Game Progression: Save points or freedom?

[Tkumpathenurple]

I was just reading through the Kingdom Come Deliverance thread, and its save system came up.

I've also recently started Dragon's Dogma and, after playing a fair amount of FFXV, I'm having to adapt to the former game's save system.

Final Fantasy XV, much like The Witcher 3, allows you to save whenever you want. This is my preferred system, because I keep about 10 saves and rotate through them every hour e.g. once I've played for an hour past my most recent save, I make a new one or overwrite the oldest.

In Dragon's Dogma, I can only save by sleeping at an inn or entering/exiting a settlement. It's okay, but I prefer the freedom to choose my own saves.

So, who likes what, and why?

 

[Nesh]

I dont know. It depends I guess.
It is convenient to save wherever you want. Surely.
Games where you are forced to repeat huge chunks after you have unexpectedly died is super frustrating and a time waster. This is why we need good game design to avoid such experiences. i.e a save point directly before a very difficult event in the game world etc.
Save points can be quite nice if they have the appropriate explanation in the game world or is relevant to a game mechanic.
For example the Resident Evil games totally lost a huge element of their survival horror atmosphere when they increased save points/ink ribbons too much, or when they added checkpoints.
The concept of a "difficult adventure" where you need to take "rest" at an Inn sounds ok. I haven't played Dragon's Dogma, so maybe the overall design may work or not with this idea.
Horizon Zero Dawn had save points and autosaves, In unique events an autosave kicked in, so if you died you wouldnt have to start from very far. But I must say in cases you forgot to save at a save point it was very frustrating when you died and had to start from very far back.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

True, save points can be integral to a game's design.

Ink ribbons were like rocking horse shit in RE1 - were they even a limiting factor in RE4?

You got me thinking about Bloodborne and its save points. It was always such a relief to happen upon a lantern! That feeling wouldn't exist if you could just save as and when you wanted.

And yeah, the limited save system works in Dragon's Dogma, it's just taking me some time to adapt. It fits with the whole day/night cycle, and the external world being more dangerous at night. It definitely helps build atmosphere.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The last couple of hours of ICO were ruined for me because it was late and there were no save points. I was playing just to get to the next save point so I could stop and go to bed, but there wasn't any, and then it ended.

Save points were invented to enable a person to stop playing whenever they want and carry on at a later time. Any implementation that doesn't allow that and forces players to keep playing or lose a truck load of progress is fundamentally broken. Every game should have a 'stop playing' option at least. These days that could possibly be done with a Hibernate option at the OS level, writing memory to HDD and powering down. Needing to keep power on in sleep mode for fast resume is wasteful and risky.

This suggestion doesn't fit in with the poll options so I'm not voting.

 

[manux]

Lack of save points can add to sense of danger and make successes feel higher and failures lower. Horizon zero Dawn had perfect save point/danger/reward balance for me.

IMHO. Save points is design choice that can make some games so much better and some other games so much worse.

 

[Globalisateur]

Lack of save points can add to sense of danger and make successes feel higher and failures lower. Horizon zero Dawn had perfect save point/danger/reward balance for me.

IMHO. Save points is design choice that can make some games so much better and some other games so much worse.

I agree in theory, so I should have voted for "combination 2 or 1". And those ink ribbons were an awful game design. Ew.

But in practice even when it's an option I find the act of saving a hindrance and even a design flaw in most cases. So I prefer my games when autosave is well done and you don't ever need to manually save.

@Shifty Geezer It's funny you talk about Ico 1 because I totally agree. That's exactly the case where a needed save point is a design flaw and a real problem. On that point The last guardian was more enjoyably to play because of its excellent autosave system.

 

[Recop]

Final Fantasy XV, much like The Witcher 3, allows you to save whenever you want. This is my preferred system, because I keep about 10 saves and rotate through them every hour e.g. once I've played for an hour past my most recent save, I make a new one or overwrite the oldest.

I hate this system because it removes all challenge. It's like cheating to me.

Each time you're not happy of your session, you just reload the game.

 

[BRiT]

If you don't like that system then don't use it. Just because its avaliable doesnt mean you have to use it.

Also why does anyone care how someone else wants to play their single player game?

 

[Sigfried1977]

If you don't like that system then don't use it. Just because its avaliable doesnt mean you have to use it.

Also why does anyone care how someone else wants to play their single player game?

You're basically wondering why a game designer cares about the way you play his game.

Here's the thing: If you give people the option to be comfortable and lazy, most are gonna abuse the hell out of it, even if they are fully aware they probably shouldn't for the sake of balance, or challenge, or fun, or immersion, or what have you. How dull would a game like Resident Evil be if it wasn't for the restrictive ink ribbon system. You could quick-save every time before and after you managed to kill or avoid zombie as efficient as possible. Just reload until you nail that randomized insta kill headshot, save a ton of bullets, pretty much break the game in the process and be on your merry way. The way a save system is implemented can be just as much a part of game design as any other.
Take playing as a thief for example: I think the fact that you cannot save scum your way through every picket pocket is a good thing. People say it stifles experimentation. But how so? Nobody's keeping you from trying and it's not like the consequences for a fuck up are catastrophic. You just have to live with a couple consequences: either flee the scene and don't come back for a couple of days, or pay a fine, or get thrown in jail for a short period. It's really not that big of a deal. If anything it forces you to be smarter, more careful and ultimately be more creative. Same with combat. If you get yourself into a situation you cannot handle, just run away. Or even better: run into the nearest town and get the guards involved.

