of the highest ranked soldier per mission, treating them as a resource that allows me to take risks or save one of my main guys (or gals, in piratez) from general X-Com fuckery.

 

[Carrion]

I like limited quicksaves as a system, for games where that's appropriate - you can see it in some older FPS games. Saves become a resource to be managed and if you end up getting killed right at the end of a a long/difficult level after using all your saves in the first 5 seconds, then it's your own fault when you have to do it all again and you've learned to deploy your saves better next time.

It works in specific types of games, like Hitman where you have a clear set of objectives and a full map of the level from the start and can plan ahead when to use those saves. It doesn't work as well in, say, Soldier of Fortune 2, where I didn't even use half of my allowed saves because there was no way of knowing for sure how long a particular level was going to be, so I ended up saving them for a rainy day that never came. Obviously there are few RPGs where such a save system would even be viable.

I think the option to save the game should always be available for the player — not because you might lose a fight but because the game could crash, you could run into a bug, there could be a power outage, or you could suddenly have to stop playing for whatever reason. Losing five minutes of progress isn't a disaster if it's a rare occurrence, but an hour or more? Fuck that. I'm all for preventing savescumming, though, like fixing die rolls so that you can't just reload over and over again until you get a 20, or discouraging reloading in other ways.

I'm pretty fond of the save system in Severance, which allows you to save whenever you like but quite subtly calls you a pussy if you do it too often.

 

[S.torch]

if someone wants to ruin their experience by savescumming then that's their choice

Some games force you to save and load every time. Is not really a decision that the player can make.

 

[sullynathan]

Consequences....

 

[Yosharian]

Maybe I'm just different but I don't like the idea of having to make up save rules in order to enjoy a video game. I'm not a developer, I'm a player. It's my job to break your game, not make up artificial rules for myself so that it works properly.

 

[laclongquan]

One of the ways to keep the convenience of the save/load anytime while keeping the consequences to death severe is to use a limited overall number of saves. Say, you start with 100 points, each manual save costs 3 points, each load costs 1 point, depleting all points and dying wipes out your save and sends you back to the beginning. The upside is that you only save when necessary, the downside is danger of losing your save right before the final battle.

The only way to balance this is to force the player to play smart by (preferably) making the first 30-60 minutes unbeatable unless they get a good grip on game mechanics.

That was too complex. Just offer a data on the save screen: Save: 59 times, Reload: 60 times. For examples. Grind gamers' face into the fact that he did save and did reload. That is all.

It is the system that Sengoku Rance use. BG2 used to set a number on the actual save folder to indicate how many times you have saved, but as it doesnt show on the game save screen, we used to not know about it, I think. Nor care.

Of course, I can just not care about the fact I have one thousand saves in my game. But if I dont care, then I dont care.

 

[luj1]

This is something that is fully under your control, e.g. how often you save/load. If you loathe it then use but one slot.

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

One of the ways to keep the convenience of the save/load anytime while keeping the consequences to death severe is to use a limited overall number of saves. Say, you start with 100 points, each manual save costs 3 points, each load costs 1 point, depleting all points and dying wipes out your save and sends you back to the beginning. The upside is that you only save when necessary, the downside is danger of losing your save right before the final battle.

The only way to balance this is to force the player to play smart by (preferably) making the first 30-60 minutes unbeatable unless they get a good grip on game mechanics.

That was too complex. Just offer a data on the save screen: Save: 59 times, Reload: 60 times. For examples. Grind gamers' face into the fact that he did save and did reload. That is all.

It is the system that Sengoku Rance use. BG2 used to set a number on the actual save folder to indicate how many times you have saved, but as it doesnt show on the game save screen, we used to not know about it, I think. Nor care.

Of course, I can just not care about the fact I have one thousand saves in my game. But if I dont care, then I dont care.

Don't know where you found complexity in elementary school-tier math.

 

[Sykar]

Well quite a few game offer Ironman experience where you have only one save slot and the game saves whenever you exit the game so save scumming wont work here. I still prefer save and load outside of combat whenever you want, simply for convenience.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Saving players from themselves is the same mentality that gave us the 2000s "cinematic experience". It's what dumbed every feature down. It's a dangerous philosophy.

Saving is not a game mechanic, so it should be usable at will. Should your word processor limit the amount of times you save a file? While I personally love ironman modes, sometimes I don't use them because my time constraints assure I will only be able to play through it once. At that point, I just accept the defeat and finish the game.

This is not to say that no innovation is welcome. PST did well enough, but ultimately saves are a necessary part of any game with significant investment either in characters or plot. Removing them makes it akin to an arcade experience, which it is not.

 

[laclongquan]

One of the ways to keep the convenience of the save/load anytime while keeping the consequences to death severe is to use a limited overall number of saves. Say, you start with 100 points, each manual save costs 3 points, each load costs 1 point, depleting all points and dying wipes out your save and sends you back to the beginning. The upside is that you only save when necessary, the downside is danger of losing your save right before the final battle.

The only way to balance this is to force the player to play smart by (preferably) making the first 30-60 minutes unbeatable unless they get a good grip on game mechanics.

That was too complex. Just offer a data on the save screen: Save: 59 times, Reload: 60 times. For examples. Grind gamers' face into the fact that he did save and did reload. That is all.

It is the system that Sengoku Rance use. BG2 used to set a number on the actual save folder to indicate how many times you have saved, but as it doesnt show on the game save screen, we used to not know about it, I think. Nor care.

Of course, I can just not care about the fact I have one thousand saves in my game. But if I dont care, then I dont care.

Don't know where you found complexity in elementary school-tier math.

Gamers' personality, man. Gamers' personality!

You set it too complex and they just ignore it. Set it "in your face, you cant even think you dont understand what that means" and you have a halfway workable system. Grind their face on that fact is about the heaviest punishment you can dish out. Anything heavier than that wont work.

That kind of auto-wipe save feature, common in roguelike, WILL drive your customers base madder than march hare. Also easy to circumvent, as we can just alt tab out, copypasta save folder into another version.

Unreal World, I do it all the times.

 

[aeroaeko]

If you die in the game you should die irl

 

[buffalo bill]

I've been playing a lot of Infra Arcana recently (an amazing roguelike, really one of the best games I've ever played), and the inability to save really heightens an already-tense atmosphere. It also helps that the sound design is brilliant and the game is brutally hard. When I have a good character going the feeling of exhilaration and dread is palpable, with death and insanity (for my character) potentially around every corner.

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

Gamers' personality, man. Gamers' personality!

You set it too complex and they just ignore it. Set it "in your face, you cant even think you dont understand what that means" and you have a halfway workable system. Grind their face on that fact is about the heaviest punishment you can dish out. Anything heavier than that wont work.

That kind of auto-wipe save feature, common in roguelike, WILL drive your customers base madder than march hare. Also easy to circumvent, as we can just alt tab out, copypasta save folder into another version.

Unreal World, I do it all the times.

It depends on the game. The mechanic I suggested will most likely not work for games with 30+ hours of main story content, but works well for smaller games that can be finished in a few hours if you master the game mechanics.

Also easy to circumvent, as we can just alt tab out, copypasta save folder into another version.

Pretty sure there are a few ways to make this operation useless.