Saving your game

[DeadPoolX]

You can save your progress in just about every game. Computers have allowed gamers to save whenever and wherever they want for years. A good example might be KQ1, which came out in 1984. That game let users save and although the process of doing so was clunky and somewhat labor intensive, it still worked.

Skip ahead to modern day. What do we see more and more often? Save points. Not just on consoles, either. Most games are released on the consoles and the PC and the save game system isn't changed for the latter. So you'll have brand new PC games coming out that won't let you save when and where you want -- you know, like you could over two decades ago.

I don't even see how the consoles can get away with this nowadays. When consoles lacked a hard drive -- which they all did before a few years ago -- I could see why save points were used. It was annoying, but a limitation of the hardware at the time.

Both the Xbox 360 and PS3 have a hard drive, while the Wii has flash storage (which for all intents and purposes, acts like an HD). That means save points aren't a necessity any more. Some console games DO allow the player to save anywhere, like all of the BioWare games (some of which were first released on the original Xbox). Some other console games do as well, such as BioShock and Fallout 3.

So WHY do the vast majority of console games still use save points? Because it's lazy programming. Some designers suggest that allowing the ability to save whenever you want "ruins the tension." Well, if the only way to create tension in your game is to disable a feature of the hardware, you suck at making games.

As a gamer, do you agree or disagree with me?. I'd like to know your opinion on this subject.

[Tawmis]

I think it depends. I like that in some games, save points are objectives. Sort of like Marvel Ultimate Alliance - the save points are also points where you can change your team, costumes, etc. If you could do this anytime throughout the game - the game would be painfully easy. Oh no! Cyclops is low on health! Let's trade him out and bring in Thor!

That said - my preference by all means is let the user save whenever they need to! For example if Dragon Age was save points, I am not so sure I would have loved it as much as I have... because some of those fights - ONE small event can turn the tide against you - you fail to get a heal off 2 milliseconds too late - Morigann goes down! Oh no, now with the mage down, I have no way to slow down or paralyze the extra mobs! Now my fighters are flanked! Now my healer is out of mana! Now everyone's dead. Having a save point to prevent such instances from happening are a very nice thing.

[BBP]

I can relate to your problem DPX... fortunately I never played too many games with savepoints. The only one I ever played that I recall used such a system, was Deathtrap Dungeon for PC (very different from the console versions). They were definitely a way to make the game harder, which I couldn't use as I never finished level 1 without cheating. It's a nuisiance if you have to quit playing in a hurry. In DD they were never far away though. At least, in level 1.

Edit:
Hey! I recall another one!
It's called Donald Duck: Quack Attack! in Europe, Goin' Quackers in USA. It may be a kid's game, and you can replay the easy levels to stack up as many lives as you want, but there's one boss... Magica de Spell, who's next to unbeatable. The first time I beat her was after I failed her level 143 times. The second time round it took me three times, but when I played it with my cousin some time after, 12 lives wasn't enough.
You can see the dreaded level here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr7TOtb8xdY

Anyway that game used X to jump and B to attack and X + B to do a karate kick. Worse, they couldn't be changed. Bad console transfer!

[DeadPoolX]

I think part of the problem is that die hard console-only gamers have known save points for so long that they expect it. They don't know about or bother considering the "save anywhere" style of gaming. Developers know this and since designing games for consoles is usually more profitable nowadays, games are designed with the "save point" system, even though today's consoles could easily do otherwise.

This problem gets worse when games are either ported or developed concurrently for the PC. Once again, developers are lazy and don't bother retooling the PC versions. I've even seen PC games that showed the console game pad controls in the manual! Mouse/keyboard controls are virtually ignored since making a new manual obviously wasn't even considered.

This problem usually occurs when PC games are sold under the "Games for Windows" banner (although I've seen it elsewhere). I've never encountered this issue with BioWare, Bethesda or Valve games, for instance. Those companies are more PC-friendly.

It's rather ironic that Microsoft's gaming banner is so unfriendly towards the PC, don't you think?

I think it depends. I like that in some games, save points are objectives. Sort of like Marvel Ultimate Alliance - the save points are also points where you can change your team, costumes, etc. If you could do this anytime throughout the game - the game would be painfully easy. Oh no! Cyclops is low on health! Let's trade him out and bring in Thor!

I know what you're saying, but here's a thought: why not allow you to save anywhere, but only trade out characters between missions? What I mean is during any mission, you can save when you like, but can't switch to new characters. Once that missions is over and you return to HQ, you can then change out characters.

Sure, that's more complex for the developer, but it'd also be more fun -- or at least allow greater flexibility -- for the player. I know I'd like that.

