Save Points or Nah

[Tai_MT]

Well, I have the random loot chests (not exactly random, but it's a skill check much like D&D.  The values of success are of course hidden, so there's no way to know what the maximum best loot could have been).  I just play it a bit better than "RNG".  The way it currently works is most of the "random loot chests" have anywhere from 3 to 5 possibilities for items.  Depending on the quality of the loot in the chest, I determine what the game would have to roll upon opening the chest to obtain whatever specific piece of loot is within.  The roll is based upon two factors for "Picking the Lock" and three for "Pillaging the Treasure".  When you pick the lock, it takes Reflex (an essentially renamed Luck stat) and divides it by four.  It then generates a random number based upon difficulty of the chest (or valuable loot within).  That number is usually anywhere between 1-10.  If the treasures are 5 Potions, a Tier 2 Helm, and a Tier 4 Sword...  Those numbers are going to be different.  Let's say you need a roll of 20 or less to obtain the Potions, a roll of 21-40 to obtain the Helm, and anything 41 and above nets you the Sword.  If your Reflex is only 40, the most you're going to get out of a roll would be 20 (if I decided the loot wasn't that valuable and gave you the full 10 points as a possibility).  Now, let's say your Reflex is 160.  You get 40 points automatically towards the success so anything the RNG rolls will put you into the prize bracket of the Sword.  Save scumming can help you here, but only if you're on the "cusp" of the next best reward.  However, first time players would never know what rewards are in there or even how high you would need your stats to obtain the best loot.  We're not even getting into the Equipment I have which adds more numbers to the chance of obtaining loot either.

This is very off topic, I know, but I figured it wouldn't be a bad thing to provide an example of "Random Loot" that really can't be save scummed and so it's an interesting idea.

However, jumping back to the save thing...  If you're doing anything more than 5 minutes of gameplay each time you die...  Someone designed the game wrong.  15 minutes is far too excessive.  5 Minutes is pretty much the maximum you can push a player to have to replay (usually about the time to walk two rooms, have three fights, run through the dialogue of a boss, then get to the action).  A five minute setback really only causes frustration in a player if they have to do it quite often (because then the progress lost has become fairly annoying... It's like grinding... except the game tells you that you lost when you don't grind right).  Very few players will need more than two restarts to defeat about any boss you throw at them in an RPG.  As clever as us devs like to think we are with Boss Design, Enemy Design, Skills, Spells, Equipment, Battle design, etcetera...  Let's be honest here and say that very few bosses in the history of ever have needed more than two restarts to figure out ways to beat them and then be beaten.  Most bosses in any RPG are going to be defeated in a single run simply because basic gameplay of an RPG basically ensures you're more than an equal match for whatever boss you're likely to run up against (unless the game is deliberately designed to be otherwise).  Most standard enemies are like this as well.  Easily dispatched and moved on from.  Why do you think players only really remember the tough bosses?  Or the bosses that really kicked their butts?  It's because everything else in the game was a cakewalk.

So, really, do you need to be able to save anywhere?  Even as a preventative measure to keep you from "having to do those 15 minutes again"?  I'd say "no".  There's really only a single reason to include a "save anywhere" feature.  Basically so you can have players pick up their game right where they left off if something suddenly happened.  Honestly though...  We could take care of that with a "Quick Save" feature which automatically deletes itself once you loaded it back up.

EDIT:  @Sharm

Not very schooled in human behavior, are we?  Give a person the option to cheat without being caught and they're going to do it.  Ever used a Game Genie?  Game Shark?  Mods?  You show me one person who hasn't used them and I'll show you a liar.  There are very few people who actually play a game "for the challenge".  Sure, lots of people will say they're playing something "For The Challenge", but how many give up partway through?  Lots and tons.  Let me put it this way...  How many people deliberately handicap themselves in an RPG?  Even on their first run?  The number you're looking for is "not very many".  Most everyone hits "Normal" difficulty and then sets about naturally finding the easiest ways to exploit the game or its elements in order to obtain an edge in order to complete it with minimal hassle possible.  This is human nature.  Human beings will only work as hard as they have to in order to achieve whatever it is they desire.  They will put in no more effort than is absolutely necessary.

You see, we now have a culture of gamers who say "A game isn't fun until you mod it".  Which is, essentially, telling us that a game isn't fun unless it either specifically caters to them, or lets you cheat in very obvious ways just so you can exploit the original game.

If you see cheating, even in a singleplayer game, to be some kind of indicator that a game is "designed poorly", then you're really not thinking clearly or logically.  A game should be able to stand on its own merits on not on how easy it is to exploit by people who refuse to participate in any sort of challenge.  Yes, an actual punishment for dying should exist.  It's incentive to keep you from dying.  It's incentive to learn how to play better.  It tends to make victory all the more satisfying (you are never more satisfied with in a win than when you had to invest countless frustration filled hours into achieving that win).  Think about that for a second.  Are you more satisfied with playing "Through the Fire and Flames" in Guitar Hero and getting a 100% on it...  Or getting a 100% on "Slow Ride" in the same game?  One of those wins is more satisfying than the other.

