Save Points, A desperate plea Options

[amerk]

If you do include a save point, then at least let it perform some auxiliary functions (limited healing, teleportation, access to a shop) rather than being a total nuisance.

This is actually a pretty good idea. If you give a save point a function beyond just a point where the player can stop playing, it will make it more enjoyable.

People just need to be creative. For example, in Fragile Hearts, save points are crackers that the main hero constantly bickers with. In Tales of the Drunken Paladin, save points are a job function given to hobos that go around trying assist hero's on their quest. In Final Fantasy X, save points allowed you to return to your ship, which was a good idea considering that a world map was not present. In Xenogears, save points were a part of the story, and made more so in Xenosaga.

[Patinator]

Huh. I for one really like the idea of using tents and such as a portable save, and being able to upgrade it as the game goes on. That's... a really cool idea... auto-saving would work well too. Combining the two - being able to save only in towns at certain buildings except for using your tent/etc., which is limited to being used only in non-populated areas... and then having a subtle autosave feature every once in a while in dungeons and stuff. Have a slight pause and a little tiny message in the bottom of the screen that says "Autosaving...", which makes the player go "oh crap, boss"...

...I might have to think on this. The save system is important! Hmm.

I have mixed feelings about auto-saving. It is convenient, but it can prevent me from "going back" and re-watching cutscenes or replaying fun bits. Also, if an RPG auto-saves right before a boss with no opportunity to turn around, you're kind of screwed if your level isn't high enough to win.

A compromise could be check points that you return to when you die. Check points could be set automatically once you reach them but not overwrite your data.

Well, I've been thinking about this constantly. What I figure is, make the auto-save not really automatic... just pop up a "Would you like to save?" when you enter a certain area, say an area or two before a boss. And then keep that save-prompt there until the boss is defeated, then erase it... somethin' like that...

[The Welsh Paddy]

You know, I actually prefered save points, like what they used in the FF games up until IX. (I didn't like them from X onwards because they automatically healed your characters as well.)

I dislike the autosave features on a lot of games because it ends up making them too easy. In my project, I'm using a "Journal" of sorts, which the player can add to in certain areas like Inns or Camp. I guess that kinda adds somewhat to the immersion to the game, and it's definitely a lot more realistic than save crystals.

Oh, one of my favourite saving systems was what they used in Resident Evil, where you need ink to use a typewriter to save your game. Probably not something I would like in an epic adventure game, mind, but I think the whole "Being able to save anywhere" just makes the game that much easier.

[bulmabriefs144]

I've heard one of the Breath of Fire games is outright sadistic. No saves anywhere unless you pay for it with some sort of token. So, three or four hours of play with NO way of saving.

BOF Dragon Quartet. It's extra sadistic, since once you have unlocked the super-mode, the game counts down to end.

So basically, the save point can either make the game greatly unbalanced in regards to ease, or much much harder depending on how it's played. It's a spectrum

No Saving Without Tokens (Hard) <- Only Save With SP<- SP Don't Heal -> SP Heal, with Tent -> SP Heal (Easy)

This post has been edited by bulmabriefs144: Sep 30 2012, 07:08 PM

[ZarroTsu]

Crazy idea: Automatically save to file whenever your party sleeps/rests/whatever. Then within the concept of the game, "save points" would still exist in the form of tents or similar items. Moreover, since they're limited by inventory space and allowance, you'll actually have to plan out when to use them in a risk/reward fashion.

Of course this could blow up in their face when they happen to pitch a tent with only one dude left alive, so there should be a menu setting to toggle this effect, defaulted to "On". That way if you want to save to an alternate file, or cancel the save entirely, you can give yourself the option to do so in advance, or leave the auto-saving off.

Maybe a third setting to remove saving entirely, for the thoroughly insane.

This post has been edited by ZarroTsu: Oct 19 2012, 05:04 PM

[Ndoelicious]

It really depends on the game though~

Autosave is preferred if you're playing some kind of MMO-like games, since you probably don't have time to get out of the hunting place, or in the middle of levelling up in hot-spots..
If it's some kind of horror survival game, a limited game point(such as RE's ribbon ink) will do greatly. Well, we just have to play in 5-6 hours though..so saving really shouldn't be a problem
Or in games like FF XII, I think the game explained the creation of the crystal itself, I think it's because of the mist-something which later embody the crystal. And yeah, that's why the crystal lies deep in the dungeon, and there's even a one-hour secret boss hunting without saving crystal...so I think it's good enough.

Well, in the end it depends on what games you're trying to play or create..

[ZarroTsu]

what games you're trying to play or create..

"A good one"

<_< >_>
This doesn't add anything to the topic, please don't spam. ~Jonnie19

[zacheatscrackers]

It depends on the game, imo.

