Save Everywhere or Savepoints

[67422ded39047fox]

My conclusion is that the same game (although not true for any type of game) can be played out of different motivations and the save system should not favor one over the other. A free save-system works for everybody at least to a degree, a checkpoint-system does not. The optimum would be to give the player a choice between the two at start of the game. If there are not enough dev-ressources to implement a good checkpoint-system, stick with the free save-system. Wether or not it should be made a priority to invest ressources into that, I really don't know. I'm biased.

[67422ded39660Join2]

My conclusion is that the same game (although not true for any type of game) can be played out of different motivations and the save system should not favor one over the other. A free save-system works for everybody at least to a degree, a checkpoint-system does not. The optimum would be to give the player a choice between the two at start of the game. If there are not enough dev-ressources to implement a good checkpoint-system, stick with the free save-system.

I disagree, developers that have a vision shouldn't compromise if they can help it. If Alien Isolation (merely as a recent example) gave players the option between systems most players would pick free save, because most players don't even think about such concepts; the intricacies of save systems, and would just go with the convenient option. If I hadn't played tons of games featuring restrictive systems as the only available option I probably would too, as I simply wouldn't understand.
In the case of System Shock remake though? There should definitely be free save as the standard, and an optional mode if the devs decide to go with it. Free save was in the first two games and most are ignorant to the intricacies of restrictive systems so the fans would flip their shit without it. But even then, those that are aware of the system in-depth such as you still may not like it, and that's OK.

I've only aggressively defended this topic because, well, It's like a swarm of people posting a load of incorrect statements presented as fact about our beloved System Shock, you'd probably want to defend it too. Plus seeing the system in the game would be cool so I fought for its case. I'm also not saying people didn't make some good points too btw, because some (few) did.

One more thing: when you play a checkpoint-based game in the future don't think that all devs feature this design intent. A lot of devs do it these days despite a lack of memory constraints (on the console side) simply because it is "inconvenient to the player to have to manual save". There's also the manual save matter of having to account for the player saving at any time in any game state, which can also be a development issue itself, so checkpoints give them control in that regard. One example of such problems is in DX if you manual save while crouched under a table, then load that save, JC is standing stuck in the table (game doesn't save bIsCrouched var or something, haven't cared to look into it). Since modern AAA try to be as polished and "professional" as can be, checkpoints work well for them.

[67422ded397d0fox]

Yes, I suspect many of the bad examples for checkpoint-systems I can remember are the result of consolification/streamlining and not implemented with the goal of enhancing the game's intensity.

[67422ded39b35ZylonBane]

"simply not saving works just the same!"

Yes.

[67422ded39c69Join2]

Believe what you will. Ultimately, the concept has its place in the Immersive Sim, even if you disagree with the challenge aspect, mostly because of a strong potential to enhance immersion (and possibly break it for those who may become frustrated), and choices and consequences are more relevant. If it doesn't make it in the game as an optional mode, so be it. It will be a shame, but nailing the LGS experience to begin with is ultimately more important to me.

[67422ded39e3fSalk]

Well, this is a quite interesting subject you guys are discussing.

The position I am closest to is Nameless Voice's.

Personally the challenge I love by far the most in a game is the Iron Man challenge (no reload) because it gives me a unique feeling of fulfillment. Said that, most games do not offer a reasonable chance to survive them from beginning to end and metagaming is often a key factor. If a game does not factor in the concrete possibility of survival then, to me, the fact that it takes 1000 saves or 5 in order to complete it does not make so much difference.

A point for non limited manual savings is the possibility for the player to feel protected by possible game crashes, something I personally value a lot.

In the end the ability of customizing the game challenge to the user's desire is very important. In this sense, a checkpoint system might work if the game allows to customize as much as possible its difficulty level.

[67422ded39f7dicemann]

If you don't like manual saves, then don't save and let games autosave at the start of a level for you.

Simple.

The end.

[67422ded3a23bDazzle!!]

Hey, I'm new here; long time fan, enticed by the conversations about the new SS games.

Speaking as a designer, I'd actually go toward the checkpoint-only system. There are many times when restricting choice is used to incite emotion in a player and takes advantage of (in a good way) the parts of our brains that deal with reward and consequence. For instance, and yes I realize this is a much exaggerated version of the same principle, imagine that in the Diablo games, there is an option to automatically equip the best gear in the game. Most people, without thinking, would click that option thinking "Duh, why would I want crappy gear?" only to result in the player receiving less satisfaction from the game because they don't get the same emotional rewards from finding the gear along their journey. Not a perfect metaphor I realize, but it spells the reward part a little.