I simply feel that "save anywhere" features are destroying the concepts of loss and victory.  I feel they are destroying any concept of danger or skill as well.  Saving anywhere can be nice, sure, but I'd much prefer if it was avoided if at all possible in order to make wins more satisfying and losses more disappointing.  I'd much prefer a "quick save" for players who absolutely must abandon the game at that exact moment and have that save deleted upon reloading it to a "save anywhere anytime" feature.  I'd also prefer reasonable save locations to not require a lot of replaying of sections when losing (like a save before a boss fight or a save point every few rooms depending on difficulty and length of rooms).  I don't like having to redo 15 minutes of gameplay either when I lose, but I'm okay with losing a smaller amount.  Something that feels substantial, but isn't too much hassle (like say five minutes or so at max).  It's okay to punish your player for losing, but it's not okay to be absolutely sadistic to them for it.

Also, I really resent that you would say something like, "If someone has more fun breaking your game than playing it, than your game is poorly designed!" and then follow it up with "we're dropping the 'it's bad design' discussion".  Basically, you just said "I get the last word in on the subject of bad design and it's no longer up for debate because the topic will get locked if you do".  It's not very nice.  That being said...  I really can't agree with "if people have more fun breaking your game than playing it, you designed it poorly".  There are just too many variables in there to reasonably make that assertion for any audience.  It's essentially a baseless claim that sounds legitimate.  I will agree that adding in save points just to "increase difficulty" is not a good idea.  Restricting saves to increase difficulty is a good idea (no matter what method you use to do this).  However, adding a save point isn't a way to increase difficulty at all.  In fact, it's a way to mitigate already existing difficulty.  If you can't save anywhere, but only at save points, then what a God-send a save point is in the middle of a dungeon!  Save points, in and of themselves, mitigate difficulty.  They keep you from having to beat a game all in one sitting for one (physical and psychological endurance!).  For another, they keep you from having to replay large segments of the game again.  For a third, most players, upon seeing a save point, are reminded mentally to actually save.  Why do you think games like Skyrim and Fallout 3 have "auto-save" everytime you change locations?  It's there to make sure the game has saved often so a player doesn't have to remember to save all the time.  Most players, when given the option to "save anywhere anytime", especially in games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim...  Won't really save manually all that often.  It takes a bit of time to open the menu and select a save slot and everything.  Players will save in these games for two reasons:  Savescumming or to quit playing.  Having actual save points on the map actually reminds players to save (they'll even save at every single one of these things if you put them in every single room).

Oh, and for the record...  If a player doesn't have fun in my game, I'd rather they find a game they do enjoy instead of trying to have fun in my game by breaking it.  If it isn't fun or well-designed, I'd take it better that they just didn't play it or quit playing it than to completely destroy the experience I had so carefully crafted for their own amusement.  It's the equivalent of someone looking at the Mona Lisa and saying "this looks like crap" and then proceeding to paint over it just so they could enjoy the painting.  Get what I'm saying?

 

[DoubleX]

2 my cents(Without talking about other save methods):

First, I think it depends on your game's theme or type. For example, if it's mostly or solely horror or survival, saving anywhere makes almost no sense there.

Second, I think it depends on your game's targeting group. I'd use 2 groups, "more casual" players and "more hardcore" players to bring up my points below although such classification may be not so good

If it's mostly or solely the former, I'd go for saving anywhere over save points although save points would still exist to remind and warn players. The reason is basically what those going for saving anywhere have said.

If it's mostly or solely the latter, I'd go for save points over saving anywhere, at least in dungeons. The reason is basically what those going for save points have said.

If it has both groups and their size didn't differ too much, I'd go for letting players to select the save move at the very beginning of the game and it can't be changed afterwards.

Like having a "save anywhere" mode and a "save point" mode, the former enables saving anywhere while still having save points to remind and warn players, while the latter disables that. Those needing or wanting to have more freedom to save for whatever reasons can choose the casual mode while those want more challenges or the feel of accomplishments or something like that can choose the hardcore mode.

That doesn't mean "more casual" players will always choose the former nor the "more hardcore" players will always choose the latter, but if these choices are well informed, at least some players will think carefully before they choose as it can't be changed later and affects their entire gameplay at least to some extent.

Of course this also creates the bragging right issues as those playing "save point mode" may have more bragging rights, but it can be good or bad depending on your game.

The aim of introducing these 2 save modes is to try to address and balance the needs and wants of both groups. Maybe it's far from ideal(at least for some RPGs having such targeting group) but I think this idea is at least considerable.

To sum up, I wonder if there's really any universal hard fast setup regarding save methods that can apply to all games(or at least all RPGs) effectively and efficiently. Maybe games of different types or targeting groups needs different setups to make the saving methods work really well with all the other related aspects of those games

 

[amerk]

I tend to lean either way. I don't mind save points, after all I grew up with the NES and SNES classics. And 15 minute repeats is not a big whoop to me.

Where I have a problem is when save points are far and few in between. Take FF3 (the NES to DS version, not FF6). Holy crud! Only place to save is on the world map, no save points in the dungeon, and the last set of dungeons leaves no opportunity to save but requires you to play for about 2+ hours to navigate the entire thing, only to be confronted by a series of boss battles in the final dungeon. And if you die once, you lose those 2+ hours.

