Save Everywhere or Savepoints

[6746e579d3db9Hikari]

An attempt at bringing the discussion away from the Remake thread in an attempt at keeping it from taking everything over.

[6746e579d3f4fZylonBane]

Save-everywhere is for grownups, save points are for children. The end.

[6746e579d407cHikari]

Elaborate on that Zylon. Not everyone who disagrees with your opinion is automagically wrong.

Granted I agree with you that going to save points would be annoying, and that save anywhere did not lessen my tension while playing shock 2. Frankly going with hard savepoints would make me less likely to play because it's less an immersion mechanic and more an annoyance in what essentially is me trying to relax even while getting the crap scared out of me.

[6746e579d41d1voodoo47]

I'm just going to say that I've never seen anyone playing SS2 say "gosh, I wish there were no manual saves in this game, they really ruin the immersion for me".

[6746e579d44e3Join2]

I'm just going to say that I've never seen anyone playing SS2 say "gosh, I wish there were no manual saves in this game, they really ruin the immersion for me".

Actually, restrictive saving has the potential to increase immersion, as the one thing you should absolutely feel in a survival horror is a fear of death and the creatures that cause it. Limited saving ensures you always have a reason to do just that. It helps put you in the PC's shoes...unless you are one to not value your own life in the real world.

[6746e579d473dOlfred]

Just play SS2 in multiplayer mode. The fear of loading is bigger than anything else

[6746e579d4a92ZylonBane]

Actually, restrictive saving has the potential to increase immersion, as the one thing you should absolutely feel in a survival horror is a fear of death and the creatures that cause it.

And people with mature minds can create that for themselves by NOT SAVING. People with weak minds must have it imposed on them.

Some of us are grown-ups with things to do besides just playing video games, so the ability to save at any time is essential.

Furthermore, checkpoint-only save systems invariably lead to screaming frustration by players who aren't as good at some parts of the game as the developers demand that they be.

[6746e579d4f5eJoin2]

Some of us are grown-ups with things to do besides just playing video games, so the ability to save at any time is essential.

Grown ups also seek to understand the subject at hand before arguing so stubbornly.

https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/LXVSlYtCIS4/0.jpg

See the option called "suspend"? Quite common in Japanese games and rogue-likes. It can be used at any time & creates a unique save state which is deleted upon being loaded, which solves the problem of not being able to return to the game as you left it when life intervenes, while also keeping the restricted design intact.

Furthermore, checkpoint-only save systems invariably lead to screaming frustration by players who aren't as good at some parts of the game as the developers demand that they be.

It's called variable difficulty levels, or conform to the developer's vision.

And people with mature minds can create that for themselves by NOT SAVING. People with weak minds must have it imposed on them.

I guess you lack reading comprehension and put no effort into understanding the opposing side of the debate? I explained in the other thread it is a matter of fairly designed challenge structure that a player new to the game has no possible foresight in providing for themselves by merely NOT SAVING.

I'm tired of explaining basic concepts to "adults" and having them willfully ignore it, so I'm done.

[6746e579d5075Hikari]

I'm gonna be blunt. You're both acting like children fighting over what the 'grown up' thing to do is.

Which is why I wanted this thread to be where the argument went instead of cluttering the main thread.

[6746e579d5202voodoo47]

still looks like a lot of pain for no good reason. anyway, I don't think I've ever liked it when a game didn't have manual saves. good example would be AvP - no saves added some extra adrenaline kick first, but that quickly turned into frustration after losing a lot of progress a couple of times. Hitman is the same - while I like the first game a lot, the complete absence of saves made it a bit frustrating sometimes - you simply need a save or two per mission, especially if you want to go for those perfect hits (something IO realized, and added limited manual saving to the second game). losing all progress because you got stuck on a manhole and killed three seconds before the mission exit (or because of a glitch/crash) is NOT fun.

