Save Everywhere or Savepoints

[6746ba6faae2eDj 127]

Here's what Night Dive's CEO actually said:

Manual saving would be my preference as well - However, I have seen some good arguments for checkpoint saves merely as a tool to build tension and fear.

Nowhere do I see him suggesting for that, besides Night Dive is an immature game studio as far as experience in making games goes.

Here's what Otherside's producer said:

I'm all for building out 'rules'. As I said last year, Xcom has shown the way. Iron Man,autosave, save crawl whatever [system] you want as a player.  It works, its awesome.

Once again, he doesn't say he will make checkpoint based saving compulsory or that it's better than free form saving, he just says he's willing to give the option. Whether it will be there is hard to say as the game is still barely in alpha and there are many things more important than deciding a save system right now for them.

I don't know about Dazzle's experience, and all you did was make a mod that has a rather niche audience, where it's unlikely most of that audience would have tried the optional checkpoint saves mode.

Besides, I would wager that Zylonbane and Nameless Voice has decent experience with game design, as does Miyagi to an extent. They all have been pretty vocal against the system, Zylonbane being a bit more rude and blunt since it's his posting style.

[6746ba6fab0ebJoin2]

Did I say anything that was said by anyone makes the system absolute in that post? No. I just said people with experience have argued for it or seem open to it, so its not as clear-cut and "illogical" as some people seem to think.

As for the "niche audience" comment that I shouldn't bother to address but it ground my gears: System Shock too has a niche audience. Despite that System Shock was critically hailed by those that bothered to play it. Same is true for my work. You yourself consider my work to consist of good design, highlighted by the fact you are building an extension to it and have already made an add-on. Maybe actually try the optional hardcore mode and keep an open mind? If all I get "wrong" in the rest of the mod is light drain values I'd say I've done pretty well.

[6746ba6fab47aDj 127]

Maybe actually try the optional hardcore mode and keep an open mind? If all I get "wrong" in the rest of the mod is light drain values I'd say I've done pretty well.

I think I did, in fact I gave a write up on my experience with it just some days ago. The long and short of it was that I didn't find the checkpoint system to enhance my experience very meaningfully and I didn't care much for it, infact I thought it was a bit boring by the NSF warehouse. I may give it a try later but I'm preoccupied currently partly with work and partly with other mod projects.

[6746ba6fab5ceJoin2]

You have a tendency to criticize things you've never tried, so I have no reason to believe you. Especially as you called it "boring". The go-to would be "exhilarating" or "frustrating". The hardcore mode doesn't change all the many things that you don't find boring about the mod, it just adds an alternate method of saving, makes some AI smarter and adds some additional rules.

[6746ba6fab6fdDj 127]

Like I said, I did try it a while ago and didn't like it, it's not that hard for people to find some things boring. And no, I never said those features were boring, I merely said what I played of Hardcore mode was not to my liking, partly because of the save system. I could have even given you proof of me playing Hardcore mode merely 2 months back, before I started editing and screwing with UnrealED and that affected my saves.

And yeah it was frustrating, but not in the way that would motivate me to go on.

[6746ba6fab802Join2]

If true, that's fair enough. It's not for everyone, especially not these days where checkpoints around every corner or unlimited manual saving is the standard.

And if we're estimating value by numbers: all those many other thousands of games over the years with save points didn't have trouble selling millions anyhow.

[6746ba6fabb05fox]

And if we're estimating value by numbers: all those many other thousands of games over the years with save points didn't have trouble selling millions anyhow.

[6746ba6fabdffLaineyBugsDaddy]

@LaineyBugsDaddy: I recommend reading the actual thread before jumping to conclusions about the foolishness of the arguments being made. Skipping it myself sometimes but that doesn't make it any less of a bad practice and boils down to arrogant ignorance.

Ah, but I did read the thread, most of which has appeared to be a debate on how to change the save system, rather than first deciding IF we should do so. Personally, I'm in favor of updating the existing system to more modern standards--i. e.,  eliminate limited save slots and add quicksave key functionality that doesn't require some kind of hack (I think I saw a thread here at some point some years ago where someone tried to make a custom key binding for quick saving in SSP, but I don't recall the results)--but don't change the core of how the save system worked without serious justification beyond "increasing tension." If you have to rely on how the save system works to increase tension, you're doing it wrong. The game's own atmosphere should be sufficient to that task.

