The thing that I don't get is why anyone thinks a quicksave system is not suited to every game.
If the developers have a specific experience in mind, they can just say "for optimum game experience, we recommend waiting until pre-set autosave points to save your game. If you don't want to deal with our bullshit, feel free to hit the quicksave button at any time."
That way, you guys who like your checkpoints are happy, guys who like their quicksave points are happy, everyone is happy!
This has already been discussed. Providing an option like this is no sort of solution at all, as people will always choose the less restrictive one.
It's like RPGs where you can choose between leather armor or chain mail - it's not really a choice at all since one is objectively better. That's why we have games where some characters are required to wear that leather armor, and games where saving is required at specific points.
This way, we have some games with quicksaves, some games with checkpoints, everyone is happy!
You're not happy because you wanted to play a specific game but you don't like how it saves? Tough. Buy a different game. There will always be elements of games that cause you to not buy them, and the save method doesn't need to be compromised just to accommodate you. Nor does the texturing, or model design, or length of a typical combat, or text-heaviness...
This has already been discussed. Providing an option like this is no sort of solution at all, as people will always choose the less restrictive one.
It's like RPGs where you can choose between leather armor or chain mail - it's not really a choice at all since one is objectively better. That's why we have games where some characters are required to wear that leather armor, and games where saving is required at specific points.
This way, we have some games with quicksaves, some games with checkpoints, everyone is happy!
They make this choice, and lose out on what they enjoy about not relying on quicksaves. They lose out on it because of their own choice. That doesn't make the save free. That gives it a very clear cost.
I can see that you are saying that you need to force some people for their own good.
But that's still forcing people, which is not automatically a faultless argument.
So yes we've been down this road and no there isn't a clear cut answer as you are implying. Both for and against arguments have flaws. Just like you are claiming it depends on the game, as it turns out it depends on the person too.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
No, nobody needs to be forced at all. You're not forced to play any game. You need to buy whatever game meets your needs best, and let developers respond to the market, that's all.
No, nobody needs to be forced at all. You're not forced to play any game. You need to buy whatever game meets your needs best, and let developers respond to the market, that's all.
What does that have to do with this? That's not a solution at all. I'm sorry, but if I like the look of a game, and it has a bad save system, you are telling me I now have to not play the game and can't enjoy what I liked about the game because of something I consider sub par.
Well I'm really not sure how you think that's an acceptable argument or even unrelated to force.
This is the same argument as "just don't save". "Just don't buy it".
Your argument definitely has flaws, just like the other side.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
If you lack willpower such that you will use a quicksave system even if you know full well it diminishes your game experience, you have no one to blame for that but yourself. Not the developers, not players who like quicksaves. Yourself. Its no reason to exclude a quicksave.
The best solution was the one given before. Difficulty+quicksaves+checkpoints. Or Difficulty+checkpoints only.
No option to choose a different system halfway through. Stuck with it your entire playthrough.
Like the DMC3 Special Edition.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
What does that have to do with this? That's not a solution at all. I'm sorry, but if I like the look of a game, and it has a bad save system, you are telling me I now have to not play the game and can't enjoy what I liked about the game because of something I consider sub par.
Well I'm really not sure how you think that's an acceptable argument or even unrelated to force.
This is the exact argument as "just don't save".
I am not telling you that you have to not play the game. You can also try to fit it into your schedule and suffer through it. You aren't forced on either decision.
How could it be the same argument as "just don't save," when that's not a real choice? Choosing to play a game with a single element you don't like, versus not playing it, is clearly a real choice.
If you lack willpower such that you will use a quicksave system even if you know full well it diminishes your game experience, you have no one to blame for that but yourself. Not the developers, not players who like quicksaves. Yourself. Its no reason to exclude a quicksave.
So developers should just release every game with a full godmode, debug, cheating available online, the works, because if people abuse it then it's their own fault and not the developer's? That'll go over really well.
I am not telling you that you have to not play the game. You can also try to fit it into your schedule and suffer through it. You aren't forced on either decision.
How could it be the same argument as "just don't save," when that's not a real choice? Choosing to play a game with a single element you don't like, versus not playing it, is clearly a real choice.
That is a real choice. Despite you claiming it is not, it is.
It is a choice. I've done it many times, relying on checkpoints. I know Subedii has done that and spoken about it. I think Monger has as well. I'm sure others can speak for themselves.
Please don't tell other people how they work. You sure as hell don't know every gamer anywhere near well enough to do that. (I know I've been guilty of this in the past myself, which is why I know now that it's a stupid thing to do.)
