Save Points or Nah

[sleepingnamja]

What do you guys think about save points?

Do you like them because they add difficulty or hate them because you rather save anywhere?

 

[Silent Darkness]

Depends. Usually prefer both for Action RPGs, however.

 

[Clord]

Well, I plan to include both since some might not remember to save manually or somehow gets confused of how to save.

 

[Tai_MT]

I prefer "save anywhere on the world map and in certain towns/hubs" coupled with "can only save at specific points in a dungeon".  But, that's kind of just the way I grew up with most RPGs.  Why not save anywhere on the map?  Why not restrict saving in dungeons or hostile areas?

 

[??????]

Depends on your game type as previously stated.

 

[J.A.]

How about saving anywhere you want but when entering a dungeon (dangerous area etc.) restrict saving. There in those maps you could add saving points not to lose ALL the progress.

 

[Harmill]

Players are going to immediately appreciate being able to save anywhere, even if they don't plan on "save scumming". The reassurance that they can save and quit the game at any point if something unexpected comes up in real life is quite valuable to many gamers. Be careful about pairing a Heal Party property with the save point unless you want your game to become really easy. Dungeons can turn into a "run around the save point and fight battles until comfortable level, THEN charge forward." They also render healing items mostly useless.

 

[Clord]

Ryan the Lion says no to excessive save restrictions.


I feel that the system is kind of "retro." I'm not sure if such restriction actually is a good design from player's viewpoint. Checkpoints already are too restrictive for some due they need to reach them.

 

[sleepingnamja]

So why do you guys think that save points are frequently used in popular titles like Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, Ni No Kuni, or the Final Fantasy series?

 

[Tai_MT]

Here's why I think saves should be restricted:

If you don't restrict saves, you effectively take all challenge and preparation out of the game.  After all, why should I be prepared for a dungeon if I can just save anywhere?  I can save, walk a step, save, walk a step, save, walk a step...  Dungeons are meant to challenge wit, endurance, and preparation.  If you allow saving anywhere, you're essentially removing most of the challenge.  If you use a save point every 5 rooms or so (depending on size of the rooms and challenge of them), it should be enough for almost every single player.  Also, including a save point before boss fights helps immensely.

By all means, allow saving on the world map anywhere.  But really, I think restricting saving in dangerous areas or dungeons is a fantastic policy.  Gamers got along well with it for years before someone decided that gamers were notoriously lazy and lacking in skill and should be catered to.  Many RPGs have since adopted this "save anywhere" thing because they made gamers complacent.

 

[Sharm]

Zelda: Because of forced difficulty.  Health is a precious commodity, it'd be much less so if you could save anywhere.  Zelda is right on the edge of being an RPG, you could argue either way with it.  The action elements are much more important than the RPG elements, so many things are made to match that setup.

Final Fantasy:  Habit really.  That's how it's always been done, no one has bothered re-looking at that decision now that hardware has changed.

Ni No Kuni:  I have not played enough of it to know for certain but I suspect it's to try and get a retro feel.

I'm of the opinion of allowing your player to play however is fun for them.  If a player wants to challenge themselves they can decide for themselves when to save and when not to.  When you limit things like that it should only be after serious thought and deciding that it is the best way to support what you're trying to do with the game.  Otherwise you're just going to alienate the people who can only play games in short segments and can't stick around to make sure they hit that save point after your hour long cutscene.  RM games are a niche market, you can't always play by AAA rules and keep your userbase.

BTW, Tai_MT, things were changed because the hardware was finally able to handle allowing save everywhere.  It wasn't a "make it easier" decision, at least not for most games.

FYI, this is a subject that's been discussed before.  If it devolves into the same "there is only one right way to make games" argument that it turned into last time the thread will be locked quickly and without further warning.

 

[Seraph]

Like alot of other peeps mentioned save points in dungeons make them challenging and serve usually as markers for two things...

