148 replies to this topic

[Indrah]

As a developer, I never limit the save function (outside maybe special scenes and situations) and I see no reason to. My games certainly make no use of artifical difficulty and backtracking to the last save point :x

As a PLAYER, I despise the save point system most of the time. It's a friggin pain to backtrack, and I get paranoid about dying. To me, dying is somethign that should only happen during stress circumstances (like bosses and challenges) and for that I see no reason not to let me save all the time. Heck, dying will most often cause me to turn off the game and maybe try again at some other time. Sure, I don't mind it in some games, but if given the option, I'd like to save everywhere.

What is similar and I enjoy much more, both as a player and as a developer, are healing stations as warnings of bosses and hard parts ahead. They usually also prompt the save screen, so they feel much more useful. As a few already said, I don't feel like the save funciton restriction has a place in modern games, and it irritates me in mdoern games when I'm forced to, for example, exit a dungeon and head back to the headquarters only to save, because I feel like I want to stop playing for whatever reason. And for that, I have to lose quite a bit of walking space just to backtrack to the save point. Not cool >(

[Reynard Frost]

I've been saying about five or six times that save points should be in dungeons. Persona 3 had teleporters every few floors that warped you to the bottom floor where you could save, heal, swap out party members, and then you could warp back to the floor you found a teleporter on. I loved it!

I don't like the ability to save everywhere, it's what I prefer in games as both a player and developer. However, I do recognize that some people DO like it, and I'm not shitting on it as a way of doing things.

All I ask is the same of others. (Not saying you shit on it Indrah, you only said you didn't like it and why, which is totally awesome. I'm talking about the people who say it sucks outright.)

@Reynard Frost
The consequence of your death is back-tracking and redoing things you've already done. That's not a good consequence. A good RPG should have challenge, regardless of how much a player chooses to save. And some players will always grind and/or savescum, you can't avoid that. If they want to play that way, that's their choice, ya know. No harm done! Again, a fair bit of this stuff is luck-based, sometimes players will come off the exact same battle ok, sometimes they'll lose horribly, based on what luck they get. A good dev will minimize this, but with RPG Maker's nature, the RNG is pretty much guaranteed to screw over the players sometimes.

Mass effect pretty much has interactive cutscenes, its ok to not let a player not save in a cutscene. That's not the same thing as save points at all. To be fair, I haven't played Mass effect so idk. Also don't yell at me about not playing Mass Effect, i'll play it one day maybe ok.

1) Uhh yeah. The challenge is you have to go from one area to the next using proper strategy and having a fear of death. Your punishment is you have to do it over. It's called "Oh crap, I better not die or something actually bad will happen." If you can die and just go back to the second you died, what is the point of death? Pokemon allowed saving everywhere but if you died you lost 1/2 your money and had to walk all the way back to where you were in the dungeon. But did that punishment even get used? Nope, people would just reset from their last save to bypass that little detriment.

If there were save points and quicksave in Pokemon (need that quicksave because it's hand held ya know) Death would be "SHIT GOT SRS" in it.

2) Mass Effect is not "pretty much interactive cutscenes." you're forgetting about the shooter combat. Even though you asked me not to, I'm going to refuse. DO NOT COMMENT OUT OF IGNORANCE, kthx. Besides, you're missing out on a really great RPG.

Edited by Reynard Frost, 22 March 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[Dagny]

Additionally, what are you arguing here, anyway? Your personal preferences? You (apparently) hate RPGs anyway, so why would you care about save points in terms of your own enjoyment? So you're just arguing based on what will sell in today's market? If so, I don't think that's what a lot of others have been arguing - not entirely, anyway. I've seen a lot of posts that are coming from their own personal preferences as a base

yeah, i'm talking about designing games with a target audience in mind.
if you're just talking about your own preferences and just making the game for your own enjoyment, then do whatever you want—there's not much to discuss there. i guess we are arguing about different things.

Needles how about you just shut the hell up because you aren't helping anything. If you don't like RPG's then why are you here? If you want I can just do you a favor and ban you right now?

you're right! let's forget that this is a forum for discussion and conversation. i agree with everything that everybody has said. in fact—everybody agrees on everything so there's no point about talking about it at all.
really dude, grow up—everything i've said in this topic has been legitimate and on-topic—whether or not you agree with me. i suggest you do the same.

[Kread-EX]

This argument is kinda going in circles but I just want to say something about people who mentioned Persona 3 as an example about save points being used well.