What you might want to say, is that it's not necessarily a very good choice for every person, just like saying "don't buy the game" or "suffer through the game" isn't a real choice for every person. ie, both arguments have flaws depending on the person.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
So developers should just release every game with a full godmode, debug, cheating available online, the works, because if people abuse it then it's their own fault and not the developer's? That'll go over really well.
Actually I do think they should release all games with cheats like that.
I remember when almost every game that came out had cheat codes. I remember having almost as much fun in Jedi Outcast and Academy with the console as I did playing the actual real game.
Cheating available online is a different thing, that affects other players. Quicksaving or not affects only yourself.
Again, there is literally no good reason to not include a quicksave in every game. For those games where it diminishes the game experience, the developers should simply state that at the beginning and let players choose to use/abuse it as they will.
If you prefer your game experiences without quicksaving, simply don't save. And that is a perfectly valid statement to make. If you are incapable of "not saving", and need a developer to hold your hand to make your game experience what you want it to be, thats your problem.
One thing to add to the list: basically anything you're emulating. Most (all?) NES/SNES/GBA/etc. emulators have a feature to save the "machine state", so you can save at any moment, even in games that don't have a save feature at all.
It might be a sort of cheating, but it also may be the only way of ever seeing the ending of Ninja Gaiden with your own eyes ;)
Actually I do think they should release all games with cheats like that.
I remember when almost every game that came out had cheat codes. I remember having almost as much fun in Jedi Outcast and Academy with the console as I did playing the actual real game.
Cheating available online is a different thing, that affects other players. Quicksaving or not affects only yourself.
Again, there is literally no good reason to not include a quicksave in every game. For those games where it diminishes the game experience, the developers should simply state that at the beginning and let players choose to use/abuse it as they will.
If you prefer your game experiences without quicksaving, simply don't save. And that is a perfectly valid statement to make. If you are incapable of "not saving", and need a developer to hold your hand to make your game experience what you want it to be, thats your problem.
But you're talking about a save system which is unlocked at the start of play. Are you seriously advocating every game start you off with full invincibility and cheat modes available from the beginning?
And why not allow cheating online? If your experience is ruined it's not the developers' fault, those people chose to enjoy the game their own way. If you need the developers to hold your hand and make a game that's always fair and balanced, that's your problem. Why should they spend the time and effort to make high quality graphics? If you don't like what they put out, that's your problem.
Singleplayer =/= multiplayer and never will. Decisions for singleplayer and decisions for multiplayer occur in a completely different context with completely different sets of rules attached. In most cases, the multiplayer rules have a very hefty set of morals attached to them that originated from dealing with others in society. While people like to add these morals to singleplayer games, many people don't see why they need to adhere to them when the only person being affected by them are themselves.
It's not just bad, you are comparing mars and venus.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
But you're talking about a save system which is unlocked at the start of play. Are you seriously advocating every game start you off with full invincibility and cheat modes available from the beginning?
To address the less contentious part of this post - yes, I absolutely believe they should. They did so in the past, and I'm honestly not sure why they increasingly don't. I would have found it completely impossible to enjoy Bloodrayne 2 without cheats, for example. It's your software, and you're free to mess around with it or ruin it exactly as you see fit - much like you could buy a complete boxset of The Wire and fast-forward to the bits with tits in them.
Edit: Just remembered an article that is rather better at demonstrating my point: Just Cause 2, and why cheats make it a better game. Also, ever tried playing a Final Fantasy game without random encounters? Improved 100%!
If you lack willpower such that you will use a quicksave system even if you know full well it diminishes your game experience, you have no one to blame for that but yourself. Not the developers, not players who like quicksaves. Yourself. Its no reason to exclude a quicksave.
You're really quite forceful that your opinion is right. When in fact it's just an opinion.
Game designers make a choice on how they want their game to be played. Quick saves don't always fit in with their choice. Quick saves rule out any risk, and without risk there's less reward. Your original arguement was that devs should say: "For the proper experience, don't use the quick saves" and include them. WHY bother including them? That's how the game is meant to be played.
How about board games, playing them as a kid if you didn't get the dice roll you wanted did you snatch it back to try again? What's the point in playing then?
If they're there people are going to use them. The pace of a video game, especially now they're becoming more cinematic, is all important. If a designer decides they don't want you to be able to break that pace with constant reloading to try and get through that section with 5 hp more then that's their decision. They shouldn't have to pander to the crowd that don't like a challenge in their gaming.