In the case of System Shock, which has many horror elements, the consequence system of checkpoints emphasizes the general atmosphere of the game. The player associates death with a mechanically negative consequence, which helps to solidify the things that kill them as a negative thing. A player would thus be mechanically encouraged to be afraid of this thing, which brings with it a more negative consequence. This is why many horror games have limited saves (RE2, White Day), or in more modern games go with a checkpoint system. For those of you who have played Amnesia, I'm sure you remember the flooded cellar where you're jumping across boxes. Imagine how much less scary the game would be if you could save the game on every box you jumped to. Sure that might be exaggerated, but as a concept does it have any different type of effect than saving only once when halfway through the area? No, the only emotional reinforcement that it gives is a sense of comfort and security to the player that wasn't there before.

A skilled designer has in mind the emotional arcs that he/she wishes to present to the player as he/she is creating the experience. That designer should know where best to give the player a sense of security while balancing it with the game's difficulty. Allowing the player to manually save the game at any point may (and almost always will) unknowingly interrupt those emotional arcs, allowing the game less ability to express emotion to the player in the way that the designers intend.

[67422ded3a382Join2]

Damn you for wording it more elegantly than I. At least the choice and consequence and immersion/tension aspect of it anyhow. I need to improve my wordsmithery, but in my defense I've always been alone and under considerable pressure from a crowd with a very stubborn (often rude) and ill-informed POV when defending this subject, so it always turns quickly to frustration for me.

[67422ded3a68cZylonBane]

...and ill-informed...

There goes your defense mechanism again. You can't possibly be wrong, everyone else must be ill-informed! Oh, if only we let your golden knowledge into our ignorant souls, surely we would all agree with you wholeheartedly.

[67422ded3a7efJoin2]

 I speak of observable, verifiable results. I'm not wrong in this case and that's no defense mechanism, but rather justification for my less than perfect handling of the opposition in terms of word choice alone. Calling me retarded, delusional, moronic & more is naturally not going to put a smile on my face, rather it threw me off some.
And no, I don't believe I am a bastion of knowledge among mere mortals. I have simply given this particular subject a lot of study when most have not, and nor should they be expected to unless they insist on attempting to discredit it rather rudely.

[67422ded3aa9fMarvin]

You're a nice guy in general and I applaud what you did with GMDX, but this behaviour is becoming really fucking irritating. You're starting to sound like System Shocked.

[67422ded3ac0cJoin2]

You don't disapprove of how I "sound" but rather the points of which I am arguing, which conflict your narrow views on the subject. Besides, I've only used orange font once in this thread, so SystemShocked I am not.

Anyhow, I said I was done with this way back, so I'm out. Nothing much more to say anyhow. It is not my intention to have heated arguments with any of you. ZylonBane perhaps is an exception, because that's always fun.

[67422ded3ad76Nameless Voice]

[67422ded3b6ecMyagi]

A skilled designer has in mind the emotional arcs that he/she wishes to present to the player as he/she is creating the experience.

(TL;DR warning)

That might be true for a designer planning every-step-of-the-way on-rails roller coaster ride games, but that kind of thinking is misplaced in immersive sims (at least the LGS school of immersive sims, which is what I'll be addressing). Incidentally if you were to look up immersive sim in a dictionary, you'd find LGS (and their spiritual spinoff) games like SS and DX, listed there as the very definition. There can be large overarching arcs, but I doubt those are what you're speaking of since they have nothing to do with the kind of saves that are used.

It's to some degree a world going about its business, in which the player is thrown in. There are main challenges in the form of objectives, which can take a very long time to complete so they certainly aren't suited as the only checkpoints. How you complete them is more freeform (the more worth its salt an imm sim is the more freeform and emergent the experience is) and thus doesn't lend itself well for designed checkpoints, unless you (the designer) have sadistic tendencies and rub your hands and giggle at the thought of the player having to replay possibly hours of the game. Sure there can be particular things that naturally lend themselves as checkpoints like the objectives, but there's so much inbetween-game where it gets very fuzzy. The emtional arc between the larger points will also be more freeform so the player will generally have a better idea of "whew! I just finished a really tense bit, that was super 'fun' in all its dreadful horror and tension, but it holds no positive value whatsoever having to replay it, so now I'll save" than the designer could pre-plan. All the micro-challenges (if you want to call them that) to complete objectives can play out in various orders, vastly differing timings, and even different locations (if it involves mobile entities). Getting from point A to B could take one player an hour, the other five minutes. Forcing a player to replay that hour, or running through everything the second time around and lessening the gaming experience.