1. Boss is up ahead, hope you're ready.

2. Important event in dungeon.

Also I believe on massive dungeons it's nice to have some save points that (like every 10-15 floors) have the option to teleport back to town (beats having to ascend X floors)

As for saving everywhere I play A LOT of VNs so saving anytime/anywhere is excellent if I want to either...

1. Re-watch old scenes

2. Start off on a particular option to lead to a different route, rather than start all over again.

In short save points in dungeons, save everwhere outside said dungeon(s).

 

[Harmill]

I don't think save points are necessarily BAD, but I do question why to use them instead giving the player the freedom to quit your game at any point without needing "Give me 5 minutes as I find a save point."

Save points on their own don't remove most of the challenge. Save points that heal your party remove the challenge. The battles themselves determine the difficulty, no matter the frequency of save points. If someone is just barely winning his battles, it's nice to let them save in between, instead of threatening to waste their time if they happen to lose and have to rewind 10-15 (or more) minutes backwards. You don't want to waste the player's time.

Dragon Quest dungeons don't have save points, but they COULD use them, and it doesn't really change their difficulty. Dragon Quest dungeons are meant to slowly whittle your HP, MP, and item stocks down before you fight the boss. The difficulty of boss fights varies depending on how well you could keep up your supplies. So my question would be: How does being able to save at any point during that dungeon change the difficulty? Someone COULD still get a game over. The difference is that if they do get a game over, they go back to where they last saved, which is a point chosen BY THE PLAYER, as opposed to being sent back to a save point that was chosen BY THE DESIGNER. I don't see how difficulty comes into this, and the difference between the two lies in time wasted.

When the designer chooses when the player can save, the player blames the game for any time wasted due to game overs or having to leave the game quickly due to real life.

When the player chooses when they can save, they only have their selves to blame if they get a game over when they last saved 30 minutes ago.

Now, I don't see a problem if you place save points and still let them save anywhere. As in, the physical save point can serve as a useful reminder for the player that if they haven't saved recently, they might want to do so. There's also a common theme in games where save points are placed right outside the boss room. In this case, they are being used to warn the player. Using both the "save anywhere" while still carefully placing save points is probably my favourite option.

 

[Tai_MT]

As a player, I can safely say that I don't blame the game for "time wasted".  Why?  Mostly because I understand that it's my fault that I got crushed and then sent back 15 minutes.  I mean, if I had prepared better or stopped for a few minutes to gain a level or two, I wouldn't then have this issue of having been punished by the game for not doing what I was supposed to be doing.  Meanwhile, if you can "save anywhere", lots of players resort to "save scumming" in order to gain an edge in the game.  I don't just mean "save scumming" as in the traditional sense either...  Like revisiting a decision point.  I mean save scumming as in you failed to pick the lock because the dice just didn't roll your way, so you revert to save in order to get another try.  Or, you save before starting a puzzle/questline in order to get optimal results (like completing it fast or getting the best rewards).  I'm not a fan of giving players a way to fudge aspects of the game just for the sake of "not everyone can play in fifteen minute spurts!".  Such things are what Pause Buttons used to be for.  You know, you have to go eat... or take out the trash... or you have to deal with company that suddenly came over.  If you place a save point every 5 rooms or so in a dungeon as well as right before the boss, the player can save often enough that these real life issues are mitigated while also getting rid of a lot of the problems savescumming produces.

But, you know, maybe I'm just weird...  If I only have 15 minutes to play a game, I don't really load it up to play it.  I try to manage my time so that I won't have interruptions for at least 2 hours of play.

Oh, and yes, in Pokémon, I savescum like a mofo.  I save before every single trainer battle and rare mon and if I lose or things don't go my way, I reset.  You don't think that takes some of the challenge out of the game?

EDIT:  Doing that in Pokémon is especially egregious because the game does have actual penalties for losing...  You lose half your money on each loss.  Save scumming essentially nullifies that penalty entirely.  If you can save anywhere in other games, what is the penalty for death?  What's the penalty for losing?  15 seconds at the title screen while you reload the save to try again.  No punishment for playing poorly or stupidly other than 15 seconds at the "load file" menu.

