Which game has the best save system?

[Anon]

this is how you attract people who hate video games but want to watch an interactive story and therefore destroy your entire hobby

How does "save whenever you want" correlate into "watch an interactive story"?

Because being able to save and reload until you win is essentially a cheat?
The same reason save states trivialize most early console games.

It doesn't make the game an interactive story though lol, only a more accessible and casual experience, then sure you can think it's a bad thing and I don't disagree necessarily (though I hate the idea of losing progress or being punished some other way because I want to leave for whatever reason).

[rusty_shackleford]

How does "save whenever you want" correlate into "watch an interactive story"?

Because being able to save and reload until you win is essentially a cheat?
The same reason save states trivialize most early console games.

It doesn't make the game an interactive story though lol, only a more accessible and casual experience, then sure you can think it's a bad thing and I don't disagree necessarily (though I hate the idea of losing progress or being punished some other way because I want to leave for whatever reason).

How hard would the dork souls games be if you could save right after each successful hit on a boss?
It would effectively be an interactive movie with a few extra steps, yes.

[Xenich]

this is how you attract people who hate video games but want to watch an interactive story and therefore destroy your entire hobby

How does "save whenever you want" correlate into "watch an interactive story"?

Because being able to save and reload until you win is essentially a cheat?
The same reason save states trivialize most early console games.

Many of those games were designed around the save state though. That is, in resident evil, the entire point was the endurance and careful play to your next save point and the management of those save points through ribbons. In some FPS games, the entire point was a test to get from one check point to the next. So yes, in those cases where the game was centered around a console design, I agree, but a lot of PC games weren't designed with that mindset and focus.

I am not saying save states can't be implemented into the games design, but I know personally, while I enjoyed console games, I really don't care for the save state system being a center of the play. I think you can develop difficult encounters and progression where saves at any point won't change the requirement for success.

If saving in general is the claim, why not go back to the old days where you had to play the game absolutely perfectly or you had to start from scratch? I mean, saving is technically cheating is it not?

[rusty_shackleford]

How does "save whenever you want" correlate into "watch an interactive story"?

Because being able to save and reload until you win is essentially a cheat?
The same reason save states trivialize most early console games.

Many of those games were designed around the save state though. That is, in resident evil, the entire point was the endurance and careful play to your next save point and the management of those save points through ribbons. In some FPS games, the entire point was a test to get from one check point to the next. So yes, in those cases where the game was centered around a console design, I agree, but a lot of PC games weren't designed with that mindset and focus.

I am not saying save states can't be implemented into the games design, but I know personally, while I enjoyed console games, I really don't care for the save state system being a center of the play. I think you can develop difficult encounters and progression where saves at any point won't change the requirement for success.

If saving in general is the claim, why not go back to the old days where you had to play the game absolutely perfectly or you had to start from scratch? I mean, saving is technically cheating is it not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saved_game#Save_states

[Xenich]

Because being able to save and reload until you win is essentially a cheat?
The same reason save states trivialize most early console games.

Many of those games were designed around the save state though. That is, in resident evil, the entire point was the endurance and careful play to your next save point and the management of those save points through ribbons. In some FPS games, the entire point was a test to get from one check point to the next. So yes, in those cases where the game was centered around a console design, I agree, but a lot of PC games weren't designed with that mindset and focus.

I am not saying save states can't be implemented into the games design, but I know personally, while I enjoyed console games, I really don't care for the save state system being a center of the play. I think you can develop difficult encounters and progression where saves at any point won't change the requirement for success.

If saving in general is the claim, why not go back to the old days where you had to play the game absolutely perfectly or you had to start from scratch? I mean, saving is technically cheating is it not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saved_game#Save_states

Ah, ok, in context yes... I agree then.

[Humbaba]

I like it when I can save whenever the fuck I want because my time is valuable.




-Humbaba

[rusty_shackleford]

I like it when I can save whenever the fuck I want because my time is valuable.




-Humbaba

Strawman argument, roguelikes are one of the most extreme form of limited saving and all of the ones I'm aware of allow you to create a checkpoint and quit at any time.

[Humbaba]

Strawman argument, roguelikes are one of the most extreme form of limited saving and all of the ones I'm aware of allow you to create a checkpoint and quit at any time.

Yes this sounds good because it's the exact thing I just said.




-Humbaba

[Xenich]

I like it when I can save whenever the fuck I want because my time is valuable.




-Humbaba

At the end of the day, sure... I understand. It is a single player game, who cares how someone plays it. I also sympathize, I remember playing a console designed game once where the check points were a bit far between and I didn't have the time to make it through, so it was a consistent restart, replay the same section over and over until I finally gave up and loaded a different game that could fit my play times at the time.

Like I said previously, these are non-issues in my opinion and easily remedied with a game setup setting. I see nothing wrong with a disclaimer by the developer saying "This is the intended way to play the game, by turning on save states, you may reduce the intended function of play for the games design".

