Discussion: possible alternatives to the saved game

[Christou]

Hi, new here!

I was wondering if the game could auto save at a constant rate, let say every 2 minutes for example... Of course it could not be a classic save but some kind of backup of what's new pop up during this 2 minutes, location of the character, possessions, stats... The system would have to compare the existing save file with the present database and write down only the changes for minimum disk access.
The good point I see is no more save function (adios cheats on save/reload), and if people must quit for any reason the time lost would be only 2 minutes max what seems to me reasonable...
Could that be possible?

I don't see why not, and so long as this doesn't preclude multiple save files (in case a colossal mistake is made) then it sounds great.

Then I guess it's a no go because no save function = no possible save when a risk is close...
Players would have to live with their failures and errors...

Anyway would be nice to have such function optional for hardcore gamers or people who want the realism of pen&paper rpgs where it wasn't possible to ask the DM to go back in time to re-roll or else... (perso I would love!)

[dare49devil]

-An autosave that occurs every 30 minutes and have your manual saves be a save and exit. =O

[CrazyBernie]

Then I guess it's a no go because no save function = no possible save when a risk is close...
Players would have to live with their failures and errors...

Anyway would be nice to have such function optional for hardcore gamers or people who want the realism of pen&paper rpgs where it wasn't possible to ask the DM to go back in time to re-roll or else... (perso I would love!)

Whips and chains might be your sorta thing, but I'm a bit more old fashioned... and I have to deal with enough "living with your mistakes" in real life, thanks.

Seriously though, it doesn't make much sense to punish the Player by taking away the ability to save whenever. Not everyone has the time to sit down and dedicate to making sure they get through to the next checkpoint, or play through a whole "chapter" before they can stop and take a breather.

If a person truly considers his/herself a hardcore player, then the save anytime feature shouldn't matter to begin with. If you don't want to use it, then don't. You're fully capable of playing through the game without saving (and by the way, there is a checkbox feature to limit saving in Book II) without having to impose that feature on everyone else. If you can't, then you're not really hardcore... it's that simple. I remember back when Doom and Doom II were the big games to play, and the "hardcore" players would play through the whole game on the Nightmare setting using just their fists, the chainsaw, or the pistol. They didn't whine and moan that there were better guns right in front of them that they could pick up, they just didn't do it.

If you want a more hardcore experience in Book I, check out the challenge games created by your fellow gamers. I'm sure those crazy fools will come up with a list of equally nutty challenges once they've beaten Book II on the "toughest" settings as well.

Also, you're right about not being able to go back and re-roll while playing the ol' pen&paper RPGs, but then again, all the DM's I've gamed with didn't just kill me off if I made a crappy roll... it kind of defeats the purpose of getting together to play through a campaign if your favorite character just gets killed off from the start. And believe me, I've had some shitty strings where I couldn't get a good roll to save my own life, nevermind my character (my record was rolling four 1's in a row on a d20....). >.<

[azraelck]

Kid, while cutting a banana or whatever, swats at a fly, mindlessly with the hand holding the knife. He cuts his wrist. Do you really want to say "Hold on, gotta get to the next checkpoint!" or just leave the system running? Or lose 30 minuets of game time?

And before you say "That won't ever happen", I've seen it happen, though it was an ant. And the knife in question was sharpened by my grandfather, who believed every blade in the house should be sharp enough to shave with. His pocket knife is capable of cutting through an accessory belt on a car like a hot knife through butter.

As stated, nothing is stopping people from refusing to save/reload. I didn't do it in my playthrough of book 1, or use it in any game actually. 'Iron Man' games will be a supported feature for those who want them, though again you still have that option in Book 1. So restricting saving in any fashion adds nothing whatsoever to the game, and ensures annoyance whenever there is an emergency.

I dislike autosaving for a different reason. I sometimes do save just to take branching paths in games such as this. Autosaving prevents this. It's fine in linear games, where there are no branches. Mario Brothers, Sonic the Hedgehog, etc... all benefit from an autosave.

