[SoccerDude28]

I really hate saving in most console games. I love to be able to save at any point in the game just like the old PC games. But that is changing because of ports from consoles. (egs POP and GTA VC). I especially am hating it right now in ICO. You have to go to a couch everytime to save and you can die pretty frequently which adds a level of frustration to an otherwise brilliant experience. What do you guys think?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I love how the save system works in Fable (Xbox). The game auto saves right before each significant quest (i.e. pertinent to the main story), so that if you fail that quest you can reload and try your hand once more. And you can also save anywhere you want at anytime! But it doesn't stop yet. There is also a separate save system for your hero's progress, in case you want to replay earlier missions but with different stats. w00t.

i don't think saving points pertain to just consoles, it probably has nothing to do with the console. it's most likely the game. but you do have a point, most games that are on consoles don't have the save any ware function.

[Starflux]

If it's done properly, it shouldn't be a hassle. And it can also bring a layer of strategy with it, as you can no longer just quicksave all the time, you have to think where you're going more carefully. But I agree that in some cases it can be a dreadful thing. But those are likely to be bad games anyway

[mrdunn]

I don't know if anyone here's played FarCry, but they have a checkpoint save system. Now this is a huge flaw for an otherwise great game. It's not even a port, so they really should have implemented a quicksave system. I can't tell you how frustrated I got when I'd get really far playing on a tougher difficulty, then die, only to realize the past 1/2 hour has been for nothing, since it hasn't saved. I finally got sick of it and d/l a quicksave mod, which is very buggy. They're supposed to implement a quicksave feature in the next patch, but we've been waiting for that since June.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Flux

If it's done properly, it shouldn't be a hassle. And it can also bring a layer of strategy with it, as you can no longer just quicksave all the time, you have to think where you're going more carefully. But I agree that in some cases it can be a dreadful thing. But those are likely to be bad games anyway

Yeah but there is nothing worse than repeating several minutes worth of gameplay because of one wrong button move. And it's not only the crappy games that get this wrong. I will give ICO as an example because it is the latest game I've encountered that got this wrong. ICO is a beautiful game. But you sometimes wander around to try to find Yorda a passage. She can't obviously follow you everywhere and the thing is, if the dark spirits attack her, and take her hostage, you die. So sometimes you are like in another room, and the dark spirits attack. You go back and she's dead. So you have to back track again. Also the latter part of the game , the save system was non existent. I was getting tired and needed a break to save my game for the final encounter but no saves. I'd take the F6 and F9 quick save and load everyday.

[log p]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Yeah but there is nothing worse than repeating several minutes worth of gameplay because of one wrong button move. And it's not only the crappy games that get this wrong. I will give ICO as an example because it is the latest game I've encountered that got this wrong. ICO is a beautiful game. But you sometimes wander around to try to find Yorda a passage. She can't obviously follow you everywhere and the thing is, if the dark spirits attack her, and take her hostage, you die. So sometimes you are like in another room, and the dark spirits attack. You go back and she's dead. So you have to back track again. Also the latter part of the game , the save system was non existent. I was getting tired and needed a break to save my game for the final encounter but no saves. I'd take the F6 and F9 quick save and load everyday.

save points have always pissed me off...there is no reason for 'em anymore and i'm glad that for the most part of the xbox games i've played they seem to be on the way out in favor of save anywhere systems...final fantasy series is what originally made me become a save point hater

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I'm thinking that the next generation of consoles shouldn't have to do this. It's really stupid and outdated to not have the option of saving anywhere.

[log p]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I'm thinking that the next generation of consoles shouldn't have to do this. It's really stupid and outdated to not have the option of saving anywhere.

unless the point is to frustrate the gamers, and i swear there have been developers in the past that must have had a hard-on for pissing me and other gamers off...are you listening you legions of superman game developers? although that is a different topic than save points...save points are now pointless; lets move forward people

[Nellie]

DOGMA


Come on guys, you can't just dismiss a play style completely without weighing up the pros and cons.

Save anywhere's are great for avoiding player frustration, but they're not the absolute must-do for every game in existence. With a quicksave function, you play through the entire game with a huge safety net following your every step, and that really puts a damper on the excitement, tension, and (most of all) the sense of achievement you get when you overcome a tough bit. Seriously - how exciting can a battle be when at any moment you can rewind time to 2 seconds before it started? Where are the dramatic stakes? It's like being at risk of losing 3p in a game of poker.


I remember playing through Baldur's Gate 2 with one finger constantly flitting to the quicksave button. Once, I was in the middle of a dungeon and I unexpectedly stumbled across a tough battle. Oh no, my last quicksave was ages ago - if I die here I'll have to go right back to the start of the dungeon!

