The thing I fucking hate is when the game doesn't make it obvious when a checkpoint is activated. Then you go to quit the game: "Everything since the last checkpoint will be lost". Well WHEN WAS THE LAST MOTHERFUCKING CHECKPOINT, ASSHOLE?
I hate that even when it is obvious. If I save and then immediately quit and it says “everything since the last save will be lost” I’m always paranoid that it means I didn’t actually save correctly.
"obvious" means, I think, that it says something like "last saved 5 seconds ago"
Yeah, it really can't be that hard to show a saving indicator..
Or pause during cut scenes!
Or skip cutscenes.
Or allow you to accidentally skip cutscenes when you didn't mean to.
That's a large part of why, with older games, I prefer to use emulators, even if they're available to me in other ways. I love the "save state" option. It's terribly exploitable, of course, but it sure is convenient to be able to save literally anywhere.
The exploitable argument never made sense to me for single player games. I play Fallout, if I wanted anything and everything with a 100ft tall character, every companion, and infinite health. But of course I don't do any of that because it would ruin my own fun.
I get what you're saying, but save scumming is a pretty easy trap to fall into.
I agree, though I think part of why that is is that so few games make failure interesting. The only one I can think of that truly accomplished making failure compelling is Disco Elysium.
I'm perfectly fine with it being a setting you can disable, but I do personally strongly prefer a game to enforce some kind of save restriction.
Again, I see the desire to savescum as a symptom more than anything else. If you find yourself reaching for the quickload button, it's because the game didn't make it interesting enough to keep going despite something going wrong.
This is at least the case for choice-based situations, where it's incredibly common for there to be an "optimal route" and for the alternative or failure-state to be much inferior in both rewards and enjoyment.
For games where overcoming a challenge is the primary experience, such a beating a Dark Souls boss, then sure. Being able to quicksave at the start of each phase of a boss would be bad since the point is to overcome the challenge of managing to scrape through the entire fight.
The issue from a design perspective is that many players have a tendency to optimise the fun out of the games they play. Meaning that if there is a fun thing to do that you carefully made for them to enjoy but there's an unfun thing to do that wasn't the point but is a slightly more effective strategy, many players will find themselves drawn to do the unfun thing and hate playing the game, whereas if they had only had the option to do the fun thing, they would have done, wouldn't have cared in the slightest about the lack of a hypothetical better strategy not existing and loved the time they spent with the game.
Good game design always has to meet people where they are and attempt to ensure they have a great experience with the game irrespective of how they might intuitively approach it.
So... Not having ways for players to optimise all the fun out of their own experience is an important thing to consider.
Implementation probably. Checkpoints are easy because you don't have to save the entire game state, just the progression.
Dude, I remember people going OFF on Returnal not offering any saves and people having to keep their consoles in rest mode for days at an end because they wouldn't want their runs to end. I kept arguing with people on rexxit that any respectable rogue-lite/-like has a save function - STS, Hades, Dead Cells - yet they still kept arguing that implenting saves would "ruin the vision of the game" and "make it too easy".
Guess what Housemarque did: they added a save on exit option. You can now suspend your run and finish it whenever. Not having to potentially brick your console just because you can't save mid-game sure is a boon lol. The game sure got a lot easier with this implemented. /s
STS does allow you to cheese the game with its save system, which is why most roguelikes also delete the save file after they load it, only saving the game when you need to put a bookmark in it to come back later.
I feel like the answer is twofold.
Either the developers hit technical limitations of their save system and couldn't reliably restart everything. I feel like RDR2 did this because most of their missions were very specific scripted sequences that needed to be kept on track from the start. A lot of roguelikes are unable to save during a run or within a node of that run. For example Peglin and Void Bastards. It's much easier to say what node or position the player is at than all the AI states, combat, etc. Additionally, automatic saving has always been difficult. Everyone knows the whole "the game auto-saved and now I die instantly over and over again" bug that happens in any game. The way to negate this is to use checkpoints with areas where you know the player isn't going to get attacked. Another way is to try to detect when you are in combat or not but this can lead to the game never saving. Overall it's much easier to just save a state that you know the player will be okay to start back up in.