In terms of save states with emulators, well... it is kind of silly. I noticed a similar "break" in game play with many MAME arcade games in that by being able to save, or having infinite coins, it was just a process of playing till you saw the game complete, no real challenge, no real point, it was as @rusty_shackleford pointed out, just watching an interactive movie.

[Anon]

Because being able to save and reload until you win is essentially a cheat?
The same reason save states trivialize most early console games.

It doesn't make the game an interactive story though lol, only a more accessible and casual experience, then sure you can think it's a bad thing and I don't disagree necessarily (though I hate the idea of losing progress or being punished some other way because I want to leave for whatever reason).

How hard would the dork souls games be if you could save right after each successful hit on a boss?
It would effectively be an interactive movie with a few extra steps, yes.

I don't think games should be balanced around autistic people who'd find fun in saving every single second.

I think Larian's honour mode is a good compromise. You can save whenever you want but can't reload back (unless you do shenanigans like task manager force close the game or turning pc off), so you can save whenever you want but will still be punished by mistakes.

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't think games should be balanced around autistic people who'd find fun in saving every single second.

They currently are. It's why older games play so differently, many mechanics trivialized by savescumming have been removed.

[Anon]

I don't think games should be balanced around autistic people who'd find fun in saving every single second.

They currently are. It's why older games play so differently, many mechanics trivialized by savescumming have been removed.

Sure and I disagree with this. You must know not all new trends are better (most aren't actually)

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't think games should be balanced around autistic people who'd find fun in saving every single second.

They currently are. It's why older games play so differently, many mechanics trivialized by savescumming have been removed.

Sure and I disagree with this. You must know not all new trends are better (most aren't actually)

Being able to save & load anywhere is a new trend.

[Anon]

They currently are. It's why older games play so differently, many mechanics trivialized by savescumming have been removed.

Sure and I disagree with this. You must know not all new trends are better (most aren't actually)

Being able to save & load anywhere is a new trend.

I'm pretty sure I remember lots of old RPGs that let you save anywhere, likewise I know lots of new RPGs that limit saving. I don't know whether there's really this correlation you're suggesting

[rusty_shackleford]

Sure and I disagree with this. You must know not all new trends are better (most aren't actually)

Being able to save & load anywhere is a new trend.

I'm pretty sure I remember lots of old RPGs that let you save anywhere

I'd suggest replaying Wizardry then.

[Tweed]

Because being able to save and reload until you win is essentially a cheat?
The same reason save states trivialize most early console games.

It doesn't make the game an interactive story though lol, only a more accessible and casual experience, then sure you can think it's a bad thing and I don't disagree necessarily (though I hate the idea of losing progress or being punished some other way because I want to leave for whatever reason).

How hard would the dork souls games be if you could save right after each successful hit on a boss?
It would effectively be an interactive movie with a few extra steps, yes.

Pretty hard because once you die, reloading will disrupt your flow, causing you to die more.

[Tweed]

Sure and I disagree with this. You must know not all new trends are better (most aren't actually)

Being able to save & load anywhere is a new trend.

I'm pretty sure I remember lots of old RPGs that let you save anywhere, likewise I know lots of new RPGs that limit saving. I don't know whether there's really this correlation you're suggesting

Wizardry forces you to save in town. Ultima lets you save in the overworld, depending on the game. I can't recall if Bard's Tale lets you save everywhere.

Some later games like Darklands let you save mostly anywhere except during tactical movement through dungeons.

[rusty_shackleford]

As a prime example of a mechanic that no longer exists due to designing around cheating, the only traps RPGs include now are ones for closeted homosexuals because people just savescummed through them.

[Acrux]

Being able to save & load anywhere is a new trend.

I'm pretty sure I remember lots of old RPGs that let you save anywhere

I'd suggest replaying Wizardry then.

I think Wizardry, Bard's Tale and other DRPGs of that time had a good save system and designed around it well. Yes, you had to go back to "base" to save, but you could also either create or have ready other characters who could go back to where the party wiped and pick up the gear, or have a chance to rez those characters. So it wasn't a situation where you had to start the game from the beginning, you could pick up with your B Unit if you didn't mind grinding.

Part of the problem I see with save systems now is that they don't typically have things like that built in. It's either designed around save scumming or leans into roguelike "you died, start from the beginning". That second is fine if the game and game world has been created well for that type of system, but a lot of times they aren't anymore. It's just frustration.

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm pretty sure I remember lots of old RPGs that let you save anywhere

I'd suggest replaying Wizardry then.

I think Wizardry, Bard's Tale and other DRPGs of that time had a good save system and designed around it well. Yes, you had to go back to "base" to save, but you could also either create or have ready other characters who could go back to where the party wiped and pick up the gear, or have a chance to rez those characters. So it wasn't a situation where you had to start the game from the beginning, you could pick up with your B Unit if you didn't mind grinding.

Part of the problem I see with save systems now is that they don't typically have things like that built in. It's either designed around save scumming or leans into roguelike "you died, start from the beginning". That second is fine if the game and game world has been created well for that type of system, but a lot of times they aren't anymore. It's just frustration.

