How to design games that minimize the amount of reloading players do?

[Val the Moofia Boss]

It seems that in WRPGs with lots of choices, you read about players constantly saving at every decision and then reloading to see what each decision leads to before then deciding which branch to commit to. Permadeath in Fire Emblem sounded cool, but you just saved at every step and then reloaded, because you don't want to lose out on content and your enjoyment of the game. Casual mode in Awakening wasn't Intelligent Systems trying to appeal to normies; it was when the developers finally acknowledged how people actually played their games. So is the potential for players to lose out on something a detriment if it leads to them constantly pausing gameplay to reload, rather than continuing on?

[A Chinese opium den]

Make games with this kind of variance in experience more replayable is the answer to this IMO. People would be much less worried about missing out on content if they knew they were only missing out this playthrough and would simply do things differently next time around to see it.

[gerey]

It's difficult to incentivize players to go against human nature - games are exercises in resource optimization and win states, and we find them enjoyable specifically because of this.

There's been countless attempts to encourage players to avoid savescumming, from iron man mode, to only allowing autosaving (or saving and quitting), continuing the narrative despite failing an objective (ala MechWarrior 2 or Wing Commander 1), limiting the player's ability to save (Kingdom Come via drinking alcohol, survival horror titles like Resident Evil with ribbons and save rooms) etc.

I think the only games that have managed to circumvent this issue are Souslikes and roguelikes, where failure and repetition are baked into the gameplay loop and the designers expect you to learn from your mistakes and overcome the challenge with this newfound knowledge.

They didn't solve the problem, they simply made the cost of losing insubstantial enough that players are willing to tolerate the fail state.

Make games with this kind of variance in experience more replayable is the answer to this IMO. People would be much less worried about missing out on content if they knew they were only missing out this playthrough and would simply do things differently next time around to see it.

Problem is that most people play a game exactly once, and the majority doesn't even finish the game. From a developer's perspective including content that the majority of players will never see is a waste of resources, hence why so many cRPGs have fake choices and consequences, and even if they do actually lock content behind a decision, it's inconsequential at best.

[Brother Michael]

Soulslike

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I think the only games that have managed to circumvent this issue are Souslikes and roguelikes, where failure and repetition are baked into the gameplay loop and the designers expect you to learn from your mistakes and overcome the challenge with this newfound knowledge.

I think a key thing is that in Souls games, you don't miss out on any real story content if you die to a boss. You just keep trying over and over and then continue down the game. The only potential to miss out on stuff or get an NPC killed is in the minor side quest stuff with NPCs, which is not an emphasis of the game like in other RPGs.

[Gunnar]

Semi related, there’s a mechanic in Hard West where if you get hit a lot and take a lot of damage, you get negative statuses. However, you can gain permanent bonus perks if you then go on to win the mission despite the negative status. It gives the player a big incentive to keep playing the mission that might not be going so well rather than reloading.

[gerey]

The only potential to miss out on stuff or get an NPC killed is in the minor side quest stuff with NPCs, which is not an emphasis of the game like in other RPGs.

I think a solution that will satisfy some people, at least enough to justify including it, is to create a selection of choices that players will agonize over. Basically, instead of going with the usual binary of "good choice" or "evil choice", or "shades of gray", the player is presented with a selection of choices that are nearly equally appealing.

Now, this is MUCH easier said than done, but it should be the mentality the writers should approach games with. This would not only reduce anxiety from missing out among players, but also encourage repeated playthroughs.

Another way, maybe, is something akin to Nier: Automata, where the happy ending can only be achieved if you have played through all the story branches, thus unlocking a sort of golden route with all content at the player's disposal and the most ideal ending as a reward.

[asf]

i will savescum and theres nothing you can do

[Element]

Don't telegraph the choices and embed more of them directly into the world rather than into dialogue trees.

[Acrux]

Just don't let people make save points. Only save on exit.

It's that easy.