Save Points or Nah

[Necromus]

To me it looks like everyone here is talking, yet no one is listening :/

Aside from that debate having been had to death over and over again, people keep bringing up the same arguments over and over again, while focusing on the method of saving, which completely irrelevant tho, its about the context of the game.

Nothings wrong with DECENTLY placed savepoints, everythings wrong with savepoints that force you to redo a whole dungeon (or parts).

Saving has nothing to do with gratification or punishment, or atleast it shouldn't nowadays.

Its about overcoming an obstacle with the clever use of resources you got at hand.

Rerunning a certain part of a dungeon is not "good" punishment, because you already had overcome that obstacle before, its simply tedious and frustrating.

Bashing your head against a wall (for reference raiding in MMO's), as in beating a difficult boss, that is "good" punishment, because the focus is on overcoming a new obstacle, not redoing old ones.

Never wondered why everyone hates running back to a boss in -name MMO here-?

Respawnpoints in WoW for example are getting closer to the boss with each new raid (most of the time), because running back just wastes your time.

People should focus on presenting relevant challenges, with a fitting reward, focus on putting savepoints where they belong, use autosaves or steadily remind the player to save (if you can do so everywhere), to prevent pointless redoing of things you have done before.

That's what's important, that, whichever way of saving you end up using, implementing it the right way and focus on gameplay providing challenge and reward.

 

[Simon D. Aelsi]

*Skips  comments*

Really, it's up to you the developer, just make sure you do it RIGHT/Consistently.... For example, in the last disastergame I did, NOT ENOUGH save points was a thing, and for a weary player there's no better sight than.... a save point!

In some RPGs a save point (Along with a healing point, perhaps) could signal something epic ahead. I like to think players can be trained, like in Paper Mario games.  Save point in a "dungeon" usually means epic boss battle ahead, or something.

I know many of you don't like it, and that's fine and that's totally your right.

Personally I like 'em.

 

[Solo]

*Skips  comments*

Now there's some sense.

Seriously, people... do you actually expect others to waste their precious time (and eyesight) reading your walls, no, your FORTRESSES of text? There has to be a more efficient way of getting your point across...

I think the designer should do whatever they want. Yes, a save point can be a sign of something epic to come, or a great relief. It's all in what the creator wants to evoke with their game.

 

[mlogan]

Oh this one again. I am going to say piece and go.

Ultimately, it is your choice. Personally, if you are going to have save points, make them reasonably spaced, keeping in mind that not everyone can sit down and devote large chunks of time to playing games. Also, DO NOT force a player to sit through long cutscenes over and over. If you have a long cutscene that is vital to the story, have a save point shortly after.

I greatly appreciate being able to save anywhere as it works with my life and playing patterns. However, I would not mind a game where the save point was every 10-15 minutes. Anymore than that, and I'm likely not going to play it.

 

[Tai_MT]

@Solo

No, I don't expect games to be designed like they were when I was growing up.  It's there merely to illustrate the differences in gaming from then to now.  Back then, players had perseverance, patience, and learned quickly from mistakes.  Right now, players are impatient, more likely to quit if something seems a bit too challenging or drawn out, and have their hands held for nearly the entire gaming experience.  It has bred two types of players.  Players who want instant gratification and players who are quite a bit more willing to do something over again after they've lost because it really isn't that big of a deal (since you've done it before, it doesn't take very long to do it again... especially now that you know where the dead ends in the dungeon are, or the treasures you don't care about, or have already discovered the fastest ways to defeat the monsters).  Two very different kinds of gamers.  I, personally, don't like the "instant gratification" crowd, but that's mostly because every time I've dealt with them, they say something is "bad" just because they have to work at it or can't have it immediately and have to spend a little bit of time on it.

Also...

You're on website forums.  If you don't want to read massive walls of text, perhaps chat rooms are more your thing?  Seriously, complaining about having to read on forums is like picking up a novel and then complaining you have to read that text 'cause it provides no pictures.  I mean, what did you expect when you picked up the book?  It's facestairs level of silliness to complain about having to read on forums...

