Decline The great evil of save-scumming

[vivec]

Indeed. A game with *good* content can acknowledge your actions by responding to it by creating a well-written story or story branches.

 

[mondblut]

Everyone knows reroll-scumming is the real problem
"Oh shit I only got 18/31 on my Strength roll"
"Rather than just kind of fucking deal with it and maybe put on some gauntlets of ogre power I'm going to be a little bitch and autistically reroll until I get 18/00"

Yeah, all the best games had the "modify" button to wrap it at 18/00 without all the rerolls.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Yes, that one!

The creator apparently took the game off sale cause he's no longer interested in selling it, and only few people ever bought the full version (I never did so I don't have it, else I'd upload it somewhere).

Unless some Codexer still has the thing and can upload it somewhere, it looks like the game is completely lost to time.

Wasn't that Davaris' game?

 

[AwesomeButton]

But should developers strive to make games that don't need save scumming? I.e. - is the need for savescumming the mark of a badly designed game?

 

[fantadomat]

But should developers strive to make games that don't need save scumming? I.e. - is the need for savescumming the mark of a badly designed game?

It heavily depends on the genre,i could go hours without saving in a strategy game,i am just forgetting,thank god for the autosaves. While in shooter with a lot of heat scanning enemies F5 is my go to button....ah the challenges on modernwarfare 2 on the hardest were pretty tough. On old school shooters i go for a few saves per level. On rpgs i don't save scum on battles because that is all on me and my skillz, i do it on the other stuff. My ass still pains me from the retarded faction choices,fuck the dozen peasants,two times i end up with that retarded group.

 

[SausageInYourFace]

What is so wrong with save-scumming anyway? It's a computer game after all. You are supposed to win at the end.

Video games were not always designed around players feeling entitled to win. You have to put some work into them to overcome challenges so that winning actually means something.

This is besides the point anyway because today you are almost never in a position where you *have* to savescum to win.

Players just savescum to gain some minor advantage that they otherwise wouldn't have but dont really need, just to see some numbers go up. Savescumming is not so much a necessity as that its simply powergaming.
Another element of savescumming in story or choice heavy games is that players want to get the outcome they want even though they might derive themselves from cool experiences actually failing would bring. In a way, thats still a form of powergaming.

That being said, I do not think that games should be designed around to prevent this. People will always find a way to bend the rules and players should be able to play the game however they want anyway. if they think itll be more fun to savescum and play degenerately then thats on them. Maybe they are correct and do have more fun, maybe they just can't help themselves and are deriving themselves from fun experiences they might otherwise have.

Either way, players are mostly responsible for their own actions and its not really the duty of the developers to keep their autism in check.

 

[Shadenuat]

But should developers strive to make games that don't need save scumming? I.e. - is the need for savescumming the mark of a badly designed game?

In RPGs? Of course.

The versatility of actions and outcomes is a backbone of roleplaying.

 

[Carrion]

Limiting savescumming is okay in games that have enough tactical depth for it. Many strategy games and tactical shooters would be worse off if you could just bruteforce your way through them with F5 and F9. When failure forces you to replay the entire level, it makes you re-evaluate your tactics and makes it all the more satisfying when you finally triumph. It tends to work best when the actual levels are short, like Rogue Spear where a typical mission can be finished in five minutes or less, so that starting over doesn't become tedious even when you do it for the twelfth time. Then there are games with heavy randomization (e.g. roguelikes, 4X games, management sims), which kind of lose the point if you can just download a previous save after every bad decision.

That being said, I think the player should always be able to save the game unless the game never crashes, has zero bugs, features no busywork that becomes tedious when done repeatedly, and is protected from external hazards like power outages. In short, let me save the fucking game. What could be limited is loading, an obvious example being Dark Souls which constantly autosaves, has no permanent failure states and does not allow you to load except when starting the game.