And then something happened that only happened once in the entire 982659438 hours it takes to play that game. I got genuinely excited about the battle. Suddenly it was very important for me to win, because my safety net had been taken away and I was in genuine danger of having to do a big backtrack. I didn't want that. I had to win. So for once the battle felt genuinely scary and important, rather than a routine same old same old thingy. I was tense and excited, and when I beat the dungeon monster people I really felt great! "EAT STEEL DUNGEON MONSTER PEOPLE - I DON'T BACKTRACK FOR ANYONE!!!"


So don't dismiss limited-save systems outright. They have their strengths. I hate having to go right back to the start of a mission as much as anyone, but it's that same hatred which makes it feel so good when you overcome the mission, and makes you feel so invested in the gameplay during the mission.

When the cops are right up my arse in GTA3, and some twit swerves into my bonnet and sends me spinning, I tend to shout something obscene. Because I know it could be game over. Because I know I might have to go right back to the start. Because I know if that happens I'll have to drive all the way across town to pick up the bomb/drugs/cat litter all... over... again... before the chase starts anew, and there's no guarantee it'll go well that time either. I hate that. It scares me. And that is precisely the reason it feels so damn good to pull out of the spin, ram past the cops, and scream my way around the streets and into the Pay 'n' Spray, shouting: "EAT MY DUST, FILTHFUZZPIGFACES!!!"


I played the Doom 3 demo recently, and it was a tense and occasionally frightening experience. But now that this thread has turned up, I'm wondering how much more tense and frightening it could have been if I hadn't been able to wimpily save the game before every single doorway, corner and battle.

[log p]

for gamers who want the extra tension or whatever that you painstakingly and thoughtfully described, dont save every couple of minutes...just because the choice is there doesnt mean you have to do it...im someone who likes to not have to replay something that takes a half hour thirty times due to one small error...and also i have a problem with my electric company, as the power likes to flicker out for a few seconds several times a day...in a game like vice city, it can be annoying to have passed a mission and be headed back to the save point in the hotel, only to have the electricity go blink blink blonk...this is probably not a common problem, but i have it so i write about it

[Jackal]

It's only a safety net if you employ it. The Quicksave key doesn't press itself. Anyone who wants all-or-nothing gameplay always has that option.

This is usually followed up with the "if it's there, they'll use it" argument, but I've never bought that. Players are responsible for their own choices. Giving players more options is never a bad thing. Look at Soldier of Fortune 2. Number of saves linked to difficulty settings, but with the option to override the limits completely. Play the game the way you want (or are able). Games like KOTOR let you change difficulty settings on the fly. I never lowered the difficulty once, even during tough parts. Player choice.

Some designers have convinced themselves that a limited save system ensures the game is played "the way it's meant to be played." Can't begrudge them that indulgence, as they're the ones making it, but I don't see the logic in it. The whole concept of an interactive medium is give-and-take between developer and player, and I find imposing limited saves is just pure conceit.

The "adding tension" argument is often used, but it's weak. It adds tension, all right. But fear of making a fatal mistake is not the same as in-game immersive tension. That should be the design goal. If your battles aren't creating their own tension, they're poorly designed battles. Falling back on cheap gameplay conventions to generate more anxiety is just a copout.

How many times have I looked at a jump (for example) and thought "well, I'd TRY that, but no way I'm risking having to replay all this over again." Lots of games involve some sort of trial and error experimenting to succeed. It's ridiculous to force players to repeat huge segments over again.

It was dogma borne out of necessity (technologically) in consoles, but the industry's growing up. Conventions should, too.

[SoccerDude28]

There's a big difference between excitement and frustration. I don't find it exciting flinging on a pole, and because I pressed one button too many I have to go back to a save point 5 minutes ago. Then I reach the same spot and break my neck again. Even in games like DOOM 3 where monsters spawn everywhere. You shouldn't have to keep repeating yourself, just cause you go in a new room and a monster pops out of nowhere and rips out half of your health points. You can make a fight exciting by not letting you save in the fight sequence for example but save right before it. I bet you if you died in that baulder's 2 sequence you would have cursed the game, took out the DVD and played ultimate frisbee with it.

[Jony]

Its pretty ghay it must be said. Absolutely hate it.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I think in the end it should be up to players themselves to decide where to save, even if they only have a few save slots in a given level. Io Interactive learned this after making Hitman. People complained that not being able to save at all in every mission was not effectively suspenseful. On the contrary it ruined the game for them. For Hitman 2 this was more or less solved through compromise: in the easy level you have unlimited saves, medium difficulty level you are allowed 2-3 saves, and in the most difficult level no saves allowed in game (for the hardcore players).

[Molgera]

I generally prefer being able to save anywhere, but if I'm not, it just depends on how the save points are implemented as to whether I like it or not.