[Tawmis]

I think it depends. I like that in some games, save points are objectives. Sort of like Marvel Ultimate Alliance - the save points are also points where you can change your team, costumes, etc. If you could do this anytime throughout the game - the game would be painfully easy. Oh no! Cyclops is low on health! Let's trade him out and bring in Thor!

I know what you're saying, but here's a thought: why not allow you to save anywhere, but only trade out characters between missions? What I mean is during any mission, you can save when you like, but can't switch to new characters. Once that missions is over and you return to HQ, you can then change out characters.

Sure, that's more complex for the developer, but it'd also be more fun -- or at least allow greater flexibility -- for the player. I know I'd like that.

[/quote]

I think they do it this way because as you progress through missions, the random save points/team switch - lets you switch if you think a different character might be useful for the mission you're on. For example, as you go through a mission, there's a lot of trip wires so you keep exploding left and right. So you decide, having a team of flyers will greatly help, so you switch, without having to redo the whole mission.

[Collector]

But, that is what DPX is saying. Don't allow changing anything, except at the save points, but allow saving anywhere/anytime, at least without being able to change anything.

[DeadPoolX]

Okay, this thread has been "dead" for months, but I'm temporarily resurrecting it for one purpose: Anachronox.

If any of you have played Anachronox, you know that it's an Adventure/RPG hybrid released in 2001. It had antiquated graphics (the Quake 2 engine was outdated even then), but the game had a good story and a great sense of humor.

Anachronox combined the best of both worlds in reference to saving your game in that it allowed the player to choose between the "save anywhere" and "save point" methods. The option to choose one style or the other gave gamers the ability to pick their favorite method of saving.

I honestly think Anachronox had the single best save game options of ANY game, past or present. I prefer the "save anywhere" approach, but some people dislike it and would rather use "save points." Well, Anachronox gave players the option to choose, without either camp complaining about how "such-and-such game save system sucks."

[Tawmis]

I honestly think Anachronox had the single best save game options of ANY game, past or present. I prefer the "save anywhere" approach, but some people dislike it and would rather use "save points." Well, Anachronox gave players the option to choose, without either camp complaining about how "such-and-such game save system sucks."

Well Realms of Arkania (an RPG I often ramble about) allowed Saves Anywhere, As Many Saves As Your Hard Drive Could Hold. I really enjoyed that with Realms because Realms provided you with a lot of random encounters, which could turn south at any moment, if one of your key partner members goes down.

So I think in RPGs, like that, allowing saves anywhere, anytime is a blessed thing. But games that have "set encounters" and a very "linear path" like Marvel Ultimate Alliance (since we had mentioned it before), Gears of War, etc - I think the save points work best.

[Datadog]

If you use an emulator, you can have save states, but then that makes all those hard games you played as a kid about a hundred times easier.

[DeadPoolX]

So I think in RPGs, like that, allowing saves anywhere, anytime is a blessed thing. But games that have "set encounters" and a very "linear path" like Marvel Ultimate Alliance (since we had mentioned it before), Gears of War, etc - I think the save points work best.

I guess my issue with save points is that it forces me to find one in order to end the game. If I'm playing and suddenly I have to go out somewhere and I haven't reached a save point I have two options: continue playing until I find a save point (which may not be a option at all depending on the situation) or stop playing and have to redo whatever I did before.

Neither situation is a good one and leads to frustration. With a "save anywhere" system, it doesn't matter when I have to stop playing.

To me the save system can add or detract from the enjoyment I get from a game. If I have to alter my life (in any capacity) in order to accommodate the game, then I'll probably stop playing it entirely.

I try to check ahead of time to see if a game is user-friendly in that respect. If it's not, then I won't buy it. Unfortunately, game developers are often lazy (especially when it comes to console ports) and take the easy way out.

And yes, it is lazy. If the original Xbox could handle games like KoTOR and Jade Empire, both of which had a "save anywhere" system, then there's no excuse for using save points in current consoles. There's even less of an excuse for PC games. When severely antiquated games like KQ1 let the player save anywhere they wanted, any modern game should be able to do the same.

If you use an emulator, you can have save states, but then that makes all those hard games you played as a kid about a hundred times easier.

Making games easier can be a good thing. Lots of old console games had no save options or relied on passwords. If I can make a save state using an emulator, then that leads to greater convenience on my part.

[Tawmis]

I guess my issue with save points is that it forces me to find one in order to end the game. If I'm playing and suddenly I have to go out somewhere and I haven't reached a save point I have two options: continue playing until I find a save point (which may not be a option at all depending on the situation) or stop playing and have to redo whatever I did before.
Neither situation is a good one and leads to frustration. With a "save anywhere" system, it doesn't matter when I have to stop playing.