Oh, and at that other guy...  He does know that anything created after Final Fantasy 3 basically had a save point just outside the boss room, right?  His entire argument hinges on a gameplay element that simply does not exist (namely, lack of a save point outside a boss room).  Nowadays, if it has save points, there's one just outside the boss room so all you have to rerun is the last 3 minutes of dialogue before the actual fight.  Most of the time, that dialogue can even be skipped.  It's a non-issue.

 

[Caitlin]

I like save spots.  I agree with save spot on the world map, & in special places in town, but dungeons should have a single save spot.  Not necessarily at the boss.  Saving any where has a habit of hurting players, especially if you get stuck.

 

[Solo]

Saving any where has a habit of hurting players, especially if you get stuck.

Absolutely true. Like saving in the middle of a large map with random encounters, near dead, with no items. You might as well start the whole game over (heard of this happening once).

 

[Sailerius]

Saving any where has a habit of hurting players, especially if you get stuck.

If the game is poorly designed. But that's the fault of incompetent designers, not the mechanic itself. As I said in my earlier post: If your game can be broken by saving anywhere, fix your game.

 

[whitesphere]

I think a nice workaround is to add an ability or item that allows the party to escape a dungeon at any time.

I like save spots.  I agree with save spot on the world map, & in special places in town, but dungeons should have a single save spot.  Not necessarily at the boss.  Saving any where has a habit of hurting players, especially if you get stuck.

A nice workaround for this is to have an item or ability that lets the party escape any dungeon at any time.  Said escape basically teleports them back to the entrance.

I don't think that makes the game too easy as much as it gives an emergency exit --- after all, the player then loses all progress made in the dungeon to that point.

 

[Caitlin]

@Sailerius I would not say it's the designers, but the player.  You get stuck, almost no items or HP, you might as well, restart the game.  If you do not wish a game to have a save spot, you could do what Dragon Quest did, you save in town, but if you did, you only lose half of your gold or for a cost. However, you saved in town only. 

@Whitesphere: I guess that could work, too.  I guess you could call that dungeon restart, which would be easy to do.

 

[Necromus]

@Solo

No, I don't expect games to be designed like they were when I was growing up.  It's there merely to illustrate the differences in gaming from then to now.  Back then, players had perseverance, patience, and learned quickly from mistakes.  Right now, players are impatient, more likely to quit if something seems a bit too challenging or drawn out, and have their hands held for nearly the entire gaming experience.  It has bred two types of players.  Players who want instant gratification and players who are quite a bit more willing to do something over again after they've lost because it really isn't that big of a deal (since you've done it before, it doesn't take very long to do it again... especially now that you know where the dead ends in the dungeon are, or the treasures you don't care about, or have already discovered the fastest ways to defeat the monsters).  Two very different kinds of gamers.  I, personally, don't like the "instant gratification" crowd, but that's mostly because every time I've dealt with them, they say something is "bad" just because they have to work at it or can't have it immediately and have to spend a little bit of time on it.

Also...

You're on website forums.  If you don't want to read massive walls of text, perhaps chat rooms are more your thing?  Seriously, complaining about having to read on forums is like picking up a novel and then complaining you have to read that text 'cause it provides no pictures.  I mean, what did you expect when you picked up the book?  It's facestairs level of silliness to complain about having to read on forums...

Oh, and at that other guy...  He does know that anything created after Final Fantasy 3 basically had a save point just outside the boss room, right?  His entire argument hinges on a gameplay element that simply does not exist (namely, lack of a save point outside a boss room).  Nowadays, if it has save points, there's one just outside the boss room so all you have to rerun is the last 3 minutes of dialogue before the actual fight.  Most of the time, that dialogue can even be skipped.  It's a non-issue.

Am I that other guy? Nice way to come off the wrong way, no matter who it was aimed at

The whole argument about losing hours of time was coming from you, I just gave a more recent example, since savepoint or not, running old stuff again is pointless, no matter in what kind of context.

The whole thing simply boils down to the type of save mechanic not having anything to do with your oh so hated instant gratification crowd at all, its all about implementation.

Do either way, or mix them, but do it right, that's all that matters.

Seriously, if you can't stand quite a lot of newer players (which I can understand, trust me), in terms of how they want or don't want to "work" for something, you just have to deal with it.