Your typical RPGs don't lend themselves all that well to save/load limitations, because they feature a lot of stuff that becomes a complete waste of time when you're forced to do it several times: looting, selling loot and buying stuff, talking to people, walking from the inn to the dungeon, managing your spell book, managing your inventory, repairing your equipment, opening locked containers, taking out trash mobs, casting buffs before a fight... I have no problems replaying big battles or even entire dungeons if the game has ways to keep it interesting (non-linear layouts allowing for different tactical approaches, having to manage your resources very carefully etc.), but having to redo all the trivial stuff is obnoxious.

On the other hand I do agree with this:

The versatility of actions and outcomes is a backbone of roleplaying.

In general RPGs could and should do more to encourage you to continue playing after a failure instead of just restarting from a previous save. There are games where even death doesn't lead to a game over, but why is it still so common to see an entire town come to you with pitchforks if someone spots you stealing an apple? With such systems in place it's no wonder players would rather just load a save than live with the consequences of their actions.

 

[*-*/\--/\~]

Balance in all things. Some reasonable limits on saving (like not saving during combat) are fine by me.

 

[Davaris]

If save scumming is a problem I would say do what Fallout 1 did. Make a game that isn't shit and put timers in quests where they make sense. F1 is one of very few games that made me play aggressively, instead of tooling around trying out different things. It was because the game was brilliant and the timer made me feel pressure.

If you are save scumming to try out different possibilities, either the game you are playing isn't good enough to draw you into its world, or you are just too old and jaded for that to happen.

 

[thesheeep]

I just savescum to save time and/or see alternatives (cause I know I won't be replaying a game just to see what would've happened if I went with THIS dialogue choice, at least not for a rather long time).

But I also think it doesn't matter and developers should just offer options to players to decide how they want to play.
Which some devs do, but sadly, many still don't because they somehow suffer from the delusion that only they know how their game is supposed to be enjoyed.

 

[eXalted]

A guide to enjoying games.

You missed an opportunity and don't want to save scum? Just continue playing.

You want iron mode without fear of the game bugging and not able to continue? Play and don't save.

You want checkpoints? Save in cities only or beginning of dungeons.

Want to check what will happen if you have choosen the other dialogue option? Well, just reload the fucking game save.

 

[CptMace]

It's starting to sound like the prestigious guide to role playing in bethesda games. No roleplay in your game ? No problem ! Just pretend !

 

[mondblut]

they might derive themselves from cool experiences actually failing would bring.

I keep seeing people parroting this notation for over 20 years, but have yet to see one factual example of "yay, failing is actually fun and opens new opportunities".

Yeah, getting to visit Lady's Maze opens up new content, all right. For the first time. And players who are remotely gut get there via angering her anyway, not by being pwned in combat and dying like crying pussies.

 

[mondblut]

But should developers strive to make games that don't need save scumming? I.e. - is the need for savescumming the mark of a badly designed game?

First you have to define what "the need" means.

No, you don't "need" to get perfect 10 hitpoints on every levelup of your fighter, anything above 5 should carry you reasonably well. No, you don't "need" to scum out the 6 best artifacts of Wizardry 7 from the chests of Gorrors, even a couple suffices. No, you don't "need" to keep your constitution score virgin throughout the entirety of the game by never dying and having to be resurrected. None of that is "needed".

But it is fun. Having perfect maximum amount of hit points feels fucking better than having a meh slightly little bit just above average. Recovering all awesome superpowerful artifacts your party can use feels better than only finding a couple (which happen to be those you cannot use anyway).

Truth is, there are no alternatives to wasted opportunities, only hollow emptiness, and no high-ground moral posturing about the virtue of accepting one's miserable lot will fill that void for you.

And before you ask, yes, if I could, I would cheat at life too!

 

[AwesomeButton]

First you have to define what "the need" means.

What you described.

In some games I get in the mood for savescumming, in others not. I don't know why.