An immersive sim (again worth its salt) strives for simulation (duh) and that kind of emergent/unplanned freeform behavior. Involving Resident Evil and that kind in the discussion of immersive sims would be silly. And just quoting "modern games" is also pointless, because there are other factors at play for the bulk of games, like larger trends (what others do, what they've done in previous games, what they think people expect), the artificial increasing of play time in for the shrinking game lengths, "streamlining", increasing console market focus and whatnot. Pretending that, for the large bulk of games with checkpoint-only, there's some kind of pure designer intent behind each game is naive. Also the large bulk of games aren't immersive sims, so even if we ignore the other factors, it's comparing apples to oranges.

The emotional arc you can plan (that isn't directly story related, between levels or "scripted events" etc. I mean) in SS for example, is cyborg conversion. Each time you reached a new deck there was a signifficantly hightened tension and dread, from the unknown and you knew you could die until cyborg conversion was switched off. Once you managed to switched off conversion you felt like you could relax just a tiny bit and take breather. This per deck emotional up and down "ride" worked very nicely and manual saves didn't affect it. BUT of course if you're the kind of player that reloads rather than letting in-world regeneration play out its course then that may be a different matter, but that's on you.

If a game world is reasonably involving and the player is invested, then tension, horror, fear of death is there, even if you can save anywhere. It's the fear of death and the unknown in the existential meaning. The added "tension" from checkpoints is the meta-game fear of losing progress, not fear of death. You can call that tension and say it increases the total sum of tension/stress the game inflicts upon the player, but that kind of stress is not the same category as the former type of death and tension. Personally I have zero interest in this kind of non-immersive tension. It adds nothing positive to my experience. If anything I find it's an immersion reducer because it sullies the pure fear of death with the meta-game fear of lost progress, and not to mention the annoyance when you have to replay a longer sequence over and over and over. Sometimes until all the tension and mystery is sucked out of that section of the map and its enemies, or even to the point you just quit the game.

As an aside, not being able to save anywhere also prevents or reduces the ability to once in a while goof off and do silly things, or save a particular situation you'd like to show a friend or revisit later. Only  a "No soup for you!" designer would get satisfaction from dictating that the player is not allowed to have "extracarricular fun".


Anyway, that's why adding pseudo-tension by not allowing save anyhwere is a crutch IMO. A crutch for the designer to artificially add "tension", increase playthrough lengths, streamline UI. And/Or for player that doesn't have the ability or doesn't care to get involved enough so death and the unknown is tension enough in on itself, or a player that's played through the game for the umpteenth time and might want some of that artificial tension boost. While I have no sympathies for the designer case, I may have some for the player case and say that in this case that crutch could be ok to have at hand. But that doesn't mean that that kind of player should dictate it for everyone else. Hence, if adding checkpoints, do so as an option and all can go their merry way. If that kind of player doesn't have enough self reflection to at least once before the game starts, select the style most suitable for them, then I'm sorry but they deserve what they get.


Almost all of the most scary and tense gaming I've had were all save anywhere games, that includes procrastinating for 15 - 20 minutes outside a door, not wanting to open it (despite making a bloody save in front of the door!). Did I enjoy Alien Isolation? Yes. But certainly not the saving system in it. It could've been worse if it hadn't allowed limit-less saving at the checkpoints. From an immersion POV I can even appreciate the in-world device for saving, but at the end of the day I would've had a better experience with save anywhere.

As a side note I'm no fan of checkpoint-only saves even in on-rails (FP) experiences. I can usually immerse myself enough so tension and death do fine all on their own. I guess I have a imm sim mindset when playing them as well. Where a game is more than just a series of challenges, a lot comes from being in the world. "Getting there is half the fun", or more than half even, but getting there over and over and over (read, checkpoints) maybe not so much . So I'll favor the ability for save anywhere in all types of FP experiences, but I wanted to stay away from other genres in the discussion. I feel it's more relevant to stick to immersive sims, not only because that's my favorite but that's what LGS (including SS) was about.

[67422ded3c31fJoin2]

Who am I kidding, I love these threads.

