Limited Saves for You?

[E.T.]

Whats your take on having in game saves restricted, or even non existent?

Myself, I want to control that as an option. I dont always have unlimited gaming time to complete from level to level [as in Project I.G.I.] Having the option to save should be the players paid for right, not the designers. I suspect some designers believe that eliminating saves help enhance or cover up weak gameplay.

I do however agree that minimizing or eliminating saves altogether does enhance realism, more so for "lesser" games.For these, constant reloading interupts game immersion .If the game is well designed [like Deus Ex] reloading doesnt interfere with gameplay quality on a whole.

Whatcha think?

[Hieremias]

Having limited saves almost always is a negative in my books. The developer has needlessly taken control from the gamer, and it almost always serves simply to lengthen the gameplay experience.

And I do not tolerate trial-and-error very well.

[Aku]

It depends on the game. The two games I'm playing right now are a perfect example. Ghost Recon has in-game saves, and RogueSpear:Black Thorn doesn't. Rogue Spear shouldn't let you save in a mission, because it's supposed to be real, and the whole flow is lost when you save and come back later (or even save/reload). Missions hare generally short, and things happen in rapid succession. So, if you blow it, it doesn't take very long to get back to the same point in the mission again. Not being able to save also forces you to plan better.

Ghost Recon has much larger maps than Rogue Spear, and the action can be very drawn out. No saves in this game would be very frustrating. As I talked about in another thread, you can run around a map for half an hour, be right at the end, and one of your guys gets capped. Without game saves, you would smash your mouse to pieces.

Some games give you a limited number of saves, like Alien vs. Predator and Vietcong, which forces you to play better and just save every sixty seconds. Others just give you one save game slot, like H+D. I think limited saves are a good idea for some games, primarily mission-based games. Other game types (RPGs in particular) should always allow unlimited saves.

[E.T.]

Huge open ended games like Morrowind come to mind for needing freedom to save often. Nothing to do w/trial & error gaming, just simple saving of progress roaming massive landscapes.

It was Operation Flashpoint that really brought home the point of realism by controlling in game saves [& w/it much frustration for me].That lasted so long....while every mission completed gave sense of accomplishment, interest waned due to frustration of not having control of unlimited save option.

[T3KT0N]

Designer designated level-end, save-points or very limited game-saves,are beyond a nuisance.
For me it's a NON Buy for a game.
Game designers are keen to this complaint and most recent releases,either added save points or implemented some incentives for less reloads(IGI 2),but made it absolutely possible to save almost anywhere.
You'll hear some twitch-omatic die hards carping about a game being either "too-easy",or clamoring for non saves because of "realistic" expereience....................
Hogwash!
People who play PC games DO have a life and need to choose their game time allocation,according to their tastes.
Actually Halo with it's level-end save points,aggravated me for this too.

[ShotgunShy]

One of the best examples of where no in-game save options available were damningly frustrating was in Hitman Codename 47. Oh man, having to replay a massive map because you got killed in the end of the mission was such a pain. I personally feel that gamers should always be given the opportunity to save anywhere they please. If developers fear that giving unlimited save points will make the game easier then it's not the player that's erred but the game design itself.

[Aku]

<div class=\"smallfont\">
Game designers are keen to this complaint and most recent releases,either added save points or implemented some incentives for less reloads(IGI 2),but made it absolutely possible to save almost anywhere.
</div>

Ghost Recon gives you an incentive not to save in that every time you reload, the replay gets wiped out and a new replay begins recording. Of course, the missions last so long that I don't bother to watch the replays anyway (unlike Rogue Spear, where the shorter missions are action-packed, the confined spaces provide for visually tighter cinema, and overall fun to watch).

[moya]

Depending on the game, I think limited saves (or limited save slots) can work. They work in both OpFlash and H+D2 - they maintain a sense of tension, while not making it too much of a frustrating ordeal. As a general principle I tend to dislike designer-placed end of level (or checkpoint) type saves. What if I have to leave the computer before I reach one? Am I just supposed to leave the game on pause? This is one reason why I could never love Mafia.

[Richard Hobbes]

E.T.,


--- What's your take on having in game saves
--- restricted, or even non existent?