[6746e579d5373Join2]

good example would be AvP - no saves added some extra adrenaline kick first, but that quickly turned into frustration after losing a lot of progress a couple of times. Hitman is the same - while I like the first game a lot, the complete absence of saves made it a bit frustrating sometimes -

Again, it's a matter of fair design. Whole levels without a save can be a bit much, but the truly hardcore would appreciate it.

still looks like a lot of pain for no good reason. anyway

There's many good reasons. Dark Souls is always a fine example of excellence in this respect, which also has the "suspend" feature.

[6746e579d546dOlfred]

In the end it's just a matter of game design which system is the best suited.
Some games simply wouldn't work with quicksaves, for other games it takes away some of the frustration if implemented.

[6746e579d58b0icemann]

And people with mature minds can create that for themselves by NOT SAVING. People with weak minds must have it imposed on them.

Some of us are grown-ups with things to do besides just playing video games, so the ability to save at any time is essential.

Furthermore, checkpoint-only save systems invariably lead to screaming frustration by players who aren't as good at some parts of the game as the developers demand that they be.

Seconded.

Why is it that many people want it (manual saving) removed entirely? What's stopping you from not saving? Nothing. As Zylon said, it sounds like many people could only do it, if it was forced on them.

So my question to those wanting no manual saves - In games with manual saves, do you save manually or stick with autosaves. And if you don't save then why should that play style by forced on others who feel completely different? For as much as people are saying Zylon's attitude on this issue is one of not understanding the other camp, it's mirrored by those in "no saves" camp, since if there was no manual saving allowed at all, players would be faced by 2 choices if they did not like it:

* Suck it up and get over it.
* Don't play the game

Which seems quite crappy to me. Very similar things to what the not wanting singleplayer games to have forced online requirements (eg Diablo 3, the last Sim City game etc) people face.

Choice = Good design
No choice/lack of choice = Bad design

[6746e579d59cdSteve]

My vote: Save anywhere + an Auto-save whenever you enter a new level.

Checkpoints are of limited use to me as, sometimes, I only have a few minutes in a day to play a computer game.

[6746e579d5cdaNameless Voice]

Allowing the player to save everywhere is usually (but not always) the correct option for most games.

There are various design issues and pros and cons that I could list, but the simple matter is that it is a lot more work to implement checkpoint-based saving properly than it is to just allow the player to save anywhere.
Pretty much no one will care if a game allows you to save at any time, but everyone will hate it if you implement checkpoint-based saving and don't do it properly.

Things that you can do wrong with checkpoints:

• Checkpoints are too far apart, forcing the player to repeatedly repeat a large section just to get to a hard scenario at the end.
• Checkpoints are before unskippable cutscenes or other interaction-locking situations that the player is forced to sit through repeatedly.
• Checkpoints are placed in awkward spots so that they trigger in the middle of action or stressful situations (which can result in a more-or-less broken game.)
• A single checkpoint instead of a history (can lead to a broken game if one checkpoint because unusable.)
• (debatable) Checkpoints don't re-trigger if you re-visit the area, so if you hit a checkpoint slightly too early and have to e.g. go back to pick up an item that you could have got before hitting the checkpoint, you have to redo that every time you die or load from the earlier checkpoint and do it before hitting this one.

So, I have to ask: are the potential benefits (more tension, more challenge) worth spending the extra time doing checkpoints properly to avoid all of these issues?

[6746e579d5e73Dj 127]

Join uss, give it a rest already. I see you futilely trying to argue for restrictive saves everywhere and in all of them, you act like it's this holy mechanic of gaming that will instantly elevate any and every game. Checkpoint based saving has some advantages but quite a few downsides too, like Zylonbane, voodoo47 and Nameless Voice pointed out and if you don't get it right, you will end up annoying and scaring off lots of people. For every single game you can name that did checkpoints right, there are hundreds that did it wrong. Not to mention it won't help in some genres like say RTS anyway, where small mistakes in the beginning add up to big problems later and so saves being checkpointed won't do anything, as players may have to restart the whole game anyway.