But usually with games that have "Save Points" (Marvel Alliance, Gears of War, etc), if the need comes that you have to get up and go - the save points aren't hours apart. I think in both games I mention, I usually hit a save point every 30 minutes, if that. I can understand if it happened every time - where every time you were playing, you had to get up! But just on occasion, then it's no big deal (to me).

And yes, it is lazy. If the original Xbox could handle games like KoTOR and Jade Empire, both of which had a "save anywhere" system, then there's no excuse for using save points in current consoles. There's even less of an excuse for PC games. When severely antiquated games like KQ1 let the player save anywhere they wanted, any modern game should be able to do the same.

With KoToR and Jade Empire, I think it goes back to what I said about RPG games like that - where there's an arse ton of random encounters - and it's very open ended (this is true, even for games like King's Quest and the like). So naturally being able to save all the time, is going to be beneficial. But in most "save point" games, you're following a linear path. There's not a lot of exploring because you're forced down a singular path that isn't very wide.

[DeadPoolX]

But usually with games that have "Save Points" (Marvel Alliance, Gears of War, etc), if the need comes that you have to get up and go - the save points aren't hours apart. I think in both games I mention, I usually hit a save point every 30 minutes, if that. I can understand if it happened every time - where every time you were playing, you had to get up! But just on occasion, then it's no big deal (to me).

Every 30 minutes? That's way too long.

I could MAYBE understand using a save point IF you hit one every 5 minutes or so. My reasons are as before -- I'm not going to plan my time around a video game. I need the ability to sit down, play and leave the game at a moment's notice. Thirty minutes is way too long of a gap.

I could see having a system that incorporated save points in addition to a "save anywhere" system. Even if a game constantly auto saves (like Half-Life 2) that's fine as well. Of course... HL2 also allowed you to save anywhere using regular saves and quick saves.

With KoToR and Jade Empire, I think it goes back to what I said about RPG games like that - where there's an arse ton of random encounters - and it's very open ended (this is true, even for games like King's Quest and the like). So naturally being able to save all the time, is going to be beneficial. But in most "save point" games, you're following a linear path. There's not a lot of exploring because you're forced down a singular path that isn't very wide.

The early Sierra games (such as KQ1) were very, very linear. In fact, most Adventure games are linear. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part, Adventure games follow a path from Point A to Point B that must be followed without deviation.

More than RPGs can use "save anywhere" systems. BioShock is a good example of this. That's not an RPG by any means, unless you count managing weapons and ammo type as an RPG. I certainly don't. That'd make just about every FPS in existence an RPG as well.

Making a game where both a "save anywhere" and a "save point" system exists would be beneficial. That would allow people to use whichever style they enjoy more.

Probably the dumbest reasons I've heard that're pro-save point (and I'm not suggesting you've said these) include:

• Creates tension
• Increases challenge
• Takes skill to play
• Might save too many times
• Without save points, you might forget to save your game

I think it's easy to see that ALL of those points are easily defeated.

Tension, challenge and skill shouldn't have anything to do with artificially creating situations. If you can't make a good game that challenges the player, requires skill and gives a feeling of tension without disabling a feature of the hardware, then you suck at making games.

I love the "you might save too many times" train of thought. If I want to save after every encounter, so what? I'm playing the game as I want. I'm not telling you how to play, so please don't tell me. If you need save points to keep you from saving all the time, then that's an issue with your own lack of self control.

The last point... well, I'm not sure what to make of that. If you're too stupid to save your game or somehow forget to do so, then that's your loss. I can't imagine very many gamers would actually exit the game without saving first.

[DeadPoolX]

Oh and by the way... if I seem hostile, I'm not trying to be. I'm not angry or anything. How I can save my game is just something I'm fairly passionate about when it comes to video games.

[Tawmis]

Oh and by the way... if I seem hostile, I'm not trying to be. I'm not angry or anything. How I can save my game is just something I'm fairly passionate about when it comes to video games.

Didn't take it as hostile at all.

[Tawmis]

64-bit OS is an absolute must if you're buying a new PC today. New games are already requiring 2 GB RAM, it's only a matter of time until they start requiring 4 GB, and consequently, 64-bit OSs.

Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffft. Forget buy gaming for the PC. Console games is the way to go these days. Screw trying to need enough memory, the right DirectX version, big enough hard drive, the right sound card, blah blah blah.

These days? Console > PC for games.

EDIT: Collector broke this portion and onward from the Windows 7 Compatibility Thread - but since it is basically the whole SAVE GAME discussion - which also was recently bumped up by some new discussion, I took the liberty of actually just combining it to THAT thread instead of making it a whole new thread.
- Tawmis