So if you do use save points, make sure to include enough of them so the player has the opportunity to close the game down every 30 minutes or so.

That said, saving anywhere can also have its drawback, mainly if the player saves right before a critical moment with no way of returning. So if they wind up stuck with a boss they can't defeat, the potential for having to resort to previous save files or even starting over is much worse than having given them save points instead.

Whatever you do, do it for the right reasons after putting thought into it. Personally, I look it like this:

Games like rogue dungeon crawlers, MMO's, survival horror, side scrollers, platformers, etc -- these are more about player ability and less about story. These kind of games it may make more sense to do save points.

Games like typical rpg's, visual novels, casual adventures, simulations, farming, etc -- where the emphasis is either on story or on a casual experience, these kind of games aren't usually catering to a hardcore challenging audience, and in these cases a "save anywhere" feature may make more sense.

 

[Tai_MT]

Alright, I just had a thought after reading amerk's reply.

What if instead of a "save everywhere" feature, you have a "buy saves" feature?  As in, you buy consumable items that when used pull up the save menu and allow you to save anywhere you like.  These would be maybe the price of a "revive player" item and a few would be given to the player at the start of the game or in a few chests along the way (until they can afford them).

Honestly, I think it sounds like a decent hybrid of the two systems.  If you want to save anywhere, you need to prepare to be able to do that (and stock up!).  I wouldn't mind using a system like that either.  If I absolutely had to go, just pull up the inventory, select the item, select the save slot, save, turn off the game.  Maybe you could even have spots in the game that are "free saves".  As in, it's a save point, but it doesn't cost you the item to use it.  Place those at important places so that players could be reminded to save as well as be clued into something important may be about to go down.

 

[Sharm]

If you're doing anything more than 5 minutes of gameplay each time you die...  Someone designed the game wrong.

 
Sadly, it's very common for "save points only" saving to be paired with large losses of playtime.  It's so common that I'd prefer save anywhere to be default and save points to only be an active choice.  We've all played at least one game where we died right after a very long and unskippable cut scene.

We could take care of that with a "Quick Save" feature which automatically deletes itself once you loaded it back up.

 
If save anywhere is replaced with a quick save (the type where I can turn off my game) then I'm fine with it.

Give a person the option to cheat without being caught and they're going to do it.

 
Never said people wouldn't cheat, just saying that it doesn't matter if people do.

If you see cheating, even in a singleplayer game, to be some kind of indicator that a game is "designed poorly", then you're really not thinking clearly or logically.

 
I can see why you think I implied this, I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention.  What I meant was if a player has to cheat to enjoy your game you may have design issues.

Yes, an actual punishment for dying should exist.  It's incentive to keep you from dying.  It's incentive to learn how to play better.

 
I guess this where the difference of our opinions lies.  I play a very specific set of genres because dying is completely avoidable and rare in all of them.  I don't find dying in a game challenging, I find it distasteful to the point where I will not play a game where death common.  I play RPGs not for the challenge but for the interaction and story.  If I'm in the mood for a challenging game I'm not going to look to an RPG to get it.

I simply feel that "save anywhere" features are destroying the concepts of loss and victory.  I feel they are destroying any concept of danger or skill as well.

I can understand that and I think I can even agree in the context of certain games, just not the majority of RPG's. I'd much rather the feelings of loss and victory be had through narrative and not gameplay.

Also, I really resent that you would say something like, "If someone has more fun breaking your game than playing it, than your game is poorly designed!" and then follow it up with "we're dropping the 'it's bad design' discussion".

That wasn't what I was saying, I'm sorry that it came out that way. The blue text was specifically for Zoltor saying straight out that saving everywhere was "bad design" and I could see the arguments from the last thread coming and I didn't want it to happen again. I wasn't intending to quash the discussion, just quash the line of argument that was going to lead to this thread getting locked. I want to actually have a discussion about this subject for a change.


Feel free to argue with me if I say something is badly designed. Just realize I mean it as on opinion, not a statement of fact.

That being said... I really can't agree with "if people have more fun breaking your game than playing it, you designed it poorly". There are just too many variables in there to reasonably make that assertion for any audience.

That statement wasn't meant to be "every game" it was a "in general". I completely agree that there are times when it isn't true.

Most players, when given the option to "save anywhere anytime", especially in games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim...  Won't really save manually all that often.

Since I don't see the problem with people cheating when playing a game this argument doesn't mean the same thing you're intending. It comes out like saying "people shouldn't be able to save anywhere but they won't anyway even if you give them the option."

Oh, and for the record...  If a player doesn't have fun in my game, I'd rather they find a game they do enjoy instead of trying to have fun in my game by breaking it.  If it isn't fun or well-designed, I'd take it better that they just didn't play it or quit playing it than to completely destroy the experience I had so carefully crafted for their own amusement.  It's the equivalent of someone looking at the Mona Lisa and saying "this looks like crap" and then proceeding to paint over it just so they could enjoy the painting.  Get what I'm saying?

