Save Everywhere or Savepoints

[674235567d2cbDj 127]

They were irrelevant to the point he was arguing, which was "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 system 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.

Showing the problems with the alternate system is a valid tactic to say that the first system is better. As for your point about blaming the people rather than the system, it can be done for every single game mechanic ever. That's not a compelling argument for it.

[674235567d516icemann]

As long as it's a menu option to switch it off / on, that's fine really.

Why not just resist the urge to save though, if that's your chosen play style? Makes no sense to me.

It's like someone saying to me that the only way they can resist drinking alcohol, is when there's no alcohol left in front of them.

[674235567db7dJoin2]

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.

You're really overestimating the amount of work it takes to implement. I've done it myself.
Additionally, video games that feature restrictive saving of some sort overwhelmingly outnumber those that do not (even if many miss the point and implement it poorly). This is standard stuff I'm talking about here, it's not an alien or obscure concept like the desire to ride all fucking animals. While many developers fail to perceive the point, there are also many that do not.

Why not just resist the urge to save though, if that's your chosen play style? Makes no sense to me.

Answer found here (again): https://www.systemshock.org/index.php?topic=8402.msg96357#msg96357

 

But I tend to agree with those who say that for SS/DX a checkpoint-only system would not be desirable

Yes, because you are one of those that fail to perceive the point. Both yourself and Marvin played GMDX, although not on hardcore mode. Of the thousands upon thousands of things the mod does you found everything to be satisfactory, couple of minor nitpicks aside. Why doubt my design capability and intentions at all when I can get everything right to that standard? Aren't you even curious?

And no, just because the games encourage experimentation doesn't render a restrictive system out of the question, that's rather ridiculous.

[674235567de67Hikari]

meone saying to me that the only way they can resist drinking alcohol, is when there's no alcohol left in front of them.

Which is pretty much alchoholism in a nutshell. Knew a guy who literally had to have his stomach pumped then physically kept away from booze after. Wasn't pretty.

[674235567dfddDj 127]

So let me get this straight, you keep insisting that there's a point to be had with a checkpoint based  system which people are missing, and when asked about this, you keep mentioning more challenge, tension and having more designer control. So if that's the point of a checkpoint based system, how are you going to convince people that it's worthwhile since it brings several risks along with it? Don't mention your mod's difficulty mode, I don't think many have tried it( I did upto Hell's Kitchen and while the checkpoint placement was not bad, I lost interest at around that point), instead think about how a designer in general would be able to pull it off well, especially inexperienced designers like Night Dive trying to make a remake of System Shock.

[674235567e39eJoin2]

So if that's the point of a checkpoint based system, how are you going to convince people that it's worthwhile since it brings several risks along with it? Don't mention your mod's difficulty mode, I don't think many have tried it( I did upto Hell's Kitchen and while the checkpoint placement was not bad, I lost interest at around that point), instead think about how a designer in general would be able to pull it off well, especially inexperienced designers like Night Dive trying to make a remake of System Shock.

Since it was proposed as an optional system that really shouldn't be a concern. If NightDive are inexperienced you should be concerned with the core Shock/LGS experience. And no, there's very little risk if you have any sense, plus those things called testers. Also, you know, It's a well established design convention, featured in an untold number of games, some of which aren't all that different than Shock.

Don't mention your mod's difficulty mode, I don't think many have tried it( I lost interest at around that point)

This was, what, your fourth playthrough of the mod at least though? Should be clarified as to outsiders it looks like you're essentially saying it was all boring.

instead think about how a designer in general would be able to pull it off well

You're implying I haven't spent obsessive amounts of hours pondering the subject? I quite clearly have. And again, I've designed such a system myself based on this pondering, and playing/studying plenty games that have all types of differing save systems...you're not making any sense.
why must some people make this subject so very tedious to discuss?

[674235567e4d2Dj 127]

You know what? Prove your mettle. Suggest what sort of checkpoints you would put in a remake of System Shock 1, how spaced in between they would be, how they would account for tough situations in between, what measures you would take to prevent players from being annoyed etc. We'll see how the community reacts to it. Since you keep talking like it were so easy, I'm curious to see just how good you are at this.