Hmmm. I used to think that unlimited, in-game saves where the only way to go. Now I think it depends on the game. Just like the controls of a game, what is appropriate in one circumstance may not be in another. The biggest problem I have with in-game saves is that they start a pattern of "do a little, save, do some more, save, etc.". This really takes away from a game's realism and tension. However, that said, VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT REAL! Many game developers forget that video games have to be played between activities like looking after your kids, going to university, mowing the lawn, etc. Not being able to save when I need to put a game down really sucks. So I guess (for me) it comes down to this. I want to be able to save (at minimum) frequently if not any time I need to. So yes, I think the need for saving anytime far outweighs any perceived loss of realism.

I'll also say this: I've never seen a game ruined by including a save anywhere feature, but I've seen lot's of games completely destroyed by not including a save anywhere feature. Case in point, Giants Citizen Kabuto. Now here is a wonderful hybrid shooter, RTS, adventure game. Giants was made quite a few years ago but its graphics are still some of the best seen today. With an ability to render absolutely huge, colorful worlds along with three playable races, an amazing story, and lot's of British humor it would be hard for Giants to go wrong. Except for one thing... Giants didn't include an in-level save feature (you could only save at the end of a level). Now I've got a reasonable degree of patience, but playing a level in Giants for two hours only to get killed seconds before finishing really ticked me off. So try the level again I did. And guess what? After another hour-and-a-half invested, I got killed again. This only had to happen a few times before I uninstalled Giants from my computer never to play again.

So... I guess what I'm saying is its safer to err on the side of providing a save anywhere feature than to risk breaking your game by not providing one. I've played lot's of game without the ability to save anywhere (Halo, for example), but saving is definitely a risky device to use as a gameplay mechanic. How many people do you think would use a word processor that only let you save when it wanted to let you? My guess is none if there were other alternatives available.

RH.

[E.T.]

<div class=\"smallfont\">E.T.,


--- What's your take on having in game saves
--- restricted, or even non existent?

Hmmm. I used to think that unlimited, in-game saves where the only way to go. Now I think it depends on the game. Just like the controls of a game, what is appropriate in one circumstance may not be in another. The biggest problem I have with in-game saves is that it starts a pattern of "do a little, save, do some more, save, etc.". This really takes away from a game's realism. However, that said, VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT REAL! Many game developers forget that video games have to be played between activities like looking after your kids, going to university, mowing the lawn, etc. Not being able to save when I need to put a game down really sucks. So I guess (for me) it comes down to this. I want to be able to save (at minimum) frequently if not any time I need to. So yes, I think the need for saving anytime far outweighs any perceived loss of realism.

I'll also say this: I've never seen a game ruined by including a save anywhere feature, but I've seen lot's of games completely destroyed by not including a save anywhere feature. Case in point, Giants Citizen Kabuto. Now here is a wonderful hybrid shooter, RTS, adventure game. Giants was made quite a few years ago but its graphics are still some of the best seen today. With an ability to render absolutely huge, colorful worlds along with three playable races, an amazing story, and lot's of British humor it would be hard for Giants to go wrong. Except for one thing... Giants didn't include an in-level save feature (you could only save at the end of a level). Now I've got a reasonable degree of patience, but playing a level in Giants for two hours only to get killed seconds before finishing really ticked me off. So try the level again I did. And guess what? After another hour-and-a-half invested, I got killed again. This only had to happen a few times before I uninstalled Giants from my computer never to play again.
RH.</div>

It would seem our views of in game saves coincide, at least regarding the pull of reality [unlimted/uninterupted game play isnt alway an option thats available in day to day living].

While I havnt played Giants, I have played the original Project I.G.I..
Like Giants, I.G.I. was "destroyed" as you say, by lack of in game saves. Progress was marked by completion of mission.
While this did ratchet up the intensity of game play near missions end, it also wore thin with lifes interuptions.
Enough gamers made their displeasure known to Innerloop developers @ Codemasters, so much so, that the I.G.I sequel was released w/save options [although limited].

Game designer Warren Spector spoke on the subject of no saves in game, indicating that developers who implement this feature are covering up a failed game. It was his view that a well designed game would not be adversley affected by providing the option to save.
[above impressions from DE2 interview].

I think I'll go w/Spector on this one ;)

Thanks R.H.!

