Save Everywhere or Savepoints

[67424ad780c99ZylonBane]

It's obvious from the replies that it is not understood. At all.

...you're apparently incapable of comprehending that everyone understands your perspective perfectly well, and still thinks you're wrong.

There it is again. You can't possibly be wrong, just misunderstood, right? Oh if only people understood you, they'd agree with you. That's a nice defense mechanism you've got there.

Meanwhile Hikari seems convinced that I'm in some sort of rage over this, when in actuality I've done little more than just poking him with a metaphorical pointy stick.

So let's see if I can sum this all up so that even JU! can understand:
1. Checkpoint-only saves, even when implemented perfectly, have positives and negatives.
2. The negatives outweigh the positives.
3. Fuck checkpoint-only saves.

[67424ad780fe5Kolya]

Maybe this is also a bit matter of taste? Frankly I've played games with both save mechanisms. Some were fun, others not so much. If the game was bad then having save points usually made it worse. But if the game was good then it never mattered.
So let's just hope the game will be good.

[67424ad782014Join2]

There it is again. You can't possibly be wrong, just misunderstood, right?

We'll discuss the possibility of my being wrong when you attempt to even give the system some actual unbiased analysis. I've done that for each system and I've determined what I believe can be the superior system for most game types based on that. Others have too, hence why the concept of checkpoints and the various implementations of it is very common in gaming.

1. Checkpoint-only saves, even when implemented perfectly, have positives and negatives.

We've made progress since your second post in this thread. Well done.

2. The negatives outweigh the positives.

Yeah, no. If the game is suited to it, which is the majority, then they do not.

Let's have a recap of the arguments that have been made in an attempt to shoot down the system:

"I have a life and would like to return to the game as I left it"

The "suspend" option was designed back in the '90s to address this issue. Therefore it's an invalid point, assuming our hypothetical system features it.

such a system is challenging to implement

 

All good things are, shouldn't stop anyone from trying. should AI advancements long overdue be held back just because it's hard? The System Shock experience in general takes twenty times more effort than the tetris one to < 5% the profits. We're talking about making extremely complex art here.
 

Experimentation can be discouraged with a restrictive system

Valid

However, there's some conflict here. Do you want a heavily simulated survival horror where you really feel IN the game fearing/actually placing notable value in your life, or do you want an experience where everything is a playground to be poked and prodded without a care in the world for the alleged grave situation you are meant to be in? With a restrictive system you can experiment as you please, you just better think about and respect the potential consequences. System Shock is a game based mostly on very logical rules, and logical experiments are rewarded, dumb ones are not. So as you see, it's not inherently bad.

It's not fitting for a FPS because FPS' are non-linear.

This just shows overwhelming ignorance in the subject, not to mention you still didn't go into specifics. It has been done time and time again in non-linear games from FPS, TPS, hack & slash, RPG, racing games, platformers...well established convention. It is probably the dominant/most commonly used system across gaming as a whole. Anyway, you haven't given me much to go with ("it doesn't work with non-linear games because x, y and z") so, yeah, there's nothing here to validate or otherwise.

The game can lead to frustration because they cannot save scum to bypass challenges

Some points for you to consider: this is what a video game, and games in general traditionally ARE at their core. If you refuse to practice/get good enough, you'll never be able to make that shot. In a game, you overcome challenges as they were intended, and there is no alternative!
But of course, variable difficulty settings exist in games, which are meant to account for variable player tyes from the newbie to the veteran.

Conclusion: very little to contest the system.

Let me know if I missed anything. There's IS more relevant negatives that can be added if you dig harder, I recognize a couple, but I'm not going to compensate for your extreme inadequacy in this debate.

[67424ad782985Join2]

Now to address another DJ post. Don't take offense DJ, but see here what you have contributed, which is nothing (again):

As for Resident Evil:

Quote
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.

And guess what Resident Evil 4 did away with it in favor for? A straight-up checkpoint system. Same as RE5.

Resident Evil 1 had player-triggered checkpoints (save stations) bound by resources, which is still in-line with the system I stand by as the save stations were pre-placed by the designers in set locations, which is the main hook.

Resident Evil 4 had the standard checkpoint system triggered automatically based on location, which while different in execution is still restrictive, and placed at intentional locations by the designer.

So what you've here done here is post that quote with the intention of discrediting my arguments, but instead posted something that adds absolutely no value. 

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.