[674235567e78bJoin2]

You know what? Prove your mettle.

I've already proven my capabilities through years of extensive non-profit work honoring classic ingenious design, even if one disagrees with the optional challenge system provided within despite not attempting to understand it. I have nothing more to prove, which is why we're done here.

[674235567e93dicemann]

It just doesn't work that well when it's for a FPS game, and fan backlash is inevitable.

When used for specific genres though it's fine.

RTS, FPS and RPGs - Save anywhere (look into the HUGE backlash Harebrained got with Shadowrun Returns which initially launched with check point only saves, and eventually bowed to the amount of pressure and put in manual saves during Dragonfall's development).

And yes I know JRPGs tend to go the fixed save point way, though this is game specific. More on that in a sec.

Puzzle, Racing, Flight Sims, most pure action games and platformers (both 2D and 3D) - Check points fine as it gells with the already established common gameplay of said genres.

Survival horror (pure survival horror I'm meaning like Resident Evil, Silent Hill etc), some JRPGs and sandbox games (eg Assassin's Creed, GTA etc) - Fixed save locations, but can be done whenever the player wants to go save there.

Check point restricted saves are used best when used where it's most appropriate. With FPS games it is not the place to use it.

Say Fallout 4 had released with check point only saves. Oh the crap Bethesda would have got.

[674235567edb3RocketMan]

It's like someone saying to me that the only way they can resist drinking alcohol, is when there's no alcohol left in front of them.

Which is often the case   Same with leaving the fat kid to guard the cake.

But I fully agree to keep the option to save at any time.  It's a very important function... like "Exit".  If you can't resist the urge to spam the save feature, you have an under developed pre-frontal cortex and probably ought to try your hand at a lower difficulty level or a different game altogether that has short levels or something.

[674235567f09dNameless Voice]

There's kind of two different discussions happening here at the same time.  One is saves-vs-checkpoints in general, and the other is saves-vs-checkpoints specifically for the System Shock remake.

In the second case, the points that I outlined where checkpointing systems are hard to do properly are very much relevant, because the SS1 remake is a game being done on a Kickstarter budget with a small team on a schedule.  That means that they have to prioritise how much time and money they spend on what, and I don't think that the investment to make a good checkpointing system is worth taking those resources away from other areas.
It's different for people like us who make mods in our spare time - we can spend as long as we feel like perfecting something until we're happy with it.

On the more general side of things, icemann's last post is similar to how I feel about the issue - it depends on the type of game.

Checkpointing works best for linear games that consist of a sequence of challenge scenarios for the player, one after the other.  That way, the player can start the scenario, has to get to the end, and then gets another checkpoint for the next section.
I don't think that they are a good fit for more open-ended games where the player is free to wander around the levels as they see fit and do things in their own order, such as open-world RPGs, exploration games, and immersive sims with lots of options.

There's another variation - single-autosave - which is what games like Dark Souls, Grand Theft Auto, and Shadow of Mordor do.  All your actions are permanent, you respawn when you die, the game autosaves constantly (including when you quit), but you can never undo anything that you've done.  This can work well for open-world sandbox games with little set structure, though it's a major design decision that affects every aspect of gameplay - for one thing, it has to have resurrection.  That would work for something like Bioshock (where the Vita Chambers are always on), but not really for System Shock where you can die without resurrecting a lot of the time.

[674235567f3c5Dj 127]

I've already proven my capabilities through years of extensive non-profit work honoring classic ingenious design

There's a difference between putting in an optional challenge mode in a mod and designing a system for a full fledged commercial game. Like I said, most people would not have played that difficulty level, and the mod has a niche audience anyway. So it's not surprising that only people solely focused on challenge would have played that mode and praised it. But once you make a game people pay money for, things are quite different. Making it optional gives more room, but depending on the genre it becomes harder and harder to do it properly.

Like I said, I did try to play Hardcore mode on your mod and I did like it enough to play through it several times. But I honestly found it quite boring. Maybe upon a fresh try now the experience will be better.