[Richard Hobbes]

Everyone,

Here is a different view on the subject on in-game saving. In North American gaming culture we expect games to allow you to save anywhere. The key here is that we do not consider this cheating - we consider saving in game to be a necessity of life. I think in other places in the world (Japan for example) in-game saving is considered cheating. This is why (I'm guessing) that many Japanese games do not include in-game saving. While we are certainly seeing many North American cultural standards appear in the movies, music, and entertainment products of other countries, Warren Spector may be a tiny bit remiss in saying (unequivocally) that this is lazy game design. I'll agree that many developers leave in-game saving out due to development time, cost, and other constraints. We should not (however) forget that different cultural beliefs also affect the games we play.

RH.

[E.T.]

<div class=\"smallfont\">Everyone,

Here is a different view on the subject on in-game saving. In North American gaming culture we expect games to allow you to save anywhere. The key here is that we do not consider this cheating - we consider saving in game to be a necessity of life. I think in other places in the world (Japan for example) in-game saving is considered cheating. This is why (I'm guessing) that many Japanese games do not include in-game saving. While we are certainly seeing many North American cultural standards appear in the movies, music, and entertainment products of other countries, Warren Spector may be a tiny bit remiss in saying (unequivocally) that this is lazy game design. I'll agree that many developers leave in-game saving out due to development time, cost, and other constraints. We should not (however) forget that different cultural beliefs also affect the games we play.

RH.</div>

Good point re:cultural differences.
Re: opiton of saving, I overlooked the the obvious in this discussion: saving can be construed as cheating. :D

[Aku]

<div class=\"smallfont\"><div class=\"smallfont\"></div>

Good point re:cultural differences.
Re: opiton of saving, I overlooked the the obvious in this discussion: saving can be construed as cheating. :D</div>

If you want to get technical about it, most in-game saving can be considered cheating, because what you are doing is giving yourself the ultimate advantage over the computer AI - you can change history. :)

[Suicides-by-Steve]

<div class=\"smallfont\"><div class=\"smallfont\"></div>

If you want to get technical about it, most in-game saving can be considered cheating, because what you are doing is giving yourself the ultimate advantage over the computer AI - you can change history. :)</div>

HAIL TO THE IRONMAN GAMES!!!

[T3KT0N]

Why settle for half measures?

Unworthy cheaters should be summarily be decapitated,on public Holo-vision.

Kids should learn to detect and inform on any parent offering walkthroughs.

Militias should be roaming the net,using keystroke detecting devices to arrest anyone using macros to win.

PC desks should shackle every player until each level is completed.

Mice also should give the player electroshocks when dying in-game.

Monitors should explode upon not completing puzzles.

Games should be bought with pints of blood.

Playing games too should be a lifetime achievement for the few,the proud, the game-monks.

The rest of the population should devote a life of purgatory servitude,collecting broken jewel boxes for a living,eating anti-static wrappers and faulty RAM dimms.

Anyone NOT following the specified turn-based breathing,would have one lung extracted.

And during the summer solstice,non-typing virgins should be sacrificed on a Cray computer altar.

[E.T.]

<div class=\"smallfont\">Why settle for half measures?

Unworthy cheaters should be summarily be decapitated,on public Holo-vision.

Kids should learn to detect and inform on any parent offering walkthroughs.

Militias should be roaming the net,using keystroke detecting devices to arrest anyone using macros to win.

PC desks should shackle every player until each level is completed.

Mice also should give the player electroshocks when dying in-game.

Monitors should explode upon not completing puzzles.

Games should be bought with pints of blood.

Playing games too should be a lifetime achievement for the few,the proud, the game-monks.

The rest of the population should devote a life of purgatory servitude,collecting broken jewel boxes for a living,eating anti-static wrappers and faulty RAM dimms.

Anyone NOT following the specified turn-based breathing,would have one lung extracted.

And during the summer solstice,non-typing virgins should be sacrificed on a Cray computer altar.</div>

T3KTON, I see you've given this some thought....& then some.....[Im scared]. Please dont run for political office [anywhere on planet earth anyways] :D

I do like the suggestion of "shocking mouse" though. It would expand the boudaries of "forced feedback" controllers, lol.

[T3KT0N]

It wasn't me, it was The Reverent Xan.........
:)

[mackster]

Limited saves is something that I have always hated. Reminds me of console or arcade games where you have limited plays.

That hitman series was the worst example of this, with mind-blasting difficulty and like 3 saves per level. One of the most frustrating games I have ever played.