Save Points or Nah

[Wavelength]

I think a lot of the Save Points issue kind of references back to the idea of game overs and whether they serve a purpose in an RPG (or any game with a beginning and an end, for that matter).  That in itself relays back to the idea of where should the challenge come from in your gameplay, but that would be waylaying the conversation even further.

But as a quick word on Game Overs... there are games that need the risk-and-reward mechanic that GO's bring, and there are games that don't... and among them, there are games that figure out a way to do the risk-and-reward thing through something other than "lose all progress and return to your last save file".  Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter used a "groundhog's day" type system that was an integral game mechanic unto itself.  Recettear turned GO's into a New Game +.  Pokemon used an effective (if too forgiving) Non Game Over mechanic that let you keep all your progress but cost half your money.  Tales of the Abyss (and Skies of Arcadia, IIRC) allowed you to retry boss battles you lost (OR return to the Load Game menu).

If you're not doing anything unique, I think the best method is to allow saving anywhere as long as you're somewhere "safe" (e.g. towns), and either having sparse save points in dungeons or not having them at all.  A "soft save" slot (that is, a file that's deleted as soon as it's loaded) is a really nice feature, too.  One of my pet peeves in games is needing to leave the game running if I need to quickly leave the house for some reason, and having a soft save (that can be used anywhere) allows me to turn the game off and come back later, without affecting design or difficulty at all.

One important piece of advice I'd give to everyone: have a scripted option to save after the "cutscene" that leads into the dungeon's boss (or big event) plays, rather than before it.  This has two huge benefits: you don't tip the player off about a Wham! Moment in advance of the scene, and if the player loses the fight, they don't have to watch the entire scene again (which is a pet peeve for nearly all players the world over).  Of course, this also can lead to an unwinnable situation - so if losing that boss fight results in a GO, it would be smart to instruct the player to use different save files or at least give the player a way to, for example, exit the dungeon safely as they load their file after defeat.

EDIT: In response to the last few posts, there is only one person to blame if the player (without warning) finds themselves in an unwinnable situation in a traditional RPG, and that is the designer.  It's a player's natural instinct to save when possible, and if it so happens that the player is now in a situation that they can't turn back from and can't survive, then you as the designer have screwed over your player.  Why do this?  The only time I can remember this happening to me was Evolution: Worlds, where I barely survived the dungeon (1/4 HP and one healing item), saved, and then was told I couldn't go back.  I did manage to beat the boss after about fifteen attempts by manipulating its strategy and getting really lucky with "AI Roulette", but I consider this horrible game design because it's a very un-fun situation that feels unfair to most players.

TL;DR Version:

• Think about why you use Game Overs in the first place before you think about Save Points
• Allow saving anywhere that the risk-and-reward mechanics aren't at play (e.g. towns)
• Save points should be infrequent or unavailable where risk-and-reward mechanics ARE at play (e.g. dungeons)
• Implement a "soft save" feature if possible and allow it to be used anywhere
• Present the option to save after, not before, the big cutscene

 

[Sailerius]

You can't design away incompetence or stupidity, it's simply not doable.

Of course it is. An excellent example of a well-designed game that keeps the player from ruining the game is Final Fantasy XIII-2. You can save anywhere, quickly retry battles if you lose, and your health is fully replenished between battles, meaning that there is no situation in which you're trapped somewhere because you go into every battle fully capable - on top of that, even if that weren't the case, you can reset to right before the battle triggered, so you could trivially avoid battles that you're incapable of winning. Even better still, you can return to the overworld from the start menu at any time. All of these features are extremely simple to implement and prevent the player from messing up their own game.

Good designers have no trouble designing around player stupidity.

 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.

No, it is 100% on the designer for failing at their job. "You're playing the game wrong!" is the refrain of a terrible designer and you should run far away from anyone who blames the players for faults in the game. The designer's job is to ensure that the game is fun. Putting the responsibility on the player is shirking responsibility and laziness.

 

[Ralpf]

Of course it is. An excellent example of a well-designed game that keeps the player from ruining the game is Final Fantasy XIII-2. You can save anywhere, quickly retry battles if you lose, and your health is fully replenished between battles, meaning that there is no situation in which you're trapped somewhere because you go into every battle fully capable - on top of that, even if that weren't the case, you can reset to right before the battle triggered, so you could trivially avoid battles that you're incapable of winning. Even better still, you can return to the overworld from the start menu at any time. All of these features are extremely simple to implement and prevent the player from messing up their own game.