The other approach I've liked recently, which is sort of a compromise, is the "flashbacks" feature in Grid and most recently in Dirt 2. Depending upon difficulty level you get a certain number of flashbacks, at any time during the race you can bring up a replay of the last 20 seconds and restart your driving from any point.
It still keeps you tense because you don't want to waste them. Also the higher the difficulty the more of a bonus you get for coming first.
The way games are structured nowadays I can't think of that many examples of where quick saves would actually enhance a game.
You could always wait ten years, run a PS3 emulator and save whenever you liked then.
My edit button doesn't work or I'd have edited my last post. Regarding cheat modes being unlocked at the start... how many games have done that? Traditionally they were unlocked through a complicated button sequence. Around this time there was no internet (or not as it is today), there were just magazines. It wasn't like you could just go in to a menu. Take Sonic: up, down, left, right, a+start. Who would have done that if they'd just bought the game?
I don't agree cheats should only be available upon completion of a game, but I don't think they should be just their in the options screen.
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Except the difference is that if games are designed with my opinion in mind, people who do not want quicksaves are not affected at all, unless they lack willpower.
The problem with your opinion is that it affects others.
My edit button doesn't work or I'd have edited my last post. Regarding cheat modes being unlocked at the start... how many games have done that? Traditionally they were unlocked through a complicated button sequence. Around this time there was no internet (or not as it is today), there were just magazines. It wasn't like you could just go in to a menu. Take Sonic: up, down, left, right, a+start. Who would have done that if they'd just bought the game?
I don't agree cheats should only be available upon completion of a game, but I don't think they should be just their in the options screen.
We had different understandings of 'at the start'. To me, cheats that can be unlocked at any time through codes are also available 'at the start'. Availability isn't really the issue, I think - although I was personally really impressed at Rare being able to hide the cheat codes for Goldeneye for a good 3 years.
What does that have to do with this? That's not a solution at all. I'm sorry, but if I like the look of a game, and it has a bad save system, you are telling me I now have to not play the game and can't enjoy what I liked about the game because of something I consider sub par.
Well I'm really not sure how you think that's an acceptable argument or even unrelated to force.
This is the same argument as "just don't save". "Just don't buy it".
Your argument definitely has flaws, just like the other side.
Dude, people like us suck. We're less hardcore, lesser gamers. Sporky's the world's leading authority on saving. You just can't disagree with thim.
Except the difference is that if games are designed with my opinion in mind, people who do not want quicksaves are not affected at all, unless they lack willpower.
The problem with your opinion is that it affects others.
So does yours. I don't see how you're not getting this.
People will use quicksaves if available. That's pretty much a given. The developers design a game with a specific pace in mind. THEY design it. What's the point in them putting together a challenging segment, designed to keep you on your feet for maybe ten minutes when you can just save at any part of it and reload from there.
It's HOW they're designed. It's how the designers want YOU to play their game.
You have to consider how it would all affect achievements/trophies (not that I care for them). They're meant to be attained through skill, not through repetitive reloading.
If every challenge is 5-10 minutes long, I greatly prefer having the game automatically do everything and take me out of the drivers seat when it comes to saving my progress.
I think what people remember and dislike was the era when you could do 30 minutes of playing and then lose it all due to badly designed checkpoints. Obviously, that's incredibly annoying. But if I'm quick saving all the time, I kinda feel like the developers let me down. I don't want to feel responsible for backing up my progress, I just want to concentrate on the experience itself.
So does yours. I don't see how you're not getting this.
People will use quicksaves if available. That's pretty much a given. The developers design a game with a specific pace in mind. THEY design it. What's the point in them putting together a challenging segment, designed to keep you on your feet for maybe ten minutes when you can just save at any part of it and reload from there.
It's HOW they're designed. It's how the designers want YOU to play their game.
You have to consider how it would all affect achievements/trophies (not that I care for them). They're meant to be attained through skill, not through repetitive reloading.
Well, that's bullshit. First because achievements/trophies are already abused in a billion different ways, and they don't have any relevance outside epeens. They don't earn you money or ladder positions or multiplayer advantages. It's the very definition of an arbitrary AND meaningless number. Take Avatar Last Airbender, for instance.
Second because people often turn games into something even better and bigger by going against the developers' "wishes". Idolninja, a friend of mine from these forums, is turning Saint's Row 2 into something a hell lot cooler by modding it, including changing shitty activities, reworking the entire unlock system, including new and crazier weapons... Sometimes people just have more fun doing shit their own way, and that's perfectly good.