Or the designers felt like it added something to the game like in Alien Isolation. Save points allow you to exit and designers are trying to focus on keeping players playing. So save points are also an exit point. When you allow the player to save, you allow the player to exit without feeling like they must continue going. Designers use this to try to keep their games more engaging. Super Meat Boy removed a few exit points from typical platformers in order to make the game faster. A lot of games try to be so easy to keep playing that they make it hard to stop. In some ways, this can be seen as a dark pattern in game design. Typically though, designers aren't trying to be nefarious but instead trying to keep the game engaging.
The right way to handle auto saves potentially being at bad times is to just keep the last 5 or so of them, and allow multiple manual saves too.
Eh, that's honestly not a great solution. It's a bandaid workaround. Getting better detection on when to auto-save or auto-saving at known good times is a lot better. The multiple auto-save solution is a good fallback but not the definitive answer. You could also just make the player invincible for 1-2 seconds after a save load and then also cast their position to the navmesh to make sure you save them in a place that they aren't going to immediately fall to their death or out of the map. A lot of open-world games now just restart your character entirely leaning up against a building in the world or camping or whatever. Making it feel like the player character has their own agency and actions while you just play them for a while.
It's also a compounding issue, that's just one of the technical issues over many. In the end, it really depends on the type of game you are building. Every game is released incomplete, even the biggest masterpiece, the developers wanted to do something more. So you balance the technical issues between saving the real-time states or just saving off some simple data like you were at this mission in this area, with this inventory, with these player stats. Even that is a lot to keep track of and test. To then add stuff like AI states, active combat, randomization data, etc. I understand why a lot of roguelikes don't save most of the active game data. After all, developing games is very hard and the save system is not a high priority to the general experience of the game.
No, those are all worse than just having multiple saves and more user control. I hate those approximate save systems because they force me to waste time getting back to what I was doing when I load a save.
That's fair, you can certainly like the multiple saves and more user control. Personally, I feel like it boils down to what type of game I am playing. If I am playing a large RPG then yes, auto-save multiple times and let me have a ton of user control. if I am playing a roguelike in which a run will be over in 15 minutes, I don't mind not having any control over my saves because I don't care about an individual run most of the time. If I do, I spend the extra 5 minutes and finish up the run. For something like Just Cause or RDR2, I feel like their general save system is fine enough and gives a good cinematic feeling which outweighs any time I spend getting back to whatever I was trying to do. Which is typically just a few steps away from what I found.
That said I'm probably diving too deep into this stuff. I develop games for a living so I am constantly thinking about the best system for the game. I don't think every game would be better if it had a multiple-save slot auto-save system. I can understand why it's not in scope or would hurt the experience. If Alien Isolation had just saved where ever you are, that game wouldn't have been as intense as it was. It'd ruin the game.
It's fine to like the system, it works well for a lot of games but maybe it's not a one-size fits all solution?
I hate when folks ask for this and assholes say "people will just use this to save scum, don't cheat." As if working adults with children should be able to dedicate a whole hour totally uninterrupted.
Also, who cares? It's your game; play it however you like. I mean, isn't the whole reason why people play video games is to have fun? If save scumming is your idea of fun, I say scum away.
The problem being that a lot of people don't actually know what it is that will make them happy. Winning is good, right? Yeah, but not if it's too easy. Being to save the game state at any point makes a lot of games much too easy to be any fun. And while you might argue "well just don't save all the time," people are also bad at creating their own handicaps to increase fun.
Yes, there are exceptions to every generalization (see: OSRS Ultimate Ironman) but by and large there's a reason why the most popular kind of games are set up the way they are.