Good designers have no trouble designing around player stupidity.

No, it is 100% on the designer for failing at their job. "You're playing the game wrong!" is the refrain of a terrible designer and you should run far away from anyone who blames the players for faults in the game. The designer's job is to ensure that the game is fun. Putting the responsibility on the player is shirking responsibility and laziness.

I guess having horrible mechanics that allow you to go anywhere at any time would be a way around that, but I would tend to avoid horrible mechanics. And putting the second worse FF game ever made (Only to FFXIII, and most people would agree with me on both of those I think) as your ideal when I'm 99% sure every FF (minus XIII) that came before it you could fall into such a trap does not help your case any.

Putting the responsibility on the developer for having a little challenge in their game that could possibly backfire doesn't even make sense, if I wanted a game without challenge....I could just watch TV.

Though there is one series I can think of that does prevent that in a way that makes sense, Dark and Demon Souls when you die you go back, and lose all of your 'money' and in Demon Souls half of your max HP (until you do one of a few things that restore it, you can also take up an accessory slot to get to 3/4 max HP). But that doesn't make sense for every game. And in Dark Souls it is conceivable, though unlikely, that you could still get stuck somewhere. Not in Demon Souls where you can go back to a safe place with (If I remember right) the loss of all your 'money'. But those games also don't have manual saving nor the ability to save on multiple files, they are very different games.

 

[Necromus]

Of course it is. An excellent example of a well-designed game that keeps the player from ruining the game is Final Fantasy XIII-2. You can save anywhere, quickly retry battles if you lose, and your health is fully replenished between battles, meaning that there is no situation in which you're trapped somewhere because you go into every battle fully capable - on top of that, even if that weren't the case, you can reset to right before the battle triggered, so you could trivially avoid battles that you're incapable of winning. Even better still, you can return to the overworld from the start menu at any time. All of these features are extremely simple to implement and prevent the player from messing up their own game.

Good designers have no trouble designing around player stupidity.

No, it is 100% on the designer for failing at their job. "You're playing the game wrong!" is the refrain of a terrible designer and you should run far away from anyone who blames the players for faults in the game. The designer's job is to ensure that the game is fun. Putting the responsibility on the player is shirking responsibility and laziness.

If FFXIII-2 near foolproof system is what you consider good in that matter, there can't be many games you would consider good then (lets keep it at RPG's).

And if I remember correctly, even there is a fight, that can lock you out




Its the 2nd comment there even, I knew there was a fight against Caius where you couldn't turn back.

Really, if you want to, you can screw up everywhere, there is no real idiotproof mechanic, if its not supposed to autowin your game.

I do however totally agree with you, that it should be reasonable failsafe, and that totally is on the designer, just really, its not as black and white as you make it out to be, agree on that?

 

[sleepingnamja]

I think this discussion is a little too broad, so I have a few suggestions on how a certain RPG sub-genre could use save points (each franchise classifies as a certain RPG subgenre):

In Final Fantasy I-X, I would play most of them on emulators because it's too difficult to find most of these titles and consoles for a reasonable price, I would always use save states from the emulator. I rarely actually saved in the game. I always liked how save states were so convenient and I could always start from where I left off because it was a pain just to spend more time to repeat the same path (Final Fantasy XIII was very terrible at this). The only problem was that if I forgot to save in game at a point that wasn't too far away from where I'm currently at and was stuck in an incredibly difficult situation (Ex: FFVI - I needed to escape the self-destructing floating island, but I didn't have any restoration items), I would be stuck at that point for a long time because I would do multiple attempts to finish that part without dying. 
TL;DR: Final Fantasy games would probably be better if you could save anywhere. Final Fantasy XIII is a good example of how you should be able to save anywhere because you waste so much time walking from point A to point B just to save.

In the Mother series (Earthbound is Mother 2), save points are an absolute necessity. Why not use just save states? Well, each save points gives you money that you need in order to buy necessities. Fighting an enemy and beating them does not give you money directly. You have to talk to the save point (frog or dad on telephone) to withdraw money that you earned from fighting enemies like a bank system.
TL;DR: the Mother series is an example of how save points are used as a necessity because they are your only source of game income. 