As much as I liked Persona 3, it's a very bad example. Not only the only save point inside Tartarus is at the entrance, but the exit way-points are placed RANDOMLY. Additionally if you leave to save, unless you climbed a certain number of floors (was it 10? It's a bit old in my mind) you'll have to climb them AGAIN. I don't count the number of times an unexpected Hama or a critical hit on the MC made me lose HOURS of playthrough. P3 left the player with two choices: backtracking or losing progress. It's a TERRIBLE example to bring up to portray save points on a good light.

P4 was a bit better though.

Edited by Kread-EX, 22 March 2012 - 12:42 PM.

[Touchfuzzy]

Whether you use save points or use save anywhere is a design choice. As long as you take it into account when designing other parts of the game, and implement them properly, either one can work well.

Save points create accumulated difficulty. An example of this outside of RPGs is Resident Evil. Think about RE2. Almost no single room in that game was difficult. It was the accumulation of having to do one after another where small mistakes could add up to you dying. Now, look at an RPG example: Persona 3/4. Getting from floor to floor to get to the next teleport could be CHALLENGING, especially if you made a mistake in a fight that led to you being hurt. At no time was I really that far timewise from a save point, but there were lots of times I didn't make it through a small area because I made small mistakes that added up. If i can save anywhere, there is no accumulated difficulty. If I'm in trouble, I can save, and then all I have to do is get to the next floor. Then save, then get to the next floor, then save.

This just means that games with save anywhere have to have more IMMEDIATE difficulty. They can't rely on small mistakes adding up, they have to rely on bigger individual threats to keep people on their toes.

Neither design choice is "UNEQUIVOCALLY BAD GAME DESIGN". Any attempt to say it is, is blatantly opinion and not fact.

I also think they each appeal to different audiences, and some audiences don't care. For instance... I don't care either way, as long as they are implemented well.

Also, I think we need a chill pill on all sides. Both sides of the actual argument and from mods. CHILL PEOPLE.

[Indrah]

Talking about games that handled saves badly: The Gust franchise Atelier Rorona/Totori/Whatshernameisstillonlyinjapanese does it in a way I DESPISE. It lets you save SOLELY in your house. In a game where you have to travel to other areas, and that consumes time. And time is a precious resource. Why you do this to me, Gust ;M;

There's also the question of how often does the game realistically need save points, if you use them?
Shadow of the colossus had literally 16 battles and one save point before each, and that was it. Ico had the save sofas (best thing ever) pretty evenly spread, and it rarely posed a problem.
Visual novels let you save anywhere (usually) in the way you could simply close a book at any time.
SRPGS often have a save and exit function in the middle of battle (and thank god because they can get long).
Many Rpgs use the save point function and, while it's not my favourite style, don't cause much irritation (for example, I don't remember being very frustrated in the Tales of games).

Now, games like Dragon Quest and their goddamned churches (first example I can think of after Atelier Rorona/Totori), oh, those get on my nerves. It's one thing to have save points, and another to make me WORK to go there on principle. Saving is a way of resting, making me backtrack all the way to town only because I want to save (heck, not even just to make a security backup before a dungeon) is a pain.

I STILL prefer the save anywhere option, but I won't bitch too loudly about a save point system if it doesnt grate my nerves. But the principle of "adding difficulty by few save points" is not for me. It's one thing to save ONLY at save points, and another to USE that aganist the players to create difficulty...Well, just not my thing :/
Heck, even difficult as SIN games like Dark souls have save bonfires RELATIVELY often (for the intended difficulty of the game, anyway).

[Kread-EX]

The Gust franchise Atelier Rorona/Totori/Whatshernameisstillonlyinjapanese does it in a way I DESPISE.

The third is Meruru. And I agree, going back to the atelier to save is annoying. But then again, it's a commercial game, you put money in it, so this kind of thing is way more tolerable than in a RPG Maker game.

[Indrah]

The third is Meruru. And I agree, going back to the atelier to save is annoying. But then again, it's a commercial game, you put money in it, so this kind of thing is way more tolerable than in a RPG Maker game.

Agreed a thosand times :/ Still a pain, but my god if a free game tries to pull that on me I'll quit so goddamned fast.

[Sailerius]

Agreed a thosand times :/ Still a pain, but my god if a free game tries to pull that on me I'll quit so goddamned fast.

I think this is the bottom line. Whether or not allowing saving anywhere is a valid design, it is an exclusionary design. There are far more likely to be players who will quit a game that doesn't allow saving anywhere than there are players who will quit a game that does. Why make a game that is needlessly less accommodating?

[Touchfuzzy]

Now, games like Dragon Quest and their goddamned churches (first example I can think of after Atelier Rorona/Totori), oh, those get on my nerves. It's one thing to have save points, and another to make me WORK to go there on principle. Saving is a way of resting, making me backtrack all the way to town only because I want to save (heck, not even just to make a security backup before a dungeon) is a pain.