 

[Norfleet]

No, you don't "need" to get perfect 10 hitpoints on every levelup of your fighter, anything above 5 should carry you reasonably well. No, you don't "need" to scum out the 6 best artifacts of Wizardry 7 from the chests of Gorrors, even a couple suffices. No, you don't "need" to keep your constitution score virgin throughout the entirety of the game by never dying and having to be resurrected. None of that is "needed".

On the other hand, do you derive any particular satisfaction from being screwed over purely at random, through no particular fault of your own?

And before you ask, yes, if I could, I would cheat at life too!

My people have a saying: "If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'.". There's another saying we have, too: "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat!".

As for save-scumming, I argue that maybe it's time to make a game where save-scumming is not merely an exploit, but an actual game mechanic and the intended way to play. Probably something involving quantum many-worlds and/or time travel. Sort of like how in the original Planescape Torment, dying wasn't simply a failure ending, it was part of advancing the plot, and playing through without ever dying would be missing out. So in THIS game, you are SUPPOSED to save-scum, save-scumming is built into the game mechanics themselves, and if you don't do it, you're missing out.

 

[Darkzone]

Save scumming?
Suum cuique.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

You restart 15 minutes before you lose. You restart 2 hours (or in case of AoD, 12 hours because your build is shit and you have to restart) from the last check point before you lose. I know I am choosing the 15.

Of course if the whole point of the game is about Iron Man, XCOM, Roguelike, and similar games which are designed to be played in Iron Man, save scumming is stupid. Otherwise, I am just using my limited time more efficiently.

 

[Dux]

I have to be in a certain state of mind if I'm going to play without a degree of save-scumming. It also depends on the game.

If a game throws me a curveball coated in acid - out of nowhere - and I feel hard done-by and I'm in a less favourable mood, I'll probably just reload that shit.

If I'm in a good and adventurous mood, however, I'll view it as a challenge and go along with it. I tend to drastically reduce or even eliminate save-scumming antics when playing games I respect.

 

[vivec]

The proverbial curveball hits the hardest in VtMB when you take your talky toreador build into the sewers.

 

[Storyfag]

The proverbial curveball hits the hardest in VmTB when you take your talky toreador build into the sewers.

Nothing guns will not solve. And Presence can actually be a crazy tanky discipline in VtMB.

 

[Ash]

ITT: dumbfucks that can't grasp game design 101.

Comprehend this: introduce a completely unrestricted rewind time manipulating mechanic to ANY real world game. Watch them all be ruined, no matter the context. It's completely counter to most game rules.

"If you don't like it, don't save" is no valid response. Saving is needed given that video games are long and often need to be returned to multiple times, as well as the fact they are rather trial and error-based and deaths are just inevitable without prior knowledge. The compromise is so obvious, and that is some form of restricted saving.

"If you don't like, save only in towns etc" is no valid response either. That may not be an appropriate and fair save location. there could be a mission that takes you far away from towns or [condition] for extended periods of time. The player wouldn't even know, they know nothing of the perils ahead and you're telling them that they should make their own save rules. Guess who does (or should) know what is reasonably fair save frequency though? The designer.

Would you defend giving the player infinite health packs and ammo too? "Dont like it, don't use them very often!". But how is the player meant to know what is the balanced frequency in which to use them in?

The designer balances resource economies like health and such, and true monocled designers do the same with saves.

I thought Dork Souls would have cleared up this ignorance by now, given how entrenched it is across gaming. You can't manipulate time however the hell you please there, and as a result it offers true fair challenge and game rules that cannot be defied (unless you keep copying saves files from the folder like scum, but that's a lot of hassle).

Replaying content (within reason) isn't a bad thing if the gameplay is good. If you're dead against replaying content, may I suggest you stop playing games with shitty gameplay?

 

[Werdna's Revenge]

I don't mind other people save scumming and limiting themselves with ironman in games that don't have it, I just hate people that bitch about games being too easy when savescumming like a little bitch.

 

[Leitz]

There is some wild weirdness in how you (can) use savescumming in a game like Doom. Something dark...like shooting people while jerking off. Just sayin'.