I do, but I don't agree. Games are an entertainment medium, not fine art. There is a different purpose to the whole thing. If a game fails to entertain, then is it still a game? Besides, painting over the Mona Lisa would destroy the painting for everyone, cheating on a game only destroys your intended gameplay for that one person. It is an important point to make though, it helps me understand why we disagree so much on this. To me, the most important thing is if a person is enjoying my creation, not if they're having the experience I intended them to have.


EDIT:


Amerk, your reply made me realize a few things. First, I'm arguing as though we're talking only about typical RPG's. That was miopic of me, I appologize to everyone for that. I completely agree with your division for saving styles in a general sense. Second, I realized that when I mean save anywhere I really mean any place. Mid battle saving in a turn based game is a bit too broken.


@Tai_MT: Hmm, sounds interesting and difficult to balance. I think I'd need to try it first before deciding if it worked or not.


I feel I should add here that as a designer I think save anywhere for casual RPGs is generally better, but as a player saving anywhere except dungeons and boss fights is okay by me.

 

[Sailerius]

Games are an entertainment medium, not fine art.

Well, that's another topic entirely in and of itself... Games are a medium and can be used either for entertainment or fine art.

If a game fails to entertain, then is it still a game?

One of the best games I've ever played is Silent Hill 2 and you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who said it "entertained" them, although it has its rightful place on most lists of best games ever made.

...More directly on topic, the use of save points is one of the most egregious examples of anti-player design. Like many antiquated mechanics, it's only still used to artificially limit the player for a fake increase in difficulty, used by developers as a crutch when they can't design interesting gameplay without resorting to cheap tricks.

I should clarify what I mean by "anti-player design." Some design choices are made which serve no effective purpose except making the player enjoy the game less. A classic example is hunger/thirst systems or weapon durability, the latter of which is commonly justified as being used to "balance" overpowered weapons (in which case, why not just make it not overpowered...?). Assuming you're making a game which is made to be enjoyed, your primary goal as a designer should be to create an enjoyable experience for the player.

If there were a Bill of Rights for gamers, the First Amendment would be the inalienable right to not have hard work you've put into the game unduly erased. I can't recall the number of times I've given up on games because I had just made some difficult accomplishment, only for my laptop battery to die (or Windows Update to kick in), or the power went out, or I just had to leave unexpectedly due to an emergency and there just wasn't a save point nearby. To say that it's my fault that I lost my progress is patently ludicrous. If a game is a work of entertainment, the game owes it to me to entertain me. I do not owe the game anything and I most certainly do not owe the designer anything, least of all my time. If I'm investing time in a game, it's because I expect to be enjoying myself, and if the game does not respect that time, then I will no longer invest any time in it.

The times, they are a-changing. Autosave is the norm in most games nowadays. Saving is such a crucial part of a game that in most games it happens invisibly now so that the player never needs to worry about it. Gamers are accustomed to this luxury now. So much so that they are confused and angry when this luxury is taken away.

If you think it's "unfair" that gamers can save whenever they want to, then I ask: who is it unfair to? Why does it matter if they save scum? Does it hurt you personally that they have found a way to enjoy your game more? Isn't the whole point for players to enjoy themselves? Let them play the game the way they want to.

If your game can be broken because players can save whenever they want to, then perhaps you should reflect on what this says about the design of your game.

(Post-note: I speak from experience. My first successful game used save points. Since its first release in '08, I've received complaints about the lack of free saving numbering in the tens of thousands. Faced with something like that, you can either stick to your guns and blame people for playing your game wrong, or actually try to make them happy.

I messed up. But I won't be making that mistake again.)

 

[Tai_MT]

I still can't quote, so let me see if I can address this a bit.  You'll have to forgive my numbering of these replies here, but it's going to be about the only way I can keep it all straight in my head without a quoting function.

1.  I have run into a few games where the Save Points are spread too far apart.  I didn't always need a save point and so these distances didn't always bug me...  But, sometimes they did.  It's one of the reasons I prefer save points in dangerous areas (like dungeons) to be no more than 5 minutes of gameplay apart.  I played Final Fantasy 6 for the first time when I was younger.  There's a part where you have to "defend the objective" and you split up your party into 3 groups.  I lost at this section 7 or 8 times and it was a long process to set it back up (you had to run through the story events and then form parties again, and then try to complete the objective).  It was extremely frustrating and once I did shut the game off out of frustration.  However, later on, I discovered two tactics that helped me beat it (ignoring most of the enemies as about half of them infinitely respawn, but they always take the same paths so they're avoidable if you watch them) and using a skill the game taught me earlier (Runic...  Which nullifies the magic the boss casts at the end).  Winning that fight was so immensely satisfying that suddenly all those 5 minute resets I'd made didn't matter anymore because I was ecstatic that I'd figured out a way to win despite having the entire game stacked against me.  Also, I'm kind of against really long cutscenes...  Especially if they're unskippable (if I've seen them once, then died, I should be able to skip them so I can get right to the meat of the game).