Aslong your game (speaking in general, don't know if you personally got something in the making) does it right, has some thought behind whatever you end up doing, then it's perfectly fine, you can't please anyone.

Just simply saying one way is a no go is wrong, thats all there is to it.

 

[Sailerius]

@Sailerius I would not say it's the designers, but the player.  You get stuck, almost no items or HP, you might as well, restart the game.  If you do not wish a game to have a save spot, you could do what Dragon Quest did, you save in town, but if you did, you only lose half of your gold or for a cost. However, you saved in town only.

That's an excellent example of what I meant in my earlier post about how removing save points exposes poor design. If it's possible for a player to get into an unwinnable state in your game, you have failed as a designer.

 

[Necromus]

That's an excellent example of what I meant in my earlier post about how removing save points exposes poor design. If it's possible for a player to get into an unwinnable state in your game, you have failed as a designer.

Simply beeing possible is not really a sign of bad design imo, you can absolutely purposely get yourself into a situation like that in pretty much every game somehow.

That however is mostly the players fault, since those are really rare cases.

You surely can screw up a lot with bad timed autosaves tho, thats true.

 

[Sailerius]

Simply beeing possible is not really a sign of bad design imo, you can absolutely purposely get yourself into a situation like that in pretty much every game somehow.

That however is mostly the players fault, since those are really rare cases.

I can't name a single good game in which it's possible to get yourself into an unwinnable situation, even intentionally.

You surely can screw up a lot with bad timed autosaves tho, thats true.

Indeed. Like all mechanics, it requires careful thinking to implement well. A good example I've seen is in the Halo games, where if you die several times shortly after it reloads from an autosave, it will realize that it picked a bad place to reload to and move you somewhere else.

 

[amerk]

To Tai_MT's early question about buying saves:

I have thought about that myself, and I'd consider it a viable option. Basically allowing the player to buy as many or as little save points as they want, and also selling restorative save points (that heals the players) at a higher cost.

However, I'd still allow "save anywhere" feature in safe zones or on the world map, so that purchased saves only need to be used in dungeons.

Another option would be to have save anywhere coupled with save points. That way the player is reminded when something (like a boss) is coming up. It also allows gives the player the option of how to save. Anytime a situation may arise that would potentially place the player in a way where they can't back out if they realize they don't have enough items or are under-leveled, I'd remove the ability to save to avoid a situation of them overriding a save and no means to continue.

I also agree that saves aren't so much as a punishment but more of a means of allowing a person to quit the game. Naturally, death should be a potential hazard in an rpg, but in a single player game where again the focus is less on player ability, a save point shouldn't be used as a means of smacking the player across the head.

There's also another option to consider with save anywhere features. Saves should not be the sole means of creating difficulty in your game. That should come with challenging puzzles, deadly encounters, and the like. If you include a "save anywhere" option, then make your boss battles count. Make them require strategy and good use of resources and a thought process. That way, if the player loses, they only have to fight the boss again, rather than repeat segments of the dungeon, but the punishment and reward comes from learning how to master the boss' attacks, rather than a meaningless save point.

 

[Necromus]

I can't name a single good game in which it's possible to get yourself into an unwinnable situation, even intentionally.

Indeed. Like all mechanics, it requires careful thinking to implement well. A good example I've seen is in the Halo games, where if you die several times shortly after it reloads from an autosave, it will realize that it picked a bad place to reload to and move you somewhere else.

Any RPG with a long, difficult dungeon at the end really. Player decides to push through, instead of leaving and restocking for example.

Saving with no healing items and low HP on everyone, stuff like that.

Like I said, that's really on the player, not the game.

I can't name anything out of my head where the game almost breaks itself on purpose tho, maybe simply never happend to. I don't know.

Halo does that? That's a nice feature, never noticed that before.

To Tai_MT's early question about buying saves:

I have thought about that myself, and I'd consider it a viable option. Basically allowing the player to buy as many or as little save points as they want, and also selling restorative save points (that heals the players) at a higher cost.

However, I'd still allow "save anywhere" feature in safe zones or on the world map, so that purchased saves only need to be used in dungeons.