Like, if a game's trying to be really innovative (for a lack of better term) and force you to save on the menu or something, that's okay as long as they tell you that you have to at first. However, I myself prefer to save at destined save spots so there's more of a challenge. Though, a game with no obvious save spots at all is of course very frustrating lol.

This post has been edited by zacheatscrackers: Oct 20 2012, 09:38 AM

[Ndoelicious]

We've seen a lot of save types in RPG, and we're not really talking about our own investment..we're just talking about what's good and what's bad, so it's preferable.. -.-
how could that be a spam?

This post has been edited by Ndoelicious: Oct 20 2012, 11:26 AM

[Ndoelicious]

It depends on the game, imo.

Like, if a game's trying to be really innovative (for a lack of better term) and force you to save on the menu or something, that's okay as long as they tell you that you have to at first. However, I myself prefer to save at destined save spots so there's more of a challenge. Though, a game with no obvious save spots at all is of course very frustrating lol.

Mhmm, the old classic and conventional RPG provides that.
Save spots tells us about the bigger challenge awaits, so all we got to do is prepare xD
For me, I'll make 2 types of save spot. One with an ability to save, and the other is just to heal, or maybe the mix of them.. Anyway, it's not challenging enough if we get autohealed just by touching the save crystal no-fun!! ^^


Please don't double post. Use the edit button on your previous post. Thanks ~Jonnie19

[bulmabriefs144]

I dunno if you need an autosave feature to do this though (that takes a script to work).

"Saves Left \v[1]"
Save/Don't Save

not only makes it clear that saving is risky but gives you an option, so it is actual strategy with little risk of accident.

Also if \v[1] >= 1 (if you run out, nothing can reverse it) and a boss is killed, add 1 to the counter. This encourages people to get bosses killed off quickly, rather than wasting a bunch of savepoints level grinding.

[Chainsaw Police]

Lemme just bring up one thing: Savestates. Anybody that uses emulators knows how handy they are, enabling you to save at literally any point in the game. But everyone also knows how cheap they are. They might help you win, but they're a lame way to play the game.

Don't design your games to have saves at any point in the game. Achieving that delicate balance between the right amount of save points and the right amount of autosave points is an art form in its own right, but pays off!

[bulmabriefs144]

Another consideration.

If savepoints are making things too easy (I dunno, they do Complete Healing each time you use them), it is possible to make an anti-save status. This is easier if you have your Savepoint as a common event, since then you can just add the code in that if the status is possessed (by any character), the save point will not function, and you'll need to go visit a priest to lift the bad status.

[Jonnie19]

Another consideration.

If savepoints are making things too easy (I dunno, they do Complete Healing each time you use them), it is possible to make an anti-save status. This is easier if you have your Savepoint as a common event, since then you can just add the code in that if the status is possessed (by any character), the save point will not function, and you'll need to go visit a priest to lift the bad status.

That is a really interesting idea, that way people need to think abit more...Like an "amnesia" negative Status meaning you can't remember what happened in the past "stopping yourself from saving".
Something I always found unrealistic in some games, is the fact the moment you save...OH MY GOD YOU ARE NO LONGER POISONED!!!!!
In my opinion it seems rather pointless to have Antidotes cause you won't actually need to use them, especially if near save points...

One thing I find frustrating about saving, is the fact if I need to go for something to eat, or something that means I have to come off, I want to be able to save before I quit. Otherwise you'll have to rush and hunt for a save station as quick as possible, meaning you could make stupid mistakes....

[zacheatscrackers]

Lemme just bring up one thing: Savestates. Anybody that uses emulators knows how handy they are, enabling you to save at literally any point in the game. But everyone also knows how cheap they are. They might help you win, but they're a lame way to play the game.

Don't design your games to have saves at any point in the game. Achieving that delicate balance between the right amount of save points and the right amount of autosave points is an art form in its own right, but pays off!

I only ever use savestates for the REALLY REALLY hard games. Heh.

[LockeZ]

Lemme just bring up one thing: Savestates. Anybody that uses emulators knows how handy they are, enabling you to save at literally any point in the game. But everyone also knows how cheap they are. They might help you win, but they're a lame way to play the game.

Don't design your games to have saves at any point in the game. Achieving that delicate balance between the right amount of save points and the right amount of autosave points is an art form in its own right, but pays off!

The problem with savestates isn't just that they allow you to retry any challenge easily. Being able to retry a challenge that you fail is important. And it's frustrating if you fail at a certain challenge, and then after reloading you have to redo five other challenges before it in order to get back to the one where you died. This is the main argument for being able to save anywhere.