This isn't a huge issue, certainly not game breaking or something that will make me refuse to spend my money on a game. But still a peeve. I very, very, very, very rarely play through a game twice in a row, and in fact very few RPG I have beaten I have played through multiple times. Eschalon is already unusual in that regard; I started a second game after completing the first. To date, I can recall only two other games like that.

[Christou]

From what I read so far in this board, I had the feeling people wanted a "serious" rpg. By serious I mean a game where realism is important.
Now, this question of saving is nothing but a detail. I'm not talking at play level but at concept level. What players do later is not the point of my post, the idea is to think in a system that guaranty some of the lines I want for the game, in this case, realism.
So opening a chest and having 100% of good objects is not realistic in my point of view. Having the possibility to travel in time (unless wanted by the script/story) is not realistic. Wanting to see a whole world in a life time is not realistic.
What if a game is designed to be played multiple times? What if the designer want to give you LOTS of hours of gameplay?
I mean as an author I could write down multiples missions taking place in the same time but in different locations. This to give the player the pleasure to do something different each time he will replay the game.
Now, as I know very well that most of players will want to discover what mission is the best and so will probably cheat in a way or another I can probably ask myself how to avoid that to guaranty those players the many hours I promised.
See what I mean?

Now despite I agree one is free to NOT save/reload, the fact the possibility to cheat so easily is present guaranty the vast majority of players will use this possibility and so destroy the hard work of the author. This I won't discuss. Cheating is a constant in video games.

So to me the real point is cheating or not cheating. As I do want everybody to be happy, if I was designer I would try hard to do a "flawless" system for normal games AND some tools to cheat. This way people wanting to cheat would not have to lose their precious time opening 50 times the same chest to find something cool for example.

Now back to the topic here, points like checkpoints and the freedom to save at any time are good ones and MUST be taken in consideration. For these some auto saving system just do the trick.
For the save/reload function, what other valid points should be taken in consideration?

[Unclever title]

Well there are many reasons to have multiple save files:

1. The colossal mistake, a mistake that prevents the game from being completed. Without a save file from earlier to access then the player must start over. I personally highly dislike this so my mantra with video games is save early, save often, so I'm not opposed to an autosave system, if it were in nature to add updates to a previous save I would rather it be the most recent save file loaded. A better solution (in my mind) would be to copy the most recent save file (say for the first autosave) and then add in the minor updates to that file upon subsequent autosaves. This would be by definition a mistake that the player could live with but the player's character could not. Now if you'd prefer that situation then that's fine. Me? Nope.

2. Multiple characters. I might just be overly sentimental about it but I prefer to keep save files from old characters I've finished (basically) for some time more than the span I'm actively playing them even though I usually don't go back and play with those save files afterwards.

3. Branching paths, mentioned above so I won't go into detail. I sometimes save this way myself, however I hardly ever actually follow through the paths completely this way (if they have lasting consequences), but I have used this when

facing Gramuk to see the result of the options of that pivotal conversation.

Though that particular example likely would not be precluded by not having multiple save files.

Really when it comes down to it it's not the saving that's the controversial thing with this game but the reloading and restrictions on that seems like it would be cumbersome and add unnecessary frustration to playing the game.

[Christou]

Unclever title,

Your second point is valid, and for this I guess each character could get a specific save file.

Now, a mistake that prevents the game from being completed seems to me a problem in the script/story, more than a situation created by choices. I mean if such mistake exist then it would be probably a huge bug in the game. In no circumstances a character should face such situation unless the player do whatever combination of idiotic actions pushing the character to a certain death. But then it would be by choice and if the player want to kill his character fine for him, no?

Branching paths can be seen as cheating just like opening several times the same chest. That would be similar to a divination skill to look at the result of severals choices into the future to see what's the best choice possible. Again IMO if this is not part of the script/story and if the author of the game decide this should not happen then perso I wouldn't mind. I mean what's the point to play many games using always the same technics? (who's never done that?) If for once a game could change my (bad?) habits perhaps it would be... interesting?