I honestly just think RPGs were much better when a player knew the penalty for doing poorly or playing poorly was a 5 minute walk back to where they just lost the game.  Players valued winning more, they valued beating a hard boss more (you'll notice bosses simply get hundreds of thousands of more HP now to give you same feeling of beating a hard boss that a 5 minute walk back to it after a loss gives), and they feared a loss because of the progress reset it presented.  It made players more prepared and even taught many of us early RPG players how to prepare for fights, for dungeons, and for bosses.

Sorry, I just personally find more value in a system that does actually provide good incentive to not lose.  Too many games these days are "minor setback of 15 seconds, then go back to what you're doing and hope the RNG rolls in your favor this time".  Players learn more from serious failures than they do from minor setbacks.

 

[Zoltor]

Save points for sure. This save anywhere BS, is bad design, my sig pretty much sums things up.

I outright deleted the save feature from the menu, and instead each town/city in the game(except for the special city that acts as a side quest hub, which can be accessed pretty much from every map, except when in a dungeon) is gonna have a priest, whom among the other services such provides, will have a save option.

In cases where the dungeon is huge, there maybe a save point in the "middle" of the dungeon(not right before the boss, except for the end boss of the game, which will most likely have the save point right before the boss room), but for the most part, most of your saving will be taking place in town.

 

[zDS]

I feel that saving anyway takes away a lot of the tension while exploring dungeons, though it ultimately depends on the game.

In my years of developing games, I also learned that you must handle save points with care and find a good balance of them.

I also greatly support quick saves, seeing how it lets you take a break whenever you need and not all of us can sit down and play a game for 3 hours straight with no interruptions.

 

[whitesphere]

I think it's good to allow "Save anywhere" if you are in the world map, a town or other friendly or at least neutral location.  

After playtesting my game a bit, I've changed my mind (I used to think save anywhere was the way to go) and agree with Zoltor that allowing save anywhere even in dungeons can make the game too easy.

Of course, to balance this, I make sure my dungeons aren't too long.  If I made a very long dungeon, I probably would add some save points.  And I do like the idea of having a save point right before the boss of a dungeon. 

I also like what Pokemon and Dragon Warrior have --- a special ability or item which immediately gets the player out of the dungeon.  This is a great safety net for unprepared players, while still making the dungeon challenging to complete.  And it allows players to save "anytime", at the expense of losing their progress through the dungeon.

It really depends what you think a "dungeon" is.  If you consider it an area meant to challenge the player and require preparation, it all but requires access to saves to be restricted while in the dungeon.    Otherwise, an unprepared player isn't penalized much.

However, I don't like the extreme some games (not RPGs, usually) take with saves.  Such as Sonic (to save you must win a secret area's bonus round), or Silent Hill (must find a typewriter ribbon to save, and saving uses up the ribbon), or the "You can save 3 times.  To save more, find extra save crystals (or whatever)"  

Granted, in Silent Hill it makes some sense, because the entire game's purpose is survival horror, and save anywhere would kind of take that tension away.

So I think it's a balancing act.  Long or challenging dungeons need some way for even prepared players to take a breather. And as others have pointed out, players may not want to devote a half-hour or more to complete a dungeon, so it's fair to allow some way for players to save their progress.

 

[Harmill]

 

Meanwhile, if you can "save anywhere", lots of players resort to "save scumming" in order to gain an edge in the game.  I don't just mean "save scumming" as in the traditional sense either...  Like revisiting a decision point.  I mean save scumming as in you failed to pick the lock because the dice just didn't roll your way, so you revert to save in order to get another try.  Or, you save before starting a puzzle/questline in order to get optimal results (like completing it fast or getting the best rewards). 

One of my goals when designing a game is to make sure I respect the player and their time. I try NOT to include things that are too random. As you said, those are the type of features that players are likely to try to save scum. So for me, no "chance to pick a lock", no "random loot in treasure chests", etc. They don't add anything to a game for me. The closest thing to that is letting the player save in between fights IF THEY CHOOSE to. As Sharm said, anyone who wants a challenge has the freedom to save as infrequently as they want. Those who just want to have fun, and don't want to worry about losing 15 minutes of their time, are free to save at any point they want. You cater to both types of players in this case.