What is your point, exactly? The saves are still controlled by the developer, and if you die you're still sent back to a bonfire (checkpoint), all enemies and obstacles reset, with no other option. It is essentially a checkpoint system with restrictive saving. Same thing in principle, just executed differently.

So basically, I have no idea what you intended by making these two points. Everything within them uses a deveoper-designed checkpoint-based system, no manual saving, and guaranteed consequences for failure. Everything I stand for.

....

Just so It's known, I'm answering Nameless Voice here with respect for what he is posting, because he's actually sensible about the whole thing even if his perception too is lacking:

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

I haven't played AvP (2000) so I cannot speak for it's iteration of the system or the game in general, but having to repeat whole levels can be a bit unfair. But yes, you just described a positive of the system: you do place more value in survival (and all gameplay choices in general), which helps you feel as if you are in the player character's shoes, otherwise known as immersion.

but on the flip side, actually dying and having to repeat the entire level was extremely tedious.

Having to repeat challenges (within reason) shouldn't be perceived as some inherently bad thing though. Games are designed to be replayed, and won or lost. Do snooker players get tired of playing the same game? If my opponent kicks my ass I demand a rematch. The only difference between each set is the way the game plays out each time, which is also true for a video game (unless it is very heavily scripted). Heck if you enjoy a game so much you boot it right back up again and beat it a second or third time, perhaps even more in some cases. Replaying sections isn't inherently bad like some make out, especially when you can take alternate approaches for different results. It's designed to be entertaining. This is at the core of what a game is meant to be - a challenge that must be overcome based on some well-thought out and balanced rules. 

[67424ad782fd5Dj 127]

Having to repeat challenges (within reason) shouldn't be perceived as some inherently bad thing. Games are designed to be replayed, and won or lost.

The big question here is, who can be given the right to decide what limit should be put on the challenges repeated? The developers? The playtesters? The final players? Or all of them? Also what exactly constitutes reasonably repeating a challenge? Because in some games like RTS progression is not as well defined so it's hard to decide when to put checkpoints there.

[67424ad7833e4Nameless Voice]

That's kind of like saying that if you like a book, you should be happy to repeatedly re-read the same half-page, because the book is awesome.
There's a difference between playing a game again, and playing one small section of a game over and over and over again.

Of course, I'm talking about heavily challenging games here (e.g. something like Dark Souls, which is designed for you to die hundreds of times.)
It's not really an issue in a game where you are rarely expected to die if you play well.
But that's effectively saying that checkpoints aren't an issue so long as you don't have to use them much.

No.  Checkpoints in a difficult game are filler.  They are artificial padding to make the game longer by forcing players to repeat sections over and over again until they can get them perfect.


You've asked for negatives to checkpoints (and ignored many of those given), but I'm still not sure what you think the  advantages are.
The only ones I can think of are: fear of dying (appropriate to some game types, not others) and long set-piece challenges.

To elaborate on that last one, in a game with free saving, the challenge would usually be confined in single encounters.  You save, enter a room, and it has an action sequence in it (fighting a room full of monsters, avoiding some traps, etc.).  After completing the sequence, you save your game.  As I said previously, that's almost the same as frequent checkpointing, except that if you find one sequence incredibly difficult, you can actually save in the middle when you are doing well.
Still, most of the time you won't do that.  It tends to be too awkward to save in the middle of action except in dire need.

Checkpointing, on the other hand, can have several rooms / areas / action sequences between checkpoints, effectively making the set pieces longer.

[67424ad784b48Dj 127]

That's kind of like saying that if you like a book, you should be happy to repeatedly re-read the same half-page, because the book is awesome.
There's a difference between playing a game again, and playing one small section of a game over and over and over again.

Don't forget that people have a different state of mind while replaying a game. When they replay a game, it's usually because they want to re experience it differently whereas while replaying a certain section, they're only interested in getting to the next area as soon as possible after a point.

[67424ad785320Join2]

That's kind of like saying that if you like a book, you should be happy to repeatedly re-read the same half-page, because the book is awesome.
.

Wrong. Even basic games like chess, snooker or blackjack have immediate replay value and challenge. Do people have issues replaying these very short games? Nope, most do not. They play out differently each time, based on player/opponent skill and rule interaction (well, more luck than skill in the case of blackjack). These short games can be likened to a section of a video game centered around challenge, which System Shock is.

No.  Checkpoints in a difficult game are filler.  They are artificial padding to make the game longer by forcing players to repeat sections over and over again until they can get them perfect.