[CrazyBernie]

1. The colossal mistake, a mistake that prevents the game from being completed. Without a save file from earlier to access then the player must start over. I personally highly dislike this so my mantra with video games is save early, save often, so I'm not opposed to an autosave system, if it were in nature to add updates to a previous save I would rather it be the most recent save file loaded. A better solution (in my mind) would be to copy the most recent save file (say for the first autosave) and then add in the minor updates to that file upon subsequent autosaves. This would be by definition a mistake that the player could live with but the player's character could not. Now if you'd prefer that situation then that's fine. Me? Nope.

Now, a mistake that prevents the game from being completed seems to me a problem in the script/story, more than a situation created by choices. I mean if such mistake exist then it would be probably a huge bug in the game. In no circumstances a character should face such situation unless the player do whatever combination of idiotic actions pushing the character to a certain death. But then it would be by choice and if the player want to kill his character fine for him, no?

I agree with Christou on this one. Anything that "breaks" the game should be considered a bug or some sort of "game over" point. For instance, let's say you killed of a character who's survival was integral to finishing the game. At that point you should either get a "game over" or a dialogue that informs you that you can no longer finish the game (if you're going for the "sandbox" approach of letting the game continue), and give the option of loading from a previous save.

Branching paths can be seen as cheating just like opening several times the same chest. That would be similar to a divination skill to look at the result of severals choices into the future to see what's the best choice possible. Again IMO if this is not part of the script/story and if the author of the game decide this should not happen then perso I wouldn't mind. I mean what's the point to play many games using always the same technics? (who's never done that?) If for once a game could change my (bad?) habits perhaps it would be... interesting?

I don't really see a problem with saving at a story branch. You're basically saying "you have to play through the entire game again if you want to have a different outcome." If given the choice between taking the path of an evil or good character, I certainly would want to be able to save. I like to see how the different chioces I make effect the outcome of the story... that can hardly be considered cheating. If the game creator didn't want me to do that, then why bother and include those choices? They have a name for that type of linear game... it's called a Platformer. If I wanted to play Super Mario Brothers, then I'd fire up the ol' nintendo and have at it. Better yet, I'd fire up the emulator on my PC, so that I would have the option to save the game whenever I wanted so that when the ADHD kicks in, I know I'll be able to go back and finish the game whever I got back around to it...

Don't get me wrong, I understand the concept of creating something and wanting to share it with the rest of the world. But I also understand that at the end of the day, if you want to sell that creation to the rest of the world, you have to make compromises. The save game feature is one of the easiest things that you can screw up and lose huge numbers of customers/fans/potential fans as a result. I think what BW is doing with Book II - giving the player the choice of how limiting the game can be in favor of more XP/better loot - is top notch. Not many developers go above and beyond the basic easy/medium/hard difficulty levels. So as long as I can play through the game the way I like it... I could care less how restrictive the optional save game rules are.

[azraelck]

Now despite I agree one is free to NOT save/reload, the fact the possibility to cheat so easily is present guaranty the vast majority of players will use this possibility and so destroy the hard work of the author. This I won't discuss. Cheating is a constant in video games.

Actually, the vast majority of players who like these kinds of games like them because of the challenges inherent in the styles and systems used. Not a single person here picked up Eschalon off the rack at EB or GameStop. I had never even heard of Eschalon until I came across a website which listed it. I asked the opinions of the people at RPGWatch, and they overwhelmingly supported this as the game I should get.

You have to look for games like this. People who spend their time looking for obscure, but good, titles to play aren't going to cheat in their first playthrough. Maybe after beating the game, if it keeps their interest. The people who always cheat are often the same sort who always want the newest and shiniest games. They would disregard Eschalon for the simple fact that it uses 2D graphics. They disregard great commercial games if they don't have near photo-realistic graphics. Then they move on in a week to the new fad of that week, ad infinitum.

The save scumming issue is not an issue. Screwing up my game to the point that I have to start over due to a bone-headed design decision mixed with a open world that let me kill off a important character is. It would cause me to quit the game, and it would cause me to be wary about purchasing anything from that developer again. Several publishers are permanently on my S list because of things like that; I'll toss their game back on the rack as soon as I see their logo.

And yes, I consider that a bug or poor design as well. But it happens, as do save corruptions, extremely bizarre occurrences, power outages, and nuclear winter. No developer is perfect, and the smaller the team the harder perfection is.