Please try and have more perspective before launching arguments like this.

[6746e579d6836Join2]

Checkpoint based saving has some advantages but quite a few downsides too, like Zylonbane, voodoo47 and Nameless Voice pointed out

I don't think anybody actually reads anything I type. What downsides did ZylonBane point out? I just shot them down with objective counters, hence you're not reading or choosing to be ignorant.

if you don't get it right, you will end up annoying and scaring off lots of people

This applies to all aspects of game design. If you place too many enemies in a room. If you don't make things consistent. If you make a game with a controversial story, you'll end up annoying and scaring off a lot of players. Can people provide actual valid points please if we are to do this.

futilely trying to argue

Yes, very futile, because:

“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.”

For every single game you can name that did checkpoints right, there are hundreds that did it wrong.

Even if that were true (its not, what a ridiculous claim) I don't see how it is relevant.

you act like it's this holy mechanic of gaming that will instantly elevate any and every game.

How does one debate when words are placed in his mouth? I've already mentioned in the other thread that not all game types need this exact system.

Please try and have more perspective before launching arguments like this.

Oh, I'm the one that needs to get some perspective? That's ironic.
 
That was rather painful. The next few posters aren't quite as bad: 

the simple matter is that it is a lot more work to implement checkpoint-based saving properly than it is to just allow the player to save anywhere.

*Lists stuff that make checkpoints a challenge to design*

Again, not relevant. That's what it takes to create something grand. There's more effort put into making a game like System Shock than there is one like Tetris. So?

So, I have to ask: are the potential benefits (more tension, more challenge) worth spending the extra time doing checkpoints properly to avoid all of these issues?

Ah, so we are agreed there ARE benefits (you missed some out, by the way). Good, someone that doesn't revel in willful ignorance. And yes, it is worth it.

Why is it that many people want it (manual saving) removed entirely?

I don't believe anyone actually said they wanted full removal of manual saving. It was proposed to be an optional difficulty setting.

What's stopping you from not saving? Nothing. As Zylon said, it sounds like many people could only do it, if it was forced on them.

Please, please read what I type. You just posted in the other thread so you must have read my post that already addresses this: https://www.systemshock.org/index.php?topic=8402.msg96357#msg96357
 

My vote: Save anywhere + an Auto-save whenever you enter a new level.

Checkpoints are of limited use to me as, sometimes, I only have a few minutes in a day to play a computer game.

Another that didn't read before posting.

[6746e579d6a68fox]

I wonder if it's possible to find a good middleway. Letting the player theoretically safe at anytime but discouraging overuse - like putting a ressource price tag on it. In a game like DX or SS, that could be energy. In addition using more then a certain number of savegames might prevent getting an achievement. 

[6746e579d6f4dJoin2]

I wonder if it's possible to find a good middleway. Letting the player theoretically safe at anytime but discouraging overuse - like putting a ressource price tag on it. In a game like DX or SS, that could be energy. In addition using more then a certain number of savegames might prevent getting an achievement.

Such a system misses the point, the point as explained here (again same post as posted above): https://www.systemshock.org/index.php?topic=8402.msg96357#msg96357

Your proposed system still places saving in the hands of the player who does not know the rules, structure of the game and the challenges they are to face, the designer does and should strive to create the optimal experience, if what they are making is even centered around challenges (as most are).

[6746e579d77e7Dj 127]

I don't think anybody actually reads anything I type. What downsides did ZylonBane point out? I just shot them down with objective counters, hence not reading or choosing to be ignorant.

This applies to all aspects of game design. If you place too many enemies in a room. If you don't make things consistent. If you make a game with a controversial story, you'll end up annoying and scaring off a lot of players. Can people provide actual valid points please if we are to do this.

Yes, very futile, because:

“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.”