Oh, and yes, in Pokémon, I savescum like a mofo.  I save before every single trainer battle and rare mon and if I lose or things don't go my way, I reset.  You don't think that takes some of the challenge out of the game?

EDIT:  Doing that in Pokémon is especially egregious because the game does have actual penalties for losing...  You lose half your money on each loss.  Save scumming essentially nullifies that penalty entirely.  If you can save anywhere in other games, what is the penalty for death?  What's the penalty for losing?  15 seconds at the title screen while you reload the save to try again.  No punishment for playing poorly or stupidly other than 15 seconds at the "load file" menu.

Punishment on death is going to vary greatly depending on your target audience. Personally, I hate losing 15 minutes when trying to complete a 40 hour RPG. I don't have time to tolerate losing progress. Not to mention, repeating a section of the game I already completed is boring in many cases. I don't have a problem in making death as least-punishing as possible. If they continuously die against the same fight, they are already being prevented from making progress in the game. I don't see why I need to strip them of half their gold at this point. And in Pokémon's case, if I lost a fight and I lose $200,000, yeah...there's no way I'm going to just say, "For the sake of difficulty I'm going to accept defeat and allow the game to take a HUGE sum of my money away." You bet I'm going to reload my save file. As I said, I don't like feeling like I wasted my time when playing a game. I'm not going to feel "guilty" about it either.

That's not to say I don't appreciate difficulty. I like it when battles are intense and genuinely threatening. But it completely kills the pacing of the game and my motivation to keep playing, if I die during a fight and I have to start the dungeon over from the very beginning. I don't mind losing the fight and having to restart the fight. I just don't want to have to re-navigate a dungeon to get back to where I was. Especially if it takes 15+ minutes to do so.

 

Save points for sure. This save anywhere BS, is bad design, my sig pretty much sums things up.

I disagree that it's bad design. I can still feel a sense of danger if a boss wipes the floor with me. Especially in a battle design where I can learn what I did wrong (ie: you didn't lose because of RNG), the faster I can retry that fight and fix my mistakes, the better.

 

[Sharm]

. . . if you can "save anywhere", lots of players resort to "save scumming" in order to gain an edge in the game.

See, this is the point I don't understand.  So what?  It's not a multiplayer game, it's not a competition, it's a single player game.  It's like getting upset because somewhere out there someone is cheating at Solitaire.  If someone has more fun with your game by breaking it the only reason you should care is because that means it wasn't fun without breaking it.  When used to increase difficulty I see hard save points as a crutch for avoiding making a better game.  I think there are legitimate reasons for limiting saves but defaulting to "it makes it harder" just seems like a way of forcing your gaming ideals onto your audience.  It should be a real decision made to support the type of game you want to make, never a default.

We're dropping the "it's bad design" thing.  That is a subjective opinion and what lead to the last thread being locked.

 

[Zoltor]

To Harmill: If you weren't careless or unprepared in the first place, you woudn't need to redo a boss battle to fix a mistake. Also if you have to redo half the dungeon or whatnot when you died, you're gonna try your best not to die, aren't you?

However don't worry, I did away with the Game Over screen as well, so you don't have that BS interupting your momentum, when you die(Game Over screens have no place in a RPG anyway, all it does is make you want to take a break), you get sent to the last area you saved at. There's a Gold/XP penalty, but the XP penalty is pretty minor, and there is a bank system in the game for a reason, so as long as you store your gold before doing something dangerous, It's a very minor penalty. Furthermore since the game doesn't force you to reload, the items you found before you died, you get to keep(except if you die in the Ancient Cave side Quest, which follows a special set of rules), so not all that much progress is lost(If you get a rare drop, no need to leave a dungeon to save just because you don't want it lost if you die, since items aren't lost when you die).