Thirdly, you ARE mixing your opinions about how YOU like to have fun and want the industry to impose them on other people who have different opinions. You can play games however you want, and I'll play them my own way.
Fourth, the concept of "author authority" has been questioned by the idea of "Loose Work" (or better, "opera aperta", which is already 48 years old, sheesh.
I will concede that maybe the save system could be tied to difficulty levels. Or it could be toggleable, like Vita Chambers in BS1.
The "people will ALWAYS use quick saves" argument is amazingly flawed because: 1) a fuckton of people who game don't think that's bad/a problem at all. 2) another fuckton of people have enough discipline and interest in the challenge to not use it, after all. There are plenty of gamers who do speed runs, special playthroughs with self-imposed rules or much increased difficulty levels. Achievements (as irrelevant as they are) can also make a lot of gamers play it the hard way. So why don't just add a "don't quicksave ever" achievement? People who care about challenge will chase that, the others won't, everyone is happy.
The terribly lame point you people are insisting in making is just like saying that there shouldn't be a "normal" or "easy" level, that all games should always default to "hard", because otherwise everyone will play on easy. And that's bullshit on so many levels.
Rock Band - Through a quick save system you could 100% any song. Save every 10 seconds, miss a note, just go back.
Little Big Planet - Play through any level, die, reload before death, get achievement for completing level without death (same for ANY game which gives you an achievement for getting through without dying).
Any sports game - (computer) Opponent scores? Let's roll back to an earlier point in the match.
I know people who hammer quicksaves every minute or so when playing. THAT takes the challenge away.
It's all risk vs reward. Part of the risk is losing your progress, you lose that and you lose the point.
I'm not arguing it shouldn't be in some game but to suggest it should be available in every game is just silly.
Rock Band - Through a quick save system you could 100% any song. Save every 10 seconds, miss a note, just go back.
Little Big Planet - Play through any level, die, reload before death, get achievement for completing level without death (same for ANY game which gives you an achievement for getting through without dying).
Any sports game - (computer) Opponent scores? Let's roll back to an earlier point in the match.
I know people who hammer quicksaves every minute or so when playing. THAT takes the challenge away.
It's all risk vs reward. Part of the risk is losing your progress, you lose that and you lose the point.
I'm not arguing it shouldn't be in some game but to suggest it should be available in every game is just silly.
except the point is that if it does ruin a game for someone, it does so because they made the choice to quicksave. they could also have made the choice not to quicksave. boom, game no longer ruined, but quicksave stil lavailable for those who want it.
except the point is that if it does ruin a game for someone, it does so because they made the choice to quicksave. they could also have made the choice not to quicksave. boom, game no longer ruined, but quicksave stil lavailable for those who want it.
Meh. It's a design decision. If devs don't want you to keep playing that shootout until you get it just right then they'll design the save system around that. If they don't rightly care they'll give you quicksave. Just like difficulty levels - some games have 3 or 4, others have 1 and that's it.
Quicksave always struck me as a way to dismantle the challenge or feel of a game (same with plain old save anywhere when it's abused after being designed for convenience). It'd be like somebody sitting down and saying "I like regenerating health better than health packs" and giving themselves full health whenever they wanted in HL2. It breaks the game. Shit was tense because you took down that helicopter with only 2 HP left and then you were scared and cautios until you found more health. Halo feels different because you're supposed to be a super-soldier no some scientist in a neat suit with a cool gravity gun.
And what about other types of games? Most RTS I can think of won't save mid-mission, and if they do they're Nethack saves. You make your choices and you live with it. You want to try again? Do the whole mission over. And that doesn't bother me - because it's a design decision that makes sense.
And what about other types of games? Most RTS I can think of won't save mid-mission, and if they do they're Nethack saves. You make your choices and you live with it. You want to try again? Do the whole mission over. And that doesn't bother me - because it's a design decision that makes sense.
As a quick aside, I actually can't remember any PC RTS game that does that, other than DoW2. AFAIK, most have regular full saves anywhere that actually save the entire state of the game.
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
I think Mass Effect 1 and 2 have my ideal save system.
Autosaves frequently at checkpoints, significant events, and mission beginning/ending, but you can also quicksave anywhere, as long as there are no enemies nearby/not in combat.
This way you sometimes have to restart from the beginning of a big battle, but you never have to completely re-do a battle.
Dude, people like us suck. We're less hardcore, lesser gamers. Sporky's the world's leading authority on saving. You just can't disagree with thim.
