Computer games and the save checkpoint system

[Retros_x]

Savepoint is an abyssmal legacy from old Nintendo style gaming that has no place in the modern world .

You state further below that you only play one genre. Maybe it has a place in other genres?

 

[Retros_x]

To be really blunt, I don't care how much the designer wants a game to be played a particular way; it how they've mandated saving be done annoys me, I'm just not going to play it.

I think the designer is fine with that. If you try to design a game that everyone likes you will fail.

I don't like how you use "mandate" as if a designer is some sort of prohibiting politician just because they aim for a specific experience. If you don't like that experience, its fine, but don't act like they force themselves upon you.

 

[Retros_x]

I think a lot of this arrogance is fed by the fan boys over the past 20 years. For some reason, in their minds, any decision the developer makes is the right one, as if they are infallible gods. And even polite constructive criticism or disagreement is met with flaming and venom.

Its not a really good criticsm if you can't imagine why someone did something and you just moan because it bothers you and you somehow think your experience is universal. You don't need to be a fanboy of a game to be annoyed by that.

At least in my bubble its vice-versa, devs get criticized and attacked to hell as if they attempt to naughty word in the garden of the "critics". I personally always have a weak spot for creative people that try to survive in a world where you have to capitalize on your creative output, just to get attacked on reddit.

 

[cranberry]

Its not a really good criticsm if you can't imagine why someone did something and you just moan because it bothers you and you somehow think your experience is universal. You don't need to be a fanboy of a game to be annoyed by that.

At least in my bubble its vice-versa, devs get criticized and attacked to hell as if they attempt to naughty word in the garden of the "critics". I personally always have a weak spot for creative people that try to survive in a world where you have to capitalize on your creative output, just to get attacked on reddit.

But see, you twisted what I said. Polite criticism is not the same as moaning. Nor did I say that I thought my view was universal.

This is a good example of how fan boys think, and a good example of a strawman....

However, if enough customers ask for something, it's usually a good idea to at least consider the idea, and not just default to sending your fanboy attack dogs after anyone who doesn't fall in line.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yet, somehow any number of modern games do not so. Thats not a proof for anything. If its not a technological challenge - why would not every game do so? And yes with turn based games its easier for the reasons I stated.

I can also name a number of non-turn based ones that do so, not all of them AAA games, so its going to be a hard sell its that heavy an overhead..

I also never said its a prohibitive case. Just that its more difficult and thus costs more resources in development. Time and money that could spent elsewhere.

Also if checkpoint system is done well - it delivers a benefit for players. Its just more convenient. I am currently replaying The Last of Us Part 1 & 2 and the checkpoint system is done so well, I never use the manual save. The checkpoints are at the perfect spots and even in the middle of encounters when for example reinforcements arrive or a big baddie went down but there are still some enemies left. You CAN save manually, but I never felt the urge to do so. Whenever I might want to save I open the menu and see down there a text: "Last checkpoint X minutess ago" and very often it says "less than 1 Minute ago".

You can have autosaves without check points. And the issue isn't in having those, its in not also having manual saves.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the designer is fine with that. If you try to design a game that everyone likes you will fail.

I don't like how you use "mandate" as if a designer is some sort of prohibiting politician just because they aim for a specific experience. If you don't like that experience, its fine, but don't act like they force themselves upon you.

As I noted, if I don't know they did that until I buy the game, in practice they've done just that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am currently replaying The Last of Us Part 1 & 2 and the checkpoint system is done so well, I never use the manual save.

Yeah the whole notion of the save/reload at any time "savescum"-style approach is like, my generation and older, really, maybe a little younger, down like 35 or so. It's also PC-specific, for the most part - very few console games have ever had that. The vast majority of have used savepoints and checkpoints. It also didn't really appear until the 1990s. The first game I can remember actually utilizing save/reload for anything but recovering from death (i.e. "savescumming") is 1993's Doom. After that it became very common for a decade or so, before starting to become increasingly rare as consoles dominated the gaming scene.

Anyone much younger than that is going to have grown up an a gaming environment dominated by checkpoints, autosaves, and save points. And for the most part I don't find I miss save/reload, except in the odd game which intentionally harks back to '90s-style PC stuff (but those usually have save/reload).

Then its a non-issue. But since those were the only games I ever played with save points...

Ok, wow, I didn't realize. Save points in the world have been a common mechanism across a wide variety of games since at least 1987/1986 with Legend of Zelda (and then Final Fantasy 1). The earliest known save game mechanism was a save-and-quit mechanism in The Dungeon in 1975, and most games had either no saves beyond high scores (or possibly unlocks) until some time in the 1980s. The first game which allowed you to just reload was actually a little earlier - Pop and Chips (a forgotten platformer, not the snack), which I believe let you save between levels, in 1985. But re: save points, they've been common in quite a variety of games - starting with JRPGs but then branching out (and they're not uncommon in Western games).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I can also name a number of non-turn based ones that do so, not all of them AAA games, so its going to be a hard sell its that heavy an overhead..