[674235567f874fox]

Yes, because you are one of those that fail to perceive the point. Both yourself and Marvin played GMDX, although not on hardcore mode. Of the thousands upon thousands of things the mod does you found everything to be satisfactory, couple of minor nitpicks aside. Why doubt my design capability and intentions at all when I can get everything right to that standard? Aren't you even curious?

And no, just because the games encourage experimentation doesn't render a restrictive system out of the question, that's rather ridiculous.

I didn't doubt your design capability and I remember enjoying your mod a lot. Neither did I say that a well done checkpoint-only system couldn't work under any circumstances. Still, I am prefering a quicksave anywhere-system in ImSims based on how I tend to play these games. Overall I would be discouraged to do certain experiments if it meant to repeat unrelevant parts of the game as a part of the process.

[674235567f9e4icemann]

To put all this in another way:

Do you prefer a linear hallway with fixed direction, or an open courtyard with multiple directions to go with numerous possibilities.

[edit]
Funnily enough at the bottom of the screen after posting the above, the forum quoted to me:

But I see direct lines, see direct lines across the sky.

There's a ghost in the machine.

[674235567fe1bZylonBane]

why must some people make this subject so very tedious to discuss?

You're the one being tedious, because you're apparently incapable of comprehending that everyone understands your perspective perfectly well, and still thinks you're wrong.

It's psychologically interesting, but that's about all.

[674235567ff94Learonys]

Seems like every possible point to manual- or autosaving has been adressed, yet people keep talking about an opinionated matter as if everyone needs to follow that person's ideals. Just do with saves in whatever way that pleases you, that's what they are designed for. There are multiple save slots in most games anyhow. I personally prefer to manually save, autosave is also good, if you want to know why, just read the posts above and think for yourself.

End of discussion? Yes, no?

[674235568047cJoin2]

So much wrong in this thread.

"It's not suitable for a FPS"

Why is it not? Have you even tried it beyond anything except Bio-fucking-shock Infinite or Call of Duty? Do you even understand it or why it is desired? It's clear you do not.

To put all this in another way:

Do you prefer a linear hallway with fixed direction, or an open courtyard with multiple directions to go with numerous possibilities.

Your knowledge on the subject is lacking, same shit different thread. Go play NightDive's Turok port or it's sequel, for two, which are non-linear FPSs "that it isn't suited to". Yeah, because those that clearly haven't given any thought beyond the surface nor have actually tried the games that execute it well have the objective answers.

"It's psychologically interesting, but that's about all."

It's not merely a matter of psychology, but game rules that refine the challenges you face.

I don't think that they are a good fit for more open-ended games where the player is free to wander around the levels as they see fit and do things in their own order, such as open-world RPGs, exploration games, and immersive sims with lots of options.

There's another variation - single-autosave - which is what games like Dark Souls, Grand Theft Auto, and Shadow of Mordor do.  All your actions are permanent, you respawn when you die, the game autosaves constantly (including when you quit), but you can never undo anything that you've done.  This can work well for open-world sandbox games with little set structure

You contradict yourself here, as the Dark Souls system is merely a mutation of the checkpoint system. See: bonfires. 
Dark Souls is similar in structure to System Shock. Both are non-linear to some degree (System shock a little more so than DS). Another good close example of it done well is the first Resident Evil, which shares a lot in common with SS.
 

Checkpointing works best for linear games that consist of a sequence of challenge scenarios for the player, one after the other.  That way, the player can start the scenario, has to get to the end, and then gets another checkpoint for the next section.
I don't think that they are a good fit for more open-ended games where the player is free to wander around the levels as they see fit and do things in their own order, such as open-world RPGs, exploration games, and immersive sims with lots of options.

Indeed it does work best in linear games, but that doesn't mean it has no relevance in something like System Shock. There are countless non-linear games that have done it, and done it well. It's well-established.

Overall I would be discouraged to do certain experiments if it meant to repeat unrelevant parts of the game as a part of the process.

You're overstating the impact such as system has on experimentation, especially in System Shock which is the least free-form of the lot. Yes experimentation with a restrictive system can have negative, lasting consequences, but to quote Spector: "Choices without consequences are meaningless."

And yes, I'm not quoting individual posters anymore. As far as I am concerned you're all one big entity of ill-informed bullshit.

"shit systems that are for weak-minded kids. Big boys save anywhere!"