There's no cause to cop an attitude. It's just a couple of opinions on the internet, chill.
I'm only arguing against the idea that all games need to have some sort of ideal, perfect save system. I think developers ought to feel free to design their games any way they want. Grinch posted some excellent reasons why there is no catch-all answer. It is not universally beneficial in every circumstance.
They don't owe us anything. They design things the way they do for a reason and don't need to feel pressured to put in save states or debug consoles or anything else. We all play a ton of games that don't have these sorts of features, and we will continue to play them, and the current model is fine.
The only thing that could be beneficial to every video game is a temp save that is deleted when you load it, since that's just a way to pause the game for an extended time and save power while doing it. But even that is fully up to developers - if you're designing a $1 indie game and its addition would cost you and delay release for a few months, then don't bother with it!
What's all this about players always opting to use the "less restrictive" system if quicksaves are involved? There is absolutely nothing stopping me from ignoring quicksaves in favour of autosaves even if one is available. In fact there's nothing to stop me ignoring saves altogether!
And the earlier leather/chainmail analogy is like positing that everyone always plays games on Easy mode because it's an easier option, and it's right there to be seen! Besides, I'm one of those people who selects RPG equipment for fun rather than effectiveness. Case in point I'm dual-wielding pistols in Torchlight right now even though my wands have far, far better DPS.
Basically the idea that the vast majority of gamers have zero-willpower and zero-restraint is patently absurd.
Will someone explain to me what reward there is in playing the same section of a game over and over again in order to get to that one part you keep dying at in the hopes that you can beat it this time and continue on with the fucking game you just paid $60 for and your wife is yelling at you that and you've been playing the same bit for the last hour or two and she's tired of listening to it, and anyway it's time to get ready for dinner, and why do you always play that game it puts you in a bad mood and is a waste of time you could be spending doing chores around the house or some misc activity together?
Actual real life occurrences. It's not fun to not be able to save before something big happens and have to repeat gameplay. Here's an example of something innocuous... yet not: In Red Steel 2 there's fairly frequent checkpoints, except for example there was one section where I died repeatedly and every time I restarted back at the checkpoint I had to collect all of the loot in the room and press a switch for the next area. After the 3rd time I swear I wanted to throw the controller.
Not. Fun.
And someone explain to me how not being able to save will decrease suspense? Because apparently it will be more suspenseful the next time you repeat the last 10 minutes!
And the earlier leather/chainmail analogy is like positing that everyone always plays games on Easy mode because it's an easier option, and it's right there to be seen! Besides, I'm one of those people who selects RPG equipment for fun rather than effectiveness. Case in point I'm dual-wielding pistols in Torchlight right now even though my wands have far, far better DPS.
heh, i used to go for shadow thief armor in BGII over the magic chainmail just preferred how it looked.
And Im reminded of that Kieron Gillen quote.. that to paraphrase, people who dont see the attraction of a "save anywhere' system don't have girlfriends
Basically god Mblackwell nailed it, sometimes a man wants to be able to save and quit and call it that
I mean if a game has shitty config settings or takes forever to exit courtesy of endless screens (dammit Assassins Creed!) people wouldnt tell you that they were aspects integral to the design that w just had to live with. I welcome any game that has Hardcore and Instant Souleating difficulty levels but i always prefer it if the option for save anywhere is SOMEWHERE in the background.
Posts
This has already been discussed. Providing an option like this is no sort of solution at all, as people will always choose the less restrictive one.
It's like RPGs where you can choose between leather armor or chain mail - it's not really a choice at all since one is objectively better. That's why we have games where some characters are required to wear that leather armor, and games where saving is required at specific points.
This way, we have some games with quicksaves, some games with checkpoints, everyone is happy!
You're not happy because you wanted to play a specific game but you don't like how it saves? Tough. Buy a different game. There will always be elements of games that cause you to not buy them, and the save method doesn't need to be compromised just to accommodate you. Nor does the texturing, or model design, or length of a typical combat, or text-heaviness...
They make this choice, and lose out on what they enjoy about not relying on quicksaves. They lose out on it because of their own choice. That doesn't make the save free. That gives it a very clear cost.
I can see that you are saying that you need to force some people for their own good.
But that's still forcing people, which is not automatically a faultless argument.
So yes we've been down this road and no there isn't a clear cut answer as you are implying. Both for and against arguments have flaws. Just like you are claiming it depends on the game, as it turns out it depends on the person too.