In the Pokemon series (the most casual RPG, the most popular, and the most money made off of an RPG), saving anywhere is convenient. It's a feature that they used for every single one of their games for 2 decades. The majority of people like saving anywhere. Its a game that teaches even the most casual player that they are responsible for saving frequently. Even with an emulator, I still saved in game frequently because it was still a necessity. 
TL;DR: the Pokemon series is an example of what the majority wants, and the majority wants to save anywhere. Save points will only cause more harm than good in these types of games.

In the Star Ocean genre (games like Ni No Kuni), battles weren't necessarily tough, but going through an area depletes most of your health and mana, and you wouldn't want to waste too many items for regular troops. I always felt super relieved when I saw a save point because it restored my party. Save points were a necessity because they restored your party. It wouldn't matter if you were able to save anywhere because you needed to restore your party, so you would still need to go to these save points.
TL;DR: Star Ocean like games require you to go to save points because you need to restore your party after fighting through many troops that deplete your health.​ Saving anywhere wouldn't matter because you still need to restore your health.

​In the end, certain game styles require certain kinds of saving.

 

[Sharm]

Sleepingnamja, blue and red text is reserved for Moderators only. I've removed the colors from your post.

 

[Sailerius]

I guess having horrible mechanics that allow you to go anywhere at any time would be a way around that, but I would tend to avoid horrible mechanics.

Care to elaborate on how mechanics designed to make the game not frustrating to play are "horrible?" Most counterarguments boil down to "there's no challenge," except XIII is an incredibly difficult game - much moreso than any other entry in the series. So clearly that's not the problem. What's horrible?

Its the 2nd comment there even, I knew there was a fight against Caius where you couldn't turn back.

Really, if you want to, you can screw up everywhere, there is no real idiotproof mechanic, if its not supposed to autowin your game.

Wrong again, I'm afraid. You can leave it by turning off the Paradox Scope. There are idiot-proof mechanics, it just requires you to be a competent designer. Unfortunately, very few people are.

 there can't be many games you would consider good then (lets keep it at RPG's).

Sturgeon's Law - 99% of everything is horrible. I think most games are trash (but they don't have to be! which is why these discussions are important). That so many people look to trash for inspiration is part of why games are in such a stagnant rut.

As designers, we should constantly question our fundamental assumptions about games. Just because game ABC does XYZ doesn't mean you should do it, too. Most games are awful. Learn from their mistakes.

 

[Zoltor]

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.

Exactly.

To Sailarius: It sounds like you either never played a RPG that didn't hold your hand throughout the game or you have only played RPGs that where such pushovers, that It's almost impossible to die ingeneral.

The stupidity of the player causing them to be stuck, is on them, not the game designer. It's common sense not to save ontop of a previous save while in a dungeon/far from town when you're low on resources, and It's unlikely you can excape the dungeon or return to a town any number of ways. Dumb moves like doing that is on the player, not the game designer. A developer shouldn't have to design their game around, "what if the player is a vegetable" lol.

 

[Necromus]

Care to elaborate on how mechanics designed to make the game not frustrating to play are "horrible?" Most counterarguments boil down to "there's no challenge," except XIII is an incredibly difficult game - much moreso than any other entry in the series. So clearly that's not the problem. What's horrible?

Wrong again, I'm afraid. You can leave it by turning off the Paradox Scope. There are idiot-proof mechanics, it just requires you to be a competent designer. Unfortunately, very few people are.

Sturgeon's Law - 99% of everything is horrible. I think most games are trash (but they don't have to be! which is why these discussions are important). That so many people look to trash for inspiration is part of why games are in such a stagnant rut.

As designers, we should constantly question our fundamental assumptions about games. Just because game ABC does XYZ doesn't mean you should do it, too. Most games are awful. Learn from their mistakes.

Hah you're right, has been a while, guess it really is idiotproof then.

Don't kid yourself about the difficulty tho, nothing is hard about anything in the (main) game, sure we got some arena fights, but hey, that's what they're there for.

I guess we just have a really different taste in games then, because I hardly think that any game without that system is badly designed, that would be a ludicrous statement.

 

[amerk]

So this topic has gone from save points "yay or nay" to designer competence versus player's stupidity? In any case, short of hand-holding a player, there are always ways for a player to break a game if they try hard enough. I agree, there are some games poorly designed but consider this:

You design a game that requires the player to buy items and/or use them properly in the course of a dungeon. The player refuses to buy items or sells them all or squanders them. They get into a tough boss fight and get stuck.