What save states do, though, is let you save in the middle of a challenge, and just change one decision you made. In an RPG or strategy game, where your reflexes and timing aren't being testest, this isn't actually a whole lot easier than starting the challenge from the beginning and doing all the same things up to that point. But it is still a whole lot worse. It's destroying the way the game was supposed to feel. Instead of experiencing the challenge again as a whole, with the entire curve of excitement from start to finish, and the feeling of setting up your powers and buffs and then making use of them, and the feeling of working the enemy down until you break through their defenses and become able to finally overcome them (either through buffs and debuffs, or through destroying individual targets, or through the player understanding the boss's pattern and figuring out how to counter it). Each challenge in your game is designed to deliver a mini-experience, which feels very unsatisfying if you just take a broken part in the middle of it.

Now, in a boss battle, or in a game where you're healed after each battle, starting from the middle of a challenge means starting from the middle of a battle. But in a dungeon of attrition, where the individual battles aren't greatly threatening and most of the challenge comes from conserving your resources well enough to finish the dungeon before you run out of items or MP, you get the same problem from starting in the middle of a dungeon. So in many JRPGs and dungeon crawlers, composed primarily of dungeons that whittle you down over time, rather than immediate dangers that try to kill you and then you get past them and go to the next one, the ability to save anywhere causes more problems than it solves.

Of course, some people still want to save anywhere, because they are impatient. They want bite-sized chunks of game that can be picked up and put down, wholly experienced, in a matter of five, ten, fifteen minutes. And so these kinds of challenges of attrition are disappearing from games. Though I don't know if I necessarily like the types of games that rely solely on them for the entirety of the gameplay, I don't think abandoning them is smart either, and especially not for that reason.

[ZarroTsu]

Save-states seem like a problem with the game. Like you're giving the player the option to waste an infinite number of time to bypass some narrow difficulty or sequence margin, and would rather the player suffer than fix your own mistake.

Save-states are an 'easy way out', not only for the player, but for the person making the game. "Why try balancing something when the player has save-states?" Even if you don't think you'd tell yourself that if it were put in your hands, chances are you'd just fall back on them as an excuse in the end.

Now, in testing the game? Sure. It's much easier to determine, as a game tester, specifically why you fail a challenge as a player of your game, as opposed to shrugging it off since you're not about to replay a large segment of your game over for some 'small' problem.

But in a game itself? Save-states are a double-edged sword. People don't make multiple save files unless they're trying to meet their own personal quota, because I know from experience that I'd have more fun making mistakes and dealing with then in real-time than going back and undoing that mistake. Because of this idea, and save-states posing an "any-time" rehash situation, what one might consider a good chain of events to save onto, might in fact screw them over entirely, either because they lacked the foresight, or the game itself wasn't made for such a situation (and very few, if any, are). And on the other edge, the game becomes challenge-less and forgettable, due to the player having no reason to care about conservation in the slightest, when they can just undo their errors, as opposed to having to prepare for a situation at all.

[Chainsaw Police]

Lemme just bring up one thing: Savestates. Anybody that uses emulators knows how handy they are, enabling you to save at literally any point in the game. But everyone also knows how cheap they are. They might help you win, but they're a lame way to play the game.

Don't design your games to have saves at any point in the game. Achieving that delicate balance between the right amount of save points and the right amount of autosave points is an art form in its own right, but pays off!

I only ever use savestates for the REALLY REALLY hard games. Heh.

Same same! In Fire Emblem, for example, I might hit a savestate if I'm taking a really risky turn or making a life-or-death decision.

Still, the games never had that option on the console, so it really deducts from the realism of the gameplay (if you're going for a realistic style, that is!), and also deducts from the intended difficulty of the game.

Save-states seem like a problem with the game. Like you're giving the player the option to waste an infinite number of time to bypass some narrow difficulty or sequence margin, and would rather the player suffer than fix your own mistake.

Save-states are an 'easy way out', not only for the player, but for the person making the game. "Why try balancing something when the player has save-states?" Even if you don't think you'd tell yourself that if it were put in your hands, chances are you'd just fall back on them as an excuse in the end.

Exactly what I mean. I'm talking about games played in emulators, most of which are programmed with some form of savestate feature (bundled with the game's native save system, whatever it may be).

This post has been edited by Chainsaw Police: Oct 26 2012, 12:31 AM

[ZarroTsu]

And then this happens.

This post has been edited by ZarroTsu: Oct 26 2012, 03:21 AM

[bulmabriefs144]

I think Savepoints are vital form of game balance. Just like figuring out the economy of drops.

Savestates cheapens this somehow. In town, yes, go ahead ahead and allow saving anywhere. In the middle of a dungeon? Not a chance, they'll need to wander for like an hour to safety, fending off enemies and using items, or fleeing for their lives.

In terms of having long puzzles between saves, the savepoint should be regarded as another type of treasure besides gold and gear. That is, you don't really think of it as treasure, but it's awarded at the end of a challenge (usually, it's not the only award, though).

Savepoints are a necessary way of setting pace for the story (Final Fantasy 12 with it's unlockable savepoints, and savebugs is a good example). Too often, and it ends up alot like the whole savestates thing, too rare, and the game becomes insanely hard.