Dragon Quest though has low level spells both for instantly escaping dungeons and for warping to towns. In DQ despite the limited save points, you are still never more than a minute or two from a save in actual gameplay time. All it does is prevent you from saving in the middle of a dungeon and avoiding the accumulated difficulty.

I think this is the bottom line. Whether or not allowing saving anywhere is a valid design, it is an exclusionary design. There are far more likely to be players who will quit a game that doesn't allow saving anywhere than there are players who will quit a game that does. Why make a game that is needlessly less accommodating?

More people are likely to quit a game over using front view battle systems than side view, does this mean that a good front view system should never be used?

[Sailerius]

More people are likely to quit a game over using front view battle systems than side view, does this mean that a good front view system should never be used?

Unless you stand to lose something greater by using a side view system, then yes. Sure, it's more work, but in exchange you gain more players to appreciate that work.

Edited by Sailerius, 22 March 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[Touchfuzzy]

Unless you stand to lose something greater by using a side view system, then yes. Sure, it's more work, but in exchange you gain more players to appreciate that work.

Unless your goal is to appeal to the widest possible audience, I don't think that matters.

Anything I make will be made based on my own preferences. Appealing to the masses is not my priority. If people enjoy it, that is great, too, and I have a feeling that a certain type of player will, and that is enough for me.

By your theory, all challenge should be removed from a game. Challenge excludes players who cannot play the game as well, therefore, no game should be challenging.

[Sailerius]

Unless your goal is to appeal to the widest possible audience, I don't think that matters.

That's not necessarily true. There's a balance to be met between trying to appeal to an audience and trying to satisfy yourself. Just as you shouldn't be completely centered on what you want out of the game, you shouldn't be completely centered on what the mass market wants, either. That's what I meant when I said that making a choice like a front-view battle system has to be weighed against what you give up by switching to side-view. If you're absolutely in love with front-view, then no amount of players that you lose will change your mind, but it's important to be cognizant of the fact that you will lose players. But if it doesn't really matter, what do you have to lose? If you have a choice between being more or less accommodating with mostly the same opportunity costs, what reason is there to ever be less accommodating?

By your theory, all challenge should be removed from a game. Challenge excludes players who cannot play the game as well, therefore, no game should be challenging.

But having no challenge excludes players who want a challenge. Accommodate everyone by including difficulty settings.

[Hesufo]

But having no challenge excludes players who want a challenge. Accommodate everyone by including difficulty settings.

You're missing the whole point. You don't design a game to accommodate everyone, and even if you did it is very hard to get everyone to play your game. You design your game by giving it your personal touch and style, and the way it handles challenges and game mechanics has to be permeated by that same style.

You have been seeing the whole Save Points argument as either black or white this entire time. It just isn't conceivable in your mind to be unable to save anywhere, just as you can't accept (and you just ignore) the points that have been made in favor of a Save Point system that, let me remind you once again, can go together with a quicksave option if you wish to quit playing at any time. Touchfuzzy presented the idea of accumulated difficulty very well, I would like to know what you have to say about that.

You've also ignored the fact that being able to save anywhere does not mean you won't ever lose progress should you die unexpectedly, due to bad luck or due to not being prepared enough. It will not magically create a Save file ready for you right before each potential death scenario so you won't lose any progress.

If you don't save for a good while and die and lose a hell of a lot of progress, are you going to blame the game for not reminding you to save every 2 minutes? Or do you really want to have Save Anywhere + Save Points at floor of a dungeon, just in case you might forget to save and ragequit the game forever?

[Sailerius]

let me remind you once again, can go together with a quicksave option if you wish to quit playing at any time

Since that's effectively the same thing as being able to save anywhere, I don't understand why there's an argument.

It will not magically create a Save file ready for you right before each potential death scenario so you won't lose any progress.

Why not? Final Fantasy XIII silently does this and it works great. Whenever you die, it gives you the option of going right back to about two steps away from the battle so you can change your party/equipment as necessary. IMO, this is the ideal setup. You don't have to remind the player to save and they're never forced to repeat a challenge they've already completed.

[Hesufo]

Since that's effectively the same thing as being able to save anywhere, I don't understand why there's an argument.

Touchhfuzzy summed it up perfectly:

Save points create accumulated difficulty. An example of this outside of RPGs is Resident Evil. Think about RE2. Almost no single room in that game was difficult. It was the accumulation of having to do one after another where small mistakes could add up to you dying. Now, look at an RPG example: Persona 3/4. Getting from floor to floor to get to the next teleport could be CHALLENGING, especially if you made a mistake in a fight that led to you being hurt. At no time was I really that far timewise from a save point, but there were lots of times I didn't make it through a small area because I made small mistakes that added up. If i can save anywhere, there is no accumulated difficulty. If I'm in trouble, I can save, and then all I have to do is get to the next floor. Then save, then get to the next floor, then save.