In this case, you could say the designer was incompetent because they didn't ensure the player had enough resources by the time they got to the boss but...

... What's the point of having a store to buy items if you are going to just hand hold and give the items to them for free? And even then, there is no guarantee the player will scout the dungeon looking for these items or fighting monsters to get them, so even then they could wind up in an unwinnable spot.

 

[whitesphere]

I think there are many different ways to handle save states, and there is no one which is any better than the other.

However, the way saves are handled does profoundly influence the game.  In particular:

1. Restricting saves by location (i.e. save in overworld, discrete save points in dungeons) adds to the challenge of a dungeon.  Many RPG players are used to this mechanic, since a lot of RPGs have it. This will create player tension.  But, that can be a good thing, simulating the risk the characters are in.  However, it can also add to player frustration by forcing a player who dies to re-do that area of the dungeon.

2. Allowing saves anywhere can take away the feeling of danger from a dungeon.  On the good side, it can appeal to casual gamers and allow playing the game in small installments.  On the bad side, as I mentioned, it takes away any risk from the dungeon.  Worst case, the player dies, goes to the title screen, and comes back right where s/he was in the game.

3. Restricting saves by requiring some item is good for survival horror games, because it provides far more tension, but can easily fall into frustration territory, so it requires extra careful game design to ensure the tension doesn't boil over into frustration.

So the answer to "save points or no" depends on what effect the designer wants to achieve.  I don't believe any of these is automatically good or bad design.  They are only "bad" if it completely undermines the feel of the game.    Or, if saves are limited, and there are too few save points (which is itself subjective), it can make the game less enjoyable.

Now, it's quite fair to say, as players, we may NOT like all systems equally.  Or one player may feel the save points are plenty, another may say there aren't enough. 

I just don't consider "bad design" to be the same as "Using a save system I don't like."   If I really don't like a save system, I won't play the game.

 

[Ralpf]

Care to elaborate on how mechanics designed to make the game not frustrating to play are "horrible?" Most counterarguments boil down to "there's no challenge," except XIII is an incredibly difficult game - much moreso than any other entry in the series. So clearly that's not the problem. What's horrible?

Wrong again, I'm afraid. You can leave it by turning off the Paradox Scope. There are idiot-proof mechanics, it just requires you to be a competent designer. Unfortunately, very few people are.

Sturgeon's Law - 99% of everything is horrible. I think most games are trash (but they don't have to be! which is why these discussions are important). That so many people look to trash for inspiration is part of why games are in such a stagnant rut.

As designers, we should constantly question our fundamental assumptions about games. Just because game ABC does XYZ doesn't mean you should do it, too. Most games are awful. Learn from their mistakes.

First of all, are we talking about XIII or XIII-2? Because you mention XIII-2 first and now XIII so I'm not sure what you mean. But anyway XIII was difficult in certain fights, mainly because of bad design choices (unrelated to the discussion at hand), but XIII-2 was laughably easy, but I would consider neither of them incredibly difficult by any stretch.

But any mechanic that remove all difficulty (as in XIII-2 being to teleport anywhere at will with no penalties) is a horrible mechanic. RPG's are at least supposed to be somewhat challenging. If I didn't want to see how the story was going to play out I doubt I would have played far in that game, it was really easy after a certain point.

Out of curiosity what other games do you like? Since "99% of games are trash" then that must be a very short list.

 

[Sailerius]

But any mechanic that remove all difficulty (as in XIII-2 being to teleport anywhere at will with no penalties)

What difficulty does that remove? None at all. What about the game would have been more difficult if that had been removed? Nothing at all. It would have just been more annoying. There's a difference between being annoying and being difficult.

RPG's are at least supposed to be somewhat challenging.

As it is one of the only legitimately challenging RPGs out there, I'm glad you agree with me.

 

[Zoltor]

What difficulty does that remove? None at all. What about the game would have been more difficult if that had been removed? Nothing at all. It would have just been more annoying. There's a difference between being annoying and being difficult.

As it is one of the only legitimately challenging RPGs out there, I'm glad you agree with me.

Lol I don't even know how to respond to that. In what universe is any of the new school FF games(minus FF 4 the After Years ofcourse, since that was created by a actual RPG development team, who knows wtf they are doing) considered even RPGs, nevermind "difficult" RPGs at that? Modern FFs are nothing more then glorified VNs.