How laughable. Why would I even engage such a mindset that is not only short-sighted and ill-informed, but incredibly stubborn and rude in its ignorance too? ...I'm a sucker for glorious design.

[6742355680704Nameless Voice]

Let's take an example of an area of a game that consists of the following sections:
 - A combat-focused area with enemies to fight
 - An environmental challenge area with hazards to avoid (jumping, climbing, puzzles, bottomless pits)
 - Another area with more enemies to fight
 - A difficult boss at the end.

You will generally end up with one of four scenarios:
 - After completing the first three areas for the first time, they become trivial, but the player is still forced to slog through them each time in order to reach the boss (checkpoints make the game boring.)
 - The areas remain up to the boss remain difficult to have arbitrary hazards that can lead to instant death if you are not paying full attention, for example because you're in a hurry to get back to the boss (checkpoints make the game frustrating.)
 - There is a checkpoint between each of the sub-areas, including one directly in front of the boss (checkpoints are almost exactly the same as a normal person with the freedom to save.)
 - Make the area after the checkpoint get easier if you play it often enough.  I only mention this because Dark Souls 2 did it as a patch measure to avoid the above issues.



To be fair, while I prefer save-anywhere, I generally have no objection to games that use a checkpoint system, but objectively I can't find much to actually recommend it over the save-anywhere system.

One positive example that I can think of is when I first played AvP (2000) - knowing that I was very deep into a very long level, and if I died I would have to restart from the beginning.  That feeling of being afraid to lose my progress was nice and added to the atmosphere of the game - but on the flip side, actually dying and having to repeat the entire level was extremely tedious.

[6742355680cadZylonBane]

It's not merely a matter of psychology, but game rules that refine the challenges you face.

No, I meant it's YOUR psychology that's interesting. Y'know, your delusional notion that the only reason we don't agree with you is because we just don't get it, man.

We get it. But we don't want it.

[6742355680fdaMarvin]

Oh god, I'm completely agreeing with ZB, has this thread passed into the Twilight Zone?

[67423556811abKolya]

* Kolya appears from the fog

YOU have now a CHOICE to make, Marvin. In the face of the evil savepoint-cult of Joyness you must cooperate with your enemy or stay in the twilight zone. FOREVER! AHAHAAAAARGHCOUGHCOUGH. Damn cigarettes...damn.

* Kolya dissipates

[674235568145cHikari]

Oh god, I'm completely agreeing with ZB, has this thread passed into the Twilight Zone?

The enemy of my enemy man...

No really I think they're both getting their shirts in such an ultimate twist it's almost comical while at the same time being very... grating.

So yea, glad i made this thread rather than let the 'discussion' take over NightDive's spitball thread.

[674235568175cJoin2]

We get it. But we don't want it.

It's obvious from the replies that it is not understood. At all. The only one that seems to put any effort into understanding and analyzing it is Nameless Voice. But sure, I'm just a delusional moron. ZylonBane knows all despite showing he doesn't understand the concepts quite clearly on the first fucking page. Your behavior is despicable, but that's nothing new.

Go do your "adult" stuff and stop wasting time with a "delusional moron kid".

[6742355681e4bDj 127]

You contradict yourself here, as the Dark Souls system is merely a mutation of the checkpoint system. See: bonfires. 
Dark Souls is similar in structure to System Shock. Both are non-linear to some degree (System shock a little more so than DS). Another good close example of it done well is the first Resident Evil, which shares a lot in common with SS.
 

Dark Souls does autosave rather frequently, but what it autosaves is player statistics and equipment, as well as the general state of the world. It doesn't save the player's position.

As for Resident Evil:

The Resident Evil series, wherein you must find typewriter tapes in order to save your game. Though most typewriters have tape next to them, they are a finite-use item. And you will frequently want to save more often than merely once or twice per typewriter. When Resident Evil 4 did away with this altogether, the fans hailed it as a breath of fresh air. Resident Evil 5 just saves automatically at every checkpoint.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SaveGameLimits

Also do you seriously think Zylonbane has not played what you consider to be the best examples of checkpoint design? Especially when he is quite experienced though a bit stubborn and blunt.