No, they are just another rule which takes singular challenges and redefines them as a specific set, designed chain of challenges, which pushes player endurance. Like a climbing wall or obstacle course designed to challenge the participant. The person/s who designed that wall designed it in a particular way - to be challenging and demanding yet fair, but beatable only IF they can make the grade, if not they return and try again - from the bottom of course. And it is non-linear.

[67424ad785953Dj 127]

Wrong. Even basic games like chess, snooker or blackjack have replay value. Do people have issues replaying these very short games? Nope, most do not. They play out differently each time, based on player/opponent skill and rule interaction (well, more luck than skill in the case of blackjack).

But they're not designed  the same way as most video games are. They're designed to be competitive games with a human player pitted against another human player. Most computer games on the other hand are designed so that it's one player fighting off many AIs as opponents. Also blackjack is really more of a lottery than anything else, the enjoyment comes only from the suspense of seeing whether you win or not.

There's another disadvantage computer games have versus competitive games like those. In those games there's no real arrangement of brushes and enemy placement and the like, most often it's two(sometimes more players) given usually the same starting position and being asked to build up from there to defeat each other. So chess and blackjack is going to vary much more than your average checkpointed section of a game(unless it's a roguelike but those have totally different design principles).

[67424ad785e14Join2]

"But they're not designed  the same way as most video games are. They're designed to be competitive games"

1. The vast majority of games (video games or not) are centered around challenge, challenging the player's physical talents and/or mental ability.
2. There are hundreds of traditional games with "singleplayer modes" too. See the climbing wall and obstacle course mentioned above.
3. Multiplayer, singleplayer, why is it relevant? Key components of games are challenge, interaction and rules. That's what defines a game. System Shock is a game. It has quite a focus on story too, but this has no negative impact on replaying challenges as it is all skippable/can be ignored (emails/logs), as you can in most games.

So I return to what I said at the very beginning: having the player, who knows nothing about the game & its rules and challenges, be the one to determine the rules surrounding the endurance factor and challenge structure is not very game-like. And you get all the other benefits stripped down in varying degrees too - the thrill of the challenge designed to push you and the feeling of reward for overcoming it (traditional game psychology), the increased importance of choices and consequences (you think about the choices you are to make, and their potential consequences, with more emphasis in their significance - because they ARE all more significant when failure has guaranteed consequences), the potential immersion increase and tension increase (acknowledged by Nameless Voice & Stephen Kick). Lastly, and less importantly: for the weak-minded, yes, one cannot save scum even if they wanted to and must rise to the challenge.

In those games there's no real arrangement of brushes and enemy placement and the like, most often it's two(sometimes more players) given usually the same starting position and being asked to build up from there to defeat each other. So chess and blackjack is going to vary much more than your average checkpointed section of a game(unless it's a roguelike but those have totally different design principles).

Actually, there is. Common FPS multiplayer map design for example is to mirror layouts subtlety, so weapon pickups, flags and such are of equal distance to each team's spawn/base and each team has matching defenses, choke points etc.

[67424ad786595Dj 127]

1. The vast majority of games are centered around challenge, challenging the player's physical talents and/or mental ability.

But that's not solely what defines games and it's certainly not the main objective of any of LGS' games, else the best "game" would be about breaking rocks with your hands. Honestly I think you're being too carried away by focusing on one aspect of games to ignore the rest, and so you make comparisions of games to climbing rocks or obstacle courses.

You still haven't answered my question yet: who decides that the amount of challenge to be repeated upon failure is reasonable? The developers, the playtesters, the final players, or all three?

Also my point about the opponents being different is relevant because a human opponent engaging you is going to provide for more variety and unpredictability than a bunch of AI controlled characters who often rigidly follow certain scripted behaviours even in the best of cases. That's going to change how much variety a player can squeeze out of a certain game before being bored of it.

Actually, there is. Common FPS multiplayer map design for example is to mirror layouts subtlety, so weapon pickups, flags and such are of equal distance to each team's spawn/base and each team has matching defenses, choke points etc.

I was strictly speaking about board games, not multiplayer video games.

[67424ad786e87Join2]

But that's not solely what defines games and it's certainly not the main objective of any of LGS' games, else the best "game" would be about breaking rocks with your hands. Honestly I think you're being too carried away by focusing on one aspect of games to ignore the rest, and so you make comparisions of games to climbing rocks or obstacle courses.

I am focusing exclusively on the challenge and rules aspect because that is what is most impacted by unlimited, anywhere, anytime manual saves. Want to talk simulated interactivity? We'll talk simulated interactivity and the simple joys of being able to pick up and throw a severed head.