How you complete them is more freeform (the more worth its salt an imm sim is the more freeform and emergent the experience is)

Ah, so System Shock 1, one of the most restrictive and narrowly-focused of the Im Sims, is not worth its salt compared to others merely on these grounds. The only thing that matters in qualifying an Immersive Sim is emergent gameplay. Gotcha. Given how much the PR around Dishonored and Underworld Ascendant seemed to focus on it I can see how you may have been lead to think that, but the simple truth is System Shock 1 is not a very player-authored experience at all. It's all highly designed, and there's not a great ton of systems that can interact with each other in complex ways. It's no Ultima Underworld or Deus Ex in that regard. Not necessarily a bad thing, emergent gameplay is HIGHLY overrated by players because what it is, by developer definition, is an unintended interaction of systems with positive results. Do you know what an unintended interaction of systems with negative results is? A bug or balancing issue. If there is a lot of positive emergence, then there is great potential for there to be negative emergence too. So we're grading Immersive sims by how buggy they may or may not be? The job of a designer (and programmer especially) is in-part to foresee potential interaction of systems, and testing sessions are there to pick up on what falls through, so little emergence should trickle through to the player in reality, but is rather mostly discovered by the tester and subsequently the designers then decide its fate (bug or feature). And like it or not, the Immersive Sim is a highly designed experience that revolves around the player. There is no LGS Immersive Sim with NPC schedules like in Elder Scrolls for example. Everything that happens in the world only happens in the player's vicinity, but it is executed so well that the illusion of a living, breathing world is very present.

Considering how ingenious and comprehensive the design of an Immersive Sim can be I think it is in bad taste when the design is narrowed down so simply. Emergent gameplay is a minor side-effect of the comprehensive design, not the core of it. For as much as they like to give choice to the player to tell his/her own story, Morrowind as one example is better in that regard. Yet I prefer LGS Im Sims regardless precisely because of their more focused & scripted design. It's an excellent balance of player choice and developer choice, resulting in "shared authorship".

It's to some degree a world going about its business, in which the player is thrown in. There are main challenges in the form of objectives, which can take a very long time to complete so they certainly aren't suited as the only checkpoints.

You don't place these stations/points strictly around objectives.

Getting from point A to B could take one player an hour, the other five minutes. Forcing a player to replay that hour, or running through everything the second time around and lessening the gaming experience.

Only incompetent design or a very inadequate player (who should be on easy mode) can explain such a discrepancy in playtimes. As for replaying sections, the conversion chambers could play into that if executed intelligently e.g the conversion has notable consequences more to the extent of SS2 and beyond.

Anyway, that's why adding pseudo-tension by not allowing save anyhwere is a crutch IMO.

We players, no matter how immersed, know sub-consciously that we are in a game. That in-game death is ultimately not that relevant. Thus, the need to mechanically reinforce it and actually make it relevant, which goes some way in doing what no other aspect of design can do. With manual saving it's even more irrelevant because you set the consequences yourself, even if you don't save often you know you have a very powerful tool at your disposal. And this is in regard to immersion/tension only.

It's quite clear none of you have experienced this phenomenon, or good use of restrictive saves in general, or just missed the point because "muh quicksaves!", so arguing really is futile.

Involving Resident Evil and that kind in the discussion of immersive sims would be silly.

No it wouldn't. The first Resident Evil shares a lot in common with System Shock from a design standpoint, including simulation. There's less to it, nonetheless very similar designs. There's a good chance the developers had played and been inspired by System Shock and did their own take on it.

If a game world is reasonably involving and the player is invested, then tension, horror, fear of death is there, even if you can save anywhere.

Death is mostly inconsequential in SS with both save anywhere and conversion chambers and as a result negatively impacts the experience as a whole.

I should also note that Alien Isolation is not the best example of the system, although it isn't a bad one either.

[67422ded3c4b3Dj 127]

I'm not sure how you could directly compare Resident Evil to System Shock. Resident Evil is a Japanese Alone in the Dark ripoff with B movie influences and System Shock is a dungeon crawler set in a futuristic spaceship. Obviously the former is going to be easier to structure than the latter.

As for the difference in playtimes, try comparing the average Resident Evil's playthrough to this: http://www.speedrun.com/run/pydddjqy

[67422ded3c650Join2]

Please, go play the damn game or research properly instead of pulling up random data from the internet. And where does speedrunning come into this, exactly?

It shares a hell of a lot in common with SS.

-Telling a notable portion of the story through readable documents and the environment.
-Grid-based inventory
-Simulation design: gameplay, setting, level design, story, everything has relatively strong basis in realism and the experience as a whole seeks to emulate reality to some degree.
-Exploration-based gameplay in an enclosed playspace.
-Puzzles
-Shooting
-Survival horror
-Interacting with the environment (not to the depths of SS, but it's reasonable - for example anything static in the environment will print a message much like the classic "examine" command).