Another option would be to have save anywhere coupled with save points. That way the player is reminded when something (like a boss) is coming up. It also allows gives the player the option of how to save. Anytime a situation may arise that would potentially place the player in a way where they can't back out if they realize they don't have enough items or are under-leveled, I'd remove the ability to save to avoid a situation of them overriding a save and no means to continue.

I also agree that saves aren't so much as a punishment but more of a means of allowing a person to quit the game. Naturally, death should be a potential hazard in an rpg, but in a single player game where again the focus is less on player ability, a save point shouldn't be used as a means of smacking the player across the head.

There's also another option to consider with save anywhere features. Saves should not be the sole means of creating difficulty in your game. That should come with challenging puzzles, deadly encounters, and the like. If you include a "save anywhere" option, then make your boss battles count. Make them require strategy and good use of resources and a thought process. That way, if the player loses, they only have to fight the boss again, rather than repeat segments of the dungeon, but the punishment and reward comes from learning how to master the boss' attacks, rather than a meaningless save point.

Last part is exactly what I said before, and whats really important imo.

Ultimately, I think mixing both ways is the way to go anyways, seeing how I tend to die and lose progress on save everywhere games more often actually, due to simply forgetting to save lol

About buying saves, isn't that how for example Resident Evil works? Well not buying really, you rather find items, that allow you to save?

Maybe I remember that wrong, definitely fits into the survial feeling of the game tho.

 

[amerk]

Yes, you're actually right about that. With RE and the like resources are meant to be kept in check. It's still a bit frustrating that you can wind up with limited to no resources and have to potentially restart the game, but you're also looking at games that can be won within a few hours, for the most part.

The first Final Fantasy games allowed buying houses, tents, etc. for partial to full restoration. I can't remember if they allowed saving as well with these items. But I also rememeber getting a save point to carry around in FFVII, and I remembered thinking how nice it would be for other games to have a similar method. The player still has to decide where to use them, of course, and a subtle indication that a boss fight is coming up would still be nice and helpful.

In any case, I think people spend too much worrying about saves and save points that they miss out the two important aspects that saves provides: Its sole purpose is to give the player a means to save their progress and quit the game. Its secondary purpose (for lengthier games, anyways) is to give the players a sort of checkpoint should they die.

Beyond that is really going to be player's preference. Quick saves and auto-saves are very good alternatives, but neither of these should ever overwrite an actual save, in the event a player does need to go back to a previous save, for whatever reason they decide, except maybe for MMO's or where the purpose is to challenge the player by whatever means it can.

Personally, I just stick with "save anywhere" in the games I make, and remove the option in areas where the player could potentially wind up hurting themselves. Part of it is because I'm too lazy to bother with save points; but another part is because I think there is a larger crowd who prefers to save anywhere than being confined to just save points. But then again, I'm usually making games that's more focused on stories, and I leave it up to the player how they wish to play my games.

 

[Ralpf]

I can't name a single good game in which it's possible to get yourself into an unwinnable situation, even intentionally.

Indeed. Like all mechanics, it requires careful thinking to implement well. A good example I've seen is in the Halo games, where if you die several times shortly after it reloads from an autosave, it will realize that it picked a bad place to reload to and move you somewhere else.

How hard is it to imagine not stocking up on healing items and going to a tough (but otherwise very beatable) place only to realize 15 minutes in that you are almost dead and out of items....oh and you overwrote your only save file 30 seconds ago. I don't think I have played an RPG where that couldn't happen.

And that is all on the player, no fault at all on the designer.

 

[Sailerius]

I don't think I have played an RPG where that couldn't happen.

I can't name a single good RPG where that could happen. Because preventing that from being possible is part of designing a game correctly.

And that is all on the player, no fault at all on the designer.

No, that is the designer's fault for being incompetent. If it's possible to make the game unwinnable, then the designer has failed. The designer's job is to design the game in such a way that that's not possible.

 

[Ralpf]

You can't design away incompetence or stupidity, it's simply not doable. If a player gets themselves into trouble simply by not doing what they had to have done in order to progress to a certain point then that is 100% on them. And not keeping multiple saves is also on the player.