I think you maybe confused re: the point being made. People aren't saying it's always a "processor overhead" or that it's impossibly technically hard (though it does require resources which could be devoted to other things in both cases - hardware and development) or something. They're saying it requires you to design the game in a specific way, and a lot of games aren't designed that way because it's not, like, beneficial to them. With turn-based games, it's usually trivial to implement it (not always, but usually), esp. as the game probably autosaves every turn anyway. So if it's not present, it'd be an intentional design decision to specifically stop that. Some turn-based games attempt to save-scumming another way, which is to use a numerical "seed" for each turn, so if you do the same things in the same order, the same exact things will happen. Sid Meier (I think - maybe another Firaxis guy) explained that this was to prevent players driving themselves mad by trying to reload and hoping the numbers came up different next time (instead using different tactics will mean a different result even with the same seed).

It also means that mechanisms which bring the PC back to life or similar (i.e. respawning) kind of clash with it - and entire genres of game rely on that mechanism (but I am now understanding you play specific narrow range of games so may not have come across this). The original BioShock 1 was always a bit weird and messy because they put in both save/reload at any time, and a mechanism which can bring the PC back to life if they die, and it's like, pick a lane, because in reality the latter mechanism basically never got used by most players - they just reloaded.

BioShock Infinite (BioShock 3) also features the most annoying possible save mechanism (that I can think of, beyond "no saves at all in a several hour+ game" or "checkpoints 15+ minutes apart" - certainly more annoying even than typewriter ribbons!) - pure triggered (not timed/regular!) autosaves only (no manual saves at all, at least on release) AND no save on exit! So in BioShock Infinite, if you wanted to stop playing, it warned you when your last autosave was which could easily 10+ minutes ago, because again, only triggered autosaves - mostly by changing zones - not timed ones. Eventually people worked out that, if possible, they had to change zones and trigger an autosave, before quitting, but the slightly obnoxious plot structure of Infinite means this isn't as practical as one might hope.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

However, if enough customers ask for something, it's usually a good idea to at least consider the idea, and not just default to sending your fanboy attack dogs after anyone who doesn't fall in line.

This is a pretty hilarious and silly thing to say. Do you really think it advances your argument?

The reality is, most people don't really care about needing save/reload the way you do, because it was a weird thing PC gamers in the 1990s latched on to, for the most part. You say "enough customers", and I agree, if "enough customers" ask it's worth considering but the reality that "enough customers" aren't asking for this. Just a small subsection of the current 35-55 crowd for the most part (with probably a very few older/younger).

As I said, most people were either raised in an environment of autosaves, checkpoints, and save points, or have got used to that. Entire genres exist based on these - Soulslikes for example. Roguelikes and Roguelites exist based on either having only save-and-exit, no reloading except to go back into your game, if you die, you die. I didn't even think about save/reload for a long time until I played Oblivion recently (and it has a place there, because Bethesda's Creation Engine open world games are weird and were essentially designed around that mechanism as an answer to some of their gameplay deficiencies, or if you want to spin it more positively, eccentricities).

Both of those entire vast genres games (two of the most popular genres in the last 10 years) would be obviously ruined by being able to save and reload at any time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ok, wow, I didn't realize. Save points in the world have been a common mechanism across a wide variety of games since at least 1987/1986 with Legend of Zelda (and then Final Fantasy 1). The earliest known save game mechanism was a save-and-quit mechanism in The Dungeon in 1975, and most games had either no saves beyond high scores (or possibly unlocks) until some time in the 1980s. The first game which allowed you to just reload was actually a little earlier - Pop and Chips (a forgotten platformer, not the snack), which I believe let you save between levels, in 1985. But re: save points, they've been common in quite a variety of games - starting with JRPGs but then branching out (and they're not uncommon in Western games).

As I've noted, I've only played TBS, a couple pausable realtime strategy, and various CRPGs (a couple of the latter in the action-RPG category--Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and FO3--but most also turn based). My computer gaming in general started in--I want to say around 1982, when I got my very first ancient 286.

Other than the RE games, closest I recall ever seeing to save points in those were either autosaves before encounters, or not being able to save during loading screens (which is, well, duh).

Oh, excuse me, I'd forgotten one--Fort Zombie. Not going to say that the lack of ability to save mid mission wasn't a persistent annoyance there, either, since it was middlin' buggy. Not seeing much else on my currently-installed list where that's true (but, again, a lot of those are turn based games of one stripe or another. "Judgment" certainly doesn't have save points in the main game set (I don't recall if it does during missions, but it might have only-at-start-of-mission ones) and I don't think "Endzone" does, either.

I can't speak of things like platformers because I've never had any interest in them (I'm not a massive fan of realtime games at the best of times, but some overcome that). As may or may not be clear, I also don't do much of any non-PC games.