You want difficult RPGs, play the old Wizardry games, DW 2, FF 5 if you want a FF game, FF Legend 2(or any of the FF Legend games, however the 2nd game is a much better game then the other 2), Swords & Serpents, any Rogue like that wasn't made for complete noobs to the genre, 7th Saga, Mystic Ark, there's plenty of hard spots in Mana Khemia if you want a new(er) RPG, the real Might & Magic games, ect.

Oh yea, I forgot the DS, here's some more for you, Dark Spire, Radiant Historia, Etrian Odyssey 3(probally the first 2 games as well, but haven't played them), which is near impossible lv of hard, if you want to beat all the optional bosses as well, 7th Dragon, ect

Hell, and I only listed pure RPGs in one form or another, I didn't list Tactic/RPGs or the few hard Action/RPGs there are.

FF XIII hard? Lol Sigh RPG gamers sure have become soft, if FF XIII is considered hard.

As for your other question, simple it removes the need to know thy enemy, and yourself(the char in your party), among other things related to such. If you find yourself in trouble, no biggie, just teleport out of it.

 

[Zevia]

While there are some interesting points of discussion about save points, it seems there are a handful of posts in the thread that smack more of "Stop Having Fun" Guys. I'll agree with Sharm that this thread is much more productive when there's more consideration of how each style of saves affects the way a player enjoys (or doesn't enjoy) a game, and less that one way is right and one way is wrong.

What about that list of RPGs would make them enjoyable to you, in-particular, Zoltor, in regards to save points? And as a follow-up, why would the save point system of the other games detract from your experience?

 

[Tai_MT]

*sigh*

My problem, first and foremost is that players and devs are telling each other that "this way of saving is infinitely better and to do anything else is stupid and poor game design!".  Some of these people even go so far as to say, "If it has X type of save system, I quit playing that game!"

If a person prefers the "save anywhere" mechanics, that's fine.  However, it's not really inherently "good" or even "better" than another system.  It's there to let players quit the game whenever they like.  Personally, I think the system of "save anywhere" could be implemented much better so that the problems with it don't crop up (like savescumming, unwinnable battles, taking the danger out of the game, etcetera).  Do I avoid games with "save anywhere" features?  No, I do not.  In fact, I play a good many games with the save anywhere features.  In fact, I exploit the crap out of these features.  You know Roguelikes?  Oh yeah, the save anywhere feature has let me cheat those games to no end by simply saving and then making a copy of the save file to hide on my desktop so that the game only deletes the one I died on and I can restore the save anytime I like.  In Speech Challenges or other such "percentage chance" things in these games I save before attempting them.  If I fail, I reload the save and do it again.  In games like Pokémon, I save before every trainer battle (and at the beginning of the Elite Four) in case I lose.  If I lose, I can game reset to avoid the penalty and continue on my day as "the best trainer ever who had to exploit a game mechanic to avoid even a single loss".  I know I'm not the only person who does that either.  Personally, I don't prefer the "save anywhere" mechanic unless the devs have made the mechanic unexploitable by players.  It's the reason I proposed a "Quicksave" feature in which you could leave the game anytime you want and come back whenever...  But once you loaded the save, it deleted itself.

I prefer Save Points over the "Save Anywhere" mechanics purely because they're less exploitable and they tend to provide fairly good incentive to "not die" in the game.  As in, that 5 minute walk sucks, so you are going to try to give 110% and do absolutely everything possible to avoid death anywhere in order to avoid that 5 minute walk.  To me, it's the difference between "death has no consequences" and "death's tangible consequences should be avoided".  Ever play Fable 3?  Can't die in it.  At all.  No matter how bad you play.  The consequence is a slap on the wrist.  You get a scar, which doesn't matter as there are clothes that completely negate any/all scars you obtain.  So, there really isn't anything "at stake" in the game.  There's no reason to try to avoid death because it's a slap on the wrist.  Tell me, when you play games that have save points instead of save anywhere...  Do you carry more curative/restorative items than you would if you could save anywhere?  It's a behavior I noticed in myself...  I certainly do.  Let me use Pokémon as an example.  I can save anywhere in that, right?  I only ever carry the healing items the game gives me and only ever spend money on Pokeballs.  It isn't until I get to the Elite Four that I drop everything on Full Restores and Revives so that I can "brute force" my way through the five battles to come and win.  There's literally no reason for anything to exist in the game other than Full Restores or Revives/Full Revives for me in Pokémon because of the "Save Anywhere" mechanic.  I start getting beat up pretty badly, I run back to down and restore myself.  The only real "challenges" in Pokémon are when you're in really long caves (like the Rock Tunnel from RBY).  Unless you're packing one of the 7 Escape Ropes you can obtain up to that point through random treasure on the ground...  You're committed to that dungeon once you hit the halfway point.  But, these are the only places where the game is a challenge.  These locations cease to even be a challenge if you simply bring 1 electric type with you and 1 water/grass type with you to handle everything in the cave (and a psychic type too... the trainers in these places always love to have Fighting types).  Spam the two abilities through the whole cave and it even ceases to be an Endurance Challenge.