2.  I get what you're saying about "it doesn't matter if people cheat in a singleplayer game".  However, I just disagree.  I count it as "ruining the intended experience for instant gratification".  In my opinion if you change the core experience of the game (namely what the designers intended you to play), then what reason do you actually have for playing that game to begin with?  At that point it's obvious you should've just switched to a game that played like you wanted to play a game instead of trying to alter an already existing game to fit the mold you want.  Of course, I don't feel this applies to games that actually provide in game dev kits or source code to mod the game...  This is the creator inviting players to tinker with the game and is perfectly okay in my book.

3.  I'd still have to disagree about players cheating in a game mean the game is programmed poorly or has design issues.  It could just mean the players doing it just want to beat the game and don't really care about integrity at all.  That number has been rising lately, especially with the invention of online gaming and how easy it is to cheat in those games in a competitive arena.  We live in a world where "instant gratification" is so common that cheating isn't even seen as "bad" anymore unless it's in a multiplayer online setting (and even sometimes then, it isn't even considered bad).  The joy of victory is really all these players are seeking and because they cheat to obtain it, the fix wears off quickly because it's not as powerful as if they had earned it.

4.  The vast majority of RPGs that I've played really aren't that challenging to begin with.  I mean, with the exception of optional end game bosses, there really isn't much difficulty to be had in any of the games.  In essence, most RPGs are strictly story affairs.  To be honest, I'd rather have a little bit of difficulty injected back into the game so that people like you and I who care a lot about the story there is to tell...  Will also care quite a bit how we get there and how truly stacked against us the odds were.  I'm not asking for Ninja Gaiden levels of difficulty...  But...  You know, maybe something like Final Fantasy 5 levels of difficulty.

5.  My point was really "how useful is a save anywhere feature anyway, if even the people who want it don't save that often manually as it is?".  It was more an argument for the Save Point feature than anything else.  After all, how many times have you lost progress in a game due to a corrupted auto-save and were set back 10+ hours because you didn't manually save?  Because, you know, you only manually save when you have to leave the game...  Or there's that auto-save in there so saving manually isn't that important...  This could probably also be an argument against auto-save features as well...

6.  Music is an entertainment medium.  Movies are entertainment mediums.  Why are video games the only ones of this group that can't be considered "fine art"?  If a movie fails to entertain, is it still a movie?  If music fails to entertain, is it still music?  Also, would painting over the Mona Lisa really destroy it?  What if it had copies made and they had worldwide distribution like video games do?  Would you still feel the same about someone painting over it?  Or would it not be a big deal anymore?  Or is it only the original that should never be painted over?  Even if copies were made and people were allowed to do whatever they wished to do with the copies, wouldn't painting over them still be somewhat of a douchebag thing to do as it ruins what the original creator had made?  To me, the most important thing isn't necessarily someone enjoying my creation.  It's more that they see it and then think about it.  Even if they hate it, I still want them to just think about it.  Enjoyment is what sells games, for sure...  But, I don't really dabble in games to sell them.  I dabble in it because I have stories I want to tell and themes I want to explore.  I want people who decide to play my game to also want to explore those themes...  Or at least think about those themes enough to call me stupid for having explored them.  Don't get me wrong, I don't want a conversation piece or anything.  I'm not some artsy-fartsy kind of guy who needs recognition.  I just want to have someone think to themselves about what exactly they just played.  Well, that sounds fifty flavors of awkward and strange.  It's kind of hard to put it into words what I want out of making games and writing stories.  Not money, not fame, not people telling me I did a good job or a bad job.  I just want people to see what I did and think to themselves, "I never thought about that before".  Maybe a kind of mental or philosophical awakening or something?  I guess?  That's why it kind of irks me when people would mod or cheat at even a singleplayer experience and completely wreck exactly what the creator was trying to do.

 

[Zevia]

Whether or not your game has save points, save anywhere, no saves whatsoever, a single file that is autosaved as you go (Labyrinthine Dreams from RPG Maker, or perhaps something like Heavy Rain) seems more like one of those things that falls under the "make the game you would enjoy playing" category. It's a design choice that has no inherently right or wrong value to it. One is not better than the other, objectively - but clearly some people find more entertainment out of playing certain kinds of games than others.

Let's take a look at Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest. In this game, you could save anywhere, at any time. Would the game have been more fun if it had specific save points instead? Probably not. The bosses don't jump out at you out of nowhere, you can clearly see them on the map - and you have to actually interact with them before the battle begins. There are no random battles, everything can be seen on the map. So if you had a save point in the room before him, or if you simply save before interacting with him, what is the difference except that you would spend a little more time walking back to try him again? If you happen to run out of items, you can always just backtrack through the dungeon to the nearest town to buy new ones - again, no random battles means there's not much lost except time.

But if there had been save points, the game would not have had its difficulty increased or decreased. The only change to the game would've been that the player couldn't stop playing when they wanted to as much and it would've taken a little extra time getting back to whatever they had suffered a game over from.

So how about something like Final Fantasy 7, since most people have probably played it. What if you had been able to save anywhere you wanted, instead of only on the world map and at certain save points? Using a save point to denote a boss coming up is irrelevant - a save point before a boss is just one way of communicating to the player, "Hey, something important is coming up." You could just as easily put a sign somewhere that says, "Boss ahead." Or perhaps have a character say they have an uneasy feeling, or they hear voices around the corner, or whatever you want to do to remind the player, "Hey, it might've been awhile since you saved your progress. Perhaps you should do so."

