Hey y'all,

I've been meaning to write a post about this for a while, but it keeps slipping my mind until now. I get really annoyed when games do not have save points. The majority of non-RM games I play do have save points, so I am used to relying on them, not having to save just whenever I think about it. I'm glad that RM lets you save anywhere by default, but you could at least put some reminder to save before a boss or after a long cutscene. In most commercial RPGs, save points let me know when the challenge is going to increase (i.e., a boss fight is up ahead) or to let me know that a cutscene is about to happen, so I know if it's a good time to to take a bathroom break or call it quits for the night. They help me pace my the experience, and, most importantly, they remind me to save so I don't have to replay the same 20 minutes of game play!

Thank you

I actually completely disagree with you in this case. I feel that Save Points pull you out of the game. It kinda makes you realize that it is just a game, and then can sometimes ruin the atmosphere of the game. Especially if the Save Points aren't developed well enough.

My favorite save point system is the ones used in Amnesia and Penumbra series. You are still immersed into the game, but you are inadvertently told that you have saved. Either by what is said by the player, or by opening up save files etc.

However, for games that do have Save Points, there aren't bloody enough of the damn things. So if you die half way through a Random Encounter then you're screwed. Especially in the later levels of RPG's

Well in my game, when you in save areas, cities, parks, etc. I allow players to save anywhere. But in areas where you could encounter enemies, I use a Japanese's Lucky Cat statue that talk to a player and give you "Luck". (Which is saving in my game) Like what some games would try and do with their save point like Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Alucard would sleep in a coffin, which saves his game.

Oddly, I don't degree with both of you. I feel a bit comfortable seeing a save point, but I do also like the idea of the game saving without one, kind of how Skyrim does when it auto-save when entering and exiting areas. But I like the way I do it in my game. Save anywhere in safe areas, save in save points in dungeons, while not having something like a floating crystal in a forest which makes no sense.

A save point that makes sense work for me.

I appreciate it when games incorporate save points into the framework of the gameplay in clever ways but truth be told, I hate "HAVING" to save, whether before, during or after major events because sometimes, I just don't want to save just because there's a save point THERE and maybe I would of rather rewinded the game just a few screens back. Sometimes, I just play through a game and, even though I saved at the previous save point, I play through with the intention of stopping and then restarting sometime after that last save point and I don't want to save again.

I really like being able to save anywhere at anytime, especially in open world games that have no specific Linear story. Save points probably are best suited for Linear Story games that have long "Adventures" between each save point, but I'd still rather have the ability to save at any time then to "Wait" for a save point, especially if I have to suddenly quit my game for some reason.

I prefer games when they just let you save anywhere you want. Skyrim for example, one of those games which lets you save anywhere you want. Whenever I play a game like FF6, I would get frustrated very easily as I always forget about save points and whenever I end up losing a boss fight, I would need to repeat the last 5-30 minutes of gameplay.

Save anywhere with save point reminders (to remind to save before an upcoming boss for example) is ideal with a lot of players. I don't really care, either way, but if you use save points, add them aplenty and allow saving anywhere on the world map.

I'm currently playing a game with save points, and it doesn't allow you to save on the world map.

Another option, save anywhere on the world map or in safe zones, but for dungeons, let the player buy save points. The cost can be relatively expensive, say around 1000 G for a standard save, and get expensive the more features it offers:

1. Standard Save = 1000 G
2. Save with 25% Party Restoration = 1500 G
3. Save with 50% Party Restoration = 2500 G
4. Save with full Party Restoration = 4000 G

This allows the players to be selective on how many save points to buy and use, but doesn't hinder from doing so if they have the resources.

Awesome idea. Wild Arms 3 did something similar. Gimle Coins let you save anywhere and restart battle if you are killed, but they can't be bought, they have to be found (they're plentiful. I never ran out.).

While I agree with that to an extent (I mean nothing more frustrating than out-of-nowhere boss battles) it does make games appear so tediously formulaic. So many games I've encountered are simply: town, explore, SAVE, boss, repeat. And after all, isn't this why we now expect to be able to save before a boss?

A save point should be more than a safety net, it should be there to let the player stop playing without losing data (it was so frustrating when my parents would turn off Final Fantasy as a kid and I hadn't found a save point before bedtime) so yeah, the option to save all the time makes sense, autosave is even better.

The same thing happened to me as a kid! Damn parents.

Saving all the time would make the game too easy, auto-saving at certain locations would be better than saving all the time.I think that save points can make a game harder or way too easy,so they need to be placed with care and thought.

Just my $0.02

On my project alive I'm thinking on how to add the save function but while it's convenient to have a save point everywhere I really don't like it.

Games should have that mystery feeling and having a save point near a boss room ruins every point of discovering what lies ahead.