What does that have to do with this? That's not a solution at all. I'm sorry, but if I like the look of a game, and it has a bad save system, you are telling me I now have to not play the game and can't enjoy what I liked about the game because of something I consider sub par.
Well I'm really not sure how you think that's an acceptable argument or even unrelated to force.
This is the same argument as "just don't save". "Just don't buy it".
Your argument definitely has flaws, just like the other side.
No option to choose a different system halfway through. Stuck with it your entire playthrough.
Like the DMC3 Special Edition.
How could it be the same argument as "just don't save," when that's not a real choice? Choosing to play a game with a single element you don't like, versus not playing it, is clearly a real choice.
So developers should just release every game with a full godmode, debug, cheating available online, the works, because if people abuse it then it's their own fault and not the developer's? That'll go over really well.
That is a real choice. Despite you claiming it is not, it is.
It is a choice. I've done it many times, relying on checkpoints. I know Subedii has done that and spoken about it. I think Monger has as well. I'm sure others can speak for themselves.
Please don't tell other people how they work. You sure as hell don't know every gamer anywhere near well enough to do that. (I know I've been guilty of this in the past myself, which is why I know now that it's a stupid thing to do.)
What you might want to say, is that it's not necessarily a very good choice for every person, just like saying "don't buy the game" or "suffer through the game" isn't a real choice for every person. ie, both arguments have flaws depending on the person.
Actually I do think they should release all games with cheats like that.
I remember when almost every game that came out had cheat codes. I remember having almost as much fun in Jedi Outcast and Academy with the console as I did playing the actual real game.
Cheating available online is a different thing, that affects other players. Quicksaving or not affects only yourself.
Again, there is literally no good reason to not include a quicksave in every game. For those games where it diminishes the game experience, the developers should simply state that at the beginning and let players choose to use/abuse it as they will.
If you prefer your game experiences without quicksaving, simply don't save. And that is a perfectly valid statement to make. If you are incapable of "not saving", and need a developer to hold your hand to make your game experience what you want it to be, thats your problem.
It might be a sort of cheating, but it also may be the only way of ever seeing the ending of Ninja Gaiden with your own eyes ;)
Twitter: busfahrer -- Quake Live: busfahrer -- StarCraft II: busfahrer.184 (EU)
I hated mixing up the quicksave and quickload buttons on the keyboard...
"Which one is which?...." *F5* "GAAAAAAHRRGHHH"
PSN - sumowot
But you're talking about a save system which is unlocked at the start of play. Are you seriously advocating every game start you off with full invincibility and cheat modes available from the beginning?
And why not allow cheating online? If your experience is ruined it's not the developers' fault, those people chose to enjoy the game their own way. If you need the developers to hold your hand and make a game that's always fair and balanced, that's your problem. Why should they spend the time and effort to make high quality graphics? If you don't like what they put out, that's your problem.
Singleplayer =/= multiplayer and never will. Decisions for singleplayer and decisions for multiplayer occur in a completely different context with completely different sets of rules attached. In most cases, the multiplayer rules have a very hefty set of morals attached to them that originated from dealing with others in society. While people like to add these morals to singleplayer games, many people don't see why they need to adhere to them when the only person being affected by them are themselves.
It's not just bad, you are comparing mars and venus.
To address the less contentious part of this post - yes, I absolutely believe they should. They did so in the past, and I'm honestly not sure why they increasingly don't. I would have found it completely impossible to enjoy Bloodrayne 2 without cheats, for example. It's your software, and you're free to mess around with it or ruin it exactly as you see fit - much like you could buy a complete boxset of The Wire and fast-forward to the bits with tits in them.
Edit: Just remembered an article that is rather better at demonstrating my point: Just Cause 2, and why cheats make it a better game. Also, ever tried playing a Final Fantasy game without random encounters? Improved 100%!
See, that's why you always bind F5 to quicksave and F8 to quickload - impossible to mix up!
I tend to play the first game without them.
But I really miss them when they're not there at all.
Prototype not having cheats was a sad sad day, considering how many Hulk had.
Shit, could you imagine jedi knight 2 and 3 without the realistic combat codes?
No beheading?
Blasphemy!
You're really quite forceful that your opinion is right. When in fact it's just an opinion.
Game designers make a choice on how they want their game to be played. Quick saves don't always fit in with their choice. Quick saves rule out any risk, and without risk there's less reward. Your original arguement was that devs should say: "For the proper experience, don't use the quick saves" and include them. WHY bother including them? That's how the game is meant to be played.