You ever play Monopoly Go? Straight-up not fun because it's basically impossible to lose.
Winning is good, right? Yeah, but not if it's too easy
That's how you feel about it, though, not an objective thing everybody feels the same about. I absolutely cheat whenever I'm finding a game too difficult, and I assure you, I'm still enjoying the game. I don't know what people get out of what I find to be the extremely infuriating act of repeatedly failing over and over until I finally get it right, but I have not ever felt the sense of accomplishment I'm told I should feel after finally beating something I struggled with. I feel angry and like I wasted a bunch of time when I could have been enjoying something more fun.
I'm just trying to have a good time, not compete with myself or prove that I can learn just the right way and right time to hit certain button combos or whatever.
Omg remember games that didn't have saving but had a code you had to write down on physical paper to get back to where you were?
Reason is "Game state is hard".
If you want to save, you gotta be able to take the current state of everything and serialize it, then read what you've serialized and put it back. If you only do checkpoints, you can make assumptions about game state and serialize less.
Generally, it is much easier to develop AI and such when you never have to pull it's state out and then restore it, because if that is done improperly you get bugs like the bandits in STALKER forgetting they were chasing you after a quicksave-quickload because their state machine is reset.
With checkpoints, you can usually say "right, enemies before here? Dead or dealt with. Enemies after here? they're in their default state. Player is at this position in space. Just write down the stats and ignore the rest."
And autosaves just make it one less menu to fiddle with.
I think creators should make the games they want and users should buy the games they want
This is a big part of what I like about the steam deck, being able to stop instantly is huge, especially on a handheld.
I just watched a video that covered this in part. You want to keep the player immersed in the game experience. The more interfaces you give them, the more they’re taken out of the experience.
So autosaves are a great way to keep the user interacting with the game and feeling immersed.
Autosaves are great and all.. I just want to be able to quit whenever. There's usually a confirmation when you're trying to quit anyway. Just save and quit then. :P
I'm glad at least some games still allow you to do that.
One of my favorite things about the DS family was its pick up and play nature. Sure not every game would let you save and quit, but you could just shut the lid and come back later and everything will still be right where you left it.
That was my only issue with the otherwise excellent Shovel Knight! It had very long levels and only saved once you beat them.
Kill enemy, save, make certain jump, save. Takes a lot of risk out of the game. I like when games let you save anywhere but if you restart the game or load your save you start in the beginning of a room regardless of where you saved from. (Like ocarina of time)
Takes a lot of risk out of the game.
Indeed. But on the other hand, the thing at risk is the player's time, and only the player can manage it appropriately. A game that doesn't respect that can quickly become a chore.
I liked on Postal where if you saved too often it would announce "My grandmother could beat the game if she saved as much as you do"
Game state can be a tricky thing. By saving at certain points you just need to maintain a few things, like player health and inventory and which checkpoint they were at. And it's only got worse the more things a game has to keep track of.
The solution was used by all last gen and current gen consoles and even the DS and 3DS, which is to suspend the game. This is fine, the Steam Deck can do this too. It's not perfect. Power loss can lose the data, and some won't let you play something else while another game is suspended. But for general use over short sessions, it's alright.
It's less useful on PC because it probably will crash the game anyway, and normally you'd want to use the PC for other things.
Back in the day of 8/16bit computers we had the solution for this. The action replay cartridge. Could save the exact machine state at any time.
Save states would be nice. Just dump the game's data from ram to disk.
That would probably take up a ton of space though. :)
The only reason is hardware limitation. I imagine it's more difficult to load at any point in the game in a massive game due to how much is stored in your memory.
Let's say you're playing a game and there's 6 NPCs outside and they're doing their own thing.
If the game has a traditional save system, when you exit the save location it's normal for these entities to rest let their position. Maybe at best their properties (maybe they were wet because of rain) are saved.
But it's much easier to just not save any of this info and reload everything from scratch and only save your progress and location.
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.