[6746ba6fac1a4fox]

Ah, but I did read the thread, most of which has appeared to be a debate on how to change the save system, rather than first deciding IF we should do so. Personally, I'm in favor of updating the existing system to more modern standards--i. e.,  eliminate limited save slots and add quicksave key functionality that doesn't require some kind of hack (I think I saw a thread here at some point some years ago where someone tried to make a custom key binding for quick saving in SSP, but I don't recall the results)--but don't change the core of how the save system worked without serious justification beyond "increasing tension." If you have to rely on how the save system works to increase tension, you're doing it wrong. The game's own atmosphere should be sufficient to that task.

I'm pretty much of the same opinion but Join Usss! explained at length why he'd prefer a checkpoint-system (which is a valid opinion) and also the finer differences between checkpoints and vita chambers - all of which seemed to have escaped your attention. That's why I assumed you didn't read the whole thing before posting.
Anyway, moving on...

[6746ba6fac2eeAaron]

That JRPG suspend option is a really cool choice, but I think I like having the option to maintain a save for each floor or level for skipping around if I so choose when I replay the game. Given the amount of debate on this topic perhaps there can be a difficulty option in the menu that allows for a suspend+checkpoint or checkpoints only save system, but let the default be save anywhere?

[6746ba6fac455voodoo47]

that's pretty much the conclusion of the debate - allow save anywhere, introduce optional ironman (or whatever) mode with savepoints only for those who want that.

[6746ba6facb75Join2]

That JRPG suspend option is a really cool choice, but I think I like having the option to maintain a save for each floor or level for skipping around if I so choose when I replay the game. Given the amount of debate on this topic perhaps there can be a difficulty option in the menu that allows for a suspend+checkpoint or checkpoints only save system, but let the default be save anywhere?

1. There doesn't have to be only 1 save slot. There can be as many as you want, so you can return to earlier points in the game as you wish.
2. The suspend option was birthed from Roguelikes (PC Genre), not JRPGs. Could have been Rogue (1984) itself as the source but I haven't played it to confirm.
3. Your closing suggestion is exactly what was suggested by NightDive. That was in another thread though so you're forgiven.

Ah, but I did read the thread, most of which has appeared to be a debate on how to change the save system, rather than first deciding IF we should do so. Personally, I'm in favor of updating the existing system to more modern standards--i. e.,  eliminate limited save slots and add quicksave key functionality that doesn't require some kind of hack (I think I saw a thread here at some point some years ago where someone tried to make a custom key binding for quick saving in SSP, but I don't recall the results)--but don't change the core of how the save system worked without serious justification beyond "increasing tension." If you have to rely on how the save system works to increase tension, you're doing it wrong. The game's own atmosphere should be sufficient to that task.

Definitely didn't read the thread. It's six pages of bickering so I don't blame you for that, but I do blame you for having a narrow perspective and entering the thread with your mind already made up.

The purpose of such a system is:

1. Designed endurance aspect of challenge. Read the thread.
2. Reinforced choice & consequence. Both choices and consequences become more relevant.
3. Tension/horror, and fearing threats to a greater degree as they are guaranteed to make you lose something of value (progress). Placing greater value in your life, as you would if you were actually in the game. There's only so much a game's atmosphere can do here in that regard.
4. Immersion (can be enhanced or broken, broken depending on potential frustration, or enhanced from tension and fear).
5. Ensuring game rules are adhered to and synergistic as intended. As an example: RNG-based systems (such as Shock 2's hacking) can work well with restricted save systems. Although that's down to the individual player, as not all are save scummers (a lot are though).

Downsides:

1. Can encourage or discourage experimentation. Encourage it to find new ways to overcome a particular challenge or set of them, or discourage it as the consequences could punish you greatly. Depends on the player and the particular situation he/she is in.
2. A player cannot save scum. That's partly the point, duh! But some people actually prefer to be able to overcome challenges via this method.
3. Can influence level design in minor ways (occasional bottleneck areas with a save point, such as shock 2's bulkheads). Doesn't have to be anything notably bad and this design is not mandatory.