How about board games, playing them as a kid if you didn't get the dice roll you wanted did you snatch it back to try again? What's the point in playing then?
If they're there people are going to use them. The pace of a video game, especially now they're becoming more cinematic, is all important. If a designer decides they don't want you to be able to break that pace with constant reloading to try and get through that section with 5 hp more then that's their decision. They shouldn't have to pander to the crowd that don't like a challenge in their gaming.
The other approach I've liked recently, which is sort of a compromise, is the "flashbacks" feature in Grid and most recently in Dirt 2. Depending upon difficulty level you get a certain number of flashbacks, at any time during the race you can bring up a replay of the last 20 seconds and restart your driving from any point.
It still keeps you tense because you don't want to waste them. Also the higher the difficulty the more of a bonus you get for coming first.
The way games are structured nowadays I can't think of that many examples of where quick saves would actually enhance a game.
You could always wait ten years, run a PS3 emulator and save whenever you liked then.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
I don't agree cheats should only be available upon completion of a game, but I don't think they should be just their in the options screen.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
The problem with your opinion is that it affects others.
We had different understandings of 'at the start'. To me, cheats that can be unlocked at any time through codes are also available 'at the start'. Availability isn't really the issue, I think - although I was personally really impressed at Rare being able to hide the cheat codes for Goldeneye for a good 3 years.
Dude, people like us suck. We're less hardcore, lesser gamers. Sporky's the world's leading authority on saving. You just can't disagree with thim.
So does yours. I don't see how you're not getting this.
People will use quicksaves if available. That's pretty much a given. The developers design a game with a specific pace in mind. THEY design it. What's the point in them putting together a challenging segment, designed to keep you on your feet for maybe ten minutes when you can just save at any part of it and reload from there.
It's HOW they're designed. It's how the designers want YOU to play their game.
You have to consider how it would all affect achievements/trophies (not that I care for them). They're meant to be attained through skill, not through repetitive reloading.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
I think what people remember and dislike was the era when you could do 30 minutes of playing and then lose it all due to badly designed checkpoints. Obviously, that's incredibly annoying. But if I'm quick saving all the time, I kinda feel like the developers let me down. I don't want to feel responsible for backing up my progress, I just want to concentrate on the experience itself.
Well, that's bullshit. First because achievements/trophies are already abused in a billion different ways, and they don't have any relevance outside epeens. They don't earn you money or ladder positions or multiplayer advantages. It's the very definition of an arbitrary AND meaningless number. Take Avatar Last Airbender, for instance.
Second because people often turn games into something even better and bigger by going against the developers' "wishes". Idolninja, a friend of mine from these forums, is turning Saint's Row 2 into something a hell lot cooler by modding it, including changing shitty activities, reworking the entire unlock system, including new and crazier weapons... Sometimes people just have more fun doing shit their own way, and that's perfectly good.
Thirdly, you ARE mixing your opinions about how YOU like to have fun and want the industry to impose them on other people who have different opinions. You can play games however you want, and I'll play them my own way.
Fourth, the concept of "author authority" has been questioned by the idea of "Loose Work" (or better, "opera aperta", which is already 48 years old, sheesh.
I will concede that maybe the save system could be tied to difficulty levels. Or it could be toggleable, like Vita Chambers in BS1.
The "people will ALWAYS use quick saves" argument is amazingly flawed because: 1) a fuckton of people who game don't think that's bad/a problem at all. 2) another fuckton of people have enough discipline and interest in the challenge to not use it, after all. There are plenty of gamers who do speed runs, special playthroughs with self-imposed rules or much increased difficulty levels. Achievements (as irrelevant as they are) can also make a lot of gamers play it the hard way. So why don't just add a "don't quicksave ever" achievement? People who care about challenge will chase that, the others won't, everyone is happy.
The terribly lame point you people are insisting in making is just like saying that there shouldn't be a "normal" or "easy" level, that all games should always default to "hard", because otherwise everyone will play on easy. And that's bullshit on so many levels.
Rock Band - Through a quick save system you could 100% any song. Save every 10 seconds, miss a note, just go back.
Little Big Planet - Play through any level, die, reload before death, get achievement for completing level without death (same for ANY game which gives you an achievement for getting through without dying).
Any sports game - (computer) Opponent scores? Let's roll back to an earlier point in the match.
I know people who hammer quicksaves every minute or so when playing. THAT takes the challenge away.
It's all risk vs reward. Part of the risk is losing your progress, you lose that and you lose the point.