The fact that it is Japanese has no relevance here. We're talking about drawing comparisons from the design, not the nationality of the developers 

You haven't even played it, so you just look like a dick.

[67422ded3cc63ZylonBane]

It's quite clear none of you have experienced this phenomenon, or good use of restrictive saves in general, or just missed the point because "muh quicksaves!", so arguing really is futile.

There you go again with the self-serving delusions. I believe that if you were ever forced to confront the reality that most everyone here knows exactly what you're talking about, but still disagrees with you anyway, you would have a mental breakdown.

[67422ded3cd69Join2]

Hmm yes, sure looks that way to me given the VAST amount of misinformation in this thread.

[67422ded3ce43ZylonBane]

Where "misinformation" is defined as anything that doesn't support your position.

[67422ded3cfbaJoin2]

No, ZylonBane. See this post for one: https://www.systemshock.org/index.php?topic=8408.msg96524#msg96524

Your contributions to this thread in particular have been less than accurate, rude, and now Psy.D Bane is here giving out a psychological diagnoses too, which you seem to do to people every week. The only winning move for me is to not play. And yes, some people have a clearer understanding now so some progress was made at least. At least it wasn't all for nothing.

[67422ded3e7eaDj 127]

Please, go play the damn game or research properly instead of pulling up random data from the internet. And where does speedrunning come into this, exactly?

I don't need to have played a game to know a few things about it, such as its themes, presentation etc. and besides I don't have the time or interest for playing games these days. Survival horrors aren't to my taste anyway.

The point with showing the speedrun is that it shows just how big a time difference can there be between the average player and a player who's good at the game. You were saying such a big difference in time can only exist if the slower player is particularly bad, which isn't true.

-Telling a notable portion of the story through readable documents and the environment.

This was in Alone in the Dark.

-Grid-based inventory

Not from Alone in the Dark, but an inventory system means nothing on its own. Also Resident Evil has the items circling in inventory and the first System Shock doesn't have a well defined grid in the inventory per se.

-Simulation design: gameplay, setting, level design, story, everything has relatively strong basis in realism and the experience as a whole seeks to emulate reality to some degree.

There's nothing particularly realistic about either a haunted house or a futuristic spaceship laid out like a dungeon. Resident Evil's aspects mentioned above are much closer to Alone in the Dark than they are to System Shock.

-Exploration-based gameplay in an enclosed playspace.

Said playspace is laid differently in System Shock and Resident Evil's playspace is closer to Alone in the Dark anyway, by dint of both of them being set in a haunted house.

-Puzzles

Alone in the Dark again, which is more puzzle centric than System Shock, and in that way closer to Resident Evil.

-Shooting

Alone in the Dark yet again, and also the style of shooting in Alone in the Dark and Resident Evil is very different from System Shock. The first two games intentionally give you weak weapons and have clunky combat while System Shock gives you magrails, assault rifles, rocket launchers and what not, not to mention that it doesn't use tank controls for shooting.

-Survival horror

Pretty sure survival horror is a genre and not a design mechanic, in any case it's too broad a term to use as something that makes a game unique.

-Interacting with the environment (not to the depths of SS, but it's reasonable - for example anything static in the environment will print a message much like the classic "examine" command).

Guess which one had similar interacton? Alone in the Dark. Besides it's derived from adventure games and means nothing besides neat details to the world.

It shares a hell of a lot in common with SS.

So System Shock has a focus on puzzles, tank based controls, static camera angles and such now? All of these things are in the first Alone in the Dark and Resident Evil and not in System Shock.

The fact that it is Japanese has no relevance here. We're talking about drawing comparisons from the design, not the nationality of the developers 

I just stated the nationality of the developers as a matter of fact. Point is, Resident Evil is an Alone in the Dark ripoff, and much like Alone in the Dark, it borrows a lot from B horror movies, from the aesthetic to the enemies to the plot elements and more. Since Resident Evil is structured and designed differently from System Shock, it changes up how they should be approached from a design perspective.

[67422ded3e970Join2]

You just said you haven't played the game and then went in-depth on the specifics and attempted to dictate which is closer to game x or game y?

I'm not playing this game any more.

And by the way, the structure of both games is very similar: explore, do x to be able to enter deeper into the station/mansion. Differences are one is more open than the other, but not overwhelmingly so.