In any case, a hybrid of the systems wouldn't be too bad if it could be made in such a way that exploitation by players didn't exist or was minimal.

That being said, despite my support for Save Point systems, my own current game does not have them in it.  I use a "save anywhere" mentality in it because the game supports it well.  I've got systems in place that keep the challenge up despite the ability to save anywhere you want.  I have systems that will force players to purchase healing items and alternate sets of armor/weapons.  I have systems that can't be savescummed (or can only be minimally savescummed and only to very rare circumstances).  Decisions players make in my game are also substantial enough that the only way you would want to "revert to a previous save"  before these decision points is if you accidentally clicked the wrong one.  I'm building a game around the mechanic so that players can pick up or leave the game whenever they want, but they can't really use it to break the game or exploit the way the game works.

In my opinion, either system can be used well for saving.  I get upset at the "Instant Gratification" crowd who instantly and immediately hate a game based on something as trivial as a save feature.  "Oh, five minutes of my time is too much to be set back when I was absolutely stupid and came in here unprepared.  This is terrible design and anyone who uses it are jerks to players!  Save Point mechanics don't make a game more difficult!  They just make it more frustrating!"  Blah blah blah.  These types of players are what irritate and frustrate me about the Gamer community these days.  They're the ones whining and complaining about exclusive content to people who preorder or spend a lot of money on Limited Edition copies.  These are the people who complain that one system is better than another.  These are the people who complain that content exists in one console version of a game, but not in the other console version of the game.  These are the players who scream into microphones about each and every single death they get in a shooter.

If you have a preference for a save system, that's one thing.  But to say one version shouldn't exist because you have a short attention span and it annoys you to redo 5 minutes of progress because of your own ineptitude...  Or to say the other version shouldn't exist because it makes games too easy...

Save anywhere games are simply much more exploitable than save point games.  Save point games provide really great incentive to avoid death as much as possible while getting rid of easy ways to exploit the save system to avoid death.  Save anywhere games can allow a player to save anywhere at anytime because you never know what might come up...  Save point games only let you save when the dev decided you need to be able to save and these could be spaced really poorly.

How about instead of arguing about which is better, we argue about how to improve both systems?  Or maybe how to hybridize them into a superior system altogether?

 

[Harmill]

To add to the "save with items" route, Wild Arms has Gimel Coins that you find throughout the game, and you can use them to save during dungeons. I think using items to save is an interesting twist to save points. The benefits of such a system over save points is that the player is still allowed to save when they want to so long as they can "afford it". In Wild Arms 3 (the only Wild Arms game I've played), I don't recall Gimel Coins being rare, so I never found myself in a situation where I had to be mindful of my saving routines. If the save items are too easy to come by, and found in great amounts, they essentially serve as a "save anywhere" system. You might as well remove the save items at that point as they aren't doing anything differently from a "save anywhere" system. Heck, you could use BOTH save points and save items in the same game and reserve the save points for just outside the boss rooms to serve as reminders and to warn the player that they've reached the end of the dungeon and are about to fight the boss.

 

[Zoltor]

While there are some interesting points of discussion about save points, it seems there are a handful of posts in the thread that smack more of "Stop Having Fun" Guys. I'll agree with Sharm that this thread is much more productive when there's more consideration of how each style of saves affects the way a player enjoys (or doesn't enjoy) a game, and less that one way is right and one way is wrong.

What about that list of RPGs would make them enjoyable to you, in-particular, Zoltor, in regards to save points? And as a follow-up, why would the save point system of the other games detract from your experience?