You still haven't answered my question yet: who decides that the amount of challenge to be repeated upon failure is reasonable? The developers, the playtesters, the final players, or all three?

The developers, naturally. I've never been involved a professional playtesting session, but my testers gave feedback: "I think this specific checkpoint should be moved here for such and such reasons", I considered his concerns, then made the decision to move, or not move it. Same deal for any design decision. Still get the occasional feedback from hardcore mode players along these lines, in the end those that perceive the point in it all love it.

Also my point about the opponents being different is relevant because a human opponent engaging you is going to provide for more variety and unpredictability than a bunch of AI controlled characters who often rigidly follow certain scripted behaviours even in the best of cases. That's going to change how much variety a player can squeeze out of a certain game before being bored of it.

AI advancements can't come any sooner.

"I was strictly speaking about board games, not multiplayer video games."

Ah, my mistake. But board games do have mirrored board layouts and such too?

I think perhaps you meant strictly board games vs singleplayer video games? Not certain. Yeah a lot of singleplayer games don't have that design, but it often is a case of a very powerful player vs 1000 AI, rather than balanced teams and layouts. The trick is to attempt to balance it regardless.

[67424ad787373Dj 127]

The developers, naturally. I've never been involved a professional playtesting session, but my testers gave feedback: "I think this specific checkpoint should be moved here for such and such reasons", I considered his concerns, then made the decision to move, or not move it. Same deal for any design decision. Still get the occasional feedback from hardcore mode players along these lines.

So you do acknowledge that developers can be wrong in their checkpoint placement at times, as they can be with every other aspect of a game. Doesn't this highlight one problem with the checkpoint based system to you?

[67424ad787805Join2]

So you do acknowledge that developers can be wrong in their checkpoint placement at times, as they can be with every other aspect of a game. Doesn't this highlight one problem with the checkpoint based system to you?

That it has the potential to be done all wrong while save anywhere is playing it safe while shitting on core concepts...yes. I did downplay the relevance of that, my apologies, but of course I'm making a case for it in the name of developers past and future who aren't incompetent. And, well, this:

All good things are [hard to make], shouldn't stop anyone from trying. should AI advancements long overdue be held back just because it's hard? The System Shock experience in general takes twenty times more effort than the tetris one to < 5% the profits. We're talking about making extremely complex art here.

[67424ad787955Dj 127]

Isn't "acceptable location" going to have a degree of subjectivity though? And I raised this point earlier of getting it right being difficult, to which you responded by saying it isn't. If you want to win people over, show how a checkpoint based system can work for System Shock. I would gladly ask the community to try out your mod's "Hardcore mode" and see what they think of it too. That will settle this for good.

[67424ad787d33Join2]

Isn't "acceptable location" going to have a degree of subjectivity though?

Yes. Just as medkit distribution does. Ammo distribution, enemy placement, level of AI intelligence that is considered not too dumb yet not too smart. Most aspects of design has a degree of subjectivity and objectivity. The objectivity is drawn from the observable, verifiable results, the subjectivity from what people think of those results. How they choose to perceive them cannot be helped. This thread has been me getting some to understand what those results are in the first place, as it was not perceived. e.g claims such as "simply not spamming manual saves works just the same", "it doesn't let me return to where I left off when real life intervenes", and even the perception that it has no observable benefits at all for some.

I would gladly ask the community to try out your mod's "Hardcore mode" and see what they think of it too. That will settle this for good.

Eh, I don't think that's how it works, but never mind.

[67424ad787fbfNameless Voice]

All right, I'm bite one more time.  In one of your last posts, you touched on something that I suspected before.

You see games as a challenge to overcome.  A difficult scenario that requires you to play well to beat, with harsh consequences for failure.

That is certainly a valid design goal for a game, and there are a lot of games which subscribe to it.  Most multiplayer games do.  A lot of older games did.  Things like Dark Souls, or Super Meat Boy, etc.

However, being challenging is only one possible focus for a game.  A lot of games are focused on other things: telling a story, dealing with characters, offering the player choices to affect the world, challenging the player's brain, allowing the player to explore a world, to name a few.

Those are also valid foci for a game.

Checkpointing is specifically appropriate for challenge-oriented games, where the player is expected to try and try again until they perfect their skills.

In games with a different focus, checkpointing and forcing the player to repeatedly re-play sections can actually be damaging to the goal of the game.  It's a lot harder to follow a complex story when the flow is constantly broken by repeating sections.  Puzzle games where you need to spend a long time setting up a solution become a lot less about working out the solution if you have to restart the entire puzzle and redo all of your setup just because you did one thing slightly wrongly.  Exploration games are mostly about going to see new places, not repeatedly looking at the same section of one place.


