Saving Systems and the Comsequences of Death

[adrix89]

If you can make the game 100% completely deterministic with no random bullshit.
Then you can mess with the save system.
Otherwise you are not competent enough.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Saving in games is not the same thing as saving a text document. Because it has influence on the content of the game as experienced by the player which is what gameplay is.

The problem multiplies when one saving system is thought of as solution for all games. And naturally whatever system is used someone will dislike it.
A better approach would be to use different systems for different games - and sometimes, for what the creator intends for his work to feel, look and play like.
Additionally saves can be limited in different ways depending on the difficulty chosen.

If i ever make a game the saving will be integrated into the gameplay. Instead of being a meta mechanic that is supposedly outside of the game yet influences the gameplay anyway. But that can work only if the story and the setting allows it.

To take Zwanzig example, those "points" would be something inside the game and maybe you could earn some too. Instead of being just some external number.
While in other types of games, if any ratings and achievements are given numbers of save/loads would be included - although thats a weak measure of success for popamolers.

If the game is combat heavy i prefer not to have saves enabled inside combat at the very least. Although i never use such options when playing and basically play something close to ironman mode, knowing that option exists changes how the gameplay is experienced and perceived. And the fact i am choosing to limit myself is of course impossible not to be aware of as something not integral to the game world.
For other cases i have in mind saves would be limited in very logical and reasonable game world relevant ways, but it would make natural sense and players would be clear on how and when they can use them at a glance.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

If you can make the game 100% completely deterministic with no random bullshit.
Then you can mess with the save system.
Otherwise you are not competent enough.

"completely deterministic" would be the worst game ever. Where did this modern idea that doing away with randomness would somehow increase game play? How would knowing the outcome of every event make anything more fun or realistic? The real world is not 'completely deterministic'--- or at least not in the way you think it is...

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

If you can make the game 100% completely deterministic with no random bullshit.
Then you can mess with the save system.
Otherwise you are not competent enough.

"completely deterministic" would be the worst game ever. Where did this modern idea that doing away with randomness would somehow increase game play? How would knowing the outcome of every event make anything more fun or realistic? The real world is not 'completely deterministic'--- or at least not in the way you think it is...

It's 2019, anything remotely unpredictable or random is haram.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

If you can make the game 100% completely deterministic with no random bullshit.
Then you can mess with the save system.
Otherwise you are not competent enough.

"completely deterministic" would be the worst game ever. Where did this modern idea that doing away with randomness would somehow increase game play? How would knowing the outcome of every event make anything more fun or realistic? The real world is not 'completely deterministic'--- or at least not in the way you think it is...

It's 2019, anything remotely unpredictable or random is haram.

its like these people don't know how computer programs work or something. Its bizarre. It seems to have started about 15 or 20 years ago and become steadily worse. I don't get it. The dice and statistics and how they model reality is part of what was so cool about RPG's and simulations to me. The modern generation seems to think it means they are 'unrealistic' lol.....

 

[ManaJunkie]

Realms of Arkania: BOD handles saving pretty well. Saving in temples is without consequences, outside you loose exp.

 

[Drakortha]

 

[Citizen]

Make saves cost in-game resources. Make player waste some sort of gems/mana/crystals or even the main currency of the game to purchase save slots/saves/loads. Cost may increase gradually as the game progresses or with each purchase

It would not only increase the tension, but also can tie a saving/loading system into a game lore and add more MUH IMMERSHUN

 

[Riddler]

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'.

Dark souls' save system works just fine.

 

[Yosharian]

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'.

Dark souls' save system works just fine.

Alright, with a few exceptions, then. I agree that Dark Souls' save system is pretty damn good, for what it sets out to achieve.

 

[ciox]

We need to bring back the old model of Spectrum/C64/etc games where you have to understand the game perfectly, adapt to random occurences and complete the whole thing in 1-2 hours.

And no, it's not just roguelikes, because every genre worked like this, whether it was a strategy, racing, puzzle or FPS exploration game, the same desperate fight for survival and victory before the power supply overheats.

 

[ManaJunkie]

We need to bring back the old model of Spectrum/C64/etc games where you have to understand the game perfectly, adapt to random occurences and complete the whole thing in 1-2 hours.

And no, it's not just roguelikes, because every genre worked like this, whether it was a strategy, racing, puzzle or FPS exploration game, the same desperate fight for survival and victory before the power supply overheats.

 

[ciox]

We need to bring back the old model of Spectrum/C64/etc games where you have to understand the game perfectly, adapt to random occurences and complete the whole thing in 1-2 hours.

And no, it's not just roguelikes, because every genre worked like this, whether it was a strategy, racing, puzzle or FPS exploration game, the same desperate fight for survival and victory before the power supply overheats.