What are the challenges of FF7? Navigating through the dungeon could be seen as one. Does having save points or letting you save anywhere change how you ultimately navigate the dungeon? Not really. A lot of players tend to do, "Which way is the way I'm supposed to go? Then I will go every other direction in order to ensure I got all the secrets hidden in the dead ends." If that's how you explore, that's how you're going to explore regardless of whether you can save anywhere or you can only save at certain places. It isn't any easier or harder, though it may be more time consuming if you end up dying in one particular instance.

Random battles will deplete your resources, but that will happen regardless of how the saves work - if I get in a battle every 15 steps, I'm still going to get into a battle every 15 steps no matter what. There's no real reason to keep reloading save points after every random battle in FF7 - the enemies aren't going to randomly drop something you just have to have because you weren't lucky on that one try. If you're trying to find a particular enemy for your Enemy Skill Materia, or for your convert-enemy-to-item search, saving won't affect it - you just have to keep running in circles until you find it.

How about bosses? Well, you're probably going to save before a boss, and since there are save points right before each one to tell you something big is coming up, my early point is brought back up - really all you need is an indication that you might want to save, whether it's at a point or via the menu where you can save anywhere. The important part is, you can't save in the middle of the boss fight - you can't keep attacking until you get a critical strike, save, then do it all over again. You have to do the boss fight as it's presented, in its entirety, before you can save again.

What about breeding chocobos, which is a legitimate random luck occurrence in the game? Players will save right outside the ranch before they breed to make sure they get either a male or female of the particular color they're after. Would it make a difference if they saved in the barn instead of on the world map? There are no random battles, nothing you do in-between the map and the chocobo, other than running back. Once again, it's just a time constraint.

If something is important enough to the player that they want it badly enough, they'll happily return to their last save point to try again. Let's suppose you couldn't save anywhere in PokeMon (can you? It's been a long time). If you're playing PokeMon and that Zapdos was accidentally defeated when you were trying to just freeze it at low health, and you care enough to fill out your Pokedex to 151, then damn skippy you're going to just go back to your last save. What's the difference between saving right before battling the Zapdos, and saving on the world map just outside the power plant? If you fought 10 random battles between the entrance and the Zapdos, then saving right before encountering it means you've already lost your items, damaged your PokeMon, whatever - if you go back to before you entered the dungeon, then you will still fight 10 random battles and probably still lose about the same number of items, health from your PokeMon, etc. etc. The only difference is in time invested.

There's no difficulty change between having the ability to save anywhere and having the ability to save at designated points. The only difference it makes is in the time invested in the game. If you can save anywhere, you might play when you have 15-20 spare minutes. If you can only save every 30 minutes, then you'll probably only sit down and play when you have at least 35-40 minutes to play. If you are defeated by a boss, the only difference between saving in the room with him and saving in the room before him is that you had to spend a few more minutes walking back. If you encountered a random battle between the room before the boss and the boss's room before saving it, you're still likely to encounter a random battle between those two rooms if you have to go back to the previous save point.

Difficulty does not equate to time invested, which is the only difference between having specific save points and being able to save anywhere.

However, if you can't return to previous saves, that makes a big difference - if all your decisions are permanent, THAT will affect how you play much more than where and how often you can save. Similarly, if you can't save at all (like on old NES games), that will also affect how you play much more than where and how often you can save. If you are only allowed a limited number of saves, that will affect how you play. But if you can save an infinite number of times, and you are always allowed to return to a previous save, then the only difference in how it's implemented is in how you're making use of the player's time.

This comes back full-circle to "make the game you would enjoy playing" - if you don't want your players to be able to play your game in short installments, or you want them to feel like a defeat means a bigger loss in their time (not because it's more difficult, but because it will take longer to return to where they were), then that's a design choice. As Sailerius mentioned, it's one that many modern gamers (and that doesn't just mean new gamers, it also includes people who've been playing since they were kids, but now have different schedules in their lives as an adult) feel frustrated by.

To the point about players messing about with a single-player game - there are reasons that people make games, and reasons that people play games. Neither party should really be allowed to tell the other what they can and can't do. I used to have a number of LEGO kits when I was a kid, and while I enjoyed putting them together via the instructions until I had a physical copy of what the box said I should have, I also enjoyed tearing them all apart, putting all the pieces into a big container, then building something new out of the hybrid "kit" I now had. If the guy who designed that particular kit contacted me to say I shouldn't be playing with LEGOs because I didn't build the right thing, I'd probably feel kind of resentful and not want to play with them any more - or perhaps I'd just shrug and continue doing my thing anyway.

Does it affect the guy who made the kit? The LEGOs were purchased, the guy got his payment. He'll probably never know what 99% of the kids who played with it did.