I think the game should simply auto save a lot more frequently (like every time you start and complete an activity or quest for example). The way it does or doesn't do so in its current state is somewhat erratic and often doesn't make a lot of sense. A non-permanent save when exiting the game would also be much appreciated.
So yeah, I'm fully on board with restrictive save systems (go Dead Rising!). It can be the glue holding all other systems together. What would Dark Souls be if it didn't force you to live with the consequences of your actions. I don't think Warhorse implemented it well enough, though.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You're basically wondering why a game designer cares about the way you play his game.

I don't disagree with what you say, but this is a discussion point. It's not so much the designer's job to give the player fun as the player. The designer gives a set of tools and rules with the intention that they lead to fun/enjoyment/satisfaction, but players are free to find whatever fun of their own within that. For some, cheating a game's exploits to speed-run it is their kind of fun and it'd be a very lame developer who monitored gameplay and stopped a speed-run in progress if it violated their intentions. The more hard restrictions you place on the player, the less options you give them to find their own fun. If one person wants to play it cheesing every random encounter by reloading, that's their beef and power to them. Unless you're the kind of person who thinks some types of music are wrong and shouldn't be listened to, and some types of food are wrong and shouldn't be eaten, there's no place to say some types of gameplay and fun are wrong.

When it comes to consequences, these can always be implemented without having to limit the save options. It'd be a doddle to add a save and load count and 'penalise' 'excessive' use. You don't need to remove the option to save if that's part of your game rules.

 

[Gubbi]

Save points, but spread generously and with care.

When done right, you get a feel of accomplishment when you complete boss battles, monster rushes etc. When done wrong it is a source of endless frustration. Doom is an example of the first, the original Ninja Gaiden is an example of the latter.

Cheers

 

[Sigfried1977]

I don't disagree with what you say, but this is a discussion point. It's not so much the designer's job to give the player fun as the player. The designer gives a set of tools and rules with the intention that they lead to fun/enjoyment/satisfaction, but players are free to find whatever fun of their own within that. For some, cheating a game's exploits to speed-run it is their kind of fun and it'd be a very lame developer who monitored gameplay and stopped a speed-run in progress if it violated their intentions. The more hard restrictions you place on the player, the less options you give them to find their own fun. If one person wants to play it cheesing every random encounter by reloading, that's their beef and power to them. Unless you're the kind of person who thinks some types of music are wrong and shouldn't be listened to, and some types of food are wrong and shouldn't be eaten, there's no place to say some types of gameplay and fun are wrong.

When it comes to consequences, these can always be implemented without having to limit the save options. It'd be a doddle to add a save and load count and 'penalise' 'excessive' use. You don't need to remove the option to save if that's part of your game rules.

It's really not about saying the type of food you're eating is wrong, or the type of music you're listening sucks. It's more about making a particular brand of food or music which some people are gonna enjoy immensely because - in the case of Kingdom Come - it forces them to venture outside of their respective comfort zone, and which in turn will turn off others for those very same reasons. It's like when people say they'd love to get into Death or Black Metal but they cannot get over the vocals. Well, those types of vocals are a big part of the appeal unfortunately, and It's not like there's not a plethora of food or music or games catering to those folks' specific tastes. Heck, most games are designed to be as frictionless as possible these days. KCD goes out of its way to have an edge to just about everything. Even the perks you can learn come with penalties most of the time.

Besides, it's not like KCD doesn't let you buy the potions you can use to save your game whenever you want. It's just that they're expensive enough to discourage save scumming. They're not prohibitively expensive, though. There's plenty of ways to earn a lot of coin in the game after all. Heck, looting the equipment of a single bandit will usually net you more than enough coin to buy one. And if you invest into the alchemy skill you can even learn how to brew the potions yourself.
So in a way, the game already does what you're suggesting.

 

[Recop]

If you don't like that system then don't use it. Just because its avaliable doesnt mean you have to use it.

You're forced to use it when it's the only available system... if we have the choice between several systems, then it's perfectly fine to me.

Also why does anyone care how someone else wants to play their single player game?

Except that i don't care...

 

[manux]

Has any game ever implemented pay to save?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Coin-ops.

 

[jlippo]

Really like constant autosave in Dark Souls series as it forces player to live with decisions and allows fast trips to game world.
Otherwise save points like sleeping in INN and such.

Combination might work in cases where the autosave has ruined the game in some way and you would have to rollback a quite bit instead of returning to beginning of a game. (IE. beginning of 'chapter'.)

 

[Cyan]

Voted free saves and rotating auto saves slots. In that sense I like how Ori deal with saves. You can save whenever you want to some extent and there are places where you can save and replenish your energy scattered through the map.
cou
I always liked the free saves approach, typical on PC pressing F5 or similar. However, in some cases it has the potential to make Halo games easily beatable if you can save anywhere --say the Hangar part of Halo 2 on Legendary, which is almost impossible to beat in one take, but if you could save everytime you make a little advance, a big part of the challenge would be gone.

 

[DrJay24]

I recall saving my game whenever in Dragon's Dogma on PS4. It was buried into a few menus.

 

[Sigfried1977]

^Except for when you're in combat I believe. The game also auto-saves frequently.

 

[Jupiter]

Too many memory points make sure that players don't strain themselves if they can repeat the scene in a few seconds anyway. Many memory points can make a game much worse in my opinion because then the game feeling is no longer as intense. Losing doesn't mean anything. I'm for a save every 20 to 30 minutes. On the other hand, if it saves too rarely it can become frustrating. Trial and error passages should generally be avoided in video games.