Even if that were true (its not, what a ridiculous claim) I don't see how it is relevant.

How does one debate when words are placed in his mouth? I've already mentioned in the other thread that not all game types need this exact system.

Oh, I'm the one that needs to get some perspective? That's ironic.
 

I did mention Nameless Voice too, and he gave a list of problems you didn't refute. Honestly, I just made that observation because you seem to have gone to many forums and argued strongly about a checkpoint based save system without listening to the counter points or giving canned responses like "but games have a suspend option" or "that's what is called adopting to the developer's vision". You mentioned one exact genre in which checkpoint based saves would not fit, but otherwise your attitude through your posts implies you want to have checkpoint based saving almost everywhere.

Oh, and the part about many games doing checkpoints badly is not hyperbole, there are indeed many many games in the market that use these badly. Just check the whole PS2, PS3 library and even modern games.

The point you're missing is, that making a good checkpoint system is much more effort than simply allowing the player to save anywhere. That's what Zylonbane, voodoo47 and Nameless Voice have been trying to say, but you don't listen, which is why people are getting annoyed with you.

[6746e579d7cb9fox]

Such a system misses the point, the point as explained here (again same post as posted above): https://www.systemshock.org/index.php?topic=8402.msg96357#msg96357

From your point of view it unfortunately does. But I tend to agree with those who say that for SS/DX a checkpoint-only system would not be desirable. These games are not entirely story-driven and invite the player to experiment with different strategies and that, imo, begs for a 'quicksave anywhere'-system. However, I do think that overusing it, takes away some sense of urgency in dangerous situations. If I'm suddenly close to death it can make me lazy if I know that I can restart just before entering said situation and not lose anything but a few seconds. But pacing myself in terms of saving is not always easy if it doesn't cost anything. That's what makes me wonder about a middle way.

Edit: I think Voodoo actually proposed something similar in the other thread.
In a D&D kind of game I'd let it cost some percentage of life force and call it a blood sacrifice to the gods.

[6746e579d8146Join2]

without listening to the counter points or giving canned responses like "but games have a suspend option""

How the fuck is that a canned response? It completely destroys the argument that I am supposedly "not listening to" for goodness sake.

I did mention Nameless Voice too, and he gave a list of problems you didn't refute.

Umm, yes I did refute them. I said they were irrelevant, which they are. He basically just said "here's a thing about game development that is hard". What aspect of game development is NOT hard?

[6746e579d82fcDj 127]

How in the world are points that show how checkpoints can go wrong irrelevant to a discussion about checkpoints vs. save anywhere thread? 

That reply is a canned response because it only accounts for one problem of a checkpoint based system, it doesn't  answer the other issues like how to properly pace the game and how to avoid player fatigue with the system in place. Yes lots of aspects of game development take effort, but the problem is substituting a save anywhere system with a checkpoint based system takes extra effort and there's only so much developers will be able to work for a game which often has corporate deadlines and targets to meet. If we go down that route we can start asking questions like "Why don't more games have visual character customization?", "Why don't more games have RPG elements?", "Why can't we ride animals in all games having them?" etc.

[6746e579d86b8Join2]

experiment with different strategies and that, imo, begs for a 'quicksave anywhere'-system

Absolutely. Good to see something relevant in favor of save anywhere. Experimentation is still viable with restricted saving, it just can have negative, permanent consequences.

How in the world are points that show how checkpoints can go wrong irrelevant to a discussion about checkpoints vs. save anywhere thread?  :rolleyes

They were irrelevant to the point he was arguing, which was "here's why I think save anywhere is best for most types of games".
Just because some developers fuck it up or miss the point doesn't mean the concept itself is inferior, it means the developers were incapable. How is that not obvious? Who in the hell does place a checkpoint before an unskippable cutscene? The concept of restricted saving didn't force them to do it, just as the concept of any aspect of game design didn't force studio x to make bad design decision y.