There were some exceptions, but they were vanishingly rare and almost never 'save anywhere' systems like this image seems to suggest. What I saw was games that either encouraged you to finish it all in one run, or offered multiple scenarios to pick from and didn't care to track whether you completed them all in one run or not.

 

[howlingFantods]

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

Agreed, but when the developer designs the game with the expectation of the player saving frequently then the design of that game will encourage frequent saving because the game will be balanced based off of that save anywhere system. It also let's them get away with releasing a very buggy game.

And sure you can increase the tension of a game by arbitrarily deciding on a save interval, but that kind of tension feels superficial because YOU did it. It feels more like "I should have saved" than "this game is brutal!"

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[ciox]

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

Agreed, but when the developer designs the game with the expectation of the player saving frequently then the design of that game will encourage frequent saving because the game will be balanced based off of that save anywhere system. It also let's them get away with releasing a very buggy game.

Quite true, this is the age old shoot 'em up/platformer debate all over again, of lives vs lifebars.
Lifebars are theoretically good and make the game more fair, balanced and less punishing, in practice though the devs just stop caring about keeping mistakes meaningful and making it so you can always avoid damage based on skill alone, because "you have an entire lifebar anyway".

 

[howlingFantods]

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.

So you don't think diving into a dangerous dungeon full of monsters and traps should feel tense for the player? You want the game to be more gamey where the in game world's supposed perils are met with your own carefree indifference?

 

[howlingFantods]

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'.

Completely agree with this. The game has to be designed for its save system in order for it to have anything other than a save anywhere system.

 

[ManaJunkie]

We need to bring back the old model of Spectrum/C64/etc games where you have to understand the game perfectly, adapt to random occurences and complete the whole thing in 1-2 hours.

And no, it's not just roguelikes, because every genre worked like this, whether it was a strategy, racing, puzzle or FPS exploration game, the same desperate fight for survival and victory before the power supply overheats.

There were some exceptions, but they were vanishingly rare and almost never 'save anywhere' systems like this image seems to suggest. What I saw was games that either encouraged you to finish it all in one run, or offered multiple scenarios to pick from and didn't care to track whether you completed them all in one run or not.

Nope....not really. C64: Questron, Gold Box, Ultima, Wizardry, Wasteland, Bard´s Tale, Knight of Legend. The saving systems were pretty similar to Dos, ST, Amiga versions.

Action, Jump and runs however. Thats really a different topic.

 

[howlingFantods]

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.

I never said that we should save players from themselves. When a game is built around a save anywhere system the design of the game often encourages saving often. It gives developers an excuse to be lazy.

Saving IS a game mechanic because it allows you to interact with the game.

And last time I checked there aren't an awful lot of parallels between word processors and video games. Writing an essay and playing Wizardry should use the same save system? Really?

 

[Shadowfang]

I don't know if it was mentioned already but I think Blade of Darkness (Severance) did it well.

You can save any time but there is also a title associated with how many times you have saved and it will decrease. This forced me to iron man the whole levels so I could keep the best title until the very end.
Every time I load a game I would restart the level so it counted like I had never saved.

Spoiler

If they added different endings it would be even better.

 

[laclongquan]

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.

If you make a game interesting enough for players, we will find a way to circumvent the method.

Of course, that condition is tricky~

 

[Thonius]

Gimmicky save systems and NO SAVES ( aka early consoles) actually hiding the fact that games are small. If you played RE2 (new) you'll notice that actual game is pretty darn small and if you had unlimited saves you'll just rape it in no time. Imagine playing something like Pathfinder 160h to finish or PoE ~60h if game allowed saving at checkpoints only ( although if it only saved at camps that could've been cool for some folks since rest is somewhat limited there, especially Kingmaker)

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

If you can make the game 100% completely deterministic with no random bullshit.
Then you can mess with the save system.
Otherwise you are not competent enough.

"completely deterministic" would be the worst game ever. Where did this modern idea that doing away with randomness would somehow increase game play? How would knowing the outcome of every event make anything more fun or realistic? The real world is not 'completely deterministic'--- or at least not in the way you think it is...

It's 2019, anything remotely unpredictable or random is haram.

its like these people don't know how computer programs work or something. Its bizarre. It seems to have started about 15 or 20 years ago and become steadily worse. I don't get it. The dice and statistics and how they model reality is part of what was so cool about RPG's and simulations to me. The modern generation seems to think it means they are 'unrealistic' lol.....

unlimited saves render game deterministic

no, your compulsive nature does-- unlimited saves simply gives you the ability to exercise that power. By the same logic table top RPG's are deterministic. The fact the developer gave you the ability to try again if you failed is outside the actual rules of the game for the most part, although many games might give the option to include more limited saving options if a person desires that feature. However the fact you can not stop yourself from save scumming is not the developers fault.

This type of thinking is why we have draconian drug laws and and ever increasing police state. People think its other peoples responsibility to take care of and solve their own inability to control themselves.