Open saving allows for any circumstances, both in the game and real worlds. And while some might choose to use save scumming, many don't. As pointed out, many times, limiting saves just to counter this is pointless, as it is completely optional. No one has to do it, or is forced to. Autosave, if used at all, should be used like in Wizardry 8; the game routinely saves at certain points in a reserved slot. But otherwise the player has open saves.

I'll point to the fact that the users of this board created a large number of challenges meant to increase the difficulty of Book 1. Cheaters wouldn't do that, but go look for a trainer or character editor to make these challenges easier. Many of these challenges are slated to be included officially in Book 2.

[Unclever title]

Perhaps I should clarify further what I meant by a colossal mistake... I partly meant it as a situation wherein the player got in too deep too soon, got stuck in an area with too many too high level enemies and found him/her-self unable to escape. This isn't so much a broken game as an Icarus style maneuver.

Sometimes a situation like this means poor game design but not necessarily. Regardless this kind of thing SHOULD be a rare case.

Having a prior save accessible is an easy remedy.

An example a little closer to the other kind of meaning would be getting thrown into the holding cell of the repository. I could envision someone spending over 2 minutes (punching mystical eyeballs to death) before realizing there's no way out. But that's an unusual case and I'm sure adjustments to either the autosave setup or even exceptions for that particular are can be made, so it's not really a counter argument (nor is anything I posted really) but just my attempt at clarification if it was needed.

[Christou]

I don't really see a problem with saving at a story branch. You're basically saying "you have to play through the entire game again if you want to have a different outcome." If given the choice between taking the path of an evil or good character, I certainly would want to be able to save. I like to see how the different chioces I make effect the outcome of the story... that can hardly be considered cheating. If the game creator didn't want me to do that, then why bother and include those choices? They have a name for that type of linear game... it's called a Platformer. If I wanted to play Super Mario Brothers, then I'd fire up the ol' nintendo and have at it. Better yet, I'd fire up the emulator on my PC, so that I would have the option to save the game whenever I wanted so that when the ADHD kicks in, I know I'll be able to go back and finish the game whever I got back around to it...

Don't get me wrong, I understand the concept of creating something and wanting to share it with the rest of the world. But I also understand that at the end of the day, if you want to sell that creation to the rest of the world, you have to make compromises. The save game feature is one of the easiest things that you can screw up and lose huge numbers of customers/fans/potential fans as a result. I think what BW is doing with Book II - giving the player the choice of how limiting the game can be in favor of more XP/better loot - is top notch. Not many developers go above and beyond the basic easy/medium/hard difficulty levels. So as long as I can play through the game the way I like it... I could care less how restrictive the optional save game rules are.

I think I mostly agree with you, but I think all is a question of design.
For now we are used to the two classics kind, linear or non linear games. While western's rpgs tend in general to be non linear, eastern rpgs are known to be ultra linear.
In non linear games, I think we can say that in general it's quite obvious to detect a branching in the story line (and it's where you may save to experiment later a second choice). Now, let's say you face a game where no branches are obvious and where the evolution of the character to good/evil is not that obvious too. Let's imagine a game with a huge freedom in term of design vs script/story meaning you have to really deal with the world to find out what to do and before all how to survive to the simple fact of existing.... Let's imagine a game with a really deep world, lot of interaction and all. In a way, a hard game, no obvious at all, definitively a game designed for mature/adult people with goal to give them what is not in the industry. Perhaps a world you will need to learn about with a few characters before been able to really end the game.
Now imagine you save/reload to test out things and finally this don't help you much because you cannot detect if the "path" you have taken is better than another...

Perso That's the kind of game I'd would love to see and that's the kind of game you could in theory replay LOTS of time without problem (with or not the same class of character)...
Ok, this game don't exist and probably never will, so I guess it's not a good example, but in such game allowing the players to save/reload would not be a good idea at all because it would be quite frustrating and perhaps increase unnecessary the anxiety of discovering "the best" way possible (I consider even if branching may be by curiosity, it's always to chose the better choice...) when there is no obvious "best" way...