Is System Shock a game focused on challenge?  I'd say no.  It's a game focused on storytelling, exploration, and atmosphere, with a side order of horror, resource management and puzzles.

Yes, risk fits well into horror, but not necessarily into the other areas.

[67424ad7880f3ZylonBane]

And besides, System Shock has resurrection stations, which from a design perspective are basically a giant middle finger raised toward the philosophy of checkpoint saves. Checkpoint saves say "You died? Do it all again!" while resurrection stations say "You died? It's okay, keep going."

[67424ad7886adJoin2]

Checkpointing is specifically appropriate for challenge-oriented games, where the player is expected to try and try again until they perfect their skills.

It's appropriate for most game types. Consider that it's specifically considerably appropriate for survival horrors. The vast majority have designer-determined save locations: Alien Isolation, Amnesia, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Martian Gothic, Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth, Dead Space 1 & 2 (console versions only), Cry of Fear and many more. System Shock is one of very few exceptions.

Is System Shock a game focused on challenge?  I'd say no.  It's a game focused on storytelling, exploration, and atmosphere, with a side order of horror, resource management and puzzles.

System Shock is a game centered around challenge, very much so, even more than the above games. There's no cutscenes, no NPCs to talk to, the vast majority of the experience is combat (lots and lots of combat), puzzles, navigation, strategy (resource management and such), cyberspace etc. Despite that, challenge isn't its only focus, nor is it in all the other games listed above, and that's a good thing.

You can make such claims for any game. Dark Souls does atmosphere, exploration, storytelling and more too. Yet it, just like most games, are gameplay and challenge-centric wherein the vast majority of the experience you are faced with challenges to overcome, even when spruced up with simulation, stories, or heavy atmosphere. And that's exactly how I like it. Games are all about challenge at their very core, don't forget that. There's very few exceptions, and those I don't exactly consider games anyway.

And besides, System Shock has resurrection stations, which from a design perspective are basically a giant middle finger raised toward the philosophy of checkpoint saves. Checkpoint saves say "You died? Do it all again!" while resurrection stations say "You died? It's okay, keep going."

Yep, and this is something I strongly disagree with. There was consequences, but they were very minor: warped away to the chamber, and some enemies may be respawned on your short trek back to where you were. Kind of is a checkpoint in that regard, but an extremely forgiving one.

[67424ad788b71ZylonBane]

Yep, and this is something I strongly disagree with.

Then your opinion is worthless.

[67424ad788c7aleaf]

If I die in a game, I just close it and never play it again.

Checkpoint problem solved.

[67424ad788edaJoin2]

Then your opinion is worthless.

I should elaborate: it's not so much the fact that it lets you continue with your inventory and actions with the world intact, it's the fact that there is very little consequences at all. SS2 did it better with the nanite toll, even if it wasn't much. You do lose some progress anyway as you are warped back to the chamber and some enemies are likely respawned, but it still makes death mostly inconsequential.

[67424ad78929efox]

If I die in a game, I just close it and never play it again.

Checkpoint problem solved.

If you'd be really hardcore... 

I'm also not a big fan of the vita chambers - I think given the choice between free saving, well-placed checkpoints and vita chambers, they'd come out last place. They don't offer the freedom I want and they also don't provide as much of the suspense that can come from checkpoints.

I do wholeheartedly agree with Nameless Voice though: challenge is often not the main reason why I enjoy games. In the case of SS, it's mostly because of exploration, atmosphere and story.

I also belong to those people who never got far into Dark Souls because it got too frustrating for me to repeat the same portions of the game over and over again.

As has been pointed out before, I think there's a lot of subjectivity envolved when it comes to how we perceive elements of a game.

[67424ad7897f0Join2]

As has been pointed out before, I think there's a lot of subjectivity envolved when it comes to how we perceive elements of a game.

As long as people now accurately perceive the element I have been arguing for rather than saying it has no benefits and such then I am happy to accept some may still dislike it. That's what has always driven me up the wall on this subject: the sheer amount of people stubbornly posting incorrect statements presented as fact about restrictive systems, especially checkpoints/save stations. "simply not saving works just the same!" "You can't have multiple save slots and thus cannot return to an earlier point in the game!" "You can't shut down the game and return to where you left off" "they only work in linear games"

Wrong, wrong, WRONG!