Dork souls inspired checkpoints are fine, it decouples the resetting of progress from saving altogether. Upon defeat, you go back to the last checkpoint and typically lose some sort of resource. The game itself is constantly saving.
Although I'd recommend against copying it blindly without a good narrative reason.

[Anon]

Being able to save & load anywhere is a new trend.

I'm pretty sure I remember lots of old RPGs that let you save anywhere, likewise I know lots of new RPGs that limit saving. I don't know whether there's really this correlation you're suggesting

Wizardry forces you to save in town. Ultima lets you save in the overworld, depending on the game. I can't recall if Bard's Tale lets you save everywhere.

Some later games like Darklands let you save mostly anywhere except during tactical movement through dungeons.

Being able to save & load anywhere is a new trend.

I'm pretty sure I remember lots of old RPGs that let you save anywhere

I'd suggest replaying Wizardry then.

Okay you guys are more knowledgeable about games I won't dispute that

(still prefer unlimited save or something like larian's honour mode because I'm a dirty casual)

[rusty_shackleford]

To quote myself because I think it's important for anyone who cares about this topic,

The outcome is interesting in tabletop because you can't tell your DM "I quickload my last save" after failing to steal an item.

I've seen a couple(?) people talk about policing how other people play, and it's not that at all. It's about policing the genre. You can cheat as much as you want as long as it's not the standard option offered by default.
It's inarguable that CRPGs would be better right now if they had different ways of persistence. As proof, I'll offer both the Dark Souls/Elden Ring games and things like KCD/Fallout 4 survival mode. All of these improve the gameplay experience, making choices permanent makes them important.

This is in fact the most stealable mechanic from roguelikes: Consequence Persistence.

When people talk about permadeath, they talk about us three being mean. 'Oh, they wanted to make it extra hard, so they threw in permadeath.' … permadeath is an example of 'consequence persistence.' … Do I read this scroll, do I drink this potion? I don't know. It might be good. It might be bad. If I can save the game and then drink the potion and—oh, it's bad-then I restore the game and I don't drink the potion. That entire game mechanic just completely goes away. So that was a whole reason why once you have taken an action and a consequence has happened, there's no way to go back and undo it.
…
The good stuff is just as permanent as the bad stuff.

It's also why early MMOs were so damn memorable. Your choices mattered, a lot. They were frequently permanent.

The point isn't to punish the player, the point is to make choices matter.

[Anon]

The point isn't to punish the player, the point is to make choices matter.

In that aspect, don't you like Larian's honour mode system?

[rusty_shackleford]

The point isn't to punish the player, the point is to make choices matter.

In that aspect, don't you like Larian's honour mode system?

Yes, those types of systems are fine, if a bit too punishing for general purpose usage because it's possible to get yourself into a softlock state. Contrast with e.g., Dork Souls-likes where you can return to a checkpoint with character progress lost, but choices remain.

[Anon]

I prefer this way tbh, higher stakes and you still get to save whenever you want. Maybe I've played too much roguelikes.

[Vergil]

How hard would the dork souls games be if you could save right after each successful hit on a boss?

On the flip side how much more would I play Dark Souls if there wasn't a 30 minute gauntlet of autistic tedious faggotry before I'm allowed to try against the boss again

[Xenich]

Being able to save & load anywhere is a new trend.

I'm pretty sure I remember lots of old RPGs that let you save anywhere

I'd suggest replaying Wizardry then.

Wizardry 1-3 were a very specific style of play, focused on dungeon running, new party members, etc.. with saves being specific to that nature (ie it saved through a basic function when you left the game).

Wizardry 4 started to provide more save options due the size of the game and provided save options for maze transfers and recovery disc options as well. Allowing the saving of the party at the specific location.

Wizardry 5 and on again, added more complexities and systems, and allowed for a quick save which retained spells memorized and would keep the point the player was in the dungeon.

I would say that 5+ was more of what was intended overall with the previous games being what was limited due to average tech available and issues with such systems concerning disc media and memory availability. This is primarily the era that I enjoyed in the styles of saving in games and how they were designed. The early wiz and M&M games were cool, but they were a very specific period and style in their designs obviously due to hardware limitations.

Even so, the later games didn't allow you to save in combat if I remember, which is pretty standard for a lot of games in that era. Even adventure games were a bit of a stickler on this concept due to the whole purpose of the game being to make it through the play without dying (the games overall were very small when you learned everything and knew what to do).

[Xenich]

How hard would the dork souls games be if you could save right after each successful hit on a boss?

On the flip side how much more would I play Dark Souls if there wasn't a 30 minute gauntlet of autistic tedious faggotry before I'm allowed to try against the boss again

Or you could just get better?

[Vergil]

How hard would the dork souls games be if you could save right after each successful hit on a boss?

On the flip side how much more would I play Dark Souls if there wasn't a 30 minute gauntlet of autistic tedious faggotry before I'm allowed to try against the boss again

Or you could just get better?

You know I expected that response but adding on a speed run as your example is the sort of extra chromosomal spice that I could only get here.

[rusty_shackleford]

Filtering people like vergil is a good thing