Anyway on my project I've been thinking on these 3 for now unless I get more suggestions:

1 - Having a table with a lamp lit on it that when interacted your diary gets shown on the table (Indoors only) which let's you record your time on your diary.
2 - Having an option to save after every chapter/story chapter.
3 - Auto saving on every chapter end/start or storyline chapter end/start.

Don't know of any more options for now but it has to fit with the game and I'm not adding save option in menu.

I like having different save point systems in games based on their nature (Sci-fi, fantasy, horror, etc etc) it adds a small but nice touch to the game.

Mom: "Five minutes before bedtime."
Me (thinking): *** Crap, I'm fighting a boss and it's been an hour since I last saved. ***

Two minutes later:

Mom: "Five minutes are up! Go to bed." (apparently mom couldn't tell time very well)
Me: "But mom! I have to get to--"
Fwoop! Mom pulls the plug out of the wall, and everything shuts down.
Mom: "Well, now you'll just have to start over."
Me, praying that my previous saves weren't erased (Damn the NES battery feature!)

Okay, maybe not quite as drastic but close enough to get Kaust's meaning. Lucky for me, while my mom knew to go for the plug itself and effectively turn off both the tv and the NES, my father was less gifted and simply hit the tv power (not realizing the NES was still on and waiting for our next fight command). So we'd twiddle our thumbs, pretend to do what we needed to, and when dad was gone we'd turn the tv back on, turn the volume down, and quickly try to finish up and finding that cursed save spot.

What I would do was to wait til a lull in the game or pause it (depending on the game) and would turn the T.V. off myself and then wait til everyone was gone then Finish it. Took me a while but had to learn to anticipate my parent's actions before they could make them.

Ironic how Most Punishments that parents inflict on us as children don't teach anything except how to not get caught.

You sneak skilled has raised to 56! I was the same way as a kid. XD

I personally think save points are inconvenient. Perhaps I've been spoiled by portable games, but I like the option to save when I'm ready to stop or save after something -I- think is important, as a player, not what the Game Designer decided was a good point. I don't believe that save anywhere is easy mode.

Sure you can save right before a tough section and try to your hearts content, but it's not any easier, you still have to figure out how to get past that tough section. If I don't have to traverse a mile before trying again all the better to me as a player. I also think that a good designer can put clues in to a level to indicate you are getting closer to a boss. Scratch marks on the walls, webs everywhere, bodies...anything really. You can keep it immersive and still let the player know that it's probably a wise idea to save.

Sounds like Resident Evil, where you use typewriters to save, but you also have to find ink ribbons to be able to use them. It works well for a survival horror game, as you have to conserve your saves and there's always a perceived risks that you could run out! That's a good example of save points being incorporated appropriately into the story and gameplay, I think.

I like savepoints, but they should be a plot-relevant item rather than a big honking light circle.

Something like a diary. Or as in Dragon Quest, the town priest recording your sins.

Save points are difficult to balance. Either they don't heal you, and you can potentially save without items, and without much of a chance. Or they allow grind training because they heal you fully right after you touch one.

I think this is why final fantasy had the whole tents thing. I have a portable tent, with no bed or sleeping bag until you buy one (making it initially just for changing the party). You can buy more upgrades later if you start earning obscene amounts of money.

The other way to balance things is have saving only in town.

Also, I've seen people who have these long strings of stuff in the local event. Savepoints work best as a common event, so if there's a glitch, it isn't copy-pasted 400 times. It also helps for people who want to change game balance, if things are too easy/hard.

There are, of course, certain times when saving anywhere would be a bad thing, mainly to preserve a sense of difficulty. If you can save in the middle of a Fire Emblem battle, then you have the advantage of immortality on your side - if the battle doesn't go your way, start over from a turn ago and plan things differently this time. On the other hand, if you only have partial immortality - you can restart at the beginning, or major points in the battle - you're going to play a more defensive, high-stakes game to avoid the punishment of starting over.

However, save points are otherwise rather unnecessary and don't make the game that much harder in the end. Even in cases such as the one described above, you could include a "quicksave" system to allows the player to finish a level in multiple sittings (it's what the FE developers did!).

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.

P.S. If you put a save point into an open-world game, I might have to kill you. Having to to spend the extra 15-20 minutes gunning for a save point miles from your location (or objective) is really just a bad idea... *cough* Metroid Prime *cough*

Haha. That is so true! I also agree with the auxiliary purpose thing. Another thing to consider, is giving rewards for limited saves, kind of like how the Resident Evil games reward you in a second play through for few saves. This could, of course, be implemented mid game, a reward for reaching certain points with minimal saves, it would encourage heavy playing and while saving is an option, it presents risk v reward scenarios for the players.

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.