Things like "you cannot save when real life intervenes" and "you cannot have multiple save slots" are very common and ill-informed arguments. They're not valid in a good system.   

If the save point is not restricted in some way (one-time use or requires resources to use), it can encourage the player to backtrack frequently just to save or "camp" the point. Something that should be noted as a possible downside.

There are additional things related to development & execution less than design such as it can scare off/frustrate players, or a glitch can fuck you over, or it all can just be executed all wrong, but we're naturally under the assumption that both the design and execution will be good.

Note all the above only applies to the particular type of system I favor. There are many possible systems and variations of them each with differing positives and negatives, but I find this one the most suitable (as it has the most benefits and should be fair on the player, not masochistic) for the widest variety of game types.

[6746ba6facd45Djant]

Meh, the short and long of it is that you want it because you want to make the game more of an endurance test and you want to increase "tension" and "immersion" by making players replay through more every time they fail. That's fine but it doesn't mean everyone will care for it. In my experience it didn't really increase tension, immersion or choice and consequence.

In all honesty, I also think that SS2's minigames were pretty bad on their own, and they were tedious enough in the original game without a checkpoint system. I wouldn't care about making them more important, especially since hinging success around a "Jot-the-dots" minigame doesn't sound interesting.

Also, it's a video game. No matter what you do, there's nothing stopping players from jotting down whatever they see and then reloading the last checkpoint to choose the best options, or from pulling up an FAQ/strategy guide/let's play and then choosing the best options. voodoo47 is right, a determined cheat will cheat no matter what.

I would also question your claim that most people quicksave a lot, as voodoo47 has said, many lpers of System Shock 2 don't really use the quicksave much, though it could be partly to look professional and partly because continuously reloading a sliver of progress which has repeated failures isn't good on video.

[6746ba6fad099Join2]

In my experience it didn't really increase tension, immersion or choice and consequence.

In my mod? Did you ever think that maybe it's because you had played it on realistic half a dozen times beforehand and therefore knew the experience like the back of your hand?

[6746ba6fad207Djant]

Probably, but I have played many games with checkpoint systems before and I didn't feel they became any more immersive or tense by having those. Also I playtested your mod multiple times on Medium, not on Realistic.

Anyway, if you're really going to apply the checkpoint systems to a System Shock 1 remake, the same arguments could apply there too as people here who have played System Shock 1 have probably played it multiple times, so the remake is going to be more or less a similar experience for them with a few things altered and putting a checkpoint system there won't change that.

[6746ba6fad2f5Join2]

Yeah, for those of us who've played it loads, perhaps. I've only done one playthrough. Shock 2 on the other hand...

[6746ba6fad520ChickenHead]

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

I'm pretty sure the point of save-points is to punish you for dying, but whatever.

[6746ba6fad658microspam]

You guys do realize that all of this argument is pointless.

It is up to the player whether they want to formulate their own rules on how they save, or play the game. Quicksave is much better than savepoints, because it gives you freedom. You people are acting like that the player is obligated to cheat with the quicksave system, when in reality, the person can play how they want.

Basically, the player plays how they want to.

[6746ba6fad7b6Kolya]

What if they want to have check points forced on them?



j/k, please let it die

[6746ba6fad927voodoo47]

it would require little effort to make the difficulty completely configurable, like Soldier of Fortune (the original) - basically, you could select a few presets (easy, normal, hard I think), and then modify that as you saw fit - so for example, you could play on hard which disabled manual saving (leaving just a few auto-checkpoints), but if you didn't like that you could edit the preset and re-enable full saving again, with the rest of the difficulty left alone (so you got more enemies, less health, limited weapon capacity, but could save anytime). so you would be able to force checkpoints unto yourself, if that were your thing.

didn't I mention this already, btw?

[6746ba6fadc4dJML]

[...]
didn't I mention this already, btw?

Wouldn't be surprised if he didn't read through 6 pages with 75% insanity.

[6746ba6fadd62voodoo47]

ahh, it was the other topic.

[6746ba6fade8cKolya]

I'm sure that every argument pro and contra check points has been made multiple times in this thread. I was just joking, hence the "j/k". The serious part came after that.

[6746ba6fae0d7microspam]

What if they want to have check points forced on them?

Well, the player could pretend that they had checkpoints.