But perhaps you don't like LEGOs as an analogy - perhaps you think LEGOs are inherently designed to be pulled apart and put back together. Perhaps I could liken it to coloring books - what if a kid colored Kermit the frog red? He's supposed to be green, that is the "right" way to color him, but does it matter to the designer of Kermit the frog or the producer and distributor of that coloring book if a kid decides to color him some other way?

On the flipside, this kid should not be allowed to tell the designers that they can't have green Kermits any more, or that they can't make LEGO kits with specific instructions any more. The designers will do what they want to do, the players will do what they want to do - if it is not infringing on anyone else's experience, it shouldn't make a difference.

 

[Solo]

There is so much tl;dr in this topic omg


I'll keep it simple.


Difficulty can justify "save anywhere".


Also, some people have lives, and it's nice for them to be able to quit anytime they want.


To say it's "bad design" is closed-minded, short-sighted, ignorant, mean, and selfish. It's not your place to say that, the universe doesn't revolve around your individual standards and tastes. All you're going to do is make people not like you.

 

[Tai_MT]

People already don't like me.  I got nothing to lose by expressing my opinions.  Only those worried about people liking them will censor themselves   Censorship is for trogs.

 

[Solo]

Who said anything about censorship?

 

[Tai_MT]

Self Censorship is still Censorship.  As in, you only say and do things that won't upset other people or make them dislike you at all.  Self Censorship.  I don't believe in it

 

[Solo]

Neither do I, really...

 

[Tai_MT]

Human beings cannot learn anything without making colossal asses of themselves.  To accomplish, one must make wildly outlandish claims that the majority will disagree with.  That is Free Speech's first law.

In those days, we really believed that to be the worlds one and only truth.

 

[cabfe]

What's the point of having a player redo a dungeon part if he died?

It's a punishment, even for 5 minutes of redoing the same thing. It has no meaning.

And who likes to be punished?

If it's "for the challenge", then you probaly failed at balancing your encounters and compensate by saying "it's the player's fault, he wasn't prepared enough".

Either you don't allow saving *at all* in a dungeon (for the challenge) or you allow it *anywhere, anytime*.

The save point in itself has no meaning for me. It artificially expands the game's length, where some developpers like to boast with a "100 hours RPG!" statement or so.

 

[Tai_MT]

Who likes to be punished?  Answer is "nobody", which is the reason you do punishments.  Why do parents spank their children?  Teaches the children not to engage in the behavior that isn't wanted.  What does any punishment do?  Teaches you not to engage in the behavior that gives you the punishment.  Your argument is essentially "Punishment is absolutely useless and pointless and should be abolished in all games".  Well, okay, we could do that...  But then you don't really have a game.

Without that 5 minute punishment, you devalue the gameplay and simply whiz through it for the instant gratification fix of "I beat the game! now to the next one for another fix!".  We remember bosses that absolutely crushed us because of how many times they made us restart.  Losing is a punishment.  A 5 minute walk after that punishment is to let you come up with another plan of attack or to help hammer it home that you are not prepared and you should probably come back better prepared.  Or, it's an indication that you should think a bit about what strategy you employed because the last one failed spectacularly.

If you can't lose in a game, or losing is so trivial that it may as well not exist...  Then where's the incentive to play well?  Where's the incentive to play at all?  Where's the thrill of victory going to come from without the really terrible sting of defeat and the punishment that results from it?  The meaning and point of punishment is entirely psychological to the player him/herself.  The fact that you want to avoid it so adamantly is proof positive that it's fantastic incentive.  The very act of being punished makes you angry and frustrated and you don't want it to happen.  Well, the game provides a simple way to make it not happen...  The player needs to learn how to play better so that it won't happen.

The save point itself serves the purpose of providing a "safe zone" for a player to return to should they die somewhere along the way.  It's a mercy and often a useful location (often the save point allows you to use certain Field Items that fully restore HP and MP... or the thing heals you itself).  The difficulty in a save point doesn't come from having to use one.  It comes from having to return back to it should you be inept enough to lose.

Also, the only reason developers ever started boasting about the hour length of their games is because Gamers started demanding they answer the question.  They wouldn't have boasted such things if Gamers themselves hadn't been such raving morons about it.

If you want to complain about "artificially expanded game length", then you need to seriously consider just what crafting systems are for, what combat systems are for, what minigames are for, and what optional end game content is for.  It's all just there to artificially inflate the playtime of the game.  Oh, and that added "Hard" or "Impossible" or "Legendary" difficulty setting?  Same thing.  Achievements/Trophies?  Same thing.  Multiple endings?  Same thing.  All of those things have no value, no meaning, and are completely pointless in an RPG except to expand the play time of the game itself.  If you really want to make that kind of argument against save points, I've got a ton of other RPG and other Game Genre things I can throw at you for "inflates game length artificially and has no purpose".  I can also guarantee that you'll enjoy a lot of those things.

 

[cabfe]

I'll answer only about the topic of save points so that it won't derail.

Without that 5 minute punishment, you devalue the gameplay and simply whiz through it for the instant gratification fix of "I beat the game! now to the next one for another fix!".  We remember bosses that absolutely crushed us because of how many times they made us restart.  Losing is a punishment.  A 5 minute walk after that punishment is to let you come up with another plan of attack or to help hammer it home that you are not prepared and you should probably come back better prepared.  Or, it's an indication that you should think a bit about what strategy you employed because the last one failed spectacularly.