Well each game It's for a decent reason(it is a long list after all), and it was a reply to Sailarius's heavily flawed statement. However if you just happen to be curious, here's the basic rundown:

The wizardry games teach you not to mess around, there's auto saving, and while you're allowed to die a few times, pretty much if you die more then 3 times, It's perma death(Wizardry 5 has a expendable super rare item that can bypass reviving percent chance for success, but It's a really hard item to come by),the Wizardy games/almost every pure dungeon crawler for that matter, Etrian Odyssey 3, Mana Khemia, and any Rogue like make it so you have to basically find all your equips/items, so the treasure hunting aspect is crazy. Radiant Historia, 7th Saga, FF 5, and Mana Khemia are very focused on strategy in battles, DW 2, the Wizardry games, and to a less extent, Rogue likes are just strait up hard, you're not suppose to beat them.

Pretty much every pure dungeon crawler/RPG, the Might & Magic games, and 7th dragon allow you to customize your char from scratch in various ways. Etrian Odyssey 3, Mana Kmenia, FF 5, and 7th Dragon have tons of side quests, and other things to do as well.

All of the games require a good handle on preparation, you can just go into a boss battle or even a dungeon just on a whim, you need to be prepared or you'll get owned before long.

Alot of those games have strong stories, ect. In general though, all those games are very unforgiven to people being careless or not using good strategy in boss battle/long exploration trips. Also most of those games require knowing your party members very well(Especially in games like DW 2, and the dungeon crawlers, most games in that list just become a bit harder if you don't know your char, but DW 2, and the dungeon crawlers will just own you altogether)

To Harmil: The save with items can work, but only if such can't be bought on a reg basis/there's a stict limit on how many you can have in inventory. However there is a huge negative in general, it discourages treasure hunting, so for it not to directly effect the game in a negative way, you would have to more or less not have a treasure hunting aspect in your game to beginwith, which is such a huge negative in of its self, as it would mean not having one of the biggest replay aspects possible, being a part of your game.

 

[Necromus]

@Sailerius

You really need to stop with the difficulty thing here, I don't know what kind of other RPG's you played, but nothing is even remotely difficult about either FF XIII or XIII-2 main storyline, like at all.

If those games were hard to you, then it sounds like you couldn't grasp the battlesystem fast enough, since you can't really screw up your character development, beacuse its pretty linear.

@Tai

Now that I totally agree with, wonder why you made it sound like you were opposed to saving everywhere before, maybe I just misread those huge ramblings before lol.

I personally think hybrid systems are the way to go too, since its the best of both worlds and gives the developer the tools to directly control the flow of saving to some extend, while not being restrictive to the player.

 

[Tai_MT]

You thought I was against "save anywhere" because I was busy pointing out the flaws of the system to everyone who was saying "Save Points are bad game design".  My posts were all, "your system isn't as good as you're trying to portray it".  Also, a few of my posts were "playing Devil's Advocate".

I'm only opposed to "saving anywhere" when it's used to exploit the game or when players want it because they want to be lazy in a game (as in, not have to redo progress because they were ill prepared to begin with).

Personally, I like the Save Point system.  No really long logical reason.  I just prefer it.  Well, okay, there are reasons for it.  It' just that, it's my personal preference.  I'd rather see a new Save System show up to replace both systems to be honest though.  They both have some pretty bad drawbacks and could use some overhauls.

I like the idea of "one time save anywhere" Quick Saves for those who have to quit quickly.  I also like the idea of "buy save points that you can use anywhere".  I even like the idea of "places have save points before really important things like bosses" in order to remind players to save there.

I don't think any system should eliminate or even mitigate the punishment of losing...  But, I do think the systems could be reworked so that the punishment of losing is there...  But it's a bit more palatable to newer players who don't have experience with the early Zelda games and how badly losing gimped you in them.  I'm used to games that basically punch you in the balls every time you lose.  The 10 minute set backs don't bother me because I grew up with them.  They could be frustrating when you first played a game and didn't know anything about how to play it...  But, they taught you to learn the game quickly or to give up playing.  Back then, you couldn't just digitally download a new game and ditch the one that was frustrating you.  You either played the frustrating games you had and learned patience...  Or you put away the game system and went outside.

With that being said...  I think there's room in there to have a significant unavoidable punishment for losing without doing something that wastes the players' time.  We should be focusing on that.  Game overs are important in almost every video game.  They let you know the stakes and the consequences of not playing well.