For instance, the save stations in Metroid Prime were pretty spaced out, but it provided tension due to a "I'm getting my ass kicked and I hope I find a new save station soon" feeling. I liked it and don't remember ever being particularly annoyed by having to redo certain sequences. It just worked well.

GTA3 and GTA:VC, on the other hand, are really, really irritating. I absolutely hate leaving my base, driving for a while to get my next mission, screwing the mission up, then reloading. It gets grating really quick having to drive to get the mission assignment over and over again. I'd settle on not being able to save *during* the mission, but at least let me save two steps away from where the mission starts. Or give me a "Mission Failed... Try Again?" option. It'd feel much less tedious that way.

I've ruined the experience of many a FPS for myself with quicksave though. Like in Quake 2, I'd save constantly and reload whenever I took damage or used too many bullets or something. So I essentially went through the game unharmed and with plenty of ammo... took all the challenge out of it. I tried to get better with Doom 3 though. I still saved a lot, but if I got into a fight and got knocked down to say, 40 health, I'd save anyway and hope there'd be health to pick up soon. The frequent saves were meant more to prevent replaying large portions of the game. I don't consider it fun to die at the end of a level and then replay the whole level (since the game autosaves are the beginning of each level).

[Crunchy in milk]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Some designers have convinced themselves that a limited save system ensures the game is played "the way it's meant to be played." Can't begrudge them that indulgence, as they're the ones making it, but I don't see the logic in it.

...The "adding tension" argument is often used, but it's weak. It adds tension, all right. But fear of making a fatal mistake is not the same as in-game immersive tension... That should be the design goal. If your battles aren't creating their own tension, they're poorly designed battles. Falling back on cheap gameplay conventions to generate more anxiety is just a copout.

How many times have I looked at a jump (for example) and thought "well, I'd TRY that, but no way I'm risking having to replay all this over again." Lots of games involve some sort of trial and error experimenting to succeed. It's ridiculous to force players to repeat huge segments over again.

I'm sorry but could you explain your version of 'immersive tension'? Maybe give an example. In a computer game that involves the possibility of character death by player mistake, how do you expect them to create 'immersive tension' with no risk?

Of course fear of making a fatal mistake is immersive. Imagine you come to a treacherous rope bridge and must make your way across it. Save before? Save in the middle? Save after each jump? Yawn... way to skip the immersion, way to skip the tension, way to skip the game. Better not hear you complain at the end that it wasn't much of a challenge.

Why bother letting character's save anywhere in a platform game when you can just eliminate 'death jumps' all together? In fact skip the jumps, skip the enemies, hell skip the need for player interaction, run it like a movie. You're dismissing a very real immersion tactic just because it disagrees with you.

Limited saves is a compromise between immersion and a gamer's patience. Saving anywhere is the cop out, If a game is interesting enough to try a level again and again to defeat the hard challenges then the player gets the sense of achievement and is not unduly frustrated... if they can save a few feet from every jump, before every conversation, before every battle they're not just avoiding immersion but rewarding gameplay.

I don't deny there's frustrating games that string a lot of very difficult challenges between save points, but that doesn't make the concept of limited saves wrong or inferior, just that game's implementation of it poor. If a designer is going to use limited saving then its something that should be extensively tested by players of different skill levels. Its definitely something that not enough designers give enough thought to, and being able to save anywhere is a great example of them not willing to give it any thought at all.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Crunchy in milk

I'm sorry but could you explain your version of 'immersive tension'? Maybe give an example. In a computer game that involves the possibility of character death by player mistake, how do you expect them to create 'immersive tension' with no risk?

You seem to be responding to my post, but have somehow completely missed my point. You completely ignored that player choice was my point, not "dismissing" anything, including limited saves. By all means, offer limited saves! I'm saying not to impose it.

You're obviously comfortable saying that save-anywhere is wrong or inferior, while others have blatantly said they oppose it, which simply proves my point. Players have different preferences, goals, amount of free time, etc. Imposing a punishment on players for failing may be an acceptable tradeoff for increased tension for some, but it isn't for others.

As for your confusion about my in-game immersiveness comment, I'm talking about narrative, not sweaty palms. I already said it WAS increased tension, but it's an external one. Fear of failing because you're completely drawn into the game's story is nothing like fear of failing because you dread having to replay the last 20 minutes over again.

To offer you an example would be completely subjective - again, that's my point. What may be immersive to you won't be for someone else, and developers should be smart enough to know that one size doesn't fit all.

Frankly, I think they DO know that, but the simple fact remains that it's a way to increase game length, not an immersive design goal. If it serves the latter purpose, all the better.

I hadn't actually mentioned my own preferences previously, and I really can't specify. Whenever a game gives me the option, I let the quality of each game determine how often I save. The better games (or games with better designs) get saved less, and the poor ones more.

[log p]

i really dug the autosave checkpoints in halo for FPS