Ok, again bad example BUT could such "ideal" game be used to higher the level of what we know in some way?
How would you react discovering a game that seems to be promising but not that easy to deal with?
Azraelck would you ban such game (because of eventually a missing save option) even without being able to understand what it might give you?

[realmzmaster]

No one would ban the game, but it is one that I would not play without an anyplace anytime save feature. Anything that stops me from saving when I need to save is a game breaker for me. The very reason I do not play Japanese style RPGs is because they are so linear and have checkpoints. Action-Rpgs are also linear in design. It does not matter how well designed or immersive the game is if I cannot save when I need to save it will not be played. But that is my choice. I play games that match my lifestyle and take into account family.

I like games that allow me to follow an off-shoot path and still eventually return to the main plot line. I like games that allow me to make multiple saves to explore different possibilities without having to start the game from the beginning. Examples are Morrowind and Oblivion. Even Baldur's Gate series, Icewind Dale series and Planescape Torment though somewhat more linear than Morrowind and Oblivion allowed the character flexibility in where to go and who to include in the party.

[Christou]

No one would ban the game, but it is one that I would not play without an anyplace anytime save feature. Anything that stops me from saving when I need to save is a game breaker for me. The very reason I do not play Japanese style RPGs is because they are so linear and have checkpoints. Action-Rpgs are also linear in design. It does not matter how well designed or immersive the game is if I cannot save when I need to save it will not be played. But that is my choice. I play games that match my lifestyle and take into account family.

I suppose you mean being able to quit at any moment right? Eventually as said above a constant auto save would guaranty that without much trouble... Now apart branching and cheating, do you see others reasons to have a save command?

I like games that allow me to follow an off-shoot path and still eventually return to the main plot line. I like games that allow me to make multiple saves to explore different possibilities without having to start the game from the beginning...

This is a constant in the comments; why it is THAT boring to start again? Already known plot, already known places?
If so, what if the possibilities in the beginning are enough numerous to dissolve this feeling? For example NPCs not identical (some yes for sure like merchants but others no, NPCs giving you info and opportunities to interact with the world) and no apparent general plot during the first hours of play? What if (at concept level) let's say you could still learn new stuff about the world (so new NPCs, new opportunities) after starting 10 times on a raw? Same world but not really... Would this remove the problem of starting again?

[dare49devil]

-That would be so annoying for me. That game would never end. If I really like a game, I'll play it to experience EVERYTHING the game has to offer, and if I started the game 10 times straight for 3 hours each and had a different experience each time. Well, that is just TOO much. You'll pretty much have to log SO MANY HOURS just to be able to feel satisfied when you actually complete the game knowing you've done everything there is to offer.

-For example, I played EB1 three times to fully know the game, items, possibilities, npcs, maps in memory. I feel satisfied I've done everything I can. And I am happy.

[CrazyBernie]

The biggest problem with that idea is that it would only work well on a really short game, for 95% of players interested. You would have to seriously limit the game's depth, which sort of defeats the purpose of a good RPG. I could almost see that working with EB:1, since it's a relatively short experience. Of course, you then start pushing the game in to the "action/arcade with RPG elements" territory. With Book II, BW is promising a greater, more in-depth storyline... so I can't see that format really doing well.

I generally like my RPG's to have 20+ hours minimum playtime. Book I took me under 23... making it a relative "quickie" for me. A good third of the playtime is usually spent exploring as much as I possibly can handle. IIRC, I spent over 40 on NWN, and over 50 on Morrowind (which I never did get around to finishing... >.<). Oblivion I spent a good chunk of time on, but half that was messing around with add-ons rather than progressing the storyline... I don't think I ever made it past the first chapter/act. But I digress.... not having a save anywhere/anytime feature would have meant me dropping all those games in probably half that time or less, if I even played them all.

Now JRPG's I can generally handle, as long as the save points are often available. Indeed, my favorite RPG of all time was/is Final Fantasy VI (Then III for the SNES). That was back when I would play the game for 20 hours straight, barely stopping to eat, so no available save was no big deal. Plus I spent half the gametime on the Veldt, getting Gau's rages and leveling my spells... and you could save anytime on the overland map.

Doesn't it suck not being able to get a game that's exactly the way you want it to be??