Why not? Final Fantasy XIII silently does this and it works great. Whenever you die, it gives you the option of going right back to about two steps away from the battle so you can change your party/equipment as necessary. IMO, this is the ideal setup. You don't have to remind the player to save and they're never forced to repeat a challenge they've already completed.

In other words you would also be against "Save Anywhere" RPG Maker games if they don't have a constant autosaving feature?

[Touchfuzzy]

I like games with a sense of risk. That failing has consequences that I have to deal with. It makes the game more intense to me. ESPECIALLY if the game is well designed in other ways.

Look at for instance, Castlevania games. Generally, when you die, YOU KNOW IT WAS YOUR FAULT. You aren't blaming the GAME for beating you, you are blaming yourself for approaching something in a stupid way, or not being fast enough, etc. Difficulty being set to a point where it feels like your fault when you lose makes retrekking through a portion of the dungeon less likely to be blamed on the game.

Other design decisions that work well with save points:
Alternate death penalty: Dragon Quest uses this. Dying doesn't mean losing every bit of progress from the last point you saved. You instead lose half of the gold you were holding at the time and are warped to the last location you saved from.

Easy access to save points: I've seen this with lots of games, though Dragon Quest does this one as well. Because warping is so easy, you can get back to save any time you really need to.

You don't have to remind the player to save and they're never forced to repeat a challenge they've already completed.

With save points, they haven't finished the challenge until they get to the next save point. So you aren't repeating a challenge you've completed. Everything between two save points is a single challenge, and should be treated like it when designing the game. That is what I mean my accumulated difficulty.

[Lunarea]

One thing that needs to be mentioned is that features don't exist in a vacuum. How you handle a feature like type of saving or battle system depends on other design factors. What might be the right decision for one game could be completely different for another. Some games (ex. Chrono Cross) incorporate save points into the lore. It makes sense that such games would rely more on save points than games where save points aren't even explained outside of "this is where you save your game" note.

You can combine the two styles, such as having save points that heal you and being able to save from the menu without healing. You can impose some kind of penalty for always saving from the menu (example, only save points remove a certain state). You can disable save-from-menu in areas like puzzle rooms to avoid exploitation or in areas where the player could get stuck. It doesn't always have to be a choice of save everywhere all the time or save at save points only.

I also want to emphasize that those of you who are going commercial need to be very mindful of your audience. Most of the time, your audience will be casual PC-game players. They will be frustrated if they don't get the option to save anywhere. Furthermore, saving anywhere may be a limitation that game portal (distributors) put on you. I know that selling your commercial RM project through one particular distributor involves having a script for mouse support. They will not accept your game if you don't have mouse support. So, please do research before you commit to remove saving anywhere.

[Touchfuzzy]

One thing that needs to be mentioned is that features don't exist in a vacuum.

I think that is one of the biggest problems with threads like this. Making design decisions without considering all the other portions of your game, and understanding how they affect all other portions of your game, is more detrimental to the game than any one design decision in a vacuum.

I was actually talking to Penta and Archeia about this exact idea when discussing why this thread bugs me. Both saving anywhere, and save points WORK as long as you design the entire game based on what you are doing.

Using save points? Don't put a lot of huge risky encounters between each one. Treat every bit of the area between two save points as ONE continuous challenge. Make sure that the difficulty is adjusted around the idea that it is one challenge.

Using save anywhere? You can use bigger individual challenges, as players can save before and after each one.

And that is only the smallest of decisions to make when working with it, there are tons of little things you can add in both to make sure you are using them correctly in the entire game, rather than looking at it by itself.

[Hesufo]

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Lunarea.

What I'm trying to argue is the fact that using Save Points is still a feasible mechanic to this day and I'm basically justifying its use, since some people have expressed that they are by no means a valid option and that they are a part of inequivocally bad game design. I have never argued whether one system is objectively better; in fact, I defend my position because it is the actual decision I have taken for my personal project, and of course it's not going to be a completely neutral commentary. I'm not into doing commercial projects just yet. My project works the way I want it to and I'm pretty sure I will get my niche once it's released, and some will perhaps dislike it because of some features or mechanics. This is why I created this thread and set up a discussion. Knowing the different positions on saving definitely gives me (and hopefully everyone else) a lot more insight about the pros and cons of each system, and how to make it all work better no matter what your decision is. But I'm not going to accept someone coming and just dismissing an entire side of the discussion, and try to argue that it is objectively bad.