Personally I feel like save points are necessary for something to truly feel like a RPG to me, but I do agree that they should be creative or at least slightly different than "the norm".

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.

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.

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...

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.

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)

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.

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..

"A good one"

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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!

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....

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

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.

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.

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.


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).

And then this happens.

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.

If I'm playing an RPG and it has save points, I will probably flat out stop playing.

What if I'm playing the game on the go and I need to stop playing suddenly? I mostly play games on my commute now and I just can't play games with save points because they never correspond with when I reach my stop. Then I have to reload my last save and lose a bunch of progress.

If your game balance requires save points, you're bad at game balance. There's no reason to artificially constrain the players and annoy them just because you think it makes the game more fun. Respect your players' time.

And if the save point has an alternative use, such as party arrangement, time-travel, or dimension hopping?

Does it really require a save point to have those? You can have points for each of those. For example in my Blessed Eternia game, I allow saving anywhere, doesn't mean the game is any easier, but I use a skill point system to buy your skills how you want. I also allow you to refund those skill points, but only in towns. I could have included them in a save point, but I did not need to.

Not necessarily, but making it an "any-time" situation can just as well break the game. Or could be a plot point. Gotta build the game around it, and not vice-versa.

Let's say you could use the ability at any time, then what's to stop your character from simply avoiding "game overs" altogether? If you as a game maker withheld that ability at totally random times, such as combat or events, then you immediately drain consistency from this ability. Leaving it to save-points makes your job easier in this situation, as you wouldn't have to (as much) plan every event around it (unless it happens to take place in the same room as a save-point, in which case...??)

While an any-time save+time/dimension mechanic would be wonderful and all, I wonder if it would be handled correctly. If done right, the enemy would definitely start to pose a serious threat when they actually begin to (somehow) anticipate your abilities and counteract them toward the mid-point of the game. SUDDENLY, YOU AREN'T AS SAFE.

Please be sure to read my entire post. I never said it was an anytime mechanic. What I said was you can have those in specific points and restricted areas only without the need for save points.

I don't think there's any right or wrong answer to this. Being able to save anywhere is a convenience to the player, but not having it is not a game breaker for me. Basically, if I find I don't have time to invest in a game because of time constraints, I just won't play it until I do have time (if I do have time), and choose something that will fit my needs a lot more.

"Save & Quit" feature is handy solution for that. Then save gets wiped when a player wants to continue. It is good solution for games with the save points.

The ability to save anywhere is always something good. But if you need a save point, that's not actually bad for me unless it is well placed.

An example of save points done wrong in my opinion is Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII; I freaking love that game, but losing on a boss battle is terrible, specially on the final boss, where the last save point is right before a 5 minute cutscene. Every time I lose, I have to go through that cutscene AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN. It almost made me never touch that game again.

Properly place Save Points are a neccesity for games without auto-save. A save point during the beginning, middle and end of a dungeon should make the cut. My advice is to have a save point near the player every 10 minutes. Depending on how's your game, that could actually make you miss out important parts of the game. For example, in my game, you have save points basically anywhere, but every time you use a tent, your party actually sleeps and a day passes. And you can miss out important quests if you save way too much, because, from what I've read, people hate save points because of bad implementation. If you can get that out of the way, you'll have no problem.

This is kind of dumb! I can think of tons and tons and tons of games (like, almost 99% of games) that would be flat out ruined if you could save anywhere, and I think anyone who really can't play long enough to get from one save point to the next should play a different game.

Let me expand on that second point. Even if you can technically save anywhere, your game is going to be designed with play periods in mind. One dungeon or one section of a long dungeon is usually a play period in most JRPGs. One stage is a play period in an action or platformer game. In World of Warcraft, when levelling or doing daily quests, quests are grouped so that you finish a series of them in one outpost and then get told to move on to the next outpost; this is a play session. In Fallout 3, one quest is probably a play session. In a tactical RPG, a play session is probably one battle. In Etrian Odyssey, one play session lasts from when you enter the labyrinth until when you run out of resources and recall back to town. This is a coherent vignette in the game that, when played from start to finish, creates a single experience. If the player divides it up, he won't really enjoy it to the same degree. It won't be a complete experience.

Sometimes, crazy shit happens and you have to put the game down. I get that. But you should EXPECT to play long enough to play through one play session. You should go in with the plan of playing until the point where the game says, "OK, mission complete. Take a breather." In the once-every-few-games case that something crazy happens and you have to quit early, it's arguably nice if the game lets you do so, but I don't see why OH MY GOD I HAVE TO GO BACK TO SIX MINUTES AGO is so horrible. Those six minutes you're redoing help set up the rest of the play arc and make it coherent.

to be honest, that is one thing I have never tried... I like that idea.