I'm not arguing it shouldn't be in some game but to suggest it should be available in every game is just silly.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
You're a rebel. A REBEL.
Also quick saving kills kittens.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
I know, right!? What REALLY is exciting is games where you CAN'T change keys that do that, and then you quickload instead of quicksave! Hooo-boy!
except the point is that if it does ruin a game for someone, it does so because they made the choice to quicksave. they could also have made the choice not to quicksave. boom, game no longer ruined, but quicksave stil lavailable for those who want it.
Because some sections are a test of sustained skill. Some sections offer a choice of risk-reward say a difficult jump to get extra armour.
With quick saves you've removed the sustained skill part of the equation or the contemplation of risk. That means the achievement is diminished.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Meh. It's a design decision. If devs don't want you to keep playing that shootout until you get it just right then they'll design the save system around that. If they don't rightly care they'll give you quicksave. Just like difficulty levels - some games have 3 or 4, others have 1 and that's it.
Quicksave always struck me as a way to dismantle the challenge or feel of a game (same with plain old save anywhere when it's abused after being designed for convenience). It'd be like somebody sitting down and saying "I like regenerating health better than health packs" and giving themselves full health whenever they wanted in HL2. It breaks the game. Shit was tense because you took down that helicopter with only 2 HP left and then you were scared and cautios until you found more health. Halo feels different because you're supposed to be a super-soldier no some scientist in a neat suit with a cool gravity gun.
And what about other types of games? Most RTS I can think of won't save mid-mission, and if they do they're Nethack saves. You make your choices and you live with it. You want to try again? Do the whole mission over. And that doesn't bother me - because it's a design decision that makes sense.
As a quick aside, I actually can't remember any PC RTS game that does that, other than DoW2. AFAIK, most have regular full saves anywhere that actually save the entire state of the game.
Autosaves frequently at checkpoints, significant events, and mission beginning/ending, but you can also quicksave anywhere, as long as there are no enemies nearby/not in combat.
This way you sometimes have to restart from the beginning of a big battle, but you never have to completely re-do a battle.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
There's no cause to cop an attitude. It's just a couple of opinions on the internet, chill.
I'm only arguing against the idea that all games need to have some sort of ideal, perfect save system. I think developers ought to feel free to design their games any way they want. Grinch posted some excellent reasons why there is no catch-all answer. It is not universally beneficial in every circumstance.
They don't owe us anything. They design things the way they do for a reason and don't need to feel pressured to put in save states or debug consoles or anything else. We all play a ton of games that don't have these sorts of features, and we will continue to play them, and the current model is fine.
The only thing that could be beneficial to every video game is a temp save that is deleted when you load it, since that's just a way to pause the game for an extended time and save power while doing it. But even that is fully up to developers - if you're designing a $1 indie game and its addition would cost you and delay release for a few months, then don't bother with it!
Hey, it would make sharing saves a lot easier, right? I mean hell, I still have a notebook full of River City Ransom and Metal Gear save passwords.
And the earlier leather/chainmail analogy is like positing that everyone always plays games on Easy mode because it's an easier option, and it's right there to be seen! Besides, I'm one of those people who selects RPG equipment for fun rather than effectiveness. Case in point I'm dual-wielding pistols in Torchlight right now even though my wands have far, far better DPS.
Basically the idea that the vast majority of gamers have zero-willpower and zero-restraint is patently absurd.
Actual real life occurrences. It's not fun to not be able to save before something big happens and have to repeat gameplay. Here's an example of something innocuous... yet not: In Red Steel 2 there's fairly frequent checkpoints, except for example there was one section where I died repeatedly and every time I restarted back at the checkpoint I had to collect all of the loot in the room and press a switch for the next area. After the 3rd time I swear I wanted to throw the controller.
Not. Fun.
And someone explain to me how not being able to save will decrease suspense? Because apparently it will be more suspenseful the next time you repeat the last 10 minutes!
heh, i used to go for shadow thief armor in BGII over the magic chainmail
And Im reminded of that Kieron Gillen quote.. that to paraphrase, people who dont see the attraction of a "save anywhere' system don't have girlfriends
Basically god Mblackwell nailed it, sometimes a man wants to be able to save and quit and call it that
I mean if a game has shitty config settings or takes forever to exit courtesy of endless screens (dammit Assassins Creed!) people wouldnt tell you that they were aspects integral to the design that w just had to live with. I welcome any game that has Hardcore and Instant Souleating difficulty levels but i always prefer it if the option for save anywhere is SOMEWHERE in the background.