I still don't see the point. I'm not saying to nerv the boss if you lose, so where does having to redo an old part influence the boss fight?

Having to redo the last 5 minutes isn't going to make me better, only frustrated, bored and more willing to quit the game.

If you failed against a boss but got to save just before, will that automatically grant a win? No.

So why add the 5 minutes punishment on top of that?

To "come up with another plan of attack" or "think a bit about what strategy you employed" doesn't require a save point, only a brain.

If during those 5 minutes (sometimes more than that) you have to beat small random (or not) encounters before retrying the boss, how long do you think a player will continue your game?

I know I'll quit soon.

And if there are no encounters, again, what's the point? Let me fight the boss without the hassle.

 

[Tai_MT]

You're saying you don't see the point because you've been conditioned to the "instant gratification" nature of the populace these days.  You're saying being punished would make you quit (which sounds like you'd do it out of spite or because someone didn't grant you an instant win or instant retry).

Let me ask you something...  Why is 5 minutes really such a big deal?  How many hours do you spend playing MMOs a week and running Raids that ultimately accomplish zippo?  How many hours are spent watching television?

If five minutes is too long for you, I shudder to think how you'll react when you hit the real world and waiting times for almost everything are 10 minutes plus...  And you aren't even playing a game during those wait times.  At least with a 5 minute walk in a game, you can mitigate that by simply avoiding battle if you don't want to do it.

Also, I learned how to play video games with those 5-10 minute wait times in between losses.  If it made me learn how to get better, then a reasonable assumption would be that it would make you learn to get better too.  The problem is that you've been conditioned to the "instant gratification" mentality and you can't even accept 5 minutes as a "reasonable set back".  Especially since I'd stated that 5 minutes would be the absolute max amount of time you'd want a player to lose if they got crushed in a fight.  I'd also said you need to have a save point directly outside of a boss fight in order to retry it as quickly as humanly possible as well as to let the player know that it's a good time to ready up your team and equipment and to save up in case bad things happen.

I come from a generation that when you got murdered in a dungeon in Zelda, you not only had to rewalk the whole dungeon when you saved...  But they also put you back to 3 hearts after your death so you often had to leave the dungeon to stock up on life to come back.  My generation learned how to play games without save points, or save points so brutal that it would make most of you "instant gratification" children cry yourselves to sleep.  Go play you some Zelda II on the NES.  Have fun with that save system.  Save and Quit, you start back at the very beginning point of the game and you gotta walk all the way back to where you were.  Oh, and your XP resets to 0 when you lose all your lives, so have fun building that back up for all the stat upgrades.

When I grew up, you learned to get good at the games you played or you simply didn't play the ones you couldn't gain skill in.  We would often lose hours of progress when we reloaded a save.  And, here you are, whining about a 5 minute walk.

 

[Solo]

I come from a generation that when you got murdered in a dungeon in Zelda, you not only had to rewalk the whole dungeon when you saved...  But they also put you back to 3 hearts after your death so you often had to leave the dungeon to stock up on life to come back.  My generation learned how to play games without save points, or save points so brutal that it would make most of you "instant gratification" children cry yourselves to sleep.  Go play you some Zelda II on the NES.  Have fun with that save system.  Save and Quit, you start back at the very beginning point of the game and you gotta walk all the way back to where you were.  Oh, and your XP resets to 0 when you lose all your lives, so have fun building that back up for all the stat upgrades.

I really hope you are not using these as examples of ideal game design...

Game designers have learned from these mistakes (or overcome hardware limitations that gave birth to them).

 

[cabfe]

Again, we're not in phase.

It's not the 5 minutes play that bothers me.

It's having to *redo* it every time until I pass and get to the next save point.

(And I don't play MMOs nor watch TV, but that's off-topic).

To show you your example is wrong:

Waiting line of 10+ minutes. OK, it often happens. But how often do you have to wait again and again until you got what you wanted?

Let's say you want to pay something. You're waiting you turn and pick your money/credit card. Oups, wrong pocket. Too bad, you'll have to queue again and try another pocket next time. And no cheating by checking your pockets while waiting T

That's a boss fight where you have to wait to actually fight him before knowing if a strategy will work.

"At least with a 5 minute walk in a game, you can mitigate that by simply avoiding battle if you don't want to do it."

->So, if I can avoid the battle, why not letting me face the boss directly?

""instant gratification"

->Nope. The boss is the same. The fight won't go easier because I had to wait.

"We would often lose hours of progress when we reloaded a save.  And, here you are, whining about a 5 minute walk."-

->That's my point. It was so meaningless that the time between retries diminished. Until one realizes they don't even need to be at all.

I'll rephrase my question. What do you gain with a 5 minutes *redoing* instead of going straight to the fight? That's what I don't understand. Maybe I'm wrong, that's a possibility. Me not seeing the point doesn't make it a truth.

I must precise that I'm not a console player, never owned one in my life. So that may explain why I'm not used to the Save point philosophy.